The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Coal seam gas: undermining Australia’s clean energy future > Comments

Coal seam gas: undermining Australia’s clean energy future : Comments

By Ethan Bowering, published 17/8/2012

Australia’s coal seam gas industry must not be allowed to grow at the expense of renewable energy.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Congratulations Ethan on a reasonably balanced article about coal seam gas without the hysteria that so often accompanies this subject. A relatively minor correction is perhaps needed when you imply that coal seam gas and shale gas are the same thing. The gas produced is identical but the process is different with shale reservoirs always requiring fracking.

A more serious point is when you suggest that investment in coal seam gas should not distract from investment in renewable energy. This ignores the critical point that most renewable energy sources (particularly wind and solar) rely on gas to balance the network. Today, without gas plants, we would not be able to have 20% of our electricity coming from wind and solar let alone 100%. Until we have developed cost effective electricity storage systems, gas is an essential component of using renewable electricity in most of the world.
Posted by Martin N, Friday, 17 August 2012 9:07:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< In preparing for a future emissions constrained economy, investment in coal seam gas at the expense of renewable energy is senseless. Although it is impossible to skip a transitionary fuel phase to a 100 per cent renewable energy supply, we must ensure our investment in coal seam gas extraction is matched by our investment in renewable energy research and development. >>

Agreed Ethan.

If only our most unillustrious government would see fit to develop a holistic plan, instead of just pandering to the demand for ever-more energy for an ever-bigger population.

If they were to do this, which would include moving quickly to net zero immigration, and they were to use coalseam gas as a stepping stone to a low-emissions regime and then use it sparingly as part of that regime, all would be good.

But we are a million miles from this sort of plan. Instead, we have coalseam gas extraction increasing at a rapid rate, for domestic use and export income, in order to energise our stupid government’s total addiction to rapid and never-ending expansionism.

This is the LAST thing we need!

We absolutely need to stabilise the demand, ie; net zero immigration and the achievement of a stable population.

So the biggest negative factor of all with coalseam gas is that it is being used to prop up our grossly unsustainable society and to take it ever further away from sustainability.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 17 August 2012 9:22:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The UK House of Lords has reported on the uncosted, unanalysed, unexamined commitment to 'renewable energy' made by the government in an unguarded moment. The verdict: "A very brave decision, Prime Minister..."

See: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/8/16/parsing-the-report-on-the-draft-energy-bill.html

And in this context, the US Consumer Reports magazine reviews a domestic wind turbine that will take 'millennia' to pay for itself:

http://news.consumerreports.org/home/2012/08/results-of-consumer-reports-wind-turbine-tests.html

How long is it going to take for this silliness to collapse? Longer than the windmills themselves?
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 17 August 2012 10:22:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A characteristic of gas mining is that it entails drilling of many wells. Each well drilled results in release of methane to the atmosphere. Cumulatively that amounts to a lot of methane, a greenhouse gas which is over 70 times more powerful than CO2 during its 12 year lifetime in the atmosphere. Rapid expansion of gas mining will therefore have a significant impact on the ability of Australia to curb its emissions or reach it 2020 target.

Exacerbating this situation is the fact that when coal seam gas is burned the by-product is CO2. To date, despite the efforts of scientists in Australia, USA and China, affordable and efficient carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology has not been developed. In the absence of CCS, the use of coal seam gas is not that much cleaner than using cheaper coal.

It is worth noting that under existing legislation pricing carbon, $10 billion is to be set aside and applied exclusively to development of renewable energy technology. This includes the use of tidal energy, geothermal and, importantly, solar – particularly solar concentrator. All three have the potential to produce base load electricity and provided they can do so competitively with coal, these forms of generating electricity will attract the investment dollar – not coal or marginally cleaner gas.

Finally, as noted by Martin N, development of capacity to store electricity is important, though not critical, to realising the 2020 target of sourcing 20% of our energy needs from renewable sources. Those developments, particularly in the form of innovative battery technology are making considerable advances. Before 2020 application of this technology is likely to make electric vehicles an affordable reality and enable households to generate and store their electricity needs, making them largely independent of the grid.

The implications of such developments are for the cleaner production of electricity, particularly from use of PVC’s and its wider use for transport and household needs.
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Friday, 17 August 2012 10:26:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What on earth are you studying at Griffith Ethan? It certainly can't be anything requiring any practical knowledge. Anyone who does not know the difference between coal & shale really should not be trying to lecture those with a bit more savvy, & knowledge. Perhaps you should try throwing another lump of shale on the fire some time.

If you want to start lecturing everyone, you could at least try to get an understanding of the subject first. Pieces like this effort simply convince everyone that you are a well meaning dill, & reflect on the quality of your group.

I do find it amusing that you should be lecturing us on reducing carbon dioxide emissions so soon after you & all your misguided mates, have been flitting around the planet for a talk fest. If the rest of the delegates had the same level of knowledge of the subject you display, you might as well have played tiddlywinks, as talk energy generation.

Martin, were you suggesting that anywhere on earth is currently getting 20% of their power from wind & solar? Good to see you trying to give our young tyro some facts to go with his pipe dream.

Luddy just what is it that you have against plants? The poor things were responsible for converting our atmosphere into something we could breath. Surely it is not too much to ask that we return the favour by generating a little CO2 plant food for them.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 17 August 2012 10:38:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no reason why CSG developments should affect renewable energy development.. they are in two different worlds.. there is a legislative requirement to supply 45,000 gigawatt hours(which was 20 per cent of supply as forecast in 2020 but now may be closer to 26 per cent)from green projects by 2020. A higher proportion would require a political decision which would have nothing to do with gas projects.

However, the present targets are probably at the outermost limit of what can be achieved. Although the author is correct to say "Australia appears to be on track to meet its 2020 renewable energy target of 20 per cent of energy supply", to the extent that current targets have been met, even the renewable energy industry cannot see how the 45,000 target can be met. We will have to lift building of wind farms by an order of magnitude from right now to have a hope.

Never mind storage technology or other forms of renewables.. 2020 is just eight years away. They have to start building the projects from now, and that isn't happening.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 17 August 2012 10:46:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy