Dirty coal

ANNETTE MARNER, PRESENTER: Well, will solar thermal power replace the coal-fired Playford B power station at Port Augusta? Now, Port Augusta has two coal-fired plants: Playford B, which became fully operational back in 1964; and the second is the Northern power station, which was commissioned in 1985. Now, these plants provide something like 40 percent of the State’s electricity supply. The older one is used during periods of higher demand - that’s the Playford one - for example, during a heatwave when we’re all running air conditioners. And as we know, the coal for the plants is mined at Leigh Creek and brought to Port Augusta by rail.

Now, Beyond Zero Emissions is an independent not-for-profit organization, they say they receive no government or industry funding. Now, they’ve released a report called Repowering Port Augusta, and very much, the focus is on a vision for Port Augusta being the hub of solar thermal power, ultimately, replacing both [coal-fired] power plants.

Mark Ogge is from Beyond Zero Emissions and joins us. Mark Ogge, welcome to ‘Late Afternoons’ today.

MARK OGGE, BEYOND ZERO EMISSIONS STRATEGIC DIRECTOR: Hi Anne. Good to be here.

The Age Business Day reports: WE ARE adults here. We know that there will be some very tough trade-offs that will be needed to tackle climate change. But the oil and gas industry is asking too much if it wants Australians to incur the costs of a coal seam gas (CSG) boom, without clearly pointing out the benefits.

Until lately it was widely assumed that gas is a cleaner-burning fuel than coal, with lower greenhouse gas emissions. The rise of unconventional gas extraction - whether from shale, coal seam or tight sand gas fields - has called that assumption into question, and guess what? The answer is frightfully unclear.

It would be fair to say most of the data is old or industry-funded or based on different practices used for extraction overseas. Or hidden.

The ''We Want CSG'' ads sponsored by the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association say coal seam gas burned to produce baseload electricity produces ''up to'' 70 per cent fewer emissions than coal.

A new report on Southeast Asia’s future energy sources has tipped coal to be the fossil fuel of choice by 2020, contrary to popular opinion that natural gas will be the region’s top fuel.  Meanwhile, environmentalists vote for neither one.

Coal’s cost advantages and accessibility, coupled with improvements in ‘clean coal’ technologies, will make it a popular choice for the region where power demand is set to triple by 2030, said the report by international research firm Wood Mackenzie, released on Thursday last week.

The region’s energy growth is on the back of an estimated 5.2 per cent annual growth in the region’s overall gross domestic product (GDP) over the next decade, according to the report’s authors.

Mark Ogge, Beyond Zero Emissions' director of operations, writes in The Newcastle Herald:

In the last days of the New South Wales election campaign, a new study has been announced to investigate the health impacts of coal mining and combustion. While the climate changing impacts of coal are well understood, the adverse health effects on the community from mining and burning the fossil fuel are not. We have not yet woven a coherent understanding of the health and social impacts of the coal cycle in an Australian context.

Last year ABC’s Four Corners program highlighted community concern in the Hunter Valley over the impact of coal mining operations. People of all ages living near the region’s dusty open pit mines have complained of suffering respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. Since the program aired, the NSW Government has not commissioned independent research into the issue, and the Opposition has not demanded it.

Politicians have dropped the ball on this issue. For decades, coal mines and power stations have been approved with little regard to the health impacts on local communities. Both major parties have failed in their duty to the public when it comes to investigating the adverse health impacts of the coal industry.

When you boil down the carbon price debate, a big chunk of Australia's greenhouse gas emission cuts this decade is meant to come by way of a switch from coal-fired power stations to gas. Start with the oldest, dirtiest brown coal-fired plant and, in an orderly way, progress through the fleet until either we are no longer burning coal to generate electricity, or carbon capture and storage is up and running (and pigs are loaded and ready for take-off).

The Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet, says as much when talking about the problem of stalled investment in the energy sector.

 This decade will mark the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era.

Countries that are taking rapid action on climate change are reshaping the global commodities market. Coal is now among Australia's largest exports but demand for the commodity will drop as the global economy shifts to renewable energy. This represents a risk and an opportunity for Australia and its miners.

The largest importers of Australian coal, Japan, Korea, and China, have ambitious plans to decarbonise their economies. Japan, our single biggest importer of coal, has a 25 per cent emission reduction target by 2020. South Korea is investing about $85 billion over five years (2 per cent of GDP per year) in renewable energy and other clean technologies in its ''green new deal''. And China, while increasing its consumption of Australian coal over the last few years, aims to source 15 per cent of its energy from non-fossil fuel sources by 2020.