Clean coal project ‘will fail’ under emissions trading scheme.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/19/2468820.htm
Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt says a major clean coal project in central Queensland will fail unless the Federal Government changes its emissions trading scheme.
ZeroGen is working to develop a low emissions plant but says under the proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme it may be forced to buy permits.
If this “clean coal” is so clean, and actually does not have any significant emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, why are GHG emissions permits any significant issue at all? Any and all technologies which are truly “clean” obviously have a competitive advantage under the emissions trading scheme – so how exactly is the coal industry able to complain about a financial disadvantage faced by “clean coal”?
Of course they should be forced to buy permits – as should every power station – corresponding to their quantitative greenhouse gas emissions. If you don’t want to sink money into GHG permits, then you deploy low-emissions or zero-emissions technologies.
Even after what is basically an admission that “clean coal” is still associated with very high emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, more than natural gas and more than essentially any other energy generation technology with the exception of conventional coal-firing, the coal industry is still expecting even more handouts for the government for purported “clean coal” – and the government will probably give in, since “clean coal” is the only example the Australian Government has that they can try and meaningfully show as evidence of their supposed commitment to the management of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. If Big Coal threatens to walk away on the “clean coal” projects if they don’t get the additional taxpayer-funded pork they demand, the government is left with nothing to show off.
In a letter to Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson the company said it should be exempted from buying carbon permits as it is a research and development project.
It has warned that if it has to buy permits the project may become unviable.
The Queensland Government has provided $100 million for the project and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has voiced his support for it.
Mr Hunt has accused the Commonwealth of “turning its back” on clean energy.“The project will fail under Mr Rudd’s regime,” he said.
“Very clearly ZeroGen, clean coal, the future of Australian clean energy will fail under Mr Rudd’s regime.”
What a bunch of ridiculous rhetoric.
Given that we’re seeing so much government money being handed out to the coal-fired generation industry in relation to coal and emissions trading, and so many exemptions from emissions trading and the issuing of free permits, it might almost come as a surprise that there is interest in “clean coal”, when there is no real significant economic disincentive to the use of conventional coal-fired technology. The answer does indeed seem to be that these mendaciously small-scale “clean coal” projects seem to be an attractive source of easy government handouts for Big Coal.
Mr Hunt says the Government’s stance on emissions trading has already hurt the company.
“We’ve learnt that there are already job losses at ZeroGen,” he said.
The entire business development and corporate affairs section has been sacked in the last few days, the company is already winding down.”
A spokesperson for Mr Ferguson says the minister will address the issues raised in ZeroGen’s letter in “due course”.
Last year the Government allocated $100 million to the formation of the Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.
About 80 per cent of Australia’s electricity is created by coal-fired power generators.
Under the proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme, all revenue from the sale of permits will be used to compensate households for rising costs.
The Government’s climate change adviser, Professor Ross Garnaut, had urged the Government to allocate about a third of collected revenue to clean energy research and development.
1 Comment »
Leave a comment
-
Archives
- October 2009 (2)
- May 2009 (2)
- March 2009 (4)
- February 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (3)
- December 2008 (3)
- November 2008 (9)
- October 2008 (20)
- September 2008 (11)
- August 2008 (7)
- July 2008 (15)
- June 2008 (5)
-
Categories
- ABC
- Abengoa Solar
- abuse of units
- academia
- activism
- alternative energy
- americium
- Amory Lovins
- analytical science
- Andrew Bolt
- ANSTO
- anthropogenic climate change
- anthropogenic greenhouse gases
- anti-nuclear activism
- anti-nuclear ignorance
- anti-nuclear movement
- anti-nuclear quote of the day
- anti-nuclear quote of the week
- anti-nuclear-energy activism
- anti-nuclear-energy dogma
- anti-nuclear-energy ignorance
- anti-nuclear-energy stupidity
- atmospheric science
- atomic engines
- Australia
