Roger Currie has drawn our attention to Tiaro Coal and I’m glad
he did. The question is should be why are we searching for coal?
Don’t we already have millions of tonnes of it? Isn’t it to blame
for most of the worlds airborne pollution? Isn’t coal inherently
dirty?
Of all the things money should be spent on, I would have
thought coal was about the last! Medical research, renewable
energy, increased food production, but not more coal.
I am willing to bet this company is getting tax concessions,
government subsidies, plus those at the top are getting huge
salaries. Searching for something we don’t want and don’t
need.
No wonder Kevin is seeking FRESH ideas, maybe we could
loan Kate to Tiaro Coal. (John Neve)
Ben Collingwood has this to say on the matter:
Like it or not, Australia is rich in resources. It just happens that some of these resources when not used carefully can cause a large amount of pollution. What is the solution? Do we swap to nuclear power? Do we stop consuming altogether and go back to living like indigenous Australians did 250 years ago? I doubt it.
A small example of climate change propaganda gone wrong is the humble light globe. We’ve all rushed out and changed from incandescent bulbs to these fantastic fluoro ones that save energy and in turn must be good for the environment right? Wrong! Trouble is with these little suckers is they contain mercury so when they reach the end of their lifecycle and end up in landfill we are actually causing a new pollutant. (Strewthisback writes: Ok so Ben wasn’t quite on the money here.. see “Electric Sheep’s explanation in the comments) In exactly the same manner, swapping from coal power to nuclear as some would have it would do exactly the same thing - nuclear waste is very difficult to get rid of. What is the solution?
PS.. If we HAVE to have mining in our back yards, we need to ensure the company doing the mining is Australian owned so the money stays in Australia and is not syphoned overseas. A quick read of Tiaro Coal’s website would have me believe they are not local operators rather overseas interests.
Again I take Ben’s point. However, I’m not suggesting we abandon coal, what I’m asking is do we need to search for more? I have never suggested we go down the nuclear path,but there are many alternatives to coal. Cheap is not always the right answer. We have enough nown coal to last us until we find a safe and viable alternative. As to fluoro’s, Ben I don’t have one in my house. Unless they are running 24/7 they are not cheaper. The starting current is greater than the running current, so to keep switching them on and off, is not cost effective. Better people use the right size globe for the job, most people oversize.
In response to Ben Collingwood:
Are you forgetting that all existing fluorescent light tubes, like those used to light millions of office buildings all over Australian and around the globe, also contain mercury?
You are acting as though compact fluorescent lights are the only ones that contain mercury, when the number of CFLs pales in comparison to the number of standard (non-compact) fluorescent tubes in use. If you are concerned about mercury, you should be more concerned about standard fluorescent tubes than you should about CFLs.
But ultimately this is besides the point, because the notion that switching to CFLs is worse for mercury emission than sticking with incandescents is demonstratively false. Incandescent bulbs are responsible for more mercury emission than CFLs - in the form of mercury released by the generation of electricity from coal-fired power plants.
The explanation is simple:
Coal contains mercury. When coal is burned in coal-fired power plants mercury is released into the atmosphere. For each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by a coal-fired power plant, about 0.0234 milligrams of mercury is released into the atmosphere (putting aside all the bad effects from the carbon and sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide).
Therefore, if the average lifespan of a CFL is 7500 hours and the average CFL contains approximately 4 milligrams of mercury, and a 20 watt CFL produces the same light output as a 75 watt incandescent bulb, then it’s easy to do the maths to see which one is worse:
Incandescent: 7500 hours x 75 watts / 1000 (converting to kW) x 0.0234 milligrams per kWh = 13.16 milligrams of mercury for an incandescent over 7500 hours.
CFL: 7500 hours x 20 watts (same light output as a 75 watt incandescent) / 1000 (converting to kW) x 0.0234 milligrams per kWh + 4 milligrams in the CFL tube itself = 7.51 milligrams of mercury for a CFL over 7500 hours.
Thus incandescents, over typical the typical lifespan of an equivalent CFL, produces 5.65 milligrams more mercury.
But people are easily misled by not having the full facts. Sad isn’t it?
As you say, nuclear is clearly not the answer. The waste is too difficult to store and the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant is very costly and takes at least 50 years for the removal of the spent core material alone. When considering the average life of a modern nuclear reactor is only 40-60 years, this doesn’t make a lot of sense.
The best option to start making an immediate positive change is to roll out more renewable energy. People in government will often say the technology isn’t “mature”, but this is clearly nonsense. (take, for example, the new American company Nanosolar which is already producing and exporting megawatt quantities of panels that are orders of magnitude more cost-effective than traditional photovoltaic panels) Countries like Germany (despite its low solar radiation reception compared to Australia) have already taken the plunge and are well on their way to 20% renewable energy by 2020.
Why Australia (with its abundance of solar input) hasn’t does this is just a matter of political laziness. It is “too easy” for the government to keep building coal power plants, but nothing great was ever achieved by taking the easy option.
You can start feeding back into the grid using solar power tomorrow if you want - Ergon already supports it and is already doing it in the Fraser Coast; give them a call and start making a change.
In response to John A Neve, regarding “The starting current is greater than the running current, so to keep switching them on and off, is not cost effective.” - This is a myth, a fallacy of terms.
Yes, the current is higher when starting a tube, but the current is not the amount of power being consumed (that’s the wattage, or energy over time; one watt is one joule of energy per second).
For example…
At 240 volts a 20 watt tube induces a current of 0.083 amps (20 watts / 240 volts = ~0.083 amps).
Let’s say that starting the tube requires a much higher current of 0.2 amps (about 24 times the normal running current in this case).
This means that at 240 volts the starter is using 48 watts (0.2 amps x 240 volts = 48 watts); over the course of three seconds, that equates to 144 joules (48 watts x 3 seconds = 144 joules).
So how long does it then take for the tube, at its normal running level of 20 watts, to use the equivalent energy to the amount used when starting the tube? Easy: 144 joules / 20 watts = 7.2 seconds.
So, the energy used when starting this tube would be the equivalent of running the tube for just 7.2 seconds. Or, put another way, if you leave the tube on for 7.2 seconds you have used the same amount of energy that is needed to start the tube from scratch.
Therefore, the idea that leaving the light on to save power that would have been used in restarting it, instead of turning it off, is plainly absurd: after just 7.2 seconds of the light being left on when it wasn’t needed, you’ve already used more power than having turned the light off and then back on. So unless you’re going out of the room for less than 7.2 seconds, you’re better to turn the light off.
This misunderstanding of terms is what leads people to believe that a 12 volt 50 watt halogen downlight uses less energy than a 240 volt 50 watt incandescent bulb. While the voltage and the current (amperage) is different, the wattage (the energy/joules being used per second, in this case 50) is the same, and therefore both lights are using the exact same amount of power.
In summary:
a) A 50 watt 12 volt halogen uses the same amount of power as a 50 watt 240 volt incandescent.
b) If you’re going out of a room for more than a few seconds, turning the light off (even if it’s a fluorescent tube or CFL) and back on when you return saves more energy than leaving it on while you’re gone. It is highschool physics, but I guess most people didn’t do physics in highschool or, if they did, don’t remember any of it.
Oops, I missed a . in “about 24 times”; that was supposed to be “about 2.4 times”, obviously.
Re: Tiaro Coal
They are not searching for coal in the Tiaro-Bauple region. They already know where it is and how much. They are now doing the logistics for the opening of the mines, the first of which is expected to be on-line in 4 years.
Why are they opening new mines when, as it has been stated, we already have enough in the present mines to last us for decades. They are trying to circumvent the bottlenecks at the ports. As you would be aware, coal ships are spending long periods swinging at anchor off our ports at the cost of thousands of dollars each day.
The intention is to take the coal out through Bundaberg and aviod these delays and thus reduce the overall cost of their end product. The first mine should be north-west of Tiaro with others to follow.
Me thinks the possible opening of new coal mines at Tiaro and Torbanlea has more to do with the record high prices for coal than bottlenecks at ports.
They have been working to open these mines for several years now. The actual drilling to prove the reserves was carried out 3 years ago. I believe that the people responsible are end users not suppliers.
Electric Sheep, add phosphorous into your computations. Depending on quality, flouro tubes can contain many layers of this material. The better the quality, the more layers. Almost as nasty as mercury.
There is only one competent recycler in Australia I am aware of that is equiped to handle this toxic cocktail, and they can be viewed at http://www.advancedrecycling.com.au I suggest readers check it out: the information on this and other related sites is alarming.
Jim and Milo Drink, the availability of ‘economically recoverable’ deposits are a major financial factor in mining.
The closer to the surface and the availability of existing transport infrastructure should also be considered along with shipping port access. All these points are made clear on http://www.tiarocoal.com.au/coal-project.htm And guess what, this infrastructure is already in place.
A pity about the countryside, roads, noise, dust, accidents, etc, that this development will bring.
Mind you, if there was a substantial benefit to the community, or even the country, then we may be able to justify this exploitation.
Bet the end result will be the same as all our previous experiences: a small local employment to justify a massive rip-off of Australian resources by non-Australian profit makers, courtesy of the “Dual Taxation Act”, (1952) that allows foreign company profits to leave the country virtually tax free.
Pancho, regarding “phosphorous”:
I don’t mean to be picky here (I’m starting to sound pedantic), but that’s not entirely true either. This is yet another case of getting terms mixed up!
The words “phosphorous”, “phosphorus” and “phosphor” are frequently confused; “phosphorus” is the element (P), “phosphorous” means a substance containing a certain atomic arrangement of the element phosphorus, and a “phosphor” (or combination of “phosphors”
is what is used in lights, cathode ray tube computer monitors and TVs (the Baby Bonus Flatscreeners probably wouldn’t even remember those, but I digress), etc.
Phosphorus is, by itself, not a phosphor (despite what the general public may incorrectly assume) and is therefore not used as a phosphor in lights.
In fact many phosphors don’t contain any phosphorus at all! Most phosphors (like those used in CFLs) are instead compounds of silicon, magnesium, aluminium, barium, etc. Some phosphors do use phosphorus, but in this form it’s not dangerous (just as chlorine is not dangerous in sodium chloride - salt - but is poisonous and highly reactive by itself). Of course I wouldn’t recommend eating the phosphor coating from the inside of a light bulb.
People get “phosphors” (glowy!) and “phosphorus” (the element) confused all the time, and this then leads to incorrect conclusions.
OK, enough of that off-topic ranting from me.
We should always be very sceptical of governments who are granting companies the right to take what is collectively ours and sell it for their own gain.
Jim , you seem to have a good angle on the mines , did they talk to council ?, did they talk to you? These guys are the front for some global heavies in mining , are you saying that they have done all this , without having any form of dialouge with the community ? can you give me the coordinates for the first mine and explain how you know this is the preferred site, ? and where you got the information that they are trying to dodge the bottle necks ? , also could you give me a calculation of how many MGL from the Mary , they will require per year for the first mine , and where they expect it to come from? and how they will make the mine carbon neutral ? please? You have me intruiged? , cheers roger
MINING KOALAS
Jim , if you can give me the coordinates i can asess whether there are koalas in the mine site area! , wouldnt that be great ? maybe we could catch them all and send them to a zoo in Malaysia as a ‘conservation offset programme’ ? , so we can ease our ‘collective consciense’ about the mining jobs ? I mean that way we could create some jobs at the zoo as well ? That would be a ‘win-win’ situation now , would it not?
What will be really interesting will be to see who owns how many shares in Tiaro Coal, that would be a very newsworthy article i presume.?
ISNT POLITICS FACINATING ?
TIARO COAL , ‘THE MAN’
First , the man’s name is Ibrahim bin Menudin, “TAn Sir” is his title.
From the his CV on the Tiara Coal website (http://www.tiarocoal.com.au/directors.htm)
you would have read that he was “formerly the Chief Executive Officer of Sabah Bumiputra Investment Fund until 1985. He had also served as Chairman of Sabah Gas Industries Sdn Bhd, Deputy Chairman of Sabah Forest Industry Sdn Bhd as well as being board member of other Sabah Government corporations ranging from finance, forestry, manufacturing, plantations, hotel and property development.”
Sabah is a state in the Federation of Malaysia.
The other company he is chairman of, Suria Capital, is essentially a Sabah based company-suggesting that Ibrahim Menudin’s political contacts in Sabah remain very strong.
Our new Minister for Climate Change, Senator Penny Wong is from Sabah, and her father is a prominent member of the establishment, as evidenced by this Sabah newspaper report:
Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Haji Aman has described the appointment of Sabah-born Senator Penny Wong to the new Australian cabinet as a great honour for Sabah.
“I know her father and she is the first Sabah-born woman and the first Asian to join the Australian cabinet and I wish to congratulate her on her achievement,” he said here yesterday.
Wong has been made minister for climate change and water, with responsibility for international negotiations on the Kyoto treaty. Musa expressed hope that she would forge close cooperation with Malaysia in the field of climate change, thus enhancing bilateral relations between Australia and Malaysia.
(http://www.newsabahtimes.com.my/nstweb/fullstory/13766)
Penny can do more in Sabah than she can in China-so if she really wants to change the climate, Sabah is the place to start-yet, we never hear her saying anything about the problems in Sabah which are of major environmental concern-(see http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/8/13/nation/20070813141839&sec=nation AND http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23558204-11949,00.html)
So-what you group could do is to write Penny Wong and get her to do sometheing-let me know if you are -I would be happy to put it up on my blog and distribute among media and other contacts-here and in the region.
Wait thers more!
Musa lauds appointment of Sabah-born Penny Wong to Australian cabinet
1st December, 2007
KOTA KINABALU: Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Haji Aman has described the appointment of Sabah-born Senator Penny Wong to the new Australian cabinet as a great honour for Sabah.
“I know her father and she is the first Sabah-born woman and the first Asian to join the Australian cabinet and I wish to congratulate her on her achievement,” he said here yesterday.
Wong has been made minister for climate change and water, with responsibility for international negotiations on the Kyoto treaty. Musa expressed hope that she would forge close cooperation with Malaysia in the field of climate change, thus enhancing bilateral relations between Australia and Malaysia.
Meanwhile, Liberal Democratic Party president Datuk V.K. Liew said Malaysians should aspire to be successful in their respective pursuits just like Wong. “We’re proud of her achievement. It goes to show that Malaysians can become successful and carve a name for themselves, including in the international arena,” he said.
Kota Belud Member of Parliament and former chief minister Datuk Seri Salleh Said Keruak was confident that Wong’s appointment would further strengthen relations between Australia and Malaysia, especially Sabah. “Women’s contributions to the political arena and governance are being recognised not only in this country but also Australia. This is a positive development,” he said.
Puteri Umno deputy chief and Papar MP Rosnah Abdul Rashid Shirlin said the apppointment was an honour for Sabah-born women. “It’s clear that Australia has no problem having a Malaysian-born woman serving under the new administration of Kevin Rudd. I believe that Wong will deliver what’s expected of her,” she said.
Her sentiments were echoed by Sabah Wanita Umno chief Senator Datuk Armani Mahiruddin and state Wanita Parti Bersatu Sabah chief Datin Jamilah Sulaiman. – Bernama
Crikey , what a small world it is, eh , Jim?
Roger,
Politics facinating - No, mate, just depressing! The time when ‘Australian’ politicians truly represented us has long gone.
Welcome the the new order of global finance and exploitation!
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this Roger, but yesterday was ANZAC and I am out of circulation on that day.
To the best of my knowledge Tiaro coal never formerly talked to the Tiaro council. But the council staff were aware of their actions and their intentions. The members of the Council where never given the full detail of what the executive knew, principally because it was not official I think.
I received a lot of other informal information through my contacts in the development industry from the days when I worked with them. You never let those contacts go stale because they find out things a long time before the rest of us.
The issue of community dialogue does not ever seem to worry these people. Not until they have very concrete plans in place and then they tell us what is happening. Not negotiable. As you would be aware, the law in this country means that they are able to exercise their mining rights regardless of the feelings of the community. All they need to do is to pass the governments environmental checks and then they have the choice of providing compensation to the landowners or restoring the land after they are finished.
The desires and wishes of mere mortals such as you and I can never be allowed to interfer with the ‘progress’ of big business. That may interfere with party political donations.
The exact location or size of the intended mine to the north west of Tiaro I have not been able to find out and I tend to doubt if they are absolutely certain themselves yet. I would presume though that it will have to do with access to the railway line. I will keep my ear to the ground and see what comes up.