The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has
just published an op-ed of mine on the implications of proposed emissions reduction policies on the decarbonization of Australia's economy. Here is an excerpt:
To become as carbon efficient as Japan by 2020 would require replacing its entire coal energy with a zero-carbon alternative.
If energy demand increases by 1.5 per cent per year - a rate lower than expected economic growth - then Australia would need to build the equivalent amount of carbon-free energy of 46, 750 megawatt (MW) nuclear power plants to replace its coal generation. That is not going to happen.
Several of my colleagues in Australia didn't like the analogy, since, as they tell me, "Australia doesn't do nuclear".
So we can express the magnitude of the challenge in another way, in terms of the number of 10 MW solar thermal power plants of the sort found in Cloncurry, Queensland. To decarbonise to the level of Japan by 2020 would require 12,667 of these plants, or about 24 of them coming online every week over the next decade. That is not going to happen either.
We can play with the numbers and make different assumptions, but the results will be the same: the magnitude of the challenge implied by Australia's pending emissions trading legislation is huge, likely unachievable.
Have a
look, and please feel free to ask any questions. The analysis, of course, is based on
my paper on the same subject.
17 comments:
You definitely get to the heart of the issue.
"Since no government will last long of it tries to reduce the economic opportunities of its citizens, this means that efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions must either improve energy efficiency or decarbonise energy supply."
Politicians and the general public probably aren't willing to accept that. I guess the carbon tax would fall under "efficiency" by coersing people to use less energy. Are there any realistic views out there on ways to "improve energy efficiency or decarbonise energy supply" and their associated economic impacts?
The one line that drives me crazy was "Australia doesn't do nuclear". Sigh. Makes me wonder what these peoples' true priorities and concerns are.
Excellent analysis.
It is time the AGW promoters and other extremists were forced to face at least the economic realities.
The enviro's when they chose to demonize nuke power in the 1970's have sure left us with fewer realistic choices.
ScottGA:
You say: "The one line that drives me crazy was "Australia doesn't do nuclear". Sigh. Makes me wonder what these peoples' true priorities and concerns are."
Can't Australians have more than one priority or concern at the same time?
rjtklein:
Yes, they can have more than one priority or concern at the same time. However, mutually contridictory priorities cause problems.
In the short term, nuclear is the only hope for decarbinizing electricity to any significant degree.
ScottGA said... 1
"Are there any realistic views out there on ways to "improve energy efficiency or decarbonise energy supply" and their associated economic impacts?"
Raising CAFE standards by 10 MPG is theoretically supposed to cost approximately $1,000/vehicle.
NHSTA has the proposed rulemaking here
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/MY2012-2016CAFEPRMfactsheet.pdf
If one assumes a vehicle life expectancy of 100,000 miles then a vehicle that gets 25 MPH will consume 4,000 gallons of gasoline. A vehicle that gets 35 MPG will consume 2,800 gallons of gasoline.
Saving 1200 gallons of gasoline for an investment of $1,000 per vehicle seems like a net winner to me.
Of course it only represents 30% of the light duty vehicle sector of energy consumption.
Another 'low hanging fruit' is that ethanol doesn't count in the CO2 numbers. I.E. Next years crop will absorb this years emissions. Expect ethanol fuel in the US to be mandated at 15% in the next few years.
So some relatively painless reductions can be made. I think President Obama alluded to reductions of 17% as a function of GDP which is for the most part doable with higher CAFE standards and higher ethanol content.
After that one really needs to go after electric power generation.
The Australian Broadcasting Chairman, Maurice Newman has today caused a stir by critising the media's coverage of climate change.
See here: http://www.theage.com.au/national/abc-chairman-warms-to-the-climate-sceptics-20100310-pz9u.html and here: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2842177.htm
Harrywr2 #5,
"Another 'low hanging fruit' is that ethanol doesn't count in the CO2 numbers. I.E. Next years crop will absorb this years emissions. Expect ethanol fuel in the US to be mandated at 15% in the next few years."
But what about the emissions from the production of energy used to make the ethanol in the first place? The nitrous oxide produced won't be absorbed by next year's crop.
Raising CAFE will make US car manufacturers even less profitable while probably not making a dent in total gas consumption.
matthew.slyfield: Do you have any solid reference to support your claim that "nuclear is the only hope for decarbinizing electricity to any significant degree"?
Just as much as one can favour population control and oppose abortion or the death penalty, or favour measures to reduce the budget deficit and oppose raising taxes, one can favour greenhouse gas emission control and oppose nuclear energy.
Roger, I'm trying to think of any other area of politics where the government legislates targets which a 9-year old with an envelope and pencil stub could tell cannot possibly be met, as in UK/Australia CO2.
Can you think of one? Or is climate unique in this respect?
Australia is definitely the most "loopy" country with repest to attitudes toward nuclear power.
I don't think any other country on earth is as well endowed with all the characteristics that make for the ideal base for nuclear power.
- Large natural deposits of uranium (requires little transport and virtually no proximity to population centres in its transport)
- Extremely low population density (Nuclear power stations could be built in areas well away from population centres)
- Massive amounts of population free, geologically and climatically stable geography (ideal for safe waste storage and away from population centres again)
Ethanol- most especially ethanol based from food or produced at the expense of crops, is a cruel and wasteful 'substitute' fuel.
It is an energy loser, does not clean the air, and drives food prices up- especially food staples.
Geckko, add to the list
- All major cities on the coast, allowing for sea water cooling.
I'm excluding Canberra which, I'm sure, some would claim is not a city. Happy with that - I live there.
The claim that 'Australia does not do nuclear' may well be out of touch with public opinion. It's surprised me how many people I talk to who think we should be using nuclear power, some of them were completely against it a couple of decades ago. There have also been many supportive articles in the media in recent months.
In contrast, we still have a very vocal anti-nuclear lobby along with a Federal government that supports clean coal and has stated that it will not consider nuclear. However, things change.
Roger, would your Australian colleagues be at the ANU by any chance?
Peter
Want to go the nuclear route you are sacrificing return on investment and return on energy as well as being forced into government subsidies. Nuke plants don't usually get private insurance and the govt provided insurance is a complete joke in the event of a decent sized accident.
Should be pretty obvious even to 9 year olds with the aforementioned pen and napkin in front of them that the ultimate answer means using less energy, a huge cut in energy usage per capita especially in the US. Of course the side effects of this both economically and standard of living wise are going to be untenable but this is the situation we have out ourselves in.
Around Sydney somewhere there used to be (and I hope still is) a living reconstruction of the First Fleeters' settlement. If we all start living as demonstrated there, then we'd easily meet our CO2 reduction targets. It might be a bit less comfortable than we're used to, but we'd have the deep satisfaction of having shown others how, if only they'd join us, to save the planet.
I am always amazed by those (presumably serious) who propose to mandate that a country revert to the style and form of living as practiced by (example by John) those living in 1795. Monnbattery was never so evident.
Carl, Nuclear can be economically viable and the risks of major incidents kept remarkably low, lower than the expected death toll from most other forms of energy, as long as one doesn't use superannuated Soviet designs.
And finally bio-fuels, these may become useful if practical mechanisms for extracting fuels from cellulosic material or perhaps from algae, but the current corn ethanol and palm oil diesels are ecologically damaging and in general emit more CO2 (if you happen to be concerned about such emissions) than conventional fuels over the entire fuel cycle, so why the hell would one want to promote such foolishness ?
"Should be pretty obvious even to 9 year olds with the aforementioned pen and napkin in front of them that the ultimate answer means using less energy, a huge cut in energy usage per capita especially in the US."
The EROEI of a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is probably higher than any energy source in existence. This is because:
1) Energy for mining thorium is much lower than for a conventional uranium reactor,
2) There's no energy used for enrichment (like a conventional uranium reactor),
3) The thermal efficiency of LFTR is much higher than a conventional uranium reactor,
4) LFTRs operate at essentially atmospheric pressure, so there is no need for a large pressure vessel, or thick concrete containment building,
5) LFTRs can operate near cities, so there is no need for an extensive transmission network.
LFTRs could easily supply all the electrical energy in the U.S., even if the amount of electrical energy used quadrupled (or more).
Hey, you have a very good blog, its excellent information in its field. You have done a great job, keep doing it for to help, people like me.
Energy Efficiency Consultant
Post a Comment