http://alfin2300.blogspot.com/2012/06/coal-is-becoming-both-versatile-and.html Al Fin Energy Sunday, June 24, 2012 Coal Is Becoming Both Versatile and Clean Technology for turning coal into electric power, process heat, and liquid fuels has come a long way over the past ten years. And science and engineering have just begun developing cleaner and more efficient ways of utilising coal for heat, power, and transportation fuels. Comparison of Various Coal to Liquids Methods (PDF) The table above reveals the superior yields and efficiency of direct coal liquefaction (and hybrid liquefaction) as compared to gasification plus Fischer Tropsch, or indirect coal liquefaction. Advantages of Direct Coal Liquefaction (PDF) The presentation summary above describes some economic advantages of direct coal liquefaction over indirect liquefaction -- including lower startup costs. Shenhua Direct Coal Liquefaction Plant State-owned China Shenhua Group made a profit from its pioneering direct coal-to-liquids (CTL) project in the first half of this year (2011), raising hopes that the world’s second largest oil consuming nation may expand forays into alternative fuel production. China has rich coal reserves but limited oil deposits. After backing CTL as a way of improving energy security and easing its growing dependence on overseas crude oil, China went cold on the technology in 2008, cancelling dozens of projects amid concerns about high production costs and the impact it would have on scarce water supplies. The parent of China Shenhua Energy Co , the country’s biggest coal producer, produced 470,000 tonnes of oil products from coal in the first half and costs of the fuel were equivalent to crude oil prices of less than $60 a barrel, according to Shenhua Group’s General Manager Zhang Yuzhuo. _Shenhua DCL Project Proves Profitable As long as oil costs remain high (above $80 a barrel), such projects should provide healthy returns to their backers. The CTL approach depicted above utilises methane as a hydrogen donour in a unique liquefaction process which utilises gasification plus methanol production. The methanol can be further converted to diesel or jet fuel. More details This Accelergy approach to CTL utilises biomass gasification as a hydrogen donour for the coal liquefaction. At this point in time, methane is likely to be more practical to provide hydrogen. The above image portrays three ways of CTL, including Exxon Mobil's coal to methanol to gasoline (MTG), traditional gasification plus Fischer Tropsch, and the use of biomass gasification to provide hydrogen for direct liquefaction of coal to liquids. And just to remind you that the world is not giving up on coal for the generation of electrical power, this EIA graphic projects a steady growth in the use of coal for electrical power generation through 2035 -- consistent with the recent 2012 BP Statistical Review. Coal is second in size only to gas hydrates as a global hydrocarbon resource. Any rational projection of future energy and fuels production would necessarily include coal. Rather than to reject coal altogether, more intelligent energy analysts and policy-makers would do better to continue to press for cleaner, safer, and more efficient ways of utilising this massive energy source -- as a bridge to future sources of energy which can be used for many thousands of years, such as advanced nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, and hybrid fission - fusion. Labels: coal, CTL posted by al fin at 12:00 AM 0 Comments: Post a Comment Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom] << Home Newer Posts Older Posts Al Fin Energy Al Fin Central About Me al fin North America Primary interest is seeing that the best of humanity survives long enough to reach the next level. View my complete profile Previous Posts Coal Will Thrive Long After Obama Is Gone Coal Under Attack on All Fronts . . . Plots Comeba... Oil Dependency and the Russian Economy Worrying About a Collapse of Oil Prices German Magazine FOCUS Warns Germans of Collapse Energy Cornucopia in Paradise Pitiful Germany: Who Can Save You Now? The Lesson of $147 a Barrel Oil Peak Oil Stutters, Stammers, Blusters On Peak Oil: Pro and Con Powered by Blogger Subscribe to Posts [Atom]

National Coal Council Study Finds CO2-Based Enhanced Oil Recovery From Coal Benefits Environment, Energy Security And Economy PR Newswire WASHINGTON, June 22, 2012 WASHINGTON, June 22, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- The National Coal Council (NCC) today presented the U.S. Department of Energy with the results of a comprehensive study requested by U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu. The study, "Harnessing Coal's Carbon Content to Advance the Economy, Environment and Energy Security," concludes that widespread deployment of carbon dioxide capture and utilization (CCUS) technologies at coal-based power and liquid fuels production plants could help increase domestic oil production by more than 3.5 million barrels a day for 40-plus years. The Council's findings are based on contributions from more than 60 leading energy experts in coordination with the National Petroleum Council. Since 2001, the Council has conducted six major carbon dioxide (CO2) management studies for a series of U.S. Energy Secretaries. In this recent report, the Council evaluated the potential market for using CO2 captured from the existing and newly constructed U.S. coal-based electricity fleet and potential coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants as a resource for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations. EOR technology has successfully increased U.S. oil production for nearly half a century. "It's time to think of CO2 as a valuable commodity. Advanced coal technology is key to affordably realizing deep reductions in emissions," said Council member and Study Chairman Richard Bajura. "The U.S. uses more coal than any nation except China, and potential production of U.S. oil from coal-derived CO2 for CCUS/ EOR applications dwarfs other projected new domestic sources. We have a unique opportunity to more fully use domestic, low-cost coal to access more oil." Research conducted for the National Energy Technology Laboratory indicates that over 60 billion barrels of oil are economically recoverable using next-generation technology at an assumed world oil price of $85 per barrel. "CO2 -based EOR projects are operating profitably even in the current challenging economic environment," explains Council member and Chairman of the Council's Coal Policy Committee Fred Palmer. "Successful deployment of CCUS/EOR responds to the U.S. Administration's goal to reduce emissions 80 percent from 2005 levels by 2050. With a regulatory framework that facilitates the increased deployment of this technology at scale, we can increase use of domestic energy, fuel economic growth and enhance national security." Expanding CO2 -based EOR can significantly reduce emissions by capturing CO2 from coal-based generation and safely injecting the carbon deep into oil wells, releasing stranded oil that could not be accessed by more conventional drilling methods. However, the limited availability of CO2 has been a constraint. The study calls for the capture of carbon dioxide from coal plants and transportation through a robust network of pipelines. This will accelerate the use of CCUS/EOR technology, resulting in large increases in domestic oil production, significant job creation and economic growth. The Council found that 18 billion to 31 billion metric tons of additional CO2 could be used in U.S. oil fields over the next 40 years or more, compared to 2 billion metric tons available from natural sources and natural gas processing. Use of CO2 in EOR processes could yield more than 3.5 million additional barrels a day of oil. Additional findings in the report include: By 2035, the combination of coal-based EOR and CTL technology could provide up to 30 percent of U.S. liquid fuel demand and ensure America's energy security for decades. Much of the CO2 resource could come from large coal power plants that are distributed broadly and common in such economically recovering regions as the Ohio River Valley. Use of CO2 -based EOR and CTL could generate $200 billion in economic activity, more than 1 million skilled jobs and $60 billion in tax revenues. At least 100 gigawatts of advanced coal generating capacity could be built or retrofitted over the next two decades. These advanced plants would use an additional 300 million tons of coal annually. CTL plants with carbon capture could convert coal into more than 2.5 million barrels a day of additional oil. An additional 450 million tons of coal would be used annually in these operations. Capturing a high volume of CO2 for commercial purposes, coupled with CTL operations, would increase coal use to 1.75 billion tons annually. This production level is well within the capability of the United States, home to 30 percent of the world's coal reserves. The National Coal Council is a private, nonprofit advisory body chartered by the U.S. Secretary of Energy in 1984 under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. National Coal Council members are appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Energy and reflect diverse interests, including from business, industry and academia. Download an executive summary of "Harnessing Coal's Carbon Content to Advance the Economy, Environment and Energy Security" at NationalCoalCouncil.org. CONTACT: Robert Beck Executive Vice President National Coal Council 202-223-1191 SOURCE National Coal Council The information on this page is provided by PR Newswire. All rights reserved. Reproduction or redistribution of this content without prior written consent from PR Newswire is strictly prohibited. is not responsible for this content. Learn more about this service. About Pr Logo The information on this page is provided by PR Newswire. The Business Journals is not responsible for this content. Learn more about PR Newswire » Advertisement PR Toolkit Want to see your news in The Business Journals & other media. Distribute your Release through PR Newswire. For a limited time, get a 1-Year Membership to PR Newswire FREE of charge. Find out more about PR Toolkit » Click here to find out more! People Around the Country St. Louis Albany Albany Los Angeles See More People on the Move Search and Contact all People on the Move Jobs Around the Country IRS Careers IRS | Local Opportunities Careers at Verizon Wireless Verizon Wireless | Local Opportunities E-Commerce Creative Director Scholastic | New York, NY Director of Community Relations - Sales - Virginia Beach Sunrise Senior Living | Virginia Beach, VA Training and Organizational Development Director HDR | Omaha, NE

US EPA Confirms Coal Liquids Cheaper Than Petroleum Wednesday - June 20, 2012 http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/DOE/DOE_reports/600_8-80-002/epa-600_8-80-002.pdf All the way back in 1980, synthetic liquid petroleum made from Coal was less expensive than OPEC oil. And, that is as was officially reported, those full three decades ago, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, the final statement by the US EPA, in the report we submit to you herein, is: "Sasol's success indicates that producing synthetic fuels from coal can be technically and economically feasible. The technology is available and the Sasol process - coal gasification plus Fischer-Tropsch synthesis - is the only commercially proven process that wtll produce synthetic fuels quickly, on schedule, and at predictable costs." "Sasol" being, as some published reports would have it, though other expositions of the acronym are published and promoted, "South Africa Synthetic Oil Limited", who have, as documented herein and as also seen in: Sasol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; wherein we're told, that "Sasol's primary business is based on CTL (coal-to-liquid) ... technology and this differentiates it from other petrochemical companies. Coal-To-Liquid plants convert coal ... into liquid fuels. Sasol's early experience was in South Africa. Sasol's original CTL plant ... was commissioned in 1955"; been profitably converting Coal into liquid hydrocarbon petroleum substitutes for better than half a century. Again, though, our own United States Environmental Protection Agency devoted considerable effort to studying the Sasol Coal liquefaction industry back in the late 1970's, primarily, we suppose, because they were able to surmise, and as they finally, after some decades, concluded, as seen in our report of: West Virginia Coal Association | US EPA Recommends Coal Liquefaction as a Clean Alternative | Research & Development; concerning: "Clean Alternative Fuels: Fischer-Tropsch; United States Environmental Protection Agency; Transportation and Air Quality Transportation and Regional Programs Division; EPA420-F-00-036; March 2002; A Success Story (!) For the past 50 years, Fischer-Tropsch fuels have powered all of South Africa’s vehicles, from buses to trucks to taxicabs. Sasol’s South African facility produces more than 150,000 barrels of high quality fuel from domestic low-grade coal daily. The resultant fuel is colorless, odorless, and low in toxicity (and has)important emissions benefits compared with diesel, reducing nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter"; that: Liquid hydrocarbon fuels made from Coal are better for the environment than those made conventionally from natural crude petroleum. Not only that, but, the US EPA also concluded that liquid hydrocarbon fuels made from Coal can be cheaper than those made conventionally from natural crude petroleum. As seen in additional excerpts from our initial link in this dispatch, to a document, that, insofar as we have been able to determine, is available to the public, from our government, only in the form of a hard copy that must be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, NTIS, a bureau within the United States Department of Commerce: "Sasol: South Africa's Oil From Coal Story - - Background For Environmental Assessment EPA-600/8-80-002 TRW Environmental Engineering Division; California; January, 1980 J. L. Anastai; TRW, Inc Contract No. 68-02-2635; EPA Project Officer: William J. Rhodes; Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory; Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology; Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711 Prepared for: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Research and Development; Washington, D.C. 20460 Abstract: The report describes the world's only oil-from-coal plant, known as SASOL, operated by South Africa since 1955. When almost 7 billion worth of expansion is completed in the early 1980s, three SASOL plants will produce a total of 112,000 barrels of oil per