A coal-fired future?

To combat rising greenhouse gas emissions the federal government wants Australia to move towards nuclear energy, which will produce wastes that remain radioactive for billions of years. Many of us don’t want this to happen, which moves the focus to the lesser of the two non-renewable evils: coal.

Like it or not, coal is extremely important to the Australian economy. Last year Australia made $24 billion from coal exports and 77–85 per cent of our electricity was produced by burning coal. While coal is the cheapest way to produce electricity it is also the dirtiest. Climate change scientist and Australian of the Year Tim Flannery believes there are better methods for electricity production than burning coal, which he sees as ‘one of the more antique and stupid ways of doing it’. The reality is that Australia is not going to walk away from coal and the billions of dollars it brings to our economy each year. This means we must look at burning coal and dealing with CO2 emissions.

Both sides of politics are looking towards clean coal. But what exactly is it? As it currently stands, the term ‘clean coal’ is an oxymoron. A more accurate and appropriate description is ‘slightly less dirty coal’. In its crudest definition, it is coal which is burnt more efficiently by power plants, leading to a slight reduction in CO2 emissions. To better understand clean coal, it is easier to split it into two key parts: ‘slightly cleaner coal’ and ‘geosequestration’.

Slightly cleaner coal

Techniques that fall under the ‘slightly cleaner coal’ banner include:

• coal gasification, where coal is converted into a gas before it is burnt
• drying brown coal so that it will burn more efficiently, and
• ‘scrubbing’ CO2 from the smoke that leaves the smoke stacks of coal-fired power stations (known as Post Combustion Capture)
  

The Clean Coal in a Sustainable Society report explains that most of the new clean coal technologies produce 10–20 per cent lower emissions than traditional methods. For the typical coal-fired power plant, this means a saving of 800 tonnes out of the 8000 tonnes of CO2 emitted each year. This is a long way from an annual CO2 reduction of 70 per cent by 2050, which Tim Flannery says needs to occur. Or the 60 per cent reduction target the Australian Labor Party (ALP) announced it will set if they are in government.

Geosequestration

For clean coal technologies to have any significant impact on reducing climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, we must turn to geosequestration, which is a fancy term meaning the underground storage of CO2 produced by power plants.

In geosequestration, CO2 is captured from smoke stacks and compressed to the point where it acts more like a liquid than a gas (this is called super critical fluid for jargon buffs). It is then pumped underground into stable rock beds or saline aquifers which will not be used as a future water source.

In February 2007 a major research program undertaken by the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC) began in South Australia’s Otway Basin to determine whether CO2 can be safely stored underground. If the Centre finds that this is the case then majority of our CO2 from coal-fired power plants can be stored underground.

The cost factor

All of the techniques outlined above could be put into production immediately. We have the technology to clean up coal and bury CO2, but it will mean an increase in the cost of coal-powered electricity. If you believe BHP, prices could increase by between 30 and 40 per cent, however the CSIRO argues it could mean as much as a 100 per cent increase. So close to an election, it’s hard to imagine either of the major parties announcing a measure that could lead to a dramatic increase in the cost of electricity.

Clean coal (including geosequestration) needs to occur sooner rather than later. Currently there are 430 parts per million (ppm) of greenhouse gases, including CO2, in the atmosphere. Tim Flannery argues that 450 ppm is the threshold from which there is no chance of preventing uncontrollable climate change. In recent years, greenhouse gases have been accumulating at a rate of 2–3 ppm each year. This trend needs to be slowed or reversed, so clean coal has to happen now, irrespective of the cost.

Will my vote affect the future of clean coal?

Both the major parties believe that coal has a huge part to play in our future energy production, providing we can ‘clean up’ the coal we use. So similar are the $500 million investment policies of the two parties, that federal Minister for Resources, Ian Macfarlane, has accused the ALP of copying its policies. There is only one major difference—the ALP wants clean coal to contribute to Australia’s electricity grid by 2020, while the Coalition is not prepared to set a deadline.

Bob Brown, Leader of the Greens, believes that clean coal technologies may be too expensive and too slow to make an impact on reducing our CO2 emissions. He believes that ‘the search for clean coal may turn out to be the search to turn lead into gold’, referring to the fact that by the time we can deliver clean, coal-powered electricity at competitive prices (2020 at best, more realistically 2030–2050), it may be too late for it to have an impact on preventing irreversible climate change.

Final thoughts

It’s time to move forward and show that we are serious about fighting climate change and enforce the geosequestration of CO2 emissions from coal. Not only will we see reduced emissions, but an increase to the cost of coal-powered electricity will foster competition—electricity produced from renewable sources will no longer be significantly more expensive than coal-powered electricity—further promoting clean energy production in Australia.

Will clean coal lead to a 100 per cent increase in our electricity bills? Probably not. When faced with high electricity prices, households will probably adjust by becoming more efficient users of electricity. Will the cost of electricity increase a little? Probably. But this is a small price to pay to prevent runaway greenhouse from ruining the planet not only for future generations, but also ours.

How do I know this?

ABC News 2007, ‘Greens Say Labor wasting Money with Clean Coal’, ABC News Online, 25 February, http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1856396.htm  

Australian Coal Association 2002, Greenhouse Related Coal Utilisation Research in Australia, www.australiancoal.com.au  

Alberici, E & Donovan, S 2007, ‘BHP Releases Climate Change Policy’, ABC News Online, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/18/1954574.htm  

Coal in a Sustainable Society, Comparing greenhouse gas emissions from different energy sources, www.ciss.com.au  

Coorey, M2007, ‘Australia should lead the energy revolution’, Cosmos, 24 January, www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/987  

Harrison, E2007, ‘Power: by the numbers’ COSMOS, Issue 16

Insight SBS 2007, ‘Power Games’, Transcript, 31 July 2007, http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/archive.php?archive=1&artmon=7&arty=2007#   

Macfarlane, I and Turnbull, M 2007, ‘Additional $100 million boost to clean coal’ Media Release, 12 March

Monbiot, G 2005, Heat: How to stop the planet burning, Penguin Books, London.

Nowak, R 2007, ‘Biggest carbon-burial test will hunt for leaks’, New Scientist, 16 February, http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11197-biggest-carbinburial-test-will-hunt-for-leaks.html  

Robson, A2007, ‘Clean coal is all hot air‘, Courier Mail,  26 March, http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21443109-27197,00.html  

Rudd, K 2007 ‘Introductory speech’, National Climate Change Summit, http://climatesolutions.alp.org.au/downloads.php      

Scott, R 2007,‘Tim Flannery on climate change’, The University of Melbourne Voice, Vol. 1, No. 14 http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/unarticleid_4627.html