This is a couple of weeks old now, but significant - a proposal to build Australia’s first “clean coal” power plant at Kwinana, in the far south of the Perth suburban sprawl :
A London-based spokesman at BP, David Nicholas, said on Monday that the proposed reservoir was not understood “as fully as other formations”. “Particularly considering this would be one of the first projects of its kind, we would want some very high level of certainty of the long-term storage of carbon dioxide,” he said.
Mr Cobban said Hydrogen Energy, based in Weybridge, England, would still work on projects in California and Abu Dhabi.
Marn must be very disappointed…
How soon can I say “I told you so”?
Geosequestration is not working anywhere. Projects are falling over because of delays and budget blow-outs caused by technologies failing to live up to promise (on tha capture side), and the storage just isn’t being proven at large scale either. Not even the industry is confident now that they can find enough holes in the ground to bury the vast quantities of CO2 they produce.
We really need to move on now assuming that geosequestration will not work. We don’t have time to wait until it proves itself.
I did the calculations last year and came up with 16 cubic kilometres of CO2 per day from burning coal that needs to be buried.
Doesn’t seem likely, but that’s not going to stop Marn thowing money at the coal industry.
And no old party politician in Australia - Labor or Liberal - seems to know about the failure of what was supposed to be the “only” grubby coal (slighly cleaner than black) demonstration power plant program.
Source: U.S. Cancels Clean Coal Plant: Scientific American
But seriously, Brumby, Batchelor, Ferguson and Rudd (& QLD) are scamming the Autralian people with their unbridled generosity and support for risky coal industry R&D branded by a big PR lie.
“Clean coal” is a dirty lie.
‘fraid I’m with you carbonsink. When he wrote High & Dry, and a Rudd government was well and truly on the cards, Guy Pearse was still of the opinion that the Greenhouse Mafia had their hooks so deep into the mechanisms of government that it didn’t really matter who was in power.
In that light, Marn’s no different from Ian McFarlane, or Warwick Parer for that matter - just an emitter’s puppet. Rudd’s obviously banking on the fact that while climate change was one of his 3 big swing issues last December, that most punters are dumb enough to think ‘Clean Coal’ actually has something to do with cutting emissions - when the truth is that the only thing being sequestered in large bottomless pits is federal government money.
Yep, and Garrett is no different from Turnbull. Both spent most of the campaign extolling the virtues about CCS and claiming that we “need a balance of solutions”, while 95% of government money is still going to fossil fuel industries.
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss” (on energy policy anyway).
That climate hysteria has let electricity prices climb, that’s for sure; Anyway if you think that a molecule like co2 is a safety risk for human to be poisened, better stop. What do you want? nuclear power? Chernobyl? Has anyone aver thought that the best choice is the cheapest choice? Mayby a better reasoning, don’t you think?
acer: in a nutshell, yes, I’d prefer nuclear power to coal
Even on Greenpeace’s absurdly overcooked estimates of the effects of Chernobyl, coal kills far more people each and every year; and that’s before taking into account the climate effects.
Not to mention that Chernobyl was a fundamentally different - and shockingly bad - design not operated in the West.
Robert Merkel wrote:
I agree with Robert here, nukes are definitely preferable to coal. The challenge of disposing of nuclear waste safely is considerably smaller than burying 16 cubic kilometres of CO2 every day and hoping it stays there. The volume of nuclear waste produced relative to the amount of energy produced is infinitesimal compared with the CO2 (and other toxins) produced by burning coal. That’s not to say nuclear waste isn’t really, really nasty stuff — it is — this is a choice between a really bad option, and a really, really bad option.
Of course, there are other issues with nukes apart from waste (proliferation, accidents, terrorism etc) and all of these need to be considered when choosing the best way to reduce our carbon emissions. A carbon tax and ETS would leave these negative externalities unpriced, and I think this tilts the balance (unfairly) in favour of nukes ahead of renewables.
Most renewables have very few downsides (apart from perhaps hydro) certainly nothing on the scale of nuclear waste, so my view is we should try all the renewable options first, and if all else fails, try nukes.
There’s a long lead time for the development of both though. So for nuclear to be feasible as a fallback position its necessary to start pilot programs to build up experience and expertise in case its needed later.
I reckon proven renewable energy is #1, combined with reducing demand by improving efficiency. We waste heaps of energy on things like aluminium smelters. These would be much less GHG polluting if they ran off gas powered cogeneration plants.
Nuclear is not a good long term option - we run out of high grade uranium in the foreseable future, it costs heaps, takes ages to get going (10+ years) and has intractible toxic waste issues that are intergenerational. We don’t need it.
The world has enough nuclear pilots and experience already. Germany is decommissioning nuclear plants as their wind and solar generation increases - it is up to 20% of their supply now.
We need do the same and transition off coal. We need to decommission one large coal fired power station each year to meet the 60% by 2050 target.
Bright idea: we should get carbon credits $$$ for NOT burning coal, similar to what is being talked about for forests. Just leave it there, already sequestered by nature, and get paid for it. Brilliant!
Peterc: Germany is not shutting down coal-fired power. They’re building more of it.
And even low-grade uranium costs bugger-all energy to get out of the ground. Even Mark Diesendorf’s own figures say so (the paper is behind a paywall, unfortunately).
Robert, I said they were shutting down their nuclear power, not coal. I will check out the link you have provided.
