Latest Buzz...
                  

Translate

Showing posts with label #USPol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #USPol. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Fossil fuels, asbestos, lead and white phosphorus

The beginning of the fossil fuel era

1882 [Thomas Edison]
Edison's work led to the first commercial power plant in 1882.

1903 [Charles Curtis]
The first steam turbine generator, pioneered by Curtis, was put into operation at the Newport Electric Corporation in Newport, Rhode Island.
.
.
.
.
.

Asbestos related diseases

Although the health risks associated with asbestos had been long observed and were confirmed scientifically early in the Twentieth Century, it was not until the 1970s that the Australian community was made aware of the problem.

Asbestos was phased out in Australia after 1980. It was finally banned from building products in 1989, though it remained in gaskets and brake linings until recently. Asbestos was prohibited completely after 31 December 2003, and can not be imported, used or recycled.

Asbestos is a fibrous mineral that was widely used in Australia in the 20th Century for many industrial and domestic applications.

Inhalation of asbestos fibres has been shown to lead to a number of serious health risks, including asbestosis and the cancer mesothelioma.

As these can take a number of decades to develop, it is likely that the effects on the Australian community of exposure to asbestos will continue to increase into the 21st Century.


Lead alert facts: Lead in house paint

Before 1970, paints containing high levels of lead were used in many Australian houses. Exposure to lead is a health hazard. Even small amounts of dust or chips of paint containing lead, generated during minor home repairs, can be a health risk.

Lead in domestic paint has declined from 50% before 1965, to 1% in 1965. In 1992, it was reduced to 0.25%, and in 1997 it was further reduced to 0.1%.

On Catalyst: could lead exposure in childhood lead to an adult life marked by violent crime?

Any house painted before 1970 is likely to contain leaded paint
Any house painted before 1970 is likely to contain leaded paint
"We've undertaken similar studies in Australia which show a very strong relationship between lead in air and crime 22 years later."

The beginning of the white phosphorus match era until the final ban

1830 [Charles Sauria]
The U.S. Congress passed a law placing a prohibitively high tax on them in 1913.
Sauria formulated a match using white phosphorus. However, the phosphorus was deadly. Many people developed a disorder known as 'phossy jaw'. Children who sucked on matches developed skeletal deformities. Phosphorus factory workers got bones diseases. One pack of matches contained enough phosphorus to kill a person.  Deaths and suicides from eating the heads of matches became frequent.

Ripper Street- A case of Phossy  Jaw, in it’s worst stages.
True horror story - A case of Phossy  Jaw, in it’s worst stages.
1838 [The first case of "phossy jaw" was recorded]
The victim, a female Viennese matchstick maker, had been exposed to the phosphorous vapors over a five-year period. The average time between exposure to the phosphorous vapors and the appearance of "phossy jaw" was about five years, but only about 5% of those exposed were inflicted with this disfiguring and often lethal affliction

The infamous "phossy jaw" became an epidemic of exposed bone osteonecrosis exclusively in the jaws began around 1838. This epidemic of osteonecrosis produced pain, swelling, debilitation, and a reported mortality of 20% and was linked to "yellow phosphorous," the key ingredient in "strike-anywhere" matches. In match-making factories, workers called "mixers," "dippers," and "boxers" were exposed to heated fumes containing this compound. Related to the duration of exposure, many of these workers developed painful exposed bone in the mouth, whereas their office-based counterparts did not.

1888 [the “London matchgirls” strike]
Phossy jaw, also known as phosphorus necrosis of the jaw, was most commonly seen among match workers in the 19th and early 20th centuries – famously, the “London matchgirls,” whose strike of 1888 brought the problem into the public eye – fifty years after the first recorded case.
 
In those days, matches were made with white phosphorus, and prolonged exposure to the vapor of the substance caused deposits to form in the victims’ jawbones. Throbbing toothaches, extreme swelling of the gums and abscesses in the jawbone followed. The afflicted bones would also take on a green-white tinge, while severe brain damage also lay in wait for those already suffering.

The only known treatment was to surgically remove the jawbones; if it were left unchecked, organ failure and death would result. The disease also caused tremendous pain and disfigurement, and the rotting bone tissue emitted a putrid-smelling discharge. Phossy jaw did not begin to decline until 1906 – sixty eight years after the first recorded case.

1872 [Bans commence on white phosphorus matches]
Finland prohibited the use of white phosphorus in 1872, followed by Denmark in 1874, France in 1897, Switzerland in 1898, and the Netherlands in 1901.

1898 [Henri Savene and Emile David Cahen]
Two French chemists, Henri Savene and Emile David Cahen, developed a safe match using phosphorus sesquisulfide that was patented in 1898. They proved that the substance was not poisonous, that it could be used in a "strike-anywhere" match, and that the match heads were not explosive. They patented a safety match composition in 1898 based on phosphorus sesquisulfide and potassium chlorate.

1906 [International Agreement to ban white phosphorus in matches]
An agreement, the Berne Convention, was reached at Bern, Switzerland, in September 1906, which banned the use of white phosphorus in matches. This required each country to pass laws prohibiting the use of white phosphorus in matches. Great Britain passed a law in 1908 prohibiting its use in matches after 31 December 1910.

The United States did not pass a law to ban the manufacture and sale of white phosphorus matches, but instead Congress passed a law placing a prohibitively high tax on them in 1913.  This punitive tax on white phosphorus-based matches was sufficiently so high as to render their manufacture financially impractical.

India and Japan banned them in 1919; China followed, banning them in 1925 - five years before the centennial of the invention of white phosphorus matches.


Thursday, August 28, 2014

The Tea Party - Anarchists try out a new label

What anarchists see, and what anarchists don't see, when it comes to government services, regulations and taxes.

