Clean coal: for better or worse?

Coal-fired power stations operate for only a few decades, whereas CCS storage sites would require monitoring and maintenance in perpetuity, who will assume responsibility for CCS sites once the coal company has moved on?

We have exactly the same problem here as we have with nuclear waste. It begs the question, can the storage facilities be managed safely? When we consider the way our governments and private corporations manage the current infrastructure it does not inspire confidence. The Rising Tide Organisation goes on to say:

The volume of greenhouse pollution that would need to be buried is vast and unprecedented. While CCS proponents often point out that carbon sequestration projects are already in operation, the largest CCS experimentation project in existence (Sleipner, in Norway) currently buries 1 million tonnes per annum [Mtpa] of carbon dioxide. Current global emissions from fuel combustion are 27 billion tonnes per annum [Gtpa]. Burying just 3.6 Gtpa per year (or just 13% of present emissions) would require injection of 50 million barrels of CO2 per day. This compares with current global oil production of 79 million barrels a day.

In 2007 the CSIRO created simulations to estimate the extreme (50-year return) storm tides and wave heights across the Gippsland Basin under the current climate and in the context of sea level rise due to global warming, it found that in 2031 and 2056 there would be a predicted 2km inundation. This does not account for additional gas and oil extraction or the sub-sea CO2 storage, which the CSIRO admit will put further pressure on the aquifers. Notwithstanding the existence of fault lines that run consistently across the basin, these also need to be factored into possible outcomes.

Coal is Australia’s most lucrative export. Coal represents 88 per cent of Australia’s electricity generation. Coal produces 25 per cent of the world’s energy and 40 per cent of its carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion. Coal is also the biggest contributor to Australia’s greenhouse gasses. Despite the renewable alternatives most people on all sides of the debate do not expect there to be a halt in coal production.

A lot of people voted for Kevin Rudd because he promised to tackle climate change. What we are hearing now is a mimic of John Howard’s rhetoric and it is not just bad science - it is insane.