The Australian Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, The Hon Greg Combet AM, MP, appeared on TV last night – interviewed on the ABC flagship current affairs program the 7.30 Report.
About two thirds of the way through the presenter Leigh Sales asks him
“Australia is heavily dependent on coal production. The Australian Coal Association released research yesterday showing that none of our competitors in coal production are applying carbon taxes or emissions reduction schemes. So, is a carbon price going to put Australia at a competitive disadvantage?”
The Minister replies – “No, it will not. ….” and you can read the transcript – then he says –
“On the coal industry specifically, at an example of a $20-per-tonne carbon price, the average liability for each tonne of coal mined in our economy for its methane emissions would be about $1.60 per tonne, and that’s in a context where steaming coal’s selling for more than $120 a tonne and coking coal in particular’s selling for more than $320 a tonne.”
I am puzzled at this reference to the methane and the pretty small number of $1.60. Does anybody know what he was driving at – unless it was just to utter a small number ?
I thought it worthwhile linking my chart again which shows Australian emissions have flattened off anyway – while those for China are just booming on skywards
…making anything we do irrelevant.
Warwick
I find it very difficult to see the broadcasting of “$1.60 & a tonne of coal” in the same sentence as anything other than deliberate. He was lucky he had the ABC to use as a medium to sow the (weed)seed of misconception. As such the CH4 may be taxed @ $1.60 but there would be close to a tonne of carbon & > than 2 tonnes of CO2 if that was to attract the $20 /T.
I would love to have seen that gem thrown up on Lateline if there was even a highschool chemistry teacher on the panel.
Isn’t he a trained lawyer?
Methane is 75% carbon. 16 parts Methane burns to CO2 (44 parts) and water (36 parts). Ironically the latter (untaxed as yet) has 4 times the greenhouse effect.
If you prefer 1 ton of methane would contain 750 kg of carbon ($15 at said tax rate) but cause 2,750 kg of CO2.
One MWh of coal fired power costs (bulk) $A42 and very close to 1 ton of CO2 is emitted.
One MWh of wind turbine power costs $A140 (UK Government figure for new on-shore). See where the tax rate is going?
The $1.60 figure doesn’t mean anything that I can see.
this is from p 115 of the report
pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/109830/carbon-prices.pdf
Estimating abatement
The Commission also estimated the abatement attributable to the set of policies that
were analysed for each study country. In many cases, policy overlaps meant that it
was not possible to attribute abatement to individual policies. Instead, to avoid
double counting, in many cases the Commission estimated the abatement that arose
in each country through different technologies (for example wind or solar power).
Abatement was estimated against a counterfactual of no policy intervention. That is,
what would greenhouse gas emissions have been if the policy were not in place? To
do this, it was necessary to identify the source of electricity that would have been
used in the absence of the subsidised low-emissions generator. Abatement is
reported in tonnes of CO2 (t CO2), rather than tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2-e),
because in most cases the available estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from
electricity generation only included CO2.
However, CO2 generally accounts for 98 per cent of
greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion (or higher), so excluding
these gases is not likely to have had material effects on the overall results.
so it doesn’t seem to have come from the PC report
But there have been so many reports
Oh…sorry for shouting
The only 1.6 factor I can think of is:
Efficiency of Closed Cycle Gas Turbine=60% or 1.6 times that of (Australian) coal fired around 37-38%. (Dividing black coal emissions by 1.6 then multiplying by 0.75 gives the emissions from CCGT).
If we replaced all our coal fired stations with an equal capacity of wind turbines then we would get full power on 1-2 days a year, no power around 110 days a year, and blackouts on the remainder. As new wind power costs $A140 per MWh (UK Gov. end 2010) versus $42 for coal fired it will obviously cost more for electricity. But Australia’s overall emissions would decrease by 5.5%, a whole 0.08% of world emissions.
The 78% shortfall in supply would have to be made up by conventional generation, although the loonies will probably claim the answer is putting in 4+times current capacity of wind turbines. Why this obsession with copying Europe and installing wind? Don’t they realise that Macquarie Island is closer to the equator than Copenhagen, so turbines will be less efficient here? Not that there are too good in the UK.
See comment that the head of one of the UK’s biggest power supply companies has just installed a generator at his home. Now that’s a vote of confidence in Government policy!!
http//www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/8569280/Why-vote-blue-go-green-doesnt-sound-quite-so-clever-any-more.html
Graeme Inkster, Combet has not released any calculation figures because 1) he does not have any real data and 2) if he does release the data he opens himself to criticism from those who can calculate it. He has said that the figure for coal mines will vary which is one of the few things he has said that is true. The mines in the Lithgow district of NSW have no methane gas release probably because the gas has already been released to the atmosphere. You may call that some years ago there was an explosion at Moura which is a gassy-CH4 rich mine. The methane content depends on the rank & class of coal. Lignite or Brown coal does not contain any methane. If lignite is heated to around 500C it actually gives off CO2 first, on further heating it gives off CO. Next it depends on how close the coal is to the surface and the permeability of the cover. (The explosion in NZ-Pike River was more likely to be CO and coal dust). Coal seam gas (CSG) is being extracted from very deep coal seams of high rank (coking coal) in Qld.
Now let’s work backwards. $1.60/t coal for methane @$20/t CO2 gives 0.08t/t CO2 equivalent. @ CH4=21*CO2 (which is not correct but assumed by US EPA, IPCC & IEA.) that gives 0.0038 t CH4/t coal –this is about midway for US black coals.
However, the CH4=21*CO2 this nonsense. If one burns 1 volume CH4 in air one gets one volume CO2 plus two volumes H2O. Considering the spectral emission lines of CO2 and H2O one can find that in the total IR range (2 to 25 micron) H2O has about 10 times the area of that of CO2. Thus burning CH4 should cause (1*CO2+2*10*CO2) = 21*CO2. That throws out the concept of CH4 being less “so called warming” than coal.
But! But! CH4 does not burn in the atmosphere (due to no ignition – need about 1000C, and too low concentration) as shown by atmospheric measurements. The spectral emission lines of CH4 in the IR range are about one fifth of that of CO2. So putting a price on fugitive emission is nonsense from people who have no technical understanding.
To a small extent in the atmosphere CH4 can be oxidised by ozone to give compounds with the –OH radical eg CH3OH or methyl alcohol. These have been detected at the top of the atmosphere. These molecules are soluble in water (clouds and oceans) and this is the reason why the atmospheric CH4 levels are presently declining.
Before anyone gets excited about CH4 removing ozone it should be noted that there is also ground level ozone which is produced by lightning, electrical discharge (power lines, welding) and produced from industrial and motorvehicle chemical emissions (eg NO)(ethanol in motor vehicle fuels -E90 or E85 leads to more ozone formation than LPG or petrol). As ozone can lead to respiratory problems the removal of ozone at near ground level by CH4 is not necessarily a bad thing. It also should be noted that the natural emission of CH4 from volcanoes, swamps, insects, and animals is far greater than any human caused emissions. The present atmospheric level is about 1720 ppb(vol).
cementafriend – thanks for clearing up what he thought he was saying. So they are going to charge $1.60 for methane in coal on top of the $20 a ton for the carbon? But as you point out the levels vary from mine to mine, so there will be the “need” for monitoring the methane levels regularly and the filling out of the appropriate forms? Which will be checked by the new bureaucracy “needed”?
For the record I was comparing emissions from coal and gas fired power. Gas gives less emissions, less because it is only 75% carbon than because CCGT works at higher efficiency than coal fired; i.e. gives more electricity for the same CO2 emission. As I pointed out wind turbines are economic lunacy. Even if we installed them we could only use a limited capacity without destabilizing the electricity grid. Both Spain & Denmark indicated that 17% maximum was desirable, even if both have greatly exceeded this level. Their supply grid is saved by the interconnection between counties in Europe and the consequent availability of vastly more hydroelectricity than we have, or will be allowed to have. The Danish Wind Industry has even said that the wind turbines in Denmark couldn’t exist if it weren’t for Norwegian hydroelectricity (smoothing out the irregularities in generation). That’s one remark the Greens don’t repeat.
yes, Graeme the $1.60/t concerns fugative emissions. No mine in Australia and I would say in the world has an exact knowledge because the CH4 content varies not only with the type of coal and its general location but within the seam of a mine and locations in a mine due to faults, mine practices and timing etc. In some u/g mines (I could name a few but will not) they have been draining methane and operating gas fired engines (modified large diesel-eg 1MW caterpillar) to produce electricity for over twenty years. Producing electricity that way has a double benefit, a) safety for the operators and b) some return on investment by lower electricity cost for necessary safety equipment. As indicated the O.0038 t CH4/t coal maybe a mid-range for some US black coals (which is now mainly mined in deep u/g mines)but Australian coals have different properties.
I would suggest that there is very little fugative emission from open cut coal mines as these are close to the surface. Also, it would be very difficult to measure. Fugative emissions, if there are any, would be better covered by an agreed (STATE) royalty rather than a tax before a mine is developed. That would help in determining viability and investors/banks etc if they will provide finance.
Re gas fired power -AGW is supposed to be about atmospheric temperatures. One can not ignore water vapor. It has higher IR absorption than CO2 (10 times in the full IR range), in addition when it condenses it gives off heat. In many processes gas firing is less efficient than coal firing (not only because the flame gives less radiant heat but because latent heat is lost in the exhaust). It is one thing to say that (sun caused) evaporation at sea surfaces and condensation in the atmosphere to clouds and precipitation is a natural cycle, but it is very different to water vapour emission from burning gas, or alcohol in processes or motor vehicles.
I agree with the comment about wind turbines. The productivity commission has found that wind power is unrelable and much higher in capital cost. In fact as has been shown in UK it is necessary to have nearly 100% standby for every MW of installed wind capacity in the whole country. One has to ask what benefit does the windpower bring for the wasted capital expenditure.
cementafriend- wind turbines bring the following benefits in the UK.
1. The subsidies enrich the builders and the operators of the turbines
2. It provides rent to wealthy land owners with largish estates
3. It keeps various public servants employed on appeals tribunals
4. It gives a source of income to lawyers appearing at tribunals
5. Originally it provided overseas business to European turbine builders (now largely being taken by Chinese & Indian builders)
6. It gives the politicians an excuse to say “look what we are doing to save the world”
7. It gives “Green” organizations an excuse for smugness as they claim “success”
The only thing they don’t do is provide cheap or convenient electricity, nor much in the way of CO2 reduction.
Strangely, in spite of this, I understand that surveys in the UK show between 74 & 81% of those polled as against wind turbines. But there the ones who get the bill.
cementafriend (and others) – I commend the “Greenpeace in our time” by Josh on WUWT.
I don’t think anymore need be said on wind turbines. Regards
In regard to renewables and in particular wind power I recommend TonyfromOz on PA Pundits
here’s one of his posts
papundits.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/renewable-power-versus-coal-fired-power-and-the-winner-is/
and
papundits.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/electrical-power-statistics-renewables-fail-to-deliver-january-2011/
and of course Peter Land
bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/13/wind-and-carbon-emissions-peter-lang-responds/
sorry that’s Peter Lang
www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/in-favour-of-a-law-to-impose-carbon-tax/story-e6freuy9-1226078085686
Should there be a national plebiscite on whether to impose a carbon tax?
vote now!
TonyfromOz has a fabulous and timely new post
Solar Power Australia
TonyfromOz | 06/20/2011 at 6:30 am | Tags: Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Carbon Dioxide Tax, Concentrating Solar Power, Pricing Carbon, Solar Power Generation | Categories: Australia, Climate Change, Fraud/Waste, Politics, Propaganda | URL: wp.me/pJrS-f5L
The site for this new Solar Plant is in Chinchilla Queensland, hey, out where the Sun shines all the time, eh!
papundits.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/solar-power-australia/
upshot
There are three quite obvious questions that stand out to me with respect to this announcement, and I’m surprised no one bothered to ask them.
1. If this plant can only produce 250MW of power in total, and here, let’s actually quote that higher figure of that 250MW, why did no one put two and two together and correlate it back to large scale coal fired plants, say like Bayswater which can actually deliver its power for the full 24/7/365, and then add up two and two with respect to the cost of 11 equivalent plants just to replace that one coal fired plant. Hint as to the answer. $13.2 Billion.
2. If the only way this plant can go ahead is for Governments to kick in nearly half the up front cost, doesn’t this amount to subsidies, and how does that equate to Bob Brown’s ‘heavily’ subsidised coal fired power, as he refers to it.
3. This one question I would have thought was the most obvious question of all. If this plant is a hybrid of Solar and Natural Gas Fired Power, and if Natural Gas fired power produces CO2 emissions, then this plant also becomes subject to any ‘Price on Carbon’ or CO2 Tax, or an ETS.
So, when you see the Prime Minister announce on virtually every newscast on TV and radio that this is the way forward for Australia, all is not as it seems on the surface.
I think you have to read carefully what he said. It reads to me that he is talking about the by-product methane that is released when mining coal. The total carbon tax would obviously be much higher.
Isn’t he a trained lawyer? spot on pattoh, one who chooses words very carefully
pattoh, you’re wrong about Combet’s qualifications:
www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/julia-gillard-rewards-the-plotters/story-e6freuy9-1225918720500
the curious thing is that if Combet had worked in the commercial sector using his qualifications he would have advised on economics and been responsible for his advice – that is any person who acts under a state issued licence has to not be negligent in his or her advice and if there is negligence by a professional then a client who relied upon that advice and suffers damages (or loss) can sue
The sad thing is that politicians in their profession are not subject to that responsibility;
Lawyer or not