First Dog socks now in stock at the Crikey Emporium!
A cautionary tale…
Rudd scores global coup on carbon capture
|
While the world is still a long way from meaningful action on climate change, Kevin Rudd scored a major international victory overnight on the Government’s carbon capture and storage efforts. CCS is central to the Government’s climate change strategy. Unlike its ETS, it is almost entirely within the Government’s control to establish and pursue major CCS initiatives. And unlike the ETS, CCS directly addresses the biggest problem for mainstream policy-makers: that Australia’s dependence on coal makes it not merely one of the most carbon-intense economies in the world, but also one of the planet’s biggest carbon dealers. Last night, part of that gamble paid off — at least in political terms. Rudd announced that Nicholas Stern had been appointed to the International Advisory Panel for the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute established earlier this year. Former World Bank President James Wolfensohn has already been appointed to head the panel. Former International Energy Agency Executive Director Claude Mandil and the Executive Director of the Indian Energy and Resources Institute, Leena Srivastava, were also appointed, but Stern, who has serious climate change credentials, is the real coup. Expect Rudd to heavily emphasise Stern’s involvement. Rudd launched the Institute in April, but gave it another, more international-flavoured launch last night in Italy. It is based in Canberra and the interim CEO is UK energy industry veteran Nick Otter, who has impressed with his rapid work to get the Institute up and running in a matter of months after its announcement in September. Crikey understands Otter has recently agreed to continue for another year. While the Institute was being set up in offices in Civic, the Government was selling it hard overseas with a significant senior diplomatic push. China was brought on board, moving from a “collaborating participant” to a founding member. The Indians, the Russians and the Swedes also joined. When Rudd met President Obama in March, they spent 20 minutes on CCS in their private meeting, with Obama apparently keen for Australia to lead on this issue as the major coal consumers of the future — China and India — are in our region. Last night, Obama gave the Institute strong support as part of a clean energy partnership announced at the G8 summit. Under the current Waxman-Markey bill, 4% of revenue from the US emissions trading scheme would go directly to CCS research, which means tens of billions of dollars. How that research effort would interact with the Institute’s efforts — particularly on the issue of intellectual property — is unclear. It’s unlikely the Americans will permit a Canberra institute too much say, given the commercial possibilities of a genuinely viable CCS technology. While the Rudd Government is devoting billions to CCS research over the next decade, and the coal industry is investing heavily via a self-imposed tax, industry sources say significant additional investment is needed if major demonstration projects are to get off the ground — or, more correctly, get underground. Japan is directing significant investment to Australian projects, but the most important potential partners are China and India, who have made clear their use of coal will increase massively in coming decades regardless of what developed countries do. The Chinese are also investing significantly in renewable energy, but the Indians appear to attach less priority to climate change generally and look disengaged from the entire debate. Even so, Rudd has moved CCS to the top of the global climate change agenda from a standing start last year. Amazing what naked self-interest can achieve. |
|
|
29 Comments
Bernard, I know it is important to do little geography lessons when talking up global projects but I think we’ve moved beyond claiming that China and India are IN OUR REGION. There are no regions in a global coup. We are all in this one together.
Significant parallels occur with the Australian RadWaste project of 2 - 3 decades ago, which was then meant to alleviate concerns regarding nuclear waste.
At that stage, development of “SynRock” technology by the late Prof A.E. Ringwood (Australian National University), locking radwaste within synthetic radiation-proof minerals within steel cannister drill cores, was hailed as a potential solution.
This advanced but expensive technology was never applied on a commercial scale, for “economic” reasons. To date radwaste is still located in drums above ground, spilling into ground water and rivers, or buried in salt mines, or dumped into the oceans.
It remains to be seen whether a same fate awaits the (equally expensive) Carbon Capture Technology, namely whether it may become a reality or a smoke screen (excuse the pun).
Should CCS be applied, with near-450 CO2-equivalent (including methane) in the atmosphere, just below the upper limit of conditions at which the Antarctic ice sheet formed (500 ppm), it will be far from sufficient to arrest global warming.
What is needed is a combination of CCS and CO2 down-draw methods/technology (fast-growing plants, soil carbon enrichment, chemical soidum based sequestration) aimed at reducing atmospheric CO2 to below 350 parts per million (Hansen et al., 2008).
Andrew Glikson
10 July, 2009
I wonder how our Leader of the Opposition is going to screw this up. Rudd is just flogging him lately. I ALMOST have some pity for the man. Just goes to show that being uba rich doesn’t have to mean you are uba smart.
It might be a political victory for Rudd Bernard, but in the real world of actually reducing carbon emissions, it’s more like backing a donkey in the Melbourne cup.
You can put a stack of money on it, and even persuade lots of other punters to follow your lead. But when it come down to the actual race…..It’s still a donkey, no matter how short the price.
