Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

ETS: unworkable, unaffordable, ineffective

By Juel Briggs - posted Friday, 17 July 2009


NOTES

1. To see how a “cap and trade” system is affordable and therefore effective for sulphur dioxide, but will not be for carbon dioxide, the following example is given:

Assumptions

Advertisement
  • CO2 emissions from coal fired power stations - 1 tonne per mW hour;
  • (elemental) carbon in coal 60 per cent by weight, (elemental) sulphur in coal 1 per cent by weight;
  • carbon price $A100/tonne CO2 (expected minimum price required to fund carbon capture and storage);
  • take a high-end sulphur price of $A900/tonne SO2 (US$ 600 per ton - a typical high price);
  • retail price of electricity = A15c per kW hour = $A150 per mW hour.

Using this data, under a carbon trading scheme, electricity would go from $150/mW hour to $250/mW hour (an increase of 67 per cent). Under a sulphur trading scheme (even using a high sulphur price), power would go from $150/mW hour to $161/mW hour (a 7 per cent increase.). In other words, a carbon trading scheme is around 10 times less cost effective (per unit of power generated) than a sulphur trading scheme, and would be at least 20 times less cost effective if the IEA carbon price of $225 is used.

For more information on this matter go here.

2. The technology to scrub out SO2 and nitrogen oxides from commercial power generation is cheap, universal and well established. However, the technology of carbon capture and storage in large scale commercial application is as yet untested, and the Australian Treasury itself doesn’t see capture and storage having any significant impact on reducing emissions until about 2045 (Chart 6.29)

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

20 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Juel Briggs lives in Sydney and is an inveterate letter writer who has decided to step up a notch.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Juel Briggs

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 20 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy