Australia’s Carbon Tax – One Year On

Is it responsible for reduced CO2 emissions in the electricity sector?

Guest essay by Phil Hutchings

The Australian carbon tax of A$23/t of CO2 became effective one year ago on 1 July 2012. And with an automatic increase after the first 12 months, it is now set at $24.15/t.

Last week, the Australian Government’s Department of Climate Change published a 16 page paper titled “How Australia’s carbon price is working One Year On”.[1]

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/news-article/how-australia%E2%80%99s-carbon-price-working-%E2%80%93-one-year

I decided to take a look at what has been happening.

The ‘One Year On’ report focuses on the electricity sector. That’s not surprising perhaps as Australia’s electricity generation industry produces approximately 35% of our greenhouse gas emissions. And that’s because 75% of Australia’s electricity comes from coal fired generation. Of that, two-thirds is from black coal and one-third from brown coal.

Victoria’s four big brown coal-fired power stations (Hazelwood, Loy Yang A, Loy Yang B and Yallourn) are the lowest cost power generators in Australia but they are also the least efficient. That means they emit the highest amount of CO2 for each unit of electricity produced.

The black coal fired stations are located mainly in NSW and Queensland.

It is these coal operators who are targeted in Australia’s carbon tax as they comprise a small number of large CO2 emitters. The less-efficient brown coal fired power stations in Victoria emit approximately 1.3 tonnes of CO2 per MWh of energy produced. The black coal fired power stations are more efficient and emit 0.8 to 0.9 t CO2/MWh.

On page 3 of the ‘One Year On’ report, a fascinating chart takes centre-stage.

This shows Australia’s emission intensity (amount of CO2 per MWh of electricity generated) before and after the introduction of the carbon tax. It covers the National Electricity Market (the NEM), comprising the interconnected electricity system over the populous eastern two-thirds of Australia.

At face value, it’s a stunningly successful picture for the carbon tax policy – a sudden drop in the amount of CO2 produced for each MWh generated.

clip_image002

Australia’s emissions intensity dropped significantly after the carbon tax

(Source: How Australia’s carbon price is working One Year On)

According to the One Year On report says, the amount of ‘carbon pollution’ for each MWh dropped from an average of 0.92 tonnes before the carbon tax to 0.87 tonnes afterwards. As the report says:

“As a result, electricity generation is switching away from high-polluting fuels like brown coal and towards lower-polluting fuels like natural gas and renewable energy sources. In fact, renewable energy output increased by almost 30 per cent and the output from the seven most highly-polluting coal generators was down 14 per cent from the same period in 2011-12.”

Knowing the long development periods in the electricity industry and its nature of very slow changes, this seemed to be an amazing outcome.

The report goes on to give more detail of electricity generation by fuel type:

clip_image004
Total Left Column: 186 TWh Total Right Column: 181 TWh

Australia’s electricity moved away from coal stations after the carbon tax

(Source: How Australia’s carbon price is working One Year On)

There are all sorts of things about this chart that surprised me. Like for example:

Ø Did the carbon tax really stimulate a 28.5% jump in Australia’s renewable energy production in the NEM?

Ø What was behind the 13% drop in electricity generation from brown coal?

Ø Perhaps most disconcertingly, what caused Australia’s electricity consumption to drop by 3% year-on-year?

(I found this chart was inconsistent with NEM electricity generation reported in Australia’s National Greenhouse Accounts. The One Year On report is showing NEM electricity demand to be almost 10% less than the figures shown in the Greenhouse Accounts.)

The One Year On report itself goes on to say:

A year after the carbon price started, the evidence shows these Clean Energy Future policies are:

· reducing carbon pollution;

· driving investment in clean and renewable energy; and

· transforming Australia’s economy to be more competitive as the world tackles climate change.

Pretty compelling, huh?

Intrigued, I thought I’d dig a little deeper. Real data is hard to come by, and I had to check a number of sources. Perhaps not surprisingly, there are inconsistencies in the data.

Wholesale electricity prices – before and after the carbon tax

Let’s have a look at what happened to wholesale electricity prices after the carbon tax. The body which operates Australian electricity market, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) publishes some data on NEM electricity prices which we can use as guide.

These generators bid into the National Electricity Market (NEM) to supply electricity in 30 minute blocks during the day. In theory, the lowest bid price for any power station should correspond to the short-run marginal cost of operating it. The imposition of the $23/t carbon tax in theory sees the costs of the brown coal generators rise by around $30/MWh and by approximately $21/MWh for the black coal generators.

