Gippsland Climate News

Excerpts from an article in Just Community No 9*

“Never waste a crisis, so they say. On the back of record bushfires, drought and heatwaves, even in Siberia, it seems that the whole world is aching to deal with climate change. On the back of a pandemic, most recognise that ‘business as usual’ has gone the way of the dinosaurs whose fossils we burn. Many lines of thinking and catchwords have emerged.

“A Just Transition is an accepted principle promoted by the trade unions and adopted by the Paris Climate Accord to create fair if not better employment standards and opportunities when transitioning industry away from fossil fuels and creating new climate-friendly industries… In Australia, peak union bodies like the ACTU also have Just Transition aspirations focused on decently paid and secure work. At its core, a Just Transition is concerned with the restructuring of the economy by moving away from precarious high carbon jobs to secure and decent low carbon ones.

“The story of a Just Transition in Australia is epitomised in the Repower Port Augusta campaign, which emerged following the abrupt closure of the Playford coal-fired power station…

“In response to the prospect of a cascade of lost jobs and fossil-fuel stranded assets and business failures, unions in Australia are campaigning for Just Transitions, and the Star of the South project in Gippsland might be the vanguard. This offshore wind project is being developed with Danish investors to create jobs and profit whilst supplying 18 percent of Melbourne’s power, together with the promise of better employment outcomes than in Port Augusta.

“The lessons, though, are that electricity generation and construction alone is not sufficient to create good long-term employment, and that using some electricity locally to create jobs and profits is essential too. Green power for production of bio-fertiliser from brown coal as an exportable value-added commodity is an excellent example of sustainable innovations capable of growing good jobs in Gippsland. Importantly, this means creating jobs not just in the clean energy sector, but in low carbon industries such as education and health, along with other care work. The point is that partnerships with working people and their union representatives are also vital to get the best outcomes in our broken and unfair society…

“A group of us are also thinking about a Just Transition, with three immediate goals: to inform and influence the community, to democratically influence local council, and to help develop a socially fair and sustainable economic plan for a prosperous South Gippsland that’s centred around low-carbon economic activity.

“My personal interest in a Just Transition for the area stems from my having moved to South Gippsland as a self-defined climate-change refugee, my background in science as a former CSIRO environmental scientist and trade unionist, and as an observer of major climate change induced industrial transformation in my old hometown of Port Augusta. The opportunities for a South Gippsland Just Transition are very promising but won’t come easily…

“Projects like bio-fertiliser production being developed in the Latrobe Valley depend on partnering with Monash University. Other potential innovations will require even more skilled workers not less…

*Full article is here. The Just Community website is here.

Media Release South Gippsland Just Transition*

The actions needed to address climate change and its impacts are well known. A move towards a low-emissions economy and society is unavoidable. That a democratic society like our own is struggling to make the right decisions and implement proper policies is cause for serious concern. Waiting for governments to decide on policies to address the problems we face is proving exhausting and stressful. There is another way.

We can begin to act ourselves. We can choose to bring together the diverse perspectives and experience of South Gippslanders to plan a response that best suits our region. Southern Gippslanders are invited to an online assembly from 3 pm to 5 pm on Saturday November 21 for an initial discussion about planning South Gippsland’s future together**.

Spokesperson for the group, Madelaine Moore, said climate change impacts households, communities, industries and regions. “In 20 years from now, the economy will look very different than it does today. We’ll see new technologies, industries, jobs and ways of working and learning, new ways of growing our food, powering our lives and transporting ourselves and the things we love”.

“What if, instead of leaving the changes to come for others to determine, we band together as a region and in our various communities to develop a transition to a low-carbon economy ourselves? We have the opportunity to set the agenda and begin framing our own future,” Ms Moore said.

The group says South Gippslanders are already working together for the changes they know that are needed. In October, more than 2,000 people petitioned South Gippsland Shire Council to immediately declare a climate emergency and take the lead within the South Gippsland community in implementing urgent action on climate change. In the same month, people gathered in more than 40 communities to show Federal representatives Darren Chester and Russell Broadbent that they want urgent action to address the escalating risks of bushfires, coastal erosion, and drought.

