The Problem.
Numerous issues and hurdles remain in the use of carbon storage and sequestration (CSS). One of these hurdles is the insurance of CSS projects and the need for establishing a robust policy and regulatory frame work that can help resolve the insurance issues faced by CSS projects. Insurance issues can be discussed from the perspective of the life cycle of the CSS project. The life cycle of a CSS starts from site selection and then moves to different phases such as operation and ultimately preventing the stored CO2 from escaping after injection has been stopped.
What investors and Insurers think of CSS.
To meet such demanding requirements the companies need an insurance policy that can share the financial risk of the project with them. However, according to Michael McRaith, a top insurance regulator in Illinois, “the liabilities are just too enormous to insure in case of CSS projects for insurers”. Similarly Granger Morgan, research lead in Carnegie Mellon University’s CSS regulations project says that due to long life spans of CSS projects insurance companies don’t know how to write an insurance policy that goes on for ever. Although, every one understands that the risk of CO2 leaking from underground is really small (less than 1%), Investors and insurers remain hesitant to develop and provide insurance policies for CSS projects.
A Possible Solution!
In 1950 Nuclear power plants were seen as a future solution to meet the growing electricity demands. However, like CSS the main hurdle to the development of nuclear energy was the liability associated with a disastrous event, such as a reactor meltdown and release of nuclear material into the surrounding atmosphere. The electricity industry was not willing to accept the enormous liability related with such a project in case of a catastrophic effect and insurance for such projects would not be easy to find. Moreover, the insurance premium would have been too much and make the project uneconomical. US congress reacted to the issue by passing the Price-Anderson act. The Price-Anderson Act set a maximum liability (about $10 billion). Upon reaching the maximum limit of liability to be met by the operator, such as in the event of a major nuclear event, the government would serve as the second partner responsible for offsetting the liability.
The CSS insurance problem can be solved on a similar basis. However, a consortium of insurers can help insure part of the liability to be met by the operator. The other issue that needs attention is building the trust between the companies and operators of CSS. This can be done by proving the technical soundness of the CSS project and the possibility of any leak being really small.
A more recent example of government collaborating with insurance industries is the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA). After 9/11 all big energy utilizes and companies demanded insurance against an act of terrorism. The premium for such insurance was very high and also the demand for such an insurance surged. The government again intervened by providing a cap to the maximum liability to be met by the insurance companies. Once the cap was exceeded the government would step in to help.
An insurance policy similar to the above mentioned might work for CSS projects.
Showing posts sorted by date for query carbon storage. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query carbon storage. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Becoming LEED Certified
Houston is an ongoing mess of construction. From the ever-expanding interstate and highways to new office parks, strip malls, and houses, it would seem as if the city will never reach completion. One of these new office buildings, BP Project Rodeo, a part of the BP America Westlake complex, is hoping to become the greenest of green buildings. Upon completion, BP America hopes to achieve a platinum level LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification from the U.S. Green Building Council. This all sounds very impressive, so let's break down exactly what an LEED certification entails and why more businesses are hoping to obtain one.
LEED levels are based on accumulating points, 26 points being the minimum to acheive certification starting at the silver level, and platinum being highest level with 52-69 points. LEED certification begins with air quality. Buildings can accumulate increased points when non-toxic cleaning materials are used, along with "low-emitting" glues, paints, and finishes. BP will incorporate these low-odor materials, along with an under-the-floor air delivery system to increase it's air quality. Another step to becoming LEED certified includes improving a building's ventilation system to prevent drowsiness in conference rooms. Better ventilation reduces the buildup of carbon dioxide, which makes people sleepy according to Greg Kats, a managing director from Good Energies.
Improvements in green buildings give workers control over their comfort. Individual thermostats in each office and lamps on everyone's desks rather than overhead fluorescent lights gives employees options for temperature and lighting. Hopefully, employees would only use the energy they need, decreasing waste and increasing the general morale in an office place.
In BP's Project Rodeo, a 400-gallon storage tank will be kept on site to collect rainwater that will be used for toilets and irrigation of the property. Electricity and hot water will be co-generated at a power plant also on site, decreasing costs and carbon emissions. A good amount of energy will also come from solar panels located on the roof. There are numerous other sustainable components to the project, all of which will hopefully bring the building's LEED certification to the platinum level, making it the only building in the city of Houston to achieve the platinum level.
These are just a few components of becoming LEED certified. Further detailed information can be found here.
LEED levels are based on accumulating points, 26 points being the minimum to acheive certification starting at the silver level, and platinum being highest level with 52-69 points. LEED certification begins with air quality. Buildings can accumulate increased points when non-toxic cleaning materials are used, along with "low-emitting" glues, paints, and finishes. BP will incorporate these low-odor materials, along with an under-the-floor air delivery system to increase it's air quality. Another step to becoming LEED certified includes improving a building's ventilation system to prevent drowsiness in conference rooms. Better ventilation reduces the buildup of carbon dioxide, which makes people sleepy according to Greg Kats, a managing director from Good Energies.
Improvements in green buildings give workers control over their comfort. Individual thermostats in each office and lamps on everyone's desks rather than overhead fluorescent lights gives employees options for temperature and lighting. Hopefully, employees would only use the energy they need, decreasing waste and increasing the general morale in an office place.
In BP's Project Rodeo, a 400-gallon storage tank will be kept on site to collect rainwater that will be used for toilets and irrigation of the property. Electricity and hot water will be co-generated at a power plant also on site, decreasing costs and carbon emissions. A good amount of energy will also come from solar panels located on the roof. There are numerous other sustainable components to the project, all of which will hopefully bring the building's LEED certification to the platinum level, making it the only building in the city of Houston to achieve the platinum level.
These are just a few components of becoming LEED certified. Further detailed information can be found here.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Clean coal project killed by simple math error?
In 2004, in an attempt to address climate concerns, the Bush administration decided to fund a public/private venture for carbon capture and storage known as Futuregen. The project was a consortium between 13 utilities, the DOE, and several coal companies that was aimed at building the world's first "zero emission" coal fired power plant. On January 30th, 2008, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman pulled the plug on Futuregen citing numerous cost overruns. Additionally, Bodman cited the need to assist initiatives underway on existing coal plants as another reason to cancel the project. Understandably, the city of Mattoon Illinois, which had been chosen as the site for Futuregen, was not pleased. And it turns out they might have more reasons than originally thought to be upset with the decision.
In an article ran by the New York Times today, it appears that the DOE might have made a simple calculation error estimating cost overruns using real dollars vs. nominal dollars as the basis for cost estimates to the tune of half a billion dollars. The DOE under Bush calculated the project cost would have doubled based in the initial estimates but independent auditors calculated that the increase would have been around 39%. Additionally, the article hints that the DOE was looking for reasons to kill the project and that the error might not have been an accident.
Yesterday the Government Accountability Office released a report detailing the findings of their study. You can read all about it here.
Sources:
The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/science/earth/11coal.html?_r=1&ref=energy-environment
The Washington Post: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/science/earth/11coal.html?_r=1&ref=energy-environment
Scientific American: http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=oops-did-a-math-error-doom-futurege-2009-03-11
Government Accountability Office: http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2009/Energy/11mar/GAOreport_FutureGen_CleanCoal.pdf
In an article ran by the New York Times today, it appears that the DOE might have made a simple calculation error estimating cost overruns using real dollars vs. nominal dollars as the basis for cost estimates to the tune of half a billion dollars. The DOE under Bush calculated the project cost would have doubled based in the initial estimates but independent auditors calculated that the increase would have been around 39%. Additionally, the article hints that the DOE was looking for reasons to kill the project and that the error might not have been an accident.
Yesterday the Government Accountability Office released a report detailing the findings of their study. You can read all about it here.
Sources:
The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/science/earth/11coal.html?_r=1&ref=energy-environment
The Washington Post: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/science/earth/11coal.html?_r=1&ref=energy-environment
Scientific American: http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=oops-did-a-math-error-doom-futurege-2009-03-11
Government Accountability Office: http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2009/Energy/11mar/GAOreport_FutureGen_CleanCoal.pdf
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Waste Moderation and Nuclear Power
This weekend while in a Borders I ran across a copy of Scientific America Earth 3.0 (Volume 18, Number 5, Pages 26-33) while in the magazine section. Normally this would not be particularly interesting but it did stand out as it was a magazine focusing on the environment and green energy with a cover story focusing on a second look at nuclear power. The story itself discussed a variety of potential energy sources and had a lot of focus on coal, wind, and solar but in comparison to nuclear. It was not all that positive but it did give a more balanced review of nuclear power than is usually seen in a publication. It also mentioned one item that was in the news last week, green power incentives. The proposed Obama budget advocates the implementation of a cap and trade system for carbon dioxide emissions. According to the Scientific America article this sort of a development would improve the cost of power generation for nuclear power plants by up to 1 cent per kilowatt hour (page 29).
If the savings for nuclear from cap and trade do turnout to be significant, then this method of waste moderation should be used to try to encourage other forms of waste reduction. One of the other problems mentioned with nuclear power in the article is that of waste storage. Currently that waste is left in temporary storage on site at each reactor while work continues of\n the DOE storage facility(page 33). During the nuclear energy lecture it was mentioned that the nuclear industry is reluctant to change to new reactor designs because of the learning curve in the industry for the development of efficient operating models for reactors. If this is true and new reactor designs that would reduce the generation of long lived nuclear waste exist then to encourage their adoption a similar policy for nuclear waste to that of carbon should be adopted. Those companies which reduce the amount of waste they generate should be able to receive a rebate on their licensing fee for their reactor.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Coal Storage Under Texas
There are three main types of geological storage available to those utilizing the carbon capture methods. One place to store carbon dioxide underground is in reservoirs that have been drained of oil and natural gas. Second, once useable gases have been taken from coal-rich areas that can’t be mined, those pockets in the ground can also be used to inject excess CO2. The third place carbon dioxide is stored is within porous saline formations, such as sandstone or limestone. (2)
Lawmakers in
Since
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Should the Air Force fleet be fueled by coal?
This is a topic that was discussed on the blog last year, but the article I read on popsci.com that was posted last month talked about solutions to the problems with the Air Force’s plan to change the type of jet fuel their planes use. The motivation for the shift is due to many factors. The Air Force currently uses more fuel than all other branches of the military combined, making up 10% of the total domestic aviation market, which comes out to the small sum of $5.6 billion. A lot of that fuel is imported from other countries and that also makes the military uncomfortable. So their idea is to use more of our available domestic resources, which would be petroleum, natural gas, or coal. Since we are the 'Saudi Arabia of coal', coal seems to be a good option. They want to dig more coal mines and build coal-to-liquid (CTL) plants, a plan which is meeting a lot of opposition from people who believe we need to find an alternative to dirty coal. However, this could help with job creation and decreasing dependency on foreign oil. To create the fuel, the coal is steamed, creating gas which is then exposed to catalysts to liquefy it.
The Air Force is pursuing their plan to fuel the entire fleet with a 50/50 blend of this synthetic fuel from coal and regular jet fuel by 2016. Thus far they have certified the B-52 and C-17 to use the alternative fuel and testing has already begun for the B-1 Bomber, F-15, F-22, and KC-135. The goal is to complete the testing and certification for all aircrafts by 2011.
Supporters spin the criticism of coal by saying that burning CTL is cleaner than regular jet fuel because particulate emissions, SO2, and NOX are eliminated during the gasification process. However, the proponents leave out the fact that twice the amount of CO2 is produced during coal mining and burning. That isn’t allowed by Section 526 of the 2007 energy bill which forbids the US government from spending taxpayers money on fuels that don’t produce “ lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” that are “less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources.”
So to get around Section 526 they have to deal with the extra CO2. Here are some solutions: recycle the CO2 to produce more fuel, use it to grow oil-producing algae, or convert it to other gases that would be useful in the industrial sector. However, the technology isn’t ready for those three. Enhanced oil recovery could be pursued, but it has its own set of problems. Carbon capture and storage (injecting CO2 into underground formations) could also be another option but at this point it is quite expensive. According to the article, even Vaclav Smil says that “sequestering 10% of the world’s 2005 CO2 production would require more plants and pipelines than are used in the entire worldwide business of crude-oil extraction.” Hmmm, that seems like a big hurdle.
Obviously low carbon fuels would be better options than coal-to-liquid or petroleum fuels, but they aren’t ready yet so the dilemma is this: foreign oil or domestic coal-based fuel that’s dirtier? I wonder what Steven Chu thinks…
The Air Force is pursuing their plan to fuel the entire fleet with a 50/50 blend of this synthetic fuel from coal and regular jet fuel by 2016. Thus far they have certified the B-52 and C-17 to use the alternative fuel and testing has already begun for the B-1 Bomber, F-15, F-22, and KC-135. The goal is to complete the testing and certification for all aircrafts by 2011.
Supporters spin the criticism of coal by saying that burning CTL is cleaner than regular jet fuel because particulate emissions, SO2, and NOX are eliminated during the gasification process. However, the proponents leave out the fact that twice the amount of CO2 is produced during coal mining and burning. That isn’t allowed by Section 526 of the 2007 energy bill which forbids the US government from spending taxpayers money on fuels that don’t produce “ lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” that are “less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources.”
So to get around Section 526 they have to deal with the extra CO2. Here are some solutions: recycle the CO2 to produce more fuel, use it to grow oil-producing algae, or convert it to other gases that would be useful in the industrial sector. However, the technology isn’t ready for those three. Enhanced oil recovery could be pursued, but it has its own set of problems. Carbon capture and storage (injecting CO2 into underground formations) could also be another option but at this point it is quite expensive. According to the article, even Vaclav Smil says that “sequestering 10% of the world’s 2005 CO2 production would require more plants and pipelines than are used in the entire worldwide business of crude-oil extraction.” Hmmm, that seems like a big hurdle.
