competing fallacies

Energy policy in the NT is subject to competing fallacies, that are variously aired to justify either enthusiasm for fossil fuel exploitation, or timidity towards domestic solar.

When we're exporting LNG as fast as we can pump, at whatever price the first taker might offer, that gas is a transitional fuel that will somehow help global economies move to clean safe cheap renewable energy. Concerns about the local risk to precious finite water resources from fracking, or the un-addressed burden of fugitive methane emissions from existing gas plants, are carelessly dismissed as a small price to pay for producing a fuel that is (slightly?) cleaner than coal, and presents the amorphous value of a Transition Fuel.

But when it comes to nurturing the emergent domestic solar industry, past investment in gas power is the basis of arguments for caution. Those investors brave enough to dream big are reminded that the Territory's already paid for another 15 years of fuel for our gas-fired power stations. Those sensible enough to pitch a medium-scale grid connected solar plant are obstructed with unrealistic demands from the grid operator, including unfeasible performance standards in forecasting output. New solar players are also told they need to provide large on-site battery infrastructure, which some say unfairly taxes newcomers for the failure of the NT's sole power provider to adequately plan for and invest in a distributed energy future.

How can gas be a transitional fuel when we sell it, but such an obstacle at home? What even is a transition fuel? What role is NT gas playing to move the world to renewables? and what's the way forward here in the NT?  

transition

You know the story: gas is a transitional fuel. 10 years ago Territorians were told that not only would the Inpex project make us rich (narrator: it didn't) but it would also play a big role in solving climate change. This, we were assured, was because gas is a Transition Fuel; a stepping stone on the way from dirty coal and oil towards truly clean renewable energy solutions.

The value of gas in energy transition is not a fundamental property of the fuel itself, but rather a capacity that might have been realised within the right context. Proponents make big claims for the carbon savings of gas over coal, but fall short on two counts. First, the lack of any international framework within which to assess that new gas has actually displaced pre-existing dirtier coal; and secondly, the growing evidence of previously un-measured and under-estimated fugitive emissions from gas mining and processing. Some analysts warn that the un-accounted and under-accounted carbon burden of gas balloon the claimed 33% less pollution to approach equivalence.

Sure, natural gas burns cleaner than coal. But that's only part of the story; and methane emissions along the fuel chain take some of the shine off the industry's rosy promises.

Even allowing that the full life-cycle carbon burden of NT gas may be less than that of coal, there's no evidence that it has - or ever will - actually displaced coal. Instead, it seems that NT gas - both current off-shore drilling via Darwin LNG plants, or proposed on-shore fracking for shale gas - is going to clients who are growing consumption of all dirty fuels.

Our current big LNG projects - the Inpex Icthyus project, and ConnocoPhillips' Bayu Undan, are sending the full complement of gas to Japan, where new coal plants are still being built. The fracking hopefuls are all looking to export, and although some of those export markets feature declining coal consumption, the uptake in dirty gas outpaces the decline in dirty coal, and none have a credible plan for transitioning beyond these dirty fuels to clean renewable energy alternatives. So even where gas is facilitating less reliance on coal, it is not being done within a framework of reducing emissions or transition to renewables.

So its unsurprising that gas isn't helping the NT pursue our official target of 50% renewable energy by 2030

Another selling point of the 'transition' capacity of gas is that it can pair well with renewables. The ability of gas power plants to run at low capacity, then spin up to match short-falls in intermittent supply, makes a coordinated grid incorporating existing gas and new renewable generation a useful match.

Or so the story goes. Here in Darwin, the government-owned entities that run the gas, and operate the grid, don't share enthusiasm for this transitional potential. Instead, they require connection agreements for new renewable projects to commit to high frequency forecasting, backed by significant penalties for non compliance. Instead of moderating gas to facilitate cleaner generation, this mob seem more interested in maximising gas consumption, to minimise the risk of the spectacularly bad 'take-or-pay' deal. Now, not only has Italian oil company Eni secured this generous deal with Power Water Corp (who have to pay for the next 15 years of gas whether they use it or not), they've also bought out the Territory's largest approved solar farm. I'll let you connect the dots...

gas -> solar

The initial premise is incorrect. Gas is no more a transition fuel for our export markets than it has been for the NT. But that doesn't mean we should resign ourselves to fatalism that dictates our past investments in gas justify delaying solar innovation. The challenge for the Territory is as it remains for the world: to cut ties to the polluting energy fuels of the past, to make way for cleaner, cheaper sustainable solutions.