That increase in cost should be reflected in realised NEM wholesale prices, and indeed, this was the case. True volume weighted price data is not available, but if we use NSW price data as a proxy, the step change in wholesale prices from July 2012 is clear.

clip_image006

NEM electricity prices increased significantly after the carbon tax

(Source: AEMO)

So in this sense, the carbon tax is working correctly – sending a signal to electricity generators of much higher prices. That rise in electricity price will benefit any generator that doesn’t have to pay a commensurate carbon tax – such as any renewable generator like wind, hydro or solar.

But – did this rise in electricity price due to the carbon tax really trigger a sudden shift to lower carbon emissions in the electricity sector?

To answer that question, I had to look a little deeper…..

Australia’s electricity consumption has been declining since 2010

Interestingly, a good source of more information is Australia’s National Greenhouse Accounts, which are published every six months.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-measurement-and-reporting/tracking-australias-greenhouse-gas-emissio-0/quarterly-update-australias-national-greenhouse-gas-inventory-december-2012

The Greenhouse Accounts include historical NEM demand data. This data shows that there has been a marked reduction in Australia’s electricity consumption over the past three years.

Annual consumption in the NEM has declined by approximately 9 TWh/yr or 4.5% since 2010 – from 206 TWh/yr to 197 TWh/yr.

clip_image008

Electricity demand in the NEM has been declining since 2010

(Source: December 2012 issue of Australian National Greenhouse Accounts)

Some of this falling demand is undoubtedly due to much higher retail electricity prices over recent years. Retail prices have risen nationally by 70% to 80% over the past five years.

Other factors have been residential solar PV installations and energy efficiency savings by businesses and residences.

Residential solar PV has grown dramatically due to State incentives

Solar PV in Australia has seen boom times in the past three years.

clip_image010

The boom in solar PV in Australia since 2009

(Source: 2012 Clean Energy Council Report))

The Clean Energy Council says that of the total Australian solar PV capacity of 2,300 MW at the end of 2012, approximately 95% of that was installed in the past three years.

http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/cec/resourcecentre/reports/cleanenergyaustralia

This very high rate of installation growth was driven some overly generous State Government schemes. State Governments quickly realised the very high true cost of these incentives. Faced with the large impact on state budgets, Governments responded by dropping or heavily reducing the incentives in 2012 and 2013. In Queensland for example, the tariff for solar PV electricity exported to the grid was 44 ¢/kWh, guaranteed until 2028. That was abandoned in July 2012 and replaced with an 8 ¢/kWh rate, fixed just until 2014.

Right across Australia, the State Government incentives for solar PV have been slashed.

That led to a late rush on installations of solar PV with calendar 2012 being the biggest year yet for PV installation.

In 2012, the CEC estimates that these solar PV units generated 2.4 TWh in 2012. Allowing for the 13% of these units that are in Western Australia and Northern Territory (i.e. outside the NEM), that means that the residential solar PV are contributing approximately 2 TWh in the NEM.

That residential solar PV is shown as a reduction in demand rather than as NEM generation supply.

So of that 9 TWh reduction in electricity demand in the NEM over the past three years, around 2 TWh is attributable to the more than 900,000 solar PV systems installed on Australian houses.

Wind generation in also increasing

Wind generation has also grown, but from a low base. Total Australian installed wind capacity was 2,600 MW at the end of 2012. A further 1200 MW is under development.

Total wind generation in the NEM in 2012 was approximately 6 TWh according to the CEC. That represents 3% of NEM supply.

AEMO however, in its report, says ‘wind generation supplies less than 2%’ in the NEM.

Australia’s hydro generation

The core of Australia’s renewable generation is in fact hydro power. Hydro power makes up about one-eighth of the generation in the NEM. This principally comes from two big players – Snowy Hydro and Hydro Tasmania. And the amount of hydro generation principally depends on water inflows.

Hydro Tasmania is by far the largest renewable generator in Australia. It has produced 7 to 9 GWh/yr over recent years. In the 2011/12 year (i.e. the year prior to the carbon tax introduction), Hydro Tasmania produced approximately 45% of the renewable generation that AEMO reported in the NEM.

Snowy Hydro has approximately half of the hydro capacity of Hydro Tasmania and produces 3 to 5 GWh/yr. This includes output from its 620 MW of gas fired capacity, as Snowy does not publish its generation by fuel source (hydro or gas). Like all hydro generators, its output depends on rain and snowfall. And as a guide to the variability of Snowy’s catchment, the amount of water it has released has varied from 1,324 GL/yr to 2,311 GL/yr over the past four years.

