The comment that there are very few independant experts in ECF technology in Australia would imply that all the experts are presently employed in the pulping industry (surprise surprise) and thus cannot be trusted to give an unbiased advice.

This is a purile argument used by the know nots to cast doubts on the credibility of those that provide authoritive information contrary to their ideals.

This should be offensive to anyone with an IQ greater than his shoe size.

“ in a few years Tassie could become one of the world leader in ECF technology”

TJ, there are the usual questions about buying your cake with imported ingredients or making it yourself with local resources so for this one I’m offering some hints picked up round the traps. First issue is getting into home grown R & D before the project starts. Recall I said there is no model or operating manuals for any keen bunch of scientists to play with.

The only way this thing can be fully “owned” is through its ongoing engineering then perhaps some fresh upstream IT dedicated to the evolving situation. Universal concepts based in practice can come from the experience. All you have now is somebody’s guidelines and they are certainly not enough to start up with considering that endless government red tape.

In skills sharing, I found the odd Hydro and CSIRO bod rubbing shoulders with us on Tassie jobs too but that was a while ago. When you are ready we can have a chat about that.

Off topic but see another proposal that depends on building a new plant, in this case a gas fired power station, all in all about 1b for 500 jobs, not bad in a population about the same size as Tas.

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=general&story_id=1062613&category=general

S+M Gunns seem isolated in terms of pulp mill peers so I wonder why

Shadow Minister you are spot on with your comments back to Taz.

Sorry Taz but I also can't let your comments pass as really your persistence in trying to devalue the scientists that have been engaged by the company developing the pulp mill is getting pathetic, even more so when you seem all to willing to promote your self as a expect judge. So it’s your opinion that you see your self as the only one in Australia with knowledge. Well crap I say.

I can bet any thing you like that the developer has all the ECF pulp mill manuals they need and a team full of scientific expects with more than the required knowledge to over see the building and commissioning of the Bell Bay mill.

I personally known just a couple of those people and they have spent several years overseas studying and most important working in ECF pulp mills.

And here in Aus the Victorian Australian pulp and paper mill is at present undergoing an upgrade to ECF. Bet they have got their required manuals also. And don’t forget that back in the late 1930’s Tasmania was the first place in the world to successfully produce newsprint from a hardwood resource. So could argue just who did write the first hardwood pulp manual, heaven forbid it couldn’t have been a bunch of two headed Taswigins could it? Always remember that the latest of any thing must have an origin.

So my case rests in that Tasmania has the proud history of developing the base technology that will now see the most modern development in modern hardwood pulp mill technology take place. And it’s great to see the major advances in that technology now includes pulping for fine writing papers.

You see here in Tassie is not just about being first to move from 6 o’clock closing or producing the Worlds best cricketer, we are up to scratch with a few other thinks also.

As some home work why not just Google “ECF pulp mill research” and you will be surprised in what and who you find

Bas: Don’t be sorry for me on the pulp mill manuals because you’re just guessing Gunns have them when I’m certain the TCA has none. Nobody there is talking about common problems like flushing, refining, water recycling, slurry dewatering, furnace control, feedback and phase relations. I’m also sure the federal government hasn’t got the latest manuals either hence my concern about uncommon red tape in the final outcome

Matching manuals to red tape will be the most interesting stage after mill start up, but that’s not our problem is it Bas? Studying is one thing, building one then managing a complex mill is quite a lot more. BTW cinders has not got back with an update on Maryvale pulp mill and water treatment progress.

On hardwood pulp history in this country and that was my inheritance too have a good look through all of the records in TIA then we can have a good discussion on what is missing. Don’t forget Burnie! Hey Newsprint was mostly groundwood (between stones) in the early days and a far cry from say glassine we made for Cadburys.

http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/246.html

My next Q to Bas is about what ifs on our eucalypts where they build the latest ECF plant components given our hardwood history above. Making white fluffy pulp out of “Tas Oak” is not as easy as NH pine.

“two headed Taswigins”?

Now I sincerely hope you are not referring to other blockheads on here. ,” we are up to scratch with a few other thinks also” Shame, it has to be all that blue gum liquor!

Back to Tassie history, SOME readers with a long memory may recall why Bell Bay had to have a thermal power station, others may think Bass Strait gas was an asset. I reckon we are a long way from imagining a “data center” south side

A decision of the Tasmanian pulp mill is due at 10:30 am today by the Federal Environment Minister under the EPBC Act. The last time the Commonwealth ruled on an ECF pulp mill that pumps 72,000 tonnes of treated effluent containing a limit of 20pg/L Dioxin into Bass Strait each day, it was deemed not to have any impact on Commonwealth Environment Value (for latest Commonwealth information on this mill read approval and details at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_referral_detail&proposal_id=2234

Yet the Ministerial decision on the Tasmanian mill looks likely to be either an outright rejection based upon impact on environment values of Bass Strait or approval subject to strict conditions. The Commonwealth have already proposed a ridiculously low limit of 3.4pg/L TEQ for Dioxins. A figure that is below the Method Detection limit of the latest USE EPA approved testing methods.

Yet on Melbourne Radio the Wilderness Society has stated this morning that even if the Minister’s Conditions fully protect the marine environment they will continue to oppose the mill and campaign against the Government at the Federal Election.

They do so based on nonsense claims about the mills impact on Greenhouse gas. This is despite the fact the Pulp mill will save more Greenhouse that Turnbull’s innovative light bulbs.

The Tasmanian pulp mill will save between 1.1 to1.3 million tonnes of GHG each year, compared to the 800,000 tonnes of CO2 that replacing lightbulbs will save each year in its first four years. The mill will do so be converting woodchips already planned for export into pulp right here in Australia, saving over a million tonnes of GHG in shipping and saving another 400,000 tonnes in renewable energy created by biomass from the pulping operation, these saving being offset by a operational emission of about 150,000 tonnes.

The Wilderness activists refuse to believe these facts and rely instead on claims by Margaret Blakers. who is(was) a staff advisor and fundraiser to Senator Bob Brown, who fancifully claims that the emission from the value adding pulp mill will be equal to the annual GHG output of the whole of Tasmania.