It hasn’t gotten much attention in the national press yet, but it seems like Western Australia might just provide the first test case as to whether the coal industry has a future. Petroleum behemoth BP and Rio Tinto are conducting a feasibility study into a geosequestering coal gasification power plant at Kwinana, an industrial port 40 kilometres south of Perth. According to the article in The Australian, construction could begin in 2011, with power being produced as early as 2014. 90% of the CO2 produced will be geosequestered in “saline formations under the sea” off the coast.
While the details are sketchy, the proposed plant seems to be a fairly standard IGCC gasification design - coal is converted into syngas, CO2 and other pollutants stripped out for sequestration, and then the hydrogen burned in a gas turbine.
For mine, there are two things of interest from this news. The first is that these companies think that they can be producing low-carbon power from coal within the decade. The second is the truly eye-watering cost. At $2 billion for a 500 megawatt power plant, the construction costs come to $4000 a kilowatt. Even allowing for the first-of-a-kind construction problems as the Olkiluoto-3 nuclear plant in Finland and taking opponents’ estimates of construction costs (and noting that Finland, like its Scandinavian neighbours, is just about the most expensive area on Earth to do anything), the construction cost per kilowatt capacity is pretty much the same. Furthermore, if you ignore the costs of intermittency for a moment, it’s around the capital costs of wind farms right now, and wind farms have much lower operating costs because there’s no fuel to buy.
Both major parties are backing geosequestered coal as not only a technically feasible option for low-carbon electricity, but cheaper than nuclear and renewables. Based on the reports of this project, it seems that the technology has a long way to go on the cost-competitiveness front.
The other point, Robert, is timeframes. It’s all well and good that this mob reckon they can build this lpant within the decade, but that’s not fast enough if we believe the IPCC. Global emissions need to peak by 2015, which means Australia’s need to be coming down fast by then.
The only solutions fast enough for that are major energy efficiency and market-ready renewables like wind, solar thermal, PV and bioenergy.
I think you might be overstating it a bit when you claim renewables are “market ready”. Not in the quantities you’re talking about.
There’s a massive shortage of the ultrapure silicon needed to make solar cells, and it’s predicted to last until 2012 at least.
As for solar thermal, it’s all demo-scale plants. Projections of cost-competitiveness for gigawatt-scale plants are just that - predictions - right now.
Scaling up biofuels to make a significant dint in Australia’s energy needs will take some years, as well.
That leaves wind, with all its intermittancy problems, and energy efficiency, and one other option you left out - replacing coal with natural gas. If you want to do something in a hurry, that’s a fairly straightforward one.
The conclusion I think you can draw is that we probably won’t cut emissions fast enough to meet the 2015 target, which leads me to believe we’ll have to actively remove CO2 from the air.
Quite so on the solar thermal. But that is purely because of lack of orders/lack of serious government conviction. The way to get the solar programme rolling is simply to put up a tender for 6 gigawatts of solar generation base load capacity on a rolling delivery schedule and see how the quotes come in. How hard can that be? It is not as if the capacity is not needed. The technology is proven. There is nothing to be gained by another “trial” facility.
What will happen? “They” will wait until there is an actual immediate crisis that can only be solved with gas turbine gas powered facilities, and every body loses again.
I was reading a bunch of articles by Leslie Kemeny who I am told by liberal insiders is a key nuclear advisor to Howard, and it became clear that there was little substance to the arguments other than a belief in the technology and an assertion that the “time was right” for nuclear. And it was obvious that here was a fellow who as a consultant had much to gain from nuclear power plants and his life’s work to lose from no nuclear power plants. No nuclear power plants means that his life ambition was pointless. Nothing argued to indicate that nuclear was “the” choice, or was right and proper for Australia, simply a “wouldn’t it be good if” style of approach along with the bland unsupported declaration that nuclear was environmentally friendly. The article was repeated for a number of news publications in various ways for a number of areas. Clearly a desperate attempt to sway opinion. As an after thought it occured to me that Australia has far more to gain commercially by selling all of its uranium overseas rather than using it it self.
I could not find a direct link but kemeny and opal should get you close.
Yes, predictions for new solar thermal are just predictions, but my point is that so are predictions for the cost of geosequestration. Except that the solar thermal predictions are somewhat more reliable as the technology is already demonstrated.
You’re wrong to say that solar thermal is all demo-scale. There are several large baseload scale plants that have been operational for 20 years or more in California. That experience lends credence to their predictions. Geoseq has no experience to base their predictions on.
By the way, experience in Europe and America has also shown that you can have 20% penetration of wind in the grid and have no destabilising effect on supply, as long as your wind farms are spread geographically enough to smoothe out inconsistencies. Currently, wind supplies 2% of our power. We could easily boost that to close to 20% in 10 years, along with massive demand reduction through efficiency. Plus, but then we could most likely have a few large solar thermal plants up and running.
I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of reaching the 2015 target. That would be a very very dangerous admission of defeat that could easily become self-perpetuating.
BilB: the federal government doesn’t run electricity generation in Australia. The states, and private companies in the places that have privatised their power, do.
Tim: fair enough, there is SEGS. However, BilB’s claims about solar thermal being cost-competitive are based on a different solar thermal technology. That technology hasn’t been demonstrated on a large scale as yet.
Technically, I’ve no doubt we could stabilise emissions by 2015. But given that nothing serious can be done on a global scale until January 2009 (when the grown-ups move back into the White House), and China and India aren’t yet serious about doing anything, politically it would seem very difficult. That’s why I think we should be thinking really hard about plan B.
I guess one needs to be cautiously optimistic in political speak of a joint venture that will investigate the feasibility of a power plant that will cost three times the current cost of a conventional coal-fired, several megawatt
station and will cost 50% more in running costs AND will need substantial subsidy from the Federal Government.
Which will come first?
Maybe we will need to wait and see what the PM’s energy committee come back with followed by the Government’s response. But presumeably BP/BHP Billiton would be well aware of what the rodent will be getting next week and are upping the ante somewhat with the announcement of this ‘feasibility investigation’.
Even that sounds like a two step process. We’ll study whether it is possible.
If it is then we’ll think about building… other things being considered.
Sorry that should be BP/Rio Tinto. Maybe it they could rope in BHP-Billiton I’d feel better!
Hey All,
Just found the site after reading Mark Davis’ article in the A2 section of Saturday’s age (19/5).
I tend to agree with Tim:
a) with the right mix of policies and elec retailer/generator action we can bring down our emissions
b) it will require a slight increase in the cost of elec, but one i think the general public are now willing to pay (assuming govts aren’t willing/able to subsidize it all
c) saying we simply ‘can’t’ is indeed defeatist.
for those in Melbourne there is a free public lecture next week related to this topic:
When: Wednesday 30 May, 5.30 pm - 7.30 pm
Where: Public Lecture Theatre, Old Arts Building,
University of Melbourne, Parkville Campus
Map Here
“Global warming is arguably the most dangerous environmental problem and the most difficult political issue to be faced by the world in the 21st century. This symposium will discuss sustainable energy technologies and the policies needed to implement them at the federal and state level. Speakers are Dr Mark Diesendorf of the University of New South Wales, who will be launching his book ‘Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy’, and Alan Pears, who has worked in the sustainable energy field for three decades. Presented by the Australian Centre for Science, Innovation and Society (ACSIS), in conjunction with the Institute for Environmental Studies at UNSW. “
I’ve been trying to get a handle on the ZeroGen project, which claimed to be a world first when it was announced last year in July. It is a 100MW coal gasification project at Stanwell near Rockhampton, with the CO2 to be piped 220km west and inserted in deep saline aquifers near Emerald.
They have been drilling holes near Emerald, but I’m not sure what’s happening at Stanwell, if anything.
There has recently been a kerfuffle about the funding. The coal companies were voluntarily collecting $300m. Beattie thought it was for ZeroGen alone, but it wasn’t. The coal industry have upped their contribution to $1 billion over 10 years
Beattie was going to meet the coal chiefs last Thursday but I don’t know how it turned out.
There’s also FutureGen in the US, which does have a timeline.
