The government is miscounting greenhouse emissions reductions



File 20171212 9410 trz6re.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Some projects shouldn’t be receiving funding from the government. Yet, lack of proper monitoring has caused huge amounts of wasted money.
www.goodfreephotos.com

Tim Baxter, University of Melbourne

The Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF), established in 2014 with funding of A$2.55 billion, is mostly spent. With just A$200 million left to be allocated, the Climate Change Authority this week released a report on the fund’s progress that can be best described as magnanimous.

The federal government claims that 189 million tonnes of emissions have been diverted or prevented from entering the atmosphere under the scheme. But research I have done with a co-author from Melbourne Law School has found serious issues, from giving unnecessary funds, to counting decade-old projects as new emissions “reductions”.

While the Authority made 26 recommendations for improvement, each is relatively low-impact. Most of the recommendations go towards increasing the fund’s transparency or removing barriers to participation. While these are laudable aims, there are deeper problems.

How should the fund work?

At its most basic, the ERF gives private companies and individuals a cash incentive to avoid or sequester greenhouse gas emissions. These businesses or people compete for funding by putting their projects forward at reverse auctions.


Read more: How does today’s Direct Action reverse auction work?


The fund is unique in Australia’s climate policy, in that the legislation that supports it has strong bipartisan support. Even if a change of federal government leads to a new policy for curbing emissions, it’s very likely that the basic ERF structure will be carried forward.

But despite the fund’s importance, there has been surprisingly little detailed academic analysis of it to date. In an effort to redress this, a colleague and I have a paper forthcoming that examines the underlying logic and effect of the fund. The paper focuses specifically on the path into the ERF for landfill operators, although the conclusions stretch further than just those projects.

Our conclusions are simple. With A$2.55 billion, the fund has considerable potential to crop the low-hanging fruit of Australia’s emissions profile. However, there are serious flaws in how some projects are assessed for funding.

Where support is granted to projects that would proceed without it, there is no benefit to the government’s intervention. Rather than lopping the low-hanging fruit, we are instead throwing money at the fruit that is already sitting in a bowl on the kitchen bench.

How to avoid redundancy

In the language of offsetting schemes, assessing a project to see if it needs extra funding to be commercially viable is known as an “additionality” test. The legislation that underpins the ERF contains three such tests, which are actually very strong:

  • Newness: is a project new? Has work on it already begun? If it has, the project is ineligible, because it is considered already commercially viable.

  • Existing regulations: is a particular project or emissions abatement already required by law? If so, the project is ineligible for ERF funding.

  • Other government funding: does a project have access to other sources of government funding? If it does, the proponent should use those funds instead.


Read more: Australia’s biggest emitters opt to ‘wait and see’ over Emissions Reduction Fund


If these three tests were mandated for all projects submitted to the ERF, it would be filled with projects that truly deliver new environmental benefit. But they’re not – and it isn’t.

There’s a simple reason why these tests aren’t used in all cases: there are 34 different ways of abating emissions recognised by the ERF (technically referred to as “methodologies”), from the destruction of methane from piggeries using engineered biodigesters, to avoiding deforestation.

Because these activities are so diverse, the legislation that underpins the ERF allows the Department of Environment and Energy to create methodology-specific tests instead, in consultation with industry stakeholders. They are then subject to ministerial approval.

In most cases, the replacements merely finesse the tests to make them more appropriate to the specific circumstances. For example, the existence of a conservation covenant (basically a promise to protect land) is not an obstacle to participation under the avoided deforestation methodology, despite these covenants being legally binding on present and future users of the land.

The case of landfill gas

Other instances are much less innocuous. One such area is landfill, where the gas created by decomposing rubbish can be captured and burned to create energy.


Read more: Capturing the true wealth of Australia’s waste


In the most egregious examples of “regulatory slippage” that either myself or my co-author have ever seen, the tests for whether landfill-related schemes should get ERF money have been completely neutered.

One of the largest Australian companies in this area is LMS Energy. Their Rochedale landfill gas project should, under the tests in the Act, be thrice barred from participation.

First, it predates the ERF by a full decade. Second, the capture and disposal of methane from landfill sites is required by Queensland’s air pollution laws. Finally, it receives renewable energy certificates under the Commonwealth Renewable Energy Target, as power is often created by methane burned to drive a steam turbine.

