Good day.
I would like to make a submission regarding the Tasmanian Energy Strategy Draft Paper.
I am a research scientist with over 20 years’ experience, including several years at CSIRO researching
a range of energy technologies, and have been part of teams making submissions in this area to both
the Tasmanian and Victorian state governments, as well as reports to the Federal
government. However, I am making this submission as a private individual.
Whilst I have a large body of references to back up my statements below, for brevity I will only
provide directly relevant examples and web page links. If required I can provide more detailed
information.
I made a submission in response to the Issues Paper, and some of my comments below concern
suggestions previously made that have not been incorporated into the Draft Paper that I believe should
be.
Smart Meter Take-up and Cost Reflective Tariffs
Actions 8 and 9 are intimately related – it is virtually impossible to introduce truly time-based
cost-reflective tariffs without the use of smart meters.
It is mentioned in 4.2.2 that an AGL Energy study found that “households in financial hardship are the
most adversely affected by flat tariffs structured by comparison to more cost-reflective tariffs”. This
sounds like good ammunition for rolling out smart meters and cost-reflective tariffs, but this is only
one study, and a non-independent one – it is well known that demand pricing favours the providers of
electricity, so the production of a report by an electricity provider coming to this conclusion is hardly
surprising. Other reports have not been in agreement – for example, the report “Smart Meters, Smart
Justice? Energy, Poverty and the Smart Meter Rollout” by the University of Melbourne in 2010
(http://www.advocacypanel.com.au/media/docs/AP-337-Social-Justice-Initiative-Final-report58c7b35b-aa92-47f1-8331-0b7d70af06b1-0.pdf) found that “Unless suitable protections and policies
are put in place to shelter vulnerable and low-income households from the cost impacts of time-of-use
pricing and increased fixed charges, the smart meter rollout will cause groups such as pensioners,
people on disability support pensions and fixed-incomes, and single parents with dependent children
to be significantly worse off, potentially adding in the region of $300 to their annual electricity costs.”
As such any report on this subject should be undertaken by an independent third party to ensure
confidence in the results, in addition to using actual data on Tasmanian consumers; modelling on data
based on Victorian citizens who do not have the same pattern of usage of electricity (especially for
heating during Winter) could result in incorrect conclusions.
A thorough report also needs to be made into any and all models of smart meter suggested for rollout
in Tasmania. We should learn from the mistakes made with smart meters in especially the USA – in
addition to the fact that a number of smart meters have led to fires and even explosions (see e.g.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fear-of-fire-hazard-causes-removal-of-thousands-ofsmartmeters1.2928314 and http://emfsafetynetwork.org/smart-meters/smart-meter-fires-and-explosions/),
there is increasing evidence that a significant proportion of the population can experience health
impacts from smart meters, due to the pulsed nature of the wireless radiation produced by same (and
secondary radiation from the wiring network in the house in some cases). Whilst many authorities
dispute this, their conclusions are often based on older research that was concerned mainly with the
overall amount of EMF radiation, rather than the pulsed nature as output in smart meters, as discussed
in http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Health-Risks-Associated-WithSmartMeters.pdf et al.
If smart meters were rolled out without adequate (and once again, independent) investigation into
these issues, this could eventually open up TasNetworks and the government to legal action, not to
mention a public relations (and political) disaster.
Liquid Fuel Reductions
It is good to see mention of a pilot program into fuel reduction in the government, public transport and
private fleets, as per points 20 and 21. I would, however, liked to have seen explicit mention of some
of the possibilities in this program, such as encouraging the construction (or at least sale) of
high-mileage vehicles in Tasmania, which are available overseas (and can be easily constructed by car
companies with modern technologies, should they be appropriately encouraged).
