Who'd have guessed? Increasing renewables really does decrease carbon emissions

Renewable energy, especially solar and wind are growing and supplying an ever greater percentage of the electricity in many countries. Common sense would tell you that as solar and wind increase and coal and gas generation goes down the amount of carbon pollution and other toxic gasses emitted from fossil fuel plants will decrease. Like anything in the climate and clean energy though, there are "skeptics" who don't agree with this, but data are better than opinions and the NREL lab at the Department on Energy in the US have crunched the numbers to find out.

The area of contention is that the intermittent nature of (some) renewables means fossil fuel plants need to fire up and then down more often (cycling). When you fire up a plant it tends to emit more, at that moment, than if it was running steadily. Kind of how like starting a car uses a burst of fuel. So what is the overall impact of this?

NREL found that:

"The negative impact of cycling on overall plant emissions is relatively small. The increase in plant emissions from cycling to accommodate variable renewables are more than offset by the overall reduction in CO₂, NO_x, and SO₂."

I.E:

"Emission Impacts of Cycling Are Relatively Small Compared to Emission Reductions Due to Renewables"

 NREL found that moving to 1/3 renewables from solar and wind would cause carbon emissions to drop by 1/3. Toxic gasses would also decrease. This is because although there might be a small increase in some emissions associated with cycling a plant on and off these are tiny compared to the decrease in emissions due to less fossil fuels being burnt, because 1/3 of the power is now coming from renewables. The claims of some "skeptics" is like claiming you should leave your car idling for an hour instead of turning it off and then on again an hour later because turning you car on uses more fuel that idling would at that second.

Here's the impact for 1/3 renewables:

So there you have it, increasing renewables decreases carbon emissions (as well as other toxic gasses that coal plants especially produce a lot of). Common sense right?

Australia has hottest 12 months on record

If you felt it's been hot where you live recently, you're right. Recently the Bureau of Meterology (BOM) announced that the last year has been Australia's hottest 12 month period on record.

This information is containing in a short report you can find here and summarised here. Along with the warmest 12 months, a host of other records have also been broken in individual towns and cities and right across the nation. Because Australia is so big it takes a massive buildup of heat to break countrywide records, some of the most important I've taken from the report and shown below.


"The last 12 months saw a large number of temperature records set across Australia, including:

• Australia’s hottest summer day on record (7 January) 
• Australia’s warmest winter day on record (31 August) 
• Australia’s warmest month on record (January) 
• Australia’s warmest summer on record 
• Australia’s warmest January to August period on record 
• Australia’s warmest 12 month period on record"

Here's a map from the Bureau showing how the whole country has been warmer than normal this past year.

Overall the last year has seen temperatures 1.11 ̊C above average. While that may not sound like all that much, across a whole country, for a whole year, this gives us weather that's noticeably hotter.

Since the first half of the 20th century (1900-1950) temperatures across Australia have risen by ~0.75  ̊C and between now and 2050 are likely to rise by another 2 ̊C or more. This mean's that by 2050 the temperatures we have had over this past year (including the record breaking summer heat) would by then be a much colder than average year. A normal year would be a least a degree hotter than the past 12 months and a record breaking year could see temperature anomalies 3 or 4 times greater than experienced over the past year. Something to think about as Australia goes about dismantling all its policies to combat global warming.

2013 election: What the major parties will do about climate change, clean energy and public transport.

As you go into vote this weekend you may want to consider how the various parties rate on issues important to Transition Town Kenmore (TTKD) such as action on climate change and increasing resilience in the face of resource depletion (a good example of this would be policies on active and public transport). While TTKD does not endorse any particular political party I've written a bit of a guide to the policies of the major parties.

With regards to climate change both the Climate Institute (CI) and the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) have climate policy scorecards, which are very quick to look at.

See the CI pollute-o-meter here.
See the ACF environmental scorecard here.


Summary of policies on Climate and Public Transport
Price on Carbon:
Both Labour and the Green support price on carbon pollution where major polluters pay for each ton of carbon they emit. Total emissions of pollution are capped and decrease each year. Most people are compensated for price rises that occur as a result of polluting companies paying a carbon price. Such market based mechanisms are generally agreed to be the cheapest and most effective means of cutting pollution. The Green aim for a much more ambitious cut to Australia's carbon emissions.

The Coalition plan to scrap the polluter pays carbon pricing scheme and instead use general taxpayer revenue to pay major polluters to "decrease" the amount of pollution they emit. I say "decrease" because it is not totally clear to me if a polluter actually has to decrease their emissions. It may well be fine for a polluter to accept money to increase their emission, but by a smaller amount than they originally expected too. Credible estimates suggest by 2020 Australia's emissions will increase under this scheme. This is for 2 reasons. Firstly not a lot of money (in the scheme of thing) is available for grants to polluters and secondly because while some polluters will decrease their emissions using the grants, other companies not involved in the scheme will increase their emissions.
The Coalition also plan to fund a "green army" to plant trees and look after local environments.  This is unlikely to have an significant impact on Australia's carbon emmissions but may help in local re-vegetation and improve health of creek catchments etc.

Climate Change Authority:
Labour and the Greens plan to keep the Climate Change Authority (CCA), an independent body set up to advise the government on addressing climate change. The Coalition plans to scrap the CCA.

Clean Energy Finance Corporation:
Labour and the Green plan to keep the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which has $10 billion dollars to invest in clean energy and energy efficiency (ie: helping fund wind and solar farms, helping businesses to decrease their energy costs). The Coalition plans to scrap the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

2020 renewable energy target:
All major parties support the renewable energy target. However The Coalition plan to review the target in 2014.

Public transport:
The Greens will probably support any worthwhile public transport scheme and also support an eventual Brisbane to Melbourne (via Sydney and Canberra) high speed rail line.
Labour support new rail lines in Brisbane (ie: cross river rail), Melbourne and elsewhere, generally through these project being recommended by Infrastructure Australia as projects of national significance.
The Coalition will stop all federal funding for commuter rail. Locally this means Cross River Rail will not go ahead as it is very unlikely the State Government can afford the cost on its own. Without cross river rail much of the rail network will hit capacity in 2016 and not be able to take extra passengers at peak times.

Is the carbon price reducing emissions?

Good article at The Conversation looking at the carbon price one year on. We know that in the last year electricity demand and emissions have fallen, but how much of this is due to the carbon price, the renewable energy target (RET) or other one off events?

As I have mentioned here a few times here and is explained in the article, the main impact of carbon pricing is to change long term investments decisions. Once built power plants are around for a long time, so once a coal plant is built you essentially lock in it's emissions for the next 30-50 years. Carbon pricing (along with the RET) are changing investment decisions and so planned new power plants in Australia are now dominated by gas and wind not coal. That this is already occurring as can be seen by the list of electricity projects underway or planned as of late last year. (Since then, it is worth noting, one of the two coal projects underway has been scrapped). This data also shows how over the last few years a much greater percentage of power plants being built are renewables.

So while it is hard to say exactly how much of the emissions reductions in the electricity sector in the past year are due to the carbon price, it already seems clear that over the long term it is driving us towards a low carbon future.

Clean Energy Finance Corp inks first deal - $100 million for business in renewables and energy efficiency

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), set up as part of the Clean Energy Future/Carbon Price law, has just signed it's first deal to supply up to $100 million dollars in loans to businesses looking to improve their energy efficiency, buy solar panels or set up cogeneration and trigeneration plants.

The CEFC, which will have $10 billion dollars to invest over the next 5 years, was set up to help fund renewable energy, low emission technologies and energy efficiency investments. The general idea is the fund will partner with the private sector and chip in some of the money for these investments, for example this new deal includes $50 million from both the CEFC and $50 million from the Commonwealth bank. In this way the CEFC can use it's $10 billion to stimulate much greater amounts of investment in clean energy and energy efficiency. Operating at arms reach from the government, the CEFC also aims to make it's money back in the long term.

Unfortunately, the Coalition has vowed to scrap the CEFC if it wins the election, which would be a shame because the CEFC plays an essential role in promoting renewable energy. Currently it can be difficult for renewable energy plants to attract financing and get built, this is especially so where the technology is new and/or the first of a kind in Australia. This so called "valley of death" makes it extremely difficult for renewable technologies to get started and start to power Australia. By making at least part of the financing required available, the CEFC makes such projects more attractive to the private sector and spurs investment in renewable. Scrap the CEFC and it will likely be much harder and more expensive for Australia to meet it's targets for generating renewable electricity and lowering greenhouse gas emissions, as well as for companies to bring new and innovative technologies to the market.

Obama takes climate action in the USA

You might have missed this in the Gillard vs Rudd rumble in the jungle, but earlier today President Obama outlined a wide range of actions to tackle climate change.

In the USA the conservative controlled congress is hostile to any action on climate change, this means that Obama cannot, for example, introduce carbon pricing but he can pursue regulatory action. Hence Obama has chosen to exercise his executive powers at President to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions, forge international action and increase resilience to a changing climate.

You can find a list of the major actions here. One of the more important actions will be using the Environmental Protection Agency to put limits on emissions from new and existing power plants. This will have the effect of either shutting down or forcing the clean up of many coal plants and since coal plants produce a large percentage of greenhouse gas emissions in the USA, this will cause a large decrease to emissions in the long run.

Other actions include higher standards for appliances and buildings so they use less energy and for trucks so they use less fuel. More renewable energy production on the vast amounts of land owned by the US federal government will also be encouraged etc. etc. 

Overall, while not as effective or efficient as carbon pricing, Obama's actions make it possible for the US will meet it's targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and therefore help to limit global warming.

California lauches Cap and Trade scheme

A quick update from overseas. The US state of California introduced it's carbon price on the first of January. California is using a cap and trade system (also known as an emissions trading scheme /ETS).

This action by California is important for a couple of reasons. Firstly, California is the most populous state in USA and it has a very large economy. In fact, if California was a country, it would be one of the ten largest economies in the world. Secondly, California has for a long time lead environmental action in the USA, so a successful emissions trading scheme there will help to push others states and perhaps the US federal government to take more action.

The Californian scheme is cap and trade. This is where the government caps the amount of carbon pollution that can be released into the atmosphere for each year and then large polluters have to buy permits to cover all the carbon they have released. This provides a financial incentive to reduce emissions and also makes renewable energy and "low carbon" goods and services more competitive.
In cap and trade, the cap is lowered over time, so less and less pollution can be emitted. Companies that need permits can buy them from companies that have reduced their emissions and so don't require them, providing a second way for business to profit from cleaning up their act.

How does this compare to the Australian carbon price? In its current (and introductory) form, Australia has a fixed price for pollution permits but the number of permits is not capped. This will change in 2015 when the scheme switches to emissions trading, very similar to what has now launched on California.

It is worth noting that in California many (but not all) of the permits are currently being given away to help business adjust to the scheme, although this will decrease as time goes on. It is worth noting that even when permits are given away there is still an incentive to reduce emissions because then you can sell your permits and make a profit. A similar process is occurring in Australia where trade exposed industries receive many of the permits (up to 95%) for free, although again this will decrease over time.

Community renewable energy - locally owned renewable power stations

Community renewable energy is something we will hopefully be hearing a lot more about in the future. The idea, which is popular overseas, is for members of a local community to get together, combine their money and build a much larger renewable energy "power station" than they could individually afford. The proceeds from selling the electricity created then provide a return on investment.

The classic example of this in Australia is Hepburn Wind in Victoria where roughly 2000 people got together and installed a ~4MW wind farm. Recently another project has been announced for Sydney where a community scheme will put 400 kW of solar panels on the roof of the new convention centre in Darling Harbour. Helping drive this (and many other proposed projects) is Embark a not for profit group aiming to spur along community renewable energy by providing know-how and also seed funding.

Although community owned renewables are unlikely to generate a large percentage of the electricity we produce any time soon, they provide an opportunity for people who can't otherwise create their own electricity (renters, people living in apartments, home owners whose roof isn't suitable for solar panels etc etc) to get involved. Importantly they also allow the local community to own and benefit from their local renewable energy resource (whatever that might be) and for people to make money out of being green.

For a more detailed look at community renewable energy and it's benefits and possibilies, see this article in Renew Economy.


So what about in QLD? Well, recently Energetic Communities, which aims to develop community renewable energy in SEQ got up and running. Hopefully I'll have more to say about them in the near future.

Yes Virginia, wind power really does decrease carbon emissions

In most technical or scientific fields, the response to self-proclaimed experts who are claiming everyone else has got it wrong should be cautious skepticism. Doubly so when they have little or no actual expertise in the field. Double again when this technical area is anything to do with climate change, which seems to attract self-styled "expert skeptics" like moths to a flame. Unless of course, you are a certain newspaper, then these sorts of claims need to be taken very seriously indeed and given lots of space, even if, for example they contain obviously nonsense, like claiming a huge drop in global temperatures that never actually happened.

