Environment Minister Greg Hunt should be investigated for misleading and deceptive conduct. He talks repeatedly about the potential to clean up our coal-fired power stations, reducing their emissions by 30-50%, by installing you-beaut Direct Injection Carbon Engines, when the technology is drastically underfunded, unavailable at scale, and has a colourful history of unsuccessful research sponsored for very many years by one of ICAC’s favourite miners, Travers Duncan.
The Direct Injection Carbon Engine, or DICE, is a big diesel of the kind used in ships, fuelled by a slurry of water and very fine coal with most of the ash taken out. Hunt was at it again yesterday, crowing about the passage through the Senate of legislation enabling him to set up a $2.55 billion emissions reduction fund, the centrepiece of the Direct Action plan, wording up reporters about the potential of DICE.
The key sentence is this: “DICE, the subject of a major research project at the CSIRO, can cut emissions from a coal station by up to half but is still at least five years from being ready to roll out.”
DICE is not a “major CSIRO research project”. There is a small team of two to four well-intentioned scientists and engineers working out of the CSIRO’s energy labs in Newcastle, running a 4-litre, single-cylinder diesel engine on coal, on a shoestring budget, struggling to find industry partners. “Ready to roll out” means a commercial-scale unit with a capacity of about 50MW — a tenth the size of a smallish power station — might exist by 2019-20, if trials on a prototype engine prove promising. Any roll-out worthy of the term is decades away.
As readers are aware from Crikey’s investigations here and here and here and here, culminating in this Background Briefing for ABC Radio National in July (to be re-broadcast this Sunday), DICE is the latest iteration of a long series of attempts to get the ash out of coal (by chemical leaching, or crushing the coal down to a fine powder and physically separating it), mix it with water and burn it as a liquid fuel.
The key sponsor of the research over more than 25 years was coal baron Travers Duncan, one of Australia’s richest men and chairman of listed White Energy, who was found to have behaved corruptly by ICAC after an investigation into its proposed acquisition of Cascade Coal, holder of a coal tenement at Mount Penny, which would have generated windfall gains for Cascade shareholders including Duncan and former New South Wales politician Eddie Obeid.
Back in 1987, when chaired by the late Neville Wran, the CSIRO partnered with Duncan and White Industries to develop an Ultra Clean Coal (UCC) that could be used as a liquid fuel — even injected into gas turbines or jet engines. Years of fruitless research followed, centered on trials at a UCC plant in Cessnock, later flogged off to Chinese miner Yancoal in 2009 and finally closed last year.
UCC had a forerunner too, a program called Supercoal, also supported by Wran when he was NSW premier, until it was exposed as a fraud in Parliament in 1980 by then-opposition spokesman on energy, and qualified coal engineer Ted Pickering, a key source for the Background Briefing program. UCC chewed up tens of millions of dollars in public and private funds, forever holding out the promise of public benefits like lower greenhouse gas emissions from coal and increased energy security, which never eventuated. My Background Briefing revealed the main commercial outcome of UCC was to give White an edge when tendering for the Moolarben coal mine.
Duncan is not involved in DICE, but the long back-story shows it would be unwise to put too much faith in the promise of clean coal as a liquid fuel, let alone shovel more public money into it as the federal government appears determined to do, with DICE featuring in the Energy Green Paper and affiliated companies sharing in $20 million of the grants made earlier this year. The most bizarre aspect of DICE is that, even if it succeeds in every respect, energy market experts reckon it isn’t competitive with technologies already available off the shelf. Wind energy, for example, is cheaper to build and run than a DICE engine and cuts greenhouse gas emissions by 100%. DICE is a glaring example of too little, too late.
Which seems to suit Greg Hunt just fine. If we had all century to tackle climate change, that might be OK. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has again warned, we don’t. DICE is simply not plausible at the front and centre of a national strategy to combat climate change in 2014.

37 thoughts on “No DICE: Greg Hunt deceives the public about ‘clean’ coal project”
JohnB
November 4, 2014 at 4:05 pmMark, I can’t put my finger on a reference right now, but doesn’t it take 5 or 7 years for wind generation just to repay the embodied energy used to construct it?
Add to that the carbon footprint of all that steel, plastic and concrete, that they don’t catch up with for a similar or longer period.
A wind turbine constructed in Year 1 will not achieve break-even till Year 8 or some such by either measure and this is before considering the greenhouse impacts of the gas turbines that “support” them during the half of the time that they are not available due to low or high wind speeds.
DICE would not alter that picture but since it won’t be available for at least 5 years, no positive net benefit is possible from a Wind + DICE electricity technology until at least 2030. Indeed, I have read that Wind + Gas and hence, Wind + DICE will not break even at any point in the turbine’s 25-year life.
Even optimists can’t wait that long for greenhouse action.
France solved this conundrum 40 years back.
