Archive for category Uncategorized

Strategic control of energy usage enhances energy efficiency

Posted by on Friday, 11 March, 2011

Webair in collaboration with leading energy management firm EnerNoc will turn its data centres in to “virtual power plants” through demand response, ie by strategically controlling energy usage in its data centres.

Webair is a custom web hosting solution provider for dedicated servers, CDN, VPS, cloud computing etc.

Webair is trying to reduce their carbon footprint and also helps to preserve and restore the environment.  Webair designed a venture called “WE CARE” initiative and as a part of this Webair joined forces with American Forests to help grow a healthier world, one tree at a time.

This project of demand response is the latest energy efficiency project in Webair’s “WE CARE” initiative. Webair employs backup generators to ensure that customers experience no downtime, and routinely tests these generators to further safeguard against outages.

When called upon by EnerNoc, Webair will use its backup generators to provide additional capacity during times of peak energy usage or when there are other stresses on the system. Webair provides a clean, cost-effective alternative to using fossil-fuel-fired power plants to support grid stability through demand response.

EnerNoc helps commercial, institutional and industrial organizations use energy more intelligently, pay less for it. EnerNoc’s technology-enabled energy management solutions help meet the needs of utilities/grid operators that deliver energy and are responsible for maintaining the real-time balance between supply and demand.

EnerNoc’s enterprise carbon management application and service supports the measurement, tracking, and management of greenhouse gases across the enterprise. CarbonSMART provides seamless data connectivity that drives quality decisions on carbon risk and mitigation.

Demand response helps to reduce Co2 emission from power plants.  EnerNoc will purchase carbon credits to offset any emissions produced by Webair during a demand response dispatch, making this initiative entirely carbon-neutral.

Webair will derive additional insights about its electricity usage through complimentary smart metering equipment and EnerNoc’s web-based DemandSMART™ demand response application. Real-time energy monitoring as well as long-term usage tracking will contribute to more efficient overall operations.

Webair’s participation in demand response will contribute a more stable, sustainable and secure grid.

http://www.webair.com/

http://www.enernoc.com/

 

Related Terms in the Glossary:

Carbon Footprint

Carbon Credits

Fossil Fuels

Greenhouse Gas



Low Carbon Cement from Fly Ash

Posted by on Friday, 11 March, 2011

CERATECH Inc (CTI) claims to manufacture cement that utilizes 95% waste fly ash from electric utilities, dramatically reducing their landfill requirements while generating zero carbon dioxide emissions from the cement production process. Cement industry is considered to be one of the largest emitter of carbon dioxide.

CTI’s technology uses fly ash which is the by-product of coal combustion, dramatically reducing the volume of ash that is being land filled. About three of every five tons of ash produced—approximately 42 million tons a year—end up in a landfill. A ton of CTI “green cement” diverts approximately 1,800 pounds of landfill waste. An additional benefit of CTI’s unique technology is that its cement production process generates no carbon dioxide emissions adding to its attractiveness.

CTI’s cement is a replacement for portland cement, with outstanding strength and durability characteristics. With no other cement on the market composed of more than 90 percent fly ash, CTI’s green cement technology sets a new standard in meeting green construction guidelines, particularly the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED certification requirements.

The single most advantage of CTI’s technology is the low carbon emissions and use of landfill waste to produce cement. At a time when cement industry is trying to reduce its carbon emissions, CTI’s green cement technology will go places. The Calera process that uses carbon dioxide to manufacture cement can complement CTI’s technology leading to reduction in carbon emissions from cement industry.

Alpha Natural Resources has made a strategic investment in CTI which gives it 10.3 percent of the equity in CTI on a fully-diluted basis with an option to increase that stake to 28.3 percent of the fully-diluted shares if certain criteria are met. The amount of Alpha’s initial investment was not disclosed. “Alpha’s investment is an ideal fit within our larger sustainability investments strategy,” said Michael Peelish, chief sustainability officer for Alpha Natural Resources. “We’re looking for ways to encourage development of new technologies that will bring sustainable environmental benefits to our utility customers. Conversion of waste fly ash into a green construction material represents an exceptional environmental use of coal combustion by-products.”

According to Jon Hyman, CTI CEO, “Alpha’s investment brings immediate benefit to CTI. Their strategic support—especially given Alpha’s excellent reputation in the industry—is an endorsement that we know will have great value in our discussions with leading U.S. utilities. Expediting the development of partnering agreements with leading utilities will result in our ability to expand our cement production and distribution capabilities. Also it will strengthen our ability to compete cost effectively against traditional cement companies.”


Co2 Emission & Carbon Capture and Storage in United States

Posted by on Wednesday, 9 March, 2011

Carbon capture and storage in United States

Globally, power generation emits nearly 10 billion tons of CO2 per year. The U.S., with over 8,000 power plants out of the more than 50,000 worldwide, accounts for about 25 percent of that total or 2.8 billion tons. CARMA (Carbon Monitoring for Action – online database compiled by Centre for Global Development) shows that the U.S.’s biggest CO2 emitter is Southern Co. with annual emissions of 172 million tons, followed by American Electric Power Company Inc., Duke Energy Corp., and AES Corp. The United States has a long-standing reliance on huge reserves of domestic coal for electric power generation. Coal-fired power plants are reliable, affordable, and currently supply about 50 percent of the Nation’s electricity generation.

EIA estimates that almost 95 percent of the coal-based CO2 emissions projected to be released from today through 2030 will originate from existing coal-based power plants. On a mass basis, CO2 is the 19th largest commodity chemical in the United States.

Annually, the 12 biggest CO2 polluting power plants in the United States are:

Scherer plant, Juliet, GA
25.3 MT
Miller plant, Quinton, AL
20.6 MT
Bowen plant, Cartersville, GA
20.5 MT
Gibson plant, Owensville, IN
20.4 MT
W.A. Parish plant, Thompsons, TX
20 MT
Navajo plant, Page, AZ
19.9 MT
Martin Lake plant, Tatum, TX
19.8 MT
Cumberland plant, Cumberland City, TN
19.6 MT
Gavin plant, Cheshire, OH
18.7 MT
Sherburne County plant, Becker, MN
17.9 MT
Bruce Mansfield plant, Shipping port, PA
17.4 MT
Rockport plant, Rockport, IN
16.6 MT

All are coal-fired power plants:

Low-carbon power comes mostly from nuclear and hydro plants, which do not emit CO2, but do pose other potential environmental problems. The largest U.S. power plant to win a green rating for nearly zero CO2 emissions is the Palo Verde nuclear plant near Phoenix, Arizona; it produces about 26 million megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity per year. Other large plants that are emitting zero CO2 but produce substantial electricity are:

The South Texas plant in Wadsworth, TX
20.9 million MWh
The Limerick plant in Pottstown, PA
20.8 million MWh
The Vogtle plant in Wanyesboro, GA
20.1 million MWh
The Byron plant in Byron, IL
20 million MWh
The Braidwood plant in Braceville, IL
19.8 million MWh

All are nuclear power plants:

According to CARMA data, the Ohio River Valley, the southeastern U.S. and Texas are the dirtiest regions in terms of CO2 emissions. The least dirty CO2 region is the West Coast, where much of the electric power is generated by nuclear and hydroelectric plants.

The state with the greatest CO2 emissions from electricity generation is Texas (290 million tons), followed by Florida (157 million tons), Indiana (137 million tons), Pennsylvania (136 million tons), Ohio (133 million tons), Illinois (113 million tons), Kentucky (98 million tons), Georgia (92 million tons), Michigan (91 million tons) and Alabama (91 million tons).

The District of Columbia has the lowest power-related emissions (113,000 tons), followed by Vermont (437,000 tons), Idaho (1 million tons), Rhode Island (2.6 million tons); South Dakota (4.7 million tons); and Alaska (6 million tons).

At the county level, Walker County in Alabama, where power plants produce over 28 million tons of CO2 each year, heads the list of CO2 emitters. Grundy County in Illinois, with two large nuclear plants, and Taylor County in Texas, which relies almost exclusively on renewable resources, have nearly zero CO2 emissions.

Residents of Austin, Texas, including faculty and students of the University of Texas at Austin, have the highest-emitting power facility of any university town in the country, emitting some 400,000 tons a year.

Top-50 Highest CO2-Emitting Power Plants in the United States:

(Format: Plant City State Tons of CO2)

