craig felton on the bm project

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2011/09/06/is-brown-coal-really-the-planets-saviour/all-comments/#comments

a lot of material from this blog is extracted below, but for anyone genuinely interested in what MNM/exergen are on the verge of doing at BM it is a very useful overview provided by the case for, and the case against brown coal mining in Victoria.

MNM could do far worse than track down the articulate Mr. Felton and give him a job in the PR dept.


PeeBee

Posted September 7, 2011 at 8:32 am | Permalink

What annoys me about the adherents of dry brown coal is they completely ignore fundamental physics where they some how think they can make energy. This is of course impossible. Brown coal has a certain amount of potential energy in it and that is all you are going to get out of it. After drying, the resultant dried brown coal may have concentrated the energy in less material, but there is no new energy in it. In the drying process you would have used energy and because not all of it would have been used to dry the coal (some would have used to heat air, machinery etc), you would have used far more energy than the apparent gain in dried coal.

6
Craig Felton
Posted September 7, 2011 at 10:03 am | Permalink

Firstly, the coal drying process does not involve substantial energy use, which is why the technology is such a breakthrough in emissions reduction. In the presentation that is linked it says it uses less than 2% of the energy in the coal whereby competing technologies use around 20%. On your second point the 40% reduction figure is the difference between the existing Latrobe power stations and an existing design for a supercritical power plant like those in NSW, as the Exergen fuel effectively converts the brown coal into a black coal substitute. A massive 60% reduction is possible to bring the emissions in line with gas turbine generation using the Exergen fuel in a newly developed CSIRO coal engine; this is a paradigm shift for coal fuelled power generation.

On your final point the CSIRO are involved in the development and are Australias own scientific research body, to claim that the process is not scientifically tested is misleading. There are many good reasons for deploying this technology at the existing Maddingley Mine located at Bacchus Marsh. There is compensation for affected landowners, revenue from royalties for the construction of schools and hospitals, job opportunities for local residents, millions of dollars of investment flowing into the regional economy, and developing a technology that can reduce carbon emissions by up to 60% from brown coal power generation from which Victoria is almost totally dependent and India is expected to double its emissions output over next five years.

If you take a look at this CSIRO presentation on the technology here http://www.ret.gov.au/resources/Documents/enhancing/Day%201/Innovation%20Minerals%2017.00-18.00/Louis%20Wibberley%20Ultra%20high%20efficiency%20power%20.pdf on page 4 there is a chart showing your suggested approach to emissions reduction in green and an alternative approach outlined by the CSIRO in yellow. The area in between those two lines is the massive amount of additional emissions that you are advocating for in your approach to a carbon constrained future.

Is brown coal really the planets saviour? If you are of the opinion that the expected doubling of emissions over the next 5-10 years from developing countries being lifted out of poverty will cause catastrophic climate change; and brown coal could be used in a way to create very highly efficient power to nullify that massive increase, then the answer is clearly yes.

7
kuke
Posted September 7, 2011 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

This is the clean as black argument. Unless the destination power station emissions are captured, we simply entrench more greenhouse pollution even before we consider health and land-use issues. We also cant ignore the carbon footprint and cost of shipping coal. The large Emma Maersk container ship can emit more than 300,000 tonnes of CO2 a year equivalent to a medium-sized coal power station.

Norways $1 billion carbon capture experiment in South Africa may prove successful in 2016 and may be necessary if SA continues to use domestic coal but its expensive and unproven. Plus, entrenching coal use, entrenches the increasing fuel costs. Already Indian generators are in severe debt and are re-evaluating large coal projects due to the increased Indonesian market-price.

Developing countries can alleviate poverty and air pollution while growing their own economies by deploying clean, fuel-free, ash-free energy while promoting domestic energy security in the developing nation.

Coal even when sequestered is not a saviour, rather an increasingly expensive, health-affecting, high environmental impact energy source.

8
Craig Felton
Posted September 7, 2011 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

This is not the clean as black argument; the emission reductions per KW of power produced speaks for itself, as does the obvious reductions over time illustrated in the CSIRO presentation. It is clearly better than waiting for renewables to become cost competitive so that they may make up a greater part of the energy mix.

Indian generators are not in severe debt, a quick Google check says that Tata Powers profit is up 35%, not sure where you get your info from.

What fuel free energy do you suggest can be used in developing countries that can also alleviate poverty? Have ever asked yourself why it has not already been deployed if such a cheap, free energy existed?

9
kuke
Posted September 7, 2011 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

Seems to me like the clean as black argument, unless youd like indulge me further. I quote your earlier comment: the Exergen fuel effectively converts the brown coal into a black coal substitute. Also, your statement it is clearly better than waiting for renewables to become cost competitive is just as ridiculous as asserting this article headline.

I didnt say clean energy is cheap, however it is dropping significantly. I did say that coal however is increasingly expensive and carries significant unhealthy baggage.

Articles:

Bloomberg Feb 2011: India?s largest non-state power producer, has 50.1 billion rupees ($1.1 billion) of debt maturing in the next five years, while billionaire Anil Ambani?s Reliance Power has $2 billion to pay over three years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg?

Business Standard Aug 2011: Coastal Andhra Power Limited (CAPL), [Reliance's] subsidiary, would not be able to even service the debt with the revised coal price under the new Indonesian regulations.

LiveMint.com Aug 2011: R-Power on Thursday said that it will pause before starting work on the ultra mega power project (UMPP) it is building at Krishnapatnam in Andhra Pradesh till issues over the price of coal imports from Indonesia is resolved The new mandate has pushed up Indonesian coal cost, threatening the feasibility of Indian projects there.

