Creating a better future

A bandaid solution or a sustainable strategy?

Kevin Rudd has announced his plans for a carbon trap. The $100million project will aim to keep carbon dioxide emissions at bay by trapping them underground.

Rudd was quoted in the smh.com.au claiming "We have more than just a passing interest in this, not just in terms of our domestic reliance on coal-fired electricity generation but, beyond that, in the critical role of coal exports for this country," Mr Rudd said. "We are the largest coal-exporting country in the world.

"We therefore have a particular responsibility given our national energy requirements … to deal with this challenge of ensuring that coal-fired power stations in the future are as clean as possible."

Is this a viable solution or one that may have dire ramifications in the future?

0 members like this

Next Post >

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Change2 to add comments!

Join Change2

Comment by Leon Young on September 25, 2008 at 6:43pm: The responsibility for 'clean coal' lies with those companies that mine it or use it directly as a resource. Putting a price on carbon will create a clear price signal that forces the industry to invest itself in innovations such as CCS technology. Those coal producers and energy companies that invest in CCS and get it to actually work will have a massive competitive advantage. It is this sort of innovation an Emissions Trading Scheme will drive.

I would like to see government funds directed at stimulating new, innovative start-ups that are taking risks and creating entirely new technologies in areas such as renewable energy.

Comment by Lee Stewart on September 23, 2008 at 4:28pm: Last year I attended a conference where one of Australia's top experts on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) explained exactually how hard it is to capture the carbon from coal fired power stations and then store it.

What was surprising is the huge cost in this process. It will take years to retro-fit power stations costing millions and then you also have the problem of storing the carbon which is liquefied. He later went on to explain that there are limited sites where you can pump the stuff safely underground and they are more likely to be off shore. So you have a combination of significantly large challenges or retro-fitting power stations, transporting and safely storing the carbon. The carbon must be stored forever and some say has the analogy to nuclear waste. Which also raises the question what if after a number of years the carbon leaks back into the system?

Personally I would have liked to have seen the money invested in technologies that work now and take advantage of alternative energy sources such as solar and wind. Also with all the millions of dollars that the coal industry has made without any real environmental costs wouldn't it make sense to place a levy or tax on coal to fund the clean coal program?