SCHERER  Juliette Georgia 25,300,000 HARRISON Haywood West Virginia 14,200,000
MILLER Quinton Alabama 20,600,000 WH SAMMIS Stratton Ohio 13,800,000
BOWEN Cartersville Georgia 20,500,000 BELEWS CREEK Belews Creek North Carolina 13,600,000
GIBSON Owensville Indiana 20,400,000 BALDWIN Baldwin Illinois 13,600,000
WA PARISH Thompsons Texas 20,000,000 JM STUART Aberdeen Ohio 13,400,000
NAVAJO Page Arizona 19,900,000 LIMESTONE Jewett Texas 13,300,000
MARTIN LAKE Tatum Texas 19,800,000 SAN JUAN Waterflow New Mexico 13,000,000
CUMBERLAND Tennessee 19,600,000 HOMER CITY Homer City Pennsylvania 12,800,000
GAVIN Cheshire Ohio 18,700,000 BARRY Bucks Alabama 12,800,000
SHERBURNE  Becker Minnesota 17,900,000 MOUNT STORM Mount Storm West Virginia 12,700,000
BRUCE Shippingport Pennsylvania 17,400,000 MARSHALL Terrell North Carolina 12,600,000
ROCKPORT Rockport Indiana 16,600,000 PETERSBURG Petersburg Indiana 12,500,000
JIM BRIDGER Point Of Rocks 16,500,000 WHITE BLUFF Redfield Arkansas 12,400,000
LABADIE Labadie Missouri 16,400,000 COLSTRIP 3&4 Colstrip Montana 12,300,000
MONTICELLO Pleasant Texas 16,300,000 GHENT Ghent Kentucky 12,200,000
JEFFREY Saint Marys Kansas 16,300,000 EC GASTON Wilsonville Alabama 12,200,000
INTERMOUNTAIN Delta Utah 16,100,000 INDEPENDENCE Newark Arkansas 12,200,000
MONROE Monroe Michigan 15,900,000 CENTRALIA Centralia Washington 12,100,000
JOHN E AMOS  Albans Virginia 15,300,000 CONEMAUGH New Florence Pennsylvania 12,100,000
ROXBORO Roxboro North Carolina 15,100,000 FAYETTE La Grange Texas 12,000,000
CRYSTAL RIVER Crystal River Florida 15,100,000 LA CYGNE Lacygne Kansas 11,900,000
CROSSCross South Carolina 15,000,000 WELSH Pittsburg Texas 11,900,000
FOURCORNERS New Mexico 14,800,000 WANSLEY Roopville Georgia 11,900,000
PARADISEDrakesboroKentucky 14,500,000 MANATEE Parrish Florida 11,700,000
BIGCAJUN TWO Ventress Louisiana 14,300,000 KEYSTONE Shelocta Pennsylvani 11,500,000 

 

Power sector Co2 emissions by state:

(Format: State Tons of CO2)

Texas
290,000,000
Florida
157,000,000
Indiana
137,000,000
Pennsylvania
136,000,000
Ohio
133,000,000
Illinois
113,000,000
Kentucky
98,300,000
Georgia
91,500,000
Michigan
91,400,000
Alabama
90,700,000
West Virginia
88,600,000
Missouri
82,500,000
California
79,200,000
North Carolina
77,700,000
New York
69,600,000
Arizona
64,500,000
Tennessee
63,300,000
Louisiana
61,000,000
Oklahoma
57,000,000
Wisconsin
54,800,000
South Carolina
52,500,000
Virginia
49,700,000
Colorado
47,200,000
Wyoming
45,900,000
Kansas
43,500,000
Minnesota
43,500,000
Utah
41,900,000
Iowa
38,800,000
North Dakota
37,600,000
Arkansas
35,400,000
Maryland
33,600,000
New Mexico
32,800,000
Mississippi
30,900,000
Massachusetts
29,400,000
Nebraska
24,400,000
New Jersey
22,100,000
Nevada
20,800,000
Montana
20,300,000
Washington
19,600,000
Connecticut
13,400,000
Oregon
12,600,000
Hawaii
9,805,652
New Hampshire
8,619,268
Maine
7,817,319
Delaware
7,313,223
Alaska
5,951,978
South Dakota
4,680,446
Rhode Island
2,614,260
Idaho
1,060,886
Vermont
436,856
District of Columbia
113,248

Top-50 Highest CO2-Emitting Power Sectors by U.S. County:

(Format: County State Tons of CO2)

 

Walker Alabama
28,800,000
Emery Utah
16,700,000
San Juan New Mexico
28,400,000
Spencer Indiana
16,600,000
Harris Texas
28,000,000
Sweetwater Wyoming
16,500,000
Gallia Ohio
26,000,000
Los Angeles California
16,400,000
Monroe Georgia
25,300,000
Franklin Missouri
16,400,000
Indiana Pennsylvania
24,600,000
Titus Texas
16,300,000
Jefferson Ohio
24,200,000
Pottawatomie Kansas
16,300,000
Kern California
22,200,000
Millard Utah
16,100,000
Berkeley South Carolina
21,900,000
Apache Arizona
16,000,000
Rusk Texas
21,300,000
Will Illinois
15,600,000
Fort Bend Texas
21,300,000
Muhlenberg Kentucky
15,400,000
Citrus Florida
21,100,000
Westmoreland Pennsylvania
15,400,000
Person North Carolina
20,600,000
Clermont Ohio
14,900,000
Bartow Georgia
20,500,000
Hillsborough Florida
14,800,000
Gibson Indiana
20,400,000
Lewis Washington
14,600,000
Coconino Arizona
19,900,000
Bexar Texas
14,600,000
Mercer North Dakota
19,600,000
Clark Nevada
14,500,000
Stewart Tennessee
19,600,000
Pointe Coupee Louisiana
14,300,000
Saint Clair Michigan
19,400,000
Harrison West Virginia
14,200,000
Beaver Pennsylvania
18,800,000
Pike Indiana
14,100,000
Monroe Michigan
18,700,000
Mobile Alabama
14,100,000
Sherburne Minnesota
18,000,000
Forsyth North Carolina
13,700,000
Duval Florida
17,500,000
Randolph Illinois
13,600,000
Rosebud Montana
17,200,000
Grant West Virginia
13,500,000
Kanawha West Virginia 

 

17,100,000
Jefferson Arkansas
13,400,000

DOE/NETL Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage RD&D Roadmap:

 

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Clean Coal Research program is focused on integrated development of CCS technologies to sequester Co2 from coal – based power plants. The program is gathering the data, building the knowledge base, and developing the advanced technology platforms needed to prove that CCS can be a viable climate change mitigation strategy,

thus ensuring that coal, a secure and affordable energy resource, remains available to power a sustainable economy.

 

The DOE/FE’s Clean Coal Research Program is implemented by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Program contributions include the research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) of clean coal technologies that are highly efficient, achieve near-zero emissions (including carbon), and are commercially deployable in a competitive energy market.

 

One of President Obama’s objectives is to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. In May 2009, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced DOE’s priorities to drive the President’s agenda, including positioning the United States to lead on climate change policy, technology, and science. Further, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provides more than $3 billion for fossil energy research to develop and demonstrate CCS technology in partnership with industry, and to transition this technology to industry for deployment and commercialization. Through fossil energy-related provisions in the Recovery Act and annual appropriations, the development of CCS is being pursued to meet future energy needs. Specific programs associated with the application of Recovery Act funding include: expansion of Round 3 of the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI); development of advanced technology for large-scale CCS from industrial sources; characterization of geologic sequestration sites; implementation of geologic sequestration training and research; acceleration of the deployment of advanced coal gasification-based power production technologies linked with CCS; a CCS demonstration using oxy-combustion technology for CO2 capture under the FutureGen 2.0 Initiative; and acceleration of CCS technology development through the Carbon Capture and Storage Simulation Initiative.

 

The DOE Clean Coal Research Program is a major component of the global activities needed to widely deploy coal power plants with cost-effective CCS.

 

United States has a vast potential of geologic storage options. The primary objective of DOE research in this area is to develop technologies to cost-effectively store CO2 in geologic formations and monitor its movement and behavior while showing its permanence and safe storage. This involves developing an improved understanding of CO2 hydrologic flow, trapping mechanisms, geomechanical impacts, and geochemical reactions within the formation, as well as developing and testing simulation models and other tools. Experience gained from field tests will facilitate the development of a series of CCS-related best practice manuals (BPMs) to ensure that CO2 storage is secure and environmentally acceptable and does not impair the geologic integrity of underground formations. To achieve its geologic storage objectives, DOE is engaged in numerous research activities in a variety of potential CO2 storage sites with different geologic classes of reservoir depending on their depositional environments. There are 11 storage formation classes and 2 seal classes which need to be adequately tested.

 

Simulation and risk assessment of CO2 storage is also an important component of DOE’s CCS Core RD&D effort. Existing numerical models that simulate geochemical, geomechanical, and flow are limited by the scale and coupled effects on storage of CO2 in deep geologic formations. A major focus of the program is on the integrated development of CCS technologies to affordably and efficiently sequester CO2 from coal-based power plants.

 

The program is addressing the key technology challenges that confront the wide-scale deployment of CCS through research on cost-effective capture technologies; MVA technologies to ensure permanent storage; permitting issues; liability issues; public outreach; and infrastructure needs. In addition to development of CCS technologies, program activities are also focused on high-priority CCS enabling technologies, such as advanced IGCC, advanced hydrogen turbines, fuels conversion, and fuel cells. These research areas provide the supporting technology base for all CCS development.

 

DOE’s CCS RD&D effort is pursuing a portfolio of technologies along multiple technology paths to mitigate the risks inherent to new technology research efforts. The CCS effort encompasses RD&D across a wide scale, integrating advances and lessons learned from fundamental research, technology development, and commercial-scale demonstration. The success of this effort will enable cost-effective implementation of CCS technologies throughout the power generation sector.

 

DOE/NETL estimates that using today’s commercially available CCS technologies would add around 80 percent to the cost of electricity for a new PC plant, and around 35 percent to the cost of electricity for a new advanced gasification-based plant. The CCS RD&D effort is aggressively pursuing developments to reduce these costs to a less than 30 percent increase in the cost of electricity for PC power plants and a less than 10 percent increase in the cost of electricity for new gasification-based power plants. To accomplish these goals, DOE/NETL has adopted a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach to its CCS RD&D effort.

