Santos announced a project for storing carbon dioxide in its Moomba gas fields in 2007.
June 2007: "Moomba touted for world's biggest CCS project
SANTOS has confirmed it wants to use its extensive pipeline network to sequester carbon dioxide from Queensland, NSW and South Australia into depleted oil and gas reservoirs in the Cooper Basin." https://t.co/QYaj2E7Qak
Santos - PM Kevin Rudd, Moomba CCS Project, September 2008
The project has again been floated in 2020.
March 2020: "Santos said that oil and gas major BP is set to invest AUD20m ($13.21m) in its Moomba carbon capture and storage project (Moomba CCS project) in South Australia." https://t.co/Rs8kkIDyKp
JAPANESE ‘CLEAN COAL’ DEMONSTRATION PROJECT TAKES A STEP FURTHER
By Tetsuo Satoh |
Construction has begun on the third step of a project to demonstrate the world’s first integrated coal-gasification fuel-cell (IGFC) combined cycle power plant with CO2 capture. The five-year, $73.3-million project is a collaboration of the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO; Kawasaki City; www.nedo.go.jp) and Osaki CoolGen Corp. (Hiroshima Prefecture, both Japan; www.osaki-coolgen.jp). IGFC technology has the potential to reach a 55% thermal efficiency (higher heating value; HHV).
The IGFC demonstration project is composed of three steps (diagram): (1) the demonstration of oxygen-blown integrated coal-gasification combined-cycle (O2-blown IGCC), which was completed in March 2019; (2) the demonstration of O2 -blown IGCC with CO2 separation and capture, which started in December 2019; and (3) the demonstration of IGFC with CO2 separation and capture.
For the first step, a 170,000 kW-class demonstration test facility was constructed within the grounds of the Osaki Power Station of The Chugoku Electric Power Co. During the demonstration tests, coal particles were used to operate a 1,300°C-class gas turbine, while using the heat generated to operate a steam turbine for combined-cycle power generation. The performance, operability, reliability, and economic feasibility as a coal-fired power generation system was verified. The targeted thermal efficiency of 40.5% HHV was achieved for an O2-blown IGCC using a 100°C-class gas turbine. They are forecasting a net thermal efficiency of approximately 46% will be achieved for a commercial plant that uses a 1,500°C-class gas turbine. Based on these results, they are expecting to reduce CO2 emissions by about 15% compared to ultra-supercritical (USC) pressure pulverized-coal-fired power generation.
To demonstrate the second step, construction work on the CO2-capture unit was completed last summer, and testing started in December 2019 and will continue through 2020. Meanwhile, construction has also begun on the third step, in which the fuel cell will be added to the O2-blown IGCC to demonstrate the complete IGFC with CO2 capture, which should begin late 2021 and run through 2022. Ultimately, the project aims to achieve a net thermal efficiency of approximately 47%, while capturing 90% of the CO2, and a 40% of transmission end efficiency when applied to a 500-MW-class commercial unit.
Gas Vision 2050 is an Energy Networks Australia report produced on December 18, 2017. Australia’s peak gas industry bodies prepared it to "demonstrate how gas may continue to provide Australians with reliable and affordable energy in a low carbon energy future."
The scope of the report is to "outline how Australia’s gas supply and infrastructure can be a national advantage as our energy mix continues to evolve."
The reports author's missed the option being explored across Europe: make us of Australia’s gas supply and infrastructure as an energy storage system.
This new purpose for Australia’s gas supply and infrastructure has the potential to make a substantial contribution to the economy. For instance, a proposal for a multi-billion dollar development of pumped hydro energy storage "Snowy Hydro 2.0" is years away from becoming a reality. The gas supply infrastructure can begin providing this function almost immediately.
The report describes three technologies under the heading "Decarbonisation Pathways" -
Biogas production – Biogas consists of methane and is already produced from municipal solid waste.
Hydrogen: Hydrogen can be produced from natural gas or through electrolysis. Hydrogen creates opportunities for clean energy for households, businesses or transport and can also generate zero emissions electricity using fuel cells or gas turbines.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) refers to the process of producing decarbonised hydrogen from gas, coal, or biogas to remove carbon dioxide from the carbon cycle.
There is a fourth technology that has significant potential to accelerate decarbonisation of Australia's gas supply. So much so that the goal the report sets for 2050 may be achieved much sooner.
