PERU: ¿Gas natural o biodiesel? mito y realidad

by Luis Bravo
La Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima, MML, a través de Protransportes, está próxima a licitar las rutas para los nuevos autobuses que reemplazarán el caótico sistema actual de camionetas rurales (combis asesinas), microbuses (no menos peligrosos) y autobuses viejos en su gran mayoría (menos peligrosos en frecuencia, pero de potencial mayor severidad en el riesgo), en un proceso gradual que esperamos no exceda de unos 3 a 5 años.

Una condición que impondría la MML, es que estas nuevas unidades sean a “gas natural vehicular–GNV” -combustible fósil- de modo de asegurarle una aplicación al gas de Camisea. Habría mediado una especie de acuerdo entre el alcalde y el presidente García. Como este sería un acuerdo de tipo político, comenzaremos por un análisis técnico y económico y luego comentaremos las implicancias políticas de esta aparente “decisión tomada”, con el mejor ánimo de aportar criterios y no de perturbar acuerdos.

¿Es beneficioso para la ciudad, los usuarios del transporte y el medio ambiente que los nuevos autobuses de Lima sean a GNV?. A simple vista es sí; no puede ser otra la respuesta frente a la caótica situación del tránsito en la ciudad y a la calidad del aire que respiramos. Pero, ¿es esa la mejor solución técnicamente, socialmente, ambientalmente, económicamente y políticamente?; vayamos al comentario analítico y al final contestemos esta pregunta.

Comencemos por una mención glosada a la mejor exposición técnica en favor del GNV:

De la nota “Buses a gas natural: separando el mito de la realidad” publicada por el laboratorio nacional de energía renovable (NREL), patrocinado por la oficina de eficiencia energética y energía renovable de tecnologías de transporte de los EE.UU. (Octubre 2001).

Esta nota hace una elaboración que soporta la introducción de autobuses a gas natural para el transporte de pasajeros, haciendo una comparación con las características técnicas y la operación de autobuses a diesel de petróleo. En la nota se hacen las siguientes afirmaciones:

En ese momento los autobuses a GNV representaban cuanto menos el 20% de los autobuses nuevos en el mercado.

... los autobuses a GNV consistentemente emiten considerablemente menos partículas que los autobuses a diesel ... una muestra tomada en Boulder, Colorado, arrojó una reducción de 97% en partículas y del 58% en óxidos de nitrógeno ...
... el gas natural de por sí tiene menores emisiones de CO2 que el diesel. Considerando el ciclo total de combustible de ambos, diesel y GNV, incluyendo las emisiones durante la producción del combustible, los autobuses a GNV parecen tener el total de emisiones de gas invernadero muy semejante, sino ligeramente mejor, que las de los autobuses de diesel, a pesar de emitir niveles más altos de metano.
... los autobuses de GNV cuestan aproximadamente de 25 a 50 mil dólares más que un autobús convencional de diesel (ello depende del modelo y cualquier equipo especial que pueda ordenarse); pero el combustible GNV por lo general, cuesta menos que el combustible diesel. ...
... las emisiones de los motores diesel de autobuses nuevos han mejorado mucho en los últimos 10 años ... (ojo: sigue comparando lo relativo a emisiones, seguridad y mantenimiento, con ventaja para los autobuses a GNV versus el diesel de petróleo) ...
... los tanques para GNV son más costosos que los tanques a combustible diesel ... (aunque este sea un tema tecnológico que debe superarse si no esta superado ya)
... los motores a GNV tienen encendido por chispa y por tanto, requieren mantenimiento periódico del sistema de encendido (bujías, cables, etc ...). Los motores a diesel no usan bujías, así que no necesitan este tipo de mantenimiento ....
... los autobuses a GNV sí pesan más que los autobuses convencionales a diesel ...