 

Currently, the DOE/NETL Coal Research Program comprises 10 distinct program areas: Innovations for Existing Plants (IEP), Advanced IGCC, Advanced Turbines, Carbon Sequestration (CS), Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) Fuel Cells, Fuels, Advanced Research (AR), CCPI, FutureGen, and ICCS. Each program area has specific targets that contribute to DOE’s CCS RD&D effort, either through direct capture and storage of GHGs or through significant gains in power plant efficiency.

 

CCS projects in United States:

 

In the United States, four different synthetic fuel projects are moving forward which have publicly announced plans to incorporate carbon capture and storage.

 

American Clean Coal Fuels, in their Illinois Clean Fuels project, is developing a 30,000 barrel per day biomass and coal to liquids project in Oakland, Illinois, which will market the CO2 created at the plant for enhanced oil recovery applications. Baard Energy, in their Ohio River Clean Fuels project, are developing a 53,000 BPD coal and biomass to liquids project, which has announced plans to market the plant’s CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. Rentech is developing a 29,600 barrel per day coal and biomass to liquids plant in Natchez, Mississippi which will market the plant’s CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. The first phase of the project is expected in 2011. DKRW is developing a 15,000-20,000 Barrel Per Day coal to liquids plant in Medicine Bow Wyoming, which will market it plant’s CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. The project is expected to begin operation in 2013.

 

Since the 1970s, pipelines have been used to transport carbon dioxide in the United States for enhanced oil recovery operations and there are more than 6,000 kilometres of pipelines transporting carbon dioxide for such processes in the United States and Canada.

 

The Obama administration has requested $300 million in 2011 for the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E), the newest part of the Department of Energy (DOE). In 2009 the agency received $400 million in stimulus funds.

In November 2009 a joint U.S. and Chinese government media release stated that “the two sides strongly welcomed work in both countries to promote 21st century coal technologies. They agreed to promote cooperation on large-scale carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) demonstration projects and to begin work immediately on the development, deployment, diffusion, and transfer of CCS technology.

SCS Energy (SCS) of Concord, Mass. has proposed constructing PurGen One, a 750-megawatt (MW) IGCC / coal-to-fertilizer plant on a contaminated industrial site on the Arthur Kill waterway in Linden, N.J. The plant would gasify coal and burn the gas to generate electricity when power prices are high, or make fertilizer when power prices are low. SCS plans to use carbon capture and sequestration technology to pump 90% of the carbon dioxide emitted from the plant through a 100-mile-long pipeline to a point 70 miles offshore from Atlantic City, N.J., where it will be pumped into a sandstone formation 1.5 miles beneath the floor of the ocean. SCS Energy hopes the coal plant, with carbon sequestration, will be fully operational by 2016.

Sources: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114163448.htm

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/CCSRoadmap.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage#United_States

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Carbon_Capture_and_Storage_in_the_United_States#Obama_and_CCS


Global CCS Institute approved Carbon Capture and Storage Blueprint

Posted by on Thursday, 17 February, 2011

A Scottish designed blueprint to help governments implement carbon capture and storage (CCS) project applications smoothly has been launched.

A new ‘Are You Ready’ toolkit has been designed to make it easy for nations and regions to test their legislation, regulatory and public engagement systems in advance of receiving applications for CCS projects.

The test toolkit, produced by the Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage (SCCS) Centre on behalf of the Scottish Government, provides a low-cost, low-risk approach to a regulatory test exercise. This toolkit was researched and written by Benjamin Evar and Hannah Chalmers from the University of Edinburgh’s SCCS research group, and Richard Bellingham from the University of Strathclyde.

SCCS is the largest carbon storage grouping in the UK which comprise in excess of 65 researchers and are unique in connected strength across the full CCS chain, as well as in biochar capability.

SCCS builds on and extends the established world-class expertise in CO2 storage evaluation and injection, using petroleum and hydrocarbon geosciences (based on geology, geophysics, geo-engineering and subsurface fluid flow). This is augmented by industrial scale chemical engineering, next-generation carbon capture and innovative CO2 use, combined with rare expertise in power plant design and operation.

The Centre comprises experimental and analytical facilities; expertise in field studies and modelling; key academic and research personnel, to stimulate the development of innovative solutions to carbon capture and subsurface storage.

The toolkit was commissioned and sponsored by the Global CCS Institute which works with projects and governments on sharing knowledge to help accelerate the commercial deployment of CCS. Announced by the Australian Government in September 2008, the Global CCS Institute was formally launched in April 2009. It became a legal entity in June 2009 when it was incorporated under the Australian Corporations Act 2001 as a public company and began operating independently as of July 2009. The Institute is a not-for-profit entity, limited by guarantee, and owned by its Members, with the Australian Government initially committing AU$100 million annual funding to the organisation for a four year period.

