In ‘Environmental policy’ Category
A recycling round-up
Lance Turner considers the evolving recycling options for some of the common technologies in households: solar panels, lights and batteries.
Solar panel recycling
Up until recently there have been no official schemes for recycling solar panels in Australia. However, as the number of broken and otherwise failed panels begins to grow, so has the need for recycling.
But how much solar panel waste is there at present, and what are we looking at down the track when the current explosion of solar panel installations come to the end of their working life?
Although figures are hard to come by, one typical example is that of Japan, which has seen considerable growth in PV installations in recent years. According to the Japanese Ministry of the Environment, by 2040 770,000 tonnes of solar panels will need to be recycled. The ministry has stated that, in conjunction with the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and industry organisations, it will begin to implement measures for “removal, transportation and processing of solar power generation equipment” before the end of this fiscal year, in March 2016 (from www.bit.ly/1PwRFfC).
In Europe, requirements have already been added to the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive, bringing in a take-back and recycling scheme to deal with solar panel waste. The program, PV Cycle (www.pvcycle.org), provides fixed collection points, collection services for large quantities, and collection via distributors.
The WEEE directive means that solar panel manufacturers not only have to ensure collection and recycling of their products when they have reached their end of life, they will also be required to ensure the financial future of PV waste management.
Looking at Australia, there is currently (as of March 2015) 4.1 GW of installed capacity of solar PV. Assuming around 250 watts per panel (a common size), that’s around 16 million solar panels. With an approximate weight of 18 kg per panel, you are looking at 288,000 tonnes of solar panels, or around 11,500 tonnes per year (assuming a lifespan of 25 years) needing to be recycled. Of course, many PV panels will have a greater lifespan, while other, lesser quality panels will die sooner, so these figures are really just ballpark.
Regardless, that’s a great deal of materials needing to be recycled, most of which is glass, silicon cells (a glass-like material) and aluminium.
Aluminium framing is easily recycled in existing aluminium smelters. However, without a system of collection, transportation and dismantling of solar panels, these materials are currently going to waste, usually ending up in landfill.
Read the full article in ReNew 133.
The Pears Report: Changing states
Alan Pears looks at the rapid changes in electricity policy, provides some practical perspectives on carbon pricing and discusses some good news about the national appliance energy efficiency program.
We are seeing some interesting developments in clean energy at the state level as the states (predictably) move to fill the hole left by the national government.READ MORE »
Victoria has announced it is developing an Energy Efficiency and Productivity Strategy to be released this year. It has also announced development of its Renewable Energy Roadmap intended to re-establish Victoria as a “global renewable energy leader”. In Western Australia, former head of the Institute of Public Affairs (a conservative lobby group), now energy minister and treasurer, Mike Nahan has flagged a central role for solar. Meanwhile, the ACT and South Australia continue to lead the pack.
In contrast, the electricity industry continues its struggle to come to terms with the significance of energy efficiency and demand-side management. AEMO has just released its latest Statement of Opportunities (SOO). It predicts higher consumption and peak demand than previously, reflecting stabilising prices, loss of momentum in energy efficiency policy and slower PV growth—with no discussion of the importance of actively driving demand management harder to avoid this. Its low-demand scenario suggests planned generation is adequate to beyond the next decade, while its medium scenario requires investment to provide 5780 megawatt hours of additional supply over the next decade, 3.2% higher than 2014–15 consumption. AEMO does, however, flag that next year’s SOO will include analysis of demand management. That could dramatically change the outlook.
Energy companies continue to lobby for the right to apply anti-clean energy measures such as high fixed charges and low feed-in prices, while moving into the solar PV market!
The Energy Networks Association published a paper in August proposing a range of options, including grid connection fees, network exit fees, payment for grid access and payment for risk of stranded assets. It continues to assume that network operators are entitled to make a profit, and that their shareholders should be protected from losses. The age of entitlement continues.
We need some practical perspectives on carbon pricing. Although I wouldn’t call a carbon price the ‘centrepiece’ of climate policy—as Labor has claimed in the past—it is important because it sends a signal to change, particularly to investors. And the revenue a carbon price raises can fund other abatement action. To cut emissions we now face a choice between ‘polluter pays’ (pricing emissions) and ‘taxpayers pay the polluter’ (the Emission Reduction Fund).
By removing Labor’s carbon price but leaving in place assistance measures, this government has not saved Australians any money: in fact it may have increased costs to taxpayers. Under Labor, the assistance was funded by revenue from the carbon price. It must still be funded, but now through consolidated revenue, gained from taxes or borrowings eventually repaid by taxpayers, or offset by reduced services. On top of this cost, we must also pay for ‘Direct Action’. Simple slogans can be very misleading.
The good news is that the cost of managing climate is proving to be far lower than expected: many measures such as energy efficiency and some renewables are even profitable. The polarised politics of ‘carbon taxes’ and ‘Direct Action’ is dumb and distracting. We need both a price on carbon emissions and direct action, along with other measures.
Empowering people to cut emissions
I and others from the Voluntary Carbon Markets Association spent a lot of time trying to get Labor to modify its carbon trading model to empower individuals, business, and local and state governments to cut emissions. Our basic concept was that all voluntary abatement should be matched by the government cancelling Kyoto permits (allocated by the UN based on our national target). This would ensure our efforts were recognised as globally ‘additional’ abatement beyond government-driven measures.
For example, if Australia has a target of 500 million tonnes (Mt) of emissions in a given period and households are expected to emit 60 Mt, this means other emitters are able to emit 440 Mt (440+60=500 Mt). But if households (or some other group) voluntarily cut their emissions by an extra 10 Mt in that year down to 50 Mt, the government should cancel 10 Mt of permits. The target would then effectively be 490 Mt so other emitters still have a target of 440 M t (440+50=490 Mt). If the government doesn’t cancel permits, other emitters would now be able to emit 450 Mt and Australia would still meet its 500 Mt target (450+50=500 Mt). So those other emitters would be ‘free riding’ on the voluntary efforts of households. And from a global perspective, Australia’s emissions would not be reduced below the 500 Mt it was originally allowed to emit; the planet would not see a reduction in emissions as a result of the efforts of households and their efforts would not lead to additional abatement beyond what the Australian government has previously agreed to.
After a carbon price was introduced, conservative state governments justified cutting abatement action with the excuse that their actions would not be additional to national action—so there was no point in a state having its own climate target or actively pursuing emission reduction. We had warned the national Labor government, but they did not want to hear: the arrogance of policy makers swamped our efforts.
Recently, one of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) architects, Martin Parkinson, gave a speech (reported by Gareth Hutchens, The Age 30/6/15) in which he acknowledged that they had failed to engage and empower the community. Hutchens wrote:
“[He] never gave enough weight to the fact, when designing the trading scheme, that voters wanted to feel they were making a contribution to emissions reductions, and emissions trading systems do not provide them with that feeling because they are too abstract. ‘We got so hung up on the [idea that] we’ve got this really big problem that we have to deal with, and we’ve got to do it at least cost to the economy, so we delivered a least-cost way of doing it,’ he said.”
The situation is even worse now. The present government is using our money to pay polluters to cut emissions (including subsidising things they were already doing). And abatement actions that households, businesses, and local and state governments take which fall outside the Emission Reduction Fund (like installing rooftop solar or saving energy) allow the government to use our investments to make it easier to meet its weak and globally irresponsible abatement targets.
Positive news for energy efficiency
COAG has announced that the national appliance efficiency program (GEMS) has survived a review, and will even be expanded because it is so cost-effective. This is a relief for the many who were concerned that this review was yet another government attempt to undermine progress in clean energy. The Alternative Technology Association (ReNew’s publisher) played a key role by making a comprehensive submission.
The program faces other hurdles, including the requirement that any additional regulations be offset by reductions in related areas. And undoubtedly the Office of Best Practice Regulation will continue to do its best to delay and block new Mandatory Energy Performance Standards, which it opposes on ideological (neo-classical economic) grounds.
State energy policies
I’ve recently been spending some time in South Australia and the ACT. This has led me to ask what makes them so different in their approach to sustainable energy? Could it be that the lack of powerful coal and resources industries makes it easier for them to be more progressive?
It will also be interesting to see how the Victorian government responds to a scathing study by the Brotherhood of St Laurence that shows the state’s retail electricity market model is a disaster. It delivers remarkably high profit margins for retailers while many disadvantaged people pay the highest prices. This is the model lauded by many in the electricity industry as the template other states should use!
Alan Pears, AM, is one of Australia’s best-regarded sustainability experts. He is a Senior Industry Fellow at RMIT University, advises a number of industry and community organisations and works as a consultant.
This article was first published in ReNew 133.
Food vs fuel: Ethics and sustainability
Does biofuel production contribute to global food shortage and hunger, or not? Dr Seona Candy steps us through the pros, cons and complexities of using food crops for biofuels.READ MORE »
In a recent edition of ReNew (ReNew 127), an article describing the use of grain as fuel for wood pellet stoves was published. It inspired some opposing comments regarding the use of food for fuel. Although I can’t comment directly on this particular case of burning grain for space heating, I can perhaps provide some insight into the complexity, ethics and sustainability of the wider debate.
The ‘food vs fuel’ debate, as it is commonly known, is mainly concerned with first-generation liquid biofuels. These biofuels are derived from various agricultural crops that can also be used for food and feed, and have been developed primarily for transport uses. This is the case because there are already considered to be sufficient renewable energy options available to provide stationary energy.
The central argument in the ‘food vs fuel’ ethical debate is about whether the development (or not) of biofuels will cause people to go hungry. Critics of biofuels argue that diverting food crops to biofuel production will increase food prices and cause hunger, particularly among the global poor. Advocates of biofuels argue that their development will help mitigate climate change, and its potential future impacts on agriculture and food production, thus avoiding hunger for everyone (the global poor included) in the longer term.
The first of these two arguments seems fairly straightforward. Indeed, biofuel development in the early 2000s did precede significant rises in the prices of staple crops, causing the 2007/08 global food crisis and food riots in many countries. But it is not safe to assume that biofuels alone caused food prices to rise or that the impacts of rising food prices were negative for all groups who make up the global poor.
According to a report from the International Food Policy Research Institute, the 2007/08 food crisis was primarily driven by a combination of rising oil prices, a greater demand for biofuels and trade shocks in the food market.
Rising oil prices led to increased costs of cereal production, as conventional agriculture is an energy-intensive enterprise. Higher energy prices increased the demand for biofuels, which became more competitively priced when compared with oil. At the same time, cereal demand increased from oil-producing countries and weather shocks reduced the supply of some grains, increasing prices further. This led to a ban on exports by producers and panic buying by importers, which only increased prices yet again.
These increased prices led to food riots in developing countries. As Thompson2 argues, though, increased food prices negatively impact mainly the urban poor, who must purchase their food. For the rural poor, however, who produce and sell their food, rising food prices could be an advantage. It would increase their income and ability to buy food that they don’t grow themselves. Since the rural poor make up around 80% of the global poor, fewer people may in fact go hungry due to rising food prices.
Read the full article in ReNew 130.
In a year of milestones for community energy in Australia, Craig Memery takes us on a tour of how the ATA is helping projects with the strategies and resources they need.
It won’t come as a surprise to ReNew readers to hear that ReNew’s publisher, the Alternative Technology Association (ATA), is excited about community energy in Australia. Having been the collective owners of the Breamlea wind turbine two decades ago, some ATA members are probably more surprised that community energy is yet to take off here!READ MORE »
There are a handful of groundbreaking community energy projects up and running today, and here are a few of the ways we are doing our bit to help more than 50 communities bring future energy projects into being.
ATA is a founding partner and steering group member of the Coalition for Community Energy (C4CE), alongside some stalwarts of the community energy sector. C4CE exists to empower and grow the community energy sector. The Coalition is moving from its formative stages to incorporate new members, with membership and governance arrangements being formalised as this goes to print. Find out more at www.c4ce.net.au.
With welcome support from ARENA (Australian Renewable Energy Agency), C4CE is developing a national strategy for community energy. This work is being led by the Institute for Sustainable Futures and Community Power Agency, with ATA providing specialist input in areas such as energy policy, markets and regulations. Look out for the strategy, which will be released later this year.
In July, C4CE held the inaugural Community Energy Congress in Canberra, bringing together over 300 community energy supporters from across Australia, as well as international delegates. The event was a resounding success, and I think we will look back on the congress in coming years as a milestone for the community energy movement.
Getting a better deal for local generation
Our friends at Total Environment Centre (TEC) have been working hard to improve the incentives for generating energy that is sustainable, locally consumed, improves competition and minimises burden on electricity networks.
ATA is helping TEC’s work on virtual net metering as a member of the project steering group. We are also advising TEC, who, on behalf of a consortium of NSW Northern Rivers organisations, is on a quest to form a community energy retailer. With the spotlight shone on the poor environmental performance of most energy retailers (see www.bit.ly/ GP-TGEG), a community retailer will not only provide a more sustainable business model, but raise the bar for the integrity of the existing retail sector.
Directly engaging with communities
The support of the NSW Office for Environment and Heritage has been vital in allowing ATA to reach NSW communities and help them progress their energy projects.
Most recently we spent some time with the Cowra community (read more about their project here) and in October we’ll be presenting at the North Coast Energy Forum. Straight after that we’ll be travelling to central NSW to meet with local community energy proponents and speak at the AGMs of the Bathurst Community Climate Action Network and Central NSW Renewable Energy Cooperative (CENREC). With the support of Infigen, CENREC grew out of action that took shape three years ago when ATA ran a series of regional community energy workshops around NSW, so seeing how far they have developed is particularly rewarding.
Energy market advocacy and research
As ATA’s energy consumer advocate, my main role is to promote affordable, sustainable energy for all Australian energy consumers, through more demand-side participation, fairer pricing, better regulation and improved competition. ATA punches well above our weight in the energy policy ring, but with tens of billions of dollars behind incumbent businesses in the red corner, we have a long fight ahead of us. Of course, there are many more ways ATA is supporting community energy—from our groundbreaking research into community scale microgrids to Sunulator. Dive into the rest of ReNew 129 for a closer look at the many projects and resources in the works!
Craig Memery is an energy consumer advocate at the ATA and a specialist in community energy.
Read the full article in ReNew 129.
Community solar: energy from the ground up
With support resources now readily available, Taryn Lane from Embark explains how individuals, groups and businesses can work together and benefit from setting up community solar projects.
Already a mainstream model internationally in countries such as Denmark, USA, Germany and Scotland, community solar is about to hit Australia in a big way. There are around 50 active projects in Australia and it is a tangible pathway for all communities—whether they be urban, regional or remote—to participate in transforming their energy supply.READ MORE »
Community solar can take on a myriad of identities, depending on a community’s exact needs and opportunities. From community bulk-buy rooftop models, through to small crowd-funded systems, up to more sizable solar parks, they provide real opportunities for installation efficiencies and more inclusive ownership.
Several models of community-owned solar projects feasible within Australia’s current legislative and energy market boundaries will be explored in this article. Although we can learn from international models, we also have unique restrictions in the Australian landscape that we all need to navigate. Our aim at Embark is to both create innovative business models and collate from the broader sector what’s been learnt from the first generation of systems—thereby accelerating the uptake of, and social licence for, renewable energy in communities in Australia.
Why community solar?
The move to a low-carbon economy requires a magnitude of capital that charity alone cannot provide: community investment with reasonable returns will provide a necessary part of the solution.
There is still a significant portion of the community who can’t invest in solar technology. This includes renters, apartment owners, those living in homes with shaded roofs or heritage overlays, and those who can’t afford to install a residential system on their own home.
Community solar projects enable neighbourhoods to develop and own their own renewable energy infrastructure. It answers the calls for social equity for solar in Australia, as renters, apartment dwellers and low-income households can have the opportunity to make a direct investment in solar PV.
Shared ownership schemes will soon drive significant growth in the medium-scale solar space. A business installing 100 kW on a factory roof will result in the same abatement as a community that installs 100 kW in the same location, but the latter has the opportunity to engage a hundred (or more) community members on an ongoing basis.
Read the full article in ReNew 129.
The Pears Report: The war on renewable energy
With neighbouring Asian countries investing millions or billions of dollars in renewable energy and energy efficiency, Alan Pears reflects on Australian policy in 2014.
Life is certainly interesting in Australia in 2014. What is most tragic is that our leaders seem to be uninterested in having transparent, balanced processes to work things through to a consensus position that is in the interests of society.READ MORE »
Every inquiry or audit seems to be stacked with partisan people, and has inadequate process to allow consensus to be built. Every announcement is full of PR spin and provides little information, much of which is selected to support a particular view. This is a serious challenge for democracy. Of course, in the energy sector, we’re used to this kind of behaviour.
Science also seems to be in disrepute. We are paying a high price for the lack of scientific training of our leaders and their advisers.
I visited China recently for an APEC sustainability workshop. I was the only westerner present at the invitation-only session, which made me feel very honoured. I was given the task of explaining Australia’s renewable energy policy to the attendees: they were all completely bemused. I then had to sit and listen as they took turns telling the group about the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars they were all investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency.
A recent report on Australia’s appliance energy efficiency program (at www. energyrating.gov.au) provided some great news, however. From a base year of 2000, the program is cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 13.5 million tonnes annually at a cost of minus $119 per tonne avoided (based on purchase and operating costs over appliance lifetime per tonne of emissions avoided). By my estimate, it is saving $3.2 billion on energy bills each year, $2.7 billion of which is saved by households. That’s around $300 per household on average. Just think, the average annual energy bill of $2000 could have been $300 higher! If we look at carbon pricing as part of a broader package, it is quite clear we can deliver a lot of abatement at zero or low cost by using a combination of policy tools.
Things are moving fast. On the one hand we have even more aggressive attempts to kill renewable energy and energy efficiency. But on the other hand, the incumbent industry is beginning to fragment and shift, as players come to accept the futility of trying to hold back the tide.
Apparently the Western Australian and Queensland governments, and the networks they own, are now subsidising fringe-of-grid consumers by more than a billion dollars a year. Two of their network operators have announced that they will help people in these areas go off-grid. It will save their governments a lot of money.
There may be a role for local governments to take over existing grids and manage a transition to microgrids. Network operators can offer services such as maintenance, monitoring and sale of equipment to make a profit—as I suggested in my column in ReNew 123. I hope there’s a nice big cheque in the mail in recognition of my advice!
This is not news. In its 1991–92 annual report, the State Electricity Commission of Victoria pointed out that residents in rural towns cost 50% more to supply than they paid, while rural outlying homes cost double what they paid. Most state governments have maintained these subsidies for political reasons.
The retailer sector is also undergoing rapid change. A number of community groups are serious about setting up not-for-profit energy retailing businesses. And some new business models are appearing, such as the (presently) Victoria-only PowerShop. Check out the blog on PowerShop’s website for some interesting views on the direction of energy markets.
The Productivity Commission and the federal government are keen to see more privatisation of the electricity industry. PV, shifting off-grid, investment in large renewable energy projects, energy efficiency and demand management all do that: so why is the government opposed to them? The government’s Green Paper is due out in May, so it will be interesting to see what position it takes.
This review’s design is a clear declaration of war on renewable energy by government on behalf of the incumbent electricity industry. It will be very interesting to watch the attempts to manipulate economic analysis and policy objectives to fit the outcome.
I have made a submission to the Inquiry pointing out that renewable energy policy operates within a broader context, and that, when this is considered, a stable RET is a sensible and financially responsible policy— as concluded by the 2012 Climate Change Authority Review.
From the limited information available, the Emission Reduction Fund will cost around $12 per tonne of avoided emissions. This alone justifies a RET if its net cost is under 1.2 cents per kilowatt-hour—which most agree it is. While the incumbent industry wants to shift to a (lower) target based on the actual percentage of 2020 electricity sales, keeping the existing fixed target is very important for investor certainty. The industry itself has argued strongly for a fixed target in the past, when that option suited them. They can’t have it both ways.
Indeed, the uncertainty created by this review has unnecessarily increased the cost and difficulty of meeting the 2020 target by undermining investment. That extra cost should not be counted against the RET: it is an outcome of poor policy.
A 2009 report by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences estimated that air pollution from coal-fired power stations cost Australians 1.3 cents per kilowatt-hour. The RET reduces this cost.
The decline in electricity demand is largely due to a range of separate factors and policies implemented by government such as successful energy efficiency programs (which are saving consumers much more than any RET cost); the high exchange rate driven by the mining boom that has made Australian industry uncompetitive; and big increases in electricity prices caused by unnecessary investment in electricity network infrastructure. So why is the RET blamed for these impacts on the incumbent electricity industry?
The electricity industry is supposed to be a competitive market. The incumbent industry can choose to invest in renewable energy and other emerging technologies to make profits from the RET—as they have done in the past, and WA and Qld network operators seem poised to do. They can even write off losses from existing infrastructure against profits from new activities.
The present high electricity costs are outcomes of their decisions. Independent consultant Bruce Mountain estimates that networks need not have spent about $20 billion of the $40 billion invested over the past few years. If they had saved this money, electricity prices would be at least a cent per kilowatt-hour cheaper: this would have offset much of the claimed RET cost for consumers.
So when we look at claimed costs for the RET, we see they are small compared with the outcomes of many other decisions, some taken by governments, and others by existing industries. On this basis, the RET looks like good value for money. It is also positioning Australia for a better, more competitive future.
In any case, how many Australians outside the energy sector would see the RET over-achieving as a bad thing? For decades, surveys have shown that most Australians want an efficient, renewable energy future. Governments and the industry has chosen not to deliver what we want. This is their chance to catch up.
We must remember that change usually brings challenges, creates winners and losers, and can even create some short-term costs. But just think where we would be if the government had helped Telstra’s landline business to block the rollout of mobile phones and the internet.
Alan Pears has worked on sustainable energy issues since the late 1970s. He is one of Australia’s best recognised and most highly awarded commentators on sustainable energy and climate issues. He teaches part time at RMIT University and is co-director of Sustainable Solutions, a small consultancy.
Read more articles on energy efficiency in ReNew 128.
The Pears Report: Peak demand and ‘enoughness’
Why should we expect unlimited access to energy when we can take responsibility for how much energy we use, asks Alan Pears.
THE JANUARY 2014 extreme weather in southern Australia reignited debate over the role of air conditioners in driving peak demand. A few issues have emerged.READ MORE »
A thoughtful study by Ric Brazzale of the REC Traders Association reframed debate about how useful PV is in managing peaks. Since electricity data from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) does not include PV output, because it happens on the consumer side of the meter, Ric recreated the real demand profile by adding estimated half hourly PV output to the AEMO demand profile. This showed actual peak demand occurred earlier in the day, when PV was producing much more electricity.
This challenges the simplistic approach usually taken, of just looking at PV output at the time of the AEMO peak. Ric also pointed out that PV helped to significantly reduce average prices on peak days below those before the Black Saturday fires. Of course, reducing peaks and peak prices undermines generator and network profits, which is seen as a bad thing by the incumbents and some policy makers.
As demand-response bidding, energy efficiency and energy storage progress, summer peaks will become less of a problem—and less profitable for the electricity industry. I can only wonder how much cheaper electricity costs would have been if the networks had invested in these solutions instead of more powerlines.
As the owner of a small high-efficiency air conditioner operating in a well-insulated and shaded room, my peak cooling load in the heatwave was around 300 watts during ‘cool down’ on arriving home, and around 125 watts at times of extreme heat. That’s much less than a plasma TV or six halogen lamps.
All this brings me to an issue raised in the 2013 book Smart Utopia? by Yolande Strengers. She asks why the electricity industry is expected to provide unlimited power supply at all times.
This piqued my interest. In industry, I have found that the engineers who provide services such as steam and refrigeration often run grossly excess plant (and waste a lot of energy) in their quest to provide as much energy as users ask for, even if the request is unreasonably high. In the 1980s, I found the electricity industry shared this culture.
There is certainly a historical reason for this: without our modern energy options (which allow us to reduce and shift demand), many activities were critically dependent on reliable electricity supply. Indeed, many activities still are, but need not be.
The political price of supply shortages has traditionally been high, as daily life, health and business activity have been affected: heads of electricity agencies can lose their jobs, politicians can lose power. Engineers have a professional pride in providing what their clients ask for, and don’t like being blamed for shortfalls.
But modern energy solutions allow us to limit expectations of the traditional electricity supply system and, instead, place some responsibility on consumers. Such expectations would need to be phased in, with issues faced by tenants and financially stressed people recognised and transitional costs addressed. Incentives and support mechanisms, not just pricing, must be used. The alternative may be a mess, as those who are active, informed and have access to capital will look after themselves while others suffer.
This should be a core focus of energy reform policy.
Energy Issues Paper
In mid-December 2013, the government released an Energy Issues Paper and called for submissions by 7 February 2014. This process is a lead-in to release of a Green Paper in May and an Energy White Paper in September.
The Issues Paper seems to be focused on a list of short- to medium-term problems that the government thinks it needs to address. As far as it goes, this is useful, although the way issues are presented seems to disproportionately reflect the views of incumbent energy organisations and some policy makers.
Hopefully the Green Paper will take a broader view. Let’s face it, when the phrase ‘climate change’ does not appear in an energy policy document, our policy makers are struggling to be credible.
And I wish energy policy people would learn to differentiate between the price of energy and the cost of delivering energy-related services. Price matters much less if you are efficient and can avoid periods of high prices. The policy focus on price distorts energy policy towards measures that increase long-term total costs and social and environmental impacts.
Standing Council on Energy and Resources delays demand management bidding, yet again
A major criticism by the 2012 Senate Inquiry into the electricity industry, and by the Productivity Commission’s 2013 report into electricity networks, was the glacially slow progress on implementation of demand-side action. The Parer Review of 2002 and other studies have repeatedly highlighted the need to get the demand side of the market working. So it was very disappointing to see the ministers from states and commonwealth on the Standing Council on Energy and Resources decide at their December 2013 meeting to delay, yet again, rule changes to support implementation of a demand-response bidding scheme.
The only winners from this delay seem to be incumbent electricity generators and network owners. And some more demand management in the January heatwave would have been handy.
Sydney car trips
The bizarre outcomes of a car-based society were reinforced for me recently by some NSW transport statistics. Apparently 22% of all Sydney weekday car trips are to ‘serve passenger’. That is, they are unpaid chauffeuring trips, where the driver doesn’t actually want to go to the destination.
What is the cost of this planning failure in terms of time, inconvenience, congestion, parking issues, pollution, health and lack of independence? Surely it is time that local and state governments ensured our cities supported low car-dependency living? This would be much better for the young, old, parents, disabled, carers, poor and obese.
Emerging opportunities for energy storage
I wonder who will be first to actively promote an easy-to-add-on storage and smarts package for existing rooftop PV owners? This makes good business sense because hundreds of thousands of PV owning households are getting only 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour for their exports, while paying 30 to 50 cents for energy in peak periods. These people are already committed to PV and frustrated with the efforts of the electricity industry and its policy makers to undermine their financial returns.
A second area for storage that I haven’t seen discussed is at the micro-level, building storage into appliances, or integrating (or plugging in) storage into local wiring within a building. This limits peak demand charges, offers potential savings on upgrading wiring and reduces wiring resistance losses in existing buildings.
Advances in supercapacitors may play a key role here. New Mazda cars use them instead of batteries for energy recovery and storage, and the CSIRO-developed UltraBattery uses supercapacitors to mediate between the battery and the load, to extend battery life and reduce losses. Research on graphene also seems likely to improve supercapacitor performance.
One example of this potential is in the installation of induction cooktops in existing homes. Most induction cooktops have ‘boost’ modes that can use over 3 kilowatts per pot, so manufacturers can claim they heat up quicker than gas. This potentially high peak demand can require upgrading of wiring back to the circuit breakers or even back to the street. But the amounts of energy required are not particularly large, so quite small amounts of storage would make a difference. For example, to boil two litres of water on an induction cooktop consumes less than a quarter of a kilowatt-hour.
A proviso is that the benefits must be balanced against the losses in the storage system.
When you look at the fine detail, the economics of appropriately designed distributed storage solutions could be much better than many expect.
Alan Pears has worked on sustainable energy issues since the late 1970s. He is one of Australia’s best recognised and most highly awarded commentators on sustainable energy and climate issues. He teaches part time at RMIT University and is co-director of Sustainable Solutions, a small consultancy.
Read more articles on energy efficiency in ReNew 127.
The Pears Report: Desperately seeking policy
Along with climate policy and energy market messes, a fridge purchase makes Alan Pears ask: are we condemned to waste energy because we live in Australia?
We seem to be on track to shift from the well-proven ‘polluter pays’ approach to carbon emissions (and other forms of pollution) to a ‘pay the polluter’ approach, using public funds. The government will limit how much will be spent, so we may not even meet our international emission reduction obligations, let alone our equitable share of abatement as estimated based on science.READ MORE »
Luckily the combination of grassroots action, technology change and the structural changes being driven by our over-valued Australian dollar is damping emission growth to some extent. And, under international and local pressure, the government may become desperate enough to reform energy markets to promote energy efficiency and even stop its attacks on renewable energy.
There are some potential positives from the shift away from using the carbon price as the ‘silver bullet’ to fix everything. As I explained in my last column, this led to serious cuts in energy efficiency programs, failed to confront our deeply flawed electricity market and disempowered voluntary local action by households, businesses and local and state governments.
However, a carbon price is a basic element of any effective climate response. It provides a (fairly imperfect) signal to emitters and investors, while also generating revenue to support adaptation, innovation and stronger abatement—forms of ‘direct action’.
Developing countries and energy
I recently came across a very interesting paper published by the World Academy of Sciences for the Advancement of Science in Developing Countries (Sustainable Energy for Developing Countries 2008, twas.ictp.it/publications/twas-reports). Two points really stood out.
First, the $137 billion increase in developing country oil import costs in 2005 exceeded the value of all official aid ($84 billion) to those countries. So if we can help them to reduce oil dependence through sustainable energy strategies, we can improve their wellbeing while also reducing pressure on oil prices and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Second, to provide access to the 1.5 billion people currently without basic electricity services would increase global electricity consumption by only around half a percent.
Since most of these people are in rural areas, small-scale renewable energy systems and energy efficiency are the most sensible solutions. A major sustainable energy transition could transform their lives and help to reduce sustainable energy costs for the rest of humanity.
Australia could also do with a strategy to reduce oil dependence. The Bureau of Resources and Energy Economic’s latest estimate is that by 2035 our net oil import bill would be over $40 billion and, by 2050, over $50 billion each year (assuming $100/barrel).
Some personal experiences and their implications for policy
I finally decided to replace my early 1990s fridge and old (but still comparatively efficient) TV in recent months.
The TV replacement was easy. I used the energyrating.gov.au website, then tweaked the brightness of the display to cut energy use to 25 watts for an 80 cm TV. My old 51 cm TV (by far the most efficient available when I bought it) used 55 watts.
The fridge was a different matter. I have been waiting since 2004 to buy the European A++ fridge I’d discovered being made in Turkey. I finally gave up and chose the most efficient 320 litre fridge available in Australia, rated at 300 kWh per year after finding I could not buy a similarly sized A+++ fridge made by the same manufacturer that’s available in Europe (see www.topten.eu). It is rated at 172 kWh per annum (around 210 kWh for Australian test conditions). The manufacturer’s Australian representative told me they had no plans to sell that more efficient unit (with a bigger freezer) here.
My new fridge is still quite impressive. It has a variable-speed compressor, hydrocarbon refrigerant and eutectic panels in the freezer that stabilise its temperature. But why am I condemned to waste energy because I live in Australia?
In comparing my new fridge’s performance with the old one, I have found that its efficiency and variable-speed compressor cut my peak demand by around 100 watts. Using the Productivity Commission’s recent estimates, this saves my electricity suppliers around $30 each year in infrastructure investment. It’s saving me around $75. Since I had to buy a new fridge anyway, and I paid no more than I would have for a less efficient one, I’m avoiding CO2 emissions at a cost of minus $300/tonne!
My old fridge went off to the Phoenix Fridge recycling program, where its refrigerant CFCs can be recovered and its components recycled.
But I have reduced my utilisation of the existing electricity supply assets, depriving their owners of revenue. Should I be charged more for this? See below.
AEMC contempt for 2 million voters
The Australian Energy Markets Commission has released a new report. In the introduction, the report states: “Effective consumer participation can contribute to more efficient markets…” AEMC should check its economics text books. Informed, empowered consumers are fundamental to the efficient operation of markets. Yet after 15 years, it’s still not happening.
The report argues that owners of rooftop PV should be charged more for reducing utilisation of energy supply assets. Can it point to any other market where this happens? Do gas suppliers compensate the electricity industry when people install a gas heater to replace an electric one?
Those who install and use large air conditioners and halogen lights have benefited from large subsidies for many years, yet no action has been taken to make them pay.
The AEMC is taking on over two million PV-owning voters on behalf of the incumbent businesses. When will our political leaders in COAG and the Standing Committee on Energy and Resources step in to sort them out?
Will a ‘thin pipe’ approach help electricity networks to survive?
The latest idea to help electricity network owners adjust to our rapidly changing technologies is to use low-capacity wires combined with distributed energy storage, generation and smart controls—instead of building capacity to supply peak demand.
This is similar to the ‘green grid’ approach that was proposed by solar identity Dale Butler at the 1993 Australian Solar Conference for fringe-of-grid electricity.
It sounded really sensible to me when I originally heard it. It still does, especially given cost reductions and technology improvements.
A typical all-electric home might use 10,000 kWh a year—if it could smooth its demand perfectly over time, it would only need supply capacity of 1.2 kilowatts: most homes have supply cables with capacity of 10 to 20 kilowatts. My latest calculations suggest a three-person best-practice all-electric home with all ‘mod cons’ could now use around 2000–2500 kWh per year. That’s a ‘smoothed’ demand of under 300 watts.
But is this the salvation of network owners? The answer depends on many variables. If a cluster of consumers can share back-up generation and storage, they may not need the grid at all. This back-up generation could be a small cogeneration unit, a fuel cell or output from hybrid cars.
So the challenge for network owners is to diversify their activities. Their market position will be sensitive to policy on whether non-networks can transfer power across property boundaries, or the capacity of smart businesses to find ways of getting around such limits by, for example, moving fully charged batteries to where electricity is needed.
In low-density areas on the fringe of networks, the ‘thin pipe’ will compete with stand-alone energy solutions. In existing areas, it may not be a lot cheaper to maintain a thin-pipe solution instead of a higher capacity one. But changes such as increasing development density and depreciation of network asset values may allow network owners to develop viable business models.
Apartment buildings, offices, retail and small-to-medium industry may provide ongoing markets for network owners. But they are also potential competitors if they gain the right to sell power to neighbours.
Nothing is clear cut in today’s rapidly changing situation.
Alan Pears has worked on sustainable energy issues since the late 1970s. He is one of Australia’s best recognised and most highly awarded commentators on sustainable energy and climate issues. He teaches part time at RMIT University and is co-director of Sustainable Solutions, a small consultancy.
This article appears in ReNew 126. You can buy it here.
Australia-wide trials – Demand for a better deal
After a spate of trials, is there a better deal in store for householders using smart meters, asks Jack Nicholls?
In the 21st century, traditional electricity meters have become something of a quaint anachronism. The meter sits outside your house, wheels clicking, and if the electricity company wants to know how much energy you are using they have to send someone around to check. Imagine if your phone company had to send someone out to physically poke around your mobile before they could bill you. Imagine the cost of it, which would be passed on in your phone bills. The mind boggles. And yet this is exactly how our electricity network is structured in the 21st century.READ MORE »
But that is changing. For some, it has already changed. Smart meters are being installed in household trials around Australia. These devices record electricity use in real time, sending an automatic report through to your electricity provider every 30 minutes. More usefully, via connected display units or web portals, smart meters can tell you how much energy you’re using, when you’re using it and what it’s costing you.
A ‘smart’ system?
As anybody who has been snared by the honeyed words of door-to-door energy providers knows, Australia’s electricity market operates in a world of imperfect information. Smart meters are a way to give consumers and providers real-time, accurate information. In turn, consumers can make an informed choice about their electricity plan and save money through increased awareness of the cost of their idling plasma televisions.
