Why Australia is starting to rethink the role of natural gas in its energy future

natural-gas_5A major questioning and rethinking of the role for natural gas in Australia’s 21st century energy mix is under way, with or without participation from government policy-makers.

This trend is explored in a new discussion paper – ‘What About Gas?’ – which will be released at a business forum in Melbourne next week (Sydney a few weeks later) by Green Capital, the sustainability engagement program of the Total Environment Centre.

An extensive review of gas-related issues in Australia by Green Capital over six months suggests that the reality on the ground may be very different to official forecasts of ongoing steady growth in the domestic energy market.

The Australian Government’s current Energy White Paper process and its main forecasting agency, the Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics, appear to be substantially detached from the fast-evolving gas situation.

The big questions that are now bubbling up from energy experts, environmental campaigners, investors and others point to a whole new set of factors that need to be evaluated by officialdom and the markets, including:

  • Has the potential for new reserves from unconventional sources such as coal seam gas (CSG), shale and ‘tight rock’ been heavily overestimated given the lived experience economically, socially, environmentally and politically?
  • Is the tradition of past decades of treating gas as an ‘essential service’ – to be reticulated in suburbia alongside electricity, water, sewage and waste services – becoming obsolete?
  • Should the promotion by governments and the industry of gas for household cooking and heating as a lower-cost, lower greenhouse gas pollution alternative to electricity from predominantly coal-fired generation be revised?
  • Is the key role for gas as a bridging fuel in the transition to a low or zero carbon economy shifting for Australia from displacing coal-fired electricity to substituting for diesel fuel use in transport, especially heavy trucks and shipping?
  • What is the hard timeline for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies to be deployed commercially, if ever?
  • What is the potential for biogas and landfill gas production to be increased to replace fossil fuel gas while using the same distribution infrastructure, including for distributed co- and tri-generation projects?
  • How much scope is there for gas energy efficiency by industrial and commercial consumers to counter rising gas prices and supply constraints, as an alternative to controversial calls for domestic reservation of gas reserves or fast-tracking of new gas fields?

The approach adopted by Green Capital’s ‘What About Gas?’ investigation has been deliberately neither pro-gas nor anti-gas, opting instead laying out the issues  from a systems thinking and sustainability perspective – economic, social and environmental.

The already heated debate over the role for gas is coming to a head in 2015 because three of the world’s first ‘LNG from CSG’ export plants are opening this year in Gladstone, Queensland.

This means the once sleepy, landlocked and relatively low-cost Australian east coast gas market is being joined to global energy markets and oil-linked international pricing for the first time. East coast demand is projected to treble, and wholesale gas prices could double or more.

The gas industry itself and the main Australian business lobby groups believe that the solution to Australia’s future gas needs lies predominantly in opening up unconventional reserves, first shallow CSG and then the deeper shale and ‘tight rock’ resources that have underpinned America’s recent gas surge.

Farmers, other landholders and environmentalists, however, have presented unprecedented opposition to unconventional gas expansion, rejecting any notion that the economic case for gas supply for domestic and export markets should trump the integrity of water aquifers, farmlands and biodiversity.

Governments are now caught between gas advocates and opponents, and the political responses are creating a confusing and sometimes chaotic policy and regulatory stew.

The economic dream is for Australia to become the world’s top LNG exporting nation before 2020, with massive revenues anticipated over decades to come. But the ‘What About Gas?’ discussion paper poses the overarching sustainable development challenge: Does this ambition have economic, social and environmental feet of clay?

*Murray Hogarth is senior adviser to Green Capital, which is hosting the ‘What About Gas?’ business breakfast series – Melbourne March 25 and Sydney April 22 – www.whataboutgas.com 

Comments

3 responses to “Why Australia is starting to rethink the role of natural gas in its energy future”

  1. Tim Forcey Avatar
    Tim Forcey

    The University of Melbourne Energy Institute’s recent research into gas demand in New South Wales is described here: https://reneweconomy.wpengine.com/2015/a-crash-in-gas-use-is-more-likely-than-the-forecast-shortage-38813

  2. Tim Forcey Avatar
    Tim Forcey

    A link above is not currently working…

  3. Alastair Leith Avatar
    Alastair Leith

    It’s incredibly remiss of Green Capital to not have invited a single expert speaker who can articulate the issues around fugitive emissions to these conferences. This myth of clean gas for the Climate is at the heart of all the discussion points listed but will remain significantly unchallenged unless the truth about fugitive emissions gains acceptance in the Energy community.

    There is ample scientific evidence that as Howarth et al stated in their Cornell Letter that burning gas to produce electricity is at least a bad as burning coal to produce electricity; possibly worse. Subsequent direct atmospheric testing by NOAA, and a consortium of Ivy League Universities backs the theoretical work done by Howarth, the industry assumptions used in calculations about leaks at all stages of extraction and transmission are way lower than what is occurring.

    As a community we continue to underplay methane as a Climate Forcing pollutant by always conversing in 100 year Global Warming Potentials. Even twenty year GWPs diminishes the effects of a constant flow (and therefore never diminishing stock) of methane but the 20yr GWP metric lifts the effect of methane approximately three-fold over the typical 100 yr GWP (from 28x CO2 to 86x CO2 in IPPC AR5).

    I appreciate Green Capital are trying to stay ‘above’ the debate in order to attract attendance by those within the industry and government but not challenging this myth about the GWP of methane and fugitive emissions is a major shortcoming. I wrote to Green Capital some weeks ago via their website and received no reply. I note the word fugitive emissions does now appear on the front page of the website at least.

    I for one am not expecting John Connor to be articulating against gas on fugitives emissions, he’s an (equivocating) supporter of CCS after all and that’s got to be the biggest fig leaf for FF going today (even worse than Clean Green Fossil Gas). His position last time I asked was CCS is good potential for future use with biomass but that wont get it going commercially so we need coal & gas to get CCS happening, but he doesn’t support CCS with FFs. Clear as mud, right? Meanwhile there are videos online of Climate Institute staff promoting CSG under the banner of well known climate activist Shell.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.