carbon tax and arena, page-4

International Energy Agency in its World Energy Outlook said:
*the world is effectively heading for disaster;
*world is hurtling towards a 6°C global warming with BAS scenario;
*under the “new policies” scenario (Cancun, Oz)the world only gets one third down the track ;
*“We cannot continue to rely on insecure and environmentally unsustainable uses of energy,”
*“Governments need to introduce stronger measures to drive investment in efficient and low-carbon technologies to avoid dangerous climate change."
*IEA paints its 450 scenario
– which it says gives the world an even bet at
limiting global warming to 2°C –
-requires a dramatic and immediate change in policies and investment
-halt to new coal fired power plants
-increased deployment of gas (only as a transitional fuel)
-massive investment in renewables, and
-a significant deployment in nuclear, particularly in developing economies (to replace their coal-fired plans).

The IEA calculates that :
*80 per cent of carbon budget is already locked in by plants that have already been built;
-This “lock-in” leaves little room for manoeuvre, but
-Delaying serious action until 2015 would lift that lock-in to 95 per cent of the carbon budget
-If action was delayed until 2017, then the “lock-in” of existing plants would exceed the world’s carbon budget that means
----the only option after 2017 is to build emissions-free generation !!!
----and any investment in appliances, buildings and passenger and commercial vehicles after 2017 will also have to be emissions free
----or require the early retirement of some existing plant or facility to create headroom for the new investment.

The 450 scenario (that is to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 450 parts per million.)
*Both our means of transport and our energy grids are completely transformed
-Improved fuel efficiency plays the biggest role in transport
----by 2035, electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids will account for one third of all vehicle sales;
----Biofuels also are a major contributor.
-The energy grid is dominated by renewables and the share of fossil fuels falls dramatically
----Coal goes from 32 per cent of capacity (and 41 per cent of generation) to just 13 per cent (and 15 per cent),
----Gas nearly doubles its capacity, to 2,10GW, but its market share falls from 24 per cent to 22 per cent;
----nuclear’s share increases slightly to 9 per cent from 8 per cent, but its capacity also doubles (to 865GW), mostly in developing countries such as China, India and Korea.
----The share of hydro falls slightly, to 19 per cent from 20 per cent, although its capacity also nearly doubles to 1,803GW
-Dramatic change is in non-hydro renewables, whose share increases phenomenally
---from just 4 per cent in 2009, to 34 per cent of global electricity capacity in 2035.
-----Wind capacity grows 10-fold
-----Solar PV rises 40-fold
-----solar thermal leaps from just 1GW to 226GW
-----geothermal from 11GW to 60GW
-----marine from zero to 23GW, and
-----biomass grows six-fold to 329GW.
*In terms of generation,in 2035
- non-hydro renewables soar to 28 per cent from just 2 per cent in 2009,
- nuclear and hydro have a 20 per cent share each, while
- coal drops from 41 per cent to 15 per cent, and
- gas from 21 per cent to 17 per cent.

According to the IEA scenario, where the investment and business and job opportunities lie in the future?
*solar thermal has a compound annual growth rate in investment of 35 per cent from 2011 to 2035
*the world’s biggest energy groups are falling over each other trying to get hold of the best technology
*Solar PV, even after its spectacular growth in recent years, delivers 15 per cent compound annual growth for the next two and a half decades,
*wind grows at 10 per cent per annum and marine at 18 per cent.

-The renewables sector will attract a total of $20 trillion in new investment
-other growth industries in this scenario are clean transport, fuel efficiency and EVs, which attract around $6.3 trillion.

And the losers are:
*Coal capacity slumps by 0.5 per cent per year out to 2035,
-- a net reduction in investment of $6 trillion, and
-- investment in poles and wires would be reduced by $900 billion (even after the investment needed to accommodate intermittent renewables.)

“Delaying action is a false economy,” IEA says. “For every $1 of avoided investment between 2011 and 2020, either through reduced low-carbon investment or adoption of cheaper fossil-fuel investment options, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent between 2021 and 2035 to compensate for the increased emissions."

Other surprise in the 450 scenario:
* The aggressive investment , which includes the dismantling of fossil fuel subsidies, and the diversion of some of that to renewables, will mean consumers around the world actually pay $669 billion less in energy costs than they otherwise would.
* And, says the IEA, there are other benefits:
-- less pollution;
-- more countries that are energy self reliant (less chance of conflict);
-- healthier people who live longer; and
-- a much greater chance of preventing runaway global warming, with far lower adaptation costs.
-------It seems like a policy no-brainer!!!!

Oz coal in the 450 scenario:
* should politicians get their act together, the outlook for Oz is turned on its head.
--China is no longer Australia’s biggest customer, it actually ceases to become an importer of coal.
-- Output in the US and Europe declines dramatically,
-- India becomes the biggest customer.
----- These go completely against the scenarios outlined by Australian Treasury.!!!!!