Biogas can be produced from a great many carbon-containing materials such as farm crop waste, municipal waste, sewage sludge, animal waste and timber waste. In each case about half the carbon combines with hydrogen from water in the mixture to form methane and the remaining carbon combines with the oxygen "left over" from the creation of methane to form carbon dioxide.
The result is a gas that is about 50/50 methane and carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide needs to be removed before the methane is suitable for injection into gas supply pipelines.
Hydrogen can be produced using surplus renewable energy to split water by electrolysis. This is a method of energy storage. Hydrogen may be injected directly into gas supply lines, but the proportion can be no more than 10 percent by volume.
The fourth technology that isn't mentioned in the Gas Vision 2050 report tackles both of the above issues:
Waste materials containing carbon can be reacted with hydrogen. In this process ALL the carbon is converted into methane and NO carbon dioxide is created. So there is nothing to separate from the biogas before it can be injected into natural gas pipelines. The 10 percent limit on the proportion of hydrogen that can be safely mixed with natural gas is no longer an issue...
The biomethane produced via this pathway is achieving two purposes:
It is replacing natural gas with carbon-neutral biogas.
It is storing renewable energy in the form of methane for use as required.
This needn't be a permanent part of a zero-emission energy system. While battery capacity investment is ramping up, excess wind and solar power can be stored and distributed as hydrogen and/or methane in the existing natural gas system.
Burning natural gas in heating appliances will eventually be discontinued, but for now, a large number of these appliances are being used. It will be some time before they are all replaced.
Small distributed gas-fueled electricity generation can be up to 60% efficient. These do the job that batteries and pumped hydro will eventually do - when enough of them have been built.
Farmers can replace coal seam gas industry by manufacturing methane from crop waste that is combined with hydrogen made to store renewable energy.
When there are enough batteries and pumped hydro storage to eliminate the need for natural gas energy resources in Australia, this bio-methane can be used as feed stock in chemical industries to replace coal seam gas. It can also be exported as LNG, substituting for Australia's coal and coal seam gas energy exports.
Setting a new benchmark in silliness, the Australian mining industry made not one, not two, but three laughable media releases last month.
On 11 May 2017 Minerals Council of Australia made a bold "projection" on the future of coal mining in Australia. The "projection" made from data from the Resources and Energy March Quarterly of a government department report was that the coal industry had a great future - at least until 30 June 2017 - when the value of exports of thermal and metallurgical coal was expected to be almost $55 billion.
Not many investment decisions are made on the basis of a "projection" of the final two months of the current fiscal year. On this "projection" the Minerals Council of Australia made the silly declaration: "Myth 1 Australia's thermal coal exports are in decline...BUSTED "
— MineralsCouncilAust (@MineralsCouncil) 12 May 2017
The Resources and Energy March Quarterly the Minerals Council of Australia thought worthy of quoting contains real projections for the value of Australia's coal exports to 2021-22.
Those projections show a dramatic decline from the peak of $55 billion in 2016-17 to just $39.8 billion in 2021-22.
On 17 May 2017 Minerals Council of Australia issued another media release with the puzzling title "New Report: Low emission coal technology key to growth in South-East Asia".
— MineralsCouncilAust (@MineralsCouncil) 17 May 2017
What is puzzling about this title is that a report referenced in the media release, "Sylvie Cornot-Gandolfe, ‘The role of coal in Southeast Asia’s power sector’, Oxford Institute of Energy Studies, December 2016" notes that combined cycle gas turbine power plants are superior to coal power plants for Asia:
Natural gas-fired power plants are, however, cheaper and quicker to build than coal-fired power
plants, have higher efficiencies and greater flexibility in plant operation, and above all emit less CO2
than coal power plants. (The cost of capital expenditure for combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants
is around half that of coal on a per kWe capacity basis and their CO 2 emissions are also half that of
coal.)
The levelized cost of electricity generation (LCOE)14 is commonly used in national power development
plans to compare the costs of different technologies. Based on IEA assumptions for the costs of
capital, operation and maintenance, and finance, and using 2015 prices for coal and gas ($63.5/t for
coal and $10.3/MMBtu for gas), the generating cost of a new supercritical (SC) coal plant is 35 per
cent cheaper than the generating cost for a new CCGT plant (Figure 6). However, at August 2016
coal and gas prices, the generating costs for coal and gas are similar – even slightly cheaper for gas.
14The LCOE includes fixed costs, variable costs (operation and maintenance and fuel) and financing costs for new power
plants. In order to make meaningful comparisons, it is necessary to make a range of assumptions about various costs and
operating parameters of competing technologies, as well as assumptions on future coal and gas prices.
coal and gas prices, the generating costs for coal and gas are similar – even slightly cheaper for gas.
