Comments on: ‘Clean coal’ - picking losers http://greensblog.org/2008/04/08/clean-coal-picking-losers/ Blogging Greens issues, policies and politics Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:48:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: Gilbert http://greensblog.org/2008/04/08/clean-coal-picking-losers/#comment-4936 Gilbert Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:46:54 +0000 http://greensblog.wordpress.com/?p=350#comment-4936 Mark @ 42 You misunderstand the scale of what is envisaged. Think about a permanent channel to the sea to ensure it is always filled and appropriately mixed with seawater to have reasonably normal salinity levels. It may take a decade to initially fill. It would also periodically receive influx from land in the way it fills now. The channel is actually not all that long compared with other projects that have been completed. Its also technically straightforward relative to say building a road. If the lake were filled to sea level it would hold 200 cubic kilometers of water. The total combined effect on enhanced sequestration within ecosystems would likely be enormous. We don't even need to pump the water it would gravity fill, although we may need to force some mixing with sea water, perhaps powered by wind, or tide. It would probably create fantastic tidal generation opportunities (probably baseload capable) down the channel. It would also directly offset a series of anticipated negative climate change impacts, (e.g a drier victoria, dying river systems, etc...). Mark @ 42

You misunderstand the scale of what is envisaged. Think about a permanent channel to the sea to ensure it is always filled and appropriately mixed with seawater to have reasonably normal salinity levels. It may take a decade to initially fill. It would also periodically receive influx from land in the way it fills now.

The channel is actually not all that long compared with other projects that have been completed. Its also technically straightforward relative to say building a road.

If the lake were filled to sea level it would hold 200 cubic kilometers of water.

The total combined effect on enhanced sequestration within ecosystems would likely be enormous. We don’t even need to pump the water it would gravity fill, although we may need to force some mixing with sea water, perhaps powered by wind, or tide. It would probably create fantastic tidal generation opportunities (probably baseload capable) down the channel.

It would also directly offset a series of anticipated negative climate change impacts, (e.g a drier victoria, dying river systems, etc…).

]]> By: Mark http://greensblog.org/2008/04/08/clean-coal-picking-losers/#comment-4934 Mark Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:39:54 +0000 http://greensblog.wordpress.com/?p=350#comment-4934 Dear moderater Would it be possible to discuss this idea as a seperate thread. I posted this as a bit of a upbeat response to show what the coal industry could invest in -picking a winner. Now the topic thread has become a bit skewed to its original topic. I am offering a solution and would love to hear your groups responses. We have gone to Camberra to talk to federal advisers to the government and did similar with south australia government and will be doing the same for victoria. This is all well and good but i would love to discuss this with the greens membership as well. cheers mark Dear moderater

Would it be possible to discuss this idea as a seperate thread.
I posted this as a bit of a upbeat response to show what the coal industry could invest in -picking a winner. Now the topic thread has become a bit skewed to its original topic. I am offering a solution and would love to hear your groups responses.
We have gone to Camberra to talk to federal advisers to the government and did similar with south australia government and will be doing the same for victoria. This is all well and good but i would love to discuss this with the greens membership as well.

cheers
mark

]]> By: Mark http://greensblog.org/2008/04/08/clean-coal-picking-losers/#comment-4931 Mark Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:19:24 +0000 http://greensblog.wordpress.com/?p=350#comment-4931 epemiral =ephemiral. whoops m epemiral =ephemiral. whoops
m

