Archive for the ‘Greenhouse Gas Abatement’ Category
The government announced its Low Carbon Communities program late last year. If you are a local council or you operate a community facility, it might be time to start thinking about potential projects that you could seek funding for under the program.
The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is currently in the process of developing the program guidelines, including determining how the learnings from funded projects and information about the benefits of energy efficiency can be shared. They will be consulting on the draft program guidelines in early 2011. We’d expect applications for funding to open before the end of this financial year.
You should probably start by dusting off your greenhouse gas reduction plans, energy efficiency strategies, and climate change adaptation plans to look for potential projects. As a reminder there will be three funding streams:
- Small scale grants of up to $500,000 for local councils to undertake smaller scale projects to reduce energy consumption in facilities such as outdoor lighting.
- Large scale grants of up to $5 million for operators of community facilities to invest in energy efficient upgrades such as the installation of cogeneration or new heating and air conditioning.
- Greener Suburbs grants of up to $500,000 for councils to implement capacity building and demonstration projects that improve the use of parks and green spaces in urban areas.
Grants will be competitive so it is worthwhile being prepared. By considering project opportunities in the context of your broader strategies you can maximise the benefits of any funding you obtain.
There are three ways Greensense can potentially help.
Firstly, we are preferred suppliers of climate change consulting services to WA local governments and have worked with many councils developing adaptation and abatement plans. If you would like to think strategically about building a Low Carbon Community we would love to help.
Secondly, if you have some projects in mind, we can help to develop implementation plans and business cases for these projects. Once the program guidelines are available, we can help you to prepare effective grant applications.
Lastly, our technology, Greensense View supports energy efficiency and is already implemented in many councils and community buildings including leisure centres, sports stadiums, libraries and community centres. As an eligible energy efficiency technology, you could apply for funding to implement Greensense View.
Alternatively, you might want to consider installing Greensense View ahead of your Low Carbon Communities grant application, particularly if you are interested in the large scale grants. Greensense View is very cost effective to deploy and the real-time profile information it provides would be invaluable in supporting a grant application for a more substantial upgrade of a building.
In any case, its time to start put your thinking caps on to think about how this new government policy can support the changes you want to make in your community.
While there are some great professional tools for planning and analysing carbon abatement projects, most organisations still seem to use Microsoft Excel. Excel is not a bad tool for abatement planning, but its not always clear the best way to use it.
I was assisting a client to develop their greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan last week and a specific question came up regarding how to chart a Marginal Abatement Cost Curve in Excel, like the one shown below.
A Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC) is the classic way to present a portfolio of abatement options. The MACC plots abatement potential (X-axis) against the marginal abatement cost (Y-axis). The marginal abatement cost represents the dollar cost to abate one tonne of greenhouse gas emissions (that is, abatement potential divided by economic cost). There are quite a few good descriptions and examples of MACCs out there. One good recent report is Climate Work’s Low Carbon Growth Plan for Australia.
Once you have calculated the economic cost and abatement potential of each option, actually charting the cost curve is pretty simple. The trick is arranging the data so you can use the the standard Column chart type. This means you need to provide a value (the marginal abatement cost) for each tonne of carbon based on each projects abatement potential and with the projects ordered from least-cost to most-cost. This is illustrated below.
So, in the example above, Project A can abate up to 60 tonnes of carbon at a cost of -$90.50 per tonne (i.e. there is net economic benefit); Project B is the next best option and can abate up to a further 40 tonnes of carbon at a cost of -$5.00 per tonne; and so on.
Often you will have a separate Excel worksheet for each project and it can be a bit of work getting the data out of these individual worksheets into this arrangement so it is easy to chart. You can use macros, conditional sum formulae, or just copy the values manually.
When you get to actually creating the chart, use the standard Column chart type and format the data series so that there is no separation and no gap between the data points. If you like, you can download a very simple Sample-MACC-Chart to see what I mean.
The Environmental Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ) are running a climate change leadership forum on November 23rd, on tools, techniques and leadership lessons on climate change adaptation and mitigation. Greensense Managing Director, Derek Gerrard, will be presenting on smart technologies and behavioural change, reviewing the Subiaco Oval case study, as well as our carbon emission’s reporting solution for Local Government in partnership with WALGA.