Keeping the silliest announcement till last on 29 May 2017 Minerals Council of Australia issued another media release with the cryptic title "Government takes balanced view on low emission strategy".
— MineralsCouncilAust (@MineralsCouncil) 30 May 2017
The media release begins:
The Australian coal industry supports the government’s sensible policy which recognises the role of our high quality coal in helping to curb emissions.
If the policy intent is all about reducing emissions we should have a technology neutral approach and that
means considering the opportunity coal offers when utilising both high efficiency low emission (HELE) and carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Including CCS in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) ambit strengthens our capacity to lower emissions in the supply of electricity.
It is what the media release doesn't say that is incredibly silly: if a power station operator can release CO2 into the atmosphere for free, then it is absurd to imagine any investment in capturing and storing that CO2.
The government which is led around by the Minerals Council of Australia has ruled out imposing any scheme to put a price on the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Michael Dolan & Daniel Roberts, University of Adelaide, February 7, 2013
Highly endothermic gasification and reforming processes offer a significant opportunity for the penetration of Concentrated Solar Power into the chemical and fossil energy industries. The upgraded products incorporate solar energy in chemical form which enables the ready storage, distribution and use of concentrated solar thermal energy.
Yallourn
The Yallourn Power Station produces about 22 percent of the electricity used in Victoria. Every hour 2,400 tonnes of brown coal are needed to produce super-heated steam for 4 turbines. These turbines have a combined capacity of 1,480 megawatts of electricity. In 2015 annual generated electricity output was 10,256 GWh, up from 9,806 GWh the year before.
In 2015 Yallourn Power Station installed a new High Pressure- Intermediate Pressure (HIP) turbine in Unit 2. This resulted in an efficiency improvement for Unit 2 of around 2.7%. This marked the completion of a 5 year program of new HIPs on all four Yallourn Units.
Hazelwood
The Hazelwood Power Station produces up to 25 percent of the electricity used in Victoria. Up to 15.3 million tonnes of brown coal are needed each year for an annual generated electricity output of approximately 12,000 GWh. Steam from 8 water tube boilers drives 4 turbine stages. These turbine stages have a combined
capacity of 1,542 megawatts of electricity, just 62 megawatts more than the Yallourn Power Station.
Since 1996 more than $1 billion has been invested at Hazelwood to improve efficiency and reliability.
Lignite or brown coal from the Hazelwood mine is about 62 percent moisture at extraction.
Efficiency and CO2 Intensity
The brown coal used as fuel supplies about 9 gigajoules of thermal energy per tonne. The coal-fired power stations convert about 24 percent of this energy into electricity. The other 76 percent is output as waste heat.
Each tonne of brown coal contains about 250 kilograms of carbon and the balance, 750 kilograms, is mostly hydrogen and oxygen.
When burned the hydrogen and oxygen is converted to water vapour, while the 250 kilograms of carbon combines with oxyygen from the air to form 920 kilograms of carbon dioxide.
To generate 1 megawatt-hour of electricity at 24 percent efficiency, 1.667 tonnes of coal must be burned. This contains 417 kilograms of carbon that is converted to 1,528 kilograms of carbon dioxide when burned.
Solar Thermal Fuel in a Converted Coal Power Station
Brown coal can be converted into a mixture of gases using concentrated solar thermal energy.
One such process could convert each tonne of brown coal into 920 kilograms of carbon dioxide and 80 kilograms of hydrogen.
Solar thermal gasification of brown coal
The 80 kilograms of hydrogen gas from each tonne of coal supplies 9.67 gigajoules of thermal energy when burned.
This hydrogen fuel could be burned in one or more gas turbines added to an existing coal fired power station.
The hot exhaust gas from these gas turbines would be used to create superheated steam in the coal fired power station's existing boilers and drive some or all of its existing steam turbines.
The addition of the gas turbines fueled by hydrogen can raise the efficiency of the power station from just 24 percent to 60 percent.
The thermal energy available from the 80 kilograms of hydrogen fuel consists of the 9 gigajoules present in each tonne of pulverised coal together with 0.67 gigajoules of solar thermal energy.
At 60 percent efficiency this 9.67 gigajoules of thermal energy is converted into 5.8 gigajoules of electricity.
To generate 1 megawatt-hour of electricity at 60 percent efficiency, only 0.62 tonnes of coal must be converted to hydrogen that is burned.