Pray for a more proper redistribution of funding! It should be left to the coal industry to dream up and prove methods of disposal of its own waste. The proper role of the public purse is to pay for scrutiny, monitoring, policing and prosecution of any leakage.
Mordor.
Hugh (Charlie) McColl, what a quaint perception of geography you have. I take it that you would go along with the following scenario…Two men are standing before a large, rotating global map. One of them say to his guest. “Here we are”, points to map of Oz…he slowly rotates the coloured sphere and points to an island off the coast of Northern Europe which has UK printed on it, “And this is in our region” continues to turn the map and points to an extraordinarily remote island off the coast of Argentina. His guest peers at it “It says “Las Islas Malvinas”. The host nods, “Yes, the Faulklands. They are in our region as well” The guest gestures to India, China, Japan, Korea, “And here? I’d have thought these places might be in your region?”,
“Good God man, we may do business with them, but we don’t have to mix with them” He takes a pinch of snuff, “Bloody wogs”. He sniffs and the camera fast fades in on the globe where the date is written on a flag along side a very plump woman with a white head-dress. The date says 1889. Sounds of Rule Britannia can be heard off.
This your bag Charlie?
Sorry, what sort of shit are you on Bernard?
“Kevin Rudd scored a major international victory overnight on the Government’s carbon capture and storage effort”
Wasn’t CCS a Liberal policy? And isn’t Rudd on record as having rejected it?
Haha! Good point Joel.
What we need is a website or something where the various political parties can put their policies with the dates next to them… for reference.
ROFL
Way over my head Venise. What agenda are you on? Bernard seemed to be suggesting that Obama would be happy for Australia to take the lead in promoting CCS technology to China and India BECAUSE those two countries are in our region. Now why would their locations be of any significance? Cheaper postage or STD calls? More likely to listen because Australia is nearly within earshot? Or maybe because Australia is big on asylum seekers or protecting big-name mining company executives?
I just don’t see how the geographical location of a coal consuming country in relation to a coal producing country is significant in conducting global climate change diplomacy.
Great article Bernard, until the last sentence, viz. ‘Amazing what naked self-interest can achieve.’ Was that really necessary? You spent an entire article building up what is undoubtedly a great achievement, to demolish it with a petty and snide remark. Not very clever in my view. That Rudd has successfully inserted himself and Australia as major contributors to the international climate change debate is not to be decried. It goes without saying that it takes certain ‘alpha’ male characteristics to play succesfully on the international stage - and like it or lump it Rudd has what it takes. Personally, I do not think he is behaving with ‘naked self-interest’; I do consider he is acting in what he believes to be the national interest. If CCS can be made to work, there are enormous benefits for the planet and Australia. It is worth a shot.
Joel, it is not about “policy”, it’s about achievement. Howard achieved virtually nothing in this area. Which apparently suits you just fine.
Hugh, geography is important for some fairly obvious reasons. Coal is bulky and heavy therefore being close to markets is a price advantage. Australia is a major coal supplier in this region and should therefore play its part in getting CCS implemented with its major customers in India, China etc. All this, of course, assumes that CCS could ever be economically viable and there is plenty of room for doubt there.
Howard did nothing except try to make us all disfigured from radiation. Turnbull and his lame brained offsiders JOOlie and JOOey are just lap dogs to the wedge politics of Turnbull’s selfish mind.
Kevin’s proposal was sensible and gave all of the participants a good and workable option. It is technology that Australia leads the world as well so it will be an economic powerhouse (excuse the pun) for Australian industry as we service the world. It truly is a coup for Kevin and the Labour Party as well. The Greens wish they could have done it so they just snipe at the heels and criticse around the edges.
These Libs led by Turnbull have never learned from the children overboard fiasco that we know they lie, and they are intolerant as illustrated by they way they called for Haneef to be gagged and trialled. Like Hanson they are limp wristed lyers.
When Kevin’s other global climate control solution of broad-acre tree planting using high carbon extracting species of eucalyptas we should meet our targets easily by 2050. And we will have lot s of wood as well so our native forests will be protected from companys like Gunns and their Lib loving cronies.
Charlie McColl. Perhaps we have different interpretations of the word region. To me region is area. So purely on language I would have thought it okay to say India and China are, longitudinally, in our area. From the way I read you, I thought you were some elderly fuddy-duddy who was a relic of the British Empire which is why I swung onto that tangent.
I fail to see that it matters if they, India, China are in our area at all. What I do mind is the excuse that it gives governments and big business to sell our mineral wealth for less than it’s worth, just because they immediately start reducing prices based on cheaper transport prices. If anything I would have thought it a good basis for putting up the prices. Nah, seriously, I’m out-raged about the recent deal with China by BHP to drop the price of iron ore by thirty percent-because of the recession. Instantly China, knowing they had got a fantastic deal promptly whinged and wanted to drop it even more.
We were once a colony of Britain, and it shows. The good old culture cringe reigns freely in Oz.
That, and the Chiew-Chow Chinese being far superior businessmen than our lot.
Hear Hear Venise.
These bible bashing catholic Libs have stuffed up this country and thank god Rudd is getting us back on track at last. This carbon capture technology will work, don’t you worry about that.
Turnball should just pack his kiddy bag and take his balls home. Like all Libs he is a wimp and could do with a good thumping for his typical actions to try to wedge the good works of Rudd and Gillard. The Libs tried to destroy my union with their nazi legislation and now they are getting what they deserve. Howard and his successers all lie. Remember the GST that we were told us they would NEVER introduce - but they DID! And the Habib affair too! They try to make us think all boat people are illegal aliens when the Immigration department and the court cases prove that over 90% are legal and can be Australian citizens!
Seriously Venise, germinate - longitudinally if you can. If, to you, “region is area”, why is it appropriate that Australia “deals” with China and India while America deals with whoever they see as in their area? The point I am trying to make is that climate change is a global question. Every nation, every individual, every industry makes a contribution to the problem and hopefully to the solution. The world should not be divvied up into regions/areas/mobs/factions that can be attacked/assuaged/grovelled upon/dealt with/bowed to/out-raged by whoever thinks they are the biggest or the weakest. We are all in this together.
Most of the 18 comments are tangential to the real issue - largely identified by Andrew and Roger. First of all it is up to the miners to fund the work on CCS - if they can’t do itand make a profit then the tgechnology should untimately collapse. The real issue is that, as I understand it t present, there are no working models of this CCS technology, that the projected costs are enormous, and that the time frame for success is so far away that that even if it does succeed we will probably be well past some tipping point making its contribution meaningless. The immediate impact of pursuing this line of work is to absorb money better spent on other aspects of renewable energy, and getting the population weaned off coal quickly (Ask Jim Hansen). The other effect is to slow do o the alternatives because there is an “answer” to our problems - just wait for CCS. Waiting for Godo more likely. It doesn’t matter who is on the panel, CCS will be far too costly, far too diverting or resources and far too late. 11/0709
Carbon capture and storage is as far as I can see a monumental boondoggle in the making, though let me stress I would be delighted to be proven wrong on this. But the whole project, even if it is financed to infinity out of the public purse, is up against the physical problem of the enormous tonnages of CO2 involved and a storage problem arising from the chemical properties of CO2. Try for the life of me, I cannot see a way round either of these.
The following is lifted from my submission to the recent senate carbon inquiry:
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by 0.4% per year, because the natural sequestering systems cannot cope with the Earth’s total annual increase in CO2 production. So the mass of CO2 that must be sequestered globally per year by other than natural means, just to hold the global atmospheric concentration constant, is 0.4% of the annual global CO2 production of 3,000 Gt, or 1.2 x 10^10 tonnes. When we write that out in longhand, it comes to 12,000,000,000 tonnes per year, or 33 million tonnes of CO2 per day.
Australia’s share of this, just to deal with locally generated CO2, comes to about half a million tonnes to be sequestered every day.
Let me repeat those figures: 33 million tonnes global and 500,000 tonnes for Australia PER DAY to hold the atmosphere contant.
To put it in a nutshell, geosequestration involves each year collecting, transporting and pumping huge masses of high pressure liquid CO2 into deep rock strata. (To dispose of all industrially produced CO2, we are talking tonnages of about three times the total tonnage of coal, petroleum and gas consumed per year). The captured CO2 gas has to be pumped at around 100 atmospheres pressure down shafts drilled to about a vertical kilometre into subterranean aquifers or the seabed. For comparison, a car tyre operates at around 2 atmospheres pressure. There is no question as to its technical feasibility on a small scale, but at the industrial scale required is another matter again.
However, all the available space down in the possible aquifers is presently occupied either by the material of the rocks, or by the liquid that saturates them, which is in most cases water. As liquids are incompressible, the fact that the CO2 can be pumped down at all means that water is being displaced out of its way. In other words, whatever liquid is presently down there has to be free to go somewhere else than where it presently is.
It would be different if CO2 were insoluble in water, and could be stored underground as gas or liquid over water, as the insoluble hydrocarbons are stored in natural deposits. But unlike hydrocarbons, CO2 is reasonably soluble in water. (The solution is commonly known as soda water.) The hope of the geosequestrationists is that in the long term (over thousands and probably millions of years from the time of sequestration) the CO2 will slowly react with iron and magnesium compounds down there to form permanent mineral deposits bonded into the rocks. What we do not know is whether or not that happens, and on what time scale. But long before that might happen, the dissolved CO2 will too likely have managed to migrate through the aquifer rock to reach the ocean at an undersea outcrop of the aquifer. For as I said, if the CO2 can be pumped down, some liquid is moving to make way for it, and it all surely has to go somewhere. Just where is uncertain, but scientific perceptions are resting in too large a part on the economic needs of coal and steel interests for us to have unreserved confidence in them.