“This is our chance to bring together local people from all walks of life and begin developing a roadmap for a just transition to a future that provides a strong economy, jobs, and a safe environment for generations to come,” Ms Moore said.

Ms Moore said the group is planning a series of workshops and discussions, so if those interested can’t make the first meeting, there will be further opportunities and other ways people can show enthusiasm for the project. Just Transition for South Gippsland represents South Gippslanders looking to develop community interest in working on the principles and strategies needed for a just transition to a low-carbon economy.

*visit their website here

** See here

Extract from an article on the Metung Science Forum*

The Federal Government is currently promoting a “gas fired recovery” for our economy and the NSW government has just approved the Narrabri Gas Project. The recent Federal Budget does nothing to promote renewable energy. Rather than considering gas as part of a transition to net zero emissions (ie. firming the grid) it appears that Australia is poised to embark on another wave of fossil fuel use while continuing to also support the coal industry.

At the same time, all over the world, banks, superannuation funds and private investors are decarbonizing their investment portfolios by getting out of fossil fuels. This is all part of a move to invest in companies who have undertaken to act in a Socially Responsible Manner. Socially Responsible Investments (SRI) and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investments were not so long ago, oddities in global investment markets.

However, there has been a significant paradigm shift in the investment world, which has seen an ever-increasing tendency of investors to question whether their investments are used to fund companies who have exposure to practices such as modern slavery, tobacco, plastics pollution, gambling, animal cruelty, etc and indeed whether they contribute to climate change.

There are numerous examples of organisations and individuals who are moving very quickly in the direction of SRI or ESG investing. These include the largest fund manager in the world, Blackrock, who is decarbonizing its portfolios to companies such as BHP who are divesting from thermal coal. And to individuals such as British Filmmaker, Richard Curtis (think Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill etc.) who is currently campaigning to shift 3 trillion pounds of UK pensions away from fossil fuels, arms, and meat production over to clean energy, healthcare, and human rights. Richard believes that the most powerful thing any of us can do to support the climate change initiatives we must adopt, is to clean up our investment portfolios – let our money do the talking…

*Request the full article from Tom Moore [moore46t@gmail.com ] The Metung Science Forum (MSF) is a forum for progressive science and evidence-based discussion of climate change and related issues for the people of Metung and surrounds. As a group we are not politically aligned with any particular party, but have come together to support each other in understanding and respecting science. We promote evidence-based solutions to problems faced by our community, Australia and globally, and we will support selected organisations and individuals who actively engage with local, state and federal governments. (Our current membership stands at 53 local residents).

Many of the recent critics of the Baw Baw Pumped Hydro (PHES) proposal posted on this blog seem to have little or no comprehension of the immensity of the task we are facing in the climate emergency. Above all, we have to exit the use of fossil fuels as rapidly as we can. Gippsland has been central to the state’s fossil fuel economy for over a century and is still providing about 70% of all electricity from its brown coal generators. In terms of the greenhouse gases produced these are the dirtiest coal fired plants in Australia and logically, should have been the first retired, but because of the cheapness of brown coal production they linger on.

The three remaining generators in the Valley have a capacity of just under five gigawatts. To replace this with renewables would require 15 million 300w solar panels or 15,000 3mw wind generators. This is only half the problem for something probably approaching 200% of capacity is needed for a renewables based power grid, as well as different types of energy storage. The Beyond Zero Emissions stationary energy plan of 2010 is now outdated as it favoured solar thermal systems as its major energy provider. The rapid lowering of costs of solar pv has changed this aspect of the plan. But one thing solar thermal does provide is medium storage of up to 24 hours or more.

