![]()
The
Energy White Paper 2012
(EWP2012), released by the Australian Government last week, seeks to
map out a strategic policy framework for future energy supply. One of
the major goals of EWP2012 is to provide a “clear vision” of how
Australia should set about the long-term task of decarbonising our
stationary electricity, liquid fuels and industrial sectors. So how well
does it succeed?
As an overview of the current status quo
on domestic supply, distribution and exports of energy, it is a fine
document. However, as a forward-looking, agenda-setting stimulus paper,
it has weaknesses. The focus is strongly on how natural gas and
unconventional fossil fuel markets might develop in the coming decades
under various uncertainties, and the impact of these on national
economic growth and trade. In terms of its projections of the expansion
of currently poorly developed “alternative” (non-fossil) electricity –
the biggest issue to address – let’s consider the medium-demand scenario
(Fig. 6.1, pg 88):
![]()
This
shows a gradual phase out of traditional coal (to be replaced by
carbon-capture and storage [CCS] variants after about 2035) and a
ramp-up of combined cycle gas (both CCS and non-CCS). Up to half of
electricity is coming from wind, solar thermal, solar PV and engineered
geothermal by 2050. The estimated cost is “more than $200 billion in new
generation investment”.
These projected finances are based on the
levelised cost of electricity estimates provided in the recent
AETA report, but do not adequately consider “value” of the electricity,
as I explained here. Putting that to one side, the basic technology options, with current and projected 2030 prices, are shown in Fig. 6.2:
![]()
Nuclear
power – generated by both large (“monolithic”) and small (“modular”)
reactors – are an obvious low-cost, low-carbon (and baseload) standout
here in Fig. 6.2. Yet nuclear power is invisible in the Fig. 6.1
projections.
Why?
This is explained in Box 6.3 on pg 98 of EWP2012. The argument made is
that there is no “social consensus” on the technology (is there one for
coal-seam gas?), nor an economic case (but that is relative to its
direct competitor, black and brown coal, with no carbon price).
No comments:
Post a Comment