Can renewable technologies mitigate climate change?

Energy generation and usage is considered not only as a mark of progress of a nation but also security of a nation. That is why countries go to extraordinary lengths to achieve such a security and everything else becomes secondary in the path of their goal. That is why countries with high oil and gas reserves enjoy good relationship and privileges with powerful nations of the world. Countries who do not have their own oil and gas reserves and who completely rely on import of oil and gas have no choice but maintain a good relationship with oil rich countries despite their difference in ideologies and policies. But with warming globe and changing climate the dependence on fossil fuels is fast becoming unsustainable and countries look for alternatives. It is good news for the whole world especially for nations who depend completely on import of oil and gas because they can develop their own renewable energy sources to lower their emissions. But there is one major difference. Countries who depend on import of oil and gas required to develop only an infrastructure to store and distribute oil and gas, But with renewable energy they have to develop an infrastructure to produce the hardware necessary to use alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal but also energy storage such as batteries. The warming globe and changing climate have become a grave threat to the plant earth and a threat to lives of entire future generations. It is the greatest challenge of the industrialized world. One can view this as threat or as an opportunity. But it is time to act irrespective of our views and we must act now. It is an opportunity for scientists and engineers to view energy sources and their applications in a new perspective. It is an opportunity to understand how human activities affect our environment and how not to damage them but preserve them for our future generations while developing new alternatives. Humanity is just a part of a larger environment and any damage to planet earth is at our own peril. It is an ancient wisdom, but we neglected them. When an aboriginal of Australia said “we belong to earth and earth does not belong to us” we failed to listen to them. We(people) became bigger than They (environment). In pursuit of a new energy source one must be extremely careful in examining Nature and how she operates so that we do not make the same mistakes of the past. As we develop renewable energy as a potential energy source of the future, we should be aware of the life cycle of such a system and their impact on environment. Renewable energy requires hardware that uses exotic metals, catalysts, polymers, new Carbon sources and glasses. As we switch to Carbon free economy, we should make sure that there are no emissions in developing renewable energy sources and if necessary impose Carbon tax on such emissions and, to develop recycling technologies to recycle that hardware safely and environmentally friendly manner. It is critically important issue as we move forward. According to an article published in Chemical engineering News “The potential quantities of waste are enormous. By 2025, waste batteries removed from electric vehicles will total 95 Giga watt hours, according to an estimate by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That pile will weigh roughly 600,000 metric tons. A similar amount of old solar panels will have accumulated by then, according to projections by the International Renewable Energy Agency. IRENA anticipates solar panel waste could reach 78 million metric tons by 2050. And Europe could see 300,000 metric tons per year of decommissioned wind turbine blades in the next two decades, says the trade association Wind Europe. Each year, approximately 300,000 metric tons of lithium-ion battery waste is generated around the world, says Sheetanshu Upadhyay, an analyst with India’s Esticast Research & Consulting. Most of those batteries come from mobile devices, but that waste will soon be overshadowed by old electric car batteries. Sales of plug-in electric vehicles are expected to surpass 2.6 million in 2020, according to Navigation Research.” The above data shows the amount of CO2 emission associated with implementation of renewable energy sources soon. There is a potential for large scale recycling industries on renewables, but it will come with a price and environmental issues. Right now, the main problem is the CO2 emission and the only way to tackle this problem is impose Carbon tax on emissions while encouraging industries with low emission technologies. It should be possible for UN to pass a unanimous resolution among the nations to address climate change by imposing Carbon tax uniformly across the nations. By such resolution UN can bring all those countries to the table who are currently reluctant to be a party to the Paris accord. Countries can use “Carbon rating” similar to “energy ratings” currently used for measuring energy efficiencies in appliances such as Heaters and air-conditioners. The lowest emitting technologies will get the highest Carbon rating while high emission technologies will get the lowest Carbon ratings. By using such a method countries who are reluctant to act on climate change will be disadvantaged; they will not be able to compete in international market or export their goods to low emitting countries based on Carbon ratings.

