Antinuclear

The government chose, as the opening keynote speaker, Dr Adi Paterson, the CEO of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, who was asked to give a basic overview of renewable energy technologies. It was a provocative choice to a 200-strong audience of mostly renewable energy experts, and he played to type.

Wind energy, he told them, was basically useless. Denmark had spent 40 years erecting wind turbines all over the place and they still only accounted for 20 per cent of its energy use, and the country had the highest energy emissions in Europe.

Marine energy, he said, was unreliable and “never there when you want it.” And to illustrate the point he showed a picture of an early prototype that had sunk to the ocean floor.

Solar PV, Paterson said, was inefficient and it took up too much space. What’s more, “its electricity doesn’t move about nicely”, cost $40,000/kW and all the PV capacity in the world would only provide enough electricity for the island of Malta. New modular nuclear power stations, which can be dropped in at remote areas, however, were particularly exciting. You get the picture……..

much of it was bunkum.

Just for the record, data from the International Energy Agency shows that Denmark has cut its emissions per kWh by 40 per cent in the last two decades as wind replaced coal, and it now ranks 10th (not last) in the EU 27 on this criteria, and 14th in emissions per capita. Denmark is so delighted with its achievements it now aims to have wind supply 42 per cent of its energy by 2020.

Global wind capacity is predicted to rise ten-fold from its current level of around 200GW by 2030, and unless all those wind turbines succeed in knocking the earth off its orbit (watch this video to learn how), then tidal movements will remain predictable – right down to the centimeter and the minute – years in advance.

And wave energy machines will not be installed in lakes. Europe’s leading energy companies such as EDF, Siemens, Alstom and SSE are falling over each other trying buy up marine energy technology, which they think could eventually be as cheap as wind.

And, according to data from the IEA and the European Photovoltaic Industry Association, solar PV generated enough electricity in 2009 (about 24 terawatt hours) to power Malta (2.3TWh) more than 10 times over, not just once. The installed capacity of solar PV has more than doubled since then, so it might be generating enough to meet the electricity requirements of Greece. Global installed capacity is expected to increase four-fold in the next four years. Industry estimates put the cost of solar PV at $3,500-$5,000kW, and falling quickly – about 20 per cent for every doubling in capacity.

Paterson’s overview, like those of other presenters, might be laughed off as the predictably prejudicial stance of the pro-nuclear lobby – or, as one onlooker noted, “engineers of a certain age” – but it represents a deeper industry malaise. Several representatives from international organisations were still shaking their heads several hours after the presentation. “We went through this 15 years ago,” said one. “It beggars belief.”

Australia is hopelessly behind the rest of the developed world in key energy criteria – productivity, emissions, renewable power installation, demand management and energy efficiency. And many would argue it is because policy makers have relied on advice from those – like Paterson – who are so deeply attached to the concept of centralised energy and past technologies, instead of those who look to the future, who appreciate the potential of distributed energy, intermittent energy sources, and who – like the IEA – believe that the challenges of grid integration can be overcome.

Professor Ross Garnaut, among others, has noted the degree of “regulatory capture” in the energy industry in Australia. And two issues exacerbate the problem: one is the quality of the data, and the other is quality of industry culture……..

Rather than be influenced by those who think that change is too hard or too costly, perhaps Australia should look overseas for inspiration on what can be done. A recent IEA analysis on harnessing renewables noted that 17 per cent of the world’s energy would need to come from variable sources such as wind and solar by 2035. In some areas, the variable energy sources’ contribution of up to 48 per cent (63 per cent in the case of Denmark) could be balanced.

“Variability needs not be an impediment to deployment,” IEA’s Richard Jones said. “As long as power systems and markets are properly configured so they can get the best use of their flexible resources, large shares of variable renewables are entirely feasible.”

The UK Department of Energy and Climate Change recently went further, completing a study which found that 65 per cent renewable penetration was technically feasible by 2030 (it stands at 3 per cent now)……..http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/shock-new-0