One thing we can all agree on - “clean coal” ain’t gonna be cheap!
Blog Post | Christine Milne
Friday 31st October 2008, 3:44pm
by TimHollo in
The thing I’ve found most fascinating about the responses to the Treasury’s ETS modelling
released yesterday is how, all of a sudden, a pile of big coal’s
biggest fans are agreeing with us that coal with geosequestration isn’t
going to come cheap!
Malcolm Turnbull, for example, told the media yesterday
that “The cost of carbon capture and storage is probably the biggest
single assumption in this whole analysis… There is no full-blown
demonstration plant employing carbon capture and storage so estimates
of its costs are speculative.”
Well-known climate naysayer, Brian Fisher, writes in today’s Australian
that “The Treasury’s assumptions on the capital cost of construction of
a CCS-ready coal-fired power plant appear to be about half those
estimated by well-qualified industry experts.”
What’s that? Those geosequestration advocates who have been telling
us that renewables might be nice, but “clean coal” is nicer, have
decided that it’s more important to try to prove the Treasury modelling
wrong than to stand by their previous argument?
They are right, of course. Even if geosequestration can be proven
(which it hasn’t been), and even if it proves socially acceptable
(which it hasn’t), and even if companies seeking to profit from burying
carbon go ahead without a legislative promise from governments that
they will be absolved of all future liability for leakage (for which
there is no evidence), it ain’t gonna come cheap.
And here’s the rub - it’s already being overtaken by renewables.
There are plenty of renewable energy technologies which are now or will
be soon cheaper than Treasury’s extremely optimistic price projections
for geosequestration.
The modelling evens itself out, though. While underestimating the
cost and overestimating the potential of geosequestration, it
overstimates the cost and underestimates the potential of renewables.
Treasury puts solar thermal costs at twice geothermal costs, which
doesn’t match international evidence. They don’t model any rooftop PV
at all - only concentrating PV power stations - even though major PV players are now saying they will achieve parity with coal in less than five years! Introduce a good feed-in tariff, and rooftop PV will boom here, as it has in Germany.
Bizarrely, Treasury puts black coal with CCS as cheaper than solar
thermal power is now! And yet, somehow, even in the context of
entrenched pro-coal bias, over a dozen large-scale solar thermal plants
are in construction now, whereas not one single commercial CCS plant is
actually being built. Solar thermal is booming, particularly in places
like Spain and the southern USA, while CCS plans are falling over due
to going over budget, over time, and simply not working.
The Prime Minister, meanwhile, is completely incoherent on renewable energy, as his interview with Kerry O’Brien last night demonstrated:
KERRY O’BRIEN: On the one hand the Treasury modelling
appears to make a heroic assumption that science will have found a way
to produce acceptably clean coal by 2020. But on the other hand it
appears to ignore the impact of meeting 20 per cent renewable energy
targets by 2020. Don’t both of those factors, or the absence of them,
represent serious flaws in the Treasury modelling?KEVIN RUDD: When you come to, for example, clean coal technology,
CCS - carbon capture and storage, on which this Government has done a
lot of work in recent times, with our proposal for a global carbon,
capture and storage institute.It’s quite clear from previous work that’s been done by the
International energy agency, for example, both carbon price in the
vicinity of $20 to $40 per tonne, that the use of clean coal technology
becomes economically feasible. One of the reasons that we are doing
this work through the global carbon capture and storage institute, is
in fact to work out how governments and industry work together to close
any financial gap in this very important, exciting and revolutionary
technology.The other part of your question was about renewable energy.
Renewable energy, of course, is important for the future for this
reason: that if you bring in renewables through a renewable energy
target, what you do is bring forward a lot of investment in those new
energy producers early on.”
Got that?
This exchange goes some way to explaining why the huge renewable
energy sources of zero emissions energy are sidelined in the Treasury
modelling, pushing the costs unnecessarily higher. And that’s before we
even get to the tremendously understated (and cost-saving) energy
efficiency opportunities which Brian Fisher bizarrely reckons
“breach the laws of thermodynamics”. Presumably, the laws of
conservation of energy mean that energy conservation is impossible, I
guess.
