Home Energy Analysis

The long awaited “Draft Report” into climate change by Ross Garnaut was released yesterday. I’m not among the few who have read it (537 pages) so any comments are based on newspaper and internet reporting and analysis.

It seems to be conveying the same general message as the Stern report: the science says climate change is inevitable unless drastic CO2 emission reductions are achieved. Devastation to the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu flooded and further damage to the Murray Darling basin are all envisaged. Since Stern, science is coming to the view that change is happening more rapidly therefore the costs of inaction have also increased.

 Garnaut (an economist like Stern) has proposed an emission trading scheme (ETS, another TLA we will all become familiar with). Stern seemed to say that emission reductions could be made with little economic pain, but Garnaut is less optimistic here. He discusses the need to compensate those parts of the community which will be most affected. 

The report was commissioned when the Labor Party was not in power and was to be the blueprint for future actions if Labor achieved government. Now that Kevin Rudd is Prime Minister,  the report is “just one input into the Prime Minister’s thinking”. Garnaut’s response that “he’s just one input into mine” highlights that the Government has moved from full commitment. The political challenges in implementing any of the recommendations are formidable, especially for Rudd who shows a disinclination to make any decisions that might upset any group. The opposition party is still expressing caution and pushing the line that as a small nation we should not take risks that might hurt our trade. The recent drastic rises in petrol prices have made clear that our energy spending is an important part of the household budget.  

The report envisages the ETS beginning in 2010: I am not optimistic that anything will happen so quickly. If it wasn’t so important, I’d enjoy watching the politicians squirm as they try to reconcile effective action and getting re-elected.

Garnaut has recommended spending on renewable energy research including a major effort in “clean coal” technology - another area I’m less than confident about.

This title of the post is a heading in Melbourne’s Sunday Age. It refers to the the first budget of Australia’s new government, one which is committed to actions addressing climate change.

Half a billion will be devoted to the development of “clean coal” technology. As a country we love coal because we export it and we have been indifferent to the amount of CO2 that results from its use. I am sceptical about the practicality of the proposed technology but reluctantly agree that we should invest some dollars so that research can be undertaken.

I am more enthusiastic about the proposed support of commercialisation of renewable programs.

I am most enthusiastic about funds to help businesses become more energy efficient, and of course would love to see a section of the budget providing a copy of the Home Energy Analysis System for every Australian small business. It would need a few changes to supply information required by business but this is a small challenge, certainly when compared with clean coal technology.

As an Australian, I am a spectator of the US election process. From this distance, Obama is the most attractive candidate on many levels.

No youngster myself, I am bemused by the thought of the 71 year old John McCain seeking this most aging of jobs. His suggestion that one solution to rising fuel prices is to rebate fuel taxes for a period gives rise to astonishment. And I’m disappointed that Hillary Clinton has said “me too” and also supports the rebate.

I like this quote from Obama: “This isn’t an idea designed to get you through the summer, it’s an idea designed to get them through an election.”

It is extremely disappointing that the World’s most influential nation could be lead for another four years by someone whose environmental commitment is no better than that of George W Bush.

This Youtube presentation by Professor Naomi Oreskes describes the history of global warming science then steps through the reasons many citizens of the USA are unconvinced that global warming is accepted by the vast majority of scientists in the area. It isn’t brief at nearly an hour in length, but is well worth watching.

One of the resolutions I intended making for 2008 was to pay a little extra to purchase some or all of our household electricity from green sources. All the major suppliers offer greenpower in some way or another. One motive was so that graphs from the Home Energy Analysis System would illustrate the decrease in carbon dioxide from our electricity use.

GreenPower is defined as coming from “any generator built or commissioned after 1 January 1997 that is GreenPower approved”. Most of Australia’s 8% power from renewable sources is hydroelectric and was in place prior to 1997. Approximately 0.4% of total electricity fits the GreenPower definition - electricity generation facilities are not built overnight but 0.4% in ten years is a modest record.

I was a little puzzled that some suppliers offer a fixed cost irrespective of consumption rather than an increase in the rate per kWh. The  author of this blog post was also curious and has created a detailed analysis of this question. He has exposed the many inconsistencies of the Australian green power market.

For instance, the various retailers had customers in 2006 purchasing 4.8 times the accredited GreenPower produced. This doesn’t make sense, and means that anyone paying for 100% renewable energy cannot realistically claim to be adding zero CO2 to the atmosphere. 

