Energy white paper: the highlights package
Energy modeling: The white paper acknowledged the work done by the International Energy Agency on technology and policy scenarios, and future cost curves, and then ignores them. The three scenarios relied on by RET are based on data that is at least two years old, and ignores the huge declines achieved in solar PV, for instance, in that time frame. According to the Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics, more than half of the country’s brown coal generators, and two thirds of the black coal generators would still be in operation by 2030 – with no carbon capture and storage. No model predicts solar at more than 1.3 per cent by that date, or 3.3 per cent by 2050. (Most industry modeling puts it at least one third by then). One model has geothermal at 8.4 per cent by 2030 and 22.9 per cent by 2050. The final version of the white paper is due in 2012, and will then be repeated every four years: let's update the technology costs, it might change the picture.
Feed-in tariffs: Ferguson again railed at the “dog’s breakfast” of state-based feed-in tariffs, but would not bite at the prospect of a national tariff, preferring instead to see some “harmonisation” of state-based schemes. He said state and territory governments would be held accountable for the rises in electricity costs that overly generous schemes produce. He was particularly scathing of NSW and the ACT. This latter is a little ironic, as it is just about to hold its first tender for a large-scale solar tariff, allowing the market to set the lowest possible price. That may prove embarrassing to the federal government’s own stalled schemes.
Clean energy costs: One important aspect of the white paper was its statement on the costs of clean energy. The Australian government acknowledges that cleaner energy will impose marginally higher energy costs on consumers in the short to medium term. However, it will also offer commercial opportunities for innovative Australian researchers and businesses through the creation of new jobs and skills and regional development opportunities, and potentially support our export industries. It said this was the case for CCS, as well as large-scale solar, geothermal and energy storage technologies.
Electric Vehicles: The white paper predicts only a "modest" uptake of EVs, particularly in the short to medium term, due to cost and the relatively slow speed of fleet turnover. But it recognises that it has the potential to be a "disruptive" technology if current barriers can be addressed, including limitations in battery technology, establishing charging and battery infrastructure, managing impacts from recharging on the grids, and increasing consumer awareness. It says, however, that even a high level of EVs would result in only a moderate increase in energy demand, and with new metering and pricing structures could reduce the need for more expensive peak generating capacity.
Privatisation: Ferguson is not in a position to impose electricity privatisation on the remaining states, but he says the experience in Victoria, which has had demonstrably lower increases in network tariffs, has proved their worth. This goes back to the “gold plating” argument, raised by Professor Ross Garnaut, that so upset some of the utilities. Privatisation, however, is not the only answer; regulatory change is also key. The Australian Energy Regulator is seeking to have its power boosted so it has the ability to resist the bullying tactics of the network operators. Right now, it says it is not a fair contest. Regulations that govern the deployment of distributed energy are also needed, as they are for interconnectors.
Peak demand: There have been numerous estimates of the cost impact on the electricity network from the widespread deployment of air conditioners, but Ferguson has produced the highest figure yet: $7000 of costs for each $1,500 air-con unit. This is based on new Queensland government data that estimates it costs $3.5 million for each megawatt of incremental network and generation capacity to meet peak demand growth. A 2kW unit therefore adds $7,000 to the cost. Demand swings can range as high as 65 per cent from day to day in the Brisbane area, and network operators are obliged to build infrastructure to meet that demand, even if it is only used for a few days, or even hours, a year.
Energy efficiency: The easiest and cheapest response to peak demand increases. The white paper says measures such as energy efficiency regulation on appliances will save 19.5 million tonnes of Co2e at a negative cost to the community of $56/tonne (That is, it saves money). It also speaks of the importance of incorporating distributed generation and direct load management, and forcing networks to seek demand-side alternatives, rather than just erecting more poles and wires.
Will the lights go out? As part of the white paper, the government released an update of its National Resource Security Assessment. One of the scenarios it considered was a sudden loss of capacity from Australia’s largest coal-fired generator, the Loy Yang A power station. What would happen? Well, not a lot actually. Australia has an excess of baseload capacity, and if Loy Yang went offline, other generators would come online. The lights wouldn’t go out, although prices would, inevitably, rise. This would even be the case after the proposed buyout of 2000MW of capacity (but expect even higher prices). The closure of Loy Yang may actually reduce network constraints, the study concluded.
Gas: Ferguson is firmly convinced about the “golden age” of gas, even in the IEAs grim 450 scenario when I posed the question to him. Indeed, the government appears poised to release a significant upgrade of Australian gas reserves following a new survey by Geoscience Australia – presumably, this is centred around the potential of shale gas, which in the US has proved even more contested than coal-seam gas in this country.
Nuclear: The support for nuclear in Australia is based on the premise that renewables, or other clean energy technologies such as carbon capture and storage, cannot deliver. Ferguson, possibly thanks to ALP politics, is obliged at least to give renewables a go at proving their worth, and the white paper notes that there is no compelling energy security argument now in support of nuclear, given Australia’s diverse energy resource base. However, the white paper says a future government may wish to review the nuclear question, if technologies such as “low emissions base-load” energy or energy storage cannot deliver by 2025. But it says a decision may need to be taken earlier, because deployment would be required by 2030-35 and it would take 10-15 years to roll out, even if, as Ferguson suggested, Australia could buy “off the shelf” nuclear technology.

