Emissions Trading Scheme = Clean Coal

Australia to foot China's bill....

2009-12-12T16:17:00.000-08:00

Article in News Ltd Papers Sunday 13/12/09
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,23836,26476987-953,00.html

Ah hem, AID buys influence....
China has 'committed' to a 40% reduction of their projected emissions. The only serious option to do that is to use a mix of black coal and LNG. (Brown coal produces around 1.6 tonnes of CO2 per MWh and black about 0.9 tonnes of CO2 per MWh, LNG about 0.55 tonnes per MWh)
China has plenty of black and brown coal of their own, but not enough to met their needs, Australia is the only serious exporter of black coal. (and potentially LNG) There are plenty of exporters, such as Indonesia with lots of brown coal to export.

Once you make the technology decision to use black coal instead of brown, that choice is locked in for 30-50 years.

From an export perspective, Australia has a distinct advantage in a world trade environment that favours black coal and LNG over brown coal. A mild ETS will deliver technology decisions that lock in a competitive advantage to Australia for the next 30 years.

If the 'climate change' money given to China has the kicker of influencing the technology choice and fuel use, Australia stands to be a big export winner.
Question is, are the public happy to pay for the big profits for the likes of XStrata, BHP etc?

ETS White Paper - 5% or bust

2008-12-16T04:44:00.000-08:00

On Monday 15 December the Australian Government released its White Paper on the proposed ETS.

Its available here.

5-15% reduction on 2000 levels by 2020.

Lets see now,

The politics of it jams the Liberals into corner with death on one side, suicide on the other....

Target Not enough? Libs would be siding with the greenies, bad look for the true believers
Target Too much? you could hardly have a smaller target could you?
No action? yeah lets side with the 10% of people who think we should do nothing.

Annoys the Greens
It gives them something to holler about, and gets them national press coverage, they might even get more votes next time, but since preferences go to Labor..... and they are probably the only real chance of cleaning out the hurdles in the Senate next election.

Mum and Dad Punters (Working Families to Kevin 07)

No pain, no gain.
'Get your no family will be worse off payments'

Big Industry (The Australian Economy to Kevin 07)

Free Permits to anybody that could possibly be affected in any way at all. Especially anyone who may be adversely affected by having to think about ways to reduce electricity use. (sorry for the inconvenience by the way)

Big Coal ('Friends' to the Kevin 07)

Put in place mechanism for public funded investment in clean coal technology development.
Put in place 'clean development mechanisms' to fund implementation of clean coal in China, India etc

30-50 years of Black coal export locked and loaded.

Lastly, Who pays?

Well all that is left is the double decaf soya latte sipping yuppies, exactly the demographic that wants to do something about climate change the most.

Reply to Piers Akerman Article - (Sunday 7/9/08)

2008-09-07T05:02:00.000-07:00

Article by Piers Akerman - "PM's climate change proven to be hot air"

Now Piers is pretty well known for being everything 'Anti-Rudd' and he claims in this article have proven that introducing an ETS will be more expensive than the consequences of 'business as usual.'

My point, and I think I have one, is that its not about cost, its about missed opportunity.

My reply is as follows:

Missing the point Piers, about what is lost without an ETS.
A mild ETS in Australia locks in a path to develop geosequestration of carbon emissions from coal fired power stations.

If they get 'clean development' mechanisms in place, then carbon emissions are reduced by investing in this technology in China etc
If you get this in place, then you lock in the supply of black coal for 30-50 years. (Power Station boiler life) Australia has lots of black coal, China has lots of brown coal, which emits more carbon when burnt.

A mild ETS will give black coal a 30-50 comparative advantage, and big export earnings for Australia.

Competition would come from natural gas, which needs to be turned into LNG to export. An LNG plant needs significant capital and a strong supply. Wonder why Santos is getting stung for the extra tax?

Where do the people who voted Kevin Rudd in as opposition leader comes from? How many ex-labor luvvies are on the board of coal companies?
Don't get me wrong, Australia stands to do very nicely out of this, Queensland and New South Wales too if they can get their act together and find some capital to invest in infrastructure.

Greenhouse and Climate Change has become a trade issue internationally, the IPCC, the climate scientists, the greenies, and yes even the 'deniers' have became a side show.

ETS 'Pan-handling' 101 - Business Council of Australia

2008-08-28T05:06:00.000-07:00

On 21 August 2008 the Business Council of Australia released its 'independent' report on the impacts of the emissions trading scheme.

The report opens with, "The Business Council of Australia fully supports the governments plans to introduce the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme."

BUT, low start up targets, with a 'play only' system until the rest of the world joins in, compo for all big emitters, set/regulate the price to minimise the potential shocks to electricity generators, oh and some compo for them too to offset their falling asset values. No compo for the renewable energy industry they would wreck by dropping the 20% RE target though.....

Read the paper here: Modelling Success: Designing an ETS that Works (paper)

Jumping to the defence of TEEIs? or saving us from carbon leakage?

“We agree with the government that you must assist emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE) businesses to avoid carbon leakage. The question is how to do that in a way which reduces global emissions without damaging the Australian economy."

“Our research provides the first hard data on what will happen to real companies in Australia unless some modifications are made to the current proposals.”

This is of course because they are completely incapable of doing anything about their emissions....

Are energy intensive industries really going up stumps and go play in one of those 'sovereign risk' zones? I've had some interesting nights in downtown Gladstone, but I haven't been shot at or macheted to death in my sleep just yet. Let alone the risks of setting up a pot smelter in an area where electricity supply is at the whim of earthquake, tidal wave, volcanoes and radical islamo-facisists.

Beside you'll be aw-right guys, if those innovators in the car manufacturing sector can get $2 billion to get all green & efficient, you should be able to squeeze your share out of the government.

China has lots of BROWN Coal

2008-07-30T17:49:00.000-07:00

Posted to Bolt Blog (31-July-2008)

In this article : Gas on about that clean coal - and Rudd’s mad plan

For those that still think its about the 'environment' or the 'science' debate...

China has lots of Brown Coal (lots of countries do), Australia has lots of Black coal (most countries don't). In a mild ETS environment (even it you are just thinking about it) Black coal has a comparative advantage when making large capital investments with low, but long term, returns. The risk rating to your capital is higher.

Once you build a power station to use black coal you can't just start using brown coal, so you lock in exports for 30-50 years.

ETS is about 30-50 years of black coal exports into rapidly emerging markets and a local massively public funded investment in co2 technology that will assist in maintaining existing markets.

This is why the 'science' arguments won't cut through on either side of politics. Do you really think Rudd would be doing this for the greenies that already vote labor by default? Count the number of ex-labor luvvies on the boards of coal companies....where's Kev's money invested?

Next walk through what happens if Australia doesn't do the ETS. Europeans will do their own ETS thing and this means less coal exports, China will use their own brown coal, no/less market for our black coal. I wonder if this the economic cost that Garnaut is talking about?

'Carbon Watch'

2008-07-23T18:49:00.000-07:00

On ABC TVs Insiders on Sunday Andrew Bolt made the label for the ETS - 'Carbon Watch'

Lots of action, no movement. priceless.

For anyone who missed it, GetUp posted an interesting retort to 'Fuel Watch' which must be followed you would hope by a 'Carbon Watch' - See the Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZlT4w2tZmg

Post in response to Andrew Bolt encouraging Brendan Nelson to go ANTI AGW

2008-07-22T22:50:00.000-07:00

Andrew Bolt is a columnist for the Sun Herald, and a regular 'conservative' on the couch rotation with Barry Cassidy and the 'Insiders' on the ABC on Sunday mornings. He devotes a lot of his blog to presenting the case against man-made climate change. Although I would consider Andrew Bolt to be far closer to the centre than most give him credit, make no mistake this is a Capital 'L' Liberal blog hang out. The content is generally about the 'science' and I believe the forum generally misconstrues the debate in relation to an ETS as a 'socialist' versus 'capitalist' 'left versus 'right' 'greenie' versus 'conservative' one.

This week he is presenting (and some might say leading) Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson with a case for a position where he would oppose both 'climate change' and an ''Emission Trading Scheme.' - Articles include: 'Nelson’s Trafalgar' & 'Nelson Changes Tack - for the Better'

I posted on the topic, 'Nelson's Trafalgar' as follows:

"Whilst I don’t agree with the introduction of an ETS, I think we should consider the economic advantages for Australia with a ‘mild’ reduction framework of greenhouse gases.
China is our biggest growth export market for energy. There is an abundance of brown coal in China. Black coal, a big earner for Australia, is a far more scare commodity. Its also slightly better in greenhouse terms, potential a comparative advantage in a ‘mild’ carbon reduction framework. If carbon capture and sequestration can be made to work, then this would further enhance the comparative advantage whilst sidelining nuclear, gas and other options. The ETS is effectively going to be a massive public fund to develop that technology.

