The tragedy is that our economy is about to be "decarbonised" whether we like it or not! Peak oil, peak coal and peak gas will be reducing our carbon emissions. The need to move to non-carbon sources of energy is dire, both for climate change reasons AND because the fossil fuels are limited. If we choose to delay in this matter there will be no second chances because once the energy is gone there is literally nothing that you can do without it.

Ben, One of the key characteristics of this contentious debate is the fact that the case for the government’s CO2 tax has become so difficult you are left, like Ross Garnaut, with an ideological assault on opposition proposals.

There will be no open public debate and you know this. We hear you. The science is settled, there is consensus, most serious scientists agree and the case for AGW is proven. Therefore you adopt an assumption close on AGW as a problem and move quickly along to the solution. You are giving us the “Bum’s Rush”.

In truth, what we actually have is only one side of science being promoted which is the IPCC’s single orthodoxy. What is an even greater cheat on the Australian electorates is the term “multi-party” committee. This is somehow intended to promote some sense of bi-partisan support. It is not. The Greens and Independents are of course part of the government and not multi-party at all.

When you and your merry band of cheats can bring yourselves to front up to the Australian people and clearly articulate and openly discuss the “problem”, perhaps you might get a hearing on what you see as the “solution”.

A Kepner/Tregoe analysis of what the government is promoting clearly shows that in the commercial world you would go to gaol for serious fraud. Fortunately for you, you will never face such charges. Unless of course, some enterprising entity starts a class action like the sixteen “Litigation Hold Notices” issued against the EPA in the US.

We are being asked to accept a tax on the basis that it will become an ETS at some future date. As a market mechanism an ETS requires a market. France, Japan, South Korea, China, India, USA, Canada have all declared they will not participate in a replacement for Kyoto. So the question would be, where is this market we are going to trade with? If there is no market, how can we have a market based ETS? More importantly, if no market emerges will we be left with just another tax?

So in essence to get the cost of coal generation to exceed the cheapest of renewable cost, the carbon price needs to be $63/ton.

This does not even take into account the capital cost, or that the renewables still need to be backed up by fossil fuel generation when the wind is low, the biomass is less available, or the sun isn't shining.

A thumb suck would put the required carbon cost to well over $100/ton.

Notable France is the only country in the world to be actually reducing carbon emissions, and this is done through direct action and nuclear power.

Fair dinkum debate on carbon tax or env solutions, keep dreaming?

Co2 levels keep rising, the West passes on polluting activities to Asian economies which have less interest or societal pressure to reduce its own pollution levels, and Aust relies on the export of coal to meet its bills.

The other day in parl: Hockey asks Swan is is true that coal producers in poorer nations will produce more pollution than coal pollutors here. Swan responds by ranting Labor's support for the Australian coal industry and exports; he never even bothers to answer the question.

The debate lacks honesty about the complexity of the situation. Truth is there are just as many good reasons for opposing the carbon tax as supporting it.

Again, I say let the people decide its fate at the next election. As it is, the Coalition's promise to unravel any carbon tax does not deliver any certainty to investors.

I would disagree with shadow minister on one point - a biomass plant shouldn't need any more backup than a coal plant - but I would agree with him that the costs Ben cite are off.

Biomass is only twice as expensive as coal in price per megawatt hour, before all the subsidies? Although Ben's figures are somewhat more credible than activist statements I have seen that actually put wind and biomass as cheaper than coal before the subsidies, the figures still don't seem right.

In any case, is there really a large enough supply of biomass to keep even one, large base load plant going? Doubt it.

Spindoc I will ignore your childish rant about ‘The government should go to jail for fraud” - and France, Germany, Spain, UK IPCC etc; would any of them get to pass go? (gee the jails would be full). As for the viperish insult “you and your merry band of cheats’ – you are in typical form and I’ll say no more about that or we really would revert to a schoolyard exchange of insults.
On a more serious note – there is a public debate; we’re ensuring that happens in these columns and there are several other political blogs doing the same along with ABC and SBS. I agree that it’s a terrible shame it’s not happening in the the Murdoch press e.g. The Australian - which we all know is the lions share of newspaper media - or many shock jock commercial radio and TV stations. I disagree that the sceptic cause if not being promoted; they are doing an ample job. Maybe they’ve been bought off; certainly they have thrown the principles of even handed journalism to the wind. All we see from them is one eyed support for a few sceptics (these are the frauds!) and vilification of qualified climate scientists (I suppose you would say CSIRO are frauds?).
Your other assertion that there’ll never be an international carbon market because a few countries said they don’t want to continue Kyoto is absurd. As if Kyoto was the only possible mechanism for international carbon trading; as if after the Copenhagen disappointment they've all gone home to bed and there’ll be no more negotiations! Sorry Spindoc global warming and its dire consequences won’t go away, much as we’d all like it to.

Roses1,

Re Kyoto, you haven’t read the papers this week have you?

By public debate I mean you nominate you favorite scientists, the CSIRO, IPCC and the entire Climate Change Committee and I’ll nominate Bob Carter and yes, let’s have it on the ABC. Seems fair to me?

Roses do tend to attract Aphids and Black Spot but don’t worry, there is a cure!

Curmudgeon,

Having been involved in several industries using biomass, the issue is the supply and quality of the fuel.

Much of the biomass is seasonal, and things like rain affect its calorific value. Ensuring reliable supply requires huge storage and fluctuating prices. Biomass is far more reliable than wind or solar, but not nearly as much as coal, gas or nuclear.

To answer some of the better comments :
Shadow Minister (can I assume by your non de plume you work for the Libs / Greg Hunt?). Yes once the RET scheme, in which taxpayers pay generators about $38 per KWh for renewable energy, is wound down an increased carbon price would take over and that price would be $60-70 / tCO2. That is because 1 MWh of coal (steam thermal) generation roughly equates to 1 tonne of CO2 emissions (about 0.9 for cleaner plants to 1.4 for the brown coal plants in Vic). So what if we have to pay 6-7 c more for electricity and 15-20c more for petrol? Hello! Europeans pay more than that now and has the sky fallen in on them? They are certainly wasting less energy than we do.
Thankyou Curm, you rightly pointed out that biomass power is base load. I can assure you my figures are well researched and the costs (capital plus operating plus feedstocks) of biomass generation from tree crops is well documented by RIRDC and others at $120 – 180 per MWh; I used $170 in the table .
My chapter 20 in The Biochar Revolution explains how 10% of wheat/ wool belt land (4m ha) planted to woody coppice crops (native mallee trees) could conservatively generate 4% of Australia’s electricity as well as providing other energy or charcoal products. If tropical grazing were included and more productive land used this could of course be greatly increased.
There are already several bagasse (sugar cane waste) power stations in Qld totaling over 300MW ; they already viable as the feedstock is essentially free. Biomass (including wood heating) already provides 5% of our primary energy . Here is a good referenece http://aie.org.au/Content/NavigationMenu/Resources/SchoolProjects/FS8_BIOMASS.pdf
All up I reckon biomass could economically provide 10-15% of our energy needs but mostly with small dispersed 20-30 MW plants to minimize transport costs; co-firing in existing coal plants is also an option, but not a good one as they are very inefficient. Contrary to your sugestion Curm this would equate to many large coal powered stations.

Rosie,

If the few countries who have indicated they were not going to join the race to reduce carbon dioxide emissions were Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Ghana, Jamacia, East Timor, and New Zealand your disparaging remarks indicating an unlikely negative effect on a trade in Carbon Dioxide emissions would be valid. But they aren't. The few countries that are not to become involved in this idiodic race are the US, China, Japan, France, South Korea, India, Canada or most of the worlds biggest economies and emitters of carbon dioxide.

We're leaping into the carbon dioxide reductionists fire with the small fry and that doesn't sit well with an increasing number of Australians.

Shadow Minister - take your point. Fair enough.

Roses1/Ben - now I'm even more confused. You say $170 MWh (which sounds right)in your post, but the figure on the table in the article is for $106, if that's the figure you're talking about.

As for the 10-15 per cent of energy needs coming from lots of small scale biomass plants... Bwwwhahahahahah! Okay, we've had our laugh. That's a very serious amount of biomass. It is very difficult to see just how that much biomass could be generated in Aus each year.

Your post refers to a piece of green agit-prop. Go and look at it. The biomass use it refers to is mostly in non-OECD countries. I think you'll also find, if you investigate the figures, that most of it comes from places like Haiti. Is it third world cooking fires? I'd have to go and check this for myself, as I can't rmmeber what I read on this, but I was under the distinct impression it was something like that.

Doubt if you'd find any advanced country with biomass contributing more than 1 per cent of energy requirements. Its mostly small scale stuff, somewhat more useful than the rest of the alternates, but unlikely to contibute much.

For once Mark, I find myself largely agreeing with you. Biomass will not replace our coal plants. For those that doubt this, I estimate you would need 120,000 km2 of land to do this. We have 260,000 km2 of crop land. So we would need to take almost half our crop land to replace coal with biomass cropping. ABARE in its Energy Projections to 2029-30 didn’t even include biomass in its future technologies.

To Roses, I live in Northern NSW and we have two relatively new bagasse power plants built with generous government subsidy. They are now in receivership as they are not financially viable – even after the subsidy and the RECs.

To Ben, I think there is a bit of smoke and mirrors at play in using the least cost non-variable renewable energy source in your example. It might leave the uninformed reader with the idea that all we need for renewable baseload is a carbon price of $63. If you had used the more scalable solar thermal with storage (as you mentioned) the price would have looked very different. ABARE has the generation cost between $300-600/MWh for solar – 3 to 6 times the example you gave.

Roses1,

I am not a member of any party, and have held the nome de plume prior to the 2007 elections. I work as an electrical engineer for heavy industry. I also hold a degree in economics and and MBA. I have designed and built co generation plant and worked with boilers that burnt a variety of fuels.

Generation can only be considered base load if it has guaranteed availability. For example the bagasse generation in the sugar mill is available for 3-5 months during the harvesting of the cane, otherwise it remains dormant.

Reliable sources include waste from pulp making, but are generally limited and consumed by the industry concerned.

10- 15% of Australia's generation would be at least 4000 MW of generation, at 200 small 20MW generating plants each consuming about 40ton per hr of biomass with a total of 8000t/hr.

Secondly, unless one has a clean stream such as bagasse or wood waste, most biomass fuels are contaminated with plastics etc and require expensive scrubbing systems.

From a power engineer the dream of 10% electricity generation via biomass is wildly impractical.

Peak-carbon sources is not about running out - it is trying to avoid the consequences of the coming squabble about who OWNS what. A tax on those who use carbon irresponsibly is a small price to pay if it helps us avoid that outcome.

ah now I understand the "viper" comments and all the insults roses1 always throws about when posting .. it's because he gains his income from being a "carbon consultant" a paid spruiker of carbon taxes and such

No wonder anyone who disagrees is attacked with insults and bile

Are you worried you might have to get a real job? Is that why you attack people the way you do? Vipers, deniers, frauds etc tec .. when the reality is they might affect your income.

Nothing rational or objective required is there rosy, it's all about the money after all!

You call people frauds and in the pay of whomever, when you yourself are in the pay of the opposition to skepticism. Really, pot kettle black .. does anyone ever call you a fraud, I wonder.

What a laugh .. that will keep me amused for days,

Custard, it appears that the Qld government wants us to use more energy. I posted this link on another thread earlier.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/money/money-matters/power-play-hits-struggling-families/story-fn3hskur-1226066795854

Qld electricity prices are due to rise because we didn't use enough power last summer, if we use more next summer they might lower the price.

On the one hand we get a tax to try and force us to lower energy usage and on the other hand increased prices for not using enough. Go figure.

R0bert

Curm :
The two columns in the table refer to biomass combustion entirely for energy and biomass pyrolysis to energy and charcoal.

As to your suggestion that we could only obtain 1% of energy from biomass, Scandinavian countries already do much better -Sweden 32%, Finland 27% and Denmark 27%. http://www.biomassbenefitsns.ca/news.

Shadow minister - yes that's a lot of biomass and a lot of small power stations - entirely different to our current centralized generation. Part of this would be a dispersed grid, into which solar and wind energy would also be fed.

