Recently in Technology Category

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.

The announcement that Australia is going to sell uranium to India in contravention of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has received little comment in the media. This is surprising as in my mind it's a first class scandal.

It comes at the same time as the US is planning to provide nuclear technology to India. Hardly a coincidence.

Whether Australia can keep track of uranium once it enters the closed Indian nuclear industry is a moot point. If the Indian industry is that accountable then they should sign the NPT.

Ignoring this major international convention will damage Australia's reputation. It will be difficult to complain about others flouting agreements when we conveniently ignore this one.

Perhaps our limp, morally feeble Labor Party should take a stand on this issue. Don't hold your breath, though.

I caught this interview on Radio National a couple of weeks ago while driving to work. Normally, I would have missed most of it due to arriving at my workplace well before it concluded, but I was so taken with what this guy was saying, I stayed in the car to listen to the whole thing. I found it fascinating.

The transcripts and audio mp3 can be obtained from here.

The Doctor puts the finger squarely on the food industry as one reason why so many more people are fat today than was the case 20 years ago.

A few extracts follow, with my emphasis, but I recommend you read, or preferably, listen to, the whole thing.

"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.