EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • EPA’S ”Tailoring Rule’ and the Biomass Industry

     

    Including biomass power plants under the EPA’s tailoring rule is a clear policy shift and may imply a change in position for future policy.  The lack of distinction between renewable biomass as an alternative fuel to traditional fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas means that biomass may no longer be considered more attractive as an option for increasing the nation’s alternative energy portfolio from a carbon emissions perspective.  In the New York Times article, “Biomass Industry Sees ‘Chilling Message in EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rule” policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council, Franz Matzner  points out his view that there is an important difference between biomass that increases greenhouse gas emissions (such as trees in a forest) and biomass that leads to reductions such as waste biomass (i.e. agricultural crops, wood waste).  The environmental sustainability of widespread use of forest trees for energy production has been questioned by some policy advocates in recent years and is being actively debated in many policy circles.

    Using biomass waste for energy production offers significant environmental benefits.  Real reductions in CO2 emissions occur when waste is used to replace fossil fuels, instead of being left to decompose in landfills or on fields. When wood waste is left to decompose in landfills, the decaying wood releases methane which is 21 more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2.  Failing to make the distinction between different types of biomass for energy production threatens to deter efforts to reduce fossil fuel usage for energy production that also have positive benefits for carbon emissions. 

    When issuing the final statement on the “tailoring rule,” the EPA stated that it does not have enough evidence to exclude CO2 emissions from biogenic sources at this time, but that they recognize the issue warrants further explanation, and they plan to seek further comments on addressing the issue.  It is important that the EPA examine this issue further.  Retaining the carbon neutral status of biomass and exempting biomass from the tailoring rule may help to decrease the nation’s reliance on fossil fuel by making use of a domestic renewable resource.  Policymakers must be careful not to create maligned incentives in carbon policy that would stem this transition toward increased renewable fuel use in our nation’s energy mix.

  • Co-firing Biomass with Coal

     

    About half of the electricity in the United States is generated from coal. At the same time, the increasing focus on energy and climate change policy in the U.S. has introduced significant regulatory uncertainty in generation planning and operations. This uncertainty around where U.S. carbon policy is headed and when-along with the nature of modern utilities’ complex planning-requires a long-term, forward-looking strategy, one that fully integrates generation portfolio management with changes in demand behavior.

    An integrated asset and fuel optimization approach can help the energy industry create a robust strategy set that will stand the tests imposed by constantly changing regulatory requirements, market dynamics, evolving environmental policies and uncertainties regarding timing, funding levels and rate recovery mechanisms.

    Co-firing may indeed make sense, from cost and environmental perspectives, for many coal-based electricity producers. Co-firing makes use of existing power generation assets and infrastructure with the lowest cost of generation for renewable energy, while providing a means to mitigate the future cost of carbon. It offers renewable energy generation with low capital costs and takes advantage of the latest technologies and the high efficiencies of today’s coal power plants.

    Many national governments provide tax and financial incentives to encourage electric producers to adopt co-firing. In the U.S., where biomass is recognized as a renewable fuel, replacing coal fuel with biomass results in a substantial credit reduction in coal-based carbon dioxide emissions.

    Biomass co-firing has been used in Europe for over a decade. Full-scale commercial co-firing of at least 10 percent biomass-based on heat input-is common practice, with a wide variety of bio-fuels and co-firing configurations. The European biomass co-firing market has advanced to the point where the EU is implementing a new certification process for sustainably produced biomass for energy generation purposes. KEMA is assisting in establishing this biomass certification based on the chain of custody-from producer to processors to end-user.

    Often electricity producers opt to conduct trials first, to prove the viability, reliability, sustainability and cost-effectiveness of biomass co-firing in their plants. KEMA has been actively engaged in supporting biomass co-firing initiatives already underway in Europe for over a decade, and this technology has been demonstrated in many boiler types. The U.S. can leverage the experience gained in Europe to fast-track implementing biomass co-firing. Complete conversion to 100 percent biomass in a specific unit at multi-unit stations has already proven to be viable and sustainable in certain circumstances. The challenges in the U.S. are around reliable fuel supply and quality, a lack of incentives and a general reluctance by plant operations to introduce new fuels into existing boilers.

    We are seeing biomass co-firing on the rise in North America. KEMA has performed feasibility studies on co-firing for a number of large North American utilities looking to assess and quantify the risks, review fuel supply surety and obtain a detailed techno-economic assessment and conceptual design for co-firing of biomass in coal-fired plants. Utilities planning on co-firing between 5 and 10 percent biomass (by heat input) initially have also been interested in knowing what it takes to move towards a 100 percent fuel switch to biomass.

    In considering the full fuel switch, utilities are looking to ensure a mix of interrelated considerations, including minimal unit de-rating, no severe adverse operating conditions, no degradation of ash quality, no increase in emissions, compliance with regulation and legislation, broad initial fuel scope and competitive economics/favorable internal rate of return. By using proprietary co-firing control model software, we have been able to facilitate efficient and effective assessment process-providing utilities immediate quantitative insight into the risks associated with firing a mix of fossil and/or biomass fuels in existing coal-fired power plants along with specific guidance to optimize combustion.

    As co-firing biomass has become a recognized option in the U.S. electric generation market, biomass co-firing can be a real option in a utility’s portfolio-based approach to climate planning. We have worked with a number of U.S. and European utilities in defining their long-term carbon strategies, the majority of whom are asking to include biomass co-firing as a portfolio option within our sustainable integrated energy modeling tools being employed. This portfolio-based carbon planning process offers another avenue for utilities to assess the impact of biomass co-firing on profit and loss and on the balance sheet along with risk-based scenarios.

    Kevin Sullivan is senior vice president with KEMA Inc. and Ronald Meijer is managing principal Clean Fossil Power with KEMA Nederland B.V.

  • Integrating Solar: CSP and Gas Turbine Hybrids

     

    In a combined cycle plant, the high temperature exhaust gas from the turbine is passed through a heat recovery steam generator from which high-pressure steam is used in a steam turbine. Such installations are now operating at above 50% efficiency and the technology is well proven. In ISCC installations, additional thermal energy from the solar collector field is effectively injected into the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) of a conventional combined cycle plant. This boosts steam production and consequently electrical output. It also potentially allows CSP to be easily integrated into conventional fossil-fired thermal plants at relatively low extra cost.

    Technology Requirements

    As a relatively mature technology with a proven track record, ISCC installations currently under development have utilized parabolic trough reflectors. However, while the technology is relatively straightforward, in order to install solar combined cycle hybrid plants, there are certain requirements associated with any such development, including a large site and suitable topography.

    (Left: Solar power can supplement steam production. Credit: Schott Solar)

    Obviously for any solar installation, the direct normal insolation should be as high as possible, plus there is also a requirement for cooling water as part of the condensing cycle of the thermal power island. A final, though fundamental, requirement is the availability of suitable electricity transmission infrastructure to convey the solar generated power to load centres.

    Given a suitable site, however, ISCC does offer some unique advantages for utilities and other power supply interests. Primarily, electricity from CSP technology is generated exactly like conventional electricity, except solar power is used to provide heat to the boiler instead of fossil fuels. CSP is also becoming increasingly suited to changing power demand characteristics. Largely due to the increasing use of air conditioning, in some regions peak electricity demand has been far greater during recent summers than the peak winter demand. And, CSP plants deliver their maximum output during these peak hours, potentially offering opportunities to sell into the more attractively priced spot market at such times. Furthermore, although the current generation of ISCC installations have not included thermal storage capacity, this technology does allowing CSP to extend its operational range.

    (Left: The power block and some of the solar collector field of the world’s first operational ISCC plant, Ain Beni Mathar in Morocco. Credit: Abener)

    Nor is the integration of solar thermal capacity limited to new-build gas-fired combined cycle installations. In August 2009 Abengoa Solar announced that it is to build the first CSP installation integrated with a coal-fired plant.

    Owned by Colorado-based US utility group Xcel Energy, the demonstration project is planned to increase output at the Cameo coal-fired plant, near Grand Junction, Colorado, by 4 MW.

    ‘If this demonstration works, we may be able to implement this type of technological advance in other coal-fired power plants to help further reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Colorado and possibly other areas of our service territory’, said David Wilks, president of Energy Supply for Xcel Energy. Meanwhile, Ken May, director of Abengoa Solar IST, emphasized the high potential of large-scale applications of the industrial solar installation technology, saying: ‘Proper use of the solar thermal energy produced at these facilities can improve plant efficiency while lowering CO2 emissions. The successful integration of solar and coal technologies will encourage more widespread use throughout the utility sector.’

    And, later this year, US utility group Florida Power and Light (FPL) plans to open the world’s first hybrid solar thermal facility to connect to an existing fossil fuel plant at its Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center in Indiantown, Florida. At 75 MW the CSP installation will be the largest of FPL’s solar facilities and will consist of approximately 180,000 mirrors over roughly 500 acres (200 ha) at the existing plant location, which currently produces up to 2.8 GW.

    A Step Into the Light

    The world’s first ISCC plant is being constructed by Spanish engineering firm Abener at Ain Beni Mathar, In Morocco. This 470 MW plant is under development for state utility group Office National de l’Electricité (ONE) and uses parabolic trough technology to provide additional solar thermal component to a conventional gas-fired power island. The solar component will supply 20 MWe, leaving some 450 MW coming from the conventional thermal plant or an expected annual net production of 3538 GWh per year. The solar output is estimated at 1.13% of the annual production or some 40 GWh per year.

    The installation features a 180,000 m2 solar field, using 224 solar collector assemblies in 56 loops. The thermo-oil heat transfer fluid within is pumped to the power block at about 400ºC.

    Abener, in collaboration with Abengoa Solar and Teyma, the construction company of Abengoa, has engineered, designed and built the plant under the terms of a turnkey contract with Moroccan state energy company ONE. Rioglass manufactured the mirrors while the 8064 heat collector elements came from Schott. The EPC contractor is Abener Energia, which will also operate the plant together with 100% owner ONE.

    Algeria Making Second Solar Move

    The world’s second ISCC plant is being constructed in Algeria again by Abener, in collaboration with Abengoa Solar (both are subsidiary companies of Abengoa), which is providing the design and will act as the technician of the solar part. The 150 MWe Hassi R’Mel Project, located near the town of the same name, is being lead by the project company Solar Power Plant 1 (SPP1) – majority held by engineering group Abener with a 51% stake. The project will adjoin an existing Sonelgaz power station at Tilghemt located at the country’s largest natural gas field, Hassi R’Mel, in northern Algeria.

    Bidding on the build-own-operate contract launched in June 2004 and saw close to 10 companies bid, including General Electric, Lavallin, Siemens, Alstom and Black & Veatch.

    Subsequently, the construction contract was signed in December 2006. The plant is to be developed on behalf of New Energy Algeria (NEAL), a joint venture set up by state-owned oil and gas and electricity majors, Sonatrach and Sonelgaz respectively, and an agro-industrial firm Semouleries Industrielles de la Mitidja (SIM), to carry out renewable energy projects. NEAL has a 20% equity holding in SPP1. Sonatrach (through its subsidiary Société de Valorisation des Hydrocarbures, SVH) holds a further 14%, and Compañía Española de Financiación del Desarrollo S.A (COFIDES), a Spanish state and privately owned company that provides medium and long-term financial support for projects in foreign countries where there is a Spanish interest, has a 15% holding.

