attitudes to CCS trials
Robert Merkel notes that Australia’s first carbon sequestration experiment was opened this week. The Otway Basin Project in south-west Victoria is trying to inject up to 100 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide 2km underground in a depleted gas reservoir. In Canada, TransAlta, a power company which is that nation’s largest CO2 emitter, has just announced a partnership with Alstom, a French company who is reportedly the world’s largest coal-power plant maker, to “set a target of 2012 for starting test runs of a completed prototype carbon capture and storage (CCS) system.”
I was interested to see this report from the Worldwatch Institute, which details the diverse attitudes towards CCS amongst environment groups in the USA, although all remain sceptical to some extent.
There are many sound reasons to be sceptical about CCS, not least that it has received too large a share of public research funds for greenhouse and is too easy to use as a way of creating a false hope that we can basically continue on a business as usual approach and won’t really need to change our energy production and consumption behaviours much. It is also a technology that is far from proven and won’t be available any time soon, which given the urgency of the need to seriously cut emissions, makes it very risky to rely on it down the track as a key part of emission reduction strategy, given that it might all be a mirage but by which time it would be too late to switch to a different strategy.
Having said all that, it doesn’t seem wise to just dismiss CCS out of hand and suggest it should be given no consideration or investigation at all. From what I’ve seen, there seems to be almost universal hostility towards CCS amongst Australian environmental groups, and sometimes it is hard not to assume that the anti-mining view (especially in regards to coal) of much of the environment movement has created a mindset that dismisses CCS regardless.
Scepticism is certainly justified – indeed given the history of much of the resources sector in Australia when it comes to greenhouse, it is common sense, – but blanket opposition seems excessive to me.
8 Comments, Comment or Ping
Tony
Andrew:
As long as we’re not funding another globalist into our country to rip us off again, they can do what they like.
Lets face it, if Australia turned off everything in the country we would not make any difference to the co2 problem.
I my self would be looking at investing in the numerous free energy products developed around the world instead of funding globalists into our country so they can turn around and rip us off even more.
Tony
Apr 6th, 2008
philip travers
Strange country Australia!I like Robert Merkel,for the simple reason,he is an academic type sticking his neck out.But then he starts to fade like most of them.It isnt what he has to say about energy matters,and his shareholdings,it is simply academics ,even the ones pro seques..whatever it is,come with personalities that tend to restrict the thinking of others.This seques..whatever,just bores me silly as an experiment,for a greater attempt.Why arent they trying other things while they bury the stuff in the holes..surely this experiment is a unique enough environment!What happens if you pour an enormous amount of white vinegar into the stuff!? I havent got anything much useful to say…the tedium of winter change is upon me…Beanie-wearing as psychological assistance.If carbon dioxide can breakdown materials,or by chemical reaction change harmful substances to less so…why isnt that sort of stuff tested too.
Apr 6th, 2008
Tom McLoughlin
The double talk and bullying of the safety cop on the beat namely the Norway Petroleum Safety Authority has already begun as reported by me below last Friday. One can smell the industrial imperatives already a la Karen Silkwood, and one would have to be pretty naive to think otherwise after reading the Norway PSA until someone jumped on that expert speaking too frankly.
I was born and grew up in Warrnambool close to the CCS demonstration plant, hence the added interest to research the potential for catastrophic failure/bleeding out and lethal ponding of my compatriots down there. It’s simply not resolved, and probably never will be, or otherwise it would be an open book including via google.
Notice the cancellation of the Future Gen billion $ project by those (not) very greenie W Bush regime: As per Washington Post here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503186.html
Rather than a cheap shot, this surely is a reality check, they didn’t see value in going big on this, while California is going gang busters on renewables sector etc.
So at best in SW Victoria, after the Norway safety regulator warning, it’s an important experiment that will waste some money and time, and at worst it will kill many people, but either way it’s likely to prove fruitless.
:
“Friday, 4 April 2008
Energy Minister Ferguson gambling on safety of CO2 carbon capture after Norway report?
Mood: blue
Topic: globalWarming”
at http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/blog/index.blog/1802445/energy-minister-ferguson-gambling-on-safety-of-co2-carbon-capture-after-norway-report/
Apr 7th, 2008
Lorikeet
My scientist friend is not too optimistic about sequestration. He thinks it would be too difficult to achieve.
I’m more concerned about the possibilities relating to combinant and recombinant factors. Will these idiots end up blowing the place up?
I think they’re barking up the wrong tree altogether. They have to pump the CO2 out of the Earth’s atmosphere, but only a bit at a time … expensive, yes … but at least some would be gone.
