‘Clean Energy and Water Technologies’ is now a social enterprise based in Melbourne, Australia. The purpose of this enterprise is to introduce a zero emission technology developed and patented by Ahilan Raman, the inventor of the technology. A 25 Mw demonstration plant will be installed to show case the above technology. This platform also used as a blog will publish articles relevant to Zero emission technologies for power and Zero liquid discharge technologies for water industries.
Google analytics tag
Showing posts with label GHG emission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GHG emission. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 30, 2024
WHY CRT?
Why CRT (Carbon Recycling Technology)?
1. CRT is the only technology that generates a baseload (24 x 7) power, without using any fossil fuel or battery storage, and without emissions.
2. It not only eliminates Carbon emission but also replenish the depleted Oxygen in the atmosphere, which is vital for human survival. Oxygen is a valuable by-product for medical and industrial applications which adds, economic value for the project.
3. CRT is the only technology that will accelerate emissions reduction, to limit the global temperature within 1.5C before 2030 as projected by IEA and UN.
4. How can Carbon emission be eliminated while continuing to use fossil fuel and subsidising fossil fuel?
5. If CO2 is allowed, carbon capture technologies will thrive but will not solve the core issue of climate change unless the captured Carbon is eliminated from the system.
6. How future energy demands be met without baseload power generation (24 x 7) technology? Power intensive industries, electrical vehicles, and Hydrogen cars (Fuel cell) all require only electricity. Our focus should be on baseload (24 x7) electricity generation without fossil fuel but with zero emissions. Even water vapour and Oxides of Nitrogen are GHGs and to be eliminated.
7. Only a renewable fuel such as RSMG (renewable synthetic methane gas) with zero emission can save baseload electricity generation and only CRT can solve the electricity generation problem without using a fossil fuel and with zero emissions.
8. Renewable energy sources are low efficient, requires vast land and huge investment with the lowest rate of return on investment. The power tariffs are slashed, export to the grid increased but power tariffs in energy exchanges are still high. A sudden massive inflow of renewable energy into an age old grid will overwhelm the grid. It is a disadvantage for both renewable power generators well as large and continuous power users. But they are valuable and inevitable in this transition of decarbonisation
9. Renewable energy by itself will not solve electrical demand of the future.
10. Similarly, Hydrogen (whether green or blue) alone cannot solve the electrical demand of the future.
11. CRT require large upfront investment, but the rate of returns are high and payback periods are less and markets are readily available and growing.
Sunday, October 31, 2021
ZERO EMISSION TECHNOLOGY BY CIRCULAR ECONOMY
World has been generating electricity using fossil fuels for decades while emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. It has always been a base load power which means generating electricity 24 x7 for 365 days in a year. The name plate capacity of the plant would indicate the power generation capacity. For example, a name plate capacity of 100 MW means, it is capable of generating 100 Mw electricity in an hour or 2400 Mwh in a day or 720,000 Mwh in a year working 300 days/yr. With global warming and changing climate there is a sudden awareness about the warming potential of CO2 emission and the necessity to eliminate such an emission. If we have to continue to generate electricity the way we had been doing in the past but without any CO2 emission then there is only one option; that is to recycle CO2 again in the form of a fuel (not necessarily a solid fuel) but a gaseous fuel in the form of RSMG (renewable synthetic methane gas). CEWT has been developing this circular technology known as CRT (Carbon recycling technology) for the past few years. That means it can open up a new method of electricity generation using a fossil fuel such as coal or gas using conventional equipment such as steam or gas turbine to generate a base load power, yet, with zero emission. This is precisely the technology the world needs right now. It is opening up a new possibility of using conventional fuel, existing infrastructure and yet capable of generating a base load power with zero emission. How wonderful is that? CRT uses Carbon that is already existing in air and sea which has accumulated over these years since the industrial revolution and a renewable Hydrogen (green hydrogen) to synthesise RSMG (renewable synthetic methane gas). This proposal uses CO2 extracted from the sea using special type of membrane using a desalination technique that allows to recover CO2 economically in a pure form. The process allows recovery of both CO2 as well as Hydrogen (green) from seawater simultaneously. It also generates pure Oxygen as a by-product for further Oxy combustion of natural gas.
Both CO2 and Hydrogen recovered above can be used to synthesise RSMG using a proprietary system using proprietary catalyst. The system generates not only RSMG but also excess heat from exothermic reaction which can be used to generate additional power using conventional steam turbine. RSMG can be used as fuel substituting natural gas using super critical CO2 gas turbine to generate electricity 24 x 7 as we had been doing for decades. The flue gas is separated into water and pure CO2 by condensation while CO2 is recycled to RSMG reactor thereby completing the cycle with net zero CO2 emission. The same process can be used to generate a base load power using even coal by simply gasifying coal with pure Oxygen generating Syngas and running a gas turbine with syngas instead of RSMG. However the resulting flue gas has got only water and CO2 which can be separated as before and CO2 is recycled into the system to synthesise RSMG and the cycle completes. It is a perfect example of a circular economy the world needs right now. The advantage of this technology is the fossil fuel can be completely eliminated by simply recycling the Carbon derived either from the sea or from the coal Indefinitely using renewable Hydrogen. Even water used in the system is completely recovered and recycled with zero emissions and zero liquid discharge. CEWT is willing to license the technology to all potential customers all over the world. All you need is a site on the seashore with good sunshine and wind and we will show case the technology generating a base load power with zero emission and with zero fossil fuel!
Countries still heavily depending upon coal as a primary source of fuel such as China,India, South Africa,Indonesia and others can use the above technology by retrofitting the above system and substituting coal with RSMG and eliminate coal completely! These countries can continue their base load electricity generation using Carbon negative fuel RSMG substituting coal in the same plant.This will allow those countries to generate their own fuel directly from seawater instead of depending on imported fuels. The above technology will allow seawater to absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.It is a win situation for all the stake holders and the environment! when the world is desperately looking for a lasting solution. It is absolutely clear from the above, fossil fuels and zero emissions are completely two different issues depending upon the source of Carbon and Hydrogen. If you know the 'art', one can generate a base load power with zero emissions even by using coal and even without burying CO2 deep underground as suggested by CCS or CCUS methods.
In my personal opinion, CRT is the only technology that can comprehensively address all the problems of global warming and climate change that is being debated in COP 26 meetings. Yet none of the companies have offered this solution because it will stop the usage of fossil fuel for good. After all, Greta Thunberg may be right in calling COP26 is just blah blah blah.
I thanks all my followers including Linkedin followers now excedding 19 million as shown above.
Friday, October 8, 2021
Science,climate change and Nature
I previously posted an article titled, “Why climate change is irreversible, and Science is helpless?” couple of times because “Science” itself has fundamentally lost its purpose and direction. Science is no longer about pursuit of knowledge but a pursuit of wealth and fame. That is why most scientifically advanced countries are all wealthy countries focussing only on wealth creation. But such a wealth comes at the expense of social justice, environmental degradation, unsustainability and finally the very survival in our everyday life. I have always struggled with the idea that “science is the panacea of all human sufferings” even though I spent most part of my life pursuing Science. University degrees including research programs are all meant to meet the above goals of wealth creation as an underlying goal. It is purely a false identity of knowledge for materialism. If we look at the early Science up to the point of Quantum mechanics and beyond most of the Scientists including Albert Einstein did not pursue science to seek wealth and fame but for the sake of unravelling the mysteries of nature with a hope such a solution will lead to understanding of the universe. But he could not come to terms with Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum theory, arguing that “God does not play dice and there must be some underlying deterministic ‘clockwork’ running the universe and giving the appearance of probability at work in quantum systems. I still see Science struggling with the most fundamental part of creation namely ‘the light’ even after the development of quantum physics. I became disillusioned with science, and I believe Science has lost of purpose and direction. It is constantly being substituted with materialism and greed.
That is why I have become increasingly vary of science and my inclination towards spiritualism grew enormously in a short span of time, especially after I had some personal experiences which were not only inexplicable but pushed me to the total acceptance of spirituality as the ultimate solution to human suffering. It is just a realization that comes after a long worldly experience. I must call it “spiritual science”. The concepts and proofs of spiritual science may not involve mathematical models, equations and soft wares etc but they are based on logics and indisputable facts. Intelligence may be substituted by emotional intelligence because emotional intelligence originates from our ‘innate feelings and emotions’ from the heart rather than ‘rational thinking ‘that originates from mind.
Entropy is a scientific concept born out of observation and experience. Entropy leads from an order to chaos as time passes by. It was born out of an observation of nature. It is a sign of irreversibility, inefficiency and deterioration of quality from order to disorder. In ‘Yogic’ terms it can be termed as ‘mental modifications’ described in Sanskrit as ‘Chita virity’ by Patanjali of Yoga sutra. In order to restore order from chaos, the process must be reversed. What science is doing is moving from an order to disorder due to our ‘chiita vritty’ and the solution is to stop the modifications what Patanjali describes as ‘chitta vritty nirodha’ which is the real meaning of YOGA. There is a much more deep and subtler truth behind YOGA.