This amount of brown coal contains 155 kilograms of
carbon that is converted to 570 kilograms of carbon dioxide when it is gasified using concentrated solar thermal energy.
The hydrogen, 50 kilograms, from the 0.62 tonnes of brown coal is all that is required to generate 1 megawatt-hour of electricity.
There is a saving in mining operations because much less coal needs to be processed for each megawatt-hour of electricity generated: a reduction from 1.667 tonnes to just 0.62 tonnes of coal.
Available technology boosts efficiency of thermal power plants to 60 per cent
The Coal Lobby and Climate Change - A Story of Corporate Greed, Arrogance and Stupidity
Reducing carbon dioxide emissions with high efficiency power stations using coal-derived fuel was a simple, affordable solution to climate change concerns. The coal lobby walked away from this solution because it reduces the demand for coal. The result of this arrogant, greedy and stupid approach is a collapse in the value of coal mining corporations with billions of dollars wiped off shareholders' funds.
"Electricity from the new Prairie State coal-fired power plant now costs
between 40 and 100 percent more than Peabody Energy originally promised,
raising electric bills for 2.5 million ratepayers and costing hundreds
of Midwestern towns millions of dollars apiece.
...
...spearheaded in 2012 by Peabody Energy, [the Prairie State coal plant] has saddled
more than 200 Midwest communities with electricity costs that are
unaffordable and that stand to hinder their economies for the next 30
years. Subpoenas have been pending for some time at the SEC and the case
is being pressed in two lawsuits on the matter. At issue are Peabody’s
wildly optimistic projections and estimations that sold Prairie State as
a source of cheap electricity to towns and cities now being crushed by
the deal."
"Peabody Energy has been regularly closing higher-cost coal mines in order to remain profitable (profit/ton). After a few unfavorable years, the overall coal market outlook is positive, due to expected price increase, demand increase, and efficiency increase. However, the rapid decline of the market size will position few firms able to compete, as growth in other markets such as renewable energy and natural gas continues to surge. This trend is clearly demonstrated in the chart below."
"Investors in Peabody Energy have lost over $16 billion of their stock value since the end of 2010, as the stock price has plunged from $64 per share to $4.50 per share. The company reports it has cut over 20% of its work force, and more layoffs seem likely as the company seeks ways to cut costs."
"After a long investigation by the New York State attorney general, Peabody Energy says it’s going to do a better job of how it discloses the many financial risks it faces around climate change.
...
In its next filing to the S.E.C., Peabody agreed to a fuller disclosure of the risks as well as projections by the International Energy Agency of lower global coal demand in the future, should stronger regulatory action be taken around the world. The risks noted will include unfavorable lending trends for financing coal-fueled power plants overseas as well as divestment campaigns targeting the investment community, “which could significantly affect demand for our products or our securities.”"
Producing ever increasing volumes of any commodity at steadily falling prices is a well-trodden path to oblivion. The Australian fine merino wool industry has "been there, done that."
Innovation that reduces efficiency is misguided
"Leading edge" super-critical coal-fired power stations are far less efficient than modern gas-fired power stations. This technology is obsolete having been overtaken by rival technologies.
How an industry can lift the return per kilogram of carbon
To remain viable an industry needs innovation that lifts the return per unit of production. Coal gasification is a step in this process. The energy market is not the only game in town.
Farming needs stable supplies of fertiliser, one of which is urea. Urea is manufactured from carbon dioxide, sells for around $350 per tonne and has 200 kilograms of carbon in each tonne (ref: WebQC.org Chemical Portal).
Contrast this with thermal coal that sells for around $80 per tonne and has 610 kilograms of carbon in each tonne (ref: Coal conversion statistics.)
Coal gasification: Could it lift the industry out of the 'coaldrums'? http://t.co/VeSd6ULSps
The coal industry doesn't appreciate the commercial potential of carbon dioxide.
Algae can manufacture 1,000 kilograms of edible oil that contains about 750 kilograms of carbon from water, carbon dioxide and sunlight. Algae consume 2.75 tonnes of carbon dioxide to make a tonne of edible oil. Prices range from $1,000 to $5,000 per tonne.
"Nutraceuticals are various products that range from isolated nutrients, dietary supplements and herbal products, to processed foods and beverages. With the correct blend of enriched nutrients using custom selected micro-algae as a source, Algae.Tec is able to deliver specialty high value oils, antioxidant-rich products and supplements, as well as edible oils and pigments, which provide a variety of health benefits. This approach is a sustainable alternative to current feedstock options, for items such as Omega-3s, which are derived from static fish supplies. The Algae.Tec advantage provides both a quality and consistent product that meets the needs of many nutraceutical applications." (Source: Algae.Tec website)
Coal in Australia is worth about $1.50 per gigajoule. Natural gas is worth about $9.00 per gigajoule.
