The ground is slowly but surely shifting under the coal industry. The UK and Canada have both recently announced policies that effectively mean no new coal plants without operating carbon capture and storage – essentially calling industry’s bluff. And today it was reported that some of Australia’s most prominent climate scientists and IPCC authors have written a letter to Australia’s leading coal companies, essentially putting them on notice.
The letter states
“It is our considered view that no new coal-fired power stations, except ones that have ZERO emissions, should be allowed to be commissioned in Australia. Furthermore, we need an urgent program to replace existing coal plants with zero-carbon energy sources and energy efficiency programs as soon as possible.
We understand that this will require a significant social and economic transition that will need to be managed carefully to care for coal sector workers and coal-dependent communities and to meet Australia’s energy needs both through the transition and in the longer term. However, given the climate change imperative, this transition needs to proceed with the utmost urgency.
The unfortunate reality is that genuine action on climate change will require that existing coal-fired power stations cease to operate in the near future. We feel it is vital that you understand this and we are happy to work with you and with governments to begin planning for this transition immediately.”
In todays SMH, the Australian Coal Association said it did not want to debate the issue in the media, although a spokesman said it would respond to the climate scientists in writing.
It’s hardly surprising that they don’t want to debate the issue in the media. They don’t have a scientific or a moral leg to stand on. Carbon capture and storage is a ridiculous proposition – impractical, uneconomic and far too late to make any impact. The push for ‘clean coal’ seems designed as a ploy to enable the building of another generation of coal plants before renewables become cheaper than coal.
The costs of renewable energy are dropping considerable as the industry starts to achieve economies of scale. A variant of Moore’s law seems to be operating within the solar PV industry whereby with every doubling of capacity, PV costs come down by 20 percent. The price of wind is also dropping with technology improvements and other renewable energy sources such as geothermal are seeing serious investment. Meanwhile the price of coal is set to rise as carbon costs begin to be imposed.
It’s only a matter of time before we begin the urgent phase out of coal.
9 Comments
As long as the Coal Industry keeps on donating sums such as $700,000 to the ALP….Need I say more.
I agree that the phase out of coal is now a real possibility, but the forces against that proposition are substantial.
This article in today’s Age http://business.theage.com.au/business/time-the-sun-set-on-carbon-scheme-20090503-ardz.html is part of the problem.
While rightly saying that we need to focus on cheap renewables sources, it then uses that proposition to argue that we should not raise the costs of coal and that therefore ditch the ETS completely.
Basically, if we trash the ETS the coal industry and other high-emitters will be effectively left to continue as the way they always have been.
This argument that and ETS is too complex to be effective is just a way the industry is trying to avoid it. It is not rocket science: a given business produces a waste product and so that waste product must be factored into the cost of production. The business wants to reduce its cost of production, so it minimises its waste product. The fact that the waste product is carbon and not something more tangible doesn’t make it more complex.
John, you’re a dreamer. The International Energy Agency IEA projects global energy demand will double by 2030 and share of coal fired power will increase from 40 to 45%. All sources of energy, including renewables will be need to meet that demand. India, China, the US and Russia have major supplies of coal. In three of those countries, there are no environment campaigns of any substance trying to close down the coal industry. Rather, the 1.6 billion people in the world who have no electricity at all, will burn whatever they can to stay warm, to feed themselves and to raise their standards of living. And I’d say the same for the 2.6 billion people who have hardly any electricity.
John, you can personally start the urgent phase out of coal by trying to heat and coal and provide energy for your house (I presume you live in a house or apartment) purely from renewable sources. Let me know how you go and what your infrastructure costs are and what your quarterly power bill.
Here’s another point you haven’t considered. Where are you going to get the steel, and cement and plastics and aluminium that are such an important part of your daily life? Let me know how you’re going to effectively and economically replace coal in these processes. About 12% of global hard black coal is used in the international steel industry. About half of Australia’s coal exports go to produce steel. Perhaps we should abandon steel and move to wood but,hey, we need to conserve those trees to soak up all the carbon.
I see you’re an expert on Carbon Capture and Storage and you’ve decided it’s “impractical, uneconomic and far too late to make any impact”. Have you had a look at the evidence of Dr David Brockway from the CSIRO at a recent Senate climate change inquiry? You should because he’s an expert on all energy sources and he believes CCS will work,and get to a commercial scale around about the time or shortly before some renewable technologies will also be available and that’s within the next ten years. So work it out: if renewables aren’t ready to provide baseload power, and you believe CCS won’t work, then I presume you’re proposing the expansion of gas fired power (lower but still substantial greenhouse gas emissions which need to be dealt with) or nuclear.
You can read Brockway’s evidence here http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S11981.pdf
As to the letter from eminent scientists. We hadn’t received it when the journalist called and we were being polite and awaiting for a signed copy of the letter before we replied. It’s old fashioned, I know.
Peter Logue, Australian Coal Association
Sorry Peter, did you say double? I’m not sure if that is quite true, is it?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html
Peter,
I’ve always thought it is better to dream of a better future than to be stuck in the past.
The transition from coal to renewable energy is underway – albeit much more slowly than I would like. Yes China is building a new coal plant every week, but they are also building a new wind turbine every two hours.
As for your hope in carbon capture and storage, you need to be practical about it. Where, for example, would emissions from the many coal plants in the Hunter Valley be buried? And at what cost? If we can put people on the moon I am sure we will be able to develop CCS effectively, but it is just a monstrously complicated system compared to developing new energy that doesn’t produce the emissions in the first place.
I’m surprised that your comment is so defensive and doesn’t even acknowledge the problem of buring coal in a carbon constrained world. I’d be interested to see your response to the letter from the climate scientists.
Kit, my mistake. the IEA World Energy outlook predicts 2008 states that primary energy demand will increase by 45% between 2006 and 2030. JOhn, I’m not defensive and indeed am personally a strong supporter of renewable energy sources, that are affordable and efficient. (Researchers tell me there’s no such thing as zero emissions source; even wind and solar have emissions, particularly from manufacture. My argument is simple; we, a sophisticated developed country, cannot dictate to countries that will use their coal resources to improve living standards. Nor will they listen to us. Recognising – as the ACA does – that coal is a major part of the climate problem, let’s all support a solution. CCS is not monstrously complicated; indeed all the technology exists and is in use in other industries. Fitting it all together at large scale for power plants (gas and coal) is “complex” and will take time, particularly if costs are to be brought down. As for storage, the Carbon Storage Task force, which includes such climate sceptics as WWF and the Climate lnstitute will answer that question quite soon. Storage will be available; the issue will – again – be cost competitiveness against other technologies. And if you read the evidence of David Brockway in the link I posted, you’ll gain his educated insights into how all of fits together and cost – whether we like it or not – will be a big factor in this. if you want to see the coal industry’s acceptance of climate change go to http://www.newgencoal.com.au I think you’ll find it a balanced and objective site.
Unfortunately, as the just announcement changes to Rudd’s ETS show, this government is no more interested in tackling climate change than the previous one.
Indeed, it could be argued that its proposals will produce a worse outcome than Howard’s. At least under the Howard deniers ordinary citizens could make individual contributions to reducing CO2, something Rudd’s ETS will render worthless no matter what he has just claimed!
As someone wise said recently: “By 2020 no Australian polluter will live in poverty”
Somewhat futile gesture. No one will build a new coal fired power station in Australia other than technology demonstrations on the way to carbon capture (such as gasification). The reason is simple, no bank will finance a 30+ year asset with such regulatory risk.
There is one other reason to purse carbon capture. Capturing carbon from emissions source will be great. However in the worst case scenario it may be necessary to extract CO2 directly from the atmosphere to sequester (yes I know this sounds crazy). Logic is this. There are some processes which inevitably create CO2 (such as agriculture, some industrial processes, various waste products). To reduce emissions by more than 90% (which is the post 2050 target) that means zero from transport and energy, then major cuts to Agriculture and Industrial processes. There is a limit to how many trees you can plant and how much arable land (and water) can be used when the planet has 6-10 billion people to feed.
All I would like to say is that people should just go ahead and install solar irregardless of government subsidies. In short, do what is right now and don’t wait for the go ahead (policy change) from a facelss agency (government). We have all the technology available now to live sustainably and though it may seem like a sacrifice at first (e.g. paying for solar outright without rebates) the pay off is a better life. Coal is a business and they will find a way around the sustainability revolution for as long as possible as is their right as a business (blame capitalism).
People are like sheep and want someone to follow and additionally, want to be told what to do by some leader (President/Prime Minister) who quite frankly is human and obviously has no clue on how to solve the big picture problems.