Carbon is to return to Carbon

Carbon emission is a matter of great concern to all the countries around the world due to the global warming and climate change. After the Paris talks many countries are genuinely trying to reduce their emissions either by switching over to renewable energy or cutting down their emissions by reducing their Carbon footprint. In their desperate measure to reduce Carbon emissions some countries like Canada are trying to accelerate carbon emission reduction by promoting innovation technologies with millions of dollars of grant money. Recent fires in the state of Alberta, rich in oil sand deposits have opened the eyes of the world to witness how a disaster can unfold so quickly and thousands of people to be evacuated in a short notice. Many fled their homes leaving behind their valuables and memories. It was one of the worst fire disasters in recent memory. Canada especially the state of Alberta is now all the more determined to avert such incidents in the future but also equally determined to reduce their Carbon emissions. The fire is due to dry conditions due to global warming and accelerated by oil sands. It is a perfect recipe for a disaster. Many countries have switched over from coal to natural gas as a cleaner fuel to reduce their Carbon emission. Natural gas emits less CO2 compared to coal. But does it help combat global warming? One has to compare the two different fuels and their combustion by the following reactions: C + O2 ----> CO2 and CH4 + 2O2 -------> CO2 + 2H2O Combustion of coal requires less Oxygen (air) when compared to combustion of natural gas which requires twice the volume of Oxygen (air). Coal combustion emits oxides of Nitrogen and Sulphur apart from CO2 and a minor quantity of water vapour and particulate matters. Combustion of natural gas releases twice the volume of water vapour apart from oxides of Nitrogen and sulphur. Recent findings by NASA confirms that water vapour is the major greenhouse gas apart from CO2 that is responsible for warming globe and the climate change. Therefore, natural gas does not help combating global warming and climate change. The following excerpts from NASA highlights this fact: Water Vapour Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change Credit: NASA The distribution of atmospheric water vapour, a significant greenhouse gas, varies across the globe. During the summer and fall of 2005, this visualization shows that most vapour collects at tropical latitudes, particularly over south Asia, where monsoon thunderstorms swept the gas some 2 miles above the land. Water vapour is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change. Andrew Dressler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapour is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapour, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters. AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapour at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapour reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapour feedback. “This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dressler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide." Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapour will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11

square feet) "That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapour is trapping a lot of energy," Dressler said. "We now think the water vapour feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone." Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapour’s impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth's leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century. The amount water vapour released by burning natural gas is twice the volume of natural gas burnt. A plant using 10,000 m3/day natural gas can release 20,000m3/day water vapour that can be recovered. In fact, if the Gulf countries can recover water from exhaust of their gas fired power plants they may not require any water by desalination of seawater at all. Current consumption of natural gas world-wide exceeds 3.5 trillion cubic meters which roughly translates to 7 trillion cubic meters of water vapour into the atmosphere. Such a large volume has a potential to change our climate system.What goes up as water vapour has to condense into water and come down.It has a potential to flood many parts of the world and we are already witnessing flash flooding more frequently.The economic loss by such natural disasters may run into several hundreds of billion dollars in future.It is absoluetly critical that human induced emissions are curtailed with great urgency. It is interesting to examine how the state of Alberta is trying to reduce their carbon emissions by promoting innovative technologies. Majority of the proposals are supposed to convert CO2 emissions into “a useful product” so that the emission can be curtailed or reduced. A quick glance on the list of the proposals they have funded so far indicates they will convert CO2 into an industrial chemical such as Methanol or a Fertilizer such as Urea or alkaline chemicals such as bicarbonates and calcium carbonates etc. Can they really solve the problem of carbon emissions by turning them into useful products? The answer is most likely no. It will help capture CO2 at Alberta but it will be released somewhere else where the end products are used. It will simply shift the problems of Carbon emission from Alberta into some other region of the world. For example, Urea synthesised from captured CO2 will again be released into the atmosphere when Urea is used by farmers. An enzyme in the soil will release the CO2 from Urea into the atmosphere. The only real solution is to convert captured CO2 back into a fuel such as SNG (synthetic natural gas) so that it can be recycled into the power plant. By this way the CO2 emission will be converted into solid Carbon. One need not bury CO2 under the ground or emit it into the atmosphere but constantly recycle into SNG so that power plant can generate power continuously without emitting any greenhouse emissions. To do this we need Hydrogen. At present Hydrogen is produced commercially from natural gas but with carbon emission. Other methods of producing Hydrogen without carbon emissions are expensive. But Hydrogen can be generated from natural gas without Carbon emission and it can be used to convert captured CO2 from power plants into SNG. In other words, two greenhouse gases namely CO2 and methane (CH4) will be reacted to generate commercially valuable Carbon nanotube as a main product as shown below. This high temperature reaction can generate superheated steam that can generate power while a valuable solid Carbon is regenerated. Such a process is still in a developmental stage but has a potential to become a commercial reality in the near future. CH4 + CO2 ------------> 2C + 2 H2O In fact, the carbon emission is converted back into a solid Carbon. The Carbon is to return to Carbon to avoid GHG emission (CO2, N2O, NO2 and H2O) that is changing our climate.

