Not sure I am hugely comfortable with quotation marks around the word truth though.

It’s the human aspects of these technologies we have to worry about, not the geophysical aspects.

I’m much more worried about people making this split cleanly. Our understanding of these geophysical aspects is entirely human and just saying ‘nature does it’ is glib at best and duplicitous at worst.

The ‘truth’ or otherwise of Nanobes is a moot point. They’ve been discovered (or constructed if you’d rather the Peter Galison-esque interpretation http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html). The wikipedia page is a good start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanobe

Time enough.

Everything you wanted to know about Australian natural gas reserves is here:
Australian Natural Gas - How Much Do We Have And How long Will It Last ?
Gav is due to do an update including coal seam methane soon.

I would not put my money anywhere near anything coal fired. Gas is just the only way to go for the interim.

According to this website, as of 2002 we had 100 years of domestic supply, or 50 years with exports. Is that still roughly the case, or have we sold off the farm to China? In simple terms, do we have enough gas to bridge across to genuine renewables?

A couple of quotes:

This notion of “zero-emissions” or “near-zero-emissions” from coal is simply ridiculous and unfounded.

What is desperately needed is further research into the life cycle analysis of coal or other fossil-fuel combustion based energy generation systems when they are combined with proposed carbon capture and storage technologies. This is clearly important if a fair comparison is to be made between the economic and environmental feasibility of fossil-combustion CCS and alternatives such as nuclear power, wind, hydro or so forth.

Personally, I believe that as such analyses are performed, the extreme skepticism with which many of us view the comparative practicality of these “low-emissions” fossil fuel combustion technologies will begin to be vindicated.

Below the minimum, you just emit to atmosphere. Above the maximum, you switch to gas.

I don’t know what the minimum is, but the maximum is something like $30-40 tonne of CO2.

If you add in the risk factors for carbon capture, like that no-one can tell if the stuff is going to come boiling to the surface in ten years time, it’s not a good bet.

To put it another way, you follow the path to see whether you think it’s leading somewhere. At some point you make an assessment.

I don’t see it as an either/or or CCS as a cover for the coal industry, as some respected commenters do. The situation is serious enough that we should try all half-reasonable avenues, and I mean with govt support, not just hang about and see what the market comes up with.

Roger’s remarks are encouraging, but dk.au is obviously onto something that not too many people are aware of yet.

That’d be enough to cut our emissions by 20-25%

Just to be clear, the 20-25% reduction would be in Australia’s total emissions, not just emissions from electricity.

I can understand people’s nervousness about geoengineering solutions but we already have natural subterranean reservoirs of CO2. Under pressure it alters from its gaseous form to liquid under pressure. It leaks (so does natural CO2), but slowly; if the leaks become significant, you see it as a geyser. In theory, it is possible to inject CO2 safely and store it underground.

If you have reservations it would be best to think about the extraction close to the power source, the efficiency and the economics compared to other energy sources. If I had to rank nuclear and CCS as technologies for their inherent safety, I would choose CCS. And if it weren’t for human error and sociopathic human motive, nuclear would probably be hunky dory as well.

It’s the human aspects of these technologies we have to worry about, not the geophysical aspects.

a) stay there, and
b) have no adverse impact.

And I don’t think Brian’s suck it and see for carbon capture was Popperian, more a recognition of a political reality. Rather in line with your expressed view, in fact.

What gives? Gas is much cheaper already, on those figures, and far cleaner.

It’s a bit more complicated than that. The short run marginal cost of the gas plant (open cycle) is upwards of $40/MWh. The SRMC for brown coal is more like $4/MWh. Gas has lower fixed costs, as you’ve noted, but higher variable costs.

A carbon tax of $20-25 per tonne of CO2 is required to tip the balance in favor of gas. That would ensure that no new coal plants get built, and that future baseload plants were gas. That’d be enough to cut our emissions by 20-25% as the existing coal stations were decommissioned and replaced by gas plants.

Not quite. As was established here late last week, it’s a quite necessary thing to have around the graveyard when naked zombies go on a crazed franger-bender for WYD.

I really think that any putative purchaser of a coal fired power station might, just might possibly, consider emissions trading as part of a due diligence.

Regarding CCS, I’m sure it’s safe, and technically feasible, just like nuclear, but it’s the economics of the matter, and the opportunity cost of missed investment in better cheaper technologies that is the main game.

On another topic. Did anyone notice that in the same week last week two power stations were announced in Victoria, as well as the sale of another in (I think) NSW? Origin are building 550 MW gas for $650M, expanding to 1GW later. Babcock and Brown sold a similarly large gas fired plant for $700M. Meanwhile the new ‘clean’ brown coal plant is $750M for 400MW.

What gives? Gas is much cheaper already, on those figures, and far cleaner. Until we run out of that as well.

Of course, I understand the coal fired plant is still hunting for finance. Can’t see how they’d get it on those figures.

Of course Costa’s got power stations to sell, and Garnaut has just severely devalued them. Imagine if you were selling your house and somebody from the government decided a glue factory is going to be built next door. That’s what just happened to Michael Costa. No wonder he’s pissed off.

I had heard that the biomass underground in much larger than the biomass above it, but biology is not my strong suit. If we are going to have a paradigm shift in our understanding that precludes CCS then hopefully this will filter through to policy makers in quick time.

And it would not be available in time.

And it is not proven anywhere in the world yet for burning coal.

The best and cheapest form of CCS is to leave coal right where it is - safely and cheaply (zero cost) sequestered.

This really isn’t about a real alternative, it is just PR cover for the status quo - with an illusion that somehow it will be “fixed”.

Trouble is, nearly all of the $500m LETD is allocated to coal, and Rudd has kicked in another $500m for good luck. This dwarfs spending on proven renewable energy - and they have killed solar with their federal means test on rebates + ridiculous claytons feed-in tariffs.

Never confuse motion with action.

I’m aware of the CFMEU and the CCS issue. Coal is our biggest commodity export earner. The only way to bury CCS is to give it our best shot first. Then if it fails it fails, and everyone goes on from there.

It’s just not that simple, Brian. I wish lived in Popper’s fantasy world of falsificationism, but this issues demonstrates - perhaps more than any other - that questions of epistemology are also questions of social order.

As I’ve stated several times here, we’re on the cusp of a complete paradigm shift in our understanding of biology thanks to nanobes. Just bracketing out the complexities involved in this process by saying we’re “99% certain” is wingnuttery of the highest order. There are immense risks in pumping this stuff underground considering how much of the biosphere is down there.

Craig Mc, for your information the science is as settled as it will ever be. It’s just that zealots like yourself refuse to believe it.

Never stop believing Adrian!