See - RET Review Modelling assumptions workshop ACIL Allen Consulting Stakeholder workshop Presenters: Paul Hyslop / Owen Kelp / Guy Dundas Date: 23 April 2014
Questions:
Why burn coal when it can be increased six-fold in value by converting it to natural gas?
Why drill coal seam gas wells all over the place when you can make natural gas from coal worth about one-sixth of the value of natural gas?
The ACIL Allen Consulting figures under-estimate the cost of coal. This biases the RET review in favour of coal.
The estimate of $2 per gigajoule of thermal coal in NSW (about 25 gigajoules per tonne) requires a price of just $50 per tonne. The current price of NSW thermal coal however is closer to $80 per tonne or $3.20 per gigajoule.
Gas and coal prices
Natural gas and coal prices used in 2013 emissions projections work
Source: ACIL Allen Consulting, Electricity Sector Emissions: Modelling of the
Australian Electricity Generation Sector, September 2013
Arguing that coal can be cleaned up, the coal industry proposed coal gasification with carbon capture and storage as the way to go.
Jon Walters endured a torrid afternoon for Stoke City, scoring two own goals and missing a penalty.
To cheer him up, here is the coal industry's own goal.
The above video was made in 2008. Coal gasification power plants described in it - Tampa Electric's Polk IGCC Power Plant near Tampa, Florida and Duke Energy's Edwardsport Generating Station in Knox County, Indiana - are operating profitably in the United States.
To the coal industry these two power plants must be "inconvenient facts": they demonstrate that the coal industry can retain a role in supplying fuel to power plants that meet new EPA emission standards.
However now that China is getting on with this approach, the coal industry has suddenly got cold feet.
A reason for this odd behaviour is that the coal industry realises that this technology promises to dramatically reduce the demand for coal. Even worse, it also threatens the slash demand for natural gas and shut down the fracking and coal seam gas industries.
The result of continuing use of this technology will be a global glut of both coal and natural gas - causing substantial price falls, falling revenues and mine closures.
GreatPoint Energy produces clean, low cost natural gas from coal, petroleum coke, and biomass utilizing its bluegas™ catalytic hydromethanation process.
In 2012, GreatPoint announced a $1.25 billion deal to build the first of 34 coal gasification plants in a remote, coal-rich part of China.
The total project will cost an estimated $20 - 25 billion and will supply one trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year.
This represents a massive leap in the scale of domestic production for China, which last year produced only 107 billion cubic feet of natural gas.
The deal includes an equity investment of $420 million, the largest ever by a Chinese corporation into a venture-capital-funded U.S. company.
So, what to do...
The coal lobby has launched a misinformation campaign attacking the environmental benefits of coal gasification. This attack includes a deceptive study and a series of media releases.
To the coal lobby it is predictable that the environmental movement will be quick to accept at face value what looks like a gift with which to attack the fossil fuel lobby.
However it is worth taking a closer look at why the coal lobby is trying to discredit the technology it has proposed.
A number of the benefits of converting coal to natural gas are worth demanding of the fossil fuel industry. Especially these two:
Electricity can be generated far more efficiently from natural gas. Given this fact, construction of ANY coal-fired power station will now be a waste of money. A gas power station fueled by natural gas will ALWAYS be a better option.
Fracking and coal seam gas are far less commercially viable. Given the fact that natural gas can be produced from coal, there is NO LONGER ANY NEED for the fracking and coal seam gas industries.
Considering these benefits, and the detriment they cause to both the coal and natural gas industries, it is easy to understand the coal lobby's misinformation campaign against its own proposed technology.
A good example of the misinformation created by the coal lobby is in a recent article on the climate science deniers' misinformation website, The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).
The relevance of this article to The Global Warming Policy Foundation is not as obscure as it first appears. As a vehicle to spread misinformation to further the coal lobby's interests, it makes as much sense for The Global Warming Policy Foundation to attack climate science as it does to attack a technology that likewise threatens vested interests of the coal industry.
For this simple reason, it remains the world's main source of power, providing a quarter of our primary energy and more than 40% of our electricity. And it will continue to do so for many years to come.
The challenge, then, is how to harness coal's energy more cleanly. While global attempts to develop carbon capture and storage (CCS) have stalled, a number of countries are looking at different ways to exploit their abundant coal reserves."
Second - introduce a question of China's motivation
"Not all are motivated by environmental concerns, but are driven instead by economics and a desire for energy independence."
Third - give an incomplete summary of benefits
"The main technology being used is coal gasification - instead of burning the fossil fuel, it is chemically transformed into synthetic natural gas (SNG).
The process is decades old, but recent rises in the price of gas mean it is now more economically viable. The US has dabbled in the technique, but China is going all out in a bid to satisfy its soaring demand for power and reduce its dependency on imported liquefied natural gas (LNG).
The country's National Energy Administration has laid out plans to produce 50 billion cubic metres of gas from coal by 2020, enough to satisfy more than 10% of China's total gas demand.
Coal gasification makes economic sense.
Not only does it make economic sense, but it allows China to exploit stranded coal deposits sitting thousands of kilometres from the country's main industrial centres. Transporting gas is, after all, a lot cheaper than transporting coal.
Coal gasification can also help address local pollution problems that have in recent months brought parts of the country to a virtual standstill."
Finally - introduce grossly inaccurate misinformation to promote opposition to the technology
The coal gasification process China uses is EXACTLY what the coal lobby has long proposed as the pathway to clean coal.
"But there are two big problems. First, coal gasification actually produces more CO2 than a traditional coal plant; so not only will China be using more coal, it will be doing so at a greater cost to the environment.
As Laszlo Varro, head of gas, coal and power markets at the International Energy Agency (IEA), says: "[Coal gasification] is attractive from an economic and energy security perspective.
'It can be a nice solution to local pollution, but its overall carbon intensity is worse [than coal mining], so it is not attractive at all from a climate change point of view'."
In reality China has adopted new efficient technology from GreatPoint Energy to convert coal to natural gas and carbon dioxide.
Getting to grips with coal conversion to gas and then gas to power, which reduces emissions....http://t.co/TABGLYIsnY
— Nigel A Davies (@NigelADavies) April 18, 2014
This mixture is the same as that commonly encountered in raw conventional natural gas produced from gas wells. The gas industry has long-established technology to separate carbon dioxide from natural gas.
The Longford Gas Conditioning Plant to process 11 million cubic metres per day of gas containing up to 15 percent CO2 http://t.co/TecQkn7h76
— Askgerbil Now (@Askgerbil) April 20, 2014
As a result, the coal gasification process China uses easily separates a pure stream of carbon dioxide that is ready for carbon capture and storage or use in fertiliser plants... which is EXACTLY what the coal lobby has long proposed as the pathway to clean coal.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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."
Latrobe Fertilisers Limited was incorporated in September
2012 to deploy proven coal gasification technologies to produce urea.
The coal gasification process delivers a separate stream of CO2 which can be captured and stored.
Urea Plant
The coal will be gasified to produce a synthesis gas - a mixture of CO and H2.
The production of urea (and DAP fertiliser) first requires the production of ammonia (NH3) and the nitrogen to do this comes from the Air Separation Unit
at the front end of the flow sheet with the hydrogen coming from the shift reaction ...
(CO + H2O → H2 + CO2)
Environment
The project will be subject to the normal state and
federal environmental approval process. The plant will be located on an
approved industrial site adjacent to a power station and mine which has
several of the environmental approvals already in place.
Sustainability
Latrobe Fertilisers is committed to build the first near to zero emissions urea plant in Australia.
The project is engineered to capture its excess CO2
not used in the urea production (see project flow sheet) and ultimately
direct this to a common user geosequestration facility. The
establishment of such a facility is supported by the Victorian
Government who are currently one of the sponsors of a trial CO2
injection project in Victoria’s Otway Basin.
The project described below is preparing to separate 800,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year from natural gas.
To release this carbon dioxide into the atmosphere with a carbon tax of $23 per tonne will cost $18.4 million a year.
Under the Coalition's Direct Action policy to release this carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will cost nothing.
There are commercial options that are in addition to these political choices to influence carbon dioxide emissions. The cost of the first option and the value of the second and third options are only estimates for the purposes of illustration:
Pay $10 per tonne - for a total expenditure of $8 million a year - to return the carbon dioxide into one of the gas reservoirs in the Bass Strait oil and gas fields.
Sell the carbon dioxide for $5 per tonne - for a total revenue of $4 million a year - for algae farming that uses it as a nutrient to produce bio-diesel fuel and cattle fodder.