It is time to switch over from Carbon to Hydrocarbon

When Carbon emission is high and the globe is warming due to such emissions then the simple and immediate solution to address this issue is to convert Carbon into Hydrocarbon, and the simplest Hydrocarbon is Methane (CH4).By simply introducing Hydrogen atom into Carbon atom the entire fuel property changes. For example the heating value of coal is only 5000-6500 kcal/kg at the maximum while the heating value of Methane (natural gas) increases to 9500 kcal/m3 by the above conversion. It means the same power generated by coal can be generated by using almost half the quantity of natural gas. Converting Carbon into substituted natural gas (SNG) is one way of addressing climate change in a short span of time. By switching over to SNG from coal will reduce the CO2 emission almost by 50%. Global warming due to GHG emission has become a serious environmental issue in recent times and more and more investments are made on renewable energy projects such as solar and wind etc. In spite of the major thrust on renewable energy projects the main source of power is still generated around the world using fossil fuel especially Coal due to its abundance and low cost. Moreover the investment already made on fossil fuel infrastructures are too big to be ignored and investment required to substitute coal-fired power plants by renewable energy are too large and gestation periods are too long to maintain the current electricity demand and to meet the future demands. The cost of renewable energy also is high and there is great resistance by consumers to switch over to renewable energy. Many Governments are reluctant to subsidize renewable energy due to their financial constraints. That is why countries like China which is growing at the rate of more than 8% pa are trying to decrease the ‘Carbon intensity’ rather than closing down the coal–fired power plants by setting up SNG (synthetic natural gas) plants by gasification of coal . This will reduce their Carbon emissions almost by 50% surpassing all other countries around the world in short span of time, thus meeting their emission targets agreed in “Kyoto protocol”. They can also meet the increasing electricity demand by using “syngas” generated by coal gasification plants, while reducing the Carbon pollution. They will also be able to produce Diesel and Gasoline from coal similar to the “SESOL” plant in South Africa which is already operating successfully for the past 50 years. “Leveraging Natural Gas to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions” – a summary report by Center for Energy and Climate Solutions (C2ES) have highlighted the following in their report. “Recent technological advances have unleashed a boom in U.S. natural gas production, with expanded supplies and substantially lower prices projected well into the future. Because combusting natural gas yields fewer greenhouse gas emissions than coal or petroleum, the expanded use of natural gas offers significant opportunities to help address global climate change. The substitution of gas for coal in the power sector, for example, has contributed to a recent decline in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Natural gas, however, is not carbon-free. Apart from the emissions released by its combustion, natural gas is composed primarily of methane (CH4), a potent greenhouse gas, and the direct release of methane during production, transmission, and distribution may offset some of the potential climate benefits of its expanded use across the economy. This report explores the opportunities and challenges in leveraging the natural gas boom to achieve further reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Examining the implications of expanded use in key sectors of the economy, it recommends policies and actions needed to maximize climate benefits of natural gas use in power generation, buildings, manufacturing, and transportation. More broadly, the report draws the following conclusions: •The expanded use of natural gas—as a replacement for coal and petroleum—can help our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near- to mid-term, even as the economy grows. In 2013, energy sector emissions are at the lowest levels since 1994, in part because of the substitution of natural gas for other fossil fuels, particularly coal. Total U.S. emissions are not expected to reach 2005 levels again until sometime after 2040. • Substitution of natural gas for other fossil fuels cannot be the sole basis for long-term U.S. efforts to address climate change because natural gas is a fossil fuel and its combustion emits greenhouse gases. To avoid dangerous climate change, greater reductions will be necessary than natural gas alone can provide. Ensuring that low-carbon investment dramatically expands must be a priority. Zero-emission sources of energy, such as wind, nuclear and solar, are critical, as are the use of carbon capture-and-storage technologies at fossil fuel plants and continued improvements in energy efficiency. • Along with substituting natural gas for other fossil fuels, direct releases of methane into the atmosphere must be minimized. It is important to better understand and more accurately measure the greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas production and use in order to achieve emissions reductions along the entire natural gas value chain.” Countries like India should emulate the Chinese model and become self-sufficient in meeting their growing energy demand without relying completely on imported Petroleum products. Import of petroleum products is the single largest foreign exchange drain for India, restricting their economic growth to less than 5%. Countries that rely completely on coal-fired power plants can set up coal hydro-gasification and gasification plants to reduce their Carbon emissions in the immediate future while setting up renewable energy projects as a long-term solution. Transiting Carbon economy into Hydrogen economy is a bumpy road and it will not be easy to achieve in a short span of time. The logical path for such transition will be to switch coal based power generation into gas based power generation for the following reasons. The largest Carbon emissions are from power generation and transportation. Transportation industry is already going through a transition from fossil fuel to Hydrogen. More future cars will be based either on Fuel cell or Electric and in both cases the fuel is the critical issue. Battery technology also will be an issue for Electric cars. It is more practical to generate Hydrogen from natural gas and to set up Hydrogen fuel stations than generating Hydrogen from solar powered water electrolysis. With improvement on Fuel cell technology it is more likely that PEM Fuel cell may be able to operate on Hydrogen derived from natural gas that is completely free from any Sulphur compounds. Even for Electric cars, natural gas will play an important role as a fuel for power generation and distribution in the near future as we transit from Carbon economy to full fledged Hydrogen economy. Countries like India with highest economic growth will have to be pragmatic by setting up more SNG plants with indigenous coal than depending on imported LNG. India has only two LNG terminals currently in operation but do not have gas transmission infrastructure. With increasing demand for natural gas from all over the world and lack of LNG receiving terminals, India will have to face a serious fuel and power shortage in the future. By installing more coal gasification and SNG plants with down-stream products like like Diesel and petrol, India can overcome the fuel and power shortage. In fact India set up the first coal gasification and Ammonia and Urea plant in Neyveli (Neyveli Lignite Corporation) way back in Fifties after her independence and it is time to visit the past. Renewable energy is certainly the long term solution for energy demand but we have to consider the amount of GHG emission associated with production PV solar panels, wind turbines and batteries. There is no easy fix to reduce GHG emission in short span of time but switching Carbon to hydrocarbon will certainly reduce the emissions scientists are advocating and water (steam) is the key to introduce such Hydrogen atom into the Carbon atom. That is why we always believe “Water and Energy are two sides of the same coin” and renewable Hydrogen will be the key to our future energy. President Obama's recent announcement of Carbon reduction plan by coal-fired power plants in USA is a bold step in the right direction.A more ambitious plan may be required to avoid catastrophic climate change that might cost billions of dollar in health related issues and on rebuilding damaged infrastructure. For more information on the above topic please refer to the following link: Source: Harvard University Link: Coal to Natural gas Fuel switching and Carbon dioxide (CO2) emission reduction. Date: Apr 2011. Author: Jackson Salovaara.

