Recently in Environment Category

The return of the Labor government after 11 long years of miserable conservative rule saw "The Pigs" take holiday. The 'fire in the belly' (read 'indigestion') caused by more than a decade of the Howard government had subsided. With it went any inclination to add to this blog.

The antics of the Federal Opposition and some questionable policy decisions by the government have rankled to the extent that the urge to write has returned. If those urges persist is another matter.

The first stirrings were caused by the bleats of the well off to sensible means testing of government handouts.

The issue that finally forced me back to the keyboard was the pathetic responses from both sides of the parliament regarding the rapid increases in energy prices.

Brendan Nelson's policy to reduce the price of petrol by five cents per litre was a cheap grab for popularity, a stance begging to be ridiculed by the government. Rudd should have emphasised that the oil price is set by supply and demand in the global energy market, and thumped the Opposition's lunatic policy that would increasing the demand of a limited resource.

That the government seems spooked by Nelson's announcement, to the extent that they've mooted the possibility that petrol prices may be reduced by re-jigging the calculation of GST, is gutless, narrow minded policy of the worst kind.

If the government is worried by the issue, and they should be for other than political reasons, then they should be proposing that fuel taxes be used for sensible medium term measures that will lower fuel demand. Here's a few suggestions:

1. Revamp tax on new cars to make economical vehicles cheaper.
2. Remove the tax concession on new off road vehicles.
3. Revamp the novated car lease tax scheme by removing the incentive to drive further to reduce tax.
4. Provide tax breaks if you use public transport to get to work.

Sensibly, the government should increase fuel excise to reinforce the issue, because, apart from climate change (which is related), exceeding the limits of oil production (Peak Oil) is likely to be the defining issue of the 21st century.

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.

One of the assumptions made by both parties in the current election campaign is that the economy will keep growing at the present rate for the foreseeable future. Howard's and Rudd's recently announced $30 odd billion tax giveaways are only deliverable if that assumption holds true.

There are a couple of economic 'elephants in the room' that both side of politics don't want to mention. One is the sub-prime lending crisis in the US, the other is Peak Oil. The former may knock a few years growth off the economy. The later issue, Peak Oil and its effect on the oil price and world economy, is much more serious.

If the more dire predictions regarding Peak Oil eventuate, the predictions of tax giveaways will be laughable in the face of declining government receipts.

Peak oil and climate change are related, but the effects of peaking oil supplies will be felt much earlier and have a sharper negative effect on the economy. Predictions of just when the peak will occur vary. Some say it's here now, others say it won't happen for a couple of decades. Even if the optimists are correct, it's not that far away.

Over the last week the oil price hit $90 barrel*. Admittedly, that spike was a reaction to the threat of Turkey taking military action in Iraq. However, the steady rise of the oil price from around $30 three years ago to $85 this month is simply due to demand outstripping supply. $100 / barrel is not out of the question in the near future.

Since the 1960s, two barrels of oil have been consumed for every barrel found. China and India are competing for oil on the world market for supplies, and they have some way to go before they approach anything like the per capita energy we consume.

(Click to enlarge)

Australia has been insulated from the current rising energy prices due to the rising value of the Oz dollar. Not every country is so lucky, and eventually increasing energy prices will start to negatively effect the world economy.

Perhaps the imminent $100 per barrel oil price will put the issue on the public agenda. Until then, Rudd, Howard and Co will happily perpetrate the myth that resources and rising living standards last forever.

*$92 as of today.

And that reason's called "Value Adding."

Australia has an appalling record at adding value to it's primary exports. From wool exported decades ago, to present day minerals and, in this case, trees. Just load it on a ship, wave it goodbye and receive a fraction of its processed value.

I know there are issues with the mill regarding its siting, pollution and the source of its raw material. If all those meet acceptable standards, then the thing should go ahead.

If the trees are going to be cut down regardless, then we should ensure we get the maximum value for them.

"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.

Tipped off by blogging's uber conservative, I took an hour and fifteen minutes to view the Channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle," It's well worth a look, and can be found on Google Video.

The film interviews a group of climate change septics, and presents their theories on how the world's climate is regulated. It goes into some length about the systems that drive climate change. In a nutshell, the film argues that variations in climate are caused by changes in the sun's radiated output. It certainly sounded plausible to me.

Predictably, they had a swipe at Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth." In particular, they cited the segment that struck a chord with me, where Gore points out the relationship between climate and CO2 levels. They highlighted an aspect of the relationship that was not mentioned by Gore; that CO2 levels have historically lagged behind changing climate, by a period of about 800 years. On the face of it, this omission seriously damages Gore's argument.

I found it interesting that they didn't press on with their critique of that part of Gore's film. Gore goes on to show the variations in CO2 levels over the past million years, then dramatically demonstrates how present CO2 levels are significantly above the highest previous levels. He concludes with a visual demonstration of the alarming levels of CO2 that will be present in 50 years at the current rate of increase.

It's disappointing that the makers of this film took a swipe at Gore for a critical omission, when they themselves omit to mention the current unprecedented levels of CO2 compared to the highest levels over the past million years.

This is the crux of the argument as I see it. Yes, CO2 levels have historically lagged climate change. I accept climate is a very complex system driven by the sun's energy. But they didn't speculate on what could happen when the relationship between climate change and CO2 levels is reversed, ie, when the change in CO2 levels runs ahead of natural changes caused by variations in the sun's intensity.

In the absence of any natural explanation, and unlike the past, the increase in CO2 levels is being driven by human causes, not by climate change. The sun's still driving the system, but the system now has the new variable of rapidly increasing amounts of CO2.

Footnote: The film covers a broad range of other issues regarding climate change. There are sites providing detailed critiques of the documentary. A couple are here and here.

The move to replace old style incandescent light globes with compact fluorescent units as a measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a step in the right direction. It's even better when globes are supplied free of charge, as they were to us, through a NSW greenhouse gas trading scheme.

I've always found it strange that the debate on emission reduction has focused on power generation methods when it's quite possible to have significant reductions simply by using energy more efficiently. I look forward to the day when electric hot water systems are phased out in favour of solar / gas units. That change would make it possible to shut down a coal fired power station or two.

A word of warning, though. Don't put your shiny new compact fluoro light globe in a socket controlled by a conventional light dimmer. The globe won't like it!

Hearing Peter Beattie resurrect the idea, first proposed 70 years ago, of diverting rivers in Queensland's north to augment flows in the Murray Darling river system took me back to my yoof in the late 60s. Then, the idea of using large engineering projects to 'tame nature' were common.

The nearly completed Snowy Mountains hydro project was the inspiration for other, sometimes wacky, schemes being proposed. One of the more silly ones was a proposal to use an atomic explosion to create an artificial harbour in the country's north-west. Madness!

The environment was seen as a limitless resource that could be altered at will for human advantage.

We now know that these grandiose schemes often result in unintended environmental consequences. It could be land degradation due to salination, the destruction of animal habitat, or accelerating climate change due to the creation of greenhouse gasses during construction and operation. It's fair to say that all these projects have an environmental downside.

As a engineer, I'm not against sensible engineering projects, as long as a favourable cost / benefit ratio can be demonstrated. I suspect that Beattie's proposals would have been built by now if the benefit was there.