For some time, we’ve been hearing persistent reports of deeper and deeper gloom pervading meetings and conferences around Australia and the world on geosequestration - so-called ‘clean coal’ technology, or carbon capture and storage. The research, which receives the lions share of government energy funding, just hasn’t been making progress. Years down the track, we are no closer to being able to demonstrate that geosequestration is a viable option.
This message was hammered home a few weeks ago when the world pin-up project, FutureGen in Illinois, collapsed thanks to the Bush Administration pulling out because the project was blowing its budget and timeline.
Now, just days after Australia’s first carbon storage research project opened in the Otways (Christine’s release here), the industry here is beginning to express real doubts about the prospects.
The National Generators’ Forum head, John Boshier, usually one of the bolshier coal advocates, told last night’s 7.30 Report (transcript here and mp4 here) that:
I think we all felt a few years ago that clean coal was do-able and was a great option for Australia… We’re now worried about how long it will take and how much it’s going to cost on the scale that we’re talking about.
…
Well, it certainly is something of a wing and a prayer at the moment for a banker to put any money into clean coal technology. A banker is wanting to see plants that have got a really good prospect of commercial success and we don’t have that at the moment.
…
We shouldn’t kid ourselves it’s going to be available in the near term. We think that 2020 is the earliest it can really be commercialised.
Amazingly, Boshier also expressed concern over the scale of the challenge, noting:
With 80 per cent of Australia’s generation from coal, that means we have to find carbon capture and storage sites for most of that. That’s 200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide at the moment rising to let’s say 300 million tonnes by 2030. That’s a lot of carbon storage sites to find.
To put that into perspective, the world’s largest current carbon capture project, Sleipner in Norway, stores about 1 million tonnes a year. So Australia would need to find 300 storage sites on that scale. Or 3000 of the scale of the Otways project.
The big issue that this really brings up is that all the few sites that are currently being examined for carbon storage are the absolute best possible sites, with least likelihood of failure or leakage. If you have to find hundreds of large sites in Australia, and many thousands of sites around the world, you won’t have that luxury anymore. The risks of leakage then become commensurately greater.
This is one of the main issues raised in an excellent article in the current edition of New Scientist by Fred Pearce called “Can coal live up to its clean promise?” Pearce raises doubts about how soon geosequestration might be commercially available, how far advanced the capture technologies are, how much storage would be required and, perhaps most fundamentally, how much of the carbon can be captured and stored. The final conclusion is damning indeed:
The most detailed published assessment, by Peter Viebahn of the German Aerospace Centre in Stuttgart, estimates that at best CCS [carbon capture and storage] will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power stations by little more than two-thirds. That compares with life-cycle emissions for most renewable energy technologies that are 1to 4 per cent of those from burning coal.
If geosequestration cannot produce zero emissions energy, it cannot be a long-term option for a world that must head for complete decarbonisation fast. You could argue that there is a role for an effective and readily-available low-emissions energy technology as a transition fuel. But how can it be a transition fuel if it is not commercially available for another 15-20 years?
The more work is done on this technology, the more it seems that the Governments that have been banking on geosequestration working have indulged in the worst form of public policy - picking losers. What an irony that, while doing so, they attacked advocates of renewable energy support policies for trying to pick winners. Renewables have powered ahead, while geosequestration has stagnated. Surely it’s time to acknowledge that and get with the program! We need to commercialise renewables technologies fast, and shifting the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies from coal across to renewables will be invaluable for getting those truly clean solutions implemented.
At the end of last week, we had a fascinating and uplifting meeting with solar thermal technologist, David Mills, whose Australian company Solar Heat and Power has gone to California to become Ausra, with a massive investment from Sun Microsystems’ Vinod Khosla. Mills, whose ideas first hit the drawing board more recently than geosequestration, has already signed contracts to build several hundred megawatts, and has well over a gigawatt in discussion. His industry is expanding at a rate that dwarfs even the global explosion of wind energy in the last decade. Surely we should be begging him to return to Australia and set up shop here again.
For further reading, there’s an interesting post with comments thread from Robert Merkel over at Larvatus Prodeo.
And Christine’s release from today on Boshier’s comments can be read here.
UPDATE:
Another release that may be of interest after Rudd’s coal bonanaza in China.
And as we speak Penny Wong is off to China to ‘discuss’ China’s more ‘efficient’ use of coal. This can only mean; “please keep buying our coal, we need the mineral boom to continue”.
My crystal ball sees Australian tax payers dollars funding ‘clean coal’ research and technology in China! Watch this space ……….
New Scientist also has two current most unsettling articles on the present complexity of our civilisation and associated collapse risk.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19826501.500-why-the-demise-of-civilisation-may-be-inevitable.html
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19826501.400-will-a-pandemic-bring-down-civilisation.html
The second article is overtly about pandemic, however threat to energy supply is central to the article.
The strong implication from those articles (relevant to this discussion) is that we should be implementing relatively distributed generation even if that has a slightly higher $/watt than highly centralised generation.
As an example, from the point of view of robustness of our civilisation, one hundred distributed 200MW systems is a far better prospect than ten 2GW systems. There are obvious reasons for this, but also deeper quite profound reasons related to complexity theory and fragility of systems.
As such the Ausra approach while commendable on so many levels may need to accept the slight inefficiency (relative to GW) of the current plant size and not be too fixated on achieving the GW scale plants. In which case the commercialisation phase is over and they can be at the full speed implementation phase of rolling it out rapidly now.
It is very unlikely that anything still under R&D or not yet commercialised will make much of a contribution to a 2020 target and will probably be too late to help us prevent exceeding even the unacceptable 500ppm. We need to get the stuff that works now and roll it out full scale asap. This means serious funding for building stuff. We shouldn’t be sitting on our hands waiting for someone else to get going on this.
We also need to look at maximising our pumped hydro energy storage capability and perhaps the Greens can lead the way there. This should again be relatively distributed if we want to maximise the robustness of our civilisation.
mcfarm, I take it you’ve seen this story in today’s Australian?
I suspect you may have hit the nail on the head.
If he can’t comprehend the problem then perhaps what we need Rudd to focus on is the absurd level of risk involved in putting all his eggs into the basket of sequestration.
After all this is fundamentally what Eddie Groves got wrong (buying shares on margin in his own company and in so doing ripping up a few hundred million dollars). Eddie has done us a favour by illustrating why a failure to diversify is stupid.
China would need to burn (in absolute terms) 60 times as much coal as we do before we have any valid grounds for saying to them burn less coal.
So don’t tilt at windmills, apply your energy where you will actually get an outcome.
To spread his risk, Rudd can for the moment export coal while at the same time completely decarbonising (critically not using sequestration) our domestic generation. Its not an optimal solution but it might just be a negotiable interim solution.
Then you allow international pressure to operate on China to ensure it never burns 60 times as much coal as we do. Use the forces that are already at work.
Insisting that Rudd both both does not export coal and does not burn coal here is politically unrealistic. So pick the option you can win, which is not burning it here. Then its much easier in future to switch off the export tap.
If we keep using coal for generation here then we’ll never be able to suddenly stop mining coal without suffering a politically impossible dreadful domestic crunch. If you stop burning coal here you actually put yourself in an internal domestic political position to completely ban coal mining (including for export) in future.
Australia got along acceptably well a mere decade ago when coal was worth hardly more than the cost of mining it and BHP was a much smaller part of our economy and we’ll get along acceptably well when BHP isn’t mining coal anymore.
The unions argument about more jobs if coal exports increase is ludicrous. Mining already has an unbelievable number of vacancies. The unions strategy is nothing more than a transparent self interested attempt to put upwards pressure on wages which will be inflationary and thus hurt everyone other than miners.
You won’t ban coal mining today, but if you play your cards right (by eliminating domestic reliance on coal) you could place us in a position to ban it in future.
It helps to try and see the chess game more than one move ahead.
“We’ll just bury it!” is such a tired old “solution”. It never works for anything, stuff always leaks out and eventually you run out of room.
Anyway, we already have an excellent geosequestration technology. Coal, oil and natural gas have sat around in the Earth for hundreds of millions of years, and remarkably little got out by itself. So if we just stop pumping and digging the stuff up and burning it, it’ll probably stay there.
I won’t even try to patent this marvellous new invention. But I will name it. “Don’t burn it.”
I had a look at it a couple of weeks back, and CCS is a crock. The most advanced projects are injecting CO2 into thin coal seams - which releases methane, which they then burn and make more CO2, and… In the case of coal seams, it’s not about storing CO2, it’s about coal companies taking coal seams which are difficult to mine and getting natural gas out of them, that is it’s about money.
I should note also that while we could stop burning fossil fuels, we still wouldn’t be zero carbon, or avoid climate change; burning fossil fuels is just 55% of greenhouse gas emissions. The rest is agriculture, livestock, deforestation, and a bit from CFCs. We can’t be zero carbon in the sense people usually mean that, which is that we have no greenhouse gas emissions.
No Tim@3 I hadn’t seen it, and it’s happened a bit faster than I anticipated too.
Our taxes (aka Rudd and Wong plus R&D) are now at work in China to facilitate the EXPANSION of the coal industry. Albeit via the discredited pursuit of the oxymoron ‘clean coal’.
The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze. This is political expediency in full flight - very Machiavellian.
We tried to get David Mills of AUSRA nominated for Rudd’s 2020 Summit (he was prepared to pay his own way from California) but the nomination wasn’t accepted.
For readers here who haven’t seen it, there’s a great paper from last month by Mills at http://ausra.com/pdfs/ausra_usgridsupply.pdf
I too find his work “fascinating and uplifting”. Inspirational is another word.
Cheers
Decentralised renewable energy is possible NOW, let’s stop making excuses for the fossil fool industries
The Emerald Plan is available from the downloads section at http://www.gasificationaustralia.com/
As a point of interest, mcfarm, China is one of our SMALLEST coal customers and hardly rates when compared to the massive purchases of our number one customer, Japan.
China comes in at about number five and is actually still a net exporter of coal.
I totally agree with you on the hypocrisy of Rudd and Wong.
The customers who are buying less coal over time are countries like France who are around 80% nuclear fuelled.
Imagine how much coal Japan would be using if it didn’t have some 55 nuclear plants that save the equivalent of the total carbon emissions of Australia.
For those who are convinced that CO2 emissions will bring about catastrophic climate change, there is no good news about a renewable energy form that will provide the base load electrical power required by modern society, at least in the next 30 - 40 years.
Any piddling, symbolic, CO2 reducing gestures we make here in Australia are totally insignificant when compared to the massive daily growth of emissions from China, India and lets not forget Vietnam.
ALL political parties in Australia are now party to the lie that we can make any difference, at all, to climate change be it natural or human induced.
David Ross@9, China may be our smallest coal customer at this point in time, however the fact that they are building one coal fired power station every week should change that statistic fairly soon.
Whilst Australia may be a small national emitter, we are the largest per capita emitter I believe. Hard to have the moral high ground under these circumstances. Also I wonder what our ranking would be if we took into account all the coal we export? This is our coal which is being burnt by others, don’t we have a responsibility for this too? Or does this lapse once we sell it?
In other words, do we have a duty of care for our export product?
Just because what we do can make little or no difference immediately does not mean that we should not do it.
If I am faithful to my wife, will it create worldwide fidelity? If I refrain from stealing from my employer, will it create worldwide honesty? No. But it’s still the right thing to do.
But of course it may be that what we do does affect the world, in a leadership sense. If a country like Australia, as heavily dependent on fossil fuels for energy and import money as we are, and with such huge per capita emissions, were to rid ourselves of fossil fuel use and export - just imagine the effect that’d have.
Imagine if at Bali the PM had stood up and said, “Australia will close down all coal-fired plants within 10 years, replacing them with renewables; to finance this we’ll put a tax on carbon emissions from fossil fuels, and will export renewable generators to other countries.” Just imagine the effect that would have had on the conference.
Action and leadership can be inspirational and make a real difference. Inaction and lack of direction can also have an effect, too.
Well said, Kiashu, well said!
One further point, though, is that we account for coming up towards 2% of global emissions. In a scenario where we need to achieve very substantial cuts very fast, cutting our emissions will play an important role in achieving those cuts.
Kiashu, we can all come up with impossible dreams. If we stopped coal exports tomorrow, can you imagine what the current trade deficit would look like. The probable scenario would be for China / Japan to just come over here and take what they want. Remember we have been through this some 70 years ago, and do not think it would not happen again if a country like China started to go down the tubes because of a lack of energy.
Food for though, maybe somebody from the Greens can go though Australian legislation to see if the National Service Act was ever removed from the statute books in 1975, or if National Service was just stopped. If it was just stopped, all permanent residents between 18 and 35, may be dragged in to stop somebody just taking coal if they want.
Mcfarm first,
I often hear the mantra of Aussies being the highest emitter per capita and that’s nearly true - about third I think, but still high compared to an Afghan camel herder.
It comes about firstly because of our relatively small population scattered widely around a vast land mass.
We enjoy a very high standard of living which means that we need to transmit our power, water and freight huge distances to service sometimes tiny pockets of humanity who have air conditioners, refrigerators, electric stoves, plasma TV’s and all the trappings of modern society shared by their city cousins.
It all takes energy.
To compare us with much smaller land areas populated heavily such as in Europe is technical nonsense.
Duty of care for coal?
Duty of care for Steel? Aluminium? Sulphur, Molybdenum, Manganese? - all used to manufacture death dealing weapons overseas - all exports.
You can probably trace all our exports to some harmful
effect on someone and their production and transport, ALL, produce GHG as well.
Kiashu,
I appreciate your heart is morally in the right place but Rudd did not make a declaration in Bali such as you suggest because he is not a raving lunatic.
There is no renewable energy technology that can achieve what you suggest in 10 years.
It doesn’t exist and Rudd knows it.
We are 20 million people and cannot possibly afford to deploy unreliable incredibly expensive “renewable” energy for our base load needs without smashing our relatively small economy.
Please try researching your dreams in areas that may not necessarily agree with your vision.
It can be sobering but facts are like that.
And Kiashu we are a flea bite in world influence.
The hardeyed men in the Chinese politbureau do not give a rodents rectum about what a noisy multi racial country at the bottom of the Southern hemisphere thinks.
Tim Hollo,
If New Zealand and Australia sank below the waves tomorrow, China, India, USA and Vietnam would replace our combined total GHG emissions within a few weeks.
That’s how fast they are growing.
Cutting our tiny amount of GHG emissions will achieve nothing even remotely identifiable.
At present your assertion is that we produce 2% of global, man made GHG.
The world’s total atmospheric GHG from all sources represents around 0.038% of all gases or 380ppm.
Man made GHG represents around 5% of the atmosphere at the moment which is .0019% of the total atmospheric gases.
If we are responsible for 2% as you say, then we contribute 0.000038% of the atmosphere’s GHG.
Lets cut that by an unrealistic 60% as Labor is touting, then we will prevent 0.0000224% of the worlds present volume of GHG entering the atmosphere.
Wow! That should help.
There is no way that the man made GHG content of the earth’s atmosphere will not increase and continue to increase no matter how much hand wringing and high minded speeches are made by self serving politicians.
Global warming is a politicians dream scenario.
They have found another way to make us scared and dependant on them.
If climate change is occurring, whether it is anthropogenic or not, we as humans will just have to adapt as we always have.
Dave Ross, you are comparing the wrong set of numbers.
If you are seeking to question the science of climate change based on the very small quantities of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that is one thing, and I invite you to consider the minuscule proportions of certain toxins that can kill a human hundreds of thousands of times the total weight. A trace of peanut can kill an allergic person through anaphylaxis terrifyingly fast. Size doesn’t always matter, in other words ;-)
However, if you are trying to use those numbers to suggest Australia’s contribution is small relative to the rest, you are simply comparing the wrong numbers.
The point is, our planet’s ecosystems effectively breathe, various parts inhaling CO2 and exhaling O2, and various parts doing the opposite. Until the industrial revolution, these had been in equilibrium effectively for a very long time. Even now, the oceans and plants around the planet sequester some 4 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, although this is slowly reducing through saturation and slowing sequestration thanks to heat and dryness.
The bit that makes the difference is that which is above the planet’s capacity to reabsorb, and we contribute close to 2% of that. That is a responsibility we have to bear.
This line that China’s growth will make our reductions irrelevant is a nonsense. Yes, they are growing fast, but not so fast to wipe out major reductions from us within months. That is Howard rhetoric, not truth. But, more to the point, if we (talking the whole developed world here) agree to make major reductions and lead by example, they will find it very hard not to follow. If we refuse to take the lead, there’s no chance they will - why should they?
Finally, re your claim that large size and small population is the reason for our high emissions - that is simply untrue. Certainly there are transmission losses, but there are with all energy networks, regardless of how close together population centres are to a large extent. Losses in Australia are only marginally higher than in Europe or America, in no small part because we site our large power stations close to our large population centres, sensibly enough. The reason for our high emissions from energy is because of our high reliance on coal and our extremely inefficient use of energy on international standards. We waste more energy than pretty much any other developed nation.
Whether or not you think climate change is a problem, energy efficiency is a no brainer. And that’s the key difference between us and Europe, not distance.
David Ross@14
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Australia has a duty of care for products that have the potential to cause harm in their final state. So for instance we limit/restrict sales of uranium, alcohol, weapons, cars, cigarettes and so on.
Steel, aluminium, sulphur, molybdenum, manganese and other raw materials that you use as an example, must be substantially altered by manufacturing and processing/blending before they can be a threat. They have multiple uses, so the final use of the raw material in question is probably unknown (the too hard basket). This is not the case with coal.
Coals current destiny is to be burnt as a dirty fuel, emitting CO2. This is a known consequence of our export action. So I believe Australia has a duty of care as we know what the consequences of our actions will be i.e. increased global warming due to the CO2 emissions generated by our export commodity.
Since you are also talking economics, there is no possible externalisation of costs in a fixed entity - the planet. At some point in time the externalisation of costs will come home to roost. That time is now, and this is what we are dealing with - just who should pay for the previously externalised costs of coals atmospheric pollution?
G’day Tim Hollo and mcfarm,
Gees you are a worry you two.
Tim, I don’t think that mixing toxicology into this debate is relevant when you are discussing CO2.
Its not toxic just an asphyxiant as you probably know but you and I aren’t discussing that.
You say that size doesn’t matter but surely this is a debate about percentages and volumes, with the Kyoto terms predicated on volumes, weights and the relative amounts of CO2 produced by various countries.
Surely the very size of the man made emissions is exactly what the debate is about.
Secondly maybe you should read my comments a bit closer and avoid verballing to make your point.
I suggested that the combined GHG output of China and India and the USA and Vietnam,… not just China, would replace Australia and New Zealand’s total in a few weeks.
I didn’t even mention Brazil or South Korea.
Prove that I am wrong.
You do the research and publish the figures this time.
You’ll get a shock.
As far as distance/population ratios affecting GHG outputs you really must buy some new batteries for your calculator and/or read all of my comment.
I’m not just discussing electricity.
Consider this: Tim and Dave both own identical trucks.
Tim has a contract to deliver general freight to a small town of 200 people, 50km from a big city warehouse and Dave has to deliver the same weight of goods to 200 people that live 150km from the same warehouse.
I would put it to you that Dave’s truck will emit, three times the gases of Tim’s truck to provide the same day to day service to 200 people.
Australia has huge distances and a small population that travels constantly 24/7 in cars, planes, boats, and trains
Similarly water needs huge amounts of energy to pump it over distance and that is done all over Australia to support small populations.
The tyranny of distance is real and transporting or transmitting goods, services and utilities over large distances is very energy intensive and the ratio of energy consumption to a small number of humans is consequently high.
Have another think about it.
Mcfarm,
“just who should pay for the previously externalised costs of coals atmospheric pollution?”
Well mate, I would suggest the people that burn the coal. They are not forced to buy it and have the choice of using it as a source of energy or using one of the wonderful new “renewable” base load energy sources I keep hearing about but which no one can direct me too.
You seem to think that coal is only burnt once it leaves our shores.
I think you should also know that coal is exported for use in the manufacture of soap, aspirin, solvents, dyes, plastics, fibres like rayon and nylon, pitch, creosote oil, napthalene, phenol,pyridine, benzene, and toluene.
Ammonia gas is recovered from coke ovens and used to make ammonia salts, nitric acid and agricultural fertilizers like sulphate of ammonia and ammonium nitrate.
Easily obtainable info if you look.
Evening all, the footy is on soon.
Dave Ross@17, OK let’s go with your user pays idea for a minute. This means that only the junkie is responsible for their overdose. Drug barons and pushers rejoice, for you are without sin!
No need to look, I know a little about coal. You forgot to mention that the chemicals and composites are the minor by-products of coal production, and most of these by-products are produced once coal is burnt, or once it subjected to extreme heat plus, pulverisation, blended, acidified, gasified or liquefied. In short most coal that leaves our shores is burnt.
Oh and Rayon is a cellulose derived polymer btw. Enjoy the new opiate of the masses - aka sport.
Good on you mcfarm, a drug analogy now!
Tim came up with toxicology and anaphylactic shock analogies!
How about sticking to the topic, that of coal, energy production and its attendant problems.
My comments regarding coal usage are valid and reflect the many uses of coal apart from its major duty of electrical generation around the world.
And mcfarm, Rayon comes in many forms modified from the cellulose derived polymer you refer to and requires the use of liquid ammonia scavenged from the coking beds I previously described.
Now that you have found Wikipedia could you please direct me to a reliable, affordable, source of “renewable” base load energy that is available right now.
I know that the various green groups have something that they are keeping secret because they keep telling the world that we must change from fossil fuels to “renewables” NOW or face the end of the planet.
Please don’t keep it a secret anymore.
What is this renewable energy system of which they speak?
I need help.
My company’s core activities are sea-water desalination, water recycling and power generation as they all have to exist in a symbiotic relationship to achieve maximum energy efficiency.
In remote areas such as large Indo-Pacific island tourist resorts we scavenge heat from our turbo’d diesel generators to assist solar boosted hot water systems and treat our sewage effluent for toilet flushing and garden irrigation.
But we are stuck with diesel generators for our base load as everything else is too expensive.
Because the very nature of my business dictates that most of our plants are sited in remote areas, I was quite amused to read Tim’s comments dismissing my remarks about distance, energy usage, and small populations.
I have to buy high tech materials, use spanners and pipes, work in filthy hot circumstances and pay my techs, workers, and suppliers and….I love it.
In other words I have to walk the walk of everyday energy supply and efficiency, not just theorise.
Cold hard reality is a great teacher.
I am currently evaluating a large new project in the Pacific and would love to use solar but the Japanese companies who lead the world in this technology tell me that it will be something like 30 - 40 years before this becomes competitive for base load.
It will still need large areas of land, something we don’t have a lot of on small islands.
Finally, mcfarm, I was dismayed to read your plagiarised remark about the “opiate of the masses.”
That’s usually used by stuffy, sneering pseudo intellectuals who adopt a superior tone to differentiate their advanced thought processes from that of the “masses”.
I sincerely hope that you are a far nicer, more well rounded person than that.
One of the “masses” is off now to slash the front paddock, and tonight , warm the set and cool the tinnies, for the mighty NQ Cowboy’s take on St. George.
Carn the Cows!
Dave Ross, if you spend any time at this blog, you will note that the comments threads do not descend into the kind of odious name-calling that you are turning to. You might not agree with the things you read here, you might think you are a lot cleverer than everyone else here, but let’s try to keep the conversation adult, can we?
Re renewables - check out Ausra / Solar Heat and Power for baseload solar thermal that will very soon be competitive with coal and is seeing a boom in the USA. Bioenergy, wind and various forms of hydro, when combined in a smart network with good demand and supply projections, can easily meet what is often oversimplified as ‘baseload’.
In fact, it is important to realise that what we see as ‘baseload’ power is really extremely inefficient, as our demand curve goes up and down dramatically over the course of the day. Interestingly enough, solar power matches our demand curve quite closely. Coal, which cannot ramp up and down easily, ends up being quite wasteful.
Finally, your circumstances are one thing. But the vast majority of emissions-related activity in Australia -and the reason our emissions are so high - is focussed on our inefficient cities. Transport, and particularly freight, is a pretty small proportion of our emissions.
G’day Tim,
If you read my comments a little closer, you will see that I didn’t call anyone an odious name and was merely responding to mcfarm’s initial sneer at my love of sport, by his/her paraphrasing of Karl Marx’s smear of religion.
I expressed my hope that mcfarm was a better person than the perception I received as I’m sure he/she is.
I am very aware of the inefficiencies of the current power generation techniques and that is why I ask for help with any new info that I have missed.
Hardly the words of someone who thinks they are a lot cleverer than you people here.
However thanks for the info.
I know about Ausra and think that we will definitely see increasing use of solar in the future.
It makes sense to travel back down the energy transfer chain back towards where it all came from, the Sun.
I suspect however we’ll find market forces will decide the methods of power generation in democracies, not political ideology or wishful thinking.
But with fossil fuels becoming more expensive, a whole new exciting age of electrical energy generation is rapidly approaching.
Anyway, keep in touch.
You never know I may be able to help you one day.
Cheers,
Dave Ross.
Ok Ross, firstly the analogy I thought apt. Coal is something we depend on, which science has demonstrated is not good for us / the planet. Now perhaps this may seem to be condescension, but if you can’t see the analogy’s relevance, what can I say.
I am pleased that you use the by-products of diesel generators for something productive in a symbiotic way. The fact that diesel generators supply your base load because it’s cheaper, doesn’t make it the right thing to do, it only makes it cheaper. One should never confuse price with value. Diesel is only the cheapest option because the real costs of diesel are externalised to the environment - this is basic economics.
When Karl Marx said “religion is the opiate of the masses”, they were fighting words and not those of ’stuffy, sneering pseudo intellectual’ condescension. In Australia, sport IS the opiate of the masses - and most stuffy ivory tower intellectuals I know agree, even as they followed their favourite team. Funny thing, but the higher the cognitive ability, the less they are inclined to follow rugby league.
And btw, my response used by “stuffy, sneering pseudo intellectuals who adopt a superior tone to differentiate their advanced thought processes from that of the “masses”.”, was in direct response to your tone. What we sow ……….
Interesting…
Dave’s small islands will likely always require a diesel or even biodiesel solution at least as backup. This is almost certainly tolerable since it will represent a tiny fraction of global generation and the amount of biodiesel those sites might use will never seriously impact food production.
I don’t think its sensible to be overly concerned with baseload (i.e. backup) from renewables in the instances Dave refers to. What he’s doing now is probably the only feasible solution for a long time.
Clearly the main emissions game we should be concerned about is domestic baseload for Australia. Solving that will be what counts in reducing our emissions to meet the targets. And its pretty clear that is very feasible, no need to repeat Tim’s comments on that. The technology exists and would only require tens of billions of seed money from government to ensure it happens by 2020. Tens of billions is a mere single electoral cycle voter bribe these days.
Also Dave it does on the surface seem as though our distance should be the cause of our emissions, however a proper analysis demonstrates this to be a misapprehension.
The vast bulk our population is concentrated and has driving and travel habits much like the British. Only a very small proportion of our population are forced into high emissions due to distances. Basically not enough to meaningful alter our per capital emissions.
We have double the British per capita emissions principally because 85% of our power comes from coal (some of it brown!). The Brits use nuclear, wind and gas so that around 33% of their power comes from coal. So we actually can’t claim its the distance that makes us such bad emitters.
In one regard the Brits should emit more than us. They heat their homes in winter more than we do, and their homes are old and badly insulated, making their heating very inefficient. This is a bigger carbon cost than our air conditioners. By rights on this score we should emit less per capita than the Brits not double as we do.
We also have a fantastic solar resource whereas theirs is dreadful, so if we harness it we really can emit less than them, despite our distances.
If you doubt this I’ll dig up the sources behind the studies showing this outcome.
Good post Concerned, and I agree with a lot of it, especially about solar being an important part of the future.
And you are right, I’m probably stuck with diesel for a long time yet.
Obviously power generation is our biggest emitter and the use of brown coal is notorious for high emissions even though they have cleaned their act up a bit in recent times.
My point is that Australians are being demonised because of our high per capita emission figures which I maintain are enhanced (not totally caused) by our huge distances and the effect this has on the energy used for delivery of services and utilities.
The figures I have chased for the Australian transport sector and your example, UK, are from reputable government sources and show that Australia’s transport sector accounts for some 76 million tonnes of emissions per year as opposed to the UK at around 60 million tonnes,(including internal aviation and shipping).
