Climate Change Shouldn’t Be Political!
Summary
Statistics show many more on the right of politics either deny climate change is happening or believe it is not important. On the left, the reverse is true. Why is this? Probably because the conservative right doesn’t want change. While coal is a major export earner for Australia, what should be appreciated is the export potential of renewable power and hydrogen. Australia is made for it, with vast expanses of sun drenched land, times zones to cover most peak hours and wind variation. However, a continent wide transmission network is needed.
Energy is the biggest contributor to climate change. Fossil fuels are old technology. They have done a great job in modernising the way we live but are damaging our beautiful, one and only planet. It is serious – see ‘References’ below. Following are explanations of how the concerns of doubters can be answered. The remarks below are factual for all countries, not just for Australia.
What must be taken into account is the ongoing improvement in new technology. Rome was not built in a day and small armies of very bright, usually young scientists and entrepreneurs are finding answers to problems detailed below. It has always been so. An example is the motor car. 60 years ago they often broke down. Now hardly ever. Today technology is overcoming problems exponentially faster.
Unwarranted Concerns
Electricity Costs will Go Up
They will if upsets like the Ukrainian war stops the supply of fossil fuels. If countries were 100% renewably electrified, prices would be much cheaper and wouldn’t change. Renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels, (even though coal is still subsidised in Australia) and going down *. Countries would own them on site, not relying on imports other than the sun and wind, which are free. Coal, oil and gas aren’t.
* Present Day Costs, $A/kWh. See ‘References’ below.
- Utility Solar: 3.7c
- Wind: 4.1c
- Coal: 10.9c
- Natural Gas: 5.6c
Roof solar is even lower as there is no transmission or distribution cost.
Renewables Are Intermittent
Iron Flow Battery On Site
Yes, they are and we need large scale batteries or other energy storage devices. While Lithium-ion (Li-Ion) batteries, such as from Tesla are good, they are expensive and provide relatively short term storage. One of the most promising solutions for long term, low cost storage is iron flow batteries. The term ‘flow’ relates to the liquid electrolyte which is pumped through the electrodes.
They are 40% cheaper than Li-Ion because the components are iron, salt and water. Iron flow batteries don’t degrade, are good for 20 plus years and will store energy for 100 hours (4 days) plus. They are safe, have no fire, chemical, or explosion risk (unlike Li-Ion) and are fully recyclable at end of life. Iron flow batteries are heavy and not suitable for electric vehicles (EVs).
The video below is an interesting explanation.
Has the Climate Changed Already?
Many people don’t believe there has been any change and quote prior periods of floods, droughts, high temperatures, etc. Most prior records for these events have been exceeded in the last few years because climate change causes weather extremes.
Towns in Germany last year had for the first time whole streets of houses swept away by rapidly flowing floodwaters.
There has already been substantial melting of polar ice with average sea levels rising over 8 inches (about 23 cm) since 1880, about three inches in the last 25 years. Every year, the sea rises another 0.13 inches (3.2 mm). Left unchecked, these increases will decimate coastal towns. Some people say the climate has always changed. Yes, over multiple thousands of years, never at this rate.
Recycling End of Life Renewables
For some reason, many people don’t believe solar panel installations are recyclable. They are and there is much information about how it is done. See ‘References’ below. In any case, installations last typically 30 to 35 years.
Wind hardware is mainly steel and most components are easily recycled. The composite blades can be melted and turned into cement, for example.
References
- National Geographic
- Seattle Times
- Recycling Solar Installations
- Warning on Climate Change Inaction
- Lazard Energy Costs
16 Responses
Dear Campbell
Thank you as ever. May I ask two questions please?
1. As solar costs creep down, so must the profits of those selling kwh to the grid. Notwithstanding the rooftop brigade and the advantages to them in costs, so too are added further challenges to the profitability of solar producers. How long before they find a more profitable alternative?
2. Has Germany effectively signalled the end of net zero by dumping nuclear and depending on Russian ol and gas?
Don
Always good to hear from you. My take on your questions is:
1. I believe the costs quoted by Lazard are amortised over the life of the installation, including capital cost. To this is added profit, charged to the consumer. Costs usually come down as production techniques improve. Take the mobile phone. When they first came out in the late 80s, they were like bricks and expensive. Now they are smaller, do so much more and are way cheaper. In fact, as quoted in my earlier blog, communication costs have come down 200 times! This is what is happening with electricity supply. Providers still thrive in all industries. Volume increases (as the world turns more and more to clean electricity) while cost per unit decreases.
2. Germany is in transition and still relies on fossil fuels like many countries. As I say in the blog, they are not far enough down the path to net zero. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have this problem caused by the Ukrainian war and their reliance on Russian supply.
Thanks Campbell and well done.
An important element not included is the social responsibility of polluting the environment and building in permanent global temperature increases for future generations to cope with and suffer from.
The selfish right of politics works from the assumption current citizens should not suffer cost increases due to global warming and that is not a reasonable position.
Deliberate pollution of the environment is morally wrong and if higher costs are the price of stopping the pollution then those costs should be paid by the societies responsible. Civilized societies no longer allow citizens to dump their polluting household rubbish on the street, rather they are taxed by local authorities to take the rubbish away. The citizens pay.
In reality replacement technologies are now cheaper for the citizens but the point I am making here is if stopping global warming means higher costs for citizens they should pay the higher costs and stop polluting.
Kris
Thanks for your comments.
Yes, the young are the ones who will be most affected. No wonder they are so vociferous. Costs, in the long run, will be less. New technology is almost always cheaper, once perfected.
I agree. The move towards renewables, and away from fossil fuels, should be a win an all fronts – economically and environmentally.
Thanks, Graham.
Fossil fuels have been great, but they are old expensive technology and damaging, not only to the climate but to people’s health. Around 9 million people die premature deaths worldwide each year from fossil fuel pollution, 9 times more than from motor accidents.
Thanks for that simple and elegant case for change, Campbell!
However, there will always be those who vehemently oppose reason and evidence even if they have to resort to bizarre arguments. Psychologists categorise them as victims of ‘Denial Pathology’!
Well put Tony.
Well done CK. A good outline.
Thanks, Warwick. Always good to hear from you.
Thanks Campbell for a clear cut explanation. I am a great believer in the development of alternate energy sources. What worries me is the me and now attitude that is generated by many. Phasing out of fossil fuels is essential but not before we have the batteries to store. No doubt it will happen . One only has to look at computers which once filled rooms and had to have air conditioning to keep them cool and now we have the Dick Tracey wrist watch. I am also concerned that it is being used as a political weapon, mostly promoted by the privileged upper class.
John
Thanks as always for your comments.
Yes low cost, long term batteries are essential and the iron flow type looks promising. Conservatives are reluctant to change but the need to fix the climate will become overwhelming, I believe.
Thanks again Campbell Keenan very incisive article.
A couple of points would stand out as being incentives to switch to renewals.
Firstly, The health aspect. Not many people realise how many others are affected adversely by pollution caused to the burning of fossil fuels. This in self should be enough to swing peoples thinking look for alternatives.
Secondly, the profit motive alone should be sufficient To encourage investment in the field of renewables. Two people to stand out of course A Twiggy forest and Mike Cannon Brooks . Elong Musk has entered the field, however is your point out his batteries are not as affective as the iron flow models. Price of course comes into that as well.
Preferred particles is the reluctance of various government members and others in the private sector to except the fact that we have to get away from Coal. This really requires a rethink from both political parties where vested interest make them reluctant to accept the obvious
Thanks again buddy always great to hear from you I read a bit of intelligence for change. Cheers best wishes Michael
Thanks, Michael
Yes, 9 milliion people die prematurely each year from fossil fuel pollution, 9 times more than from car accidents. This 60 minutes program from channel 9 is worth watching, https://youtu.be/4uFhG3Nzym0
Puzzled. How can solar cost cents at night? And wind while calm? The price would be infinite. I think the sources omit the need for storage.
Ian
What you say has merit theoretically, but in practice, we all know the problem is intermittency and as you say batteries are needed or connections across vast time zones, distances or areas. There would then be sun and wind somewhere. The EU is doing this and so is OZ.