In fact, on the energy side of the ledger, the analysis comes out
looking deeply conservative and overstating the costs. On the other
hand, the costs may be understated by the carbon colonialism inherent
in the plan to get developing countries to do our dirty work
and buy in well over half our emissions reductions! Evening it out, the
costs are still vanishingly small, particularly when set next to the
tremendous costs of failing to act.
What we are still missing, however, is any kind of analysis of the economic implications of meeting the real
emissions targets that we need if we are to avoid catastrophic climate
change - at least 40% cuts below 1990 levels by 2020, heading towards
carbon neutrality as soon thereafter as feasible, with the bulk of
emissions reductions being met at home (because there may not be many
permits to buy on the international market if we’re all trying really
hard to reduce emissions!). There is good reason to believe that, with
the accelerated ‘learning’ that will be triggered by really stringent
targets, the costs could actually be lower than with the mediocre
targets.
I say it’s important to get that analysis done. And it is important,
politically, so that we are open and accountable about the decisions we
will make. As Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute told 7.30 last night
“I think what we should be able to do today is draw a line under this
concern with the economy and just start listening to the scientists.”
But, on another level, working out whether or not we can afford to
reduce emissions enough to prevent catastrophic climate change is an
exercise in futility. Because, when it comes down to it, if we don’t do
it, we won’t have an economy…
Bookmark and share
Carbon tax now
The speed at which wind is growing (overseas) is inspiring. And PV is growing even faster and has the advantages over wind that it is during the day (when people want power) and at the load - ie we are NOT short of roof space in this country. And, if small, does not require network augmentation or studies. It is more like an electrical appliance than a power station. Installing the stuff can be very quick - but the economics need to stack up ie
And solar thermal can have storage which means, rather than competing with wind, it can work with wind (unlike coal, which is in direct competition). 5 years from now, based on the past, wind will be 4 times bigger than it is now (globally, already more than 100,000MW - 'clean coal' is um, ??) and PV biting at it's heels, with annual production predicted to be as high as 14GW.
As for nukes, too dirty, too expensive and too late!
Oh, do people know that there are plans for over 2000MW of wind plant in WA?
cheers
Andrew
Carbon confusion
The Prime Minister is only marginally less of a dill than his predecessors.
It has been shown that, in all things industrial, volume production decreases the unit cost exponentially over time: Just consider, as an example, the cost per gigabyte of external hard drives for information storage. It has more than halved this year alone.
Apply that to any kind of renewable energy generation and it becomes obvious that with increased production the cost of the hardware will decrease significantly once the initial costs are amortised.
As for loss of 'jobs' that the apologists for the status quo keep trotting out, there will be a boom in "green collar" occupations in the near future if the renewable energy industry goes ahead.
It's just such a shame that the good work in this field that was being undertaken in the 1980's by faculties such as that at Murdoch University was lost due to failure of funding.
It could have developed into a major export industry.
Coal
Well,I do not think the cost of coal sequestering has to be expensive.Everyone is copping out on this,as geo,and all the blah blah,of oil interests of other Capital interests,and since when,did the average Green type believe everything they say in statistics and matters related to money!?The coal industries as plural,play the Stock Exchange,try to buy each other out,deny the reality often of small shareholders,and connive with government,as the Greens know,to stop solar and wind and gas as alternatives.So why is it you start agreeing with them!?It dont make sense.The power stations remain as a part of the industry,in Australia as small emitters.So are you talking about them,or costs etc. that are exported etc.If the coal industry is agreeing with all the players like minded,perhaps Visy Board and the cardboard manufacturers may want some justice,as this would seem very similar to price fixing amongst competitors.But in a way that suggests it is like a cartel going on about massive expenditure of something ,they simply will not allow themselves to see as an asset.Spooked incompetent,frightened of competition industries.That's what they are.Putting one over us.We have,wheat silo manufactures,Lysaght makes water tanks, we[Australia] have Nylex and other pipe manufacturers,plastic and metals concrete,as you damn well know,and,laser industries engineering firms across the encapturing processes.Solar industry expertise to heat up and cool down and spin,and force and send carbon dioxide through an eye of a needle!?The Mummas and the Papas political Parties,education Institutes even some engineering firms,are simply wanting it all to go away,like some head ache with a lover,and behaving like tomorrow the headache wont disappear.What a boring lot.You have taking a consumer view like the producers themselves,but not for the final and varied users,just the sucker users.And whilst you have agreement now,really it is a catwalk,and missing the moment of putting it to what remains of our industries outside the big and government connivance.Just make sure your land conservation,and water quality and quantity protests ,as enforced law.. continue.And for some other sake refuse yourself,that none of who you speak to,or oppose have got any idea as individuals matters to use carbon dioxide as is and in other forms friendly to this planet,its biological species,and their industries.Even your mathematics and Dr.Karl expressions at the last election were just mathematics at work,not silos,not the gas itself under those conditions ,where, the potential to even exclude iron oxide formation is entirely possible.
