Shane mentioned previously about the closure of the Kurri Kurri smelter
And as for per capita reductions
"mainly due to Australia's rapid population growth"
And that article is 12 months old
well there you go.
I'm really not sure what you are getting at or even what the ABC fact check was trying to say other than no one can agree on a yard stick. Confused????
Aluminium is power intensive, VERY power intensive. 1t needs about 13.5 to 14.5MW of electricity. The best smelters in the world are around 13 or just below, the worst around 15.5 to 16. The theoretical is 7.5 MW/t and its takes 30-50 years to drop Globally by around 2-3 MW/t and most of the easy work has been done. The world uses 70mtpa of the stuff and growing at around 5%pa. The comment in ABC article said demand was going down, its not it wasn't there were wrong, growth in aluminium is very consistent, more so than most other base metals. Think phones, air travel, car, rail transport, ships, PC's, TV's..metal of affluence and development. EV's use more aluminium than ICE.
The aluminium process internally burns around 450kg of carbon per tonne of aluminium and there is NO other way to make it. So 70mtpa of production = 40mtpa of Carbon being converted to CO2 + energy generation which is many times more if coal or gas. Russia, China, India, Australia, Middle East, Canada, all make it the same way. Its called the Hall-Hault electrolysis process. The two main sub categories are Soderberg, where the anode is made from paste and cooked in the pot, or Pre-baking the anodes, the most common and cleanest and lowest energy operations. Russia is now the mainstay of Soderberg potlines. China Govt directed full closure about 10 years ago.
Geelong (2014 shortly after LNP took office) and Kurri (2011 under ALP watch) used around 800MW of power, all coal, Geelong obviously brown. So when they closed in early 2010's, Australia dumped 800MW of coal fired production at the same time. So CO2 total or per capita got a major boost from the respective closures.
Australia's CO2 per capita is around 15 tpp, Iceland which is mostly geothermal and hydro powered is around 17 tpp, mainly driven by the growth of its aluminium industry for which it doesn't even make its own anodes, that portion of the CO2 production is done in Netherlands. In both Australia's and Icelands case, neither country uses all their aluminium production, but are stained with the CO2 brush. Sure Iceland's is lower CO2 per tonne due to hydro power generation, where as Boyne, Tomago and Portland are mostly coal fired, Bell Bay being the only one on 100% hydro.
Now the real joke is the Iceland govt is under pressure to force the closure of the smelters to make its CO2 foot print look good. Only an idiot would find sense in this comment.
Fun Fact: Icelands CO2 emissions are basically, 33% aluminium production, 10% local, 30% air travel mostly the massive growth in tourism over the last few years to visit the clean and green island. Maybe they should plant trees to off-set???
Ok Australia yes, we make 1.3M tpa of aluminium on coal power, but guess what. There isn't enough hydro power in the world to make all the world's aluminium and even if you did, all that would do is displace current demand for the hydro onto more likely fossil fuel. China, currently making half the worlds aluminum, all on coal is also not about to change and neither the middle east which makes 25% of global production on Natural gas.
So back to the ABC article which was a mish mash of inclusive outcomes basically acknowledging no yardstick is actual valid;
1) Yes Australia's CO2 per person is dropping, the reason is complex and the ALP got a free kick from a near recession and major industry closing. Yah for the ALP.
2) CO2 per capita as a metric is only valid if standardize it for industry. ie remove our export component and include our import component. Which they don't do and won't do as its complex.
As far as the Env goes if you do above its a very valid metric, unlike comments in the ABC.
3) Total CO2 emissions is a pi$$ poor metric due to immigration.
As far as the Env goes, its still a pi$$ metric unless you are willing to introduce population curtailment policy.
4) Do we need a CO2? No, what would it do? The last tax was useless and ineffective at reducing CO2 and didn't even target the alternatives, rather rewarded high emission sources. Paying more tax to the govt has not helped industry in the past and won't in the future and only continue to drive industry off-shore.
Fun Fact: Nissan Leaf components are made in Australia only while we still have an domestic aluminium industry.
While there has been growth in RE in the power sector, coal has gone from 87% to 73% in 12 years (Gas went up a few %), the full process will take at least another 30 years. A CO2 tax will not make up for the fact we have few rivers left to dam, wind is not reliable and there is no sun at night and there are few if any technically industrialised alternatives.
Unfortunately the motherhood statements from the Climate protesters and their "Yes Sir" don't add any value to these technical issues and if they were not climbing trains and blocking trams then perhaps others could get on with the job of solving these issues.