If you haven’t registered and would like to you can find out more information here.
In a media statement released today, the WA State Government announced that the Forest Products Commission (FPC) will close down its carbon division.
The decision, announced by the Forestry Minister, Terry Redman, will doubtless be well received by the other main players in Australia’s developing forest carbon sector. Companies like Carbon Conscious , CO2 Australia and Rewards Group have been arguing for a while now, and with some justification, that a State Goverment owned entity should not be competing against the private sector in the carbon space.
FPC had previously completed deals with Synergy (5000 hectares) and BP but uncertainty over a start date for emissions trading had already forced an organisation restructure late last year.
The immediate future of existing contracts is not made clear in the statement, however FPC “will be exploring ways it can transfer this work to the private sector” according to Minister Redman.
Arguably one of the few positive news stories coming out of COP15 concerns REDD, or Reducing Emissions through Deforestation and Forest Degradation, a framework which would allow developed nations to pay (mostly) developing nations to preserve their rainforests and so earn tradable carbon credits.
According to the IPCC’s most recent assessment report , deforestation accounts for around 20% of human-induced CO2 emissions globally — more than the entire global transportation sector and second only to the energy sector. Much of this deforestation occurs in more southern latitudes and generally in developing countries.
The REDD concept was first introduced at COP13 in Bali after forestry and land-use change had originally been excluded under the Kyoto Protocol. The idea was to establish a mechanism that provided financial incentives for developing countries to reduce clearing of their natural forests. The finance would be provided by developed countries as a way of offsetting their own emissions. Since it’s conception, REDD has often stood to represent one of those rare gems in the global climate change response — namely, a piece of policy that both developing and developed countries agree on and where each party has something to gain.
Whilst the original focus was on reduction of CO2, it has since been acknowledged that REDD can and must deliver considerable co-benefits such as biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation. This has led to a rebrand of REDD into what is now known as REDD+, or REDD plus.
As with many areas of global climate policy, COP15 was supposed to represent the end of the REDD+ deliberations and the finalisation of a framework that would kick-start REDD+ projects worldwide. So what actually happen?
Whilst there was no deal on REDD+ as such, there was at least some assertive language on REDD+ within the ‘Copenhagen Accord’ (paragraph 6); there was final text from the ‘Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA)’ on methodological issues surrounding REDD+; and there was well worked up text from the ‘Ad-Hoc working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action’ on policy approaches towards REDD+. This included relatively strong language on various ‘safeguards’, such as reference to certain international human rights instruments; and there are some funding pledges totalling around $3.5 billion for REDD+.
None of this is legally binding at this stage, so REDD+ is still far from becoming the offset generating, wealth transferring nirvana that many believe it capable of. However, the outcome is positive on at least two contrasting fronts:
- For supporters of REDD+, there is clearly still momentum and it remains one of the few areas of policy where alignment between developed and developing nations is good. Progression of discussions around key principles and safeguards and the pledges of financial support should help improve pilot programs.
- For those with concerns about REDD+, in particular with the way some projects where being implemented and the sometimes unrealistic expectations of benefits, the COP15 outcome will surely represent a touching of the breaks. This is by no means a bad thing as all parties acknowledge it is important to get the framework right or else risk undermining the effectiveness of REDD+ and the confidence of those involved.
So perhaps the REDD+ result was not all that bad? Some progress has been made on the details, and interest from a diverse range of stakeholders is still high. It has bought some time to help ensure that REDD+ is sustainable in the long term. And it may allow for a reality check of what can and cannot be delivered by REDD+ as a climate change mitigation instrument as part of a broader international response to climate change.
Australia is betting big on carbon capture and storage (CCS). It’s a bet that Martin Ferguson is backing. The Federal Resources and Energy Minister recently opined against renewables in The Australian and said that “no serious response to climate change can ignore the need to clean up coal.”
The big question is how much will CCS cost? A recent report from Harvard found that ‘first-of-a-kind’ carbon capture and storage plants will cost approximately $150/tCO2 avoided.
