Solid Energy hopes for carbon capture and storage
Solid energy has put out a release announcing that the consortium they have invested in has started drilling a research well in Victoria, Australia. They hope to find a way to store carbon released from the burning of Southland lignite coal.
Carbon capture and storage is the big hope for the coal miners and coal power station owners. I’d rather that they put their prodigous talents into renewable generation where there are a large range of opportunities and which seems less of a gamble than CCS.
Meanwhile Contact has decided to postpone building the Otahuhu C gas fired station while it concentrates on wind and geothermal. Now that is good news.
Bookmark to:
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:57 pm
I say good on them for doing the research. Given that their name is “Solid energy”, if they can’t work towards achieving carbon neutrality then they need to be outlawed. Clearly, NZ can’t become carbon neutral unless we stop burning coal or sequester an equivalent amount of carbon. The same applies, at a scale larger by several orders of magnitude, to the whole planet.
Asking mining companies to leave it in the ground is like asking a bunch of randy adolescents to keep their legs crossed/keep it in their pants. Sometimes it’s more realistic to hand out contraceptives.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Maybe, but what if it’s an untested contraceptive? They want to build coal fired power stations and justify that desire by the carbon capture technology under development. But what if the technology doesn’t work on the scale necessary? Then the world is stuck with the coal stations with no way to sequestre the carbon….
February 25th, 2007 at 1:57 am
What I’m saying, Russel, is that you can’t make them keep it in their pants/ground. There had better be a means of sequestering carbon, because the Chinee, for one, ain’t going to stop burning coal until it runs out.
February 25th, 2007 at 10:31 am
It’s mighty clever of Contact Energy to call out the Govt on their sustainability/C neutral warm fuzzies.
We will shortly see whether there is any substance to that particular spin- will Contact get an easy path through the RMA minefield, or will it be another Project Aqua redux? I for one hope that Contact gets the green light. While it’s no silver bullet, NZ has these resources, may as well use em!
As for C02 capture, this had better be safe for the long term- imagine a C02 ‘burp’ near a population centre and the resulting suffocation.
February 25th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I reckon we can make Solid Energy keep it in their pants/ground - they are an SOE after all. NZ has no possible reason to dig up the Southland lignite. I know they want the jobs etc down there but releasing all that CO2 when we have so many renewable options is crazy. I take your point re China. But isn’t the research consortium basically an Australian venture because they want to continue building coal fired stations and selling coal to China?
February 25th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Glad to hear about Contact’s renewables developments.
How is Greenpeace’s “clean energy switch” campaign going, I wonder. Good on them for running it.
Solid Energy seems to be doing what makes business sense for them.
February 25th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Most coal stations can as easily burn wood pellets… at roughly similar efficiencies. respectfully
BJ
February 25th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Just thinking “out loud” here… Need a supranational organisation to regulate energy trading… All coal/oil etc traded internationally would need to be accompanied by an equivalent carbon credit. This would leave flexibility for the buyer to capture or compensate CO2 at point of combustion, or for the seller to compensate at the point of extraction (incorporating the carbon credit in the price of the fuel) or either could buy carbon credits on the open market.
This presupposes that carbon sequestration will become viable on an industrial scale (any takers for Mr Branson’s $25M?) and requires excellent traceability… it’s a bit of a long shot, but how else can we have a sustainable future for the planet?
February 26th, 2007 at 12:44 am
alistair:
Sounds good.
A few questions:
Would the likes of the USA and Israel be expected to pay their dues before or after they go in and obliterate Iran?
Who decides the actual bill for eracing whole chunks of Lebanon from the map?
Do countries get a bonus or a bill for wiping out their neighbour’s potential oil production?
Who estimates the bill for a country’s burning oil installations lit by someone else?
Pardon me I’ve had a bad day!
eredwen
February 26th, 2007 at 12:54 am
OK you’re pardoned, I’ve had a good lunch, so I’ll elaborate on my starry-eyed best case scenario (all nightmares come to an end, including the Bush/Cheney presidency. Looking forward to Obama/Wes Clark.)
So… Australia, as a primary carbon exporter, would have strong incentives and opportunities to sequester as much carbon as possible. It doesn’t actually matter, on a macro scale, whether CO2 is scrubbed out of factory chimneys or pulled directly out of the atmosphere by some other means. Aus might be a good place for algae farms, producing biodiesel. Though water would be an issue.
To come back to the original post : if Solid Energy wants to be allowed to mine Southland coal, they need to demonstrate the ability to sequester the equivalent in CO2 one way or another. This doesn’t preclude leaving it in the ground and selling the carbon credit on the international market.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:03 am
and one more question:
This “flexibility for the buyer to capture or compensate CO2 at point of combustion”
Would this apply to burning corpses?
and if so is there a discount for babies?
February 26th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Yes! Obamba / Wes Clark sounds good !
Aus will have (rising) seawater available, and sun to distill it if that’s necessary (?)
February 26th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Dunno Alistair… I am still hoping for a Pelosi Presidency myself. Little chance that they’ll grow the spine needed to do it, but I still hope. - BJ
February 26th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
>What I’m saying, Russel, is that you can’t make them keep it in their pants/ground.
Seems mad to me that Labour can preach sustainablity while their SOE is being given the go ahead for an open-cast coal mine on the West Coast which will not only knock out a decent chunk of the ecosystem, but will also churn out millions of tons of CO2 producing solid pollution.
> the Chinee, for one, ain’t going to stop burning coal until it runs out.
Really, why not? Do you think they are as stupid as us?
February 26th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
It seems Machiavellian of the government - saying one thing and doing the opposite.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Prim… we’re not in government… Machiavelli has nothing on this mob.
respectfully
BJ
February 26th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
BJ
True, you are not in govt but you are very much in bed with this corrupt lot, which as far as many voters are concerned makes you just as guilty.
When the Greens choose to abstain on issues (which is an insult to the people who pay their wages) they are in effect supporting this govt.
The average voter thinks the Greens are in coalition with Labour, you had your chance to force an election and once again missed the boat.
About now would the right time for the Greens to strike out and let the public know that they are not labours lap dog, while you are at it perhaps you could let the electorate know in some detail about your policies.
I am sure that middle NZ (the Chardonnay set who currently support you) would be most interested in how you are going to pay for “social justice”
February 26th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
BB
I was merely pointing out the Machiavellian contortions made to keep us out.
Social Justice is not as expensive as you think…. and it is not a negotiable item. It is something we do stand for and will stand for, and if people think it is too costly they known neither the price nor the value… and they should consider what happens when it is neglected.
respectfully
BJ
February 26th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
BB: “I am sure that middle NZ would be most interested in how you are going to pay for social justice”.
meanwhile readers of this blog are interested to know how you think the country could pay for increased road building, increased public transport, better education, better healthcare and lower taxes.
(I don’t think that cutting funding for the arts and hip hop tours is going to cover it.)
It’s a bit hypocritical to argue for non-costed pie in the sky voodoo economics yourself and then attempt to make a big deal about our spending plans.
Which of course, as you have been told many times, are revenue neutral, which means that we have no plans to increase taxes (on average), so I expect middle NZ will be fine with our plans to pay for social justice.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:51 am
>>could pay for increased road building, increased public transport, better education, better healthcare and lower taxes.
By increasing productivity and reducing big government.
March 1st, 2007 at 9:02 am
Prim,
backing up a little, you asked about the Greenpeace clean Energy campaign…
I finally saw red and changed from Contact to Meridian, after a mid-summer power bill of almost exactly twice what I’d paid the previous summer. In that twelve months, my charges had increased in gradual increments to a total of 30% on line charges, and 20% on usage charges. They had the gall to try to talk me out of closing my account, saying that all energy companies had increased their pricing over that period.
Not true, or at least, not equally true for all animals, as George Orwell would have it put.
Needless to say, I persisted in explaining the maths to the woman at the call-centre, agreeing with her that it really wasn’t her job to deal with this, so how about giving me the marketing department’s e-mail address, and they can have a customer complaint to read - which she did!
In true Telethon spirit, I challenge all other disgruntled power conservors to do the same…
And let’s all enjoy the sunshine while Autumn lasts with it’s Indian summer - I’m off outside
March 1st, 2007 at 10:00 am
Speaking of Solid Energy, this satirical company environmental report is great!
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/72638/index.php
March 1st, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Stuey
I am glad you asked, it is easy really.
First of all we use the current Health budget for more doctors, nurses and operations (now there is a new approach) we get rid of the bureaucracy so popular with this corrupt govt.
Same with the teachers, bulk funding and pay good teachers what they are worth, the bad ones can find another job.
Right, whats next…public transport, I never said I would fund that so I have no problem there, if it does not pay its way then it must go.
The arts…ZERO and I would personally like to deliver that message.
An end to the treaty gravy train and use that money to build new (and harsher) prisons.
God this is fun…whats next?….oh yeah, introduce a council tax in place of rates.
Ban anybody who is drawing the unemployment benefit from voting and introduce life time limits on beneficiaries, no person (able bodied person) can stay on unemployment or DPB for longer than two years over the course of their lifetime.
And tax cuts for those middle class Kiwis who have been hammered by this corrupt govt.
There is more, much more that I could do to save NZ..if only I had the time.