EnErgy nEws - aie.org.au · EnErgy nEws Official JOurnal Of the australian institute Of energy Vol....

Web www.aie.org.auPrint Post Approved — PP 326043/00001

EnErgy nEwsOfficial JOurnal Of the australian institute Of energy Vol. 24 No. 4 December 2006

•Energy at the Crossroads

•Energy in WA

•Student Awards

•Fusion Energy

•Geothermal Energy

•Stack Emissions

Plus•Special Feature:

Carbon Capture and Storage

In this Issuebumper

^

A I E BOArD

(Office bearers to be elected at the board meeting in March 2007)

David Allardice Ph: (03) 9874 1280 Mobile: 0418 100 361 email: [email protected]

Tony Forster Forster Engineering Services Ph: (03) 9796 8161 email: [email protected]

Rob Fowler Abatement Solutions – Asia Pacific Ph: (02) 8347 0883 Mobile: 0402 298 569 email: [email protected]

Paul McGregor McGregor & Associates Ph: (02) 9418 9544 email: [email protected]

Malcolm Messenger Messenger Consulting Group Ph: (08) 8361 2155 email: [email protected]

Colin Paulson Ph: (02) 4393 1110 Mobile: 0422 030 830 email: [email protected]

Tony Vassallo Ph: (02) 9810 2216 email: [email protected]

Gerry Watts Ph: (03) 6288 1397 Mobile: 0418 352 543 email: [email protected]

BRANCH REPRESENTATIVESBRISBANE Andrew Dicks Ph: (07) 3365.3699 mail: [email protected]

CANBERRA To be advised

PERTH Murray Meaton Economics Consulting Services Ph: (08) 9315 9969 email: [email protected]

EDITORJoy Claridge PO Box 298, Brighton, VIC 3186 Ph: (03) 9530 6258 Mobile: 0402 078 071 email: [email protected]

SECRETARIATAustralian Institute of Energy PO Box 534, Raymond Terrace, NSW 2324 Ph: 1800 629 945 Fax: (02) 4964 9599 email [email protected]

77 EnErgy nEws Vol 24 no. 4, December 2006

THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ENERGY

Energy News

JOURNAL CORRESPONDENCEJoy Claridge PO Box 298 Brighton, VIC 3186 email: [email protected]

ADVERTISINGMembers (and non-members) may place advertisements in Energy News on behalf of themselves or their organisations. If you wish to use this opportunity contact:Research Publications Pty Ltd, Phone: (03) 9873 1450, Fax: (03) 9873 0100 Email: [email protected]

Advertisements can include products, services, consulting, and positions vacant and required.

Discounts are available for members and for all advertisements repeated in two or more issues.

SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATIONEnergy News is published by The Australian Institute of Energy and is provided to all members as part of the membership subscription. Non-members may obtain copies of this journal by contacting either the Secretary or the Editor.

CONTRIBUTORS WELCOMEArticles on energy matters, letters to the editor, personal notes and photographs of those involved in the energy sector are most welcome.

PUBLISHED BYThe Australian Institute of Energy, ABN 95 001 509 173

Registered Office78 Masonite Road, Tomago, NSW 2322Postal AddressPO Box 534, Raymond Terrace, NSW 2324Telephone/FacsimileToll Free: 1800 629 945 Facsimile: (02) 4964 9599 email: [email protected] Addresshttp://www.aie.org.au

Print Post Approved No. PP 32604/00001

DISCLAIMERAlthough publication of articles submitted is at the sole and absolute discretion of the Australian Institute of Energy, statements made in this journal do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute.

ISSN 1445-2227 (International Standard Serial Number allocated by the National Library of Australia)

CONTENTS

83

106

President’s Message 78

National Conference 79

Around the Branches

Fusion Energy & ITER 84

Geothermal Energy in Victoria 86

Energy in WA 88

DaimlerChrysler’s Roadmap 89

Power Station Stack Gas Emissions 90

NSW-ACT Student Awards 95

Special Feature

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) 96

Hydrogen Matters

Company Member Profile

testo Pty Ltd 107

Young Energy Professionals

AIE Member Profile

Reviews

Solar Radiation Data Handbook 110

Response Ability 110

Who Killed the Electric Car? 111

108

109


Conference Congratulations

Tony Forster, President of the Australian Institute of Energy

President’s Message

The Australian Institute of Energy hosted its National Energy Conference 2006 in Melbourne in November. The conference theme, Energy at the Crossroads, reflected the difficult energy choices facing Australia. Its timing coincided with considerable public debate on nuclear energy and carbon trading. It was also immediately preceded by the eighth G20 meeting in Melbourne, where energy policy was identified as

a major factor in ‘building and sustaining prosperity’. I would like to congratulate the AIE conference organising committee for a highly successful conference. See pages 79-82 in this issue and the March 2007 issue of Energy News for reports on the conference.

This issue includes a report on the 7th Energy in Western Australia Conference, and if your interest is hydrogen, see the call for sponsors of the 17th World Hydrogen Energy Conference in 2008 on the back cover. The AIE will be hosting this conference which will cover a wide range of technical issues; from how hydrogen is safely produced, stored, transported and utilised, to broader topics such as environment, education and regulatory developments.

On the subject of major events, it appears that only the Hydrogen Division knows that the Calendar exists in the journal! If you know of any major events of interest to members coming up in 2007 or early 2008, let the editor know. The journal is one way for our widespread membership to communicate with each other.

Another way to communicate is through groups with like interests or, as in the case of the YEPs, a similar age group. You may recall from September issue of Energy News that Sydney Branch formed a group of Young Energy Professionals. I commend this initiative and encourage the establishment of YEP groups in other branches. Interested members should contact Debborah Marsh by emailing [email protected]. Debborah is profiled in this issue of the journal which features the first of a regular contribution from our younger membership.

I recommend the special feature on carbon capture and storage in this issue. The special feature is a new initiative and we hope it will generate more excellent contributions on key energy topics. See the Call for Contributions below for the topics and how to participate next year. Please consider making a contribution in 2007.

Finally, I wish all members a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Erratum: Figure 2 on page 58 of Vol. 24 No. 3, September 2006 Energy News is incorrectly captioned as Shell’s IGCC plant. It is, in fact, an Ecolgas plant which uses the Prenflo gasification process.

Energy News is very pleased with the response to the call for contributions on carbon capture and storage for this issue of the journal, and now plans to include special features in each issue of Energy News in 2007. Topics will be:

March 2007 Nuclear PowerJune 2007 Emissions TradingSeptember 2007 Energy EfficiencyDecember 2007 Energy and Water

The aim is to include at least two articles, and not more than four, that will give members a better understanding of the topic. Ideally, we would like to present the different aspects of the topic and the different viewpoints in the

relevant debate. The recently released draft report from the Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review Taskforce should be a stimulus for submissions to the March 2007 feature.

Contributions should be approximately 1,500 words in length; in ‘Word’ or compatible format; and may include illustrations (original format) and photographs (jpegs of minimum 300 dpi resolution preferred).

Please send contributions for the March 2007 issue by no later than 26 January 2007 to AIE Communications Sub-Committee Chair, Rob Fowler, at [email protected]. For further information, call Rob on (02) 8347 0883.

Call for Contributions


Energy at the Crossroads

“The conference theme, Energy at the Crossroads, reflects the difficult energy choices facing Australia in the immediate future,” said AIE President Tony Forster in his opening remarks at the AIE National Conference 2006.

“The AIE’s objective is to facilitate informed debate on the important choices to be made by providing a balanced program covering the issues from various perspectives such as social policy, economic and technical, with time allocated for discussion.”

Following a very pleasant welcome reception on the Monday evening, approximately 170 delegates enjoyed the 48 papers and 26 postgraduate student posters over two days. Feedback from delegates confirmed that the conference was a great success due to the diverse and relevant program and the relaxed and friendly atmosphere. The success of the conference was in no small part due to the generosity and participation of the sponsors:

GOLD Shell Australia

SILVER ExxonMobil EPA Victoria Victorian Government

BRONZE CSIRO Australian Greenhouse Office Hydro Tasmania Monash Energy

On both days, the conference commenced with plenary sessions under the title, The Road Ahead. Speakers and their titles were:

Russell Caplan, Chairman, Shell in Australia

The Energy Challenge

Greg Bourne, CEO, WWF–Australia

Climate Change — the problems and pointers to solutions

Chris Goodes, Chief Advisor–Energy, Rio Tinto

An Energy Supplier’s View of the Market

Ian Lowe, President, Australian Conservation Foundation

Energy for Sustainable Futures

Harry Schaap, Advisor to the National Generators Forum

Australia’s Electricity Supply in a Carbon-Constrained World

Russell Caplan encapsulated the energy challenge in four words: more energy, less carbon. According to the IEA, global energy demand could double by 2050. The challenge is to ensure security, affordability and sustainability of supply, while managing environmental impacts including climate

change. He then summarised how Shell is contributing to meeting the challenge through increasing investment in oil and gas production and refining; maintaining a wide range of oil and gas sources from different regions; reducing CO2 emissions; and developing alternative energies for transport and electricity generation. Although the challenge is formidable, Mr Caplan noted in closing that, after nearly 40 years in the energy industry, he envied the young people whose challenge it is for the next 40 years.

AIE National Conference 2006University of Melbourne, 27–29 November 2006.

Greg Bourne graphically explained why less carbon is part of the challenge, showing why climate scientists are worried — 2005 was the hottest year ever. It was also the year of the least icy Arctic ever; the hottest water ever in the Caribbean; five records broken by the Atlantic hurricane season; and record droughts around the planet. However, he projected an emissions pathway for the world. To cap the temperature increase at 2°C, the world needs to stabilise CO2 in the atmosphere at 550 ppm. When this objective is brought together with IEA energy scenarios, more energy, less carbon can be done.

Mr Bourne introduced the concept of ‘wedges’ — ways to shift the increasing projectory to flat and then declining. The first wedge is energy efficiency, which is achievable with political will. Another important wedge is carbon capture and sequestration, though the issue of scaling up the technology is still to be addressed. Asserting the premise, ‘”what gets measured gets done”, Mr Bourne called for the following:

Russell Caplan


• All performance focussed businesses set themselves extraordinary targets — then beat them!

• Australia should set a 60% reduction by 2050 target.• Set intermediate targets for 2015 and 2030.• Set targets deliverable in the next parliamentary term.

Chris Goodes commenced his presentation by recalling how his first office had no switch to turn off the light, so it was pretty much on all the time. His second office had a switch and a sign saying, “Please switch off and save the environment”. His current office has a motion sensor detector. When there is no movement, it assumes he has left (or gone to sleep!), and turns the light off.

Mr Goodes presented Rio Tinto’s view of the energy market, agreeing that the challenge is to reduce carbon. He focussed on the role of technology, within Rio Tinto’s strategy to own and operate large, long-life, cost-competitive mines. With this strategy, Rio Tinto takes a long-term view. It is an energy consumer in mining; its customers use energy in processing; and it supplies energy by way of coal and uranium. The current outlook of ever increasing energy consumption is not a sustainable energy pathway.

Agreeing with Greg Bourne that a large and important ‘wedge’ is energy efficiency, Mr Goodes explained Rio Tinto’s development of the drained cathode cell for aluminium smelting and HIsmelt for iron smelting. Each can reduce energy consumption in the order of 15% to 20% in their respective industries. In response to the question from the floor, “Why not recycle?”, he added that aluminium recycling uses less than 10% of the energy used to process from raw materials, and that Rio Tinto supports recycling.

Ian Lowe commenced his presenation with the fundamental premise that the future is not somewhere we are going, but is something we are creating. There are many possible futures, and we should be trying to shape a sustainable future. That means considering the resource demands, environmental impacts, social consequences and economic impacts of future energy use. Referring to the Millennium Assessment Report 2005, he

Greg Bourne

added that there is established but incomplete evidence that our impacts on ecosystems are increasing the likelihood of non-linear changes with important consequences for human wellbeing.

Mr Lowe asserted that less carbon is achievable and affordable. For a sustainable future we need to improve the efficiency of turning energy into services (transport, cooling, lighting, motive power, etc); move away from supply technologies based on problematic resources; and move away from technologies imposing unacceptable environmental costs.

Concluding that doing nothing is not an option; energy is vital; and we need to be planning now for a sustainable future, Mr Lowe called for specific policies: phase out fossil fuel subsidies, no new coal-fired power, gas as a transitional fuel, commitment to a mix of renewables, urban planning, public transport, world’s best practice in efficiency, plan for expensive petroleum, and adaptation strategies.

Harry Schaap’s presentation was based on a forthcoming report on a study of Australia’s electricity supply. Copies can be obtained at www.ngf.com.au.

There was a second plenary session on the Monday titled Policies and Regulation. Speakers and their titles were:

Drew Clarke, Head of Energy and Environment Division, Commonwealth Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources

Energy White Paper — implementation and new developments

Steve Edwell, Chairman, Australian Energy Regulator

National Energy Regulation — the way forward

Perry Sioshansi, President, Menlo Energy Economics

International Experience in Restructured Electricity markets

L to R: Chris Goodes, Harry Schaap, Ian Lowe


A panel of four judges assessed the students and their projects: Tony Forster (AIE President), Tony Vassallo (AIE Director and Sydney Branch Chair), Peter Drohan (Shell Australia) and Peter Jackson (CSIRO). The judging process was quite intensive and the AIE appreciates the efforts of the four judges. They had to assess the printed project summaries in advance of the conference then give up most of their lunch and tea breaks to assess the posters and students’ explanations of their project. The high standard of the entries particularly impressed the judges and delegates with experience of regional awards.

To give students an equitable chance to win awards, the 26 projects were divided into three categories — Alternative Energy Pathways; Oil, Gas & Carbon Capture; Coal & Combustion — with eight or nine projects in each group. The eight awards — the best project overall, the encouragement award, and the best and runner-up projects in each category — are listed in the table below. The awards went to students from all of the participating states and from a wide cross-section of energy fields. The full list of projects is available on the conference web site, www.aie.org.au/conference, under ‘Student Awards’.

The AIE wishes to say a special thank you to Dr Sandra Kentish of the University of Melbourne, who was the Awards Coordinator. Her expertise and hard work were major factors in the success of the event.

Students explaining their projects to delegates in the poster session

Maria Kordjamshidi explaining her project to Tony Vassallo

These presentations will be summarised in the March 2007 issue of Energy News. In the meantime, Perry Sioshansi has kindly offered AIE members and conference delegates a free copy of the December 2006 issue of his monthly newsletter, EEnergy Informer, and a substantial discount on new subscriptions. If you wish to take Mr Sioshansi up on this offer, please contact him direct at [email protected].

The plenary sessions set the scene for the parallel program that covered transport fuels, directions for electricity generation, reducing CO2 emissions and addressing CO2 issues, the future for coal, nuclear options, market demand issues, renewable energy options, gas and hydrogen, and case studies. The March 2007 issue of Energy News will feature some material from the parallel sessions. For those who could not attend the conference, a CD of the conference papers and presentations (except where the speakers have requested otherwise) is available for A$200 at www.aie.org.au/conference. The website also has copies of many of the keynote (and some other) presentations under ‘Program’.

National Postgraduate Student Energy AwardsThe National Postgraduate Student Energy Awards were held conjunction with the AIE National Conference. This was the first time that the awards were held on a national basis, although several AIE branches have previously conducted regional awards. The format dates back to the origins of the Institute with the first reported awards in Melbourne in 1983.

The awards aim to provide students with the opportunity to present their postgraduate energy research to a public comprised of energy professionals and other interested persons. The students are required to communicate the key elements of their particular project through a poster, a printed summary and personal discussions with delegates. The awards provide valuable experience for students, and are a recruiting ground for energy organisations. They help retain students and their expertise in the energy industry. Many former award winners have progressed to senior positions in industry, some of whom were present at the conference.

There were 26 entrants from five states: Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia. In some cases the students were selected to participate on the basis of their performance in regional awards (see page 95), while others responded to the conference Call for Papers. All entrants received free conference registration, thanks to the generosity of conference sponsors: Shell Australia, EPA Victoria, ExxonMobil, the Victorian Government (Department of Infrastructure and Department of Sustainability and Environment), CSIRO (Energy Technology and Energy Transformed Flagship Program), Hydro Tasmania, Monash Energy and the Australian Greenhouse Office (Department of Environment and Heritage). Their support allowed students to participate in the full conference experience and provided the prizes for which the students were competing.

AIE branches provided financial assistance for travel and accommodation for some interstate participants, and Australian Coal Association Research Program (ACARP) generously supported the participation of five of the entrants.


Shell’s Peter Drohan presenting the award for best project to Susie Wood Dr Sandra Kentish third from the right

Award Sponsor Amount Student ProjectBest Overall Project Shell

Australia$2,000 Susie Wood

University of SydneyOxidation of Methane in Mine Ventilation Air Using Porous Burners

Encouragement Award Exxon Mobil $1,200 Yuchun Zhao RMIT

Combined Desalination and Power Generation Using Solar Energy

Best – Alternative Energy Pathways Project

EPA Victoria $1,200 Maria Kordjamshidi University of New South Wales

Development of a New Framework for House Rating Scheme (HRS)

Runner Up – Alternative Energy Pathways

Hydro Tasmania

$800 Akshat Tanksale University of Queensland

Nanostructured Catalyst For H2 Production From Sugars

Best – Oil, Gas & Carbon Capture Project

Victorian Government

$1,200 Mohammad Haghighi Paripari Curtin University of Technology

Direct methane to methanol as a key solution in GTL technology

Runner Up – Oil, Gas & Carbon Capture

Australian Greenhouse Office

$800 Seamus Delaney Monash University

Electrically Regenerable Mesoporous Carbons for CO2 Capture

Best – Coal & Combustion Project

CSIRO $1,200 George SzegoUniversity of Adelaide

MILD Combustion Technology: Integrating Energy Efficiency and Low Emissions

Runner Up – Coal & Combustion

Monash Energy

$800 Elizabeth Hodge University of New South Wales (research work in CSIRO, Qld)

The Char-CO2 Reaction at High Temperature and Pressure

AIE MedalAIE President Tony Forster presented the AIE Medal, the Institute’s highest award, to Colin and Vivien Paulson at the national conference dinner in Melbourne on 28 November 2006. The medal was awarded for Colin and Viv’s exceptional contribution to the development and administration of the AIE since its formation in 1978.

Colin and Viv migrated to Australia in 1962 when Colin was recruited by CSIRO Division of Coal Research. He retired from CSIRO in 2000 after a distinguished career as a leading fuel technologist, particularly in the field of electrostatic precipitation. Colin joined the Institute of Fuel in 1966, became a Councillor of the Australian Membership in 1968, then Honorary Treasurer in 1969 and Honorary Secretary in 1976.

Viv became the Secretary of the Australian Membership of the Institute of Fuel in 1971 and continued on as Secretary of the Australian Institute of Energy following its separation from the Institute of Fuel in 1978. She retired as AIE Secretary in November 2005, having taken the minutes from all but one of the 108 Council (now Board) Meetings to that point. She established and maintained the records and administrative procedures of the Institute, and dedicated a room of the Paulson home as the

Institute’s registered office. It is only since Viv’s retirement that the Institute has realised just how much work was involved in her role over those 28 years.

Colin was a Foundation Member of the AIE and member of the initial Council in 1978. He has served continuously since then on the Council/Board for 29 years. In that time he has held every executive position in the Institute, including Honorary Treasurer for several years, President in 1983 and 1984, and Honorary Secretary since 1997. He has also chaired the Institute’s Membership Committee for much of the Institute’s history. Colin and Viv were awarded Honorary Life Membership of the Institute in 2003.

The AIE medal is awarded irregularly at the discretion of the AIE Board for outstanding contributions by individuals to energy in Australia. This was only the 11th time the medal had been awarded in the Institute’s 29-year history, and the first time since 2001. As David Allardice pointed out in his introduction to the presentation, there could be no more worthy recipients of an AIE Medal than ‘Team Paulson’. They have been the backbone of the Australian Institute of Energy from its origins in the Australian Membership of the Institute of Fuel (UK) in 1978, to the significant contribution the AIE makes to the Australian energy scene today.

Colin and Vivien Paulson with their AIE Medal


There was something on in just about every branch in the September quarter, offering a great variety of quality speakers and topics.

Around the Branches

ADELAIDE• Peter Botten, Managing Director, Oil Search Ltd, presented “Oil

Search and the PNG Gas Project” on 13 July 2006.

• Dr Barry Green, Research Programme Officer (Fusion Association Agreements), European Commission Directorate-General for Research, presented “Fusion Energy and the ITER Project: the Next Step to a Sustainable Future” on 3 August 2006. See page 84.

• Ian Stirling, CEO, ElectraNet Pty Ltd, presented “Network 2025 — transmission network planning beyond the 10-year Annual Planning Review” on 27 September 2006.

BRISBANE• The branch held a discussion of “Underground Coal Gasification

— Technology Review and Gas-to-Liquids Applications” on 6 July 2006.

• Dr Patrick Glynn, CSIRO, presented “High Density Energy Storage Using a PCM Energy Cell with Closed Cycle Gas Turbine for Solar and Wind Applications” on 28 August 2006.

MELBOURNE• Dr Barry Green, Research Programme Officer (Fusion

Association Agreements), European Commission Directorate-General for Research, presented “The Status of Fusion Power” on 2 August 2006. See page 84.

• The Hon Philip Davis MLC updated the branch on Victorian Liberal Party energy policies on 30 August 2006.

• Jim Driscoll, GeoScience Victoria, Department of Primary Industries, and Phil Galloway, Managing Director, Syncline Energy Pty Ltd, presented “Utilising Geothermal Energy in Victoria” to a joint event with the Royal Society of Victoria on 27 September 2006. See page 86.

PERTH• Dr Barry Green, Research Programme Officer (Fusion

Association Agreements), European Commission Directorate-General for Research, presented “Fusion Energy and the ITER Project: The Next Step to a Sustainable Future” on 27 July 2006. See page 84.

• The branch, in association with the Office of Energy, held the 7th Energy in Western Australia Conference on 23–24 August 2006. See page 88.

SYDNEY• Frank van Schagen, CEO, CRC for Coal in Sustainable

Development, posed the question, “Can coal meet the challenges of a world demanding clean energy?” on 3 July 2006.

• The branch held a half-day symposium entitled “Energy in NSW — 2006 and Beyond” on 19 July 2006. The symposium was sponsored by the NSW Department of Energy, Utilities & Sustainability, Macquarie Generation, the Nous Group and Origin Energy. Speakers’ presentations are available at http://www.aie.org.au/sydney_index.htm.

• Richard J Hunwick, Hunwick Consultants Pty Ltd, presented “Power Station Stack Gas Emissions — A review of current and projected control techniques” on 9 August 2006. See page 90

• Dr Barry Green, Research Programme Officer (Fusion Association Agreements), European Commission Directorate-General for Research, presented “Fusion Energy and ITER: an Opportunity for Australia” on 15 August 2006. See page 84.

• In the lead up to the AIE National Postgraduate Energy Awards in November, Sydney, Newcastle and Canberra Branches jointly held the NSW-ACT Postgraduate Student Energy Awards on 5 September 2006. See page 95.

• Dr. Andreas Truckenbrodt, Executive Director–Hybrid Development Center, DaimlerChrysler AG, presented “Gasoline, Diesel, Hybrids, Fuel Cell — DaimlerChrysler’s Roadmap to the Energy for the Future” on 7 September 2006. See page 89.

• Peter Le Lievre, Solar Heat & Power, and Glen Currie, CSIRO, presented “Solar Thermal Power as an Option for Base Load Generation in Australia” on 18 September 2006.

TASMANIA• Howard Bamsey, Head, Australian Greenhouse Office, presented

“Australian Government initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector” on 28 August 2006.

BRANCH AND DIVISION SECRETARIESBrisbaneChris Shopov Ph: (07) 3405 7652, Fax: (07) 3405 7660 Mob: 0419 714 945 email: [email protected] Calvert (Acting Secretary) Ph: (02) 6241 2865 email: [email protected] DivisionBrad Ladewig Ph: (07) 3346 1413, Fax: (07) 3365 4199 email: [email protected] email: [email protected] Kelty Ph: (02) 4961 6544 email: [email protected] Bartholomaeus Office of Energy email: [email protected] AustraliaBrad Gay Ph: (08) 8226 1385 email: [email protected] Hemming Ph: (02) 8281 7406, Fax: (02) 8281 7799 email: [email protected] Fama Ph: (03) 6230 5305 email: [email protected]


Dr. Barry Green holds a PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Sydney involving close collaboration with experimental studies of plasma (the state of matter of fusion fuel) in the School of Physics. Over more than 30 years, his research activities in fusion have taken him to the United States, Japan and Europe. Dr Green was in Australia this year to promote an Australian involvement in the ITER Project. ITER, Latin for ‘the way’, is a collaboration between China, the European Union, India, Japan, the Russia Federation, South Korea and the United States. This international agreement to jointly construct and operate a large experimental device that will demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy for peaceful purposes was initialled on 24 May 2006.

Here, Energy News presents a summary of Dr Green’s presentations.

The development of modern civilisation has been made possible by accessible and readily exploitable energy sources. Energy is vital to our lives. In recent years, the supply of energy for this and future generations has become a major issue, with the prospect of the traditional, cheap energy sources becoming scarce, with energy exports being increasingly used as a political tool, and with serious concerns about the environmental effects of energy use. Fusion is an energy source as yet untapped by man. It is the process which powers the sun and the stars. As such it is the source of terrestrial life itself. The dream is to control fusion processes to provide energy on Earth. Fusion energy is a zero greenhouse gas emitting technology which offers millions of years of base load energy. Research into taming a turbulent burning plasma and thereby controlling the fusion process, is one of the grand challenges of science.

Specifically, the ITER Project aims are:

1. to produce and study inductively-driven burning plasma at Q ≥ 10 (400-500 MW) for an ‘extended’ time (~400 seconds), where Q is the power amplification = Pfusion/Pinput

2. to produce and study ‘steady-state’ burning plasma with non-inductive drive Q ≥ 5

3. to demonstrate the availability and integration of essential fusion reactor technologies (eg superconducting magnets and remote handling)

4. to test components for a future reactor including tritium breeding module concepts for heat removal and neutron irradiation (neutron power load > 0.5 MW m-2, neutron fluence > 0.3 MW year m-2).

Fusion Energy and the ITER ProjectDr Barry Green, Research Programme Officer (Fusion Association Agreements), European Commission Directorate-General for Research.Presentations to Melbourne, Perth, South Australia and Sydney Branches, July and August 2006.

That means dealing with the issues of plasma physics: plasma stability; energy confinement; steady-state operation; control of plasma purity; and exploration of the new physics with a dominant α-particles plasma (a ‘self’ heated plasma).

The engineering challenges include: the large number of parts with complex interfaces; the unprecedented size of the super-conducting magnet and structures; the extremely high heat fluxes in first wall components and materials under neutron irradiation; and the need for remote maintenance.

Fusion energy research and development physics activities are related to many scientific disciplines:

Space PhysicsAstrophysicsLightning StudiesCommunications (wave propagation in plasmas)Atomic PhysicsPlasma Chemistry (low-temperature plasmas)Computational Fluid and Particle DynamicsTurbulent Fluid Transport.

And involve many technologies:

Ultra-high vacuum Computerised control and data acquisitionElectromagnets Radiation hardeningTritium handling Magnetic hardeningHigh heat flux Thermal shielding and cryogenicsNeutron shielding Assembly of large devicesStress Power supplies and switchingFuel injection Plasma heating and current driveBlanket Radioactive waste handlingHealth and safety Low activation materialRemote handling Instrumentation and measurement systems

The ITER Project timeline expects first plasma by 2016, with the potential for the first commercial fusion power plant operating by 2050. Apart from the physics and technology challenges which are increasingly well defined, there remains the overwhelming challenge of the maintenance of support for this important area of research and the challenge to make fusion energy cost competitive with the other power sources of the future.

Australia has a long history of involvement in fusion energy research. The fusion process was first discovered by an Australian, Sir Mark Oliphant, in the early 1930s. Since this date, Australians have been involved in programmatic fusion


development. Australia’s own magnetic confinement program commenced at the ANU and the University of Sydney in the early 1960s. The present centrepiece of Australian fusion research is the H1 Major National Research Facility at the ANU. H1 is a medium-sized stellarator, and supports a range of plasma diagnostics, magnetic configurations, turbulence and wave physics research. H-1 research is complemented by active fusion theory development, and extensive materials science research and capability. Australia also has reserves of fusion strategic materials — Lithium, Vanadium (for structural, low activation steels), Niobium (for superconducting magnets), titanium (for first wall material), and possibly others, as well as experience in overseas fusion R&D and project management.

About 80 participants attended the Australian ITER Forum Workshop in October, representing Australian universities

and government laboratories with interests in fusion research, Australian government and industry, the ITER international team and most of the ITER partners. Participants heard a series of presentations reviewing Australian expertise in fusion-related research fields, principally stellarator physics, plasma-material interactions, diagnostics, and theory and modelling. Presentations on the development of two recent major Australian research facilities — the OPAL nuclear research reactor and the Australian synchrotron — illustrated Australia’s expertise in managing major scientific projects.

For more information on fusion, ITER and Australian research see:www.europa.eu.int/comm/research/energy/fu/fu_en.htmlwww.iter.orgwww.ainse.edu.au/fusion

Spin-off Areas ExamplesMedical/health Isotope separationPulsed power and power conversion Microwave impulse radarMaterials processing Plasma processing, ion beam surface modificationSuperconductivity Nuclear magnetic resonanceSpace propulsion Magnetoplasma thrustersWaste processing Plasma torchInformatics Software to control in-line strip production of SSRobotics/optics MASCOT telemanipulator /inspection systemsAdvanced instrumentation Characterisation of surfaces

In addition, there have been valuable spin-offs, such as:


Mr Driscoll introduced the topic with the basics of geothermal energy — the energy contained as heat within the Earth’s interior. About 80% is generated from the radioactive decay of naturally occurring isotopes (Potassium, Thorium, Uranium), and about 20% is generated from primordial heat associated with the formation of the Earth.

Utilising Geothermal Energy in VictoriaBy Jim Driscoll, GeoScience Victoria, Department of Primary Industries, and Phil Galloway, Managing Director, Syncline Energy Pty Ltd. Presentation to Melbourne Branch and the Royal Society of Victoria, 27 September 2006.

There are three primary ways of utilising geothermal energy resources:

1. Electricity production a. high temperature hydrothermal (groundwater >

100–150°C) b. hot dry rock technology2. Direct use (low temperature hydrothermal; groundwater

< 100–150°C; eg district heating, aquaculture, agribusiness)

3. Ground source heat pumps, eg Geosciences Australia building in Canberra.

In 2005, Victoria passed the Geothermal Energy Resources Act, which established a new framework for the large-scale commercial exploration and extraction of geothermal energy in the state. In 2006, 31 geothermal exploration blocks were gazetted.

The Geothermal Temperature Database was created to provide a reliable and comprehensive database of temperatures from wells and boreholes in Victoria, and to provide a geological assessment of Victoria’s potential for geothermal energy. The database includes groundwater bores, oil and gas exploration wells, mineral exploration wells, stratigraphic wells and coal bores.

Figure 1: Geothermal SystemIllustration courtesy Geothermal Education Office

Only wells and boreholes deeper than 300 metres are included. A total of 353 wells and bores have had data validated, representing over 630 temperature-depth datasets. The temperature data is clustered in the Gippsland and Otway Basins, as many groundwater bores and exploration wells have been drilled here. GeoScience Victoria has also commissioned new temperature profiles to be run in a series of boreholes of the State Water Observation Network. Mr Driscoll illustrated a number of issues associated with the collection of geothermal data with examples from the database. For example, the temperature profiles have provided insights into how temperature varies down boreholes. The temperature profile in Loy Yang 2390 (see Figure 2) can broadly be differentiated into four components (in order from the top):

1. At very shallow depths the temperature in this well reflects diurnal and seasonal fluctuations

2. Up to 304 metres is a sandy sequence

3. The section between 304 and 440 metres yields a much higher gradient (138.2°C/km), which is a function of the lithology, with coaly sediments acting as an insulatory sequence

4. Below the coaly section a more sandy section is penetrated, and the geothermal gradient reverts back to a more normal trend

Figure 2: Loy Yang 2390 Groundwater Bore Temperature Profile (Gippsland Basin)

It is vital to understand the lithological properties of the sediments in any areas of interest. As demonstrated by Loy Yang 2390, if the well had been drilled to only 430 metres and the temperature extrapolated using these data, a projected ‘hot spot’ could have been identified and resources wasted on a prospect which did not actually exist.


Figure 3 shows a graphical representation from the over 630 datasets in the temperature database derived from the 353 wells or boreholes.

Figure 3: Temperature–Depth Relationship in Victoria

In order to compare different bore temperature datasets and define areas of interest for geothermal exploration, it is necessary to determine the geothermal gradient for each bore. Shallow boreholes, particularly in the Gippsland Basin, are sometimes affected by a phenomena referred to as the ‘coal blanketing effect’ whereby the insulation effect of carbonaceous sediments and coals leads to elevated geothermal gradients and results in anomalous extrapolated temperatures at depth. The average geothermal gradient in Victoria for all wells deeper than 300 metres with temperature data is 40°C/km. For wells deeper than 1,000 metres, the value is 32°C/km.

HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES IN VICTORIAThe Otway Basin is the most prospective area for hydrothermal resources. A typical hydrothermal play in the Otway Basin is illustrated by Figure 4.

Further work may yield hydrothermal targets in the Murray Basin.

HOT DRY ROCK RESOURCES IN VICTORIAThere are two fundamental prerequisites for hot dry rocks (HDRs): a heat source which provides elevated temperature gradients within the Earth (eg thermally anomalous granites)

Figure 4: Conceptual Hydrothermal System Elements: Ross Creek–1, Otway Basin

and appropriate cover sediments which help insulate this heat (eg coals). One cubic kilometre of hot granite at 250°C has the stored energy equivalent of 40 million barrels of oil. Preliminary investigations suggest HDR potential in many areas in Victoria.

Mr Galloway introduced his company, Syncline Energy Pty Ltd. Formed in 2005 by Prof Jim Cull, Phil Galloway and Neil Buckingham, the company develops and owns direct-use geothermal projects in Victoria. These projects reduce energy and water costs, and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A key advantage of using direct geothermal energy is that water and energy quality are matched with demand.

In Victoria, about one-third of direct geothermal energy is used for space heating (Figure 5).

Figure 5:Direct Geothermal Energy Uses

For example, the Warrnambool Waters Resort uses geothermal energy to heat the hotel and conference centre.

Australia’s seventh largest abattoir, Midfield Meats, uses one megalitre per day of water at 45°C and 88°C. This is about one-third of Warrnambool’s demand in summer, and its combined water and gas bill is $300,000 per year. Under a letter of intent, the use of geothermal energy to reduce costs and release water supply to the town is being investigated.


More than 200 delegates from around Australia received insight into the major changes and challenges facing the energy industry during the 7th Energy in Western Australia Conference 2006. Held in August 2006 at the Sheraton Hotel, Perth, the first day of the conference was devoted to the regulation of the energy sector and the economics of energy supply. The Minister for Energy; Science and Innovation, the Hon Francis Logan, opened the event with a speech on strategic energy policy. Minister Logan emphasised how a switch to alternative fuels is vital to increasing competition in Western Australia (WA) and how this will “make us more attractive to global markets”. The Minister advocated the use of renewable energy technologies such as solar, geothermal, wave, wind and bioenergy. He suggested public policy should allow all energy sources to compete on a level playing field and ensure renewable energy has a bright future within WA. Coal was highlighted as a major component of the energy mix. The WA Government has made a $100 million investment in coal, which includes a $10 million infrastructure fund. The nuclear issue was a discussion point throughout the conference with the Government opposing both uranium mining and the theory that nuclear energy will decrease the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Minister Logan also stated that WA will not become a dumping ground for nuclear waste.

Ian Hore-Lacy, Manager, Uranium Information Centre, challenged Minister Logan’s position on nuclear energy. Mr Hore-Lacy considers uranium to be the energy source for the future because of its abundance in WA and its potential for clean base load energy generation.

“Unlike oil and gas, uranium can be found in a wide variety of geological settings,” explained Mr Hore-Lacy.

“Its resources are not limited — 4.7 million tonnes of uranium was found in 2005, and this is expected to double.”

Mr Hore-Lacy also mentioned how the design process of nuclear power plants has improved. By utilising physics and chemistry, not just relying on engineering processes, an increase in safety and protection from terrorist attacks can also be provided. As for waste, he conceded that there is a small amount, which can be contained and managed with only a small proportion being radioactive. His final point was, “every 26 tonnes of uranium saves one million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.”

Gas reservation was also a hot topic at the conference with Minister Logan assuring delegates that the WA Government will create a flexible policy to provide the gas industry with the certainty they need. Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia chief executive John Langoulant supported more research and an enquiry by an independent body into gas reservation to determine supply, demand and price issues before imposing more regulation. Mr. Langoulant also suggested that competitive markets should be as free as they can be from regulation.

“Energy markets should be run with a free enterprise perspective, with choice and competitive prices,” said Mr Langoulant.

“Having a flexible market is very important for Western Australia.”

Mr. Langoulant ended with a message for the WA Government when he said, “privatisation needs to be back on the agenda”.

David Knox, Managing Director, BP, gave delegates an insight into Western Australia’s economy and energy markets. With a burgeoning export market for liquefied natural gas and an increasing appetite for clean fuels, BP is investing more into the state. Mr. Knox outlined energy in terms of its global economic growth. In 2005 there was 3.6% global economic growth, however oil intensity has fallen by 38%. Weather conditions, such as Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, have strengthened energy consumption but have decreased production. However, energy consumption has declined slightly as energy prices increased. China accounts for a significant and growing proportion of the world’s energy consumption and is the largest producer and consumer of coal. It experienced 9.9% economic growth in 2004 with oil consumption surging by 17.1% due to coal shortages. Mr Knox predicted that there will be an increase in the oil price and suggested that government and industry must develop an energy mutual advantage in relation to reserving domestic gas. In the short term, Mr Knox predicted that oil prices will be strong and robust and will follow historical trends in the medium to long term.

Day two of the 7th Energy in Western Australia Conference was dedicated to new technologies in the energy sector. Professor Claus Hviid Christensen, Director. Centre for Sustainable and Green Chemistry, explained how scientists at the Technical University of Denmark developed a hydrogen tablet that effectively stores and transports hydrogen in an inexpensive and safe material. A hydrogen economy would provide WA with a clean environment and an unlimited energy supply. It is silent and transportable, with water its only by-product. Prof. Christiansen believes that hydrogen cells can fit our culture but ongoing work needs to be undertaken on heat management, purification, packaging and recycling. He also suggested that cars will be running on hydrogen by as early as next year.

Coal was also discussed as an energy source that WA should rely on in the future. It has been the mainstay of electricity supply in WA since large-scale generation began. However, it now faces new challenges as the prospect of carbon constraints and competition from gas as a base load fuel emerge. Fredrick Suhren from the Griffin Group predicted that from 2003 to 2008 consumers will shift from gas back to coal because there is a security of supply. Currently, the company has identified 160 years of proven reserves of

Bright future predicted for Western Australian energy sectorBy Gemma Hussey, Editor, Resource and Energy Projects Service*. Energy in Western Australia Conference 2006.


black coal and over 400 years of reserves of all coal types. The Griffin Group has recently been selected to provide energy to the Boddington Gold Mine in WA because they were able to provide security of energy supply. It also plans to construct a wind farm with Stanwell Corporation north of Perth in the coming years. Mr Suhren conceded that coal would need to change the perception that it is not a clean fuel and that it uses old-styled equipment.

With over 20 international and national speakers, and networking opportunities, the 7th Energy in Western Australia Conference 2006 proved to be of great value to all who attended. The conference was jointly organised by the Office of Energy and Australian Institute of Energy with the support of the following sponsors:

Gold Sponsors WA Chamber of Commerce and Industry NewGen Power RPS Group Plc-the Energy Consultants

Silver Sponsor WA Chamber of Minerals and Energy

Bronze Sponsors Apache Energy Goldfields Gas Transmission Griffin Energy Tenet Consulting (in alliance

with Navigant Consulting)

*Resource and Energy Projects Service (REPS) is an information provider and part of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia. It regularly delivers key information on resource, energy, defence and major infrastructure projects, while highlighting the capabilities of local industry.

Subscribers receive 34 issues of the REPS newsletter each year, the REPS Major WA Resource Projects List and the Western Australian Development Services Directory (REPS Directory), which profiles over 700 companies that supply goods and services to the mining, oil and gas industries. For more information, visit http://reps.cciwa.com/.

Dr Truckenbrodt recently visited Australia to participate in the Alternative Transport Energies Conference held in Perth, and generously offered to make a stopover in Sydney and talk to AIE members and guests about progress in hybrid vehicle technology. As the Executive Director of the Centre, Dr Truckenbrodt is well positioned to provide guidance on the likely future directions of transport technology. He started his presentation with a discussion on the strategic importance of sustainability, covering issues such as ecology, fuel consumption, CO2 reduction and recycling. He then outlined DaimlerChrysler’s roadmap to the future looking at the optimisation of (petrol) combustion engines, new and improved diesel technologies, alternative fuels, fuel cells and hybrids. There are clearly more improvements in the pipeline and some stunningly low emission diesel engines available now.

Dr Truckenbrodt focussed on hybrids, explaining some of the challenges in getting the power transmission system right. There is a very high level of technical complexity involved in optimising the drive train to take into account the different modes of operation, and he showed five different configurations, each with advantages and disadvantages in terms of cost, performance, complexity and flexibility. In fact, the problem is so challenging that DaimlerChrysler has partnered with BMW and General Motors to build a state-of-the-art Research and Development Centre in Troy,

Michigan, where the three organisations work together on developing the concepts. They will pursue implementation individually. The R&D is carried out under one roof, and each organisation has its own separate space where the confidential and competitive work is undertaken. The global hybrid cooperation between General Motors, BMW and DaimlerChrysler will redefine the hybrid world. It helps manage the substantial economic burden while advancing technology development. It sets industry standards while maintaining individual brand characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Mobility is a fundamental human requirement — but it has to be ecologically and economically sustainable.

There is no single propulsion solution — hybrids are good in combination with all propulsion systems and fuels and additional to all other fuel saving measures.

Gasoline, diesel and hybrid power trains will coexist in the future, each used in applications where they create the greatest value, leading the way ultimately to fuel cell technology.

Hybrids deliver ‘painlessly green’ superior fuel economy plus performance and comfort.

Gasoline, Diesel, Hybrids, Fuel Cell — DaimlerChrysler’s Roadmap to the Energy for the FutureBy Dr. Andreas Truckenbrodt, Executive Director–Hybrid Development Center, DaimlerChrysler AG. Presentation to Sydney Branch, hosted by Blake Dawson Waldron, 7 September 2006.


Pressures for the reduction of emissions of the acid rain and photochemical smog precursors, the oxides of sulphur SOx and nitrogen NOx, are increasing in Australia. What, then, is involved in their control? What is the state-of-the-art? Are there improved control system and equipment under development? Are there pointers in these systems for future likely requirements being imposed on combustion plant owners and operators (power stations in particular) for the control of carbon dioxide emissions? This brief review focusses on coal-fired power stations, and on the technologies currently favoured for the control of the range of pollutants that are by-products:

• Particulates — PM10. These are the familiar chimney smoke and dust, mostly particles of fly ash from mineral matter in the fuel. They are the most visible form of pollution; their health and other impacts are obvious and well known; and control efforts in Australia have tackled these aggressively, and generally successfully.

• Oxides of sulphur. These originate from ‘reduced’ sulphur in coal, both organic, and also mineral, mostly pyrite (iron disulphide), which after combustion appear mostly as the dioxide SO2, but around 1.5% is produced as the sulphuric acid precursor sulphur trioxide SO3. These gases are major contributors to acid rain, and are particularly hard on structures and objects containing limestone. SO3 is a major contributor to PM2.5-based haze (see below).

• Oxides of nitrogen. NOx derive partly from nitrogen compounds in the fuel, but mostly from reaction at high temperatures between oxygen and nitrogen in the air. Nitric oxide NO is first formed, but much of this converts to the dioxide NO2 (a brown gas) on contacting ambient air. These gases are also major contributors to acid rain. However, through a complex series of reactions with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), mostly from motor vehicle exhausts and promoted by sunlight, they are also the chief cause of ozone accumulation in the lower atmosphere and, in turn, photochemical smog.

• Particulates — PM2.5. These, much finer, particles are less familiar because being individually so small they tend to be invisible. They originate not only as mineral matter in the fuel, but reactions between sulphur trioxide (SO3) in stack gases and moisture in air form sulphuric acid aerosol. They also derive from smoke, motor vehicle exhausts, and natural sources are significant (eg forest haze). They are of concern because they can penetrate more deeply into the lungs, and can be highly acid, perhaps carcinogenic. They are a prime cause of, and contributor to, haze and photochemical smog.

• Volatile heavy metals. Mercury, which occurs in trace quantities in the mineral matter in the fuel; is of concern because as the element or other volatile form (eg methyl mercury) it is highly toxic even in extremely small quantities.

Pressures are also increasing around the world in favour of imposing limits on CO2 emissions.

Power Station Stack Gas EmissionsBy Richard J Hunwick*, Hunwick Consultants Pty Ltd. Presentation to Sydney Branch, 9 August 2006.

A CONTROL STRATEGY FRAMEWORKMinimising or otherwise controlling undesirable emissions require most of the following, and the task is best tackled by taking these measures more or less in the order listed.

1. Removal, to the extent possible, of pollution precursors from the fuel prior to its combustion either by physical or chemical treatment.

2. Combustion of fuel under conditions that minimise pollutant formation.

3. Combustion of fuel in the presence of a substance that will immediately absorb or otherwise capture the pollutant.

4. Stripping of the pollutant from stack gases (end-of-pipe solutions).

Gaseous pollutants (including CO2) are acid precursors, so control generally involves neutralising them with alkaline substances.

Issues to be considered when planning a control strategy include:• Is it a new or an existing facility that requires control?• What are the implications in terms of capital and operating

costs, and ‘sent-out’ cost of electricity?• What utilities are required (water as well as electricity)?• What impacts (greenhouse and other) arise from sourcing

inputs (eg limestone, ammonia) which some control techniques require?

• Are there markets for any by-products of the processes employed?

• Are there secondary effects that need to be considered (eg an increase in unburned carbon in ash, conversion of ash into a hazardous waste)?

The following paragraphs review the current state of the art regarding the control of the major categories of pollutant listed.

PARTICULATES(fly ash and other PM10, to meet 30 mg/m3 limit, 99.9% capture)

The removal of particulates from stack gases to below these limits essentially represents the current extent of stack gas cleaning in Australian power stations.

The preferred approaches around the world are electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) and fabric filters. Australian power generators (particularly in New South Wales) have been leaders in the application of fabric filters, a consequence of a belief that the low-sulphur Gondwanan coals that make up our east-coast resources with their high-silica ash levels do not respond well to electrostatic filters.

Figure 1 shows the usual location of such equipment: downstream of the main boilers’ induced-draft fans.


Figure 2 shows Bayswater Power Station in the Hunter Valley (near Muswellbrook, New South Wales). This power station still hosts the world’s largest fabric filter installation.

CONTROLLING SOx EMISSIONSWhether one is considering a new or an existing power station the first step is to minimise pyrite content in fuel, if only to minimise reagent consumption. Many designs of coal-pulverising mills manage to strip out some lumps of pyrite and other heavy minerals such as siderite (iron carbonate) into so-called pyrite traps by virtue of their high density. More powerful and effective, but also more expensive, approaches being developed rely upon the weakly magnetic (paramagnetic) properties of pyrite. With a new project there should be more freedom to choose the primary combustion technology.

Fluidised bed combustion involves burning fuel in the presence of limestone at temperatures around 850°C. Released SOx emissions are immediately absorbed chemically by the limestone to create calcium sulphite and sulphate (90%+ capture is typical). Issues are the cost of limestone required, and the formation of a highly alkaline ash that can present disposal problems. This plus the higher

parasitic energy cost of fluidised bed combustion have tended to relegate this technology to niches, usually where the fuel is waste, or otherwise of extremely low quality.

Coal gasification involves reacting the fuel with steam and a small amount of oxygen — either pure (from a cryogenic air-separation plant) or as air — to yield a pressurised mixture of hydrogen, and carbon monoxide and dioxide, which after cleaning, can be fired efficiently in more or less conventional gas-turbine combined-cycle power plant equipment. The volumes of gas to be treated are very much smaller (less than 0.5%) than the volumes of stack gases from a conventional power station, allowing sophisticated and highly efficient processes to be used for the removal of sulphur. This may be converted to the element, or sulphuric acid, both of which are readily marketable.

When options are limited because of the need to retrofit an existing power station, or if the decision has already been made to adopt pulverised-fuel technology (and this is still being specified for the overwhelming proportion of new coal-fired power stations), there are still a number of options that may be adopted, such as:• Sorbent injection systems (limestone added upstream of

the economiser) can give 30%+ capture and are cheap to implement; but reagent costs are high, and by-products present disposal problems.

• ‘Dry’ scrubbers have appeal for low-sulphur coals (and they work better with fabric filters than with electrostatic precipitators) and can give 80%+ capture; but use almost as much water as wet scrubbers and complicate the disposal of fly ash.

• Seawater scrubbers are efficient and economical (they rely on the natural bicarbonates in seawater); but are almost certainly not an option for Australian coastal power stations because of fears over the consequences of acidification of seawater.

• Wet scrubbers (limestone slurry) are now mature, efficient (95–98% capture) and widely accepted for existing as well as new power stations. The learning curve was painful for the industry, mainly because of problems with selecting the best materials for construction. One benefit is that the by-product gypsum generally finds a ready market from wall board manufacturers.

Table 1 summarises the status of these alternatives—none of these are currently employed in Australia.

Figure 1: Current extent of stack gas cleaning in local power stations

Figure 2: Bayswater Power Station (the fabric filters are visible below the boilers at lower centre)

Table 1: Options for controlling SOx emissions from pulverised-fuel boiler plant

Technique Technical status

Strengths and weaknesses

Remarks

Sorbent CaCO3 injection into furnace before economiser

Mature Requires no water.Performance poor, (c. 25% SOx capture), leaves alkaline ash

Other sorbents promising; works better with fabric filters

Dry scrubbing with slaked lime slurry Ca(OH)2

Mature 75% SOx capture; inexpensive to install.Requires slaked lime; leaves alkaline ash

Still consumes substantial water; OK for low-sulphur coals

Wet scrubbers Mature 95%+ SOx capture.Produces wet slurry; consumes much water

‘Benchmark’ SOx control technology


Plume abatement is generally required in most parts of the world. The usual approach is to discharge the scrubbed saturated stack gases into a natural-draft cooling tower. This is particularly effective in a dry-cooling installation (as shown in Figure 4) — no plume is normally visible from afar above the cooling towers of the Matra power station. However, water losses are still significant and they increase total water losses from a power station employing evaporative cooling by 15%. An approach winning favour in Japan in particular is to cool the stack gases before they enter the scrubber, by exchanging sensible heat in some form of heat exchanger perhaps similar to the rotary air heaters used in boilers. In this way, water consumption is halved while the stack gases are heated several tens of degrees Celsius above their saturation temperature, essentially eliminating plume formation.

CONTROLLING NOx EMISSIONSAs with SOx emissions control, the best approach to minimising NOx emissions starts with seeking to prevent their formation in the first place. Fluidised bed combustion, mentioned earlier, avoids NOx formation by controlling combustion temperatures to below 900°C (ie below levels that allow some nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere to react in this way). With other, in particular existing plant, there is a step-wise process to go through:

1. The first step in controlling these emissions is to minimise peak combustion temperatures and maintain reducing conditions in the combustion zone. Low-NOx burners are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their design, as are their burner management and control systems, to the extent where current designs can achieve a 50–80% reduction over levels achievable a quarter of a century ago.

2. The second step, also directed at minimising combustion temperatures, should be to complete combustion in a staged manner, by resorting to ‘over-fire air’, which also converts

Figure 5: Centralia Power Station (a need for plume abatement)

Figure 3 shows where the currently preferred technology — wet scrubbers — fit into the power station (downstream of the particulates control equipment).

Wet limestone scrubbing is now the ‘baseline’ approach. In the process, limestone slurry is sprayed through stack gases (cleaned of fly ash solids and any other particulates by electrostatic precipitators or fabric filters) in a large tower: SO2 +CaCO3 CaSO3 +CO2. The calcium sulphite-rich slurry presents disposal problems, so is converted to calcium sulphate by bubbling air through it: 2CaSO3 +O2 2CaSO4. The calcium sulphate forms as gypsum crystals CaSO4. 2H2O, which can be readily separated from the slurry using wet cyclones, dewatered by filtration to a cake, and sold to wall board manufacturers. Total system capital costs are around A$100/kW for new plant or $140/kW for retrofit.

Operating costs — for limestone and parasitic power — are around 2% of total power sent out. The power industry went through a long and painful learning curve before it learned to specify the right materials to handle the corrosive solutions involved. As well, water consumption can be high, as the stack gases are saturated with water vapour in the scrubber. As well, vapour plumes can be prominent, and regulators now generally require abatement, achieved by reheating the stack gases. Also, wet scrubbers are seen as being ‘wanting’ for NOx, PM2.5, and elemental mercury (Hg) control, meaning that additional equipment and systems must be installed to control these. Figure 4 shows a wet scrubber installed within a dry (non-evaporative) cooling tower at Matra Power Station in Hungary.

Figure 3: Flue gas desulphurisation with wet scrubbers

A problem associated with wet scrubbers is that quenching the still warm (at least 135°C) stack gases consumes considerable quantities of water by evaporation in saturating these gases, leading not only to substantial losses of water but also to the formation of substantial, highly visible vapour plumes, particularly in cold weather. Figure 5 shows such a plume at the Centralia Power Station in Washington State, USA. The two units of this 1970s vintage, 1,500 MWe coal-fired power station were successfully retrofitted with wet scrubbers in 2003, leading to a 98% reduction in emissions of SOx.

Figure 4: Wet scrubber at Matra Power Station (note the large pipes used to circulate the limestone slurry scrubbing medium)


reduced forms of nitrogen in the coal (eg amines, ammonia) to nitrogen gas.

3. The third step is to add a reducing agent to combustion gases upstream of the economiser — some fuels (eg natural gas), micronised coal (fuel reburning), ammonia or urea. These are forms of selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR).

4. For the most complete control, pass stack gases plus the correct amount of ammonia or urea over a catalyst bed — selective catalytic reduction (SCR), wherein oxides of nitrogen NOx are converted (reduced) to nitrogen gas.

Effective SCR is not popular with utilities (this contrasts with the situation with wet scrubbers for SOx control) because:• Retrofitting can be very expensive since gases must be at

economiser outlet temperatures and catalyst contact times are relatively long. Confined sites may require installation of thousands of tonnes of steelwork tens of metres above grade.

• Ammonia slip (the escape in stack gases of ammonia surplus to the requirements of the NOx reduction reactions) can create a bigger problem than NOx.

• Catalysts are expensive and subject to poisoning, which limits their lifetime.

• The catalysts create oxidising conditions hence increase formation of the PM2.5 precursor SO3, requiring more powerful control measures for this.

SCR is required for gas turbines as well as coal-fired power stations where NOx emission limits are extremely tight. The technology can achieve 2–3 mg/m3 in gas turbines, and 50 mg/m3 in coal-fired power station stack gases (90% reductions). Because of the problems there is much R&D effort underway overseas directed towards achieving NOx limits without recourse to SCR. Efforts are concentrating on a combination of ever more efficient low-NOx burners, fuel reburning, and over-fire air, all precisely controlled. But a concern is that these will lead to a rise in unburned carbon in fly ash. For gas turbines, new designs of combustors (vortex, reverse-flow) promise 2–3 mg/m3 performance, but these are still some years away from being commercially available. Table 2 shows the current state-of-the-art regarding NOx emissions control, while Figure 6 shows where NOx emissions control equipment is located within the power station.

Figure 6: Adding NOx control by selective catalytic reduction (SCR)

ULTRAFINE PARTICULATES PM2.5

On such fine particles, conventional stack gas particulates removal equipment is less effective than with PM10 particulates, although fabric filters are probably better than electrostatic precipitators. Hybrid ESP/fabric filters are a promising approach to even better control of PM2.5 particulates in stack gases — 99.99% capture may be possible. Power station operators overseas are being required to focus on removing SO3 from stack gases, as this is a precursor to sulphuric acid. SO3 formation is increased by selective catalytic reduction systems for control of NOx. What is emerging as the preferred control approach is to add a solution of sodium bisulphite (SBS) to stack gases after the economiser. This chemical absorbs SO3 to form sodium sulphates, in the process releasing SO2 back into stack gases. This is then removed by the wet flue-gas desulphurisation scrubbers downstream. Make-up SBS solution is formed simply by scrubbing a small sidestream of stack gases with sodium carbonate solutions. An extra benefit deriving from this process is that the acidity of stack gases is greatly reduced, so fabric filter and ESP lifetimes benefit. It becomes feasible to cool stack gases further than in current practice to yield higher overall thermal efficiencies.

MERCURYThere are no current control solutions generally accepted around the world by utilities (although pressures to control emissions of this element have so far been concentrated in the USA). The problem is with elemental mercury Hg, and compounds formed between the metal and organic compounds such as

methyl mercury, as both are (in relative terms) volatile. In the USA, dosing stack gases with powdered activated carbon is being promoted, but this is expensive and fouls ash, limiting options for its possible sale, or ultimate disposal. In contrast, the oxide HgO is not volatile, and can be removed readily in scrubbers or other particulates control equipment. Hence, control processes under development seek either to convert the mercury to the oxide, allowing its removal in conventional stack gas cleaning equipment, or to cool stack gases to such an extent that mercury vapour pressures are low enough to ensure emission limits are met.

Table 3 summarises the costs involved in NOx and SOx control.

Table 2: NOx emissions control options from pulverised-fuel boiler plant

Technique Technical status

Strengths and weaknesses Remarks

Ultra low-NOx burners

Evolving Requires very close control; hard to guarantee performance

Increase in unburned carbon losses in ash

Fuel reburning plus over-fire air

Evolving 30% reduction.Currently requires ‘clean’ fuel — coal must be ‘micronised’

Part of a package with low-NOx burners

Selective catalytic reduction (SCR)

Evolving 90% NOx reduction; reliableExpensive; requires ammonia dosing, risk of ‘slip’

‘Benchmark’ NOx control technology


Figure 7 shows where one of these approaches, an ionization-based multi-pollutant control system, might fit into an overall power station flowscheme.

All this suggests that fears for the imminent demise of pulverised-fuel firing are greatly exaggerated.

WHAT ABOUT CO2?The designers of pulverised-fuel plant systems appear likely to be capable of achieving carbon capture (in a form suitable for sequestration) at acceptable cost within a decade. Feasible CO2 capture systems should stem from an extension of the various multi-pollutant control systems under development such as that shown in Figure 8. Amine solution-based scrubbing systems are widely deployed in the oil and natural gas industries for purifying gas streams. They effectively remove CO2 and all other acid gases from gas streams including power station boiler stack gases, and yield CO2 in a form suitable for sequestration (ie highly concentrated, under pressure). But in a power station stack gas cleaning context the costs of these systems are high in terms of the energy penalty to regenerate the amine solution: perhaps 30% of the power station’s gross output. Ammonia promises to overcome these problems. In a promising process under development, the Chilled Ammonia Process, the stack gases would be scrubbed with an ammonia-rich solution to form ammonium carbonate. This solution would be heated under pressure to drive off the CO2 and recycle the ammonia. The title ammonia solutions will need to be chilled to keep ammonia gas out of stack gases. The energy penalty for this process is around 10%, while by 2020 its cost is estimated (by the Electric Power Research Institute) to be of the order of A$10–15/t CO2. Even after the costs of sequestering this carbon dioxide permanently have been absorbed, near emissions free coal-fired power generation is likely to be able to sustain its competitive advantage as a clean source of electricity in comparison with nuclear power and natural gas for decades to come. Foreshadowed emission limits do not yet justify a shift away either from coal, or from pulverised-fuel firing.

* Richard Hunwick is a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Energy. He can be contacted at [email protected] or telephone (02) 9956 5754.

Figure 7: A possible arrangement for a multi-pollutant control system

TRENDS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Apparent from the above is that the ‘stack gas gauntlet’ grows ever longer and the limits on emissions ever tighter. Some argue that this will ultimately kill pulverised-fuel power stations and that the future belongs to gasification. Are these fears justified? Despite misgivings every time a new limit on an existing or ‘new’ pollutant has been imposed, pulverised fuel seems set to endure. It has coped with all challenges so far, but at a cost. Multi-pollutant control systems using appropriate sorbents as scrubbing media are gaining support and credibility, their intuitive appeal being that they avoid the increasingly lengthy train of clean-up systems. Two such approaches of considerable potential are to:

1. Irradiate cooled stack gases to create a strongly oxidising environment within them, then add ammonia to form ammonium sulphate and nitrate, compounds that can be sold as a fertilizer. Demonstration plants are in operation in Poland, Japan, China and the USA.

2. Inject sodium bicarbonate into stack gases upstream of a wet scrubber to form sodium sulphate and nitrate. Then, regenerate the sodium bicarbonate using ammonia to yield ammonium sulphate and nitrate as by-products that can be sold as a fertilizer. Canmet Canada is the developer.

Table 3: Costs and consequences of emissions control retrofit to one typical 700 MWe coal-fired unit

Extra water required (Mlpa)

Extra power

required (MWe)

Capital cost for retrofit (A$m)

NOx to 350 mg/m3 (ultra low-NOx burners, over-fire air)

- 2 30

NOx to 50 mg/m3 (above modifications plus SCR)

- 4 150+

SOx down 33% from 1,200 mg/m3 (by limestone injection)

- 2 20

SOx down 80% to 250 mg/m3 (by ‘dry’ scrubbing)

900 5 60

SOx down 96% to 50 mg/m3 (by wet limestone scrubbing)

1,100 (halved

with heat exchange)

12 100


These awards were first held in 2004. This year there were 18 entries from six universities competing in three categories:• Energy & Society• Innovation in Energy, Science & Engineering• Energy — Achieving More With Less

The guest-of-honour was Mr George Maltabarow, Managing Director, EnergyAustralia, representing the Energy Networks Association. Mr Maltabarow gave an interesting talk on the critical need for energy education and research, drawing on past and current experience. He reminded some of the more ‘mature’ energy professionals in attendance that in the 1980s, a technology called magnetohydrodynamics was going to be the electricity generating technology of ‘the future’, but had ultimately failed because the available technology could not provide adequate materials for the linings.

The event and the students’ prizes were sponsored by Energy Networks Association, Country Energy, CSIRO Energy Technology, University of Technology Sydney, Agility, ConFac, Wireless Monitors Australia, and the New South Wales Department of Planning Demand Management and Planning Project. The AIE wishes to thank these sponsors for their generous support.

Entries comprised a project summary and a project poster display which were assessed by a panel of 12 judges

NSW-ACT Postgraduate Student Energy AwardsIn the lead up to the AIE National Postgraduate Student Energy Awards in November, the Sydney, Newcastle and Canberra Branches jointly held the NSW-ACT Postgraduate Student Energy Awards at the University of Technology Sydney on 5 September 2006.

representing industry, government and academia. A copy of the handbook with details of each project is available at http://www.aie.org.au/sydney_index.htm.

The first prize winners in each category received $1,000 and a travel bursary to attend the AIE National Conference in Melbourne and compete in the AIE National Postgraduate Student Energy Awards. A second prize of $500 and an encouragement award of a ‘cent-a-meter’ were also awarded in each category. The winners and their topics are summarised in the table below. Congratulations to the winners and to all participants.

NSW & ACT Postgraduate Student Energy Awards Entrants

Energy & Society Innovation in Energy, Science & Engineering

Energy — Achieving More With Less

First Prize Maria Kordjamshidi University of New South Wales Development a new framework for house rating scheme (HRS)

Zheng Wei Zhao University of Wollongong Mesoporous carbon nanocomposite for electrochemical power sources

Susannah Gardner (Wood) University of Sydney Oxidation of methane in mine ventilation air using porous burners

Sponsors Energy Networks Association CSIRO Energy Technology Country Energy

Second Prize Ruud Kempener University of Sydney The effect of social factors on the evolution of energy systems

Chris Stevanov University of Newcastle Effect of pyrolysis conditions on structural transformations, and their combined effect on biomass combustion reactivity

Nicholas Florin University of Technology Sydney Production of H2 from biomass coupled with CO2 capture

Sponsors University of Technology Sydney Agility ConFac

Encouragement Prize

Noim Uddin Macquarie University A sustainable energy future in Bhutan: trends and strategies

Sameer Prakash Khare University of Newcastle Heat transfer in oxy-fuel coal combustors

Yansong Shen University of New South Wales Modelling of coal blends combustion: a cost-effective way of providing in-depth information for fossil fuel utilization

Sponsor Wireless Monitors Australia

Best University Contribution awarded to the University of Newcastle

Sponsored by the New South Wales Department Planning Demand Management & Planning Project


Special Feature

Australia may not be a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, but politicians of all persuasions are persuaded that climate change is a serious problem requiring national and international solutions. One solution that has particular appeal for coal-rich Australia is carbon capture and storage (CCS). Therefore, when Energy News, called for contributions in the September 2006 issue it was no surprise that we received four excellent articles for publication in this special feature.

The articles appear in the following order:

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)

The first, by Ian MacGill and Terry Daly of the Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets (CEEM) seeks to put CCS technology in perspective as one of many solutions. CEEM undertakes interdisciplinary research in the design, analysis and performance monitoring of energy and environmental markets and their associated policy frameworks. It brings together University of New South Wales researchers from a number of disciplines including engineering, business, science, arts, and economics. Its work includes analysis of a range of existing and emerging energy technologies, including CCS. The article draws on a range of earlier publications into CCS including a submission to a recent parliamentary inquiry into geosequestration technology. More details of this, and other work, can be found at www.ceem.unsw.edu.au.

The second article was submitted by ZeroGen Pty Ltd, the Stanwell Corporation subsidiary that is implementing the ZeroGen project — an investigation into the generation of low emission baseload electricity by integrating coal gasification with the capture and safe storage of CO2. For further information see www.zerogen.com.

Both of these articles assume that CCS and geosequestration are one and the same, and in many minds they are. In the third article, Brian Kirke brings a new perspective to

What role might CCS play in Australia’s energy future?

Iain MacGill, Research Coordinator (Engineering), and Terry Daly, Researcher, University of New South Wales Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets

Page No. 96

Burying the myths: why carbon capture and storage is one of our best chances for fighting climate change

Gary Humphrys, Acting CEO, Stanwell Corporation, and Director, ZeroGen Pty Ltd

99

Carbon capture using microalgae: a potential win-win-win option

Brian Kirke, Sustainable Energy Centre, University of South Australia

101

Carbon capture and storage: key legal issues

Andrew G. Thompson, Partner, and Samantha Smart, Articled Clerk, Minter Ellison Lawyers, Perth

103

CCS by considering the potential to capture carbon in algal ponds, with a particular emphasis on the potential in South Australia.

In the second article, Gary Humphrys noted the need for an appropriate regulatory framework. This is the topic of the fourth article in which staff from Minter Ellison Lawyers (www.minterellison.com.au) address the legal issues associated with CCS. The most relevant long-term risk identified is the London Protocol which prohibits CCS “as it involves the disposal of CO2 in the form of industrial waste”. The authors noted that the Commonwealth Government had recently proposed an amendment to the London Protocol to explicitly permit offshore CCS sequestration, creating an opening for a postscript.

PSOn 3 November, 2006, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, announced that the London Protocol was amended to allow the 29 member countries to capture carbon dioxide streams and store them in geological formations.

PPSTwo days earlier the Prime Minister, John Howard, announced funding of $8 million to CSIRO Energy Technology for the development of post-combustion capture technology (in contrast to ZeroGen’s pre-combustion capture process) as part of the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6). Post-combustion capture is a process that captures carbon dioxide from power station flue gasses and when coupled with sequestration the technology offers potential for near zero emissions from power stations.

With such a topical issue, this feature is inevitably a bit out-of-date before it is published. Energy News welcomes ongoing contributions on this and other important energy topics through letters to the editor and articles. Send all material to [email protected].

What role might CCS play in Australia’s energy future?By Iain MacGill, Research Coordinator (Engineering), and Terry Daly, Researcher, University of New South Wales Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets.

CCS (or gesequestration), is a promising but, at this time, still somewhat unproven set of technologies for capturing CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and a range of other industrial processes, and then safely sequestering them in geological reservoirs. While the concept has been around for several decades, CCS could be said to have entered the mainstream Australian energy debate in 2002 with the release of Beyond Kyoto – Innovation and Adaptation, a


report by the Prime Minister’s Science and Engineering Innovation Council (PMSEIC). This report highlighted the need for major climate change action in Australia, and established a target of a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2100. It noted the need for government support to drive the necessary technical innovation and argued that geosequestration should be Australia’s primary focus for achieving such reductions. It included scenarios of ‘zero-emission’ coal power plants being deployed in Australia from 2005 onwards at a cost of around A$10/tCO2 avoided, around one-fifth the cost and a decade or more ahead of estimates in studies by the IPCC, IEA and US Department of Energy available at the time1.

The Commonwealth Government’s 2004 Energy White Paper outlined a climate and energy policy framework focussed largely on the development of emerging technologies and with a particular emphasis on CCS. Policy initiatives included significant public funding of CCS R&D, and for demonstration projects of low emission technologies where CCS was likely to receive considerable support. There was less interest and only limited support for increasing the deployment of existing energy efficiency, gas-fired generation and renewable energy options. For example, the Government ruled out the introduction of national emissions trading or carbon taxes, and chose not to expand its very modest targets for new renewable energy supply.

Two years on, we are seeing continuing worldwide efforts to both assess CCS’s future potential including a recent IPCC Special Report, and to advance the technologies through R&D and demonstration projects. In Australia, the Government’s Low Emission Technology Development Fund has awarded public funding to four projects to date and three of these involve CCS – an integrated coal drying and potential CCS upgrade at the Hazelwood plant in Victoria, a demonstration Oxy-Fuel project at CS Energy’s Callide Power Plant in Queensland and an Enhanced Coal Seam Methane CCS project near Roma in Queensland. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation is also holding an inquiry into geosequestration technology.

The last two years have also seen growing concerns about the need to take action on climate change as highlighted in the recently released Stern Review in the United Kingdom, and a better scientific appreciation of the scale of the greenhouse abatement challenge that faces us. Avoiding dangerous global warming of more than 2ºC now seems likely to require global emissions to peak before 2020, followed by substantial overall reductions by as much as 60% from present levels in 2050. Furthermore, delays in taking action will require faster reductions to a lower level of emissions. It has been estimated that a 20-year delay in undertaking emission reductions will require levels to then be reduced at three to seven times the rate if action begins now2.

The question, then, is what role CCS might play in Australia’s energy future given this climate challenge? And the obvious answer is, “We don’t know yet”. Given sufficient political will to take serious action, CCS is still only one of a range of options that we have to reduce emissions in the stationary energy sector. Proven and commercially available options include greater end-use energy efficiency,

lower emission fossil fuel technologies including natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) and cogeneration plants, a range of renewable energy sources and nuclear power. Technical progress, however, is clearly essential given the scale of abatement required. Much of this will be ongoing improvement of these existing options, however, there are clearly important innovation opportunities in promising but still emerging technologies including CCS but also others such as ‘hot rock’ geothermal plants.

Sensibly assessing and comparing these options requires first a risk-based technology assessment framework that considers factors including technical status, present costs where known, possible future costs, potential scale of abatement, potential speed of deployment and the wider societal outcomes associated with each option. With regard to CCS, the international studies to date and the forty or more submissions from industry and others made to the Australian parliament’s inquiry differ considerably in their conclusions on all these issues. This, in itself, is a significant outcome because it highlights the continuing uncertainties regarding this set of technologies.

In terms of technical status, there are commercial CO2

capture processes in use for some industrial processes, and a number of promising technology developments for the greater challenge of capture from power stations, but considerable ongoing uncertainty. The IPCC Special Report on CCS notes that “it is generally not yet clear which of these emerging technologies, if any, will succeed as the dominant commercial technology for energy systems incorporating CO2 capture”. Likewise, there are good physical reasons and some experience to date that suggest that CO2 injection into appropriately chosen geological reservoirs can stay securely sequestered for thousands of years. The challenge is to find such sites. Early demonstration projects are promising although there continue to be surprises. A majority of these demonstration projects are also primarily related to increasing fossil fuel production through enhanced oil and gas recovery, and therefore can be argued to be adding to, rather than reducing, global warming. Regardless, it will still likely take decades to achieve a high degree of certainty that injection does indeed equate to effective storage and all the issues involved in selecting appropriate sites. The most proven CO2 sequestration is, of course, to leave it in the fossil fuels — these have demonstrated secure storage of carbon for tens of millions of years.

Use of CCS in the power sector will inevitably involve increased costs. It will always be cheaper to emit CO2 to the atmosphere rather than capturing it and sequestering it unless there is cost imposed on emissions. A key cost issue, then, is the emissions intensity of different generation options (see Figure 1). CCS is likely to be a low but not zero emission option. For example, off-the-shelf NGCC generation has less than half the emissions of conventional coal generation while cogeneration can offer roughly equivalent emissions intensity to that projected for CCS.

There can be considerable disagreement in cost estimates for existing generation technologies, let alone one such as CCS that has not yet been demonstrated at commercial scale. Given that the driver for CCS is emissions reductions, a useful measure of the cost of the technology is in terms of


$/tCO2 avoided in comparison with conventional generation options. The continuing uncertainty in the abatement costs of CCS are highlighted by comparing different international and Australian studies (Figure 2).

What does seem clear is that some existing options would seem to offer highly competitive abatement costs right now compared with estimated future CCS costs. For example, a carbon price of A$20/tCO2 might see considerable uptake of NGCC within Australia while some renewable energy projects here have been built with equivalent carbon costs of around A$40/tCO2. Energy efficiency offers many no-regrets options where the value of energy savings outweighs the costs of implementation. However, the major emissions reductions required in the longer-term to protect the climate are almost certain to exceed the capabilities of present options. Continued use of fossil fuels will certainly require CCS technology; alternatively very significant progress in other technologies will be required. CCS’s key role might therefore be in the longer term with very significant emission reduction targets where it could play a very valuable role. Note also that CCS applications for NGCC plant are arguably as promising as coal applications.

The potential speed of deployment of CCS is also a critical question and, again, there is considerable uncertainty (Figure 3). There are numerous international and Australian demonstration projects with scheduled implementation in the 2010 to 2015 time frame. Demonstration however is very different from commercial deployment because its focus is on learning through experimentation while deployment requires proven technologies. The process takes time and, as noted earlier, time is of the essence. Options only available in 20 years time may need to be three to seven times faster in reducing emissions at equivalent cost and effort than existing options for it to be worth waiting.

All of this points to CCS being a promising but still somewhat unproven option that potentially offers very significant abatement potential and good integration into the existing energy industry. There are, however, outstanding questions regarding its effectiveness and safety, its delivered abatement is likely to come at significant cost and it is

unlikely to be able to make a significant contribution to emission reductions for a decade or more. This means that we do not yet know what role CCS can play in our abatement efforts and should not rely on it, or any other particular technology, to address all our challenges. What is needed is a policy framework that will resolve the question of what role CCS and other emerging options might play in the medium- to longer-term for Australia and elsewhere, while reducing risks and maximising opportunities through much greater and immediate support of existing technically-proven abatement options.

The present R&D and demonstration support for CCS is appropriate and should, in our view, be greatly expanded. Much will rely on international technology developments and support for greater international effort on climate change policies would be helpful in this regard. Furthermore, CCS is only one of a range of emerging technologies worthy of such support. More importantly, Australia needs a coherent policy framework including a price on carbon to support greater deployment of existing options including NGCC and cogeneration. As highlighted in many submissions to the House of Representative Inquiry (from participants including CSIRO, Santos, the Energy Supply Association of Australia and even the Australian Coal Association) such a carbon price is also essential to drive deployment of CCS. We would argue that additional market deployment support for energy efficiency and renewables is also urgently required. The time to start is now.

Figure 1: Estimated emission intensities (kgCO2/MWh) for existing and possible future generation optionsSC= Super Critical Plant; IDGCC =Integrated Drying Gasification Combined Cycle plant, EE=Energy Efficiency

Figure 2. Various estimates (incl. uncertainty ranges) of effective abatement cost (A$/tC02) of CCS, Australian and international studies

Study scenario Approximate period when significant deployment of CCS in electricity

generation beginsPMSEIC (2002) 2005IEA (2004) 2010DoE (2004) 2020IPCC (2005) MiniCAM MESSAGE

2015–20

2040ABARE (2006) 2015CO2CRC – Beck and Cook (2005)

2030

Battelle (2006) 2025

Figure 3: Scenarios of timing of significant global commercial deployment of CCS in electricity generation, Australian and international studies


REFERENCES1 MacGill I.F., H.R. Outhred and R.J. Passey (2003) “The Australian Electricity Industry and Climate Change: What role for geosequestration? in Proc. ANZSES’2003, Melbourne, November2 DEFRA (2006) Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Report of the Conference held in the UK, February 2005

Burying the myths: why carbon capture and storage is one of our best chances for fighting climate changeBy Gary Humphrys, Acting CEO, Stanwell Corporation, and Director, ZeroGen Pty Ltd.

In the wake of the intensifying fight against climate change, a range of alternative technologies are being developed, tested and implemented to aid in reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. One such technology causing considerable debate among scientists, policy makers and investors is that of CCS, also known as geosequestration.

Carbon capture and storage refers to the capture and safe storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, or co-produced as a result of oil and gas extraction, and injecting it deep underground for long-term storage in stable geological foundations.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently prepared a special report highlighting the fact that the CCS process offers significant potential to enable ‘deep’ cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Deep cuts are radical or dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions, for example, 60% by 2050.

Stanwell Corporation Limited, a Queensland-based power generator with a portfolio comprising coal-fired thermal, wind and hydroelectric power generation facilities, is in the feasibility and test drilling phase of a coal-based gasification and CCS project — ZeroGen — that, if successful, will have the potential to achieve these deep cuts in CO2 emissions. ZeroGen is a world-first project that will demonstrate the viability of integrating coal-based gasification and carbon capture and storage to produce low carbon emission baseload electricity. Through ZeroGen facilitating commercialisation of the technologies, there is the potential for CO2 emissions to be cut by approximately 80% relative to conventional black coal-fired power stations.

A key advantage of projects like ZeroGen is that they underpin the value of Australia’s coal industry by allowing baseload electricity to be generated with low greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Australian Government, Australia’s primary energy consumption will increase by 50% by 2020. While renewable sources of energy, such as wind and water, play an important role in the long-term fight against climate change, it is unlikely they will meet the demand for baseload electricity and therefore,

the dependence on fossil fuels as the major energy source is unlikely to change in the near future. According to the Australian Coal Association, Australia has more than 74 billion tonnes of identified black coal reserves — enough to last well over 200 years at our current rate of production. Australians have come to enjoy a readily available supply of electricity that supports our standard of living. It is naive to believe we could eliminate fossil fuels from energy production. Hence, we must invest in technologies that will enable the use of fossil fuels in more environmentally-friendly ways. A project like ZeroGen has the potential to result in a net saving of up to 420,000 tonnes of CO2 per year when the plant is operating at its expected maximum capacity and availability.

Through ZeroGen, Stanwell is investigating the technological, regulatory and stakeholder requirements to implement CCS on a commercial scale within Australia. The knowledge obtained from this demonstration can facilitate the deployment of this technology throughout the world.

IMPLEMENTATIONThe technologies available for capturing CO2 from electricity generation fall into three categories: post-combustion, pre-combustion and oxyfuels (where a power plant’s fuel is burnt in oxygen rather than air). ZeroGen will use the method of pre-combustion for capturing CO2 and this is only possible together with integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC).

The advantage of pre-combustion capture is generally higher CO2 concentrations than post-combustion, and it enables lower capture costs to be achieved, by producing a more concentrated, pressurised stream of CO2. Pre-combustion capture involves first the partial combustion of coal or gas in oxygen to produce a CO2 plus hydrogen (H2) gas stream, which is reacted with hot steam to produce CO2 plus more H2. The H2 is combusted in a gas turbine, and the CO2 is compressed into a super critical state and transported via underground pipeline from the emission site to the injection location, as can be seen in the diagram below.

Source: Stanwell Corporation Limited

Geological storage of CO2 comprises injection into geological formations in the deep subsurface, the migration of CO2 away from the immediate vicinity of the injection point and the subsequent trapping of the CO2 in the geological formations. In addition to the careful selection of a suitable reservoir, a comprehensive monitoring system


Issues affecting the acceptance and deployment of CCS include:•potential CO2 leakages• the technology’s ability to make “deep” cuts in CO2

emissions•monitoring CO2 behaviour in the subsurface•management of stakeholder perceptions.There are several other CCS projects that have been proposed in Australia and the existence of these proposals has necessitated the need to develop sound, guiding regulatory and economic frameworks for CCS. A number of studies indicate CCS can be commercially deployed by between 2020 and 2030; however, this is subject to a range of factors. The present level of regulatory uncertainty regarding the direction of greenhouse and energy policy is influencing investment decisions. This applies to both technology research and development, as well as commercial development. There is currently no legislative regime in Australia which facilitates the transportation and long-term storage of CO2 for the purpose of mitigating greenhouse gases.

An interim regime is required to facilitate demonstration projects that will enable cost efficiencies to be identified. As a precursor to the commercial development of technologies, it is clear that the earlier we start demonstration projects, the earlier these cost reductions will occur. According to Mr Frank Van Schagen, CEO with the Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development (CCSD), “clean coal technologies offer many opportunities to address greenhouse gas emissions concerns”.

“In the present climate of high oil and gas prices, advanced coal technologies with CO2 capture and storage give Australia the chance to insulate the economy from volatility in energy costs,” said Mr Van Sachagen.

“Australia needs to think seriously about creating incentives which will enable energy producers to move to zero emissions. This will inevitably include pricing into the economy the higher cost of clean energy and accelerating the national technology drive so as to lower the cost of clean power as rapidly as possible.”

STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONSWhile CCS is endorsed by a range of leading international and national industry bodies, its opponents question the ability of CCS to be commercially deployed as an affordable alternative, or believe investment should be given to renewable energy technologies rather than one that will support the continued use of fossil fuels. The opinions of scientists, regulators, the coal industry, environmental groups and the community will all play a role in determining whether CCS is possible within Australia. For this reason, the management of stakeholder perceptions is critical to the deployment of any low-emission technology. The concept of CCS is not widely known, and this low level of awareness enables opponents of the technology to engage in negative campaigns to influence attitudes. A flexible, proactive and stakeholder-driven approach is required to educate key decision-makers about CCS and to achieve broader community and regulatory support for this project.

is required to ensure the gas is safely contained. Geological reservoirs into which CO2 can be injected include depleted oil and natural gas fields and deep saline aquifers. Since the stored CO2 will be less dense than the water in and around the reservoir rocks, it needs to be geologically trapped to ensure it does not reach the surface. The exact trapping mechanism depends on the geology. In depleted oil and gas reservoirs, geological traps contain the CO2; in some cases these are anticlines, in other cases fault traps. In the case of deep saline aquifers with no distinct geological traps, an impermeable seal rock above the underground reservoir is needed to contain the CO2. This is known as hydrodynamic trapping. The typical storage process of CO2 in deep saline aquifers is shown below:

Carbon capture and storage is leading edge available technology that has been used in the international and domestic oil and gas industries for the past 50 years for enhanced oil recovery. The Sleipner Project in the Norweigian North Sea has been injecting one million tonnes of carbon dioxide into sandstone 600 metres below the seabed since 1996. A similar project in Algeria strips CO2 from natural gas produced at the In Salah Field and reinjects it back into a gas reservoir for long-term storage. This has been occurring at the rate of one million tonnes per year since 2004.

ZeroGen is undertaking a test drilling program, which is significantly in advance of the other CCS projects proposed in Australia. The goal of the drilling investigation program is to carry out necessary scientific procedures to understand the local geology of the Northern Denison Trough and to confirm its ability to safely and securely store CO2.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORKOnce the ability of the geology to safely store the CO2 is proven, proponents of CCS still face the challenge of encouraging governments to provide the regulatory framework that is needed to develop a sustainable CCS industry, and to enable industry to commission demonstration projects that will allow cost efficiencies to be identified.

Source: Stanwell Corporation Limited


A key factor in maintaining stakeholder perspectives is the role of the government, whom communities entrust with ensuring their interests are protected. Strong government leadership is needed to inform stakeholders in a timely manner that the technology is vital to protecting the energy security of the country and in supporting our way of life today and into the future in an environmentally responsible manner.

CONCLUSIONClimate change is a significant issue within Australia and worldwide, and governments and industry are looking to technology to reduce levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. CCS is an available technology that can achieve deep cuts in CO2 emissions, and its application is being demonstrated through projects like ZeroGen. To accelerate the adoption of this technology, proponents of CCS require:• a demonstration of the ability of Australian geological

formations to safely store CO2;

• a regulatory framework to develop a sustainable CCS industry; and

• a rigorous stakeholder management program to build confidence with key decision makers.

ZeroGen is a world-first project that is building these three pillars to support the successful commercialisation of CCS technology.

Carbon capture using microalgae: a potential win-win-win optionBy Brian Kirke, Sustainable Energy Centre, University of SA.

Aquatic microalgae can capture 90% of CO2 in power station flue gas bubbled through ponds (Sheehan, 1998:12, 243). There is no need to separate the CO2 from the rest of the flue gas or compress it, making this a far easier carbon capture option than geosequestration provided there is flat land for ponds near the power station and a source of nutrient-rich wastewater. Some species of aquatic microalgae use solar energy to capture and store carbon in biomass through photosynthesis much more rapidly and efficiently than other terrestrial life forms. Most of this biomass can then be recycled to produce liquid and gaseous biofuel. Although

Artist’s impression of proposed Zerogen power station site

Algae ponds in Hawaii Photo courtesy of Cyanotech Corporation

the carbon is then released, the biofuel replaces other fuel which would otherwise be producing carbon emissions. Thus algae offer the possibility of addressing 3 major problems at once: 1. Carbon capture2. Nutrient pollution of waterways3. Depletion of transport fuels.The potential benefits are enormous, and R&D in this field should be given a high priority.

STATE-OF-THE-ARTSeveral companies are developing techniques to use algae for carbon capture and/or fuel production, mostly in the United States. These include Green Fuel Technologies, GreenShift, Valcent and Solazyme. A New Zealand company, Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation, claims to have achieved the world’s first commercial production of biodiesel from ‘wild’ algae outside the laboratory. In Hawaii, power station flue gas is being used to increase algal growth rates (Pedroni et el, 2006), and according to Benemann (2003:26), “use of flue gas CO2 for microalgae cultivation has been amply demonstrated and presents no major impediments”. Pedroni et al state that “Microalgae ponds are also used extensively for wastewater treatment in many countries, but “harvesting still requires considerable more R&D”.

Extensive pond culture of algae is already well established in Australia, but not for carbon capture. Beta carotene is being produced from salt-tolerant Dunaliella algae grown in large unmixed ponds in Western Australia, and this could provide a starting point for broad scale pond culture in Australia. Valcent claims that its Vertigro system, consisting of a series of closely spaced vertical bioreactors, achieves much higher yields per hectare than conventional pond systems. However Benemann (2003) argues that the most economical way to grow algae is in shallow, unlined, mixed open raceway ponds, using municipal or agricultural wastewater to supply both water and nutrients, and where practicable, power station flue gas as a source of carbon. Waste heat might also be used to maintain optimum growth rates through the winter and to dewater harvested biomass.


Several groups in Australia are working on microalgae cultivation for carbon capture and/or fuel production:1. SARDI (the South Australia R&D Institute) recently

started a three-year, $1 million project in collaboration with Australian Renewable Fuels, with an emphasis on photobioreactor work to identify suitable algae to grow in saline water, such as in salt interception areas on the Murray River.

2. Victor Smorgon has an agreement with Greenfuel Technologies of Cambridge, Massachusetts, to develop photobioreactor technology to capture CO2 emissions.

3. SQC is supporting laboratory studies at Flinders University on botryococcus braunii.

4. According to The Energy Blog (June 25, 2006), Algae BioFuels Inc., a subsidiary of Petrosun Drilling Inc, will be engaged in R&D into algae cultivation as an energy source in the production of biodiesel in Arizona and Australia.

POTENTIAL SCALE AND CONTRIBUTIONUnder favourable conditions some algae strains have produced over 50 grams of dry biomass per sq m per day. For example Chlorella is a fast growing species of green algae which grows naturally in Australia and has been known to produce as much as 55.5 g dry weight/m2/d (Sheehan et al, 1998:39), which would equate to 200 tonnes of dry biomass per hectare per year if this peak production rate could be maintained. Realistically 100 T/Ha/year of dry matter might be achieved, many times more than can be achieved using any other land-based life form used for biomass energy production, such as forests, sugar cane, canola or oil palms. Valcent claim that in its system, about 50% of the dry weight of the algae is an oil suitable for biofuel and can yield up to 4,000 barrels oil per acre, per year (1.5 ML/Ha/year), or approximately 250 tonnes dry weight/Ha/year. Microalgae biomass contains some 45% carbon (Benemann, 2003:19). Thus 100 tonnes dry weight would capture about 45 tonnes of carbon (4,500 tonnes per square km per year), equivalent to 16,500 tonnes of CO2. Brown coal produces about one tonne of CO2 per MWh, black coal 0.8 tonnes and natural gas about 0.4 tonnes. So, a 1,000 MW power station burning brown coal continuously at full capacity would produce about 1,000 tonnes CO2 per hour or 8,760,000 tonnes pa. It would require about 265 km2 of algal ponds to capture 50% of emitted carbon. For black coal the area would be 212 km2 and for gas 106 km2. If Valcent’s claimed productivity figures could be achieved, these areas could be reduced by a factor of 2.5, however these claims seem optimistic.

CASE STUDYSouth Australia appears to have all of the requirements for a demonstration of this technology. On average 135 ML/day of wastewater, containing the nitrogen and phosphorus from over half a million people or about half of Adelaide’s total population, is treated at Bolivar, which is just over five kilometres from four power stations (Torrens Island, Pelican Point, Quarantine and Osborne) with a combined capacity of about 2,000 MW. There is flat undeveloped land both

at Bolivar and on Torrens Island, both of which would be ideal sites for pond trials. Adelaide has a mild sunny climate suitable for algaculture most of the year. Port Augusta, with a 500 MW brown coal power station, plenty of flat unoccupied land, a warm climate and a population of 15,000, would be another possible site. South Australia’s average electricity demand is about 1,500 MW, mostly generated from gas, so about 200 km2 of ponds could potentially halve South Australia’s emissions if enough nutrients are available to support the required algal biomass. This might be achieved by recycling the nutrients from Bolivar after extraction of hydrocarbons and/or by growing nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria.

COSTS AND BENEFITSAccording to Valcent, an estimated cost of US$20 per barrel is achievable on a commercial scale. However this seems an extremely optimistic estimate when compared with the well researched estimates of Benemann (2003:26) who considers that economic viability will depend on climate, availability of flat land suitable for ponds close to power stations and/or wastewater treatment plants, and the cost of harvesting and processing algal biomass – costs which are yet to be determined. But when compared to the combined costs of geosequestration, wastewater treatment and petroleum production, the economics at a suitable site like Bolivar or Torrens Island are likely to be attractive.

POTENTIAL ECONOMIC VALUEAccording to Futureenergy.org, the International Energy Agency estimates that producing electricity using geosequestration would cost between 10 and 11 cents per kWh for new coal power stations; higher in old ones. This is about $100 per tonne of CO2. The Australian Government Energy Working Party Report Q3 (Energy Working Party, 2004) quotes a cost range of A$50 to $A78 per tonne CO2, which equates to $185 to $289 per tonne of carbon. From these figures, one hectare of ponds absorbing 45 tonnes of carbon per annum would have a value in terms of geosequestration of $8,300 to $16,600 pa.

According to Sheehan (1998:41), one naturally occurring chlorella strain in the USA produced 28.6-32.4% lipids (ie oils from which biodiesel can easily be produced). Taking a mean figure of 30% of the 100 tonnes/Ha/year quoted above, it can be expected that some 30 kL of biodiesel could be produced per hectare of pond per year, worth about $12,000 assuming it would have a market value similar to crude oil at a projected Decemeber 2006 price of US$64 per barrel (ie 40 cpl). Using Valcent’s figures of 4,000 barrels per acre per year gives a value of over $600,000, but this figure seems hard to believe.

In addition to liquid fuel production, much of the non-oil part of the algal biomass can be digested anaerobically to produce biogas, which can be used in stationary power generation. Various possibilities exist for the residue of biomass which can not be converted to fuel, including recycling to provide nutrients for further algal growth, or where excess nutrients


are available, nitrogen fertilizer, stock and aquaculture feed, and bioplastics (Benemann, 2003:20). The economic value of algal ponds in terms of nutrient stripping from wastewater is likely to be significant, but beyond the author’s competence to estimate.

CONCLUSIONAlthough algal ponds are not a complete solution to CCS, they may prove to be a very significant contributor — one which should be investigated more thoroughly in the Australian context.

REFERENCESBenemann, J.R., 2003. “Biofixation of CO2 and Greenhouse Gas Abatement with Microalgae – Technology Roadmap.” http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/networks/networks.htm. Accessed 15/09/06.

Briggs, M. Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae. http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html Accessed 15/09/06.

Energy Working Party Report Q3, 2004, Securing Australia’s Energy Future, Federal White Paper, June, 2004, Ch.8. http://www.nieir.com.au/code/research_centre/reports/energy/Oil_Shock.pdf. Accessed 9/10/06.

F u t u r e e n e r g y. o r g . h t t p : / / w w w. f u t u re e n e rg y. o rg /infopollutinggeoseq.html. Accessed 9/10/06.

International Network on Biofixation of CO2 and Greenhouse Gas Abatement with Microalgae. http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/networks/Biofixation.htm. Accessed 16/10/06.

Pedroni, P.M., Menancourt, A., and Benemann, J.R., 2006. “International Network on Biofixation of CO2 and Greenhouse Gas Abatement with Microalgae.” 8th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Trondheim, Norway, 19-22 June 2006, http://www.ghgt8.no/. Accessed 15/09/06.

Sheehan, J., Dunahay, T., Benemann, J., and Roessler, P. 1998. “A look back at the US Department of Energy’s Aquatic Species Program: Biodiesel from Algae.” NREL/TP-580-24190. NREL, Golden, Colorado. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf. Accessed 15/09/06.

The Energy Blog. http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/06/petrsun_enters_.html. Accessed 16/10/06.

Van Harmelen, T., and Oonk, H., 2006. Microalgae biofixation processes: applications and potential contribution to greenhouse gas mitigation options. Int. Network on biofixation of CO2 and greenhouse gas abatement with microalgae, under the auspices of the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Program.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Main_Page. Accessed 15/09/06.

http://www.greenfuelonline.com/index.htm. Accessed 15/09/06.

http://www.greenshift.com. Accessed 15/09/06.

http://www.solazyme.com. Accessed 15/09/06.

http://sec.edgar-online.com/2004/12/17/0001144204-04-022014/section19.asp. Vision Energy. Accessed 15/06/06

http://www.valcent.net/news_detail.sstg?id=37 . Accessed 10/10/06.

Carbon Capture and Storage: Key legal issuesBy Andrew G. Thompson, Partner, and Samantha Smart, Articled Clerk, Minter Ellison Lawyers, Perth.

A COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATIVE REGIME Although the petroleum legislation in some Australian jurisdictions contains provisions which deal to some extent with the underground storage of gas, there is no existing Commonwealth or State legislative regime which deals comprehensively with the range of issues raised by long-term CCS activities. Some existing States do have legislation which allows for the geological storage of CO2 (for instance in Queensland under the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004). However, the provisions in existing legislation dealing with the underground storage of gas generally have been criticized because they do not:a

a. provide sufficient certainty of rights to inject, store and recover gas;

b. adequately deal with ownership rights in stored gas; orc. provide an adequate general regime for gas storage.

In October 2004 the Carbon Dioxide Geosequestration Regulatory Working Groupb released a draft report,c the key finding of which was that, in the absence of an adequate existing regime for the regulation of Australian CCS projects, legislative reform is required.d The main sources of responsibility and liability risk identified as likely to be relevant to CCS project proponents include:

(a) common law (particularly the torts of trespass, nuisance and negligence);

(b) State and Commonwealth environmental legislation, including regulations dealing with:

(i) environmental harm generally;(ii) pollution and wastee;(iii) contaminated land; and(iv) environmental licences and authorisations;(c) other State and Commonwealth legislation, dealing

with issues such as:(i) transport, exploration and production of minerals and

petroleum;(ii) land use and development;(iii) native title and heritage protection;(iv) explosives and dangerous goods;(v) the regulation of foreign investment;(vi) third party access and tax; and(vii) international law (especially when the proposed project

is offshore).

JURISDICTION ISSUESf

CCS involves using large subsurface storage areas located either onshore or offshore. This raises the question of jurisdiction over the storage site. Generally, the States have jurisdiction over onshore State land and up to three nautical


miles offshore and the Commonwealth has jurisdiction past the three nautical mile point out to the edge of the continental shelf. Even with this delineation, there are a number of jurisdiction issues that can arise:

• One CCS storage site may cross multiple jurisdictions, resulting in the need to comply with more than one regulatory regime. A similar dilemma could arise where CO2 is transported via a pipeline which crosses from one jurisdiction into another.

• Given that it is most likely that CO2 will be collected onshore and then pumped offshore to Commonwealth waters for storage, which government is responsible for the long-term liability?

• Sequestered CO2 fields in Commonwealth waters could leak or migrate and cause damage in State waters or onshore.

One solution for dealing with the issue of liability for injection sites which straddle State and Commonwealth waters is to adapt the principles applied for the cooperative development of ‘joint development zones’. Consideration of international law principles, including the various conventions and treaties that Australia is a signatory to, will also be necessary in establishing a regulatory regime for offshore storage sites.

In relation to the long-term risks of CCS, the most relevant of these is the London Protocolg as it seems to prohibit CCS as it involves the disposal of CO2 in the form of industrial waste.h Given this uncertainty, the Commonwealth Government has recently proposed an amendment to the London Protocol to explicitly permit offshore CCS sequestration.i The amendment was scheduled to be voted on in November 2006.

LAND OWNERSHIP AND RIGHTSWhere a CCS storage site is located onshore, the legal issues to consider include ownership and use of the storage site. A company wanting to undertake CCS on or under a piece of land may need a legal right to access and use that land, for example, by purchasing the land or entering into a license and compensation agreement with the owner of the land. One method of providing a cohesive way to facilitate CCS over all types of land, both onshore and offshore, might be to create a special type of statutory license. Such licenses could be granted for a specifically defined area and a fixed or indeterminate period of time, similar to those currently provided for in mining and petroleum legislation.

THIRD PARTY ACCESS REGIMESA further consideration in the development of a comprehensive legislative regime for CCS is whether, and how, to regulate third party access to CCS facilities and infrastructure. The existing third party access regime under Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA) establishes legal rights for third parties to share the use of particular infrastructure services which are of national significance, on reasonable terms and conditions. The TPA applies to both privately and publicly owned infrastructure. There is potential for third party access rights to apply to services provided by

infrastructure facilities at the various stages of the CCS process. Pipelines used to transport carbon dioxide and the storage reservoirs could be vulnerable to applications for third party access rights.j The Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety Act 2004) (Qld) and existing UK gas legislationk provide examples of legislative regimes that allow third party access to underground storage reservoirs.

LIABILITY

The main concern with CCS arises from the risk of escape or leakage of CO2 at the injection and storage site, either caused by natural migration of the CO2 through the earth or interference with the injection or storage structures. The experience of researchers involved in the Frio Brine Pilot Experiment in Houston, Texas seems to justify this concern. Some 1,600 tonnes of CO2 were pumped into the Frio Formation to monitor how the gas behaved. It was found that the CO2 lowered the pH of the formation’s brine and the resulting acidity dissolved surrounding minerals, including, potentially, the carbonates that seal the pores and fractures in the rock containing the stored CO2.l

The risks of CCS can be separated into short-term and long-term risks. Short-term risks are the risks related to the capture, transportation and actual injection of CO2. Long-term risks can be divided into two main types:

• the local risks of harm to human health,m the environment and property caused by leakage or migration of sequestered CO2; and

• climate risks related to leakage of CO2 from geological reservoirs and the effect on climate change.

From a common law legal liability perspective, a CCS project needs to consider not only the possible sources of liability but also the period during which the proponent is potentially exposed.n Effective CCS aims at storing CO2 for thousands or possibly millions of years. At the time when an incident occurs giving rise to a liability under a CCS regime (such as an escape of CO2), the entity responsible for causing the damage may no longer exist, leaving the current owner of the storage site and/or governments responsible for any residual liability. In most jurisdictions, an operator’s liability for a site ceases once it has been rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the regulator. It has been suggested that governments should accept responsibility for long-term residual liability after a CCS site has been plugged, monitored and abandoned. In Norway, the government has just announced that it will finance the bulk of potentially the world’s biggest facility for CCS.o Whether financing the project will equate to accepting long-term liability for it waits to be seen. In Australia, we are familiar with the concept of the state assuming long-term liability from our experience in the resources sector; all existing mining and petroleum regulation operates on the basis that an operator’s liability for a site ceases once it has been rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the regulator. At that time, government assumes liability for the site.p A related question for governments will be whether long-term liability rests with the State and/or Commonwealth Governments.


Keep up-to-date with the latest news at

www.aie.org.au/news_index.htm

EMISSIONS TRADING AND CCSGreenhouse gases are, in economic terms, an externality: those who produce greenhouse gas emissions are bringing about climate change, thereby imposing costs on the world and on future generations, but they do not face the full consequences of their actions themselves.q Some commentators have argued that CCS will only ever be commercially appealing if its costs are outweighed by the costs to the emitter of failing to reduce CO2 emissions, via carbon taxes or other financial penalties. Although there is not yet a national emissions trading scheme in Australia, various state governments have indicated they are considering introducing a state-based emissions scheme without Commonwealth supportr. Potential issues will concern the duration of any credit, liability for the carbon attached to that credit and any implications if that credit is transferred.

CONCLUSIONAlthough CCS activities and the regulation of these activities in Australia are still in the very early stages of development, it seems clear that the Commonwealth Government is committed to taking the first steps in putting into place a framework for the future regulation of CCS projects. Most recently, the House of Representatives Committee conducted an inquiry into geosequestration technology and 45 submissions from various companies and industry bodies were received by the 18 August 2006 deadline.s CCS raises some complex legal and regulatory issues that will need careful consideration by both potential industry participants and governments. Nevertheless, CCS has been put forward as ‘the world’s best shot at curbing global warming’t and Australia’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels for energy production will ensure that CCS remains an appealing and seriously considered option.

REFERENCES(Endnotes)a James Fahey and James McLaren ‘Geosequestration in Australia:

Regulatory Overview and Models for legislative reform’ AMPLA Limited twenty-ninth annual conference, Sydney NSW 24-27 August 2005.

b Established by the Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources in September 2003

c Guiding Regulatory Framework for Carbon Geosequestration Projects in Australia

d James Fahey and James McLaren ‘Geosequestration in Australia: Regulatory Overview and Models for legislative reform’ AMPLA Limited twenty-ninth annual conference, Sydney NSW 24-27 August 2005.

e Note that in June 2006 the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it was prepared to determine whether CO2 was a pollutant under the U.S. Clean Air Act.

f Warburton, AM, Grove JA, Then S ‘Geosequestration: A solution for Australia?’ presentation to the APPEA National Conference 9 May 2006.

g 1996 Protocol to the London Convention, which entered into force and replaced the London Convention on 24 March 2006.

h The London Protocol prohibits all onshore to offshore dumping unless explicitly permitted by Annex 1 of the Protocol, CCS is not currently listed in Annex 1. For more information see the IPCC Report, p 255

i Commonwealth Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, ‘CO2 sequestration in Sub-Seabed Formations: Proposal to amend Annex 1 to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and Other Matter, 1972’ available at www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/co2sequestration/index.htm

j Warburton, AM, Grove JA, Then S ‘Geosequestration: A solution for Australia?’ presentation to the APPEA National Conference 9 May 2006.

k The Gas (Third Party Access and Accounts) Regulation 2000 (UK).

l Kerr, Richard ‘A Possible Snag in Burying CO2’ ScienceNow Daily News 28 June 2006

m There have been two recent examples of the harmful effects of elevated concentrations of CO2 on humans. In 1984, 37 people were killed when an earthquake and landslide at Lake Monoun in Africa triggered an overturn of stratified lake water resulting in a release of CO2. In August 1986, 1700 people were killed at Lake Nyos in Cameroon when a volcanic crater lake released a large quantity of CO2 that had slowly accumulated for some time in the deep lake waters. The gas that escaped from the lake waters failed to disperse to safe levels before flowing down into nearby populated valleys.

n McLaran J & Fahey, J ‘Key Legal and Regulatory Considerations for the Geosequestration of Carbon Dioxide in Australia’ AMPLA Bulletin (2005) 24 ARELJ

o Moskwa, Wojciech ‘Norway to build World’s Biggest CO2 Capture Facility’ www.planetark.org/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=38487 20 October 2006

p Subject, of course, to the operator’s liability for any negligence in its actions.

q Nicholas Stern ‘Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change’ 30 October 2006 available at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/987/6B/Slides_for_Launch.pdf

r Campbell, Rebecca ‘Recent developments – long term liability for offshore geosequestration’ AMPLA conference, Melbourne, Victoria, 18-21 October 2006

s Submissions can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/scin/geosequestration/subs.htm

t Moskwa, Wojciech ‘Norway to build World’s Biggest CO2 Capture Facility’ www.planetark.org/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=38487 20 October 2006


ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORT ENERGIES CONFERENCEThe Alternative Transport Energies Conference was held 10–13 September 2006 at Burswood International Resort, Perth, Western Australia. Like the first one organized in 2004 to celebrate the arrival of fuel cell buses to Australia, it was a landmark event. The three Citaro buses have been in service in Perth for 24 months in a highly successful trial of hydrogen-fuelled transport that has been part of a program involving nine other cities throughout Europe. Those attending the conference this year were treated to a well organised and highly relevant event which began with terrific keynote addresses from the Honourable Alannah MacTieran, Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, Western Australia, and Dr Allan Lloyd, now heading the International Council on Clean Transportation. The presentations that followed were both informative and authoritative. The organisers had somehow managed to find speakers that are both good communicators and leading movers and shakers in the world of alternative fuels. This was quite refreshing and provided the following clear messages:

• Industry needs clear, long-term targets, coupled with near-, medium- and long-term actions, and also the space to work towards these.

• In the short-term, biofuels will play a role in the transport fuel sector in a number of countries and regions, including Australia.

• There are a number of lessons from the push for natural gas vehicles that the fuel cell light duty vehicle industry could well do with taking on board.

• Medium-term options such as hybrids may provide a pathway forward.

• The imagination of people needs to be engaged if we are to see a paradigm shift to fuel cells.

Hydrogen Matters

• Policy makers need access to authoritative (not hyped) information if they are to make clear and best-practice decisions.

• To embark on a fuel cell project you need a lot of patience and fortitude.

• Alternative transport fuel groups could do a lot more to communicate amongst themselves.

Courtesy Kerry-Ann Adamson, Fuel Cell Today

NATIONAL HYDROGEN MATERIALS ALLIANCEThis new research cluster was launched formally on 18 October at the CSIRO Energy Centre, Newcastle, by Professor Stephen Walker, Executive Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, Physical Sciences and Architecture at the University of Queensland. Some 40 people from CSIRO, government departments and the partner organisations attended the launch which was introduced by Dr Ron Sandland, Deputy Chief Executive, CSIRO. An overview of the Energy Transformed Flagship and the role of hydrogen energy was given by Dr John Wright. A brief overview of the role that hydrogen energy may have in addressing issues of global warming, energy security and air quality was provided by Dr Andrew Dicks of the University of Queensland and Cluster Leader. After the formal launch, the project partners spent the following day and a half in a workshop defining and planning the various projects that make up the research program. This was the first time that all partner organisations had got together and it provided an excellent opportunity to update each other on the status of research and development in this field of growing importance. A website will be set up soon for the alliance and, in the meantime, further information can be obtained from Andrew Dicks at [email protected].

CALENDARJANUARY TO DECEMBER 2007

7–9 February in Tokyo 3rd Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Expo http://www.fcexpo.jp/

18–22 March in San Antonio, Texas NHA Annual Hydrogen Conference http://www.hydrogenconference.org/

16–20 April in Hanover, Germany Hannover Messe 2007 Hydrogen and Fuel Cells http://www.fair-pr.com

29 April–2 May in Vancouver, Canada Hydrogen & Fuel Cells 2007 http://www.hfc2007.com/

23–24 May in Aberdeen, Scotland H2O7 Conference http://www.all-energy.co.uk/H207.html

If you know of any conferences or other major events that would be of interest to AIE members and will be held from April 2007 to March 2008 please email details and web link to [email protected].


Company Member Profile

testo Pty Ltd is the Australian subsidiary of testo AG, a manufacturer of portable instruments. testo AG is based in Germany, with offices in 75 countries and over 1,200 employees worldwide.

The testo family of instruments includes equipment for monitoring temperature, velocity, humidity, combustion, emissions, pressure and refrigeration, analysis (pH and conductivity) and indoor air quality. testo Pty Ltd is a ‘one-stop shop’, providing sales, service, calibration and training across Australia. All testo instruments are covered by a two-year conditional warranty.

In Australia, testo is a growing brand, providing solutions for many of the energy industry’s leading players including AGL Gas Production, Menangle, Mt Isa Mining, Woodside Energy, Onesteel, ConocoPhillips, Kwinana Power Station, Assa Abloy, Simtars, FCT and Airlabs.

testo Pty Ltdtesto instruments have been represented in Australia since 1989, initially via an agency and subsequently as a wholly-owned subsidiary of testo AG in Germany since 1999. testo’s business is growing internationally — it is the world’s largest manufacturer of portable instruments. Locally, General Manager, Lucas Bogtstra, expects current turnover to double and a significant increase in staff numbers by 2010.

“I joined testo after 26 years with Daimler-Chrysler because I was impressed by the quality of the products and I could see the growth potential,” said Mr Bogtstra.

Air quality standards are getting stricter with more legislation such as the recently tightened NOx emissions requirements in many states. Across Australia there is a focus on cleaner air. testo Pty Ltd is working closely with the various authorities — “the authorities seem under-funded and some companies are still willing to take the risk,” noted Mr Bogtstra — however many companies want to be socially responsible.

“The community is increasingly expecting all companies to be responsible,” said Mr Bogtstra.

“And, testo makes products that make companies into responsible citizens. testo also has access to overseas experience. For example, in the United States, testo is a significant player in testing emissions and commissioning new plant. A small investment in the right tools backed up by documentation removes the guesswork, and ensures compliance. Today’s digital instruments are faster, more accurate, and provide repeatable results.”

testo is a new member to the Australian Institute of Energy. The company is represented by Romayne Bogtstra and Lucas, with Lucas joining the Melbourne Branch Committee for 2007.

“We want to develop a strong relationship between ourselves and members of the AIE,” said Mr Bogtstra.

“The AIE stands for the responsible use of energy, and that needs to include emissions. The AIE needs to work closely with our regulators to keep abreast of the latest developments and regulations. This will benefit members and the community.”

For further information about testo Pty Ltd and its products and services, call (03) 9800 4677, email [email protected], or visit www.testo.com.au.

testo 350 analyser monitoring flue gas emissions


Young Energy Professionals

On 2 November, Sydney Branch held an interactive workshop on “Structured Thinking for Problem Solving and Communicating Solutions” for over thirty young (of age and at heart) energy professionals, in the offices of Blake Dawson Waldron. Facilitated by Greg Joffe, a Director of the Nous Group, the two-hour workshop introduced seven steps to solving complex problems using a management consulting approach. This approach entails viewing all parts of a problem, then streamlining thinking to focus on the key issues that would deliver the most impact.

SEVEN STEPS1. State the problem2. Disaggregate the issues using logic trees3. Eliminate non-essential issues4. Develop a detailed work plan5. Conduct critical analysis6. Build the argument7. Tell the story(Too many forget no. 7, Ed.)

Group activities focused on the first three steps and offered participants a chance to put Mr Joffe’s advice immediately into practice, using butchers paper and coloured pens. Participants enthusiastically put their minds to the task, as they chose a ‘problem’ and used a logic tree to disaggregate the problem into different issues.

1. STATING A PROBLEMClearly defining the problem is not as straightforward as it seems. Investing sufficient time in this step may save a lot of effort later. Caveats are useful for defining the context and problem boundaries, particularly if the work is being carried out under contract for a client.

2. DISAGGREGATE THE ISSUES USING LOGIC TREES

‘Logic trees’ are powerful tools for breaking down problems into component issues. Three common types of trees are:i) Deductive trees – may be used early on in the process

to help define a problem using assertions, questions or categories.

ii) Hypothetical trees – useful once some knowledge gathering has been undertaken. Further analysis is required to validate or disprove a hypothesis, which is then open to further revision.

iii) Issues maps – may be used further on in the process to phrase key issues into questions so that they may be answered with a yes/no response. Questions should be sequenced in a logical order.

Welcome to the very first YEP* page dedicated to the young energy professionals of the Australian Institute of Energy. Deborrah Marsh, convenor for the Sydney Branch YEPs prepared this issue’s material. She also features in the AIE Member Profile on the next page. If you would like to start a similar group in your area, please let Deborrah know by email at [email protected].

Acronyms such as MECE (mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive) and NONG (no overlaps, no gaps) come in handy at this step. Whether you use MECE or NONG, the message is the same — known issues of a problem should be represented by the branches of your logic tree, but should not appear more than once.

3. ELIMINATE NON-ESSENTIAL ISSUESAn important step, eliminating non-essential issues allows us to focus on the key issues that make the most impact. Deciding what to eliminate may not be straightforward, particularly when different stakeholders are involved.

The workshop was a great success, with YEPs providing positive feedback on its content. Many also took the opportunity to network with other participants over some drinks and canapés. Sydney Branch Young Energy Professionals Working Group would like to thank the

Nous Group for their generous support of this event, and in particular Greg Joffe for sharing with us a useful skill in a fun and interactive environment, and Blake Dawson Waldron for providing the fantastic venue and for their assistance.

* A ‘young energy professional’ may practice in any of the energy sectors and may be involved with economic, environmental, social, legal and technological aspects of their sector. They generally have up to 10 years of experience.

YEPs ‘enthusiastically putting their minds to the task’


‘GETTING TO KNOW YOU’Introducing, Debborah Marsh, Sydney Branch Committee member and convenor of the Young Energy Professional Working Group.

What is your current job?PhD candidate at the Faculty of Engineering, University of Technology, Sydney. My policy-oriented research examines the links between energy and water, and the implications for Australia, particularly the New South Wales economy.

Best part of your job?Extremely flexible working hours and the opportunity to present my work at international conferences.

Challenging part of your job?Keeping up to speed with the many changes occurring in the energy and water industries, and accepting the peaks and troughs that come with self-directed research.

What drew you to the energy industry?I worked as an engineer on a range of energy projects in Australia and Asia before commencing my PhD. These experiences motivated me to move into more policy-oriented areas so that I have input into decisions that are made in the industry.

What is your vision for the energy industry in say 20 years time?A dynamic industry with strong leadership that is committed to delivering energy services using the most resource-efficient approach. I believe that the industry and the

AIE Member Profile

economy at large cannot function indefinitely if we take the environment for granted.

Most exotic places visited?Namibia, Zanzibar and Nepal

Favourite movie?Shawshank Redemption

Favourite music?Currently Gwen Stefani, Pink, and Air

Favourite childhood hero?Astroboy

Currently reading?“How to write a PhD in 30 days”… I wish!

What is the weirdest thing you’ve done?Live acting on Chinese television!

What is your greatest strength?Being resourceful and believing that anything is possible.

What is your greatest weakness?Taking on board more than I should.

Who inspires you and why?People with conviction to follow their truth…it’s easier to follow society.

If you had superpowers for one day what would it be?I would love to soar like an eagle!

Three people you would invite to dinnerBono, Al Gore and Roger Federer.

AIE Sydney Branch Chair, Tony Vassallo, presented the AIE/ECS Scholarship to Nicholas (Nick) Florin, postgraduate student with Sydney University, at the national conference dinner in Melbourne on 28 November 2006.

Nick is a PhD candidate in the Laboratory for Sustainable Technology in the School of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, where he is researching new processes to selectively generate hydrogen from biomass fuels. He has developed a carbon dioxide sorbent to capture the carbon dioxide in the reactor as soon as it is produced. This maximises the hydrogen concentration.

The award of $6,000 will assist Nick in attending the 15th European Biomass Conference in Berlin where he will present the results of his research. He will then visit four leading energy research centres in Europe and Japan where he will discuss his research; tour the facilities; and find out how they have implemented advanced biomass technologies, in particular the techniques they have developed to scale up their research equipment.

The AIE looks forward to hearing from Nick on his return when he will either make a presentation at a branch meeting or submit an article to Energy News.

Congratulations Nick!

AIE/ECS Scholarship


Reviews

Australian Solar Radiation Data Handbook (ASRDH)–Edition 4, by Trevor Lee and Mark Snow, Energy Partners (A division of Energy Strategies Pty Ltd, ABN 60 085 841 416), for the Australian and New Zealand Solar Energy Society (ANZSES), comprising:

• A u s t r a l i a n S o l a r Radiation Data Handbook (ASRDH) ISBN: 0 642 19121 2. A4 softcover, 948 pages, some colour pages. Standard Price for CD-ROM version (hardcopy extra) is A$104 for one state or A$320 for all Australian sites.

• Accompanying AUSOLRAD software with manual allows creation of ASRDH-style tables with non-standard values of orientation, slope, ground reflectance and eaves overhang. Standard Price is A$40 for one state or A$80 for all Australian sites.

Available from ANZSES at www.anzses.org, or call (02) 9402 1638.

ANZSES is offering its member discount of 20% to AIE members. Let them know you are an AIE member when you place your order.

This 2006 edition of the Australian Solar Radiation Handbook incorporates data to the end of 2004 and updates the 1995 edition, with some added improvements as determined by a user survey.

With an increased awareness by Australians to make buildings more energy efficient or sustainable and to produce energy from renewable sources this handbook is becoming an ever more useful tool for:• Building Design Engineers• Architects• Other Building Professionals (eg building services)• Solar Energy Consultants and Researchers• University Students and lecturers

The Australian Solar Radiation Data Handbook provides the user with a total of 46 tables containing measured and estimated data for hourly solar irradiance and total irradiation on different planes (ie horizontal through to vertical) and directions (north, south, east and west, including at 10° increments and sun-tracking systems) as well as diffuse and global irradiance/irradiation, solar heat gain through windows, clearness index and climatic information. The data is provided in an easy to use format and there is a complete set of tables for 28 different locations within Australia, including all the capital centres and a significant network of rural areas. Contained are also seasonal and annual isorad maps for the Australian capital cities and their

hinterlands and graphs of solar irradiation of key surfaces in each location.

The theoretical foundation for the method of design is indicated briefly to increase the understanding for the use of the data provided. For a more detailed description of design method or for further information there are references to other relevant literature, Australian standards, contacts, and some Internet addresses. The examples included relate in particular to buildings with passive and active solar design, day lighting, building services, photovoltaic panels, solar pool heating, solar hot water, process heat systems and solar greenhouses.

If you are an architect or engineer designing a sustainable house, factory, multistorey commercial building or building services with occupancy/user comfort in mind then this is the book you need.

Inge Sarunic B. Eng, GradIEAust

• • • •

Response Ability: Environment, Health and Everyday Transcendence, by Frank Fisher*, Vista Publications, Melbourne, 2006, 315 pages, RRP $34.95 (incl. GST).

Frank Fisher is well known among Australian environmentalists, not only as the former director of the Graduate School of Environmental Science at Monash University in Victoria, but also as a writer and social activist. Response Ability is a collection of a number of Fisher’s articles written over the past few decades grouped into the following themes: environmental science;

energy; transport; chronic illness; other environmental issues; taking action; and personal fulfilment. In the section on chronic illness, Fisher draws particularly on his personal experiences in managing Crohn’s disease to discuss how society constructs ‘disability’.

This is not a conventional book about environmental problems with the usual proposals for technical or policy fixes. At the core, Fisher is a social constructivist, and he uses this framework not only to provide insight into a range of issues, but also to show how social constructivism can be applied. Social constructivism emphasises that we can only know the world through our interaction with it and with each other. While the world exists outside of us, we construct the meaning we place on it. It must be emphasised that, although we construct the way we view the environment and what are regarded as environmental problems, we cannot conclude that they exist only in our heads and that we do not need to act. On the contrary, Fisher would claim that through revealing how environmental problems are


social constructed, we are guided on how to act. This is best illustrated through an example, and here I draw on his brief section dealing with water — currently a very hot topic in Fisher’s home state of Victoria. Fisher argues that our profligate use of water is an outcome of embedded institutional habits from a previous era, which lead to the situation where most of our water use (direct and indirect) is hidden from us, paid for by others or indirectly by us in our purchase of other items that use water in their manufacture, supply and disposal. He points to the many opportunities for governments to change the way we understand water. For example, just as have now become familiar with the concept of ‘embodied energy’, we could also introduce a ‘water rating’ for goods and services.

Fisher’s main message is in the title Response Ability. While ‘responsibility’ denotes ‘accountability’, for Fisher it also means that we have the ability to make a response (ie to act). We can act not just through changing our individual practices that impact on the environment, but also (and as Fisher has tried to do) through small but effective initiatives to change the system, that is, the context in which these environmentally damaging practices occur.

This book should appeal to a wide audience of people interested in environmental and health issues. Those who are not familiar with social constructivism may find the first section a little heavy going, and may head straight for the later chapters, which deal with the various themes. That being said, it is worth persisting with the first section because it provides the framework for the rest of the book.

Andrea Bunting School of Aerospace, Mechanical

and Manufacturing Engineering, RMIT University

* Frank Fisher is a Fellow of the AIE. One of the entries in Response Ability is adapted from “Liberating Energy: On the Social Construction of Energy”, a paper presented to the Students Science and Sustainability Conference, University of Melbourne, July 1993, and published in Energy News, vol. 12, no.5-6, pp.10-14.

• • • •

Who Killed the Electric Car?On 25 October 2006, Melbourne Branch went to the movies to see Who Killed the Electric Car? It was an exclusive advance screening at Palace Brighton Bay, where about 50 film buffs, electric car enthusiasts and sceptics enjoyed a very pleasant evening together. According to the advance publicity, the movie chronicles the life and mysterious death of the GM EV1, examining its cultural and economic ripple effects and how they reverberated through the halls of government and big business. No matter what point of view you espouse — natural death or conspiracy theory — the movie certainly highlights the challenges involved in introducing radically different energy technologies in mainstream applications.

Our experience was enhanced by the arrival of David Sharp a member of the Australian Electric Vehicle Association (AEVA) in his own electric vehicle.

The 1991 two-door hatchback Daihatsu Charade was converted a few years back in Sydney. It runs off 24 Panasonic 12 volt lead acid batteries and can easily travel 50 kilometres without recharging. The amazing thing was hearing only tyre traction but no engine noise when David took off for home.

Frank Papa, also of the AEVA, brought along some brochures on electric scooters and motorcycles, and your editor is looking forward to a test ride in the new year.

Joy Claridge Editor

David Sharp explaining some of the finer points of his electric car to theatre-goers after the film


MEMBERS CANCELLED BY DEFAULT (NoN-PAyMENT oF SubSCRIPTIoNS)

NAME BRANCHMr Richard Emblem AdelaideMs Paula Matthewson CanberraMr Tim Readwin OverseasMr David Semler AdelaideMr David Basford SydneyMr Bruce Wright BrisbaneMr John Anderson CanberraMr David Blackwell SydneyMr Jennifer Brown PerthMr Peter Devene MelbourneMr Michael Douge MelbourneDr Prince Efere OverseasMr Bob Emblin MelbourneMr R Humphreys MelbourneMr Rob Kaldor-Bull MelbourneMr John Kava BrisbaneDr Shane Kennedy SydneyMr Christopher Lawrence AdelaideMr Terrance Mcgovern MelbourneMs Lisa Moore MelbourneMr Pierre Muehilheim MelbourneMr Leslie Nand BrisbaneMr Waniss Otman OverseasMr Sumith Perera OverseasMs Christine Sammut PerthMr Sturgeon CanberraMr Robert Larkin MelbourneMr Michael Wilkinson BrisbaneDr Neil Avery MelbourneMr Clive Lumsdon PerthMr Francis Barram BrisbaneMr Yuri Kurtschenko BrisbaneMr Brett Maple AdelaideMr Andrew Ormes PerthMr Alan Peckmez MelbourneMr Rodney Pugh MelbourneMr Geoffrey Rogers MelbourneMr Leslie Scott SydneyMr William Smith BrisbaneMr Kenneth Sumby Perth

COMPANY MEMBERS CANCELLED by DEFAuLT

COMPANY NAME BRANCHGosfern Pty Ltd SydneyCS Energy Mica Creek BrisbaneAdvanced Lighting Technologies MelbourneANZ Banking Group Ltd MelbourneDeakin University MelbourneTrans-Atlantic College OverseasRSM Bird Cameron Perth

MEMBERS WHOSE ADDRESS IS ‘UNKNOWN’if you can assist with locating these ‘lost’ aie members, please email [email protected].

NAME BRANCHMs Amy Anderson SydneyMr Bruce Atkinson BrisbaneMr John Doutty AdelaideMr Craig Farrugia SydneyMr Terry Fogarty SydneyMr Matthew Forrest BrisbaneMr Robert Fraser SydneyMs Joyce Fu SydneyMr Mike George MelbourneMr George Gollagher BrisbaneMr Harold Grundell BrisbaneMr Dora Guzeleva PerthMs Linda Gyzen SydneyMr Alan Haines AdelaideMr Alan Hambly AdelaideMr Peter Harris BrisbaneMr Glen Hatton BrisbaneMr Todd Henderson MelbourneMr Andrew Hughes CanberraMr Michael Hunt SydneyMr Graeme Hunter BrisbaneMr Barry Johnston PerthMr Daryl Jones BrisbaneMs Rena Kuwahata BrisbaneMr Jason Lagowski MelbourneMr Grahame Lewis SydneyMr Chris Lloyd MelbourneMr James Lumsden AdelaideMr Duncan Mackinnon CanberraMr David Maxwell PerthMr Stephen Melville PerthDr Peter Murphy PerthMr Bill Nagle CanberraMr Glen Powell NewcastleMr Wayne Roberts SydneyMr Peter Rose MelbourneMs Sally-Anne Rowlands PerthMr Glenn Shaw MelbourneMr Colin Smith SydneyMs Erica Smyth PerthMr James Staig PerthMr Brian Steffen SydneyMr Philip Stevenson MelbourneMr Grant Stillman MelbourneMr Christopher Thomas SydneyMr Constantine Tsesmelis PerthMr Gilles Walgenwitz SydneyMr Geoff Whitford SydneyMr Garry Wildman Perth

Where are you?

NEW MEMBERSnaMe graDe BranchMr Tim Butcher Member SydneyMr John Alexander Dixon Member MelbourneMr Anthony Patrick Egan Associate SydneyMrs Angela Loring Walker Associate SydneyMr Robert Lim Associate SydneyMr Bernard Thomas Curran Member SydneyMr Jeremy Davies Associate SydneyMs Bailey Esther Associate SydneyMr Joshua Wall Member SydneyMr Glenn Dennis Member SydneyMr Hugh Outhred Fellow SydneyMr Bruce Precious Member SydneyMr Gregory Mark Paxton Associate BrisbaneMr Sam Barbaro Associate PerthMr Robert James Parker Member SydneyMr Paul Mark Riordan Member Adelaide

NEW COMPANY MEMBERScOMPany naMe rePresentatiVes BranchDelta Electricity Mr David Hogg Sydney

Mr Greg Everett SydneySaha International Mr Kumar Padisetti Melbourne

Mr Marc Travill Melbourne

MEMBERS RESIGNEDMr Ron Wilkinson Melbourne

Date post:	31-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	buinguyet
View:	214 times
Download:	1 times

EnErgy nEws - aie.org.au · EnErgy nEws Official JOurnal Of the australian institute Of energy Vol....

Documents