]]> By: Mark http://greensblog.org/2008/04/08/clean-coal-picking-losers/#comment-4930 Mark Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:16:05 +0000 http://greensblog.wordpress.com/?p=350#comment-4930 hello Gilbert [39] lake Eyre is a epemiral lake so even if it did fill it would not last thus i don't understand the pertinance of an idea that will not happen. I am not aware of the debates this group has had but as a natural resoursce manager myself the critical elements at play with biodiversity are habitiat loss, and habitiat fragmentation. Joining fragmentated ecosystems is globally recognised as a vital element in assisting biodiversity health. Fire is also a vital part of australian ecology [though not all ecosystems eg rainforests], but the wildfire scenarios australians have become to acustomed to are a result of poor land managment , thankfully fire usage is becoming more a part of modern land managment. The more we invest in natural resoursce managment the less wildfire scenarios we will have. And thanks for taking the time to read the paper Gilbert hello Gilbert [39]
lake Eyre is a epemiral lake so even if it did fill it would not last thus i don’t understand the pertinance of an idea that will not happen.
I am not aware of the debates this group has had but as a natural resoursce manager myself the critical elements at play with biodiversity are habitiat loss, and habitiat fragmentation. Joining fragmentated ecosystems is globally recognised as a vital element in assisting biodiversity health.
Fire is also a vital part of australian ecology [though not all ecosystems eg rainforests], but the wildfire scenarios australians have become to acustomed to are a result of poor land managment , thankfully fire usage is becoming more a part of modern land managment. The more we invest in natural resoursce managment the less wildfire scenarios we will have.
And thanks for taking the time to read the paper Gilbert

]]> By: Mark http://greensblog.org/2008/04/08/clean-coal-picking-losers/#comment-4923 Mark Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:01:38 +0000 http://greensblog.wordpress.com/?p=350#comment-4923 And further more there is great potential for coal and petrochemical companies to cross over to biomass. Technically speaking coal is biomass - just old. There is great potential for coal producers and generators to do what they are doing presently with new grown carbon. Basically turning them into carbon management companies and for farmers to ride this benefit to harvest feedstock. The success of putting our forests [this means ecosystems - not simplistic plantations] back depends on finding a way we can match management and economic outcomes and in the end for people - particularly farmers to get paid and the rest of society to be tangibly linked to the outcomes ie energy. If we crack this nut then we can reinstall ecosystems globally and reap the rewards in climate, biodiversity, energy, land productivity, and matched with population stabilisation a true sustainable society keep up the good work all mark ps my grammer and spelling can be lacking at times so please go easy :) And further more there is great potential for coal and petrochemical companies to cross over to biomass. Technically speaking coal is biomass - just old.
There is great potential for coal producers and generators to do what they are doing presently with new grown carbon. Basically turning them into carbon management companies and for farmers to ride this benefit to harvest feedstock.

The success of putting our forests [this means ecosystems - not simplistic plantations] back depends on finding a way we can match management and economic outcomes and in the end for people - particularly farmers to get paid and the rest of society to be tangibly linked to the outcomes ie energy.

If we crack this nut then we can reinstall ecosystems globally and reap the rewards in climate, biodiversity, energy, land productivity, and matched with population stabilisation a true sustainable society

keep up the good work all

mark
ps my grammer and spelling can be lacking at times so please go easy :)

]]> By: Gilbert http://greensblog.org/2008/04/08/clean-coal-picking-losers/#comment-4922 Gilbert Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:16:32 +0000 http://greensblog.wordpress.com/?p=350#comment-4922 Mark along the lines of your plan, it seems reasonable that if Lake Eyre were flooded to sea level (see other posts on this) there would be a dramatic increase in total mass of carbon sequestered in living beings. The effects would include increased rainfall over Murray Darling basin supporting revegetation (and river system health) and fewer Victorian bushfires due to wetter Victorian summers. This would have the effect of increasing animal numbers as well. Mark along the lines of your plan, it seems reasonable that if Lake Eyre were flooded to sea level (see other posts on this) there would be a dramatic increase in total mass of carbon sequestered in living beings.

The effects would include increased rainfall over Murray Darling basin supporting revegetation (and river system health) and fewer Victorian bushfires due to wetter Victorian summers. This would have the effect of increasing animal numbers as well.