Dedicated biomass would not be intermittent production would be continuous. I also doublt your claim about bagasse only generating for a few months of the year - there is such as thing as fuel storage.

Hi Ben,

You need to stabilise population growth from the 1.2 million extra people, we are growing by every 3 years. ( Simply abolish the baby bonus.......from ABS data, our birthrate is double our deathrate and make our emmigration rate...around 70k per year to equal our immigration rate. )

The billions being spent on growth infrastructure ( ie pollution) can then be re-directed to research and development of emerging technologies, health and education.

No need for a carbon tax and stabilisation will solve all the "intractible" problems facing Australia and the World.

Cheers,

Ralph

Simply abolish the baby bonus. Now why didn't I think of that:) Ralph Bennett....you are spot on. To give low IQ money......is the worst thing any government can do. Its like paying a bunch of dino,s to keep the jails of life happy, while the world passes them by:) but Runner or Evolution.......some things work, and some things dont:).........Sorry:) Iam being cheeky;)

LEA

Roses1

The cane industry only needs its processing plant a few months a year. It burns the bagasse for its own steam and power consumption, and exports very little of it. At the end of the cane season the mills shut down, and have no need for generation.

As an energy consultant you seem poorly versed in what you are quoting.

PS Bagasse is light and fluffy, and the 100t/hr or so would fill a vast area that would need fire protection. Are you kidding?

roses anyone who has driven past the masses of cain fields
know how big that gets...[its spread over miles and miles]
thus they needed to lay..'infastructure'..light rail

thing is if it wernt cane..it would be swamp
trees holding hundreds of years of carbon

and there lies a key
your 'link' said

""cleaner than fossil fuels.""
we know fuels can be dirty..
[brown coal is worse than black coal]
then peat is more dirty than brown coal
then bio is even more dirty..than brown coal
[so its hardly 'clean'

""And it is renewable -a tree grows,
it gets turned into energy releasing a fixed amount of carbon to the atmosphere,..and another tree grows..in its place which takes that carbon back in;..a closed carbon loop.""

OVER 100's OF YEARS..!
you dont 'kill a 100 year old tree
and have an instant tree back..as soon as you plant it

so burning black coal..would make less POLUTION
and its less carbon..still be there to grow new trees..

you kill a ton of tree carbon
to grow,,[maybe].a gram of tree

you kill to begin with
how long to regrow the first huge dose of carbon
your burning will take years to replace..its nutts

then add in put...to store the stuff
[extra carbon/wage inputs]

its just insane
to put it nicely

bio gas is the same lie
how much carbon is created collecting and processing the stuff

and dont think raising power costs is going to work
because inflation...will inflate your cost too..

just by inflation
doing what inflation does..
[deflate what you get..for a given $]

burning bushes
is more dirty that brown coal..!

""a project that will create 150 new jobs""
will ned ever bigger wages..as costs add to inflation

[then the infastucture..falicy...factor
increasing our power bills..

building gas lines..for exporters

and subsidisation..of greenie/folly
and free solar cells..and buy back subsidies]

selling sun/power..
while still using..*coal power
[or else why..a buy back input credit subsidy]

if you got solar credit
you got it..by coal deficite

ie clever accounting
and didnt reduce polution
only hid it on top of ya roof

Roses1 - took a closer look at the biomass stats you cite.. I really only had time for Finland. What seems to have happened is that up to the 1940s they cut down a lot of wood for firewood .. since then they have switched to using the wood they used for fires for heating boilers in major hot water systems? can't quite make it out. As I suspected, its not a matter of using wood in big-time power stations. As shadow minister points out, its way too variable a fuel source.

But in Finland's case they've always used wood big time for their heating requirements, they've got lots of big forests to hand and they're set up to do it. Cutting down forests on the same scale in Australia is asking for trouble, and as has already been pointed out, suger waste is seasonal. Expecting 10 per cent of electricity from biomass in Aus.. you're dreaming.

