[LINK] Clean Coal

[Frank O'Connor]

On 17/06/2012, at 12:20 AM, Chris Maltby wrote:

> 
> At no point did they examine the relative costs of genuinely renewable
> energy alternatives, or the comparitive impacts on Australian GDP and
> employment from devoting additional subsidies (if required) to support
> these alternatives. Perhaps the coal industry paid for the report...
> 


I believe they/Lenore Taylor did state that renewable was currently 90% of the real cost of burning coal cleanly and improving ... which was a tad higher than previous estimates I've seen.  I would have thought 70-80% a more realistic figure.

That said, it's also a question of:

a) Existing available infrastructure for power generation ... although if our power companies are to be believed this is all currently being updated/reviewed/invested in at vast expense (which justifies the huge increase in power bills most have noted over the last few years.) Now may be the time for the government to fund a few renewable alternatives to see how coal actually does stack up against renewables. The pro-coal assumption is that everything is terrific in terms of power output efficiency and cost, but now would be an ideal time to test this against current renewable alternatives before committing to a huge upgrade of the coal based infrastructure.

b) The scale and speed at which renewables can be plugged in to the grid to replace rather than supplement existing fossil fuel alternatives. I'm not talking home based renewable plug-ins here ... I'm talking industrial scale renewable infrastructure. 

c) The ability of renewable sources to handle sudden huge fluctuations in consumer demand due to environmental factors (weather, weekends, events, etc), and to scale to the demands of an industrial society. (Some form of viable burst mode alternating-current based power storage would have to be installed along side the generating capacity to take up this slack and cater to the demand fluctuations.) Renewable MUST handle surge requirements, scale and be reliable if it is to replace coal generated power.

d) A realistic estimate of the pollution factors applicable to renewables. On the face of it wind and wave don't seem to have many pollution downsides, wave may even be provide nifty environments for a host of valuable fish species, but pure solar carries with it some risks due to the heavy metal and caesium composition of panels, the paucity of native ground exposure around the panels, the added ensuing desertification of the environment it is placed in and the like. Hydro tends to flood otherwise desirable real estate that could have been devoted to wildlife ... I'm thinking weeks spent at Lake Pedder in Tasmania here. Fission ... not keen at all, but probably less greenhouse unfriendly and capital intensive per watt produced than coal. Every alternative has its trade-offs - it depends what we're willing to pay and the risks we're willing to live with.

That said, whilst we are subsidising coal to the extent that we are (especially in Australia) we will continue not to get any real or valid comparison between different generating and distribution methods, people will pluck figures from the air to suit their various views and interests, and the 'green initiatives' being run by the government will continue to obfuscate and confuse the issue so that the myth of 'clean coal' continues.

I'd suspect that the fuel costs, and depreciation and maintenance budget of a renewable alternative would tend to be much lower than a fossil fuel alternative ... but that really needs to be tested on a scaled up power generation exercise. Allowances would have to be made for the economies of scale applicable to a pervasive solution ... e.g. capital costs tend to drop dramatically if a hundred like-designed power generators are built rather than one test generator ... but some serious comparisons really needs to be done. This would be a much better use of the public's money than directly funding the coal industry on white elephants like 'clean coal'.

Lenore Taylor now has Kevin Rudd's Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute in her sights ... detailing a phenomenal waste of money and resources over the last few years, which can be added to the government sponsored carbon capture wastage over the last 30 years. (Unlike a number of others I've never had a lot of time for Rudd ... his background as a diplomat meant he was better with the talk than walking the walk, and for me actions speak a hell of a lot louder than words, and 'good intent' is way too nebulous to buy.) Check it out in today's Age of SMH.