Nevertheless, this project is funded by the ERF. It should be noted clearly that there is no suggestion that the project is engaged in any deception. Its operators are absolutely complying with regulations. The issue is that the regulations themselves have been watered down to a ludicrous degree.

Two of the three tests (no funding from other government programs and not legally required) have been replaced by an unbelievably tautological requirement that landfill gas and combustion projects fulfil the legislative definition of a landfill gas and combustion project. That is, in order to pass the tests, a landfill gas capture and combustion project must merely be a landfill gas capture and combustion project.

The newness requirement permits projects that were previously registered under schemes that predate the ERF, which includes most of the larger sites for the capture and combustion of landfill methane in Australia.


Read more: Explainer: how much landfill does Australia have?


Because this project already existed, its contributions are captured in measurements of Australia’s baseline emissions. While there’s a good argument for rewarding ecologically responsibly companies, that is not actually the point of the ERF. To state the obvious, we should not be paying to maintain the status quo, and then claim to be reducing emissions.

The Climate Change Authority has unfortunately not taken the opportunity to address these underlying problems, or the potential for similar issues in future legislation.

The ConversationMore immediately, we must take the government’s claim to have abated 189 million tonnes of emissions with a hefty grain of salt. The reality is that the scheme’s effect on Australia’s total emissions is considerably smaller.

Tim Baxter, Researcher – Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Advertisements

Lucky winner: why this beach in WA claims the crown of Australia’s whitest sand



File 20171130 12035 1e1cqvo.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
The winner! Lucky Bay, Cape Le Grand National Park, Esperance WA.
Peter Masters

Noel Schoknecht, Murdoch University

In 2005, when I was chair of the National Committee on Soil and Terrain, I started a debate: where is Australia’s whitest beach? This was a diversion from the committee’s normal business of looking at the sustainable management of Australia’s soils, but it led down a path I hadn’t expected.

What began as a bit of after-hours banter became a serious look across Australia in search of our whitest beaches. New South Wales had already laid claim to the title, arguing that Hyams Beach at Jervis Bay has the whitest sand in the world, purportedly backed up by Guinness World Records.

As it turned out, both claims were false. Guinness World Records has no such category, and the whitest beach (as we found) is actually elsewhere.

Hyams beach in Jervis Bay, NSW, has been rumoured to have the whitest sand in Australia.
Kristina Kl./Flickr, Author provided

So we drafted terms of reference, and the search for Australia’s Whitest Beach began. Over the next year samples were collected across the nation. The criteria were simple: samples had to be taken from the swash zone (the gently sloping area between the water and the dunes) and the samples could not be treated in any way apart from air-drying. No bleaching. No sieving out of impurities. Marine environment only.

The results of the first judging in 2006 were startling. Of all the states and territories, the much promoted Hyams Beach in New South Wales came in fourth. Third was Victoria, second Queensland, and first Western Australia.

The other states and territories came in at Tasmania fifth, Northern Territory sixth, and South Australia seventh. The ACT didn’t have a beach to sample, although technically some of the Commonwealth lands around our coasts could possibly come in under their banner (but that’s another debate altogether).

A sample of the main contenders for the whitest beach in Australia. Unfortunately, samples submitted from South Australia didn’t make the final cut.
Photo: Noel Schoknecht, Author provided

The winning beach was Lucky Bay in Cape Le Grand National Park on WA’s south coast, but in reality any of the beaches in this area could have been winners – Hellfire Bay, Thistle Cove and Wharton’s beach (just to name a few) are all magnificently white.

A quick qualification here: the southwestern end of Lucky Bay, where many people enter the beach, is covered with seaweed – not the whitest bit! I should also note that all of the finalists in the whitest beach challenge were in their own right fabulously white. But when compared side-by-side, some beaches are clearly whiter than others.

The Queensland team felt aggrieved, so in 2007 I carried out a repechage with new samples from Queensland at Whitehaven Beach in the Whitsundays, and Lake McKenzie on Fraser Island. Lake McKenzie was ultimately disallowed as it is a freshwater lake and the rules stipulated a marine environment. Meanwhile, Whitehaven didn’t quite cut the mustard in the judging and Lucky Bay in WA was again the winner.

Whitehaven beach in Queensland just missed out on the top spot in the recount.
Jared Yeh/Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA

So what makes a beach white, and is it important anyway?

The assessments were based on a visual comparison, so to remove any possible visual bias after the 2007 challenge all the samples were scanned for their reflectance – how much light bounced off the sand, essentially – in the visible and infrared wavelengths. Our assumption was that higher reflectance throughout the visual spectrum correlates with greater whiteness.

As it turned out, the results from the scanning exactly correlated with the visual assessments. The eye is quite good at discerning small differences in colour and reflectance. (More background and the results from the competition are available here.)

So what makes a beach white? Obviously, a pristine environment helps. Another factor is the distance from rivers, which deliver coloured organic and clay contaminants to the coast.

The geology of the area and the source of the sand are also critical, with quartz seemingly a major requirement for fine sands. Most white sandy beaches are derived from granitic, or less commonly sandstone, geologies that weather to produce fine, frosted quartz sand grains. Interestingly, sands made from shell or coral fragments just aren’t as white.

The source of the sand is very important; sand made from shells or coral aren’t as white as quartz.
Tracey Croke/Flickr, CC BY

Is it important?

While this competition began in fun, I do believe it’s important. Beaches are places of refuge in this crazy world, and a pristine white beach indicates a cleanliness that is worth striving for. The reflectance of light off these sands through shallow waters near the beach creates a surreal, magical turquoise colour. White beaches are like the canary in the coalmine – once they’re spoiled, we know we’re in trouble.

Even though this study was a first look at some of Australia’s whitest beaches, and sampling was limited, it did highlight the sheer number of wonderful sandy beaches that Australia has.

The story’s not finished though. There are many white beaches out there yet to be sampled, and if you’d like to alert me to your potentially award-winning beach please email me or leave a comment on the whitest beach website.

It’s our responsibility, and I believe honour, to protect these amazing places. I’m sure there are more wonderful beaches out there that we haven’t sampled which may defeat Lucky Bay.

The ConversationShelburne Bay in northern Queensland, for example, is a contender yet to be sampled, and there are some magnificent beaches on the east coast of Tasmania. Whatever the outcome, let’s celebrate the natural wonders that surround our country.

Noel Schoknecht, Senior research associate, Murdoch University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Tasmanian tigers were going extinct before we pushed them over the edge



File 20171211 27686 lrmoci.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Gone since 1936, and ailing since long before that.
Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Author provided

Andrew Pask, University of Melbourne

There’s no doubt that humans killed off the Tasmanian tiger. But a new genetic analysis suggests this species had been on the decline for millennia before humans arrived to drive them to extinction.

The Tasmanian tiger, also known as the thylacine, was unique. It was the largest marsupial predator that survived into recent times. Sadly it was hunted to extinction in the wild, and the last known Tasmanian tiger died in captivity in 1936.

In a paper published in Nature Ecology and Evolution today, my colleagues and I piece together its entire genetic sequence for the first time. It tells us that thylacines’ genetic health had been declining for many millennia before they first encountered human hunters.


Read more: Will we hunt dingoes to the brink like the Tasmanian tiger?


Hounded by hunters.
Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Author provided

Our research also offered the chance to study the origins of the similarity in body shape between the thylacine and dogs. The two are almost identical, despite having last shared a common ancestor more than 160 million years ago – a remarkable example of so-called “convergent evolution”.

Decoding the thylacine genome allowed us to ask the question: if two animals develop an identical body shape, do they also show identical changes in their DNA?

Thylacine secrets

These questions were previously difficult to answer. The age and storage conditions of existing specimens meant that most thylacine specimens have DNA that is highly fragmented into very short segments, which are not suitable for piecing together the entire genome.

We identified a 109-year-old specimen of a young pouch thylacine in the Museums Victoria collection, which had much more intact DNA than other specimens. This gave us enough pieces to put together the entire jigsaw of its genetic makeup.

The preserved young, thylacine with enough DNA to reveal its whole genome.
Museums Victoria, Author provided

Next, we made a detailed comparison of thylacines and dogs to see just how similar they really are. We used digital imaging to compare the thylacine’s skull shape to many other mammals, and found that the thylacine was indeed very similar to various types of dog (especially the wolf and red fox), and quite different from its closest living marsupial relatives such as the numbat, Tasmanian devil, and kangaroos.

Our results confirmed that thylacines and dogs really are the best example of convergent evolution between two distantly related mammal species ever described.

We next asked whether this similarity in body form is reflected by similarity in the genes. To do this, we compared the DNA sequences of thylacine genes with those of dogs and other animals too.

While we found many similarities between thylacines’ and dogs’ genes, they were not significantly more similar than the same genes from other animals with different body shapes, such as Tasmanian devils and cows.

We therefore concluded that whatever the reason why thylacines and dogs’ skulls are so similarly shaped, it is not because evolution is driving their gene sequences to be the same.

Family ties

The thylacine genome also allowed us to deduce its precise position in the marsupial family tree, which has been a controversial topic.

Our analyses showed that the thylacine was at the root of a group called the Dasyuromorphia, which also includes the numbat and Tasmanian devil.

By examining the amount of diversity present in the single thylacine genome, we were able to estimate its effective population size during past millennia. This demographic analysis revealed extremely low genetic diversity, suggesting that if we hadn’t hunted them into extinction the population would be in very poor genetic health, just like today’s Tasmanian devils.

The less diversity you have in your genome, the more susceptible you are to disease, which might be why devils have contracted the facial tumour virus, and certainly why it has been so easily spread. The thylacine would have been at a similar risk of contracting devastating diseases.

The last thylacine alive.
Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Author provided

This loss in population diversity was previously thought to have occurred as a population of thylacines (and devils) became isolated on Tasmania some 15,000 years ago, when the land bridge closed between it and the mainland.

But our analysis suggests that the process actually began much earlier – between 70,000 and 120,000 years ago. This suggests that both the devil and thylacine populations already had very poor genetic health long before the land bridge closed.


Read more: How curiosity can save species from extinction


The ConversationNow that we know the whole genome of the Tasmanian tiger, we know much more about this extinct animal and the unique place it held in Australia’s marsupial family tree. We are expanding our analyses of the genome to determine how it came to look so similar to the dog, and to continue to learn more about the genetics of this unique marsupial apex predator.

Andrew Pask, Associate Professor, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Scars left by Australia’s undersea landslides reveal future tsunami potential



File 20171208 11318 s3r0ck.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
The Byron Scar, left behind by an undersea landslide. Colours indicate depths.
Samantha Clarke, Author provided

Samantha Clarke, University of Sydney; Hannah Power, University of Newcastle; Kaya Wilson, University of Newcastle, and Tom Hubble, University of Sydney

It is often said that we know more about the surface of other planets than we do about our own deep ocean. To overcome this problem, we embarked on a voyage on CSIRO’s research vessel, the Southern Surveyor, to help map Australia’s continental slope – the region of seafloor connecting the shallow continental shelf to the deep oceanic abyssal plain.

The majority of our seafloor maps depict most of the ocean as blank and featureless (and the majority still do!). These maps are derived from wide-scale satellite data, which produce images showing only very large features such as sub-oceanic mountain ranges (like those seen on Google Earth). Compare that with the resolution of land-based imagery, which allows you to zoom in on individual trees in your own neighbourhood if you want to.

But using a state-of-the art sonar system attached to the Southern Surveyor, we have now studied sections of the seafloor in more detail. In the process, we found evidence of huge underwater landslides close to shore over the past 25,000 years.

Generally triggered by earthquakes, landslides like these can cause tsumanis.

Into the void

For 90% of the ocean, we still struggle to identify any feature the size of, say, Canberra. For this reason, we know more about the surface of Venus than we do about our own ocean’s depths.

As we sailed the Southern Surveyor in 2013, a multibeam sonar system attached to the vessel revealed images of the ocean floor in unprecedented detail. Only 40-60km offshore from major cities including Sydney, Wollongong, Byron Bay and Brisbane, we found huge scars where sediment had collapsed, forming submarine landslides up to several tens of kilometres across.

A portion of the continental slope looking onshore towards Brisbane, showing the ‘eaten away’ appearance of the slope in the northern two-thirds of the image, the result of previous submarine landslides.
Samantha Clarke

What are submarine landslides?

Submarine landslides, as the name suggests, are underwater landslides where seafloor sediments or rocks move down a slope towards the deep seafloor. They are caused by a variety of different triggers, including earthquakes and volcanic activity.

The typical evolution of a submarine landslide after failure.
Geological Digressions

As we processed the incoming data to our vessel, images of the seafloor started to become clear. What we discovered was that an extensive region of the seafloor offshore New South Wales and Southern Queensland had experienced intense submarine landsliding over the past 15 million years.