There’s been little additional hydro generation developed in Australia for several decades. But with ample lake storage, the hydro operators can decide when to generate – at least within the limits of dam capacity.

Gas fired generation has been stable

There was been additional investment in gas turbine peaking and shoulder plants in the years before 2010. But since then, gas fired generation has been reasonably stable at approximately 22 TWh/yr.

So – What are the coal fired generators doing?

Against that background of declining electricity demand, and slowly increasing supply from solar PV and wind generation, the traditional coal fired generators are responding with reduced supply.

And the ongoing rate of decline of coal fired generation in the NEM is striking.

clip_image012

Coal fired electricity generation has been shrinking for four years

(Source: December 2012 issue of Australian National Greenhouse Accounts)

Both the black coal and brown coal generators have been reducing output. For the black coal generators, it has been a consistent downtrend over the past four years. And the brown coal generators have been reducing over the past two years.

All of this has been happening well before the carbon tax came in on July 1 2012.

Australian Energy Market Operator published its own analysis of the carbon tax effects

As it turns out, AEMO had published its own analysis of the impact of the carbon tax in November 2012 – seven months ago.

AEMO’s analysis “Carbon Price – Market Review[2] covers the first four months of the life of the carbon tax. http://www.aemo.com.au/Reports-and-Documents/Reports/Carbon-Price-Market-Review

This report actually provides a lot more data, and lets the informed reader see what is really going on – at least in those first four months.

There was an interesting observation from AEMO in relation to an incident that led to a shutdown of one of the brown coal fired generators.

Soon before the start (on 6 June 2012) of the carbon tax, the big Yallourn brown coal station in Victoria was affected by flooding and was shut until October 2012.

That event alone had a significant effect on CO2 emissions, lowering them across the NEM generation sector. AEMO refers to this as the carbon dioxide intensity index (CDEII) – amount of CO2 emitted per MWh generated.

The CDEII varies frequently during the day or week depending on which generating plants are supplying power. If more wind and hydro is supplying energy, the CDEII falls. Conversely, a shift towards coal fired generation will lift the CDEII.

Looking back at 2012, AEMO says the big structural change in CDEII actually occurred as a result of the Yallourn flooding. As a brown coal fired station, it has one of the highest CO2 emissions of all of Australia’s sources of electricity. And its closure due to flooding on 6 June 2012 led to a noticeable reduction in CDEII.

AEMO highlighted this in the chart below.

clip_image014

CO2 emissions fell after temporary closure of a brown coal plant

(Source: Carbon Price- Market Review Australian Energy Market Operator 8 November 2012)

In effect, AEMO is saying that (at least in the first four months of the carbon tax), the reduction in CO2 emissions was due more to the shutdown of an inefficient brown coal fired power station by flooding than by market effect of the carbon tax!

CO2 emissions from the electricity sector have been falling for four years

The Greenhouse Accounts publication show the reduction in CO2 emissions from Australia’s electricity sector has been occurring since 2008/09.

It is a clear trend, shown in the chart below from December 2012 issue of the Greenhouse Accounts.

clip_image016

CO2 emissions from electricity have trended down for the past four years

(Source: December 2012 issue of Australian National Greenhouse Accounts)

So – What conclusions can we draw?

The cut in CO2 emissions from Australia’s electricity sector has been a four year trend.

Yes, the sector is responding to Government incentives with wind and solar PV installations.

However, the fall in electricity sector emissions intensity in 2012 was due to a combination of events and not necessarily due to the carbon tax:

a) Australia’s electricity demand was falling anyway due to higher retail prices.

b) There was a massive burst of residential solar PV installations in 2011 and 2012 which further decreased electricity demand.

c) Wind generation is steadily increasing.

d) Hydro generation remains stable.

e) Faced with the falling demand, the coal fired generators have been reducing output.

f) A once-off flood event temporarily closed one of Australia’s four brown coal fired stations in June 2012.

Did the carbon tax have an immediate effect on 1 July last year? On the face of it, it seems longer term policy factors were more at play in delivering this result than the carbon tax itself.


[1] “How Australia’s carbon price is working One Year On”. Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education

[2] Carbon Price- Market Review Australian Energy Market Operator 8 November 2012

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
58 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Patrick
July 2, 2013 7:49 am

Ford, Alcoa, IBM, HP, ANZ, CBA, NAB, WestPac, oil refining, various other “industries” going offshore! Turn off the lights please, last person to leave Aus!

