Fossil fuel marketing terms swamp the ABC and national media

Fran Kelly.

Hats off to ABC Radio National’s Breakfast announcer, Fran Kelly. On Wednesday, when picked up by a listener following an interview, Kelly said she was wrong to use the term “clean coal”, because it didn’t exist.

She was right. But then Kelly got into murky territory.

Better, she said, to use the term “low emissions” to describe the coal plant technology now known as HELE (high efficiency, low emissions). But why? It may not be as extreme as “clean”, but “low emissions” in this case is just another marketing term from the coal and fossil fuel lobby.

After all, these plants claim – at best – to emit between 0.7 tonnes and 0.8 tonnes of greenhouse gases for every megawatt hour of electricity produced. That sounds like high emissions technology to me.

It is only “low” in comparison to the incredibly dirty coal plants that preceded them, and their emissions are substantially higher than any other technology – including gas, but particularly solar, wind, hydro and nuclear.

Read the RenewEconomy story by Giles Parkinson - “Fossil fuel marketing terms swamp the ABC and national media.”

Japan spruiks 'highly efficient' coal-fired power plants as stop-gap measure to Australia's energy crisis

When it comes to Australia's energy crisis, there's been a lot of talk about "clean coal”.

The coal processing section of Japan's Isogo
power plant, where the coal gets crushed.

Some have suggested that high-efficiency, low-emissions (HELE) coal-fired power plants could be the answer to provide certainty across the energy grid.

Australia's Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg and Resources Minister Matt Canavan have taken separate trips to Japan to see how the technology works in practice.

Both politicians visited the Isogo power plant, south of Tokyo — which has been recognised as the world's cleanest coal-fired power station in the world, in terms of emissions intensity.

Read the ABC News story - “Japan spruiks 'highly efficient' coal-fired power plants as stop-gap measure to Australia's energy crisis.”

Mining industry tipped millions into pre-election clean coal campaign

The mining industry spent $2.5 million pushing the case for "clean coal" in the run-up to last year's election, electoral funding records have revealed.

State and federal governments have spent
 $436 million since 2004 to make clean
coal technology a commercial reality. 

As coal's future in Australia's energy mix continues to dominate political debate in Canberra, returns lodged by so-called "third party campaigners" to the Australian Electoral Commission show a little-known group called ACA Low Emissions Technologies Limited was one of the top five spenders of 52 third parties.

The company, which had not previously lodged a return, was only outspent by GetUp, the Australian Education Union, the ACTU and the Business Council of Australia but massively outspent renewable energy advocates the Solar Council, which spent $36,000, and Greenpeace, which spent $53,000.

ACA Low Emissions Technologies takes its name from the former Australian Coal Association which merged with the Minerals Council of Australia in 2013.

Read Heath Aston’s story in today’s Melbourne Age - “Mining industry tipped millions into pre-election clean coal campaign.”

The role of clean coal technologies in reducing emissions

Australia's first carbon capture plant near
 Biloela in central Queensland. This
method is just one emissions reduction
 strategy that scientists say should be considered.

The term 'clean coal' has been high on the political agenda in the wake of widespread energy black-outs in South Australian recently.

For opponents, clean coal is derided as oxy-moronic.

But the Federal Government argues it's a legitimate way of maintaining energy security at times when intermittent renewable sources cannot.

The Australian Science Media Centre engaged three prominent scientists and researchers in the field for a briefing on clean coal and whether it was a pipe dream or reality.

The scientists agreed there was a need to look at all electricity sources and assess their ability to be incorporated into existing systems.

They also agreed that the language and terminology used by politicians, proponents and opponents failed to encourage mature, scientific discussions.

Read the ABC Rural story - “The role of clean coal technologies in reducing emissions.”

Coalition’s ‘clean coal’ plan revealed to be an ‘idiotic’ fantasy

Treasurer Scott Morrison with a
piece of "clean coal".

It’s probably not surprising that Coalition ministers and MPs were cradling the lump of coal brought to Question Time on Thursday by Treasurer Scott Morrison as though it were a treasure from Aladdin’s Cave. After all, their own plan for cheap and clean coal is steeped in as much fantasy as that favourite childhood tale.

Over the past few months the Coalition has been promoting “clean coal” and supposedly modern coal plant technology as a solution for Australia’s power crisis (high prices and high emissions), all the while attacking renewables, and wind energy in particular.

It reached idiotic proportions on Thursday after Engie chose not to switch on its Pelican Point gas plant and supply customers, including many of its own, with power in the midst of a major heatwave (temperatures at 47.8°C in Port Augusta), forcing rolling blackouts that affected 90,000 customers.

The Coalition then chose to blame wind energy, and the theatre culminated in the supply of a lump of coal to parliament house, which, as the Guardian’s Katharine Murphy pointed out, illustrated little more than their own stupidity. “What idiocy is this?” she asked.

Read Giles Parkinson’s RenewEconomy story - “Coalition’s ‘clean coal’ plan revealed to be an ‘idiotic’ fantasy.”

'Clean coal' would push up power bills more than wind, solar or gas: analysts

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and
Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg.

"Clean coal" plants that the Turnbull government has flagged could get clean energy subsidies are more expensive than solar, wind and gas-fired power and would lead to higher electricity price rises, analysts have warned.

Support for what the government calls "clean coal" stations - ultra-supercritical plants, which still emit greenhouse gas - would also be at odds with a 2015 OECD agreement under which Australia agreed not to fund any type of coal power in developing countries if cleaner options were available.

Read Adam Morton’s story in today’s Melbourne Age - “'Clean coal' would push up powerbills more than wind, solar or gas: analysts.”