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 5, 2014 at 8:37 pmRe “baseload”.
This term once meant that the generating plant in question was capable of running at high loads, reliably, day after day for months on end. I have a coffee mug in front of me which bears the words “Liddell Power Station Unit No. 4 Record Run 330 Days 1999”.
That is what baseload means.
It doesn’t mean 500MW continuously for 330 days. It could well mean that, though it was capable of 500MW, it operated in a band between 120MW and 500MW for 330 days, with loads to suit the market and as directed by system controllers.
When operated below 500MW, the unused portion is known as “rolling reserve”, meaning that it hot and ready to go if needed.
Indeed, every steam powered turbine, whether fuelled by oil, gas, lignite, coal or nuclear fission, is able to be ramped up and down. This is essential in order that they can be started.
Show me a solar unit, even a solar thermal one with molten salt reserve, that can do that… there is none.
However, every single steam powered generator can do this.
That is what steam valves, fuel feeders and other controls and governors are for. Nuclear plant regulate the heat generated by use of “control rods”.
I really don’t mean to be offensive, but relying on a basic misunderstanding of terms such as “baseload” demonstrates either a lack of understanding of the subject or an intention to mislead. Rolling reserve, as mentioned above, is the single strongest factor that keeps the NEM stable and safe. Hydro comes second, especially regarding frequency control. Neither of these services, as far as I know, can be provided by wind or solar PV. These are basic concepts, understanding of which is absolutely essential for any rational discussion of power generation.
They are not optional extras. Rolling reserve, baseload capacity and frequency control are essential prerequisites for any distributed electrical power system.
JohnB
November 5, 2014 at 8:41 pmAidan, 5.5 is the figure I provided minus 30%, the factor you provided. Nothing more.
Regarding DOT, the moderation system on this site catches links unless they are distorted in some way. More delay.
JohnB
November 5, 2014 at 8:50 pm“…we should install so much solar and wind that we won’t need to keep the fossil fuel generators running…”
Two corollaries are inescapable if that philosophy is followed.
1. Massive overbuild on a huge geographical scale, far larger than even Australia.
2. Massive, truly gargantuan transmission systems to provide the interconnectedness. Much of it DC, due to the distances involved.
That proposal was put to bed years back. Has it returned as the zombie undead plan for the electricity industry?
Has Mark Diesendorf answered the questions about the zero energy 2020 plan yet? I have been waiting for years.
What’s so wrong about peer review, when the future of the world’s climate, energy systems and financial systems are at stake?
Brian Melbourne
November 6, 2014 at 5:56 pmWind turbine payback: A 5mw turbine, eg, will probably average about 1.5mw,so over a year, it will generate about 13gwh. I find it very difficult to believe that the power used in manufacturing is greater than that. 8 times that is just crazy.
JohnB
November 6, 2014 at 10:39 pmBrian, have you considered that your opinions should be supported by facts, in order to become persuasive arguments?
You might think that 8600 hrs x 5MW x a bugger factor = a large number, but rational debate is founded on much more than this.
Besides which, “the power used in manufacturing” is probably not very much. Google or check out Wikipedia or something. The embodied energy includes every little thing from mining to eventual dismantling, demolition and site rehabilitation.
Speaking of which, site rehab doesn’t seem to be the long suit of solar PV, solar thermal, or wind. While you are checking Google, check out “abandoned solar farms” or similar.
I speak as one who has arranged for demolition and site restoration of a failed solar thermal array.
Aidan Stanger
November 12, 2014 at 3:16 pmJohnB, the 30% should be subtracted from the inverse — so rather than taking 30% off the energy return, you should’ve added at least 40%. And, as I said before, the 7.96 figure was dodgy, as the body of the report used a figure of 21.1 in its place. So I stand by my claim that the energy payback time is months not years.
Regarding baseload, although most (if not all) power plants can be ramped up and down, that often takes time and many are very inefficient at low output. There are very important safety reasons why nuclear is slow to ramp up. The control rods control not the temperature itself bu tthe neutron flux, which controls the rate of increase (or decrease) in the rate of heat production.
While I’m skeptical of the value of DICE, it would at least be very quick to ramp up. And its efficiency shouldn’t suffer too much at low output — particularly if it’s installed in the form of many smaller units which can be switched on or off when needed (which AIUI is what’s envisaged).
I’m a bit puzzed as to what you mean by Massive overbuild on a huge geographical scale, far larger than even Australia. Do you mean w eshould trade electrici with Indonesia?
Aidan Stanger
November 12, 2014 at 8:01 pmA couple of minor corrections to the above:
When I said the inverse, I meant the reciprocal.
And the last sentence should have said “Do you mean we should trade electricity with Indonesia?”