Treasury’s modeling for the CPRS forecast that in 2050 — as far forward as they modeled — the cost of carbon would be $124.91 (2005 dollars — CPRS-15 scenario). So $150/tCO2 doesn’t look like a great investment at first glance. However, the Harvard report also found that as CCS technology matures and if construction costs reduce from 2008 levels then the costs could reduce to as low as $25/tCO2 avoided.
A primary reason for the emissions trading scheme is to encourage business to invest in abatement. Businesses that don’t reduce their emissions — that simply purchase permits at auction — risk becoming uncompetitive and unsustainable. So all businesses — not just electricity generators — have strategic investment decisions to make right now.
The introduction of the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) will have a significant impact on Australian business. It is essential that your organisation is ready to participate in the auction process and the preparation required should not be underestimated.
To assist you with this Greensense, in partnership with tradeslot (the only technology member of the Emissions Trading Scheme advisory panel to the Dept of Climate Change) has developed a comprehensive auction master class. For those businesses that will be liable to trade permits under the CPRS this provides an opportunity to test your readiness and learn in an interactive, hands-on environment.
The master class is run over the course of a day and ends in an online simulated auction. This is a unique offering where scenarios can be tested in real time within an electronic environment that mirrors the current design of the CPRS platform.
For more information contact Greensense on info@greensense.com.au
The 2007/08 National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) emission data was released this week. The NPI provides the community, industry and government with free information about substance emissions in Australia and is a cooperative program implemented by the Federal, State and Territory Governments.
The latest data provides estimates for the emissions of 90 toxic substances from 414 sources and covers 4116 facilities across Australia
The NPI reports on pollutant emissions from industry and diffuse sources, by location. Industrial facilities are required to report emissions to the NPI if they use more than a certain amount of one or more substances on the NPI reporting list, or consume more than a specified amount of fuel or electricity, or emit more than a certain amount of nitrogen or phosphorus to water.
Although it doesn’t cover the 6 Kyoto greenhouse gases, data collection and reporting for NPI does follow a similar, albeit more complex, methodology NGERS and the GHG Protocol. For many organisation that have previously reported under NPI and are now also required to report under NGERS, they are simply expanding that reporting to include greenhouse gases.
Whilst this is a logical way of addressing the NGERS reporting requirements, it does present some challenges. Given the financial implications of NGERS, the reporting process must be robust, highly transparent and able to stand up to external audit by the regulator. This has never been a requirement for NPI reporting and so the reporting processes within organisations may need to be reviewed to ensure they’re up to scratch.
For those of you who are interested, there’s an excellent Google Earth layer that’s been developed that plots NPI data from Australian polluters. The screenshot below shows NPI data from Perth facilities looking North up the coast. You can read more about this at the Google Earth community group.
Greensense will calculate the carbon inventory of the 2009 Margaret River Drug Aware Pro and develop strategies to reduce the environmental impact of future events with a view to them carbon neutral.
Derek Gerrard, Managing Director of Greensense says “This initiative is about raising awareness of the climate change issue and recognising that simple behavioural changes can make a big difference.”
To calculate the carbon inventory of the event, Greensense estimates the carbon emissions produced by competitor, official and spectator travel and accommodation, catering, water usage, waste management, recycling, ticketing, printing, marketing and other carbon producing activities.
Tom Wilson, International Events Manager of Surfing WA says “We are embarking on a new and positive direction for the future of the Drug Aware Pro. In a first for any major event in Western Australia, Greensense will be undertaking a carbon audit that will produce some real positive outcomes for the future of the Drug Aware Pro on how best we can manage the pollution we put into the environment.”
According to recent research by the independent group The Climate Institute, Australia’s emissions are continuing to rise, despite the economic slowdown. The report suggests that according to key indicators for climate change: commercial and residential electricity and fuel use, national carbon pollution increased by 800,000 tonnes in the December quarter. That is equivalent to the emissions of 80,000 households or 185,000 cars.
This recent report provides further evidence, if more were still needed, that there must be no delay in households and business making immediate changes to put in measures to reduce their carbon emissions. Greensense believes there is still too much talk and not enough action occurring in our nation and both government and business should be taking bolder steps. If your business needs assistance with this then contact Greensense, who is fast becoming Perth’s premier climate change consultancy.
