The past year has seen several processes to reduce the price of electricity to consumers. Each has highlighted the importance of “demand management” – consumers reducing use at peak times to reduce the amount of new infrastructure. But no one has asked whether this will reduce emissions as well as prices.
Demand management can theoretically provide a range of environmental benefits. These include emissions reductions, lower urban air pollution, lower overall consumption, responsiveness to fluctuating supply, facilitating integration of intermittent renewable generation and electric vehicles, lower transmission losses and limiting the resources and land-clearing needed for infrastructure to meet peak demand.
But will it lower emissions? Given the National Electricity Objective, by which all National Electricity Market policy is measured, does not include environmental concerns, this has not been a question on policymakers' minds.
A discussion paper from the Total Environment Centre (TEC) suggests assessing the environmental effects of demand management is not as easy as it may seem.
In most countries, baseload power is provided by the cleanest generators. Only when demand is high are the older and less-efficient generators switched on. In this context, reducing demand at peak times can significantly reduce emissions by taking the dirtiest plants offline.
In Australia, we have the opposite situation: we get almost all of our baseload power from black and brown coal-fired generators. We only turn on the efficient gas-fired generators at times of high demand.
In this context, reducing peak demand may actually increase emissions by increasing the amount of demand met from dirty coal-fired generators.
One reason for this is the “rebound effect”: energy consumption foregone at peak times is subsequently made up by consumers following the peak. However, the effect overall does not appear to be significant – an analysis of two peak reduction programs in California found that only 22% of participants increased off-peak payback usage to offset peak reductions. In Australia any such shift from peak to baseload would mean some increase in emissions.
But research suggests there is also a “conservation effect”. This means consumers actually save energy as a result of demand management programs. These programs increase energy awareness and provide feedback for consumers on their usage behaviour, promoting more efficient consumption overall.
Also, there will be no need to make up some of the foregone usage. For example, an office that dims its lights will not need to be overlit later on. Likewise, an air conditioner which is cycled at a peak time won’t be set higher later to ‘overcool’ a house.
One study assessed 100 dynamic-pricing programs. Results varied from a 5% increase in consumption to a 20% reduction. No clear variables correlated with the conservation effect, but combining different types of programs provided the best benefits.
Demand management programs can also help deploy more renewable energy. Renewables' intermittent nature can be balanced with demand management resources, which saves on building expensive gas-fired plants as back-up power. The International Energy Agency has recognised demand management as one of six areas of structural change that will directly benefit renewables.
So where does this leave the environment in the current push for demand management? In the short-term, we are likely to see some increase in emissions as peak demand is shifted away from our cleaner gas-fired power plants and down to our dirtier baseload coal plants. This will be mediated by some conservation, but initially this will likely be less than the rebound energy use.
In the medium-term, as consumer awareness and renewables grow, negative environmental impacts are likely to be neutralised.
It seems paradoxical that reducing consumption could increase emissions. Yet this is just one small curiosity in an energy market that is struggling to deal with the challenges presented by climate change.
It is feasible, and likely cost-effective, to introduce demand management initiatives that also benefit the environment, and we should be better integrating demand management policies with climate, renewables, energy efficiency and planning policies. Unfortunately, the current National Electricity Law and Rules do not support such a holistic perspective.
Reforms are needed at the highest level. The National Electricity Objective should be revamped to ensure that environmental issues are integrated into energy policy making.
In the long-term the environmental benefits are much clearer. Demand management will be an essential part of a well-balanced energy system, helping users to manage their usage, facilitating renewable energy deployment, and shifting usage away from gas-fired peaking plants to renewable sources.
John Newlands
tree changer
The RET aims to generate a lot of electricity from wind and solar. However both may be vulnerable when the weather takes the form of a blocking high. In summer when air conditioning demand is highest wind farms may be becalmed. On still winter nights frosts may create a surge in demand for electric heating. Conversely in humid or cloudy weather air conditioning demand may surge in low light or darkening conditions when solar output tapers off.
Compounding this problem is the increasing price of natural gas for backup generation of electricity when wind and solar output dips. That backup role seems to be increasingly handled by coal, carbon tax or not. It all seems like a perfect storm conspiring against emissions reduction. If only there was a reliable and proven large scale source of low carbon electricity that could lessen the need for expensive gas fired intermediate power and coal fired baseload. I'll stop there in the interests of political correctness.
Adam McHugh
Lecturer in Energy Economics at Murdoch University
Hi John,
I was interested in your comment about how a blocking high could make both wind and solar vunerable. I did a bit of a web search but couldn't find anything to suggest that a blocking high is associated with blanket cloud cover in the eastern states. From what I can find they seem to be associated with a lack of cloud cover.
I'm wondering if you could provide any information on this. In particular, what sort of cloud cover would be expected in the eastern states if a blocking high formed during a peak demand event on a summer afternoon?
John Newlands
tree changer
I meant cloud cover was not typically associated with high pressure, confirmed by the third sentence in the third section of this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-pressure_area
In other words solar is best on low cloud days and wind is best in low pressure weather, day or night.
I didn't keep written records but I'd swear SW Tasmania had 100 straight days in 2012 in which it rained for an hour or more. Hence PV performed poorly a lot of the time and there was plenty of fuel for the recent bushfires.
Russell Hamilton
Librarian
"Demand management will be an essential part of a well-balanced energy system, helping users to manage their usage ...
I think that 'helping' is a bit Orwellian.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Russell, I think 'Orwellian' is a bit extreme - yes that 'helping' is only partially voluntary but it needn't represent any real loss of freedom and, as freedoms go, the freedom to burn as much electricity as you want at peak hour doesn't rate up there with the big ones.
Given that we often agree to limit personal freedom to reduce social harms (think smoking in enclosed spaces, drink driving, etc.) and that the freedom being circumscribed here isn't great but the social harm (environmental and…
Read moreGlen Wright
PhD Candidate in Environmental Law at Australian National University
Felix, I agree. The fact is, we have had some of the cheapest electricity rates in the world for many years and we have got used to having the freedom to consume as much as we like and when we like, but there is no reason to suppose that this is some fundamental right. Poor regulation is now catching up on us and now we have some of the highest electricity prices in the world.
This, combined with the need to decarbonise our energy system is something of a 'perfect storm' that is unfortunately going to hit consumers. In this context, there is nothing Orwellian about demand management - it can be an economically efficient and environmentally sound resource that can help consumers mitigate the impacts of high prices.
Tim Scanlon
Debunker
So, we need to get rid of the coal generators from our energy system with even more haste.
Glen Wright
PhD Candidate in Environmental Law at Australian National University
Tim,
Exactly right. The key message of the TEC Discussion Paper referred to in the article is that demand management only increases emissions because our baseload is so dirty, in contrast to almost all other countries in the world. What we really need is strong demand management, combined with a rapid shift to renewables, as soon as possible.
Martin Nicholson
Energy researcher and author
Glen, perhaps a rapid shift to nuclear power, shutting down these dirty coal plants you refer to, would certainly significantly reduce our emissions. Let's not forget this option so stupidly left out of the latest Energy White Paper for political not technical reasons.
Glen Wright
PhD Candidate in Environmental Law at Australian National University
Martin,
I am not against nuclear power, and have absolutely no doubt that it could significantly reduce our emissions. In my opinion, the Energy White Paper is little more than a call to burn all of our resources and carry on the status quo - it did not surprise me that nuclear was left out. However, it is also true that there is little public acceptance of nuclear in Australia, and no political drive to utilise it. The AETA report looked at nuclear and showed it to be a very attractive option (though I think they did not include decommissioning costs).
Martin Nicholson
Energy researcher and author
It is true that BREE does not include decommissioning costs for any technology.
For nuclear in the US the decommissioning cost is estimated at $1-2/MWh.
OECD places decommissioning cost at $200-500k/MWe. Over a 60 year life that becomes $0.5-1/MWh.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf19.html
Both these estimates are relatively small compared to the BREE estimated LCOE of 96-108/MWh - so decommissioning cost is of the order of 1%.. Well within any margin of error in estimating LCOE.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Of course, the partial evidence that leaks and general fugitive emissions throughout the gas supply chain may be such that the lesser emissions claimed for gas may turn out to mostly dissolve does, in a slightly sad way, at least mean that the problem of kicking back to coal generatuion rather than gas may not be as bad as it sounds.
Rather pyrrhic 'vicotory' though...