Es claro –reiteramos- que esta comparación se hace versus los buses a diesel de petróleo, que si bien son los mismos que los futuros buses a biodiesel (lo que resulta una ventaja técnica porque es una tecnología ampliamente conocida y dominada), las condiciones medioambientales son dramáticamente distintas cuando operan con el biocombustible; veamos:

Recurrimos al estudio del experto argentino ingeniero Jorge Ugolini que determina la factibilidad técnica y económica del desarrollo del biodiesel y que hace una comparación entre las emisiones del biodiesel puro al 100% (B100), versus el gasoil, que es una mezcla del diesel de petróleo con 20% de biodiesel (B20); combinamos sus conclusiones con las del estudio de la experta española Brenda Bär (Barcelona), que observa las emisiones de CO, HC, NOx, partículas, SO2 y CO2, y que termina indicando que el biodiesel es un combustible que no contiene azufre y que tiene unos niveles de emisión significativamente inferiores a los del gasóleo; y finalmente integrando las conclusiones del estudio del ministerio de industria, turismo y comercio de España que compara el gasóleo y el gas natural (GNV); se deduce que el gasóleo produce 73kg de CO2 por Gj (medida de energía), el GNV 57kg y el biodiesel 14kg. Es decir, el biodiesel emite 76% menos CO2 que el GNV. Generalmente se sostiene que emite la mitad (50%), aunque el análisis arroja que emite menos de la mitad.

Sobre el precio de gas natural en Perú, recordemos que cuando en el 2000 el gobierno le adjudicó el lote 88 a Pluspetrol, inexplicable y extrañamente permitió indexar el precio del gas a una fórmula con base al precio internacional del barril de petróleo que estaba entonces, en US$ 24 (el presidente García en el discurso al inaugurar su segundo gobierno el 28 de julio último, dijo que revisaría este contrato de inmediato ... al día siguiente). ¿Qué tiene que ver que el petróleo suba en los países productores, con los costos de producción de Pluspetrol en Camisea?. Aunque se sostenga que todavía sigue siendo rentable usar gas natural, ahora tenemos el gas más caro de la región. Argentina, que importa gas de Bolivia, lo hace a US$ 0.07 centavos por metro cúbico, mientras que los industriales peruanos compran a más del doble. En la situación actual del contrato de Camisea, Pluspetrol variará anualmente el precio del gas natural en función del precio del barril de petróleo; a menos que esto lo renegocie el actual gobierno como lo ofreció el presidente García.

En resumen: el autobús a GNV, costará bastante más que el bus a biodiesel; a pesar de la nota glosada del NREL (año 2001), el autobús a GNV no está suficientemente difundido en el mundo y la producción, venta e ingreso al servicio público de autobuses a biodiesel es inmensamente superior en los últimos 5 años (en Europa prefieren largamente el bus a biodiesel); la capacidad técnica instalada en el Perú, es muy superior para el servicio de mantenimiento en la tecnología a biodiesel que a GNV, que es diminuta; el GNV tiene 130 octanos y por tanto se exige más el motor, el que -según algunos expertos- requerirá ser cambiado en proporción de por lo menos 2 veces por 1 en el mismo periodo con respecto al bus a biodiesel. El GNV emite más del doble de CO2 que el biodiesel. El gas natural lo hace disponible Camisea a un precio que por contrato, está sujeto anualmente a las variaciones del precio del barril de petróleo; el biodiesel es un desarrollo prioritario a nivel nacional y en corto plazo estará disponible en el mercado a precios más competitivos y estables (no sujetos al precio del barril de petróleo).

Voltairenet

TECH: Generating Profits by Cleaning up Coal

by Neal Dikeman (CleanTechBlog)

Fuel Tech (FTEK) is one of the fast growing public greentech / cleantech companies focused on cleaning up dirty coal.

I have known John Norris, the CEO of Fuel Tech, and his family for years, and have had the pleasure of following his career for some time. He's one of the many former nuclear engineers that grew up in the electric utility industry. He has held utility executive positions including CEO of Duke Engineering & Services, SVP and CEO of Duke Energy Global Asset Development, and Senior Vice President, Operations and Technical Services, at American Electric Power (AEP).

He took the reins at Fuel Tech early last (the stock promptly started climbing), and when I ran into him at a recent conference, filled me in on the goings on at this cleantech company that I not previously followed. I had a chance to chat with John about Fuel Tech in specific, and his thoughts on emissions technologies, carbon and greenhouse gases, and cleaning up electric utilities. I hope you enjoy.

You are relatively new to Fuel Tech, what compelled you to join the company?