Coal may be the Problem and the Solution too!

Can renewable energy really stop GHG emissions and global warming? Renewable energy is slowly but steadily becoming a choice of energy of the people due to its potential to reduce GHG emissions and global warming. The changing weather pattern around the world in recent times are testimony for such a warming globe. Can renewable energy really reduce the GHG emissions and reduce the global warming predicted by scientists? Thousands of large coal- fired power plants are already under implementation or planning stages. According to World’s resources institute, their key findings are : 1. According to IEA estimates, global coal consumption reached 7,238 million tonnes in 2010. China accounted for 46 percent of consumption, followed by the United States (13 percent), and India (9 percent). 2. According to WRI’s estimates, 1,199 new coal-fired plants, with a total installed capacity of 1,401,278 megawatts (MW), are being proposed globally. These projects are spread across 59 countries. China and India together account for 76 percent of the proposed new coal power capacities. 3. New coal-fired plants have been proposed in 10 developing countries: Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Laos, Morocco, Namibia, Oman, Senegal, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan. Currently, there is limited or no capacity for domestic coal production in any of these countries. 4. Our analysis found that 483 power companies have proposed new coal-fired plants. With 66 proposed projects, Huaneng (Chinese) has proposed the most, followed by Guodian (Chinese), and NTPC (Indian). 5. The “Big Five” Chinese power companies (Datang, Huaneng, Guodian, Huadian, and China Power Investment) are the world’s biggest coal-fired power producers, and are among the top developers of proposed new coal-fired plants. 6. State-owned power companies play a dominant role in proposing new coal-fired plant projects in China, Turkey, Indonesia, Vietnam, South Africa, Czech Republic and many other countries. 7. Chinese, German, and Indian power companies are notably increasingly active in transnational coal-fired project development. 8. According to IEA estimates, the global coal trade rose by 13.4 percent in 2010, reaching 1,083 million tonnes. 9. The demands of the global coal trade have shifted from the Atlantic market (driven by Germany, the United Kingdom, France and the United States) to the Pacific market (driven by Japan, China, South Korea, India and Taiwan). In response to this trend, many new infrastructure development projects have been proposed. 10. Motivated by the growing Pacific market, Australia is proposing to increase new mine and new port capacity up to 900 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) — three times its current coal export capacity. The above statistics is a clear indication that GHG emissions by these new coal-fired power plants will increase substantially. A rough estimation indicates that these new plants will emit Carbon dioxide at the rate of 1.37 mil tons of CO2/hr or 9.90 billion tons of CO2 /yr in addition to the existing 36.31 Gigatons/yr (36.31 billion tons/yr) in 2009. (According to CO2now.org). If this is true, the total CO2 emissions will double in less than 4 years. If the capacity of new PV solar plants are also increased substantially then the CO2 emissions from PV solar plants will also contribute additionally to the above. There is no way the CO2 reduction to the 2002 level can be achieved and the world will be clearly heading for disastrous consequences due to climate change. The best option to reduce GHG emissions while meeting the increasing power demand around the world will be to recycle the Carbon emissions in the form of a Hydrocarbon with the help of Hydrogen. The cheapest source of Hydrogen is coal. The world has no better option than gasifying the coal instead of combusting the coal. Capturing Carbon and recycling it as a fuel : Solar power, wind power and other renewable energies generated 6.5% of the world’s power in 2012. This is part of a rising trend , but there is a very long way to go before renewable sources generate as much energy as coal and other fossil fuels. Solar panel of 1m2 size requires 2.4kg of high grade silica and Coke and it consumes 1050 Kwh of electricity, mostly generated by fossil fuel based power plants. But 1m2 solar panel can generate only 150kwh/yr and it will require at least 7 years to generate the power used to produce 1m2 solar panel in the first place. More solar panels mean more electricity consumption and more GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.A large quantity of CO2 will have to be emitted into the atmosphere for the production of several GW (Giga- watts) of solar power.With thousands of newly planned and implemented coal fired power plants in the near future the greenhouse gas emission is likely to go up. It could take at least thirty years before renewable energy is as strong in the marketplace as non-renewable sources. In consequence, there is a need to use fossil fuels more effectively and less detrimentally until the renewables can play a major role in global energy production. One approach tried for more than a decade has been carbon capture, which stops polluting materials getting into the atmosphere; however subsequent storage of the collected materials can make this process expensive. Now an Australian based company has gone one step further and designed a process that not only collects CO2 emissions, but also turns it into a fuel by using the same coal! Clean Energy and Water Technologies has developed an innovative solution to avoid carbon emissions from power plants. The novel approach uses coal to capture carbon dioxide emissions (CO2 ) from coal-fired power plants and convert them into synthetic natural gas (SNG). Synthetic natural gas would then replace coal as a fuel for further power generation and the cycle would continue. No coal is required for further power generation. Through this method, the captured Carbon could be recycled again and again in the form of a Hydrocarbon fuel (SNG) with no harmful gas emissions. Carbon is an asset and not a liability. If Carbon is simply burnt away just to generate heat and power then it is a bad science, because the same Carbon can be used to generate several products by simply recycling it instead of venting out into the atmosphere. Carbon is the backbone of all valuable products we use every day from plastics to life saving drugs! As well as seeking a patent for this breakthrough innovation, Clean Energy and Water Technologies is seeking investment for a demonstration plant. Once demonstrated, it would then be possible to retrofit current coal-fired power stations with the new technology, increasing their economic sustainability and reducing their impact on the environment. 