Grant Burfield
Dr
"We only turn on the efficient gas-fired generators at times of high demand". Here's a thought - why not build new efficient gas-fired generators as well as replace old coal-fired ones with efficient gas. Or even with <gasp> efficient nuclear.
Nope, no way. A robust statistical survey has shown that 97% of Australians would greet those suggestions with garlic and wooden stakes in our green renewable utopia.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Then again, Grant, some undefined percentage of the population would refrain from making shallow and rather abusive generalisations around genuinely complex issues.
Glen Wright
PhD Candidate in Environmental Law at Australian National University
Gas-fired generators are used for peaking power only because they are much more expensive than coal - it would not be viable to replace coal with gas alone.
I am not against nuclear power per se, but with few expertise and infrastructure, nuclear would take a while to get off the ground in Australia. I have been told at least 10 years. In any case, as you say, nuclear is pretty much off the agenda in Australia, rightly or not.
However, demand management and renewables are already proven, and there is plenty of research to show that Australia can make this transition, if there is the political will to do so.
Grant Burfield
Dr
Glen, do you have a link to costs of electricity by source. Wiki has a US study projected for 2017 showing that combined cycle gas is the least expensive (first table in link below) . Note also the far higher load factors of coal, gas and nuclear c.f. wind and solar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Felix, there's nothing undefined or shallow about 97%. In fact, and I'm sure you know, 0.97 is the Golden Ratio of climate science.
.5*(1+5^.5) is a thing of the past.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
So after one response you've simply decided to abandon even the pretense of reason? Still, it's your choice...
Grant Burfield
Dr
Good grief! What are you on about? I was merely alluding, perhaps tongue in cheek, to the never ending stupidity of people quoting things like "97% of climate scientists say that ...". But if you don't like the rounded climate science Golden Ratio of 0.97, try the exact 75/77. But then again, don't bother. By your less than fullsome Conversation Biography I doubt that you would understand.
Some commenters here, from many differing backgrounds and viewpoints, have the decency to list their qualifications and experience. Full marks to them. You don't and so it's rather pointless responding to you further. So I won't.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Grant, that is one of the saddest and most childish responses I've yet read here.
I merely objected to your rather shallow,petulant and unconstructive initial comment about garlic and wooden stakes by suggesting that at least some percentage of people would refrain from comments of that kind. You replied with a complete non sequitur that would only have been rational if I had said something like "97% is undefined and shallow" which of course bears no relationship to what I actually said.
When I pointed out the irrationality of your reply, you resorted to prattling on about staistical irrelevancies and insulting me.
Is that supposed to be a demonstration of the benefits of your extensive academic qualifications?
Martin Nicholson
Energy researcher and author
It may well take 10 years for nuclear, but if, like me, you wonder if renewables will deliver in 10 years then it seems to make sense to have a two pronged strategy - not have all our eggs in one basket.
Nuclear being off the agenda is not a reason to abandon the only proven solution we have. Let's get it back ON the agenda.
Glen Wright
PhD Candidate in Environmental Law at Australian National University
Martin,
I agree. As I said above, I am not against nuclear, but I think public opinion is. I personally believe an 'all of the above' strategy is required - anything we can do to meet our energy needs without wrecking the climate. Unfortunately, I don't think the Australian public will be convinced any time soon, and even if they were, nuclear would be a way off. Renewables on the other hand don't need 10 years to deliver, they are already doing it - just look at Germany. We can ramp renewables up right away if we want to.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
What do you mean you're not against nuclear Glen - that's a shocking admission to be making! Less law - more environment immediately.
And some conomics. There's a rather excellent discussion of some of the issues srrounding nuclear power plants here, strangely enough very balanced.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
Now one of the dot points in that piece above concerns the need to back up your capacity - so that you can take the plant off-line without plunging the country into darkness. Means you need at least two - maybe more. Locks you into massive capital outlays up front and shapes the whole design of your system.
So double everything.
Glen Wright
PhD Candidate in Environmental Law at Australian National University
Well Peter, I was once told by an environmental lawyer called Cormac Cullinan that environmental law is not there to protect the environment, but to manage environmentalists! This is often the case, but I wouldn't say my tentative support for nuclear means I am anti-environment. It means that I think we should be exploring all options to clean up our energy systems and stabilise the climate. Am I thrilled about the prospect of nuclear power? No, not really. Do I think it could play a role in our energy system? Based on my far-from-expert knowledge, I think so.
Gary Murphy
Independent Thinker
Nuclear isn't necessary for Australia. Wind power costs about the same and can be installed much faster.
Distributed wind / backup gas for baseload and rooftop PV for daytime peaking. That leaves nighttime peaking and rare wind backup to be covered by biofuels / existing hydro.
"... which saves on building expensive gas-fired plants as back-up power."
I don't know where you get that from. Gas plants are quite cheap to build (around $1000/kW) compared to around $8000/kWe for wind and around $7000/kW for the latest nuclear builds in the US (FOAK).
US nuclear construction costs ($7000/kW)
http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2012-10-03/all-eyes-vogtle-first-us-nuclear-reactor-generation
Paul Moonie
PhD student, solar energy
I agree nuclear is not strictly necessary, Gary. But it appeas to be desirable if we want to decarbonise at a low cost in a shorter amount of time (even if it takes 10 years to commission our first reactors).
Like Glen, I favour 'all of the above'.
This is where the capabilities of each low-carbon tech come in, a GW scale reactor would be more suitable for knocking out the large coal fired generators, while renewables like wind and solar penetrate other areas of the grid.
Capabilities of each tech need to be considered for the task.
P.S. Probably the best source for capital and LCOE costs in Australia are here: http://www.bree.gov.au/documents/publications/aeta/Australian_Energy_Technology_Assessment.pdf
Gary Murphy
Independent Thinker
"But it appeas to be desirable if we want to decarbonise at a low cost in a shorter amount of time (even if it takes 10 years to commission our first reactors)."
It takes 1-2 years to build a wind farm. 10 years is a very, very optimistic time frame for building a nuclear program from scratch.
Wind / gas is quite capable of providing baseload power to knock out the coal plants.
I am quite aware of the AETA. But their nuclear and most of their renewable costings are just estimates. Very good estimates I am sure - but still just estimates.
For LCOEs of various generating techs based on real projects in the US try the numbers from the US DOE here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCOE
But keep in mind that since those figures (and the AETA costs) were compiled the costs of the nuclear projects has blown out by about 40%.
Paul Moonie
PhD student, solar energy
Gary, AETA2012 is not just estimates, they include real prices where possible. The problem with using the US prices you link is that they vary a lot to Australia - particularly with gas. in the absence of nuclear in Australia, I would suggest analysing a newcomer to nuclear like UAE for cost/time indication for Australia. An expected 5.4GW in 8 years at $20b from scratch.
A few points:
Read more- yes, our first reactors are likely to have high capital costs and long build times (this was/is the case for…
Paul Moonie
PhD student, solar energy
You may also find this CSIRO tool useful Gary: http://efuture.csiro.au/#scenarios
Flick between nuclear and non-nuclear and observe projected cost and emissions changes.
Gary Murphy
Independent Thinker
Thanks for the link Paul. I can't seem to get it work with anything other than the default scenario but I'll keep trying.
I found something strange in the AETA. The O&M costs for wind are way higher than in the US energy outlook. In the US paper the O&M costs are 9.8 $/MWh total whereas in the AETA it has variable O&M of $12/MWh as well as fixed O&M of $40,000/MW/yr. Do you know where that $40000 figure comes from? The upshot of it is that the AETA paper ends up with higher O&M costs for wind than nuclear which doesn't seem right to me.
Gary Murphy
Independent Thinker
"The upshot of it is that the AETA paper ends up with higher O&M costs for wind than nuclear..."
I was wrong about that. I thought the O&M costs for nuclear included fuel when in fact they don't. That is an extra 7-10 $/MWh.
So total O&M for wind power according to the AETA is around 25 $/MWh (compared to estimates in the US of $10 and Europe of 12-15 Euros) and for nuclear around $20/MWh + $7-10 for fuel.
Askgerbil Now
logged in via Twitter
Reducing peak demand, prices AND emissions
At present Australia has about $11 billion of electricity infrastructure that is used less than 1 percent of the time.
Read moreReducing the cost of energy distribution can be achieved by many different methods.
Adding say, a fleet of plug-in electric vehicles in off-peak periods would increase the use of this infrastructure, lowering the unit cost for ALL electricity consumers.
In addition to demand management, two other proposals to cut peak demand are…
Glen Wright
PhD Candidate in Environmental Law at Australian National University
EVs are complex because although they could utilise network infrastructure at off-peak times, they will also increase the overall demand for electricity. So long as EVs are charged in our current system, i.e. coal-fired power, emissions will increase. That said, EVs provide a great opportunity for demand management and balancing of intermittency, assuming that our energy system advances beyond fossil fuels.
Distributed generation can play a big part in managing peak demand. There is ongoing debate as to how well renewable sources like wind and solar correlate with peaks, but it is clear that they sometimes do, and that even when they don't there are advantages of local generation.
I have not heard much about 'phase change materials', but improvements in energy storage could potentially change the energy landscape significantly.
Askgerbil Now
logged in via Twitter
Glen,
CALMAC is typical example of a Phase Change Material (PCM) energy storage vendor: http://www.calmac.com/benefits/general.pdf
ABC TV - Catalyst covered PCM use in a Melbourne office building a few years ago. Here is an overview and some extra links - http://blog.gerbilnow.com/2012/10/having-your-air-conditioner-and-low.html
Cheap energy storage could help by using surplus wind turbine energy when available, and interrupt energy storing when wind turbine output drops.
Jasmine Williams
logged in via Facebook
So if the high peak demand is lowered, why not just use the more efficient gas-fired generators at times of low demand?
Nicholas Aberle
logged in via Facebook
Because the gas-fired ones are more expensive to run. So they only fire up when the wholesale price is driven up by rising demand.
Glen Wright
PhD Candidate in Environmental Law at Australian National University
Exactly right Nicholas. Because of this, most gas-fired generators in Australia make almost all of their money by switching on during a handful of days of the year where demand hits a critical peak. This is why generators like AGL are against renewables and demand management - the plants are too expensive to run as baseload, and if peak demand drops they won't be making any money.
Jasmine Williams
logged in via Facebook
Thanks for the reply.
Ian L. McQueen
Retired
Emissions. Meant to be a "bad word". But try to find a scientifically valid connection between adding carbon dioxide to the air and temperature. You will not succeed because the relationship is small or non-existent, pumped up by the media. Not a popular view these days, but look objectively and you will find that emissions of CO2 just don't matter. CO2 has been going up steadily, but global temperature has not increased in 16 years (or more).
Read moreNote who is making the most dire predictions and then…
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Ian, it began in the 1820s years ago with a guy called Joseph Fourier and has progressed a bit since then..but I guess that the accumulated evidence of nearly 200 years of the most intensive scientific endeavour in human history couldn't possibly be seen as 'scientifically valid'.
Then again, here's a simple experiment you could try at home: take both hands, poke them down the back of your trousers and see if you can find anything there.
Glen Wright
PhD Candidate in Environmental Law at Australian National University
I am still surprised to find that people deny the basic fundamentals of climate science, despite an overwhelming consensus from the global scientific community: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Perhaps many just don't want to face up to the reality: https://theconversation.edu.au/how-we-evolved-to-reject-climate-science-10711
In addition, the media in general does a terrible job of reporting climate science - to say that the media has pumped…
Read moreDoug Hutcheson
Poet
Oh, dear! The old "no warming for <insert cherry-picked number of years here> years" meme gets an outing. You could take Ian's statement on face value, or you could look at the truth: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1808
Sigh. When will the people who deny AGW move on to their next ideological stupidity? This one is growing a beard.
John Newlands
tree changer
I think the release of some official statistics will highlight the problem, The 2012 emissions data will be disappointing and early January electricity demand will have skyrocketed. If so it will be hard to conclude that carbon tax and RET have worked or will make enough difference. Similar misgivings apply to the likely effect of smart meters. Pensioners in 1960s built houses need aircon to survive 42C outside heat.
The hoped-for switch from gas to coal has huge uncertainty hanging over it. The opening of the Gladstone LNG hub in 2015 means that wholesale piped gas could earn three times as much sold as LNG. That will affect the gas price everywhere but WA. Since nuclear power is illegal here I think we're stuck with flatlining emissions and expensive electricity for the foreseeable future.
Paul Moonie
PhD student, solar energy
John, did you mean 'hoped-for switch from coal to gas' instead? It's a good point you raise. I couldn't find a mention of this price impact on future gas LCOE in the AETA2012 report... Hopefully it get's a mention somewhere soon.
John Newlands
tree changer
Oops coal to gas was what I meant. The failure of 'contracts for closure' seems attributable to gas price fears. Some small coal stations like Playford, Brix and Collinsville were to be retired anyway. However when both Yallourn and Hazelwood put up their hand it became clear a low gas price would be needed, carbon tax or not.
The US has seen a switch from coal to gas because of low wholesale gas prices around $2 per GJ as opposed to $5 in Australia. However if the Gladstone LNG terminal is fully developed it would king hit the east Australian gas market. The Japanese have paid up to $17 per GJ for LNG. If $2 of that is liquefaction costs then we are exposed to a three fold domestic price increase to meet export parity. Gas fired power in Australia could then be too expensive.
Paul Moonie
PhD student, solar energy
Thanks for the reply John. Can you suggest any good reading on the Gladstone LNG <--> E. Australia gas price link?
There is a recent review below you might be interested in if you haven't read already. Although the Gladstone LNG effects on future domestic energy generation market for East Australia was not included.
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 10 (2013) 68-88
Paul Moonie
PhD student, solar energy
The reason I ask John, is it appears that BREE had this information in some of their July reports but (could be completely wrong!) but did not include that increased gas cost in AETA (which is also a BREE report).
Decarbonising energy could get even more expensive than we thought.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
One of the responses of State governments and power pricers has been to secure a solid basis of ongoing cashflow, attempting to load as many fixed charges into our power bills as possible - that is charges for power-lines and poles over which there is no discretion. You pay for them - again and again - whether you use them or not.
The result has been to shrink the portion of your bill that responds to "demand management" and of course to provide a guaranteed income stream for power providers and any future purchasers of the power distribution grid.
The states and their various public and private bureaucracies that generate and distribute power have a direct interest in resisting efforts to reduce growth and increase the volatility of demand.
Finding the most effective means of billing that permits and encourages the greatest demand reduction is absolutely critical in unhooking ourselves from this unnecessary life support machinery.
Glen Wright
PhD Candidate in Environmental Law at Australian National University
Peter, great comment and I completely agree. There are a lot of vested interests tied up in our energy market. For example, NSW budget papers show that the NSW Government has received $5,35 billion from that state's network businesses since 2006. Those businesses make money by shifting more electricity, and the state government will not want to reduce energy usage because this will affect their pockets. That said, the rapid increase in electricity prices has become politically untenable and we are starting to see what looks like some real action on demand management.
Michael Lardelli
logged in via Facebook
Of course, in the long run, the effort put into demand managment makes little difference if population is allowed to continue increasing. An increasing population with its associated increased demands for consumption ultimately defeats any and all efforts at "sustainability".
Glen Wright
PhD Candidate in Environmental Law at Australian National University
Michael, I agree, and personally support efforts to limit population growth, which unfortunately remains very much a taboo subject. You are obviously completely correct that any environmental gains, in energy and other fields, will be tempered by unchecked population growth.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
The hard part about population Glen is what to do about it. How many or how much? How many Bangladeshis = one chubby white Australian farmer? Who is the problem here?
Given what we're likely to experience this century chances are there will be a lot fewer of us about I suspect. Whenever things get tight we tend to duck over next door and "borrow" a bit from the neighbours.
That'll happen if history is any guide and we don't find a way to manage this existential challenge without splitting…
Read moreAndrew Smith
Education Consultant at Australian & International Education Centre
The bulk of "population growth" is made of temporary long term visitors such as international students, 2nd year backpackers, 457 work visas and dependents, all of whom probably have a lower demand than Australians living the dream, and millions of short term tourists.
Linkages between net overseas migration, population an/or immigration (which are different), to environment and sustainability, are very one dimensional and are focused upon while ignoring Australians own profligate lifestyles…
Read moreLeon Young
logged in via Facebook
Demand shifting works in unison with effective carbon pricing. As the carbon price drives up power prices from dirty sources, clean(er) energy sources become more economical for baseload, and the dirty (and therefore expensive) sources of power tend to only come in during the peaks.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
That's the hope, isn't it. It remains to be seen how well and how quickly it will work, but it's rational and well worth trying.