Australia’s coal burning power stations and iron and steel plants are located relatively close to the coast, as are its coal mines. This fits in by and large with the global pattern for location of major coal burning facilities. The economic imperatives of pumping all the CO2 they produce down into the sedimentary strata below as liquid mean that the geosequestration sites should ideally be as close to the coal burning sources of CO2 as possible, which thus means close to the coast: giving the CO2 minimal distance to migrate through the rock in order to emerge into the seawater, where there is already too much of it. This threatens to make the proposed carbon geosequestration one of the greatest follies of all time, and a monumental waste of money.
More at http://noahsarc.wordpress.com/carbon-abatement-submission-condensed/
As I said: Will someone please prove me wrong?
Hugh (Charlie) McColl. After tackling BK on a matter of semantics, you sailed out with the trite certainty of ‘Global Warming is a global issue and not a regional one’ Having stated the bleeding obvious you did a rant re Bernard’s words “With Obama apparently keen for Australia to lead on this issue as the major coal consumers of the future-China and India- are in our region’. I’ve looked at comment upside-down, sideways, and full frontal and wonder at you rabbiting on as in “we’ve moved beyond claiming China and India are IN OUR REGION”.
Bored, I was silly enough to venture into your comment and thought you sounded like a character out of an H Ryder Haggard novel. It was all down-hill after this.
Now this is my last statement.
‘I’m totally in favour with this CCS scheme. America and Oz are spending billions of dollars making this Carbon Capture and Storage a viable alternative to just doing eff all about our butchered planet. China too is showing interest and the people concerned can see mega-profits out of a scheme which will benefit the earth. You object to Oz being thought as being in the same region as India and China. To which I suggested it would be daft to think of Brasil as being in our region. Or words to that effect. Now, short of having a hidden agenda I am completely non-plussed about what you are on about’.
I’ll say one thing about the hayseed in the homespun overalls, Joel l, offensive and ignorant he may be. But at least he keeps it brief. Goodnight.
PS I wont be happy until the mining industry starts mining plastic.
CCS - keep telling the lie and if you tell it often enough, the dumb voters will believe you. Where are they going to hide 500,000 tonnes a day ??????????????????????????????? just in Austalia ?????????????????
Take your finger off it, Harry
Wow! I’m ashamed.. NOT.
You leftist, green supporters must be looking for a rock.
CCS is LIBERAL POLICY
whoops, you must feel like you just trod in dog-shit…
And, just so you know…
So you want a Social License… What is it? What’s it good for? And where can you get one?
The all powerful, very cool. and dare I say it, mystical Social License!
Not everyone can have one. But more about that later.
So what is a Social License?
A Social License gives you permission to comment on subjects that you have no training in but feel your opinions are better than people who’ve studied and researched the area for 10, 12 or even 20 years. So, you might feel strongly about Tasmanian Devils, and with a Social License your views are given equal weight with those of a Professor of Zoology! How cool is that?
What’s a Social License good for?
Aside from the obvious power, you can use it just about however you like. In essence what you say becomes “reality”! Imagine you really hate Gunns. When they say they want to make clean Green electricity with a Biomass Generator your Social License allows you to say “Gunns should leaving saving the Planet to the people who care about it” and get it published in National News Media. That is amazing you say? Well, Gunns doesn’t have a Social License and you have. So even though you know nothing about anything other than feel-good mother-craft statements you’re in there, instant power!
How to get a Social License.
Not everyone can have a Social License. Obviously, you have to be “better”. And that’s the secret to getting a Social License. You have to be special, have special powers and knowledge. But not real knowledge, that’s for intellectuals. The best way to get a Social License is to join a pseudo-political group that’s got a few spare. We’re talking Australian Conservation Foundation, The Greens, The Tasmanian Greens (they have heaps, just lying around), The Wilderness Society etc. But you don’t just get a Social License, you get access to dozens of slightly woolly brained potential sexual partners! Score!
Losers!
You’re a mad tosser Joel. Go away.
David, you’re obviously an intellectual.
But you can’t manage an avatar…
Joel BI
Why does my antenna pick up a terrible longing in your whinges? All this rabbiting on about a Social Conscience, sorry License. “And that’s the secret to getting a Social License. You have to be special, have special powers and knowledge. But not real knowledge, that’s for intellectuals pata ti pata ta, whinge, whinge etc.
So go out and get yourself a Social License, if such a thing can be purchased over the counter. But instead of peering into the distance like a blind sheep headed for the knackery, you’ll will actually be in the position you clearly hanker for.
Meanwhile stop the feeble bleating.