[*Impacts of Gas Drilling on Human and Animal Health, Bamberger and Oswald, New Solutions, Vol. 22(1) 51-77, 2012]

Feel free to use this quote in your stories.  Further comments will be posted on here. If you would like to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.

———–

Professor Ian Rae is an expert on chemicals in the environment and is an Honorary Professorial Fellow in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Melbourne. He is also an advisor to the United Nations Environment Programme on chemicals in the environment.

“The article makes a case for ensuring that cattle and other animals do not drink the water recovered from shale or other gas operations.  It’s self-evident that such water is likely to be contaminated with natural and/or industrial chemicals, so a warning of this sort is appropriate.

The authors say that their study is not an epidemiological analysis’ nor a ‘study of health impacts’ but does have value in presenting the risks and suggesting further study and in suggesting changes to present practices in the industry.  It certainly does not qualify as a scientific paper but is, rather, an advocacy piece that does not involve deep (no pun intended!) analysis of the data gathered to support its case.

The data in Table 2 are incomplete in that no dates or places are provided, and no references to other commentary on the events it reports, so it’s hard to assess the weight of the evidence.  Surely there were reports to or by regulatory agencies.   It could be that this is old evidence and that note has been taken of the hazards and appropriate regulations put in place to mitigate them.  We just don’t know.

Contributions to the journal are said to be refereed, but the refereeing process evidently was not very stringent.  For example, better refereeing would have forced the authors to provide the details I identified above as missing from their compilation.  As well, it might also have curtailed some of the less-well supported statements and asked for more recent references to the scientific basis for expressions of concern that material dated to the 1960s and 1970s.

Bamberger appears to be a veterinarian in private practice in Ithaca, New York, while Oswald is a pharmacology professor at nearby Cornell University.  As far as I can see, neither has a track record of investigation in environmental studies.  This does not mean they are wrong to sound a note of concern, but it does mean that they cannot be regarded as experts in the field with broad experience and attainments.

New Solutions is not a mainstream journal of the sort where high standards of refereeing would apply.  It is, as the masthead proclaims, ‘a journal of environmental and occupational health policy’, and claims to be ‘the only journal that attempts to both define the issues and offer perspectives’.  This is an overstatement since a number of other journals do this.  I have not had time to read the articles in recent issues of the journal, but the titles show that they are advocacy pieces dealing with issues that are matters of concern, and for that reason are also extensively covered by other journals.

In summary, the message can be heard in Australia that care needs to be taken in handling the water recovered during shale gas operations.  We did not need an article like this to tell us.”

———–

Dr Heather Chapman is an environmental toxicologist and Associate Professor at the Smart Water Research Centre, Griffith University, Qld. Her expertise is in the area of toxicology and water quality and she cannot comment on the technical aspects of gas drilling.

“This work is based on interviews and thus provides anecdotal evidence, rather than a direct cause and effect relationship, for adverse health impacts from gas drilling. It is an interesting study and highlights some of the knowledge that is required.  However, there are some important differences between gas drilling in the US and here which need to be taken into consideration when extrapolating from this research.

Firstly, the type of gas drilling (shale gas) that is reported in this paper is horizontal and therefore could be closer to surface waters, and potentially increasing the exposure to humans and livestock.  Coal seam gas drilling that takes place in Australia tends to be much deeper.

Secondly, the authors point to the reported confidentiality surrounding the chemicals used in fracking in the US. In Australia there is, on the whole, full disclosure about the chemicals used in the fracking process.

Lastly, the paper by Bamberger and Oswald reports a lack of pre-drilling data in the US study – i.e. information about the quality of the water before drilling began. My understanding is that such baseline data is being collected here.”

———–

Dr Gavin Mudd is a Senior Lecturer in Environmental Engineering at Monash University, Melbourne.

“This research provides strong food for thought and the need for comprehensive environmental monitoring – without this, there can be no definitive answers to the serious scientific and community issues which continue to be raised concerning coal seam gas and shale gas developments.

The paper focuses on health impacts that are rather anecdotal – since industry and government data is sufficiently lacking. But it provides more solid anecdotal evidence than usual and links this well to good theory and actual risks of chemicals.”

———–

Emeritus Professor Michael Moore is Chair of Water Quality Research Australia and former director of the National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology

“Almost everything in this study relates to a breakdown in process, either in the management of wells or of the wastewater stream. What we are talking about here is the inappropriate exposure of animals to wastewater with known toxic components and so it is hardly surprising that animals are negatively affected as a result. These waste compounds must be managed carefully in a way that is not at all dissimilar to the way conventional mining wastewater is subject to tight controls. The realistic message that should be taken from this study is that legislation to allow gas drilling must have sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the safe management of all waste.”

———–

ONLINE BACKGROUND BRIEFING SERIES – Continuing Tuesday December 20 at 10.30am AEDT

As coal seam gas continues to gain attention and generate controversy, the AusSMC is running a series of online background briefings for journalists to help you sift through the hype and understand the facts.

Briefing 2: Water worries - Tune in to the second briefing in the series focusing on the biggest potential problems with coal seam gas extraction and groundwater, and ask questions such as:

• Why is potential water movement such a problem?
  

  Coal seam gas briefing part 1: The Process was held on Fri 16 Dec 2011, the full presentation can be accessed here

• Can coal seam gas extraction deplete water supplies?
• Why is waste water a concern?
• Why should we be worried about salt?
• Can water from coal seams contaminate groundwater or surface water?

SPEAKERS:

• Professor Craig Simmons, Professor of Hydrogeology at Flinders University, SA, and Director of the National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training
• Associate Professor Willem Vervoort, Hydrology and Catchment Management at the University of Sydney
• Dr Gavin Mudd, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering at Monash University, Victoria

A full transcript is now available. Follow the full presentation by clicking here.

Audio only of the briefing is also available.

BRIEFING DETAILS:

DATE: Tuesday December 20, 2011
START TIME: 10.30am AEDT
DURATION: 56 min
VENUE:  Online

For further information, please contact the AusSMC on 08 7120 8666 or email us.

NB:  The AusSMC generally runs two different types of media briefings:
NEWS BRIEFINGS – Where new research or data will be released as part of the briefing
BACKGROUND BRIEFINGS – Where experts discuss an issue which is in the news or an issue we consider newsworthy, but no new research or data is being released

BACKGROUND BRIEFING: Friday December 16 at 11am

As coal seam gas continues to gain attention and generate controversy, the AusSMC is launching a series of online background briefings to help journalists sift through the hype and understand the facts.

The series of briefings will feature a range of experts from different institutions and industry and will include topics such as:

• Why are industries interested in coal seam gas and why should the public care?
  

  Coal seam gas briefing part 2: The Process was held on Tue 20 Dec 2011, the full presentation can be accessed here

• What actually is coal seam gas, how does one collect it and how is it different to shale gas? What is fracking and why is that important?
• Where are Australia’s deposits, are they widespread and are all the sites suitable – if not, why not?
• Why is water such a key part of all this: groundwater, contaminated water, leaching, water use and waste water are all hitting the news, but which are the most important issues, which are the hardest to deal with, which will cause the most harm and how many questions are still unanswered?
• Is it worth it? The pros and cons of CSG: How green is CSG compared with other energy sources. Why is it seen as having a key role in a move to renewable energy? Are the emissions actually lower? How real are the issues of soil contamination and health effects?

Briefing 1: The Process – Tune in to the first briefing in the series and ask questions such as:

• What does CSG involve and why is it now being considered?
• How does CSG form and where can CSG mining take place in Australia?
• What is the process for mining coal seam gas?
• Which chemicals are used? What is hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), and is it dangerous?
• How does it differ to extracting shale gas?
• What are the key difficulties and issues to be considered?
• What can we learn from the rest of the world?

A full transcript of the briefing is now available.  The briefing is available to view in full here Audio only is also available here

SPEAKERS (Bio notes):

• Dr Peter Stone, Director of the Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance (GISERA) – a collaboration initiated by APLNG and CSIRO to conduct public good research into the social and environmental challenges and opportunities arising from gas developments in Australia. For much of the last 10 years, his research has focused on the use of contested land-based resources, seeking to understand the intersection of a range of scientific, community and industry perspectives.
• Dr Judy Bailey, Coal geologist and coal and sedimentary petrologist at the University of Newcastle. She specialises in coal utilisation, morphology of char in combustion and gasification, coal grindability, energy options and their environmental impact, and carbon sequestration in minerals and in underground reservoirs.
• Dr Edson Nakagawa, Director of the Petroleum and Geothermal Portfolio at CSIRO. His current role is focused on the development and deployment of tools, technologies and knowledge to advance petroleum exploration, conventional and unconventional gas production, alternative transport fuels and the demonstration of geothermal energy in Australia.

BRIEFING DETAILS:
DATE: Friday December 16, 2011
START TIME: 11am AEDT
DURATION: 55 min
VENUE:  Online

A full recording of the briefing will be posted here as soon as possible after the event.

For further information, please contact the AusSMC on 08 7120 8666 or email us.

NB:  The AusSMC generally runs two different types of media briefings:
NEWS BRIEFINGS – Where new research or data will be released as part of the briefing
BACKGROUND BRIEFINGS – Where experts discuss an issue which is in the news or an issue we consider newsworthy, but no new research or data is being released

Dr Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, has described the need to phase out coal use that does not include the capture and storage of CO2 as “a global imperative”. The letter which was delivered to Kevin Rudd’s office today will also be sent to state premiers. A copy of the letter is available here.

Feel free to use these comments in your stories. If you would like to speak to one of these or other experts, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 8207 7415 or by email. Further comments will be posted here as they come to hand.

Read comments from:

Professor Barry Brook is Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at Adelaide University

Dr Geoff Davies is a geophysicist, author and commentator. He is a Senior Fellow at the Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University and is the author of “Economia: New Economic Systems to Empower People and Support the Living World”.

Dr Andrew Glikson is an Earth scientist at the Australian National University, involved in the study of the effects of atmospheric changes on the mass extinction of species.

William Kininmonth is a meteorologist and an outspoken critic of global warming and the Kyoto Protocol. He was head of the National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology from 1986 to 1998.

Professor Neville Nicholls is in the School of Geography & Environmental Science at Monash University, and was a member of the writing team for the IPCC Synthesis Report.

Dr Barrie Pittock was formerly leader of the Climate Impact Group in CSIRO and is author of the book “Climate Change: Turning Up the Heat”.

Dr Michael Raupach is Co-Chair of the Global Carbon Project, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research.

Dr Kelly Thambimuthu is the CEO of the Centre for Low Emission Technology.

Frank van Schagen is CEO of the CRC for Coal in Sustainable Development.

Professor Barry Brook is Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at Adelaide University.

“There are two realities that Hansen is trying to deal with in his letter.

One is the scientific reality – climate change is happening faster than we’d dared guess, and Hansen and colleagues are showing that the climate system responds more sensitivity to CO2 than had been assumed. We are already in the realm of dangerous climate change, and things can only get worse the longer we delay.

The other reality is political and economic – how can we possibly turn the world’s economies around to a low carbon future as urgently as possible, and still avoid global financial ruin? Hansen proposes some fundamentals – actions that must be done, if there is to be any hope of staving off a real crisis. This is a moratorium on building any more coal fired power stations unless the CO2 emissions are captured and buried and an apolitical mechanism to ensure that, year by year, a steadily decreasing emissions cap is imposed. The developed world must lead, and the developing world must then be close behind.

After these key measures, the rest is detail: tough political, diplomatic, economic and technical detail, but detail nonetheless. The hard fact is that we are already well beyond the point where we can continue to dance around the edge of the global climate problem and pretend to be solving it with half measures and meaningless gestures. It turns out that grace time passed decades ago. Rudd actually said it well last year – there is no plan B, no other planet to retreat to. Earth won’t wait any longer.

The big unknown is, and remains, this: has humanity got the collective wisdom to realise this in time and take meaningful action? Hansen says that this will take a herculean effort – but equally, there is no escaping this need. And we’ve done it before, during the world wars. History says that societies CAN mobilise to confront crises, but only when they are truly genuine about affirmative and immediate action.”

Dr Geoff Davies is a geophysicist, author and commentator. He is a Senior Fellow at the Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University and is the author of “Economia: New Economic Systems to Empower People and Support the Living World”.

“I applaud James Hansen’s call for urgent action on global warming, including phasing out coal-fired power stations. Global warming is advancing much faster than expected, and policy discussions have fallen well behind the new reality. We need to be reducing greenhouse gas emissions within years, not decades.

The quickest available energy option is to dramatically improve energy efficiency. Many studies now show that available efficient designs and methods can more quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions for less cost than most other options, with little reduction in amenity and with major side benefits. Efficiency is the only option that can keep household energy bills under control as energy prices inevitably rise.

Capture and storage of carbon dioxide from coal burning, menioned by Dr Hansen, is not a near-term option. It is at least a decade away from implementation and is unproven at the required scales. Dr Hansen’s frequent mention of carbon capture and storage should not be read as an endorsement of the technology, and certainly not as advocating taxpayer subsidies for it, but merely as a scientist’s careful noting of the only possible conditions under which coal-fired power stations could operate.”

Dr Andrew Glikson is an Earth scientist at the Australian National University, involved in the study of the effects of atmospheric changes on the mass extinction of species.

“I fully support the contents of James Hansen’s letter. The stabilization of atmospheric CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels below about 300 ppm (parts per million) about 10 000 years ago led to climate conditions which allowed prehistoric humans to settle and develop large scale agriculture, providing the basis for civilization. The current rapid rise of CO2 to levels nearing 390 ppm at rates of about 3 ppm per year threatens to erode the conditions for large scale agriculture due to migration of climate zones toward the poles with consequent desertification of large terrains, mountain glacier melt and thus shortage of water, sea level rise and inundation of extensive coastal and low river agricultural regions.

The extent of sea level rise has been underestimated by IPCC reports, as the recent history of Earth indicates sea level rise of at least 5 metres per one degree Celsius. In other words, in so far as mean global temperatures through the 21st century rise to levels higher than 2 degrees C, projected sea levels would rise on the scale of many metres, with serious consequences around the globe.

Current observations indicate rates of CO2 rise, temperature rise and sea level rise are exceeding IPCC projections; for example rates of melting of Arctic Sea ice have exceeded 10 percent per year during 2006-2007 – indicating climate change is taking place over exponential rather than linear trajectories, tracking toward dangerous conditions over the next few decades. These telescoped time tables of climate change, and the real possibility of climate tipping points, have not to date been taken into account by governments, which currently consider mitigation efforts on longer time scales, namely toward 2050.

Professor James Hansen’s letter is based on observations and conclusions reported in a recent paper by himself and a group of top US climate and paleoclimate scientists. The paper is based on evidence derived from both direct observations of ongoing climate change and detailed studies of the most recent history of the Earth. Professor Hansen’s conclusions and recommendations have my full support.”

William Kininmonth is a meteorologist and an outspoken critic of global warming and the Kyoto Protocol. He was head of the National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology from 1986 to 1998.

“The purported Open Letter from Dr James Hansen, Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is no more than a thinly-disguised front for a group of Australian climate change alarmists. The hysterical tone of the letter cannot hide the obvious defects of the information contained: global climate is not near a critical tipping point, temperatures having declined 0.6°C during 2007 to return to the 1961-1990 average. The only sign of ice sheet disintegration is the normal fracturing of ice shelves off the Antarctic Peninsula and Arctic sea ice extent has returned to near long-term mean values. Unstoppable sea level rise is imagination rather than reality. Statistics do not back up the claim that there are stronger droughts, forest fires, storms, tornados or thunderstorms.

Fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource and to be used as efficiently and effectively as possible until alternative renewable resources are developed for wide application through developed and developing countries. However carbon dioxide is neither a pollutant nor an agent for dangerous climate change. Energy policies must be based on good science, not emotive and unsubstantiated fear-mongering.”

Professor Neville Nicholls is in the School of Geography & Environmental Science at Monash University, and was a member of the writing team for the IPCC Synthesis Report.

“I understand Hansen’s frustration at the lack of action by politicians on this problem. But I can’t see that we can, or even should, immediately halt the construction of coal-fired power stations. And insisting on such precipitate action will provide an easy target for those who would avoid any action on global warming. The world won’t end while we wait for the final Garnaut report to recommend what can be done without destroying the Australian economy.”

Dr Barrie Pittock was formerly leader of the Climate Impact Group in CSIRO and is author of the book “Climate Change: Turning Up the Heat”.

“Jim Hansen is correct. The urgency of reducing emissions is now much clearer, with new observations showing that climate system models have under-estimated the rate of change. There have been particularly worrying decreases in Arctic sea ice, rapid acceleration of outlet glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, thb reak-up of some fringing ice shelves in Antarctica, and rapid melting of many mountain glaciers. This is all happening decades earlier than predicted.

We cannot afford to wait to reduce emissions, it must start now. We should not build new coal-fired power stations unless we capture and remove the carbon dioxide emissions, and we should phase in similar conditions on our coal exports. The whole world, and Australia in particular, will suffer greatly if we allow more emissions with resulting increased sea-level rise and other changes. Serious emission reductions decades from now will be too late.”

Dr Michael Raupach is Co-Chair of the Global Carbon Project, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research

“James Hansen is fundamentally right. Coal is indeed a major contributor to CO2 emissions, both globally and for Australia. If strategies for constraining coal emissions (either by burning less or by geosequestration) are not in place soon, then technical inertia will mean that coal alone will carry the world past 550 ppm CO2eq later this century.

This letter is a reminder of the rapidly increasing gap between emissions reductions necessary to avoid unacceptable climate change and the reductions that are technically and economically possible. In just a few years, this “carbon gap” will be unbridgeable and we will be committed to greenhouse gas levels 550 ppm CO2eq or more by later this century, with high risks of dangerous climate change”.

Dr Kelly Thambimuthu is the CEO of the Centre for Low Emission Technology.

“The position taken by James Hansen has the force of credible argument. It is possible to continue using coal whilst protecting the climate by enabling coal-fired power plant technologies with CO2 Capture and Storage. Such technologies would also foster the increased end use of decarbonised electricity/hydrogen based energy carriers that are required to transform the global energy infrastructure into a sustainable and climate friendly system in the longer term.

But rather than call for a dramatic halt in the use of a major global energy resource that is important to the peace, prosperity and security of nations concerted action should be taken now to accelerate the development and deployment of both coal-fired power plants with CO2 Capture and Storage and a portfolio of other carbon free or carbon neutral energy technologies.”

Frank van Schagen is CEO of the CRC for Coal in Sustainable Development

“The CRC for Coal in Sustainable Development (CCSD) strongly supports the Australian government’s efforts to establish a policy and regulatory framework that will enable Australia to reduce its greenhouse footprint. The solution to greenhouse will be a mix of many energy technologies that will include coal and other fossil fuels. The CCSD and other centres such as the CO2CRC are undertaking significant research programs which will demonstrate low emission coal based energy technologies that can be retrofitted to existing power plants. Similar work is occurring all around the world.”

For background information, please read Geosequestration in a Nutshell

Feel free to use these comments in your stories. If you would like a copy of the paper or wish to speak to an expert, don’t hesitate to contact us on 08 8207 7415 or email.

Please note that these views are the personal opinions of the experts named here. They do not represent the views of the AusSMC or any other organisation unless specifically stated. The AusSMC attempts to provide a range of views from the scientific community within a useful timeframe for news media. More comments will be added to the AusSMC website as they become available.

Dr Peter Cook is Chief Executive Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC).

“Dr Karl’s claim ‘Sydney alone would produce a cubic kilometre of compressed carbon dioxide every day’ is too large by more than three orders of magnitude.

1 cubic kilometre (700 million tonnes) of CO2 emissions daily, would be equivalent to 250 billion tonnes per annum, which is more than 2,000 times the actual Sydney emissions, more than 600 times Australia’s total CO2 emissions and more than ten times the world’s total CO2 emissions.

The facts are:-

- Australia’s net annual greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production, land use change, transport, industrial processes, forestry and waste are equivalent to 559 million tonnes, of which 415 million tonnes are CO2 (AGO, 2006). Sydney’s contribution to this is in the order of 100 million tonnes a year or an average of about a quarter of a million tonnes of CO2 a day;

- Compressed, Sydney’s daily CO2 emission would have a volume 0.0004 km3, (128 Olympic sized swimming pools), which can be geologically stored.

- The CO2 will not be stored in underground caverns. The proven technology for CO2 storage involves storage in of tiny pores between grains in sedimentary rocks, which is the same process by which oil and gas are naturally stored underground for millions of years.”

Mark Diesendorf is from the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of New South Wales.

“The principal problem faced by coal power with CO2 capture and sequestration (CCS) is that it is an unproven technological system that will not be commercially available before the early 2020s. The recent report on “The Future of Coal” by an expert interdisciplinary group at MIT envisages that the technology will start to make a noticeable contribution on a global scale around 2025 and may overtake renewable energy around 2045. Clearly, Australia would be foolish to delay energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, which could be implemented now, until such time as coal with CCS may be commercially available. With the huge amounts of money being invested in coal power with CCS, several pilot plants will be constructed around the world before 2020, but these will be a long way from safe, proven, commercially available systems.

It is a delusion of grandeur for local proponents to claim that Australia will develop coal power with CCS and sell it to China. Such development, which will cost billions of dollars and is very risky, is best left to superpower economies such as the USA and the EU. Australia should stick to the geological aspects, so that, if the CCS technology is eventually developed overseas, Australia will have identified suitable sites for geosequestration.

Incidentally, the term “clean coal” is a misleading marketing term and therefore should be avoided. Even if CCS is developed, coal power will still be a major source of air and water pollution and land degradation.”

Mr Barney Foran is visiting fellow at the centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University. He led the Resource Futures Programme at CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems and has a background in agriculture, ecology and physical economics.

“Analyses on the full production chain (a life cycle analysis) of an advanced coal power plant with sequestration reveal that a 63% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions can be achieved. This takes it down to just under 500 grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kilowatt hour compared to 1000 to 1300 grams per kilowatt hour in plants currently operating. The CO2 scrubbing, compression, pipelining and injection impose a parasitic load on the whole system that reduces production efficiency that can then hinder economic growth and output. Because of losses in physical efficiency, CO2 scrubbing should only be applied to highest efficiency generation plants, such as advanced gas turbines. Relying on ‘end of pipe’ technologies for cleaning and storage of waste from coal and nuclear, delays Australia’s progression to an advanced industrial structure where most, but not all, energy could come from renewable sources.”

Professor John Kaldi is Chair of Geosequestration at the Australian School of Petroleum at the University of Adelaide and Chief Scientist for the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC).

“The demonstration done by Karl Kruszelnicki yesterday was wrong on several fronts:

1. Basic volumes: Dr Karl’s numbers just do not make sense and are out by an order of 1,000. One cubic kilometre of compressed CO2(assuming 0.7t/m3) per day from Sydney would mean emissions of: 1000 x 1000 x 1000 x 0.7 million tonnes per day X 365 days per year or approximately 255,500 million tonnes per year. This is 464 times Australia’s total emissions (including power, transport and agriculture) or effectively 10 times the entire world’s emissions. In reality, total Sydney electricity production is probably responsible for the production of around 25-35 million tonnes of CO2 a year or around 70,000 tonnes a day.

2. The concept of building boxes or looking for caverns underground indicates a total misunderstanding of gas storage methodologies (established practices for over 75 years) and basic geology. CO2 storage will not be in caverns, but in the pore spaces between grains of sedimentary rock.

3. The whole idea of the science of CCS is to find the right geological formations to store the CO2 surrounded by the right geological formations to ensure that once stored it does not leak out… the same way mother nature has stored oil and natural gas for millions of years.

Tackling climate change requires a range of solutions and is not about competing technologies. We need an entire portfolio of strategies that include renewables, as well as clean coal technology. We should be supporting all the alternatives.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), comprising some 2000 scientists around the world, and who recently received the Nobel Peace Prize for this work, are working on a range of clean coal projects, which have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one third once deployed. They are supported by the major developed and developing nations. There are also some very advanced carbon capture and storage projects underway in Australia.”

Professor Ian Lowe is an Emeritus Professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University, and President of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

“It is entirely reasonable to do research on ‘clean coal’ in the same spirit as we do research on nuclear fusion, i.e. the probability of success appears low, but the payoff would be huge. I don’t think it is justifiable to base our entire energy policy on the implicit presumption that ‘clean coal’ will prove technically and economically feasible. The point of scale is also important; the World Energy Council, which is quite technocratic in emphasis, has noted that moving the volume of liquefied carbon dioxide from existing fossil fuel power stations to storage sites, assuming that the problems of capture and compression have been solved, would be an undertaking similar in scale to the entire present oil and gas industry.

The most cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions BY FAR is improving the efficiency of turning energy into the services that people want. That should be the highest priority for both research dollars and policy initiatives.”

]]> http://www.smc.org.au/2007/11/rapid-roundup-clean-coal-a-furphy-experts-respond/feed/ 0