Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Australia Earth Science

Australia's Giant Carbon Capture Project Fails To Meet Key Targets (smh.com.au) 89

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
The world's largest carbon capture and storage project has failed to meet a crucial target of capturing and burying an average of 80% of the carbon dioxide produced from gas wells in Western Australia over five years. From a report: The energy giant Chevron agreed to the target with the West Australian government when developing its $54 billion Gorgon project to extract and export gas from fields off the WA coast. The five year milestone passed on Sunday. In a statement the energy giant Chevron announced that since operations began in August 2019 it had injected five million tonnes of greenhouse gases underground. According to the independent analyst Peter Milne, that leaves a shortfall of around 4.6 million tonnes, which he estimates would cost about $100 million to offset via carbon credits.

The project has national and even international significance, with the oil and gas industry and the federal government declaring the success of carbon capture and storage to be crucial in tackling climate change while making use of fossil fuels. "It is essential we position Australia to succeed by investing now in the technologies that will support our industries into the future, with lower emissions energy that can support Australian jobs," Prime Minister Scott Morrison said in April while announcing $263.7 million in funding to develop carbon capture and storage technology.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australia's Giant Carbon Capture Project Fails To Meet Key Targets More

Australia's Giant Carbon Capture Project Fails To Meet Key Targets

Comments Filter:

  • Actually, I'd say sequestering 5 million tons is a pretty good tech demo.

    Only half of the target, but new technologies don't always work perfectly the first time.

    Good on ya, mates.

    • Yes, good on them. This is why I found this part of the fine article disturbing.

      Ian Porter, a former oil and gas executive who now leads the West Australian environmental group Sustainable Energy Now, called on the West Australian government to penalise the consortium behind the project â" which includes Shell and ExxonMobil â" for its ongoing failure.

      âoeIt has been all carrot and no stick,â he said of ongoing support for the project.

      They tried to solve the world's problem of global warming, didn't quite reach that goal, and so now someone wants to impose penalties. That's only going to discourage any other attempts to try again. I could be convinced to punish attempts for outright fraud but it would have to be made absolutely clear that there was an attempt to defraud the government before that should be tried, and for the very real threat of discouragi

      • Re:Nice tech demo (Score:4, Insightful)

        by thosdot ( 659245 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2021 @10:37PM (#61606303)

        Yes, good on them. This is why I found this part of the fine article disturbing.

        They tried to solve the world's problem of global warming, didn't quite reach that goal, and so now someone wants to impose penalties.

        Not a correct reading of the situation - Chevron agreed to reach that standard/level of capture to be allowed to develop the field(s) in the first place. As Porter says, so far it's been all carrot and no stick. If they just continue extracting with no further effort to reach their promised capture level then it would effectively be fraud. Not a million miles away from those small oil companies set up to drain a well dry, then shut down without capping or remediating the damage they've left behind them.

        • That's one way to read it. Another read on this is the Australian government is penalizing a company that is providing vital fuel at low cost to the market. They succeeded in keeping the lights on, and they need to be punished for that. Or so it seems.

          If the government penalizes companies that provide energy at low cost then they will get energy at high cost. If they penalize failure to sequester CO2, then that means that nobody will even try in the future. They can claim it's "all carrot but no stick"

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            If you can't meet the goals. Then you don't get to sell Australia's gas. It's not a difficult concept.

            You be equally happy if someone agreed to build a nuke plant for a billion dollars. Didn't build one and kept the billion? You'd be happy with a "well we tried", sucks to be you?

            Would you still give them another billion for "the next one"?

            • You be equally happy if someone agreed to build a nuke plant for a billion dollars. Didn't build one and kept the billion? You'd be happy with a "well we tried", sucks to be you?

              More like they built the plant, and it isn't producing as much power as they expect, but with some work, they may be able to get it to the level that it was designed for. They are capturing carbon, just not at the scale they designed for. It isn't like they didn't even bother, they are trying, or else they wouldn't have captured half the carbon.

          • Oh bullshit.
            Company made a guarantee. They failed. Hire someone else and pay them with the penalty for failure to fulfill contract on these fools

    • The Laws of Thermodynamics can not be repealed by politicians. Thankfully.

    • Re:Nice tech demo (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BeaverCleaver ( 673164 ) on Thursday July 22, 2021 @02:26AM (#61606737)

      Unfortunately, this isn't anything like the "first time" that geological carbon sequestration has been tried. Our government has been using "carbon sequestration" as a magic-bullet excuse for not fixing emissions for almost 20 years now. It has been going at least since John Howard was prime minister. A quick search turns up this example from 2004: https://www.theage.com.au/nati... [theage.com.au] . They also usually throw around a lot of propaganda about "aussie innovation" and how great our R&D is. A lot of taxpayers' cash gets splashed around, then, just like in this most recent example, the project quietly fails. Meanwhile the natural gas (or coal, in the case of the 2004 article I linked) still gets extracted and Gina Reinhart or her cronies get a little bit richer. Instead of "innovation" leading the world, our researchers look like idiots, still banging away chasing the mythical carbon sequestration fairy. Note also that even if it was 100% successful, this most recent sequestration attempt does NOTHING to offset the emissions when the gas is burned. It was only ever a token effort to offset some of the emissions of _extracting_ the gas. And it didn't even succeed at that.

      Meanwhile, real R&D on how to actually make a real difference goes unfunded.

      • Well, that link from 2004 says that the government is going to fund tests of carbon sequestration. The article we're discussing talks about the five-year results of a test off carbon sequestration. You say

        this isn't anything like the "first time" that geological carbon sequestration has been tried.

        but looks to me like your link and the article we're discussing are talking about the same thing.

        ...Meanwhile, real R&D on how to actually make a real difference goes unfunded.

        Well, I do have to point out the University of New South Wales and the Australian Centre for Advanced Photovoltaics, along with the Centre for Sustainable Energy Systems at the Australian National University, h

        • I didn't say that there is *no* funding for renewables. I was trying to point out that more funding would be available if it wasn't being spent repeatedly trying to repeal the laws of thermodynamics. Yes, the ANU and UNSW have done some good research into sustainable energy and photovoltaics. This also has no bearing on the fact that geological carbon sequestration doesn't work.

          I'm also confused how if the article from 2004 and the current failure are the "same thing," how a 5 year plan somehow blew out to

  • Yet more subsidies for fossil fuels (Score:5, Insightful)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2021 @05:09PM (#61605675)
    Despite clear & comprehensive evidence that fossil fuels companies are harming the world we live in, we continue to throw public money at them as if there's no tomorrow. All carbon capture is for is to delay legislation banning them outright. The fossil fuel companies want to wring every last cent out of every source they can, including public money, for as long as they can. They're no longer of any benefit or use to us & should be phased out as quickly as possible. Carbon capture is just the latest in a long line of delay tactics. Don't let them make a fool of you anymore.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nasch ( 598556 )

      If fossil fuels were of no use or benefit we would have already stopped using them.

      • Re:Yet more subsidies for fossil fuels (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2021 @05:57PM (#61605781)

        If they really are so incredibly valuable then they dont' need public support or subsidies.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by nasch ( 598556 )

          Completely agreed.

          • Actually the money should be flowing the opposite direction. It's not like the oil producers are growing the oil on farmland. They''re pulling it up from deep beneath the earth or ocean which in most cases legally belongs to the government and rights to drill are granted or leased by the government. So for this incredibly valuable service (such as providing RF bandwidth) there should be a reasonable remuneration to the government.

      • If fossil fuels were of no use or benefit we would have already stopped using them.

        Lots of things have benefits if you ignore the costs.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by nasch ( 598556 )

          Whether something has a cost doesn't determine whether it has a benefit, unless you specify net benefit.

    • Most of that natural gas is destined to be exported to countries where it will be used to generate power in place of coal, Unless you know people who are willing to donate something else, coal or natural gas is the actual choice many nations face. Stay poor and in the dark is not a workable answer.

      • Ah, a dichotomous argument; coal & gas or stay poor & in the dark. Are Australians poor & in the dark? Is that the best critical reasoning & evaluation of the situation you can come up with?

        How about considering what renewable energy sources are available in Australia & how they compare to coal & gas in terms of total cost per GWh & total environmental impact? Maybe some clever boffins may have even already gathered comprehensive, valid & reliable data & done some expert

        • I was not speaking of Australia, I was pointing out that most of that gas is for export to other less fortunate countries that will use it in place of coal. Australia is, of course, huge exporter of coal as well. If they were to export less coal and more natural gas, that is still a win. That you can't accept small steps and will only accept big steps is the prime reason many places simply take no steps at all.
          • Which poor, dark countries would those be?
            • Mostly Japan and China to be sure. Exactly the same as the biggest coal customers. Japan is shutting down perfectly good nuclear which is dumb IMO but gas keeps the lights on there where renewables are unlikely to anytime soon. China still burns lots of coal, so gas indeed remains a large improvement.

              https://www.rba.gov.au/publica... [rba.gov.au]

              Most of the poor people are in the "other" component. As China, Korea et al install more renewables and use less gas and coal, the "other" folks will take up more and mo
              • How about if Australia gradually reduces the fossil fuel subsidies & see how quickly China, Japan & I assume you mean South Korea step up their investments & transitions into renewables. After all, do Australians really want to subsidise China, Japan & South Korea's energy consumption & contribute to global heating with their taxes?

    • Okay then, build some nuclear fission power plants.

      Oh, you don't like that answer? Okay but that doesn't change reality, fossil fuel companies will continue to be able to "wring every last cent" from people needing energy until Australia ends the self imposed ban on nuclear power. Australia has been trying to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar but it's not going well. At some point saner minds will prevail.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by vivian ( 156520 )

        It would go a lot better if our dickhead government didn't get in the way. They keep insisting on propping up fossil fuel powered powerplants, even to the extent of now saying they will push for new gas turbine plants and use our taxes to back coal mines and unprofitable coal power stations which banks wont touch, that should be left to die. Voters don't want this either, but the politician bastards are too deep in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry. Most recently they are proposing to spend 468 milli

    • All carbon capture is for is to delay legislation banning them outright.

      I mean we can stop all petrol production today if that suits you better. I assume you already bought an EV and are off the grid using only green energy. Otherwise you may be seen as a hypocrite.

      Now back in reality, if you want to actually continue to move freight while hydrogen transport gets developed, and want the 99% of people who own ICE cars to be able to continue to drive while EVs become more common place, and the power to continue to stay on in plants which were built with 40+ year livespans without

      • I'm guessing that your indignant outrage prevented you from getting as far as,

        ...should be phased out as quickly as possible.

  • Ah - thats 'Scotty from Marketing' again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slincolne ( 1111555 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2021 @05:12PM (#61605683)
    At a time when the best option is to reduce carbon emissions, our government invests in fossil fuel companies rather than green energy. Looking forward to the press release from Scotty explaining that this is somehow a success.

    • If you find yourself in a hole then the best tactic is to stop digging. There's been a number of people pointing out how wind and solar power will be incapable of replacing fossil fuels. A short summary of the problem was written by Dr. Ripu Malhotra here: https://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/... [blogspot.com]

      For a deep dive on the numbers there's a couple short "books" online here: http://www.withouthotair.com/C... [withouthotair.com]
      And here: http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]

      Please note that the second link is to a book that starts with this

      • "Australia needs nuclear fission power".

        Never going to happen; neither major party are interested in losing an election over it.

        You may argue otherwise but that's the reality of politics.