I’ve rounded everything up a bit for ease of comparison but the ratios are about the same.
OK, the UK has a population of around 62 million
Australia has around 21 million.
So to summarise, a country, (UK), a fraction of the area of Australia, with a similar standard of living and three times the population has only 79% the transport emissions of Australia.
Where is my argument wrong?
With our transport emissions representing 13.5 % of the countries total and rapidly growing, I would say that
transport emission figures are extremely significant in Australia and are obviously exacerbated by our huge distance/population ratio.
Now that’s just the transport sector, and I haven’t even started on electricity and water transmission which are also affected by distance.
Not all coal burning power stations are positioned close to cities especially in Queensland where they are mostly positioned as close as possible to the coal supply source to keep transport energy costs/consumption as low as possible.
The extra transmission costs incurred by distance are the lesser of the two evils.
The other argument that Tim dismissed as “Howard rhetoric” and “a nonsense”, is my claim that if Australia and NZ vanished off the map tomorrow that the combined projected growth of emissions of China, India, USA and Vietnam would cancel out our own savings within a few weeks.
Well I have done my sums and Tim is probably still doing his or hasn’t got back to me yet.
My estimate is it will take about 14 - 20 weeks, ( a bit longer than I’d guessed), say 3 - 5 months if we cut our emissions 60% tomorrow and if I have exaggerated by 100%, 8 - 10 months.
And that’s only four countries.
The latest emission growth figures at 11% for China would see them account for Australia’s 60% saving in six months all on their Pat Malone!
Many other countries are struggling to prevent increasing emissions as well as you probably are aware.
Finally I wish we didn’t have to burn coal too, but coal supports many mainstream families just like ourselves and they have to be considered.
Coal usage will pass but I doubt any time soon, and as most impartial commentators point out, the market place will decide what form of electricity generation we use unless of course Rudd does as you suggest, Concerned, and pours billions into solar and the like.
I would suggest his, hard headed, fiscal advisors will counsel against that.
The budget will be fascinating.
Hang on to your hats.
Dave Ross@24, I don’t disagree with your analysis of our current position. Nor do I disagree with any of your projections based on a continuation of current usage and consequent trajectory.
However, just because something is the norm and projected, does not mean it shouldn’t or can’t be changed. And just because something needs to be changed doesn’t mean the correct technological mix of answers must instantly appear. The base load issue is difficult, and there appears to be no magic silver bullet, but there are silver shot gun pellets in the making, and they won’t necessarily be cheap either. As they say, ‘cheap, fast and good; choose any two, no more.’
Change almost always involves costs, sometimes enormous costs, particularly when we don’t have the luxury of time. The time needed to make the necessary technological transitions and innovations imposed by a transition to a low carbon economy.
If we had time, transforming our (and the global) economy to a lower carbon emitting state would be relatively painless. However, whether we do nothing or do lots, the changes will be painful - it’s only a matter of time.
Given the time constraints imposed by the scientific evidence on global CO2e and it’s consequences, for us to continue with business as usual, is simply ‘head in the sand’ insanity. And yet your position above appears to be; “we shouldn’t make massive changes to our economy unless the rest of the world does so simultaneously, because Australia amounts to nothing in the scheme of things, and it will hurt us financially if we go it alone.” and “you don’t have an answer for the base load question, so let’s regrettably keep burning coal.” Forgive me if I’m wrong, and for the paraphrasing, but I think that’s about it.
So it appears, that in the face of the greatest biological disaster the planet has faced since the last mass extinction event, your suggestion is for ‘business as usual’ to continue, or ‘let’s wait and see’, which amounts to the same thing.
If this is your position, I sincerely hope the small pacific islands on which you will place the generators are more than a few metres above current sea levels. However, if this is not your position, what do you suggest we about this problem called ‘anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide and equivalents induced global warming’?
Dave, you are right to say distance is a cause of additional emissions, the contention above only seems to be whether distance is the most important cause of us being double the UK.
When you first presented your argument it came across to the reader as though you felt distance was the most important cause of our high emissions.
It may help to consider that transport emissions aren’t simply a function of distance. They are a function of industry type as well. Our industry mix differs from the UK. Critically we export a huge amount of bulk goods per capita as compared with UK and we need to transport those bulk goods to port thus raising our transport emissions.
If we did a study that controlled for industry-mix, the transport gap would narrow substantially, but there is no doubt we would still emit more due to distance.
However even if we ignore the effect of industry-mix and lump it all in as being distance-caused then the transport emissions still don’t come remotely close to explaining our doubling of emissions as compared with UK. I think though from the figures in your note that you would agree with this.
Dave, yes you right, the market place will decide absolutely. The question we should ask really is whether or not the market is correctly pricing the future costs of each decision. If not then the market will lead to bad decisions and so existing market corruption needs to be addressed.
And you are right again there is zero chance of getting billions of seed funding into implementation. But that is only because the hard heads you refer to can’t (or won’t) properly comprehend the problem and how remarkably easy it is for us to make tremendous progress on addressing it.
Those hard heads will be judged harshly by history because they will eventually be seen to responsible for colluding with most other national governments to ruin the quality of life of our descendants for nothing more than short term economic “gain” that has the perverse effect of making our present population less happy.
It is well established that once we achieve a certain level of wealth, additional wealth does not increase happiness. An excess of wealth actually makes us less happy by isolating us from our communities among other things. “Affluenza” by Hamilton does a good job on explaining this.
We have never been wealthier, but it seems never more stessed or more indebted (the irony is palpable). Crucially our great collective wealth and earning capacity makes us juicy targets for parasitic promoters of easy credit who trick us into buying stuff we don’t need (or don’t even really want) with the effect we end up working our whole lives to reward those promoters with a stream of interest charges. Market forces have greatly encouraged this awful situation.
It is fascinating that it not occurred to our leaders that it has been 50 years since economic growth has done anything at all to enhance our levels of collectiveness happiness.
