Jonathan Rutherford
Aug 9, 2017 · 2 min read

Dear Mark Diesendorf,

Thanks for the comment. I am yet to read your paper but will do with interest soon. However, a couple colleagues of mine with particular expertise in this area have had a look at the paper and have told me that nothing in your paper, in their interpretation, relates to the research that is relevant to the issue I have raised in Axiom 4 re net energy implications of a rapid transition.

They have told me that, in their interpretation ,contrary to what you say, the paper does not model the net energy implications of the energy transition it discusses. According to them, gross energy flows are being modeled, not net energy flows. In fact, according to them, the paper is not about net energy at all, but deals with the separate (although related) issue of life cycle emissions intensity of energy supply, including the implications for total emissions of any rapid increase in RE with high and decreasing emission intensity of energy inputs for capacity emplacement.

I also should point out that my colleagues raised another issue specifically related to your study (i.e. in relation to what it does actually deal with) that raises questions over the immediate relevance of the findings. The emission intensity of electricity supply that it assumes for working out the manufacturing and emplacement emissions for supply technologies is specifically the Australian emission intensity. But much of the manufacturing emissions for RE technologies are currently incurred in other territories (e.g. China for PV). So the findings are relevant only if the full life cycle occurs within Australia, or if there are stages that are not in Australia, then the emission intensity of the territories in which those stages take place would need to match Australia’s at the same time.

Thanks again

    Jonathan Rutherford

    Written by