Sequestration isn’t really going to get rid of anything, except possibly things we might want to keep, such as terra firma.
Apr 8th, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
I think that the money spent on this is wasted;as the long term results are not known,and it’s just too risky as opposed to investing money in solar,wind,thermal and ‘hot rocks’. The CCS has too many question marks, and quite frankly,it’s taking too many risks with the future of my grand kids(& yours).I don’t believe we have that right!
Dr David Mills was forced to leave Australia & seek funds for solar energy.He succeeded last yr,in fact,the large company in the US believe,that solar power to provide base load energy could be as soon as 5 yrs away.(7.30 Report Oct.’07)It will be cheaper than nuclear,and possibly even coal. Prof Ian Lowe (ACF)said that Aust derives enough energy via the sun in 1 day to provide the worlds energy needs for 1 year!That’s amazing!
Almost 12 yrs of the Howard govt’s either ignoring or scaling back monies into R&D has been wasted,but I believe that both money & energy should be aimed at renewable energy sources.This ‘clean coal’ technology is a waste of time,and seems to me to be just a ploy to make us believe it’s possible,Do we have the right to put all these emissions in the ground,when who knows what might happen in future?It’s just a way of shutting us up about getting rid of coal-such a high money maker for wealthy companies who don’t seem to want to change the status quo,or for govts with much to gain from coal fired power stations,&their goal of selling off the electricity system(NSW?)Not good enough for my liking!Let’s concentrate on what we know is safe now,& doesn’t leave a legacy for unborn generations to deal with.Isn’t nuclear waste enough?
In Germany,farmers are being encouraged to ‘plant’ solar panels,that will also act as another source of income in future(so even if a bad season/s occur,there’s an alternate income)solar panels are also alongside main highways-linking towns/cities to grids.Why can’t/won’t we do that?It sounds pretty exciting to me!(I watched the doco on SBS?)
Apr 8th, 2008
muzzmonster
I understand many solar and wind power projects would love to see some of the money governments are splashing on CCS. I’m sure it would come to better ends.
As to the idea of pumping CO2 outside the atmosphere (where what will happen? I suspect be trapped by the Earth’s gravity anyway) – I wonder how much CO2 will be produced by the effort to pump it there?
Apr 8th, 2008
ken
A friend once told me that at one of his first board meetings he suggested his company invest in a new document management system. He was quickly told not until the Department of Defence has wasted millions doing the same thing.
So it will be in energy, right now business is slowly coming to terms with climate change, and a growing consensus that the energy mix must shift. Because business needs energy to prosper and energy has for many years been a relatively cost free input into the production cycle there has been little need to seek solutions other than rent seeking from gullible governments, as this changes so the need to seek solutions will increase.
The global Y2K effort may or may not have prevented global computer collapse; we’ll never know. But its effect was immense either way. It spurred innovation.
The threat of climate change is a new Y2K-style challenge. Whatever the actual threat of human-created greenhouse gases may be, the perceived threat — and urgency among groups like the IPCC — is going to drive both governmental and corporate activity.
This will lead to a wave of innovation that will have unexpected effects. Capital investment priorities will change, many companies will develop innovation or alliance skills that they otherwise would not, and waiting for government mandates will probably not be the most effective strategy.
Small scale feel good factor projects are meaningless when compared with the sort of energy consumption of big business. It was reported in Crikey today that BHP needs 1million litres of oil per day, to undertake its open cut mining project at roxby downs over the next four years, its only when that is under threat will the capital investment be made to find solutions.
In the meantime governments will waste money on protecting constituencies, CCS fro instance and coal unions / industry, academics will struggle with ideas as they always have, and when necessary business will come in a ride on whatever will work.
Apr 9th, 2008
Lorikeet
Muzz:
Yes, my idea requires some investigation, so we can have some answers.
At least we know solar and wind power are safe.
Ken:
National security certainly took Y2K very seriously.
My son even came up from Canberra and wound back our computer.
Scare mongering on the TV made my 7-year-old so nervous, I had to go out and buy a 10 litre container of water and put it on the kitchen bench where he could see it.
I had to keep opening the pantry door and telling him we would be the last people on Earth to die of hunger.
I had to remind him that I used to be a leader with The Scout Association and could boil water from the creek and cook food in the backyard – also dig a toilet.
I showed him candles and a kerosene lantern.
When I asked my son’s teacher if the kids were giving her a nightmare, she said none of the others even understood what the whole thing was about.
All:
We must resist all attempts to destroy our mining and livestock industries. There are moves afoot that have nothing to do with CO2.
I would also advise against “investment” in superannuation.
Apr 10th, 2008