Anarchists try out a new label - "The Tea Party"


Thursday, March 27, 2014

The coal industry's "War on Coal" campaign is all spin

Owners of 'advanced energy' coal power plants will be stuck with inefficient white elephants.
The coal industry has stepped up an advertising campaign against what it has branded a "War on Coal".

The goal is to encourage the construction of coal-fired power plants. Each new coal-fired power plant will lock-in buyers for thermal coal for the next 30 to 40 years.

What is good for coal mining companies is not so good for the energy industry and its customers:  the businesses and families who pay energy bills. 

This coal industry advertising campaign talks-up new coal-fired power plants by calling them "advanced energy".

In reality these "advanced energy" coal-fired power plants suffer from very limited efficiency. Less than half of the energy in coal is converted to usable electricity.



Why it is time for a war on coal

Coal mining companies wrote of more efficient energy generation on its promotional web site "Coal Can Do That" in February 2009:
Coal-to-Gas is an Off-the-Shelf Energy Solution, by Frank Clemente.

By 17 March 2014 the coal lobby removed the web pages for its promotional web site "Coal Can Do That" but a copy of this article by Frank Clemente was cached by Google as it existed on 23 February 2014.

By 2 April 2014 the coal lobby removed the cached copy of the web pages for "Coal Can Do That".

You may still read a copy of the "Coal Can Do That" article "Coal-to-Gas is Off-the-Shelf Energy Solution" from February 2009 by Dr. Frank Clemente.

This "War on Coal" campaign now talks-down this far better power generating technology that is more efficient. At least 60 percent of the energy in fuel is converted to usable electricity. When used for "Combined Heat and Power" systems over 90 percent of the energy in fuel is delivered to customers.

Hydrogen separation using membranes - Michael Dolan - CSIRO

This truly advanced energy technology gives owners the flexibility to buy whatever fuel is cheapest from time to time. It uses flexible, proven modules. Unlike coal-fired power stations these modules may be upgraded to increase productivity at any time:
  • A fuel processing module that converts any carbon-containing raw material (coal, natural gas, crop waste, etc) into hydrogen and carbon dioxide.
  • A power generating module (gas turbine, Combined Heat and Power internal combustion engine, fuel cell...)
The far superior power generating technology provides additional advantages:
  • The fuel processing plant can grow its market by selling hydrogen and carbon dioxide to fertiliser manufacturers and other chemical industries. 
  • The fuel processing plant can be upgraded to boost its efficiency independently of the power generators or chemical industries that buy its products. For instance:
    • the CSIRO is actively developing hydrogen separation membranes for continually cutting the cost of producing hydrogen and carbon dioxide.
    • the CSIRO has commercialised SolarGas - employing concentrated solar thermal energy to decompose carbon-containing fuel sources into hydrogen and carbon monoxide.
Owners of "advanced energy" (sic) coal power plants will be stuck with inefficient white elephants for 30 to 40 years watching their competitiveness decline steadily against the superior, flexible energy producers.



Update, 6 February 2017

Integrated coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) is the next-generation in thermal power




COAL DETHRONED

Coal is no longer the cheapest form of energy in America.

Innovation by natural gas turbine manufacturers continues to increase efficiency of natural gas power plants. Coal-fired power plants are no longer competitive.

Southern Company’s President and CEO Tom Fanning:
"We’re shutting a 550-megawatt coal plant and replacing it with a 2,500-megawatt natural gas plant."
Read more at Georgia Trend in Energizing The South




Further reading -

The "Coal Can Do That" article "Coal-to-Gas is Off-the-Shelf Energy Solution" from February 2009 by Dr. Frank Clemente.

Coal - not dead yet, but outlook bleak

The coal lobby scores an own goal

Some reasons for making a decision to NOT build a new coal-fired power plant

Zero emission coal is here now - about Latrobe Fertilisers' project

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Reducing Carbon Pollution From Power Plants

On Sept. 20, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its first steps under President Obama’s Climate Action Plan to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. Power plants are the largest stationary source of carbon pollution in the United States: about one third of all greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S. comes from the generation of electricity by power plants.
New South Wales bush fires occur more frequently
New South Wales bush fires occur more frequently

In the Clean Air Act, Congress recognized that the opportunity to build emissions controls into a source’s design is greater for new sources than for existing sources, so it laid out different approaches to set the two types of standards. Today EPA is proposing carbon pollution standards for power plants built in the future and is kicking off the process of engagement with states, stakeholders, and the public to establish carbon pollution standards for currently operating power plants.

The proposed standards for new power plants are the first uniform national limits on the amount of carbon pollution that future power plants will be allowed to emit. The proposed standards are in line with investments in clean energy technologies that are already being made in the power sector. The proposal ensures that the nation will continue to rely on a diverse mix of energy sources, including efficient natural gas, advanced coal technology, nuclear power, and renewable energy like wind and solar.

POWER PLANT CARBON POLLUTION IMPACTS PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

  • Carbon pollution stays in the atmosphere and contributes to climate change, which is one of the most significant public health challenges of our time. 
  •  Unchecked carbon pollution leads to long-lasting changes in our climate, such as rising global temperatures; rising sea level; changes in weather and precipitation patterns; and changes in ecosystems, habitats and species diversity. 
  • Public health risks include more heat waves and drought; worsening smog (also called ground-level ozone pollution); increasing the intensity of extreme events, like hurricanes, extreme precipitation and flooding; and increasing the range of ticks and mosquitoes, which can spread disease such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus. 
  •  Our most vulnerable citizens, including children, older adults, people with heart or lung disease and people living in poverty are most at risk from the impacts of climate change.