day, or about half of South Africa's needs. Production costs average $17 per barrel, well below the 1979 OPEC price of more than $20 per barrel. South African motorists pay about $2.40/gallon (¢0.63/liter) of gasoline at the pump. SASOL converts coal to liquid fuels in two steps: (I) the coal is gasified with oxygen and steam under pressure to yield a mixture of reactive gases, and (2) after being cleaned of impurities, the mixture is passed over an iron-based catalyst in Fischer-Tropsch. synthesis units to produce liquid fuels. SASOL's operation is helped by South Africa's abundance of cheap labor and low cost coal. The U.S., like South Africa, has vast coal reserves. Although comparisons are difficult, it has been estimated that oil could not be produced from coal in the U.S. for less than 27 per barrel and perhaps as much as 45. The South African system is the only commercially proven process for the production of synthetic liquid fuels. The report provides some of the background on a process that will receive high priority for environmental assessment. (First of all, if you wonder how "$17 per barrel" oil translates into "$2.40/gallon ... gasoline", they have, in South Africa, a lot more taxes on their fuel than we do. Consider that, today, here in the United States, OPEC oil at $80+ per barrel translates into $3.30+ per gallon gasoline.) Sasol converts coal to liquid fuels in two steps. First, the coal is burned with oxygen and steam under pressure to yield a gaseous mixture which is principally hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane. This gas is cleaned of impurities using processes that produce valuable chemical by-products. Once this is completed, the gas is passed over an iron based catalyst in the second step to produce liquid fuels. Sasol produces a full range of hydrocarbons Including fuel gas, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), gasoline, diesel oil, parafin waxes, and chemicals such as alcohol and acetone. (All from Coal, mind you.) The yield of products obtained can be altered by changing such variables as the temperature, pressure, catalyst, or feed gas composition. Even though Sasol's operation is helped by South Africa's abundance of cheap labor and low cost coal, Sasol's success indicates that producing synthetic fuels from coal is one solution to meeting the energy needs of a country without depending on natural gas or crude oil." ------------------------ We'll end our excerpts there, since there are a few things to explain. First, the EPA objected that our costs would be higher, perhaps up to $45 per barrel of liquid hydrocarbons produced from Coal, because of our higher labor costs. Well, excuse us for wanting to make a decent living, but: The EPA and their TRW contractors, as far as we can determine, used actual, established South African Coal and Coal conversion costs in their analysis; but, only speculated on the actual costs of American Coal. In sum, and we assert it without documentation, our as-mined costs for Coal, overall, due to general geologic conditions, are less than those in South Africa, despite whatever differential costs there might be in labor. That will change a bit as our shallower, more accessible seams of Coal deplete, and we have to go deeper, as they do in South Africa, to get it. But, further, as can be learned via: Coal TL vs. Hidden Oil Costs | Research & Development; concerning: "NDCF report: the hidden cost of imported oil; The National Defense Council Foundation, an Alexandria, Virginia-based research and educational institution has completed its year-long analysis of the "hidden cost" of imported oil. The NDCF project represents the most comprehensive investigation of the military and economic penalty our undue dependence on imported oil exacts from the U.S. economy"; the real "cost" of a gallon of imported gasoline, to us as individual US citizens, due to, among other things, public tax-funded military expenditures needed to protect OPEC sources of supply and shipping, and, lost United States employment with it's attendant costs, is at least twice as high as the price posted at the pump. One other objection that could be raised against the information presented in the EPA's report is, that, although not reflected in our brief excerpts, they indicate that Sasol's specific process of converting Coal into liquid hydrocarbon fuels, and into valuable byproducts whose value and profit contributions were not, in the report, accounted for, like "liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), ... parafin waxes, and chemicals such as alcohol and acetone" and "methane", does result in the emission of some significant amounts of Carbon Dioxide. That is something that should be corrected, since it represents an inefficient, and expensive, loss of the Carbon contained in the Coal. And, it can be corrected. As seen, for only one example, in: Exxon Coal + CO2 + H2O Combo Gasification & Conversion | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 4,318,712 - Catalytic Coal Gasification Process; 1982; Exxon Research and Engineering; Abstract: A carbonaceous feed material, a potassium compound ... are ... gasified in the presence of the added potassium and sodium or lithium constituents. A process for the catalytic steam gasification of coal .... (which process) may be employed in ... gasification operations ... to promote the reaction of steam, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, or a similar gasification agent with (carbon)"; Carbon Dioxide can be reclaimed and utilized as a co-reactant in the initial gasification of Coal. Or, as seen, for two examples, in: USDOE 1976 Atmospheric CO2 to Methanol | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 3,959,094 - Electrolytic Synthesis of Methanol from CO2; 1976; Assignee: The USA as represented by the USDOE; A method and system for synthesizing methanol from the CO2 in air using electric power"; and: West Virginia Coal Association | USDOE Converts CO2 to Gasoline | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 4,197,421 - Synthetic Carbonaceous Fuels and Feedstocks; 1980; Assignee: The United States of America; This invention relates to the use of a three compartment electrolytic cell in the production of synthetic carbonaceous fuels and chemical feedstocks such as gasoline, methane and methanol by electrolyzing an aqueous sodium carbonate/bicarbonate solution, obtained from scrubbing atmospheric carbon dioxide with an aqueous sodium hydroxide solution"; our United States Department of Energy could have told our United States Environmental Protection Agency, before their report, "Sasol: South Africa's Oil From Coal Story -- Background For Environmental Assessment; EPA-600/8-80-002", was even published, that, Carbon Dioxide, as recovered from whatever source, can be efficiently converted into both industrially valuable Methanol and, even, Gasoline itself. And, the facts that Coal can be efficiently converted into Gasoline and Diesel at less cost than making those fuels from OPEC Oil, and, that Carbon Dioxide can, as well, be converted into Alcohol and Gasoline, were known, as seen herein, to multiple branches of our United States Government more than three decades ago. The additional fact that none of that has been openly reported and made known to the general, tax-paying and OPEC-extorted, United States Public is not just inexcusable and inexplicable, it is despicable.

Nat Gas-to-Liquids Coming to U.S. Print Share By: Ian Madsen, CFA September 20, 2011 | Comment(s): 0 Recommended this article (7) SSL | CHK | RDS.A | KBR | CBI | HON | FLS | FWLT | XOM | CVX | ECA | COG | FST | DVN Attentive investors may have noted an announcement last week by the large South Africa-based energy and chemicals company Sasol (SSL - Analyst Report). The firm said it was commencing an eighteen-month feasibility study to determine the commercial viability of one of two options: either a two million tons per annum or four million tons per annum Gas-to-Liquids, or ‘GTL,’ production facility in southwestern Louisiana. This would be the first GTL facility in the United States, indeed in the Western hemisphere. The liquids produced are expected to be generally kerosene and allied products, for diesel or jet fuel. This could be the start of a major movement to, effectively, substitute abundant, cheap natural gas produced within North America, for expensive, imported crude oil. The economic, balance of payments, financial and investment implications are enormous. Heretofore, this potential substitution has been stymied by a ‘chicken and egg’ problem. Advocates of greater use of natural gas as a transportation fuel -- people like T. Boone Pickens, and the largest developer of shale gas, Chesapeake Energy (CHK - Analyst Report) -- have run into the practical obstacle of natural gas not being a convenient choice for consumers, businesses or institutions. Vehicles have to be fitted with adaptation devices and hardware, plus a large tank to hold compressed natural gas, or ‘CNG,’ squeezing out useful luggage space in passenger vehicles and potential cargo space in trucks and vans. Futhermore, finding stations able to sell CNG at high volumes, dispersed conveniently in cities, towns and along highways, is nearly impossible and would be costly to deploy on a large scale, even if such equipment could be put in place at existing service stations. These stations are owned by integrated oil companies who are not entirely positively disposed to cannibalizing their existing conventional gasoline sales, nor cluttering up and complicating their current operations with a new one of uncertain demand level. So, this new development is extremely positive from a standpoint of encouraging the demand for and consumption of natural gas in a different and much more user-friendly form. Truckers, bus lines, delivery companies, railroads and airlines do not have to change anything about how they operate. In fact, the diesel and aviation fuel from GTL plants, as demonstrated by the ones already built, separately, by Sasol and Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A - Analyst Report) in Qatar, have less contaminants than ‘natural’ kerosene fuels refined from crude oil, and burn cleaner, too. The United States currently consumes over eighteen million barrels of crude oil per day, about twelve million of it imported -- at a cost, today, of about $1.08 billion, or about $400 billion per annum, at today’s price of about $90 per barrel. That is money that leaves the United States economy and contributes to its chronic trade and balance of payments deficit. The revenue, aside from Mexico and Canada, generally goes to unstable, unfriendly, despotic and/or corrupt regimes in the Middle East, Africa or Latin America, fuelling war, repression, terrorism or misery of one kind or another. Should that money stay at home, it would be spent in communities across the U.S., benefiting consumers and businesses, generating jobs, and improving state and federal finances, lowering deficits. It would also encourage the growth of a new industry that would revitalize many sectors, in construction of facilities, manufacture of sensors, controls, and other tools and devices, and specialized equipment used in GTL and related plant and infrastructure. Companies involved in the construction of the Qatar GTL plants include KBR, Inc. (KBR - Snapshot Report), Chicago Bridge and Iron (CBI - Analyst Report), Honeywell (HON - Analyst Report), Flowserve (FLS - Analyst Report) and Foster Wheeler (FWLT - Analyst Report). In general, heretofore, GTL projects have not been major revenue generators for any of these companies, as there have been few of them, and they are constructed over protracted time periods. However, it is quite possible that could change in the near future. Background Converting to volumes, the indicated proposed capacity would be about 2.4 million cubic meters per annum for the smaller option, or 4.8 million cubic metres for the larger one. Converting from metric, that would be an output of 22 million barrels per annum for the small facility, 44 million for the large one. Other sources indicate that, owing to the nature of the process, approximately 11 thousand cubic feet of natural gas are required to produce one barrel of the liquids in these types of facilities. So, annual consumption of gas for the smaller facility is about 240 billion cubic feet; approximately 480 billiion cubic feet for the larger option. This is significant but not substantial; the U.S. produced about 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas from all sources in 2009, so the smaller plant would consume about 1 percent of total U.S. supply by the time it is built and started; the larger one, 2 percent. That is not enough to drive up natural gas prices, especially with the current, and likely continuing, surplus of shale gas. Indeed, some natural gas drillers are running into some unexpected cash flow issues, and have curtailed their drilling plans, or are shifting their emphasis to more ‘liquids-rich’ shale prospects, as light oil and other liquids are also produced in conjunction with much of the shale gas. Economics of GTL Using the crude numbers available: if diesel fuel persists at its recent wholesale price of about US$2.10 per gallon, or US$88.20 per barrel, and natural gas hovers in the range of $4 per thousand cubic feet, then Sasol’s gross margin would be in the neighborhood of $44 per barrel, which, on the surface, looks very lucrative, and compares very well to many unconventional sources of oil such as the Athabasca oil sands in northern Alberta, Canada. It looks even better when considering that, in effect, the Sasol GTL does not require a refinery; it is, in essence, already refining the input resource into finished, high value products. So, the ‘spread’ from the substitute for crude oil to the finished, ‘refined’ liquid is very high. The only real risks or concerns, other than environmental, cost overruns, terrorist vulnerability, political or other ‘black swan’ events, are the normal ones of fluctuations in commodity prices -- specifically, a drastic spike in natural gas prices, or a prolonged slump in the price of oil, and, consequently, oil-based liquid product prices. Neither of these appears to be likely, and could also be partly or wholly hedged against, if judged appropriate and cost-effective to do so. As these sorts of plants are very capital-intensive, and have a small labor component, the operating cash flow will be very high, and the free cash flow not much lower, depending on the quality and durability of the initial construction. Depreciation would be significant, as they are multi-billion dollar plants. Actual physical depreciation should be much lower, hence the high free cash flow. Sasol, and even more so Shell, experienced significant cost overruns in their Qatar GTL plant construction. However, both of them appear to have learned from the experience, and, indeed, their timing was unfortunate, as those plants were built in the late 2000’s, in a period that saw a frenzy of energy-related investment and demand for labor, materials and equipment just prior to the recession of 2008. These drove up prices and prolonged the construction periods. It seems that both companies are still quite positive on GTL, and encouraged to invest in it in the near and extended future. Depending on what happens in Lousiana in the next two years, other energy companies could decide to imitate them, and take advantage of low feedstock costs. ExxonMobil () and Chevron ([url=http://www.zacks.com/stock/quote/cvx]CVX), also have large shale gas divisions, from recent acquisitions. They are undoubtedly reviewing what to do with their burgeoning gas output. A much longer-term concern that seems too remote to call a ‘danger,’ perhaps ever, is that the GTL trend becomes so popular that demand for natural gas drives prices for it up, and production of the liquids output increases to such an extent that their prices fall. That is a ‘problem’ that long suffering companies like Chesapeake, EnCana (ECA - Analyst Report), Cabot (COG - Analyst Report), Forest Oil (FST - Analyst Report) and Devon (DVN - Analyst Report) would love to have. Given the capital commitments, very long construction periods, and sheer abundance of natural gas in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere, this potential issue would seem to be a fantasy at this point, and certainly not a ‘nightmare’ that needs to be taken seriously; not for many years to come. Politics and Environment Politically, it would seem to be the proverbial ‘no-brainer’ to support the development of GTL and associated energy infrastructure. Indeed, Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Lousiana, was present at Sasol’s press conference announcing the feasibility study. GTL, as such, has not entered the U.S. presidential election rhetoric as yet, but shale gas and energy policy in general already have, and, should either the Senate or White House change control to a more business and energy-development-friendly orientation late in 2012, it could be very positive for the whole industry, and perhaps GTL in particular. Substituting domestic natural gas for imported crude oil accomplishes many things: cleaner energy use, helping local industry and employment, reducing balance of payments problems, improving public finances, decreasing energy dependence on unfriendly or unreliable foreign sources, and reducing the money flowing to erratic or violent regimes. Shale gas development has been one of the few bright spots in the U.S. economy in the past three years. GTL can amplify and broaden the benefits beyond places like North Dakota, Texas, West Virginia and rural Pennsylvania. The shale gas industry is addressing groundwater and other environmental concerns brought about by fracturing practices (aka "fracking"), and -- in Canada, at least -- is making progress in getting rational, tight, explicit regulation enacted. The drillers are also doing a far better, and more proactive job of public education and awareness. It is not essential for politicians to embrace shale gas and GTL development for both to be successful industries, although it would be helpful. They already have a bright future now, regardless of the current sad natural gas price. Investors should look closely at the sector; this could be one of those rare opportunities to get in on the ground-floor of a brand new industry at a relatively bargain price. Read the full analyst report on SSL Read the full analyst report on CHK Read the full analyst report on RDS.A Read the full analyst report on KBR Read the full analyst report on CBI Read the full analyst report on HON Read the full analyst report on FLS Read the full analyst report on FWLT Read the full analyst report on XOM Read the full analyst report on CVX Read the full analyst report on ECA Read the full analyst report on COG Read the full analyst report on FST Read the full analyst report on DVN http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1857360011183223951#editor/target=post;postID=826658486816634231

GAS-TO-LIQUID GAS-TO-LIQUID FUELS IN TRANSPORTATION What is GTL? Picture of GTL facility in Nigeria Gas-to-Liquid (GTL) fuels are fuels that can be produced from natural gas, coal and biomass using a Fischer-Tropsch chemical reaction process. The liquids produced include naphtha, diesel, and chemical feedstocks. The resulting GTL diesel can be used neat or blended with today's diesel fuel and used in existing diesel engines and infrastructure. These fuels provide an opportunity to reduce dependence on petroleum-based fuels and reduce tailpipe emissions. Will GTL be produced in California? Picture of GTL facility under construction in Qatar The GTL process needs large volumes of low-cost natural gas, less than $1.00 per million British Thermal Units (BTUs) (10 cents/therm), to compete with diesel fuel. Natural gas at this price, and in these volumes, does not currently exist in or near California. GTL produced from pipeline-supplied natural gas would not be competitive, due to the higher alternative value of pipeline natural gas (today's value is 70-90 cents/therm). In the long term, technology is expected to develop fuels that can be produced from nearby coal reserves, biomass or waste. Why produce GTL? Natural gas is four times more expensive to transport than oil. Converting remote natural gas into a liquid before transport is more cost-effective. Declining GTL production costs, growing worldwide diesel demand, stringent diesel exhaust emission standards, and fuel specifications are driving the petroleum industry to revisit the GTL process for producing higher quality diesel fuels. Since the late 1990s, major oil companies including ARCO, BP, Conoco Phillips, ExxonMobil, Statoil, Sasol, Sasol Chevron, Shell, and Texaco have announced plans to build GTL plants to produce the fuel. Some remote natural gas can now be economically converted through the Fischer-Tropsch process into a clean diesel fuel. This fuel can be used as a blendstock to upgrade conventional petroleum diesel fuels and extend diesel fuel capacity and supplies. GTL fuel offers a new opportunity to use non-petroleum-based fuels in diesel engines without compromising fuel efficiency, increasing capital outlay, or impacting infrastructure cost. GTL fuel has virtually no sulfur, aromatics, or toxics. It can be blended with non-complying diesel fuel to make the fuel cleaner so it will comply with new diesel fuel standards. Has GTL been used in California? California's nearest GTL supplier is the Shell GTL plant at Bintulu, Malaysia. The plant, which began operation in 1993, was shut down December 25, 1997, and restarted on May 20, 2000. This plant can produce up to 82,000 gallons/day of GTL fuel for worldwide sales. This is equivalent to 2 percent of California's diesel demand. In 2002, GTL fuel was used in Caltrans heavy-duty vehicles for one month. This trial confirmed that there was no fuel-related performance or maintenance problems. Furthermore, Yosemite water trucks used GLT fuel in a 12-month trial beginning in 2004. The results of this trial showed a significant reduction in vehicle emissions. GTL Availability Availability of GTL fuel will continue to be limited, as fuel from the planned world scale Qatar plant will be spread across world markets. In the near-term, GTL fuel can be blended with conventional diesel to reduce existing diesel vehicle exhaust and toxic emissions. Furthermore, it could improve the prospects of new engines meeting the national 2007 and 2010 heavy-duty diesel engine emission standards. Is there a fuel economy loss with GTL? Due to the low density of neat GTL fuel, there may be a slight loss of fuel economy of up to 3.3 percent. However, diesel engines are 20-40 percent more efficient than gasoline engines. Does GTL reduce emissions? Graph of emissions reduction Unmodified diesel engines, fueled with neat GTL, show the following average emission reductions compared to typical California diesel. What are the economics of GTL? While the cost of producing GTL fuel has been declining as a result of better catalysts, scale up and plant design, the transport and distribution costs to market are slightly higher than for locally produced refinery fuels. Research and development is focused on reducing costs further, as well as economies of scale from the new generation of world scale plants in Qatar. With limited GTL fuel available for some years, GTL fuel will be attractive to those markets prepared to pay these additional costs. Main Transportation Page Find Out More... We suggest performing an Internet search (you can search the entire web with the Google search above) using any of the following terms: Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Biomass-to-Liquids, Synthetic Diesel Shell GTL Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis (SMDS) Sasol or Sasol Chevron | Home | Glossary | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Copyright © 2006-2012, California Energy Commission Choices for Home Work School Renewable Energy Transportation Rebates Consumer Tips Videos

