Let’s build bipartisan policy
CLIMATE AND ENERGY
LAST week the State Government issued its long-awaited state climate strategy. This was quickly followed by Alan Finkel’s release of his long-awaited national report on how to best fix Australia’s energy security problems while reducing its carbon emissions. State and national, both of these reports go hand-in-hand.
These state and national reports are far from perfect and each has been received with some disappointment for their shortcomings, for good reasons. They need to be accepted and built on over time.
Meanwhile, the most promising thing to come out of Canberra is a growing acceptance between the major parties of the need for bipartisan agreement on climate policy so that the two parties stop opportunistically playing each off against the other, resulting in energy and climate policies that have delivered neither energy security nor emissions abatement.
If the major parties can finally find common ground that is in the public interest, then this is the best thing that has happened in umpteen years of climate policy limbo. Tasmanian decision-makers should go down this same path and treat climate change with appropriate urgency and bipartisanship. They need to agree on meaningful policy directions that last longer than a single term of government.
Basslink bungle
IT is good to see that plans are afoot for new wind farms in the far North-West to add to our already cleanest electricity in Australia. Not quite so pleasing, however, to see that there are also plans for a second power cable to Victoria. Shouldn’t we think Tasmania first and connect Flinders Island to the Tomahawk Wind Farm and King Island to a proposed Robbins Island Farm before thinking of another Bass Link?
Maybe, using a bit of logic, a King Island cable could connect Cape Wickham to Cape Otway, a mere 80km away!
Mini-grid fix
I HOPE the politicians take notice of the engineer, Dr Alan Finkel: “The status quo is not an option.” It is important to realise that the term “baseload” means more than being able to supply sufficient energy at any time. It also means you must be able to support the system frequency, a fact that is ignored by many commentators. If you cannot, then the system becomes unstable and shuts down.
As large coal-fired stations are shut down, as they eventually must, the grid as we know it will become more unstable. In my view, the future is in smaller minigrids, each able to support their frequency A new way to have your say themercury.com.au readers have a new way to have their say. It’s free to use, just register and have your say. For more details and to register, visit the website. and interconnected by rectifier/inverter DC links with each other. This allows energy transfer from one region to another without the problem of stability because each mini-grid can operate at its own frequency. To this end, Tasmania is a prime example, as we can support our own frequency with renewable energy and our links to the national grid are, and have to be, DC. Our frequency is independent of the mainland frequency, but we can supply energy over the link. Where the boundaries of the mini-grids are will give the politicians something to argue about, but most likely largely state-based and maybe more than one mini-grid in some states.
Whether this eventually results in lower prices to the consumer is conjecture and requires too many assumptions at this stage but planning for a long-term solution is essential. It must be done. Electricity is a necessity in a modern society and there must be an overall national plan for this to happen without too much influence from vested interests.
All’s well
WE’RE in good shape now we can afford to queue up helicopters at the hospital.
Forget Schapelle
THE Australian media should be condemned for treating Schapelle Corby as a superstar. She is a convicted drug smuggler. Media treatment of Corby sends a message to Australians that smuggling drugs is a win/win. The nation should forget Schapelle, her family and the entire episode.
Power prices
ACCORDING to the Liberals, we had to get rid of the carbon tax as it would push up the price of household electricity. One can only imagine how much greater the price would have been than the 120 per cent rise since its abolition.