My take on this is that the coal industry is softening us up for more coal use. I predict that in five or so years we'll find that gasification and synthesis does indeed produce a range of handy products but sequestration is not profitable. So hey let's enjoy the new uses for coal and not worry about the CO2 aspect so much. You don't really have to sell it to the public as the Howard and Bush administrations will approve regardless.

The new Asia-Pacific Greenhouse agreement doesn’t offer much at all…

Power generation from coal is capable of achieving zero, or near zero, but at what cost? - to the market and at what opportunity cost?

Frank van Shagen is spot on (and a genuine voice within the coal sector), the one thing that Australia absolutely must get right is the economics.

A regulatory framework that puts a value on carbon emissions is fundamental to solving the problem. Unfortunately, the Asia Pacific greenhouse agreement may undermine such efforts by offering verbal comfort, in total, based solely upon abstract faith in technological cure-alls.

Regrettably, the Howard Government refuses to instate a regulatory framework that puts a value on carbon emissions.

Australia should be an exporter of premium clean energy, and energy-rich products (like aluminium or magnesium) as it is socially, economically and environmentally preferable (and profitable) to most international alternatives.

Taswegian,

The use of more coal, in the medium term, is inevitable and necessary.

I share your doubts that geosequestration and the wide application of ‘clean coal’ will ever be economical. But improved efficiency is a necessary goal and a worthy value-add to our exports in the mean time.

While I live in a State that refines aluminium with renewable energy, it also chops down 300 year old trees to make woodchips. We are told the practice will be phased out at some unspecified time. Similarly government and industry tell us that 'dirty coal' will be soon be replaced by 'clean coal' despite problems getting past the prototype stage. At the same time the pressure is on to replace petrochemical feedstocks with coal via Sasol type processes now that oil is on the way out. If every country imposed meaningful carbon taxes or tradeable quotas (worth say $50-$100 a tonne) this would give an advantage to clean coal though perhaps not enough. Economist Paul Samuelson doubts whether conservative governments will ever do anything. On the other hand since the coal industry itself has admitted to the emissions problem it will have to come up with something to look credible.

Was Frank van Shagen the student in my class who told the teacher “I know the answer Miss, but I just didn’t take the trouble to write it down. I still get an A, don’t I?” or was he the guy I worked with at the supermarket “I know how to stack the food on the shelves, but I just didn’t do it today. I still get my paycheque, right?” I think I recognise him from his statement:

“For coal, the main option is carbon capture and its storage in deep saline aquifers. This technology is well understood and widely used by the oil and gas industry but we have to determine the most suitable places and techniques, and we have to build the infrastructure.”

If it is so easy, Mr van Shagen, why has it NEVER EVER been done anywhere in the world. The key is “we have to get the economics right.” As Taswegian says if geosequestration and protecting the environment ends up unprofitable, then it will be discarded and we will continue to live unsustainably.

I can’t imagine how Mr. van Shagen explains this to his children. “Sorry kids these environmental problems are too tough for Daddy to solve. It is better if you solve them when you grow up. Of course, they will all be harder to solve then, but that is just your tough luck. Bye-bye, off to work now.”

Mr van Shagen also says that Australia has 500 years of coal. That doesn’t count exports. Is the government planning to nationalise coal mines so there will be no exports? Does he know something he is not telling us? With exports there is about 240 years of supply. If energy demand is going to increase by 50% then that might mean 160 years. If we are going to replace transport fuels with liquefied or gasified products made from coal, and if exports are going to increase . . . . .I’m sure you get the idea. It is hard to believe anybody in the coal business wants Australian coal to last 500 years.

None of this is that critical, I suppose, except that if Mr van Shagen is telling this little lie, then what else in his article might be a little lie.

I should not really blame Mr. van Shagen. He is just doing a job like the rest of us. There is no groundswell of excitement for living sustainably, so it is best for people who own coal mines (and that sort of means most of us Australians) to try to get the maximum profit out of those coal mines and hire people like Mr. van Shagen to help them do that. If things go poorly for our children then we can all say “well everybody wanted it that way, I suppose.”

Until we see how much geosequestration costs we really won’t know if renewables like wind and solar are a good idea, or if it might be a good idea to just pay more and use less energy. Maybe we could ask the coal and power industries to install just one geosequestration facility on one power plant in Australia. Then we could see if it really works and see how much it would cost. Until then we have to trust Mr. van Shagen and his employers.

Sounds dangerous.

Another worthwhile consideration could be tacked onto EC's post: it will be no less than two decades before geosequestration can be proved up. Until then, the costly experiment goes on without our knowing for sure whether it does or does not work.
Specialists in geosequestration working on the Sleipner field in the north sea are on the public record stating that ensuring the system is both operable and safe is very costly; and that it has been applied in particular areas of geology and circumstances only. In different areas and circumstances geosequestration will be an untested exercise.
We will continue to march into the hothouse while geosequestration dreams are followed.