Tuesday, 18 June, 2013, 12:00am

Links:
[1] https://www.scmp.com/sites/default/files/2013/06/18/de959a525dd005e725d221f6d561e118.jpg

Saturday, 15 June, 2013, 12:00am

Source URL (retrieved on Jun 15th 2013, 12:08pm): http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1261175/mainland-must-be-factor-review-hks-electricity-scheme-says-christine

Final three named in EfW design contest

09 April 2013 by Susanna Prouse

·

The Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) has announced a shortlist of three companies still in competition to design ‘the most economically and commercially viable, energy from waste (EfW) gasification demonstrator plant’.

Gasification is a process that converts organic or carbon-based materials into syngas, a combination fuel of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

Advanced Plasma Power (APP), Broadcrown Ltd and Royal Dahlman were all selected from the companies that replied to ETI’s ‘request for proposals’ launched in April 2012. The companies will now design and develop projects plants ‘to demonstrate an integrated system that would be commercial at between five and 20 megawatts (MWe)’.

ETI – a public-private partnership between BP, Caterpillar, EDF, E.ON, Rolls-Royce and Shell – has stated that the aim of this stage of the project, reportedly worth £2.8 million, is to ‘demonstrate how such a plant could create energy-from-waste efficiencies higher than previously produced in the industry at this scale’.

According to environmental consultancy AEA, current incineration plants operate at efficiency rates of 15 to 25 per cent. ETI has said that it accepts that there is a challenge with the designs, as ‘each complete system will need to operate at a net electrical efficiency of at least 25 per cent’.

The designs

The APP led consortium will design a six MWe demonstration facility featuring its Gasplasma technology, which uses a separate plasma furnace to ‘crack and clean the crude syngas from gasifier’.

Broadcrown will design a two MWe high-efficiency demonstration facility using ‘a robust yet highly scaleable concept that promotes distributed waste management and power generation’. The company is also partnering with ‘major European and American technology companies’ to demonstrate a combined cycle using syngas.

Royal Dahlman will develop a seven MWe plant using patented MILENA-OLGA technology, developed in cooperation with Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands. The company is heading a team of British, Swiss, American and Dutch partners.

The first phase of the project takes in design and will last 10 months. The winning submission will be selected in early 2014, based on cost and projected performance.

According to ETI, the plant that is selected could be designed, built, tested and in operation by 2016. The chosen plant is then expected to operate as a demonstration site for up to four years.

The competition reportedly marks the ‘first time’ a total system approach for an energy from waste gasification facility of this size has been considered in a Research and Development (R&D) project.

“The breakthrough we are all looking for”

Paul Winstanley, the ETI Bioenergy Project Manager overseeing the competition, said: “Our national modelling work shows that bioenergy could be a key component of any future energy systems mix to meet the demands of providing affordable, secure and sustainable energy.

“This analysis indicates that new plant designs at this scale could potentially operate at a net efficiency rate of at least 25 per cent, which significantly exceeds the performance of current plants in operation. Any successful design of such a plant will provide the opportunity to move towards more efficient, distributed energy conversion technologies and reduce dependency on landfill for waste management in the UK.”

Rolf Stein, CEO of Advanced Plasma Power, voiced his delight at being given the opportunity to demonstrate the ‘Gasplasma waste to energy technology’ as it “improves competition in the market for the generation of electricity from syngas”.

Broadcrown Ltd’s co-founder and Managing Director, David Borgman said the commission was a “welcome endorsement of [Broadcrown’s] commitment to providing the best engineering expertise and delivering systems to the highest possible standard”.

Jan-Willem Könemann, Renewable Technology Executive at Royal Dahlman, added: “In the current economical situation it is hard to finance innovative and therewith risky projects launching new technology. This ETI project, resulting in a technical and commercial successful waste to energy plant, will be the breakthrough we are all looking for.”

Read more about The Energy Techologies Institute’s shortlist

Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism has made aviation fuel a strategic priority

• by:Steve Creedy
• From:The Australian
• March 08, 201312:00AM

Scientists are looking at a variety of ways to create biofuels for use in aviation, including using algae as a feedstock. Picture AP/Kirsty Wigglesworth Source: AP

AUSTRALIA has the building blocks of an advanced aviation biofuel industry with the advantage of airlines keen to buy it if it can be made economically.

But it will need international investment, including from Big Oil, and continued government involvement to get it through the risky emerging industry stage, according to one of the nation’s top biofuel experts.

“We have to bring in international investors, which is not a bad thing because they’re good strategic partners and increase the discipline of the whole commercialisation process,” said Susan Pond, chairwoman of the Australian Initiative for Sustainable Aviation Fuels. “Much of the capital we require to invest in and build bio refineries will come from international sources.”

The AISAF is a public-private partnership between the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism and the industry, which aims to advance sustainable aviation fuel in Australia.

Professor Pond, of the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, believes a two-day biofuel conference at the Australian International Air Show at Avalon in Geelong last week that attracted 10 international speakers demonstrated the interest in Australian biofuels. They included representatives of biofuel companies, aircraft manufacturers and government agencies, including defence.

“In Australia, we’ve done our strategic planning, we know we’ve got opportunities, in the form of our biomass and our capacity to complete large-scale projects,” Professor Pond said.

One challenge, Professor Pond said, was a lack of long-term financing. It was here that there was a place for government and overseas investors. Oil companies also would have to bring their assets to avoid the need to rebuild refineries.

Professor Pond said the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism had made aviation fuel a strategic priority and understood it would take government involvement at the proof-of-concept and early commercialisation stages.

Government involvement in biofuels centres on the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, set up in 2011, and its renewable energy venture capital fund, Southern Cross Venture Partners. There is also the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corp, which might not survive a change in government.

“It’s a new industry,” Professor Pond said. “It’s risky and it won’t be bankable in the conventional sense at this early stage.”

On the private side, both of Australia’s big airlines are keen to develop a sustainable jet fuel industry and have their irons in several biofuel fires.

Qantas has been working with Solena Fuels since early 2011 to investigate the feasibility of building a commercial jet biofuel plant in Sydney similar to a British Airways plant in London.

The aim would be to convert commercial waste to biofuel using a $300m plant based on the Fischer-Tropsch process that makes jet fuel from coal in South Africa and gas in Qatar.

The British Airways plant is due to come online next year and will convert up to 500,000 tonnes of waste a year into 73 million litres of “green” jet fuel, enough to power 2 per cent of BA’s Heathrow base. It will use food scraps and other household material, such as grass and tree cuttings, as well as agricultural and industrial waste, as a feedstock for the fuel.

The flying kangaroo, which staged biofuel flights last year, also has been working with US company Solazyme, which produces oil using single-cell algae as a biocatalyst in industrial fermentation process treating feedstock such as sugarcane bagasse.

Virgin Australia has partnered with Renewable Oil Corporation, GE and the Future Farm Industries CRC to develop a renewable jet fuel derived from West Australian mallee trees using a technique called fast pyrolysis, through which feedstocks are liquefied and broken down to basic organic building blocks under high temperature to produce crude biofuel.

It also has teamed with NSW biofuel company Licella on its unique one-step catalytic hydrothermal reactor technology to produce high-quality bio-crude oil from a biomass such as farm waste.

While the airlines are keen to parade their environmental credentials, they readily admit they are not just driven by a desire to cut greenhouse emissions.

“Airlines see the possibility of another fuel source as a way to hedge their bets on costs,” Professor Pond said. “If they can have long-term stable off-take agreements from another fuel provider, they have bargaining power with fossil fuel providers.

“Also, a long-term contract at known prices gives them a more predictable future in contrast to the volatile oil market.”

While hydro-treated renewable fuels and those produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process have been approved for use in aircraft by certifying agency ATSM International, other processes yet to get the nod such as alcohol-to-jet and fast pyrolysis could prove a big boost for Australia.

Alcohol-to-jet, which Professor Pond believed was likely to be certified by late next year or early 2015, allows a company to take a waste or renewable feedstock through to an alcohol such as ethanol or butanol, then remove the oxygen atoms and produce longer chain hydrocarbon fuels such as jet fuel. Whichever process is used, the potential pay-off is considerable if the industry can bridge the gap between small demonstration plants and commercial production facilities.

The CSIRO’s Flight Path to Sustainable Aviation report in 2011 estimated that an Australasian bio-derived jet fuel industry could generate 12,000 jobs across the next two decades and reduce the nation’s reliance on fuel imports by $2 billion annually.

The report said the industry could decrease aviation sector greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent and that there was enough biomass in Australia and New Zealand to supply 46 per cent of the industry’s fuel needs by 2020 and all of it by 2050.

Professor Pond pointed to the set of figures that underscored the need for a concerted global push on biofuels. The world last year consumed a staggering 89 billion barrels of liquid fuels a day or about 1032 barrels per second.

About 60 per cent of that fuel was used for transport, which accounted for 23 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. About 10 per cent of the transport fuel was used for aviation.

“Australia consumes about 1 per cent of the global supply of petroleum but a proportionately higher percentage of transport and aviation fuels.

“Unsurprisingly in Australia, because of the distances involved, aviation fuels consume relatively more of our transport fuel mix than in other countries.

“In 2010, aviation accounted for about 13 per cent. This is projected to rise to about 20 per cent by 2030 because other modes of transport will take up alternative energy options such as gas and electricity.

“The aviation sector will be dependent on the same liquid jet fuel for many decades. If the sector is to grow as projected, it has to turn its mind to renewable fuels, which don’t have the same carbon footprint as fossil fuels.”

The carbon footprint of fuel refers to the full life-cycle footprint that covers planting and growing the crop through to harvesting and transportation, the production process and burning it in an aircraft engine.

This raised another can of worms, Professor Pond said, “because you have to get your metrics, methods and facts right to meet what will be quite stringent environmental criteria before you can market it as a sustainable fuel”.

“You have to make sure that the energy cost of converting low-energy dense materials into liquid fuel is not unfavourable.”

The biofuel expert believed there was a huge potential for algae in Australia and said this was the focus of many of the local companies. Other promising feedstocks include lignocellulose, such as wood waste; and wheat straw and technologies such as fast pyrolysis show potential.

Professor Pond said the places where biomass could be aggregated most easily would determine where biofuel plants were located and that a state-by-state approach to biomass production systems would be the best way to establish reliable supply.

Ultimately, she said, it all came down to economics and life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions.

“So if you’re in Sydney, the feedstock will be landfill rather than an agricultural crop,” Professor Pond said.

“In regional areas, forest waste or wheat straw, for example, will feed into a bio-refinery located within a 50km radius for processing at least to the first stage of a more energy-dense bio-crude.

“The bio-crude could then be transported to a centralised refinery that can produce a range of products including liquid fuels.

“Renewable aviation fuel will be marketed to distribution centres that service airports. Some regional feedstocks will not be available for aviation fuels because of the economics.”

Professor Pond said airlines would be looking for a 50 per cent reduction in carbon emissions but she suspected this would take some time to achieve.

Current certification allows for up to a 50:50 mix of biofuel and conventionally derived jet fuel. It is likely to a considerable time before the industry has enough scale to meet even that mix.

“The percentage of renewable aviation fuel will probably start at 1 per cent and increase as more bio refineries come on line,” Professor Pond said.

Learn more about the NCA here

Venting and Leaking of Methane from Shale Gas Development: Response to Cathles et al.

Online Supplemental Material Quick Link (pdf)

Citation:

Howarth, R. W., R. Santoro, and A. Ingraffea. 2012. Venting and Leaking of Methane from Shale Gas Development: Response to Cathles et al. Climatic Change. In Press.

Should Fracking Stop? Point:Yes, It’s too high risk.

read Point & Counterpoint on ACSF blog

Citation:

Howarth, RW and A Ingraffea. 2012. Should Fracking Stop? Point/Counterpoint Nature, DOI:10.1038/477271a

Methane and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations

Online Supplemental Material Quick Link (doc)

Citation:

Howarth, R. W., R. Santoro, and A. Ingraffea. 2011. Methane and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Climatic Change Letters, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5

Indirect Emissions of Carbon Dioxide from Marcellus Shale Gas Development. A Technical Report

Citation:

Santoro, R. L., R. W. Howarth, and A. Ingraffea. 2011. Indirect Emissions of Carbon Dioxide from Marcellus Shale Gas Development. A Technical Report from the Agriculture, Energy, & the Environment Program at Cornell University. June 30, 2011.