NEW PLANTS WILL USE CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES

  • This proposal will protect public health and address climate change while ensuring reliable, affordable, and clean power for American businesses and families. 
  • This standard ensures that power companies investing in new fossil fuel-fired power plants – which often operate for more than 40 years – will use technologies that limit emissions of harmful carbon pollution. 
  • This new proposal sets standards for different types of new power plants while maintaining a similar level of environmental protection. It reflects recent trends in the electric power sector and additional information, including the more than 2.5 million comments submitted by the public on the April 2012 proposal. 
  • The proposed standards will put national limits on the amount of carbon pollution that new power plants, built in the future, are allowed to emit. The standards will minimize carbon pollution by guaranteeing reliance on advanced technologies like efficient natural gas units and efficient coal units implementing partial carbon capture and storage (CCS). 
  • EPA’s rule reflects an ongoing trend in the power sector—a shift toward cleaner power plants that take advantage of modern technologies that will become the next generation of power plants. EPA’s rule ensures this progress continues. 
  • Because these standards are in line with current industry investment patterns, these standards are not expected to have notable costs and are not projected to impact electricity prices or reliability. 
  • U.S. Department of Energy, EPA and industry projections indicate that new power plants that are built over the next decade or more would be expected to meet these standards even in the absence of the rule.

Further reading -

U.S. Department of Energy. Coal gasification offers one of the most versatile and clean ways to convert coal into electricity, hydrogen, and other valuable energy products.

Basin Electric, through its for-profit subsidiary, Dakota Gasification Company (Dakota Gas) owns and operates the Great Plains Synfuels Plant. The Synfuels Plant is the only commercial-scale coal gasification plant in the U.S. that manufactures natural gas. It is located five miles northwest of Beulah, North Dakota.

The Coal Can Do That article "Coal-to-Gas is Off-the-Shelf Energy Solution" from February 2009 by Dr. Frank Clemente.

"EPA FACT SHEET: Reducing Carbon Pollution From Power Plants"

Coal and Natural Gas power plants

Monday, April 1, 2013

Earning income from a carbon price

The notion that carbon dioxide-emitting industries and power stations MUST stop emitting carbon dioxide, regardless of the expense, and pass this increased expense onto customers is a widely held but WRONG belief.

It's easy to find criticisms of a carbon price and emission trading schemes. Reading these criticisms you could easily come to the conclusion that money ends up flying off to governments or foreign countries.

Information on how to earn an income from a carbon price is pretty scarce.

Every cloud has a silver lining and carbon pricing schemes are no different.

Suppose an industry can cheaply collect carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it.
  • It makes a lot of sense to pay this industry to collect as much carbon dioxide as possible. 
  • If it can collect carbon dioxide for, say, half of the cost that would be incurred by a power station to prevent the carbon dioxide being emitted in the first place, then it is obviously cheaper, and more profitable, to collect it later and DON'T BOTHER preventing the carbon dioxide being emitted by the power station.

Collecting carbon dioxide for extra income

A couple of ideas on earning income by collecting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as a byproduct from existing industries are described in the article Negative CO² emissions - Climate protection opens new business areas.

The Rumpke Sanitary Landfill near Cincinnati, Ohio collects landfill gas and upgrades it to pipeline-quality natural gas by separating carbon dioxide. No extra cost is involved. The process uses an XEBEC gas purification system. There is no new technology to be developed and commercialised.
XEBEC’s systems are being used worldwide to effectively remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from landfill, digester or well gas streams
XEBEC’s systems are being used worldwide
to effectively remove carbon dioxide (CO2)
from landfill, digester or well gas streams

Storing carbon dioxide for extra income

Want a new industry that generates $10 billion revenue?
Store one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide at a price of $10 per tonne.
Santos has designed one -


More information -

Earning income from a carbon price - extra information

Old plays won't save coal but a carbon tax could

Attempts to access this story had been unsuccessful throughout April. 
(Error message: Oops! Google Chrome could not find www.kentucky.com)
The original can be accessed (on May 3, 2013): Old plays won't save coal but a carbon tax could

The cached copy is reproduced below -

Published: March 31, 2013 Updated 6 hours ago


Bob Inglis, who directs the Energy and Enterprise Initiative, is a former Republican member of Congress from South Carolina.
Bob Inglis, who directs the Energy and Enterprise Initiative,
is a former Republican member of Congress
from South Carolina.


Coal built our economy but its future is grim — unless we find an alternative to EPA regulation of heat-trapping gases like CO². If we can clean it up, coal can be a useful resource for years to come. If we can't, it will ultimately become much less valuable.

Strange as it may sound, that's why the CEO of one of the world's largest coal companies is in favor of a carbon tax. Marius Kloppers figures that BHP Billiton has hundreds of years of coal in the ground in Australia. The problem is that his biggest customer, China, may tire of breathing dirty air. If they do and if the Chinese innovate around coal, BHP's inventory could be reduced to a 20- or 30-year salable commodity. So BHP wants to push coal up the technology curve.

Some U.S. coal companies are also investing in the long-term viability of America's most abundant energy resource. They're rightly asking for and are conducting research on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). If CCS could be combined with coal gasification technologies, it's possible that water vapor would be the only emission from coal-fired plants. That's a bold future — the kind of future that CEOs like Kloppers want to bring about.

The standard play is to try to slow the inevitable. And nowhere is it more standard than in Washington, D.C. The Environmental Protection Agency is under orders from the Supreme Court to regulate CO² as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The EPA has drafted CO² regulations for new coal plants. Soon, EPA plans to regulate CO² from existing coal plants. When it does, coal will lose, quickly, to competitors like natural gas. This regulatory scenario gives coal no time to innovate.

The standard line from coal state representatives is, "Let's get together and try to stop those regulations." It's the same play textile states attempted when the rest of the country decided it liked cheaper, imported clothes. It's the same play tobacco states tried when the rest of the county decided to quit subsidizing smoking.
When something becomes inevitable — like the pricing of carbon — there's little to be gained from simply slowing government regulation. Endless litigation and aggressive congressional oversight may delay the onset of regulations but, like textiles and tobacco, the writing's on the wall.