Obviously low carbon fuels would be better options than coal-to-liquid or petroleum fuels, but they aren’t ready yet so the dilemma is this: foreign oil or domestic coal-based fuel that’s dirtier? I wonder what Steven Chu thinks…
Research, Development and Deployment, the bridge to future energy security
Petroleum Products touch our lives in innumerable ways every day. Whether it be as Gasoline, with which we drive our cars, trucks and other locomotives or as LPG or as indirectly as a raw material to the manufacture of plastic, textiles and other industries, Petroleum has become an indispensable part of our lives. US petroleum consumption sums up to a total of 20.68 million barrels per day where the domestic production is just 5.064 million barrels per day (EIA, Petroleum Basic Statistics (data for 2007 except where noted)). The energy demand is met by the imports from other countries. EIA reports that US will require 19 % more energy by 2030. Major part of this will then also be met by petroleum. Global demand will rise by 50% by that time. Keeping above figures in mind, it is worthwhile to know about some of the latest technological developments and research undergoing in the field of petroleum sector and it will be interesting to speculate how this ever increasing energy demand can be met.
Despite the rapid growth of global demand for petroleum products, the EIA estimates that less than half the world’s total conventional oil reserves will have been exhausted by 2025. These estimates include existing oil reserves and anticipated reserves resulting from new technologies and discoveries, but do not include unconventional resources. One massive potential energy resource is oil shale. No other nation in the world is as rich in oil shale as the U.S. Even though extraction poses some technical challenges; US oil shale reserves contain the energy equivalent of 2 trillion barrels of oil. To put this figure in perspective, the world has used 1 trillion barrels of oil since the first oil well was successfully drilled in Pennsylvania in 1859. As such, the United States’ 2 trillion barrels of oil shale is a potentially huge new source of oil, and must be central to any discussion of our continental energy security. New developments in the oil recovery such as Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) , with the help of either Chemicals such as Surfactant and Polymer or CO2 and steam, has a potential to provide that extra oil to the US’ domestic production. These are viable only through the support of extensive research in these particular fields.
Research plays an important role in developing new technologies, which can be used to surmount the problems which we are facing today. Carbon emission to the atmosphere poses a real threat to our environment. One of the main reasons for the proposal of an alternate energy, in my opinion, is the harmful effect of the current fuels on our environment. How many of us know about the recent developments in such technologies as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)? This technology, if deployed successfully, will reduce the carbon emission by 80-90%. We are spending a lot of money in search of alternate energy. Transition from today’s energy source to completely a new source cannot be done overnight. Studies done by EIA suggest that we will be depending on fossil fuels at least for the coming 25 to 30 years. So it is more important to tackle problems created by these fuels rather than spending more time and money for an alternate source of energy. I am not against the development of alternate fuels, but the urgent need is to prioritize research and development according to current problems and situations. Of course, we need those nuclear power plants which are much efficient than current coal fired plants, but at the same time we should think more about mitigating problems created by producing power with current technology. Similarly it will be a technological feat to produce oil from those oil shales, where major oil companies are spending a lot of time and money on the extraction of that sealed nectar out of the ground. If ever we succeed in this, and I think we will someday, the USA will be one of the key oil producing countries in the field. We will no longer talk about energy security then.
Another sophisticated technology which is being developed is the Enhanced Oil Recovery. The oil which is recovered today is only a percent of oil actually present down the reservoir. Oil is trapped there due to capillary force. Research shows that we can recover that oil with the help of chemicals such as Alkali, Surfactant and Polymer. There’s tremendous interest amongst the oil companies in this technology and thus extensive research is currently underway at The University of Texas at Austin coupled with some major oil companies. This extra oil will also add to that domestic production which will help to reduce the petroleum imports from outside. This technology actually started its course in early 70’s, but at the height of the gas crisis in early 80’s, when the oil price reached 10$/bbl, most of the oil companies closed their research facilities. Thus research became stagnant for many years and it even became impossible to start those facilities again when the oil price went up. It was a hard blow to the development of some of the research areas. We are still recovering from that. This clearly points towards the importance of research and development and also deployment of new technology to meet the energy demands of the future. All these things would be possible only with the help of energy policies by the Government to actually try and test these new technologies.
Government has the leading role in the development of petroleum industry by its policies towards this sector. American oil and gas leasing has been prohibited on most of the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) since the 1982. Today, 97 percent of America’s offshore OCS lands are not leased for energy exploration or production. The U.S. is now the only developed nation in the World that restricts access to its offshore energy resources. The Mineral Management Services estimates that the OCS contains 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Since there was no exploration activity in these regions, these figures tend to be very moderate. The new government should study the effect of exploration in these areas. Technological advancement in drilling and production technology will ensure safe recovery without adversely affecting the coastal ecology. The link attached contains statistics and other information about current OCS production. http://www.mms.gov/stats/OCSproduction.htm.
Thus investment in Research, Development and Deployment coupled with visionary energy policies would lead to our goal of Energy Security. This conscious approach would also establish our leadership in science and technology benefiting the world at large.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Carbon Capture and Storage
Coal is a major contributor to US carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. In 2005 the US emissions from fossil fuel energy production were approximately 5.9 billion metric tons of CO2. Coal is responsible for approximately 2.1 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions or approximately 36% of US total CO2 emissions[i].
Given coals position in the US energy portfolio any attempts by the US to pursue significant reductions of CO2 emissions will require a solution for coal fired power plants. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) presents a viable approach to significantly reducing overall US CO2 emissions through the capture of CO2 from large point sources and the storage of CO2 in geological formations rather than the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
CCS represents an attractive and viable approach to reducing CO2 emissions because:
[i] Annual Energy Outlook 2008 (Early Release), Energy Information Administration 2008
[ii] The Future of Coal, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2007
[iii] Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage, Global Energy Technology Strategy Program 2006
[iv] Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage, Global Energy Technology Strategy Program 2006
[v] Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage, Global Energy Technology Strategy Program 2006
Given coals position in the US energy portfolio any attempts by the US to pursue significant reductions of CO2 emissions will require a solution for coal fired power plants. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) presents a viable approach to significantly reducing overall US CO2 emissions through the capture of CO2 from large point sources and the storage of CO2 in geological formations rather than the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
CCS represents an attractive and viable approach to reducing CO2 emissions because:
- The technologies/ methods for carbon capture at source points and transportation currently exist and can, in some cases, be retrofitted to existing power plants
The technologies/ methods for carbon capture are capable of removing 90% to 99.9% of the CO2 emissions produced by source points[ii] - The source points of CO2 emissions are highly concentrated allowing for a more manageable roll-out of CCS solutions, when compared to the application of new technologies for mobile CO2 emitters such as the millions of automobiles currently on US roads. Of the total CO2 emissions resulting from electricity generation approximately 2.1 billion metric tons, or 49%, originated from approximately 1,715 large CO2 point sources.”
- The 100 largest CO2 point sources account for 39% of total annual CO2 emissions; 79% of these are coal fired power plants. The 500 largest CO2 point sources (29%) account for 82% of annual emissions; 78% of these are coal fired power plants”[iii]
- The abundance of geological formations across the US which are theoretically capable of storing carbon and the proximity of storage reservoirs to major CO2 source points. “Formations studied to date contain an estimated storage capacity of 3,900 GtCO2 with some 230 candidate geologic CO2 storage reservoirs”[iv]. Moreover, 95% of 500 largest CO2 point sources are within the 50 miles of candidate reservoirs[v]
- The existing technologies/ methods involved carbon capture have not been applied on the commercial scale required for the electricity generation industry
- The high cost of building/ retrofitting power plants with carbon capture technology along with the reducing in power plant efficiency due to the energy requirements of carbon capture technology. Ultimately, these costs are passed onto the consumer in higher cost of electricity when compared to existing coal fired power plants
- The investment in a US wide carbon transportation infrastructure required to apply CCS on a commercial scale required for the electricity generation industry
[i] Annual Energy Outlook 2008 (Early Release), Energy Information Administration 2008
[ii] The Future of Coal, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2007
[iii] Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage, Global Energy Technology Strategy Program 2006
[iv] Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage, Global Energy Technology Strategy Program 2006
[v] Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage, Global Energy Technology Strategy Program 2006
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Carbon Capture and Storage
Coal is the most abundant fuel we are currently using. It is also very cheap compared to fuels such as oil. Also it is a well established source. As a result I decided to do my project on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in order to investigate cleaner ways to use this abundant fuel. I taled about different technologies for CCS such as flue gas desulphurization facilities (PC+FGD). integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). Than I briefly reviewed storage technologies such as storage in geological formations, deep saline aquifers and coal seams, oceans, and ecosystems; and using magnesium and calcium are mentioned. It was important to look at retention time for carbon dioxide since possible leakage would defeat the purpose of mitigation by CCS. Safety issues were important in possible leakages. It was then determined that 99% CO2 stored in geological formations will be retained in a 1000 period. The retention of ocean storage of CO2 is approximated to be 30-85% over 500 years, while mineral carbonation storage won’t be subject to leaks. It was also determined that the additional fuel cost for CCS technology is evaluated to be around 25-30%, while an extra initial installation and implementation cost exists. I finally mentioned the importance of government bipartisan action and also further education of people along with their support. I also recommended using existing environmental scheme to create a regulatory base with necessary incentives.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Carbon Capture in Canada
My father just recently came back from Calgary, Canada and brought a newspaper home from a newspaper entitled "The Globe and Mail" (this newspaper claims to be "the most authoritative news in Canada"). One article that caught my attention was one entitled "TransAlta and Alstom sign Carbon Capture Deal."
The article explains how TransAlta Corp, a power generation and wholesale marketing company with customers in Canada, the US, Mexico, and Australia, has struck a deal with French power firm Alstom SA to implement carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies onto an existing coal power plant in Alberta, Canada. The article further discusses how CCS technology is in its "infancy" and that "Calgary-based TransAlta won't actually start testing the Alstom technology - which involves cooling emissions through an ammonium carbonate solution before injecting them into the ground until 2012. If the technique is successful, however, the company could reduce its emissions from one coal power plant by one million tonnes a year."
Currently TransAlta produces 24 million tonnes of CO2 per year from its six coal-fired facilities. If CCS technology were implemented, as TransAlta has described, 25%less CO2 would be emitted.
Additionally, TransAlta chief executive officer Steve Snyder said in a statement, "Over the long term we believe CCS can be a source of competitive advantage for TransAlta and for Canada. These initial projects, however, are not commercially viable at this point and will not proceed without industry and government partnerships."
What really interested me in this article though, was that Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach has already promised the province that by 2020 the increasing greenhouse gas emissions rate will freeze and that by 2050 they will decrease by 14%. Imagine if we heard that by 2020 that Texas would reduce its emission by 50%!
The article explains how TransAlta Corp, a power generation and wholesale marketing company with customers in Canada, the US, Mexico, and Australia, has struck a deal with French power firm Alstom SA to implement carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies onto an existing coal power plant in Alberta, Canada. The article further discusses how CCS technology is in its "infancy" and that "Calgary-based TransAlta won't actually start testing the Alstom technology - which involves cooling emissions through an ammonium carbonate solution before injecting them into the ground until 2012. If the technique is successful, however, the company could reduce its emissions from one coal power plant by one million tonnes a year."
Currently TransAlta produces 24 million tonnes of CO2 per year from its six coal-fired facilities. If CCS technology were implemented, as TransAlta has described, 25%less CO2 would be emitted.
Additionally, TransAlta chief executive officer Steve Snyder said in a statement, "Over the long term we believe CCS can be a source of competitive advantage for TransAlta and for Canada. These initial projects, however, are not commercially viable at this point and will not proceed without industry and government partnerships."
What really interested me in this article though, was that Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach has already promised the province that by 2020 the increasing greenhouse gas emissions rate will freeze and that by 2050 they will decrease by 14%. Imagine if we heard that by 2020 that Texas would reduce its emission by 50%!
Friday, April 4, 2008
Britain's Electricity Woes
A recent Economist article discusses how Britain will be facing electricity concerns in the coming years. Britain will have to make big decisions on what kind of new electricity will be implemented, since nuclear reactors are aging and coal plants will be closing under European policy “requiring more efficient scrubbing of sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen in power-station chimneys” the article states. Only one nuclear reactor will still be online after the next fifteen years, and coal plants not in accordance with the Large Combustion-Plant Directive will have to close by 2015 or within 20,000 hours (whichever happens first). The article explains how Britain will begin to see a supply shortage of electricity, as the current electricity production methods are brought off offline. It’s expected that by 2015 the electricity demand will exceed the supply.
Now, Europe is looking for alternatives and solutions to this electricity problem to avoid an unlikely worst case scenario blackout. Britain now has to consider the many tradeoffs for different electricity options:
Coal: it’s a more secure energy source but not very good for the environment. Carbon capture is an option, with storage options in abandoned oil and gas fields, however carbon capture does not seem ready to on the market.
Renewables: are great for the environment but intermittent which won’t guarantee electricity supply all the time.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Carbon Capture in the North Sea
From the Economist 'Filling it all back up again' 8-Mar issue.
Last November Britian announced a competition to build a coal fired plant utilizing carbon capture and storage technologies with the North Sea fields off the coast of Aberdeen as the intended destination. These fields are already equipt to handle high pressure underground gasses so a significant portion of the capital and necessary skill sets already exists.
Ultimately however, North Sea production is in terminal decline and Britian's treasury is worried. Having already peaked at 4.5mmb/d in 1999, and with current producion at 3mmb/d, North Sea oil and gas produciton are expected to further decline in the very near future. Oil and gas firms are by far the largest contributors to the treasury and comprise a significant majority of the 13b (pounds) raised in coropration taxes. To further this, the industry supports 400,000 jobs.
Britian'g governement sees this as a potential opportunity in a burgeoning market however, critics are quick to criticize the government's efforts (time scales in particular) as 'half-hearted' and as a 'superficial display'.
Last November Britian announced a competition to build a coal fired plant utilizing carbon capture and storage technologies with the North Sea fields off the coast of Aberdeen as the intended destination. These fields are already equipt to handle high pressure underground gasses so a significant portion of the capital and necessary skill sets already exists.
Ultimately however, North Sea production is in terminal decline and Britian's treasury is worried. Having already peaked at 4.5mmb/d in 1999, and with current producion at 3mmb/d, North Sea oil and gas produciton are expected to further decline in the very near future. Oil and gas firms are by far the largest contributors to the treasury and comprise a significant majority of the 13b (pounds) raised in coropration taxes. To further this, the industry supports 400,000 jobs.
Britian'g governement sees this as a potential opportunity in a burgeoning market however, critics are quick to criticize the government's efforts (time scales in particular) as 'half-hearted' and as a 'superficial display'.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Hopefully Clearing Up Some Misconceptions about CO2 Capture & Sequestration
I wrote the post below last week as a comment on "Clinton on Carbon Sequestration," and since it ended up being rather extensive, I decided to repeat it as its own post. If Sgt. Pepper's misconceptions regarding CO2 capture and sequestration are common, then I hope my comments are informative.
The third paragraph of this post that describes issues with carbon sequestration does not appear to be fully informed about the technology, and may be very misleading as written. First off, carbon sequestration is the act of permanent CO2 storage, separate from the capture of CO2 at an emissions source and its transport to a storage site. Sequestration is NOT an energy intensive process. Most of the energy used in a CO2 capture and sequestration (CCS) system is from the energy required to capture and compress the gas, which typically takes place at the emissions source. CO2 capture technology is primarily intended for power plants (most likely coal facilities), though there are some niche industrial applications such as cement and steel production. No one is proposing to capture CO2 at a mine mouth.
Referring back to the distinction between capture and sequestration, sequestration can hardly be considered in the “theoretical stage.” Injecting and storage CO2 underground has direct analogues in the oil and natural gas industries, and we already inject CO2 underground in Texas for enhanced oil recovery. Several pilot scale CO2 sequestration projects have been completed or are underway in Norway, Canada, and Texas (courtesy of UT’s Bureau of Economic Geology). The word “theoretical” implies a technology has, at best, reached the laboratory experimental stage. Several components of CO2 sequestration technology can be considered commercial, and others have reached pilot scale and are now being developed for commercial scale.
The remaining technological issues with sequestration mostly concern monitoring the gas over long time periods once it’s underground. No one wants CO2 to leak back into the atmosphere or into drinking water aquifers and such, and these challenges are unique to CO2 sequestration. Creating effective regulations for CO2 storage is as big of a barrier to the technology as any remaining technical issues, which is why Clinton praised the WY legislature for its leadership in this regard.
Certain capture technologies can be considered theoretical, or lab/bench scale, but others have reached pilot scale, are being planned for large scale demonstration, and have commercially proven analogies. Chemical absorption of CO2 has been performed in the natural gas processing and ammonia production industries for decades, and UT is among several institutions working hard to scale up this technology for use at coal power plants.
What Clinton is referring to regarding Wyoming is that the state should have a demonstration scale (over a million tons of CO2 per year) storage site there, presumably receiving CO2 from one of the state’s 7 large coal fired power plants (over 100MW) and sequestering the gas in one of its previously identified geologic storage sites. Storing CO2 near the emissions source makes obvious sense to cut down on transport costs, which are mostly capital costs (steel for pipelines,etc.)
And finally, everyone in this class should be well aware that CO2 capture and sequestration will not be “our answer” to global warming, because no single technology will be the answer. It will take several approaches to mitigate the effects of climate change, and CCS will be a vital piece of the puzzle if we continue to use coal for electricity.
I hope these comments clear up some misconceptions about CCS technology. I’d be happy to provide more references, but NETL and the Technical Summary IPCC Special Report on CCS are great places to start.
The third paragraph of this post that describes issues with carbon sequestration does not appear to be fully informed about the technology, and may be very misleading as written. First off, carbon sequestration is the act of permanent CO2 storage, separate from the capture of CO2 at an emissions source and its transport to a storage site. Sequestration is NOT an energy intensive process. Most of the energy used in a CO2 capture and sequestration (CCS) system is from the energy required to capture and compress the gas, which typically takes place at the emissions source. CO2 capture technology is primarily intended for power plants (most likely coal facilities), though there are some niche industrial applications such as cement and steel production. No one is proposing to capture CO2 at a mine mouth.
Referring back to the distinction between capture and sequestration, sequestration can hardly be considered in the “theoretical stage.” Injecting and storage CO2 underground has direct analogues in the oil and natural gas industries, and we already inject CO2 underground in Texas for enhanced oil recovery. Several pilot scale CO2 sequestration projects have been completed or are underway in Norway, Canada, and Texas (courtesy of UT’s Bureau of Economic Geology). The word “theoretical” implies a technology has, at best, reached the laboratory experimental stage. Several components of CO2 sequestration technology can be considered commercial, and others have reached pilot scale and are now being developed for commercial scale.
The remaining technological issues with sequestration mostly concern monitoring the gas over long time periods once it’s underground. No one wants CO2 to leak back into the atmosphere or into drinking water aquifers and such, and these challenges are unique to CO2 sequestration. Creating effective regulations for CO2 storage is as big of a barrier to the technology as any remaining technical issues, which is why Clinton praised the WY legislature for its leadership in this regard.
Certain capture technologies can be considered theoretical, or lab/bench scale, but others have reached pilot scale, are being planned for large scale demonstration, and have commercially proven analogies. Chemical absorption of CO2 has been performed in the natural gas processing and ammonia production industries for decades, and UT is among several institutions working hard to scale up this technology for use at coal power plants.
What Clinton is referring to regarding Wyoming is that the state should have a demonstration scale (over a million tons of CO2 per year) storage site there, presumably receiving CO2 from one of the state’s 7 large coal fired power plants (over 100MW) and sequestering the gas in one of its previously identified geologic storage sites. Storing CO2 near the emissions source makes obvious sense to cut down on transport costs, which are mostly capital costs (steel for pipelines,etc.)
And finally, everyone in this class should be well aware that CO2 capture and sequestration will not be “our answer” to global warming, because no single technology will be the answer. It will take several approaches to mitigate the effects of climate change, and CCS will be a vital piece of the puzzle if we continue to use coal for electricity.
I hope these comments clear up some misconceptions about CCS technology. I’d be happy to provide more references, but NETL and the Technical Summary IPCC Special Report on CCS are great places to start.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Obama vs. Clinton Energy Policy
As tight as the democratic race is between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I thought it would be interesting to delineate the differences and many similarities between their respective energy policies.
Cap & Trade for GHG: Both Hillary and Obama support a cap & trade system to cut U.S. emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. They both propose to auction off 100% of emissions credits. On Hillary's website she claims that "a new cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards energy independence." Obama's claims are more clear on his website as they explain how a "100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition."
Fuel Economy Standards: Clinton supports raising fuel economy standards to 40 mpg by 2020 and 55 mpg by 2030 by "help[ing] automakers retool their production facilities through $20 billion in "Green Vehicle Bonds." Similarly, Obama Supports raising fuel economy standards for cars to 40 mpg and light trucks to 32 mpg by 2020.
Renewable Energy: Clinton proposes a "$50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy." Additionally, both Clinton and Obama propose that 25% of the U.S. electricity consumption by 2025 should come from "renewable sources". This is one area which I found very interesting, as both candidates seem to define "renewable" in different ways. On Clinton's website, it is unclear if the 25% renewables includes biofuels as a source of renewable energy. Obama's website is more clear and states that "Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025."
Biofuels: Both candidates push for the U.S. to reach 60 billion biofuel gallons per year production by 2030.
Coal: Both candidates support "clean coal" (meaning low carbon emitting) and coal-to-liquid fuels only if they produce 20% less emissions than conventional fuels. Additionally, Obama has stated that he will utilize "whatever tools are necessary to stop new dirty coal plants from being built in America -- including a ban on new traditional coal facilities."
Nuclear: Both Clinton and Obama agree that nuclear is not the best clean energy route to pursue in the upcoming future because waste storage and other problems are still yet to be solved. In his "Plan to Make America a Global Energy Leader" Obama states that "there is no future for expanded nuclear
Without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation."
Cap & Trade for GHG: Both Hillary and Obama support a cap & trade system to cut U.S. emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. They both propose to auction off 100% of emissions credits. On Hillary's website she claims that "a new cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards energy independence." Obama's claims are more clear on his website as they explain how a "100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition."
Fuel Economy Standards: Clinton supports raising fuel economy standards to 40 mpg by 2020 and 55 mpg by 2030 by "help[ing] automakers retool their production facilities through $20 billion in "Green Vehicle Bonds." Similarly, Obama Supports raising fuel economy standards for cars to 40 mpg and light trucks to 32 mpg by 2020.
Renewable Energy: Clinton proposes a "$50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy." Additionally, both Clinton and Obama propose that 25% of the U.S. electricity consumption by 2025 should come from "renewable sources". This is one area which I found very interesting, as both candidates seem to define "renewable" in different ways. On Clinton's website, it is unclear if the 25% renewables includes biofuels as a source of renewable energy. Obama's website is more clear and states that "Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025."
Biofuels: Both candidates push for the U.S. to reach 60 billion biofuel gallons per year production by 2030.
Coal: Both candidates support "clean coal" (meaning low carbon emitting) and coal-to-liquid fuels only if they produce 20% less emissions than conventional fuels. Additionally, Obama has stated that he will utilize "whatever tools are necessary to stop new dirty coal plants from being built in America -- including a ban on new traditional coal facilities."
Nuclear: Both Clinton and Obama agree that nuclear is not the best clean energy route to pursue in the upcoming future because waste storage and other problems are still yet to be solved. In his "Plan to Make America a Global Energy Leader" Obama states that "there is no future for expanded nuclear
Without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation."
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Clinton on Carbon Sequestration
Hillary Clinton was in Casper, Wyoming (albiet one hour late) speaking at a rally. In between Bush-bashing and the obligatory health care jive, she squeezed in some talk on carbon sequestration and a renewable energy pipeline.
The new pipeline of transmission lines would transfer electricity generated by Wyoming's winds to California. While it seems logical to supply a huge state like California, I don't think that's going to work. Transmission takes a pretty good cut into the power running through it. It would make much more sense to keep that energy in Wyoming. Besides that, we all know that wind has severe limitations related to capacity and peak production times. The only way to make wind power a windfall of a energy solution is to develop new storage technology so that wind power can be used in times of need rather than the intermitant times it is actually produced. Senator Clinton should be talking about developing those kinds of technologies rather than installing these transmission lines (which would be a huge, energy-intensive task) in order to provide a variable amount of energy that lacks in reliability. Californians have probably had enough of the whole black-out stuff, and relying on this pipeline without storage is just going to increase those occurances.
Senator Clinton also touched on her proposed 10-site strong carbon sequestration plan. She claimed that of those 10 sites, Wyoming should be a host to the roar of the crowd. I've got a couple of issues with that. First, carbon sequestration is a very energy intensive process, so it really should only be implemented in areas where carbon emissions are a huge problem (because it invariably lead to emissions in its own right). Wyoming has some mining, but industrial emissions are nowhere near many other states. Capturing mining emissions would be pretty hard bordering on infeasable. Second, carbon sequestration is still in its theoretical stage. We need to be able to sit back and look at the numbers before we can commit to carbon sequestration as our answer to global warming, and that research is still ongoing.
Senator Clinton basically used energy as a political football (just like all the other candidates) in order to win favor from the most recent crowd she has talked in front of. She also pledged to stop "holding hands with the Saudis" just like every president since Nixon which makes me believe her administration will just continue the double-talk. I think it's still to risky to base an entire campaign on global warming (ask Mr. Nader), and I would argue that the environment is the most important issue we can choose a candidate on. We're all for better health care and better education, so those should go unspoken. Let's hear more serious talk about the environment and less politically-charged rhetoric designed to pump-up whichever audience the candidate happens to be talking to.
The new pipeline of transmission lines would transfer electricity generated by Wyoming's winds to California. While it seems logical to supply a huge state like California, I don't think that's going to work. Transmission takes a pretty good cut into the power running through it. It would make much more sense to keep that energy in Wyoming. Besides that, we all know that wind has severe limitations related to capacity and peak production times. The only way to make wind power a windfall of a energy solution is to develop new storage technology so that wind power can be used in times of need rather than the intermitant times it is actually produced. Senator Clinton should be talking about developing those kinds of technologies rather than installing these transmission lines (which would be a huge, energy-intensive task) in order to provide a variable amount of energy that lacks in reliability. Californians have probably had enough of the whole black-out stuff, and relying on this pipeline without storage is just going to increase those occurances.
Senator Clinton also touched on her proposed 10-site strong carbon sequestration plan. She claimed that of those 10 sites, Wyoming should be a host to the roar of the crowd. I've got a couple of issues with that. First, carbon sequestration is a very energy intensive process, so it really should only be implemented in areas where carbon emissions are a huge problem (because it invariably lead to emissions in its own right). Wyoming has some mining, but industrial emissions are nowhere near many other states. Capturing mining emissions would be pretty hard bordering on infeasable. Second, carbon sequestration is still in its theoretical stage. We need to be able to sit back and look at the numbers before we can commit to carbon sequestration as our answer to global warming, and that research is still ongoing.
Senator Clinton basically used energy as a political football (just like all the other candidates) in order to win favor from the most recent crowd she has talked in front of. She also pledged to stop "holding hands with the Saudis" just like every president since Nixon which makes me believe her administration will just continue the double-talk. I think it's still to risky to base an entire campaign on global warming (ask Mr. Nader), and I would argue that the environment is the most important issue we can choose a candidate on. We're all for better health care and better education, so those should go unspoken. Let's hear more serious talk about the environment and less politically-charged rhetoric designed to pump-up whichever audience the candidate happens to be talking to.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Beware the Impending Reign of Big Solar!