I find several possible faults with this article's logic:
1. Using Biomass fuel for a comparison was always going to be questionable, due to limits on fuel availability - and/or impacts on food production,
2. Mr Rose also quotes two different prices for biomass - $45/MWh in the article, and $170/MWh in a post on 1 June,
3. Allowing price increases from a carbon tax/ETS to be simply passed on removes incentive for innovation and investment, putting pressure only on consumers to economise,
4. The author has not taken into account the pressure for wage increases which must result from increased prices for very many commodities, and which will then compensate consumers and enable old usage habits to be restored,
5. Electricity production is not the only use of fossil fuels or producer of CO2 (ref. metals/chemicals/etc production) - hence, taxing all primary fossil inputs would be both simpler and more encompassing,
6. In summary, the case for a C Tax/ETS has not been demonstrated,
7. The author is mistaken about agri-sequestration, in that plantation forests must be harvested and then replanted on rotation to maximise carbon capture and storage - with the lumber being utilised for housing etc.

In similar fashion, the author has not presented the Coalition's approach fairly or accurately.

An alternative proposal:
1. Freeze prices and wages,
2. Tax all primary fossil fuel inputs, and use the income to foster alternatives R&D, pilot schemes, and full-scale implementation,
3. Set emission caps and work with industry to achieve these, and set penalties for non-compliance,
4. Develop viable energy alternatives through broad consultation with industry, and plan tax incentives and development grants to foster the development of the most effective fossil-alternative production systems - be it for electricity production, materials processing (aluminium smelting, steel production, etc), and chemicals manufacture, etc.
5. Keep an open mind on alternatives,
6. Promote a World Forests Fund to work for preservation and restoration of old world forests.

Final note: MWh and MW are not interchangeable; uniformity would be helpful.

To answer some good points raised:
Curm et al - this table is only an example of a hypothetical renewable project that would become viable with that carbon price, to illustrate how the carbon price works. It’s not an attempt at a definitive costing of biomass – this is of course variable depending on the cost paid for feedstock, scale, technology etc. Sorry if I was not clear enough and for any confusion here. I do intend to post an article on biomass energy from growing oil mallees – will show more detail.
Saltpetre it’s good to see you proposing other alternatives. As stated in the article I agree that relying on any one action will not be enough, it will take many. Taxing all fossil fuel inputs as you suggest is essentially the same as a carbon tax; emissions are calculated directly from the fuels burned. You mention caps – yes an essential part of the cap and trade scheme currently proposed – the price goes up as emitters are forced to meet their caps. I don’t think Liberal policy to pay emitters to reduce emissions will work, do you?
‘One under God’ –biomass is no way as carbon polluting as brown coal or for that matter any fossil fuel and I will try to explain why. Yes the CO2 goes into the atmosphere but it has only recently been taken out of the air by plants and is returned to it when plantations regrow – a closed cycle of say 20 years. For this reason Kyoto rules do not count this CO2 and biomass power plants are generally estimated to be less than 1/10th as carbon polluting as coal (there is some fossil fuel used in transport and construction). On the other hand when ‘fossil’ carbon – coal and oil has been locked up in the ground for millions of years - is returned to the air in huge quantities it is much more than any plantations take up. This is what is causing the problem of sudden CO2 increase and global warming

Shadow minister

Points taken on current bagasse thermal generation being seasonal only. I had not researched to the subject prior to this exercise but on delving more deeply found there is currently 300 MW of generation . About that much more is feasible and there are plants to export more to grid. Future developments plan to export more to grid; perhaps these units could be supplemented by other biomasss sources.

For future plants, gasification rather than thermal would enable increased efficiency through 'combined heat and power'

Roses 1,

"Taxing all fossil fuel inputs as you suggest is essentially the same as a carbon tax;"

Ben, my main reason for suggesting taxing fossil fuel at source is that it is far simpler and fully encompassing - all pay - export product being partly or wholly exempt.

(I still think this tax is Not the right way to go, and I blame Tony Abbott to some extent for not revealing his viable alternative.)

What the Gov is proposing is collecting the tax from a multitude of "users" (what a nightmare), and then looking at reimbursing some (other?) "heavy users" (of electricity? fuel? gas?) - What a mess.

At least my way the Gov only has to tackle "essential" reimbursement.

