Home › About Climate Change › Emissions and Energy Technologies ›

Emissions and Energy Technologies

Renewable Energy

Little progress in cleaning up Victoria’s electricity: Environment Victoria, a CANA member, has released research that it commissioned that shows that little progress has been made over the past decade in reducing Victoria’s reliance on polluting coal-fired electricity. The report, Victoria’s Energy Mix 2000-2009, is the first to summarise Victoria’s electricity generation over the past decade. The analysis finds that in 2009 coal-fired generation provided 91.5% of the State’s electricity, slightly lower than the 93.3% coal provided in 2000. However the report finds that “in absolute terms, Victoria’s reliance on coal has increased over the past decade”, with both electricity generation and greenhouse pollution from coal increasing by over 9% since 2000. It shows that progress in reducing the state’s reliance on brown coal would be very difficult unless the most polluting power stations, like Hazelwood, were replaced with clean energy sources. Despite Victoria’s renewable energy target, the market share of renewable energy remains at 5%, the same as in 2000. This is partly due to hydro power declining as a result of drought and climate change, but also because Victoria is burning more coal than ever. Hazelwood power station alone is responsible for 15% of the state’s emissions, replacing it would kick-start Victoria's clean energy future. The report is available here.

McKinsey update: Low Carbon Growth Plan (19/3/10):ClimateWorks, an initiative between Monash University and the Myer Foundation, has commissioned McKinsey & Company consultants to update their 2008 greenhouse gas abatement cost curve for Australia. Released today, the 'Low Carbon Growth Plan for Australia' identifies 54 separate opportunities - across all sectors - that together can achieve a reduction in emissions of 249 MtCO2e (million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent), or 25% below 2000 levels. This target is achievable using technologies available today, and at cost of just A$185 per household in 2020. Based on detailed economic and policy analysis, the Plan identifies the actions required to reduce emissions, the barriers to their implementation, and their relative cost in six key sectors – power, forestry, industry, buildings, agriculture and transport. To read the summary and report, or to attend an upcoming launch in Sydney or Canberra, visit http://www.climateworksaustralia.com/low_carbon_growth_plan.html.

Clean Energy - Renewables Plus Efficiency
Renewable energy and energy efficiency can deliver the power we need – without the problems. Renewable energy, mostly hydroelectricity, already supplies 19% of world electricity, compared to nuclear's 16%. The share of renewables is increasing, while nuclear's share is decreasing. Australia gets 8% of our electricity from renewable energy – down from 10% in 1999, and we have a 2% Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. Compare that to the following:

  • Europe is planning to get 22% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010, creating nearly a million additional jobs.
  • Germany is on track to supply 13% of its electricity from renewables by 2010, while nuclear power is being phased out.
  • Spain expects to get 26% of electricity from renewable energy by 2010.
  • Sweden already supplies 48% of its electricity from renewable sources (mostly hydroelectricity) and expects renewables to provide 60% by 2010 with increased use of wind and bioenergy sources.
  • Sweden plans to phase out nuclear power and has shut two reactors since 1999.
  • Denmark already supplies 13% of its electricity from wind, and will supply 29% of electricity from renewables by 2010.

More Jobs From Clean Energy
Neale Towart wrote in Workers Online in February 2006: "For workers, the scope for decent and rewarding work in the renewables sector far outstrips the potential employment in the current energy industry regime. Job creation in Europe through various renewable energy scenarios developed in 2002 show the vast potential. Greener energy sources in general employ far more people than more polluting sources. Nuclear power sustains around one sixth of the jobs sustained by wind energy, per unit of power produced. Wind energy is four times better than coal at sustaining jobs."

National gross feed-in tariff benefits: The Electrical Trades Unions (Victoria) commissioned a report earlier this year from Access Economics, outlining the need and benefits of a national, gross feed-in tariff.

Costs, benefits an implications of large and small renewable energy technologies: The Clean Energy Council has published two reports that are useful for understanding and lobbying around the LRET/SRES. 'The True Costs and Benefits of the LRET' outlines costs and benefits of the Renewable Energy Target that aren't taken into account when just looking at REC costs to consumers.  Results are very favourable for the RET, showing that "hidden" costs of the LRET are all very small, whereas there are some substantial quantifiable benefits in reduced fossil fuel usage and reduced capital expenditure on new gas-fired plant that are not usually included in most modeling studies. 'Implications of the LRET/SRES modifications to the RET' quantifies the amount of banked RECs already in the market, and determines how long the LRET could be entirely supplied by those banked RECs without any new installed large-scale renewable energy.  The total cost of the LRET and SRES to consumers is also calculated (in terms of the cost of RECs) and compared with the other components of electricity costs that consumers pay for.  The cost of the LRET/SRES is found to be very small by comparison, even in 2020.

Further resources

Geosequestration (also known as Carbon Capture and Storage CCS)

Geosequestration Concerns
Leading environment groups call for a commitment to deep cuts in greenhouse pollution using the proven technologies of renewable energy and energy efficiency, rather than placing all bets on geosequestration.

Click on the links below to find out more about geosequestration:

Will Geoseq/CCS work within the Kyoto Protocol?
A report from the Hamburg Institute of International Economics concludes that "it is unlikely that CCS will be a competitive climate mitigation option unless technological breakthroughs reduce the energy penalty and thus the capture costs. Furthermore, public resistance and legal issues will probably be additional barriers to its implementation. Finally, we point out that massive CO2 sequestration in the very near future may result in a vicious circle due to the resulting emissions released from the reservoirs in the distant future. These arguments suggest that CCS is probably not as an attractive climate mitigation option as widely supposed."

24 September 2004: New Report on Geosequestration
A report released today by The Australia Institute raises serious concerns about the ability of geosequestration to reduce greenhouse pollution in the short to medium term. Read it here.

Geosequestration Leakage
Leakage from geosequestration is a key issue. It has the potential to stop future generations EVER being able to achieve a stabilised climate (ie one without ever increasing global warming). Read the CANA paper on leakage from geosequestration storage

Geosequestration on Barrow Island
Pristine Barrow Island is a Class A Nature Reserve ... its ecosystem is so delicate that members of the public are not allowed to visit. But ChevronTexaco, Shell and ExxonMobil want to pump 5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide beneath it. Click the link here to find out Why geosequestration on Barrow Island is a bad idea?

Catalyst on Geosequestration
ABC's Catalyst programme did a great geosequestration story. You can view it here.

International Forum on Geosequestration
CANA recently attended the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum Ministerial meeting in Melbourne. The CSLF was set up about 18 months ago by the Australian and United States Governments to fast track the development of geosequestration.

Click the links below for more information:

If not geosequestration, then what?
Well, renewable energy and energy efficiency, for a start! CANA, and our member organisations, have combined to formulate a comprehensive greenhouse strategy for Australia. It outlines the policies that the federal government needs to implement to avoid dangerous climate change ... and you'll see that this report is a geosequestration free zone! Click the link for The Real Way Forward

The geosequestration fans
There's no shortage of fossil fuel funded organisations keen to give you the good word on geosequestration. Click the links below:

Gas

 

Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) projects to blow Australian carbon budget (20/8/10): Per annum, the emissions from the proposed LNG projects would be about 27.5MT per year (equals almost exactly 5% increase on Australia’s total carbon pollution for 2006). In total the projects would add over a BILLION tonnes of carbon pollution over their lifetimes. By far the biggest emitter will be the Chevron Wheatstone Project which will emit over 10MT per year on its own and over half a billion tonnes over the whole lifespan of the project. To offset these emissions every car in WA would have to be taken off the road for nearly 100 years. These emissions are just from the processing of the gas and the release of reservoir emissions (CO2 trapped underground with the gas) which range from less than 5% to nearly a third of total gas in the gasfields. Reservoir emissions are prime candidates from geosequestration as the processing of the gas requires removal of the CO2 from the gas stream. These figures DO NOT account for the transport, re-gasifying, or burning of the gas at its final (export) destination. In their EIS documentation the proponents of these projects are not proposing to do anything to reduce or offset these emissions, mostly citing the eventual need to comply with an emissions trading scheme as their main reason for not acting now. The last two major LNG projects to be approved in WA are subject to conditions requiring them to offset reservoir gas emissions: Woodside Pluto project (by biosequestration) and Chevron Gorgon project (by geosequestration on Barrow Island.) All the new proponents have concluded that geosequestration is nonviable for their projects. It is unclear whether the “Tracking to Kyoto and 2020” government forecasts of greenhouse gas emissions assume this massive growth in the LNG sector.

Nuclear power

The nuclear "debate" has taken off in Australia, but what needs to be reinforced is that nuclear power vs fossil fuels is a false dilemma. Clean energy solutions (renewables plus energy efficiency) can meet growing energy demand AND deliver major reductions in greenhouse emissions AND avoid the problems and risks of the nuclear industry. Instead of fossil fuels vs nuclear power, the real choice is between dirty, dangerous energy (fossils and nuclear) and clean energy.

Click on the links below for more information on nuclear power:

Nuclear Facts

  • Renewable energy supplies more of the world's electricity than nuclear - 19% renewables vs 16% nuclear.
  • Renewable energy can grow to meet the world's energy demand - if it is provided with policy support.
  • There are 441 power reactors operating in 31 countries (so for every country using nuclear power, 5-6 countries do not).
  • A typical power reactor produces 1500 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel over a 50 year lifespan, and over the same period it produces enough plutonium to build 1500 nuclear weapons.
  • Every step in the nuclear fuul life cycle (except reactor operation) burns fossil fuels and hence emits carbon dioxide. Once low-grade uranium ore resrves have been used, carbon dioxide emissions will increase- to the equivalent of 25-50 percent of a combined-cycle gas-fired power station.

Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are only the best-known of hundreds of nuclear accidents:

  • There have been at least eight accidents involving damage to or malfunction of the core of nuclear power or research reactors.
  • At least five nuclear research reactor accidents have resulted in fatalities.
  • There have been other serious reactor accidents which did not involve core damage or malfunction, and a number of 'near misses' with power reactors found to be in a serious state of disrepair – one such incident was discovered in 2002 at the Davis-Besse reactor in the United States.
  • There have been many accidents involving reprocessing plants, waste stores and other nuclear facilities
  • In addition to the hazards posed by accidents, radioactive emissions are routinely generated across the nuclear fuel cycle

Radiation

  • International cancer incidence and mortality data demonstrate statistically significant links between radiation and all solid tumours as a group, as well as for cancers of the stomach, colon, liver, lung, breast, ovary, bladder, thyroid, and for non-melanoma skin cancers and leukaemia.
  • Over the years, the permitted levels of radiation exposure for workers and the public have dropped dramatically as research, particularly from radiation biologists, indicates harmful effects still exist at much lower exposure levels. For workers, the permitted dose was set at 500 millisieverts per year in 1934 and has steadily decreased to 20 mSv in 1991. The limit for members of the public is just 1 mSv.

High Level Waste

  • The volume of spent nuclear fuel + high-level waste from reprocessing is over 200,000 tonnes. There is increasing talk of Australia becoming the world's nuclear waste dump.
  • There is still not a single repository anywhere in the world for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
  • Not a single repository exists anywhere in the world for the disposal of high-level waste from nuclear power. Only a few countries – such as Finland, Sweden, and the US – have identified potential sites for a high-level waste repository.

Nuclear Weapons

  • Four or five countries (India, Israel, Pakistan, South Africa and possibly North Korea) have used their 'peaceful' nuclear programs to develop arsenals of nuclear weapons.
  • A nuclear weapon powerful enough to destroy a city requires a mere 10 kg of plutonium. Australia's uranium exports, once irradiated in nuclear power reactors, have produced about 80 tonnes of plutonium – enough for about 8,000 nuclear weapons.
  • International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General, Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, has noted that the IAEA's basic safeguards inspection rights are "fairly limited" and that the safeguards regime "clearly needs reinforcement." He has complained that attempts to strengthen the safeguards system have been "half hearted” and that the safeguards system operates on a "shoestring budget ... comparable to a local police department".
  • For the actual inspection of overseas nuclear facilities using Australian uranium, we are entirely reliant on the IAEA's limited and under-resourced safeguards inspection system.

Environmental Impacts
Uranium mining is necessary to produce the plutonium needed for nuclear power, and it is incredibly harmful:

  • Olympic Dam uranium/copper mine (in SA) has produced a radioactive tailings dump of 60 million tonnes, growing at 10 million tonnes annually with no plans for its long-term management. The Olympic Dam mine’s extraction over 30 million litres of water daily from the Great Artesian Basin has adversely impacted the fragile Mound Springs.
  • A main concern is that the regulation of uranium mining is inadequate. For example, the Olympic Dam mine enjoys a range of exemptions from the South Australian Environmental Protection Act, the Water Resources Act, the Aboriginal Heritage Act and the Freedom of Information Act.
  • Ranger mine (in the NT) has produced a radioactive tailings dump of over 30 million tonnes.
  • At the Beverley mine in SA, an in-situ leaching process is used, which involves dumping radioactive and acidic waste water directly into the underlying aquifer.
  • The 2003 Senate Inquiry into the regulation of uranium mining in Australia reported "a pattern of under-performance and non-compliance", and it identified "many gaps in knowledge and found an absence of reliable data on which to measure the extent of contamination or its impact on the environment". The investigation concluded that changes were necessary "in order to protect the environment and its inhabitants from serious or irreversible damage".

Nuclear is No Solution to Climate Change

  • Nuclear power could at most provide a very partial solution to climate change. Few predict a doubling of nuclear power output by 2050, but even if that happened, greenhouse gas emissions would only be reduced by about 5% – less than one tenth of the reductions required to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Nuclear power is used almost exclusively for eletricity production, which accounts for less than one third of (human) greenhouse emissions. Over two thirds of greenhouse emissions arise from other sectors (e.g. transport, agriculture/land clearing, industry, residential).
  • The nuclear cure would be as bad as the disease, with increased nuclear weapons proliferation and unresolved waste management problems.
  • Clean energy solutions are available now, and they are affordable can deliver major greenhouse emission reductions.
Powered by Drupal Browse Happy
Site design by e-geek.