Coal
The last post here,of mine,may of been a bit too thick to understand,a problem of fingers not that nimble,and the fact,as far as I can tell, my position is unique.But still ticking everybody off,whilst the basic possibilities of my idea that ,not putting a market value on the feral carbon dioxide as a usable asset,is stalling both needed industrial development,whilst not allowing other energy resources to be used effectively as they can.That is, there is a argument that says that climate change reality isn't human induced.Then there are further arguments,that suggest we are definitely heading for a mini-ice age.What that may mean for Australia,because of all sorts of development,if true, is impossible to pick,I would say,because,if the present understandings about climate change are wrong...how wrong will they be about a cooling process!? Thus it is then wise not to throw any babies of any sides of the climate change argument,out with the bath water![ I laugh at that too.] And more simply put.. research into non-Geo Seq. remains a necessity,and priority in simply thinking, we might need coal fired power stations any way,and the sooner somebody just builds a few storage options,with the power stations as is,the better.Then some experimentation can take place,to see how much of carbon dioxide can be used directly and in some other form.I warned about exploding wheat silos,some years back,after reappraising my suggesting in the use of certain gas to kill insects.It remains,also true, that, the Cootamundra implosion suggests another form of energy that could power ,in the same way as other gaseous mixtures.I am not silly about this,I think the emissions from power plant ,just simply need to be stored,and work on the realities of conversion then on. I would suggest to the Greens,if all the cars both now sold as fuel uses ,with high degrees of fuel efficiency,and all the proceeding vehicles since the earliest ones in Australia,were completely removed from the use of Australia's roads,there would be an even less interest in Conservation matters. Converting,some of what Christine still refers to as fossil fuels to useable fuels,is still an option,but,not directly from coal I say,unless it meets a clean fuel bill,and is a last,very last option.Thus present gases,and even Carbon Dioxide could be put to use with some off farm biologically derived gas or fuel,which could include algae,and the weed found in abundance in Queensland,and grown with other non fuel crops for reasons of valid matters dealing with diversity of economic imperatives,that are switched onto ecological understandings. Australians should not allow Murdoch to dominate their minds,because,if he was so concerned about Australians,his history doesn't suggest that at all.And ABC staff ,are some of the most overpaid people ,as far as putting up barriers are concerned,by suggesting Science this or that.KeeleyNet.comwhatsnew,and even all the Green type networks,suggest any number of ways to deal with the energy pollution realities.It is simply not true that,Australians have to be involved in either trading carbon under any conditions,as it is, that,energy companies should still be able to have prior rights over farm and land,or maximise their influence over science,when,in fact,they wont even put to use,what has already been found,invented,understood,or completed.None of you are in the technological development matters,instead its like you have pet enemies and pet friends in financing and development.Thus Rudd latches on to the Israeli solution of compressed air.A good development in itself,but international monies ,another country,that barely looks after its citizens prefering to run the world than care about its citizens and neighbours,who have dreamed up solutions even with Israelis breathing bombs on them ,destroying their olive plantations.Hydrogen fuel is pretty close,or even closer,if previous patents convert to development.Sea water as fuel,anyone! I mean,if the Greens,simply kept poking all the various,possibilities at the populace,then these coal companies cannot excuse themselves any longer.To be competitive they must assess coal and carbon dioxide in a new way,emphasizing the reality,that carbon dioxide is an asset.To them to do less than that is to be intellectually failures,and,yet,it is people like them,who are more than insistent about intellectual property rights.