Luckily we have journalists at The Climate Spectator and Renew Economy prepared to do a bit of fact checking. And from the latest stoush about wind power two things seem fairly clear.

1. Wind power does decrease the overall carbon footprint of electricity.

2. The growth of renewables (of which wind is a big part) and gas electricity generation, have coincided with a fall in coal power production as the squeeze is put on the most marginal coal plants. According to one energy analyst the combined effect of this and falling demand has been to reduce carbon emission from electricity generation to their lowest levels since 2003.

TTKD July meeting: The UQ Solar Array Project

Professor Paul Meredith will share with us his passion for large scale renewable energy, by discussing the amazing UQ 1.2 mega watt PV array project he has recently managed.

Paul has extensive experience in the renewable energy field, and currently is a Professor of Physics at UQ, a Vice Chancellor's Senior Research Fellow, and a co-founder and co-director of the Centre for Organic Photonics and Electronics.

We have blogged about the UQ solar array previously, see here. The 5000 panels that make up the array made it the largest flat panel solar array in the country when it opened. Paul might be able to tell us if that is still the case.

Also given the recent changes to the household solar PV feed-in tarrif due to the state governments' back-flip, we will have Garry Willet who works on the solar PV industry on hand to help answer questions about what this means for you and for the future of the solar PV industry in QLD.

As usual the meeting will be followed by supper and conversation. Please feel free to bring along a plate to share. No need to RSVP.

Thursday July 19

7.15pm for a 7.30pm start

Kenmore Library Meeting Room

Top tips to reduce your power bill and 'beat the carbon tax'

The 1st of July marks the introduction of the carbon price. The major effect of the carbon price on households will be through increases in energy bills as the cost of producing highly polluting energy increases. But carbon price or not, energy prices have been increasing rapidly over the last few years, mostly due to the cost of network upgrades. Given the rapidly increasing price of power, no matter what the pollies do, it makes sense to take action to decrease your energy usage to save money on your bills.

Here are 30 simple things you can do (from the ABC), plus a few suggestions from me and other commenters on the ABC website:

"Appliances

1. Turn off the beer fridge during the week or between parties.
2. Dry clothes on an airing rack or on the clothes line, rather than using a tumble dryer.
3. Clean the lint filter in washing machines, dryers, and heating and cooling equipment.
4. Use a rake instead of an electric leaf blower, or a broom instead of a vacuum on sealed floors.
5. Keep your fridge operating efficiently by keeping the door seals clean (replace them if they've deteriorated) and defrost the freezer if necessary.
6. Buy efficient whitegoods when the time comes to replace them. The Energy Rating website has a useful search tool that estimates running costs. For example, one 4-star family fridge costs $72 per year to run, paying 25 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity, while a similar sized 1.5-star machine costs $135 per year to run.
7. If you have them, limit the use of heated towel rails to a couple of hours per day, instead of the full 24.

Cooking

8. Put lids on saucepans to reduce the heat that escapes.
9. Cut your vegies into smaller pieces so that they cook faster.
10. Boil the kettle with only as much water as you need. Heating water takes a lot of energy.
11. Where possible, use a microwave instead of a conventional oven.

Gadgets

12. Turn off the television and other entertainment devices manually, instead of leaving them on standby. Master/slave powerboards can make this easier (despite dodgy-sounding name): when you turn off the 'master' (usually the TV), the 'slave' devices are automatically turned off.
13. Battery chargers can use standby power even when not plugged into the device they charge. Turn them off at the wall. This includes mobile phone, power tool and battery rechargers.

Lighting

14. So you've swapped your old incandescent bulbs for more efficient lights? Now, it's time to replace energy-hungry halogen downlights. Mains voltage (GU10 base fitting) 50 Watt halogens can be replaced with 11-watt compact fluorescent 'micro' downlights. Low-voltage (MR16 base) 50-watt halogens can be replaced with 20 Watt infrared coated (IRC) halogens or three Watt LED downlights. Note that 'low voltage' does not mean 'low energy'.
15. Match your lighting levels to the needs of the activity you're doing. For example, you don't need every light on while watching TV.
16. Combined light, heat lamp and fan fittings for bathrooms are compact and useful, but each heat lamp typically uses a massive 275 watts. Don't flick on the heat switch when light is all you need.

Keeping warm

17. Dress for the season. Winter is the time for woollies, rather than wearing summer clothes and setting the heater thermostat to tropical.
18. Similarly, suit your bedding to the season and use extra blankets (including underlay) rather than electric blankets or running a heater overnight.
19. Don't scoff at a nana-rug to cover your knees while you're watching telly. Thousands of nanas can't be wrong.
20. Cover windows with thick, well-fitting curtains.
21. Put weatherstripping on external doors or use a door snake.
22. Target heating to the rooms or zones in use, not the entire house.
23. Set your thermostat to a reasonable temperature of 18 to 20ºC in winter. Each degree hotter can increase your energy bill by about 10 per cent.

Hot water

24. The shorter your shower, the less energy you spend heating up water. 25. Install a water-saving showerhead; it's an easy DIY job. Many water retailers have free showerhead replacement programs.
26. Consider insulated coverings for hot water systems and pipes.

Staying cool

27. When the weather heats up again, remember it is easier to prevent your house becoming hot than it is to cool an already hot house. Make sure your home has adequate exterior shade, such as awnings, blinds, sails, shade cloth, shade trees or verandas.
28. Install flyscreens to make it easier to ventilate your home.
29. For active cooling, fans use the least energy, followed by evaporative coolers (which suit dry climates). Air conditioners are the most expensive to run.
30. Fans work by moving air over your skin. If you're not in the room, the fan is doing nothing. Switch it off.

Stuff

Finally, remember that every product you see in the shops has needed energy, water and material resources to be produced and has a carbon cost. We can cut our eco-footprints, save money and avoid some of the carbon tax by simply buying and wasting less stuff."

So lots of common sense stuff there, thanks Auntie.


A few other thoughts:

1. Hot water is a massive part of energy bills, other ways to save money include:

• Turn down the temperature on your hot water cylinder, 65 dC works for us
• Better yet, get rid of your hot water cyclinder, having a big tank keeping hundreds of litres of water hot 24/7 is crazily inefficient.  Look into some sort of instantaneous heating system.
• Install solar hot water

2. Switch to an energy efficient pool pump. Old single speed pool pumps can use huge amounts of energy and cost over $500 a year to run. While the running costs of new 5 star and better rated pumps can be less than half that. Anecdotally a new pump can pay for itself in 2 years or less.  Even better, Energex is running a promotion for people in certain areas with extra incentives.

3. Install solar panels. If you live in QLD and have been thinking about going solar, you should get in before July 9th when the feed-in tarrif changes. You don't have to have the panels installed by then of course, contact a solar installer and they'll tell you what you need to do.

Good on yer Dave

Now for a good news story. The ABC reports that winemaker David Bruer is on his way towards making his already organic winery carbon neutral. To do so he's persuing a number of strategies including lightweight bottles, carbon farming, revegetation and solar power.

Carbon neutral next step for organic winery

Best of luck Dave and I hope other wineries follow in your footsteps.

I love when TT or Sustainability groups just get up and get going.

This is inspiring.....hope you think so too.

The Ultimate Grass Roots Experiment:

http://theautomaticearth.org/Earth/the-ultimate-grass-roots-experiment.html

Can't do clean energy in Queensland?

One big area of change with the election of the LNP government in QLD will be in sustainability and climate change. Probably the easiest way to summarize it is that (baring the feed in tariff) the Queensland government will no longer be taking action on climate change or promoting clean energy*.

This means that along with the Office of climate change, the:
Queensland Climate Change Fund
Queensland Renewable Energy Fund
Queensland Smart Energy Savings Fund
Queensland Future Growth Fund
Solar Initiatives Package
Solar Flagships Program
Waste Avoidance and Resource efficiency Fund
Local Government Sustainable Future Fund

are all being scrapped.

These LNP plans didn't get much airing during the campaign, mostly because they weren't released until a day or two before the election. 

Most galling for supporters of clean energy will probably the the LNPs decision to pull out of the 250 mega watt Solar Dawn project in western Queensland. If this ends up killing the whole project another big loser, along with the environment and prospective employees, will be the University of Queensland, which, I have just discovered, was to get $60 million in research funding to use the Solar Dawn plant as a test bed for research into improvements and innovations in solar thermal technology.

Cambell Newman has stated that state based schemes are now unnecessary because of the impending national carbon price. However, I assume this is not a tacit admission that carbon pricing will be effective in tackling reducing greenhouse gas emissions, although it most likely will be.

Although there is some truth some Newman's argument, it also misses a very important point. Which is that climate action will bring with it investment in clean energy and pollution reduction technology. Investment means money and jobs for the states it occurs in. Call them what you want but states provide subsidies, co-investment, tax breaks and build infrastructure all the time to attract investment to their state. Not doing this in QLD just means we'll be less attractive to invest in.

The LNP policy document (view here) does state the government will instead help business access the $10 billion + dollars for clean energy that is part of the carbon price/ clean energy future package. However, since the state LNP opposes the clean energy future plan and the federal Lib-Nats plan to scrap the clean energy package if elected, this appears to be a policy the LNP hope not to implement. And again without the full support of the state government it is less likely QLD will get that money now anyway. 


There is also concern amongst conservation groups that the new LNP government will allow more pollution from farming to reach the great barrier reef due to their "regulation busting". With a new report indicating that the herbicide Diuron is being found way above safe levels on the reef at the moment, the impact of agricultural runoff on the reef will be an ongoing concern.


* If I'm wrong on this please comment and I'll make a correction.


This post represents my personal view and before anyone gets upset note that I've have been critical of Labour governments in the past as well.

International Energy Agency: the door to 2°C is closing

These are the words from the 2011 World Energy Outlook recently released by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Although a conservative organization the IEA take climate change very seriously and included in their report detailed investigations of potential energy senario's and how they will affect climate change.

Here's their most salient conclusions (emphasis mine)

We cannot afford to delay further action to tackle climate change if the long-term target of limiting the global average temperature increase to 2°C, as analysed in the 450 Scenario, is to be achieved at reasonable cost. In the New Policies Scenario, the world is on a trajectory that results in a level of emissions consistent with a long-term average temperature increase of more than 3.5°C. Without these new policies, we are on an even more dangerous track, for a temperature increase of 6°C or more.

Four-fifths of the total energy-related CO2 emissions permissible by 2035 in the 450 Scenario are already “locked-in” by our existing capital stock (power plants, buildings, factories, etc.). If stringent new action is not forthcoming by 2017, the energy-related infrastructure then in place will generate all the CO2 emissions allowed in the 450 Scenario up to 2035, leaving no room for additional power plants, factories and other infrastructure unless they are zero-carbon, which would be extremely costly. Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment avoided in the power sector before 2020 an additional $4.3 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.

For a more detail discussion see Skeptical Science, basically the IEA looked at 3 future scenario's:

Business as usual = 6°C warming
New Policies (governments meet all pledges made to date) = 3.5°C warming
450ppm (requires much greater action) = 50% chance of limiting warming to 2°C.

2°C warming is seen at the red line we don't want to cross, therefore it is clear much more world action is required.

Time is of the essence to take action to meet a 450 ppm target because existing polluting infrastructure (power plants, factories etc) is almost at the level that uses up all our "carbon budget". The implication of this is that unless action is taken now then worldwide by 2017 any new infrastructure will need to replace those already existing or be zero carbon, or we blow the budget. This is why some news stories have reported we have "5 years" to act on climate change before it is too late.

This is also why those who claim they support climate action, just not now, are misguided. Such a "strategy" is not only far more expensive in the long run, but runs the risk of beginning too late because the "locked in" polluting infrastructure is already great enough to cause dangerous climate change. The fact is a coal plant will operate/ pollute for 50 years, while new but inefficient buildings built today could be around for even longer.

The good news (from Australia's point of view) is that with the passage of the carbon price, we'll be getting started on action. One of the early effects (and perhaps one that is already being felt) will be that new power generation in Australia probably won't include coal plants and that more efficient buildings, factories and appliances will become the norm.

I'll leave the last word to the IEA:

“If we don’t change direction soon, we’ll end up where we’re heading”

Desertec - work to start on ambitious solar scheme

The ambitious plan to cover Southern Europe, North Africa and parts of the Middle East with solar power plants connected to Europe via a supergrid looks to be on course to get started in 2012. The Desertec plan kicks off next year with the construction of a 500 MW solar thermal power plant in Morocco, a trial solar plant that will hopefully be the first of many.

The Desertec plan appears to be predominately driven by the Germans who have been pushing ahead aggressively with renewable energy at home, with a number of German companies being large players in the world of engineering and renewable energy. However, Germany isn't an ideal location for many types of renewable energy so the Desertec scheme eventually plans to cover Europe, North Africa and some Middle Eastern countries with a integrated supergrid allowing power to be produced in any of these locations and then sent where it is needed. Ie: Geothermal from Iceland, Hydro from Scandinavia, Wind from the UK, Solar from Spain, North Africa and the Saudis can be routed whereever it is needed.