Robert,
My claims are about the trough solar system as described in your SEGS link. The basis of the claims come from a lengthy conversation that I had with Dr Franz Trieb in the German Aerospace Organisation (the author of a number of publications available on the web and a key operative in the European solar energy progaramme applied) in which he layed out the cost profile for the parabolic trough solar concentrating system. This is different to our Prof David Mills prefered fresnel system. This is how it stacks up:
for a one square kilometre hybride system being 350,000 square metres of collector and the turbine house the system costs Euro 280 per square metre, plus site preparation cost and connection. This yields 50 megawatts of peak load. As you increase the size of the system the cost per square metre reduces because the turbine house cost only increases marginally. At 20 square kilometres the cost per square metre of system reduces to around Euro 120 per square metre plus site costs and connection. In Spain they have built a mirror plant near the installation which I believe is still under construction. The same would be done in Australia. These figures are bourne out in a several published cost comparisons. That is why I say put it up for tender and see how the quotes come in, but do it for a serious proposal, a significant number of gigawatts.
Global warming is a national threat and therefore requires a national solution. The federal government is duty bound to give direction on solutions to the approaching danger. The federal government does not have to own the power stations but they have to establish a framework that allows long term investment at the proper scale. Australia has benefitted greatly from the Snowey Mountain scheme, and Australia will benefit far more from a comprehensive solar power generation programme. There is no need for a plan “B” or a plan “N”.
It does not matter in which particular year emissions are stabilised. The fact is that Australia hasn’t any chance of achieving any reduction at all, simply because we have no plan full stop. Every time Turnbull opens his mouth he confirms that their is no chance of having a plan under Liberal leadership.
Sorry Bill, I stand corrected. That said, it still hasn’t been actually done yet.
One point I would like to make - how much easier would this have been if we’d started tackling this seriously back in, say, 1998 or so, rather than 2007?
Robert,
It is totally distressing that we are at this point now, still with no plan. Global warming is not new news, as you repeated and correctly point out. I stood for election in NZ in 1992 to bring attention to some of these issues, proposing a rethink of the economic model to include pricing of environmental resources and implementing a carbon tax. I didn’t score many votes, but the point was made and noted. I think that it is crucial to keep the pressure on, keep informing people (even on a one to one basis), and keep updating the pool of information. All things that you do spectacularly well.
There is an article in the AFR today on FutureGen. Some of the salient points are:
1. The cost is US$1.7 billion for a 275MW plant.
2. The US govt is chipping in over a billion with the FG Alliance Partners putting in less than $400 million.
3. The partners include Rio and BHP Billiton along with Peabody.
4. Operation is to begin in 2012.
You would expect there to be technology transfer to the Kwinana project via Rio.
BP seems to be up to its eyeballs in solar developments in Europe, with large photovoltaic factories in Spain and India.
Europe has a lot of activity, you might say first mover advantage, albeit in photovoltaics. The existing plants are small, but larger ones are in the pipeline and of course there are plans for concentrated solar (CSP) further south where the sun shines and networking it all together.
Of note is the plant at Granada which seems to be a 50MW CSP station to be duplicated in the second phase and using molten salt to provide 24 hour power.
So I get the impression that energy companies are moving strongly in positive directions with government support and technology transfer through multinational companies.
We are going to be way behind in solar, however.
Also specialised coal miners are not moving outside coal. Compare BP and Shell, where I guess blind Freddy (except Exxon) can see that they need to move beyond hydrocarbons.
Robert, your last point there is the one that has me so utterly depressed about the whole thing. California has held energy-related greenhouse emissions flat for over a decade now, while ours have increased by what, 40%?
If we had moved, globally, a decade ago, not only would developed country emissions be much lower already, but I have no doubt that China and India would be moving faster as well. Everyone signed up to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities at Rio in 1992, but for years now the US and Australia have been undermining that by demanding China and India move first. Outrageous.
But getting back to the issue at hand, the other point I think I’ve made before is that I have a problem with massive polluters coming cap in hand to governments and asking for handouts. For one thing, Rio and BP don’t need subsidies when their profits are so huge, whereas small renewables developers trying to break into the market need access to limited government funds.
But it comes down to the principle of polluter pays - let them fund their own research to clean up their act.
And, Brian, your final point is one that has also frustrated me for ages. Why don’t BHP and Rio et al follow BP’s lead and invest a significant chunk of their huge profits into renewables. Isn’t diversification meant to be the rule? I guess the difference is that oil companies are much more directly energy suppliers, whereas RIo et al see themselves as resource extracters who sell their goods to the energy generators.