10
Craig Felton
Posted September 7, 2011 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

If you read further you will see that this fuel also allows the use of high efficiency coal engines that have the same emissions per kW as the gas turbine, which is accepted as a transition generation source here in Australia even by the Greens party. As for developing countries this would mean a massive reduction in their expected emissions as they will be depended on coal for some time.

According to you doing nothing to current coal power generation technologies and waiting for renewables to become cost competitive is the only choice, well look at page 4 of the CSIRO presentation and then realize that will result in a massive amount of emissions being produced in a very short period of time, which could otherwise be avoided.

Renewable energy is not currently cost competitive and is unlikely to be in our life-times. The reason costs have dropped slightly is manufacturing has moved to Asia where power (yes coal fired) and labour is cheaper (yes poor people) as well as the introduction of local government subsidies.

That debt is related to the massive increase in capital expenditure on coal power plants, the ones you say they dont need because there is cheap fuel free energy available, yet they are spending billions, go figure. The cost of Indo coal relates to the restriction from government on the export of low rank coal which has lifted the price of normal coal. Coal is becoming increasingly expensive because it is increasing in demand which will mean increasing emissions unless technology is deployed to increase the efficiency of power generation.

11
Captain Planet
Posted September 8, 2011 at 1:40 am | Permalink

@ Craig Felton,

Interesting choice of username. Pertaining presumably to the Felton region in NSW where yet another battle is being fought by local people being forced off their highly productive ancestral family farms by rampant development of polluting coal mines.

Renewable energy is not currently cost competitive and is unlikely to be in our life-times.

Oh, really? That is incredibly prescient of you.

There are many, much better informed, researched and presented, opinions to the contrary.

http://www.rechargenews.com/energy/solar/article276475.ece

Coal is becoming increasingly expensive and yet, when renewables are on a very strong downwards cost trajectory (-35 % per year for Solar PV, -18 % per year for wind, and even greater gains being made in Solar Thermal). you still manage to claim that renewables will not even become cost competitive in our lifetimes?

Well, it flies in the face of all the evidence, but hey, its your belief system, so you go ahead and think it.

Try to convince anybody else of it though, and such silly claims deserve to be held up to the light.

12
Craig Felton
Posted September 8, 2011 at 11:21 am | Permalink

Captain Planet, thanks for pointing out that my surname is the same as a Queensland town, I will be sure to research it further. On the contrary I hold no belief system; on the contrary I keep an open mind which enables me to read past the attention grabbing headlines. For instance in the article you linked was the fine print 'The increasing competitiveness of PV will be spurred principally by two factors: the falling price of PV components and the steadily rising price of electricity, which will itself be underpinned by the EU's cap-and-trade scheme.'

Firstly the cap-and-trade scheme is an artificial price increase on locally produced power; it does not take into account the emissions from the production of the panels in Asia, as I previously stated the production costs have fallen due to manufacturing moving to Asia where there is cheap power and labour. This is simply moving the problem to another part of the world, a part of the world where high efficiency coal power is the solution for short to medium term to reduce global emissions.

The cost trajectory is going to be limited by the cost of energy, an input cost in every PV component. If like we both agree that coal prices will rise then so too will the components. Keep in mind that all the raw materials in a PV panel require mining and shipping which currently rely on mainly coal and diesel power. Silicon which requires refinement in a blast furnace and carbon as an ingredient, copper which needs to be refined from mined ore, high purity gases for doping need to be refined, the aluminium frames require refinement from bauxite ore in a furnace, the glass covers require high temperature furnaces for refinement, the plastic insulation for the cables and electrical component comes from petroleum and coal power for refinement and manufacture, the list goes on and that is just the raw components, you then have to consider the actual PV panel manufacture which requires more high temp furnaces, high power lasers, high purity water and gases etc.

Dont get me wrong, there will be a time when renewables will be cost competitive on a baseload scale but to claim it using figures based on artificial taxes and fabrication using coal and slave wages does not understand the true relative cost.

13
paul connor
Posted September 8, 2011 at 11:29 am | Permalink

Craig, not sure your critique is well placed. The question marks I raise about the technology are all valid, notwithstanding subjective interpretations of substantial a CSIRO powerpoint is not the same thing as a peer-reviewed experiment, and as you admit, Exergens figure compares new power stations with old. But the main point of the piece is what follows if this technology is truly an economically viable way of reducing brown coals emissions, then coal-reliant countries will flock to it, with or without Victorian exports. And if it is not viable, it will simply not be deployed. Either way, the global effort to tackle climate change will be far better off without the additional emissions from digging up, drying-out, transporting and burning brown coal from Bacchus Marsh. As far as I can see, nothing youve said refutes this in any way.

14
Douglas Evan
Posted September 8, 2011 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

@Craig Felton
First I have looked quite carefully at the presentation you have linked to and can find no reference to the amount of energy required to dry the coal let alone as a percentage of the total energy in the coal. Perhaps Im missing something or perhaps you are mistaken?? Second my memories of this technology the last time its possible application to a project in Gippsland surfaced are that it is very water consumptive and that it produced a lot of rather toxic byproducts. Werent they talking about the need for a massive increase in the allocation of water in Blue Rock Dam to the coal fired power stations. The area around Parwan is a whole lot drier than west Gippsland. Third, this is productive farmland close to Melbourne. What would be the rationale for turning it into an open cut mine just so that private profit can be generated by increasing our greenhouse gas emissions export industry. Coalmining and export has lost its social license and we must wind it back as fast as possible if we are to avoid destroying our future environmental viability. The scientists tell us that to halt global warming at the threshold deemed necessary to avoid runaway warming global emissions must be stabilized around 2015 then decrease steeply. Four years away! and you are arguing for increased coal mining because CSIRO has found more efficient ways to burn the stuff. Fourthly, the energy costs of fabricating solar panels are miniscule relevant to their output. This has been shown over and over. That is either a misunderstanding on your part or a little porky pie. Fifthly, to my surprise solar PV is already on the cusp of grid parity in Australia http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/solar-pv-grid-parity-now-what?utm_source=Climate%20Spectator&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=26b66b184d-CSPEC_DAILY
Hey and we dont even have our artificial tax in place yet. You need to do some reading Craig. Giles Parkinson at Climate Spectator is a sobre and authoritative source of information.

15
PeeBee
Posted September 8, 2011 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

Douglas, I also checked out the presentation and I couldnt find any reference to percentage of energy required to dry coal love to hear some work on how the 2% is calculated.

I also failed to notice of any mention why the Baccus Marsh site is important for the extraction of brown coal. Couldnt Latrobe Valley coal be used?

Thirdly, the presentation mainly talked about the new technology of burning coal. It didnt answer my question (in my mind) as why use brown coal should be used with this new technology? Why not use black coal and save the expense of drying brown coal?

16
kuke
Posted September 8, 2011 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

Craig says: If you read further you will see that this fuel also allows the use of high efficiency coal engines that have the same emissions per kW as the gas turbine.

No I dont see this. The only mention of gas I see is a projected cost-equivalency for an unproven technology. And as usual, it utterly ignores the externality cost of coal and gas. The latter externality of cost of coal seam gas potentially being enormous.

According to you waiting for renewables to become cost competitive is the only choice

Again, ridiculous. Renewables are now cost competitive. I read this today: the cost of coal is now more expensive that wind. The levelised cost of new coal-fired generators in Europe was now $68/MWh, while the best wind farms (those with good wind conditions) were now $65/MWh.

With externalties added e.g. if we look at the Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal Harvard Study, the real cost of coal could be four times higher. Lets also not forget the subsidies to build our dirty power plants and the ~$500 billion per annum of world-wide subsidies for fossil fuels today. Finally, developed nations need to front-up the promised $100 billion for developing nations to develop clean energy.

17
Craig Felton
Posted September 8, 2011 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

Hi Douglas, the amount of energy required to dry the coal is less than 2% as was given in the presentation linked in the original blog. I was surprised that the writer claimed it required substantial energy use then linked that video which said the exact opposite. Regarding the water consumption that is also incorrect, it does not require external water supplies it removes water from the coal thus creating water for agricultural or industrial purposes, it would of course be treated as already occurs in the Hunter where the water used in washing the coal is used on the local golf course. From what I can tell the mine would not use large existing farmland, it is an extension to the south to the original Maddingley mine, most of this land has already been set aside by the State government.

I totally agree with the scientists that global emissions need to decrease steeply. With the expected increase in emissions from developing countries and the absence of any globally binding agreement on reductions, I would like to hear your suggestion on how this could be averted other than developing high efficiency generators where the emissions per kW are reduced as much as possible.

The cost comparison given between grid supplied (retail) and solar equivalent production cost is 25c/kWh is not apples for apples. The comparison wholesale cost of coal powered supply is 5-10c /kWh you need to take into account transmission losses, infrastructure maintenance etc. Yes, it is a great start what is required is less silicon in fabrication and higher efficiencies then deployed on a mass scale, I hope I get to see it in my lifetime but I have my doubts.

Hi PeeBee, I would imagine it is calculated by measuring the amount of energy used in the process compared to the energy potential within the fuel. I believe any brown coal could be used, the reason why brown coal is required is because it has much lower ash content and the ash has the potential to fowl the moving components within the motor, just like using dirty petrol in your car will clog your injectors.

Hi kuke, try this link for the gas turbine comparison http://www.exergen.com.au/exergen_news.php?article=4 Yes, there have been some concerns over the coal seam gas industry, I think it has grown too large too quickly and lack the checks and balances required. As for brown coal, Victoria has been mining that for the last century and it is a well-studied safe process.

I am not as familiar with wind generation as I am with solar but it is my understanding that it can only supplement baseload supply as you have pointed out you need good wind conditions which will vary and you also require a backup supply to start them turning again if they stop. I think that is great if they are becoming competitive as it will mean that they can make up a competitive part of the energy mix. I think I read somewhere that India has already installed wind farms at all its suitable locations, I will have to check.

18
kuke
Posted September 8, 2011 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

Lets remove the straw-man:

More efficient coal burning (e.g. ultra/super-critical boilers) = good
Technology commercially proven = no

Brown coal as a saviour / as clean as OCGT = No. OCGT should only be used for peaking. Furthermore solar can help reduce OCGT need: Large-scale PV was worth 115 per cent of the wholesale price, because much of it is produced when consumer demand is growing in the afternoon peaks, and solar thermal is worth 120 per cent of the price, because of the same reasons

Energy poverty = bad
New non-sequestered coal/gas-fired power = bad
Economic costs of fossil fuels = high and rising (esp. CCS), further entrenching poverty
Entrenching fossil fuel use = bad
Health, climate, land and other affects of fossil fuels = very bad
Economic benefit to Victoria = marginal
Economic cost to Victoria = unknown
New coal exported by developed country committed to climate action = inexcusable

19
Craig Felton
Posted September 8, 2011 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

More efficient coal burning (e.g. ultra/super-critical boilers) = good
Even higher efficiency technology proven at near commercial scale = even better
No new coal/gas-fired power = Energy poverty in developing world
Economic costs of fossil fuels = Higher efficiency means lower $/KW
Economic benefit to Victoria = potentially very large
Economic cost to Victoria = nil
New coal exported by developed country committed to climate action = Developing countries are expected to double their coal consumption and hence their emissions over the next 5-10 years regardless of your opinion, our best chance to act on global climate change in Australia is to supply the cleanest fuel and power generation technology possible.

20
kuke
Posted September 8, 2011 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

supply the cleanest fuel and power generation technology possible.Indeed.

21
madelinelizabeth
Posted September 9, 2011 at 11:18 am | Permalink

I cant believe the one thing everyone seems to be ignoring is the fact that this project is being done on prime agricultural farm land, where the community clearly has been woefully consulted, and do not want the project to go ahead. Mantle has a 1-2 billion tonne exploration target. If this goes ahead it will be a massive mine, and completely alter the landscape of the area (not to mention the associated health risks for locals). Whether or not the technology makes the brown coal marginally cleaner is secondary to this issue: the community doesnt want it.

22
Craig Felton
Posted September 9, 2011 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

Is it prime agricultural farm land? Is there any commercial food production in the drilling area? Further up there was a comment that this area is quite arid, I have also read that this is a growth corridor for the western suburbs of Melbourne. Mining the area would not remove the possibility of using it for food production in the future however; the area around Deans Marsh was mined after WWII and is now considered prime farmland.

The company has contacted those affected by the test drilling even if the drilling is not located on their property, and without the drilling being completed, the company would have no way of knowing how big the mine would be let alone where the resource is located so I doubt it would be possible to inform the community more than it has at the moment.

Even though it is a large resource they would not mine the entire area from the top down, they would most likely extend the existing open cut walls of the mine, based on the expected extraction rates it would be over a decade before land outside the existing mine boundaries would be used. There are no health risks for locals; brown coal does not create any dust when mined as it is wet. There has been an operating mine at Maddingley for 70 years, mining in the area is not exactly a new occurrence.

23
paul connor
Posted September 9, 2011 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

Craig, I take your lack of a response to my previous post as an agreement that the fight against climate change would indeed be harmed rather than helped by digging a new brown coal mine for exports in Bacchus Marsh. Thanks, that was the point all along, and the reason I oppose the project.

You talk of reasons to support it: first you mention compensation for affected landowners. Yet tell me, do those landowners get to choose between the mining plus compensation or no mining? Or do they get forced to take the former? If so, then the compensation is inevitably inadequate. If it represented adequate compensation, the landowners would just sell Mantle the land, right? Free market economics 101.

Then you get to the bottom line revenue from royalties for the construction of schools and hospitals, job opportunities for local residents, millions of dollars of investment flowing into the regional economy. So youre saying that the mine could generate money. Good one. I dont deny that a short term buck could be made by exporting brown coal. I dont even deny that a fraction of that buck could trickle back to the economy of Bacchus Marsh. What I argue is that in a world needing urgent and radical action to combat the climate crisis, it is morally reprehensible to be looking for ways to dig up and sell as much brown coal as possible.

24
Craig Felton
Posted September 9, 2011 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

Hi Paul, actually I did not see your post until you pointed it out. I disagree with your assumption that the CSIRO do not know what they are talking about. Technology is not developed through peer review, I think you may be confused with Climate Science.

Take another look at Page 4 of the presentation, the area in-between is the additional emissions that you are advocating for. The development of this techonology will actually reduce emissions significantly over time. What is the point on taking the moral high ground on climate change if what you are proposing is actually going to produce more emissions?

25
paul connor
Posted September 9, 2011 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

In my article the point I make is that even if the technology is viable, as is highly doubtful, coal-reliant countries will use it with or without exports from Bacchus Marsh. And if it isnt vible, it wont be taken up the way Exergen and you imagine. Either way, the climate is better off by leaving Bacchus Marsh alone.

26
paul connor
Posted September 9, 2011 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

Moreover I am not assuming the CSIRO doesnt know what they are talking about. Im saying lets see some scientific proof of how much emissions are actually reduced when we take into account all the emissions involved of the drying process plus transport, and we compare apples with apples in terms of the power stations.

A few times now youve said that your interlocutors are advocating a higher emissions scenario. This is false. We are advocating leaving Bacchus Marsh coal in the ground. If Exergens tech really works to lower emissions in a cost effective way, then by all means, let them pitch it straight to the countries that you and Exergen assume will be taking it up wholesale, and lets leave Bacchus Marsh alone, and hey presto the winning scenario.

27
Craig Felton
Posted September 9, 2011 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

Clearly the climate would be better off with higher efficiency power generation; that is a no brainer. If all that is left to your argument is -someone else should do it, that train of thought is obviously working so well for global action on climate change, no wonder there is no coordinated effort.

28
paul connor
Posted September 9, 2011 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

Nobody said the climate wouldnt be better off with high efficiency generation.

The argument is this no matter how effective or otherwise Exergens tech is (leaving aside the unanswered questions about its dodgy comparisons, plus the emissions from the drying process and transport) the climate will be better served by leaving as much brown coal in the ground as possible. If the technology is really an economically viable way of reducing emissions, other countries will jump at it. If it isnt, they wont. Either way, the best thing to do for the climate re. Bacchus Marsh coal is obviously just to leave it in the ground where it belongs.

When it comes to climate mitigation, every country should do it?. And the best way for us to do it here is clearly to leave Bacchus Marsh alone.

29
paul connor
Posted September 9, 2011 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

If you care about climate change, then you want to see as little brown coal be burnt as possible, even with reduced emissions. So of course you want to see as much left in the ground as possible, and of what is burnt, as much burnt cleanly as possible. Right?

Your argument seems to be that by mining Bacchus Marsh coal, drying it, exporting it and having it burnt overseas, all of a sudden energy producers in coal-reliant countries will start deploying this technology uniformly. But unless doing so will save them money, i.e. under an international carbon price, these companies will not do this. And if it will save them money to do this at some point, then as I have said, they will jump at the tech with or without coal exports from Bacchus Marsh. And still the climate wins by keeping Bacchus coal in the ground.

As far as I can see, the only argument you can make here is that the Bacchus Marsh exports will lead to advances in the technology. Which is obviously an argument based on a huge (and irresponsible, given the stakes involved in climate change) presumption.

30
Craig Felton
Posted September 9, 2011 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

What other countries are you talking about? Australia does not supply over a dozen countries across the world with thermal coal for the fun of it. These countries need it to supply their populations with affordable and reliable power, without it the result would be poverty and possibly famine. You clearly have no idea of the importance of Australia?s role in other country?s energy security.

There is an inherent cost saving in higher efficiency, so it will be deployed regardless of an international carbon price. Developing countries are expected to double their coal consumption and hence their emissions over the next 5-10 years regardless of your opinion, our best chance to act on global climate change in Australia is to supply the cleanest fuel and power generation technology possible.

If you cared about climate change it would not matter whether current fuels were replaced with brown coal or pink marshmallows, as long as emissions were reduced significantly.

31
paul connor
Posted September 9, 2011 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

So now its not about climate change, now its about providing the world with affordable and reliable power to avert poverty and possibly famine. Bacchus Marsh coal! So versatile!

If you now want to switch argument and argue that it is only by increasing brown coal exports that we can alleviate poverty and famine, I guess we can have that discussion, though I fear we may be entering the realm of the absurd, as we would no longer be discussing the points raised by the original article.

On your second paragraph, swell, let the deployment begin. As Ive said numerous times now, if its really a cost effective way that the brown coal that will unavoidably be burnt can get burnt more cleanly, then it will inevitably be used on such coal and emissions will be reduced. But that is still not a climate change argument for digging up Bacchus Marsh brown coal, because as ive also said, the best scenario for the climate regarding that brown coal is to leave it in the ground where it belongs.

32
Craig Felton
Posted September 12, 2011 at 9:36 am | Permalink

I dont think I am switching arguments; it is the same as far as I am aware. I am explaining the important role Australia has in global fuel supply; and now Victoria's role in regards to greatly reducing the emissions of these fuels. It has the right type of coal to be used in ultra-high efficiency generators, the technology and expertise as has been demonstrated so far progressing towards commercialisation, and the political will on climate change.

If all that is left to your argument is -someone else should do it on coal that will be used anyway, that train of thought is obviously working so well for global action on climate change, no wonder there is no coordinated effort. How do you expect other countries to lower their emissions when we cant even do it for ourselves using the technology we have invented? Is your idea of good policy implementing a tax but not allowing the problem to be fixed with affordable practical solutions?

'let the deployment begin'. I agree.

33
kuke
Posted September 12, 2011 at 9:51 am | Permalink

coal that will be used anyway is fatalistic ecocide. Craig, you refuse to address the arguments above and simply focus on coal efficiency.

34
Craig Felton
Posted September 12, 2011 at 9:53 am | Permalink

kuke, coal that will be used anyway is what Paul said.

Which argument above?

35
Captain Planet
Posted September 12, 2011 at 9:57 am | Permalink

@ Craig Felchon,

I am explaining the important role Australia has in global fuel supply; and now Victorias role in regards to greatly reducing the emissions of these fuels.

I actually looked in the dictionary under disingenous after reading your most recent posts, Craig. Amazing. So only the coal at Bacchus Marsh can possibly save the planet and alleviate global poverty, because only that coal will work with this whiz bang, untried at commercial scale, uncosted, pie in the sky, new technology which supposedly exists because of an extremely detail light powerpoint presentation you pointed at on the internet which happens to have a CSIRO logo on it.

You are stretching the credulity of your target audience on Rooted who are able to see through this kind of propoganda and obfuscation in no time.

There is an inherent cost saving in higher efficiency, so it will be deployed regardless of an international carbon price.

What a load of utter bulldust.

You have intentionally omitted the fact that higher efficiency has an inherent fuel cost saving, which may or may not offset any extra costs incurred as capital expenditure when deploying the technology in the first place.

You are talking about replacing coal fired thermal power stations, which utilise boilers and steam turbines, with reciprocating engines. Good luck convincing the Financial Controllers of the world?s power companies that outlaying TEN TIMES AS MUCH capital to build a power station is somehow going to be offset by fuel savings over the lifetime of the plant WITHOUT EVEN A CARBON PRICE.

The truth is that this is coal to liquids technology, which has only one economic application replacing fossil fuels in order to allow a completely unsustainable economic structure (dependant on oil and its derivatives) to be propped up for a little while longer (and do so much more damage to the long term health and wellbeing of our ecosystem, and the lives of all humans who are going to attempt to live in it, in 50-100 years time).

Your posturing and pretending that making liquid fuel out of coal somehow presents a viable and deployable tool for large scale mitigation of CO2 emissions from coal fired power generation, when this would require changes to plant on a massive scale at even more massive expense, is laughable.

36
Craig Felton
Posted September 12, 2011 at 10:34 am | Permalink

Captain Planet, If you want to remain ignorant when faced with the facts then so be it, if that is the audience here on Rooted then that is a worry. If you want to disregard information provided by Australia's leading science and technology organisation the CSIRO so be it. If you want to believe that thermal power stations are ten times cheaper than internal combustion power stations so be it. If you want to believe that low emissions fuel has to be more expensive than current fuels then so be it. If you want to believe that our current coal trading partners are going to be switching to lower emissions fuel and technology without it being developed first then so be it. I obviously can't help you, it's terminal.

37
Eponymous
Posted September 13, 2011 at 10:08 am | Permalink

Wow, a lot of words have been written here.

Seems to me that the technology has potential, but it probably needs to be demonstrated at scale. I also thought the CSIRO presentation was ambiguous and a bit hopeful. Sure, it might achieve 50% thermal efficiency as a baseload but I will not accept that efficiency is possible in a peaking application.

All of this too is predicated on the assumption that waste heat will be sufficient to power the CCS process, which is a mightily heroic assumption. Firstly, that means no heat capture for the combustion cycle, so your 50% efficiency is fanciful. Secondly, most estimates put the energy cost of CCS in a black-coal plant close to 25% something doesn't add up here. Further, if youre going to capture the CO2, you need to put it somewhere, and that will cost energy as well. There are a lot of unknowns in there wouldnt you agree?

So you seem to be advocating supporting the rollout of undemonstrated technology, which relies on more unproven technology, to dig up brown coal, dry it and burn it, and that is a better option than renewables? I disagree.

Solar prices are coming down and are just about at grid parity already in some parts of NSW: http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/solar-pv-grid-parity-now-what?utm_source=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_source=Climate+Spectator&utm_campaign=26b66b184d-CSPEC_DAILY&utm_medium=email No carbon emissions, energy pay-back in two years. In my opinion, this is better than locking in expensive infrastructure for burning brown coal.

Wind is not as expensive as everyone thinks either. It is bringing down the cost of grid power in Australia and could significantly undercut brown-coal in Victoria, EVEN WITHOUT A CARBON PRICE:
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/why-wind-cutting-energy-costs?utm_source=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_source=Climate+Spectator&utm_campaign=b0853ec54b-CSPEC_DAILY&utm_medium=email

I also find the 2% of energy content to dry brown coal absolutely fanciful. But, thats going to be hard to prove.

38
bob gillard
Posted September 13, 2011 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

mr felton makes some pretty persuasive arguments.

the increasingly shrill nature of the comments directed against him are far less convincing.

developing countries will burn coal to power their transition out of poverty for the next 50 years. esoteric debates like those used against felton from comfortable westerners sitting in their air conditioned offices, driving petrol sucking cars and spending hours in front of electronic devices will, unsurprisingly, not be driving the chinese and indians back to the rice paddy fields any time soon.

if an australian technology company like exergen can provide a means to do what they are going to do (burn coal) on a basis that means cheap, plentiful brown coal can emit as clean as natural gas for base load power generation (via the CSIRO DICE engine) then arguing against that on purely ideological grounds ('coal must never leave sacred BM ground!') is total nonsense.

Felton is right. And, crucially, the Victorian Government know it. Why else did exergen just receive a $1.3 million Vic Govt grant to continue working with the CSIRO on the DICE engine?

So the Govt could bend to 'pressure' like this, and the vested NIMBYism of the Bacchus Marsh residents and shut the project down? Or so Victoria's massive brown coal reserves could be put to positive economic and environmental use for the people of Victoria, and beyond?

39
Craig Felton
Posted September 13, 2011 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

Hi Eponymous,

There are a lot of unknowns in there wouldnt you agree?

Regarding CCS, yes I agree. That is why the title of that presentation you are referring to is 'What happens if large scale CO2 capture and storage is NOT alright, how efficient could we make coal-based generation?'

So you seem to be advocating supporting the rollout of undemonstrated technology, which relies on more unproven technology, to dig up brown coal, dry it and burn it, and that is a better option than renewables? I disagree.

Both the coal beneficiation process and the DICE have been proven and demonstrated albeit the DICE requires larger scale demonstration, which is currently being worked on. The coal beneficiation process is ready to be commercialized, another Aussie invention that some want to send offshore along with the jobs.

'Solar prices are coming down and are just about at grid parity already in some parts of NSW'

The cost comparison given between grid supplied (retail) and solar equivalent production cost is 25c/kWh is not apples for apples. The comparison wholesale cost of coal powered supply is 5-10c /kWh. For a household it would make commercial sense but for a base load reliable supply for the state, I don't think so. As for wind, that can supplement part of the energy mix but is unable to support base load. There are other factors but I won't go into them now.

'I also find the 2% of energy content to dry brown coal absolutely fanciful. But, thats going to be hard to prove.'

Not hard to prove at all, power in vs power out.

40
Eponymous
Posted September 13, 2011 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

'Not hard to prove at all, power in vs power out.'

Yes, I know how to calculate the efficiency. I find the idea that it only requires 2% energy fanciful, and my position would be difficult to prove.

Base load is bullshit, plain and simple. The grid neither demands nor requires it. It is an open market and anyone can participate. Thanks for mentioning it though, baseload is the trigger for me that suggests someone who is rigging the argument for their own ends.

41
Craig Felton
Posted September 13, 2011 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

Eponymous,

Baseload is the minimum amount of power that a utility or distribution company must make available to its customers, or the amount of power required to meet minimum demands based on reasonable expectations of customer requirements. Yallourn, Loy Yang A, Loy Yang B and Hazelwood form Victorias baseload supply with the combined max output of over 6000 MW. Victoria?s total peak electricity usage is around 8,000 - 10,000 MW. They operate rain, hail or shine 24hrs a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Can PV solar or wind operate in all weather conditions 24hrs a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year? No. Sure, I agree that renewables should make up a greater part of the energy mix, but to suggest that we are at a stage where they can replace coal powered generation at the same scale, reliability and cost/KW is fanciful.

42
Douglas Evan
Posted September 13, 2011 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

@bob Gillard
You find Felton's arguments convincing. Unfortunately to me he seems to be skipping from argument to argument to suit the needs of the moment. His extraordinary energy makes me wonder just what is the basis for his personal emotional investment in this argument.
Here are a few points. Exergen does indeed claim that the dewatering process only takes 2% of the energy embodied in the coal. This seems remarkably small to me but Im in no position to query the assertion. If their claims can be validated Exergen certainly does seem to have found a way to burn lignite in power stations with far greater efficiency than current brown coal generating technology used in the Latrobe Valley. This suggests a viable future in conjunction with existing brown coal generators. It is no argument at all for a new brown coal open cut at Parwan with the product slated simply for export. However it is spun this is an environmentally damaging profit making venture for a private venture capitalist at the cost of productive farming capacity and with a detrimental impact on our future environmental viability. The technology may make the venture potentially profitable. It may reduce the end use greenhouse burden deriving from the use of the product to around the level of black coal but this doesn?t make it environmentally acceptable ? far from it.

Felton writes 'The coal beneficiation process is ready to be commercialized, another Aussie invention that some want to send offshore along with the jobs.' This is a complete red herring. No reason why it should be sent offshore. No reason why it shouldnt be a fine little local and export earner for Austmine as we transition to a low carbon future. It still does not justify a new brown coal mine.

The dewatering process produces a lot of heavily polluted water which Exergen thinks could be used to cool a power plant but at Parwan there is no power plant and this water cant be released into the normal hydrologic cycle. Oh dear no explanation of what will happen to all this polluted water.

Bob Gillard approves of 'an australian technology company like exergen (making) cheap, plentiful brown coal as clean as natural gas for base load power generation (via the CSIRO DICE engine)'. Bob Gillard needs to catch up a bit on the problems with gas as a stock fuel for power generation. The IEA no bunch of tree hugging hippies have published a very scary report on the greenhouse implications of the expected growth in global gas consumption. Briefly it is thought likely to put us well in the realm of runaway global warming beyond our capacity to control before the end of the century. But hey dont take my hysterical word for this try this link for starters.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/09/315845/natural-gas-switching-from-coal-to-gas-increases-warming-for-decades/
Felton is running an intellectually dishonest line for his own purposes whatever they may be. Are you being straight Bob Gillard or are you with Felton?

43
Eponymous
Posted September 13, 2011 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

Craig, question some of your assumptions mate. Who needs 6000MW constantly? Why would I want to subsidise heavy users overnight? I dont care if theres no electricity or only 30% between midnight and 6am, and I dont want to continue subsidising industrial users, at the expense of the environment for that privelidge.

You also seem to think that supply is planned. It is not, never has been. The market demands electricity and generators line up for the honour of supplying it. The market is agnostic on whether or not it is so-called baseload. It just needs to come out.

If you had advocated a serious increase in renewables, plus peaking power using this technology I would have taken you more seriously. But no, same old furphies and half truths.

By the way, your coal saviours do not operate 24/365. Last two coal plants I consulted to had 57% and 75% capacity factors for the preceeding 12 months.

Baseload my arse.

44
Craig Felton
Posted September 13, 2011 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

Ok lets turn off street lights, life support systems at hospitals, refrigeration at supermarkets just because you dont use them. Lets have no industry just because you dont work in industry. Suits you, your a 'consultant'.

'If you had advocated a serious increase in renewables, plus peaking power using this technology I would have taken you more seriously.'

That is exactly what I am suggesting. Perhaps it would be more productive to discuss whether it would be better to use imported CSG from NSW and Qld for gas turbine generators for transitional power supply as are the current plans, or Victoria's existing open cut coal mines and this new technology to produce the same emissions per KW?

45
Eponymous
Posted September 13, 2011 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

Your misrepresentation is unbecoming.

I am making the point that individuals do not need so-called baseload, only industry does. Street lights and life support systems are a tiny percentage of demand. Hence my caveat of 30%.

If industry wants full load overnight then they should pay for it. Providing them with power is not a reason for me to support opening a new coal mine and entrenching more fossil fuel burning infrastructure.

You seem to be moving the goal posts in your last paragraph. So, new mine at Bacchus Marsh: yes or no?

Or are you advocating retro-fitting this technology to existing mines/plants in the La Trobe? Does the technology work with all coal grades? what about ash content? What about varying water content? Does the 2% figure include all energy expenditure; mining, transport, processing or is that just the drying process? What will you do with the water? It can not be used as cooling water with out extensive treatment; ie more energy cost. Is that included in your 2%?

I also dont think it is a direct choice between CSG and coal to liquid technology. We still have natural gas and I advocate peaking gas and renewables. If you bothered reading the link you would see how competitive wind has become, with predictions that it will go much lower if the west coast of the Eyre Peninsula is developed and the SA/Vic interconnect upgraded.

My point is this might be a promising development, if your Terms of reference are how can we make the cheapest power. My ToR however is how can we stop burning fossil fuels the fastest. This proposal does nothing to address this and just entrenches the stupid status quo.

46
Craig Felton
Posted September 13, 2011 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

'You seem to be moving the goal posts in your last paragraph. So, new mine at Bacchus Marsh: yes or no?'

There is already a mine there. It is not new; it is older than you are.

'Or are you advocating retro-fitting this technology to existing mines/plants in the La Trobe?'

Yes, it would reduce the current emissions by over half, without massive price impacts to the consumer.

'Does the technology work with all coal grades? what about ash content? What about varying water content?'

Works with Victorian coal

'Does the 2% figure include all energy expenditure; mining, transport, processing or is that just the drying process? What will you do with the water? It can not be used as cooling water with out extensive treatment; ie more energy cost. Is that included in your 2%?'

Don't know, you might want to research it yourself for your job as a 'consultant'. It will however produce far less emissions than currently.

'I also don?t think it is a direct choice between CSG and coal to liquid technology. We still have natural gas and I advocate peaking gas and renewables.'

Is the gas more expensive than say black coal?

'If you bothered reading the link you would see how competitive wind has become, with predictions that it will go much lower if the west coast of the Eyre Peninsula is developed and the SA/Vic interconnect upgraded.'

I know wind is competitive, but that is not the only consideration as I have said repeatedly.

So if your terms of reference is 'how can we stop burning fossil fuels the fastest' surely the answer is nuclear?

47
Craig Felton
Posted September 13, 2011 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

Here is an interesting piece on the nuclear option if you are interested?

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/05/29/replacing-hazelwood-coal/

48
Craig Felton
Posted September 13, 2011 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

Eponymous, you have a chance to read that link above. I thought this analysis was interesting given your views stated above.

'Replacing Hazelwood with wind and gas generators (Scenario 1) is only 3% better than the gas only option for the amount of emissions avoided. However, the wind and gas option (Scenario 1) is much more costly than the gas only option ? see Table 3. The wind and gas option is 3.7 times the capital cost, 3 times the emissions avoidance cost, and, importantly for most people and industry, the cost of electricity is nearly double that of the gas only option. Thus, their stated criteria of minimising any increase in electricity bills is not satisfied.

On this basis it is clear that the wind and gas option should not be considered further. For currently available replacement technology in Australia, the gas only option is by far the cheaper option, and has only slightly (3%) higher emissions.'

49
Eponymous
Posted September 13, 2011 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

Amateur hour. Thanks for linking to Australia's number one nuclear advocacy site. I have read just about everything Barry has written and disagree with some fundamentals.

A better report on the viability of nuclear to quote at me would have been the Switkowski or UMPNER report, which states that if we started 5 years ago we could have 15-25 reactors by 2025 and this would slow our growth in emissions by less than 30%. So, no nuclear is not going to save us.

Summarising, I am not convinced by this technology and see no benefits.

Your assertion that:
Yes it would reduce the current emissions by over half, without massive price impacts to the consumer involves some pretty heroic assumptions.

50
paul connor
Posted September 13, 2011 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

Craig, welcome back. Your posting coincides remarkably well with the working week. Can't help but suspect that you are in the employ of one of the companies discussed in the thread. If so, you should probably say so. But hey, even someone with a vested interest can have the right arguments (though not often), so lets examine yours.

'I don?t think I am switching arguments; it is the same as far as I am aware.'

First you were arguing that the Bacchus Marsh mine would help lower global emissions. In response to the argument that the best possible scenario for global emissions would be to keep Bacchus Marsh coal in the ground, you switched to the line that the world needs our brown coal to avoid poverty and possibly famine. You then switched again, arguing that the Bacchus Marsh mine is important in preventing jobs from going offshore. Hard to keep up with the goal post shifts, but nonetheless entertaining.

'I am explaining the important role Australia has in global fuel supply; and now Victoria's role in regards to greatly reducing the emissions of these fuels. It has the right type of coal to be used in ultra-high efficiency generators, the technology and expertise as has been demonstrated so far progressing towards commercialisation, and the political will on climate change.'

Australia exports a lot of coal. We know. But over at Mantle/Exergen they arent trying to reduce the emissions of those fuels, are they? They are trying to create a brown coal export market from Bacchus Marsh on top of the black coal we already export. So regarding the emissions of those fuels stored under Bacchus Marsh, they (you?) are actually trying to increase emissions. From nothing (present scenario) to butt-loads (your favored scenario of digging it up, drying it out, transporting it, burning it).

'How do you expect other countries to lower their emissions when we cant even do it for ourselves using the technology we have invented?'

As Ive said repeatedly, if this technology can actually help other countries lower their emissions, then great. And if it can do so while saving them money (as youve argued is the case), doubly great. The reason not to deploy the technology here is that we dont need it to lower our emissions. Were not building new brown coal plants anymore (thanks carbon tax), and no one (even at Exergen or Mantle) is pretending that Hazelwood or Yallourn are going to start using the tech at their plants. So how will it lower Australias emissions? Its a technology that can only feasibly lower emissions overseas, and that is why it should only be deployed overseas, if at all.

And that, my friend, is why the brown coal under Bacchus Marsh is not 'the saviour of the planet'.

51
bob gillard
Posted September 13, 2011 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

one of the organised green movement's mantra's is 'think globally, act locally'.

where, exactly, is the global thinking in trying to stifle australian innovation that can reduce the inevitable CO2 emissions from the developing world burning billions of tonnes of brown coal to fuel their inexorable industrialisation programs over the next 50 years?

global coal demand is set to take off in china and india ? http://www.new.dpi.vic.gov.au/earth-resources/coal/prospectivity/community-fact-sheet

'Global energy demand

As the largest and most widespread fossil fuel resource in the world, coal is already competitively priced and used to supply approximately 23 per cent of global energy needs.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that coal use will increase to meet global energy demand, which is expected to grow by more than half over the next quarter of a century. China and India, which represent the world's fastest growing energy markets, are expected to absorb more than 40 per cent of this increase; doubling their energy use by 2030.
Given projected growth in international energy demand, coal will continue to be an essential component of the world's energy and industrial materials mix.
Victoria's coal resource is large by global standards and is expected to contribute to the global energy supply. It is expected that new technology and investment will create a range of new development opportunities in Victoria, particularly for products that can compete with oil and gas. Increasingly these products could be focussed on export or import replacement.'

keeping the coal in the ground at BM, killing the progress of the development of the exergen CHTD process and the DICE engine research may in fact result in incalculable extra greenhouse gas emissions over the course of this century, not reduce them.

I have no idea who Craig Felton is, but I can identify well researched, fact based material when I see it. He is giving you boys a thorough seeing to, and it's your own site! ouch.