It is truly a global crisis. Nobody is immune. Not least the corporate executives that are partly to blame for the excesses that have brought the whole system to the precipice. Swift and urgent action is required – tighter regulation and a massive injection of funds to drive job creation. Otherwise the consequences are too disturbing to contemplate. Rising sea levels, unending drought, dying oceans, and the possibility that we may render the earth largely uninhabitable for future generations.
And then there’s the financial crisis to deal with as well. But in crisis lies opportunity. And the need to stimulate the economy to deal with a looming global recession creates the perfect opportunity to take exactly the kind of drastic action that is required to solve the climate crisis.
Imagine for a moment that Kevin Rudd hadn’t just blown $10billion on a spending spree to prolong the economic bubble and that our elected leaders were actually interested in solving both the economic and the climate crisis together.
First lets get the criteria straight. We need to cut as much greenhouse pollution as quickly as possible, but do it in a way that benefits those that will be worst hit by an economic downturn – pensioners and low income households, and it needs to stimulate spending in order to create jobs and economic activity.
One option would be to pay Worley Parsons to build ten massive solar thermal power plants – each generating around 250 MW of power. For a total cost of $10b you could power one million homes with solar energy, shut down several of the dirtiest coal plants, cut about 10 million tonnes of CO2 and establish Australia as the world leader in solar thermal technology. Not a bad option, but it wouldn’t help families unless the plants were co-operatively owned, which might be a great idea if it didn’t sound so much like socialism.
Another option would be to go with the low hanging fruit – good old solar hot water heating. Only about 400,000 Australian homes use solar energy to heat water. This is indescribably stupid – but it means we have a great opportunity. At a cost of about $2000 a pop (assuming you’d get a pretty good bulk discount if you’re spending $10billion at your local plumber – and you’re the Government), you could install around five million solar hot water systems – enough to do nearly every house in Australia. According to the Federal Gov’t stats, a solar hot water system saves (working) families between $300 and $700 a year. Let’s call it $500. That means an annual saving of around $2.5 billion in electricity bills for Australian families, which would increase disposable income not just this year but each year for the 20-30 year life of the systems.
AGL says a standard off-peak electric hot water system generates up to 4.5 Tonnes of CO2 per year. For the sake of argument, let’s call it 3. That’s 15 million tonnes of CO2 saved per year, or about enough to close down Hazelwood (one of the world’s dirtiest brown coal power stations – which is just about to get another massive handout from the federal gov’t through the emissions trading scheme).
In terms of jobs and economic stimulus, you’d need an awful lot of extra people to make, distribute, install and maintain five million solar hot water heaters – and while it wouldn’t all happen before Christmas, you’d be able to get cracking pretty quickly.
Here are just two quick examples. There are any number of other ways you could set up a $10b scheme to create new green jobs, cut emissions, and cut energy costs of low income households.
If the economists reckon we need to build our way out of this economic recession, then there is really only one option. We need to use the opportunity to create a green revolution – to build a clean energy economy that will provide tens of thousands of new jobs and cut emissions as quickly as possible. If we don’t do it this time, we probably won’t get another chance.
7 Comments
The Solar hot water heating is a good idea. Currently some of the best energy efficiency and carbon reduction can be achieved by switching to solar hot water. Much much more effective than solar PV in $ per outcome.
The trouble with government building Solar Thermal power stations is that when the state governments privatised and de-regulated the energy sector there is an implicit promise not to make suicidal market forays.
Dumping a massive amount of solar thermal into the system, subsidised by the tax payer, would create some unintended consequences.
1. Kill other renewable schemes. MRET scheme would never survive if the government artificially flooded the grid with solar thermal.
2. Massively push up the capital costs of other projects. There aren’t enough engineering and construction workers to go around.
3. Destroys market confidence. No one will invest in the electricity or renewables sector when the government has a precedent of intervention, picking winners and flooding the market with subsidised electricity.
4. Solar thermal is not baseload. Brown coal will still run 24 hours a day, adding excess supply will lower peak prices, this will deter new gas power station construction (since they need higher peak prices to make money) which will lead to the extension of the brown coal lifetimes.
Demand side/efficiency measures are more effective for reduction emissions than supply side measures. The government could pay the difference in cost for all new homes and commercial buildings to be 7+ star rated rather than 5 star. A buy-back scheme of inefficient appliances (old freezers/2nd fridges/etc..).
Please go to youtube and look up “The Business Case for Protecting the Climate” which is a presentation given by Hunter Lovins to Google – it includes the classic line “a dynamic growing industrial economy unleashing sustainability”.
The jobs of the future are not in the industries of the past.
John Hepburn is right in his general approach. If we are going to have a financial stimulus let us spend the money on something worthwhile.
Permalink’s objections are wrong. MRETs and Emissions Permits Trading destroyed? We should applaud that. Both are expensive, foolish schemes that increase the price of all energy without guaranteeing a significant increase in renewables.
Permalink says that it will push up the costs of other infrastructure schemes. Not true. The costs of geothermal and solar thermal will be largely spent overseas on drilling rigs and power stations. With a little bit of imagination we can get most of the money for that equipment from our overseas buyers of minerals and energy.
What a load of rubbish that it will destroy market confidence. The cost of building renewable energy sources will drop by 15 to 25% for each doubling of capacity. By the time we have spent the first $10Billion the cost of renewables will be less than the cost of fossil fuel burning plants. Everyone will be wanting to invest.
Solar Thermal is base load and runs all night. Why don’t people read what happens in these plants. They store energy in molten salt or in water and run the turbines all day and all night. Geothermal is obviously a 24 hour a day proposition.
For the expenditure of $40 Billion dollars over 10 years we will be able to decommission all fossil burning electricity generating plants and have plenty of electricity capacity including that from the normal increase in demand.
At the end of the 10 years the wholesale cost of producing energy will be 50% to 25% lower than the cost of wholesale energy if we continue producing it from fossil fuels. If people do not believe me I suggest they get out their spreadsheets and do the sums.
The financial turmoil is a wonderful opportunity for our political leaders to truly lead because the population is ready to follow.
G’day John,
A very thoughtful article. What you are saying about using some of the Govt surplus to subsidize the instillation of solar hot water systems in every Australian home makes a fair bit of sense to me.
Of Course those States that Own the Coal-Fired power stations i.e QLD & NSW would be dead set against it. At the minute that is why it is paid lip service by both of those states.
DaS Energy Pty Ltd a backyard company arose after six years of make it and see technology advances,
Driving force being Coal boils Water into Steam gas to drive a turbine.
550 degrees Celsius is 175 bar Steam gas pressure or 350 megawatts Hitachi turbine generator.
550 degrees Celsius 61,000 bar Co2 gas pressure.
Thats a lot less Coal, Carbon and Climate change for 175 bar pressure.
Water and liquid Co2 both turn to gas when heated, both turn back to liquid when cooled.
For water its called condensating and for Co2 its called Cryogenic cooling.
Proven by working test model gas can drive water without any pressure loss.
By keeping gas and water separate two seperate but cojoined flow drive a hydro turbine.
So potent is Co2 as a drive force temperature above +2 Celsius sets turbine generator in motion.
Hydro turbine increase wattage by increased flow >350 megawatts no Coal, no Carbon, no Climate change.
So mind blowing is the development it dinosaurs Coal, Solar and Geothermal power using a Steam turbine.
Using Metane gas a a heating agent and small size for automotive is further distruption to the harm makers.
So important it be we change from our old ways the development was made gift for the good of the people.
By not addressing DaS Radial Engine all level of Government continues the pretence only Coal can supply
base load power, and only Oil can get us round.
Surely such massive reduction in Consumer costs must profit the Nation as a whole.
Why is Governent only backing those technologies that dont threaten Coal or Oil.
Instead of the $10B being ospent on centralised power stations, why not spend it on $10K of PhV arrays on a million homes. The sellthe transmission lines for copper scrap. But that would mean energy (and otherwise) independent households – a bad precedent for politicians, it might lead to other, decdentralising ideas. Can’t be having with that! As Tony Lovell said, the future jobs are not in the past.
Another option for spending nearly $10b is the programme proposed by the Brotherhood of St Lawrence in their submission to the greenpaper. The report recommends the Government implements a national energy efficiency program for
3.5 million low-income households over the next 7 years. For an outlay of $8.7 billion, you could provide $2000 – $6000 worth of energy saving measures to low income households depending on the relative benefits in each circumstance. This would result in savings of around $14 billion over the next 12 years, representing a saving to the community of around $5.3 billion over that period. You can download their report here: http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/KPMG_national_energy_efficiency_program_low-income_households.pdf