The ABC board has joined the war on science…
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/interference-claim-on-abc-program/2007/05/23/1179601487356.html?page=fullpage
Bolt is ecstatic!
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_aunty_catches_cold/
Bolt says Williams claims that the sea will rise 100m without a single scientist to back him. Then he quotes the IPCC as saying that the max will be 59cm
Believe it or not there are four errors in that short salvo.
1. Williams did not make the claim.
2. The claim was made by a scientist to Williams on air. (I find it unbelievable, but it was made nevertheless by an otherwise credible scientist without an adequate explanation.)
3. There was no 100 years limit.
4. The IPCC explicitly excluded ice sheet melting entirely from its calculations because of the difficulty of making forecasts (or extrapolations, I think is the favoured word). Both Greenland and Antarctica are contributing to sea level rise at present.
That’s why Bolt should put his head in a bag and desist from commenting about anything until he learns the art of relating to the world external to his own fevered mind.
Brian your assertion that
is wrong. Antarctica has a thickening of ice going on over almost all of it, except the peninsular where it is thinning. (I think i read this at CSIRO sites but consider it common knowledge) People need to recall that no amount of ice shelf breakup (and that has been variable over the last century) adds to sea levels as the ice is already in the water. The flow of ice off the continent is still less than the increase in deposits, thus a thickening.
Sea level rises are not an issue of any concern for this coming century and that is long enough for us to think about at present, given that there are major issues throughout the world like malaria and other issues that stem from a lack of industrialisation, those issues ught to take precedence.
patrickm, I can’t be bothered looking it up at the moment but this is how I remember the Antarctic story.
There has been a tightening of the circulation patterns, probably due to the ozone hole. This has been associated with increased snowfall in the centre of Antarctica.
The fringes, however, are in contact with the warming ocean. The ice goes right down into the sea. There are two huge ice shelves (Ross and Amundsen) where the warming water is in contact with the ice underneath.
Another problem is that the whole of the West Antarctica rock on which the ice sits is below sea level. Obviously as Greenland melts, as the sea warms and expands and hence the sea rises the contact between warming water and ice is going to increase in Antarctica.
As against that it has long been thought that with a warming of Antarctica snowfall will actually increase. So you’ve got a rising sea, a warmer sea and (hopefully) a reducing ozone hole working towards melting and increased snowfall producing more snow.
At the moment there is a net loss of ice similar to the ice loss in Greenland. How it is all going to play out is all too hard at present, which is why the IPCC left the ice sheet degradation factor out of it’s calculations. But you’d need to be a rare kind of optimist to think that it won’t be a big problem in near geological time, ie. the next 100 to 1000 years or so. West Antarctica is worth about 5 metres, the whole, last I saw, is worth 62 metres.
Next time I see a decent article I’ll do a post, just for you.
patrickm, ice sheet breakup, where the ice sits on land above the water naturally causes sea-level rise. Where it sits in the water, as in the Arctic ice sheet, the effect is minimal. You also have to see the ice as a river and where bits fall off because they are in contact with the warm sea the ice behind tends to slide down. That much is not rocket science.
There’s also the phenomenon of meltwater going down vertical shafts (moulins) to the base of the sheet, honeycombing the sheet and lubricating the base. There’s likely to be more of that if the ozone hole heals.
Here is my solution to the limitation of 20% wind power. All you need is any water source, hills and wind. A dam is built in the surrounding hills (no river needed). Windmills pump water (salty or fresh) uphill and into the dam. A hydroelectric system is used to generate electricity from this water as it is returned to the original lower water source. The dam acts as a store of energy so that energy captured in the day can be released at night or at times of peak load. With this system you do not need huge dams as the water is used over and over again. There will be small losses due to inefficiencies of pumping and hydro generation, and also due to evaporation, but is there any better way to store energy? The energy for pumping the water uphill can come from wind, solar any other source. 100% wind power could be used. This system is already used for a different purpose in Tasmania where there is a wealth of hydro dams. tHEY BUY ELECTRICITY FROM THE MAINLAND WHEN IT IS CHEAP, using it to pump water uphill. Then when the prices are high, they let the water flow and sell the electricity back into the mainland market.
Barry, pumped storage has been around for decades. There are severe limits to the number of places which make suitable locations for dams.