Electric Lardyland
November 4, 2014 at 4:15 pmIs there anything more truly tedious and irksome these days, than watching a shameless hack mouthing the wonders of so-called ‘clean coal’? Which are a range of technologies so wondrous, that if we continue the endless waste of public money propping them up, we might someday in the distant future, end up installing something that is both more expensive and more polluting, than the renewable energy technologies that we already have.
I mean, since people have first started uttering the words, ‘clean coal’, it has been blindingly obvious to many, that the purpose of the concept is not to spin turbines, but to spin political debates. That is, the concept offers a seemingly permanent alibi to the coal industry, who are allowed to continue along their merry, pillaging ways, as long as they brazenly utter something about shifting to ‘clean coal’ sometime in the future. It also seems to offer a heavy duty figleaf, to politicians who believe that “climate change is absolute crap”, but who don’t have the honesty, courage or integrity, to present denialist policies to the electorate. Instead, after they’ve looked straight down the lens of the camera and lied, “Yes we believe in the science of climate change”, we’re supposed to forgive them for the relentless dishonesty, because they are now gibbering the magic words, ‘clean coal’.
JohnB
November 4, 2014 at 4:21 pmScott, your post contains a few half-truths and outright misconceptions.
The trial Cansolve operation is only a trial of a small plant, which needs to be sitting on top of an old oil field. Name a single oil field in Australia that has a coal fired power station above it.
Cansolve is very much in the early days and has much to prove. It could not possibly meet more than 1% of the greenhouse challenge. What about the other 99%, including industrial and transport energy, which globally accounts for about 2/3rds of the total CO2 emissions?
As for your slur regarding government laboratories and researchers, you clearly do not understand very much at all about how CSIRO, universities and others form partnerships with industry, despite just such collaborations being used as an example in the lead article. Forget your impressions of boffins sitting around laboratories in white coats, sipping tea and watching the cricket on TV, or whatever other outdated notion you based your comment on.
Better still, arrange for a tour of CSIRO’s energy labs in Newcastle.
Scott
November 4, 2014 at 5:14 pm@JohnB
I believe they are piping the gas around 60 odd kms to the storage site. So a power plant doesn’t have to be sitting on top of an oil field for it to work. And for everything that has ever worked, there has been a pilot stage before mass production. Still, good progress.
As for your comment that I am “slurring” the government science agency, I don’t believe I am. They do good work, but are subject to political trends (climate change was the focus under the previous government, but not such a focus now). Hardly a way to run a research program. So in my opinion, the CSIRO is a product of the past when Government’s needed to be into research due to the lack of this capability in industry.
However, these days, Universities and Industrial applied research facilities are really the only models for R&D; and the most likely to generate the breakthroughs to get CCS working.
As for your comment on transport, one of the biggest issues affecting the electric car is that it just transfers emissions from the internal combustion engine to power plants. I would have thought that if CCS was working, this issue might be mitigated.
Aidan Stanger
November 4, 2014 at 5:45 pmJohnB, no it doesn’t. it’s more like seven months though of course it depends on how windy it is and the size and design of the turbine.
Mark is right — output of wind and solar PV is the new baseload, whereas DICE will, if the technology matures, be suitable for peakload generation.
old greybeard
November 4, 2014 at 7:34 pmThis seems to be a rerun of an old fraud. we also hear a lot about Carbon Capture ans Storage. Yes, an oil or gas field, then it takes 20-30 percent of the power stations efficiency. No government money should be spent on this The industry has more money than they can count.
Mark Duffett
November 5, 2014 at 8:52 amMinitrue called, Aidan, they have a job for you.
graybul
November 5, 2014 at 9:56 amTruly! Electric. An excellent summation. There is nothing to add!
JohnB
November 5, 2014 at 10:46 amAidan, the old saw “Extraordinary claims must be supported by extraordinary evidence” applies to your 7 month claim, which I have seen before and seen refuted.
Reference, please.
Here’s one from a NZ university a couple of years back. It calculates that the energy return over the lifetime is 7.96 times the embodied energy and lifetime energy consumption, ie about 3 years’ worth. So, I was wrong by a factor of 8. You are also wrong, by a factor of 5.
My point remains: wind turbines have to work for years before they have paid back the energy (and therefore CO2 emissions) that went into their construction and operation.
irDOTcanterburyDOTacDOTnz/bitstream/10092/5213/1/thesis_fulltextpdfDOTpdf
Roger Clifton
November 5, 2014 at 12:21 pmSixty km is “on top of”. At the Greenhouse Conference 2005, the coal industry estimated that CCS of the eastern generators would require 10,000 km of chemically resistant pipelines. That’s at least ~1M$/km. Since then, the Commonwealth has decreed that all CO2 burial should be done under the seabed. It ensures that the eventual leakage will not suffocate humans or livestock, but it increases the cost estimates of CCS even higher.
If we are to eliminate carbon, we must go nuclear. Now that one-millionth mass of waste we can bury.