        • Never going to happen; neither major party are interested in losing an election over it.

          You may argue otherwise but that's the reality of politics.

          Really?
          https://www.theguardian.com/au... [theguardian.com]
          https://www.theaustralian.com.... [theaustralian.com.au]

          The reality is that Australia is going to have an energy supply problem if they do not start building nuclear power plants soon. There are politicians willing to talk about nuclear power because a good way to lose elections is with rising energy costs, air pollution, and utility blackouts.

          It sounds like never is going to arrive shortly after the next election.

          • Yes, really.

            Barnaby uses nuclear as a smokescreen and leads a party that refuses to commit to zero emissions by 2050.

            Sky news is Rupert Murdoch's propaganda channel that no one takes seriously.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by thosdot ( 659245 )

        There have indeed been a number of people pointing out that wind and solar can't replace fossil fuels; while that might have been true several years ago, it's becoming increasingly clear that if we wanted to, we could. There are other forms of renewable energy too, than wind and solar. I'm not necessarily against nuclear power either, but there are many ways to do that that aren't as dangerous as the previous approaches.

        With regard to your sources: The first person you mention has spent 35 years in the en

        • There have indeed been a number of people pointing out that wind and solar can't replace fossil fuels; while that might have been true several years ago, it's becoming increasingly clear that if we wanted to, we could.

          Yes, most any nation could replace fossil fuels with wind and solar. That's not under debate, not by me anyway. The data shows that no nation will want to take that path.

          What advocates for a zero carbon economy by wind and solar power will do is lay out the math for how much energy is consumed by a given nation, or perhaps the whole world, and then show that there is enough land, labor, iron, copper, aluminum, silicon, sand, and other resources available to make that happen. That's not sufficient to make

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by thosdot ( 659245 )

            There have indeed been a number of people pointing out that wind and solar can't replace fossil fuels; while that might have been true several years ago, it's becoming increasingly clear that if we wanted to, we could.

            The chances nobody will build a single nuclear power reactor is so close to zero that it may as well be zero. Once there is a single nuclear power plant there is a template to make another. And another.

            There have already been nuclear reactors. They use the same design. Nothing unusual there. If you talking about a new small power reactor design, then getting it to the stage where it will be acceptable - to those people who would accept one nearby - will take so long that renewables + storage will have won the race. You're not going to turn nuclear power plants out more cheaply than wind farms, solar panels, and battery systems.

            The case for Australia replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar power ends as soon as someone does the calculations on nuclear fission. . . .

            Australia will build plenty of windmills, that's certain. Australia will install many solar panels. And in the next few years Australia will break ground on it's first civil nuclear power plant.

            Now there, you're just flat out wrong. Australia has always had opportuniti

            • It appears you are mistaken about the opposition to nuclear power in Australia.
              https://www.skynews.com.au/bus... [skynews.com.au]
              https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne... [dailymail.co.uk]

              I can post more news articles on this if you like. It appears that something happened in the last month or two in Australia that got people talking since a search on the news about nuclear power in Australia has a lot of hits that are recent. Very few of them showing opposition to nuclear power and the vast majority showing people support it.

              I'll admit that break

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by thosdot ( 659245 )

                I'm not against it, I just remain very doubtful that it will rise up in acceptability to the point it'll sit alongside wind & solar. Sure, our current government has done less than nothing to wean us off fossil fuels, so there's resistance to (say) starting up a new gas-fired power plant; but that's at least technology that's been accepted here since the beginning. Replacing the fossil-fuel component with nuclear power generation would require (I believe) a major shift in public acceptance (beyond goog

    • At a time when the best option is to reduce carbon emissions, our government invests in fossil fuel companies rather than green energy.

      This isn't as silly as you think. The reality is while you can invest in green energy to make a transition, the world will very really rely on fossil fuels going forward. ALWAYS. It's everywhere. We'll never go 100% EV. We'll never go 100% electric heating. We drive on roads paved with the leftovers from oil. We drink from bottles and wear cloths with the leftovers from oil. I'm typing this to you now on keys made in part from oil.

      Even if we stop setting it on fire in a small compressed chamber to apply for

    • I more interested to see what his next distraction tactic will be? Kind of hard to top talking to Kyle about Engadine.

  • Let's pay to get 2 stab wounds instead of 3 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TomGreenhaw ( 929233 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2021 @05:17PM (#61605703)
    They hoped to sequester 80% of the CO2 released from the gas extraction operations at one site. If I read the article correctly, it does nothing to help the CO2 released when the methane is burned and there is no mention about methane leakage from well operations. It does however highlight the environmental catastrophe that extraction is causing
    .
    Taxpayer funded window dressing at its finest that does little to address the root problems of climate change.

    I suppose at least they are trying to do something.

    • Our (Australian) government is just so shit at this. Even the 'good' party is barely able to get anything done when they're in power, and we've got some terrible people in charge right now.

      We have recycling bins, right? And they get collected. And we used to ship our recycling waste to China. But China has stopped accepting it (as they previously warned was happening), no problem, so we just bury the vast majority of it. No mention of government subsidies for a recycling plant or incentives/penalties for ma

      • Sounds like your problems are similar to ours in the US. Where we went wrong was letting political campaign contributions to get out of control. Essentially no limits and secrecy. Our leaders are working for big business and they only care about short term gains.

        At least you have one 'good' party :-)

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by thosdot ( 659245 )

          Sounds like your problems are similar to ours in the US. Where we went wrong was letting political campaign contributions to get out of control. At least you have one 'good' party :-)

          that was relatively under control until SCOTUS decided that companies could put in as much as they wanted. The Democrats are fine, but they have the handicap of being a party made up of factions, not all of which reliably pull in the same direction, and some are grouped in purely on the 'enemy of my enemy' basis.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by thosdot ( 659245 )

        Our (Australian) government is just so shit at this. Even the 'good' party is barely able to get anything done when they're in power, and we've got some terrible people in charge right now.

        The last ALP government we had was hamstrung by being a minority govt. The PM before that had the chance, but squibbed the opportunity when the Greens joined with the conservative parties to vote down the emissions-controlling legislation - he had the opportunity to force things through but took a powder instead. Other than that ALP governments have and are usually notable by marked social growth. Without the Murdoch press, and Clive Palmer, we'd have an ALP government now, and not only would our 2050 emis

  • Fail Fast Fail Often (Score:3)

    by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2021 @05:21PM (#61605719) Journal
    Even if we reduce output, we still need to capture and sequester greenhouse gases that are already out there. Need to figure out how, and fast. And what about the other greenhouse gases besides CO2?

    • there is a natural sink rate, that processes on earth remove from atmosphere. We're putting out CO2 at twice the sink. If we halved our output we'd be at the sink rate. Going lower than that the carbon dioxide would go down of its own accord back to natural levels.

      • Not before everything melted.

        • Then I guess we must all accept that the temperatures will rise until everything bursts into flames, then our burning corpses will only be extinguished with the rising sea levels.

          Or we can "follow the science" by ranking energy sources on costs and CO2 emissions, then implementing them in priority based on how high they rank. Depending on the region the order will vary slightly but the top four will be onshore wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear fission. If I had to choose something for fifth place then

          • Biomass fuel doesn't have to be from food. Already a done deal for a decade to turn plant cellulose into vehicle fuel by bioengineered algae. Burning fuel from high growth weeds like switchgrass farmed on otherwise useless scrubland isn't a problem.

            • I've seen how "worthless scrubland" is farmed. Out in the US Badlands ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) there are lands worthless for traditional farming because of rocky and uneven ground can have grasses planted to be "harvested" by livestock. Proper grazing practices can turn a desert into a fertile grassland. We are already seeing the "badlands" disappear from ranching in the area.
              https://www.ted.com/talks/alla... [ted.com]

              Algae grown in the desert is still competing with food because if there is land and

              • The algae wouldn't be grown in scrubland, that's from lab and tossed into tanks where the switchgrass will be processed.

                Some research places still exist, but only one reason not done commercially, the greater monetary appeal of making ethanol from grain.

    • Even if we reduce output, we still need to capture and sequester greenhouse gases that are already out there. Need to figure out how, and fast. And what about the other greenhouse gases besides CO2?

      Sulfur hexafluoride is a huge problem and will likely only get worse until an economical alternative is found.
      https://techxplore.com/news/20... [techxplore.com]

      The use of this gas in greater quantities by renewable energy sources is causing people to ask questions like, do windmills increase global warming?
      https://www.mvorganizing.org/d... [mvorganizing.org]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by vivian ( 156520 )

        The use of this gas in greater quantities by renewable energy sources is causing people to ask questions like, do windmills increase global warming?

        Unfortunately the article you linked didn't answer the question.

        Good news though - I spent 10 seconds doing some research and found this, https://windeurope.org/newsroo... [windeurope.org]
        which answers the question with a definitive NO, the global warming from HF6 leaks from switch gear from windmills accounts for 0.001% of the emissions they save.
        Turns out that your linked article complies with Betteridge's law of headlines after all.

    • Even if we reduce output, we still need to capture and sequester greenhouse gases that are already out there. Need to figure out how, and fast.

      We need some kind of self replicating machine that sucks in CO2, sequesters the carbon, and spits out oxygen. Oh, and it should be free and run on its own solar power.

  • It's a 50% success (Score:3)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2021 @05:57PM (#61605779)

    Just like the North Korean project to turn shit into butter.

    Spread is on target, taste is still off, hence 50% success.

  • Did Australia's Giant Carbon Dispersal Project Meet It's Key Targets?

  • Barely a green initiative (Score:5, Informative)

    by bug_hunter ( 32923 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2021 @08:22PM (#61606065)

    It should be pointed out, this is an environmental initiative under Scott Morrison's government.

    As a result, this green initiative was awarded to the single biggest polluting project in the country, run by Chevron, to make it slightly less polluting.
    Seems similar to the Great Barrier Reef Project that was awarded a giant bunch of money with no tender. The project is very close with all the big mining companies and has debatable impact.

    It’s still political suicide to go against the big mining companies in Australian politics (if their funding can swing 2% of the vote, that’s generally enough) - so we’ll reward them by paying them to clean up their own mess, and not caring when they fail.

    • Yes and no. While it would be nice optically for 100% of green initiatives to go to wonderful shiny clean green energy, the reality is much of our world will depend heavily on fossil fuels even if we get 100% of our energy production green. Windfarms don't pave roads. You can't wear a solar panel or drink from one. You can't build a building out of wave energy.

      We will always have industrial processes that spew a shitton of CO2 into the air, and CCS absolutely needs to be part of the solution. And as unfortu

  • Well we're just going to have to get better at it, aren't we? It's early days yet.

    It's certainly taken care of more carbon than wishing, hoping, strutting, and calling names has.

  • Burying CO2 is stupid because for every carbon atom one buries two oxygen atoms as well. At the end what will we breathe?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swilver ( 617741 )

      Perhaps check the composition of the air you breathe, and particularly look at the ratio of CO2 vs O2 in the air.

  • Recently in the news there was a strident report about how rising temperatures are causing melting of the permafrost in the Northern Hemisphere. This is important because it means the release of the carbon and methane currently sequestered in the permafrost.

    Basically, Nature has already experimented with sequestering carbon in the ground. Like it or not, the approach means that at some point in the future the carbon can return to the surface/atmosphere.

    So why does anyone think this is a valid approach to

  • I'm pretty sure that adding more fairy dust will solve this problem.

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close