    At some 180,000 m², the two parabolic solar fields for the CSP component use Solucar TR troughs with galvanized steel framing, designed by Abengoa Solar NT, and again using glass mirrors manufactured at Abengoa Solar’s Rioglass Solar factory. The solar fields will comprise 224 parabolic collectors in 56 loops and the solar contribution to the total output is estimated at some 20 MWe. It will work in conjunction with a 130 MW CCGT plant comprising two 42 MW SGT-800 gas turbines supplied by Siemens and a 80 MW SST-900 steam turbine supplied also by Siemens.

    The EPC contractor is formed by Abener and Teyma, which in April 2009 awarded the contract for the electrical balance of plant to ABB. The order, worth $14 million, includes design, engineering, supply, erection and commissioning of the medium- and low-voltage switchgear, auxiliary transformers, generator circuit breakers, isolated bus-ducts and emergency diesel generators. The project is expected to be completed by August 2010. Technical assistance was provided by Lahmeyer International while the lead bank behind the approximately €320 million scheme is Banque Extérieure d’Algérie (BEA).

    Outlook: Broadly Sunny

    With ISCC facilities in Morocco and Algeria currently in final commissioning, the technology is now in a position to demonstrate the essential track record of reliability for widespread acceptance.

    (Left: A Siemens SST-900 steam turbine rotor lies at the heart of Hassi R’Mel. Credit: Siemens)

    Certainly, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region offers considerable scope for such developments with its ideal climate and ample space. Perhaps recognising this, national governments in the region are introducing measures that support such developments. The Hassi R’Mel development, for example, follows the introduction of a national programme for the development of renewable energy, the so-called Algerian Sustainable Energy Development Plan for 2020, together with a feed-in tariff scheme which has been in place since March 2004 and which offers elevated tariffs for renewable power production such as that coming from solar thermal capacity.

    On the broader scale, ultimately it is envisaged that energy from such installations will be exported to the key demand centres of continental Europe via under-sea HVDC interconnection cables. Tewfik Hasni, ex-chief executive of NEAL has already reportedly proposed a 3000 km transmission line stretching from the Algerian town of Adrar to the German city of Aachen.

    Egypt has also proposed an ISCC development at Kuraymat, about 95 km south of Cairo, on the eastern side of the river Nile, with the country’s New and Renewable Energy Authority (NREA) tendering – in 2005 – for a 150 MW ISCC plant with a solar power island consisting of a parabolic trough solar field. On completion, the plant will generate some 20 MWe from its solar capacity, producing around 33 GWh anually.

    And, Iran is expected to commission an ISCC installation in the desert Yazd region featuring a solar thermal component of some 17 MW. The second of the two gas turbines planned at this 478 MW development is reportedly now operational and the plant is due for final commissioning this year. The contractor for the US$170 million project is the Iran Electricity Development Organisation.

    Meanwhile, the longer-term prospects for ISCC development were given a major boost in October 2009, when the Desertec Industrial Initiative (DII) – a project born under the auspices of the Club of Rome and other institutions – was launched. This project seeks to develop renewable energy production in the desert regions of the MENA for both local use and for export to Europe.

    Indeed, Abengoa Solar became a founding partner of the DII project, joining ABB, Deutsche Bank, EON, RWE, Schott Solar, Siemens, Solar Millennium/MSM and others.

    This initiative is aimed at meeting 15% of Europe’s energy needs, and a substantial part of the demand in Northern Africa and the Middle East, via concentrated solar plants and other renewable sources of energy by 2050. And, for example, DII is already collaborating with the ‘Mediterranean Solar Plan’, an initiative that was approved by the European Union in 2008 to promote large-scale solar power projects in Northern Africa.

    Reinforcing this positive outlook, Santiago Seage, CEO of Abengoa Solar has pointed out that: ‘Northern Africa and the Middle East are undoubtedly areas with a tremendous solar energy potential, for both the region’s own use as well as exporting as soon as we have the necessary infrastructure in place. This initiative should bring us closer to making this vision come true.’

    (Right: Under plans set out by the Desertec Industrial Initiative (DII), subsea cables will transmit solar energy from the MENA region to demand centres in continental Europe. Credit: ABB)

  • “Fire Ice” impact on oil spill, Containment and Energy Future

    What makes methane hydrate and recent Gulf events so remarkable is that this substance, formed by high pressure and cold temperatures and discovered only in the 1960s, has more potential energy than all the world’s coal, natural gas and oil combined.
    energyfromice.jpg

    The US Department of Energy (DOE), China and India have all been pursuing methane hydrate deposits and research because of its potential as the ultra high-powered energy source. Russia (in conjunction with Japan) has been the first country to successfully harvest this game-changing energy source.

    Oil companies and drilling operations, however, have been wary of its dangers before the Deepwater Horizon event, according to the DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory: “(The oil and gas) Industry has concerns about drilling through hydrate zones, which can destabilize supporting foundations for platforms and production wells. The disruption to the ocean floor also could result in surface slumping or faulting, which could endanger work crews and the environment.”

    The happy ending of our Sci-fi flick: The Gulf oil spill is stopped by drilling a relief well; the millions of gallons that did “spill” are not as damaging as thought; and methane hydrate is safely harnessed and sequestered of carbon worldwide, which phases out oil and natural gas as energy sources. Oil wars largely cease as a result, as methane hydrates are bountiful enough for most coastal nations to secure their own 100+ year energy supply.

    Let’s see what the focus groups think.

    Originally posted May 9, 2010 on the Green Flow blog of commoncurrent.com.

  • The Peak Oil Crisis: The Deepwater Horizon

     

    From what is known so far, it is clear that offshore drilling came to be seriously under-regulated in recent years with few inspections and little or no penalties for violations. Deepwater offshore drilling has become so expensive – the Deepwater Horizon costs on the order of $1 million a day to operate – that site managers are under heavy pressure to complete projects as quickly as possible and move to the next job.

    The oil industry is said to have largely written the regulations and the government simply ratified what was presented. The Obama administration has already moved to split the regulation function from the Mineral Management Service and place it in a separate agency dedicated to safety and the prevention of further accidents. Although there will be much raucous discussion, It seems likely that heavier regulation, with higher, more expensive, standards, is on the way and that could delay future deepwater drilling projects by months or years.

    Shell, which is about to start drilling in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, has filed new safety plans for their proposed projects. The administration is obviously going to take a very hard look at drilling in areas that are hundreds or even thousands of miles from help if something should grow wrong. It is one thing to drill in the Gulf of Mexico where all sorts of emergency equipment is available within a matter of hours and quite another to drill in the sparsely settled polar regions. The Norwegian and Canadian governments are starting to raise questions about the standards for offshore drilling and are likely to adhere to whatever recommendations come out of the investigations of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

    Yet another serious problem for the prospects of future oil production is starting to emerge. The deepwater wells, on which we are basing much of our energy future, may not be as productive as previously thought. Until recently the poster child for deepwater oil production was BP’s Thunderhorse platform that, after years of delay, started producing in 2008 and was supposed to produce a billion barrels of oil at the rate of 250,000 barrels a day (b/d). At first all seemingly went well with production reaching 172,000 b/d in January of 2009, but then production started falling rapidly to a low of 61,000 b/d last December. BP refuses to comment publicly on what is happening at Thunderhorse, but outside observers are growing increasingly skeptical that the platform will ever produce the planned billion barrels. At least 25 other deepwater projects are said to be facing problems of falling production, raising the question of just how much oil these very expensive deepwater projects will ever produce.

    Pressure for regulatory reforms is likely to be based on just how much environmental and economic damage the Deepwater Horizon blowout ultimately causes. If BP contains the leak in a relatively short period of time and there is minimal damage to the seafood industry and coasts, then new drilling could resume shortly. However, if the situation deteriorates further and major coastal damage ensues, then offshore drilling is likely to slow significantly until new regulations are approved and more reliable blowout preventers are developed and deployed.

