The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The threat to and the dangers of coal > Comments

The threat to and the dangers of coal : Comments

By Mike Pope, published 15/10/2008

Carbon capture and sequestration is unlikely to be available before 2020, so coal will continue to pollute for a while yet.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
I agree and disagree with some assertions. Firstly clean coal is a furphy that cannot work on the required scale. To capture and liquify CO2 from coal burning requires up to 40% more coal to be burned, then the liquid CO2 has 2.5 times the volume of that original coal. Safety of the astronomical amount of required storage then becomes a minor issue. Therefore those who promote clean coal are engaging in stalling tactics. Moreover I strongly suspect the new infrastructure spending boost will hypocritically try to increase coal exports which adds to global emissions. I suggest coal exports should decline not increase, perhaps with the help of an export tax.

The US and Australia (possibly Russia) are perhaps the only countries able to continue coal exports for another 20 years until a global production peak. Opinions differ as to whether this will prolong global warming via feedback processes (methane from swamps, less snow reflection) or limit it to 2C at 465 ppm CO2.

I beg to differ on the prospects of granite geothermal and solar energy. There is no evidence fractured rock geothermal (ie not volcanic) is anywhere close to producing baseload power. Both solar thermal and photovoltaics are best at load following power when shopping malls have the air conditioning at full blast. Their output drastically declines in winter and overbuilding them to compensate makes solar a very expensive use of capital. Ditto backing up solar with gas peaking power since we will want that gas long term for things like nitrogen fertiliser. Feed-in tariffs are an unsustainable tax on the poor which could be why Germany wants to burn more coal.

When all the energy belt tightening has been done there is still a low carbon form of cheap and relatively reliable baseload power. In fact Australia has the lion's share of the fuel. For fear of being howled down I'd better not say what it is.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 8:57:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mike Pope, do you have any views on wave power which is currently being trialled in Western Australia? From what I have heard (which is fairly limited) it sounds exciting - no seasonal or day/night variation, and can be sited close to centres of population with no emissions.

You don't mention how long coal reserves are likely to last at current extraction rates. Our natural gas is predicted to last another 67 years, but I'm also curious about coal.

I would like us to stop subsidising domestic coal, and stop using it as soon as we can, while maintaining the export market for the time being. Coal seems so very inefficient - only 30 percent of its energy is recovered at the power stations, and of that only 30 percent reaches the end user. Its a bit like cigarettes: if they were put forward as a consumer new product today they wouldn't get past first base on health and safety grounds, and if coal fire power stations were proposed today as a new energy source they would be laughed out of court.
Posted by Candide, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 10:22:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are we so limited in our abilities as to be incapable of producing a specification for the generation of electricity as simple as a given kW/h per carbon atom, and then Mr Rudd reward the successful demonstrator with the $500 million recognising, as one contributor put it, you can only keep a fart under a doona for so long!
Posted by SapperK9, Monday, 20 October 2008 11:06:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is now time for a major rethink and review by the IPCCC.

There is strong evidence that CO2 may not be the monster it is said to be.
The ice in the Arctic is greater this year than last, but that is only
a symptom. I have just read an article about the Pacific Decodal Oscillation.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/19/new-paper-from-roy-spencer-pdo-and-clouds/#more-3721

The theory is that this causes variations in cloud cover.
It seems to produce curve fits that are very interesting.

We are at risk of running off a cliff in a panic.
I hope we have not reached the situation where the politicians are
so committed that they must press on with the ETS no matter what the
evidence has to say.
This is the situation with Peak Oil, the politicians cannot mention it, and the media in general complies.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 8:39:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy