The immediate answer is gas ?  

Posted by Big Gav in ,

The SMH has an article arguing the gas lobby's case for gas as a "transition fuel" to a clean energy future (part of the ongoing fight between the gas and nuclear power industries as they try to retain dominance while holding off the renewable energy industry for as long as possible) - Coal and nuclear just hot air, the immediate answer is gas.

Western Australia at least has avoided this path. On Thursday the state's energy retailer Synergy, after tendering for 638 megawatts of generation capacity from 2011, rejected proposals to build new coal-fired power stations including listed the Aviva Corporation's Coolimba coal-fired plant with CCS at Eneabba, between Perth and Geraldton, and Griffin Energy's Bluewaters projects at Collie.

State-owned Verve Energy, which is building two high-efficiency 100MW gas turbines at its Kwinana power station, won the tender instead. Synergy said it was considering wind farm proposals to meet the state's 20 per cent renewable energy target. It has signed agreements with geothermal and wave developers including Carnegie Wave Energy, which will build its first commercial 5MW wave power station at Garden Island, south of Fremantle.

But new coal-fired power stations are still proposed elsewhere. The Queensland Government has backed the Wandoan Power Project to build a new, 400MW integrated gasification combined cycle coal-fired power station, which it is hoped will capture and store 90 per cent of its CO2 emissions - somewhere, at some stage. Wandoan is one of the projects likely to receive funding under the Federal Government's $2.4 billion CCS Flagships program, and if it goes ahead construction will be completed in 2015-16.

More substantially the NSW Government, as part of its electricity privatisation, plans two major new baseload power stations to be built at Mount Piper near Lithgow and Bayswater near Muswellbrook. It's still not decided whether these new stations, each of about 2000MW capacity, will be fuelled by gas or coal - if the later, again, supposedly ''CCS-ready''.

The Business Spectator blogger Keith Orchison called this the largest electricity generation development in the state for almost 20 years and, quoting an unnamed industry source, observed drily a decision to build a new coal-fired power station in NSW would be a "a dog fight with a large audience".

Let us pray for sanity and assume these new stations are built with gas turbines, following the pattern of recent years in which ever-larger projects have been commissioned, such as Origin Energy's 630MW gas-fired power station at Queensland's Darling Downs or its 1100MW power plant at Mortlake, south-western Victoria.

The second challenge is to retire the worst polluting coal-fired power stations, principally the old brown-coal fired power stations in Latrobe Valley, Victoria, such as Hazelwood and Yallourn. In an outrageous request on the public purse, the owners of these power stations, including the foreign giants International Power and China Light and Power, want a ''bail-out''. They argue that if they get an additional $6.5 billion or so of taxpayers' money, on top of the $3.5 billion in free permits they are getting under the proposed emissions trading scheme, they may reinvest some of it in new gas turbines. They should get short shrift; better off building the new plant ourselves and floating it, just like the new broadband network. But given our debased emissions trading negotiations, they will probably get everything they want and repatriate the money quick smart.

There is no doubting the benefits of a switch to gas, as part of a transition to renewables. Mark Wakeham of Environment Victoria says converting Hazelwood to gas could be done in two years and would reduce plant emissions by 75 per cent, from 17 million tonnes to just 4 million tonnes of CO2 a year, and greatly reducing water use.

It would cut Victoria's emissions by more than 10 per cent in one fell swoop. The problem is, converting to gas-fired power stations in the Latrobe Valley will employ fewer people because there will be no need to mine brown coal. Hence the State Government's urgent need to pretend something better can be done with the stuff. Turn it to fertiliser? Dry it out and ship it to India? Never mind the environment, hard heads doubt these proposals can ever stack up commercially.


Throw into the mix the fact that (at least some) gas turbines can be spun from stopped to full speed in less than 15 minutes.

Installing gas turbines now can be a way to shut down the dirtiest of coal plant and avoiding building more coal plants.

Then, as we add more wind and solar to our grids the turbines can be used for backup power when renewables aren't meeting demand.

(We're getting a new set of turbines installed here on the CA North Coast. It's part of the larger plan that will bring a large wind farm to the area.)

Forgot about hybrid gas/thermal solar turbines.

Run the turbines as much as possible on solar produced steam, switch to NG when the sun goes away.

That creates a gas turbine system that uses 25% or so less gas (and produces less CO2) and makes thermal solar much more affordable because the turbines aren't sitting idle for large parts of the day.

Yes - though its only a stopgap fix - it won't work forever...

Stopgap might not be the best word. Perhaps transition might be more appropriate.

Natural gas, wind, and solar can be installed quite rapidly and can get us off of coal faster than any other method that I know about.

(Throw in a very large measure of efficiency as well. And co-generation.)

Then as we reduce our need for natural gas we can start replacing a meaningful percentage with biogas from sewage systems, agricultural wastes, manure, etc.

I don't know about other parts of the globe but here in the US we have recently discovered that we have a great deal more NG than we realized. It can well be our route away from coal.

(You guys down there are a lot further along with geothermal. That's my ideal long term solution but we've got drilling issues to solve....)

We've got plenty of gas to, and I have no problem with biogas, but burning all our gas doesn't seem like a good use for it, and doesn't help the carbon problem either (yes, its better than coal - but only 50% better).

Well, the immediate need is not to eliminate burning sequestered carbon, but to greatly cut the amount of carbon released.

Each unit of electricity produced by NG is a 50% cut in released carbon. And, unlike coal plants, you can shut down gas turbines when demand is low. Coal plants are kept spinning 24 hours a day even if there is no use for the power, so we would probably get a greater than 50% cut in emissions.

(Plus giving us the firming ability to bring more wind and solar to the grid.)

Post a Comment


Locations of visitors to this page

blogspot visitor
Stat Counter

Total Pageviews




Blog Archive


australia (615) global warming (415) solar power (388) peak oil (351) renewable energy (285) electric vehicles (240) wind power (190) ocean energy (165) csp (158) geothermal energy (144) solar thermal power (144) smart grids (140) tidal power (137) oil (136) energy storage (134) solar pv (132) coal seam gas (131) nuclear power (127) lng (116) china (115) iraq (113) geothermal power (112) green buildings (110) natural gas (110) agriculture (90) oil price (80) biofuel (78) wave power (73) smart meters (72) uk (69) coal (67) electricity grid (67) energy efficiency (64) google (58) bicycle (51) internet (51) big brother (49) shale gas (49) surveillance (49) food prices (48) thin film solar (42) tesla (41) biomimicry (40) canada (40) scotland (38) ocean power (37) politics (37) shale oil (37) new zealand (35) air transport (34) algae (34) water (34) concentrating solar power (33) arctic ice (32) queensland (32) saudi arabia (32) california (31) credit crunch (31) bioplastic (30) offshore wind power (30) population (30) cogeneration (28) geoengineering (28) batteries (26) drought (26) resource wars (26) woodside (26) bruce sterling (25) censorship (25) cleantech (25) ctl (23) carbon tax (22) economics (22) exxon (22) limits to growth (22) buckminster fuller (21) distributed manufacturing (21) iraq oil law (21) lithium (21) coal to liquids (20) indonesia (20) origin energy (20) brightsource (19) rail transport (19) ultracapacitor (19) santos (18) ausra (17) electric bikes (17) michael klare (17) atlantis (16) cellulosic ethanol (16) collapse (16) iceland (16) mapping (16) ucg (16) bees (15) concentrating solar thermal power (15) ethanol (15) geodynamics (15) lithium ion batteries (15) psychology (15) al gore (14) brazil (14) bucky fuller (14) carbon emissions (14) fertiliser (14) ambient energy (13) biodiesel (13) cities (13) investment (13) kenya (13) matthew simmons (13) public transport (13) biochar (12) chile (12) desertec (12) internet of things (12) otec (12) texas (12) victoria (12) big oil (11) cradle to cradle (11) energy policy (11) hybrid car (11) terra preta (11) tinfoil (11) toyota (11) amory lovins (10) antarctica (10) fabber (10) gazprom (10) goldman sachs (10) gtl (10) severn estuary (10) volt (10) afghanistan (9) alaska (9) biomass (9) carbon trading (9) distributed generation (9) esolar (9) four day week (9) fuel cells (9) jeremy leggett (9) pge (9) sweden (9) arrow energy (8) eroei (8) fish (8) floating offshore wind power (8) guerilla gardening (8) linc energy (8) methane (8) methane hydrates (8) nanosolar (8) natural gas pipelines (8) pentland firth (8) relocalisation (8) saul griffith (8) stirling engine (8) us elections (8) western australia (8) airborne wind turbines (7) bloom energy (7) boeing (7) bolivia (7) chp (7) climategate (7) copenhagen (7) vinod khosla (7) apocaphilia (6) ceramic fuel cells (6) cigs (6) futurism (6) jatropha (6) local currencies (6) nigeria (6) ocean acidification (6) scenario planning (6) somalia (6) t boone pickens (6) space based solar power (5) varanus island (5) garbage (4) global energy grid (4) kevin kelly (4) low temperature geothermal power (4) oled (4) tim flannery (4) v2g (4) club of rome (3) norman borlaug (2) peak oil portfolio (1)