The AFL (Australian Football League), with the help of their partner Origin Energy, aim to be the first sporting league in the world to completely offset the carbon emissions generated by their activities. This will see a reduction of about 120,000 tonnes of emissions in 2009, through a combination of offsetting and internal abatement through energy efficiency.
For more information go to the AFL website.
Individual clubs, including Hawthorn , Carlton and St Kilda have their own published green initiatives and are setting an example for the remaining AFL clubs to follow.
At Greensense we believe it would be great to see not only other AFL clubs following in their footsteps, but some of the other large sporting leagues in the country taking a pro-active approach to tackling climate change. Education is a vital first step in encouraging people to make the small changes in their life necessary to reduce their carbon footprint. With their large memberships and high profile, sporting clubs and organisations are perfectly placed to support this education process by taking a lead and setting that al-important example.
Looking overseas there is also still a lot of work to be done by the sporting leagues and clubs. This industry typically has a lot of travel and should be conscious of it’s environmental impact. In a quick scan of websites of the Football Association UK, English Premier League (and 5 of its 20 clubs), National Football League US (and 8 of its 32 clubs), National Basketball Association US (and 8 of its 30 clubs), the Olympics and the US Golf Association it appears none are making any progress in this space.
There is a strong sense of community involvement, particularly in the US, in areas of youth, domestic violence, discrimination, food bank, blood bank, homelessness etc. The New York Jets, whose colours are green, have and ‘Lean and Green’ program but it is all about childhood obesity and food programs with no mention of environmental aspects.
Sweden has reversed a decades-old ban on nuclear power stations, according to a recent report by Associated Press, saying they need nuclear power to meet their carbon emission reduction targets. In 1980 Swedes voted in a referendum to phase out nuclear power, at a time when safety concerns were high. Since then there has been considerable change in community attitudes because of concerns about climate change.
Sweden has large hydroelectric power sources, but even so, energy usage is growing and it is struggling to meet its ambitious carbon reduction targets: phasing out fossil fuels for heating by 2030 and becoming carbon neutral by 2050.
This new strategic direction has followed extensive public debate in Sweden comparing the risk and cost of nuclear power with the risk and cost of climate change. There seems to be much less debate in Australia on a sustainable energy future.
It is clear that Australian government is keen to sustain the coal industry through investment in so called ‘clean coal’ and compensation to protect the industry from the CPRS. While the government is investing less in renewable energy, it has committed to ensuring that 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply comes from renewable energy sources by 2020 through an expended Renewable Energy Targets scheme.
The Howard government attempted to begin debate on nuclear power in Australia, commissioning the Switkowski Report, which called nuclear energy ‘the least-cost low-emission technology that can provide baseload power and which is well established.’ However, the Rudd government has only shown interest in supporting uranium mining and exports.
A common argument in favour of nuclear power is that it can provide ‘base load power’, unlike renewable energy sources. However, a recent government report found significant potential for renewable energy to provide base load power.
What are your views on Australia’s energy strategy?
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is very important to the government’s current plan for dealing with climate change. This is clear from the $100M investment the government is making in the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSI) and the recent treasury modeling, which forecast that Australia’s costs will be 25% higher in 2050 if CCS technology isn’t viable.
GCCSI is envisioned as a global institute supporting international research and facilitating projects hosted in Australia. The United Kingdom and Norway have publicly backed the plan. While some people see CCS as a silver bullet, being the only way we can make deep cuts in emissions using fossil fuels, for others it is a pipe dream with many challenges to overcome to overcome.
In any case it is a key part of the government’s strategy to deal with climate change and something we need to follow.
The Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC), is in many ways the forerunner of the GCCSI. CO2CRC is the epicenter of CCS research and application in Australia. They have recently published an interesting review of the CCS activity in Australia and publish a large number of other useful reports and fact sheets.
If you want to understand Carbon Capture and Storage, the CO2CRC is definitely the place to go.
Not an economic disaster
The long-awaited treasury modeling on the economic impacts of the proposed emissions trading scheme have been released. While some people are concerned about the implications of the global financial crisis, the broad consensus is that the scheme won’t cripple the economy or household budgets.