Given the hype, I'll admit that I was expecting the Bullock Museum's oil exhibit to be a bit more substantive, but I definitely enjoyed learning about Christmas Trees and Boll Weevils as they apply to the oil industry. What really got me thinking though, was the Walter Cronkite narrated Oil Tank Theatre in a room lined with funky old gas pumps and early/mid 1900s advertisements portraying the oil industry's wonderful services to America. Oil companies are improving your summer driving with NO-NOX fuel (referring to engine knock, but still quite ironic)! Oil companies are helping us win the war (WWII) with new high power fuels! Enjoy your time at the filling station while our attendant helps wash and service your vehicle!
Once upon a time, the oil industry was seen in a very positive light, and that sentiment is clearly reflected in the Bullock Museum's display of the oil industry's influence on Texas's economic growth. Now, however, most people only think of Big Oil and men in business suits around an oak conference table making decisions that squeeze the pockets of the average American while making record profits.
Right now, we typically view wind, solar, and other "green" energy industries as generally benevolent entities working to help us move past our energy crises and into a sustainable world. Yet we've read proposals such as Dr. Makhijani's "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free" and Scientific American's "Solar Grand Plan" that would inevitably put a great deal of our energy supply in the hands of these now up-and-coming "wholesome" energy industries. Once any energy industry (or industry in general) has a significant level of control over our lifestyles, public opinion is apt to shirt towards negativity. May there be a day when we scoff at Big Solar and shout at Big Compressed Air Storage? Imagine the diner conversation: "Those crooks manipulate our energy prices by turning their valves on and off at will!"
A hint of that sentiment already exists in this article where some homeowners in the Catskills complain that a proposal for wind farms in the mountains "is all about big business making money." Humans don't just want energy, we need it, and while it will become increasingly important to have a diverse energy supply, we will inevitably become relatively dependent on whatever sources are most prevalent. Public opinion is a funny animal, but I guess in the end we always need something to complain about.
Once upon a time, the oil industry was seen in a very positive light, and that sentiment is clearly reflected in the Bullock Museum's display of the oil industry's influence on Texas's economic growth. Now, however, most people only think of Big Oil and men in business suits around an oak conference table making decisions that squeeze the pockets of the average American while making record profits.
Right now, we typically view wind, solar, and other "green" energy industries as generally benevolent entities working to help us move past our energy crises and into a sustainable world. Yet we've read proposals such as Dr. Makhijani's "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free" and Scientific American's "Solar Grand Plan" that would inevitably put a great deal of our energy supply in the hands of these now up-and-coming "wholesome" energy industries. Once any energy industry (or industry in general) has a significant level of control over our lifestyles, public opinion is apt to shirt towards negativity. May there be a day when we scoff at Big Solar and shout at Big Compressed Air Storage? Imagine the diner conversation: "Those crooks manipulate our energy prices by turning their valves on and off at will!"
A hint of that sentiment already exists in this article where some homeowners in the Catskills complain that a proposal for wind farms in the mountains "is all about big business making money." Humans don't just want energy, we need it, and while it will become increasingly important to have a diverse energy supply, we will inevitably become relatively dependent on whatever sources are most prevalent. Public opinion is a funny animal, but I guess in the end we always need something to complain about.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
A new sort of hydrogen technology
While doing a co-op at ExxonMobil Chemical I got introduced to the idea of a new sort of hydrogen technology. This technology is being experimented on lift trucks right now and it is a on vehicle hydrogen production system. ExxonMobil along with other partners had developed this technology to be implemented for cars and trucks but being tested for lift trucks right now. The on vehicle hydrogen technology system uses an advanced reformers and a hydrogen separation technology. This technology has advantages because it converts liquid hydrocarbon inside the vehicle to hydrogen. As a result it reduces the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. It also increases fuel efficiency of the vehicle. This technology also requires no storage which gives a great advantage to other hydrogen technologies. Finally this technology requires no delivery infrastructures which is a great advantage to other hydrogen technology options. Lastly this technology has a quick start up time. For more information visit ExxonMobil.com
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 promotes the use of compact fluorescent bulbs. These kind of light bulbs are more energy efficient but costly compare to incandescent light bulbs. It was stated if every American home replaced lighbulb to compact fluorescent light bulbs, energy would be saved "more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars." (Energy Star.gov) This event was supported by many companies including Philips, the manufacturer.
The act was aimed to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, lessen energy independence, increase the efficiency of manufacturing products and cars, and find ways to capture greenhouse gas and storage . The act especially emphasized on improving vehicle fuel economy in order to help U.S. lessen the addiction to oil. CAFE standards were increased, where the act requires the automakers boost gas mileage to 35 mpg by the year 2020.
This will result an increase in "fuel economy standards by 40% and save billions of gallons of fuel."(whitehouse.gov)
One of the solution to capture greenhouse gas was carbon sequestration, where long-term carbon storage is planned on earth such as planting trees. This reduces carbon dioxide emission by using photosynthesis with biomass to release oxygen. Scientists believe just carbon sequestration is not enough, unless it is coupled with reversing deforestation.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is a major step to reduce the dependence on oil and gives our future generation a cleaner environment.
The act was aimed to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, lessen energy independence, increase the efficiency of manufacturing products and cars, and find ways to capture greenhouse gas and storage . The act especially emphasized on improving vehicle fuel economy in order to help U.S. lessen the addiction to oil. CAFE standards were increased, where the act requires the automakers boost gas mileage to 35 mpg by the year 2020.
This will result an increase in "fuel economy standards by 40% and save billions of gallons of fuel."(whitehouse.gov)
One of the solution to capture greenhouse gas was carbon sequestration, where long-term carbon storage is planned on earth such as planting trees. This reduces carbon dioxide emission by using photosynthesis with biomass to release oxygen. Scientists believe just carbon sequestration is not enough, unless it is coupled with reversing deforestation.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is a major step to reduce the dependence on oil and gives our future generation a cleaner environment.
Monday, February 4, 2008
FutureGen Setback
It remains to be seen whether the recent announcement that the DOE was pulling back or refiguring its support of the FutureGen project is a good move in terms of supporting smart solutions to our power generation problems associated with coal fired power plant CO2 emissions. If built, the FutureGen plant will integrate advanced technologies for coal gasification, electricity production, emissions control, CO2 capture and permanent storage, and hydrogen production at a commercial scale. As stated on their website, "during normal operations, emissions will be as low as, if not lower than virtually any other coal plant in the world."
When the budget for FutureGen approached $1.8 billion, the government "revamped" its support and commitment. As reported by Andrew Revkin in the New York Times this past Sunday, "The Energy Department said it would pay for the gas capturing technology, but industry would have to build and pay for the commercial plants that use the technology. Plans for the experimental plant were scratched."
Although he offers no specifics, Mr. Revkin's article makes one wonder how many problems there were with the technologies being incorporated into the FutureGen project. "But several experts said the plan still lacked the scope to test various gas-separation technologies, coal varieties, and - most important - whether varied geologic conditions can permanently hold carbon dioxide." He goes on to say, " Many experts say that neither the original plan nor the revamped effort, .... are sufficient to set the stage for pumping tens of billions of tons of compressed carbon dioxide into the earth or sea bed starting 10 or 20 years from now."