If managed successfully Desertec stands to be a win-win situation for both Europe and Africa, providing clean power for Europe as well as electricity and economic development to many African nations. After-all it's not as though there is a shortage of sunlight in the desert so why not use it.

California approves carbon price to start in 2013

Some good news on the international climate change front, California has approved a plan for a state wide carbon price beginning in 2013. With a unanimous vote the California Air Resources Board adopted a cap and trade system that will put a price on carbon pollution.

Why is this important? Well for lots of reasons:

1. It helps demonstrate how other countries (and states) around the world are acting on climate change.

2. California has a huge economy, which, at $1.9 trillion dollars is the largest of any US state. So large in fact, that if California was a country, its economy would be one of the 10 biggest in the world. That economy is about to get less polluting.

3. California is generally ahead of the rest of the US when it comes to things like clean energy, energy efficiency etc. If it is successfully implemented, the California cap and trade scheme will have a positive influence, promoting climate action in other US states and potentially by the US federal government as well.

Although the Californian scheme is designed somewhat differently from the carbon price here in Oz, the basic idea is the same. Polluters will now have to pay to pollute, instead of taxpayers effectively subsidising polluters by picking up the tab for all the damage their pollution does.

TTKD October meeting: Carbon Nation Film Screening

At the Transition Town Kenmore October meeting will be showing Carbon Nation, a film that is ideal for people who are new to the area of climate action.

Carbon Nation is a climate change solutions movie that doesn’t even care if you believe in climate change! Join us for Carbon Nation (84 mins) followed by a short film about Australia’s Beyond Zero Emissions Zero Carbon Australia Project.

Watch the trailer here www.carbonnationmovie.com

Cliff Etheredge, West Texas Wind Farmer Photo Credit: Peter Byck

About the Film: Tired of the doom-and-gloom news about climate change? Carbon Nation is an inspirational, upbeat, non-preachy, non-partisan film that illustrates how solutions to climate change make great business sense, among other things. You’ll meet a host of entertaining and endearing characters along the way.

Thursday October 20, 7.30pm
Kenmore Library Meeting Room

Powershift 2011

The Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) are running their annual Power Shift next month and this year it is in Brisbane. Tickets are still available and it'll no doubt be an awesome weekend for all involved. Here's the details:

"Power Shift 2011 is coming to Brisbane on Saturday 15 - Monday 17 October. If you are aged between 15-29 or know someone in this age range who may be interested... Start the transformation.

Climate change is the challenge and opportunity of our generation – it’s not about politics, its about ensuring a safe future for young people across Australia. Power Shift 2011 will be the moment when our generation comes together, and starts the transformation we need to become a nation powered by renewable energy.

In September and October, thousands of young people will come together for two incredible summits in Perth and Brisbane. Together we’ll engage with the solutions, make our voice heard, and launch a campaign to transform the country."

For more info, check out http://www.powershift.org.au/

Carbon farming legislation passes - first part of carbon price package becomes law

The carbon farming initiative (CFI), which allows farmers and land managers to earn credits by reducing pollution and sequestering carbon in trees and the soil has passed the parliment and is set to become law.

The basic idea here is that carbon credits can be earned for various practices that either reduce emissions from the land sector or sequester carbon dioxide. These credits can then be sold as offsets to polluters both in Australia and overseas. In this way farmers etc can earn money from better land management practices and reforestation etc. Overall carbon farming is only a small part of the carbon price package and will only equate to a small amount of the greenhouse gas reductions between now and 2020. However it does provide an incentive to use the land more sustainably and turn the land into carbon sinks.

One of the questions about carbon farming is its ability to reduce emissions or sequester carbon in the long term. Ie: If you sequester carbon by planting trees and then these trees die in a drought. Clearly verification of actual emission reductions followed by long term monitoring is going to be necessary. Despite these challenges, carbon farming does have potential and seeking to tap this potential is a worthwhile endeavor.

Nb: For those interested in comparing the climate change policies of Labour and the LNP.
While carbon farming is a minor part of the governments carbon reduction plans, the LNP hopes it will provide the majority of greenhouse gas reductions under their proposed policy. However, although the LNP say they support the CFI it in principle, they voted against it. Politics eh?