Another way of looking at the climate emergency is our personal CO2 footprint. John Hermans in an article in RENEW 148 noted “The amount of CO2 released during the generation of one megawatt-hour (MWh) of energy in Victoria is close to one tonne…In Melbourne, a 1 kW PV array may produce up to 1.3 MWh of electricity in one year (depending on orientation, angle and shading). To offset one person’s 20 tonnes of CO2 by producing 20 MWh of clean electricity in a year, each person needs to install 15 kW of PV. An average home with four people would need 60 kW of PV (currently 180 panels) to offset the carbon footprint that sustains their lifestyle as they enjoy the pleasures of living in Australia.”

Here John is looking at all the CO2 an individual produces – including that produced in food consumption and transportation. John and his family are rarities in Gippsland with a zero carbon footprint. But unlike the Hermans’ household our grid needs large scale energy storage to provide power when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. The extra renewables above capacity required (double?) can be stored – as lithium batteries, pumped hydro and perhaps solar thermal – the latter two both providing medium storage. One benefit of the Baw Baw PHES not trumpeted is that it could provide construction employment at a crucial time in the just transition in the Latrobe Valley. Thus helping avert a political reaction of the type we are seeing in the coal areas of NSW and Queensland.

How to progress*

In three previous posts we have revisited the possibility of a Pumped Hydroelectric Energy Storage (PHES) scheme near Baw Baw in Gippsland; the projected and growing need for deeper storage in Australia’s electricity market; some refinements to the design; and context to projected environmental impacts. Here we consider how it might happen.

The first thing to note is that, if it were to go ahead, the Baw Baw PHES could not (and would not) happen overnight. Unlike lithium batteries (which Elon Musk famously installed in South Australia within 100 days), several years of feasibility, planning, design, and of course environmental studies and approvals would be required. Such long lead-times, and associated risks, would test the patience of the private sector. Approval periods spanning years – even up to a decade, for the CSG project previously considered- are not unheard of for mining and resource projects: the payback for these, however, is generally short-term and often lucrative.

A large-scale electricity storage project is also one that, to a certain extent, ‘cannibalises’ its own market. The underlying business case relies on buying power when it is plentiful and cheap, and selling it back when it is scarce. Making Gigawatts of additional power supply available will, however, significantly reduce the size and duration of price spikes – leading to lower project revenues. Likewise, buying power on such a scale would put a floor under prices in times of high supply, increasing project running costs. The former is good for power consumers and industry, and the latter a must for the ongoing deployment of new renewable projects delivering cheap, but variable, energy. The project itself, however, may not reap these ‘externalised’ benefits under current market settings.

There may therefore, be a role for Government in initiating, developing, and possibly even building, the Baw Baw PHES scheme. The federal government is doing this for the Snowy 2.0 PHES project, and the state has launched initiatives such as its Renewable Energy Target and virtual transmission reverse auctions, encouraging short-duration batteries. Whilst likely to stack up in the long term on its own financial merits, the benefits would stretch beyond the financial returns of the project itself: confidence and price stability for power consumers; lowered risk and boosted returns for proponents of new wind and solar farms; energy security; lower long-term emissions; and economic activity and jobs in the Latrobe region.

If we are to accelerate the retirement of coal generators in Victoria, and try to meet the emission reductions required to avert the worst-case climate change scenarios, we need to have as many options on the table as we can. Gas has a role to play, but it is increasingly difficult to see how the cost and emissions associated with this can be sustainable in the medium to long term. The Baw Baw Pumped Hydro scheme could have significant long-term benefits for the state, and indeed Australia.

* Our guest contributor is a Gippsland-bred engineer, working in the power industry. Links to previous posts are (1) the growing need for deep and medium storage (2) further engineering insights and refinements and (3) environmental impacts

Environmental impacts*

As we transition to a low emission, low-cost, renewable dominated grid over the coming years and decades, Australia will need to significantly increase its fleet of dispatchable generators. Gas-powered generators can fulfil this function, but despite being touted by many as a ‘transition fuel’ and the supposed key to Australia’s Covid recovery, gas extraction and consumption is increasingly costly – economically, environmentally, and in terms of greenhouse emissions. Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES) schemes offer a long-term, large-scale alternative – and whilst they are not without cost from environmental or economic perspectives, these should be seen in the context of the alternatives. In this post, we consider the environmental impacts of the Baw Baw PHES, and compare its metrics against a high profile gas extraction development.