YOGA is all about controlling mind to achieve peace and happiness. Modification of mind ls nothing but an entropy. Stillness of mind reverses the entropy. Mind is an entity even the most advanced science such as neurobiology and psychiatry are unable to define, and science is still groping in darkness when comes to mind. Without understanding MIND and its nature how can we use it as a tool to unravel the mysteries of nature? You cannot remove darkness with darkness but only with light. It is highly significant that light was the first creation of the universe. Light existing outside time and space is the metaphysical link between the timeless eternity that precedes our universe and the world of time, space and matter within which we live. MIND cannot exist without a body (matter). Without a body living beings cannot perceive the world. What mind perceives in the world are forms of matters. It is the mind (Sushma sarira) subtle body which perceives the world and matter. But the MIND is an unknown entity that modifies itself every second of our life leading to chaos (an entropy). Therefore, Science as we know cannot be a solution to our problem but exacerbate our problems further.
That is precisely what happened to our technology of electricity generation, global warming and climate change. The solutions put forward by science to “fix the problem” too have only materialistic basis so that individuals and companies can survive and even thrive for some time based on the capital raised and cash flow it generates. Ultimately, they are bound to fail, and climate will irreversibly change wiping out bulk of the population by way of natural disasters, disease, draught, flood and war. Only Nature will fix the problem in the end.
Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you
will be disclosed to you. For there is nothing hidden that won't be revealed."
What he meant was, all we perceive in the external world in the name of forms and names do not originate from body (material) but from a Divine Origin. Can there be a sight without an eye (sight)? Both the eye and the sight are universal divine or collective consciousness.
Saturday, September 4, 2021
What future holds for energy and climate?
Energy industry is at a crossroad. It must now find a new direction to address the climate issue while to continue to supply energy to the world. The options are very clear. It can find new ways and means to genuinely address some of the mistakes of the past by inventing new methods to address the problem irrespective of the cost involved because time is not in our favour. Alternatively, one can redirect the issue using new terminologies and jargons and temporarily buy some time till finding an alternative and lasting solution to the problem. The first option will take time and cost more, and the second option may not take time and cost less. It seems most of the companies are choosing the second alternative. But how?
Renewable energy is defined as “a source of energy that is available from the nature that can be constantly replenished”. This will guarantee the sustainability. But we are used to Carbon based fuels and technologies and therefore we also need a renewable Carbon that can substitute fossil fuels so that existing technologies for power and transportation can be used. Biomass is also derived from plants and animals like fossil fuels, but it is different in terms of time scale, and it can be replenished quickly unlike fossil fuels. It is basically made up of Carbon, Hydrogen and additionally oxygen, like fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas but free from sulphur. Therefore, one can use the same technology such as combustion, gasification and pyrolysis etc and convert a biomass into energy, chemicals and fuels while claiming them as “renewables”. It will require oxy-combustion and gasification methods and unfortunately usage of pure Oxygen will be inevitable.Therefore, both Carbon as well as Hydrogen derived from biomass becomes “Green” and “renewable”. In addition "Green Hydrogen" using renewable energy sources such as solar and wind by water electrolysis will help decarbonisation by capturing and converting CO2 emissions into a Syngas. It requires a steep fall in the cost of renewable electricity to less than $20/Mwh and Carbon emission to be taxed at least @ $250/Mt to discourage fossil industry. Once we establish green and renewable Carbon and Hydrogen then it is only a matter of generating a syngas, combination of Hydrogen and Carbon monoxide with various ratios to synthesis various chemicals including bio crude oil that leads to refineries to produce petrol, diesel and aviation fuels. We will be back into the game but with different brand called “Green and renewable”; it is "an old wine in a new bottle" Everybody is happy and politicians can now heave a sigh of relief and feel comfortable. One can also use “blue hydrogen’ as a mix to green hydrogen and synthesis various downstream chemicals such as Ammonia, urea etc.
Thus they can use them to decarbonise the fossil economy. In either way there is still an issue of CARBON EMISSION that needs to be addressed. They may claim biofuel as Carbon neutral, but it will not stop the increasing concentration of GHG into the atmosphere or climate change. Therefore Carbon tax will be inevitable. Bioenergy and renewable energy may increase the sustainability but will not address the issue of global warming and climate change. Nature does not discriminate between ‘bio-carbon’ and ‘fossil carbon’. Only “Carbon Recycling Technology” can address the problem of global warming and climate change. The simplest method will be to to collect CO2 emission from all petrol and diesel engines in a liquid form using a retrofittable device in the vehicle and convert them in a centralised facility to Syngas using renewable Hydrogen .The syngas can be converted into renewable crude using F-T reaction hat can be processed in a refinery for recycling into petrol, diesel and aviation fuel so that we can eliminate technologies such as large batteries and Fuel cells. By this way we can ensure the CO2 level in the atmosphere is stabilised and existing infrastructures are utilised. The availability of biomass for a radical change will be an issue especially in Asia where growing population requires more land for agriculture and deforestation is a common problem. Perhaps we need completely a new electricity generation technology that can "drive electrons to flow in a super conductor" and a magnetic storage using a cryogenic fluid. Unfortunately not many researchers are working in this direction.
Monday, August 9, 2021
Irreversibility leads to unsustainability
The classical example of “Entropy” which manifest itself as a waste heat and inefficiency is also an irreversible reality. Current electricity production technologies heavily depend on converting thermal energy into an electrical energy which also guarantees generation of huge amount of waste heat. It is not just the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) and waste heat that goes along with it but also bulk of the waste heat dissipated by way of convection and radiation into the environment since the time of industrial revolution has contributed to global warming. About 59.40% of thermal energy generated so far has entered the atmosphere. For example, US consumes about 105 EJ (Exa joules) each year out of which 62EJ enters the atmosphere as a waste heat. Successfully harnessing this waste heat will be a valuable contribution in solving global warming problem. The solution for global warming and climate change lies in harnessing the available Carbon from the atmosphere and the sea but also the waste heat from the atmosphere and the sea. About 90% of heat dissipated since industrial revolution has been absorbed by the sea. Total amount of fossil fuels consumed worldwide since industrial revolution is estimated at nearly 140,000 TWH (Tera watt hours). 1 TWH is equivalent to 3.44 x 1o^12 Btu. This dissipated heat has accelerated global warming and further exacerbated by GHG (greenhouse gas) effect caused by CO2 and water vapour and triggered the change in climate worldwide. The heat dissipated and absorbed by the sea has been distributed across the globe by ocean currents. Increasing seawater salinity caused by evaporation and concentrate discharge from seawater desalination plants word wide and cooling water from thermal power plants have retained bulk of the heat and distributed across the oceans thus elevating seawater temperature. Such warming ocean in addition to warming atmosphere have contributed to melting glaciers in the poles. Oceans are acting as a sink for both heat as well as carbon thereby acidifying the seawater. The pH value has been reduced from 8.2 before industrial revolution to 8.00 at current level which may look like a big difference, but it has absorbed billions of tons of CO2 to cause the above reduction in pH value. In natural systems such as atmosphere and the oceans a slight variation will have a huge impact due it is vastness in area. Normal human body temperature is about 36.9 C but an increase of 1.5 C (101.12F) will cause hospitalisation. Natural world is very sensitive even to minor changes and that is why human activity has to be restricted and not to cause imbalance to the natural systems. In other words ”Entropy” is an integral part of the natural world and any irreversibility caused by human beings will lead to unsustainability. For example burning fossil fuel is an irreversible chemical reaction which invariably lead to unsustainability. It is not only about the sustainability but also the economic viability that will determine the future of energy industry. It is a low efficiency technology that is currently predominant in electricity generation.The key is the maximum utilisation of thermal energy released by combustion of fossil fuel but also recycling released Carbon in a closed system using CRT (Carbon recycling technology) which can achieve zero emissions.
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Which car Hydrogen, Fuel cell or Electric that will win the race?
Friday, December 18, 2015
Decarbonizing Planet Earth with Carbon
Friday, March 21, 2014
It is time to switch over from Carbon to Hydrocarbon
Friday, January 3, 2014
Coal may be the Problem and the Solution too!
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Which is the best storage technology for Renewable energy?
The share of renewable energy is steadily increasing around the world. But storing such intermittent energy source and utilizing it when needed has been a challenge. In fact energy storage constitutes a significant portion of the cost in any renewable energy technology. Many storage technologies are currently available in the commercial market, but choosing a right type of technology has always been a difficult choice. In this article we will consider four types of storage technologies. The California Energy Commission conducted economic and environmental analyses of four energy storage options for a wind energy project: (1) lead acid batteries, (2) zinc bromine (flow) batteries, (3) a hydrogen electrolyzer and fuel cell storage system, and (4) a hydrogen storage option where the hydrogen was used for fueling hydrogen powered vehicle. Their conclusions were:
”Analysis with NREL’s (National Renewable Energy laboratory) HOMER model showed that, in most cases, energy storage systems were not well utilized until higher levels of wind penetration were modeled (i.e., 18% penetration in Southern California in 2020). In our scenarios, hydrogen storage became more cost-effective than battery storage at higher levels of wind power production, and using the hydrogen to refuel vehicles was more economically attractive than reconverting the hydrogen to electricity. The overall value proposition for energy storage used in conjunction with intermittent renewable power sources depends on multiple factors. Our initial qualitative assessment found the various energy storage systems to be environmentally benign, except for emissions from the manufacture of some battery materials.
