The Conversation

Tasmania's hydro power is dependent on rains. Dam image from www.shutterstock.com

Fighting climate change will involve massive changes to the way we produce and distribute energy. Those changes are already happening. Several studies have looked at how our energy systems will change as clean energy increases and fossil fuels are replaced.

But climate change must be planned into this transition.

For instance, temperature is a key driver of demand for electricity, and future increases in heatwaves will probably drive higher electricity demand for air conditioners.

So how could future climate changes affect the ability of the system to generate enough electricity?

Climate and energy

Renewable energy technologies are highly dependent on climate-related factors including sunlight, wind speed and water availability. Water is also a key requirement for coal and nuclear power stations. Heatwaves can impact on the capacity of transmission lines to move energy around the national grid.

The changes to climate in Australia resulting from increased greenhouse gas emissions include more extreme heat events, longer and drier droughts, and longer and hotter heatwaves, as well as stronger storms and rainfall events. Shifts in large-scale circulation patterns may have some impact on wind speed but these effects are less clear.

These climate events and trends affect almost all energy generation and distribution systems, and need to be factored into good management. There is a broad range of intersections between the changing climate and the energy systems of the future that need to be considered.

The future is here

The current mix of generation technologies in the energy system is in a state of flux and undergoing relatively rapid change, as renewable energy, particularly wind turbines and rooftop solar, increase. And the changing climate is already affecting the current energy infrastructure.

Recent years have seen several extreme weather events – with a detectable influence from climate change – that have seriously impacted electricity generation in Australia.

Tasmanian hydro dam levels are currently at record lows. With the Basslink connector also out of action, the shortfall in energy generation is being made up through the use of diesel generators.

Much has been made of this situation already, but the lack of rainfall over the past year is consistent with long-term projections for rainfall in southeast Australia.

In 2014, the Hazelwood mine fire was started by bushfire embers in rural Victoria. It burned for 45 days in the wake of a heatwave that brought temperatures not seen since the extreme heat of 2009.

The 2009 heatwaves themselves shut down the Basslink transformer in Georgetown, Tasmania, reducing the electricity available to Victoria and South Australia. At the same time, two transformers in Victoria failed, leading to supply loss that significantly impacted Melbourne and western Victoria.

In Queensland, the 2010-11 floods caused widespread damage to the electricity network. Substations were flooded, high-voltage feeder lines were damaged and, in the Lockyer Valley, much of the electricity infrastructure was destroyed.

The costs of replacing and repairing electricity networks damaged by extreme weather events can be seen as one consequence of our continuing reliance on fossil fuels.

More variable rain and sun

As the climate changes further, electricity networks will have to manage increasingly variable rainfall – less in southeast and southwest Australia and possible increases in the north.

In 2013, Australia had more than 120 operating hydroelectric power stations, with a total generation of almost 20 terawatt-hours (8% of total energy generated).

Most hydro power is produced at dams on Australia’s major river valleys, and only a few of these have been left untouched. As water availability becomes more uncertain, this type of generation is unlikely to expand much further.

Australia has the highest average solar radiation per square metre of any continent in the world. More than five gigawatts of solar photovolaic panels have been installed, both on rooftops and more recently as large-scale installations.

These panels are prone to extreme weather events, such as hail. Events such as Melbourne’s 2010 storm and Perth’s freak storm the same year could dramatically impact a high-penetration renewable energy system.

Similarly, plans for large-scale solar plants that create steam to drive turbines should take changes to rainfall and available water resources into consideration at the planning stage. Solar radiation is affected by El Niño, with up to 10% less radiation available during La Niña conditions.

Other areas of generation (such as wind, ocean and bioenergy) may also be affected by climate change, as circulation changes result in shifts in wind fields and precipitation patterns (affecting biofuel crop yields).

The likely effects of these changes are much harder to project, but the potential for reduced output needs to be taken into consideration when making plans for future energy systems.

Roger Dargaville receives funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA).

Jane Mullett receives funding from the Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (CRC-CARE).

As we predicted last year, the background atmospheric carbon dioxide levels measured at Cape Grim on Tasmania’s northwest coast have officially passed the 400 parts per million (ppm) mark. Our measurements, compiled by our team at CSIRO together with the Bureau of Meteorology, show that the milestone was reached on May 10.

In the past few days, the 400 ppm level has also been breached in Antarctica, where CSIRO’s measurements at Casey Station show the 400 ppm level was exceeded on May 14.

Together, these measurements show that the atmospheric CO₂ concentration of the entire southern hemisphere is now at or above 400 ppm. It is unlikely to dip back below this level for many decades to come.

Cape Grim’s carbon dioxide record shows that background levels have now exceeded 400 parts per million.

The threshold was reached earlier than we and our colleagues had anticipated, as a result of a recent, strong increase in the growth rate of atmospheric CO₂. This was probably driven by increased emissions from fossil fuels, as well the impact of the recent strong El Niño, which reduced the capacity of natural systems such as oceans and plants to absorb CO₂.

Southern hemisphere lag

CO₂ concentrations over the southern hemisphere are trailing those in the planet’s northern half, where 400 ppm level was breached in 2014-15. The northern hemisphere’s carbon dioxide levels are higher because most CO₂ sources (such as vegetation and fossil-fuel-burning installations) are mainly found in the north, whereas CO₂ “sinks” such as oceans are predominantly in the southern hemisphere.

The northern hemisphere’s CO₂ levels also show a much stronger seasonal variation. Ironically, the only place on Earth where baseline levels of CO₂ are likely to stay under 400 ppm for the next few years is the high Arctic, where the extreme summer carbon dioxide minimum will likely result in sub-400 ppm averages for 2017 and 2018.

After that, however the world’s background levels of CO₂ are unlikely to fall back below 400 ppm for many decades – perhaps a century or more – depending on the success of humankind’s efforts to reduce emissions.

What does 400 ppm really mean?

The 400 ppm level of atmospheric CO₂ is largely symbolic. The real concern is the current rate at which this figure is increasing: roughly 3 ppm per year. If this were to continue for another two decades, we would pass 450 ppm of CO₂. Once that level is reached, the levels of all greenhouse gases put together (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and synthetic greenhouse gases) would add up to the equivalent of about 550 ppm of CO₂.

This is the level at which average global temperatures would be likely to reach 2℃ above pre-industrial levels in the decades thereafter (given the time lag between atmospheric CO₂ and its global warming impact).

This is the amount of global warming that the Paris Agreement is designed to avoid – indeed, the agreement calls for temperatures to be held well below this level.

It is clear that strong, worldwide initiatives aimed at curbing carbon dioxide emissions are needed now if we are to avoid the most dangerous predicted effects of climate change.

A relentless trend

Atmospheric CO₂ has been increasing relentlessly over the past 200 years or so, as can be seen in the chart below. Air and ice measurements allow us to trace the dramatic rise in CO₂ levels from about 280 ppm, before the start of the industrial era around the year 1800, to the current level above 400 ppm.

Ice core measurements show the rise of carbon dioxide since 1800, combined with Cape Grim measurements starting in 1976. CSIRO

That is an increase of 43% in scarcely more than two centuries, largely as a result of human activities. The time to start reversing that trend is now.

Paul Krummel receives funding from MIT, NASA, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Department of the Environment, & Refrigerant Reclaim Australia.

Paul Fraser has received funding from MIT, NASA, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Department of the Environment, & Refrigerant Reclaim Australia.

Delegates will meet at the World Conference Centre in Bonn. Qualle/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

The dust has long settled from December’s Paris climate summit, which hammered out the first truly global deal to reduce emissions. But the negotiations ended with widespread acknowledgement that the deal needs significant strengthening if its overall goal of keeping warming well below 2℃ is to be met.

The Paris Agreement therefore requires countries to ramp up their efforts significantly over the coming years and decades.

That job arguably begins today, with the opening of an 11-day meeting in Bonn, Germany, featuring the first session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA).

The APA functions rather like a much more modest version of the Paris conference. Parties to the Paris Agreement send delegations, and small groups can be tasked with resolving specific issues before reporting back to the larger group for decision-making.

Among the most important items on the meeting’s agenda is the Global Stocktake to assess overall progress towards fulfilling the Paris Agreement’s goals. This stocktake will kickstart the process of five-yearly reviews to strengthen the Paris Agreement, the first of which will happen in 2023.

A new approach

The Paris Agreement sets down a new model for confronting global warming. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which imposed emissions targets on each country in a “top-down” way, the Paris process allowed countries to pledge their own climate targets.

This approach has been credited for the Paris negotiations' success, in contrast with previous talks which descended into recriminations over the burden that each country should bear.

But one obvious weakness of the new model is that the countries' voluntary commitments will not deliver anything like the necessary emissions reductions to prevent dangerous warming.

The five-yearly review mechanism thus aims to ensure that nations ramp up their commitments in coming years.

The question of fairness

As the Paris regime’s core review mechanism, the Global Stocktake will consider many aspects of the parties’ collective progress. While it will focus mainly on practical and scientific issues, the Paris Agreement also requires it to assess the collective progress “in the light of equity”.

In international climate negotiations, “equity” refers to an array of moral principles developed by the parties since 1992. These principles flesh out ethical priorities, such as ensuring the sustainable development of poorer countries.

They also inform burden-sharing decisions – for example, requiring countries that are more able to fight climate change, or that bear greater historical responsibility for it, to shoulder more of the burden.

As such, those five short words – “in the light of equity” – are arguably the first ever attempt to formalise the idea of countries doing their fair share when considering their contribution to the global fight against climate change.

What will the meeting achieve?

It is too early to know exactly how the APA will implement its mandate. However, in order to cover equity appropriately, the stocktake will need to include an official consideration of how well each country’s climate efforts accord with the Paris goals and principles. This means considering two key questions:

• Is each country doing what it promised?

• Is it promising enough?

This is not what normally happens when parties discuss ethics and fairness. Because the climate negotiations have had no principled system of moral evaluation and deliberation, countries can make implausible and inconsistent ethical claims as they defend climate targets that were actually chosen on the basis of national self-interest.

In the ideal case, the stocktake will encourage countries' delegates to talk in a reasonable and structured way about the ethical principles that inform their national climate targets. It will hopefully prompt them to be clearer about what principles they think are important, and how those principles justify their contribution.

As well as encouraging laggards to lift their game, the stocktake could clarify the application of specific equity principles. This could lead to improved overall ambition, more fairness in burden-sharing, and a greater shared belief in the regime’s legitimacy. Indeed, the process leading up to the stocktake can itself realise important procedural values, such as inclusiveness, reciprocity and deliberation.

In time, the process may prove to be an essential part of a functioning Paris regime.

What could possibly go wrong?

Opening up an official space for moral appraisals offers perils as well as promises. We must bear in mind that the Kyoto model failed precisely because it proved impossible to get consensus on questions of burden-sharing. An equity-based review might just reignite these past disagreements.

Indeed, any appeal to ethics carries some risks. Sometimes it’s better to speak of collective risk reduction rather than taking an adversarial position of preaching, lecturing or blaming others.

Despite these dangers, the Paris model desperately needs a principled mechanism for reviewing national climate targets so as to scale up the overall level of ambition to what’s needed globally.

The task is not impossible. The drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights shows that, with clear structures and strong leadership, constructive international moral deliberation is possible.

Crucially, the stocktake will not need to take a single authoritative position on what equity requires. It can still drive improved ambition even if it allows coutries substantial flexibility in how they understand and apply equity principles.

While 2023 may seem a long way off, if the APA wants to ensure a constructive process, it will need to start laying the groundwork soon. It can start engaging states on equity issues in small meetings at the upcoming annual climate summits, starting with this year’s talks in Marrakech, or more formally at the Facilitative Dialogue scheduled for 2018.

After all, any assessment of this type does its best work long before it happens. In signalling that an ethical reckoning is on the horizon, it can encourage countries to start seriously considering whether their current commitments are fair, and what they could do better.

Hugh Breakey receives funding from the Australian Research Council for the Discovery Grant 'Towards Global Carbon Integrity' (DP140101897)

Energy efficiency projects could receive more subsidies if Direct Action is continued. David González Romero/Flickr, CC BY

Direct Action is the centrepiece of Australia’s current greenhouse gas reduction efforts. To date, A$1.7 billion in subsidies has been committed from the government’s Emissions Reduction Fund to projects offering to reduce emissions.

The scheme replaced Australia’s two-year-old carbon price in 2014 and is a key part of the government’s plan to reduce emissions by 5% below 2000 levels by 2020, and 26–28% below 2005 levels by 2030.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt has called Direct Action a “stunning success” and “one of the most effective systems in the world for significantly reducing emissions”.

In a new article in Economic Papers, I look into the economics of Direct Action and how it is working. I conclude that the scheme is exposed to funding projects that would have happened without government funding.

This issue has long been known as a threat to schemes of this type, and means that the scheme is likely to be less useful in reducing emissions than the government is claiming.

Commonwealth Procurement Rules require value for money in government purchases. It is not clear we are getting that with Direct Action.

Information problems

The key challenge for schemes like Direct Action is information. What exactly is the scheme buying, and would that have happened without it?

Direct Action works by inviting voluntary project proposals and then allocating funds to the lowest bidders in reverse auctions.

Unfortunately, projects that would have gone ahead even without a subsidy – call them “anyway projects” – have a cost advantage that makes them well placed to win the auctions. It is often difficult for the government to identify such projects. When projects of this type receive funding, taxpayers’ money is being used ineffectively.

Economists call this adverse selection, or the “lemons problem”.

All about that baseline

The government has developed a set of methods for defining projects and measuring the emission reductions provided by each project against estimated baselines. It is an economy-wide scheme, and there are methods covering everything from energy efficiency to aviation.

As is, the methods leave opportunities for anyway projects to qualify. The Emission Reduction Fund White Paper states that a “flexible approach” is being pursued so as to encourage participation.

One rule is that projects be new. But across the Australian economy, new projects are launched every year. Some happen to reduce emissions. These projects are being attracted into the Direct Action auctions.

Carry-overs from the former Carbon Farming Initiative have also been allowed to side-step the newness requirement.

The experience so far

Three Direct Action auctions have been held to date, with the most recent in late April 2016.

Some of the funded projects are likely to be providing genuine reductions in emissions. Unfortunately, however, some project categories are rather questionable.

Landfill operators have been awarded Direct Action subsidies in each of the auctions. Their projects are often already generating revenues from electricity sales and renewable energy certificates.

Other projects to win subsidies include upgrades to lighting in supermarkets and to the fuel efficiency of vehicles. These are activities that are supposed to happen anyway.

The biggest winner to date has been vegetation projects. Among these are projects to reduce tree clearing, including of invasive native species near Cobar and Bourke in New South Wales. The large payments for these projects are likely to have preserved some vegetation. But some farmers appear to have not actually been planning to clear. If so, funding is going to anyway projects.

Projects potentially in line for the next auction include boiler upgrades and modifications to aircraft. If Direct Action were to continue for years to come, the bill could become very big.

Journalists such as Lenore Taylor and Tristan Edis are among those who have raised concerns about the quality of Direct Action projects. The government has yet to properly engage with this issue.

This problem could be avoided

There are far better policy approaches than Direct Action subsidies.

A key advantage of either an emissions tax or an emissions trading scheme is that the government does not need to evaluate individual projects from covered enterprises.

These schemes instead introduce a price per unit of emissions and leave the private sector to decide which projects to implement. Large emitters are already required to report their emissions, so implementation is comparatively straightforward. Any revenue raised could be used to reduce other taxes or Australia’s budget deficit.

Regulations could also be put to more use. Strengthened restrictions on vegetation clearing and on the release of coal mine gas are examples.