Energy Minister Jim Mather said: “Scotland is leading global efforts to develop CCS, with the largest offshore storage capacity in Europe in the North Sea and the UK’s leading candidate for a CCS demonstration project. The Scottish Government used a mock CCS project to test our own regulations and identify any streamlining opportunities and challenges that lie ahead. It is therefore appropriate that we have taken the lead in sharing this experience with other nations and regions. This blueprint will now be rolled out across the globe to equip governments, regulators and developers with the knowledge they need to be confident that CCS applications are processed efficiently and in accordance with the relevant planning and environmental obligations”.

Bob Pegler said: “This marks a significant step in our efforts to share knowledge and best practice globally, so that we can help accelerate CCS demonstration. Regulation is one area where Scotland is very advanced and from which many other regions could learn. We believe the toolkit will be extremely useful to European member states in finalizing their work in the transposition of the EU’s CCS Directive. It can also be used by any world region that is looking for best practice regulatory models.” Bob Pegler is the General Manager, Europe of the Global CCS Institute, based in Paris. Bob has served in the Australian Public Service for more than 30 years in the fields of resources, energy, industry, finance and environment. Bob joined the Global CCS Institute in 2009. He has been instrumental in shaping its initial work program, including a comprehensive analysis of the global status of CCS and how impediments are influencing project decisions.

The Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage Centre, working with the Scottish European Green Energy Centre,  has produced the toolkit. The Scottish European Green Energy Centre provides a focal point for European organisations engaging in low carbon energy projects and activities. SEGEC facilitates partnerships, collaborative projects and funding packages designed to accelerate the development and deployment of low carbon energy technologies, and disseminates the results.

The toolkit is designed to support regional and national governments seeking to establish whether their

regulatory framework and systems are fit for purpose. It provides a guide to testing regulatory systems

by taking a CCS project application through every stage of the approval process in a regulatory test exercise.

Toolkit structure:

The toolkit explains the key activities needed to complete a successful test.

·         Careful planning and preparation

·         Developing key tools to support planning and running the event

·         Running a CCS test workshop and in particular gathering the views of delegates

·         Ensuring effective follow-up to gain maximum benefit from the event

Planning and preparation: This section explains the planning and preparation for the CCS test exercise.

The main activities are divided in to four strands:

·         Resources and governance

·         Stakeholder engagement

·         Regulatory analysis

·         Preparation for the event

Resources and governance: The CCS regulatory test exercise will require an organisation to lead the exercise. The lead organisation should be a government department or regulatory agency. This body will have a significant stake in the successful completion of the exercise; be perceived as neutral by different commercial players; and will offer knowledge of existing structures in the electricity sector, oil and gas extraction, and environmental regulation.

Stakeholder engagement: A wide range of organisations have legitimate interests in CCS and the regulatory processes that will approve and control future projects.

These include:

·         Government departments, planners and regulatory agencies;

·         Several industrial sectors, for example electricity generation, oil and gas etc;

·         NGOs involved with good governance and the environment;

·         Technical advisors and consultants; and

·         Academics within the CCS and governance fields.

Regulatory analysis:

Data collection: Collection of data should start at the earliest point possible. Information will need to be collected from government departments and agencies, as well as the regulators, so that the full set of permit applications to be submitted for a CCS project can be identified and detailed. Early data collection and contacts with the wider CCS community will form the basis for the creation of a comprehensive list of relevant CCS regulations and permits as well as a CCS project application. These two tools will be useful in identifying relevant presentation material for the workshop as well as structuring the discussion around key issues.

Preparation for the workshop: The workshop event chairperson and facilitators should be identified as early as possible in the planning and preparation process. This allows them to be fully involved in planning the workshop event.

Key tools: This section details the creation of the regulatory table and the CCS project application, and their role in facilitating learning and discussion before, during and after the workshop event. The regulatory table should be organised according to permit planning stage and may include the following information:

  • Type of permit – environmental, health and safety etc;
  • Place in the CCS chain/project lifecycle – capture, transport, storage, decommissioning;
  • Permit title;
  • Area covered by the permit;
  • Granting authority;
  • Timing from application to permit;
  • Details on submission requirements; and
  • Comments on emerging legislation.

Running the workshop: The agenda should allow participants adequate time and space for informal networking. This will assist with the development of a community of interest, through a cross fertilisation of ideas and a broader analysis of different points of view.

Following up: gaining the benefits: Following up on lessons learned after the workshop is vital if the test exercise is to deliver its intended objectives and benefits.

Key actions are likely to be arranged in two groups:

  • Disseminating the results of the exercise to a wider stakeholder audience; and
  • Planning and engaging to deliver the agreed actions.

The Global CCS Institute has supported the toolkit with £50,000 funding.