I started with Fuel Tech as an Executive Consultant in April of 2005 to try to open doors with utility execs. When the Board approached me late that year about becoming the CEO, I thought about what I had seen over that last 8 months and really liked the prospects for growth. I have had the opportunity in the past to build high growth, highly profitable enterprises including one the most fun periods in my life in leading Duke Engineering & Services. This reminded me a lot of that experience, although I think Fuel Tech has even better prospects than DE&S had when I first got there.

What are the key drivers an investor should understand for the recent and continuing growth of the business?

There are several. On the Air Pollution Control (capital projects) side, investors should watch for market penetration of Ultra systems in the China/Pacific Rim market as well as a broader acceptance our all our NOx reduction technologies in the US market. They will be able to track this by watching for our announcements regarding contract wins. On the Fuel Chem (specialty chemical) side, the key driver is market acceptance by utility coal units. Again they can track this through our announcements.

And in short - what did cause the recent revenue growth?

I tend to credit the good looks of the CEO, but others do not necessarily support that conclusion. [Note to readers: John's picture is on their website, so you can judge his conclusions for yourself!] --- I think the real reason is that we have better defined our products and services and have recognized a much broader market for those services. We have a more focused R&D effort to bring solutions to client problems quickly. And it doesn’t hurt that customers are looking more earnestly for ways to reduce pollution and increase efficiency. All of these have come together for us in sort of a “perfect storm”. Still, we have to deliver results for our customers and for our investors.

Do you view Fuel Tech as part of the emerging cleantech investment theme?

Very much so, but also maybe with an important difference. Too often the greentech sector has, in my opinion, over-promised and under-delivered for clients and for investors. We aim to be a different breed in those regards.

If I understand correctly, Fuel Tech has long been a leader in post combustion pollutant reduction systems, and pre-combustion technologies are a newer business for you. Is this correct? What does the future hold? Where is the industry going?

Fuel Tech has long been a leader in post-combustion NOx control as you mention. Our Fuel Chem product line is really a combustion/post-combustion technology that helps reduce slag problems, dramatically reduce SO3 emissions (both in the boiler and across an SCR), and improve plant efficiency thus reducing CO2 emissions in the process. These latter two items have only recently (in the last few years) become important to customers. I think in the future clients will much more strongly focus on all these and other environmental and operational issues, both domestically and internationally.

Can you give us some color on the overall direction and key issues in the regulatory environment for these pollutants?

For all air pollutants the direction is towards dramatic reduction. You can sense that the whole world is looking to clean up the environment and they are not so much focused on CO2 but rather all the more serious pollutants (SOx, NOx and Hg especially).

You reported all time high international sales for 2006. How much of the business do you expect to be from overseas in the next 2 to 3 years? What has happened on that front? Has the growth been because it is a newer area of focus for the company, or because the overseas markets are growing? And how does China play into the company plan?

Our dramatic international revenue growth in 2006 really came from our projects in China. I expect China and the Pacific Rim to become a much larger part of our business going forward. China consumes more coal today than we do in the US and within a decade they will be using about 3 times the coal we use. The Chinese have now recognized the pollution issues of smog and acid-rain (from NOx and SOx emissions) and are working hard to do something about that. The upcoming Olympic games has heightened the sense of urgency to clean up the air and water. We have worked hard for a number of years to establish our credibility there and to demonstrate our technologies. In 2005 we won two major contracts to demonstrate our NOxOut SNCR and eventually our NOXOUT Cascade technologies and then earlier this year we won two major contracts to install our NOxOUT ULTRA urea to ammonia system on new plants who have the catalyst NOx control technology installed (SCR). Those wins position us well to really make this a major and growing part of our business going forward.

What about C02? In a Kyoto world, is Fuel Tech looking at C02 reduction, sequestration, or capture technologies? If so, what can you share about that?

Our Fuel Chem targeted injections can typically reduce CO2 emissions by 1 to 1.5% for coal utility plants, while dramatically reducing slag and SO3 operational issues and emissions. That may not sound like much but it very hard to make any significant CO2 reductions in plants and our reductions can be achieved while actually REDUCING plant costs. A 1.5% CO2 reduction for a 500 MW plant would be a reduction of about 8 tons/hr or about 65,000 tons per year of CO2 emissions. That is not insignificant and there is much interest in this in China and India especially where we can sell the emission reduction credits on the European Kyoto market (if done thru our Italian subsidiary).