1. The Economic Pressures : Power is an integral part of human civilization. With the steady increase in human population and industrialization the demands for energy and clean water has reached unprecedented levels. The gap between the demand and supply is steadily pushing the cost of power and water higher, whilst the supply of coal, oil and gas is dwindling. The prospect of climate change has compounded problems. Many countries around the world have started to use renewable energy such as solar, wind, hydro and geo-thermal power; but emerging economies such as India and China are unable to meet their demands without using fossil fuels. At present, it is far cheaper to use the existing infrastructures associated with non-renewable energy, such as coal-fired power stations. Renewable energy sources are intermittent in nature and require large storage and large initial investment, with sophisticated technologies pushing the cost of investment higher. Governments could use environmental tariffs on power use to help make renewable energy more competitive, but politicians know that the public tend to not like such an approach. 2. Demonstration Plant: The estimated investment required for a demonstration plant is likely to be $10 million; however the potential for a good return on investment is high, as shown by the following estimation for a 100MW plant. • A 100MW coal-fired power plant will emit 98 Mt/hr CO2 • Coal consumption will be about 54Mt/hr • To convert 98Mt/hr CO2 into SNG, the plant needs to generate 390,000m3/hr syngas by coal gasification. • The gasification plant will require 336 Mt/hr coal and 371 m3/hr water. • The net water requirement will be : 95.70m3/hr • The SNG generated by the above plant will be : 95,700m3/hr and steam as by-product : 115Mt/hr. • Potentially SNG can generate a gross power of 500 MWS by a Gas turbine with combined cycle operation. • The plant can generate 500MW (five times more than the coal-fired plant) from CO2 emissions. • Existing 100MW coal fired power plant can use SNG in place of coal and sell the surplus SNG to consumers. • Surplus SNG will be about 75,000 m3/hr.( 2400 mm Btu/hr) with sale value of $36,000/hr. @ $15/mmBtu. • Annual sales revenue from sale of surplus SNG will be : $ 300 mil/yr. • The entire cost of coal gasification and SNG plant can be recovered back in less than 5 years. 3. Carbon Capture and Storage : Carbon capture and storage is the process of capturing waste carbon dioxide (CO2 ) from large point sources, such as fossil fuel power plants, transporting it to a storage site, and depositing it where it will not enter the atmosphere, normally an underground geological formation. The aim is to prevent the release of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. It is a potential means of mitigating the contribution of fossil fuel emissions to global warming and ocean acidification. The long term storage of CO2 is a relatively new concept. The first commercial example was Wey burn in 2000. Carbon capture and storage applied to a modern conventional power plant could reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere by approximately 80–90%, but may increase the fuel needs of a coal-fired plant by 25–40%. These and other system costs are estimated to increase the cost of the energy produced by 21–91% for purpose built plants. Applying the technology to existing plants could be even more expensive. 4. Global Warming : Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation. Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980. Scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels by coal-fired power plants. 5. Greenhouse Gases Without the earth's atmosphere the temperature across almost the entire surface of the earth would be below freezing. The major greenhouse gases are water vapour, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2 ), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7%. According to work published in 2007, the concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750. These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. 6. The Future of Global Warming?: Climate model projections were summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They indicated that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 2.9 °C (2 to 5.2 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 2.4 to 6.4 °C (4.3 to 11.5 °F) for their highest. 7. The Impact of Global Warming? : Future climate change and associated impacts will vary from region to region around the globe. The effects of an increase in global temperature include a rise in sea levels and a change in the amount and pattern of precipitation, as well a probable expansion of subtropical deserts. Warming is expected to be strongest in the Arctic and would be associated with the continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. Other likely effects of the warming include a more frequent occurrence of extreme weather events including heat waves, droughts and heavy rainfall, ocean acidification and species extinctions due to shifting temperature regimes. There is a divided opinion among scientists on climate science. Major power consuming countries like the US, Europe, Japan and Australia are reluctant to sign the Kyoto Protocol and agree to a legally binding agreement. This has resulted in non-cooperation among the nations and the world is divided on this issue. Such disagreement has hampered development of non-renewable energy. Ahilan Raman is the inventor of the innovative process mentioned in the article. If you have any further questions or like to become a part of this innovative technology, please feel free to contact him directly by writing to this blog.

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).

Global warming- a Mayan prophesy?

Globe is warming at an unprecedented rate since industrial revolution due to the effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; according to a panel of scientists in IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).Thousands of scientists from 30 countries formed IPCC under United Nation to study the problem of global warming and reported to the world. IPCC published a detailed report and it gave an apocalyptic scenario about global warming. They warned that the carbon dioxide level in the atmospheres has increased from 316ppm in 1959 (13% higher than preindustrial level) to current level of 380ppm in 2005, which is 35% above preindustrial level. This dramatic increase in the level of CO2 is due to the human activities. The major contributing gases are Carbon dioxide, Methane, Oxides of Nitrogen, CFC (Chlorofluorocarbons) and Ozone present in the atmosphere. Bulk of the emissions is from power plants and automobiles using fossil fuels. Other process industries like cement plants are also major contributors of greenhouse gases. The enhanced effect of global warming is due to the absorption of invisible infrared radiation coming from the warm surface of the earth. On an average, sun’s light reaches the earth at the rate of 343W/m2 and about 30% of this value is reflected and about 70% is absorbed. The amount of invisible infrared radiation absorbed depends on the concentration of greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere. According to IPCC their findings on global warming are unequivocal, and if the world does not act now, then, we will be facing dire consequences in the near future. Doubling CO2 emission will increase the global temperature from 2-4.5C. But many skeptics say the IPCC report is apocryphal and they have their own theories to support their skepticism. Many climate models proposed by various international institutions projects an average temperature rise of 3.4C above year 2000 level if we do nothing and carry on the “business as usual”. The consequences of global warming are far reaching. An increase of 3C rise in temperature will result in sea level rise up to 4 to 6 mts in the next few thousand years. About 10% of the world population lives in less than 10 mts above sea level and majority of population lives within 10km of sea level. We have already witnessed few islands in pacific (example, Bougainvillea, Sulawesi) inundated with seawater. Maldives and Bangladesh are good examples. They predict shortage of fresh water in many parts of the world and severe draught and flooding in other parts of the world. We have already witnessed these incidents in Northern Queensland in Australia and in Europe, and prolonged draught in Texas, bushfires in Australia and in Russia. Majority of Indian subcontinent is suffering from lack of drinking water. Unscrupulous exploitation of ground water for agriculture purpose has made the situation worse. Many plants, animals and species will face greater risk of extinction. An increasing acidity in seawater due to excess absorption of carbon dioxide will affect aquatic organisms such as shell, coral and shellfish. We are already witnessing bleaching of corals at Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Global warming will displace millions of people due to draught and flooding and consequently leave millions of children malnourished. Water born diseases and infectious diseases will affect many people. Tropical diseases such as dengue and malaria will be widespread. These consequences are real, if the world does not act on greenhouse emissions. One need not be a rocket scientist to understand that human behavior and activity has caused irreversible damage to the plant earth for several decades. We unearthed fossil fuels and converted them into plastics and dumped them in every water ways, parks and beaches. The exponential growth in population and industries has driven many animals, tropical forests into extinction. Each and every one of us who are 50 years and above would have witnessed the unfolding consequences of environmental degradation in our life time. What kind of plant earth we will be leaving behind for our future generations? Every religion on earth has predicted the future of humanity and the final days and hours with deadly consequences for their actions. All native people whether they are Indians from Americas, Aborigines of Australia or Shamans of Indonesia or Natives of Alaska, have time and again raised their voice against indiscriminate destruction of land, water and air in the name of science and industrial growth. But no Government listened to their voice and we are here still struggling with unemployment and poverty. Mayan civilization is a well known civilization in ancient world and their seven prophesies are matters of great debate in the recent past. Their prophecy is ominously similar to what IPCC panel predicts except the “end of the world in Dec 2012”. I quote third, fourth and fifth prophesy out of seven Mayan prophecies here, which are relevant to global warming: “The third prophecy states that there will be change in temperature, producing climatic, geological and social changes in magnitude without patterns and at astonishing speed. One of them will be generated by man in his lack of conscience to care for and protect natural resources of the planet and other generated by sun, which will increase its activity due to increasing vibrations.” “The fourth prophecy says that anti-ecological conduct of man and greater activity by sun will cause melting of ice in the poles. It will allow the earth to clean itself and green itself again, producing changes in the physical composition of the continents of the planet. The Mayans left a register in the Desdre codices that for every 117 spins of Venus, the Sun suffers new alterations and huge spots or solar eruption appears”. “The fifth prophecy says that all systems based on fear, on which the civilization based on, will suffer simultaneously with the planet and man will make a transformation to give way to new harmonic reality. The system will fail and man will face himself and in this need to recognize society and continue down the path of evolution that will bring him to understand creation. Only one common spiritual world for all humanity that will end all limits established among many ways to look at God will emerge”. Perhaps, Jesus too expressed his displeasure with human behavior according to the Gospel of Thomas: Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war. For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone."