From these new, high-resolution images, we were able to identify over 250 individual historic submarine landslide scars, a number of which had the potential to generate a tsunami. The Byron Slide in the image below is a good example of one of the “smaller” submarine landslides we found – at 5.6km long, 3.5km wide, 220m thick and 1.5 cubic km in volume. This is equivalent to almost 1,000 Melbourne Cricket Grounds.

This image shows the Byron Slide scar, located offshore Byron Bay.
Samantha Clarke

The historic slides we found range in size from less than 0.5 cubic km to more than 20 cubic km – the same as roughly 300 to 12,000 Melbourne Cricket Grounds. The slides travelled down slopes that were less than 6° on average (a 10% gradient), which is low in comparison to slides on land, which usually fail on slopes steeper than 11°.

We found several sites with cracks in the seafloor slope, suggesting that these regions may be unstable and ready to slide in the future. However, it is likely that these submarine landslides occur sporadically over geological timescales, which are much longer than a human lifetime. At a given site, landslides might happen once every 10,000 years, or even less frequently than this.

A collection of submarine landslide scars off Moreton Island.
Samantha Clarke

Since returning home, our investigations have focused on how, when, and why these submarine landslides occur. We found that east Australia’s submarine landslides are unexpectedly recent, at less than 25,000 years old, and relatively frequent in geological terms.

We also found that for a submarine landslide to generate along east Australia today, it is highly likely that an external trigger is needed, such as an earthquake of magnitude 7 or greater. The generation of submarine landslides is associated with earthquakes from other places in the world.

Submarine landslides can lead to tsunamis ranging from small to catastrophic. For example, the 2011 Tohoku tsunami resulted in more than 16,000 individuals dead or missing, and is suggested to be caused by the combination of an earthquake and a submarine landslide that was triggered by an earthquake. Luckily, Australia experiences few large earthquakes, compared with places such as New Zealand and Peru.

Why should we care about submarine landslides?

We are concerned about the hazard we would face if a submarine landslide were to occur in the future, so we model what would happen in likely locations. Modelling is our best prediction method and requires combining seafloor maps and sediment data in computer models to work out how likely and dangerous a landslide threat is.

Our current models of tsunamis generated by submarine landslides suggest that some sites could represent a future tsunami risk for Australia’s east coast. We are currently investigating exactly what this threat might be, but we suspect that such tsunamis pose little to no immediate threat to the coastal communities of eastern Australia.

This video shows an animation of a tsunami caused by submarine landslide.

That said, submarine landslides are an ongoing, widespread process on the east Australian continental slope, so the risk cannot be ignored (by scientists, at least).

Of course it is hard to predict exactly when, where and how these submarine landslides will happen in future. Understanding past and potential slides, as well as improving the hazard and risk evaluation posed by any resulting tsunamis, is an important and ongoing task.

The ConversationIn Australia, more than 85% of us live within 50km of the coast. Knowing what is happening far beneath the waves is a logical next step in the journey of scientific discovery.

Samantha Clarke, Associate Lecturer in Education Innovation, University of Sydney; Hannah Power, Lecturer in Coastal Science, University of Newcastle; Kaya Wilson, , University of Newcastle, and Tom Hubble, Associate professor, University of Sydney

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Drought on the Murray River harms ocean life too



File 20171206 896 z9mjw2.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
The mouth of the Murray River delivers vital nutrients to marine life in the ocean beyond.
SA Water, Author provided

Hannah Auricht, University of Adelaide and Kenneth Clarke, University of Adelaide

Drought in the Murray River doesn’t just affect the river itself – it also affects the ecosystems that live in the ocean beyond.

In a study published in Marine and Freshwater Research today, we found that the very low flows in the river over the past decade reduced the abundance of microscopic marine plants called phytoplankton, which are ultimately the base of all marine food webs.

This shows that the health of the Murray River has a much bigger influence on the marine environment than we previously realised. With climate change poised to make droughts more frequent and severe in the river, it will be crucial to monitor the health not just of freshwater species, but of the local marine ones too.


Read more: Is the Murray-Darling Basin Plan broken?


Phytoplankton depend on nutrients, which are often delivered to the ocean by rivers. In turn, these tiny plants are a source of food for almost all marine ecosystems. Worldwide, they are responsible for half the production of organic matter on the planet.