A large portion of your business has been focused on cleaning up NOx or other pollutants at coal fired power plants. With low-carbon power likely to be a larger and larger portion of the global generation mix, what does this mean for the coal-fired pollution control sector?

While I strongly support the push for more renewable energy sources and a renewed push for nuclear power (I am a nuclear engineer as you know), the reality is that for our lifetimes and beyond fossil fuels will supply most of our energy needs. I think our company has a long and exciting future in making those energy sources cleaner and more efficient and thus making this planet a better place.

You announced not to long ago a series of company firsts, among others:

• Installation of a NOx Out Cascade System on a Coal fired boiler
• Commercial SNCR/RRI project
• SNCR lignite fired application

What does this actually mean for company?

We are looking with great haste and much effort for ways we can provide a much broader array of solutions for clients in pollution control, efficiency gains, and operations and maintenance cost reductions. We have a dedicated R&D team of our best and brightest folks focused on this effort and their work has paid off. One technology that you did not mention is our Targeted Corrosion Inhibition Program was introduced in 2006 and which is aimed at helping municipal solid waste plants dramatically reduce the corrosion rates in their boilers. Our patent in this area was but one of 7 patents applied for or granted here in the US and another 12 internationally. We are on the leading edge of technologies in these areas and we intend to stay on that leading edge.

Revenues are obviously up, and you’ve said you expect revenues to increase 20-27% in 2007, with growth from both technology segments. What about 2008, 2009 and beyond, what markets and which products do you expect to deliver the longer term growth?

We do intend to grow but have provided no guidance beyond 2007.

In 2006 compared to 2005, the gross margins were down in the NOx Reduction business, but up in the Fuel Treatment business. Net income for the 4th quarter was down year over year, even though 2006 vs 2005 was up significantly. Can you talk a little about this, as well as tell us what the long term margin objectives are for the company?

First, our revenue for 2006 was up 42% over 2005 and our pre-tax income in 2006 was up 64% vs 2005. (These results were above our guidance.) The net income (after tax) blip you mentioned is that in 2005 we recorded $4.3 million in non-cash tax benefits related to the anticipated utilization of new operating loss and tax credit carryforwards. So we believe our performance in 2006 was considerably better than 2005 and has positioned us to do even better in 2007.

You keep a healthy amount of cash and no debt on your balance sheet. What is your view on the company’s capital structure?

I love our capital structure---lots of cash, no debt, unsecured borrowing ability and a business model that is delivering rapid growth in revenues, profits and cash.

And I know you’ve had to discuss this a lot lately, but the stock price has doubled in the last year, and P/E and valuation metrics are looking rich. What is your view on how the capital markets should look at the stock and valuation?

Personally I think this is a great buying opportunity (and I just recently did so in my personal accounts). If you believe that we can and will execute our business plan and grow this company rapidly and profitably then today’s stock price is not over-valued at all. If you don’t believe that we can and will execute and achieve the results, then the stock price is already too high. It all depends on what you believe about the Fuel Tech team.

And if I was an investor interested in the company, what should I be looking for over the next 6 to 12 months?

You should be watching for contract announcements to see if we are winning in the market-place. The first quarter will be the hardest for us from a results point of view but the orders need to come over the next 6 months if we are going to deliver this year’s revenue and profit results. We are working hard to make that happen, but until the contracts are in hand it is just talk.

SeekingAlpha

TECH: Development of Clean Combustion Processes with CO2 Capture:

An Overview of the Oxy-Fuel Combustion
Program and Test Facility at CANMET
by K. E. Zanganeh
Zero-Emission Technologies Group Clean Electric Power Generation (CEPG)

Combustion Processes with CO2Capture


Oxy-Fuel Opportunities and Challenges


Opportunities

• Produces a highly concentrated stream of CO2, ready for capture and storage
• With pure O2combustion, the exit flue gas volume may be reduced to 1/5th of air-fired combustion
• Offers excellent opportunities for integrated emissions control through reduced flue gas flow
• Eliminates the need for downstream NOxControl

Challenges

• Cost of oxygen production
• Lack of commercial demonstration
• Need for advanced materials for oxygen-fired combustion

CO2Capture & Storage (CCS)

• CCS could provide a bridge to our energy future in a carbon-constrained energy economy
• The Western Canada Sedimentary Basinprovides a unique opportunity for storage of CO2

Towards Zero-Emission Technologies

• A climate change response option and a part of a sustainable development strategy

Ensuring Zero-Emission Technologies Become a Reality


Oxy-Fuel Combustion Program at CANMET
Program Components:

• CETC Oxy-Fuel/CO2Research Consortium
• Near Zero-Emission Oxy-Fuel Combustion
• CO2Compression Unit
• Multi-Pollutant Control Technologies
• Modeling of Advanced Near-Zero Emission Cycles (including supercritical and ultra-supercritical power plant with CO2capture)

CETC Oxy-Fuel/CO2Research Consortium


Goal:
To develop oxy-fuel combustion technologies for improved efficiency and capture of CO2
from flue gas streams:

• Oxy-Fuel Burner development

• Boiler performance simulation

• Multi-pollutant capture and integration

• Advanced process and cycle development

• Field demonstration of oxy-fuel combustion

• CO2capture and compression unit development

Status: Program started in 1994 and is currently in Phase 9
Funding: About $1M (Cnd.) per year
Partners:
Ontario Power Generation, SaskPower) Governments of Canada Government of Alberta though AERI Babcock and Wilcox US Dept. of Energy


Activities:focused on 1st generation oxy-fuel combustion systems and other enabling technologies

• Performed extensive experimental investigations using coal, coalslurry, bitumen and natural gas
• Studied the characteristics of oxy-fuel combustion with flue gas recirculation (FGR)
• Investigated oxy-fuel Brayton/Rankinecycles
• Performed solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) modeling to explore potential for integration of fuel cell operating on syngas (H2 & CO)
• Conducted multi-pollutant capture research in the condensing environment for integrated removal of fine particulates, SOx and Hg

Outcomes: A unique knowledge database and a set of tools to facilitate the implementation of oxy-fuel technology with CO 2 capture

• Simulation and test results show that 1st generation oxy-fuel technology can be retrofitted to the existing coal-fired power plants
• Retrofit requires some modifications to the boiler system, but this leads to improved performance and lower NOx emissions

New Directions: Activities now target advanced (2nd and 3rd generation) oxy-fuel combustion units for
Minimizing recycle flow Better integrated emission control technology Zero emission gas turbine cycles

Zero-Emission Oxy-Fuel Combustion
Status: Project started in 2003 and currently in the 4thyear
Funding: Secured government funding of $2.3M (Cnd) for 5 years (2003 to 2008), with additional industry leverage
Technology areas: zero-emission oxy-fuel combustion technologies

• Moving towards the 2ndand 3rdgeneration of oxy-fuel combustion systems for power generation with CO2 capture
• CO2capture and compression performance testing & optimization

3rdGeneration Oxy-Fuel Combustion Systems
Hydroxy Burner Prototype
• Firing rate: 0.3MWth (1MMBtu/hr)
• Fuels:

1. Natural gas
2. Oil
3. Emulsion
4. Pulverized coal and coal slurry

• Operational modes

1. O2/steam
2. O2/RFG
3. O2/CO2
4. Air
5. Enriched air
6. O2/steam/RFG
7. O2/steam/CO2

• Variable secondary & tertiary stream mass flow rates
• Variable secondary & tertiary steam oxygen concentration
• Independent secondary & tertiary stream swirl


Prototype Design
First Generation:ed-Angle Swirl Generator

Second Generation:Variable-Angle Swirl Generator

Hydroxy Burner Anatomy

Pilot-Scale Testing at CETC
Vertical Combustor Research Facility (VCRF)

Features & Capabilities (VCRF)

• Highly modular and flexible state-of-the-art air-and oxy-fired facility
• Has a nominal thermal output of about 0.3 MW
• NG, coal, coal slurry, oil and bitumen can be burned in a controlled environment
• Can be used to develop novel integrated multi-pollutant control technologies, including NOx,
SOx, Hg and CO2capture
• Equipped with advanced process monitoring and control systems

VCRF Pilot Plant Overview


Vertical Combustor

Continuous Emission Monitors (CEMs)


Advance Flame Imaging System (AFIS)

Source: