Co-Written for Third Year University
Unpublished
Can We Clean Up Coal?
Unpublished
Can We Clean Up Coal?
Australia is powered by coal - it’s the most abundant energy source that we have. In the current debate surrounding climate change, it has been widely recognised that burning coal is responsible for 88 percent of Australia’s electricity generation. Unfortunately, it is also responsible for over a third of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. With these figures in mind, the Australian Federal Government has invested $545 million into the research and development of “clean coal” technologies. However, some are questioning whether the new technology is viable, or merely a stunt to keep the Australian coal industry alive.
While the State Government is currently planning to build a new coal-fired power station in NSW, studies show that that one new power station alone would create up to seven million tonnes of greenhouse gas per year. The Australian coal industry claims that clean coal can help reduce these emissions by up to 35 percent. Whether this is true or not, the issue of clean coal has become a hot topic in the lead up to the 2007 federal election.
So what exactly is clean coal? Depending on who you ask, the term can mean different things. Those who claim that clean coal can help solve global climate change are referring to the process called carbon capture and storage (CCS), also known as “geosequestration”. This is the capture of carbon dioxide emissions from coal, and then the storage of the gas either in the ocean or 2.5 kilometres underground.
The processes involved in clean coal technologies are complex and costly. The Howard Government has developed a Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund (LETDF) to support the commercial demonstration of technologies that have the potential to deliver large-scale greenhouse gas emission reductions in the energy sector. It is designed to leverage $1 billion in additional private sector investment.
The Howard Government has now committed $410 million out of the $500 million program, and four of the six LETDF projects funded to date involve clean coal. Compared to $75 million going to projects focussing on solar and natural gas, clean coal has received a massive cumulative total of $265 million from this fund alone, the money going to programs which will cost an estimated $2139.9 million overall.
Political parties such as the Greens, and climate change action groups such as Rising Tide and Greenpeace, are outraged at the amount of public money being spent on the unproven, expensive technology. They claim that the process is neither time nor cost effective.
Steve Phillips, from the grassroots activist group Rising Tide, points to the fact that most climate change scientists are calling for growth in greenhouse pollution to be turned around within the next ten years, and for global greenhouse emissions to be 50 to 80 percent lower by 2050. Conversely, he states that even the proponents of carbon capture and storage do not envision it producing a decrease in greenhouse emissions before 2050.
They predict instead that emissions in 2050 will be lower than they might otherwise have been. Actual emissions will still be higher. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics predicts that relying on carbon capture and storage will reduce global emissions in the year 2050 to between 11 and 23 percent lower than they would otherwise have been. This translates into a doubling of greenhouse emissions compared to today’s levels.
“In short, relying on clean coal technology will result in global greenhouse emissions continuing to rise for many decades, which will tip the world over the tipping point into catastrophic climate change,” he said.
Barry Hooper, Chief Technologist of the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas, argues that any money and time invested into the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is cost effective. He also states that carbon capture and storage in particular is important in the move towards a carbon neutral Australia.
“This technology is not only a good investment into the reduction of emissions, it also has a modest cost impact, which is very important,” he said.
However, Senator Christine Milne from the Greens argues that the only way clean coal can be cost effective is if there were to be a higher price on carbon.
“With a higher cost on carbon, it become much more cost effective must sooner than any CCS or geosequestration project. And so they [the coal companies] are caught in a conundrum. If you support a decent price on carbon then you are in fact supporting the renewables leap frog in the coal industry,” she said.
Supporters of clean coal technology emphasise that cost efficiency is not the only issue at hand. Lisa Chalk, from the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, says that clean coal is also saving tens of thousands of jobs in the coal mining industry.
“The coal industry is a major regional employer, with around 30,000 workers directly employed at coal mines. Rather than put aside our enormous coal resources and jeopardise jobs, the Australian government is working to reduce the industry’s greenhouse footprint. That’s why we are investing in clean coal technology,” she said.
It is true that at the end of 2005 around 30,000 people were employed in Australian black coal mines. New South Wales and Queensland in particular account for over 96 percent of employment in the Australian black coal industry. However, Senator Milne dismisses the idea that clean coal technology is needed to secure jobs in the coal industry. She claims that even if the Australian coaling industry were eventually phased out, employment would be readily available in alternative fields.
“In Germany, they have systematically, over a period of time, closed down the coal industry, and what they managed to do is make the transition to renewable energy. So they have created hundreds and thousands of jobs in the solar industry and many of those jobs have been taken up by many of those who worked in the coal industry. Exactly the same could happen here.”
Furthermore, Senator Milne argues that clean coal is merely a clever tactic adopted by coal companies and the federal and state governments to keep the coal mining industry buzzing in Australia.
“What we are seeing here is a make work program for the coal industry to enable it to carry on with business as usual,” she said.
And could you blame them? As Australia’s largest and most lucrative export, the industry has reeled in around $24.5 billion over the past two years.
Nonetheless, Doug Holden, from the Australian Coal Association, rejects claims that the coal industry is serving in its own interests. He says that the Australian coal industry is only interested in saving the environment - and doesn’t have anything to gain from the introduction of clean coal. However, he argues that the world cannot produce energy without coal, and emphasises the importance of the coal industry in Australia’s electricity generation. He also states that every company has to consider its bottom line in order to remain in operation.
“No source of energy, including renewable energy, can be sustainable unless it is environmentally friendly. And commercial.”
However, Steve Phillips says that unless the coal industry stops focusing on the commercial interests of “clean” coal, we’ll be risking irreversible damage to the planet.
“It is ludicrous to suggest that we cannot stop burning coal. Indeed, the opposite is true - we have no choice. We either stop burning coal when it runs out (as eventually it must), or we stop now while we can still avoid catastrophic climate change.”
While the State Government is currently planning to build a new coal-fired power station in NSW, studies show that that one new power station alone would create up to seven million tonnes of greenhouse gas per year. The Australian coal industry claims that clean coal can help reduce these emissions by up to 35 percent. Whether this is true or not, the issue of clean coal has become a hot topic in the lead up to the 2007 federal election.
So what exactly is clean coal? Depending on who you ask, the term can mean different things. Those who claim that clean coal can help solve global climate change are referring to the process called carbon capture and storage (CCS), also known as “geosequestration”. This is the capture of carbon dioxide emissions from coal, and then the storage of the gas either in the ocean or 2.5 kilometres underground.
The processes involved in clean coal technologies are complex and costly. The Howard Government has developed a Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund (LETDF) to support the commercial demonstration of technologies that have the potential to deliver large-scale greenhouse gas emission reductions in the energy sector. It is designed to leverage $1 billion in additional private sector investment.
The Howard Government has now committed $410 million out of the $500 million program, and four of the six LETDF projects funded to date involve clean coal. Compared to $75 million going to projects focussing on solar and natural gas, clean coal has received a massive cumulative total of $265 million from this fund alone, the money going to programs which will cost an estimated $2139.9 million overall.
Political parties such as the Greens, and climate change action groups such as Rising Tide and Greenpeace, are outraged at the amount of public money being spent on the unproven, expensive technology. They claim that the process is neither time nor cost effective.
Steve Phillips, from the grassroots activist group Rising Tide, points to the fact that most climate change scientists are calling for growth in greenhouse pollution to be turned around within the next ten years, and for global greenhouse emissions to be 50 to 80 percent lower by 2050. Conversely, he states that even the proponents of carbon capture and storage do not envision it producing a decrease in greenhouse emissions before 2050.
They predict instead that emissions in 2050 will be lower than they might otherwise have been. Actual emissions will still be higher. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics predicts that relying on carbon capture and storage will reduce global emissions in the year 2050 to between 11 and 23 percent lower than they would otherwise have been. This translates into a doubling of greenhouse emissions compared to today’s levels.
“In short, relying on clean coal technology will result in global greenhouse emissions continuing to rise for many decades, which will tip the world over the tipping point into catastrophic climate change,” he said.
Barry Hooper, Chief Technologist of the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas, argues that any money and time invested into the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is cost effective. He also states that carbon capture and storage in particular is important in the move towards a carbon neutral Australia.
“This technology is not only a good investment into the reduction of emissions, it also has a modest cost impact, which is very important,” he said.
However, Senator Christine Milne from the Greens argues that the only way clean coal can be cost effective is if there were to be a higher price on carbon.
“With a higher cost on carbon, it become much more cost effective must sooner than any CCS or geosequestration project. And so they [the coal companies] are caught in a conundrum. If you support a decent price on carbon then you are in fact supporting the renewables leap frog in the coal industry,” she said.
Supporters of clean coal technology emphasise that cost efficiency is not the only issue at hand. Lisa Chalk, from the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, says that clean coal is also saving tens of thousands of jobs in the coal mining industry.
“The coal industry is a major regional employer, with around 30,000 workers directly employed at coal mines. Rather than put aside our enormous coal resources and jeopardise jobs, the Australian government is working to reduce the industry’s greenhouse footprint. That’s why we are investing in clean coal technology,” she said.
It is true that at the end of 2005 around 30,000 people were employed in Australian black coal mines. New South Wales and Queensland in particular account for over 96 percent of employment in the Australian black coal industry. However, Senator Milne dismisses the idea that clean coal technology is needed to secure jobs in the coal industry. She claims that even if the Australian coaling industry were eventually phased out, employment would be readily available in alternative fields.
“In Germany, they have systematically, over a period of time, closed down the coal industry, and what they managed to do is make the transition to renewable energy. So they have created hundreds and thousands of jobs in the solar industry and many of those jobs have been taken up by many of those who worked in the coal industry. Exactly the same could happen here.”
Furthermore, Senator Milne argues that clean coal is merely a clever tactic adopted by coal companies and the federal and state governments to keep the coal mining industry buzzing in Australia.
“What we are seeing here is a make work program for the coal industry to enable it to carry on with business as usual,” she said.
And could you blame them? As Australia’s largest and most lucrative export, the industry has reeled in around $24.5 billion over the past two years.
Nonetheless, Doug Holden, from the Australian Coal Association, rejects claims that the coal industry is serving in its own interests. He says that the Australian coal industry is only interested in saving the environment - and doesn’t have anything to gain from the introduction of clean coal. However, he argues that the world cannot produce energy without coal, and emphasises the importance of the coal industry in Australia’s electricity generation. He also states that every company has to consider its bottom line in order to remain in operation.
“No source of energy, including renewable energy, can be sustainable unless it is environmentally friendly. And commercial.”
However, Steve Phillips says that unless the coal industry stops focusing on the commercial interests of “clean” coal, we’ll be risking irreversible damage to the planet.
“It is ludicrous to suggest that we cannot stop burning coal. Indeed, the opposite is true - we have no choice. We either stop burning coal when it runs out (as eventually it must), or we stop now while we can still avoid catastrophic climate change.”
No comments:
Post a Comment