In South Australia, a dry period dubbed the Millennium Drought (2001 to 2010) and overallocation of water resources (primarily for agriculture) meant that very little water was delivered from the Murray Mouth to the coastal ocean. Between 2007 and 2010, no water was discharged at all. The water in the river’s lower reaches became much saltier and cloudier.

We used historical flow records and satellite imagery, taken between early 2002 and late 2016, to figure out how much phytoplankton and other organic matter were in the coastal ocean each month. We broke up the area into incremental zones, venturing up to 130km from the river mouth.

We found that during and after high-flow events, Murray River discharge resulted in a huge increase in phytoplankton concentrations – as far as 60km beyond the river’s mouth. Surprisingly, before our research it wasn’t known that the river played such an important role in stimulating phytoplankton growth over such a large area.

The mouth of the Murray River, where sometimes no water flows into the ocean at all.
CSIRO/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

Armed with an understanding of how river flows influenced phytoplankton growth, we used historic flow records to estimate phytoplankton concentrations back to 1962. Our results showed that large flows used to occur more often and in greater volumes, and consequently that phytoplankton populations would have gone through more frequent and larger booms.

This in turn would have benefited all of the species that ultimately depend on phytoplankton for food, either directly or indirectly. This food web encompasses almost the whole marine ecosystem.

The past affects the future

Water resource management has greatly altered the volume and timing of freshwater discharges from the Murray. The ocean beyond the Murray mouth now receives small and infrequent deliveries of freshwater.

Rainfall and streamflow are decreasing in this already variable region, while temperatures are rising. This means that South Australia is likely to experience more severe and more frequent droughts, which will cause flows from the Murray mouth to decline still further, ultimately reducing phytoplankton abundance.

Previous research had already established the links between river outflows, phytoplankton and health of marine environments and species. But as far as we can tell, no other research has looked at exactly how extended periods of no or low river outflows affect marine ecosystems. This makes it difficult to predict how these systems will respond to climate change.

We believe that reduced Murray River outflows and reduced phytoplankton concentrations would likely have also placed strain on local mulloway fish and Goolwa cockle populations. Juvenile mulloway use river outflows as habitat and environmental cues, and cockles feed on organic material in the water.


Read more: ‘Tax returns for water’: how satellite-audited statements can save the Murray-Darling


This is why it is so important that the management of the Murray River doesn’t just stop at the river’s mouth, but continues into the ocean beyond. Current plans are focused on restoring flows to support the riparian and wetland ecosystems of the Murray as well as the Lower Lakes and Coorong.

But there has been little recognition of the role of river outflows on the marine environment – let alone in management. Although we might not always think about it, the marine environment is really the end of the river system, and part of a larger global cycle. It would therefore be beneficial if plans extend to monitor the marine ecosystem’s response, both at broad and fine scales, to varying flow events.

The ConversationIt would seem the time is past ripe to call for greater research and consideration on this matter, so that we don’t do further damage to what is actually still a part of the Murray River system, and can improve measures to protect the marine environment.

Hannah Auricht, PhD candidate, University of Adelaide and Kenneth Clarke, Researcher, School of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Yes, SA’s battery is a massive battery, but it can do much more besides


Dylan McConnell, University of Melbourne

Last Friday, the “world’s largest” lithium-ion battery was officially opened in South Australia. Tesla’s much anticipated “mega-battery” made the “100 days or it’s free” deadline, after a week of testing and commissioning.

Unsurprisingly, the project has attracted a lot of attention, both in Australia and abroad. This is largely courtesy of the high profile Tesla chief executive Elon Musk, not to mention the series of Twitter exchanges that sparked off the project in the first place.

Many are now watching on in anticipation to see what impact the battery has on the SA electricity market, and whether it could be a game-changer nationally.

The Hornsdale Power Reserve

The “mega battery” complex is officially called the Hornsdale Power Reserve. It sits alongside the Hornsdale Wind Farm and has been constructed in partnership with the SA government and Neoen, the French renewable energy company that owns the wind farm.

The battery has a total generation capacity of 100 megawatts, and 129 megawatt-hours of energy storage. This has been decribed as “capable of powering 50,000 homes”, providing 1 hour and 18 minutes of storage or, more controversially, 2.5 minutes of storage.

At first blush, some of these numbers might sound reasonable. But they don’t actually reflect a major role the battery will play, nor the physical capability of the battery itself.