Clive Hamilton, quoted in today’s Crikey, tells it how it is…
No politician of any flavour is going to raise energy prices. Its as simple as that. So as Clive says, “we’re stuffed”.
Yeah nice idea, except we have a government whose coffers are filled with coal money. There’s no way on God’s Earth any government is going to pay people to keep it in the ground when it is fantastically profitable to mine it.
The reality is, Australia is a coal junkie, and its not going to change.
Yes, it seems that sea levels must rise 5 meters before our governments will act, and then they will only start building levees.
So will all be rich from coal and have lots of power to watch DVDs on how the Earth used to be.
Just look at the political nonsense on petrol prices. Nelson’s 5c per litre and Rudd’s scrambling to match it has ALREADY been swallowed by price rises. The boys only have their fingers in the hole of the dyke (polite version).
OK, but a nuclear plant costs double the price of a coal plant (to construct it, not to run it). This is the problem: 20 to 30 years ago there were nuclear constructed and people protested against it. And now it’s against coal? Make up your mind, i ‘d say. And you still regard co2 as a toxin, which is not true. Chernobyl was a russian design, Wetern European plant are from a French (AREVA)design. But last month there was one (French design) leaking in Spain, so…
Chris,
“There’s a long lead time for the development of both though”
On what tiny little corner of the energy resources information pool are you basing this rediculous statement? The renewables systems to build an alternative energy future are developed and ready NOW. No waiting. Well, to be more correct there is waiting, but it is not because there is no solution.
This serpentine bunch of politicians that we all worked hard to give the opportunity to start Australia’s contribution to global environmental action are now hedging, delaying and ignoring.
If there is a double dissolution election next year, then this May’s environment ignoring budget is going to cost them dearly.
So what do you think, Robert? with huge cracks appering in every link of the carbon trading chain, do you still think that it is worth persuing?
Surely you must agree that at this very late stage the only hope is to start to install the key lower cost renewable systems CSP, Geothermal, wind, and wave, at maximum speed and apply a carbon tax to promote the implementation long enough for the market returns to sustain the process. Leaving the coal in the ground is the only solution. I would say leaving the oil in the ground, but that is totally improbable.
Ruts in the road.
Here is a media release from the Biofuels Association.
Ethanol — lot feeders’ future friend
04 April 2008 Category: BAA Posted by: Admin
The Australian Lot Feeders Association (ALFA), through its website and recent (4 February) media release, questions the many benefits of fuel ethanol. However, their primary, if unfounded, fear is that support for the ethanol industry will drive feed grain prices up by more than 25%.
The development of the fuel ethanol industry is no threat to the feed lot industry — quite the opposite.
“Locally-produced fuel ethanol has the potential to provide Australian industry, including the feed lot industry, with an environmentally-sustainable and economically-viable transport fuel,” said Bruce Harrison, Chief Executive Officer, Biofuels Association of Australia.
The Australian Lot Feeders Association (ALFA), through its website and recent (4 February) media release, questions the many benefits of fuel ethanol. However, their primary, if unfounded, fear is that support for the ethanol industry will drive feed grain prices up by more than 25%.
In 2005, ALFA commissioned the Centre for International Economics (CIE) to assess the impact of different levels of domestic fuel ethanol production in 2010. CIE assessed a range of volumes from just over 300 million litres (ML) (representing the current Australian Government target) to nearly 5,000 ML (assuming 10% ethanol in all petrol and 15% ethanol in all automotive diesel fuel).
Fuel ethanol consumption in 2007 was around 110 ML, and the BAA estimates 2008 consumption will be around 150 ML.
Of course, ramping up local production of fuel ethanol 45-fold in just a couple of years would alter the nature of the domestic grain market, but this is a ‘fanciful’ scenario. Just as unrealistic, a recently published Parliamentary Research Paper — which ALFA also relies on for its claims — considered the impact of a market more than 20 times the size of the current consumption.
“A realistic outlook for fuel ethanol consumption in 2010 is about 650 ML,” said Bruce Harrison. This is 50 ML less than CIE’s scenario 2.
Also, Australia will not be totally reliant on feed grain for its ethanol production because we already produce ethanol from other feedstocks like molasses and waste starch.
However, we do know that ALFA and the BAA share a common vision — the development of ‘2nd generation’ biofuels made from a much wider range of feedstock; and the widespread use of flexible fuel vehicles able to run on any ethanol blend from 0 to 85%.
“By the time the fuel ethanol market in Australia reaches 2,000 ML — never mind 5,000 ML — the lot feeders could have real fuel problems to face,” said Mr Harrison. “What will they do when, in 2015 (according to Royal Dutch Shell’s Chief Executive Jeroen van der Veer), there will not be enough petroleum fuel to meet demand? ALFA members will be relieved to know that there is an environmentally-sustainable and economically-viable Australian biofuel industry making the fuel to grow the grain they rely on.”
To be there for ALFA and the rest of Australia, the fuel ethanol industry needs continued support to develop vital supply infrastructure.
With comment such as this it is clear that the path ahead will not be smooth. Positive action on all environment and energy fronts will be vital. You can forget about business as usual.
Let’s hope that that does not become:
Rudd’s in the road.
BilB, you’re delusional. The politicians have spent all week scoring points off each other about 5 cents of fuel excise, we’re not going to see any carbon taxes, big investments in renewables, or huge ramp up in ethanol. All we’re going to see is a race to the bottom to see which party can cut fuel taxes fastest.
Delusional, no. Angry….yes. Extremely angry.
What to do about it?