Eligibility to generate offset credits should be tightened to cover only credibly genuine emission reductions that are difficult to achieve using other policies. Some carbon farming activities can meet this criterion, and could generate revenue from private-sector buyers. Public expenditure on new offset projects could be ended.

Better off going back to what was working

There are many other downsides to Direct Action. These include its administrative complexity, the issue of emissions reappearing elsewhere in the economy, and the subsidy culture it inculcates.

The scheme is yet to induce emissions reductions in key sectors of the economy. Emissions from electricity generation are rising again.

Australia has a big challenge ahead in decarbonising our economy. There are many opportunities, but we need to get our policy settings right. It would be better to move on from Direct Action subsidies. An approach centred on pricing emissions makes more sense.

An open-access version of Paul’s paper can be downloaded here.

Paul Burke does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Labor has promised half of Australia's electricity will come from renewables in 2030. Wind turbine image from www.shutterstock.com

Yet again, electricity prices are set to be a key point of contention in an Australian federal election.

The Coalition responded quickly to Labor’s election commitment to an emissions trading scheme (ETS), with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull warning of “much higher electricity prices” and a “very big burden” on Australians.

Other ministers joined in. Treasurer Scott Morrison labelled the plan a “a big thumping electricity tax” and Environment Minister Greg Hunt branded it “Julia Gillard’s carbon tax on steroids”, warning of “even higher electricity prices for Australian families”.

The centrepiece of the Coalition’s climate policy, meanwhile, is the A$2.5 billion Emissions Reduction Fund. An important element of this scheme is the “safeguard mechanism”, which is due to kick in on July 1 this year. This has implications for the electricity sector and may also affect electricity prices.

National summary of retail electricity cost components 2015 Residential Electricity Price Trends

These policies will affect the wholesale electricity market, in which electricity is bought from power generators and sold on to retailers and consumers.

As you can see from the figure to the right, the competitive component of the retail prices makes up about 50% of the typical household electricity bill, and the wholesale component typically makes up half of that. The other major cost is poles and wires.

So how exactly will the different climate policies affect electricity prices?

The safeguard mechanism (Coalition)

The safeguard mechanism will require Australia’s largest emitters to keep emissions below a baseline. This will prevent emissions reductions under the ERF being offset by increases elsewhere. Businesses that go over the baseline will have to pay.

The safeguard is based on the high point in annual emissions from the whole electricity sector between 2009-10 and 2013-14. Generators' individual baselines and associated penalties only come into play if the whole sector goes over the baseline.

As you can see in the figure below, emissions have fallen by almost 20 million tonnes per year since the first baseline year (2009-10), partially in response to years of declining demand.

Electricity Sector Emissions Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: December 2015

Current projections for electricity growth suggest that the baseline won’t be breached for some years. As such, individual generators are unlikely to be penalised, and wholesale prices would not be expected to change dramatically.

Electricity sector emissions trading (Labor)

Labor’s electricity sector ETS is a “baseline and credit” scheme, based on a model proposed by the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC), which actually submitted the proposal to consultation on the safeguard mechanism.

This also places a baseline on the electricity sector, but it is calculated on the basis of emissions intensity (tonnes of emissions per unit of electricity generated) rather than overall emissions. Generators with emissions intensity below the baseline (for example, gas generators) would earn credit, so “cleaner” power plants would generate more credits.

Power plants that go over the baseline (for example, brown coal) would have to buy credits for the amount they go over. “Dirtier” plants would thus have to buy more credits.

This is substantially different to a carbon tax or the previous emissions trading scheme. Under these policies, all generators are penalised, some more than others, as you can see in the figure below.

Impact of carbon price and baseline and credit scheme on different generation technology in the electricity sector. A carbon prices increases all prices, relative to emissions intensity. A baseline and credit scheme increases the price of high-emissions-intensity generation, but lowers the price of low-emissions-intensity generation. Author

This difference is important for electricity prices. Dirtier plants would be expected to increase their selling price to cover the financial penalty on their emissions. But cleaner plants, earning revenue from selling credits, could afford to sell their electricity more cheaply.

This is important, because cleaner plants (typically black coal or gas) set the price. Gas in particular would probably be significantly cheaper under this proposal. As such, the impact on wholesale prices would be small, or negative.

In fact, as the AEMC itself noted, the impact on the wholesale market could be an increase or decrease in prices (depending on where the baseline is set).

The brown coal exit (Labor)

Another component of Labor’s climate platform is a plan to finance the closure of brown coal power stations, an idea first proposed by ANU climate economists Frank Jotzo and Salim Mazouz.

In this proposal, brown coal plants would bid for the payment they would require to finance their own shutdown, with the cheapest bid being selected. The remaining plants would pay this cost, in line with their emissions.

Similar to the ETS, it would be expected that this cost would be reflected in increased offer prices to the market from the remaining generators. The direct costs would be temporary (a one-off payment) and small, relative to the overall wholesale price.

Indeed, Jotzo and Mazouz estimated it could cause a one-off rise of 1-2% in retail power bills. Analysis company Reputex found the impact could be between 0.2% and 1.3%.

However, Danny Price of Frontier Economics has suggested that the scheme could push up retail power prices by between 8% and 25%, as the result of a short-term price shock. But given the significant excess capacity in the market, and assuming that the market is indeed competitive, it is hard to see how such a increase would happen.

This point aside, the price argument misses the point of the scheme, which aims to deliver an “orderly transition” away from brown coal. The longer-term effects on supply and price of a brown coal exit will be similar, regardless of how the industry closes.

In fact, if it were left entirely to the market, the sudden retirement of an entire power plant might create even more of shock. This proposal is chiefly about ensuring an orderly, predictable transition.

50% renewable energy target (Labor)

The final element of Labor’s climate platform is a 50% renewable energy target by 2030. At this stage, not much detail has been unveiled other than shadow environment minister Mark Butler’s pledge that it will be “designed in a way that does not disturb investor sentiment around the delivery of the existing Renewable Energy Target” – something that a sector beset by uncertainty would welcome. As such, it is quite difficult to speculate on how electricity prices might react.

The current Renewable Energy Target is a certificate scheme that requires retailers to buy a certain amount of renewable energy. The cost of these certificates is passed on through electricity bills. However, as shown by the government’s own modelling, the interaction with the wholesale market results in a net saving to consumers.

Interestingly, and as the AEMC points out, the electricity ETS is designed to be flexible and integrate with a renewable energy target. Indeed, such an ETS could drive investment in renewable energy, replacing current subsidies through the Renewable Energy Target. The 50% target could theoretically be achieved through the ETS alone, if the baseline was set at the right level.

A bipartisan approach?

As it stands, the government’s climate platform is unlikely to have any impact on electricity prices. However, it will also not have a major impact on the electricity sector’s emissions.

Labor’s policies will have an impact, but as the AEMC notes it may occur “without a significant effect on absolute price levels faced by consumers”.

The government’s current polices will require strengthening to further reduce emissions. To achieve this, the Grattan Institute and others including the Business Council of Australia have supported ideas that would turn the Liberal platform into something very similar to Labor’s.

Indeed, modelling commissioned by the government itself assumes that Direct Action will eventually morph into a similar baseline-and-credit ETS, in order to meet long-term climate commitments.

Political slogans aside, perhaps a bipartisan approach is possible, without a significant effect on power bills.

Dylan McConnell received funding from the AEMC's consumer advocacy panel.

The closure of Port Augusta's Northern Power Plant marks the end of coal-fired generation in South Australia. Gary Sauer-Thompson/Flickr, CC BY-NC

South Australia’s last coal-fired power station closed on Monday this week, leaving the state with only gas and wind power generators.

The Northern Power Station, in Port Augusta on the northern end of the Spencer Gulf, has joined Playford B – the state’s other coal-fired power station which has already been retired.

The coal mine at Leigh Creek that supplied brown coal to the power stations also closed earlier this year, so there is no easy option for re-opening the power stations.

The immediate impact of the closure was a brief wobble in wholesale electricity prices, with more energy brought in from Victoria’s brown coal power stations (adding to carbon emissions).

But how could it affect the state in the long term?

Could South Australia run out of power?

Average electricity demand in South Australia is 1.4 gigawatts, and the state record for peak demand of 3.4 gigawatts was set in January 2011. In the past two years the highest demand was 2.9 gigawatts.

Rollout of rooftop solar panels is one of the reasons demand from the grid has been going down. The impact on the peak demand – the time of day when most people are using appliances – is less clear, because if the peak occurs after sunset, solar panels will not reduce it.

With the closure of the 520 megawatt Northern Power Station, South Australia is left with 2,800 MW of capacity in its gas-fired generators, which can be fired up when needed, and 1,500 MW of wind farms, which of course produce energy only when the wind blows. Most gas generation capacity comes from the Torrens Island A (480 MW) and B (800 MW) installations, built in the 1960s and 1970s, respectively.

There have been discussions about retiring Torrens Island A (it was mothballed for a period in 2014), but the departure of Northern appears to have delayed those plans.

The state also has a total of about 600 MW of rooftop solar, but, as noted above, this technically counts as reducing demand rather than adding to supply.

South Australia is also connected to Victoria via two transmission lines, one at Heywood (recently upgraded to 650 MW) and one at Murray Link (220 MW). This gives the state access to a potential 870 MW of Victorian power.

If South Australia gets close to record demand, the state clearly outstrips the capacity of the local gas generators. If the wind isn’t blowing, then the state will depend on the interconnectors.

But there is an unfortunate factor that transmission lines tend to fail under very high temperatures, which correspond to the times of highest demand.

It may sound unlikely, but South Australia is at risk of failing to meet demand. This would depend on a very specific set of circumstances:

• record demand (despite the increase in rooftop solar reducing demand)

• no wind

• failed interconnectors (or failure of local generators).

A role for storage

This situation means the state is the most likely location for investment in storage. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) recently published a report on storage that identified several locations in South Australia that would be logical places to install commercial-scale batteries.

We at the Melbourne Energy Institute have previously written about pumped hydro storage options, in particular the novel approach of using salt water. This may be of particular use in a very dry state such as South Australia.

But batteries are only going to be attractive investments if there is sufficient volatility in the market to provide arbitrage opportunities. Arbitrage, put simply, is the process of buying low and selling high.

Storage systems need be able to be charged with low-cost energy (for instance, overnight when demand is low, or when the wind is blowing hard) and dispatch the power back onto the grid at a sufficient profit to cover the investment costs.

We are currently in a low-demand period of the year (the shoulder seasons have both low heating and cooling requirements). This means there has not been much shift in electricity prices coming out of South Australia with the removal of Northern. It might not be until next summer, with hot temperatures and increased demand from air conditioners, that we are able to see the true magnitude of the impact of this exit on electricity prices and market volatility.

To date (only a couple of days since the closure), the wind has been blowing hard and there has been no need to increase substantially the generation from other fossil generators. Likewise, there have been no discernible shifts in the spot market prices.

Finally, the impact on carbon emissions will also be interesting. This will depend on how the remaining generators respond. The gap left by Northern may be filled with South Australian gas, in which case total emissions will fall, but more likely the gap will be filled with Victorian coal power via the interconnectors, resulting in no reduction in net emissions.

We will know the net result in due course – watch this space.

Roger Dargaville receives funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA).

Dingoes on Queensland’s popular Fraser Island are healthy and well, contrary to local claims. In fact, they consume one of the widest size ranges of prey in the animal kingdom, according to recent research published in Scientific Reports.

Dingoes are a national and international icon of great public and conservation interest. As Australia’s largest terrestrial predator, they enjoy similar popularity to other top predators such as lions, bears and wolves.

Fraser Island’s dingoes helped to resolve the Azaria Chamberlain case and are regarded as one of the purest remaining strains of dingoes in Queensland.

About 100-200 dingoes, representing about 19 packs, live on the island at any one time. Most dingoes are seen on the popular eastern beaches, where the occasional euthanasia of dangerous dingoes always fans the flames of controversy and conspiracy.

Observations of “skinny” dingoes have led some to voice concerns that Fraser Island dingoes are starving with nothing to eat and some predicted they would even be extinct by now.

So why are they still alive and doing well in good numbers? The answer may have something to do with their eating habits.

A dog’s breakfast

Based on 2,196 dingo scats, 144 stomach samples and more than 30,000 camera trap records, my colleagues and I found that Fraser Island dingoes eat prey ranging from tiny insects to giant dead whales washed ashore – and everything in between.

The most frequently occurring food items in scats were northern brown bandicoots (47.9%), followed by fish (26.8%) and large skinks (11.5%).

Eastern grey kangaroos, feral pigs and even feral horses showed up, along with threatened long-nosed potoroos and eastern chestnut mice, confirming the continued presence of these animals on the island.

Plastic food wrappers, tin foil, human faeces, underwear, hats, a variety of different shoes, fish hooks, iPods, beer and soft drink cans, alcohol bladders, steel wool and plastic containers also made an appearance.

Dingo body weight and condition

Given the wide range of food items going down the hatch, it should come as no surprise that Fraser Island dingo body weight and condition are doing remarkably well.

From 455 weight records (the largest known sample of dingo weights ever reported), Fraser Island dingoes over 12 months of age weigh in at 16.6 kg on average, compared to mainland dingoes' typical weight of only 15.7 kg.

And when it comes to body condition scores (ranging from 1 for skinny dingoes to 5 for grossly obese animals), nearly 75% of dingoes scored 4 or 5. Only 5.6% had a score of 2.5 or less.

Parasite loads were also low and comparable to other dingo populations.

So what does this all mean for Fraser Island dingoes?

The available data does not support notions that Fraser Island dingoes are starving, have restricted diets or are in poor physical condition.

Rather, they indicate that dingoes on Fraser Island are capable of exploiting a diverse array of food sources, which contributes to the vast majority of them being in good-excellent physical condition.

Underweight or skinny dingoes are still sometimes seen, and will continue to be seen forever, but this is a normal and natural phenomenon associated with wild populations of dingoes and other wildlife, and is nothing to be concerned about.

Skinny dingoes may represent socially excluded individuals, females that have recently lactated and raised litters, sick or diseased animals, or those suffering from temporary nutritional stress during normal periods of food shortage.

Dingoes also have excess digestive capacity, meaning that they do not need to eat every day and regularly endure periods of several days without food or water. As a result, variable body condition scores and fat reserves can be expected in and between individuals under normal conditions.

It is unreasonable to expect that every individual in a population will be the same weight all the time, or that all individuals will survive. Although some individual dingoes may be “skinny”, the population actually contains far more “fat” individuals. Dingoes on the island are also known to live for over 13 years, which is a long time for a wild dingo.

Returning to natural diets

Comparisons with previous studies also suggested that dingoes have returned to a more natural diet over the past 20 years. This is in line with a range of sound non-lethal management approaches, including increased education and the exclusion of dingoes from open rubbish dumps and other substantial sources of human food (such as townships and campgrounds).

This is all good news for the future of Fraser Island’s dingoes. If dingoes focus more on eating natural food sources (such as bandicoots and stranded marine whales) and less on human-provided food, then we may see fewer negative dingo-human interactions or attacks in the future, and an ultimate reduction in the number of dingoes needing to be euthanased for dangerous behaviour.

Continuing to feed dingoes with human food would be a disaster for Fraser Island. The saying “a fed dingo is a dead dingo” is not far from the truth.

Research from around the world has shown that supplementary feeding of wild animals increases their numbers beyond the point that the environment can handle. This ultimately leads to more animals in need of feeding and subsequently greater numbers of deaths, in both the fed animals and other wildlife too.

This has been observed with dingo populations in other areas of Australia and can be easily avoided on Fraser Island with proper management and ongoing research.

Funding for components of the published study was provided to Ben Allen by the Queensland Government's 'Fraser Island Dingo Research Program' (Grant number: 06251-2015), administered by the Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the published study or this article.