Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta carbon and greenhouse gases. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta carbon and greenhouse gases. Mostrar todas las entradas

lunes, agosto 06, 2007

CO2: New technology would store carbon underground

Standing near an 800-meter-deep bore hole in the ground here, Frank Schilling picked up a fist-sized cylinder of sandstone and poured water onto its surface, watching the tiny stream skitter until it suddenly disappeared inside the rock's porous body.

The rapid absorption of the water , he said, showed how easily a much-less benign substance - carbon dioxide - could be stored once he and a team of researchers started pumping it into the half-mile-deep shaft.

"Everyone assumes we're going to store carbon dioxide inside of a cavern but the key is the tiny holes in this rock," said Schilling, a professor of mineral and rock physics. "We're going to press in the carbon dioxide and push out the salty water that's already there."

Schilling is spearheading a project near this small town about 20 kilometers, or 12 miles, west of Berlin that could change the way countries and industries store carbon dioxide, a fast-growing type of pollution, for generations to come.

Even as the drive to reduce greenhouse gases linked to global warming picks up, a number of countries are increasingly turning to coal as a major source of energy. The push for wide-scale development of coal that is quickly gaining in China is also growing steadily in some parts of Europe and the United States, forcing governments and businesses to consider how to dispense with carbon dioxide, a harmful side-product.

Several countries already bury carbon dioxide in sites off shore. At an undersea saline aquifer off Norway, Statoil buries carbon dioxide extracted from natural gas to avoid paying pollution taxes to the Norwegian government. Other projects involve oil fields, like those at Weyburn, Saskatchewan, where operators pump carbon dioxide back underground as part of efforts to extract hard-to-reach hydrocarbons in aging wells.

But existing oil and gas wells might only be able to accommodate a few decades worth of carbon dioxide. Offshore aquifers, even though they are vast, would require enormous lengths of pipeline to carry carbon dioxide out to sea.

"Putting CO2 offshore has the obvious advantage of public acceptability," said Jeff Chapman, chief executive of the Carbon Capture & Storage Association in London.

"But we know that there are centuries worth of space for storage onshore," he said, citing examples of promising sites in China, Germany, Poland and the United States.

Schilling's three-year experiment, called CO2Sink, makes Ketzin an important test of whether carbon dioxide might safely and durably be buried inland, where underground storage space could be almost endless. It involves pumping 100 tons of the gas each day into the sandstone beneath this flat Brandenburg countryside and monitoring the ecosystem for adverse results.

If the carbon dioxide stays put, as Schilling expects, that would give a major boost to carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, an emerging technology that would allow industries based on fossil fuels to meet stringent emissions requirements - and stay in business for decades.

"I won't say it's not dangerous, but it's less dangerous than people think," Schilling said. Ketzin, he added, could be "writing a piece of history."

Shell, Vattenfall, E.ON, Statoil and RWE are contributing money and expertise to the project, which is overseen by the National Research Center for Geosciences in Germany, Schilling said. But he said that the bulk of total financing, about €30 million, or $41.5 million, comes from the European Union and Germany, which is heavily dependent on burning coal for its electricity and where the government faces widespread opposition to nuclear power, the main alternative to coal.

Some environmentalists favor the technology because it might be the only way to control carbon dioxide emissions at a time when developing countries like China are burning ever-greater amounts of coal to fuel their booming economies.

"The growth of coal plants is absolutely scary," said Sanjeev Kumar, a carbon emissions expert with the environmental group WWF in Brussels. "If we can make fossil fuels as green as we can, then we should try to get carbon capture and storage to work on a global level."

EU policy makers still are considering whether to make it mandatory for all new coal plants to incorporate the new, cleaner technologies after 2020.

That is not fast enough for Kumar, who is lobbying for an immediate moratorium on new coal plants in Europe unless they are constructed so that carbon dioxide technology can be incorporated as soon as it becomes available.

But a number of environmentalists are concerned that further development of the technology for commercial use will simply encourage industries and governments to rely more heavily on coal. They argue that funding should be channeled into the development of renewable energies rather than on prolonging the use of fossil fuels and accumulating vast amounts of underground waste.

"You've got to consider the load on future generations to take care of these storage sites," said Gabriela von Goerne, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace in Germany. "We believe this technology does not solve our problems at all."

Environmentalists said they were also skeptical that the new technology made underground carbon dioxide storage secure. One potential hazard is that concentrated carbon dioxide is heavier than air. Large quantities of escaped gas have, in the past, settled in low-lying areas with tragic results.

In 1986, about 1,800 people were suffocated at Lake Nyos, Cameroon, when a massive cloud of carbon dioxide escaped from the formerly volcanic site. Environmentalists have warned of similar dangers if leakages occur and gas settles in dips and valleys, where people live.

Leaks from carefully selected storage sites, properly monitored, would not carry those same risks, backers of the technology say.

"If CO2 ever does get to the surface, it's not going to be in our lifetimes or much of our near-descendants' lifetimes," said Chapman of Carbon Capture & Storage Association.

At the CO2Sink project, Schilling said he expected only about 1 percent of the 60,000 tons of carbon that is to be buried at Ketzin over the next three years to escape over the next century, and about at most 5 percent over the next millennium - amounts he said would be benign.

Any leaks would be most likely to occur at the bore hole, but around-the-clock monitoring would ensure problems are quickly fixed, he said. The carbon dioxide used in the experiment will be provided by Linde, which provides gas for carbonated beverages.

But people who live in and around Ketzin are worried about having carbon dioxide stored directly underneath their feet. The latest effort to bury gas in the neighborhood reminds many residents of environmental sacrifices already made in the name of industrial progress. During the mid-1960s, leaks of carbon monoxide from a former underground gas storage site at Ketzin required the permanent evacuation of a nearby village, Knoblauch.

"They already have a garbage factory in Ketzin and now this as well," said Beatrice Görtz, 35, who lives with her toddler, Mia, in Neu Falkenrehde, a hamlet two kilometers from the injection site. "I can't imagine that it's positive."

Among experts, there are growing concerns that public opinion could turn against the technology in the same way it did against nuclear power and genetically modified foods.

David Reiner, a lecturer in technology policy at Judge Business School at Cambridge University who has coordinated public opinion polls on carbon storage in six countries, said that if the public remained in the dark about the way carbon storage was supposed to work, there was no way of knowing how they would react to wide-scale development.

"Many people have an initial negative impression," he said, "although once they learn more we tend to see a more positive inclination."

Standing near an 800-meter-deep bore hole in the ground here, Frank Schilling picked up a fist-sized cylinder of sandstone and poured water onto its surface, watching the tiny stream skitter until it suddenly disappeared inside the rock's porous body.  The rapid absorption of the water , he said, showed how easily a much-less benign substance - carbon dioxide - could be stored once he and a team of researchers started pumping it into the half-mile-deep shaft.


Via: International Herald Tribune
by
James Kanter
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


Found this post useful? Consider subscribing to
.


lunes, marzo 26, 2007

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

Label Cloud

The Energy Blog