Carbon Trading Schemes

There's only one way power prices are going - up. Some sort of tax or price on CO2 seems near certain now - such is the political process.

Hence the control panel in my avatar will be back in action. It's at Lake Margaret power station (hydro, near Queenstown, Tas) which was in almost continuous production 1914 - 2006. It'll be back up and running next year with a nice new 3.2km long wood pipe (yep, a real wood pipe built brand new) and some 21st century additions to the control system. But other than that it's all pretty much original and the scheme is herritage listed.

It's only 50,000 tonnes of CO2 saved each year - this plant is tiny. But I'd have to say that rather a lot of people will be glad to see this museum roaring away once again in full operation.

The photos were taken shortly before it closed in June 2006 due to the pipe rotting. It's viable to build a new pipe due to the expected higher power prices into the future, itself largely a function of the CO2 issue. The reason for building with wood again is simply to retain the herritage value - otherwise steel makes far more sense.

It's planned to add some sort of viewing gallery inside - the single rope doesn't really stack up in this modern legal era unfortunately. With tourists on one side and exposed live parts and rotating machinery on the other it's a lawsuit waiting to happen (though it's perfectly safe for sensible people).

There are 7 machines in total, 4 in the picture and 3 behind not in the photo.

Its in Tassie

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/27/2288047.htm

Why is the pipe wood?

So_Cynical said:

Why is the pipe wood?

Click to expand...

The pipeline location is up in the mountains high above the power station itself. Simply getting up the hill is hard enough - it was only recently that a road was put in to where the 3.2km wood pipe starts (the actual penstock coming down into the power station is steel).

All materials, including concrete for the dam (!), had to be carried in on foot. For this reason it was a lot more practical to take in thousands of planks of timber and put them together rather than try and carry cast iron / steel sections that were simply too heavy. Don't forget all this was done nearly a century ago without access to modern machinery.

So it was all built piece by piece using manual labour. The steel bands which hold the pipes together were carried up, so was the timber and everything else. Some tiny rail carts (not surprisingly on wooden tracks) and the like were used, but essentially everything was done manually. Timber was the only real choice under those circumstances. Iron and steel were too heavy. Plastic and fibreglass hadn't been invented yet.

The reason for doing it with wood again is simply to retain the historic value of the site. The historic significance and tourism potential is the real reason so many want to see it running again. It's a sure sign of rising energy prices when doing something like this "the old way" becomes financially viable though - and that's my real point here, a few are starting to invest for what lies ahead. Energy is becomming expensive, as it was when this scheme was originally built nearly a century ago.

That said, there's a bit of cheating planned this time. Like helicopters to take the materials up. And working over the Summer to avoid the cold weather up in the mountains.

Penny Wong : "if we take responsible action now the cost will be far less than if we delay"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/04/2295033.htm?

Govt urged to act swiftly on Garnaut findings
Posted 6 hours 22 minutes ago
Updated 5 hours 2 minutes ago

Environmental and industry groups have urged the Federal Government to act on climate change findings in a draft report presented by Professor Ross Garnaut.

Mr Garnaut called for an emissions trading scheme for Australia without delay as the best of the possible options for cutting greenhouse gas output.

He would include petrol but initially exclude agriculture, but above all he stresses the urgency of introducing the scheme if the death of Australian icons like the Barrier Reef is to be averted.

Speaking on the release of his report in Canberra, Professor Garnaut called for a system to cap greenhouse emissions and a permit system for industry.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says the Garnaut report shows Australia must act now on the issue.

She says she will detail the Government's plan on an emissions trading scheme this month.

"What this confirms yet again is that this nation must take action on climate change," she said.

"We have a very strong interest, a national interest in tackling climate change. It confirms the Government's view that is if we take responsible action now the cost will be far less than if we delay."

Click to expand...

Bipartisan support needed

Greg Bourne of the WWF says he supports Professor Garnaut's recommendation of a broad-based emissions trading scheme (EST) and has called on the Opposition to support it.

"We need to spread the burden across the economy. Everyone has a little bit of burden and everyone is prepared to pay that," he said.

"The most important thing is the Opposition needs to get behind Garnaut, to back this up. The continued trivialising of these most important of issues is not good leadership for the public of Australia."

But Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson says his party will be guided by its own advice on an emissions trading scheme.

Dr Nelson says the Federal Government would be rushing a carbon trading scheme if it were to begin by 2010.

"Last year in government, the advice that had been given to the previous government was that the earliest you could start to introduce it was 2011 and to get it running by 2012," he said.

"The most important thing for us is that we get this right, we owe it to our children. etc

Click to expand...

gee whiz I look forward to Brendan Nelson being displaced by someone who doesn't talk with such a forked tongue (although all pollies are pretty good at delaying action it seems)

He would include petrol but initially exclude agriculture, but above all he stresses the urgency of introducing the scheme if the death of Australian icons like the Barrier Reef is to be averted.

Speaking on the release of his report in Canberra, Professor Garnaut called for a system to cap greenhouse emissions and a permit system for industry.

Click to expand...

1. The Barrier Reef, or anything else, is only going to benefit if there is a net global reduction in emissions.

Shutting down Australian industry and shipping ores to China etc for processing would actually make the problem worse, despite lowering Australia's apparent greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed given Australia's position as a mineral exporter, it's hard to envisage any global solution to CO2 emissions that doesn't involve a majore increase in Australia's energy use, particularly of electricity in heavy industry, in order to reduce global shipping volumes. Bye, bye globalisation, hello local manufacturing.

Whether or not that means an increase in CO2 emissions depends on the source of that power. That said, the environmental need to cut emissions is global, the need to do it within any one country is purely political.

2. Excluding agriculture is ridiculous as is failing to address the population issue. Any discussion of climate change or sustainability in general that doesn't address those two is like discussing building materials but excluding concrete and bricks, or holding a land-based transport forum that excludes road and rail.

That there are nearly 7 billion of us ultimately is the problem - we could all stoke up the coal fire quite happily if we still had the pre-oil population levels (globally).

If we're going to implement a techno fix to all of this then either it's one that is able to cut fossil fuel use to zero or it's doomed to fail at the hands of constant growth. The only technologies we have with that potential are the renewable energy sources, and even there PV and wind are at a disadvantage due to their limited lifespan and use of materials.

Hence my long held view that, for Australia, the long term solution involves primarily geothermal and solar thermal with pumped storage hydro to balance the system. Plus smaller amounts of natural flow hydro, wind, tidal etc in suitable locations. There might be a role for PV in the future, but it's far too expensive now. As for biomass - it's way too valuable for things other than power generation.