Unlike traditional Hydro schemes, PHES does not rely on capturing and diverting the flow of natural watercourses. The proposed reservoirs would indeed capture rainwater from upstream catchment, but environmental flows below the dams can be maintained at up to 100% of present-day rate if required. This would not affect the viability of the scheme, as the captured water would represent only a fraction of the total energy passing through the scheme. Habitat, and other uses downstream should not – if managed carefully – be affected. There would be no effect on flows below the Thomson Dam, including the Gippsland lakes: unlike coal plants, PHES does not consume water.

Building the Baw Baw PHES scheme would, however, impact on native vegetation. The footprints of the reservoirs, pressure race, transmission lines, powerhouse, and required upgrades to existing access roads would result in significant modification, or loss, of vegetation and habitat currently within them. This should, however, be viewed in the context of other large-scale projects. 

A high-profile Coal Seam Gas (CSG) project in NSW, currently nearing construction after almost a decade of seeking sign off, has approval to clear up to 1000 Hectares of native state forest within its footprint. The proponents estimate, at full production, it will deliver 200 TJ of gas per day: at standard heat rates (10 GJ/MWh for an open cycle turbine) this would represent 20 Gigawatt hours of electricity.

By contrast, stage one of the Baw Baw scheme (14 Gigawatt hours) is estimated to affect in the order of 160 Hectares of forest. The reservoir would have an area of 45 Hectares, and the balance arises from conservative estimates for the 40 km or so of new transmission corridor to the existing network; access road upgrades; and hydroelectric infrastructure. The transmission line would need to traverse approximately 4.5km of the Baw Baw national park north of Rawson- this section, however, may be tunnelled under the park. Once at the Thomson dam, the line would avoid significant forest clearing by stringing the line over the lake up to the powerhouse at the water’s edge.

Stage two, adding a further 56 Gigawatt hours of storage, may impact a further 170 Hectares of forest- comprising the 140 Hectare area of the reservoir, plus widening of existing access roads and a couple of kilometres of new road. The potential Thompson impacts on potential habitat of the endangered Baw Baw frog would need to be assessed, as historical sightings have been made nearby (see map above).

The impacts of the Baw Baw PHES scheme, estimated at about a third that of a Coal-Seam Gas project of comparable size, should be viewed in terms of its lifetime. Where the CSG project has an economic lifetime of only 20 years, the pumped hydro scheme would operate essentially indefinitely- not requiring the endless pursuit of new resource discoveries and extraction, each likely to be more expensive, difficult and environmentally fraught than those that came before it. In the next – and final – post, we consider possible pathways to the Baw Baw PHES coming to fruition.

* Our guest contributor is a Gippsland-bred engineer, working in the power industry. Links to previous posts are (1) the growing need for deep and medium storage and (2) further engineering insights and refinements. Still to come (4) how to progress

Further engineering insights and refinements*

The Baw Baw Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES) scheme, as described when first put forward here two years ago, would draw water from Lake Thomson to a new reservoir approximately 15 kilometers, and almost 700m higher, across the Baw Baw masiff. During times of peak demand water would return through the same underground tunnels, forming an energy storage scheme on a similar scale to Snowy 2.0, and the ‘Battery of the Nation’ proposal for Tasmania. As discussed in the previous post, such projects will be vital to accelerate Australia’s transition to a low emission, low cost, reliable energy supply, and will create and support regional jobs along the way.