What can the battery do?

The battery complex can be thought of as two systems. First there is a component with 70MW of output capacity that has been contracted to the SA government. This is reported to provide grid stability and system security, and designed only to have about 10 minutes of storage.

The second part could be thought of as having 30MW of output capacity, but 3-4 hours of storage. Even though this component has a smaller capacity (MW), it has much more storage (MWh) and can provide energy for much longer. This component will participate in the competitive part of the market, and should firm up the wind power produced by the wind farm.


Read more: Australia’s electricity market is not agile and innovative enough to keep up


In addition, the incredible flexibility of the battery means that it is well suited to participate in the Frequency Control Ancillary Service market. More on that below.

The figure below illustrates just how flexible the battery actually is. In the space of four seconds, the battery is capable of going from zero to 30MW (and vice versa). In fact it is likely much faster than that (at the millisecond scale), but the data available is only at 4-second resolution.

Hornsdale Power Reserve demonstrating its flexibility last week. The output increased from zero to 30MW (full output) in less than 4 seconds.
Author provided (data from AEMO)

Frequency Control and Ancillary Service Market

The Frequency Control and Ancillary Service (FCAS) market is less known and understood than the energy market. In fact it is wrong to talk of a single FCAS market – there are actually eight distinct markets.

The role of these markets is essentially twofold. First, they provide contingency reserves in case of a major disturbance, such as a large coal generation unit tripping off. The services provide a rapid response to a sudden fall (or rise) in grid frequency.

At the moment, these contingency services operate on three different timescales: 6 seconds, 60 seconds, and 5 minutes. Generators that offer these services must be able to raise (or reduce) their output to respond to an incident within these time frames.

The Hornsdale Power Reserve is more than capable of participating in these six markets (raising and lowering services for the three time intervals shown in the illustration above).

The final two markets are known as regulation services (again, as both a raise and lower). For this service, the Australian energy market operator (AEMO) issues dispatch instructions on a fine timescale (4 seconds) to “regulate” the frequency and keep supply and demand in balance.

The future: fast frequency response?

Large synchronous generators (such as coal plants) have traditionally provided frequency control, (through the FCAS markets), and another service, inertia – essentially for free. As these power plants leave the system, there maybe a need for another service to maintain power system security.

One such service is so-called “fast frequency response” (FFR). While not a a direct replacement, it can reduce the need for physical inertia. This is conceptually similar to the contingency services described above, but might occur at the timescale of tens to hundreds of milliseconds, rather than 6 seconds.


Read more: Baffled by baseload? Dumbfounded by dispatchables? Here’s a glossary of the energy debate


The Australian Energy Market Commission is currently going through the process of potentially introducing a fast frequency response market. In the meantime, obligations on transmission companies are expected to ensure a minimum amount of inertia or similar services (such as fast frequency response).

I suspect that the 70MW portion of the new Tesla battery is designed to provide exactly this fast frequency response.

Size matters but role matters more

The South Australian battery is truly a historic moment for both South Australia, and for Australia’s future energy security.

The ConversationWhile the size, of the battery might be decried as being small in the context of the National Energy Market, it is important to remember its capabilities and role. It may well be a game changer, by delivering services not previously provided by wind and solar PV.

Dylan McConnell, Researcher at the Australian German Climate and Energy College, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

All hail new weather radar technology, which can spot hailstones lurking in thunderstorms


Joshua Soderholm, The University of Queensland; Alain Protat, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Hamish McGowan, The University of Queensland; Harald Richter, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, and Matthew Mason, The University of Queensland

An Australian spring wouldn’t be complete without thunderstorms and a visit to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s weather radar website. But a new type of radar technology is aiming to make weather radar even more useful, by helping to identify those storms that are packing hailstones.

Most storms just bring rain, lightning and thunder. But others can produce hazards including destructive flash flooding, winds, large hail, and even the occasional tornado. For these potentially dangerous storms, the Bureau issues severe thunderstorm warnings.

For metropolitan regions, warnings identify severe storm cells and their likely path and hazards. They provide a predictive “nowcast”, such as forecasts up to three hours before impact for suburbs that are in harm’s way.


Read more: To understand how storms batter Australia, we need a fresh deluge of data


When monitoring thunderstorms, weather radar is the primary tool for forecasters. Weather radar scans the atmosphere at multiple levels, building a 3D picture of thunderstorms, with a 2D version shown on the bureau’s website.

This is particularly important for hail, which forms several kilometres above ground in towering storms where temperatures are well below freezing.

Bureau of Meteorology 60-minute nowcast showing location and projected track of severe thunderstorms in 10-minute steps.
Australian Bureau of Meteorology

In terms of insured losses, hailstorms have caused more insured losses than any other type of severe weather events in Australia. Brisbane’s November 2014 hailstorms cost an estimated A$1.41 billion, while Sydney’s April 1999 hailstorm, at A$4.3 billion, remains the nation’s most costly natural disaster.

Breaking the ice

Nonetheless, accurately detecting and estimating hail size from weather radar remains a challenge for scientists. This challenge stems from the diversity of hail. Hailstones can be large or small, densely or sparsely distributed, mixed with rain, or any combination of the above.

Conventional radars measure the scattering of the radar beams as they pass through precipitation. However, a few large hailstones can look the same as lots of small ones, making it hard to determine hailstones’ size.

A new type of radar technology called “dual-polarisation” or “dual-pol” can solve this problem. Rather than using a single radar beam, dual-pol uses two simultaneous beams aligned horizontally and vertically. When these beams scatter off precipitation, they provide relative measures of horizontal and vertical size.

Therefore, an observer can see the difference between flatter shapes of rain droplets and the rounder shapes of hailstones. Dual-pol can also more accurately measure the size and density of rain droplets, and whether it’s a mixture or just rain.

Together, these capabilities mean that dual-pol is a game-changer for hail detection, size estimation and nowcasting.

Into the eye of the storm

Dual-pol information is now streaming from the recently upgraded operational radars in Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. It allows forecasters to detect hail earlier and with more confidence.

However, more work is needed to accurately estimate hail size using dual-pol. The ideal place for such research is undoubtedly southeast Queensland, the hail capital of the east coast.

When it comes to thunderstorm hazards, nothing is closer to reality than scientific observations from within the storm. In the past, this approach was considered too costly, risky and demanding. Instead, researchers resorted to models or historical reports.

The Atmospheric Observations Research Group at the University of Queensland (UQ) has developed a unique capacity in Australia to deploy mobile weather instrumentation for severe weather research. In partnership with the UQ Wind Research Laboratory, Guy Carpenter and staff in the Bureau of Meteorology’s Brisbane office, the Storms Hazards Testbed has been established to advance the nowcasting of hail and wind hazards.

Over the next two to three years, the testbed will take a mobile weather radar, meteorological balloons, wind measurement towers and hail size sensors into and around severe thunderstorms. Data from these instruments provide high-resolution case studies and ground-truth verification data for hazards observed by the Bureau’s dual-pol radar.

Since the start of October, we have intercepted and sampled five hailstorms. If you see a convoy of UQ vehicles heading for ominous dark clouds, head in the opposite direction and follow us on Facebook instead.

UQ mobile radar deployed for thunderstorm monitoring.
Kathryn Turner

Unfortunately, the UQ storm-chasing team can’t get to every severe thunderstorm, so we need your help! The project needs citizen scientists in southeast Queensland to report hail through #UQhail. Keep a ruler or object for scale (coins are great) handy and, when a hailstorm has safely passed, measure the largest hailstone.

Submit reports via uqhail.com, email, Facebook or Twitter. We greatly appreciate photos with a ruler or reference object and approximate location of the hail.

How to report for uqhail.

Combining measurements, hail reports and the Bureau of Meteorology’s dual-pol weather radar data, we are working towards developing algorithms that will allow hail to be forecast more accurately. This will provide greater confidence in warnings and those vital extra few minutes when cars can be moved out of harm’s way, reducing the impact of storms.


Read more: Tropical thunderstorms are set to grow stronger as the world warms


Advanced techniques developed from storm-chasing and citizen science data will be applied across the Australian dual-pol radar network in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide.

The ConversationWho knows, in the future if the Bureau’s weather radar shows a thunderstorm heading your way, your reports might even have helped to develop that forecast.

Joshua Soderholm, Research scientist, The University of Queensland; Alain Protat, Principal Research Scientist, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Hamish McGowan, Professor, The University of Queensland; Harald Richter, Senior Research Scientist, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, and Matthew Mason, Lecturer in Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.