However, energy storage entails varying economic costs and environmental impacts depending on the specific location and type of generation involved, the energy storage technology used, and the other potential benefits that energy storage systems can provide (e.g., helping to optimize
Transmission and distribution systems, local power quality support, potential provision of spinning reserves and grid frequency regulation, etc.)”.
Key Assumptions
Key assumptions guiding this analysis include the following:
• Wind power will expand in California under the statewide RPS program to a level of
approximately 10% of total energy provided in 2010 and 20% by 2020, with most of
this expansion in Southern California.
• Costs of flow battery systems are assumed to decline somewhat through 2020 and
costs of hydrogen technologies (electrolyzers, fuel cell systems, and storage systems)
are assumed to decline significantly through 2020.
• In the case where hydrogen is produced, stored, and then reconverted to electricity
using fuel cell systems, we assume that the hydrogen can be safely stored in
modified wind turbine towers at relatively low pressure at lower costs than more
conventional and higher-pressure storage.
• In the case where hydrogen is produced and sold into transportation markets, we
assume that there is demand for hydrogen for vehicles in 2010 and 2020, and that the
Hydrogen is produced at the refueling station using the electricity produced from
wind farms (in other words, we assume that transmission capacity is available for
this when needed)?
Key Project Findings
Key findings from the HOMER model projections and analysis include the following:
• Energy storage systems deployed in the context of greater wind power development
were not particularly well utilized (based on the availability of “excess” off-peak
electricity from wind power), especially in the 2010 time frame (which assumed 10%
wind penetration statewide), but were better utilized–up to 1,600 hours of operation per
year in some cases–with the greater (20%) wind penetration levels assumed for 2020.
• The levelized costs of electricity from these energy storage systems ranged from a low of
$0.41 per kWh—or near the marginal cost of generation during peak demand times—to
many dollars per kWh (in cases where the storage was not well utilized). This suggests
that in order for these systems to be economically attractive, it may be necessary to
optimize their output to coincide with peak demand periods, and to identify additional
value streams from their use (e.g., transmission and distribution system optimization,
provision of power quality and grid ancillary services, etc.)
• At low levels of wind penetration (1%–2%), the electrolyzer/fuel cell system was either
inoperable or uneconomical (i.e., either no electricity was supplied by the energy storage
system or the electricity provided carried a high cost per MWh).
• In the 2010 scenarios, the flow battery system delivered the lowest cost per energy
stored and delivered.
• At higher levels of wind penetration, the hydrogen storage systems became more
economical such that with the wind penetration levels in 2020 (18% from Southern
California), the hydrogen systems delivered the least costly energy storage.
• Projected decreases in capital costs and maintenance requirements along with a more
durable fuel cell allowed the electrolyzer/fuel cell to gain a significant cost advantage
over the battery systems in 2020.
• Sizing the electrolyzer/fuel cell system to match the flow battery system’s relatively
high instantaneous power output was found to increase the competitiveness of this
system in low energy storage scenarios (2010 and Northern California in 2020), but in
scenarios with higher levels of energy storage (Southern California in 2020), the
Electrolyzer/fuel cell system sized to match the flow battery output became less
competitive.
• In our scenarios, the hydrogen production case was more economical than the
Electrolyzer/fuel cell case with the same amount of electricity consumed (i.e., hydrogen
production delivered greater revenue from hydrogen sales than the electrolyzer/fuel
cell avoided the cost of electricity, once the process efficiencies are considered).
• Furthermore, the hydrogen production system with a higher-capacity power converter
and electrolyzer (sized to match the flow battery converter) was more cost-effective than
the lower-capacity system that was sized to match the output of the solid-state battery.
This is due to economies of scale found to produce lower-cost hydrogen in all cases.
• In general, the energy storage systems themselves are fairly benign from an
environmental perspective, with the exception of emissions from the manufacture of
certain components (such as nickel, lead, cadmium, and vanadium for batteries). This is
particularly true outside of the U.S., where battery plant emissions are less tightly
controlled and potential contamination from improper disposal of these and other
materials are more likely. The overall value proposition for energy storage systems used in conjunction with intermittent renewable energy systems depends on diverse factors.
• The interaction of generation and storage system characteristics and grid and energy
resource conditions at a particular location.
• The potential use of energy storage for multiple purposes in addition to improving the
dependability of intermittent renewable (e.g., peak/off-peak power price arbitrage,
helping to optimize the transmission and distribution infrastructure, load-leveling the
grid in general, helping to mitigate power quality issues, etc.)
• The degree of future progress in improving forecasting techniques and reducing
prediction errors for intermittent renewable energy systems
• Electricity market design and rules for compensating renewable energy systems for their
output
Conclusions
“This study was intended to compare the characteristics of several technologies for providing
Energy storage for utility grids—in a general sense and also specifically for battery and
Hydrogen storage systems—in the context of greater wind power development in California.
While more detailed site-specific studies will be required to draw firm conclusions, we believe
those energy storage systems have relatively limited application potential at present but may
become of greater interest over the next several years, particularly for California and other areas
that is experiencing significant growth in wind power and other intermittent renewable.
Based on this study and others in the technical literature, we see a larger potential need for
energy storage system services in the 2015–2020 time frames, when growth in renewable produced electricity is expected to reach levels of 20%–30% of electrical energy supplied.
Depending on the success in improved wind forecasting techniques and electricity market
designs, the role for energy storage in the modern electricity grids of the future may be
significant. We suggest further and more comprehensive assessments of multiple energy
storage technologies for comparison purposes, and additional site- and technology-specific
project assessments to gain a better sense of the actual value propositions for these technologies
in the California energy system.
This project has helped to meet program objectives and to benefit California in the
Following ways:
• Providing environmentally sound electricity. Energy storage systems have the
Potential to make environmentally attractive renewable energy systems more
competitive by improving their performance and mitigating some of the technical issues
associated with renewable energy/utility grid integration. This project has identified the
potential costs associated with the use of various energy storage technologies as a step
toward understanding the overall value proposition for energy storage as a means to
help enable further development of wind power (and potentially other intermittent
renewable resources as well).
• Providing reliable electricity. The integration of energy storage with renewable energy
esources can help to maintain grid stability and adequate reserve margins, thereby
contributing to the overall reliability of the electricity grid. This study identified the
potential costs of integrating various types of energy storage with wind power, against
which the value of greater reliability can be assessed along with other potential benefits.
• Providing affordable electricity. Upward pressure on natural gas prices, partly as a
function of increased demand, has significantly contributed to higher electricity prices in
California and other states. Diversification of electricity supplies with relatively low-cost
sources, such as wind power, can provide a hedge against further natural gas price
increases. Higher penetration of these other (non-natural-gas-based) electricity sources,
Potentially enabled by the use of energy storage, can reduce the risks of future electricity.”
(Source: California Energy Commission prepared by University of Berkeley).
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Energy independent America
The recent debate between the presidential nominees in US election has revealed their respective positions on their policies for an energy independent America. Each of them have articulated how they will increase the oil and gas production to make America energy independent, which will also incidentally create number of jobs in an ailing economy. Each one of them will be spending a billion dollar first, in driving their messages to the voting public. Once elected, they will explore oil and gas aggressively that will make America energy independent. They will also explore solar and wind energy potentials simultaneously to bridge any shortfall. Their policies seem to be unconcerned with global warming and its impact due to emission of GHG but, rather aggressive in making America an energy independent by generating an unabated emission of GHG in the future. Does it mean an ‘energy independent America’ will spell a doom to the world including US?
The best option for America to become energy independent will be to focus on energy efficiency of existing technologies and systems, combining renewable-fossil fuel energy mix, base load renewable power and storage technologies, substituting Gasoline with Hydrogen using renewable energy sources. The future investment should be based on sustainable renewable energy sources rather than fossil fuel. But current financial and unemployment situation in US will force the new president to increase the conventional and unconventional oil and gas production rather than renewable energy production, which will be initially expensive with long pay pack periods but will eventually meet the energy requirement in a sustainable way. The net result of their current policies will be an enhanced emission of GHG and acceleration of global warming. But the energy projections in the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO2012) projects a reduced GHG emission.
According to Annual Energy Outlook 2012 report:
“The projections in the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO2012) focus on the factors that shape the U.S. energy system over the long term. Under the assumption that current laws and regulations remain unchanged throughout the projections, the AEO2012 Reference case provides the basis for examination and discussion of energy production, consumption, technology, and market trends and the direction they may take in the future. It also serves as a starting point for analysis of potential changes in energy policies. But AEO2012 is not limited to the Reference case. It also includes 29 alternative cases, which explore important areas of uncertainty for markets, technologies, and policies in the U.S. energy economy. Many of the implications of the alternative cases are discussed in the “Issues in focus” section of this report.
Key results highlighted in AEO2012 include continued modest growth in demand for energy over the next 25 years and increased domestic crude oil and natural gas production, largely driven by rising production from tight oil and shale resources. As a result, U.S. reliance on imported oil is reduced; domestic production of natural gas exceeds consumption, allowing for net exports; a growing share of U.S. electric power generation is met with natural gas and renewable; and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions remain below their 2005 level from 2010 to 2035, even in the absence of new Federal policies designed to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The rate of growth in energy use slows over the projection period, reflecting moderate population growth, an extended economic recovery, and increasing energy efficiency in end-use applications.
Overall U.S. energy consumption grows at an average annual rate of 0.3 percent from 2010 through 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case. The U.S. does not return to the levels of energy demand growth experienced in the 20 years prior to the 2008- 2009 recession, because of more moderate projected economic growth and population growth, coupled with increasing levels of energy efficiency. For some end uses, current Federal and State energy requirements and incentives play a continuing role in requiring more efficient technologies. Projected energy demand for transportation grows at an annual rate of 0.1 percent from 2010 through 2035 in the Reference case, and electricity demand grows by 0.7 percent per year, primarily as a result of rising energy consumption in the buildings sector. Energy consumption per capita declines by an average of 0.6 percent per year from 2010 to 2035 (Figure 1). The energy intensity of the U.S. economy, measured as primary energy use in British thermal units (Btu) per dollar of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2005 dollars, declines by an average of 2.1 percent per year from 2010 to 2035. New Federal and State policies could lead to further reductions in energy consumption. The potential impact of technology change and the proposed vehicle fuel efficiency standards on energy consumption are discussed in “Issues in focus.”
Domestic crude oil production increases
Domestic crude oil production has increased over the past few years, reversing a decline that began in 1986. U.S. crude oil production increased from 5.0 million barrels per day in 2008 to 5.5 million barrels per day in 2010. Over the next 10 years, continued development of tight oil, in combination with the ongoing development of offshore resources in the Gulf of Mexico, pushes domestic crude oil production higher. Because the technology advances that have provided for recent increases in supply are still in the early stages of development, future U.S. crude oil production could vary significantly, depending on the outcomes of key uncertainties related to well placement and recovery rates. Those uncertainties are highlighted in this Annual Energy Outlook’s “Issues in focus” section, which includes an article examining impacts of uncertainty about current estimates of the crude oil and natural gas resources. The AEO2012 projections considering variations in these variables show total U.S. crude oil production in 2035 ranging from 5.5 million barrels per day to 7.8 million barrels per day, and projections for U.S. tight oil production from eight selected plays in 2035 ranging from 0.7 million barrels per day to 2.8 million barrels per day (Figure 2).
With modest economic growth, increased efficiency, growing domestic production, and continued adoption of nonpetroleum liquids, net imports of petroleum and other liquids make up a smaller share of total U.S. energy consumption
U.S. dependence on imported petroleum and other liquids declines in the AEO2012 Reference case, primarily as a result of rising energy prices; growth in domestic crude oil production to more than 1 million barrels per day above 2010 levels in 2020; an increase of 1.2 million barrels per day crude oil equivalent from 2010 to 2035 in the use of biofuels, much of which is produced domestically; and slower growth of energy consumption in the transportation sector as a result of existing corporate average fuel economy standards. Proposed fuel economy standards covering vehicle model years (MY) 2017 through 2025 that are not included in the Reference case would further reduce projected need for liquid imports.
Although U.S. consumption of petroleum and other liquid fuels continues to grow through 2035 in the Reference case, the reliance on imports of petroleum and other liquids as a share of total consumption decline. Total U.S. consumption of petroleum and other liquids, including both fossil fuels and biofuels, rises from 19.2 million barrels per day in 2010 to 19.9 million barrels per day in 2035 in the Reference case. The net import share of domestic consumption, which reached 60 percent in 2005 and 2006 before falling to 49 percent in 2010, continues falling in the Reference case to 36 percent in 2035 (Figure 3). Proposed light-duty vehicles (LDV) fuel economy standards covering vehicle MY 2017 through 2025, which are not included in the Reference case, could further reduce demand for petroleum and other liquids and the need for imports, and increased supplies from U.S. tight oil deposits could also significantly decrease the need for imports, as discussed in more detail in “Issues in focus.”
Natural gas production increases throughout the projection period, allowing the United States to transition from a net importer to a net exporter of natural gas
Much of the growth in natural gas production in the AEO2012 Reference case results from the application of recent technological advances and continued drilling in shale plays with high concentrations of natural gas liquids and crude oil, which have a higher value than dry natural gas in energy equivalent terms. Shale gas production increases in the Reference case from 5.0 trillion cubic feet per year in 2010 (23 percent of total U.S. dry gas production) to 13.6 trillion cubic feet per year in 2035 (49 percent of total U.S. dry gas production). As with tight oil, when looking forward to 2035, there are unresolved uncertainties surrounding the technological advances that have made shale gas production a reality. The potential impact of those uncertainties results in a range of outcomes for U.S. shale gas production from 9.7 to 20.5 trillion cubic feet per year when looking forward to 2035.
As a result of the projected growth in production, U.S. natural gas production exceeds consumption early in the next decade in the Reference case (Figure 4). The outlook reflects increased use of liquefied natural gas in markets outside North America, strong growth in domestic natural gas production, reduced pipeline imports and increased pipeline exports, and relatively low natural gas prices in the United States.
Power generation from renewable and natural gas continues to increase
In the Reference case, the natural gas share of electric power generation increases from 24 percent in 2010 to 28 percent in 2035, while the renewable share grows from 10 percent to 15 percent. In contrast, the share of generation from coal-fired power plants declines. The historical reliance on coal-fired power plants in the U.S. electric power sector has begun to wane in recent years.
Over the next 25 years, the share of electricity generation from coal falls to 38 percent, well below the 48-percent share seen as recently as 2008, due to slow growth in electricity demand, increased competition from natural gas and renewable generation, and the need to comply with new environmental regulations. Although the current trend toward increased use of natural gas and renewable appears fairly robust, there is uncertainty about the factors influencing the fuel mix for electricity generation. AEO2012 includes several cases examining the impacts on coal-fired plant generation and retirements resulting from different paths for electricity demand growth, coal and natural gas prices, and compliance with upcoming environmental rules.
While the Reference case projects 49 gigawatts of coal-fired generation retirements over the 2011 to 2035 period, nearly all of which occurs over the next 10 years, the range for cumulative retirements of coal-fired power plants over the projection period varies considerably across the alternative cases (Figure 5), from a low of 34 gigawatts (11 percent of the coal-fired generator fleet) to a high of 70 gigawatts (22 percent of the fleet). The high end of the range is based on much lower natural gas prices than those assumed in the Reference case; the lower end of the range is based on stronger economic growth, leading to stronger growth in electricity demand and higher natural gas prices. Other alternative cases, with varying assumptions about coal prices and the length of the period over which environmental compliance costs will be recovered, but no assumption of new policies to limit GHG emissions from existing plants, also yield cumulative retirements within a range of 34 to 70 gigawatts. Retirements of coal-fired capacity exceed the high end of the range (70 gigawatts) when a significant GHG policy is assumed (for further description of the cases and results, see “Issues in focus”).
Total energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide in the United States remain below their 2005 level through 2035
Energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions grow slowly in the AEO2012 Reference case, due to a combination of modest economic growth, growing use of renewable technologies and fuels, efficiency improvements, slow growth in electricity demand, and increased use of natural gas, which is less carbon-intensive than other fossil fuels. In the Reference case, which assumes no explicit Federal regulations to limit GHG emissions beyond vehicle GHG standards (although State programs and renewable portfolio standards are included), energy-related CO2 emissions grow by just over 2 percent from 2010 to 2035, to a total of 5,758 million metric tons in 2035 (Figure 6). CO2 emissions in 2020 in the Reference case are more than 9 percent below the 2005 level of 5,996 million metric tons, and they still are below the 2005 level at the end of the projection period. Emissions per capita fall by an average of 1.0 percent per year from 2005 to 2035.
Projections for CO2 emissions are sensitive to such economic and regulatory factors due to the pervasiveness of fossil fuel use in the economy. These linkages result in a range of potential GHG emissions scenarios. In the AEO2012 Low and High Economic Growth cases, projections for total primary energy consumption in 2035 are, respectively, 100.0 quadrillion Btu (6.4 percent below the Reference case) and 114.4 quadrillion Btu (7.0 percent above the Reference case), and projections for energy-related CO2 emissions in 2035 are 5,356 million metric tons (7.0 percent below the Reference case) and 6,117 million metric tons (6.2 percent above the Reference case)”. (Ref:U.S. Energy Information Administration).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)