The reservoir originally proposed is one of 22,000 found across Australia as part of a 2017 ANU study. Coupled with a two Gigawatt hydroelectric plant it would have a run-time of 28 hours – a ‘deep storage’ system that could smooth out variation in energy supply across months and seasons. Bringing this configuration online in one stage could, however, present challenges: as our energy supply transitions to become increasingly variable, shallow and medium-depth storage will be needed first, followed by more deep storage as the last coal plants come offline. Construction of the large, remote reservoir, and the 5km of tunneling under the Baw Baw range, would also be a significant undertaking, needing a compelling business case to justify it.

The scheme is now envisaged as being developed in two key stages. In the first stage, a smaller, 8GL reservoir (also found in the ANU study) situated on the east side of the Baw Baw range would be developed, much closer to the Thomson dam, as shown in the screen grab above.

If built initially with a one Gigawatt generation capacity, the scheme would run for 14 hours on a full charge: providing the medium-depth storage needed in the next phase of transition in the electricity market. The proximity to lake Thomson means underground tunneling would be limited to 1600m; the pressure race (pipes carrying water downhill) could be constructed above-ground; and the powerhouse close to the surface on the shore of the existing lake. These minimise cost, and together with the improved efficiency of shorter piping distance bolster the project’s business case. As coal plants progressively retire, additional generation capacity could be added: at two Gigawatts, this one-reservoir configuration would have a 7-hour depth of storage.

As the need emerges, the west reservoir (which, at 30 GL, would be much larger, and slightly higher) could be built – either to enhance the depth of storage, support further increases in power capacity, or both. This scheme could also provide an important insurance policy for Victoria for cases of extended ‘wind droughts’ or major network failures: the combined scheme would have 70 Gigawatt hours of dispachable generation.

No energy project is without its drawbacks, and environmental impacts of such a scheme would be unavoidable. In the next post we will consider these, and the context of projects of similar scale.

* Our guest contributor is a Gippsland-bred engineer, working in the power industry. The previous post is (1) the growing need for deep and medium storage. To follow on over the next month are (3) environmental impacts and (4) how to progress

The growing need for deep and medium storage*

A bit over two years ago, this blog published an article suggesting a large-scale Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES) in Gippsland could smooth the transition out of brown coal. This post, and several to follow**, offer some further insights on the need, potential configuration, and context of environmental impacts, of a Baw Baw PHES scheme.

In 2018 the Australian Energy Market Operator implemented a long-term blueprint for ensuring the ongoing performance, reliability, and least-cost transformation of the east-coast grid: the Integrated System Plan (ISP). The latest revision, released in July, considers five future scenarios: ranging from ‘slow change’ (with government intervention to extend the life of existing coal plants); to ‘step change’, where rapid action is taken to reduce emissions to meet and exceed our Paris climate goals. To anyone interested in Australia’s energy system, and emission reduction pathways, this document is an essential read.

The ISP makes it clear that a key requirement across scenarios will be an increase in dispatchable generation. This is needed to complement the large volume (over 26 Gigawatts) of low-cost, but variable, renewable energy projects forecast to come online in the next two decades, replacing the nation’s ageing fleet of coal generators. Between 6 and 19 Gigawatts (a billion watts) of such capacity will, depending on the scenario, be required over the next two decades, and is expected to be either gas turbine, lithium battery, or PHES technology. For context, Australia’s largest gas turbine facility is the 0.6 GW, four-unit Colongra station; the massive Snowy 2.0 expansion is 2 GW; and what was – until recently – the world’s largest battery in South Australia is 0.15 GW. The scale of new capacity required is, by any measure, enormous.

An energy storage facility is classed as either shallow or deep, determined by the length of time it can operate at full output before its energy is drained. Less than two hours is considered ‘shallow’: useful for bridging short ‘peak’ periods each day, like when solar drops off and demand peaks after sunset. 24 hours or more is ‘deep storage’, which can operate across seasons. It may build up charge, for instance, in spring when demand is low and wind and solar output high (see image above), and then discharge at the height of summer (or depth of winter) when power demand soars. ‘Medium’ storage sits between these two – typically between 4 and 12 hours of charge. As the proportion of variable renewable capacity increases, the greater the need first for medium, then deep, large-scale storage to meet demand. Despite advances in battery technology, and their fast-response, grid-stabilisation capabilities, the economics and practicalities of ‘deep storage’ batteries are still considered distant.