Energy monitoring can take different forms. Web pages can be set up cheaply to display household energy use and offer comparisons with regional averages. At the high end, so-called in-home displays provide real-time feedback on consumption and costs. With in-home displays, the cost of a house full of idling PCs and plasma televisions becomes perceptible. Every time you glance at the screen, you are reminded you could be saving money and pollution.
That’s the theory, anyway.
In practice, people are wary. The authors of Perth’s Solar City 2012 report wryly noted that “the majority of the community could be described as being in a state of ‘positive apathy’ in relation to the rollout of smart meter technology”. Meanwhile A Current Affair has raised “questions about cost effectiveness and health concerns”, while a report by Smart Grid Australia showed that the people of Victoria, who had by far the highest awareness of smart meters, also had the least favourable opinions of them. People are suspicious of being ripped off by energy providers or fried by electromagnetic radiation.
The effects of energy monitoring
The good news is hidden behind a forest of acronyms in the technical reports lying on government desks. But the news is good. Given the opportunity to actively monitor their own energy use, trial households are reducing their energy consumption by an average of 7–8%. That’s a significant cut in electricity bills and if repeated Australia-wide would mark a meaningful reduction in our national carbon bill as well.
These Australian results have been corroborated the world over. An Accenture Consulting report looked at 76 energy monitoring trials from across the world: 90% of trials have recorded marked energy savings, with a mean reduction in use of 7.9%. The results have been clear. The more immediate and detailed the feedback to customers is, the higher the energy saving. In some studies the energy savings have reduced over time, perhaps after the initial flush of enthusiasm dies down, but importantly there are still long-term savings. Energy monitoring isn’t just a gimmick, it marks a permanent change in the way we use our energy.
Read the full article in ReNew 124
Keeping electronics out of landfill
Jeff Angel, executive director of the Total Environment Centre, describes the complicated process of getting e-waste recycling happening in Australia.READ MORE »
We can see the discarded TVs and PCs on the verge and we know there are lots of old computers and monitors at the back of the office along with retired mobile phones in the drawer. And there are millions of batteries in consumer products. We know they contain important resources such as rare earth minerals and that the plastic, lead and glass can be recycled. Yet there are over 230 million electronic items in or on their way to Australian landfills. So how do we stop this mountain of waste?
Until recently Australia did little to recycle e-waste—the bigger items and their peripherals. There were voluntary schemes where you had to pay when you got to the collection centre. Some councils began drop-off days—and the flood of materials was astounding. Developing producer responsibility in Australia has been slow, with tepid approaches endorsed by bureaucrats and industry, and feel-good media releases from ministers wanting to appear to be doing something.
A complication has been the desire to have a national regime rather than starting off independently at the state level. The force of federalism is strong despite several states such as NSW having strong product stewardship laws and promising action. Consequently, environment ministers met interminably—discussing proposals for studies, receiving reports on trials, issuing communiques.
This was the policy landscape for e-waste during the early 2000s. However, a campaign by the Total Environment Centre and Environment Victoria over seven years finally brought the issue to a crunch point.
Initially, industry was resistant—some didn’t like green regulation and some wanted to protect the market differentiation they gained from brand-based recycling schemes. An understandable requirement of industry associations is that there should be no free-riders; otherwise, those that are participating, with a cost burden, believe they are at a competitive disadvantage to non-participants. There is also the usual opposition to adding a (small) additional cost into the price of products to cover the recycling program.
A combination of media and public information programs by environment groups, actions outside recalcitrant departmental offices, the use of social media to lobby ministers, as well as the release of recycling plans based on successful overseas models, eventually brought the problem to a decision point.
Read the full article in ReNew 123
The future generation? Community-based energy comes of age
With more than 60 projects in the pipeline, momentum may finally be building for community energy in Australia. By Robyn Deed.
Community-owned projects have been a part of the renewable energy landscape in Europe for decades. In Germany, thanks to favourable policy, 51% of the renewables are community-owned; in Denmark, 2100 community-owned wind farms have come online since the mid 1970s.
In Australia, the genesis has been slower: the Renewable Energy Target turns 11 this year and the renewables revolution is really just starting. As such, community energy is in its infancy, with projects facing significant planning, financial and regulatory hurdles.
But there have been successes. The turbines at the community wind farm in Hepburn in Victoria have been turning for a year now, and in the town of Denmark in WA, they’re about to start (see p. 44 for the full story of Denmark community wind farm).
These projects have taken a while: six years for Hepburn and ten for Denmark, from idea to generation. But the lessons they’ve learnt are making it easier for the projects that follow.
To assist other projects to get off the ground, in 2010 Hepburn Wind’s founding chair (and ATA member) Simon Holmes à Court set up not-for-profit group Embark. Its website provides free how-to info for those wanting to establish community renewable energy projects, based on the experiences of Hepburn Wind and other projects. He says, “During the development of Hepburn Wind, we were contacted by many people wanting to set up a project in their own communities.”
Image: Team members in Warburton removing the 1930s-era turbine runner for refurbishing.
Read the full article in ReNew 121
Energy efficiency ignored again
Energy efficiency measures have huge potential for delivering climate change abatement, and yet they are often overlooked in the debate on climate policy. Alan Pears explains.
Many people watched the recent ABC documentary and panel show on the climate change debate. It was interesting to hear that both Clive Palmer and Nick Minchin were prepared to support renewable energy—if it were cost-effective. However, apart from a couple of passing mentions in the panel session, a sustainable energy option that already meets their criteria for cost-effectiveness and climate change abatement was ignored.READ MORE »
Most international experts, including the International Energy Agency, expect energy efficiency to deliver a third to half of all energy-related abatement over the next 20 years. Yet, if it’s mentioned in Australian climate policy discussion, it’s almost always an afterthought.
It’s not that policy people and commentators don’t think energy efficiency is a good thing, but it’s not ‘top of mind’—mostly they have to be prompted. And they tend to see it as a fairly small contributor to solutions. One British study recently estimated that 88% of all energy used globally is wasted before it delivers a useful service: so the potential for efficiency improvement is enormous.
There seems to be some kind of deep cultural driver for Australians to focus on supply-based solutions. I really don’t know how we can overcome this, because it is so pervasive.
At least there is some money (thanks to the cross benches, especially the Greens) in the Clean Energy Futures package for energy efficiency—although much less than for low-emission energy sources. But we will have to withstand yet another attempt by econocrats to cut energy efficiency programs because they fail the ‘complementary to carbon pricing’ test. That won’t be easy, and it will divert our efforts from delivering results to defending the validity of energy efficiency—yet again.
My recent submissions
I’ve been busy recently producing a few submissions to government inquiries (see links at the end of this article).
My submission to the Draft Energy White Paper is in two parts: part 1 is my annotations on the whole document, while part 2 is a 20-page submission summarising my key points. My main recommendation is that they start again with a new and more inclusive process that reflects a ‘whole of government’ perspective and engages households and services sectors as well as big industry.
In my submission to the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission inquiry into feed-in tariffs (FiTs), I pointed out that the whole debate is focused on the wrong issue: it’s not about how much PV saves the energy industry. If we step back, distributed generators should have the right to sell power to neighbours at whatever price they can negotiate: that’s how markets are meant to work. So the retail price is the right benchmark for pricing FiTs. Further, there is a legitimate argument for additional subsidies of distributed generation as an emerging technology that competes with powerful entrenched interests. I proposed that a FiT that provides the same price for exports as for consumption has many advantages.
I also made a submission on the proposed National Energy Saving Initiative. I argued that we need two kinds of certificates, as we have for renewable energy. This will allow flexibility to ensure the scheme really works to deliver outcomes and reward reductions in peak demand and other benefits beyond energy savings.
Passing the buck
The Australian Government’s failure to set up a proper accounting system so that businesses, local and state governments and households can qualify their energy efficiency and renewable energy action as ‘additional’ to the carbon target is now visibly backfiring.
The new Victorian and Queensland Governments have slashed programs on energy efficiency and renewable energy because, under the carbon pricing scheme, reducing emissions would simply leave more room under the carbon cap for other states to increase their emissions.
Under the carbon target, reducing emissions is now the federal government’s responsibility. See www.vcma.org.au for detail on the problem and the solutions. How can such a perverse situation be allowed to occur?
Feedback from a reader
In my column in ReNew 110, I included some thoughts about public transport funding. One reader has responded to my comments. I’m pleased, as I was hoping to provoke some discussion. [Ed note: the reader’s letter appears on p17 of ReNew 120.]
The fact that I proposed two diametrically opposite ideas on rail crossings (one to reduce road delays and the other to allow more delays due to rail crossings) shows that I was floating ideas rather than taking a position.
But to clarify my suggestion that congestion due to rail crossings could be allowed to increase as a way of limiting traffic growth, there are some fundamentals here.
Overwhelming evidence shows that if you increase road capacity, it simply fills up to a new, higher level of traffic without solving the congestion problem. Further, if your policy objective is to reduce car usage, you need to increase capacity of alternatives while also reducing road capacity. Otherwise cars come from elsewhere to fill up the freed-up (effectively lower cost in terms of travel time) space. Economists propose road pricing as a way of limiting road use, but this has equity issues.