]]> By: Mark http://greensblog.org/2008/04/08/clean-coal-picking-losers/#comment-4917 Mark Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:34:47 +0000 http://greensblog.wordpress.com/?p=350#comment-4917 hi grant In the australian context we are talking about many [around 500 in this senario] 10 mw systems [off shelf gasifiers and gensets] fit into a diversified/decentralised system. Valuation of emerald comes from not only product [ie energy] but also intergration and the efficiency gains from one project haveing multiple outcomes - eg total solution to salinity, soil fertility gains, increased percipitation, reduced land degredation...... But primary would be to provide a load matching capability to service the rest of the renwable systems - the missing component to a complete renewable sytem This Emerald plan was tailored for a developed world energy system. A developing nation would have differing priorities and would be tailored differently. Kyoto was set as a vehicle for wealth tranfer. It is blatently clear that revegetation of native ecosystems is a top priority and the scale needed to match our problems needs also to be large. The problem is greater than climate change and solution must take broader holistic approaches for successful remedies. Narrow focused solution can result in great cost ie palm oil -forest destruction And central to any solution we belive should be biodiversity and the bio services it provides In regards to what your saying- i think we are working at a differing scale to what what you are talking about - but yes it would have to pay to the farmer - pricing of power would be a key lever especially tried in with managment outcomes As for Australian project pricing - in the austrlain context this plan is looking cost effefctive to coal with with geosequestration capabilities - factored at current euro carbon pricing -but the big x factor is how the trading scheme pans out in this country - we will see. cheers m hi grant
In the australian context we are talking about many [around 500 in this senario] 10 mw systems [off shelf gasifiers and gensets] fit into a diversified/decentralised system.
Valuation of emerald comes from not only product [ie energy] but also intergration and the efficiency gains from one project haveing multiple outcomes - eg total solution to salinity, soil fertility gains, increased percipitation, reduced land degredation……
But primary would be to provide a load matching capability to service the rest of the renwable systems - the missing component to a complete renewable sytem
This Emerald plan was tailored for a developed world energy system. A developing nation would have differing priorities and would be tailored differently.
Kyoto was set as a vehicle for wealth tranfer. It is blatently clear that revegetation of native ecosystems is a top priority and the scale needed to match our problems needs also to be large.
The problem is greater than climate change and solution must take broader holistic approaches for successful remedies. Narrow focused solution can result in great cost ie palm oil -forest destruction
And central to any solution we belive should be biodiversity and the bio services it provides
In regards to what your saying- i think we are working at a differing scale to what what you are talking about - but yes it would have to pay to the farmer - pricing of power would be a key lever especially tried in with managment outcomes
As for Australian project pricing - in the austrlain context this plan is looking cost effefctive to coal with with geosequestration capabilities - factored at current euro carbon pricing -but the big x factor is how the trading scheme pans out in this country - we will see.
cheers
m

]]> By: RobWindt http://greensblog.org/2008/04/08/clean-coal-picking-losers/#comment-4915 RobWindt Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:50:35 +0000 http://greensblog.wordpress.com/?p=350#comment-4915 "suggest that farmers would would need to source for less than $10k" They pay a lot more for a backup diesel gen', this would qualify for RECs and feed in tariffs and have minimal running costs while reclaiming marginal/ degraded land Small locally owned renewable energy co-ops are starting to spring up and would be an obvious source of finance. http://masg.org.au/ Rob http://nakedmechanic.blogspot.com/ “suggest that farmers would would need to source for less than $10k”

They pay a lot more for a backup diesel gen’, this would qualify for RECs and feed in tariffs and have minimal running costs while reclaiming marginal/ degraded land

Small locally owned renewable energy co-ops are starting to spring up and would be an obvious source of finance.
http://masg.org.au/

Rob
http://nakedmechanic.blogspot.com/

]]> By: Grant http://greensblog.org/2008/04/08/clean-coal-picking-losers/#comment-4914 Grant Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:51:51 +0000 http://greensblog.wordpress.com/?p=350#comment-4914 Mark (35-36), looks interesting, but would need to be relatively inexpensive if you want a market in Australia (probably only farmers), or 3rd world countries, as both are cash strapped. When I say relatively inexpensive, I would suggest that farmers would would need to source for less than $10k. Mark (35-36), looks interesting, but would need to be relatively inexpensive if you want a market in Australia (probably only farmers), or 3rd world countries, as both are cash strapped. When I say relatively inexpensive, I would suggest that farmers would would need to source for less than $10k.

]]> By: Mark http://greensblog.org/2008/04/08/clean-coal-picking-losers/#comment-4913 Mark Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:24:06 +0000 http://greensblog.wordpress.com/?p=350#comment-4913 The Emerald Plan can be viewed at www.gasificationaustralia.com cheers mark The Emerald Plan can be viewed at http://www.gasificationaustralia.com

cheers
mark

]]>