Australian Democrats in the S.A. Parliament

Legislative Council
9 February 1999

MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

In reply to Hon. SANDRA KANCK (25 November 1998).

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As pointed out in my response at the time of the question, the impact of Riverlink on greenhouse gas emissions depends on the amount of energy that moves across the link.

The following table sets out some of the key parameters.

Parameter	Level	Units
Riverlink capacity	250	MW
Black Coal plant CO₂ emissions¹	.93	Tonnes CO₂ per MWh
New Combined Cycle power plant CO₂ emissions¹	.39	Tonnes CO₂ per MWh
Peaking plant CO₂ emissions	.72	Tonnes CO₂ per MWh
TIPS B CO₂ emissions²	.60	Tonnes CO₂ per MWh

To illustrate the potential impact of Riverlink on greenhouse gas emissions, we consider three cases. The impact of these cases is put in perspective by the total energy sector CO₂ emissions in South Australia of slightly less than 20 million tonnes of CO₂³.

^{1 Interim Report (13 August 1998) of the Efficiency
Standards Working Group, a group chaired by the Australian Greenhouse Office, page 12.
^{2 Estimate by Energetics, advisors to ERSU.}}
3 `The Economic Impact of Climate Change Policy on South Australia', The Centre for Economic Studies of Adelaide and Flinders Universities, July 1998, page 36.

The first of the two cases represents the Government's analysis that Riverlink, under current NSW electricity spot market prices, provides few energy benefits and has correspondingly low energy flows. In the first case, we assume that the energy from Riverlink is dispatched like a peaking unit in South Australia and displaces South Australian peaking units.

Case 1	Expected Case—Few Riverlink Energy Benefits
Energy from Riverlink	5 per cent capacity factor x 260 MW x 8 760 hours per year	109 500 MWh per year
CO₂ emissions from South Australian peaking unit	.72 tonnes CO₂ per MWh x 109 500 MWh per year	78 840 tonnes CO₂ per year
CO₂ emissions from NSW black coal unit	.93 tonnes CO₂ per MWh x 109 500 MWh per year	101 835 tonnes CO₂ per year
Annual increase in CO₂ emissions due to Riverlink	101 835 tonnes CO₂ per year less 78 840 tonnes CO₂ per year	22 995 tonnes CO₂ per year

The second case represents the NSW unsupported claims that Riverlink provides large energy benefits. In this case, we assume that the energy from Riverlink is dispatched like a baseload unit in South Australia and is dispatched in a manner that TIPS B energy is displaced.

Case 2	NSW Claimed Case—Large Riverlink Benefits
Energy from Riverlink	95 per cent capacity factor x 260 MW x 8 760 hours per year	2 080 500 MWh per year
CO₂ emissions from TIPS B unit	.60 tonnes CO₂ per MWh x 2 080 500 MWh per year	1 248 300 tonnes CO₂ per year
CO₂ emissions from NSW black coal unit	.93 tonnes CO₂ per MWh x 2 080 500 MWh per year	1 934 865 tonnes CO₂ per year
Annual increase in CO₂ emissions due to Riverlink	1 934 865 tonnes CO₂ per year less 1 248 300 tonnes CO₂ per year	686 565 tonnes CO₂ per year

The third case represents the NSW unsupported claims that Riverlink provides large energy benefits, combined with Riverlink replacing the new entrant power plant. This case is purely hypothetical, as the new entrant is essential to meet capacity needs and Riverlink cannot be operational in time to meet those needs. In this case, we assume that the energy from Riverlink is dispatched like a baseload unit in South Australia and replaces energy from the New Entrant combined cycle power plant.

Case 3	NSW Claimed Case—Large Riverlink Benefits and New Entrant not built (hypothetical)
Energy from Riverlink	95 per cent capacity factor x 260 MW x 8 760 hours per year	2 080 500 MWh per year
CO₂ emissions from New Entrant	.39 tonnes CO₂ per MWh x 2 080 500 MWh per year	811 395 tonnes CO₂ per year
CO₂ emissions from NSW black coal unit	.93 tonnes CO₂ per MWh x 2 080 500 MWh per year	1 934 865 tonnes CO₂ per year
Annual increase in CO₂ emissions due to Riverlink	1 934 865 tonnes CO₂ per year less 811 395 tonnes CO₂ per year	1 123 470 tonnes CO₂ per year

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Accounting

The second question asked by the honourable member is how any increases in greenhouse gas emissions due to Riverlink will be accounted for. There is general consensus that greenhouse gas emissions should be measured and controlled at the source of the emissions. However, any measures to control emissions at the source are likely to make electricity from that source more expensive. This would make electricity delivered over Riverlink even more expensive and would tend to make South Australian gas-fired generators more competitive.

However, there is some uncertainty about the method of emissions accounting that might be used in Australia^4 5. If there were a system that measured emissions at the point of consumption, then Riverlink would increase the amount of emissions that would be attributed to South Australia.

^{4 `The Economic Impact of Climate
Change Policy on South Australia,' The Centre for economic Studies of Adelaide and
Flinders Universities, july 1998, page 61.
^{5 `Emissions Trading in Australia, developing a framework,'
ABARE Research Report, 98.1, March 1998, page 28.}}

TOP

[Home] [SA Head Office] [SA Branches] [What's Hot in SA] [Mike Elliott] [Sandra Kanck] [Ian Gilfillan] [SA Senators] [SA Parliament] [Contact Us] [News Releases] [National Site] [Election] [Support Us] [S.A. Links] [Newsletter] [Browse by Subject]