Latest Buzz...
                  

Translate

Showing posts with label #nswpol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #nswpol. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

A carbon policy thread


Cr Philip Penfold blocks advisor - too much advice
Cr Philip Penfold blocks advisor - too much advice

Maitland City Council

ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 10 JULY 2012

17.2 REDUCTION OF METHANE GAS AT MT VINCENT WASTE SITE

NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY CLR RAY FAIRWEATHER
File No: P44197
Attachments: Nil
Responsible Officer: David Evans - General Manager

Bernie Mortomore - Executive Manager Planning, Environment and Lifestyle

Clr Ray Fairweather has indicated his intention to move the following Notice of Motion at the next Council Meeting being held on Tuesday 10 July 2012:

THAT

  1. The General Manager provide a report to council on all possible options available to council for the reduction of methane gas at the Mt Vincent Waste Site;
  2. What are those options and if council can implement any of those options to reduce the huge carbon tax cost impost on our ratepayers ($2.2 million dollars in 2012/2013 budget);
  3. The report expand on the possible sale of methane gas to generate power for electricity grid and if such a venture would benefit council financially;
  4. The opportunity if one exists for the calling of tenders for the extraction of methane gas for commercial uses; and
  5. What is involved in the 'burning option' of reducing methane gas and carbon tax payments.

NOTES BY CLR RAY FAIRWEATHER

The $2.2 million cost of the carbon tax is a huge impost on ratepayers (though it is yet to be properly costed) that needs urgent investigation on all options available to reduce those costs and if economically beneficial should be given urgent priority.

RESPONSE BY EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LIFESTYLE

A reduction of methane gas emissions from any landfill can be made by reducing the quantity of organic matter buried at the site as methane gas generation is a product of decomposition of organic materials that are subject to anaerobic conditions. These conditions are found in a landfill.
In the landfill context if methane is being generated then a landfill gas extraction system can be installed to capture the gas, pass it through a flare to convert it to carbon dioxide and hence reduce the carbon footprint of the site. If there is sufficient and constant gas production the gas can be used to power a generator which will create electricity that can be either exported to the grid or used sacrificially on site.
Alternatively organic waste can be processed in aerobic conditions so that it does not convert the waste to methane. It will generate other gases but because methane is said to be more than 21 times more problematic than carbon dioxide the greenhouse gas outputs are reduced. Aerobic waste processing of total organic waste streams utilises some form of technology to control and manage the processes. Council will recall that a waste technology solution was explored through the HIR partnership prior to the project being abandoned.
Council has a contract in place to install a gas extraction system at the Mt Vincent Rd Waste Facility. This contract with LMS Energy was entered into on the basis that infrastructure costs and ongoing management of the system was borne by LMS Energy in return for the carbon credits generated minus a royalty payment to Council. The contract remains in place and commercial in confidence. The system is to be installed within the next 3 months and gas capture should commence towards the end of the year. At this stage the reduction effect on Council's carbon liability remains unknown. It will however reduce the gas emissions from the site.
Whether there will be sufficient gas generation from the site to generate power will be known once the system is commissioned. Given the system is being retrofitted the efficiencies of the gas capture are difficult to model.
A further detailed report can be provided to Council as required.
Page (270)
Posted by Askgerbil at 8:28 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, May 16, 2014

Why the energy industry resists innovation

When workers oppose technology change it is put down to efforts to protect jobs by opposing innovation that boosts productivity.

When industries resist technology change very little comment is heard.

In the energy resources industry new technology boosts efficiency of converting resources into energy. This reduces demand for resources and lowers the cost of energy. It also reduces revenue of the energy resource industry.

The price of natural gas relies both on limiting supply and maintaining demand.

The economic benefits and prosperity created by access to cheap energy are being sacrificed to the short-term commercial interest of energy producers.
The energy industry is not only slow to innovate, it actively resists innovation.
The Luddite Movement in the 21st Century
The Luddite Movement in the 21st Century

A natural gas producer in Australia is accused of manipulating the export market for liquified natural gas (LNG) so that it can increase the book value of coal seam gas reserves on its balance sheet.