As an aside, I was interested to see the Australian newspaper responding positively that the scheme would only cost households $1 per day. The West Australian newspaper on the other was very concerned that it would cost households $365 per year.
Uncertainty over Australia’s trajectory
Treasury modeled the trajectories proposed by Garnaut and the Greenpaper. As we’ve mentioned before, the proposals by both Garnaut and the Greenpaper are for relatively conservative cuts for 2020 of between 5% to 25%.
However, as we know, stabilising concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere to “acceptable” levels will require more substantial cuts in the future. These will come from further economic adaption, increasing carbon prices, new technology developments, and significant behavioral changes to reduce energy use.
While we do know the general range of possible cuts Australia will adopt, we won’t know what specific trajectory Australia will follow until after the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in late 2009.
New technology to the rescue
Technology developments are particularly important to reducing the economic impacts of proposed cuts. For example, the government is placing a lot of importance on the successful development of carbon capture and storage technology (CCS). The treasury modeling suggests that Australia’s costs will be 25% higher in 2050 if this technology isn’t viable.
However as we’ve discussed before, even without CCS Australia should be a country of relatively low energy costs. Interestingly, while the treasury modeling does make reference to our renewable resources it doesn’t make reference to nuclear power.
What it means for your business
While the modeling shows that the proposed cuts are affordable, some industries will be affected more than others and it is important to consider the impacts for your industry sector and your business.
If your business may be subject to caps under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme it is very important that you are now doing your own modeling of your internal abatement costs versus the likely cost of carbon emissions under the trading scheme.
The treasury modeling has given us a very good indication of the likely initial price of carbon, which is $23 per tonne (CO2e). This will allow you to begin to properly analyse the value of your abatement projects and to develop offsetting and trading strategies.
Greensense can help you plan, analyse and prioritise your abatement project portfolio; develop market scenarios and model alternative internal reduction trajectories; and optimise your investments between internal reduction options and offsetting and trading.
The Council Of Australian Governments (COAG) met in Perth on the second of October. This is the premier meeting of Australian state and territory leaders with the Federal Government. Its role is to achieve policy reform on areas of national significance that require cooperative action by Australian governments. While their discussions are wide ranging, covering everything from the economy to indigenous health, of particular interest to us are the agreements relating to climate change. These discussions centred on improving energy efficiency and the new Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.
Energy Efficiency
COAG has agreed to develop a National Strategy for Energy Efficiency to accelerate energy efficiency efforts across all governments. The strategy should also help households and businesses prepare for the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). The strategy is expected to be ready around June 2009.
Meanwhile, COAG has agreed to develop national legislation for appliance energy performance standards and labelling. Work done here here will be fed into the energy efficiency strategy. A national framework should simplify enforcement and improve consistency across Australia.
This is a very positive step because improving energy efficiency is the most important strategy for reducing carbon emissions.
Carbon Capture and Storage
Carbon Capture and Storage has been identified by some as one of the major pathways to lower carbon emissions. In July 2008, the Group of Eight economies set the goal to commit by 2010 to at least 20 industrial scale demonstration projects to enable the broad deployment of carbon capture and storage technology by 2020.
In September the Prime Minister announced the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute. The institute’s role is to accelerate the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage technology. It will also assist supporting areas such as regulatory frameworks.
COAG agreed that the Commonwealth would work with State and Territory governments to finalise the design of the Global Carbon Capture Storage Institute. And they agreed with the principles of supporting CCS research and eventual commercial deployment.
Around 80% of Australia’s electricity production currently comes from coal, and coal exports will earn about $43 billion in 2008-09. Given our heavy reliance on coal and coal exports, it is understandable that the Australian government is keen to fast-track research into this area.
To date although small scale projects have been built, no industrial scale integrated CCS power plant has been built. However as Garnaut points out if carbon capture and storage fails Australia may still be be a country of low-cost and low-emission energy because of abundant geothermal, solar, wind, wave and biomass renewable resources and reserves of natural gas and uranium.
So while COAG’s interest in climate change is positive we should hope that we’re not putting too many eggs in too few baskets. The full COAG communique can be found here.
