Recently in Climate Change Category

It's particularly galling to listen to the Federal Opposition voicing concern about high petrol prices and the effect they're having on "battling families."

Give me a break! I don't recall similar concerns from the same rabble regarding the effect of "Work Choices" on the battling constituency.

It's hard to feel sympathy for the government, though. They've been running scared of the issue since the last significant rise in international oil prices. Instead of levelling with the population and explaining the true situation regarding energy supplies, they've dodged the issue and dug themselves a deeper hole in the process.

It's about time the government told the truth about energy prices. That energy's going to get a lot more expensive due to supply shortages. That the carbon trading scheme will compound the effect. That peoples lifestyles are going to change dramatically as cheap energy becomes a distant happy memory.

The government should be stating the unpleasant truth and challenging the opposition's ludicrous populist policies.

If the government doesn't start acknowledging the truth and planning for the inevitable, the consequences will be dire.

With attention focussed on the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere by coal fired power stations, coal mining companies are desperate to find ways of maintaining the viability of the industry in the era of CO2 induced climate change and carbon trading.

One method being considered is to use CO2 Geo-Sequestration, sometimes known as "Carbon Capture." It is one of a number of "Clean Coal" technologies that reduce CO2 emissions.

The concept's simple enough. Just capture the C02 after the coal's burnt, cool and compress it, then push it down the nearest convenient hole in the ground, where it will forever remain out of sight and out of mind. Sounds easy, but there are a number of difficult technical hurdles.

For a start, there's a lot of CO2 produced. The power stations in New South Wales burn millions of tons of coal a year. The weight of CO2 produced is 3.7 times the weight of the carbon in the coal. That's a hell of a lot of material to be safely disposed of.

Next, it's not that easy to separate the CO2 from the flue gas of a conventional power station. A lot of it is nitrogen plus other gasses which are largely inert in the combustion process, and you don't want to be adding those to the already large amount of CO2 you're trying to get rid of. For that reason, carbon capture may not be the 'bolt on solution' for conventional power stations that everyone hoped. It may mean building completely new plants that burn coal in pure oxygen, negating the need to separate the flue gasses, but markedly increasing the capital cost of the process.

And lastly, sites that can safely store the material are not readily available. Certain geological structures are required, and they're not always were the coal is burnt. If not close, the energy required to compress and transport the the CO2 to suitable sites will further increase the costs.

Despite the problems, Carbon Capture (along with nuclear energy) has been the darling of conservative governments. Until now.

THE [Australian] Government is facing a tough decision over whether to continue funding the world's leading clean coal experiment after the Bush Administration ended its commitment to the $US1.8 billion ($2 billion) project, citing massive budget blow-outs.

The US move is a grave setback for the Australian coal industry's hopes that a commercially-viable clean coal plant would be built in the foreseeable future. The US-led FutureGen project was embraced by the Howard government which pledged $15 million to it shortly before last year's election.

This is a surprising development considering that the current US administration is sympathetic to the fossil fuel industry. Not to be outdone, the former Australian government supported Carbon Capture at the expense of other environmentally friendly energy solutions.

Hopefully, this development marks the end to governments trying to pick green energy technology winners. If makes more sense for all technologies to be in the mix and receive equal opportunity to receive government research funding.

Who knows? Carbon capture may be a viable green technology, but it needs to be evaluated on an equal footing with all other technologies, whether they be nuclear or windmills.

My few regular readers know I'm concerned with the effects of climate change. I have little doubt in the science that points to the detrimental effects of loading the atmosphere with carbon.

Despite the current wet spell, Sydney's dams are only 60% full and half the state is still drought effected. We'll have to wait and see if the current La Nina phenomenon lasts long enough to further improve the situation, but trends show that the dryer El Nino periods are getting longer and consequently, the countryside dryer.

Why then, you may well ask, haven't I subscribed to "green" electricity and installation of water tanks? Both are within my means. The answer is that I'm reluctant to make it easier for the authorities to shirk their responsibilities for the provision of basic infrastructure and the imposition of charges to tackle climate change.

Consumers who take the laudable action of paying extra for green power or pay hundreds (or thousands) of dollars to install water tanks deserve praise, but their effects are puny in the larger scheme of things and make it easier for the government to abrogate their responsibilities.

The effects of climate change are felt by everyone and the mitigation costs should also be borne by the community at large. More so than the provision of small subsidies as happens now.

Electricity authorities should have fixed and mandated levels of green energy generation, with the extra costs met by all consumers. Why should the concerned few pay extra and still wear the effects of coal fired power?

Water tanks installed on private property should be no different from the public dams, water mains, pumping stations and (dare I say it) desalination plants. They should be paid for and maintained by the water authorities from the revenues collected from water consumers. Water taken from the tanks should be metered or calculated by some other mechanism, and added to the householders water bill.

I'm sure that many more households would be willing to install tanks if an equitable scheme was devised, perhaps saving the authorities the huge sums needed to expand existing facilities. Not very altruistic sentiments, I know, but I'm willing to donate land for water storage and pay increased costs for power if the conditions are acceptable.

"You've thrown technology down the drain which Australia could have used," he said.

"As an Australian I feel very sad that that thing goes on, not because the technology wasn't good enough, or anything but for political reasons, ideological reasons."

The statement above could be about a number of technologies invented in Australia over the past 60 years. In this case, the quote is from nuclear scientist Don Mercer, lamenting that the Hawke government shut down research on uranium enrichment during the mid 1980s, leaving the process to be perfected by others.

It's ironic, because that's exactly what the present government is doing to research for renewable energy. Forcing it offshore through a lack of funds and commitment. Purely for ideological and political reasons.

Like the uranium enrichment technology of 20 years ago, renewable energy research will be a lost opportunity if the technology is perfected offshore.

Dr Clarence Hardy worked for 20 years at Lucas Heights and says Australia was at the forefront of nuclear technology.

"I don't think anyone at the really high level in the Government understood what we were trying to do, to preserve this technology for the good of the country," he said.

Dr Hardy is now a director of the company Nuclear Fuel Australia and is planning to put a proposal to the Federal Government to build an enrichment plan in Australia.

Yes, planning to put a proposal for technology developed and imported from overseas.

I wouldn't be surprised in another 20 years or so, Australian scientists will be lamenting lost opportunities as we cough up large amounts of money to import renewable energy technologies that could have been perfected here.

Update: Ken L has a different slant on the same thing here.

One of my pet hates is reading something like this ...

Australia produces only about 1.5 per cent of the world's carbon emissions, a proportion that is declining as emissions from the developing nations like China and India soar.

... as an argument that we don't really need to do anything soon about climate change.

Like all disingenuous arguments, the statement is true, but doesn't tell the whole story. Australia has one of the highest per capita green house gas emissions, a consequence of a high standard of living, powered by electricity generated from burning coal.

China's and India's per capita production of greenhouse gasses is tiny by comparison. Although developing quickly, they are still third world economies. They just happen to have lots of people who, unsurprisingly, wouldn't mind having our standard of living.

To suggest that onus is on these countries to limit their emissions, rather than us, is to tell them that they can't aspire to our level of economic development. It's an argument they are likely to ignore, to everyone's detriment.

Most of the man made CO2 floating around in the atmosphere today was produced by developed nations. It's our problem. We have the knowledge and resources to develop new energy technologies, and the responsibility to reduce our emissions while providing the means to allow the developing nations reduce theirs as they grow their economies.

We can't expect them to limit their standard of living to allow us to retain ours.