The report, which was presented to the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (Ipart) on Tuesday, analyses Santos’s $19bn liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility at Gladstone, known as GLNG.

Credit Suisse’s report says “quite clearly at face value this has been a materially unappetising project”.

The report adds: “Santos now argues that its aim in GLNG was always as much about raising the domestic gas price, and therefore re-rating large parts of the portfolio outside of GLNG, as it was about the project.’


New technology and processes increase the efficiency of converting resources into energy. This reduces demand for resources and lowers the cost of energy.

Santos and another natural gas producer, AGL, are ignoring U.S. technology that can produce natural gas without the costs of drilling for coal seam gas.
GreatPoint Energy produces clean, low cost natural gas from coal, petroleum coke, and biomass utilizing its bluegas™ catalytic hydromethanation process.



GreatPoint Energy's coal gasification technology appeals to China because it allows them to keep using cheap domestic coal, but in a much cleaner manner.

In 2012, GreatPoint announced a $1.25 billion deal to build the first of 34 coal gasification plants in a remote, coal-rich part of China.

The total project will cost an estimated $20 - 25 billion and will supply a trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

This represents a massive leap in the scale of domestic production for China, which last year produced only 107 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

The deal includes an equity investment of $420 million, the largest ever by a Chinese corporation into a venture-capital-funded U.S. company.

Cheaper energy will benefit the Australian economy and the economies of countries that import energy from Australia.

However for Santos new technology that it could use to produce cheap natural gas means the book value of coal seam gas reserves on its balance sheet falls dramatically.


This situation raises questions of energy policy.

It is an example of market failure - the economic benefits and prosperity created by access to cheap energy are being sacrificed to the short-term commercial interest of energy producers reluctant to write-off reserves rendered worthless by innovation.



Further reading -

Technology change resisted by energy industry

Innovations to solve political disputes

The coal lobby scores an own goal

The coal industry's "War on Coal" campaign is all spin

Posted by Askgerbil at 4:11 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, May 4, 2014

More mines to shut as coal woes deepen

Matt Chambers | The Australian | April 28, 2014
Coking coal prices from 1996 to present.
Coking coal prices from 1996 to present.

COKING coal prices have slumped to six-year lows, many Australian mines are not making money and the industry is set to close more of the mines that produce the nation’s second most valuable export.

A dramatic fall in quarterly contract prices for the steelmaking raw ingredient has caught ­industry players by surprise and led coal giant Peabody Energy to declare it is considering the ­closure of Australian mines it recently indicated were safe.

As boom-time-approved expansions continue to increase supply, the June quarter coking coal contract price has fallen from $US143 a tonne to $US120 a tonne, which is close to typical cash costs for the east coast ­coking coal industry, according to Credit Suisse analysts.

This means when things such as corporate, financing and sustaining capital are added in, most producers would be losing money.

Peabody chief Greg Boyce revealed the St Louis-based company, which has already cut jobs and shut down some mines here in recent years to stay profitable, was considering closing more Australian mines.

“With the change in the metallurgical coal environment in the last quarter, we’re having some pretty serious looks at a couple of operations,” Mr Boyce told US investors after the release of the company’s first-quarter earnings last week.

“These operations are getting significant scrutiny because at this lower price horizon, they’re much more challenged,” he said when asked if more mine ­closures were coming.

In January, Peabody told investors that a decision to close its Wilkie Creek thermal coal mine should not be taken as any indication that closures of the rest of its operations were being considered.

Coking coal, mainly from Queensland, is the nation’s second-highest export earner after iron ore and brought in $22.4 billion of export revenue last financial year. Thermal coal, used primarily in power stations and mainly from NSW, raised $16.1bn.

Contract coking coal prices that peaked at $US330 per tonne in late 2011 have fallen steadily since then as the US and Australia exported more.

Despite the price drop, BHP Billiton (whose Queensland mines make it the world’s biggest coking coal exporter), Anglo American, Whitehaven and Peabody have all brought on or are bringing on new mines that were approved when nobody saw prices plummeting as low as they have.

As well as the new supply, Chinese steel mills have recently stepped away from buying imported coking coal as uncertainty continues around the Asian powerhouse’s economic growth.

Spot prices have fallen further than contract prices, with the Platts price index slipping as low as $US105 per tonne earlier this month before recovering to about $US110.

“For the second quarter, we have assumed that $US120 will become the benchmark and this will mean that most Australian metallurgical coal producers will be loss-making at the profit and loss level, with FOB (free on board) cash costs typically in the range of $US110 to $US115 per tonne,” Credit Suisse said in a ­client note.

The second-quarter settlement for Queensland coal, which was reportedly signed by Anglo American last month, has led Credit Suisse to cut its 2014 coking coal forecast by $US20 a tonne to $US133.

Most Australian miners have been on a year-long campaign to cut costs, meaning there may not be too much more that can save mines that are losing money.

Even BHP, one of the world’s lowest-cost miners, is making little if any money from coking coal at these prices.

“While costs might be squeezed a little lower, we think the majority of cost-saves have now been made in Australia,” Credit Suisse said.

The bank said BHP generated $US17 per tonne of earnings before interest and tax from its coking coal operations in the first half of 2013-14.
Posted by Askgerbil at 6:57 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Technology change resisted by energy industry

When workers oppose technology change it is put down to efforts to protect jobs by opposing innovation that boosts productivity.

When industries resist technology change very little comment is heard.

In the energy resources industry new technology boosts efficiency of converting resources into energy. This reduces demand for resources and lowers the cost of energy. It also reduces revenue of the energy resource industry.

The price of natural gas relies both on limiting supply and maintaining demand.

AGL has revealed that it is expanding production of coal seam gas in New South Wales even though it has NOT evaluated new technology able to rapidly and cheaply increase the supply of natural gas. This new method of producing natural gas would lift supply rapidly and suppress the sharp price rises AGL wishes to obtain from NSW consumers.

On 28 April AGL was asked via its community engagement web site about new technology developed since 2008 and that is being used in China to make natural gas from cheap coal. (See Question 1 below)

Two days later AGL gave AN ANSWER, but it was not an answer to the question it was asked. . (See AGL Answer to Question 1 below)

Two follow-up requests to AGL to give an answer to the question actually asked were handled by AGL as follows:

  1. The first follow-up request with information of which AGL was evidently unaware was ignored. In addition AGL removed this follow-up request from its web site.... (See Question 2 below)
  2. The second follow-up request for an answer taking into account the further information was eventually answered.. (See Question 3 below) AGL's answer is a bald assertion that "coal seam gas production is the best available source to meet the needs of the NSW market".. (See AGL Answer to Question 3 below)

It is clear from the answer AGL gave on 30 April 2014 that it is unaware of the superior technology China has adopted to make natural gas cheaply from coal.. (See AGL Answer to Question 1 below)

AGL is proceeding its push to expand coal seam gas throughout New South Wales without due diligence. This approach is unfortunate:
  1. The environmental damage created by coal seam gas is avoidable.
  2. The financial return to AGL investors will be diminished by using a technology that is no longer the best available for obtaining a supply of natural gas. 
  3. The New South Wales economy will be damaged from the waste of existing coal transport infrastructure, investment in coal mining and loss of jobs. These resources and jobs exist now and can be used to make natural gas.

AGL is not the only Gas Giant ignoring new technology





Question 1

From:  Your Say AGL
Date: 28 April 2014 15:41
Subject: Your question on Your Say AGL website
To:  Askgerbil

Hi there,
Thanks for taking the time to visit Your Say AGL and asking us a question.
You asked:
'China is now using GreatPoint Energy's hydromethanation process to make natural gas from cheap coal. With coal prices low and falling, for how long can AGL's coal seam gas remain competitive? Has AGL conducted an evaluation of this new technology?'
We will get back to you as soon as possible with a response.

Regards
AGL
AGL Answer to Question 1

From:  Your Say AGL
Date: 30 April 2014 11:21
Subject: Response to your question on Your Say AGL website
To:  Askgerbil
 
Hi there,
Thanks for taking the time to visit Your Say AGL and asking us a question.
You asked:
'China is now using GreatPoint Energy's hydromethanation process to make natural gas from cheap coal. With coal prices low and falling, for how long can AGL's coal seam gas remain competitive? Has AGL conducted an evaluation of this new technology?'

An updated response has now been posted on the site.
Our response:

'Hi Askgerbil, thanks for your question.
Coal seam gas is the best available source to meet the needs of the NSW market, in terms of both production capability and minimising environmental impacts.
The concept of hydromethanation has been in the public domain for decades, however, compared to the process of producing natural gas from coal seams, it has a much larger environmental footprint.
There is also some uncertainty around the technology as the industry is still in the early stages of development.'
Please let us know if you have any more questions or if anything needs to be clarified.

Regards
AGL
Question 2

From:  Your Say AGL
Date: 30 April 2014 20:07
Subject: Your question on Your Say AGL website
To:  Askgerbil

Hi there,
Thanks for taking the time to visit Your Say AGL and asking us a question.
You asked:
'Thank you for AGL's view on GreatPoint Energy's technology for making natural gas from coal.

However, the AGL answer (below) is about a "concept in the public domain for decades", and does not answer my question that begins "China is now using GreatPoint Energy's hydromethanation process [patented in the last 5 years] ... "

### AGL's Answer ###
a. "The concept of hydromethanation has been in the public domain for decades"
b. "Compared to the process of producing natural gas from coal seams, it has a much larger environmental footprint."
c. "There is also some uncertainty around the technology as the industry is still in the early stages of development."
###

Please consider an answer to my question, taking into account:
a. GreatPoint Energy's technology is the subject of a collection of patents dating from 2008. It has not been in the public domain for decades.
(Some examples:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8192716.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2012/0305848.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2013/0042824.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2010/0121125.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0260287.html
)

b. GreatPoint Energy's technology does not have a larger environmental footprint than the process of producing natural gas from coal seams.
See GreatPoint Energy's 2011 video at http://vimeo.com/18745900 | "Nothing goes up the stack into the atmosphere".
(Note that a GreatPoint Energy coal gasification plant built at an existing coal-fired power station would need NO additional infrastructure for coal-mining and transport - having less environmental footprint and capital outlay when compared to a large numbers of coal seam gas wells and above ground pipelines.)

c. GreatPoint Energy's technology is not surrounded by uncertainty and is in commercial use in China.'
We will get back to you as soon as possible with a response.

Regards
AGL
Question 3

From:  Your Say AGL
Date: 1 May 2014 09:19
Subject: Your question on Your Say AGL website
To:  Askgerbil

Hi there,
Thanks for taking the time to visit Your Say AGL and asking us a question.
You asked:
'Can AGL add to its answer to my question on GreatPoint Energy's natural gas from coal technology? AGL's first answer only considers an older hydromethanation process and not the specific process developed since 2008 by GreatPoint Energy now being used in China.'
We will get back to you as soon as possible with a response.

Regards
AGL

AGL Answer to Question 3

From:  Your Say AGL
Date: 2 May 2014 11:04
Subject: Response to your question on Your Say AGL website
To:  Askgerbil

Hi there,
Thanks for taking the time to visit Your Say AGL and asking us a question.
You asked:
'Can AGL add to its answer to my question on GreatPoint Energy's natural gas from coal technology? AGL's first answer only considers an older hydromethanation process and not the specific process developed since 2008 by GreatPoint Energy now being used in China.'

Our response has now been posted on the site.
Our response:
'Hydromethanation is still in the early stages of development. GreatPoint Energy reports that laboratory and pilot plant tests have shown the process can work for a range of feedstock, which is the driver behind the company’s joint venture to construct a full scale facility in China.
With NSW facing a shortage of gas supply from 2016, coal seam gas production is the best available source to meet the needs of the NSW market.' 
Please let us know if you have any more questions or if anything needs to be clarified.

Regards
Neil - YourSayAGL
Posted by Askgerbil at 11:12 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)