    The battle over tougher regulations is likely to be prolonged and nasty. President Obama has vowed to end the “cozy relationship” between companies and regulators. Testifying before Congress earlier this week, Interior Secretary Salazar said that the oil industry is already characterizing efforts to reform regulations as “impediments and roadblocks to the development of our domestic oil and gas resources.” The Secretary called for federal regulation of blowout preventers which are supposed to ensure that spills of the scale of the Deepwater Horizon incident can’t happen.

    Recommendations stemming from the recently announced independent Presidential Commission on the tragedy will likely have much influence on the course of deepwater drilling and thus the availability of oil in the future. Should the Commission conclude that much tougher regulation is necessary, it is difficult to see how the oil industry, even with its considerable clout in the Congress, can resist the calls for reform. Oil might just become far scarcer and more expensive five years from now than most of us think.

    Originally published May 19, 2010 at Falls Church News Press

  • Government’s chief scientific adviser hits out at climate sceptics

     

    “It has been suggested that the society holds the view that anyone challenging the consensus on climate change is malicious – this is ridiculous,” said Professor Martin Rees, the society’s president.

    “Science is organised scepticism and the consensus must shift in light of the evidence.

    “In the current environment we believe this new guide will be very timely. Lots of people are asking questions, indeed even within the fellowship of the society there are differing views.”

    In his first interview since the election, Beddington agreed that true scientific scepticism was healthy and must be encouraged but he criticised individuals and organisations that cherrypicked data for political ends.

    “There is no doubt that there are organisations and individuals who will choose to characterise the science as being nonsensical on the basis of what are not reasonable criticisms,” he said.

    He highlighted the spurious argument that because the UK winter had been so cold, climate change science must be wrong.

    Beddington said there was a difference between weather and climate. “The fact that we have had a very cold winter in Britain does not mean that the climate is not getting warmer,” he said, adding that rejecting global warming on those grounds was wrong. “This is just not science. This is commentary,” he said.

    Lawson’s thinktank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, has deployed similar arguments to downplay the significance of climate change.

    Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University who is the foundation’s director, said in December last year: “We look out of the window and it’s very cold, it doesn’t seem to be warming.”

    Lawson has said that “global warming … is not at the present time happening”. Peiser has previously said the GWPF does not challenge climate science but concentrates on examining policy implications.

    Beddington, who gave a public lecture on climate change at the University of York yesterday, was also highly critical of the mistakes made by the UN’s climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which he called “fundamentally stupid statements”.

    Referring to the incorrect claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, he said: “Nobody in their right mind would see that as even a scientific statement. There’s no uncertainty, there’s no caveats.” But he added that overall the IPCC report had a “remarkably small number of problems”.

    Beddington said that he had yet to have a formal meeting with David Cameron or Nick Clegg, but he said the coalition government faced a slew of scientific and engineering issues.

    “Just about anywhere I look around the portfolio of government problems in any department, there are big issues of science and engineering including social science,” he said.

    He highlighted climate change, obesity, the volcanic ash cloud and vigilance to pandemic influenza as pressing problems for government to address.

    He said he would advise Cameron to shield funding for scientific research from future spending cuts as far as possible.

    “If you then think about how the UK as an economy is going to compete in the future, the underpinning of science and engineering having the best quality students, the best quality scientists and engineers is absolutely imperative.”

    When asked about the BP oil spill off the coast of Louisiana, Beddington said there would be lessons for the UK.

    “I think we need to understand it,” he said. “I think deep offshore [drilling] presents formidable engineering problems as you can see from the attempt to actually deal with it.

    “I think that one will have to be asking questions about the appropriate levels of regulation that are operating in licensing deep offshore drilling in the North Sea.”