Sell the carbon dioxide for $10 per tonne - for a total revenue of $8 million a year - for SolarGas production from methane and carbon dioxide used as fuel in a combined-cycle gas turbine power station. (Methane to produce 2,400 GWh a year can be converted to SolarGas with 800,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide to produce 3,200 GWh a year from the same power station.)
In Bass Strait the Esso-operated Kipper Tuna Turrum Project is currently one of the largest domestic gas developments on Australia's eastern seaboard. Over the past few years more than 60 kilometres of subsea pipelines, a new offshore platform (Marlin B) and subsea equipment above the Kipper field have been installed. Hook-up and commissioning work is underway to prepare these facilities for operation.
The oil and gas plants at Longford, 20 kilometres from Sale in East Gippsland are the receiving point for oil and gas produced in Bass Strait. They have been operating for more than 40 years and were designed to treat gas from fields developed as part of the original Gippsland operations to meet industry specifications for natural gas product.
Esso's Kipper Tuna Turrum Project, Bass Strait
These existing facilities are not able to process gas with the carbon dioxide content of some of the new fields and this is why a Gas Conditioning Plant is now needed.
The Longford Gas Conditioning Plant will not increase the capacity of the existing Longford Plants. Rather, the new facilities will remove carbon dioxide and mercury from the new sources of gas thus enabling processing by the existing Longford Gas Plants. The technology to be used for carbon dioxide and mercury removal is proven, reliable and commonly used around the world, including other parts of Victoria.
The Longford Gas Conditioning Plant is designed to process approximately 11 million cubic metres per day of gas containing up to 15 percent carbon dioxide. The amount of greenhouse gas to be emitted each year by the Gas Conditioning Plant will include about 800,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide separated from the gas.
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...)
Coal industry delaying CO2 cuts for another 15 years
Why is Australia to spend over $1 billion on CarbonNet and take 15 years developing new Carbon Capture technology ----
---- when proven technology has existed for decades in the USA?
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.
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
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.
Research by the University of Western Australia undermines the Coalition's costing of its plan to meet Australia's emission reduction target through Direct Action.
The "Coalition's Direct Action Plan" shows the Coalition has "bet the bank" on storing 85 million tonnes of carbon per year in the soil of Australia's farms at a cost of just $8 to $10 per tonne.
Update, 19 November 2013: The link "Coalition's Direct Action Plan" to Greg Hunt's web site no longer contains a copy of the Coalition's Direct Action Plan.
By modeling the cost of required changes in farming practices researchers estimated the profit lost for each additional tonne of CO2 stored on the model farm was $80.00 which is far more than the initial buying price of $23.00 per tonne under the Gillard Labor Government's Clean Energy Future legislation.
This is ten times greater than the costing assumed by the Coalition for its Direct Action Plan -
A copy is here -
Executive Summary (page 1)
A Coalition Government will implement a climate change strategy based on direct action to reduce emissions and improve the environment.
Direct action on soil carbons will be the major plank of our strategy, supported by other direct action measures that will reduce CO2 emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 based on 1990 levels and deliver significant environmental outcomes - without the need for a great big new tax.
Emissions Reduction Fund
To facilitate direct action, a Coalition Government will establish an Emissions Reduction Fund to support CO2 emissions reduction activity by business and industry.
Through the Fund, we will support 140 million tonnes of abatement per annum by 2020 to meet our 5 per cent target [of which 85 million tonnes per annum will be met by increasing soil carbons in agricultural land. (See table of CO2 Emissions Reduction Estimates at page 22.)] This is a once in a century replenishment of our soil carbon.
Soil Carbons - Once in a Century Replenishment of our Soils (page 16)
The single largest opportunity for CO2 emissions reduction in Australia is through bio-sequestration in general, and in particular, the replenishment of our soil carbons. It is also the lowest cost CO2 emissions reduction available in Australia [sic] on a large scale.
Significantly improving soil carbons also helps soil quality, farm productivity and water efficiency, and should be a national goal regardless of the CO2 abatement benefits.
Through the Emissions Reduction Fund a Coalition Government will commit to a 'once in a century' replenishment of our national soils and farmlands. Through the Fund we will support up to 85 million tonnes per annum of CO2 abatement through soil carbons by 2020 - and reserve the right to increase this, subject to progress and evaluation.
Farmers will be entitled to tender for all verified new additions in soil carbon beyond the commencement of the Fund.
We will commence this work by offering to purchase 10 million tonnes of CO2 abatement through soil carbons for 2012-13.