I was trying to point out that rail crossings can act as a policy tool to limit car usage and increase pressure on road users to shift to other options. It is imperfect, but all the options have their problems. And the money saved from avoiding construction of grade separation could be spent on extending public transport (PT) and buying more rolling stock.
With regard to the reader’s comment on my proposed PT property levy, his comment is focused on a group of workers who happen to live near good PT but work in PT-poor locations. This is a legitimate concern, but the situation is complicated. First, as congestion (or road pricing) increases, those with the cheapest or most practical options tend to change behaviour first, so this should leave more room for those who really need to use cars. Indeed, giving people who live near PT free or discounted PT travel to offset the levy cost provides an incentive to change behaviour and free up road space. The levy also creates a new incentive for PT agencies to improve and extend PT because they are rewarded with more funds. As our reader points out, we need to find more money to improve and extend PT, and this is one possibility.
The situation for tradies is challenging, but there are some options. First, as a rider on early trains into Melbourne, I’m seeing increasing numbers of tradies on PT, complete with wheelie bags of tools. Obviously this only works where there is PT, or where the tradie can travel part of the way by PT and leave their vehicle somewhere secure where PT finishes, so the trip can be completed by ute.
Second, for tradies working on new housing, there is potential to shift a lot of building construction from on-site work to housing manufactured off site. This would significantly increase productivity by reducing travel time and avoiding rain delays and damage. Countries such as Germany are able to produce high-quality, diverse housing using this approach.
For tradies involved in appliance maintenance, smart appliances and mobile phone cameras increasingly allow remote diagnosis and accurate identification of models, so they can spend less time travelling, and may even be able to carry a lot fewer spare parts.
My key point was that we need some creative ideas because present approaches to transport are not working very well. I hope the debate continues and more ideas flow!
Alan Pears has worked in the energy efficiency field for over 20 years as an engineer and educator. He is Adjunct Professor at RMIT University and is co-director of environmental consultancy Sustainable Solutions.
Alan’s recent submissions
Draft Energy White Paper: bit.ly/APearsDEWP
Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission Inquiry into Feed-in Tariffs: bit.ly/APearsVCEC
National Energy Saving Initiative: bit.ly/APearsNESI
Tracking electricity use – New smart meter monitoring portal
Households will soon be able to track their electricity use online, thanks to a range of smart meter monitoring products. By Damien Moyse.
With smart meters installed in nearly half of Victorian households and the rest set to have them by the end of 2013, many have been wondering how they can benefit from the new technology. Smart meters capture far more detailed household energy use data than the old spinning-disk style accumulation meters they replace, but until now, households haven’t been able to tap into this information to better understand their electricity use.READ MORE »
Jemena, one of Victoria’s five distribution businesses, has jumped ahead of the pack and developed a new web portal that displays a customer’s electricity data online, enabling the household or small business to monitor their electricity consumption, along with a host of other features including a home energy assessment tool. Called Electricity Outlook, the portal is currently being trialled and is set to go live later this year.
Jemena has offered ATA members access to the trial, with many taking up the offer late last year. Participants need to live within Jemena’s distribution network area and currently have a smart meter installed under the Victorian Government rollout program. This is distinct from a bidirectional interval meter, installed to monitor output from a PV system, sometimes incorrectly referred to as a smart meter.
Electricity usage data can be viewed in day, week, month, season or year formats, with both energy use and cost shown for each. Comparisons can be made against your suburb’s average for that time period and you can set yourself a target for energy reduction, for instance a 10% target, and see how you are tracking against that target.
The tariff comparison page allows you to input three different tariff offers, including the fixed charges, tariff rates and the time-of-use tariff structure. The web portal then takes your current electricity use data over the time period specified and provides an overall cost comparison between the different tariff types. It will then tell how much better (or worse) off you would be changing your retail product from your current one: e.g. on one tariff you might have saved $15 over the last month and another might have cost $5 more.
Electricity Outlook features
- See electricity consumption—as well as export for solar customers—up to midnight of the previous day
- View data over different time ranges and in half-hourly, hourly, daily or monthly intervals
- Track changes to see how energy use changes daily or seasonally
- Set and follow a percentage target for reducing energy use
Compare different tariff offers to determine which retail product would be the cheapest
- Register to connect an In-Home Display (IHD) to view your electricity consumption data in real time, and eventually register other Zigbee Home Area Network devices. For more information refer to Smart meters: a rough guide in ReNew 111. Before buying an IHD, ATA recommends seeing what’s offered in coming months under their inclusion in the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target (VEET)
- Register for power outage and outage restoration notifications via SMS and email.
Smart meter products to expand
While Victoria is the only state with a government mandated smart meter rollout, smart meters are appearing in other states and territories. With the advent of the technology, a range of other products and services associated with smart meters, such as web portals, in-home displays and smart phone apps are beginning to emerge.
Another distributor, United Energy, is trialling a similar web portal for customers in their distribution network and at least two other Victorian distributors are following. With in-home displays soon to be subsidised in Victoria under the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target (VEET), the market for smart meter products and services should evolve considerably in 2012.If you have questions regarding smart meters, web portals and other related products and services, or would like further information on the Jemena web portal trial, contact Alternative Technology Association Energy Policy Manager Damien Moyse via email@example.com.
The path to energy efficiency
In ReNew 117 we profile the new Australian Greenhouse Calculator developed by Alan Pears. His journey promoting energy efficiency has been a long one, and here he shares his experiences, and challenges, along the way.
Alan Pears, supported by a range of other specialists, has developed a series of greenhouse calculators for EPA Victoria and other organisations. Alan developed Australia’s first personal computer-based home energy auditing software in 1983. This was used for over 90,000 home assessments carried out by the Victorian Government’s Home Energy Advisory Service from 1983 to 1993, when it was shut down by the incoming Kennett government.READ MORE »
In the mid-1980s he developed a simplified home audit using a mark-sense sheet (like a bigger version of the Tattslotto tickets you mark with a pencil). People simply chose the options for each activity and fed it through the reading machine. An Apple 2e computer processed their data and prepared a personalised report.
In the early 1990s Alan adapted his earlier approach to run on a computer, before the advent of the graphical user interface. In 1996, with funding from EPA Victoria, he, with leading edge programmer Mike Hogan, developed a new graphics-based calculator that operated on an early version of the Windows platform. This was sold to schools but, unfortunately, did not make Alan his first million dollars.
By the late 1990s Alan was ready to take advantage of the advances of dial-up internet and CDs. And the pain of the previous projects had dulled with time. EPA Victoria again stepped forward to fund it. This time, the package included animations, extensive educational resources and two modes of operation. The simpler mode ran on the EPA’s website for many years. The full version released in 2000 was too big to work with dial-up internet, so it was sold through CSIRO Publishing. The team that produced all these resources was project managed by the Curriculum Corporation (now Education Services Australia). A spin-off of the detailed version of the transport component of the calculator was adapted for RACV, and ran on their website for many years; it still runs on the EPA Victoria website, too.
Alan then focused on developing a number of smaller calculators. He worked with the programmers and web designers who had worked on the latest greenhouse calculator, Nectarine, to produce GreenFleet’s TreeTotaller calculator, which estimated emissions from car and air travel as well as household emissions from energy bills. This still operates. He also adapted the household energy component of the EPA calculator to produce the predecessor to the NABERS Home Energy Explorer for the NSW Government.
He also worked on the infamous ABC Science on-line PlanetSlayer calculator, again with Nectarine, and with ABC personality Bernie Hobbs. The PlanetSlayer website included games (see how easily you can destroy the Earth), animations, and a calculator, developed by Alan using data from the University of Sydney’s Institute for Sustainability Assessment. After answering 12 questions, users would get feedback on how long they could live their lifestyle and not exceed the lifetime greenhouse gas emissions of an average human. This meant many Australians found they had short lives in the calculation. On the other hand, if you cut your emissions below net zero (by storing carbon and investing your money in activities that cut other people’s emissions) you could ‘live forever’ and you became a cute little piglet with wings that flew off to a wonderful future!
After running very successfully on the ABC Science website for some years, it was discovered by a conservative parliamentarian, who accused the ABC of encouraging young children to commit suicide. The publicity led to an enormous increase in the numbers visiting the calculator. By then, the calculator was somewhat dated, and with the tight budgets of the Howard government era, funding for an update could not be found. So the PlanetSlayer was slain.
In 2007, Alan was approached to develop an updated version of the Greenhouse Calculator, to run on-line and take onboard the many developments in household activities. He was convinced it was time to create ‘the mother of all calculators’! Little did he realise the agony this naive goal would lead to for him, and just about everyone who worked on the project: they all contributed far more than they were paid. EPA Victoria again led with funding, which was topped up by Sustainability Victoria and Education Services Australia, who also project managed the team. And here it is! A bit late but, through the serendipity of life, launched just at the right time to help people respond constructively to the introduction of a carbon price!Click here to download the full version of this article, which includes details on how the Australian Greenhouse Calculator works.
A shortened version of this article originally appeared in ReNew 117.
From waste to electricity
Filling an old open cut mine with Sydney’s garbage is actually better for the environment than dumping it at the tip. Julian Edgar explains why.
When it comes to municipal waste, there are no easy answers. Even with householders diligently sorting their garbage for recyclables and green waste, cities still produce enormous amounts of rubbish that require disposal. The traditional approach has been landfills, where the waste is piled and compacted, over time forming unsightly mountains of dirt-covered garbage. And it’s not just the visual blight that’s associated with traditional landfills: there’s also atmospheric methane emissions and potential toxic leachate to ground and surface waters.READ MORE »
But there is another way.
It’s not perfect but it’s an option that is better for the environment and can also be used to produce electricity. It’s called a bioreactor and is more than just theory: a bioreactor is currently being used to dispose of 400,000 tonnes per year of Sydney’s garbage.
Located near Goulburn in New South Wales, the Woodlawn Bioreactor is run by Veolia Environmental Services. Based on a disused open cut mine, the 6000 hectare site is currently being used to dispose of municipal waste and generate electricity. Aquaculture and horticulture facilities are in trial phases.
The site was originally a copper, lead and zinc mine with major open-cut and underground mine workings. The mine closed in 1998 and Veolia took over the lease for the site in 2004. In addition to the workings, the site is extensively degraded with large tailings dams and unvegetated areas that once housed crushers and other industrial facilities. The underground shafts are abandoned but the huge 25 million cubic metre open-cut pit is being used as the new rubbish repository.
But how does the garbage get to the Woodlawn site, 250 kilometres from Sydney? The major transport component is by train. The garbage is compacted into purpose-built shipping containers at Clyde Transfer Terminal in Sydney. Each container takes the equivalent of three garbage trucks of material. The containers are then placed on railway wagons—no less than 56 of them carrying 1500 tonnes of waste per train.
The train, hauled by three diesel locomotives, leaves Sydney early each week-day morning, arriving at the Crisps Creek Intermodal Transfer Station, near the hamlet of Tarago, at 6am. At the transfer station, built specifically for the bioreactor, large forklifts place the containers on trucks that transport the garbage to the bioreactor, about 10 kilometres away.
Read the full article in ReNew 114
Reuse your television comp— the results are in!
Just some of the entries in ReNew’s Reuse your Television Competition. Keep reading for details on the winner, who receives a $200 voucher from Enviro Shop
Last issue we asked you to send ideas to our Reuse your Television Competition. Entries could be realistic or simply fun, with the main aim being for us to all think twice about what to do with e-waste. The competition found a home on Treehugger.com with entries also received from around the world via twitter.READ MORE »
With televisions being thrown out with the rollout of digital transmission, the Federal Government has announced plans to approve a National Television Recycling Scheme by the end of the year. But is it a case of too little too late?
The Total Environment Centre estimates that over 840,000 televisions have been dumped since the digital switchover has been promoted. This is where ReNew readers come into the picture, providing some novel ideas to prevent further e-waste.
It seems that old televisions and animals go hand in hand, although only if all the toxic components have been removed. Tamra Greeson Schardl says that an old television can be used as a nest of sorts.
“One of the cleverest uses I have seen is to recycle the glass and metal ‘guts’ then use the empty case for animal beds/nests. They sit upright securely on a shelf and can be fastened down if need be. Cats enjoy sitting in the draught-free box looking out at the world in a sunny window, and hens can use them for nests.”
Entrant Jo Cutten agrees. “I think they would make great chicken laying boxes. I’m not sure what to do with the electrical innards though.”
Paul Judd had quite a special idea, and one that could take off with the right type of support.
“A friend of mine wants to send them to third world countries that still use the analogue system. I guess we have to work out saved embodied energy loss versus transportation costs.”
Fish tanks thanks
It seems the most popular use for an old television set is to transform it into a fish tank, and rightly so.
“This involves hollowing out the insides of the TV and inserting a glass fish tank within the shell. I have done this with an old TV of mine and it’s worked perfectly and has become a feature of my lounge room! This can also be done with old computer screens,” writes Michelle Brownie.
“I used my old television to make a fish tank. It works quite well actually, I even wired up the old power button for the TV to turn on the fish tank light. I’m not sure how many televisions you can save this way, but it’s a start,” writes Shane Merrick (also our Green Landlord winner see ReNew 114.) Spike Pickstock has more DIY tips.
“For fish tanks, gut the inside of any large box TV and use an environmentally friendly sealant to make the structure watertight. A hole can be put in the top to supply water, oxygen and food.”
Spike also suggests making a picture frame or a diorama frame from an old set.
Barrie Castle gave some insights into the actual recycling of televisions and what the components are worth.
“Old TV sets can be stripped down to their component metals and be taken to scrap metal recycling centres all around Australia. They can be separated into copper (the top grade pays $7.15/kg now), aluminium (pays about $2.50/kg), PVC coated wiring (pays about $3/kg), brass (pays over $4/kg) and most of the rest, including circuit boards, goes into their steel bin ($0.20/kg). Those centres paying the most are run by volunteers, like the Scout Clubs here in Adelaide. If you’re good with tools, you too will have yourself an excellent pocket money earner whilst helping the planet.”
Finally, one of the most imaginative ideas came from Kaylene O’Neill.
“In Melbourne a new sculpture could replace the Yellow Peril. I see a giant metal man made of old TV sets, with each screen reflecting back scenes of consumerism, landfill sites and extreme weather events. I call it Ozymandias Reborn.”
Winner—plans for a solar thermal power station
Damien Blackwell proposed a solar thermal power station be made from old TV components, and created a model to illustrate his idea, along with a poem.
“It’s about time that obsolete, gigajoule guzzling CRT TVs gave some energy back to the grid. My proposal and images explain how!
“With reference to the model solar thermal concentrator: in keeping with the ‘reuse’ theme I’ve incorporated cardboard (cores from foil, egg cartons, tissue boxes), plastics (cream and sauce containers), newsprint and ice cream sticks into the power plant. Other materials you’re likely to note include straws, paper clips, foil and black poly pipe. It’s now the centre of activity for my four-year-old son Oliver, who loves removing the ‘funnel glass mirrors’ and installing them on a private residence nearby. It’s also proving a handy tool to explain electricity generation.”
Beyond Zero Emissions says it’s doable
At just $8 per household per week
To power our country, completely renewable
Solar Thermal Concentrators will manage load at peak
In every idiot box a CRT
With a shiny outside surface
A lens to focus the sun’s energy
Heliostats-funnel glass’s new found purpose
Funnel glass will reflect sunrays
To the Power Tower
Molten salts result by days
Powering steam turbines hour on hour
Every other part will find its niche
In a STC near you
After all 12 are proposed between Carnarvon and Longreach
Giving metals, plastics and glass a chance to ReNew
poem by Damien Blackwell
Thank you to everyone who entered the competition, and a special thank you to Enviro Shop who supported the competition by donating a $200 voucher to the winner listed opposite.
If your council doesn’t recycle TVs, look elsewhere. Visit Planet Ark’s Recycling Near You website (www.recyclingnearyou.com.au) and enter your state and product type to find out the options in your area. Get your TVs, fridges and more safely recycled.
The national picture – issue 115
Climate change programs have been cut to repair damaged infrastructure caused by extreme weather. Alan Pears challenges the econocrats this issue.
It has certainly been a wild summer of contrasts, with fires, floods and cyclones causing mayhem. But the Federal Government has the solution: a carbon price. In a remarkable decision, energy efficiency and renewable energy programs have been cut to fund repairs. Does this tell the sustainable energy industry it’s expendable? Does it encourage climate change denialists? Does it show that econocrats who believe price signals drive everything are winning in Canberra? Have the pragmatists just tidied up some politically risky programs without thinking about the signals they’re sending? Or is it policy on the run? I’m bemused.READ MORE »
The complexity of carbon pricing impacts was highlighted recently for me when the New South Wales Government announced it would provide cheap black coal for privatised power stations. Some have suggested that this undermines emission abatement. But it’s not straightforward.
Before this announcement, it seemed likely that global coal price pressures would drive up black coal prices. So black coal plants would face both a carbon price and an increased coal price. Victorian brown coal plants would face only a carbon price impact 30% higher than black coal. So the overall outcome might well have made brown coal power stations cheaper to run than black coal.
And, at expected carbon prices, they would still be cheaper than gas and renewables at the margin, especially because gas prices are expected to trend towards much higher international prices when LNG export facilities are built on the east coast and compete for local gas.
So the New South Wales Government subsidy may undermine the financial viability of higher greenhouse impact brown coal power stations, while increasing the financial value of black coal plants.
All Australian export businesses have had to cope with a large increase in the Australian dollar exchange rate, which is a far bigger problem than any carbon price would be. But how many exporters have received compensation? So why does a smaller environmental cost require generous compensation? There is a double standard here.
The way a carbon price will influence any business, household or government will be complex, because it has to compete with many other powerful forces. It will only be one element of a package of measures needed to deliver effective, equitable outcomes.
Carbon Farming Initiative—a step in the right direction?
I am keen to see the Federal Government treat voluntary abatement action appropriately by cancelling Kyoto permits to ensure it is ‘additional’—that is, it should count as global emission reduction instead of just making room under the Kyoto cap for others to emit more. It has been a challenge to get the government to acknowledge the importance of empowering Australians and mobilising voluntary abatement. So I was fascinated when the government recently announced its Carbon Farming Initiative.
The CFI sets an important precedent: the government will cancel Kyoto permits equivalent to certified additional abatement from activities within Kyoto covered sectors (as well as other activities outside Kyoto) in agriculture and forestry. All we need now is for them to apply the same approach to sustainable energy and waste management. Then we can get on with serious abatement instead of battling with econocrats.
Building code in hot water?
From May 2011, the new national 6 Star building regulations will be introduced—with variations in some states. Plumbing is being integrated into what becomes the National Construction Code. It will include not only building energy performance requirements, but also requirements on maximum lighting energy capacity and greenhouse gas emissions from hot water systems. This reflects recognition that, while building envelope performance is uniquely important because of its long life, high upgrade cost, and impacts on health and amenity, other aspects, particularly hot water and lighting, are major contributors to emissions.
Only hot water services that generate less than 100 grams of greenhouse gas per megajoule of heat delivered will be allowed. About eight litres of water heated from 20°C to 50°C (the legal delivery temperature) absorbs 1MJ. Most people interpret this to mean that resistive electric hot water services will not comply, although one-bedroom homes and ‘second’ hot water services of 50 litres or less storage capacity are exempt. This will presumably drive households towards gas, LPG, solar-electric (with at least 70% solar contribution), heat pump (with coefficient of performance of 3 or better), or solar-gas.
While superficially this looks like a sensible ‘performance-based’ approach to regulation, it creates some issues.
For hot water services with high fixed losses (e.g. storage units, shared hot water systems and homes with pumped ring mains), a product may meet the requirement at the ‘standard’ daily draw-offs (125 and 200 litres per day). But for water-efficient or small households, fixed losses may push actual average emissions above the 100 gram limit.
The exemption for small electric hot water services is problematic. A large proportion of apartments, units and granny flats have these units, while second units are typically installed in the largest homes, so substantial emissions may result. But there are situations where resistive hot water services can make practical, financial and environmental sense. Indeed, instantaneous electric hot water units can also avoid most standby losses.
We could require overall compliance with the 100 gram limit for appropriate delivered hot water volumes via either on-site technologies or the purchase of lifetime Renewable Energy Certificates at the time the system is purchased. This would be a comprehensive performance-based approach. The last of these options would encourage growth of the renewable energy industry by removing a lifetime’s worth of RECs from the market today for each hot water system, creating scarcity and driving the REC price higher. This is the opposite of past government approaches, issuing lifetime RECs for photovoltaics and solar hot water, which drove REC prices down and damaged the broader renewable energy industry.
EEO mid-term report
The Energy Efficiency Opportunities program requires large Australian energy users to assess their energy use efficiency and report publicly on identified improvements and what they do about them. There has been some scepticism about the program: econocrats think energy intensive business is already efficient, while interventionists think you need to mandate action to get results.
But EEO is unusual. It mandates a very thorough assessment process, requires preparation of formal business cases and Board sign-off. It makes energy efficiency a corporate and reputation issue.
After two rounds of reporting, cost-effective (i.e. negative carbon cost) savings of 93 petajoules of energy had been identified (seven to nine million tonnes a year of emissions), of which over half were being implemented and only 10% were not to be pursued. Overall, savings of over 8% of assessed energy use have been identified.
A survey showed that the percentage of firms with good documentation and analysis of energy use had risen from 20% to 60%. Existence of barriers to energy efficiency declined markedly. Having no one responsible fell from 45% to under 5%, while lack of senior management engagement fell from 32% to 12%. At the same time, most of the measures identified and implemented delivered payback periods of under two years, so there are still lots of negative cost abatement options to be found.
This is very exciting. It shows that there are real barriers to energy efficiency, even in supposedly efficient energy intensive industries, and that carefully designed programs can change corporate culture and deliver significant outcomes.Alan Pears has worked in the energy efficiency field for over twenty years as an engineer and educator. He is Adjunct Professor at RMIT University and is co-director of environmental consultancy Sustainable Solutions.
Current issue: solar installation special
ReNew magazine and the Alternative Technology Association receive many queries about grid-connected solar each year. The last twelve months have been no exception, with householders asking about connection issues, what to expect from solar companies and the frequently changing world of feed-in tariffs. Bryce Gaton explains what to do before deciding to install a photovoltaic system and what to expect from a best practice installation.
The first step to a successful grid-connect photovoltaic (PV) system that is planet and energy saving, and potentially money making, is to understand how much energy you use. By reducing your electricity consumption as much as possible first, you will maximise the system’s potential to truly provide ‘carbon neutral’ electricity.READ MORE »
An energy audit involves a relatively simple three step process. First, go around your home with an energy meter (a PowerMate Lite is recommended) and add up the amount of electricity currently used. Second, work out ways to reduce that use and then implement those reduction methods. Lastly, return to step one and recalculate your energy usage to see if the reduction measures worked. In the long term, there’s little point installing a PV system that will just power a rarely-used bar fridge or energy hungry halogen downlights that could be replaced with LEDs.
Pick an installer for a quote
When selecting potential installers, first ensure they have accreditation with the Clean Energy Council (CEC). CEC registration means the installer has met the minimum requirements to competently position, install and connect a grid-connected system. At a meeting of photovoltaic installers in October, it was unanimously agreed to set up a new Best Practice Network that installers can sign up to if they are prepared to implement a set of (yet to be finalised) Best Practice Guidelines. The following information is based on these guidelines as they apply to the stages of quoting, installing and commissioning of a grid-connected PV system.
The quotation stage
The site visit
First, and most importantly, the quotation must be based on a full personal inspection of the site and premises. The site visit is the installer’s chance to assess the site and all shading issues, the strength of the proposed roof and discuss what size system will best meet your needs and give you the best return. This last point is based on the installer doing a basic energy audit and recommending what possible energy saving measures could be implemented to maximise the quoted system’s returns.
If an installer tries to give you a quotation based on a certain satellite-based picture service without a site visit, strike them off your list immediately!
The site visit is also your opportunity to assess the expertise of the installer; they should explain the meaning of net or gross feed-in tariffs as they apply, the issues applying to RECs, why most grid-connected systems do not provide power during a blackout, and more. This is also the time you should ask lots of questions to satisfy yourself that the installer is going to provide a system quotation that truly matches your intentions and usage patterns.
Read the full article in ReNew 114 and find out about the installation process, getting the system connected and billing. ReNew 114 also looks at the right type of solar home, top tips from a PV customer and advice from an energy policy expert when it comes to feed-in tariffs, time of use tariffs and RECs.
View Australia’s solar, wind and geothermal in one spot
The potential’s there, but Australia’s renewable energy future is far from mapped, writes Renee Thompson.
A clean energy map of a number of proposed large scale renewable energy projects around Australia has been released by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF).READ MORE »
The map details the location, megawatt capacity and the company behind some of the biggest proposed solar projects in Australia, as well as potential wave power sites and geothermal hotspots that could be developed across the country in the future.
Easily identifiable on the map are the much lauded ‘Big Solar’ projects – defined in the accompanying ACF report as large scale solar power stations with a capacity greater than 10megawatts.
Several of the projects identified on the map have been shortlisted for the Federal Government’s $1.5 billion Solar Flagships Program that aims to build and expand the solar industry in Australia.
One of the largest proposed ‘Big Solar’ projects to have been shortlisted is the 180MW TRUenergy Mallee Solar Park just outside Mildura, Victoria.
If successful, it is estimated that the Mildura solar facility will use photovoltaic (PV) technology to generate enough electricity to power 60,000 Victorian homes for over 20 years.
Another large ‘Big Solar’ project is the Parsons Brinckerhoff’s 150MW Solar Flair Project in Queensland, which aims to be Australia’s first utility-scale solar thermal project.
While the Solar Flagships program has received a total of 52 applications from potential solar companies, it is expected that only two of the shortlisted projects will receive the funding to go ahead.
The two most successful projects are expected to be announced in mid 2011.
Going solar big time and fast
The shift to 100% renewable energy by 2020 could be a reality according to a new report, writes Fiona Armstrong.
If the politicians are to be believed, switching to clean and renewable energy in Australia is something that will take decades. We currently don’t have any major incentives for industries to make a transition away from fossil fuels, and only minor policies are so far in place to encourage fuel switching.READ MORE »
But is it all as hard as the coal and oil lobbyists and parliamentarians would have us believe? What about our abundant solar and wind resources in Australia? How fast can they be developed?
Pretty quickly, according to a new report from Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) and Melbourne University’s Energy Institute. In fact, it is possible for Australia to make a transition to 100% renewable energy in Australia in just ten years.
Launched in August the Zero Carbon Australia 2020 Plan (ZCA2020) has attracted some serious attention. Endorsements range from the International Energy Agency to former Chief Scientist Robin Batterham and Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty.
Beyond Zero Emissions Director Matthew Wright says the endorsements reveal the unique nature of the report and the failure of governments to undertake vital planning on Australia’s inevitable transition to a renewable energy supply system.
“The overwhelming support for this plan from industry and experts is due to its science-based approach and the fact that it is not about half measures. It is about directly addressing the problem which is that a rapid transition to a zero carbon economy is needed if we are to avoid further and even more dangerous climate change,” said Mr Wright.Read the full article in ReNew 113