One does have to wonder if we truly know how to properly sequester the CO2 in the subsurface. For years we have pushed hydrocarbons with CO2, but not always with the concern that the CO2 stays where it is placed.
The DOE seems to be providing continued support to technology development, while passing the torch onto the power generators to build and run these plants. Maybe this is a compromise that will work?
When the budget for FutureGen approached $1.8 billion, the government "revamped" its support and commitment. As reported by Andrew Revkin in the New York Times this past Sunday, "The Energy Department said it would pay for the gas capturing technology, but industry would have to build and pay for the commercial plants that use the technology. Plans for the experimental plant were scratched."
Although he offers no specifics, Mr. Revkin's article makes one wonder how many problems there were with the technologies being incorporated into the FutureGen project. "But several experts said the plan still lacked the scope to test various gas-separation technologies, coal varieties, and - most important - whether varied geologic conditions can permanently hold carbon dioxide." He goes on to say, " Many experts say that neither the original plan nor the revamped effort, .... are sufficient to set the stage for pumping tens of billions of tons of compressed carbon dioxide into the earth or sea bed starting 10 or 20 years from now."
One does have to wonder if we truly know how to properly sequester the CO2 in the subsurface. For years we have pushed hydrocarbons with CO2, but not always with the concern that the CO2 stays where it is placed.
The DOE seems to be providing continued support to technology development, while passing the torch onto the power generators to build and run these plants. Maybe this is a compromise that will work?
Friday, February 1, 2008
CCS is more important than FutureGen
As Ororo Munroe noted in his previous blogs, the Department of Energy announced earlier this week that it has canceled its support of the FutureGen project. Personally, I think this is unfortunate because it creates uncertainty in the investment of our government in coal-fueled energy technology. However, practically speaking, I don’t see this as a catastrophic event, as long as the DOE follows through on its commitment to some key technologies that will enable coal to be a desirable energy source in the future. Specifically, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) should be demonstrated at commercial scale promptly and convincingly.
First, some notes about the New York Times article containing this news. The DOE gives the impression that the main reason for the cancellation is the ballooning cost. It notes that the estimated cost has nearly doubled from $1 billion to $1.8 billion, and it was expected to increase more. Conversely, in its web site the FutureGen Alliance corrected this figure by noting that the estimated cost to the DOE only increased from $0.8 billion to $1.1 billion due to inflation, with the additional necessary funds provided from industry partners and from operating plant’s revenue. I doubt that cost was the real reason FutureGen was canceled, but it is a convenient explanation. The real reason for this project’s cancellation is likely more complex, including also its poorly defined objectives, complicating partnerships with foreign governments, and misalignment with the desires of industry, as alluded to in a report from MIT. On the up side, the DOE deputy secretary notes that the White House is increasing “clean coal” research to $648 million this year, up 25% from last year. He also said that the FutureGen project would be revamped to simply piggyback some other new coal power plant that private industry is planning to build anyway. This approach may have less impact on the generation of hydrogen gas from coal, but it would still help develop and demonstrate CCS technologies. The end of the NY Times article notes “Ernest J. Moniz, under secretary of energy in the Clinton administration and an author of a report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the future of coal, said the new approach could work well, but ‘I’d like to see us get going quickly.’” That’s interesting – here is an independent expert on the topic who doesn’t really care about the details of the FutureGen plant, but just wants it to move forward quickly.
In order to interpret Dr. Muniz’s expeditious ambivalence, I checked out the report from MIT, “The Future of Coal: Options for a Carbon-Constrained World,” published in 2007 by a multi-disciplinary group at MIT. A recurring theme in the report is the urgent need for “the successful large-scale demonstration of the technical, economic, and environmental performance of the technologies that make up all of the major components of a large-scale integrated CCS system — capture, transportation and storage.” Furthermore, it is important to “demonstrate CO2 capture for several alternative coal combustion and conversion technologies.…It is critical that the government RD&D program not fall into the trap of picking a technology ‘winner,’ especially at a time when there is great coal combustion and conversion development activity underway in the private sector in both the United States and abroad.” As an important side note, the report also directs Congress to disallow the grandfathering of new conventional coal plants from carbon emission penalties, in order to prevent the “perverse incentive” to build coal plants without CCS today.
So, from all of this it appears that carbon capture and sequestration is by far the main obstacle to the widespread use of coal in the future, both for our country and the world. It’s not that big of a deal that FutureGen is being scrapped/revamped, but it is extremely important that CCS technologies be developed as quickly as possible, and in a way in which it will be fully embraced by the energy industry.
First, some notes about the New York Times article containing this news. The DOE gives the impression that the main reason for the cancellation is the ballooning cost. It notes that the estimated cost has nearly doubled from $1 billion to $1.8 billion, and it was expected to increase more. Conversely, in its web site the FutureGen Alliance corrected this figure by noting that the estimated cost to the DOE only increased from $0.8 billion to $1.1 billion due to inflation, with the additional necessary funds provided from industry partners and from operating plant’s revenue. I doubt that cost was the real reason FutureGen was canceled, but it is a convenient explanation. The real reason for this project’s cancellation is likely more complex, including also its poorly defined objectives, complicating partnerships with foreign governments, and misalignment with the desires of industry, as alluded to in a report from MIT. On the up side, the DOE deputy secretary notes that the White House is increasing “clean coal” research to $648 million this year, up 25% from last year. He also said that the FutureGen project would be revamped to simply piggyback some other new coal power plant that private industry is planning to build anyway. This approach may have less impact on the generation of hydrogen gas from coal, but it would still help develop and demonstrate CCS technologies. The end of the NY Times article notes “Ernest J. Moniz, under secretary of energy in the Clinton administration and an author of a report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the future of coal, said the new approach could work well, but ‘I’d like to see us get going quickly.’” That’s interesting – here is an independent expert on the topic who doesn’t really care about the details of the FutureGen plant, but just wants it to move forward quickly.
In order to interpret Dr. Muniz’s expeditious ambivalence, I checked out the report from MIT, “The Future of Coal: Options for a Carbon-Constrained World,” published in 2007 by a multi-disciplinary group at MIT. A recurring theme in the report is the urgent need for “the successful large-scale demonstration of the technical, economic, and environmental performance of the technologies that make up all of the major components of a large-scale integrated CCS system — capture, transportation and storage.” Furthermore, it is important to “demonstrate CO2 capture for several alternative coal combustion and conversion technologies.…It is critical that the government RD&D program not fall into the trap of picking a technology ‘winner,’ especially at a time when there is great coal combustion and conversion development activity underway in the private sector in both the United States and abroad.” As an important side note, the report also directs Congress to disallow the grandfathering of new conventional coal plants from carbon emission penalties, in order to prevent the “perverse incentive” to build coal plants without CCS today.
So, from all of this it appears that carbon capture and sequestration is by far the main obstacle to the widespread use of coal in the future, both for our country and the world. It’s not that big of a deal that FutureGen is being scrapped/revamped, but it is extremely important that CCS technologies be developed as quickly as possible, and in a way in which it will be fully embraced by the energy industry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