The Coalition claims job losses at Penrice Soda in South Australia are due to the carbon tax.
Another 60 jobs to go in Adelaide from Penrice Soda. Carbon Tax named as part of the reason. A real blow #auspol
— Greg Hunt (@GregHuntMP) January 18, 2013
Penrice Soda was losing money for 2 years BEFORE the carbon tax began.
Its market for sodium carbonate was disappearing as glass manufacturer after glass manufacturer either closed factories or scaled back operations.
On closing its antiquated, inefficient plant, Penrice Soda signed an import licence under which it will supply Australian glass manufacturers with the cheapest available sodium carbonate from the world's most efficient producer - in the United States of America.
This U.S. manufacturer implemented carbon capture and re-use technology 35 years ago. Instead of dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it uses it as a raw material in the efficient production of sodium carbonate.
1. Penrice Soda lost $90 million in the two years to 30 June 2012 - before the carbon tax
October 30, 2012 | Brian Robins | SMH
Penrice Soda first company to strike out
The company has been hit by weak demand for its soda ash from glassmakers, as some winemakers have opted to bottle their product offshore, reducing demand for glass produced locally.
Penrice Soda lost $64 million in the year to June, up from $26 million a year earlier, on revenue of $149 million. (Read more ...)
2. Australian glass manufacturers were closing down before 30 June 2012 - before the carbon tax
November 30, 2010
Penrice increases list prices of soda ash
Dear Valued Customers,
Penrice announces today that effective 1 January 2011 ... it will increase the list prices for all bulk and packaged soda ash by $60 per metric tonne (to prices from $535 to $655 per metric tonne). (Read more ...)
July 20, 2011
Glass Manufacturing Jobs in Australia 457 Visa Sponsorship
Are you looking for an employer sponsored job in Australia in the glass manufacturing field?
September 2, 2011 Sarah Falson | Manufacturers' Monthly
CSR cuts 100 jobs at Viridian Glass
Viridian Glass is now expected to generate a loss of around $6 to $8 million for the six months to 30 September 2011. (Read more ...)
January 23, 2012 | Annie Dang | Manufacturers' Monthly
Glass manufacturer shuts down furnace; 74 jobs lost
Glass manufacturer OI Australia will close one of its three furnaces in Spotswood leaving approximately 74 workers without jobs.
Production at the Melbourne-based Spotswood plant is largely geared at making glass bottles for the beer and wine industry.
The closure of one furnace comes as a result of a fall in demand for beer and wine production nationally, the ABC reports. (Read more ...)
July 30, 2012 | Eli Greenblat | SMH
More cuts loom as bottle giant blames local market
THE world's leading glass packaging supplier, Owens-Illinois, could again be forced to shrink its Australia operations, leading to potential job losses, as the US manufacturing giant cites a sluggish local beer and wine market. (Read more ...)
3. Penrice Soda signs agreement to supply soda - 40 percent cheaper for its customers
January 17, 2013
Penrice forms joint venture to resell and distribute soda ash
Penrice’s sodium bicarbonate business, a predominantly export business to food and pharmaceutical customers, has doubled sales and profits over the past five years.
Penrice’s soda ash business has been under extraordinary pressure. Imported soda ash continues to be substantially (over 40%) cheaper because of a number of factors which are likely to continue for the foreseeable future...
These same pressures are also playing out across Penrice’s soda ash customer base - mainly glass and detergent manufacturers - creating significantly less demand for soda ash.
The company has decided to import soda ash rather than manufacture it. This will reduce production and impact 60 jobs at its Osborne plant in South Australia from May 2013 onwards.
The soda ash will be sourced from American Natural Soda Ash Corporation (“ANSAC”), which represents three leading producers of natural soda ash in the United States. (Read more ...)
4. U.S. manufacturer implemented carbon capture and re-use technology 35 years ago
1978
Start commercial carbon dioxide (CO2) capture
Soda ash, also known as sodium carbonate, is an important inorganic chemical that is used by many industries for various applications. The United States is the world's largest soda ash-producing nation with the world's largest natural deposit of trona, the ore from which soda ash is refined.
The IMC Chemicals Facility in Trona has been performing CO2 capture from flue gas since 1978, longer than any other such plant in the world. CO2 is separated from flue gas of a coal-fired boiler, which is used to produce electricity. The captured CO2 is used for carbonation of brine from Searles Lake.
This facility is able to capture up to 800 tons of CO2 per day, using sodium carbonate based scrubbers. (Read more ...)