At the very least this documented outcome should beg the question as to why further growth from here is the only reasonable goal. This is especially the case when it so obvious we need to reduce our planetary footprint. Continued pursuit of growth will ensure the exhaustion of the resources in our petrie dish. There is a serious cost to growth but very limited meaningful benefit from the point we have reached here in Australia.
Market forces are a fantastic thing which do wonders for rationalising the flow of goods and services through an economy, and this great power confers religious belief in some as to the infallibility of market forces.
We are however skeptical of unfettered exercise of great power in our elected leaders. We should be similarly skeptical of arguments for giving market forces unrestricted power to operate. Market forces are a great tool to be wielded, not a god to be worshipped.
Afternoon Tim. Interesting arguments on both sides, even if rather warm at times. It is interesting that most arguments seem to omit the impact of change to the Mr and Mrs Average (silent majority).
The average Australian is more interested in the costs of fuel, bread on the table, and their mortgage, than of a need to reduce carbon omissions. If a survey was held in the outer metropolitan suburbs (say 50+ km from the CBDs in Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne), I would suggest that, Mr and Mrs Average (the silent majority), would put the need to reduce carbon emissions well down the list (probably food costs, followed by mortgage costs, followed by fuel costs).
Governments can ignore the concerns of Mr and Mrs Average, but if they do, then it is at their peril when the next election comes around, especially if the Government has made changes that cause costs to dramatically increase and cause major pain. As a result, changes to reduce carbon emissions will need to be slowly implemented over 20+ years, then people may accept smaller pain over a long period, which in my view is what PM Rudd is heading toward. I suppose the alternative is for the Governments to steam ahead, then be hammered at the next election by an opportunistic group promising to put the brakes on change.
I agree that with any change there is a cost, but do we want (as has been experienced in some countries) when, for example, fuel costs have had major increases, riots / demonstrations in the streets, and crime spiral out of control. Admittedly these scenarios are not likely today, but push Mr and Mrs Average too far, and what do they have to lose.
I have noted with the proposed carbon tax, the Fed Government expects to reap $1+ billion for their coffers, and I would expect that the State Governments will have their hands out for a large part of that to cover their need to subsidise energy costs for low income (and some middle income) families, who will never be able to afford energy saving devices, or for the Governments to have to actually buy / install the devices for the families. From earlier this year, electricity prices went up 18%, and I was told recently that the Electricity Companies are already experiencing increased default rates, which the Governments are going to have to subsidise.
Anyway all, when you discuss the need to change, and the costs involved, please include the possible repercussions to society as we know it today. I for sure do not want to see riots (possibly led by unions) in the streets as families cannot afford energy, increased fuel costs impact the cost of food, the money available for Mr and Mrs Average to buy food, and rent / mortgage payments skyrocket (due to inflationary pressures).
Hi Grant@28, it appears we are facing double jeopardy. If we do nothing about CO2e emissions, the pain inflicted by climate enforced change will happen within this century. But if we act right now, as science is saying we should, the pain will be now. Either way there will be pain; societal and financial. This is why the bulk Garnaut’s interim carbon trading system report talks about compensating for the pain of the market failures and compensating for the pain of a reallocation of resources. Mr and Mrs Average will share in this pain.
Figures I’ve heard from David Pearce, Director and Principal Policy Analyst, The Centre for International Economics, indicate that the carbon trading system will involve twice the dollars and impact of the gst at introduction (and this excludes agriculture and forestry at approx. 18% of total CO2e emissions). So I think the $1 billion you mention will be small change, as permits will be used up and new ones created every year.
So the government will receive the trading scheme’s initial sale price of permits at auction, and at every auction of permits thereafter. The dollars involved are huge, and the potential for compensation for market reallocations and failures are massive. With a touch of skill, a bit of spin, and a fist full of carbon permit dollars pre election, the Rudd Labor government could easily go 3 or more terms. They are probably well aware of this, and we will see this in action soon enough. Let’s see, next fed election 2011 (Kevin ‘11), carbon trading scheme intro and revenue raised 2010, pork barrelling to commence late 2010 early 2011. What do you reckon?
So back on topic for a minute, will the Rudd Labor government continue to pick a climate change loser, aka clean coal? Absolutely if it will get them re-elected. This may well be to minimise the short term pain of people in marginal electorates, but it will be at the expense of greater pain further down the track. A bit like the government allowing people to smoke and collecting the revenue, knowing full well the consequences of the future public health bill. The pokies are another topical example.
Anyway, given today’s Climate Institute info http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/14/2216494.htm
Australians appear to be ready for a bit of shared pain. So as Dave Ross said, with the budget just around the corner in mind, “Hang on to your hats”.
Grant, its interesting you raise what Mr and Mrs Average think, the Climate Institute has a report in the media today with an excerpt of the article:
————— START EXCERPT ——
Mr Connor also says people are not averse to higher energy bills if it means the energy is coming from cleaner sources.
“They want to see all new electricity come from clean energy,” he said.
“It’s around about three-quarters of Australians support that, for example. People are keen for greater energy efficiency in their homes and their cars.”
The report also found that people were sceptical of efforts by both major parties to act on the problem of climate change.”
————— END EXCERPT ——
Now I’m pretty skeptical of this. I think as you suggest when the cost bites the number of supporters will go down.
However as we both know there isn’t a way out of this without hurting. The trouble is either Mr and Mrs Average feel some pain, or lots of people die (yes, I oversimplify but the point should be clear).
The other possibility is Mr and Mrs Average feel no pain, right up until they suffer a much worse consequence than the cumulative pain they would have felt if they went along with the belt tightening now.
The tough truth is Mr and Mrs Average’s pain is the least damaging option, but we Average’s have a vote and so as you point out we have the capacity to derail the process no matter the eventual consequences to us.
Even so if climate change were a non-issue the very things you fear will probably happen anyway due to peak oil, or other overconsumption of resources. Climate change response may be the best way to reduce the risk of the other likely causes of what you fear.
Is the democratic process able to navigate the crisis?
I sure hope so, but I’m convinced its a very long shot. The next best option is a dictator emerges through probably unspeakably violent means and gets us through to a solution.
That’s two common sense posts in a row from you Grant.
In my view there is a lot of sense in what you say.
My overall thrust is heading in your direction, just haven’t finished my answers to the common sense wisdom of Gilbert or the well meant moral arguments of mcfarm.
Cheers,
Dave Ross.
Thanks for the comeback folks, all good points and worthy of discussion.
Gilbert you are right, I should have been clearer.
My beef is that Australians are demonised as some sort of evil bastards because our emissions are high.
Now some say we are the highest, others say we are about third.
Whatever the ranking I feel that a distance loading should be employed when calculating this ranking so that all can see a more realistic emissions/capita figure much the same as “seasonally adjusted” data.
Our ranking per capita, when distance is factored in, will go down.
Distance is something we can do nothing about and a significant factor in our emissions output.
I don’t suggest we should hide the gross figure, just explain it better as we should explain the whole emission situation in blunt factual terms.
I detest scaremongering and the cherry picking of facts to suit a particular argument, no matter who does it.
I’ll give you a classic example.
The BBC recently reported in doom laden terms that the UK Dept. of Health had projected an elevated death risk of some 2000 heat related deaths a year because of hotter summers caused by global warming.
And that was dead right - accurate reporting.
However they had cherry picked the report and left out the bit about 12,000, LESS, cold related deaths because of warmer winters.
It makes no sense to risk our small economy and the well being of our citizens to prove a point or appear morally superior and courageous to the rest of the world when we, as I’m trying to demonstrate, will make stuff all difference to what is already a tiny percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere anyway.
Can any body provide a figure, to the nearest one tenth of one degree celsius illustrating the difference that Australia and New Zealand can make to the overall warming of the globe by 2012, by 2020, or 2030 by cutting our CO2 emissions by 60%, by 90%, by 100%?
The wealth we earn can do all sorts of good in the world particularly with our Pacific neighbours.
At home, let’s get stuck into air pollution in our cities, the muck we pour into our waterways, rivers and oceans.
Gilbert makes very good points about industry mix, market forces and collective happiness and I’ll just add… amen.
The biggest difference between pollies and market forces is that we can sack a government but its hard to get a grip on the intangible multi-faceted market forces.
We often hear about Big Oil and Big Coal.
Watch out for Big Eco heralded by none another than big Al Gore when he told his $10,000.00 a head guests in Melbourne that the biggest business opportunity of the 21st century was green industry.
I must apologise for a mistake in my BBC comment about the UK.
I didn’t check my source which is unforgivable.
The thrust to the comment still remains that the UK health department found that deaths from cold far exceed those from elevated heat events and that warmer winters kill many less over 65’s than hotter summers.
Their data goes back to 1971.
I have the UK government data now and as soon as I work it out I’ll post it but once again I apologise for not checking.
Hi all, I am not saying that we should do nothing, but, like all projects (I was a Project Manager for 10+ years), the emission reductions should have achievable targets, budgets, and time frames. We are partially there, but I see problems if the budgets (in this case impact to Mr and Mrs Average), and the time frame may not be achievable. I also see a relationship between impacts, and time frame, as time frame will increase if impacts and resistance increases.
Concerned (30), I also have seen statements about people being prepared to pay higher energy costs, but suspect that the people quoted may be from inner suburban areas. Since retiring (2 years ago - feed up with the rat race of employment), I am on the road around 3 days a week helping a friend with driving a large delivery van, both in outer suburban areas, and rural areas, and a common discussion point is the pain being experienced with energy / fuel costs (remembering that it is virtually impossible to have public transport in many rural areas), and that the Governments have to stop the increases. A common scenario is that as fuel, food, and energy prices go up, families have to reduce discretionary spending (eg. family outings for recreation, meals, hobbies, non essential electrical goods / clothing etc etc). This reduction in spending is starting to severely impact smaller rural centers, having the potential, with cost increases of driving people off the land.
In the city outer suburban areas (ie. the mortgage belts), people are already hurting from interest rate rises, fuel increases etc., and are looking for Governments to ease energy / fuel costs, not let them sky rocket. In many outer suburban mortgage, they do not even have the feasibility of large volume public transport (ie. trains). as no rail corridors were left as the new suburbs developed, so residents have a need to drive many KM to the nearest station or drive to work.
In summary I agree that most people recognise the importance or reducing emissions, and are prepared for increased costs over extended periods of time. Most people do what their budgets allow. Items such as energy reducing light bulbs, water tanks, recycling etc. In my case I have done likewise, and also exchanged a large Falcon for a smaller engined 2 liter diesel. However if the Governments make life a misery for Mr and Mrs Average, they can expect trouble, both at the ballot box, and possibly on the streets.
Hello All
We would like to present our vision for a pragmatic solution for integrating bioenergy into the landscape. It is the Emerald Plan. The name is derived from the title “Multi Role Integrated Indigenous Landscape Design” or MRIILD.
It is a integrated solution for energy, biodiversity and climate change
The Emerald Plan is a process of massive revegetation of ecosystems[modified] to connect fragmented native vegetation. These areas can then be sustainably managed to provide biodiversity, energy, rural viability, food security and sequestration outcomes at landscape/national levels.
This concept can be largely self financed with revegetation being payed for via carbon trading schemes and the energy generated self financing the relevant infrastructure.
We are currently creating a working group
Please read the Emerald Plan in our downloads section and feel free to comment, we are most appreciative for any feedback
The Emerald Plan can be viewed at http://www.gasificationaustralia.com
cheers
mark
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.
“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/
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
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.
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 :)
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
epemiral =ephemiral. whoops
m
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
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…).