Whilst I think the ‘science’ is absolutely worth debating, I don’t think we should lose sight of the economic reasons and vested interests that are involved and be assuming that the ETS is a ‘greenie’ thing.

Its important to understand your enemy and I don’t think Rudd is a ‘greenie’ in any sense of the word but I think the ETS gives him green credibility while delivering comparative advantage to the black coal industry and a boon for the financial sector. I think its very dangerous territory for Nelson to move to opposition to an ETS, when big business, despite their pan handling, are supportive of it."

RISK not Science

2008-07-17T07:04:00.000-07:00

Some Political Truths for Deniers, Sceptics and True Believers.

Its not about the science of climate change, I don't think that can never be proved or disproved. Its not about the percentage or volume of carbon emissions that Australia is responsible for or the difference we can make. Its not about whether the Great Barrier Reef lives or dies.

Its about the RISK to your economy when you are:

a big exporter of stuff (coal) that your trading partners may not want at some point,
one of the most carbon intense economies in the world, and
the world is thinking seriously about changing the playing field on you.

Attention Australia:

One of your major revenue sources is under threat
Your comparative advantage of 'cheap' energy is under threat

In a scenario like this most good CEO's would be acting now don't you think?

Crikey Comment - ETS its about the Economy...

2008-07-17T06:53:00.000-07:00

Crikey.com.au carried 2 stories in its edition on Thursday that make good points but in my opinion miss the underlying intention of what the emissions trading scheme is all about.

Bernard Keane - Green Paper: ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

Clive Hamilton - Hamilton: Shameless political capitulation

My Comments submitted to Crikey (11:58pm Thursday) -

Who says the ETS is about saving carbon emissions or the environment? It’s the economy…(you know the rest) and it is the only reason that makes bipartisan political sense to lead the rest of the world with an emissions trading scheme.

As you know Australia makes a bucket load of money out of coal exports, and as Bernard said the other day, projections of coal sales into markets like China are just silly big numbers. The biggest threat to this is, if countries start taking this climate change thing seriously and maybe China might even starting thinking more about gas, nuclear and other options.

How to mitigate that risk? Well what about a massive public subsidy to develop ‘clean’ coal technologies? Sound familiar?

If the technology works, there is a ‘holier than though’ green message to the rest of the world that will support our coal exports, our coal fired power industry will have benefited from the public investing in the technology they need to capture and store their carbon emissions, and big industry will benefit from the comparative advantage of cheaper base load electricity, again thanks to the public investment.

In the early stages of the ETS they only need to generate enough money to support the research and early stage development of ‘clean coal’. Over the next 5 or so years there are no big capital expenditures In carbon capture and storage that are ready to go.

There can be no better way to mitigate your risk than to get somebody else to pay for it, AND have them feel good (greenJ) about themselves for doing it.

ETS - Australian Public being asked to fund the technology to mitigate the risks to Coal Export

2008-07-15T17:22:00.000-07:00

Has anyone worked out yet who benefits from an emissions trading scheme? Why is the Australian Government of both sides of the house embracing it? The player with the most to lose in a world environment where carbon emission intensity is an issue is the coal export industry. Still wondering why there is unanimous support?

Then consider the proposed make up of the ETS. We are looking at emitters of carbon dioxide having to buy a permit to emit. Mostly this means coal fired power stations. The cost of this will be passed onto consumers in one way or another. Please do not confuse the electricity generation sector with the coal export sector. There is a real possibility that there will be major bankruptcies in the electricity generation sector in a poorly implemented ETS caused by re-evaluation of current asset values.

The revenue generated from these permits (according to Garnaut) will be put into transition support for 1) exporting industries 2) the public and 3) emission reduction technologies. What they are talking about is a massive pool of funds that will extensively be used to 'clean' up coal. The development of this technology is fundamental to maintaining coal exports for the next 100 years if the carbon emission equals climate change paradigm persists. If it doesn't, and Andrew Bolt and Piers are right and this all turns out to be a hoax, then coal will have effectively blocked introduction of options such as nuclear.

All this might be completely ok if the greenhosue thing is real and we need to reduce carbon emissions and we like the considerable economic benefits to Australia from exporting coal. However, given that the coal export sector is doing pretty nicely at the moment, so WHY is the private consumer and businesses like manufacturers that are already doing it pretty tough being asked to foot the bill for this?

Getting the public to fund the mitigation of your risk and feel good about themselves for fighting climate change at the same time is a nice strategy if you can get away with it.