Hot topics                    

Wednesday 31 January 2007

Rapid Roundup: Scientists respond to Energy Supply Association (ESAA) Report.

The Energy Supply Association of Australia today released a report (Energy Emissions Study, Stage 2 is available on their website ) on Australia’s electricity needs to 2030 in the context of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Here some of Australia's leading energy experts give their reactions to the report.

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories or if you want to interview one of these or other experts, contact the AusSMC on (08) 8207 7415; mobile 0424 676 136 or email.    

Dr Peter Cook is Chief Executive of the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2 CRC).

"The study rightly concludes, in my opinion, that a portfolio of technologies is the appropriate response to greenhouse gas concerns as they relate to electricity demand. This report indicates that whilst we might wish it were otherwise, for the foreseeable future, we cannot rely on wind and solar, to meet Australia's electricity requirements and make deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in a cost effective manner. The future will rest with a portfolio of energy efficiency, greater use of renewables, switching to low carbon fuels, and the application of carbon dioxide capture and geological storage (CCS). The relative proportions of these components of the mix is obviously a matter of debate and further study but the ESAA study indicates that for many years to come CCS is likely to make a major and cost effective contribution to greenhouse gas mitigation".

Ian Lowe is Emeritus Professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University. He has worked on energy policy issues for more than 30 years and is also President of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

"The ESAA report starts from the ASSUMPTION that electricity use in Australia will grow nearly 70% in the next 24 years and then concludes that it will be difficult to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This is hardly a surprising conclusion from that bizarre assumption. It also assumes that new nuclear power stations will be economically attractive, safe, reliable and politically acceptable, despite all the contrary evidence; it assumes that it will be technically feasible and economically realistic to capture and store carbon dioxide from coal-fired power stations, in the absence of any evidence; and finally it seems to assume that there will not be significant economies of scale if renewables are commissioned on the serious scale needed to meet our climate change obligations. It does not entertain at all the possibility that demand for electricity might be dramatically reduced, for example by solar hot water or direct use of gas. In summary, it makes the assumptions that justify a business-as-usual approach for the large electricity generators who make up ESAA".

Mr Frank van Schagen is CEO of the CRC for Coal and Sustainable Development. His expertise is in natural resource management and new power sources with reduced carbon emissions.

“I agree with their main point that a range of technologies is required to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The actual mix of technologies will be determined by the emissions targets and the costs associated with each technology.

One point that is made in the report which should be highlighted is that some of the technologies needed to achieve significant emissions reductions are in the demonstration phase and probably about 10 to 15 years away from commercial application. Consequently there is a lag time in terms of the ability of technologies such as carbon capture and storage and post combustion capture to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This needs to be factored into any emissions reduction strategy. We also need to consider the skilled human resources that will be needed to implement these new technologies. Also, there will also be significant competition from numerous countries around the world to deploy low emissions technology and this will impact on our ability to obtain the technologies and deploy them.

It is also clear that industries need clear ‘incentives’ to use these new, more expensive technologies so they remain competitive in the market place. Australia has an opportunity now to provide world leadership with a clear low emissions policy that that drives the deployment of low emission technologies and maintains our economic competitiveness. ”

Dr Mark Diesendorf is Director of the Sustainability Centre in Sydney and Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales.

“The results of the ESAA study reflect the input assumptions and vested interests of several of its members who own coal-fired power stations. Most of the key assumptions are unrealistic, especially in an era of greenhouse crisis. For instance the ESAA model assumes:

- absurdly high growth in demand for electricity;
- a very limited role for efficient energy use, which actually has huge economic potential;
- a price for wind power in 2030 that is higher than its current price at most Australian sites;
- operational performance of bioenergy power stations in 2030 that is far below current performance overseas;
- unrealistically low prices for electricity from coal-fired power stations with carbon capture and sequestration;
- unrealistically low prices for nuclear power stations of a type that don't exist at present.”

Wasim Saman is Professor of sustainable energy engineering and Director of the Sustainable Energy Centre at the University of South Australia. The Centre works with industry and government in developing systems and technologies for improving energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy in the building and transport sectors.

“It is good to see that the ESAA report confirms the need for a portfolio of technologies approach in order to make meaningful cuts in emissions. The impact of more stringent energy efficiency and demand management measures would have been a useful inclusion in the mix of scenarios considered.

Unlike wind and solar technologies, the technical viability and real costs of the nuclear and carbon capture and storage options in Australia are still uncertain. It is therefore surprising that the implementation of these technologies in the near term is considered more favourable. The retrofitting of carbon capture and storage in existing power stations may seem a logical choice but its technical and economic viability is yet to be determined.”

Dr Richard Corkish is Head of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering at the University of New South Wales. He is a researcher in third generation photovoltaics.

“It is disappointing that the ESAA wants to sideline demand side management and renewable energy supplies and make our global survival reliant on inherently unsustainable technologies that cannot even start to make any impact for decades. Even if financially disastrous and uninsurable nuclear reactors were a good idea, they wouldn’t be up and going for decades from now and even then would only have a marginal effect. So called “clean coal” remains a dream that might or might not come true in the distant future.

The global warming problem is urgent. Demand management and renewable supplies can have immediate benefits and must be the first option. Solar, wind, geothermal, wave, biomass and tidal energy supplies can do the job and must be our future supply if we hope for sustainability.”

Stephen Lincoln is Professor of Chemistry in the School of Chemistry and Physics at the University of Adelaide and has recently written a book called “Challenged Earth: An Overview of Humanity’s Stewardship of Earth.”

"The ESAA Stage 2 report is a welcome indication that Australia for so long officially in denial over the potential dangers of climate change is now moving to address the problem with increasing urgency. The recommendations made for tackling carbon dioxide emissions are logical and in line with global leader nations. The federal government, which does not yet have a coherent energy and climate change policy, is in danger of being left behind by industry on this issue. The $75 billion price tag of the ESAA recommendations, although painful, could well be cheap by comparison with the cost of catastrophic climate change. This calls for much more energy efficient technologies, including transport which the report does not address, but which is a major source of carbon dioxide emissions. However, it must be realized that Australia is only responsible for about 1.5% of global carbon dioxide emissions and consequently our climate is at the mercy of the big emitters such as the United States and China. Therefore to have influence on these big emitters in the global climate change debate through both moral and technological arguments Australia must sign the Kyoto Protocol, despite its deficiencies, be a party to its successor and become a leader in new energy technologies".