 | Concentrating On The Important Things - Solar Thermal Power | TOD: Australia/New Zealand | The Bullroarer - Friday 4th April 2008 |  |
4 comments on The Bullroarer - Thursday 3rd April 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
GAIA Host Collective
Yes, the reporting suggests it's a fiat accomplice... not the trial it is.
I think the nearest coal fired power station would be ALCOAs Anglesea operation. It has a chimney "designed for optimum dispersal based on studies by the Meteorology Department of Melbourne University". How about that...
But they are doing some things to reduce CO2. The Carbonation Program is a small step in the right direction.
I notice that they split the numbers between on site and off site...
See here.
I suppose this is one way of quantifying things... but I'm not so sure about the validity of the qualitative split!
Does any independent body check Alcoa's claims? A percentage of the process CO2 mixed with alkaline waste will be absorbed, but it might slowly absorb atmospheric CO2 anyway like setting cement. Presumably under the ETS they will bid for permits for the net CO2 as self assessed. Some agency with EPA-like powers needs to verify that assessment. I see an administrative nightmare looming, particularly as suitably qualified people will be in demand elsewhere. I doubt Garnaut will question the 55% claim as he seems to believe anything Big Biz tells him, be it vast geothermal resources or imminent CCS.
I don't think there is an independent assessment Boof, not until it is a regulatory requirement (is it?). But it could be true that they have indeed cut the "on site" (i.e. directly involved in the smelting process) CO2 emissions by 55%... it's that off site effort over at Anglesea that is the real problem. And I think Anglesea only provides enough omph for Point Henry in Geelong, not for the Portland Smelter.