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.

<< 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

The purpose of drilling gas wells is to collect and use the methane, rather than allow it to escape into the atmosphere.
Half of the carbon produced by coal-fired power, is due to transmissions losses.
We apparently could produce 70% less carbon, simply by converting coal-fired power stations over to coal seam gas?
Yes sure, it's not a cheap process, but considerably less than building a brand new gas fired plant.
Methane works nearly as well as hydrogen in modern fuel cells, and produce mostly water vapour, and endlessly available free hot water.
Piping this gas directly into the home to power on demand ceramic fuel cells, would eliminate the carbon component created by transmission losses; or, result in comparitive carbon reductions of at least 85%!
[Is the intent to save the planet or alternative energy suppliers?]
Moreover, we wouldn't have the cost of poles and transmission infrastructure to replace, repair or pay for.
The very same ceramic fuel cell will work just as well on biogas, another source of endlessly sustainable methane, much of which is simply allowed to escape from landfill etc.
We need a govt able to buck the power of centralised power producers and simply roll out a publicly supplied gas grid, accompanied by very low interest loans to enable all households to convert to much lower cost and vastly more reliable, much lower emission energy!
Blasphemy, that would require the govt to get back into the energy business!
That would certainly make a pleasant change from duck-shoving their core responsibilities, on to the profit demanding, debt-laden, debt and shareholder servicing, tax avoiding private sector.
The only reason Queensland is now making significant budget cuts, I believe, is due in part to incompetent investment strategies; and or, the sale of previously govt owned profit making entities!
Bank, insurance company, power and gas suppliers.
A rail company that simply needed essential upgrading, rather than privatisation.
It's extremely short-sighted to simply sell off income earning entities, and then have to reduce services etc, that then become no longer affordable, due to the reduction in total income!
Rhrosty.

Most of the vehicles plying our highways and byways will perform almost as well on CNG, as petrol or diesel, and reduce the carbon output by at least 40% as the first consequence; and particulates by around 99.95%, depending on the engine's age and general wear and tear!
A cubic metre of methane produces the same calorific energy output as a litre of petrol, and will power all conventional engines, petrol or diesel, with a little tweaking.
Local gas suppliers are on the public record as claiming, even with a fuel excise component, they can supply NG for around 40 cents a cubic metre!
While NG can power conventional vehicles, it produces almost no carbon in modern fuel cells, just mostly water vapour!
Modern fuel cells with few or no moving parts to wear out, will power most of the transport options of the future?
What we need to guarantee our total independence from an increasingly volatile Middle East, is the ASAP roll-out of a national gas grid.
The sale of self terminating thirty year bonds would finance that and considerably more, and would be deemed very desirable by intentional investors, particularly at this time and even more particularly, if they were earmarked for energy development, energy independence proposals!
We also would be well advised to explore for and then exploit an abundance of lower cost, lower carbon producing, local energy supplies.
If that means a govt needing to get into business, with experienced contractors, then that clearly is the very pragmatic first step.
Yes, we do need to convert to a virtual carbon free future; but, that will need to be paid for.
Simply following the very short term mindless examples of shooting yourselves in your own economic foot, a la the Bettie/Bligh bureaucracy building, privatising govt, is not the answer, any more than mindless clear-felling whole forests is!
Rhrosty.

<< 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. >>

Hasbeen, you’re weird!! ( :>)

The key words of course are: ‘a little’.

I would like to correct my interchangeable misuse use of shale gas and coal seam gas in my article.

I appreciate that coal seam gas is different from shale gas in terms of its geology and the methods by which it is extracted.

I simply meant to argue that if the environmental impacts of shale gas extraction can be easily managed through existing policy instruments and improved regulatory frameworks in the United States, then certainly similar regulatory frameworks could be introduced in Australia to minimise the environmental impacts of coal seam gas extraction.

Despite this, my argument that we must not allow Australia’s coal seam gas industry to grow at the expense of our renewable energy industry still stands.

EthanB
Pointed noted on shale/CSG but this point: "Despite this, my argument that we must not allow Australia’s coal seam gas industry to grow at the expense of our renewable energy industry still stands."

What I don't understand is how do the two interact? One is a market the other is a legislative requirements.. As far as I know, gas projects won't generate RECs or have I missed something?

In the 1870s the first bore was put down into the Great Artesian Basin. Rate of extraction peaked somewhere about 1914, irrespective of the number of extra bores drilled since.
Decline in availability of water from this resource has been of increasing agricultural concern since that time. As a result, in 2004 The Great Artesian Basin Coordinating Committee was set up, and has been fostering the capping of bores.
Tthe Coal Seam Gas extraction industry subsequently geared up to peppering the various aquifers of the Basin as never before.

Long-term agriculture vs short-term mining? - It’s a race where the handicappers are loading lead into the saddlebags of the former.

I have a strange relationship with coal seam gas. I don't have the slightest clue what it is, but I see the term used all the time, and I generally ignore the articles.

It is so faintly on my radar, like master chef or something like that, but I cant bring myself to read even so much as a paragraph about it.

In fact I feel the same faint irritation at the phrase 'coal seam gas' as I do 'master chef'. Maybe in my mind it's somehow irrationally linked to whining farmers, I don't know. Is it linked to whining farmers?

I close my eyes and I see dust and dirt and boring stuff that I'm just not interested in but slightly unnerved about people continually talking about this thing I don't even know what it is. Well I have a really vague idea, I'm not stupid, coal-seam-gas, but I cant figure out why it is spoken about in such important and knowing tones by people.

Ethan, would you advise just what renewable energy industry you are talking about?

To start with I don't see any wind mill manufacturers around here, or manufacturers of solar cells for that matter. So I believe you are talking about China's renewable energy industry, with the huge import bill that is generated buying this stuff.

Secondly I don't see any market for this stuff, apart from a very minor one in remote locations, without massive tax payer funded subsidies.

Once again we find, as with any other misguided government attempt to pick winners, a great deal of money is about to be wasted on this fairy floss power source.

We only have to look to Europe to see the collapse of such a foolish idea as alternative/renewable industry, generated by government subsidies, & now failing as recognition of the folly of subsidising uneconomic technologies is realised, & subsidies are reduced.

Surely this is one mistake that has enough evidence available for us to avoid such stupidity.

In the case of the UN, & it's organisations, with concealed real objectives this would appear not so. Of course it helps such foolishness when we have an uninformed government, supported by similarly misinformed people.

Rhrosty,

Slight problem: one Cubic Metre of methane having equivalent calorific value to one Litre of petrol = huge storage difference. (Visions of cars towing fuel storage tanks on trailers? Or, are we talking high-pressure storage, adding even further to hazard potential?)

Also, not sure about the dangers associated with methane transmission and storage. Highly inflammable; but is it possibly explosive in air mixture? Still, ceramic fuel cells sound like a great idea.

However, possible solution = convert the methane to ethanol (apparently a can-be-done). As natural gas appears to be 75% methane, I wonder why some is not already being converted to ethanol. Cost, and/or complexity?

In general: I suspect there are substantial problems associated with 'fracking', and believe a lot more research needs to be done before this is allowed to become a widespread production practice. Whether applied to coal or shale seams, 'fracking' appears to present some significant threat to the integrity of groundwater, aquifer and artesian basin systems.

I agree with the author that opportunity should be taken to use returns from the exploitation of natural gas and CSG (and from our mining 'boom' in general) to promote and develop long-term renewable energy enterprise.

'There are times in the tides of men, which taken ......'

Saltpetre; Yes sure, One can only conveniently compress NG just so much for practical purposes! And we would need larger inboard storage. And maybe, more frequent refuelling stops? Say every 400-600 klms? Easily combined with the coffee/comfort stop; given, we do roll out the flagged national gas grid?
[Incidentally, The locally invented Sarich orbital engine, would likely hum away happily on CNG? This lighter simpler engine has a much higher wider torque band, produces V8 power, with around 85% delivered to the drive train; and sips on its fuel source as daintily as a victor lawn mower, trebling-quadrupling range?]
Preferably, before the Middle East erupts, in the flame of full on regional war?
The huge upside would be, being able to divert/pocket the thirty or forty plus billions, we currently shell out PA, for the fully imported fuel we use now?
Then there is the option of passing NG through a simple catalyst, that knocks off a few hydrogen atoms, [collectable,] and produces liquid methanol.
Liquid methanol is comparable to the petrol or Avgas, it more than adequately replaces; and in mileage terms, only requires about 10% more storage for similar range outcomes.
Methanol is a safer less volatile fuel? The only downside is, it burns with a colourless flame.
Range could be enhanced with the inclusion of electronically created oxygen and hydrogen, utilising the inboard alternator once the battery was/is fully charged.
This effectively free fuel added directly into the air intake; separately, from both ends, could be doubled, with just the inclusion in the water, of a cobalt catalyst.
The water could be carried in a modest tank just forward of the radiator, and kept relatively cool for best results!
Also, one can add an injector, electronic, which pumps vaporised water directly into the combustion chamber or its equivalent, with every sixth power stroke.
This firstly lubricates and then actually adds steam power to the drive train; and eliminates the energy sapping need to carry and cool a radiator!
And braking energy can be utilised to further recharge storage batteries, a huge saving on brake pads!
Cheers, Rhrosty.

The fault with this analysis underpins the failings of using the price mechanism to underpin reform. in qld the gas certificates, which required generators and retailers to have 13%(initially)from gas drove investment and innovation, productivity commission report said compliance coss reduced by 50% over life of scheme. simple have two types of certificates low emission (LE) and very low emission(VLE) certificates. the LE are gas or other form of generation that has similar greenhouse gas emission levels and the VLEs are basically renewables, just set mandatory targets over 15,20 and 30 yrs. investment will occur and do not have to worry about investment in one type crowding out other investments

Renewables don't work so the whole premise of the article is shot to bits from the start.

Anyway, this witless federal government is planning to double the fugitive emissions tax on CSG:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13951

So, that should settle things down.

Secondly CH4 is NOT a supergreenhouse gas as is implied in the comments here. Methane absorbs at the end of the IR spectrum where there is less energy available than the other end where CO2 operates; perhaps they mean CH4 is oxidised to become CO2?

