Energy

<html><body>
There has long been a vigorous debate about the many and varied reasons why electricity prices in Australia are so high. 
An <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/regulated-infrastructure/energy/electricity-supply-prices-inquiry/final-report" target="_blank" style="font-family: Tahoma, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.15999984741211px;">ACCC review</a> found retail electricity markets mostly do not work in the interests of the customer – but this is only part of the story.
Another commonly accepted theory assumes that long-term customers of an electricity retailer pay a “loyalty tax” while those who switch every year save money.
But <a href="https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/cb01c4_8babedb580d44ca080fefea8b2ae8b0b.pdf" target="_blank">our research</a> has found that Victorians who switch their energy providers typically save less than A$50 a year. This challenges the common understanding of how these markets work.
<h2>Questioning common wisdom</h2>
Working from the assumption that seeking better deals can save households significant amounts, governments throughout Australia have encouraged customers to switch retailers often. Switching rates in Australia are actually very high, especially so in Victoria.
To test how well the theory matches reality, the Victorian government provided my colleagues and I with 50,000 real electricity bills uploaded by Victorian households to the government’s price comparison website in late 2018. (These households agreed their bills could be used for research purposes and bill uploads were voluntary.)
Our sample is reasonably representative of the population, although we think these customers may be a little more engaged with the energy market than typical Victorians.
What we found challenges the commonly accepted theory of how the retail market works. As it turns out, for most customers, switching retailers does not greatly reduce the amount of money they leave on the table (the difference between their annual bills and the market’s best offers).
The typical customer that has not switched energy retailers in the last year could have saved A$281 per year (about 20% of their bill) if they had signed up to the best possible deal.
 
But in reality, customers that did switch retailers in the last year saved only A$45 a year, or about 3% of their annual bill. This suggests that customers are not switching to the best possible deals. A A$45 saving is not a great reward for the time and effort they would have spent searching and then switching.
The first reaction of many economists to our finding would be that the retail market is working: the competitive pressures from switchers shows profits have been competed away and there is now little to be gained from switching.
From this perspective, those who did not switch could rest easy that the market was working for them. This is, after all, how many markets work. I am often amazed at the quality of many things I buy, and their prices that fall without me having to do anything to bring it about.
However, this does not seem to be the full picture in the electricity market. All customers, switchers and remainers, are typically paying some 20% more than the cheapest available option.
And it’s not that there are just one or two fantastic deals that customers are missing – there is a good number of much cheaper deals that they are not finding.
We also cannot assume customers are looking for other qualities, like customer service, instead of lower prices: saving money is by far the main reason customers switch.
<h2>Why is this happening?</h2>
Our finding begs an explanation. We suggest it starts with the observation that while electricity is extremely valuable, it’s just a utility. While people get pleasure from buying many things, electricity is certainly not one of them. Quite understandably, most customers want to spend as little time as possible engaging in electricity markets.
Many offers are also eye-wateringly complex. Large businesses fare far better than households in the energy market, through the simple but costly method of hiring professional consultants to find the best deals.
So, we have a complex product that requires skill to buy well but customers are, quite rationally in most cases, reluctant to spend the time acquiring those skills. It is understandable why most people do not do well when they navigate the market on their own.
But when customers seek advice from price comparison websites and similar advisors - as around half seem to do – they are often not getting good advice.
Perhaps this is to be expected in a market in which advisors are almost always paid by the sellers, and customers have little ability to assess the quality of the advice they get.
There are no easy solutions. Governments face the often mutually inconsistent objectives of stimulating choice and making choice simpler. The task is difficult at the best of times, and governments are seldom good at engaging with dynamic, fast-moving markets.
Some might argue that cheaper retailers simply have to convince customers of their merits, relative to the more expensive offers from the other retailers that most customers select. But electricity must already be one of the most advertised products in Victoria.
About 110 years ago, economist Alfred Marshall <a href="http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/368/368MarshallChivalrytable.pdf" target="_blank">suggested</a> that a government could print a good edition of Shakespeare’s works, but it could not have got them written. While the carcass of municipal electric works belongs to the officials, he said, the genius belongs to free enterprise.
The creation of a retail electricity market in Victoria 17 years ago sought to bring the “genius” of free enterprise to the sale of electricity to small customers. Taken in the round, the results so far are not entirely encouraging.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122786/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/bruce-mountain-141253" target="_blank">Bruce Mountain</a>, Director, Victoria Energy Policy Centre, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/victoria-university-1175" target="_blank">Victoria University</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/victorians-who-switched-energy-retailers-only-save-45-a-year-leaving-hundreds-on-the-table-122786" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Victorians who switched energy retailers only save $45 a year – leaving hundreds on the table

<html><body>
As part of World Environment Day, Savills Australia, together with HFM Asset Management, has commented on sustainability and energy-efficiency through assessing the NABERS energy star rating system.
The world-leading method is used throughout the property industry in order to decrease environmental impact while increasing environmentally friendly processes within buildings. 
For more than 10 years, the NABERS rating system has assisted property owners, managers and tenants across Australia. The rating system is utilised nationally and is developed to provide a reliable and consistent environmental benchmark.  The rating system is acknowledged as an international leader in creating energy- and water-efficient buildings and is responsible for a significant reduction in environmental impact.  
The NABERS approach
The NABERS rating tool for offices takes into consideration:
<ul class="ul1">
<li class="li1">The climate of a building; </li>
<li class="li1">The hours of its use;</li>
<li class="li1">The level of service it provides; and</li>
<li class="li1">The energy sources it uses. </li>
</ul>
The rating system is a reflection of the performance of the building. For example, a six-star rating indicates premium performance, while a one-star rating indicates there is significant scope for improvement. 
Today, NABERS ratings are an important component of a commercial building’s management and maintenance. Buildings with high NABERS ratings are highly regarded within the market place, and set a benchmark for building owners to aspire to, as they add greater capital gains, while eliminating hefty operating costs. 
The significance of a high NABERS rating 
Savills Australia has partnered with HFM in order to improve the efficiency and performance of their commercial buildings. Achieving and delivering a high NABERS rating is important for a property to maintain its value. High ratings increase rental income for landlords and buildings therefore become highly attractive to buyers if ever released to the market. 
Greener building efficiency assists landlords in meeting tenants’ expectations and requirements, resulting in mutually beneficial relationships between owners and occupiers.  Savills Australia recognises the importance of maintaining a high NABERS rating in all of its managed buildings, demonstrating the company’s commitment to protect, conserve and optimise positive environmental changes and outcomes. 
NABERS energy is now being used to rate 72 per cent of Australian offices and buildings. Using NABERS principles to measure environmental performance has resulted in an 8.5 per cent energy-efficiency improvement, while saving 383,300 tons of greenhouse gas emissions.   
Savills Australia and HFM partnership
HFM has assisted Savills Australia in managing several commercial buildings in order to achieve high NABERS ratings.  
<a href="https://www.nabers.gov.au/public/WebPages/ContentStandard.aspx?module=50&amp;template=3&amp;include=case-study-12.htm" target="_blank">Dynons Plaza</a>, on Hay Street in Perth, has an energy rating of 5.0 stars and a water rating of 5.0 stars. HFM provides the building with monthly energy and water tracking reports, electricity procurement, energy management plans, annual NABERS ratings and Building Energy Efficiency Certificates, compliance reports, and a solar power purchasing agreement review. 
The Savills-managed office building at 130 Stirling Street, Perth, receives the same service as the Dynons Plaza and maintains a NABERS energy rating of 5.5 stars.
Tips for your building’s energy efficiency 
Preparation is the key to an accurate NABERS rating. This is achieved by having the necessary data available and easily accessible for a NABERS-accredited assessor.  
<ol class="ol1">
<li class="li1">
Starting an energy-management plan for your company, and identifying where energy efficiencies could be implemented to reduce costs and greenhouse emissions.  </li>
</ol>
<ol class="ol1">
<li class="li1">
Monitoring and reporting on your energy expenditure in areas of the building that are of concern so that any problems can be fixed. Adequate metering is critical for thorough and precise monitoring. Installing sub-meters is an example of how this can be successfully achieved.  </li>
</ol>
Furthermore, considering the fine-tuning of infrastructure services will also benefit a building’s environmental efficiency. This can include modifying and commissioning the HVAC controls, or installing occupancy-based lighting, higher efficiency uninterruptible power supplies, and power distribution units where feasible. 
<a href="https://www.hfmassets.com.au/tips-buildings-energy-efficiency-winter/">Click here</a> for some useful tips on maintaining your building’s energy-efficiency during winter. 
Ultimately, high NABERS ratings benefit the overall operation of office buildings, while delivering positive outcomes to stakeholders, staff, customers, facility managers, retail merchants and investors. Savills Australia and HFM together strive to achieve and maintain high NABERS ratings for their managed properties through ample housekeeping and regular assessments. 
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

Queensland has Australia's top solar postcodes 

<html><body>
Fractional investment fund manager, DomaCom will crowdfund buying land and and developing a $4.3 million bioHub in the northern NSW town of Casino.
Once the $4.3 million for the land and the development costs is raised, Brisbane-based bioHub developer, Utilitas, will sign a 10-year lease to operate the bioHub.
The rental income generated is expected to give investors an annual eight percent yield.
Arthur Naoumidis, DomaCom CEO said this is an exciting opportunity to merge a socially responsible energy investment in rural Australia with a projected healthy yield for investors.
“For a minimum investment of $2,500, investors can participate in the development of a bioHub project that will service the energy needs of the local sewage wastewater treatment plant, industries and communities in and around Casino, one of Australia’s major beef centres," he said.
“Every year Australia produces enough sewage, agricultural and processing residuals to power more than one million homes.
“Utilitas has a target of 100 bioHubs in 100 regional centres by 2025, and we are excited to be part of this energy project of the future.”
Fiona Waterhouse, Utilitas founding shareholder and CEO said the bioHub developer sees the DomaCom “partnership” as an integral part of the capital raising needed to unlock the development of this kind of useful infrastructure across rural Australia.
“At a time of rising energy costs across Australia, Utilitas is offering an environmentally sound service to rural Australia where our bioHubs use well proven, safe and reliable technology to convert organic waste and waste water into electricity, gas and fuel, create local fertiliser and other useful bioproducts,” she said.
“These plans can safely and reliably capture and utilise energy and nutrient from this waste that typically would have to be disposed at an economic and environmental cost.
"Demand for our bioHubs is being driven by three key factors – growing demand for food, increasing energy costs, and supply risks.
“Casino is an excellent example of how this energy technology can work to benefit a rural community.
“This northern NSW town of about 12,000 people is the regional hub of a large cattle industry, and, as a consequence, the sheer size of biomass from abattoirs and farms in this fertile beef region makes it an ideal location for a bioHub.”
Utilitas uses tanks to digest organic waste and convert it into electricity.
They have one plant operational under private ownership in Queensland treating animal waste, which generates sufficient energy to power 235 homes.
They have designed more than 5MWe (5,875 homes equivalent) of private projects including in New South Wales treating abattoir waste.
</body></html>

