Rudd Government bypasses proven renewables for 'imaginary' geosequestration
Blog Post | Christine Milne
Tuesday 11th November 2008, 4:44pm
by TimHollo in
Yesterday the Rudd Government demonstrated very clearly where its climate and energy priorities lie - not with the proven renewable energy solutions, but with the geosequestration pipe-dream that Al Gore has recently called "too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate".
Fresh from burying Christine Milne's feed-in tariff Bill with a majority Senate Inquiry report saying it's a "great idea, but let's not do it", the Rudd Government went on last night to push through a Bill which gives a huge benefit to those who seek to bury CO2 under the sea floor - letting them make profits without having to carry the liability. This is a recipe for a new sub-prime crisis, telling industry that they can make significant profits safe in the knowledge that they will not need to carry the can for more than 20 years.
The debate on this bill is worth reading in its entirety if you have time. It exposes quite how blinded by industry rhetoric the Government and Opposition both are. Perhaps the pinnacle of this is to be found in Senator McLucas's statement that, as far as leaks from storage are concerned, "we do not predict that will happen". Considering it is widely acknowledged by government, industry and bodies such as the IPCC around the world that leaks will happen, at the rate of at least 1% a year on average, this is a rather heroic prediction.
The Bill is largely about settling arguments between the petroleum exploration industry and the geosequestration industry, but the sting in its tail is how it deals with the planning approvals and long-term liability issues that arise from dumping massive quantities of a dangerous substance under the sea bed - what Christine has called a "21st century landfill strategy". The original Bill left the issue open, as discussed in this media release. After a closure certificate was issued for a burial site, the liability was to be settled under common law - not an ideal solution due to the uncertainties, timelines and costs involved.
The Greens' proposal was that, acknowledging that companies will not be around for the lengths of time the carbon needs to be stored for (ie perpetuity), we should take a leaf out of the book of mining regulation and require companies to post a bond to cover potential liability into the future. This, however, was not acceptable to the Opposition, who negotiated with the Government an amendment that keeps liability on the company for 20 years after a closure certificate has been issued, and then passes all liability onto the taxpayer.
Christine moved an array of other amendments to try to make the legislation somewhat more environmentally responsible, only to be told by Liberal Senator David Johnston that the changes were unnecessary because "This whole act has the environment as its fundamental objective." Only people who have no idea about environmental protection could say such a thing, as their efforts to be 'green' are frequently self-contradictory. It is not uncommonly their actions that purport to be about environmental protection that need the most scrutiny. The whole advocacy for geosequestration (let alone nuclear power) is testament to this fact.
Those who elected the Rudd Government on a platform of climate action need to know just how much they are bypassing renewable energy in favour of coal. But, when the Government deliberately tabled the feed-in report at 6pm and scheduled the debate on the geosequestration bill to conclude at 9.50pm, it is no surprise that there has been virtually no media coverage of either. We have to work hard to make sure people understand what is happening.
Bookmark and share
A Joke.
This just goes to prove Rudd doesnt care. The Greens have to do something to get widespread media coverage of this issue so the public is made aware that Rudd is no better than Howard.
Even more insidious....
It's much worse than Christine makes out. The engineers working on geosequestration are looking at 1% leakage. That means the problem won't be 20-50 years down the track, but right now. At 1% leakage, over the 40 year lifetime of a plant, 18% of the total pumped into storage would have leaked already, and 75% would leak within another 100 years.
See http://en.envirowiki.info/Carbon_capture_and_storage#Leakage
Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide geosequestration 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.
I really think that those operators of coal-fired power plants, and other industrial enterprises to which geosequestration is particularly relevant, which really is almost exclusively the fossil fuel energy generators, should forget about it right now, and come back when geosequestration actually works, when the technology is actually developed to the point where you can sequester the 20 million tonnes per year of CO2 from even just one Loy Yang type plant, and then come back, and we'll talk about who takes liability for it.
That said, however, in 30, 40, 50 years, then yes, maybe, CCS technology could very well be useful for us. Right now, we should focus on the technologies that actually do exist, in practice.
Maybe, then, in 30, 40 or 50 years, the industry might come back and say, OK, we have the technology ready to use, now we need to talk about insurance and liability. But right now, the technology is of no relevance to solving any problems anyway, with or without the liability, because it just doesn't exist.
Some people have suggested in the past that what we might see in regards to geosequestration of CO2 is something similar to the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act in the US, where nuclear energy industry is required to provide 10 billion dollars of their own insurance, and the government covers any claims beyond that. (As an aside, the US taxpayer has never been required to pay one cent to anybody under the Price-Anderson act in the entire history of nuclear energy.)
That said, however, I think the risks of hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2 being pumped underground are far more real than those of nuclear energy.
The insurance industry is all about quantitative understanding of risks. If they don’t understand the risks, quantitatively, then they cannot make money selling insurance. In the very beginnings of commercial nuclear energy in the United States, insurance companies wouldn’t provide insurance, because they didn’t have quantitative understanding of the risks associated with nuclear energy; but once they had a better understanding, however, commercial insurance of nuclear power became commonplace.
Just like commercial insurers wouldn’t insure commercial nuclear energy in the early days of that technology, I doubt commercial insurers will deal with carbon dioxide geosequestration until they know enough about the risks of CO2 escaping to allow them to quantitatively assess the risks.
Just like nuclear energy, the insurance industry will probably provide insurance for geoseqestration, eventually, but it will take a little while after the technology is in place starts being used for the insurers to be able to understand it and to understand the risks.
Apologies for the long post.
Rudd coal support and scuppering renewable energy is a disgrace
Rudd's unwavering support for the fictitious oxymoron of clean coal is a clear indication that they favour business as usual for greenhouse gas polluting industry - such as coal fired power and exports - rather than making any real reductions in carbon emissions. See http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Clean_coal for more information.
Rudd's refusal to support a national feed in tariff again favours industry and ignores world's best practice for encouraging genuine renewable energy such as we see in Germany. Rudd is consigning Australia to being a backwater for new industry and jobs based on clean and green renewable energy.
Its seems there is now little difference between Rudd and Howard on climate change - both support ineffective emissions trading that won't reduce our emissions. Howard's solar rebate was actually better, since Labor now applies a means test - those that can afford to fit solar panels don't get the incentive to do so.
Contact your MP and all the ministers and tell them they need to represent that Australian public and Australia's best interests, not 19th century polluting industries.
More power!
Let's assume for the moment that carbon sequestration technology is here today and works properly.
One problem is that capturing, compressing and pumping down into the ground the CO2 takes energy. It takes a certain minimum amount because of the physical processes involved - liquefying CO2. For each 100kWh from fossil fuel-fired electricity generation, it will take at least another 25kWh of energy to sequester the CO2.
So we have to build 25% more power plants to sequester the carbon from the original 100%. If we're building more power plants anyway, why not build renewable power plants - they're cheaper than new fossil fuel plants with sequestration, and use proven technology. 25 out of 125 would be 20% of all power generated renewably - this is obviously achieveable since Denmark and Spain have managed it already.
Alternately, we could still generate the same amount of electricity, but conserve 20% of it so we can sequester the CO2 from the whole 100%. But if it's possible to reduce power consumption by 20%, why don't we forget spending billions on new power plants and do that straight away? We would thus reduce our electricity-related emissions by 20%, certainly at less cost than building new power plants, and most likely saving money.
Or perhaps we could even do both - conserve 20+% of our electricity, and with the money saved build renewable generation to 20+% of our capacity. We would thus achieve a 40+% reduction in electricity-related emissions overall. Does the CCS plan expect to do better than that?
Thus, even when we assume the sequestration is ready to put in place today and it works perfectly, it doesn't look very good compared to the alternatives of more renewables and/or conservation.
It won't fit!
Every tonne of coal burnt produces 1.8 tonnes of CO2. A trainload of coal a day of around 12,000 tonnes for an average power station means 20,000 tonnes need to be transported out as well and put somewhere. 12,000 tonnes in, 20,000 tonnes out.
The numbers 'in' boggle my mind by themselves.
Bring on and welcome the 'clean coal'/'NewGenCoal' debate and expose the concept for what it is, a short term subsidy for the coal industry while the Rudd government stalls for time. Time for the coal industry to cope with reality, time for more evidence of climate change, time for the world to work together on climate change, time for renewable technologies to prove themselves to all but the most delusional, time to adjust to a steady state economy, perhaps even time to see the first few people die as a direct result of climate change and resource depletion.
resource depletion
more amazing is the silence by the Greens on the the IEA report released on 12 November
the current hiccup in the economy has as its root cause the end of cheap energy which nessitated
huge increases of debt to sustain the pretence of growth
the consensus of analysts (dirty word i know) is for peak energy to hit us within the next 5years
problem is that transitioning will probably take 10 to20 years..... meantime millions will die
oh and there seems to be a bit of aproblem with the environment too!!
silence
Hi Kiwichick,
only reason for our silence on that report islack of time and resources to comment on all the major stories that come through. We saw it, Christine noted it a a doorstop in the morning (which didn't get covered), but we simply didn't have time to put a press release out on it. We have, however, noted similar things many times.
A solution to the CCS legislation problem?
I wonder if The Greens would consider, until CCS is proven, only building new centralised, base-load power stations fueled by alternative energy - such as solar thermal systems like AUSRA (see: http://www.ausra.com.au/)?
See blog below:
Battle for the truth on Climate Change
By the end of this year, the Rudd government will announce the Australian Emissions Trading System target for reducing CO2 emissions. (see: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/emissionstrading/about.html )
A major battle is forming between what the science requires, and what the politicians think they can achieve.
We need to understand the truth in order to recognise when we are being lied to.
The current world level of atmospheric CO2 is 380 parts per million (ppm).
Dr James Hansen (NASA) leads 12 of the world’s leading climate scientists, to outline the case for reducing the existing level to 300-350 ppm in order to avoid average temperatures rising beyond the point of no return
See: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081030_Target.pdf
and:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=hansen+TippingPointsNear_2008062...
and: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9216
Essentially, the scientists warn that recent evidence of acceleration of the Arctic and Antarctic ice melt, outdates the warming predictions contained in the 2007 IPCC report.
Climate scientists now predict that unless 300-350ppm becomes the global target, our children will face an uncomfortable future within the next 30 years and their children’s future will be one we would not wish to see them suffer.
The primary requirement to achieve that objective is for the world to eliminate all CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. How quickly we can achieve that determines how much hotter the planet will get.
However, in his final report to the government, Ross Garnaut recommended a target of 550ppm, as he believed that is all that can politically be achieved at a global level.
See Lateline: http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200811/r313007_1380710.asx
And: http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200811/r313030_1380826.asx and: http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf
Hopefully we can eliminate all CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels in the necessary timeframe by putting the following projects on a ‘war time priority’ footing:
• Developing technology to retrofit our 300 existing coal fired power stations with ‘Carbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS) of CO2’ equipment by 2020 - see: http://www.newgencoal.com.au/ .
• Only building new centralised, base-load power stations fueled by alternative energy (see: http://www.ausra.com.au/ ) until CCS is proven;
• Providing Feed-in Tariff incentives for distributed clean energy systems.
See: http://christine-milne.greensmps.org.au/taxonomy/term/246/all
• Migrating to Electric Vehicles (EV’s) and Plug-in Hybrids (PHEV’s) - see
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4468312a30.html and: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/05/02/1209235157161.html?s_rid=sm...
• Introducing an ETS to provide economic incentives for major polluting industries to reduce emissions – see: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/emissionstrading/about.html
The politicians are struggling to find a balance between reducing emissions at the speed the science recommends, versus the resistance to change being exhibited fiercely by the fossil fuel and other essential industries, likely to be negatively affected.
In my view it is critical that Rudd/Wong first of all publicly acknowledge the real target, which is no less than the climate scientists recommend, and then commit to doing everything in their power to gain a majority agreement for an initial target as close to the science as technically viable.
Australians will then be in a position to unite, agree with, and support the political task ahead.
The nearer to the climate science target that Australia commits to, the greater our chance of convincing other countries by example to do the same, during future international diplomatic Climate Change negotiations.
Hopefully Rudd, the diplomat, will not be tempted to ‘compromise’ on a 450ppm target without acknowledging the real climate science target.
All politicians need to be reminded that Mother Nature does not negotiate. She simply reacts to the emissions we send her.
What really matters is that everyone in the world clearly differentiates between the real target that the Climate Scientists recommend versus what the politicians may be telling us.
The longer it takes for the politicians to gain the courage to agree to lead us towards the real target, the tougher the scientists target will need to become as we near the tipping point.
The UK Govt Stern report (http://www.occ.gov.uk/activities/stern.htm ) noted that the threat from Climate Change would become so large that no matter how much it might take to solve the problem, the cost of not controlling it was going to be worse.
For further understanding of these issues, I highly recommend reading ‘Climate Code Red’ by David Spratt & Philip Sutton (see: http://www.climatecodered.net ). Their book clearly articulates the science, the consequences of each option and provides insights into understanding the politics involved.
The following is quoted there and is as appropriate today as when it was written:
“The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.” – Winston Churchill, November 1936.
A solution for the CCS legislation problem
Well written Chis, you obviously have done considerable research on the topic.
There is however a great divide between the theoretical and practical side of both this and the ETS which need to be taken into account. It would be very disruptive to the reduction in carbon emissions if the Governments attempted to push too far without full community backing, which I believe is not yet evident. Sure there is considerable backing in the big city inner suburbs, but from my travels around the mortgage belt (mainly in Melbourne), there is some support, providing that the Mr and Mrs Average are not impacted in their day to day costs. Some states are warning residents that they may be up for 30% increases in energy costs ($1 / day), or 90+% over 3 years, which could be sufficient to have changes in Government at state levels, back to Liberal Governments, and possible emission reduction stagnation.
On the motor vehicle side of things, Hybrid / Electric vehicles, again are a possible solution for inner city usage, but are not practical for the distances Australians travel. Hybrid vehicles have been shown to emit standard amounts of carbon emissions as soon as you move out of a start, stop, start inner city environment, and we are 10+ years away from having sufficient infrastructure for any type of general Plug In electric car usage. The Feds have also stated that there is expected to be 50% increase in truck requirements over the next 10 - 15 years, and, as goods cannot be carried on rail within cities, without severely impacting passenger traffic, we will have even more carbon emissions to deal with.
I suspect that it will take Australia around 20+ years to decrease our carbon emissions to a level the scientists will be happy with, especially as the Governments (today) are using most of their available funds just attempting to keep people in their current jobs. Having said this, there are a number of actions the Governments can take which will point us in the right direction for emission reduction without considerable expenditure (remembering that Mr and Mrs Average generally do not have surplus funds to install energy saving infrastructure, even with rebates ((eg. Solar Hot Water Services etc.))
a. Reduce immigration (ordinary and refugee) so we do not keep moving the goal posts to greater required reductions, due to ever increasing population growth.
b. Encourage State Governments to move business out of central hubs (CBDs) into satellite suburbs, so people have a less need to travel / drive.
c. Encourage Governments to expand public transport to satellite suburban centres. In most cases, public transport (eg. rail) has bottlenecks which preclude much expansion to existing CBDs.
d. Mandate for all new housing that solar hot water services be installed, and if economically viable (taking into account the need to keep housing costs to a level people can afford), also solar electricity generation.
e. Encourage multi family / residential development in suburbs which are, say, 25Km from existing CBDs.
f. Governments to have achievable (reduction and time objectives) for emission reductions. As a retired Project Manager, I know that if you push for non-achievable objectives / deliverables, people will switch off, and you will never achieve your objectives.
g. Encourage business to review their energy requirements / usage, being careful not to encourage movement of business off shore.
h. Many more options already document, where the Carrot is used, not a bloody big stick.
In summary, Australian Governments will need to expect that major reductions will take up to 20 years, but if they do not jump from the frying pan into the fire through trying to rush reductions, they will slowly get the general population onside, and providing they have defined achievable objectives / deliverables, Australia will have a reasonable chance of achieving the objectives.
Access Economics supports gross FIT
Wonders will never cease, Access Economics has come out in favour of a renewables gross feed in tariff.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/21/2426017.htm
Try not to read the comments section, most of them are depressingly ignorant and/or ill-informed.
Fuel Cell Cars
Hi There Christine. Thanks for all the good work. I wonder if anything is able to be done with regard to the development of Hydrogen Refuelling Infrastructure for Fuel Cell Cars in this country.
This would allow the rollout of Pollution-Free Fuel Cell cars to be released here. Thanks
Pat McGee
Fuel cells vs Lithium Batteries vs Bicycles
Not sure about fuel cells, they have been a long time coming, still horribly expensive and still require a gaseous fuel - cracking hydrogen off natural gas is hardly progress. My bet would be lithium polymer batteries - recharge off the mains - some magic available if the charging could be coordinated with excessive electricity from windfarms overnight which is sending wholesale electricity prices negative in some areas of Denmark, Germany and the US.
In any case, most trips, most people do are less than 5km and could be easily done by BICYCLE! (Vehicle for a small planet, remember?) Massive fitness/health issue here as well. Oh, and ask motorists in peak hour traffic (and any cyclist, pedistrian or public transport patron) if they want more cars . . .
No surprises from Rudd
When PM Rudd called for faster development of carbon capture technologies at the UN I took that as code for "we will keep mining, selling and using coal without restriction". I could only assume those present read it the same way.
Patrick, from what I have been able to determine, Hydrogen is mostly greenwash. As Andrew points out, batteries already do it better and I think they are more likely to see ongoing improvement than hydrogen technologies. Most of the R&D with hydrogen for transport exists because money was allocated for that specific area of research by gov'ts looking for green credibility - but the cheapest source of hydrogen is fossil fuels. It ultimately looks like a way for entrenched industries to point out that green & clean can't deliver.
Post new comment