[Spitchen]

Four Corners reporter Liz Jackson has travelled to China and the United States, the world's two big coal-burning countries, to find out how far they have come in creating a system of trapping and storing greenhouse gases.

She has also investigated the political games undermining these efforts, which so far have produced no large-scale projects.

During the investigation she found documents which claim the time lost through the Government's failure to properly back FutureGen could mean clean coal will not become a reality before 2040 - which is bad news for carbon dioxide reduction.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...07/2678030.htm

[kone]

no such thing as clean coal...nuclear is the way!

[didjeridude]

cue chorus of ITM illiterati/conspiracy theory fanbois claiming that global warming is a hoax.



klassik et al where are you? we need some more lols. quick quick!! link us to yet another pathetic "debunking the great global warming hoax" website

[dance strategy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

klassik et al where are you?

he is caught up washing the rest of the coal so it looks nice for the tv

[mike_L]

Wouldn't it be in coal's best interest to figure out a way of cleaning up the process?

I'm with kone, lift all the bans on uranium mining and let's get nuclear. hrrrm let's see, coal is killing us....but nuclear is scary, oh noes!

I'm still yet to hear a decent argument against nuclear power, Carte Blanche will back me up - Sweden has been using nuclear since the 60's or something.

[Geezah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike_L

Wouldn't it be in coal's best interest to figure out a way of cleaning up the process?

I'm with kone, lift all the bans on uranium mining and let's get nuclear. hrrrm let's see, coal is killing us....but nuclear is scary, oh noes!

I'm still yet to hear a decent argument against nuclear power, Carte Blanche will back me up - Sweden has been using nuclear since the 60's or something.

I am starting to swing towards using nuclear as a partial solution. But you still have the problem of using a finite resource, expense, water-use intensivity, plus the huge numbers of reactors we will need, as well as waste storage issues. It would only be a fairly short term harm minimisation strategy.

[freedom74]

Clean coal is propaganda from the coal industry and their government supporters, keen to hang onto resource royalties at any costs as well as party donations.

The only way ahead is, and I won't say renewables because we must have no more dams, to have wind and solar.

If we're running out of water then we need to change farming practices and/or reduce immigration as unlike the US, there are no mighty inland rivers or lakes.

[Dub DeLay]

mike_L, there are no bans on uranium mining, but nuclear is not a solution, the numbers don't add up and we don't have enough high grade uranium. mining and processing low grade uranium uses more greenhouse gases than you save using nuclear. and quite simply, we won't be able to build the power stations fast enough, and no one will want them in thir backyard.

hydro is OK provided big dams are not constructed.

we need to research CCS, there is simply too much coal to stop coal energy. but not at the expense of renewables R&D .

[jdoodle]

hope im home in time for it

[Dubz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by freedom74

Clean coal is propaganda from the coal industry and their government supporters, keen to hang onto resource royalties at any costs as well as party donations.

The only way ahead is, and I won't say renewables because we must have no more dams, to have wind and solar.

If we're running out of water then we need to change farming practices and/or reduce immigration as unlike the US, there are no mighty inland rivers or lakes.

wind and solar? yeahhhh two methods that have been almost entirely discredited.

too expensive, and they only work under certain conditions.

nuclear is the only way forwards. the green lobbyists will cause us to have rolling blackouts in the next 15-20 years unless they are silenced. preferably with a beating but i'm happy with anything that allows us to have a logical discussion on how we are going to provide enough energy to support us, rather than a lot of hysterical shrieking about polar bears and ice caps.

[Fangoriously]

Discredited? WTF have you been smoking?

Bullshit they have. They work just fine, they aren't that expensive - the only issue is providing base load power and even then that can be worked on.

Nuclear, whilst an alternative, isn't the be all and end all. We have less uranium than we do coal and oil, for a start - we'll run out of that first.

[Dub DeLay]

Dubz - just not true.

A broad mix of renewables is able to provide base load power and also energy security.

Improved energy storage will also provide base load power.

Nuclear, not a solution. Not when you take the full life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of the fuel supply.

And you are the one being hysterical. I think you will find it's not just the green lobby dubz. You will find all the major energy suppliers investing in renewable energy.

If you really are interested read 'Greenhouse Solutions With Sustainable Energy' by Mark Diesendorf. You will find all these issues logically and accurately addressed by a physicist (who used to work with nuclear by the way, because that's what all physicists in Australia did once).

[Dubz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dub DeLay

Dubz - just not true.

A broad mix of renewables is able to provide base load power and also energy security.

Improved energy storage will also provide base load power.

Nuclear, not a solution. Not when you take the full life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of the fuel supply.

And you are the one being hysterical. I think you will find it's not just the green lobby dubz. You will find all the major energy suppliers investing in renewable energy.

If you really are interested read 'Greenhouse Solutions With Sustainable Energy' by Mark Diesendorf. You will find all these issues logically and accurately addressed by a physicist (who used to work with nuclear by the way, because that's what all physicists in Australia did once).

Are we talking just about Australia here? i suppose a broad mix would work - small population with massive space. Doesn't really work anywhere else, most of the stuff i read concerns the UK but thats cos that's where i'm from.

all major energy suppliers are indeed investing, not much and the amount is fuck-all in the great scheme of things, but certainly enough for the PR people to do their thing.

i dont care about the greenhouse gasses so nuclear is my preferred option.

not enough companies actually produce the machinery needed for wind power (not sure about solar) for it to provide enough electricity to be a significant contributor in the short term (next 10-15 years)

that four corners programme was interesting even if it came to few if any conclusions. as usual "commercial viability" was the central theme.
the amounts required to make the CCS option work are immense - Oz government puts up $4.5bn....a CCS plant costs double that just for one. ouch!

where am i being hysterical by the way? nothing in my comments suggest that.

im interested in that book since i've never seen any proof that renewable can produce significant amounts of power. currently wind accounts for 1% of UK energy and we'd need to spend $100bn to get that up to 10% so...yeah not really an option.
if the book turns out to be a load of optimistic rubbish i will be most upset!

[dbb618]

Dubz, show me evidence of one profitable (without subsidy) nuclear power station, anywhere in the world.

please also document the water requirements for a modern commercial nuclear station.

[Bracko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

nuclear is the only way forwards.

if you're ignorant of all the major logical reasons why nuclear won't work, then yeah, sure.

[kone]

large wind farms require more carbon to be produced than can be offset in their production, similar to how a majority of the hybrid cars and such require such large amounts of carbon to be produced in sourcing all the required rarer metals for their construction.

HOWEVER i do believe wind can become a viable option, but smaller is better, utilizing a number of small fans to produce larger amounts of energy for less construction cost and energy cost for the production, the large wind farms look impressive but are ridiculous.

nuclear also requires better methods for waste processing/storage whatever...there certainly needs to be greater development in the areas of nuclear, solar and wind, but coal isn't the way forward imo

[toilet trained]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

I am starting to swing towards using nuclear as a partial solution. But you still have the problem of using a finite resource, expense, water-use intensivity, plus the huge numbers of reactors we will need, as well as waste storage issues. It would only be a fairly short term harm minimisation strategy.

and you haven't even started on the masses and masses of regulatory hell you would have to get over to get plants operational.

seriously atm i am working on ways to deal with some of Britain long forgotten waste, held up in various decaying 'ponds' in Cumbria.

it is just a mess. the problem here is that there was never a strong single hierarchy of nuclear authorities, and no one knows quite who has power to do what, so nothing gets done...i mean absolutely nothing, ever...

nuclear 'clean', not a fukn word of it...

there are countries (Sweden and to some extent France) where they have got it working effectively in terms of regulation, but most countries its a lost cause.

you basically cant step in one without a mountain of red tape, good luck trying to do anything else.

Apart, and in someway because of that nuclear is bloody expensive way to make electricity, you could build half a dozen gleaming co-fired coal plants @50% efficiency for the money to make one nuclear plant operational for 10 years probably.

[big eddie]

Also try to find a western insurance company that will write you a policy for a new nuclear power plant.

[Dubz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

Dubz, show me evidence of one profitable (without subsidy) nuclear power station, anywhere in the world.

please also document the water requirements for a modern commercial nuclear station.

i tried but for some reason none of the governments and nuclear power stations would release their balance sheets to me. what ****s!

i still have yet to see any decent alternative - i.e one that is easy to build, works the whole time (not just when it's windy or sunny), cheap to build, doesn't take up half the landscape, and doen't break down the whole time.

nuclear might not be cheap but at least it doesn't stop working just because the wind has died down.

[Dubz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

Also try to find a western insurance company that will write you a policy for a new nuclear power plant.

hah got one! The Ho Chi Minh Super-Fun-Time Insurance Company Ltd.....oh no hang on a minute...

[Fangoriously]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

i tried but for some reason none of the governments and nuclear power stations would release their balance sheets to me. what ****s!

i still have yet to see any decent alternative - i.e one that is easy to build, works the whole time (not just when it's windy or sunny), cheap to build, doesn't take up half the landscape, and doen't break down the whole time.

nuclear might not be cheap but at least it doesn't stop working just because the wind has died down.

Geothermal.

[Dub DeLay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kone

large wind farms require more carbon to be produced than can be offset in their production, similar to how a majority of the hybrid cars and such require such large amounts of carbon to be produced in sourcing all the required rarer metals for their construction.

HOWEVER i do believe wind can become a viable option, but smaller is better, utilizing a number of small fans to produce larger amounts of energy for less construction cost and energy cost for the production, the large wind farms look impressive but are ridiculous.

Complete rubbish. Not only to windfarms have a small GHG payback period, but the footprint is linked to the individual turbine (not fan!) and is scaleable ie has nothing to do with the size of the windfarm.

[Dub DeLay]

[quote=Dubz]
i still have yet to see any decent alternative - i.e one that is easy to build, works the whole time (not just when it's windy or sunny), cheap to build, doesn't take up half the landscape, and doen't break down the whole time.
QUOTE]

You are talking shit.

[Dubz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fangoriously

Geothermal.

possibly in the future, once they've improved drilling equipment and techniques to the point where you can locate the plants wherever you want. unlike at the moment where they're kinda restrictred to the edges of tectonic plates.
until then the issue of moving the electricity around is a big logistical problem.

[dbb618]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dub DeLay

Complete rubbish. Not only to windfarms have a small GHG payback period, but the footprint is linked to the individual turbine (not fan!) and is scaleable ie has nothing to do with the size of the windfarm.

Windfarms may cause mystery illness though ... but you can always situate them away from houses.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...28/2669984.htm

[dbb618]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

possibly in the future, once they've improved drilling equipment and techniques to the point where you can locate the plants wherever you want. unlike at the moment where they're kinda restrictred to the edges of tectonic plates.
until then the issue of moving the electricity around is a big logistical problem.

wtf?

since when is outback south australia at the edge of a techtonic plate?

[Spitchen]

@ Dubz. what is the source of all the absolute garbage misinformation you write on here?

[Fangoriously]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

possibly in the future, once they've improved drilling equipment and techniques to the point where you can locate the plants wherever you want. unlike at the moment where they're kinda restrictred to the edges of tectonic plates.
until then the issue of moving the electricity around is a big logistical problem.

You might want to look at some of the work that Hot Rock and others are doing in the field.

It doesn't have to be the edge of a plate, you can get deep enough in heaps of places across the world.

IIRC, they were thinking of starting one in Bavaria - pretty far away from any tectonic plate edge.

I've heard that a combined solar, wind, geothermal and tidal solution would do the trick. I reckon that its probably true. Geothermal and molten-sodium solar, tidal for base load power, wind for others.

[dbb618]

http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/geothermal/...thermal_basics

[weekender]

Didn't the Howard govt scupper the work in SA, by pulling funding when the initial project ran into difficulties, despite it making great strides in establishing Geothermal as a valid option? I recall faintly something about a spanner literally being dropped down the hole and blocking the shaft....

Anyway, we're drifting. It seemed fairly clear in the minds of the guy from MIT and Climateprogress that CCS is fantasy, or at the very best, a long term component in tackling climate change/ carbon emissions. Whereas there is technology far advanced in the renewable fields which would be more deserving of the billions being thrown at what is little more than political window dressing and big industry sweetening.

Ultimately, the more I've read and listened to re: where we are as a planet and what is happening at an increasingly rapid rate, the less optimistic I am about mankind's ability or desire to do something. Ultimately the political will isn't there and it seems we'll pay for that in the mid to long term.

[gravyishot]

CCS is a nightmare. Each component of the idea is feasible, but packaged together it is practically impossible. First you have to find the geologically suitable fields. Then you have to find a way of pumping the emissions from the source (power plant) to the region. Either that or rebuild the plant so it is located nearby. Logistically it becomes a mess.

Mining manganese nodules on the sea floor is simpler.

[didjeridude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

Windfarms may cause mystery illness though ... but you can always situate them away from houses.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...28/2669984.htm

low frequency soundwaves cause headaches? right. tell that to a DJ or a bass player. I wonder if anyone who isn't opposed to windfarms experiences the same phenomena.

$100 says that this mystery illness is psychosomatic in origin... ie: people who don't like windfarms have invented the stress themselves which in turn, is causing the headaches.

[Dub DeLay]

Ccs is not a "nightmare" and not "fantasy". It is expensive and technologically complex. It needs funding because we will live in a fossil fuel world for a long time. But weekender is right. Renewable energy needs the most support. Not just research, but commercialisation, supply chain, grid connectivity and retail incentives.

[custaro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fangoriously

IIRC, they were thinking of starting one in Bavaria - pretty far away from any tectonic plate edge.

Yep, they already have a few, and are building plenty more.

Also, if you build a new house in Germany, the government covers the cost of installing a geothermal heat pump below your house. Gotta love the Germans.

[Dub DeLay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by custaro

Also, if you build a new house in Germany, the government covers the cost of installing a geothermal heat pump below your house. Gotta love the Germans.

That's shallow geothermal though. Very different to what they are trying to do in SA>

[gravyishot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dub DeLay

Ccs is ... expensive and technologically complex.

And a nightmare. It's logistically terrible. We have a better chance of solving our problems with solar arrays and wind farms.

The reason the coal companies love the idea is that it would increase energy consumption by at least 20%.

[Dub DeLay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

Windfarms may cause mystery illness though ... but you can always situate them away from houses.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...28/2669984.htm

Ah yes the low frequency hum

http://www.bwea.com/ref/lowfrequencynoise.html

[Dubz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitchen

@ Dubz. what is the source of all the absolute garbage misinformation you write on here?

Various websites, admittedly since I have a proper job and a girlfriend i dont have quite as much time as some people to dedicate my time towards research on the web but I do what I can.

If Geothermal is so easy, why isn't all the money in the world being poured into it?

[jdoodle]

where did anyone say it was 'so easy' ?

[Dub DeLay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

Various websites, admittedly since I have a proper job and a girlfriend i dont have quite as much time as some people to dedicate my time towards research on the web but I do what I can.

Well my proper job has everything to do with this issue Dubz, so perhaps rather than rely on dodgy websites maybe you could put some trust in me. Or failing that, read the book I referred to you.

[Dub DeLay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

And a nightmare. It's logistically terrible. We have a better chance of solving our problems with solar arrays and wind farms.

The reason the coal companies love the idea is that it would increase energy consumption by at least 20%.

gravyishot, I agree with your second point 100%, but we need to spend money researching CCS. That is a result of our our fossil fuel dependence.

I have no empathy for the coal lobby, but I understand the situation we are in.

The "nightmare" label is dramatic and meaningless. Ignoring the reality of our carbon world is fantastical. CCS is entirely feasible, but currently prohibitively expensive, as was commercial aviation less than 100 years ago.

I should point out I am actively involved with CCS and also with renewables. In my view, we need to throw everything at this problem, except nuclear. Nuclear energy is nothing but government subsidised weapon grade enrichment.

[Dubz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dub DeLay

Well my proper job has everything to do with this issue Dubz, so perhaps rather than rely on dodgy websites maybe you could put some trust in me. Or failing that, read the book I referred to you.

Hey i'll read it when i get time to get to a bookstore!

Working in this area and thus having lots of knowledge is cheating IMO.

[Dubz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdoodle

where did anyone say it was 'so easy' ?

Well not those exact words, the impression i'm getting is that you can plonk a geothermal plant down pretty much anywhere and voila! hey presto! everyone has enough energy forever and ever.

[Fangoriously]

Yeah, you can make facts prove anything, right?

[Dub DeLay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

Hey i'll read it when i get time to get to a bookstore!

Working in this area and thus having lots of knowledge is cheating IMO.

cheating at what???? informed opinion?

[didjeridude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dub DeLay

Ah yes the low frequency hum

http://www.bwea.com/ref/lowfrequencynoise.html

sweet hadn't seen that. i wish someone had taken me up on that $100 now

[Dubz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dub DeLay

cheating at what???? informed opinion?

toungue-in-cheek fail

[Geezah]

@ Dub deLay: I have been meaning to ask, wouldnt a carbon tax - with exponential thresholds and incentives for modifying carbon creation - be a better way to manage CO2 output, than a carbon trading system?

[big eddie]

Carbon taxation doesn't provide a hard ceiling, only an effective/economic one.

[Geezah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

Carbon taxation doesn't provide a hard ceiling, only an effective/economic one.

But might it not, if you taxed high (on a scale of course) CO2 expulsion at an excessive rate. As in, the more you burn the more you are taxed. I am not singling out the Coal Industry here, it could be on the micro-consumer-lead level. Does the ETS even have a carbon cost instrument?