News›Hong Kong

ENERGY

Phila Siu phila.siu@scmp.com

Two City University energy experts want the government to set up a natural gas stabilisation fund to offset a likely big increase in electricity prices.

William Chung Siu-wai, director of the Energy and Environmental Policy Research Unit at City University, forecasts that CLP Power could raise its tariff by up to 13 per cent next year, while Hongkong Electric could lift its tariff by up to 5 per cent.

The forecast was made in light of the price of fuel, especially natural gas, increasing dramatically since last year.

Chung said CLP Power had paid HK$48.60 for a unit of natural gas last year, while Hongkong Electric paid HK$87.

The big difference was because CLP Power’s natural gas comes from Hainan Island, while Hongkong Electric sources its supply from Australia.

Chung said the market price for a unit of natural gas had soared to HK$113.10 this year and he expected China to cash in on the increase.

Assuming that both companies had to pay this much next year, they would have to increase tariffs by up to 13 per cent and 5 per cent next year.

The firms have not made public how much they paid this year.

Chung urged the government to inject HK$3 billion into a natural gas stabilisation fund to offset the higher prices Hongkongers would have to pay for electricity.

“The government can set up a seed fund first and then reinvest the money in, for example, the energy market,” he said. If it did, Hongkongers would have to pay only 4 per cent more next year.

An Environmental Bureau spokesman said it would consider the proposal.

Chung brushed off criticism that setting up the fund would be like giving away taxpayers’ money to the power companies.

This was because the two companies did not make any money from the actual cost of the fuel but, for example, from operational charges.

The research unit’s associate research director, William Yu Yuen-ping, said the fund only required HK$3 billion, which was much lower than the HK$4 billion in tariff subsidies the government had granted in the past.

“Natural gas is also a much cleaner energy as it emits half the pollutants burning coal produces,” Yu said.

About 24 per cent of the total energy CLP Power produces is generated from natural gas, while the figure is 27.9 per cent for Hongkong Electric.

Topics:

Environment

Business

Hongkong Electric Company

Hong Kong is stuck with outdated rules governing the amount of profit that can be made by power firms, the government’s new energy adviser says.

The total revamp required is impossible before the current deal expires in 2018, despite an interim review next year, said Professor Raymond So Wai-man, a financial expert from Hang Seng Management College who has been appointed chairman of the Energy Advisory Committee.

He warned people not to assume the review would lead to cheaper power bills.

The profits of power firms are tied to the amount of money they invest in fixed assets. The permitted rate of return is set at 9.99 per cent, down from the previous 13.5 per cent before 2009.

So, who replaced Edmund Leung Kwong-ho as chairman, said: “The system is a by-product of the industrial boom in the 60s where the government wanted the firms to boost power supply by rewarding the investment made.

“What the power firm earned under that system was not that much compared to the fast economic growth. But it is clearly too much in the matured economy we have now.”

He said next year’s review of the system by both the government and power firms would not produce the overhaul needed.

“There are going to be some patchwork changes, fixing this and that. But definitely a total revamp is out of question as we have to abide by the contractual spirit of the existing agreement,” he said.

The committee used to be a low-profile advisory body, but that changed when CLP Power (SEHK: 0002) raised its tariffs last year and was criticised by members.

Of the 24 members, 13 were kicked out during the recent committee reshuffle, including one lawmaker. The 11 new members include bankers, an accountant and a chief financial officer of a listed company. There are now no legislators on the committee.

So said the composition reflected the need to focus more on the financial and business aspects of energy suppliers rather than their technical issues. But he warned the public not to have “unrealistic expectations” of the committee, stressing it had no role to adjudicate in any power tariff dispute.

“It is a real challenge to prevent the public from having unrealistic expectations,” he said. “It will be a big problem if we, the energy advisory committee, are mistaken by the public as assuming the role of judge. But I am worried that this is the situation we are facing.”

So said public anger over power tariffs could have its roots in seeing pollution rise along with fuel bills.

He added: “Honestly, the power tariff is not that high in the Asia region, but the public has already formed an impression that it is high and needs to be cut. This is a perception difficult to change.”

chifai.cheung@scmp.com ]]> http://energy.cleartheair.org.hk/?feed=rss2&p=1440 0