If I were designing an Australian vehicle, I would start with a carbon fibre chassis.
Australians have poured enough millions into foreign car companies, to start up a brand new, employee operated, co-op car company! So why haven't we?
We are very inventive, and lead the world in press moulded carbon fibre? It's as simple as mixing recyclable plastic and carbon fibre, placing a set measured amount in the mould and then applying pressure.
One standard chassis could serve as the multi-purpose basis of a extremely rugged, durable hybrid car, Ute or station wagon.
The paint job could be an Australian invented polymer that functions as a photovoltaic system, that even charges in extremely low light!
The principle power plant could be a CNG powered, ceramic fuel cell or, Sarich orbital engine alternator combo, which would power all the inboard amenities, air-conditioning etc, and drive all the wheels via sealed induction engines, inside all four/six/eight wheels?
The transmission tunnel could remain, to serve as the extra CNG/fuel storage space we'd then need.
Fireproof, bullet proof, explosion resistant, aluminium lined polycarbonate fuel tanks, would likely be strong enough, to stand up to the considerable pressures required.
Most of the body could also be lightweight, mass produced press moulded carbon fibre, with hail/bullet proof/explosion resistant polycarbonate/acrylics, replacing glass?
[The deepest diving sub ever created, more Aussie innovation, is created out of similar materials!]
I would favour a simple endlessly attractive wedge shape, which would provide both wind cheating aerodynamics and down-force that increases with speed?
Necessary in such a lightweight vehicle.
A similar system could power/stop powered trailers built out of similar materials and possibly capable of transporting a standard shipping container, if a similar CNG powered dolly, was included up front?
Imagine a future where the family wagon could be hitched to a dolly, with the combination then being capable of drawing a plough or a harvester etc/etc. We could probably sell all we could produce in and around Asia? Particularly, if the then economies of scale and automated production, makes the price structure more than competitive!
Rhrosty

I note all the discussion about alternatives, I agree that where possible we need to look to alternatives to current mainstream energy systems, they all pollute to some degree.

The most simple solution I see is for everyone, individuals, business, industry and governments to push for efficiency in all activities 'we' undertake.

When I drive around Perth at night I note the amount of lighting in houses, most houses with nearly every light on, multiple TV's and other gadgets running, most people I know have more than one fridge and despite the West's pretty temperate climate, they all seem too lazy to use a washing line and revert to using an electrically guzzling dryer.

I think people have gotten lazy, many live less than a kilometre from shops yet insist on driving, last time I looked walking was quite good for one's health, and yes I do acknowledge bringing home a weeks shopping is not feasible if one walks.

I think there are many ways we can curb energy use, the responsibility starts with the individual and education is a key. Market forces (70% electrical energy cost increases in 5 years) would be enough to drive some of this rational solution, but alas so many fail to grasp the most simple of actions, try turning a light off when leaving a room.

Big business will continue to exploit each and every opportunity to make money from energy, it is up to us to dampen demand and to also lobby government (little hope there I guess) to retain as much of our energy supply on a national security and societal longevity based approach.

Pretty simple really.

Where did you get that lot Rhrosty? It is airy fairy enough to be from a green policy document.

Of course there is enough bull dust in there for it to be a Labor act of parliament. There would be enough financial & technical catastrophes involved in such a program, for it to fit in with most of their others. That goes double for those "assisted" by green ideas.

Please advise me which recyclable plastic you could use to make a carbon fiber matrix. Thermoset plastics are used in these things. Even thermo plastics are not practically recyclable once contaminated with fiber, carbon or otherwise.

Then explain why a company like Honda, renowned for its technical brilliance can not, even after spending millions, get a working fuel cell. Perhaps they should have asked Bob Brown, or one of his lady replacements how to do it. I'm sure they know.

It will be interesting to hear if you can get your much higher speed limits approved. The ones that can make any aerodynamic down force available from your wedge. Incidentally the F1 Brabham I won the Bathurst 100 in weighed 1100Lbs, & did not need down force for it's 100MPH lap speed, or its 170+ MPH top speed. Weight does not improve road holding.

I could go on, but where to stop. As I advised before, please do get some understanding of a subject, before posting this rubbish. It is just like the global warming fraud. Some of this stuff has been found wanting, for anything but very high end sports cars, proven to be impractical, & the rest is pixie dust.

And yet another nail in the coffin for 'wind energy' -- power cut-outs are damaging equipment in German factories:

"Sudden fluctuations in Germany's power grid are causing major damage to a number of industrial companies. While many of them have responded by getting their own power generators and regulators to help minimize the risks, they warn that companies might be forced to leave if the government doesn't deal with the issues fast....

The problem is that wind and solar farms just don't deliver the same amount of continuous electricity compared with nuclear and gas-fired power plants. To match traditional energy sources, grid operators must be able to exactly predict how strong the wind will blow or the sun will shine."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/instability-in-power-grid-comes-at-high-cost-for-german-industry-a-850419.html

Maybe the same models that they use to predict AGW can be used to predict that too...