RENEWABLE, LOW IMPACT FUELS – GAME CHANGER

This post is based on an article of mine, “Methanol electro fuel: A transport game changer” published in RenewEconomy on 12/3/13.  It has been expanded to include more discussion on other renewable, low impact fuels and the extraction of CO2 from air and water.  Briefly:

The renewable, low impact fuels described in this post can be produced in sufficient quantities to replace all fossil fuel requirements using commercially proven processes.  All these renewable products are low impact because, unlike many bio-fuels, their production doesn’t require the diversion of land from food production, or damage to the environment. With the exception of hydrogen they could all be handled using existing gasoline, diesel or LPG infrastructure.  Ammonia and methanol can replace LPG or gasoline after minor engine adjustments.

These renewable fuels are game changers.  They provide an essential part of any credible plan for 100% renewable transport.  As a result we don’t have to choose between 100% renewable transport vs destroying the economy, starving the poor or forgoing overseas travel.

Renewable hydrogen, methanol and ammonia can also be used to convert the production of a wide range of metals and chemicals to 100% renewable.

ROOFTOP SOLAR IS DRIVING DOWN EVERYONE'S POWER BILL

This is a summary of an article of mine  Why Utilities will Pay a Premium for Rooftop Solar published in REnewEconomy on 14 Dec 2012.  It was written to counter claims that people without rooftop solar (RTS) were paying more for their power so that RTS owners could be paid a 44 cent/kWh feed in tariff  much higher than the current tariff of about 23 cents/kWh .

Claims are being made that ordinary householders are subsidising rich rooftop solar owners. For example, Mark McArdle, (Queensland Minister for Energy and Water Supply) issued a media statement saying “the QCA analysis showed the solar bonus scheme currently added $26 per year to everyone’s annual electricity bill, which will increase to $90 next year if an application by Energex to the Australian Energy Regulator was successful.”

He added, “Rooftop solar costs are projected to add more than $240 per year to average electricity bills within five years.” (These claims were based on the previous government’s feed in tariff of 44¢/kWh)

So what is rooftop solar actually doing to household power bills in Queensland? And how high could the feed-in tariff go before it really would be increasing household power bills?

In the detailed section below, a comparison of demand and revenue vs time of day for 2008 and 2012 is used to answer the above questions. The quick answers are:

1. Rooftop solar is actually saving the “typical Queensland household” (without PV) $65/yr.

2. The feed-in tariff would have to rise above 96¢/kWh before rooftop solar actually stopped saving households (and power companies) money. Power companies can actually become more competitive by locking in extra contracts for the supply of rooftop solar, even if it means paying the small premium that was offered to me.

3. It is difficult to say what effect rooftop solar would have on household bills in five years’ time. My guess is that investment in rooftop solar will be justified at feed-in tariffs below what householders will be paying for power and that it will still be saving households money.

FLOATING MEMBERS AND TWO MEMBER ELECTORATES - BASIS OF A BETTER ELECTION SYSTEM?

Revised: 21 March 2013

In the 2010 Australian federal election* there was no clear result at the end of vote counting despite the ALP winning the two party preferred (2PP) vote.  In the end, an ALP minority government was formed after post election negotiations with the Greens and independents.  The LNP could have quite easily ended up as the government despite losing the 2PP vote.

 

By contrast, in the 2012 Queensland state election, the LNP gained a very clear majority of seats after clearly winning the 2PP vote.  The problem here was that the ALP won only 8 % of the seats (7 members) despite having 27% of the primary vote.  As a result, the ALP is struggling to hold the government to account let alone provide a credible alternative at the next election. Not a good outcome for the state.  (The LNP won 88% of the parliamentary seats despite winning less than 50% of the primary vote.)

The common link between both these problems is that single member electorates were used to decide who will become members of parliament.  The above are not the only problems associated with single member electorates.

In this article it is argued that a specific system based on two member electorates would overcome the problems that are a feature of systems based on single member electorates.

(*Definitions of the terms used here are included at the end of the article.)

PHASE CHANGE MATERIALS – BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This post was initially written to provide background information for this article on the potential benefits of moving air conditioners to off peak power. (published by RenewEconomy on 21 Sept 2012) The article argues that that gradually moving air conditioners to off peak would allow most of the proposed power system upgrades to be deferred for a long time.  The use of phase change materials (PCMs) to store cold or heat would allow this conversion to be done without reducing people's comfort levels.

PCMs are finding a markets as a compact way of storing heat or cold.  This post provides background information on the characteristics and uses of PCMs.  

DEFINITIONS:

Phase:  Many materials can exist in more than one phase.  For example, water can exist in the solid, liquid or gas phase.  Some materials can also exist as different crystal phases.

Phase change: The change from one phase to another.  For example, the melting of ice to liquid water.  Phase changes can be driven by changes in temperature and/or pressure.

Phase change material (PCM): A mixture or pure substance that can change phase.  The term is often restricted to materials that change phase over a narrow temperature range.

A BETTER COMMERCIAL MODEL FOR ROOFTOP SOLAR PV?

Revised 11 April 2013

The dominant commercial model for rooftop solar PV has the individual house holder owning the panels and getting the resulting income/free power.  In this post it is argued that it may make sense to give home owners the option of leasing rooftop space to power companies who own the panels and the power produced by the panels.  Advantages of this approach include the reduction of power costs by making it easier to use competitive tendering to set the feed in tariff,  allowing a mix of location and panel orientation better suited to the needs of the total power supply system as well as providing an income stream for home owners who cannot afford to buy panels.
Breaking News:
Since I first started talking about the advantages of competitive tendering for the supply of clean electricity , the ACT introduced their "Reverse Auction" for driving investment in large scale solar.  I don't know all the details of their system except that it is a competitive tendering system.
I have now found this article in the Australian (Giles Parkinson 7 Sept 2012) that announced that the ACT auction process had reached the point where the first contract has been awarded to  Spanish group FRV for a lower than expected fixed price of 18.6 cents/kWh for 20 yrs.  This price may seem a bit high but, based on Qld experience it should actually reduce ACT power bills by replacing more expensive sources of day-time power. End of breaking news.

FREE SPEECH AND THE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT

Andrew Dodd at the Drum had this to say about the Federal court ruling against Andrew Bolt and the Herald Sun on a racial discrimination case brought by a group of prominent fair skinned Aborigines that Bolt accused of claiming Aboriginality to advance their careers:

“No doubt the Federal Court would like us to see its judgment against columnist Andrew Bolt today as a call for decent standards in journalism, rather than as a landmark ruling against freedom of speech.

But in reality it will not be seen that way because it is a slap in the face for free expression. It limits the kinds of things we can discuss in public and it suggests there are lots of taboo areas where only the meekest forms of reporting would be legally acceptable”.

COAL AND LNG - LIFE CYCLE EMISSIONS

The following link compares life cycle emissions for the use of natural gas and coal in the US:

http://www.ce.cmu.edu/~gdrg/readings/2005/10/12/Jaramillo_LifeCycleCarbonEmissionsFromLNG.pdf

In particular look at fig 4 and 8.  Fig 4 suggests that, for the LNG cycle, at least 0.3 tonnes of emissions will come from non emission sources per tonne combustion emissions with about half this coming from LNG production, tanker transport and regasification.

While these figures are all about US alternatives, they clearly emphasize the importance of challenging the gas industry to publish site specific data.  Also suggests that there is lots to be said for locating generators close to the gas source.

Would be interesting to compare life cycle emissions from Australian LNG and coal used in Chinese power stations.