International permit trade not necessarily "carbon colonialism"
While there's always room for the powerful to exploit the less-powerful in international trade, I disagree with the implication that buying permits would necessarily result in "carbon colonialism".
Considering China, particularly, is quite literally choking to death on the soot of its coal-fired power stations, wouldn't subsidising green technology there be a win for both the world's climate and the Chinese people?
Oh, and on the claim that we're heading towards "parity in five years" for solar, have a look at the graph on this page. Solar panels are about the only commodity that hasn't had a price crash.
How long do we have to wait for solar to deliver on these massive drops in price you keep on promising?
Easy
That is easy to answer. When stifled and protected research finally makes it to commercial production (patents generally last 10 years right?). There are heaps of great ideas out there in universities, but they don't get the same support relative to existing energy technologies. Also, many of them a shunted around due to a lack of care from the public sector. Just look at many of the home grown technologies from Oz. They are patented and there is always talk of public sector support for commercialisation, but then it doesn't come, making things take longer and longer as they decide to relocate commercialisation.
It is also a bit unfair to compare prices like this without a relative reference point. How has the annualised costs of a coal power station per watt changed over 8 years? If it really was like the curve you have shown, then why have tariffs increased over 10 years? all going into profits?
Result of Clean Coal
I suspect that the whole debate, as it is today, is going round and round in circles.
The Feds have announced that the CTS to be initiated in 2012 is going to need many adjustments for economic reasons, with some industries needing to be given special subsidies to be able to compete internationally. In addition, farming is to be left out to 2015, and then progressively introduced as (if) monitoring technology becomes available.
Everybody seems to have a different idea of what emission reduction (%) is physically possible, and have set their targets accordingly, however I suspect that, with the ever increasing population in Australia (migration, refugees, births), the huge number of new motor vehicles being sold every year (750,000+), the Feds stated increase in road transport in the next 10+ years of 50%, we will be very lucky if we cannot just maintain the existing emission levels.
We do need to establish alternative economically viable methods of energy generation, and solar, wind etc. are high on list of adjuncts that can be / are being added to the grid to assist in coal fired generation reduction. However, from what I have read, I doubt that we will get away from coal fired generation in the next 50 years with large quantity base load energy we require. When everybody turns on their air-cons, plasma TVs, fridges, dishwashers etc, etc, the load is huge, with existing capacity (with coal) barely being able to carry the load.
I suggest that with our increasing population (forgetting industry increases that will be required to keep our ever increasing population levels employed), we will need ever increasing energy (electricity), and not only should we be pursuing clean coal technology, but we should be looking at increased hydo generation (there must be additional areas in Australia for hydro dams to be built), and possibly more seriously looking at nuclear.
"Clean coal" or CCS
"Clean coal" or CCS technology does not exist in operation in any meaningful way, anywhere in the world. The technology just doesn't exist, it's not mature, and it's decades away from being used.
That said, however, in 30, 40, 50 years, then yes, maybe, CCS technology could very well be useful for us. But right now, it is of no relevance to solving any problems.
In this regard, it should be noted that CCS is basically a technology at the same level of technological maturity as deuterium-tritium fusion in a tokamak. Fusion will likely be very useful and very important in 40-50 years, but nobody, whether they're physicists or they're Greenpeace, talks about fusion as a technology for generating energy today.
So why is CCS/"clean coal" discussed so mendaciously?
It is certainly more expensive than conventional coal, where the dangerous waste from coal is just spewed into the atmosphere. But then again, it is certainly true that basically every means of cleanly generating energy, that is based on real technology that is in the market today, is more expensive than coal - solar thermal, wind, nuclear fission, geothermal, solar PV - all more expensive than coal, and all will become more competitive if there is a real financial disincentive for conventional coal use, that forces bean-counters to consider the external cost of hundreds of millions of tons of dangerous coal waste being sent straight into the atmosphere. Under such a scenario, CCS becomes more economically competitive of course, just like the other options elucidated above - but it's irrelevant, because CCS, unlike the others, doesn't actually exist.
