Albanese on Energy and Climate

 Currently I rate Anthony Albanese as the smartest PM Australia has ever had. His new government hasn't made a misstep, despite temptations to make hurried populist decisions. However I have been intending to vote against Labor for the first time in 50 years of voting, because we can't afford 6 years of the government's energy policy as it has been expressed.

Yesterday we had two seemingly unrelated announcements: the creation of a tough Australia-wide Environmental Protection Agency; and the plan for the federal government to hold auctions to provide each state with firm, reliable, dispatchable, renewable energy.

I support nuclear power because, to my knowledge, there is no other way to make firm, reliable, dispatchable, carbon-free energy. And the government's auction shows that they understand the need for such energy.

The renewable energy business is always begging to be exempted from environmental rules. "Let us kill birds, dump used toxic solar panels in land fill, destroy river ecosystems, ..." they say. Maybe the creation of the EPA is to let them know that they are not going to get away with that. Below I list some possible contenders for this firm renewable energy, and why I don't think they will be acceptable. If you have other options, please let me know in the comments on twitter (https://twitter.com/rks987).

[For any non-Australian readers: The right in Australia is 2 parties that work together most of the time, the National Party in regional areas and the Liberal Party mostly in cities. After the left (ALP) won the last election the National Party leader said that he would like to work with the ALP on a bipartisan push to give nuclear energy the consideration it deserves. The new Liberal leader also, later, joined the nuclear push, but clearly wants to use it to split the ALP, rather than hoping for a bipartisan arrangement.]

So I wonder: Does Albanese have a plan to diffuse the whole energy-nuclear situation that threatens to split the ALP? If the auctions don't produce any acceptable solution then he can say "We did our best, but it seems that, as all other major economies are finding, nuclear is the only answer.". That will surely bring the voters on side. Of course, if they do find a good renewable solution then that will be even better. It could even split the Right.

Possible "firm reliable dispatchable" Renewable Energy options

1. Wood

A shocking amount of supposedly renewable energy is made by burning wood. This might be "renewable" over many decades, but in the medium term, to avoid 2 degrees rise, it is worse than burning coal. The wood wouldn't be from a new plantation, that takes too long. It would either be from an existing plantation intended for wood products, or it would be native forest. There is no way burning native forest will pass the EPA. If we burn wood intended for wood products, then we have to import instead for that use. I'll be surprised if that can be done.

2. Bush

To prevent bush fires we need to clear a lot of undergrowth in the forests. Maybe we could gather it and burn it for energy instead of doing preventative burning in place. I have no idea if there would be enough, but collecting it would be difficult. Also, burning in place leaves the ash as fertiliser, so this plan might not pass the environmental test.

3. Geothermal

There was an attempt in South Australia to drill to hot rocks for geothermal energy. You probably need to do fracking to get the fluid you pump down one hole to make its way to the other. Drilling technology has improved since then. However this would be experimental, so hardly biddable.

4. Dams

Dams are always an environmental disaster. If there were good places for dams we'd have done it already.

5. Tidal

Australia has some great tidal options, but they're in the protected and remote NW: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-15/why-the-kimberley-has-australias-biggest-tides/9875328

Climate Crisis: Getting the facts right

 There's still some denial, there's still some anger, but mostly Australia has moved on to bargaining ("we'll just buy carbon credits"), and sadness ("we'll do the minimum to be respectable").  It's time to move on to acceptance. Acceptance means accepting that the effects of climate change in Australia can't be averted by Australia's actions alone. We need a worldwide solution. What should Australia's role be in designing and implementing such a worldwide solution?

The world's actions or inactions are going to affect a lot of powerful individuals, businesses, and nations. So, not surprisingly, we are swimming in a sea of misinformation. This is normal in business, but this time we can't afford it. The world needs a powerful team to take on these powerful forces.

Australia can be a leader in such a team. Indeed, we can start by ourselves, while striving to bring others on board in a controlled way.

It isn't just misinformation. There's is also a simple lack of obviously needed numerical information. Here, for example, Simon Michaux does the sums on the materials needed for one popular proposed energy solution:

The Climate Crisis demands a serious response. It is an engineering problem, not a science problem. Scientists are useful because they are well informed, though often in narrow ways, and they are often lateral thinkers. Scientists are adding interesting information to the conversation, such as clever ideas for fusion energy, that just adds to the information overload.

Because this is a crisis, the government can say: "We are going to stop supporting a lot of research that has no relevance to preventing or adapting to climate change, and put that research effort into an organised effort to engineer solutions to that problem. We don't expect a unique solution to be found, as different solutions will have different pros and cons. Evaluating such pros and cons is a political process.".

1. Don't wait to act.

Investigations often delay action, but we can't afford that. We need to proceed as fast as possible based on our current understanding. But we need to investigate thoroughly and continuously and adjust course when that is indicated. Politicians hate to do that, since they like to pretend to a god-like omnipotence. It's time for them to support the scientists and engineers.

2. Get the numbers.

Ideally the initial team includes people who already have expertise in determining the numbers and in knowing the relevant literature and sources of information. A lot of work has been done, such as the seminal work of the late Professor Sir David MacKay (https://www.withouthotair.com/), up to and including Simon Michaux above. It should be possible to quickly put up an alpha-level draft based on such sources. We then expect a process of vigorous open discussion and debate to improve the numbers, which will then flow into the planning options and their associated pros and cons.

These numbers are not just about reducing emissions (from energy, concrete, etc) but also about removing CO2 in various ways (such as ocean fertilisation), and also reacting appropriately to climate change (such as helping species get to new locations, or preparing for sea level rise).

3. Brutal evaluation of information sources.

The real work of getting to the best solution is to find the sources of misinformation and label them as such. Most importantly we need to find individuals and organisations that are knowingly spreading misinformation and get them named, shamed, and removed from the process. This should involve judges and the legal profession. However interim orders need to be made quickly so that the total process doesn't get bogged down.

This is the scary bit because it involves rich and powerful individuals, organisations and even governments. In Australia we have seen how this can go, when the mining lobby's advertising campaign forced the government to retreat on a tax on super profits. Some of the beneficiaries of the fossil fuel industry are much more dangerous than that.

4. Australia's role

Australia is one of the richest countries in the world. It is in our interest to get this solved. First we should get involved in sorting out the facts, as above.

Total solutions don't have to be the same everywhere. Australia has a lot of renewables, so maybe that is the best thing for us to do, even though many places cannot do that (as David MacKay explained for the UK and Germany has proved). However I would like to see us designing and building and implementing solutions that can be applied in developing nations that will need, and deserve, the world's support.