Search

Abstract: Domestic water heating in Australia conventionally uses electric resistance heating storage or gas fuelled water heaters. The Australian electricity supply has some of the highest greenhouse gas emissions factors in the world. Consequently, water heating is responsible for approximately 24 percent of residential sector greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. To assist households to move towards an energy efficient, low carbon future, a suite of market intervention programs to support solar hot water uptake have been introduced at both state and federal levels. These programs aim to improve the capacity of industry to deliver solar solutions, reduce the emissions intensity and net cost of household water heating, and increase the market share of the solar water heating sector. Incentives include: [•] Point of sale rebates and certificate-based programs for energy efficiency and renewable energy; [•] Regulations for new houses that encourage solar water heating installations; [•] Community awareness programs; and [•] Training programs for installers to ensure that tradespeople have the competencies to size systems and the skills to install them correctly. In some jurisdictions the incentive programs were performance-based, but in others a fixed rebate amount was available for all systems having performance above a minimum threshold. These programs have lead to the widespread expansion of the industry, with an almost doubling of the proportion of households with solar water heaters between 1999 and 2011. Installations in new homes have seen an even more marked increase: For example, regulations for new homes in the state of Victoria require the installation of a solar water heater or rainwater tank. This program has seen the adoption of solar water heaters in new homes increase fro m around 5% in 2004 to over 70% in 2011. Across most of Australia there are proposed regulations limiting the emissions intensity of replacement water heaters which will effectively ban resistance electric water heaters in most situations. Recently both South Australia and Queensland commenced their program for existing houses. It is expected that in the future these programs will drive an even greater uptake, which will go some way to insulating Australian households from price increases that may result from carbon driven future increases in the cost of energy. This paper discusses the various approaches and outcomes of the different programs and provides analysis of the basis of program success or improvements. Learning relevant to market interventions worldwide include [•] Continuity in program operation is necessary to allow industry to grow in a sustainable way. [•] Basing the incentive on independently derived performance results provides industry with a means of differentiating better products and provides purchasers with appropriate guidance. [•] Rebate program design should consider the consumer''s purchasing priorities. For example, a point of sale discount awarded as part of the purchase transaction aligns with the urgency of the purchasing process and does not require additional cash to be available from the purchaser. [•] Design of the schemes can not only produce a greater market share, but can also encourage the manufacture of lower greenhouse gas emissions products. [•] Market interventions can have unintended consequences, so the programs need to be monitored and flexibility maintained to changes to avoid poor outcomes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 sets a goal for the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In preparation for implementation of a cap and trade program under this Act, Chevron has undertaken a detailed assessment of greenhouse gas mitigation options and costs. Such an assessment is key to making compliance decisions within the constraints of a given cap and trade regime. If the cap and trade market is minimally restricted (i.e., recognizes that climate change is a global issue and thus has no geographic restrictions and no set requirement for onsite emission reductions), facilities can make the best economic (and environmental) choices of where to ‘make’ emission reductions inside the facility fenceline and when to ‘buy’ the emission reduction allowances or credits on the market. The scope of the study included Chevron’s two refineries and a large heavy oil steamflood production operation in California. This paper will discuss how mitigation technologies are identified and assessed, describe some of the key greenhouse gas mitigation alternatives of interest to the Chevron California facilities and present a business-based approach to analyzing mitigation costs. Technologies studied included energy efficiency, advanced energy (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, nuclear, low temperature heat recovery) and carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). For each mitigation option, a consistent methodology, based on the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association/American Petroleum Institute (IPIECA/API) Guidelines for Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Projects was used to assess baseline or ‘business as usual’ emissions, net emission reductions due to the project, capital cost, operating cost and any project benefits (e.g., reduced fuel use for energy efficiency projects). These values were then entered into a business evaluation tool to calculate a Net Present Value for each option. Key conclusions: [•] Broad involvement of various disciplines is needed to identify new alternatives for greenhouse gas mitigation technologies. [•] Other than CCS, options for significant reductions of refinery and petroleum production emissions were extremely limited in the facilities studied. [•] Since cost-effective, feasible options are limited for refineries and petroleum production facilities, availability of sufficient allowances and offsets is an important element if state goals are to be achieved. [•] Although a number of energy efficiency projects were identified, the cumulative total emissions reductions available through energy efficiency projects is minimal. [•] Renewable and advanced energy projects that generate electricity generally have very high mitigation costs, and may not greatly benefit facilities if emission caps apply only to direct emissions, since these projects reduce the quantity of purchased electricity rather than emissions from the facility itself (and are therefore not eligible for credit under most regulatory design schemes). [•] Renewable and advanced energy technologies for steam generation may have significant mitigation potential for heavy oil steamflood production. Further development and demonstration is needed to determine whether these technologies will be viable. [•] In order to support good business decisions, it is important that greenhouse gas mitigation technology evaluation be done in a manner consistent with other business evaluation processes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]