Ground source heat pumps can apparently produce 4 watts of heating for each watt of electricity input. Metal pipes are buried in the ground at a depth of at least 1.5 metres where the Earth’s temperature remains constant. I don’t have any figures for how much piping is required but it can be a major excavation. A pump is used to move a water/ethylene glycol mixture around the pipes so that it is warmed and can then be used to provide house and water heating with the appropriate heat exchangers and compressors. The capital costs are high, but running costs are low, and I would expect maintenance would also be low. Of course, it will be more economical in colder regions.

The technology can also provide cooling, but it seems most installations are heating only. 

Most installations are in the United States and Sweden according to George Monbiot. There seem to be a few companies active in Australia but they keep a low profile. There have been a few installations in Tasmania: the Integrated Energy Management Centre
could tell us more but it doesn’t have a website.

The Australian Government has recently made this small booklet available.  Non-Australians can see its contents on the web here. It contains a mixture of motherhood advice and sensible suggestions. Among the banal is the recommendation to switch off lights when leaving the room. Among the sensible is a list of ways to obtain rebates for going solar. Among the very sensible would have been a suggestion to use the Home Energy Analysis System as a way of measuring the effects of changes in behaviour on energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.

It is a very slight document considering the volume of press and TV advertising. Many interested people will, like me, have requested a copy through the web site or the advertised telephone number under the impression that this was the only to obtain it. However, we received two copies with Sunday papers a week after the commencement of advertising.

The booklet is also an instrument of electioneering propaganda.  Australia is soon to have an election and the current government has changed from climate change scepticism as it realises that most of the electorate believes that climate change is real. The booklet mentions “The Australian Government” (sometimes without the Australian) ten times in 12 pages. The url www.australia.gov.au/climateclever is on each page. A url like www.climateclever.org.au would have been more appropriate.

There isn’t much in the way of detail available yet, but the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, has announced that: “Every school in Australia will be eligible for a voucher of up $50,000 to help install solar hot water systems and rainwater tanks.” Can I recommend to these schools that they invest $20 of their green voucher in software to measure the magnitude of their savings?

Australia was at last able to view this “documentary” a few nights ago. What we saw is apparently the fourth edit, as some of the more outrageous items have been removed and the contributions of Dr Wunsch deleted at his request. My own impression is that it was a competent presentation of a point of view without much heard of the opposing view. The titles superimposed over the talking heads were also impressive.

Martin Durkin allowed himself to be interviewed afterwards - probably a mistake on his behalf, although it is always interesting to watch a defence of the indefensible. Some of the more blatant misrepresentations were examined. For instance, the comparison of temperature rise and solar activity that ended in 1980(?) just when the solar activity started to decrease. Durkin’s explanation seemed to be along the lines of “a graph has to end somewhere”. Many of the impressive titles of the talking heads failed to survive this interview, or greatly lost their credibility.

Next we had a panel where there was approximately a 50% split between Swindle believers and sceptics. Some of the believers had the grace to look embarrassed to be supporting the program. Most surprising (to me, anyway) was the coal industry representative firmly amongst the believers in CO2 related global warming.

Questions from the audience were hilarious for those who managed to stay watching. Unfortunately, I missed most of it but did hear an incomprehensible question concerning Carbon 14 that didn’t reach the panel.

Finally, there was an interview with Dr Wunsch to explain how he believed he had been deceived and misrepresented and why he had requested that his comments be removed.

John Quiggin’s blog has a long discussion dated July 12 for anyone after more detail on the showing.

By 2011, we Melbourne residents should have a proportion of desalinated water in our water supply. This is in response to low rainfall over the last 10 years leading to very low levels in our reservoirs. The HEAS site has a page describing our household’s attempts to adapt to this new reality.

The proposed plant has a capacity of 450 billion litres of water per year, and will require 90 megawatts of energy annually. The Victorian government has promised to add an equal amount of renewable energy, probably in the form of wind turbines. If the water does end up having a greenhouse cost, HEAS will be able to handle it.

There has been very little objection to the need for action of some kind, although many find desalination expensive in dollar and energy terms. There has been support for better use of stormwater which currently eventually finds its way to the sea. Many households are installing rainwater tanks which can be plumbed into toilets and washing machines. However, adding tanks to an existing house can be expensive - a neighbour has spent $13,000 on adding some storage in his back yard. In comparison, our total water usage bill is approximately $300 per year making tanks hard to justify in economic terms.