The future of energy generation and storage

[macca]

The ruler being run over more Aussie processes.

Owner of ‘uneconomical’ Port Pirie and Hobart smelters calls for government help to stay afloat

The operator of smelters in South Australia and Tasmania is urging state and federal governments to provide "essential" financial support, after its facilities were described as "uncompetitive assets".

www.abc.net.au

The owner of the Port Pirie and Hobart smelters has put its hand out for government assistance, casting doubt over the future of the major employers if taxpayer-funded help isn't forthcoming.

Nyrstar, which employs more than 1,300 people across its Tasmanian and South Australian operations, said it was talking to the federal and state governments about the "severity of the challenges it faces".

The company owns the Port Pirie lead smelter and Hobart zinc smelter.

The Port Pirie smelter processes and refines lead, silver, zinc fume, copper matte and by-products such as sulphuric acid, according to Nyrstar.

The Hobart smelter produces zinc and other by-products, including copper sulphate, cadmium, gypsum and sulphuric acid.

Earlier this week, it was revealed plans for a $750 million green hydrogen facility at the Port Pirie smelter had been shelved.

The plans, which were announced in 2021, "never proceeded beyond feasibility", an SA government spokesperson said.

Tomago aluminium smelter is making similar noises, they are saying unreliable supply and exorbitant prices of electricity mean that they will probably close within 5 years

Ideology is fine but our grandkids won't be thanking us when they are handed the miserable remains of a once great country

 

[SirRumpole]

And we all know these are a direct consequences of our energy price aka mismanagement and fairy land dreaming

Mismanagement and in some cases sabotage by the Greens and the Opposition, long delays for approvals of VRE, no guts when it comes to building storage etc...

 

[sptrawler]

Mismanagement and in some cases sabotage by the Greens and the Opposition, long delays for approvals of VRE, no guts when it comes to building storage etc...

I tend to think this is more the issue, a lot of companies will be working out if it is worth continuing operations here, or move offshore.

Australia’s biggest polluters forced to reduce emissions by 30 per cent by 2030

The Albanese government’s new pollution caps aim to cut greenhouse output by 205 million tonnes by the end of the decade.

www.smh.com.au

Australia’s 215 biggest industrial polluters will be forced to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 under binding pollution caps introduced from July 1, after the Albanese government revealed the details of its signature climate policy, the safeguard mechanism.

The reform is the first federal policy since the Gillard government’s carbon tax was axed in 2014 that compels industry to cut emissions and its introduction will oblige Australia’s industrial powerhouses to make fundamental changes to their operations.

Major business groups have welcomed the changes but warn the scheme must be carefully calibrated over time to ensure local companies remain competitive with international rivals, many of whom operate in jurisdictions without mandatory emissions targets.
“I think it’s pretty reasonable to say that 215 facilities are responsible for 28 per cent of our emissions, therefore, they’ll be responsible for 28 per cent of our emissions reduction,” Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen said on Tuesday as he released a policy paper detailing proposed rules to enforce the new pollution caps.

When the safeguard mechanism was created in 2016 by the former Coalition government, pollution caps were not strict enough to enforce industrial emissions reductions. Former prime minister Scott Morrison argued that “technology, not taxes” would allow Australia to exceed its target to cut at least 26 per cent of emissions by 2030, based on 2005 levels, without compelling industry to act.

But Labor pledged during the 2022 election campaign to set a more ambitious, legally binding target to cut Australia’s emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 and the safeguard mechanism will be beefed up to meet that goal.

The new pollution caps aim to cut greenhouse output by a cumulative 205 million tonnes by the end of the decade – equivalent to about 40 per cent of Australia’s annual carbon footprint.

The safeguard mechanism applies only to industrial emitters that generate more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas a year, including coal mines, gas plants, smelters and manufacturers such as BlueScope steelworks and Qenos plastics in Melbourne.

If companies do not meet their emission reduction target and fail to buy offsets, they face fines of $275 a tonne – which the government argues is priced above the maximum cost of carbon credits to ensure it is cheaper for businesses to comply.

The Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Tania Constable praised the government for including a cost-containment measure, capping the price of Australian carbon credits at $75 a tonne initially, but said industry needed to work through crucial detail for exporters.

 

[SirRumpole]

I tend to think this is more the issue, a lot of companies will be working out if it is worth continuing operations here, or move offshore.

Australia’s biggest polluters forced to reduce emissions by 30 per cent by 2030

The Albanese government’s new pollution caps aim to cut greenhouse output by 205 million tonnes by the end of the decade.

www.smh.com.au

Australia’s 215 biggest industrial polluters will be forced to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 under binding pollution caps introduced from July 1, after the Albanese government revealed the details of its signature climate policy, the safeguard mechanism.

The reform is the first federal policy since the Gillard government’s carbon tax was axed in 2014 that compels industry to cut emissions and its introduction will oblige Australia’s industrial powerhouses to make fundamental changes to their operations.

Major business groups have welcomed the changes but warn the scheme must be carefully calibrated over time to ensure local companies remain competitive with international rivals, many of whom operate in jurisdictions without mandatory emissions targets.
“I think it’s pretty reasonable to say that 215 facilities are responsible for 28 per cent of our emissions, therefore, they’ll be responsible for 28 per cent of our emissions reduction,” Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen said on Tuesday as he released a policy paper detailing proposed rules to enforce the new pollution caps.

When the safeguard mechanism was created in 2016 by the former Coalition government, pollution caps were not strict enough to enforce industrial emissions reductions. Former prime minister Scott Morrison argued that “technology, not taxes” would allow Australia to exceed its target to cut at least 26 per cent of emissions by 2030, based on 2005 levels, without compelling industry to act.

But Labor pledged during the 2022 election campaign to set a more ambitious, legally binding target to cut Australia’s emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 and the safeguard mechanism will be beefed up to meet that goal.

The new pollution caps aim to cut greenhouse output by a cumulative 205 million tonnes by the end of the decade – equivalent to about 40 per cent of Australia’s annual carbon footprint.

The safeguard mechanism applies only to industrial emitters that generate more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas a year, including coal mines, gas plants, smelters and manufacturers such as BlueScope steelworks and Qenos plastics in Melbourne.

If companies do not meet their emission reduction target and fail to buy offsets, they face fines of $275 a tonne – which the government argues is priced above the maximum cost of carbon credits to ensure it is cheaper for businesses to comply.

The Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Tania Constable praised the government for including a cost-containment measure, capping the price of Australian carbon credits at $75 a tonne initially, but said industry needed to work through crucial detail for exporters.

Yep, capital is mobile and goes where they get the best returns.

If we go down the route of mandated emissions cuts, then maybe we should be putting tariffs(the most beautiful word in the English language) on those who don't cut their own emissions.

 

[qldfrog]

I tend to think this is more the issue, a lot of companies will be working out if it is worth continuing operations here, or move offshore.

Australia’s biggest polluters forced to reduce emissions by 30 per cent by 2030

The Albanese government’s new pollution caps aim to cut greenhouse output by 205 million tonnes by the end of the decade.

www.smh.com.au

Australia’s 215 biggest industrial polluters will be forced to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 under binding pollution caps introduced from July 1, after the Albanese government revealed the details of its signature climate policy, the safeguard mechanism.

The reform is the first federal policy since the Gillard government’s carbon tax was axed in 2014 that compels industry to cut emissions and its introduction will oblige Australia’s industrial powerhouses to make fundamental changes to their operations.

Major business groups have welcomed the changes but warn the scheme must be carefully calibrated over time to ensure local companies remain competitive with international rivals, many of whom operate in jurisdictions without mandatory emissions targets.
“I think it’s pretty reasonable to say that 215 facilities are responsible for 28 per cent of our emissions, therefore, they’ll be responsible for 28 per cent of our emissions reduction,” Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen said on Tuesday as he released a policy paper detailing proposed rules to enforce the new pollution caps.

