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?