Resources Minister Martin Ferguson happily tells people that geosequestration is vital for “the long-term sustainability of coal-fired power generation”. But he, as well as much of Australian industry and government, seems rather less concerned about the long-term sustainability of human civilisation.
Given that, without geosequestration, coal has no future in Australia or elsewhere, we must look at the issue critically. Can geosequestration be our saviour?
There are three main reasons why we say we must not assume that geosequestration will save us: it is not and will never be zero emissions, it is too slow, and it is too risky.
The fatal flaw of coal with geosequestration is that it will always emit some CO2, not less than 10% of current coal. The deeper the emissions cuts you need to achieve, the less carbon capture will play a role. In a world where we only needed to reduce emissions marginally over a long time, geosequestration might be an option. But that isn’t our world. The science is clear that we are already entering dangerous climate change, and that minimising the risk of catastrophic, runaway change means heading for net zero emissions as soon as feasible. This means zero emissions from the energy and waste sectors, and carbon sequestration in the forests and soils offsetting some stubborn agricultural and industrial emissions. In our real world, we need zero emissions energy sources, and coal with geosequestration doesn’t fit the bill.
The second flaw is timing. We need zero emissions energy fast in order to see global emissions peak in the next few years and come down fast thereafter. Meanwhile, geosequestration is slipping further into the future, with projects falling over around the world due to missed deadlines and blown budgets. Even the Bush administration has stopped funding the Future Gen project, and the head of the National Generators’ Forum, John Boshier, has acknowledged that the early confidence in coal’s technofix is fading. Confidence in renewables, meanwhile, is at an all-time high and growing with supportive policies driving massive expansion in Europe and the US in particular. The techno-fix being spruiked as a transition fuel to the distant renewable future looks like being leap-frogged by its planned successor!
Thirdly, people in the industry are finally starting grapple with the quantities involved. Australia’s coal power emissions alone would require permanent safe storage more than 2,500 times the size of the Otways trial — 250 million tonnes every year. According to Shell, a full system to transport captured carbon to storage would require twice the volume of through-put as the entire current global gas industry. The larger the amount of storage and transport, of course, the more likely it is that corners will be cut, second-rate storage used, and leakage will occur, destroying the whole purpose of the exercise. This also brings the liability monster bubbling to the surface.
In terms of pure public policy, our position is not dissimilar to that of the ACF. If the shareholders of coal corporations are happy to invest profits in researching geosequestration, they are welcome to do so, but the public purse should not be opened to those who have profited for over a century from polluting the atmosphere, and who, frankly, have had plenty of time to react to this threat. The smart investor will be looking to the sunrise industries that are outcompeting coal in the race to affordable, zero emissions energy.
The Australian economy lost the manufacturing sector under Howard’s retreat to a resource based economy. A smart government would rebuild the manufacturing sector by harnessing the huge intelligence and innovation of universities, research institutions and the renewables sector and transform the Australian economy now rather than face huge dislocation as we are swept aside by those who do.
The debate needs to move on from here fast. We can’t waste time waiting around for coal to clean up its act. We need to move ahead into the post-carbon future assuming that coal’s day is done.
Crikey’s comments regarding the Greens having to start behaving like adults is nicely illustrated in Christine Milne’s article on clean coal. Like most Green articles of this nature, most of the article is about why clean coal is not an option, but a few throwaway lines are supposed to reassure us that renewable energy is the answer to all our problems . Well, it isn’t, Christine, at this stage anyway. No renewable energy system at present is capable of providing 24/7/365 base load supply to replace existing coal fired generation. If it is, then I think we should hear from Christine as to just how this is to be done. And costed and sourced too, please, Christine. Adults like to know these things.
Connor, people with a background in energy supply like I have will continually raise the issue of base load supply while ever Greens persist in rattling off a list of renewable energy sources (R.E.) as alternatives to base load supply. Having to double/treble our generating capacity to overcome the unreliability of R.E. supply is not a solution, and no amount of obfuscation by Greens will change this.
Geothermal remains an unproven energy source in Australia, and is at least twenty years away from production even if it does prove viable. According to Wikipedia, it will then only be capable of supplying 6.8 % of Australia’s energy needs. And yet Greens persist in putting it forward as an alternative energy supply to base load supply. The unreliability of wind, wave and solar energy should be apparent to even the most ardent RE advocate.
It’s time for the Greens to produce some costed engineering facts to support the rhetoric. And if the “easily costed” renewable energy alternatives are so easily available, why do you and other RE proponents never quote them?
Google Lake Monoun and Lake Nyos to see the terrible consequences of geosequestration. Tens of thousands of people and animals gassed in the night as the safely stored carbon dioxide bubbled to the surface.
Renewables are the way forward. They CAN provide 27/7/365 if properly dimensioned, but in a great many cases, such as water pumping, desalination, battery charging, etc we don’t really care when the power is available, just as long as over a period there is enough.
Con: Clean Coal “adults” continuously raise the base load argument as if proponents of renewable energy systems are required to draw a single mythical rabbit out of a hat. No proponent of renewable energy, Greens included, has suggested anything other than a very broad mix of renewable energy sources.
There are three already understood and easily costed base load solutions;
1. Geo-thermal
2. Solar thermal with storage
3. Wave energy (like CETO) (http://www.ceto.com.au/home.php)
Then you supplement that with;
1. Wind power
2. Micro generation with feed in tariffs like Germany has successfully done,
And then finally (but in parallel) an absolutely massive attack on energy efficiency.
None of this is as expensive as CCS.
CO2 is a corrosive gas that ends up as carbolic acid if my high school chemistry memory serves, my guess natural gas and other fossil fuels are not nearly as corrosive (?) in terms of leakage etc. This was certainly the point of the chief of Mobil Australia with Alan Kohler on Inside Business last Sunday pointing out that they don’t want their oil fields “soured” anytime before say 2020 or later by CCS. And to underline the point the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority made a report earlier this year about exactly this corrosive property ( a big issue for worker safety one imagines too with busted seals and invisible death clouds). The NPSA then withdrew their safety warning about two months later i … with all the hints that they were jumped on from a great height by vested business or economic interests. Along the lines it was outside their remit to comment. As if. I blogged all the details about 2 months back.