|
"A2SE Energy All-Star Awards"
Seasons Greetings
|
The Australian Alliance to Save Energy, Level 11, UTS Building 10, 235 Jones St, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Ph: 02 9514 2044
|
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Energy All-Star Awards
Monday, December 17, 2012
China slashing carbon dioxide emissions
How to Halve Coal Demand and Cut Emissions by 75 per cent
while Saving Money
 |
China adopts advanced U.S. technology
"Wanxiang believes that GreatPoint Energy’s Bluegas technology is currently the world’s most advanced, lowest cost and most environmentally friendly technology for transforming coal into natural gas."
The Bluegas hydromethanation technology developed and owned by GreatPoint Energy directly converts coal into pipeline quality natural gas, the cleanest commercial fuel in use globally. GreatPoint Energy’s proprietary technology operates at the highest efficiency with the least environmental impact, and produces natural gas at the lowest cost in the industry.
Inherent in the technology is the ability to capture nearly all emissions, including carbon dioxide, which can be sequestered and used for oil production through Enhanced Oil Recovery.
The technology is especially well suited for arid regions and where low-quality, concentrated coal resources are available, such as in Xinjiang. Together, Wanxiang and GreatPoint Energy also plan to develop large-scale Bluegas projects at other locations in Xinjiang and in other regions of China using the Bluegas technology.
Read more about Wanxiang and GreatPoint Energy Announce $1.25 Billion Investment and Agree to Construct World’s Most Efficient Coal-to-Natural Gas Production Facility in China
Case Studies - Natural Gas Cogeneration / Trigeneration
Castle Hill RSL
- Energy conversion efficiency over 80 percent possible with coal-to-natural gas technology
Carbon Training International Case study on Australia’s Castle Hill RSL Club’s cogeneration system.
Rooty Hill RSL
- Emissions cut 50 percent overnight
A Tri Generation system reduces Rooty Hill RSL's carbon emissions by more than 50 percent.
GE supplies gas turbine to industrial cogeneration plant in Nanxun
GE and its manufacturing partner, Nanjing Turbine & Electric Machinery (NTC) agreed to supply two gas turbines to Guodian Dianli's Nanxun industrial cogeneration power plant in China's Nanxun development zone.Guodian Dianli is a Chinese power company. China Guodian Corporation is a state owned enterprise which is among the nation's five largest producers of electricity.
The new combined-cycle plant, which will generate to provide electricity and industrial heating for the Nanxun development zone, uses natural gas from China's West to East Pipeline II.
Both turbines will be shipped by December 2013 and the plant will begin operation in the second quarter of 2014.
Read more: ...
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Solar Coal Power
Why choose between solar and coal when you can use both?
Global Energy Production will increase dramatically by 2035, regardless of energy-efficiency improvements in developed economies.1.5 billion people have no access to electricity, and 85% of the population in Africa don't yet have electricity. There is enormous unmet demand for access to electricity and clean energy.
In its annual Human Development Report, the UN Development Progamme (UNDP) said the UN has designated 2012 as the international year of sustainable energy for all. Read more on Health without energy? - Without clean, modern energy people's health can be severely affected
Consider a region perhaps in China or India that has a 600 Megawatt coal-fired power station, and it wants to double this generating capacity.
What do some of the options look like and how do they compare on cost and carbon dioxide emissions?
- One option is to build another 600 Megawatt coal-fired power station.
- Another option is to build a 600 Megawatt concentrated solar thermal power station with sufficient thermal energy storage to allow it to operate reliably overnight and after one or two cloudy days.
- A further option is to replace the existing 600 Megawatt coal-fired power station with a 1200 Megawatt combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power station, and optionally generate the fuel for this power station using the coal supply from the existing 600 Megawatt coal-fired power station with a much smaller concentrated solar thermal (CST) field of heliostats.
For option 2, a very large and costly field of heliostats is needed. The thermal energy storage system for reliable operation overnight and after one or two cloudy days is a substantial proportion of the total cost, and even then does not provide reliable operation in periods of extended cloud cover. CO2 emissions remain constant, because the existing coal-fired power station continues operation as before. CO2 emissions intensity of the combined existing and new systems is halved to 0.4 tonnes per Megawatt-hour.
For option 3, a new combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power station is needed, and the existing coal-fired power station is decommissioned. The coal supply from the decommissioned power station is converted to Syngas using a much smaller field of heliostats. Some components of the decommissioned coal power station, such as the coal-handling equipment may be re-used. No thermal energy storage system is required: this need is met by storing Syngas for continuous power generation. CO2 emissions remain constant: the new power station is consuming the same quantity of coal as the existing coal power station it replaces. However it produces twice the amount of electrical energy so the CO2 emissions intensity is halved to 0.4 tonnes per Megawatt-hour. Note that the solar thermal gasification of coal in this option provides the same benefit as a Carbon Capture and Storage system that removes 50 percent of the CO2 emissions of a coal-fired power station.
Note: Option 3 achieves the same outcomes as option 2. That is, total electricity output capacity is doubled to 1200 Megawatts, CO2 emissions do not increase, no additional fossil fuel is needed, and CO2 emissions intensity is halved to 0.4 tonnes per Megawatt-hour.
Essentially these are two technologically different solutions with nearly identical economic and environmental benefits. (Option 3 overcomes criticism that solar energy sources are intermittent and hence unreliable without "backup" fossil fuel power plants. Option 3 also eliminates toxic mercury and other emissions of the existing coal-fired power station that is retained in Option 2.)
The choice between options 2 and 3 can be based on a comparison of their cost and a consideration of the added benefits of option 3.
Coal-Fired Power Station (Option 1)
Input Thermal Energy from Coal: 1500 Megawatts per hour
Output Electrical Energy: 600 Megawatts per hour
CO2 Emissions: 480 tonnes per hour
 |
| Figure 1: Coal-fired Power Station Model |
Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST) Power Station (Option 2)
Input Thermal Energy from Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST): 1500 Megawatts per hour
Output Electrical Energy: 600 Megawatts per hour
CO2 Emissions: 0 tonnes per hour
 |
| Figure 2: Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST) Power Station Model |
Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST) Coal/Biomass Gasification (Option 3 - part 1)
Input Thermal Energy from Coal/Biomass: 1500 Megawatts per hour
Input Thermal Energy from Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST): 500 Megawatts per hour
Output Thermal Energy in Purified Syngas: 2000 Megawatts per hour (This is transferred to the Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power station below - where it is used the generate electricity)
CO2 Emissions: 0 tonnes per hour
 |
| Figure 3: Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST) Coal/Biomass Gasifier |
Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station (Option 3 - part 2)
Input Thermal Energy from Syngas/Natural Gas: 2000 Megawatts per hour (This is transferred from the Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST) Coal/Biomass Gasification plant above)
Output Electrical Energy: 1200 Megawatts per hour
CO2 Emissions: 480 tonnes per hour
 |
| Figure 4: Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station Model |
For details of research on solar thermal gasification see this post on Concentrated Solar Thermal energy Meets Biomass CHP
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 EmissionsIncreased 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 |
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.”
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Abbott: The Man without a Plan
Extract of Lisa Wilkinson Interview with Tony Abbott, Today Show
5 November 2012
|
| No Plan |
LISA WILKINSON:
A good proposal by the Government to bring those energy prices down?
TONY ABBOTT:
Well, this is a government which has presided over a massive increase in prices. Power prices are up 89 per cent since Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister and the carbon tax is now making a bad situation worse. I think if the Government was serious about bringing prices down, it wouldn't be lecturing the States about what they might do. It would be doing what it could do and that is getting rid of the carbon tax and that would instantly, on the Government's own figures, reduce prices by 10 per cent.
LISA WILKINSON:
But the truth is that the carbon tax is only contributing a small amount to those price rises. It's only been in since July 1 and for these proposals that the Government is putting forward to work, it does need cooperation from state governments to deregulate power prices. Now, Queensland Premier Campbell Newman has already said no. We're getting similar indications from the NSW Coalition Government. Is that because it's actually politically convenient to keep those prices high leading up to the Federal election and just keep blaming it on the carbon tax?
TONY ABBOTT:
No one wants to see prices high. Everyone wants to see prices down. But the most practical thing the Commonwealth could do right now to get power prices down is to take off the carbon tax and, you know, the whole point of the carbon tax, Lisa, is to raise power prices. The point I keep making is every time your power bill goes up, the Prime Minister has a smile on her face because that is the carbon tax just doing its job.
LISA WILKINSON:
Alright. Well, you've already promised that, should you be elected Prime Minister, you will get rid of that carbon tax.
That leaves you 79 per cent of those price rises you've got to play with. Can you guarantee that an Abbott government will bring energy prices down beyond taking off the carbon tax?
TONY ABBOTT:
Well, that's a very, very good start. That is a very good start and we would have the ACCC out there making sure that businesses did not profiteer once the carbon tax was off.
LISA WILKINSON:
Ok, but you still haven't answered my question. How much will you bring down energy prices beyond taking off the carbon tax?
TONY ABBOTT:
Well, we will do vastly better than the Labor Party, Lisa, because there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead…
LISA WILKINSON:
You're still not answering my question, Mr Abbott.
TONY ABBOTT:
But, Lisa, I'm saying there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead and when I say that, I'm telling the truth.
LISA WILKINSON:
So should I get from that that you don't actually have a plan on how to bring prices down beyond the carbon tax, beyond getting rid of the carbon tax, Mr Abbott?
TONY ABBOTT:
That's a very, very good start, Lisa.
LISA WILKINSON:
Ok, well, I'll have to take it that you don't have a plan. Unless you're going to put one forward, it doesn't look like you've got a plan, Mr Abbott.
TONY ABBOTT:
Lisa, the plan starts with getting rid of the carbon tax.
...
LISA WILKINSON:
Ok. Let's move on.
Update February 5, 2013
|
| Tony Abbott's Plan - (No) Real Solutions |
Monday, November 12, 2012
Unexpected Binding Energies
Anything special about 124.334 MeV binding energy?
|
| Puzzling (from www.picgifs.com) |
for 12 neutrons -
| 146 | Tm + 12( | 1 | n) → | 158 | Tm + 124.334 MeV |
| 69 | 0 | 69 |
and for 16 neutrons -
| 158 | Tm + 16( | 1 | n) → | 174 | Tm + 124.334 MeV |
| 69 | 0 | 69 |
and for these 12 neutrons -
| 99 | In + 12( | 1 | n) → | 111 | In + 124.334 MeV |
| 49 | 0 | 49 |
and for these 10 neutrons -
| 160 | Ho + 10( | 1 | n) → | 170 | Ho + 124.334 MeV |
| 67 | 0 | 67 |
and for these 18 neutrons -
| 133 | Ce + 18( | 1 | n) → | 151 | Ce + 124.334 MeV |
| 58 | 0 | 58 |
Why does 8.557 MeV binding energy occur in these 2 places?
For these 7 neutrons -
| 141 | Sm + 7( | 1 | n) → | 148 | Sm + 7 x 8.557 MeV |
| 62 | 0 | 62 |
and for these 4 protons -
| 141 | Sm + 4( | 1 | p) → | 145 | Dy + 2 x 8.557 MeV |
| 62 | 1 | 66 |
Friday, November 9, 2012
Exploding stars for soil moisture monitors
Public seminar
|
When: | 10:30 am, 16 November |
| Where: | Christian Lab Clunies Ross Street Black Mountain ACT 2601 |
|
| Cost: | This event is free of charge; no RSVP required |
Enquiries: peter.hairsine@csiro.au or 02 6201 9462.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)