COWS have been getting a bad rap in the debate over climate change.

www.theaustralian.news.com.au
October 26, 2009

Cows burp and emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and quite a lot of it. But it turns out that a well-managed cow could an important friend and ally in the fight to reduce greenhouse emissions. A new theory has the potential to turn the current debate about whether to include or exclude agriculture from emissions trading schemes on its head.

A study by Mark Adams, the dean of agriculture at the Sydney University, looked into greenhouse emissions from bushfires and grazing in the high country. It found that while cows might emit 54kg of methane per head per year, oxidising bacteria in high country soils can oxidise methane at the rate of 8760kg for every hectare each year. In other words, high country grazing is easily methane-neutral and may even offset cow-methane from other parts of the landscape.

Tony Lovell is a co-founder and director of Soil Carbon, an advocate of improved grazing practices - and a reappraisal of the way carbon balance sheets are formulated, particularly regarding terrestrial carbon. He says the new research fits in with other research that found that methane emissions from landfills were significantly less when they were covered by less compacted and moister soils, because they could house more oxidising bacteria.

The significance is that carbon needs to be seen as part of a cycle, rather than a series of sources and sinks. Algae, which can absorb carbon dioxide from power stations and create a new fuel source, operates on a similar cycle, speeding up what happens naturally over several millennia to just a few days.

Lovell says cows are considered a farm liability because they emit methane. But research indicates the possibility of a different view of well-managed ruminants. This demands improved land management practices, which improves soil structure, decreases compaction and boosts moisture-holding capacity

From fast track to slow lane
IT is now almost a year since Kevin Rudd announced he would fast-track the Renewable Energy Demonstration Program so he could turbocharge the investment in the key emerging energy technologies. Last December, he promised $100 million would be spent in 2008-09 and a further $400m within the next 12 months. Apart from a handful of allocations to biofuel projects and $14m in geothermal drilling grants, not a cent has been allocated for the REDP, which is designed to support commercial demonstration facilities in geothermal, wave, biomass and energy storage.

So where is it? It's the burning question for the developers of emerging energy sources. Some have seen their programs - with a combined worth of more than $10 billion - come to a virtual standstill as they and their financiers await this and other funding initiatives. An accumulation of anecdotal evidence suggests the recipients have been decided and an announcement is ready, but now awaits a moment of political convenience.

Start-ups starved of funding
THE impact of confused and delayed government policy on the nascent carbon and renewable energy markets, not to mention mainstream energy contracts, has been quite visible. But in some parts of the unlisted emerging energy and emissions abatement technology sector, no one can hear you scream.

The Eco Investor conference in Sydney last week provided a fascinating snapshot into some of the funding needs of companies seeking to bring new technologies to market. Biodegradable pallet maker Biofiba is seeking $2m for product development and a further $5m for commercialisation, the Bob Hawke - chaired Solarsailor is seeking $5m, liquid solar developer Sunengy is looking for $600,000 for a Hunter Valley pilot plant and a further $5.4m for commercialisation, and fly ash recycler Vecor wants to raise $US5.5m.

But the lingering effects of the GFC have made fundraising a tough assignment. The talk on the sidelines of the conference was of the numerous groups finding their development stalled, and even looking for trade sales, because funding was so hard to obtain. Many had placed their faith in government programs such as the REDP. But because of the delays in this and other programs, potential investors are losing patience and walking away.

Rethink on geothermal risk
Geothermal energy is often characterised as unproven and therefore an over-the-horizon base-load technology - better, in that case, to consider available technologies such as coal, gas and nuclear, it is said. GeoDynamics last week presented a different take on the major economic risks affecting the long-run marginal cost of feeding energy into the national grid, breaking down the risk profiles of various technologies into high, medium and low uncertainty.

The key take-out was that the highest level of uncertainty over resource economics would be removed for geothermal, and possibly carbon prices, within the next two or three years. However, the high level of uncertainty would linger two or three times longer for carbon capture, another decade for public acceptance of nuclear, and ad infinitum for oil and gas prices.

The shorthand summary: by 2020, geothermal energy might not just be cheaper than oil and gas and other competing base-loads such as carbon capture and nuclear, it will also carry significantly less investment risk. And if that's not obvious now, taking into account the 10,000MW of geothermal energy currently produced across the globe, it will be crystal clear within the next two years.

Daring feat for heat exchange
ON the subject of geothermal, the soon-to-be-listed Granite Power is about to unveil the second pilot plant of its new heat exchange technology at the University of Newcastle, its development partner. CEO Stephen de Belle says testing at the first plant suggested a 40-50 per cent improvement in the power output from conventional systems used in the conversion of waste and geothermal heat into energy, for little additional cost. This could have profound implications for the geothermal industry, De Belle says. It could reduce geothermal costs from an average $87 per MW hour to around $60/mwh, and some lower cost geothermal producers would make a significant leap towards grid parity.

This has big implications for low-temperature power generation, de Belle says, and also for solar thermal plants, biogas and some waste heat recovery. The new 100kw plant to be unveiled next month will be succeeded in the next year by several plants testing its performance in the 500kW to 2MW range.