DomaCom crowdfunding to build northern NSW bioHub

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/67244/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
While Australia’s energy market operator continues its investigation into South Australia’s recent state-wide blackout, there are important questions being asked. 
For instance, was extreme weather the only cause? Has South Australia replaced fossil fuels with renewables too quickly?
And is the Australia’s Renewable Energy Target (RET) too ambitious all together?
It is impossible to find answers without understanding how the energy market works, and how replacing one source of energy with another actually happens. 
<h2>How does the market work?</h2>
Most Australians (barring the Northern Territory and Western Australia) get their electricity through the National Electricity Market. 
Suppose all the energy users, at a particular day and time, switch on lights, computers, industrial machinery, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, traffic control equipment and more. Added together, they determine how much energy is needed or demanded at that very point in time. 
On the other side of the poles and wires, different independent electricity generators – thermal, hydro, wind, solar – are offering energy to the market, each at a price enabling them to recover costs and make a reasonable profit. This is called bidding. 
Contemporary electronic technology allows for the wholesale market to take electricity and bids every five minutes, and allocate amounts accepted from the successful bidders. And who are those successful bidders?
All current bids are ranked by unit price. Allocation starts from the lowest-price bidder, then the second lowest one, and continues on until the current demand is met. The last accepted bidder’s price becomes the spot market price, and allows other successful bidders to make more or less profit.
<h2>How do renewables affect the market?</h2>
The main incentive policy for wind farms in Australia is the Renewable Energy Target (RET), which legislates that 33 gigawatt hours of electricity must come from renewable sources by 2020. As part of the RET, large-scale renewable energy generators (solar and wind farms) receive credits (certificates) for electricity they generate, which are then purchased by retailers to meet the target. 
This market is separate to the National Electricity Market (NEM) and acts as a second income source for renewable energy generators.
With this in mind, we have modelled what happens when wind energy is phased into the market based on five minute electricity market data for several years.
The running (marginal) cost of wind generators is zero (because wind is free), unlike traditional thermal technology (which has to pay for coal and gas). Subsequently, wind generators recover their fixed costs and obtain profit in the difference between marginal cost and market price based on “more expensive” bids. 
In the long run, wind generation decreases the market price through the bidding process. So with an increase in the energy volume generated by wind, the traditional sources are pushed out from the market. The chart below illustrates this process for South Australia. 
<a href="/images/2016/10/25/image-20161019-20308-xt2ui.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h2><img src="/images/2016/10/25/image-20161019-20308-xt2ui.jpg" alt=""></h2>
Because their fixed costs can be recovered through the RET, wind generators can bid at near zero prices and completely eliminate traditional competitors. Therefore, wind generation can only naturally exist in the market if there are other, more expensive forms of generation to set the price. Otherwise wind farms could not recover their costs without the RET. 
This means that there is an optimal proportion of wind energy in the market, where more expensive thermal generators set the market price. 
If there is an optimum amount of wind energy in the market, this has important consequences for the RET. The target artificially increases the proportion of wind energy that can be sustained in the grid. While this may be the goal of the RET, without the incentive, wind capacity would eventually fall back to the market optimum. 
In practice, this would occur as wind farms reach their natural life of about 20 years and aren’t replaced. So the RET won’t maintain or increase wind energy in the market in the long term, unless the incentives continue indefinitely.
The current RET is legislated to 2030, with a target set for 2020. To encourage wind energy in the long term, it would be required, then, to support the RET by an ongoing financial inducement without a closing date. 
Without any financial inducement, wind farm developers would not increase capacity beyond the optimal point, and some thermal generation will continue to exist. Thermal generation can be completely excluded only if all the fixed costs of wind energy can be recovered through the RET. This is impractical and beyond the intentions of the policy. 
So as it stands, our modelling suggests the RET is not a good way to increase the amount of wind generation in the electricity network. However our conclusions are different for other renewable energy sources such as hydro, which also have near zero marginal costs but have much longer lifetimes.
Therefore, where and if possible, we need to use a mix of technology, rather than overemphasising wind generation technology.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gennadi-kazakevitch-90201" target="_blank">Gennadi Kazakevitch</a> is deputy head, Department of Economics, Monash University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gennadi-kazakevitch-90201" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Are wind farms messing up the electricity market?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The debate about wind farms is clearly not over yet.
Last week Australia’s National Heath and Medical Research Council awarded A$3.3 million to fund two new health studies: one to measure the effect of infrasound on sleep quality, balance, mood and cardiovascular health; the other to determine whether low-frequency sound from wind farms can disrupt sleeping patterns.
Given the past few years of prickly wind turbine politics, this has predictably caused quite a stir.
On one side, the usual suspects sought to capitalise on the NHMRC’s announcement. Independent senator John Madigan called for a moratorium on new wind farms, wanting all projects to be put on hold as a “precaution”.
Coalition senator Chris Back leapt to support his call, perhaps unsurprisingly given that he (along with Madigan and fellow senators Nick Xenophon, David Leyonhjelm and Bob Day) have been described by Sydney University public heath professor Simon Chapman as “sworn enemies of infrasound".
In contrast, many in the scientific community expressed their disappointment at what they see as a waste of millions of research dollars. They referred to studies from around the globe that have consistently failed to find solid evidence for a connection between infrasound and poor health.
However, funding further research on the possible health impacts of wind turbines is consistent with the NHMRC’s own conclusions in a February 2015 statement, which said:
"Given [people’s] reported experiences [of ill health] and the limited reliable evidence, NHMRC considers that further, higher-quality research is warranted."
So the nation’s largest, most respected and most trustworthy medical research funding body actually agrees that more research is a good idea.
<h2>Down tools?</h2>
Tempting though it is, this piece isn’t about rehashing the current evidence of the health impacts – real or imagined – of wind turbines. That’s been done already and will clearly continue for a while yet.
What’s more interesting, to me at least, is this appeal for a moratorium, and the more general question of how useful a tool it is for making decisions about overtly science-based issues.
Madigan’s call is a typical invocation of the precautionary principle. This asserts that if there are reasonable (that is, evidence-based, scientific) grounds to believe something new might be unsafe – or at least presents risks that unacceptably outweigh the potential benefits – then we should not proceed with the new thing.
On the surface, it’s hard to argue with that.
But when it comes to wind turbines, there is nothing to suggest that Madigan, Back and like-minded folks will consider any level of risk acceptable.
Imagine for a moment that these new studies find no statistically defensible evidence to link infrasound to human ill-health. Will those calling for a moratorium accept the results and declare wind turbines safe (or at least safe enough to lift a ban)?
I suspect not. It looks to me as if what they are actually demanding is “proof of safety”, rather than evidence of “acceptable risk”. This is, of course, impossible. To use an oft-quoted example, we can’t prove that orange juice is 100 percent safe, yet it remains defiantly on our supermarket shelves.
I’d wager a year’s salary that Madigan and friends would declare any “acceptable risk” results to be insufficient, too short-term, or generally just biased and inadequate, and demand that yet more research is done.
The naysayers are not looking for counter-evidence to their claims, most probably because there are things about wind farms that they simply do not like. If they have been unswayed by the research showing no evidence of harm so far, it seems unlikely two more studies will change their minds. 
But what about us down at the science end of town? As noted on The Conversation last year by my colleagues Jacqui Hoepner and Will Grant, “if a credible, scientifically rigorous study were to show a link between wind turbine operation and health effects, it should absolutely be taken seriously”. Agreed!
So for argument’s sake, let’s imagine that these new studies do end up producing empirically valid results that clearly suggest that infrasound from wind turbines can cause people harm. Would we science-loving citizens be prepared to bow our heads and accept the evidence; to admit that Madigan and his cohorts did the right thing by calling for a moratorium?
I’d like to think that I would. But I also imagine myself demanding more research, and I’m confident most other science-positive folks would, too. In our defence, though, we would of course be looking for evidence confirming the existence and likely extent of the harm, rather than seeking proof of some mythical, absolute guarantee of safety.
<h2>Precautionary tale</h2>
So what good will more, precautionary-principle-inspired science do? In reality, probably very little.
For one thing, practical, policy-related action can rarely wait for “all” the evidence to be in before decisions are made and actions taken (assuming such a magical, perfect-evidence situation could ever arise). Invoking the precautionary principle is not likely to simplify this situation.
Far from making decisions more evidence-based, the calls for a precautionary approach are liable to entangle us more deeply in the politics of decision-making. It’s blisteringly naïve to believe that when applied “correctly”, the precautionary principle will refocus warring factions’ attention on noble considerations like gathering sufficient, acceptable evidence and using this to guide us to the most objective solutions.
In fact, it’s arguments over what constitutes the right kind – and sufficient amounts – of evidence that lie at the heart of such disagreements, not what the evidence itself shows. Many people call for evidence-based policy – but when it’s the evidence itself that is up for debate, it’s important (as my colleague Will Grant has quipped) actually to have evidence-based evidence.
So how will this issue play out from here? Here’s my guess:
• a moratorium will probably not be called
• the new research projects will be conducted
• based on current available evidence, they will probably find little to support the idea that wind turbines located more than than 1,500 metres from humans have measurable negative health effects
• scientists will say “I told you so”
• Senators Madigan et al, should they still be around, will call for yet more research.
 
Rod Lamberts is deputy director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rod-lamberts-60" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Ban new wind turbines? Not if the bar for declaring them safe is impossibly high

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The prevailing mainstream commentary of the Australian coal sector is that its future is secure.
Any lost demand from China for Australian exports will be replaced by demand from India. Other growth markets such as South East Asia will also fill the gap. Shifts in demand for renewable energy are not material to the outlook.
But some key trends sketch out a different story.
In 2014, thermal coal use in China fell 2.9% on the previous year’s consumption. In 2014, the Chinese economy grew 7.4% and electricity production grew 3.8% via everything but coal: solar, wind, hydro, nuclear and biomass. In fact, China’s coal fired power generation was down 3%.
Chinese coal imports dropped by 11% over 2014 and a further 38% in the first four months of 2015 due to the government prioritising sourcing coal domestically to assist local producers who are losing money, as well as the contractionary cycle.
Australian coal producers remain optimistic though that demand from India will compensate. However this demand is unlikely to eventuate. In just a few years, India’s coal demand will be met by domestic sources and by 2017 they expect to stop importing coal altogether. They are also ramping up production of their renewable energy industry to transform the way India sources electricity. It is also important to note that many regional areas in India do not have grid infrastructure, and are therefore unable to benefit from coal-fired power generation without significant capital investment.
The recent International Energy Agency (IEA) report predicts South-East Asia coal demand will triple in the next 25 years and commentators are suggesting that this changes the outlook for Australian producers. But South-East Asia represents 6% of world traded coal in 2014, so finding a small growth market will do nothing to offset the collapse in price in the main markets. Further, China, Japan and India are 50% of the world traded coal market and all three have peaked. That is why the coal price is down a further 20% this year.
Only a few companies are undertaking assessments of the risk of stranded assets, to understand the potential implications on their business. In October 2015, BHP Billiton produced a detailed analysisassessing the possibility for reduced demand of their resources due to the transition to clean technology and the risks that climate change pose to its asset portfolio.
The report predicts the continuing climb of the world’s energy demand, in line with GDP growth. While this is historically the case, many countries are beginning to decouple the two indexes. If these emergent trends continue, energy demand will still rise, but not as significantly as predicted.
BHP asserts that its coal assets will be safe due to their high quality and low price. This is also true, but the assessment doesn’t take into account the potential for governments to protect their domestic coal industries, avoiding imports, as China and India are doing.
BHP’s analysis of renewables is based around the assumption that uptake of renewables will be forced by government policy. The report does not consider that the continued drop in renewable technology prices will see deployment grow independent of subsidy and potential increase in growth rates, beyond historic trends. There is growing analyst consensus that there will be mass-market uptake of battery storage over the next five years. This is also predicted to dramatically increase the growth rate for deployment of renewables.
Last month, Bank of England governor Mark Carney warned that the vast majority of the world’s fossil fuel reserves could become stranded assets if scientist’s estimates on how we cannot afford to burn these reserves proved approximately correct. Many were surprised that a mainstream banker was articulating the view that this has the potential destabilise existing energy markets and shake up countries’ economies.
Mining and energy companies are starting to feel the pinch. Glencore is the story of the Titanic. In May 2015, they assessed their stranded-asset-risk at zero. Not 10%, or 1.5%, but no chance whatsoever.
Glencore is now in financial trouble due to a combination of too much debt, off balance sheet leverage and low resource prices, particularly coal. Six months ago the company told investors at the Annual General Meeting that there was “no risk” that its assets would become stranded.
Glencore’s grim financial situation and reasons for it shares some similarities to that of US coal mining company, Peabody Energy Corporation.
These company’s often irreverent attitude towards the risk posed by both climate change and renewable energy could be seen by investors as a proxy for how it approaches risk in all other aspects of their business.
In Queensland, the Adani Carmichael coal mine that has just been approved is another example of a coal project that is struggling with finance. Both NAB and the Commonwealth Bank backed out of funding roles in the project, and other big multinational financiers, such as JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley and Citibank have said they will not invest. Many see the project as commercially unviable and that given the macro trends around thermal coal, the sector is in structural decline.
It is understandable that companies want to keep their business outlooks positive and not spook their shareholders. It makes sense that they don’t wish to include the complex, knotty issues.
But these issues are why you employ sophisticated risk analysts and they make for a more balanced approach. These recent cases show that ignoring them doesn’t make them disappear.
The hope is that the industry will mature and start thinking in a more nuanced way about these risks. BHP Billiton’s report on this is a good start.
 
Jemma Green is research fellow, Curtin University and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jemma-green-105891" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Energy

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Energy

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News