Which of Simon's pathways to carbon neutrality do you prefer? [With poll]

How does the ACT Government propose to make the Canberra Glassworks carbon neutral? Their power consumption is phenomenal – and I believe they use imported glass from the USA and Germany and very little recycled glass. Glass is a very beautiful material – but I can’t see a justification for pouring ACT residents’ tax revenue, resources and money into offsetting such a massive carbon wastrel. If there’s a powerful argument to spend outlandish resources on art glass, let’s hear it.

Buckets of money get spent on policing and speed cameras to reduce the road toll (with debatable results), yet on another arm of the clean energy debate the climate change skeptics conveniently ignore – or deliberately forget – that vehicle emissions are responsible for more than double the annual road toll of deaths in Australia. This was even voiced by a Federal Liberal MP during question time debates on carbon reduction initiatives.
What are these lives worth ? Can we really justify spending money to prevent “accidents” when we blatantly allow the fossil fuel industry to poison twice as many people with exhaust fumes ? Or should we be spending at least twice as much to move to cleaner transportation ? I like my car as much as anyone, but I would much prefer the ACT government force car dealers to sell a percentage of emission free vehicles as they already do in so many places overseas (yes I know of the Miev and the Leaf but these do not accommodate a family). I doubt most Australians would realise even China is ahead of Australia with regard to government programs to encourage the uptake of clean energy alternatives. I applaud Corbell’s motives but Im not sure his advisors are really with it, have they even bothered to properly compare the cost of the GAS powered station with equivalent solar installations ? Solar is cheaper as soon as you look beyond one government term – but their constituents are all only around for the short term aren’t we (at least in the eyes of politicians) ?

Which of Simon’s Pathways do I prefer? None of the above….

Pathway 3, with a net benefit of $83 per person looks very good.

Two issues that arise from the plan:
1. The ACT has passed legislation to build large-scale solar power stations with 210 MW of generating capacity. Is this “Pathway 6”, and do we need it?
2. Sydney City is introducing distributed gas power generation, so that “waste heat” can be used to provide heating and cooling (“Tri-generation”). ( http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/environment/EnergyAndEmissions/GreenDecentralisedEnergy.asp ) The result is a dramatic increase in efficiency compared to a large 240 MW gas power station – 85 per cent of energy in the gas fuel is used instead of only about 50% for the large power station. “Tri-generation” / Distributed gas power generation is NOT one of the Five Pathways in the ACT Plan.

The CSIRO has developed a technology to the commercial-ready stage that adds solar energy to gas. (Solar thermal reforming of methane + water: http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Flagships/Energy-Transformed-Flagship/SolarGas.aspx ). The benefit is that “SolarGas™” embodies 25% more energy, storing solar energy for use whenever it is needed. Combine this technology with the approach being taken by Sydney City (that it borrowed from London) to achieve the best outcome (least-cost, greatest efficiency) that current technology has to offer.

We can only hope that bids for the ACT’s Large-scale solar power system include the CSIRO SolarGas™ technology.

p1 said :

damien haas said :

Not mandating double glazing or solar hot water for new constructions.

I never did figure out why these two didn’t happen 30 years ago? We had solar hot water when I was a kid, and double glazing is everywhere in colder climates. While it would add some costs to new houses, a suitably long phase in period, and the economies of scale of it being compulsory would negate that (not to mention the cost saving over time….).

So does anyone know why it has never happened?

Much easier to ban plastic bags than to actually do anything worthwhile.

I’d like to see massive government subsidies for solar hot water, double glazing, water tanks, etc so that people can retrofit their houses and really make a difference to energy consumption.

On top of that all new buildings should be fitted out with the above.

Yes, it will cost a lot of money but the result regarding the environment and consumption should outweigh the intial outlay in a fairly short time, one would think.

Oh that’s right, it will cost money

We discussed this a couple of weeks ago. The issue is that the windows cost so much, and that natural gas heating costs so little, that it isn’t worth the expense. In econo-nerd speak, the return on investment doesn’t justify the initial capital outlay of purchasing the windows. That much money stuck in an ING direct account would almost certainly generate enough interest not only to pay your entire heating bill, but to offset all your household cabon emissions using a service like Greenfleet.

My 2c on the OP: pathway 3 or 4. If the environmental outcomes of each pathway are equal, we should go for the cheapest one.

Holden Caulfield said :

Classified said :

damien haas said :

Not mandating double glazing or solar hot water for new constructions.

People already think housing is expensive, and this will just make it worse.

What was the first home buyer grant at its peak? $15-20K IIRC. Probably in the ballpark for the cost of the upgrades to glazing and hot water being spoken about I guess.

Having said that, isn’t the solar industry currently dealing with the fallout of an sector that reached breaking point due to government subsidies?

The FHBG definitely pushed the market up. Bear in mind that bringing an additional $15k to the table means that you could borrow a further $60k or more.

Also, mandating $10k or more worth of additional cost in a new home has two effects: first, it pushes up the price on a new home, second it pushes up the price of existing homes as more people (the ones who don’t want to pay more for the new home) compete to purchase existing stock.

FWIW, I’m a definite supporter of useful environmental action. The problem, though, is that people don’t realise how much all this stuff costs. It’s easy to want to save the environment when you have plenty of money, not so much when you’re closer to the poverty line.

p1 said :

damien haas said :

Not mandating double glazing or solar hot water for new constructions.

I never did figure out why these two didn’t happen 30 years ago? We had solar hot water when I was a kid, and double glazing is everywhere in colder climates. While it would add some costs to new houses, a suitably long phase in period, and the economies of scale of it being compulsory would negate that (not to mention the cost saving over time….).

So does anyone know why it has never happened?

We have energy ratings:
http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/topics/design_build/siting/energy_ratings

Classified said :

damien haas said :

Not mandating double glazing or solar hot water for new constructions.

People already think housing is expensive, and this will just make it worse.

What was the first home buyer grant at its peak? $15-20K IIRC. Probably in the ballpark for the cost of the upgrades to glazing and hot water being spoken about I guess.

Having said that, isn’t the solar industry currently dealing with the fallout of an sector that reached breaking point due to government subsidies?

BicycleCanberra said :

Holden Caulfield said :

I’ll take the pathway with no cyclists please.

that pathway does not exist. ‘he he ha ha ha ‘

Sorry to go off-topic, but…

Let’s start by ignoring the geographical and population density issues in the sample provided. Based on that video a pathway without cyclists does exist, for the most part. Can’t see that you’d be getting too many people objecting to, where possible, having a path for cyclists, a path for pedestrians and a road for motorised vehicles. Sure, where there are shared zones the majority of attitudes in Australia might need a touch up, but on the evidence you have provided that seems to be the minority anyway.

I’m quite happy to do my part in sharing the road with cyclists. I don’t want to hit, hurt, injure any other road user as much as they don’t want be hit, hurt or injured. But IMO asking motorists and cyclists to use the same patch of road only ever designed for car/vehicle use is a bit like putting a cat and mouse in a confined space and complaining that the mouse always comes off second best.

Ergo, what else should one expect with such a flawed starting position?

damien haas said :

Not mandating double glazing or solar hot water for new constructions.

People already think housing is expensive, and this will just make it worse.

Much easier to ban plastic bags than to actually do anything worthwhile….

Sadly, I suspect the Home Insulation Installer Free Money Program ruined this kinda thing for everyone.

Perhaps they could change the first home buyers bonus so that you only get it if the house has solar hot water? The difference in cost between a solar system and a non solar system is a lot less then the bonus?