Coal hits back at nuclear power

[cal04]

THE coal industry believes power stations that do not produce greenhouse gases could be operating across Australia in the same time it takes to establish nuclear power stations. Fighting back against the push towards nuclear power, the industry claims the rapidly developing methods of making coal cleaner and more valuable would make nuclear power plants obsolete.

Federal cabinet is today expected to approve an inquiry into nuclear energy after John Howard said nuclear power in Australia was "inevitable". Australian Coal Association executive director Mark O'Neill said last night that the potential of clean coal technology and the investments of key stakeholders could not be overlooked. Work will begin later this year in the US on the world's first zero-emissions coal-fired plant, which will be running by 2012, and Mr O'Neill said Australia's involvement in the project meant zero-emission plants could be operating in Australia within a decade.

"Between 2012 and 2020 the cost of this reduced and zero-emission technology will come down," Mr O'Neill said. "The technologies will be competitive with the alternatives." Clean-coal technology involves removing carbon dioxide from the emissions of coal-fired power stations and burying it in the ground. Two Australian scientists are working closely on the US project - Peter Cook, the chief executive of the Co-operative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, and Kelly Thambimuthu, chief executive of the Centre for Low Emission Technology - and examining how the technology may help the coal industry here.

With Queensland relying more on coal revenues, which will partly underpin today's budget, state power generator CSEnergy has also been undertaking a project to use oxygen to enable easier separation of carbon dioxide. While the federal Government is putting $500 million into research, the coal industry has also put up $300 million and the Queensland Government a further $300 million through the sale of its two energy retailers, Ergon and Energex.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19378253-601,00.html

[benburch]

1. If we divert all of our energy use to coal...

EVEN with very expensive zero emissions plants, we will literally have to literally tear down the Appalachian Mountains and parts of the Rocky Mountains to get at it.

And there is NOT 200 years worth of coal in the ground. That is 200 year at current usage. Expanded usage, which is what we are talking about, exhausts the coal (for all time!) by 2090, before some of the new plants built to burn it have been amortized.

[Massacure]

2. Plus coal will get more expensive with petroleum.

All those massive machines take massive amounts of diesel to run.

[ecoalex]

3. So nuclear fission is inevitable? Bullshit

Give the human race more credit, it's not coal or leukemia, there are alternatives, decentralisation of power production like under Carter was a good plan, Ronnie raygun killed that plan and gave it all to 3 mile island the rat hole from hell.The answer is to stop corpoate welfare, and promote clean alternatives, and research.For now coal is better than nuclear, it's the most expensive energy due to the costs involved (30,000 years or more)amortize that.

[Massacure]

4. 30,000? Try 400.

It was Carter's decision to use 1% of the fuel and then throw it away.

[jwirr]

5. And when the mountains are no longer there THEN we will

have climate change!