When the safeguard mechanism was created in 2016 by the former Coalition government, pollution caps were not strict enough to enforce industrial emissions reductions. Former prime minister Scott Morrison argued that “technology, not taxes” would allow Australia to exceed its target to cut at least 26 per cent of emissions by 2030, based on 2005 levels, without compelling industry to act.

But Labor pledged during the 2022 election campaign to set a more ambitious, legally binding target to cut Australia’s emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 and the safeguard mechanism will be beefed up to meet that goal.

The new pollution caps aim to cut greenhouse output by a cumulative 205 million tonnes by the end of the decade – equivalent to about 40 per cent of Australia’s annual carbon footprint.

The safeguard mechanism applies only to industrial emitters that generate more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas a year, including coal mines, gas plants, smelters and manufacturers such as BlueScope steelworks and Qenos plastics in Melbourne.

If companies do not meet their emission reduction target and fail to buy offsets, they face fines of $275 a tonne – which the government argues is priced above the maximum cost of carbon credits to ensure it is cheaper for businesses to comply.

The Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Tania Constable praised the government for including a cost-containment measure, capping the price of Australian carbon credits at $75 a tonne initially, but said industry needed to work through crucial detail for exporters.

We need a banging head emoji
If Co2 is pollution, so is H2O and O2
That what's happen when people with no maths, engineering or scientific background manage a country at a time which has never been so technically advanced, technology dependent and so inherently fragile and vulnerable.
Have have egos such that they do not accept guidance
Add the collapse of decent journalism broke the last trust and mean to provide unbiased explanations to the masses..and have never been as gullible as in the dark ages of religious obscurantism IMHO

 

[qldfrog]

Yep, capital is mobile and goes where they get the best returns.

If we go down the route of mandated emissions cuts, then maybe we should be putting tariffs(the most beautiful word in the English language) on those who don't cut their own emissions.

But tariff only work if you still have an industry.
If it is an actual issue for Trump in the US, imagine us with our cafe based industry....

 

[Smurf1976]

“I think it’s pretty reasonable to say that 215 facilities are responsible for 28 per cent of our emissions, therefore, they’ll be responsible for 28 per cent of our emissions reduction,” Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen said

If that doesn't illustrate that Bowen's out of his depth then nothing will.

Even the Greens don't expect that 1% of emissions = 1% of emissions reduction because it ain't that simple. It's a lot easier to remove fossil fuels from some uses than from others.

 

[qldfrog]

If that doesn't illustrate that Bowen's out of his depth then nothing will.

Even the Greens don't expect that 1% of emissions = 1% of emissions reduction because it ain't that simple. It's a lot easier to remove fossil fuels from some uses than from others.

Not IQ qualified to run the country...

 

[Smurf1976]

I wonder how many projects have been shut down because they are not "internationally competitive" ?

Almost the entire white paper industry's gone for a start. There's no longer any manufacturing of high grade paper in Australia, all that remains is some production of brown packaging paper and one mill producing newsprint and magazine grade paper although the writing's very firmly on the wall there - the site was recently sold for land value.

Now the paper industry stands out as ridiculous for one very good reason. Hardwood Kraft pulping was developed and first used in...... Tasmania. AQ pulping was later developed by the same company at the same site. All gone today.

Kurri Kurri power station is being built on the site of a former aluminium smelter in NSW.

There's another closed and demolished aluminium smelter at Geelong.

Pretty much the entire petrochemicals industry including plastics, oil refining etc. All that's left is two refineries, one in Brisbane and the other at Geelong. Historically we had 10 refineries in operation.

Calcium carbide another thing no longer done in Australia, that was among the first to go.

We still produce ferromanganese and silicomanganese but ferrosilicon no longer produced here.

Copper isn't dead but it's well on the way. Mt Lyell and Port Kembla long gone as smelters and Mt Isa's about to shut.

Steel isn't dead but it's a lot less than it used to be.

Zinc - one of the three smelters is already gone now another is in real danger of going. Another ultimate irony in that the RLE (Roast Leach Electrolysis) process wasn't invented but was substantially improved in Hobart. It's a partly Australian developed process.

Lead also in danger of going.

Glass industry isn't dead but it's pretty much stuffed in terms of window glass, it's really only packaging that's left.

Then there's the manufacture of actual consumer products with everything from batteries to bed sheets to washing machines having gone.

Back to zinc well bottom line is you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in Hobart who doesn't know someone who's worked at the place universally known as simply "the zinc works" or for those older "EZ" (pronounced as the two letters separately). There's an awful lot of people who've either worked there at some point, did a trade apprenticeship there, they work in some other business that gets work from them as a contractor or supplier, and so on. Even the council's been known to do work for them as a contractor.

Personally well I've never been employed there but yes I've done something as a contractor - and that was whilst employed by government by the way. It's also where I did work experience in grade 10 at the age of 15 in the electrical workshop (and in practice the rest of the plant as well).

It's a huge operation relative to anything else locally so it if goes well that's going to really stuff the economy big time.

If you've ever been to Hobart even just as a tourist, it's somewhere in the back of your mind and probably looks familiar:

Street View · Google Maps

Explore a place in a more immersive way in Google Maps.

www.google.com

The Tasman Bridge is to the left and the CBD is only 5km from it.

 

[SirRumpole]

We need a banging head emoji

 

[SirRumpole]

Not IQ qualified to run the country...

Trouble being, no one else is.

 

[qldfrog]

In the preset ASF like option

 

[SirRumpole]

In the preset ASF like option

Look in Extended.

 

[qldfrog]

Back to topic and past the first headline
H2. https://www.ecoportal.net/en/its-the-biggest-failure-in-hydrogen/4449/

 

[TimeISmoney]

Big Instos wouldn't be investing in hydrogen if it were totally useless, even Amazon is using it to power equipment.

A few hospitals have made use of it, too.

Australia would rather spend money on the Olympics to raise the cost of land tax and increase house values.

 

[sptrawler]

Big Instos wouldn't be investing in hydrogen if it were totally useless, even Amazon is using it to power equipment.

A few hospitals have made use of it, too.

Australia would rather spend money on the Olympics to raise the cost of land tax and increase house values.


View attachment 196417



View attachment 196416

Hydrogen isn't useless, it is a very effective energy source, it is just too expensive to produce at this point in time.

 

[qldfrog]

Hydrogen isn't useless, it is a very effective energy source, it is just too expensive to produce at this point in time.

And the big insto are just making hydrogen ETFs and reselling these to the ones naive enough to go there, or to the latest EDI
A sucker born every minute was the saying.
When money is to be made, it is via private funds first .why share ?
So no, not yet ready, which is a shame as on paper H2 is perfect to store day sun energy for the night.
But we have options..expensive batteries, water or weight and gravity.
Sadly, this is not part of the mandated requirements to grid providers.

 

[TimeISmoney]

Hydrogen isn't useless, it is a very effective energy source, it is just too expensive to produce at this point in time.

Too expensive because Australia is cheap, no foresight and can't see past its own nose.

Hydrogen is in its preliminary stages when it's being used for energy, it can't compete in every application because you already have infrastructure in place for other energies.

Most of the people who speak up against it are heavily invested in fossil fuels.

How much does all the black lung from mining coal cost tax payers? Take away the years of subsidies and see how far fossil fuels would get.

 

[TimeISmoney]

And the big insto are just making hydrogen ETFs and reselling these to the ones naive enough to go there, or to the latest EDI
A sucker born every minute was the saying.
When money is to be made, it is via private funds first .why share ?
So no, not yet ready, which is a shame as on paper H2 is perfect to store day sun energy for the night.
But we have options..expensive batteries, water or weight and gravity.
Sadly, this is not part of the mandated requirements to grid providers.

They were quick to dump FMG like a brick.

 

[qldfrog]

They were quick to dump FMG like a brick.

So a great opportunity for wise people with vision to make a killing..after all the iron ore is not used in Australia so the local blindness should not affect that business
But this is a grid thread so let's go back to the grid