Comments on this article
Hello,I love reading through
Hello,I love reading through your blog, I wanted to leave a little comment to support you and wish you a good continuation. Wishing you the best of luck for all your blogging efforts.HP2-T15 dumps// EX0-100 dumps// N10-003 dumps// XK0-001 dumps// 640-721 dumps// LX0-101 dumps// 1z0-055 dumps// BH0-004 dumps//
Energy White Paper
There are two real problems on Earth at present: population and sustainability. Coal energy, oil energy and nuclear energy are not sustainable. They all have noxious by-products. Geothermal, wave power, wind, wave and solar have real promise. Why are we banging on or even considering products that are not sustainable?
Perhaps conspiracy advocates might be right in thinking that large companies are/have captured the media, politicians and the agenda.
These large companies are not accountable to their share holders, any government or country. Any serious debate trivialised, distorted and lies told with impunity.
The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it. But, there it is!
Doing cheap stuff and nuclear
The only sensible policy related to the installation of nuclear power in Australia is to lift all political bans. Allow companies to build their reactors subject to sensible controls, but with no subsidies. There will be no takers.
Giles pointed out that the effective subsidy for coal-fired power stations in NSW is $2.7 billion per year in opportunity costs.
Yet we haven't really touched the cheap possibilities. I have two roofs on my house. One under my PV array and the array itself. The cost to integrate PV into roof structure should substantially reduce overall costs on an already steeply declining cost curve.
Why are solar hot water heaters not universal on new buildings? After all, insulation is universal.
If you have broadband, the cost of the infrastucture to ensure that, for example, your new fridge doesn't cycle unless it has to when power is expensive, is diminishingly low.
The bigger the price on carbon, the more quickly these simple and cheap solutions will become widespread.
peak a/c loads
A number of commentators have pointed out that air conditioners peak demand for energy occurs pretty much in line with maximum PV output.
Some time ago I read that SA was planning (or at least mooting) that all new A/C installations should be accompanied with a comparative sized PV system. What a simple idea! Power generated right at the demand point! no transmission or grid issues!
What ever happened to that idea? Seems fair to me if the $7000 cost to the network for each A/c system is correct.
It might also encourage more efficient buildings, usage, etc.
economics of nuclear
I read a CSIRO paper some time ago which clearly pointed out that Nuclear is neither carbon neutral (Massive releases of carbon in mining and processing and construction and decommissioning of plants), nor economic, with most (if not all) reactors being built with massive Government subsidies and guarantees. In fact I understand that decommissioning costs alone can more than offset any income from energy.
Perhaps we should demand that nuclear entrepreneurs should lodge $x million with the Government as a start up bond to cover the future cost of decommissioning so the public doesn't have to meet it. That might change the rules a bit.
I also still have a belief that we have no right to generate a long term toxic waste with as yet no proven disposal system just so we can have our present energy needs met. This seems to me to be the classic 'Oh, don't worry, the future (our kids!) will develop ways to deal with it' syndrome.
Yes, I know that technologies have improved since the paper i referred to, but I've yet to read an update paper which uses real facts to show that nuclear is a safe, economic and carbon neutral technology.
Once again we highlight the
Once again we highlight the idea that anything important should be done by the Federal Government. Rubbish collection and parking fines are OK for State governments but anything that costs people their businesses or their jobs should be oved to the Feds.
If for no other reason if the Government has a stupid policy then they must get more guiding feedback if they annoy all of us instead of just a couple of million in one state.
Peak Costs: Demand Response Management / Elephant in Room
"..network operators are obliged to build infrastructure to meet that demand, even if it is only used for a few days, or even hours, a year..."
A cheaper solution is to do away with the concept "base load demand" and add "discretionary demand". For example, it may be less expensive to idle an aluminium smelter for a few hours instead of paying for infrastructure that is only used for a few hours a year. The US has introduced "Negawatts" to pay bidders to REMOVE demand in peaks, instead of adding supply.
Large consumers have long-term fixed-price contracts. There are two adverse results.
Ferguson's Comment Repeated
This comment is repeated from the earlier thread as it is equally relevant here.
Giles, I’m not sure the cost of renewable energy generating sources like PV is the key issue for the DRET draft white paper. I think Ferguson’s comment about nuclear might give a clue to the confidence level within the department about renewable energy generation being able to deliver the services needed. Included in this is the need for energy storage technology – frequently mentioned in the report.
No one seriously argues that renewable energy generation cannot power the country with adequate storage facilities. The key factor might not be the cost per MWh of PV but the additional cost of that storage to maintain grid integrity. What I hear Ferguson saying is if nuclear is a cheaper solution than RE plus storage then we should consider it.