Water and Clean Energy- two sides of the same coin

Why I say “water and clean energy, are two sides of the same coin?” At the outset, it may sound odd, but in reality, these two are closely interconnected. Let us examine, step by step, how they are connected, to each other, and what are the implications, in terms of cost, and environmental issues. Take for example, power generation industries. The two basic materials, any power plant require, are, fuel and water. It does not matter, what kind of fuel is used, whether it is a coal based power plant or liquid fuel based plant like Naphtha, or gas based plants, like piped natural gas or LNG Of course, this statement is applicable only, for existing, conventional power generation technologies, and not for PV solar or wind energy, technologies. Let us consider, only power generation, involving conversion of thermal energy, into electrical energy. Today, more than 80% of power generation in the world, is based on thermal power, including nuclear plants. What is the usage of water in power plants? All thermal power plants use steam, as the prime motive force, to drive the turbines, (gas turbine is an exception, but, even in gas based plants, the secondary motive force, is steam, using waste heat recovery boilers, in combined cycle operations). The quality of water for conversion into steam is of high quality, purer, than our drinking water. The second usage of water is for cooling purpose. The water consumption by power plants, using once through cooling system is 1 lit/kwhr, and by closed circuit cooling tower, it is 1.7lit/kwhr .Only about 40% power plants in Europe, for example, use closed circuit cooling towers, and the rest use only ‘once through’ cooling systems. The total power generated in 2010, by two largest users, namely US and China, were 3792Twhrs and 3715 Twhrs respectively. The total world power production, in 2008 was 20,262 Twhrs, using following methods. Fossil fuel: Coal 41 %, Oil 5.50%, Gas 21%, Nuclear 13% and Hydro 16%. Renewable: PV solar 0.06%, PV thermal 0.004%, Wind 1.1%, Tide 0.003 %, Geothermal 0.3%, Biomass &others 1.30%. (1Twhrs is = 1,000,000,000 kwhrs) The above statistics, gives us an idea, on how much water, is being used, by power generating plants, in the world. Availability of fresh water, on planet earth, is only 2.5% (96. 5% oceans, 1.70% ground water, 1.7% glaciers and ice caps, and 0.001% in the air, as vapor and clouds).The world’s precious water source, is used for power generation, while millions of people, do not have water, to drink. The cost of bottled drinking water is US$ 0.20 /lit, in countries like, India. This situation is simply unsustainable. The prime cause, for this situation, is lack of technology, to produce clean power, without using water. The power technology, we use today, is based on the principle of electromagnetism, invented, by Michael Faraday, in the year 1839. That is why, renewable energy, is becoming critically important, at this juncture, when the world is, at the cross road. In order to overcome, the shortage of fresh water, many countries are now opting, for seawater desalination. Desalination, again, is an energy intensive process. For example 3-4 kwhrs of power is used, to desalinate 1 m3 of water. This power has to come, from fossil fuel fired, thermal power plants, which are often co-located, with desalination plants, so that, all the discharge, from both the plants, can be easily pumped into the sea. Since, the world is running out of fresh water, we have to look for alternative source of water. In countries like India, the ground water is being exploited, for agricultural purpose, and the ground water is getting depleted. Depleting water resources is a threat to agriculture production. It is a vicious circle. That is why, distributed energy systems, using Hydrogen as an alternative fuel, is an important step, towards sustainability. One can generate Hydrogen from water, using renewable energy source, like solar or wind, and store them, for future usage. The stored Hydrogen can be used to generate power, as and when required, at any remote location (even where there is no grid power).The water is regenerated, during this process of power generation using Fuelcell, which can be recycled. There is no large consumption of water, and there is no greenhouse emission. It is a clean and sustainable solution. The same stored Hydrogen can also be used as a fuel for your car! Therefore; one can say “water and clean energy, are two sides of the same coin”. (The above statistics are based on Wikipedia data).

Can Electric cars eliminate greenhouse gas emission?

There is a myth, that electric cars will eliminate greenhouse emissions, and reduce the global warming. Electric cars will not reduce the greenhouse emission, because, you still need electricity, to charge your batteries. Companies promoting electric cars, are now planning to set up their own battery charging stations, because, you have to charge the batteries of these electric cars, every now and then. Otherwise, they will not be able to market their electric cars. Moreover, there is currently no battery in the market that can last more than 28 hours between the charges, though many companies are trying to develop superior batteries. One company claims a battery capacity of 300whr/kg, for their Lithium polymer battery, much superior than other batteries, which can run 600kms, with 6 minutes charging. Though, new batteries such as semi solid Lithium ion batteries, based on the principle of ‘flow batteries’, are promising, it is still, a long way to commercialization. President Obama, has set a set a target of 1 million electric cars in US roads, by 2012.It is estimated that US has to produce about 40 billion dollars worth of domestically produced batteries. A lithium ion battery, which weighs less, and stores more energy, is the promising technology. But, the Lithium resources are limited. Battery is the heart of an electric car. It is true, that electric cars do not emit smoke, or make noise like petrol cars. But, these two factors alone, are not sufficient, to substitute traditional, fossil fuel powered international combustion engines. It is equally true, that electric cars can reduce green house emission, to an extent, where fossil fuel consumed cars, are replaced with electric cars. To that extend, the fossil fuel consumption by these cars are reduced. But, the power to charge the batteries, will still, have to come from the common grid. Unless, the power generation technology, using fossil fuels is changed, there will be no dramatic greenhouse gas emission reduction, by introducing electric cars. Alternatively, if cars are built on Hydrogen based fuel, either using a conventional internal combustion engine, or by using Fuel cell, then, a substantial amount of greenhouse emission, can be eliminated. However, the Hydrogen generation, should be based on renewable energy source only. Whichever way, you look at it, renewable energy is the key. Those Governments and companies, who do not invest in renewable energy technologies and systems, now, will have to pay a heavy price, in the future. But, even those companies, investing on renewable energy technologies, should look beyond current technologies and systems. The best starting point, for these industries will be, to substitute ‘storage batteries’ with ‘stored Hydrogen’. It is much simpler, to install PV solar panels or wind turbines, and to generate, Hydrogen, onsite, from water. You can store Hydrogen in fuelling stations, and fuel the cars. Honda was the first entrant into this market, who was focusing fuel cell technology, using compressed hydrogen gas. Alternatively, such Hydrogen can be generated from ‘Biogas’ generated from biological wastes and waste treatment plants. All necessary technologies are currently available to make it happen. Governments can try to promote small townships with Hydrogen fuel stations, and show case such models, to the rest of the country or other nations to follow. This will help nations, to reduce their greenhouse emission, and at the same time, they can become self sufficient in their energy requirements. They no longer, have to depend on polluting oil and gas, from few Middle Eastern countries. Countries, like India with impressive economic growth, heavily depend on oil imports, and any slight fluctuation in oil prices, can easily upset such growth. It is time Governments around the world; take a serious look at Hydrogen, as their alternative energy source. It is just not good enough, to promote renewable energy technologies, but they have to develop generation, storage and distribution technologies also, for Hydrogen. What is needed at this hour, is ‘will, determination and leadership’ on the part of the Governments like US, China and India, that can set an example, for the rest of the world, by investing in Hydrogen economy.