Gas to Liquid... 1. Producing natural gas 2. Separating the gas 3. Making synthesis gas 4. Making liquid waxy hydrocarbons 5. Making GTL (gas to liquids) products View the animation an explore the Pearl GTL process 1. Producing natural gas Qatar's North Field is the world's largest natural gas field. It contains over 900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, about 15% of the global total. Two unmanned offshore platforms each operate 11 wells. The gas flows through two pipelines to processing facilities at the onshore Ras Laffan industrial zone. QUICK FACTS 1. The steel used in the pipelines weighs as much as 18 Eiffel Towers. 2. Special chemicals are injected with the gas to protect the carbon steel pipelines against corrosion and to stop ice crystals forming inside. 2. Separating the gas Water and condensates are separated from the gas. Other components, such as sulphur, are also removed and cleaned. The gas is then cooled and the natural gas liquids are removed via distillation. The remaining pure natural gas (methane) flows to the gasification unit. QUICK FACTS 1. The extracted sulphur is used for other purposes, such as producing fertilisers, in asphalt and concrete. 2. The natural gas liquids are piped to Ras Laffan port and sold as chemical feedstocks and LPG fuel for heating appliances and vehicles. 3. Making synthesis gas In the gasifier at around 2,200-2,650°F (1,400-1,600°C) the methane and oxygen are converted into a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide known as synthesis gas, or syngas. QUICK FACTS 1. The reaction produces heat, which is recovered to produce steam for power. 4. Making liquid waxy hydrocarbons The synthesis gas enters one of 24 reactors. Each reactor holds a large number of tubes containing a Shell proprietary catalyst. The catalyst serves to speed up the chemical reaction in which the synthesis gas is converted into long-chained waxy hydrocarbons and water. QUICK FACTS The catalyst consists of tiny granules, just millimetres long with microscopic holes, containing minute metal particles. The total surface area of the microscopic holes in the catalyst granules is more than eighteen times the surface area of Qatar. The synthesis process generates a lot of heat, which is also used to produce steam that in turn powers the GTL plant via steam turbines. All water in the GTL process is purified and reused in the utilities system of the plant to generate steam. Placed end-to-end the tubes would stretch from Qatar to Japan. 5. Making GTL (gas to liquids) products The plant creates a range of products from natural gas that would otherwise be produced from oil. Using another Shell proprietary catalyst, the long hydrocarbon molecules from the GTL reactor are contacted with hydrogen and cut (cracked) into a range of smaller molecules of different length and shape. Distillation separates out the products with different boiling points. GTL PRODUCTS GTL Naphtha is used as a chemical feedstock for plastics manufacture. GTL Kerosene can be blended with conventional Jet Fuel (up to 50%) for use in aviation – known as GTL Jet Fuel – or used as a home heating fuel. GTL Normal paraffins are used for making more cost-effective detergents. GTL Gasoil is a diesel-type fuel that can be blended into the global diesel supply pool. GTL Base oils are used to make high-quality lubricants. Part A Extracting pure oxygen Pure oxygen for the gasification process is extracted from the air through eight vast air separation units. Air is cooled to liquefy the oxygen and nitrogen. Distillation separates out oxygen in a “cold box” – like an icebox, this helps to maintain the low temperature that is required to separate the oxygen. QUICK FACTS Each distillation cold box is as tall as a 10-storey building. The air separation units produce over 28,000 tonnes of oxygen each day. If this were not produced on-site, more than 1,000 trucks per day would be needed to bring it in. Part B Generating power using residual heat Residual heat from various steps of the process makes steam that helps drive large compressors. QUICK FACTS Around 8,000 tonnes of steam are generated and distributed each hour. Reusing water (Formerly Effluent Treatment Plant) The plant does not draw on any water from Qatar’s resources. It reuses process water as cooling water and to generate steam for power. QUICK FACTS Water passes though filters with openings 200,000 times thinner than a human hair. http://www.shell.com/home/content/future_energy/meeting_demand/natural_gas/gtl/process/acc_gtl_processes.html

National Coal Council Study Finds CO2-Based Enhanced Oil Recovery From Coal Benefits Environment, Energy Security And Economy PR NewswirePress Release: National Coal Council – 11 hours ago Email Print WASHINGTON, June 22, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- The National Coal Council (NCC) today presented the U.S. Department of Energy with the results of a comprehensive study requested by U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu. The study, "Harnessing Coal's Carbon Content to Advance the Economy, Environment and Energy Security," concludes that widespread deployment of carbon dioxide capture and utilization (CCUS) technologies at coal-based power and liquid fuels production plants could help increase domestic oil production by more than 3.5 million barrels a day for 40-plus years. The Council's findings are based on contributions from more than 60 leading energy experts in coordination with the National Petroleum Council. Since 2001, the Council has conducted six major carbon dioxide (CO2) management studies for a series of U.S. Energy Secretaries. In this recent report, the Council evaluated the potential market for using CO2 captured from the existing and newly constructed U.S. coal-based electricity fleet and potential coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants as a resource for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations. EOR technology has successfully increased U.S. oil production for nearly half a century. "It's time to think of CO2 as a valuable commodity. Advanced coal technology is key to affordably realizing deep reductions in emissions," said Council member and Study Chairman Richard Bajura. "The U.S. uses more coal than any nation except China, and potential production of U.S. oil from coal-derived CO2 for CCUS/ EOR applications dwarfs other projected new domestic sources. We have a unique opportunity to more fully use domestic, low-cost coal to access more oil." Research conducted for the National Energy Technology Laboratory indicates that over 60 billion barrels of oil are economically recoverable using next-generation technology at an assumed world oil price of $85 per barrel. "CO2 -based EOR projects are operating profitably even in the current challenging economic environment," explains Council member and Chairman of the Council's Coal Policy Committee Fred Palmer. "Successful deployment of CCUS/EOR responds to the U.S. Administration's goal to reduce emissions 80 percent from 2005 levels by 2050. With a regulatory framework that facilitates the increased deployment of this technology at scale, we can increase use of domestic energy, fuel economic growth and enhance national security." Expanding CO2 -based EOR can significantly reduce emissions by capturing CO2 from coal-based generation and safely injecting the carbon deep into oil wells, releasing stranded oil that could not be accessed by more conventional drilling methods. However, the limited availability of CO2 has been a constraint. The study calls for the capture of carbon dioxide from coal plants and transportation through a robust network of pipelines. This will accelerate the use of CCUS/EOR technology, resulting in large increases in domestic oil production, significant job creation and economic growth. The Council found that 18 billion to 31 billion metric tons of additional CO2 could be used in U.S. oil fields over the next 40 years or more, compared to 2 billion metric tons available from natural sources and natural gas processing. Use of CO2 in EOR processes could yield more than 3.5 million additional barrels a day of oil. Additional findings in the report include: By 2035, the combination of coal-based EOR and CTL technology could provide up to 30 percent of U.S. liquid fuel demand and ensure America's energy security for decades. Much of the CO2 resource could come from large coal power plants that are distributed broadly and common in such economically recovering regions as the Ohio River Valley. Use of CO2 -based EOR and CTL could generate $200 billion in economic activity, more than 1 million skilled jobs and $60 billion in tax revenues. At least 100 gigawatts of advanced coal generating capacity could be built or retrofitted over the next two decades. These advanced plants would use an additional 300 million tons of coal annually. CTL plants with carbon capture could convert coal into more than 2.5 million barrels a day of additional oil. An additional 450 million tons of coal would be used annually in these operations. Capturing a high volume of CO2 for commercial purposes, coupled with CTL operations, would increase coal use to 1.75 billion tons annually. This production level is well within the capability of the United States, home to 30 percent of the world's coal reserves. The National Coal Council is a private, nonprofit advisory body chartered by the U.S. Secretary of Energy in 1984 under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. National Coal Council members are appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Energy and reflect diverse interests, including from business, industry and academia. Download an executive summary of "Harnessing Coal's Carbon Content to Advance the Economy, Environment and Energy Security" at NationalCoalCouncil.org. CONTACT: Robert Beck Executive Vice President National Coal Council 202-223-1191

A System to “Pre-Clean” Coal and Get a Little Oil & Gas May 26, 2009 | 7 Comments Phoenix-based CoalSack Energy, Inc. is a fledgling company launched four months ago with the express goal of taking their groundbreaking technology to market. It’s based on the technology developed by Harold L. Bennett, a 78-year-old civil engineer from Albuquerque. It seems that CoalSack is in the pretreatment of coal business, until now a non-existing business, but should all the work of Mr. Bennett work at commercial scale, coal would be a much less environmentally aggravating fossil fuel. Not that would make any difference to the anti fossil fuel crowd, but it would be significant to everyone with some reason and balance in mind for the consumers, the environment and the economy as a whole. The technology is claimed to make it possible to convert any type or grade of coal, including scrap coal, oil shale, tar sands, etc., into three basic by-products char, synthetic oil and gas – through one integrated process. Greg Boyd, 47, is the more youthful leader of CoalSack Energy. Asked by Bob McCarty for a 60-second spiel to a prospect Boyd answers with some interesting numbers. “I’d say we have a patent on low-temperature carbonization which takes out 99.2 percent of the sulfur from a ton of coal,” Boyd explained. “The mercury is not even measurable. We’re raising the BTUs by upwards of 40 percent, averaging between 28 and 40 percent. With the same ton of coal, we’re producing the highest grade of light sweet crude oil which can be turned into Jet A fuel and that we’re getting about 7,000 cubic feet of gas.” Boyd explained that Clear Coal™ technology is good for an environment in which pollutants like sulfur and mercury are becoming big problems and expensive to combat. “(Sulfur and mercury) Scrubbers cost $100 to $200 million dollars a copy,” he explained. “At the same time, when coal goes through the scrubber, all of the sulfur ash drops out the bottom and all the mercury goes down there. So what are you gonna do with that? If you can’t separate it, it has to go to some hazardous waste landfill.” “Conversely,” he said, “You can’t even measure the mercury after we process the coal.” This should be getting attention now. That’s big money. And scrubbers need maintained. Clean-Tech Energy Concepts has patents and a functioning prototype in operation. Most importantly, the infrastructure needed to refine, distribute, and use the technology on a mass global scale is currently in place. This includes production, supply-chain distribution, utilization infrastructure, markets, financial infrastructures, and the boiler and engine technology needed to burn the char and liquid fuels created from the synthetic oil after it is refined. “Clear Coal™” technology is the only integrated process in existence that was developed specifically to create oil from coal, and still deliver a smokeless boiler fuel, liquid petroleum gas, and producer gas without cross contaminating the end products. The ‘Bennett Process™’, takes any type or grade of coal, including scrap coal, oil shale, tar sands, etc, and creates three basic products: char, synthetic oil, and the gasses. For every ton of coal, our process yields roughly 3/4 ton of char, 3/4 barrel of synthetic oil, 1/2 barrel mixed piqued petroleum gas, and 3,000 standard cubic feet of fuel gas in the form of methane and hydrogen.

For years now, calls for energy independence have permeated our discussions. People yearn for freedom from the grips of OPEC. First American International LLC, a company that operates on the Navajo Nation in northwest New Mexico, near Gallup, may have the answer: Turn the nation’s seemingly endless coal reserves into oil with virtually no environmental impact. Coal-to-oil refining is not a new concept. In 1925, German scientists Professor Franz Fischer and Dr. Hans Tropsch patented what would become known as the Fischer-Tropsch process. It was widely used by the Germans during World War II, accounting for nearly 10 percent of their total fuels and 25 percent of their automobile fuels. However, while other companies are exploring how to make the extremely inefficient, expensive and environmentally terrifying Fischer–Tropsch process economically viable, with capital investment needs from $500-600 million, to $4-5 billion and several years before significant returns are gained, First Investment is promoting a new process, patented by American engineer Harold Bennett. Unlike Fischer-Tropsch, the Bennett process creates a self-contained refinery that turns coal almost wholly into petroleum and char. The char is clean burning and can be utilized by power plants to meet all EPA standards or it can be further refined into metallurgical coke to be used in the steel industry. It operates on low heat and low pressure unlike Fischer-Tropsch. There are no harmful emissions with the Bennett process and it is more than 99-percent efficient, according to independent scientific reports and studies. Moreover, the capital investment needed is only $50 million to be gained back in a very short period of time. “People hear this and they think it’s not possible, but it is and it works,” says First American Managing Partner Dennis Yellowhorse Jones, who has seen the function of a prototype Bennett model in Albuquerque, N.M. “This is an amazing process that should attract people’s attention.” Yellowhorse Jones, a general contractor and geologist, has spent a large part of his life researching and selling environmentally friendly minerals and technologies. The Bennett process, once operational, will also be a huge uplift for the Navajo Nation, creating jobs in the community that faces 40-percent unemployment but has some of the largest coal reserves in the U.S. Furthermore, First American has also brokered a five-year, no-cost land lease for the proposed facility, located right off Interstate 40, with prime access to railroad distribution, as well. With its nearly endless supply of raw materials and premier location, the first facility will process 800,000 tons of coal each year. And the infrastructure, i.e., a building to house the refinery, already exists. Additional facilities and expansion will follow once the initial facility is operating at capacity. As crude oil and gasoline prices continue their upward climb, Yellowhorse Jones and First American expect the factory to be a win-win for all. The general public will have fewer environmental concerns as emissions are reduced and fuel prices are eased by the new source.

And it has substantially cleaned up its environmental act. Honest. Energy expert Robert Bryce says, for example, that the cleanest U.S. coal-fired electricity plants now exceed all traditional Environmental Protection Agency pollution standards. Combine these advantages and you have blockbuster box office. BP’s annual statistical review reports that global coal production increased 6 per cent last year, twice the celebrated rate of increase in global natural gas production. This most notorious of fuels now accounts for 30 per cent of global energy consumption – the highest percentage since 1969. It will almost certainly account for more in the years ahead. It is, after all, one of the cheapest primary sources of energy in the world. And its reserves are, for all practical purposes, inexhaustible. In a word, coal plays an increasingly important role in the great American energy renaissance. Oil production is on the rise. Natural gas production (and shale gas production) is on the rise. Coal production is on the rise. For the past five years, U.S. increases in coal exports have been quite remarkable. Using 2005 as a base year, the U.S. Energy Information Agency reports that U.S. net coal exports increased 70 per cent in 2007, 107 per cent in 2008, 71 per cent in 2010 and 49 per cent in 2011. (In 2009, the year of the market meltdown, exports fell by a relatively restrained 23 per cent.) Yet Americans themselves are consuming less coal – 5 per cent less in the past decade. As U.S. electrical producers shift from cheap coal to cheap natural gas, more coal will be released for export to other countries (where demand for coal increased by almost 50 per cent in the same decade, the energy equivalent of 23 million barrels of oil a day). Already the world’s fourth-largest coal exporter, after Australia, Indonesia and Russia, the U.S. could plausibly become the world’s largest exporter in coming years. The United States possesses more coal reserves, after all, than any other country. How much more? Energy analyst Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, says U.S. coal reserves contain nearly as much energy as the proven oil reserves of all 12 Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries combined. U.S. coal deposits, he says, hold the energy equivalent of 900 billion barrels of oil. The OPEC countries have proven oil reserves of one trillion barrels. Plentiful supplies of coal explain the rapid American advance toward energy independence. Coal that used to generate electricity can now be exported to Asian and European countries where – Mr. Bryce’s words – “gargantuan quantities” will be needed for many years. At the same time, the domestic conversion to natural gas will reduce American emissions of greenhouse gases: a global plus. In a report last year, the Columbia Law School’s Center for Climate Change explained the paradox this way: “[I]t makes no difference from a climate-change perspective whether coal mined in Wyoming is consumed in Chicago or Shanghai.” “To be clear, I’m all for natural gas,” Mr. Bryce says in his most recent piece on coal in the National Review online. “I’m also adamantly pro-nuclear. But it makes no sense for the U.S. to abandon coal, particularly given that … the rest of the world is continuing to burn gargantuan quantities of the fuel.” With market forces in energy production comparable to the United States, Canada should be able not only to generate more electricity with clean coal but, indeed, to mine more coal for export. Natural Resources Canada reports that Canada’s coal production set a record evaluation last year: $7-billion, a one-year increase of 27 per cent. Not bad for off-Broadway. But most Canadian coal production comes, as does most Canadian oil production, from the western provinces. You would never know from Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty – still foolishly pledged to eradicate the cheapest of fuels – that Ontario is itself a resource-endowed province with coal of its own to burn.

News // Energy Novel Power Plants Could Clean Up Coal Major engineering firms and power providers team up to demonstrate two new power generation technologies. 8 comments Kevin Bullis Friday, June 22, 2012 Cleaner coal: This pilot plant in Italy uses pressurized oxygen to help reduce emissions from burning coal. Unity Power Alliance A pair of new technologies could reduce the cost of capturing carbon dioxide from coal plants and help utilities comply with existing and proposed environmental regulations, including requirements to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Both involve burning coal in the presence of pure oxygen rather than air, which is mostly nitrogen. Major companies including Toshiba, Shaw, and Itea have announced plans to build demonstration plants for the technologies in coming months. The basic idea of burning fossil fuels in pure oxygen isn't new. The drawback is that it's more expensive than conventional coal plant technology, because it requires additional equipment to separate oxygen and nitrogen. The new technologies attempt to offset at least some of this cost by improving efficiency and reducing capital costs in other areas of a coal plant. Among other things, they simplify the after-treatment required to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations. One of the new technologies, which involves pressurizing the oxygen, is being developed by a partnership between ThermoEnergy, based in Worcester, Massachusetts, and the major Italian engineering firm Itea. A version of it has been demonstrated at a small plant in Singapore that can generate about 15 megawatts of heat (enough for about five megawatts of electricity). The technology simplifies the clean-up of flue gases; for example, some pollutants are captured in a glass form that results from high-temperature combustion. It also has the ability to quickly change power output, going from 10 percent to 100 percent of its generating capacity in 30 minutes, says Robert Marrs, ThermoEnergy's VP of business development. Conventional coal plants take several hours to do that. More flexible power production could accommodate changes in supply from variable sources of power like wind turbines and solar panels. Advertisement Marrs says that these advantages, along with the technology's higher efficiency at converting the energy in coal into electricity, could make it roughly as cost-effective as retrofitting a coal plant with new technology to meet current EPA regulations, while producing a stream of carbon dioxide that's easy to capture. The technology also reduces net energy consumption at coal plants, because the water produced by combustion is captured and can be recycled. This makes it attractive for use in drought-prone areas, such as some parts of China. The other technology, being developed by the startup Net Power along with Toshiba, the power producer Exelon, and the engineering firm Shaw, is more radical, and it's designed to make coal plants significantly more efficient than they are today—over 50 percent efficient, versus about 30 percent. The most efficient power plants today use a pair of turbines: a gas turbine and a steam turbine that runs off the gas turbine's exhaust heat. The new technology makes use of the exhaust by directing part of the carbon dioxide in the exhaust stream back into the gas turbine, doing away with the steam turbine altogether. That helps offset the cost of the oxygen separation equipment. The carbon dioxide that isn't redirected to the turbine is relatively pure compared to exhaust from a conventional plant, and it is already highly pressurized, making it suitable for sequestering underground. The technology was originally conceived to work with gasified coal, but the company is planning to demonstrate it first with natural gas, which is simpler because it doesn't require a gasifier. The company says the technology will cost about the same as conventional natural gas plants. Shaw is funding a 25-megawatt demonstration power plant that is scheduled to be completed by mid-2014. Net Power plants to sell the carbon dioxide to oil companies to help improve oil production. The technologies may be "plausible on paper," says Ahmed Ghoniem, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, but questions remain "until things get demonstrated." (Ghoniem has consulted for ThermoEnergy.) The economics are still a matter of speculation. For one thing, it is "an open question" how much money the technologies could save over conventional pollution control techniques, he says. As a rule, "any time you add carbon dioxide capture, you increase costs," he points out. "The question is by how much." Selling the carbon dioxide to enhance oil recovery can help justify the extra costs, he says, and retrofitting old power plants might help create an initial market. But he says the new technologies won't become widespread unless a price on carbon dioxide emissions is widely adopted. Ghoniem adds that even if the technology for capturing carbon proves economical, it's still necessary to demonstrate that it's feasible and safe to permanently sequester carbon underground. The challenges of doing that were highlighted by a recent study suggesting that earthquakes could cause carbon dioxide to leak out.