Felflames
July 2, 2013 8:10 am

Slightly off topic but…
It should be pointed out that there is also a growing area of development for geothermal power in australia.
There is a lot of hot rock close to the surface in much of the centre of the continent.
As a matter of fact, having a shower in some places requires cooling the water coming out of the ground enough to stop it burning you.
Potentially the energy available is enormous. And far more reliable than wind or solar.

July 2, 2013 8:21 am

Yep. If the DCC said the sky was blue it might be a good idea to check outside …
Up here in the north we have had a nasty outbreak of grid-connected PV, which is now being curtailed. Mercifully, no wind (subsidy) farms yet. Even the nutters realise they wouldn’t survive the cyclones.
Today I will be attending a discussion on “Developing Northern Australia”, and will be looking out for initiatives that might stand a chance. Maybe here on the east side, some hydro power from the Burdekin system?
My personal response to this issue has been to construct a wood-burning brazier, as we still have plenty of timber left over from the last big blow two years ago, and are already having problems with the CO2 assisted regrowth.
We have to be wary of the local mind police of course, but they can’t do much if we are using it to cook food 🙂

arthur4563
July 2, 2013 8:27 am

The biggest fraud of wind/solar is the idea that these are “zero emission” power generators. study after study has shown the extent to which solar/wind are responsible for all sorts of emissions
during the manufacturing phase. Add to that the fact that they are unreliable, and any fool knows that introducing unreliable power onto the grid nearly always results in appreciable emissions in order to accommodate same. Most analyses from biased sources such as govt agencies and renewable enthusiasts are plainly simpleminded and fraudulent.

John F. Hultquist
July 2, 2013 8:31 am

Thanks, Phil.
This item got my attention:
Some of this falling demand is undoubtedly due to much higher retail electricity prices over recent years. Retail prices have risen nationally by 70% to 80% over the past five years.
Why? To pay for the green energy? More on this would be welcomed.
That’s a big hit to average families and to businesses that use lots of power.
Patrick 7:49 indicates and exodus of “names” from OZ. More on this, also, would be of interest. Making things in other countries and then importing the goods doesn’t do much to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions.
The purpose of these things is to save the World. The Australian Government’s Department of Climate Change can report on any number of markers – that you show are not as claimed, anyway – but what do they say the global temperature has been lowered by?

fred
July 2, 2013 8:36 am

How much is this going to cool the planet in 2050?
Just kidding, cause I know there is no answer to that question. Basing a policy decision on a pyramid of erroneous assumptions is not going to benefit society. The only definite benefit of a carbon tax is going to those that collect the tax.

John F. Hultquist
July 2, 2013 8:37 am

Martin Clark says:
July 2, 2013 at 8:21 am
“. . . having problems with the CO2 assisted regrowth.

This effect is global. And relentless!

Gail Combs
July 2, 2013 9:00 am

From personal experience (North Carolina) there is a limit to reduction of electricity use without major lifestyle changes/ initial $$$ outlay. This limits changes to those with excess $$$ to spend and with a rotten economy world wide, people are not as willing to take a chance of spending $$$ on something that pays back over decades. I doubt if you are going to see much more of a reduction in electric usage going into the future unless Australia does what Obama wants to do – shut down all coal plants (80% of our electric generating capacity).
We no longer heat with central heating in winter and instead use space heaters in the occupied room and keep the house pretty much at between 40F (4C) to 55F (13C). We only use A/C when it is over 90F (32C) and set the thermostat at 88F (31C) The only other changes we can make is to install Geothermal and that would cost somewhere between $11,000 and $30,000 with a cost of financing of between $140 to $160 a month for ~ 20 years to save 40% to 60% on my heating/cooling bill of ~ $150/month. Only if I can do most of the installation myself does it make sense and of course bureaucrats ALWAYS frown on amateurs doing anything.
(Have Backhoe Will Dig)

klem
July 2, 2013 9:31 am

Gail said “We no longer heat with central heating in winter and instead use space heaters in the occupied room and keep the house pretty much at between 40F (4C) to 55F (13C).”
Whoa, that is a big mistake. Keeping your house cold to keep heating bills down will allow mold to grow within/behind your walls, making your house unsellable. The money you save now will be lost when you are forced to remove the walls to clean out the mold. Just a warning from someone who learned this lesson the hard way.

DaveR
July 2, 2013 9:36 am

also slightly off topic in response……
Had to laugh at Felflames comment – “a lot of hot rock close to the surface…” Only if you consider 5km or so close to the surface. Confusing hot artesian water with hot rocks capable of generating significant power is a common mistake.
The sad fact is that after 20 years+ of investigation and over $100 million in grants and more in shareholders funds, there is no basis for the establishment of a commercial development anywhere in sight. And without the government handouts, most (all?) of the company hopefuls would have collapsed long ago.
Makes me wonder what continent Felflames is talking about?

GlynnMhor
July 2, 2013 9:58 am

We know that reducing CO2 does no good and adds no value to the economy. We also know that increasing the costs of energy makes everyone poorer and drives away industry and employment.
So where is the value in all this? Everyone loses except perhaps a few corrupt officials and farmers of government subsidy.

johanna
July 2, 2013 10:00 am

Nice work, thanks for crunching the numbers.
The figures that are missing is the millions of dollars of taxpayer money, and the millions of dollars of consumers money, that have been flushed down the toilet in the form of subsidies for solar and wind, and compulsory renewable quotas that have been placed on the industry. These have briefly slowed down electricity demand, although at the cost of prices almost doubling. So, everyone is significantly poorer, the planet gives not a jot, and greenies are still complaining that it is not enough.
I understand that the US is faced with proposals for a ‘carbon tax’ – over and above the massive ones you (and we) already pay on things like petrol for our cars. In Australia, it was just a chance to grab more tax revenue and redistribute it to favoured constituents.
Please don’t fall for it.

Resourceguy
July 2, 2013 10:28 am

This is good but it does not look at the issue the way I would. A few key questions arise. Where did the coal go? Did coal exports rise? What was the cost of the solar and wind installations? Are the subsidy costs sustainable and is there back filling of the budget with tax increases to perform the slight of hand? Is Australia digging deeper to pay for its policy adventures? Did some large industrial users of electricity exit the economy or exit the grid?

DirkH
July 2, 2013 10:33 am

Felflames says:
July 2, 2013 at 8:10 am
“There is a lot of hot rock close to the surface in much of the centre of the continent.
As a matter of fact, having a shower in some places requires cooling the water coming out of the ground enough to stop it burning you.
Potentially the energy available is enormous. And far more reliable than wind or solar.”
There are two possibilities, one, your hot rock is a volcano, in that case you have a winner, see Iceland.
The other, it’s just rock. In which case your gand geothermal scheme will just cool it down efficiently. And as the thermal conductivity of rock is very low, you will get a steep decline in output pretty fast. It’s a good scheme to rip off stupid investors but not more.

DirkH
July 2, 2013 10:36 am

Resourceguy says:
July 2, 2013 at 10:28 am
“Are the subsidy costs sustainable ”
Here we go again. They really think that way. They have the words “sustainable” and “subsidy” as synonyms in their brains.
Hey, we could start more loss-making enterprises, that way we could solve all problems even faster!

thelastdemocrat
July 2, 2013 11:17 am

At this link, there is another report regarding emissions. The noted flood is in Victoria. This pdf report at this link clearly shows little change across provinces pre-post except for Victorai, with a notable decrease – matching the shut-down coal plant story…
http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Emissions-In-The-National-Electricity-Market-Factsheet.pdf

Gary Hladik
July 2, 2013 11:38 am

Question: Do the CO2 figures include CO2 emitted when a fossil fuel plant is on “spinning reserve”, e.g. backing up wind turbines, or is the CO2 only measured/calculated when actually selling electricity to the market?

July 2, 2013 11:52 am

All of this has been happening well before the carbon tax came in on July 1 2012.
Yea, but.a carbon tax was anticipated and debated for the past decade.
If it wasn’t for the snow storm in Copenhagen COP15, the carbon tax might have been enacted a year or two sooner.

climatereason
Editor
July 2, 2013 11:52 am

A very nicely constructed and logically set out paper, thank you for your efforts
Patrick said;
“Ford, Alcoa, IBM, HP, ANZ, CBA, NAB, WestPac, oil refining, various other “industries” going offshore! Turn off the lights please, last person to leave Aus!”
It would be interesting to know what contribution the demise of some Aussie heavy manufacturing has had on the need for electricity and consequently emissions. In the US it seems to me that their decline in co2 emissions closely follows the wholesale exporting of their industries to places like China over the last 20 years. As a result China’s emissions goes up as the emissions parcel is handed around.
Presumably some of this industry will return because of cheap energy from fracking but emissions will be mitigated by the use of relatively clean fracked US gas instead of rather dirty Chinese energy.
tonyb

July 2, 2013 12:01 pm

Your Figures 1, 4, 7, and 8 all have Y-Axis scales that do not start at zero, but are zoomed in to show the greatest visual differences. This is all true, but a better perspective may be to show this plots with a Y-axis that starts at zero. It may then be hard to see the changes — but that’s the real point.
Note that Figure 3, the change in Energy Costs DOES start at zero. It is easy to notice the difference in electrical costs, while the difference in tCO2/MWHr is much harder to see at full scale.
Finally, What has been the change in temperature? Don’t forget the error bars.

markx
July 2, 2013 2:34 pm

Decline in electricity usage is likely directly related to the decline in Australian manufacturing which is in turn related to the relentless escalation of the value of the Australian dollar….
(the Oz dollar has taken a substantial dive very recently…. will be interesting to see how that goes) .

Editor
July 2, 2013 2:36 pm

They added a $25/MWHr tax to what had been a $30/MWHr price? Holy cow. Even assuming that the IPCC’s known-to-be-wrong models of Co2 driven warming were right the benefits of and drastic reductions in world CO2 are immeasurably small. The marginal benefits per ton of reduction cannot be a penny, even given all of the alarmists insane assumptions. Yet the Australian people let themselves get saddled with a doubling of energy prices for this insignificant cause. Yikes.

Chad Wozniak
July 2, 2013 3:32 pm

@felflames –
Geothermal, in most locations, is extremely dirty – the steam carries all kinds of toxic and corrosive substances: sulfides, chromates, arsenic, selenium, mercury, thallium and lead to name a few. These pollutants shorten equipment life and are extremely expensive to remove from the effluent. It is no panacea, except perhaps on volcanic islands where the heavy metal and other pollution may be less than, say, at the Geysers in California.

More fossil fuel must be burned to accommodate wind and solar power, than would be if there were no wind or solar. This is because the rapid-response fossil generation that is requited to keep the grid energized and deliver power use 2 to 3 times as much fuel as the more efficient baseload units, which cannot respond quickly enough when the wind stops or clouds cover the sun. For that portion of the rated output of wind and solar installations which is unrealized, this extra fuel consumption can amount to 20 percent or more, over what would be burned if there were no wind or power. Also, the vast swaths of land and the extremely expensive new transmission lines that are needed to accommodate wind and solar are never factored in by those who say wind and solar are “free” – they’re anything but. In California, even though electric rates are double what they would be without the renewables mandate, taxpayer subsidies still pay at least half the cot of operating wind and solar installations.

July 2, 2013 3:57 pm

DirkH says: July 2, 2013 at 10:33 am
>>Felflames says: July 2, 2013 at 8:10 am
“There is a lot of hot rock close to the surface in much of the centre of the continent.
As a matter of fact, having a shower in some places requires cooling the water coming out of the ground enough to stop it burning you.
Potentially the energy available is enormous. And far more reliable than wind or solar.”
>[ … ] it’s just rock. In which case your gand geothermal scheme will just cool it down efficiently. And as the thermal conductivity of rock is very low, you will get a steep decline in output pretty fast. It’s a good scheme to rip off stupid investors but not more.

You hit the nail right on the head first go, Dirk. Geodynamics – http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannerys_little_earner
and
Taxpayer Money Down The Drain: A Looming ‘Geodynamics’ Scandal?
http://www.stopgillardscarbontax.com/2011/09/taxpayer-money-down-the-drain-a-looming-geodynamics-scandal.html

Adam
July 2, 2013 3:58 pm

Australia already has the 4th highest Electricity bills in the entire world. Look it up. So if high price lowers usage (which it does not because people *need* electricity, it is not a *want*) then Australia should already have low usage per head compared to the rest of the world. But they do not.
All the carbon tax does is put extra strain on the resources of the working families who are already struggling with the ridiculous cost compared to the rest of the world of just about everything a family needs to buy in order to survive.
What they should do is extract all of that coal and start to export finished products from the mineral resources. Instead they are paying the 4th highest energy bills and sending the minerals abroad at a discount to be processed elsewhere – but that processing requires energy! It is just that someone else gets the jobs and profits, then Australians import the finished product.
It is a sad, sad, sad state of affairs. The cause? Guilt politics. Grow up Australians, your government is committing slow democide against you softly and you don’t even know it.

1 2 3