Category: Uncategorized

  • A One Way Street to Oblivion monbiot

    Why this ad?
    Madagascar Birding Tourwww.rockjumperbirding.com – 100+ endemic bird species, including 5 endemic families!

    Monbiot.com

    Inbox
    x

    George Monbiot news@monbiot.com via google.com

    5:05 PM (20 minutes ago)

    to me

    Monbiot.com


    A One Way Street to Oblivion

    Posted: 21 Jul 2014 07:49 PM PDT

    As soon as an animal becomes extinct, a new bill proposses, it will be classified as “non-native”.

     

    By George Monbiot, published on the Guardian’s website, 21st July 2014

    Can any more destructive and regressive measures be crammed into one bill?

    Already, the Infrastructure Bill, which, as time goes by, has ever less to do with infrastructure, looks like one of those US monstrosities into which a random collection of demands by corporate lobbyists are shoved, in the hope that no one notices.

    So far it contains (or is due to contain) the following assaults on civilisation and the natural world:

    – It exempts fracking companies from the trespass laws

    – Brings in a legal requirement for the government to maximise the economic recovery of petroleum from the UK’s continental shelf. This is directly at odds with another legal requirement: to minimise the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions

    Abandons the government’s commitment to make all new homes zero-carbon by 2016

    – Introduces the possibility (through Clauses 21 and 22) of a backdoor route to selling off the public forest estate. When this was attempted before, it was thwarted by massive public protest.

    – further deregulates the town and country planning system, making life even harder for those who wish to protect natural beauty and public amenities

    – promotes new road building, even though the total volume of road traffic has flatlined since 2002.

    Enough vandalism? Not at all. There’s yet another clause aimed at suppressing the natural world, which has, so far, scarcely been discussed outside parliament. If the Infrastructure Bill is passed in its current state, any animal species that “is not ordinarily resident in, or a regular visitor to, Great Britain in a wild state” will be classified as non-native and subject to potential “eradication or control”. What this is doing in an infrastructure bill is anyone’s guess.

    At first wildlife groups believed it was just poor drafting, accidentally creating the impression that attempts to re-establish species which have become extinct here – such as short-haired bumblebees or red kites – would in future be stamped out. But the most recent Lords debate scotched that hope: it became clear that this a deliberate attempt to pre-empt democratic choice, in the face of rising public enthusiasm for the return of our lost and enchanting wildlife.

    As Baroness Parminter, who argued unsuccessfully for changes to the bill, pointed out, it currently creates

    “a one-way system for biodiversity loss, as once an animal ceases to appear in the wild, it ceases to be native.”

    She also made the point that it’s not just extinct species which from now on will be treated as non-native, but, as the bill now stands, any species listed in Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

    Among those in Schedule 9 are six native species that have already been re-established in Britain (the capercaillie, the common crane, the red kite, the goshawk, the white-tailed eagle and the wild boar); two that are tentatively beginning to return (the night heron and the eagle owl); and four that have been here all along (the barn owl, the corncrake, the chough and the barnacle goose). All these, it seems, are now to be classified as non-native, and potentially subject to eradication or control.

    After the usual orotund time-wasting by aristocratic layabouts (“my ancestor Sir Ewen Cameron of Lochiel, who was known as the great Sir Ewen … killed the last wolf in Scotland” etc), the minister promoting the bill, Baroness Kramer, made it clear that the drafting was no accident. All extinct species, it appears, are to be treated as non-native and potentially invasive. At no point did she mention any of the benefits their re-establishment might bring, such as restoring ecological function and bringing wonder and delight and enchantment back to this depleted land.

    Here is a list, taken from Feral, of a few of the animals which have become extinct recently (in ecological terms) and which probably meet the bill’s new definition of non-native: “not ordinarily resident in, or a regular visitor to, Great Britain in a wild state”. Some would be widely welcomed; others not at all, but it’s clear that a debate about which species we might welcome back is one that many people in this country want to have, but that the government wants to terminate. There’s a longer list, with fuller explanations and a consideration of their suitability for re-establishment, in the book.

    European Beaver: became extinct in Britain in the mid-18th Century, at the latest. Officially re-established in the Knapdale Forest, Argyll. Unofficially in the catchment of the River Tay and on the River Otter, in Devon.

    Wolf: The last clear record is 1621 (not 1743 as commonly supposed). It was killed in Sutherland. As far as I can determine, neither Sir Ewen Cameron nor any of the other blood-soaked lairds and congenital twits from whom Lord Cameron of Dillington is descended were involved.

    Lynx: The last known fossil remains date from the 6th Century AD, but possible cultural records extend into the 9th Century.

    Wild Boar: The last truly wild boar on record were killed on the orders of Henry III in the Forest of Dean, in 1260. Four small populations in southern England, established after escapes and releases from farms and collections.

    Elk or Moose (Alces alces): The youngest bones found in Britain are 3,900 years old. Temporarily released in 2008 into a 450-acre enclosure on the Alladale Estate, Sutherland.

    Reindeer: The most recent fossil evidence is 8,300 years old. A free-ranging herd grazes on and around Cairn Gorm in the Scottish Highlands.

    Wild horse: The most recent clearly-established fossil is 9,300 years old. Animals belonging to the last surviving subspecies of wild horse, Przewalski’s (Equus ferus przewalskii), graze Eelmoor Marsh in Hampshire.

    Forest bison, or wisent: Likely to have become extinct here soon before the peak of glaciation, between 15,000 and 25,000 years ago. A herd was temporarily established at Alladale in 2011.

    Brown bear: probably exterminated around 2000 years ago.

    Wolverine: survived here until roughly 8,000 years ago.

    Lion: the last record of a lion in the region is a bone from an animal that lived in the Netherlands – then still connected to Britain – 10,700 years ago.

    Spotted hyaena: around 11,000 years ago.

    Hippopotamus: it was driven out of Britain by the last glaciation, around 115,000 years ago, and hunted to extinction elsewhere in Europe about 30,000 years ago.

    Grey whale: the most recent palaentological remains, from Devon, belonged to a whale that died around 1610 AD.

    Walrus: late Bronze Age, in the Shetland Islands.

    European Sturgeon: possibly as recently as the 19th Century.

    Blue stag beetle: probably 19th Century.

    Eagle owl: the last certain record is from the Mesolithic, 9,000-10,000 years old . But a possible Iron Age bone has been found at Meare in Somerset. Now breeding in some places, after escaping from collections.

    Goshawk: wiped out in the 19th Century. Unofficially re-established in the 20th Century, through a combination of deliberate releases and escapes from falconers.

    Common crane: last evidence of breeding in Britain was in 1542. Cranes re-established themselves through migration in the Norfolk Broads in 1979, and have bred there since then. Now breeding in two other places in eastern England. Re-introduced in 2010 to the Somerset Levels.

    White Stork: last recorded nesting in Edinburgh in 1416. In 2004 a pair tried to breed on an electricity pole in Yorkshire. In 2012 a lone bird built a nest on top of a restaurant in Nottinghamshire.

    Spoonbill: the last breeding records are 1602 in Pembrokeshire and 1650 in East Anglia. In 2010 a breeding colony established itself at Holkham in Norfolk.

    Night Heron: last bred here in either the 16th or 17th Century, at Greenwich. Today it is a scarce visitor.

    Dalmatian Pelican: remains have been found from the Bronze Age in the Cambridgeshire Fens and from the Iron Age in the Somerset levels, close to Glastonbury. A single mediaeval bone has been found in the same place.

    These and many others are now to be classified as officially non-native, unless this nonsense can be stopped.

    Incidentally, determining what is and isn’t a native species, let alone what “should” or “should not” be living here, is a much more complicated business than you might imagine, as Ken Thompson’s interesting book, Where Do Camels Belong?, makes clear. He also points out that some species which are initially greeted with horror and considered an ecological menace soon settle down as local wildlife learns to prey on them or to avoid them. Sometimes they perform a useful ecological role by filling the gaps created by extinction. He overstates his case, and glosses over some real horror stories, but his book is an important counterweight to attempts to create a rigid distinction between native and non-native wildlife.

    Many species introduced to this country by human beings are now cherished as honorary members of our native wildlife. Here are just a few I’ve come across. How many of you knew that they were all brought here by people?:

    Brown hare

    Little owl

    Field poppy

    Corncockle

    Crack willow

    Greater burdock

    Pheasant’s eye

    Cornflower

    Wormwood

    Mayweed

    White campion

    Isn’t this an interesting subject? Unfortunately government ministers seem to know to know nothing about it and to care even less. They are crashing through the middle of delicate interactions between people and the natural world like bulldozers in a rainforest.

    www.monbiot.com

  • Daily update: CEFC looks to accelerate solar revolution

    1 of 1
    Why this ad?
    3 Best Solar Power Quotessolarquotes.com.au/_Get_Free_Quotes – 1 Form – 2 Minutes – 3 Free Quotes. We Use 8,000 Reviews To Hand-Pick 3

    Daily update: CEFC looks to accelerate solar revolution

    Inbox
    x

    Renew Economy editor@reneweconomy.com.au via mail13.atl111.rsgsv.net

    2:28 PM (16 minutes ago)

    to me
    CEFC to provide $120m to unlock Australia rooftop solar finance; CEFC sponsors $580m clean energy fund; Aust renewables investors call for unchanged RET; Renewables ready to supply all of Australia’s electricity; Aboot to continue fight to scrap CEFC, ARENA; NSW plans solar policy initiative to “transform” mid scale solar; Alice Springs solar tracking plant to quadruple in size; Major beef processor turns to biogas to halve power bills; NSW government flags changes to wind energy noise assessment; Algae.Tec wins vote of confidence from Indian pilot partner; Carbon repeal makes Australia globally isolated and economically vulnerable; and World sets mark for hottest June, driven by ocean heat.
    Is this email not displaying correctly?
    View it in your browser.
    RenewEconomy Daily News
    The Parkinson Report
    CEFC brings in US solar giant SunEdison to Australian rooftop solar market, and helps local manufacturer Tindo. All told, $166 million will be deployed to expand solar financing and power purchase agreements to avoid up front costs of rooftop solar.
    CEFC teams with Colonial First State Global Asset Management for $580m fund to invest in commercial solar PV leasing and other large scale renewable projects.
    CEC open letter signed by 17 leading renewables companies calls for RET certainty, warns of sovereign risk, rising electricity prices if RET changed.
    There are already technically feasible scenarios to run the Australian electricity industry on 100% renewable energy without significantly affecting supply.
    Abbott government vows to persist with policy to scrap CEFC and ARENA, even though it may not reach emissions reduction targets without them.
    NSW says to encourage government buildings to use solar leases to install rooftop PV and source around 30% of electricity needs from solar.
    CEFC invests $13m to fund 3.1MW expansion of NT 1MW Uterne solar PV tracking plant – one of Southern Hemisphere’s largest.
    CEFC co-finances development of biodigester and biogas plant at one of Australia’s largest meat processors, that will halve its electricity bills.
    NSW govt flags changes to industrial noise standards to cover all sectors, removing a major weapon used by anti wind energy campaigners.
    Algae.Tec wins huge vote of confidence from Indian pilot project partner, with conversion of nearly $30 million worth of shares at twice market price.
    Korea and China move toward national Emissions Trading Schemes and other major trading partners make policy and investment decisions that directly contradict Australia’s approach.
    The world just experienced its hottest June on record. That makes this the third-warmest start to the year.
  • World’s largest wind-solar array has been installed

    World’s largest wind-solar array has been installed
    ScienceAlert Staff
    Sunday, 20 July 2014

    Recently built in Jamaica, this hybrid array provides the highest renewable energy density of any technology on the market.

    windstream

    Image: Winstream Technologies

    Built in Jamaica’s capital city of Kingston, the array is expected to generate over 106,000 kWh of energy every year.

    The company behind the array, renewable energy tech firm WindStream Technologies, says that over its projected 25-year lifespan, the energy cost savings are expected to exceed $US 2 million, and it will start delivering a return on investment (ROI) in four years.

    The array includes 50 of Windstream’s new ‘SolarMill’ devices, which are each made up of one or more small, super-efficient solar panels and at least three wind turbines. Each one of these devices takes up the roof space of a single regular solar panel. “Each SolarMill provides the highest energy density currently available in the renewable market,” says the company on its website. “The daily and seasonal trends of wind and solar resources are all mitigated by capturing both at any time of the day or year.”

    According to Gizmag, the electricity generated from this new wind-solar hybrid array will either be used and stored off-grid or fed back into Jamaica’s electricity grid.

    Here’s how the technology works:

  • Another 589 scientists speak out against Abbott’s war on the environment

    Another 589 scientists speak out against Abbott’s war on the environment

    22 07 2014

    ATBC_logo_largeI’m currently in Cairns at the Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation‘s Annual Conference where scientists from all over the world have amassed for get the latest on tropical ecology and conservation. Unfortunately, all of them have arrived in an Australia different to the one they knew or admired from afar. The environmental devastation unleashed by the stupid policies of the Abbottoir government has attracted the attention and ire of some of the world’s top scientists. This is what they have to say about it (with a little help from me):

    ASSOCIATION FOR TROPICAL BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION

    RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF STRONGER LAWS FOR CLIMATE-CHANGE MITIGATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN AUSTRALIA

    Australia has many trees, amphibians, and reptiles that are unique, being found nowhere else on Earth. Northern Australia contains a disproportionate amount of this biodiversity which occurs in little developed areas, parks and reserves, indigenous titled lands, and community-managed lands.

    Whilst Australia’s achievements in protecting some of its remaining native forests, wildlife and wilderness are applauded, some 6 million hectares of forest have been lost since 2000. Existing forest protection will be undermined by weak climate change legislation, and poorly regulated agricultural and urban development.

    The Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation (ATBC), the world’s largest organisation dedicated to the study and conservation of tropical ecosystems, is concerned about recent changes in Australia’s environmental regulations, reduced funding for scientific and environmental research, and support for governmental and civil society organisations concerned with the environment.

    Securing Australia’s environmental heritage for its future citizens and the global community will be undermined without strong environmental legislation and leadership that empowers government agencies, communities and local environmental organisations to protect rain forests. This requires sufficient funding for research that can advise the management of these sensitive areas, environmental progress in Australia will be hampered, and the inheritance of its future citizens compromised.

    At this 2014 annual meeting of the Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation, in Cairns, Australia, we, the association representing 589 scientists and conservationists from 55 nations including Australia DECLARE:

    Whereas, the industrialised Commonwealth of Australia has one of the world’s highest per capita greenhouse-gas emission rates in the world, and relies primarily on fossil fuels for its electricity generation, it still is a major contributor to global climate disruption.

    Whereas, human-caused climate disruption (global warming) is now one of the greatest threats to species and ecosystems worldwide, and will increasingly exacerbate the current extinction crisis arising from human endeavour.

    Whereas, Australia has experienced severe fragmentation of biologically unique habitats as a result of human development, in part resulting in the world’s highest mammal extinction rate, and a major loss of other plant and animal species.

    Whereas Australia has recently weakened or overturned decades of legislation designed to protect its sensitive natural ecosystems and species, as well as altered demonstrably effective climate-change mitigation strategies such as elimination of the carbon-pricing scheme.

    Therefore, be it resolved that the Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation:

  • The invisible monster behind mankind collapse

    الأحد، 13 أبريل، 2014

    The Plague Behind Mankind Collapse

    The invisible monster behind mankind collapse

    Overpopulation is the plague which will destroy mankind. Previously plague use to hit any aria which is overpopulated and force it to a perfect status. it was a mechanism designed by nature (God). Where God has designed it to keep our planet in a perfect well functioning equilibrium and to keep it safe and sound from collapse.
    Stupidly man overcomed the plague designed by God and did not put an alternative solution to the overpopulation.
    So we where 2 billions now we are 7 billions so mankind soon will get collapsed and it deserve it

    .

     Let’s imagine that celestial beings are invading the Earth where earth had 2 billion people in the 1950s and now it has 7 billion.

     

    As if 5 billion celestial beings have invaded planet Earth and started to eat up its resources in a devastating manner, most of the row materials have reached near extinction, and now planet Earth entered a state of water scarcity. Even the water is almost exhausted by these celestial beings.

     

     

    The celestial beings are eating Amazon forests in an immoral criminal manner. They burn 14,000 acres every day and distorted 80 percent of the Indonesian rain forests. Every second an area as big as a football field of the forests get de annihilated.  The extinction of one kind of species is taking place every nine minutes, an average of 200 species every day. This is done day after day without mercy or remorse and these celestial beings don’t care and will never care because they are celestial beings.

     

     

    Despite all the devastations they have caused, the celestial beings are still coming to our small little planet in more numbers with no mercy or SHAME.

     

     

    The Arab Springs was caused by these celestial beings and all of them now youthful and full of energy. All the people who participated in the demonstration in Yemen, Egypt and Syria they were all celestial beings.

     

     

    They came to planet Earth and found everyone had a house, job…etc and nothing was left for them. As a result, they had no choice but to work for low wages and as their numbers grow and could not find jobs, they started to stand in the streets and sell things on benches. But they kept coming and growing in numbers. When their conditions worsened further, some burned themselves and all their comrades came in massive numbers to demonstrate in anger against the economic situation.

     

     

    These celestial beings will destroy all countries one after one. At the end, the governments will collapse under their constant revolts, then it will be a lawless land governed by chaos and criminal originations and there is no solution to the celestial beings because their existence on planet earth is the problem.

     

     

    The population explosion in the third world countries if not stopped now, and I mean now at this very moment of time, by forcing by power of law the birth control, all the third world countries will become the poorest countries in the world. The poor will revolt in revolutions one after the other until the third world countries becomes a big Somalia where everybody kills anybody. Finally what will prevail is poverty, fear, horror and death and the third world countries will become a syrup of chaos.

     

     

    This will not be in the third world countries only it will be in all southern countries of this planet, so the syrup of chaos will prevail and this syrup will start to spillover the rich low populated northern countries of planet earth (Europe and America), then it too will be infected by this Monster and then all planet earth will go into an all-out distraction. It will be like hell, it will be much greater than the biblical scale.

     

     

    If we take in consideration, the other three Monsters – the oil peak, the global warming and the financial collapse, which will all hit in 10 years-time simultaneously— we realize that we are moving full speed to a collision which will turn planet Earth into doomsday.

     

     

    If the north does not go now and I mean now to the United Nations and make a law that every country should not exceed its land bearing capacity or face international food blockade, and if any country is already over capacity it must take measures to reduce its population through mandatory birth control, and if it does not it will be blockaded.

     

     

    If these measures are not taken, let us all kiss goodbye happy life, and lets all say hello to doomsday and no one should cry when he finds himself in the middle of HELL.

     

     KASIM SALEH BRISM
    What really amaze me truly amaze me is why all media all over the world is silent about this overpopulation catastrophe. As if there is a conspiracy to destroy mankind.

    David Suzuki blasts media on climate change reporting

    Any country says our religion forbid population control and God will feed us. We tell those well lets blocked you and see if God will feed you if he does so it is good for you.. you don’t have to pay for the import of your food any more it will come to you free from God. Therefore blockading you is good for you.. you should be happy about it.

    NATO Review – Cooking for the planet, climate change and food security (with subtitles: English)

    Save our planet now or it will be too late. It is simple. One Planet One Child.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpjN2er8V54&list=PL811CD932F936221B&index=57

    Climate change the state of the science (data visualization)
    Years of Living Dangerously Premiere Full Episode

    Jared Diamond: Why societies collapse

    Collapse (Part 1)

    Time is Running Out: Ecology or Economics?” – David Suzuki – May 6,

    Age of Manipulation

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gfql4DZUek

    We are fighting a losing war against climate change. Because what ever we will do population explosion will eat it instantly
    What we should do is fight population explosion which will make our world collapse soon
    Home beautiful Home. I am so sad we are going to lose it in 10 years from now.
    If all nations don’t go to UN and make mandate forcing all countries to keep population to bearing capacity.
    And force berth control and any country over populated does not force birth control will be sanctioned
    Without these measures Western Civilization will collapse soon, if the Western Civilization collapses the whole world will collapse. Because it is the backbone of mankind.
    Stop population explosion and instantly all these will seize to exist. poverty, disease, poor countries, war & sadness water scarcity
    Hoto & Tutsi killings of 800000 is because of population explosion. If they where only Hoto they still would have killed each other.

    overpopulation is the root cause of all evil. The evil behind all evils is overpopulation.

  • Carbon capture and storage enters the twilight zone

    02 Jul 2014
    Home  »  Uncategorized   »   Carbon capture and storage enters the twilight zone

    Carbon capture and storage enters the twilight zone

    Posted in Uncategorized By Neville On July 2, 2014

    27 Jun 2014
    Home  »  Uncategorized   »   Carbon capture and storage enters the twilight zone

    Carbon capture and storage enters the twilight zone

    Posted in Uncategorized By Neville On June 27, 2014

    twilight zone

    Carbon capture and storage enters the twilight zone

    Posted in Uncategorized By Neville On June 26, 2014

     

    Carbon capture and storage enters the twilight zone

    By on 26 June 2014
    Print Friendly

    In its latest annual review of the ailing prospects for the deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), the International Energy Agency’s Clean Coal Centre (IEA CCC) has tentatively suggested that the cost of developing and deploying the expensive technology should be paid for by coal, oil and gas producers. It is, however, a suggestion guaranteed to be rejected by the coal industry which has most to lose.

    carbonThe glum title of the IEA CCC’s latest review –What’s in store for CCS? – is symptomatic of the gloom enveloping even the most ardent supporters of CCS. In their review, which was released earlier this week, the IEA CCC complains that “CCS investment, demonstration projects and large-scale deployment are well behind the targets envisaged by analysts, governments and industry”.

    One of the key factors in the slow rate of construction of demonstration plants has been the decade long tug of war over who carries the costs for CCS: fossil fuel producers, the companies that burn the fossil fuels or taxpayers? Or a mix of all three?

    For coal companies the widespread equipping of coal-fired power plants with CCS plants would be a boon.

    In an April 2013 presentation, the Policy Manager of the World Coal Association, Aleksandra Tomczak, explained (page 12) that “if CCS is viable and carbon prices high, coal power can be competitive with gas.” Even though CCS is far from being “viable” without taxpayer subsidies and the coal industry vehemently opposes “high” carbon prices, Tomczak bluntly pointed out a potential upside for coal companies: “coal demand further boosted by increase in coal consumption per GW [gigawatt] vs straight coal”. Estimates vary, but CCS plants could require an extra 20-30% more coal to produce the same power output.

    What is good about CCS for coal companies though is bad for utilities.

    The extra capital cost of a CCS increases the financing cost, not to mention the extra operational costs of increased coal and water consumption and the disposal costs of the compressed carbon dioxide in underground storage areas, if they exist in close proximity to the power plants.

    All up, the extra costs of CCS make coal-fired plans with the technology very expensive when designed into new plants. Earlier this year the US Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that based on current technology to capture 90-95 per cent of the carbon dioxide in waste stream would increase wholesale power prices by approximately 70 to 80 percent.  The costs of retrofitting CCS to existing plants, let alone those in old age, would be prohibitive.

    As the costs and difficulty of developing CCS have become apparent, utilities have become exceedingly wary of carrying the coal industry’s can. But if utilities don’t want to fund it, who will?

    For the best part of a decade the coal industry persuaded a number of governments to pledge to fund various R&D projects, map potential underground storage reservoirs, run pro-CCS PR campaigns and fund some test scale projects.

    Despite the expenditure of billions of dollars many projects have faltered while some in the US and Europe struggle on. The Global Financial Crisis and austerity budgets sapped the financial commitment of some governments. Even some of the hardest line pro-coal governments – such as that led by Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot – have retreated from funding new CCS projects.

    New factors are in play too. In major economies the era of building new coal plants is all but over with electricity demand stalling, if not declining. The rise of renewables is depressing wholesale market prices while energy efficiency and rooftop solar are further cannibalising the profitable peak power spikes. The economic assumptions which underpinned the optimism towards CCS a decade ago have changed profoundly.

    Which is why the IEA CCC’s notes in its report that “in the case of power plants, operating in highly competitive electricity markets, special power purchase agreements including electricity price agreements are likely to be needed.” In other words, to be viable in the power sector, CCS needs to propped up by being shielded from falling wholesale electricity prices, which is precisely what energy efficiency and renewables deliver.

    The coal industry’s dilemma – to love or leave CCS?

    But having hyped the potential of CCS for the best part of twenty years, coal industry lobby groups now find themselves in a bind.

    In a historically coal-addicted country such as Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) – which represents major coal companies such as BHP Billiton, Peabody Energy and Rio Tinto – hyped CCS as a solution to the greenhouse gas emissions of coal plants.  But even the MCA now cautions that “the cancellation or postponement of some CCS demonstration projects in Australia and around the world is not unexpected, particularly given global economic uncertainties, and should not be taken to reflect a failure of the technology itself.”

    At the same time, the National Mining Association (NMA) in the US – which represents some of the same companies as the MCA – recently launched an advertising campaign arguing against the Obama administration proposal requiring CCS to capture part of carbon dioxide emissions would dramatically push up electricity prices.

    Where once the coal industry had successfully sold the idea to policy makers and most commentators that CCS was an inescapable element of any emissions reduction strategy, that idea is now falling from favour.

    Three weeks ago Jonas Rooze, an analyst from Bloomberg New Energy Finance Europe said that they hadn’t included CCS-fitted power plants in their European generation scenario “because we don’t really see enough evidence of it happening enough to be relevant to our forecast.”

    If utilities don’t want to fund it and many governments are at best luke-warm to it, who is left?

    In the absence of better options the IEA’s CCC has floated the idea that fossil fuel industry itself should be the ones contributing most to the cost of developing CCS.

    For the thermal coal industry, most of which is struggling with low profit margins and in the midst of a vicious round of cost-cutting, the idea of stumping up billions of dollars for a technology that may never be viable is implausible.

    Nor is the gas industry, which has taken great pains to push coal to the fore as the fossil fuel industry’s bad boy, likely to come to the rescue of its rival.

    In the absence of enthusiastic deep-pocketed sponsors, CCS is gradually being pushed off into the twilight zone where it is likely to quietly fade away when existing government funded programs run out of cash.

    Bob Burton is a Contributing Editor of CoalSwarm and a Director of the Sunrise Project, a non-profit group promoting a shift away from fossil fuels. With Guy Pearse and David McKnight he co-authored Big Coal: Australia’s Dirtiest Habit. Bob Burton’s Twitter feed is here.

    02 Jul 2014
    Home  »  Uncategorized   »   Carbon capture and storage enters the twilight zone

    Carbon capture and storage enters the twilight zone

    Posted in Uncategorized By Neville On July 2, 2014

    27 Jun 2014
    Home  »  Uncategorized   »   Carbon capture and storage enters the twilight zone

    Carbon capture and storage enters the twilight zone

    Posted in Uncategorized By Neville On June 27, 2014

    twilight zone

    Carbon capture and storage enters the twilight zone

    Posted in Uncategorized By Neville On June 26, 2014

     

    Carbon capture and storage enters the twilight zone

    By on 26 June 2014
    Print Friendly

    In its latest annual review of the ailing prospects for the deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), the International Energy Agency’s Clean Coal Centre (IEA CCC) has tentatively suggested that the cost of developing and deploying the expensive technology should be paid for by coal, oil and gas producers. It is, however, a suggestion guaranteed to be rejected by the coal industry which has most to lose.

    carbonThe glum title of the IEA CCC’s latest review –What’s in store for CCS? – is symptomatic of the gloom enveloping even the most ardent supporters of CCS. In their review, which was released earlier this week, the IEA CCC complains that “CCS investment, demonstration projects and large-scale deployment are well behind the targets envisaged by analysts, governments and industry”.

    One of the key factors in the slow rate of construction of demonstration plants has been the decade long tug of war over who carries the costs for CCS: fossil fuel producers, the companies that burn the fossil fuels or taxpayers? Or a mix of all three?

    For coal companies the widespread equipping of coal-fired power plants with CCS plants would be a boon.

    In an April 2013 presentation, the Policy Manager of the World Coal Association, Aleksandra Tomczak, explained (page 12) that “if CCS is viable and carbon prices high, coal power can be competitive with gas.” Even though CCS is far from being “viable” without taxpayer subsidies and the coal industry vehemently opposes “high” carbon prices, Tomczak bluntly pointed out a potential upside for coal companies: “coal demand further boosted by increase in coal consumption per GW [gigawatt] vs straight coal”. Estimates vary, but CCS plants could require an extra 20-30% more coal to produce the same power output.

    What is good about CCS for coal companies though is bad for utilities.

    The extra capital cost of a CCS increases the financing cost, not to mention the extra operational costs of increased coal and water consumption and the disposal costs of the compressed carbon dioxide in underground storage areas, if they exist in close proximity to the power plants.

    All up, the extra costs of CCS make coal-fired plans with the technology very expensive when designed into new plants. Earlier this year the US Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that based on current technology to capture 90-95 per cent of the carbon dioxide in waste stream would increase wholesale power prices by approximately 70 to 80 percent.  The costs of retrofitting CCS to existing plants, let alone those in old age, would be prohibitive.

    As the costs and difficulty of developing CCS have become apparent, utilities have become exceedingly wary of carrying the coal industry’s can. But if utilities don’t want to fund it, who will?

    For the best part of a decade the coal industry persuaded a number of governments to pledge to fund various R&D projects, map potential underground storage reservoirs, run pro-CCS PR campaigns and fund some test scale projects.

    Despite the expenditure of billions of dollars many projects have faltered while some in the US and Europe struggle on. The Global Financial Crisis and austerity budgets sapped the financial commitment of some governments. Even some of the hardest line pro-coal governments – such as that led by Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot – have retreated from funding new CCS projects.

    New factors are in play too. In major economies the era of building new coal plants is all but over with electricity demand stalling, if not declining. The rise of renewables is depressing wholesale market prices while energy efficiency and rooftop solar are further cannibalising the profitable peak power spikes. The economic assumptions which underpinned the optimism towards CCS a decade ago have changed profoundly.

    Which is why the IEA CCC’s notes in its report that “in the case of power plants, operating in highly competitive electricity markets, special power purchase agreements including electricity price agreements are likely to be needed.” In other words, to be viable in the power sector, CCS needs to propped up by being shielded from falling wholesale electricity prices, which is precisely what energy efficiency and renewables deliver.

    The coal industry’s dilemma – to love or leave CCS?

    But having hyped the potential of CCS for the best part of twenty years, coal industry lobby groups now find themselves in a bind.

    In a historically coal-addicted country such as Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) – which represents major coal companies such as BHP Billiton, Peabody Energy and Rio Tinto – hyped CCS as a solution to the greenhouse gas emissions of coal plants.  But even the MCA now cautions that “the cancellation or postponement of some CCS demonstration projects in Australia and around the world is not unexpected, particularly given global economic uncertainties, and should not be taken to reflect a failure of the technology itself.”

    At the same time, the National Mining Association (NMA) in the US – which represents some of the same companies as the MCA – recently launched an advertising campaign arguing against the Obama administration proposal requiring CCS to capture part of carbon dioxide emissions would dramatically push up electricity prices.

    Where once the coal industry had successfully sold the idea to policy makers and most commentators that CCS was an inescapable element of any emissions reduction strategy, that idea is now falling from favour.

    Three weeks ago Jonas Rooze, an analyst from Bloomberg New Energy Finance Europe said that they hadn’t included CCS-fitted power plants in their European generation scenario “because we don’t really see enough evidence of it happening enough to be relevant to our forecast.”

    If utilities don’t want to fund it and many governments are at best luke-warm to it, who is left?

    In the absence of better options the IEA’s CCC has floated the idea that fossil fuel industry itself should be the ones contributing most to the cost of developing CCS.

    For the thermal coal industry, most of which is struggling with low profit margins and in the midst of a vicious round of cost-cutting, the idea of stumping up billions of dollars for a technology that may never be viable is implausible.

    Nor is the gas industry, which has taken great pains to push coal to the fore as the fossil fuel industry’s bad boy, likely to come to the rescue of its rival.

    In the absence of enthusiastic deep-pocketed sponsors, CCS is gradually being pushed off into the twilight zone where it is likely to quietly fade away when existing government funded programs run out of cash.

    Bob Burton is a Contributing Editor of CoalSwarm and a Director of the Sunrise Project, a non-profit group promoting a shift away from fossil fuels. With Guy Pearse and David McKnight he co-authored Big Coal: Australia’s Dirtiest Habit. Bob Burton’s Twitter feed is here.