I would also have liked to have seen mention examples of technology that can be applied to existing
vehicles, once again as I mentioned in my other submission; this includes the use of electrolysis (for
generating hydrogen from water), plasma, or small scale catalytic cracking, with larger improvements
can be gained by the replacement of sizeable parts of the engine system, e.g. use of the MYT engine
(http://www.angellabsllc.com/cmparison.html). For example, it was recently announced that the
police force in the Philippines have started using an electrolysis system and finding this is cutting
their fuel usage by 30% and emissions by 90% (see
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Free_Energy_Blog:2014:11:18#Philippine_Police_Car_Powered_with_
HHO et al).
Energy Futures
It is also good to see mention in points 40 and 42 of the analysis of possible energy futures and future
shifts in energy production and usage. However, once again I would have liked to have seen specific
technologies mentioned – as pointed out in my other submissions there are technologies (e.g. low
energy nuclear reaction based systems) now in development that could have a dramatic impact on the
electricity landscape, and could potentially bankrupt TasNetworks if they or a similar technology is
not incorporated if and when it becomes available, but is made available by a competitor.
As such rather than just analysis and monitoring I believe TasNetworks et al. need to be more
proactive, and actually engage in at the very least serious conversation with the major players in this
arena to ensure they aren’t blindsided in the future, and should endeavour to trial technologies before
they become readily available. Amongst these companies are (more information available upon
request) Industrial Heat LLC, Brillouin Energy Corp and BlackLight Power Inc.
Electric Vehicles
It is also good to see mention (points 44 and 45) of a small scale electric vehicle demonstration
program and how to enable a lead out of same within Tasmania. In addition to potentially
dramatically reducing toxic vehicle emissions and exposure to the risks associated with dependence
on a product that is nearly entirely imported from overseas, electric vehicles are obviously a potential
new market for Tasmania produced electricity, in fact a market that could exceed our total current
usage.
However, this potential should be considered in the light of some of the previously mentioned
technologies; some of the devices currently under consideration could be reduced in scale to the point
where they could be fitted into a vehicle. If this was to happen then the vehicle would have no (or
virtually no) need for an external fuel source. Whilst this would be considered advantageous for
consumers and most businesses, it also means no new large market for TasNetworks in the future, and
also a potential loss in revenue for both state and federal governments with a declining amount of fuel
excise, leading to issues with road funding. As such alternative streams of revenue (e.g. registration
costs based on vehicle size and distance travelled) may need to be considered, and probably sooner
rather than later.
Thermal Efficiency
Apart from a small amount of discussion re housing stock and energy efficiency payback periods in
section 4.1.3 and related action points 11-15, little is mentioned, especially in detail, about improving
energy usage by increase in the thermal efficiencies of buildings. Nothing is also mentioned
concerning the possible introduction of improved “energy star” ratings for new houses in Tasmania.
As such I feel the need to include the entire section I provided in the other submission on this subject,
which is repeated below.
Specifically in relation to the questions put in the issues paper - with regards to questions 8 and 9
concerning the improvement in building thermal efficiency, and reducing household energy bills - in
Tasmania the primary costs are for heating due to poor thermal efficiency; as such insulation is the
best response. The federal government’s initiative in this respect obviously resulted in several issues,
but there are other things that can be done.
For new buildings I suggest we learn from the policies of other countries. The thermal efficiency of
our buildings are extremely low compared to many countries with similar climates; whilst increasing
the requirements for ceiling and wall insulation et al in new houses does increase the price initially, in
the long term the savings are well worth it. Similarly with glass - in many parts of Europe you are
required to get at least double glazing for all new windows, and this has caused the price of this
technology to fall such that it is virtually the same price as single glazing here. You can even get
double glazed window panes cut to size while you wait in many hardware stores. A similar approach
would be beneficial in Tasmania, if not Australia.
Whilst the adoption (finally) of 6 Star energy efficiency requirements in new buildings in May 2014 is
a good start, it is still not up to par with requirements in e.g. Switzerland (Minergie) or Germany
(Passivhaus, aka Passive House). In addition to improved levels of bulk insulation (ceilings, walls,
floors and doors), plus double-glazed windows with thermal breaks in the frames (or non-conductive
frames, unlike the common aluminium frames surrounding most windows), there is also a requirement
for air exchange with outside air with a heat-exchanger to minimise energy lose whilst ensuring “sick
building syndrome” does not occur. The Strategy should at a minimum proposed a timeline for
Tasmanian buildings reaching 7 and eventually 8 Star ratings.
For existing buildings, the issue is obviously a lot harder to address; however it would be beneficial at
least to provide educational materials to the general public so they could work out what would be of
use to them. Peter Lindemann's Home Energy Savings Guide (http://emediapress.com/bookvideocatalog/
home-energy-savings-guide/) is a good example of what could be provided to the people of
Tasmania; it explains where the main losses are in existing homes, how to determine them, how to
cheaply and inexpensively fix many of them, and gives examples of costs and rates of return on
investment for the more complicated fixes. Whilst written for American households many of the
suggestions are relevant to our houses.
The documents at http://www.climatechange.tas.gov.au/households/saveenergy_savemoney are a
good step in this direction, but I would suggest the following changes:
1) Update the guides (and other parts of the website). For example references are made to 5 Star
vs 6 Star building requirements. Updates should be made to the files every year or two to
take into account changes in standards and technologies.
2) In the vein of the aforementioned Home Energy Savings Guide, either expand the “Change
Your Power Habits” guide or create a new guide that suggests to householders what they can
do by themselves (or with the help of an appropriate professional) to reduce energy losses, not
just with a one line suggestion but with a step-by-step guide where appropriate, plus a rating
on how difficult this is to do, what would be the average cost, and what would be the
expected pay-back period. Whilst there are some good suggestions in this guide, it does not
make it clear which are the “low hanging fruit” that should be addressed to get the “best bang
for your buck”.
3) Advertise the site more – there should be obvious links to it from Service Tasmania, it should
have higher priority (or just appear which it doesn’t sometimes) in search results from Service
Tasmania and LINC Tasmania on climate, energy efficiency, insulation, building, etc. There
should also be direct links from many other state government websites, including the State
Growth energy page. Ideally links from related NGO websites should also be requested, e.g.
from Sustainable Living Tasmania.
General Comments
As in my previous submission I would submit that ensuring a truly strategic energy policy is
implemented will require the combined efforts of what are now several existing departments and as
such it could be difficult to get a cohesive strategy implemented. As such I would also recommend
that a team of people be set up to manage the research into and implementation of the Tasmanian
Energy Strategy.
This team would be responsible for ensuring that the Energy Strategy, once it is decided, is acted
upon, and have suitable rights and resources to do research, discuss products with companies, trial
products, make policy recommendations that lead to energy efficiency improvements in buildings and
vehicles, and recommend potential opportunities for the government and State as a whole to benefit
from licensing technologies and developing commercial opportunities. The team would also develop
programs and funding opportunities, and collaborate with suitable people and institutions to advance
these goals. They would also be responsible for regularly reporting to government on advancements
in technologies relevant to this field, along with the associated risks and opportunities.
As the Energy Strategy is for the following 20 years, this team would be required to operate over a
similar time period, and be responsible for the preparation and implementation of future Energy
Strategies. These would need to be updated as appropriate (probably every 5 years at most),
especially if new technology becomes available that could have a substantial impact on the Strategy.
Finally, whilst the Tasmanian Energy Strategy draft is a good start, it is extremely general in the vast
majority of its discussions and plans for the future, resulting in actions that are virtually impossible to
measure, and hence determine success or failure. As such I believe that these action points need to be
fleshed out significantly in order to determine progress and ensure useful results are achieved, and
have provided suggestions above in my fields of expertise as to some of the details that I believe need
to be mentioned; most of the other action points also need more detail.
Thank you.
Peter K. Campbell, B.Sc. (Hons), MACS (CP) Snr, MAIE