A Baw Baw PHES would not be an ‘alternative’ to Snowy 2.0: it, and a pipeline of other storage and transmission projects, will be needed to accelerate the transition from a fossil-powered grid. In the next post, we look at ways the Baw Baw scheme can be engineered and staged to provide deep (and ‘medium’) storage – as well as an insurance policy for the grid – over the coming decades.

* Our guest contributor is a Gippsland-bred engineer, working in the power industry

**To follow on over the next month or so are (2) further engineering insights and refinements (3) environmental impacts and (4) how to progress

Prior to ballot papers being mailed out EGCAN (East Gippsland Climate Action Network) submitted a climate questionnaire to all candidates – only eight replied and of them, five positively. EGCAN originally planned to publish the results prior to the commencement of balloting using a ‘traffic light’ analogy, but because of the poor response decided not to do so.

Here is my effort to fill the gap. I have divided the 21 candidates into the traffic light colors – green being climate friendly, red the most likely opponents and amber in between, unclear or not known. Within each of these groups the candidates are not ranked.

The Green group is mainly made up of EGCAN members, or supporters of more climate action by the Shire, and those that returned the questionnaire. In this group are Kendall, Urie, Greacen, Crook, Schroder, and Dutton. Schroder is a borderline case as he did not complete the questionnaire and appears to have made deals with inappropriate candidates.

The Amber group of candidates is the largest including Buckley and Simon Ellis who both replied to the questionnaire with mixed responses; Dick Ellis, White and Reeves all of whom voted against the climate emergency petition; Neophytou, Van Diggele, Neale, Allen, Stow, Rowe, and McNeill. Candidates with the Red light are Behan, Barling, and Roberts.

Depending on how the vote turns out your preferences are very important – in some instances up to your fourteenth preference may count. It is therefore very important to keep these numbers as tight as possible. We will be voting on climate for the rest of the decade as the climate emergency dictates. Now is a good time to start if you have not already done so. Remember to discuss climate at every opportunity and to spread the word.

Retired CSIRO climate scientist Barrie Pittock* penned a missive in response to an article entitled “Bayside councils acting on beach erosion” referring to erosion in Port Phillip Bay. The article, Barrie said: “missed the point that this is a much wider problem in Victoria, with widespread coastal erosion along the Bass coast. I have long shared a holiday house [at] Lake Bunga, just east of Lakes Entrance, and have observed large amounts of coastal erosion already. It is partly due to sea-level rise, but mostly… due to the strengthening and warming of the East Australian current, and the mid-latitude westerlies moving further south.”

Barrie continued that: “this has led to a slightly higher sea-level in the East of Bass Strait and stronger and more frequent easterly winds and waves along the Victorian coast. That has led to more erosion of the East side of headlands, including the one at the eastern end of the 90-mile beach, and the bluff at Barwon Heads, and cliffs near Anglesea, and to the need for more protection of the Entrance to the Gippsland Lakes. The coastal edge of the Lakes Entrance golf course has been seriously eroded, with loss of some sand dunes and coastal tea-trees there and further along the coast.”

“In the foreseeable future we can expect far worse coastal erosion, and I expect the blocking of the outlet of the Barwon River at Barwon Heads, by sand moving westwards… That is just some of it! We have a big problem due to sea-level rise and changing ocean currents and wave motion.”

Other Gippsland examples in line with Barrie’s comments include the severe erosion at Inverloch, which has been frequently mentioned in this blog. Sea level rise, coastal erosion, and storm surge in combination are already threatening and damaging our coast.

*I receive regular emails from Barrie – mostly letters to various journals and papers. For more on Barrie see here.