When CCS is actually developed, in the market, it remains to be seen how financially competitive it will be, competing alongside geothermal, solar thermal and PV, fusion, wind and nuclear fission. Maybe it will be competitive, in this marketplace, 40-50 years from now. I couldn't say - but right now, it's obviously not relevant.
I wonder what Fisher specifically had in mind when he says that the Treasury report "violates the laws of thermodynamics"? I'm not saying he's wrong, in fact he could well be right - a bit of peer review is called for. I'll have to go and read the Treasury analysis - but does anybody have an idea which bit he might be referring to?
How to DIY cynicism of Professorial types re being Green.
One day at this site,someone will finally notice,other than by generalities,refering to various classifications of income levels by some other nefarious means,such as workers,unemployed students pensioners professors management etc.,a disparaging windbag approach to supporting Green issues,transformed into the word economy,and example of this,is in the SMH today about matters centre of Australia.So according to the academic support of the Parliamentary Greens,it is better to insist on the functionality understanding of plants and insects so these understandings can then be translated by design,conscious design to matters of various modalities of conservation.Design for a real world is now the behest of all good green Professors,I am lead to believe.So dont suggest an immediate encapture of large amounts of carbon dioxide at power stations now.No! Wait until the plant and insect research has finished.And walk with your camel nose in the air proudly until then!So say a little idea of mine is wrong because,it aint got the approval of a design for a real world!I notice at KeeleyNet.comwhatsnew, at leat that man takes me seriously,and maybe some people from a Montana Univ. might too.But here! And only some students in Australia for other reasons,are taking me seriously.Dont be caught with your pants down crapping on a dung beetle though,who as little creatures deal with global matters,and maybe even carbon dioxide and methane.Or Pigs Arse to you! And let it be soaked up by Marijuana !?
The retired and hobbyist approah to carbon dioxide emissions
Australian Model Engineering Issue 141 Nov-December 2008 price $7.95 newsagents .Inside this wonderful magazine for rail model hobbyists especially is a little creation that I think could be a solution across many a problem with CO2 and may manifest itself in other ways as a solution entirely to steam powering.And that is a little box the writer has called a gas cassette.Be inspired by it,I say,reapply it,I say,try to find new uses for the basic idea I say,because it is formidably pretty cheap.And if yo do so,if awards mean anything to you,recommend the developer as Australian of the Year,for leading the way,with common materials,a adaptable design,and a potential for micro-control of various high temperature devices,perhaps across the divisions of technology and inputs that are deciding and are being decided about as our energy futures.If you cannot see what I am getting at immediately,don't think you are a failure just keep your eyes and mind wide open..your day is near.Errata in code.What do you bloody want a prize for using somebody elses ideas on how to restrict critics!?
Hi buddy, Major developments
Hi buddy,
Major developments in Clean Coal Technology (CCT) in the last decade have made it increasingly attractive as an alternative energy source. CCT now offers more electricity per unit of coal, less solid wastes per unit of electricity, lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of electricity and less thermal pollution per unit of electricity. Coal is a fuel source found in many parts of the world, and Clean Coal Technology may well become attractive to developing countries such as China, India, and Pakistan and the countries of Central Europe and Central Asia that wish to use coal while reducing hazardous emission levels.
Clean Coal Power
I agree with this-The cost of carbon capture and storage is probably the biggest single assumption in this whole analysis… There is no full-blown
demonstration plant employing carbon capture and storage so estimates
of its costs are speculative.
Clean coal Companies
The U.S government make the plans to invest in to the clean fuel,Clean Coal Technology and natural gas...Reducing the carbon capture emissions and provide the environmentally friendly technologies is a one of the major role of the U.S Government.
Greenhouse gases can be stored in the ground through a technique known as carbon sequestration, according to the National Energy Technology Laboratory. And geologically, Texas is considered a top spot because it has plenty of so-called deep saline formations, which can store hundreds of years worth of the gases.
Post new comment