The other alternative is Not to reimburse anyone. If there have to be export subsidies or import tariffs to enable Oz business to remain viable, then DO THAT. Other countries are doing it.

What the Gov is proposing is a huge and complicated money-shuffle - bureaucracy at its wasteful best! The Gov plans to subsidise households. Why? Just increase welfare and pensions. Simple. Everyone else just has to wear it (we're going to anyway).

Labor is "using" a "ruse" to collect extra revenue, and use it to win votes by redistributing wealth from the "fat cats". Laughable!

"I don’t think Liberal policy to pay emitters to reduce emissions will work, do you?"

What's this babble about paying emitters? Tony just wants to work with emitters to find reduction alternatives, and with eco industries to determine solutions. Save wasteful bureaucracy, and invest in development. A sound policy approach, direct action.

What does this Gov expect? Emitters will run to invest? In permits from Brazil? Russia? Indonesia? Or just go elsewhere?

No-one is going to invest in alternatives unless they have a positive incentive, not a negative one.

Do we want viable industry, or a C tax?

Look at Brazil - using ethanol in petrol-burning cars, at a $50 conversion - photosynthesis at its best, eco at its best. Vision, and direct action, not penalties.

Roses1,

Unfortunately the bagasse consuming generators are generally "bypass" turbines using the end steam in the process instead of condensing. This means that without the process using the low pressure pass out steam they cannot run.

The other consideration is that because of the low calorific value per ton of biomass, shipping it long distances makes it an unattractive fuel.

To Ben and the people who've posted on Ben's article. Can we please try to understand that we live in the real world, not some imaginary rose-coloured glasses, theoretical world? Every dollar that Gillard or Abbott propose to have Australian industries spend on CO2 emission reductions in Australia would buy several times more CO2 emission reductions if spent in China, India or just about any other developing country. They are using old technologies that need to be replaced with modern energy-saving technologies already in use in developed countries such as Australia and the USA, and they mostly use dirty fuels that need to be replaced with gas or nuclear or higher quality coal as produced by Australian coal mines.
If Australia was really serious about reducing its CO2 outputs, then some serious discussion needs to be had about a cap and trade system that gives industry 2 or 3 years to come up with their solutions as to how best to reduce CO2 emissions after which the cap is slowly lowered, with significant financial penalties that cannot be transferred on to end users to then apply for those businesses that fail to reduce their emissions in line with the lowering cap.
Gillard's current proposal is a tax that will not be effective in reducing CO2 emissions but which will deliver a huge war chest of money to buy votes at the next election.
Get real, guys.

Don't worry Saltpetre, by the next election, if little Julia holds on for the full term, everyone will know that global warming is over as a theory, & a gravy train. She will be given an academic post somewhere where they have strong stomachs.

Sanity will return to Oz, Brown will be retired to a hut on the Franklin, & the rest of the greenies will be returned to Nimbin, where they will do less harm.

We will all be able then to go back to leading our lives to suite ourselves, rather than our self appointed betters.

You know, I can't wait.

Hasbeen, I agree, and hope your prophesies turn out to be 100% correct.

Bernie Masters makes some very good points though, offering a much better way for Oz to "participate" - and if pursued could give needed time for the science to determine an "optimal" atmospheric CO2 level, and what, if any, intervention is needed to achieve and maintain such a level:

"Every dollar that Gillard or Abbott propose to have Australian industries spend on CO2 emission reductions in Australia would buy several times more CO2 emission reductions if spent in China, India or just about any other developing country."

I also agree with Bernie's proposition for forward emission caps, and working with industry to achieve these going forward - working with the science in the sort of organised collaboration needed to resolve all the complex interrelated issues involved.

My principal concerns are melting glaciers and ice-caps, sea-ice retreat, sea level rise and the loss of arctic and antarctic habitat. These may turn out to be natural, but they may also be an early warning of greater environmental shift, whose consequences could be dire. Thus, we need the best science and the best of possible actions to provide the time needed to get on top of these environmental "phenomena". We surely have the means and the will, if we can only collaborate as a global community to implement them wisely.

Population, food, forests, water-security and environment - all are part of this energy compact.