Bluster may provide some cover to elected officials representing coal-dependent constituents, but it won't secure their constituents' future. Coal needs a different series of plays.

For coal, the right kind of CO² tax would be far better than pending CO² regulation. A well-planned and fair carbon tax would give coal time — time to try CCS, time for domestic users of coal-fired power to continue manufacturing here rather than moving production to non-CO² regulated countries, and time to continue exporting coal, tax-free.

The very different play for coal might look like this: Tax carbon upstream at the mine and at the pipeline. Pair that new carbon tax with a dollar-for-dollar reduction in other taxes so we don't grow the government and families have more money to cope with higher energy prices. Repeal Clean Air Act regulations that would be made redundant by the price on carbon. Make the new carbon tax border-adjustable so that it's removed on exports and imposed on imports.

The border-adjustable feature is critical in two ways. First, coal from the U.S. wouldn't be priced out of foreign markets because the U.S. carbon tax would be removed on export. Second, manufacturers who use coal-fired power in the U.S. would have level CO² costs with their foreign competitors. CO² pricing here wouldn't cause them to move their factories to a non-CO²-priced countries because imports would be taxed equally on CO² content.

Sometimes we find that something we've been doing for years has consequences we never envisioned. Years ago, who knew smoking caused cancer? Tobacco companies fought the inevitable conclusion of the research, but they ultimately lost. Now, some of the same people — literally some of the same people — are fighting the inevitable conclusion of chemistry and physics and the effects of greenhouse gasses. They will lose. Coal could lose with them.

Coal states have the opportunity to call the next series of plays. There's something better than "Up the middle, up the middle, up the middle, punt."

Related links:


Ex-GOP rep talks climate change solutions

Bob Inglis’ plan proposes market-based climate change solutions, like fuel taxes and subsidy cuts

Monday, March 18, 2013

Carbon arithmetic

Arithmetic of a recipe the coal, shale gas and coal seam gas industries don't want you to know

  1. Combine coal and/or biomass containing 180 kilograms of carbon with 270 kilograms of water to produce 120 kilograms of methane and 330 kilograms of carbon dioxide. 
  2. Separate and store the 330 kilograms of carbon dioxide. 
  3. Compress or liquefy the 120 kilograms of methane to use as fuel in a compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle or in a liquefied natural gas (LNG) vehicle, truck, train or ship. 
  4. Alternately use the 120 kilograms of methane as fuel in a gas power station to produce 1 megawatt-hour of electricity with emissions of just 330 kilograms of carbon dioxide. A carbon price of $23 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions would add nearly 1 cent to the cost of each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated. 
Coincidentally, the 1 cent per kilowatt-hour for a carbon price is about the same amount saved because this recipe uses less coal to produce electricity than a coal power station.

IN SALAH

Industrial-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) in action

In Salah, an industrial-scale CCS project in Algeria has been in operation since 2004. More than three million tonnes of CO₂, separated during gas production, have been securely stored in a deep saline formation. BP, Sonatrach and Statoil, the project operators, aim to store a total of 17 million tonnes over the next 20 years. (Read more...)



Related posts

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Coal seam gas up in smoke

BP calls for more informed debate on CSG

ABCNEWS PM with Mark Colvin. Sue Lannin reporting
Updated Mon Mar 4, 2013 7:37pm AEDT

The chief economist of international oil giant, BP, says there needs to more discussion about the implications of coal seam gas drilling and extraction. Christof Ruhl says the natural gas energy source is too plentiful and too precious not to use it.

Coal seam gas treated as a costly waste product

Gas Flaring - Disposing of natural gas keeps prices high
Gas Flaring - Disposing of natural gas keeps prices high
Twitter - Coal Seam Gas



Related link -
Investing on the Road to Global Financial Crisis II

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Pricing greenhouse gas emissions

The broad framework of economic policy evaluation methods evolved over 150 years of the development of economic thought can inform these policy choices [to address impacts of human productive activity on a global scale], but public and scholarly discussion of global warming often fails to apply these methods consistently.

One deleterious consequence of the failure to analyze the economics of global warming correctly is the widespread, but erroneous, belief that policies to reduce greenhouse gas emission will impose a cost on the current generation, which must be weighed against the benefits future generations will enjoy from mitigation.

Because greenhouse gas emissions are an unpriced economic externality, this belief is incorrect.

Correcting the externality by imposing a price on greenhouse gas emissions, whether through regulation, taxation, or a system of tradable emissions permits, together with appropriate compensating measures, can increase the consumption of economic goods and services of both future and current generations.
The economic fundamentals of global warming
Figure 1: The heavy (blue) line represents combinations of E and K compatible with the present level of consumption of the current generation. Without mitigation of global warming the current generation will bequeath effectively zero climatological capital to future generations represented by the point (E now, K now). The lower dotted (green) curve shows the combinations of E and K that would allow future generations to achieve the same level of consumption. Because the marginal cost of mitigation at the original point is zero, but the marginal benefit of mitigation for future generations is positive, the current allocation is inefficient. It would be possible without reducing the consumption of the current generation to move to (or closer to) the efficient allocation of investment, (E∗, K∗), at which future generations could enjoy a higher level of consumption, represented by the upper dotted (green) curve showing the combinations of E and K that would allow future generations to achieve a higher level of consumption. At the efficient point the marginal cost and benefit of mitigation in terms of conventional investment are equal. The straight dotted (red) line represents the price of mitigation in terms of conventional capital at the efficient allocation.

Read more from -

The economic fundamentals of global warming

Duncan K. Foley
Leo Model Professor of Economics, New School for Social Research
External Faculty Member of the Santa Fe Institute
October, 2007

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Investing on the Road to Global Financial Crisis II

Creating an energy glut in both the coal and natural gas markets at the same time begins with enormous investor optimism that their energy investments will deliver high returns.

2 costly LNG terminals sit idle Need vanishes for fuel imports

by Jay Fitzgerald, Globe Correspondent, 23 January 2013.
This is what happens when a bet on energy prices goes spectacularly wrong.

Anticipating that natural gas prices in New England would remain high, two companies spent $350 million to $400 million each just a few years ago to build terminals off the North Shore of Massachusetts to bring imported fuel to local consumers.


UPDATE 4-New US LNG terminal to start up but may sit idle

by Edward McAllister, Reuters, 8 June 2011.
Nearly $5 billion has been poured into LNG import terminals over the past decade on the expectation that the United States would be a major importer of natural gas.
Australia was caught up in the same bet on energy prices that went spectacularly wrong. Always ready to gamble with other people's money, even now the Australian coal seam gas industry continues to draw in more punters...

North America Hungry for LNG

posted by Gav, Peak Energy, 16 February 2005.
Australia must develop its gas reserves to be ready to supply North America's huge and growing liquefied natural gas (LNG) markets, Australia's federal industry minister Ian Macfarlane said yesterday.

The Australia federal government [in 2005] was pushing for Australia to be a major supplier of LNG to Mexico and the west coast of the US.
On the Mexican leg of his North American visit Macfarlane toured the sites of two proposed LNG receiving terminals in Baja California, Mexico.


One of the most striking symptoms of the first Global Financial Crisis of the 21st century was readily available credit to build and buy houses. In Spain the solution to a glut of houses for a long time was ... to build even more houses

Gas Flaring - Disposing of natural gas keeps prices high
Gas Flaring - Disposing of natural gas keeps prices high


Spain's house prices to fall another 30pc as glut keeps growing

The UK Telegraph, by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, 27 December 2012.
Spain's property slump will deepen for much of the next decade, and tracts of buildings along the Mediterranean coast will have to be demolished [an idea similar to flaring of natural gas], the country's top consultants have warned.
...
Fresh losses could reach 50pc and drag on for 10 to 15 years in those places where construction ran wild during the bubble, bringing the total decline from peak to trough towards 75pc.

"The market is broken," said Fernando Rodríguez de Acuña, the group's vice-president. "We calculate that there are almost 2 million properties waiting to be sold. We have made no progress at all over the past five years in clearing the stock," he said.

When Irish Eyes Are Crying

Vanity Fair, by Michael Lewis, March 2011.
First Iceland. Then Greece. Now Ireland, which headed for bankruptcy with its own mysterious logic. In 2000, suddenly among the richest people in Europe, the Irish decided to buy their country—from one another. After which their banks and government really screwed them. ...
...
... The numbers were breathtaking. A single bank, Anglo Irish, which, two years before, the Irish government had claimed was merely suffering from a “liquidity problem,” faced losses of up to 34 billion euros. ... And that was for a single bank. As the sum total of loans made by Anglo Irish, most of it to Irish property developers, was only 72 billion euros, the bank had lost nearly half of every dollar it invested.
...
Ireland’s financial disaster shared some things with Iceland’s. It was created by the sort of men who ignore their wives’ suggestions that maybe they should stop and ask for directions, for instance. But while Icelandic males used foreign money to conquer foreign places—trophy companies in Britain, chunks of Scandinavia—the Irish male used foreign money to conquer Ireland. Left alone in a dark room with a pile of money, the Irish decided what they really wanted to do with it was to buy Ireland. From one another.
...
In recognition of the spectacular losses, the entire Irish economy has almost dutifully collapsed. When you fly into Dublin you are traveling, for the first time in 15 years, against the traffic. The Irish are once again leaving Ireland, along with hordes of migrant workers. In late 2006, the unemployment rate stood at a bit more than 4 percent; now it’s 14 percent and climbing toward rates not experienced since the mid-1980s.

On the Investment Road to Global Financial Crisis II

Creating an energy glut in both the coal and natural gas markets at the same time begins with enormous investor optimism that their energy investments will deliver high returns.

It is now time to stop and ask directions, rather than repeat the mistakes made in Ireland by "the sort of men who ignore their wives’ suggestions that maybe they should stop and ask for directions."

Two energy investment losses stand out like lighthouse beacons warning of rocks ahead:

BHP writes down US shale assets by $US2.8b

Sydney Morning Herald, by Peter Ker, 3 August 2012.
...
The shale impairment will be recorded against the Fayetteville assets that were bought off Chesapeake Energy for almost $US4 billion in February 2011.

The other half of BHP's surge into US gas: the $US15 billion acquisition of Petrohawk Energy was made in August 2011, and has so far not suffered an impairment.

BHP is trying to avoid an impairment on the latter assets by switching its focus from gas to liquids in those fields, and the market may know by February if an adjustment in value is needed.
...
Price slump

The gas impairments were caused by a slump in US gas prices which took the benchmark price from about $US4 per British thermal unit to about $US1.90 earlier this year.

Rio Tinto CEO Tom Albanese out over $14bn write-down

The UK Telegraph, by Emma Rowley, 17 January 2013.
...
A disastrous $4 billion African coal takeover spelled the end for Rio Tinto’s chief executive Tom Albanese, forced out by a massive write-down after the deal turned sour.

Acknowledging that “accountability” rested with him, Mr Albanese left the post immediately, after more than 30 years with one of the world’s biggest miners. Iron ore head Sam Walsh replaces him.

The mining giant surprised the markets by announcing $14 billion of write-downs on acquisitions across the world. But it was the $3 billion write-down on Rio Tinto’s coal assets in Mozambique, wiping out most of the $3.7 billion it paid less than two years ago, which finally cost Mr Albanese his job.
As  the rush to get a piece of the global liquefied natural (LNG) market gathers momentum around the world, the prospects of a looming crash in the global price becomes ever more clear. Both the USA and Australia are rushing to bring additional LNG export terminals into production. At the same time, major consumers are pushing ahead with coal-to-natural gas plants that will help them dramatically cut reliance on high-price imported LNG.

Coinciding with the rush to create a natural gas glut, coal exports from the USA and Australia are rising sharply. And this, in the face of falling global prices, is being driven by the low-cost natural gas supply in the USA that has slashed domestic coal demand.

An obvious direction the energy market could have taken was to use existing coal resources to create substitute natural gas (SNG) as China is doing.

  • The USA would not now be facing coal mine closures while coming to terms with the environmental impact of "fracking".
  • Australia also would not be weighing up the impact of coal seam gas production on the long-term viability of the country's most productive agricultural land.

The banking system, superannuation funds and shareholders are lining up to pour $$$ billions into BOTH coal mining AND natural gas production, together with associated export infrastructure. Building more housing in Spain has finally lost its appeal, but too late to avoid massive financial losses.

It may not be too late to learn a valuable lesson from the experiences of  Spain, Iceland, Greece and Ireland in Global Financial Crisis I.

Investment in coal to substitute natural gas plants may be a more prudent investment. This approach can lower the environmental hazards from coal (for example, removing mercury from gasified coal) and avoid the environmental impacts of coal seam gas extraction and "fracking" in shale gas production.

Related link -
Coal seam gas up in smoke

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Coal industry plays chicken to protect revenues

Coal Industry a threat to economic development

The coal industry wastes time and money researching inefficient power generation.
- and is trying to forget an established technology in use throughout the world. This technology results in fewer toxic emissions, less CO2 emissions, the ability to use cheaper coal and more efficient power generation.

The "problem" is that LESS coal is needed to produce the same amount of power.

The coal industry is now trying to stop the use of low-cost coal and cheaper, cleaner energy from coal.
This post describes one such effort: Latest Buzz... Coal leads EPA regulations - and then opposes them.

Less coal per megawatt-hour (MWH) - Cheaper energy

The National Coal Council in December 2008 published a report Advanced Coal Technologies: Greater Efficiency and Lower CO2 Emissions
Increased efficiency of power generation is the most predictable and cost effective method for CO2 emissions reduction.

In an existing coal-based plant without CCS, increased efficiency is the only practical method for mitigating CO2 emissions now, and it will be important for future plants equipped with CCS in order to reduce the energy impacts and costs of CO2 capture.

Gasification-based technologies convert coal to a synthesis gas (syngas) consisting mainly of CO and H2.The syngas is cleaned to remove contaminants before it is used as a fuel in a gas turbine. The hot exhaust gas from the gas turbine is used to produce steam in a heat recovery steam generator for a steam turbine-electric generator.

This combination of a gas turbine and steam turbine cycles is called combined cycle power generation. Integrating the coal gasification and combined cycle technologies, IGCC provides the benefits of using low-cost coal with the high efficiency of combined cycle power generation. Higher efficiency results in lower emissions per unit of electricity generated.

IGCC technology is being demonstrated in two plants in the U.S., two in Europe, and one in Japan. Industry standard designs are based on the use of eastern bituminous coal, although IGCC plants can be designed for a wide range of coals.

CO2 emissions fall as efficiency increases. THIS MEANS LESS COAL PER MWH
CO2 emissions fall as efficiency increases.
THIS MEANS LESS COAL PER MWH

More coal per megawatt-hour (MWH) - Expensive energy

On 20 December 2010 media reports disclosed:
“According to Peter Cook, chief executive of the Co-operative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies in Canberra, the research effort is swinging back in favour of capturing carbon emissions after the coal has been burned rather than trying to radically alter the coal itself before combustion. 'We are seeing that more conventional ways of making electricity are being looked at again for post-combustion capture,' Dr Cook said.”



Tuesday, September 18, 2012

The other smart meter hazard

Of the differences between Analog Electricity Meters and Smart Meters, one is that Analog Meters cannot measure Power Factor. Smart Meters can. 

You cannot get billed for something that retail electricity suppliers cannot measure - YET.


Smart Meter - Victoria, Australia Analog Electricity Meter
Smart Meter Analog Electricity Meter

Example of what a Power Factor Correction Calculator shows -


Power Factor Correction

Input Data


Connected Load: kW

Current power factor: 

Desired power factor: 

Results




Original KVA:160 kVA

New KVA:125 kVA

Required Compensation:71 kVAr


Example of an ACCC  prosecution in the Federal Court that makes you wonder why you could ever possibly need a Power Factor Correction Calculator -

Federal Court declares consumers misled over Power Saver device

The ACCC's case centred on the fact that the Power Saver, a power factor correction [device] [emphasis added] , does not actually reduce the real electrical power [emphasis added]  consumed by a domestic user. ...
The court declared ...that Auscha contravened sections 52 and 53(c) of the Act, by representing in promotional material to customers that:

  • by using the Power Saver, domestic consumers could save up to 24% on their electrical power consumption
  • by using the Power Saver and saving on their electrical power consumption, domestic consumers would thereby save money, 

...

When in fact:

  • the Power Saver was not capable of reducing the amount of electrical power consumed by domestic consumers as measured by retail electricity suppliers [emphasis added] , and therefore domestic consumers could not save up to 24% on their electrical power consumption by using the Power Saver
  • use of the Power Saver could not lead to domestic consumers saving on their electrical power consumption as measured by retail electricity suppliers  [emphasis added] , and therefore domestic consumers could not save money by using the Power Saver,
....


Of the differences between Analog Electricity Meters and Smart Meters, one is that Analog Meters cannot measure Power Factor. Smart Meters can. 

What the above Federal Court decision really means is: "You cannot get billed for something that retail electricity suppliers cannot measure - yet."


That is changing. Large electricity consumers who have had smart meters for some time receive MONTHLY electricity accounts with items that may look like this:

Network ChargesQuantityRateTotal
DUOS for Peak Capacity 160.000 kVA 10.2300 $/kVA$1,636.80

DUOS: refers to Distribution Use Of System charges and relates to the use of the electricity distribution network.

Some electricity retailers do not show customer's their power factor

The new-found ability of retailers to measure power factor creates the opportunity to make these charges. Of more importance to small business owners is that these electricity network charges are rising very rapidly.

For instance, the monthly rate has increased from $6.04 to $10.23 per kVA on 1 July 2012. For a customer being billed for a peak of 160 kVA peak demand in a half-hour sometime in the last 12 months, this increases the monthly charge by $670.40 from $966.40 to $1,636.80. This is an INCREASE of more than $8,000 a year!

This 70 percent increase has escaped the notice of all political parties, though it is similar in impact to the carbon price on small businesses hit with this sky-rocketing electricity network access expense.

In the case of the carbon price the Federal Government has at least made some effort to provide advice on measures that may help reduce liability. More obviously can be done and needs to be done in this regard.

Charges of $1,500 and more every month are made without these electricity retailers informing customers of the Power Factor measure on which the charge is based.

Though businesses may be able to reduce this expense that they are being hit with - now that electricity retailers have smart meters able to record power factor - many customers' electricity accounts do not even show them the power factor of their electricity use.

This is vital information to manage a business's costs. For instance if a business owner is informed that they have a power factor of 0.7 - 0.8 they can examine the business-case for installing a Power Factor Correction device to raise the power factor to between 0.95 - 0.98. A business owner who can increase their power factor from 0.75 to 0.96 could cut a peak kVA network demand from 160 kVA to 125 kVA. This would slash their electricity bill by 35 kVA x $10.23 per month. This is a saving of $385.05 each month and $4,296.60 a year.


Extract from Ausgrid's Network Pricing Proposal for the Financial Year ending June 2012


Table 10: Proposed Network Tariffs – FY12 – Medium Businesses
Charging ParameterActual
FY11
Proposed
FY12
% Variation
Time Of Use Tariff 160MWh to 750 MWh pa (EA305)
Fixed Charges (C/day) 187.8872 350.0000 86.28%
Peak (C/kWh) 9.1752 8.8538 -3.50%
Shoulder (C/kWh) 6.7705 7.1538 5.66%
Off-peak (C/kWh) 2.4796 3.3541 35.26%
Capacity (c/kVA/day) 14.5054 27.0000 86.14%

Coal leads EPA regulations

Coal does not want to do that?

In February 2009 the coal industry lobby published the following post on the blog "Coal Can Do That"

Coal-to-Gas is Off-the-Shelf Energy Solution

Dr. Frank Clemente

The Question: “How can we obtain enough NG at affordable prices to (1) power over 400,000 MW of NG based generation capacity, (2) heat tens of millions of homes and buildings, (3) meet the needs of manufacturing and agriculture, and (4) make ethanol, fertilizer and other energy related products?

The Answer: We can’t.

Enter substitute natural gas (SNG), the product of coal gasification, an established technology that has been around for a century and currently in use throughout the world. SNG facilities can now be made “carbon storage ready” to take advantage of emerging technologies in CO2 capture, leading the way to a virtually emission free use of coal. The captured CO2 can then be stored indefinitely or more productively, be utilized to recover “stranded” oil in depleted fields throughout the nation. Texas alone, for example, has over 35 billion barrels of potentially recoverable oil using CO2 injection.

In addition, SNG technology:
  • Produces pipeline quality NG equivalents that can be used to fuel power plants, heat homes and manufacture a wide range of goods.
  • Removes 95% of the mercury and virtually 100% of the sulfur. Further, the captured sulfur can be used to make fertilizer and the ash from combustion of coal can be used to make roads and related infrastructure.
  • Provides fuel for the hundreds of NG dependent power plants we imprudently built over the past decade based on erroneous predictions of NG price and production. In short, prices have escalated and production has stagnated leaving many NG power plants too expensive to operate.
  • Boost the economy of local communities and provide well paying jobs. A planned SNG state-of-the-art facility in Kentucky, for example, will create 1,200 construction jobs for four years, 500 permanent jobs and pump over $100 million into the economy of host Muhlenberg County and surrounding communities.
SNG is a prime example of how off the shelf clean coal conversion technologies can improve our quality of life and fully unlock the socioeconomic value of our greatest energy resource – coal. And the ability to remove just about all the sulfur will open up new vistas for use of coal resources in many states. Missouri, for example, has substantial coal resources that are relatively high in sulfur. SNG will open the door to these resources and significantly benefit economic growth in such states.


In August 2012 the coal industry lobby published the following post to oppose EPA regulations asking that it deliver on what it said in 2009 - "Coal Can Do That" (cut mercury emissions).
Go figure.

New EPA Rules Cost Jobs and Growth

A wave of U.S. EPA regulations would reduce coal use and cost families an average of $270  every year -- at a time when millions are struggling. Low-cost energy from coal is an engine of economic growth, responsible for nearly 7 million jobs and $1 trillion in GDP. Take action to keep costs low and jobs at home.
Go to the site
...

Four new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency would further regulate the operation of coal-fueled power plants. The most expensive of these is called the Utility mercury and other hazardous emissions (MACT) rule. We asked National Economic Research Associates (NERA), an independent research firm, to model the potential economic impact if all four rules are implemented. Using data from many sources, including the EPA itself and the U.S. Energy Information Administration, its models paint a very sobering picture.

Every family will lose an average of $270 a year of disposable income through 2020 under these new rules.

Potential Impacts of EPA Air, Coal Combustion Residuals, and Cooling Water Regulations


...
This report evaluates the potential energy and economic impacts of four major environmental regulations that would affect the electricity sector. The regulations include two major air emission policies—the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and regulation of mercury and other hazardous emissions (Utility MACT)...

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

New Smart Energy Incentives

New Smart Energy Incentives
New Smart Energy Incentives
Time Of Use (TOU) electricity pricing can benefit households and businesses that are able to take advantage of reduced off-peak tariffs and have the flexibility to avoid electricity use in peak periods.

There will be other households and businesses that cannot in any practical way undertake this load shifting between peak and off-peak demand periods.

A question to consider is: Can these other households and businesses contribute in other ways to reduce peak demand so that they too benefit from electricity price incentives?

One possibility is for a number of such households and businesses to participate in a club that adjusts the timing of duty cycles of some of their appliances such as space heaters, air conditioners, refrigerators and water heaters to smooth out the electricity demand of these appliances.

Note that the aggregate energy demand will remain unchanged. The adjustment of duty cycle start-times avoids situations where a significant group appliances would otherwise turn on at about the same time and then all turn off at about the same time, resulting in "tidal" peaks and troughs in demand.

The households and businesses that can contribute to load-smoothing in this way do not need smart meters or time-of-use tariffs to trial the viability of this approach. There is low-cost technology to monitor energy use by appliances that might be managed by an energy load-smoothing club and make that information available over the internet for aggregation and analysis on behalf of the club members.


 A collection of illustrations of this technology is in the post  Smart Energy Future.

eCommerce Innovations - A Few Examples

Links overlaid on videos -

YouTube video, Beacon Hotel, Miami Beach, FL


Information video, Verizon Wireless

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Smart Energy Future

Smart Energy Future - Innovators in ICT required
Smart Energy Future
Innovators in ICT required

Extract from speech by Julia Gillard -

Electricity prices: the facts, Speech to the Energy Policy Institute of Australia

TUE 07 AUGUST 2012
Prime Minister Julia Gillard
Sydney AUSTRALIA
...
For too long, some State Governments have been increasing their revenue at the expense of the family electricity bill – that has to stop.

Given all those facts and given the regulator itself says the present regulatory framework has led to price increases which are difficult to justify, how can we doubt Australians are paying more than they should for electricity?

So let’s act.

First, let’s give people more power over what they pay for power.

A typical suburban house today doesn’t even have smart meters to measure peak demand, much less to help people control it.

People need and deserve more choice and control.

Already, the Federal Government has taken important steps to do this.

But we want to put even more effective control in the hands of energy users, in the hands of working people, pensioners, owners of small businesses.
...
 And the Federal Government is directly investing in demonstrating smart electricity networks.

In time, these will allow people to have far greater control over their own household electricity use, along with far more information about their own needs.

People should be able to use what they want when they want it and cut out expensive services they don’t need.

Picture a smart phone app that means you can load the clothes dryer or a dishwasher before you leave home – and then turn it on when a low cost rate becomes available during the day.



Or consider new technology so home air conditioners can switch themselves between high and low power mode, keeping a house cool while limiting use in high-cost periods of peak demand.

Or in the same way many people use a travel agent or a mortgage broker to get the best bargains, small businesses could hire a clean energy adviser to analyse the data about their business’s energy consumption and find a better deal.

Extract of article by Combined Pensioners & Superannuants of NSW Inc -

‘Smart’ Meters add to pensioner electricity costs

Monday, 23 January 2012
Sydney AUSTRALIA

PENSIONERS may be forced to do their household chores overnight if they wish to save on electricity bills.

The cost of running appliances and cooling your home could double under a new proposal put forward to the Gillard Government – unless you’re willing (and able) to restrict your electricity consumption to the hours between 10pm and 7am.

Under the plan put forward, so-called smart meters would be rolled out across NSW, with the potential to hit pensioners and self-funded retirees at the hip pocket.

What are smart meters?

A smart meter is an electronic meter that records how much electricity is used by a household, with different tariffs for different times throughout the day. They are capable of remote communication which allows the meter owner or electricity supplier to send or collect information directly from the meter.
...
While Energy Australia has stated that 70 per cent of households would be better off with smart meters, research by St Vincent de Paul has shown that smart meters impose significant increases for those on pensions.
...
Now, under their new name, Ausgrid, they are conducting trials in Newcastle, Scone, Ku-ring-gai and the Sydney CBD hoping to make a case for more smart meter deployments.

CPSA cannot see justification in extending the roll-out of a flawed system.

Surely the Government and energy providers can recognise that pensioners have been hit with enough rises in electricity costs and that they should not punish those that spend more time in the home.

For an approach that may create an incentive for energy consumers such as  pensioners and self-funded retirees, see the related post New Smart Energy Incentives.

Low-cost technology for consumer-controlled smart energy


Smart Phone application to monitor and control appliances
Smart Phone application to monitor
and control appliances over internet

Router that connects home to internet
Router that connects home to internet

Tablet Computer that connects to home appliances (by ZigBee) and to Router (by WiFi)
Tablet Computer that connects to home appliances (by ZigBee)
and to Router (by WiFi)

USB-to-ZigBee Controller -  Connects Tablet to home appliances
USB-to-ZigBee Controller -
Connects Computer Tablet
by ZigBee wireless mesh to home appliances

ZigBee Power Outlet monitored and controlled by Smart Phone
ZigBee Power Outlet monitored and
controlled by Smart Phone

ZigBee Temperature Sensor monitored by Smart Phone
ZigBee Temperature Sensor monitored by Smart Phone