The climate change sceptic

OK, so you are a climate change sceptic. So am I. Have you heard about exposure. No I'm not talking about streaking across a football pitch or being out in the snow without a parka on. I'm talking about what a rock climber/mountaineer calls exposure. Let me give you an example.

First example. You are out with your 10 year old and you take him to a nearby climbing club where he can try bouldering. There is a really difficult pitch he tries. If he falls there is a thick mat a couple of feet below him.

Second example. You are high in the mountains. You are on a very easy path - almost like a sidewalk with your 10 year old skipping along ahead of you. The only problem is that there is a 2000 foot drop on either side just off the path. Which of these situations makes your testicles pull right up into your chest.

The bouldering situation has virtually zero exposure. The mountain walk, huge exposure. The consequences of a slip are not to be countenanced. Climate change is like that. If climate change is a reality, the consequences are enormous and it will effect your 10 year old in just about as disastrously as slipping off the path.

Further more, If we are to believe the scientists who study climate change, sudden catastrophic climate change is not some remote unbelievable happenstance such as aliens coming to earth and wiping us out. We know from various records that rapid severe climate change has happened in the past. The signatures are in rock strata ice cores and ocean bottom mud cores. A couple of pretty relatively mild ones are also contained in our culture in the form of the medieval warm period and the little ice age. The end of the last ice age was another quite severe sudden climate change and it  ended a blink of the eye just 11,000 years ago.

We have sufficiently sophisticated science to know that there are good reasons to believe that we could cause rapid catastrophic climate change. We know, for instance that there are huge reserves of clathrates (methane ice) both in the frozen lands of the Northern Hemisphere and in the mid depths of the oceans of the world that only need a little warming to start them disintegrating. A little warming and they will release their methane at a rapid rate, accelerating the warming and releasing more methane etc. We know that methane is a far more powerful green house gas than carbon dioxide. It could be that it is too late to stop them being released as there are already indications that the tundra is melting and releasing its methane*.

*Since writing this article an item in New Scientist reported that 250 methane seeps have been detected on the ocean bottom around Spitsburgen.

We also know that ice and snow reflect most of the incoming energy from the sun and that open water absorbs most of this energy. If the Arctic ice melts, the heat budget of the world is going to be strongly and suddenly changed. Already,it is reported that the Arctic ocean has heated up about 3 degrees. If the ice disappears as predicted, most of the solar radiation falling on this ocean in the summer, 24 hours a day, will cause a rapid further rise in temperature. Clathrates which have been accumulating on the bottom of the Arctic ocean since the Ermian interglacial, 125,000 years ago will start to break down.

Despite all these logical arguments none of us can be sure that a sudden catastrophic climate change is in our near future. We can not be sure that our release of Carbon dioxide is causing climate change and we can't even be sure that through some as yet undiscovered chain of cause and effect that we may not be about to go into a new ice age. However whatever you believe with regard to climate change, there are some things which are certain unrelated to climate change. In no particular order:


* The EROEI* for new oil discoveries is declining. *Energy returned on energy invested ratio. With early oil discoveries it took the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil to discover, refine and deliver to the petrol station the energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil. Now the ratio in the US is around 3:1 and in Saudi Arabia 10:1. Tar sands with advances in production techniques run now at about 5.8:1 (calculating using only direct energy inputs) and the ratio falls (gets worse) sigificantly if you include the true energy inputs). It is clear that that oil is becoming more difficult to find and more energy consuming to bring to the petrol station.

Incidentally, the EROEI for wind turbines is about 20:1

*Peak oil has been reached in many countries. For instance: USA-1970, Indonesia-1997, Australia-2000, UK-1999, Norway-2001, Mexico-2004. Combining all oil producing countries together we have arguably already passed global peak oil production. Peak oil for any country or for the world is only apparent a few years after it has been passed so we will only be wise in hindsight.

*P10's, the carbon particles of less than 10 micron size are serious health hazards. They are produced by internal combustion engines and by the burning of a wide range of fuels in cooking fires. They exist in the air of all countries but are particularly prevalent in Asia, especially where there are high densities of internal combustion engines crowded together into cities and people cooking with wood and kerosine.

*There can be no doubt that we are running out of oil at a rapid rate and coal at a slower but significant rate. Lets look at measures which will ensure us a source of energy long into the future and while we are at it, lets concentrate on measures which will reduce the emissions of Carbon dioxide just in case climate change is a reality. Fortunately many measures we can take which solve the first also solve the second.


First it is a no-brainer that we should put wind turbines in any location where the wind allows. Allowing NIMBY's to block the construction of wind farms is insane. With the exception of solar-electric panels, energy generation by wind has to be about the most ecologically benign form of energy generation ever invented. Yes, you get some bird kills and if you live too close, you may be able to hear them (although they are getting ever quieter and their sound is often masked by the russle of leaves when the wind is blowing). Ironically in areas such as New Zealand where we are worried about the survival of a rare daisy or threatened snail, wind farms can be positively benefical. Once there is a commercial enterprise on a ridge, there is money available to fence in the whole area and eliminate stoats, rats and cats and weed out foreign species of plants. Each wind farm ridge can become an ecological preserve to gladden the heart of the most ecologically conservative preservationist. Instead we allow them to block wind farms. If they continue to succeed and if NIMBI's rule world wide, the various things they are trying to preserve will likely go extinct due to climate change anyway. Wouldn't that be a giggle.

Secondly, all levels of government have to come to the party. There is a huge amount governments can do, primarily by waving their cut, to encourage the uptake of all forms of renewable energy. Without a government bleeding off profit at every turn, many renewable energy projects would cost half as much with the commensurate improvement in the financial viability of these projects. Of course, reasonably priced, sustainable energy would encourage enterprise which would increase the government take. It would create a source of tax revenue so that the MP's could afford to clean the moat.

Thirdly, we can put in smart grids which provide price incentives to the consumer such that the grid is demand balanced to a large extent by the customer. At the same time, smart grids should allow a fair profit for the small generator and for the large power company so that the system is in the interest of both. A system which is punitive to any one of the interested parties is doomed to fail.

Fourthly, we can encourage the uptake of electric cars and especially cars which are simple, very well engineered, durable, inexpensive and easily repaired. If you want the car with all the bells and whistles, no problem but you will have to pay for it. The Volkswagen/Deux Cheveaux/Model T Ford of electrics would make a huge contribution to a sustainable future.

Lets put in measures which make us independent of the fossil fuel purveyors of the world and at the same time take out an insurance pollicy, just in case Climate change is a reality.

Feed In Tariffs - how to structure

For anyone not familiar with the term, Feed in Tariff  (FIT not surprisingly) is the money the electrical company pays you per unit (kWh) that you generate and send down their wires.
 
A most interesting system of feed in tariffs exists in Germany today. The government has legislated a feed in tariff equal to about 3 times what the same customer pays for electricity. The electrical company charges a little more to all customers and uses this money to subsidise the owners of home generation systems. Houses and businesses have two metres. One metre records the amount they use, the other how much they produce. You don't get the three-times rate for the difference between what you use and what you produce but on the whole amount you produce. The German government has guaranteed that this situation will continue for 20 years from the date of installation. To induce people to get in early, the small generator gets the rate for his power generation that is extant in the year he installs his solar unit and this rate decreases from year to year. Thus people who installed solar in 2004 are getting 55c per unit until 2024 while people installing their unit this year (2008) will get 45c per unit until 2028. By 2011, the rate may be around 35c per kWh (kilowatt hour)

The system is obviously not sustainable. A company can't be buying a product and selling it for a third as much. Moreover, as more and more people put solar panels on their roves or wind turbines in their garden, the power company will have to charge the conventional customers more to pay off the generating customers. However, you have to hand it to Germany. What they aimed at has worked and at a bargain price when compared with building coal fired power stations.  Best of all it is  without any involvement of the always inefficient government tax system. (well, maybe in Germany it is not inefficient.  In fact in this link you will see just how clever the German Tax Department is.)

Germany has clearly recognized that in the not too distant future, the cost of power from fossil fuels will start to increase exponentially, due to demand exceeding supply and due to increasing compliance costs. With the German scheme of feed in tariffs, they have created a renewable solar-electric generating capacity equal to the output of about 4 large coal fired generating stations (over 13 GW as of the end of 2007) and growing day by day. With energy being a large part of the cost of any product, when the rest of the world is trying to play catch up, Germany will have megawatts of stably priced, renewable energy for her industries.  This in a country with less that 2 peak hours of sunshine per day.

Here in New Zealand, I suspect, (and hope) we won't go for the subsidy model that Germany is using. Part of this is philosophical-historical. Not so many years ago, our agriculture was one of the most heavily subsidized in the world. People didn't farm crops, they farmed subsidies. With great foresight and more than a little courage, the government of the day decided to scrap all agricultural subsidies. We went cold turkey and it worked. After some admittedly hard times, our farmers have become lean and mean and of most importance, their decisions are now based on economic reality rather than how to play the system. They now compete all over the world against subsidized agricultures and compete very successfully. (or would if the Americans would pay more than lip service to their professed free trade policy)

I would like to see a much different system. It is simpler, more easily understood and sustainable. Keeping in mind the law of unexpected consequences, as a first suggestion, it would be structured as follows.

There would be only one meter in your house or business and the electricity you generate would simply turn the meter backwards.  The two meter system is a scam. The electrical company would structure its charges (as they do at present) with a fixed charge and a charge per unit (kWh) used. There have been many names for this fixed charge but for the sake of this discussion lets call it a line charge. This is the amount you pay for the privilege of being connected to the grid. This is reasonable as the electrical distribution company had to build the distribution system and has to maintain it. Now here is where we have to be a bit careful. The electric company could structure this differently for people just using electricity and for people using and generating electricity. For the generators, they could have a very large fixed cost and a very low power rate for power used or generated. For the non-generating customer the reverse. This is where the government must step in and block this possibility. They must simply legislate that whatever the charge structure the power company decides on, it must be the same whether you are generating or not. Then if the generating company tried to charge a huge line charge and a small per-unit charge, the ordinary customer could use huge amounts of power for almost a fixed cost. If they charged a very small fixed charge and a large per-unit charge, the generating customer would make lots of money. Structured so that the system is the same for both types of customer, the system is reasonably self regulating since it is in the interest of the power company to maximize its profits by a middle of the road approach.



There is also no need for the power company to send out bills every month (or payments for that matter) to the user-generator.  The amounts either way will be small and a financial reconciliation can occur once each year.  Ordinary  customers get billed as usual. So what are the implications of such a system.

Firstly, there is no need for the installation of any extra meters by the power company which they will charge to the customer. This also eliminates the VAT you would have to pay on the extra meter.

Secondly, the power company doesn't have to service a developmental loan for installing new power stations. All the capital costs fall on the private individual. The only extra wiring needed is the wiring associated with the power generating unit. The customer must have in place all the equipment that makes his system compatible with the electric company and that is the end of it.

Thirdly, this system is sustainable and good for the power company. The power company is "buying" power during the day when they charge the greatest amount for their power and the power, on average, is being generated closer to the end user than is the case with remote, high output power stations. Getting power when the demand is greatest and reducing their line losses increases their profits.

Fourth, the system can be left in place for ever and doesn't have to be changed at some time in the future as with the German system. Stability of system allows for long term business planning and is greatly encouraging to businesses.

Fifth, the power company also gains on the Internet effect. Diffuse power generation is less vulnerable to line outages than high-power point-sources.

Sixth, the power company still makes money on their line charge commensurate with the cost of maintaining the lines.

New Zealand is an innovator in so many ways. Hopefully we will also be innovative with Feed In Tariffs.

One thing we must guard against at all costs is double metering. In Germany, even, now when the government is trying to encourage as much uptake of solar electric as possible, they are adding the revenue made by the small generator to his income for income tax purposes. For someone with a high salary, the marginal rate is 46% and there is a further 5.5% Unification surcharge. They are also charging GST (VAT/sales tax) at 19% on every unit of electricity the customer uses. Note that these charges are  not on the difference between what you use and what you produce but on ever kWh you use and every kWh you produce.   When the unrealistic FIT system ends, the small generators are going to find they are still paying quite a bit for their power even if they are generating as much as they use. In fact, depending on their tax bracket, the small German generator would have to produce 2 to 3 times as much power as they use in order to reduce their net power bill to zero. Think about the cost of servicing the loan they have to take out to buy this extra large system. Think about the GST they pay the government for this larger-than-needed system.   If someone does decide to put in a system which is larger than they need for their own use, they should be allowed a fair return. For the sake of argument, let's say 80% of what the power company charges for power at the time of generation.

The correct system of metering and Feed In Tariffs which is fair to both power company and customer and which is sustainable will be a great encouragement for the uptake of renewable energy by the small generator and won't have the customer wake up one morning and realizing he has been scammed.