- Australia 2020
- Australian Greens
- AWU
- bad science
- banana dose
- Barack Obama
- beryllium
- black holes
- blogging
- blogs
- Blue marble
- books
- bullshit
- cap and trade
- carbon dioxide
- cargo cult science
- Carl Sagan
- CCS
- CERN
- chemistry
- Chernobyl
- China
- clean coal
- clean energy
- climate change
- coal
- coal mining
- community engagement
- construction time for nuclear energy
- construction time for renewable energy
- cost of solar energy
- cost of solar power
- cost of wind power
- dangerous fossil fuels
- David Lochbaum
- debate
- defence
- democracy
- depleted uranium
- desalination
- dirty bombs
- distributed energy
- dubious claims
- Earth Hour
- earth science
- economics
- economics of solar power
- education
- Edward Teller
- EFMR monitoring network
- electric vehicles
- electricity generation
- electronics
- emissions trading
- energy
- energy analysis
- energy conversion
- energy demand
- energy density
- energy economics
- energy generation
- energy independance
- energy intensity
- energy policy
- energy politics
- energy resources
- energy systems
- energy technology
- environment
- environmental protection
- environmental remediation
- environmental science
- environmentalism
- EROEI
- Europe
- fast reactors
- Feynman
- Fischer-Tropsch
- fossil fuel waste
- fossil fuels
- france
- free energy
- fruitcake
- FUD
- fuels
- fusion
- Garnaut review
- gas turbines
- Gavin Mudd
- geeky stuff
- genepax
- georeactor
- georeactor hypothesis
- geosequestration
- GNEP
- greenhouse forcing
- greenhouse gas emissions
- greenhouse gas emissions reduction
- greenhouse gases
- Hanford
- Hans Bethe
- health effects of energy systems
- health physics
- heat engines
- Helen Caldicott
- humor
- hydrogen
- HyperCar
- Hyperion
- IDGCC
- idiocy
- IFR
- industry
- Integral Fast Reactor
- IPCC
- Israel
- italy
- John Gofman
- John McCain
- John Wheeler
- Joseph Mangano
- Joseph Romm
- junk science
- Kansas
- Kashiwazaki-Kariwa
- Kentucky
- Kevin Rudd
- kilotons
- Kyoto protocol
- Large Hadron Collider
- LFTR
- LHC
- life-cycle analysis
- linear no-threshold
- linear-non-threshold
- linux.conf.au
- liquid fluoride reactor
- loan guarantees
- Manhattan Project
- Mark Lynas
- materials science
- media
- Media irresponsibility
- meet the millirem
- microcontrollers
- micropower
- Middle East
- mineral extraction
- mineral resources
- mining
- Naive Environmentalist Quote of the Day
- nanomaterials
- natural gas
- natural nuclear fission reactors
- neutrinos
- neutron science
- new build
- NNadir
- not even wrong
- nuclear astrophysics
- nuclear bailout
- nuclear chemistry
- nuclear debate
- nuclear energy
- nuclear energy economics
- nuclear energy institute
- nuclear engineering
- nuclear fission
- nuclear fuel cycle
- nuclear fuels
- nuclear fusion
- nuclear madness
- nuclear medicine
- nuclear physics
- nuclear power
- nuclear power education
- nuclear proliferation
- nuclear pulse propulsion
- nuclear reactors
- nuclear reprocessing
- nuclear safety
- nuclear terrorism
- nuclear waste
- nuclear weapons
- nukefree.org
- numbers
- Oklo
- olympic dam
- OPAL
- open hardware
- oxygen
- Paducah
- particle physics
- petroleum
- photovoltaics
- physics
- planetary science
- plutonium
- politics
- polling
- pollution
- probabilities
- proliferation
- proliferation studies
- propaganda
- psuedoscience
- public policy
- radiation
- radiation hormesis
- radiation safety
- radioactive decay
- radioactive waste
- radioactivity
- radionuclides in the environment
- radiophobia
- radon
- reactor physics
- reactor technology
- renewable energy
- renewable energy costs
- renewable energy economics
- renewables
- reprocessing
- resources
- rhetoric
- risk
- Rod Adams
- Russia
- safety of energy systems
- science
- scientific method
- Scott Ludlam
- SLS
- small-scale nuclear power
- society
- solar
- solar energy
- solar power
- solar thermal
- space exploration
- stars
- StormSmith
- sustainability
- sustainable energy
- synroc
- Syria
- terminology
- The Oil Drum
- their actions
- thermal engines
- thermodynamics
- thorium
- three mile island
- transportation
- Uncategorized
- unions
- units
- uranium
- uranium mining
- uranium resources
- van Leeuwen
- Victoria
- VVER
- waste
- water
- water use of energy systems
- white elephant
- wind energy
- wind power
- Yucca Mountain
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Now it seems neither clean coal nor natural gas are grateful for the competitive advantage bestowed by carbon reduction schemes. I believe the old saying was never look a gift horse in the mouth. In the case of ZeroGen it was always a show pony not a working animal.
I’m more troubled by the fact that new US Energy Secretary Chu sees merit in CCS. More years will be wasted on this dead end. On a more positive front it looks like Australia’s coal exports are in decline, at least for coking coal. However domestic baseload will ensure steady demand and steady domestic emissions. When our politicians assure us that CCS is imminent they will look increasingly naive.