The Institute will promote the toolkit around the world and it is already attracting interest from Canada, Australia and several EU nations. The move is a vote of confidence in Scotland’s forward thinking approach in preparing for carbon capture and storage projects, which is recognised as a key technology in cutting emissions from fossil fuel power stations.

http://www.carboncapturejournal.com/displaynews.php?NewsID=738

http://globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/CCSRegulatoryToolkit.pdf

http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/research/data/121908-scotland-shares-carbon-capture-blueprint-to-help-other-nations.html


Australia’s CCS Flagship Program Funding Affected

Posted by on Monday, 14 February, 2011

Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter. It needs to invest maximum in carbon capture and storage. If Australia can come up with retrofitting models that can be fitted with existing coal power plants, it can extend the life span of its coal. Nothing better than capturing the carbon and sequestering it.

If Australian universities can do research in fields like saline aquifers, ocean storage – (most of the potential identified by Australia are in the ocean for storing of CO2) and

Coal bed methane among others, it would be leading the world in Carbon capture and Storage research. The Australian Government should be funding the most in doing research in different types of carbon capture. Carbon capture and Storage Flagship program of Australia is a very progressive and positive one.

The Australian Government has a comprehensive climate change policy to support its commitment to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent on 2000 levels by 2050.

Everything was going well till the floods in the Queensland province. The floods caused extensive damage to the existing infrastructure and livelihood of millions of people has been threatened due to its extensive devastation. That was an immense national challenge of rebuilding flood-affected regions across Australia. The Government needed AUS $ 5.6 billion to rebuild the flood affected regions. The Government has decided that two-thirds of that funding of flood affected areas will be delivered through spending cuts across many flagship programs. The CCS program is one such program that faces a spending cut.

The Australian PM has announced spending cuts and deferrals of AUS$250 million to its Flagship CCS program and the Global CCS Institute to help pay for Queensland flood relief. AUS$160 million will be deferred until after 2015 while AUS$90 million will be cut from the budget.

It is somewhat paradoxical. The floods in Australia many propound is because of Climate change, a consequence of burning coal for power. The CCS flagship program is a visionary and hence the Australian government should spend more money in doing  research in fields like storing carbon dioxide in products viz Gasoline, cement, fertilizer, and in biomass co firing, mineral carbonation etc. The more innovations Australia makes, the more life they give for their coal and the mother earth.

 

Retrofitting


Carbon dioxide Footprint calculator for Manufacturing units

Posted by on Saturday, 12 February, 2011

Carbon foot print is the total amount of Carbon dioxide that is emitted, by a person, a family, an organisation etc.,

There are many carbon footprint calculators available in the internet.
some of the popular ones are :
http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx
http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/
http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator.html
http://www.safeclimate.net/calculator/

The general methodology of these calculators is simple. These sites ask you to esitmate on several factors like,

Food, travel,  utilities,  lifestyle etc.,  estimated   usage and the calculator does the job.

For example:

Food How often do you buy locally produced meat, vegetables and dairy products?
What about  organic meat, vegetables and dairy products?
Car Travel What kind of vehicle does one travel in?
Car, type of car, usage, fuel efficiency, bus, train, mileage, etc are esitmated and carbon foot print  calculated.
Air Travel Hours  personal air travel within one’s continent?
personal air travel to places outside the continent? Etc are asked and carbon footprint estimated.
Home utilities for heating / cooling etc What kind of house does one  live in? , How many people, How the  home is heated? cooled ? switiching off or on your lights/ fans/heaters/ ACs/ etc How warm/ cool  does one  keep the  home?

Others Electric gadgets, what all do you own, bought recently etc,
no of  pets, bills on pets etc., spend on jewellery, bath and grooming products, etc etc
are estimated  to arrive at your personal or households carbon foot print.

What about Manufacturing carbon foot prints ?

In UK  a site has launched a carbon foot print calculator for the manufacturers.

It is from a Government organisation.
It was launched in January  this year.

The url given by them is
http://www.mas-se.org.uk/resources_local/carbon-footprint-calculator-1.

But I dont find the site at the above url. Now.

Nevertheless, it is a good concept. Manufacturers should be able to assess their footprint and correct themselves  to minimize carbon foot print.

The concept is pretty interesting.

Imagine that for different manufacturing units like textiles, leather, watches etc., the parameters that the calculator will check will be different.  Obviously it will be Process specific.

If such a calculator is available, each unit will be able to measure their carbon foot print and take necessary action.  They can be asked to pay a carbon tax based on that.

Hope the site is rectified soon or someone else comes up with a carbon footprint calculator for the manufacturers.

http://www.worksmanagement.co.uk/article/30715/Carbon-footprint-calculator-for-manufacturers-launched-.aspx


Posted by on Wednesday, 30 June, 2010

The Calgery Herald reports that work is all set to begin on the first standards for carbon capture and storage, led by Canadian groups like CSA Standards and the International Performance Assessment Centre for Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide, who on June 2010, announced an agreement to develop the standard, which could serve as an international benchmark.

“This is one small but very important step for us to gain public and regulator confidence in the geological storage of CO2 as a sustainable energy and environmental option,” said Carmen Dybwad, head of IPAC-CO2 Research Inc.


Potential government policies for promoting CCS

Posted by on Wednesday, 30 June, 2010

By mid-2010, being discussed by the British government (a strong coalition of the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties),2 potential government policies for promoting CCS can be seen:

• Emissions trading scheme (ETS) permits: Much like Carbon trade, polluters without CCS technology will have to buy certificates from power plants with CCS technology
• Emission performance standard: Analogous to the Renewables obligation, the proposed EPS forces power stations to produce no more than a certain amount of carbon. The political parties of the UK say that the emissions performance standard will prevent new coal-fired power stations from being built unless they use sufficient carbon capture and storage. But they don’t tell us what the standard will be, so at the moment we don’t know what proportion of their CO2 power stations will have to capture.


Britain’s Climate Change Committe advises CCS for gas power plants

Posted by on Wednesday, 30 June, 2010

Influential advisers to the British government warned that Britain will miss its target of 80% emissions reduction target by the middle of the century unless CCS technology is adopted in gas-powered stations.

The climate change committee wrote a letter to Chris Huhne, the climate secretary, in which they said that the government’s pledge to fit new coal power stations with expensive carbon capture and storage equipment should be extended to new gas generators as well. Such a move could see the UK be the first in the world to build such a plant and capitalize on a new “dash for gas”.

Per unit energy, although coal is more polluting than gas, the recent fall in gas prices, new shale gas mining, and mass campaigns against new coal power have stimulated a second “dash for gas”. According to a specialist environment news service called The Ends Report, about 24 new gas-powered stations, totaling 29 GW – are under construction or in the planning process, compared with only 2 new planned coal generators, and a handful of other mooted projects. In 2008, gas supplied nearly 47% of UK electricity generation, compared to nearly 34% from coal.

The committee argued that gas with CCS is likely to be cheaper than coal with CCS, making it a more affordable way of producing clean electricity.

To provide long-term incentives to the industry to develop the technology, Adair Turner, the committee chairman, urged the British cabinet to extend a promised emissions performance standard (EPS) for coal power to the gas sector. Such standards, which regulate what power stations can emit and could be set in the energy bill later in 2010, would need to be zero greenhouse gas emissions from 2020, David Kennedy, the committee’s chief executive, said.

Since Norway has recently cancelled a planned trial of the gas CCS technology, Britain could also be the first country in the world to build one. To avoid missing carbon targets the committee said the government should change its promise to fund up to four trials of carbon capture and storage (CCS) equipment on coal stations, as well as demonstrating the technology in at least one gas power plant.

According to analysis by the climate change committee, the cost of fitting CCS to coal and gas plants would be considerably higher than current generation, but lower than future unabated power stations because of rising carbon trading costs to energy producers. For gas the cost per megawatt hour is currently just under £70, while in the future, with CCS, it would be a bit less than £105, while without CCS it would be £115, calculates the committee. For coal the unit cost is currently about £60, rising to £115 with CCS and £160 without CCS.


CFZ Cryogenic CO2 Separation Process from ExxonMobil to be Demonstrated

Posted by on Monday, 1 March, 2010

The company plans to build a commercial demonstration plant near LaBarge, Wyoming, at its Shute Creek Treating Facility, where it will use ExxonMobil’s Controlled Freeze Zone technology (CFZ). CFZ is a single-step cryogenic separation process that freezes out and then melts the CO2 and removes other components including hydrogen sulfide, as a high pressure liquid stream.

This is what the Exxon Mobil site has to say about the CFZ technology:

“Controlled Freeze Zone (CFZ) is a single-step cryogenic separation process for removing CO2 and other undesirable elements from raw natural gas. It will be deployed at a commercial demonstration plant in Wyoming that is scheduled to begin operations in late 2009.

CFZ is expected to be a lower-cost process to develop gas high in impurities, such as carbon dioxide, and reinject the impurities. That is important because our world needs additional supplies of clean-burning natural gas.” Source

If successful, the process could reduce the cost of carbon dioxide removal from produced natural gas and eliminate the use of solvents and sulfur plants. The new demonstration plant will advance the CFZ technology to commercial application. It will process about 14 million cubic feet of gas per day for injection and test a wide range of gas compositions to evaluate the extent of its applicability to the world’s undeveloped gas resources.

Construction commenced summer 2008 for operational startup in late 2009. Testing is expected to continue until end of 2010. The detailed engineering, procurement, and construction management will be provided by URS Washington Division.

CFZ was developed by ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company and has undergone significant improvements since the 1980s, when, in an industry first, it proved the concept of freezing carbon dioxide in natural gas separation with a CFZ pilot plant.

Source