SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Jacob's posts to save -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (18)4/22/2003 3:02:46 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Respond to of 123
 
TDP: Anything into Oil

Technological savvy could turn 600 million tons of turkey guts and other waste into 4 billion barrels of light Texas crude each year

Gory refuse, from a Butterball Turkey plant in Carthage, Missouri, will no longer go to waste. Each day 200 tons of turkey offal will be carted to the first industrial-scale thermal depolymerization plant, recently completed in an adjacent lot, and be transformed into various useful products, including 600 barrels of light oil.

In an industrial park in Philadelphia sits a new machine that can change almost anything into oil.
Really.
"This is a solution to three of the biggest problems facing mankind," says Brian Appel, chairman and CEO of Changing World Technologies, the company that built this pilot plant and has just completed its first industrial-size installation in Missouri. "This process can deal with the world's waste. It can supplement our dwindling supplies of oil. And it can slow down global warming."
Pardon me, says a reporter, shivering in the frigid dawn, but that sounds too good to be true.
"Everybody says that," says Appel. He is a tall, affable entrepreneur who has assembled a team of scientists, former government leaders, and deep-pocketed investors to develop and sell what he calls the thermal depolymerization process, or TDP. The process is designed to handle almost any waste product imaginable, including turkey offal, tires, plastic bottles, harbor-dredged muck, old computers, municipal garbage, cornstalks, paper-pulp effluent, infectious medical waste, oil-refinery residues, even biological weapons such as anthrax spores. According to Appel, waste goes in one end and comes out the other as three products, all valuable and environmentally benign: high-quality oil, clean-burning gas, and purified minerals that can be used as fuels, fertilizers, or specialty chemicals for manufacturing.
Unlike other solid-to-liquid-fuel processes such as cornstarch into ethanol, this one will accept almost any carbon-based feedstock. If a 175-pound man fell into one end, he would come out the other end as 38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123 pounds of sterilized water. While no one plans to put people into a thermal depolymerization machine, an intimate human creation could become a prime feedstock. "There is no reason why we can't turn sewage, including human excrement, into a glorious oil," says engineer Terry Adams, a project consultant. So the city of Philadelphia is in discussion with Changing World Technologies to begin doing exactly that.
"The potential is unbelievable," says Michael Roberts, a senior chemical engineer for the Gas Technology Institute, an energy research group. "You're not only cleaning up waste; you're talking about distributed generation of oil all over the world."
"This is not an incremental change. This is a big, new step," agrees Alf Andreassen, a venture capitalist with the Paladin Capital Group and a former Bell Laboratories director.
The offal-derived oil, is chemically almost identical to a number two fuel oil used to heat homes.

Andreassen and others anticipate that a large chunk of the world's agricultural, industrial, and municipal waste may someday go into thermal depolymerization machines scattered all over the globe. If the process works as well as its creators claim, not only would most toxic waste problems become history, so would imported oil. Just converting all the U.S. agricultural waste into oil and gas would yield the energy equivalent of 4 billion barrels of oil annually. In 2001 the United States imported 4.2 billion barrels of oil. Referring to U.S. dependence on oil from the volatile Middle East, R. James Woolsey, former CIA director and an adviser to Changing World Technologies, says, "This technology offers a beginning of a way away from this."
But first things first. Today, here at the plant at Philadelphia's Naval Business Center, the experimental feedstock is turkey processing-plant waste: feathers, bones, skin, blood, fat, guts. A forklift dumps 1,400 pounds of the nasty stuff into the machine's first stage, a 350-horsepower grinder that masticates it into gray brown slurry. From there it flows into a series of tanks and pipes, which hum and hiss as they heat, digest, and break down the mixture. Two hours later, a white-jacketed technician turns a spigot. Out pours a honey-colored fluid, steaming a bit in the cold warehouse as it fills a glass beaker.
It really is a lovely oil.
"The longest carbon chains are C-18 or so," says Appel, admiring the liquid. "That's a very light oil. It is essentially the same as a mix of half fuel oil, half gasoline."
Private investors, who have chipped in $40 million to develop the process, aren't the only ones who are impressed. The federal government has granted more than $12 million to push the work along. "We will be able to make oil for $8 to $12 a barrel," says Paul Baskis, the inventor of the process. "We are going to be able to switch to a carbohydrate economy."

Making oil and gas from hydrocarbon-based waste is a trick that Earth mastered long ago. Most crude oil comes from one-celled plants and animals that die, settle to ocean floors, decompose, and are mashed by sliding tectonic plates, a process geologists call subduction. Under pressure and heat, the dead creatures' long chains of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon-bearing molecules, known as polymers, decompose into short-chain petroleum hydrocarbons. However, Earth takes its own sweet time doing this—generally thousands or millions of years—because subterranean heat and pressure changes are chaotic. Thermal depolymerization machines turbocharge the process by precisely raising heat and pressure to levels that break the feedstock's long molecular bonds.
Many scientists have tried to convert organic solids to liquid fuel using waste products before, but their efforts have been notoriously inefficient. "The problem with most of these methods was that they tried to do the transformation in one step—superheat the material to drive off the water and simultaneously break down the molecules," says Appel. That leads to profligate energy use and makes it possible for hazardous substances to pollute the finished product. Very wet waste—and much of the world's waste is wet—is particularly difficult to process efficiently because driving off the water requires so much energy. Usually, the Btu content in the resulting oil or gas barely exceeds the amount needed to make the stuff.
That's the challenge that Baskis, a microbiologist and inventor who lives in Rantoul, Illinois, confronted in the late 1980s. He says he "had a flash" of insight about how to improve the basic ideas behind another inventor's waste-reforming process. "The prototype I saw produced a heavy, burned oil," recalls Baskis. "I drew up an improvement and filed the first patents." He spent the early 1990s wooing investors and, in 1996, met Appel, a former commodities trader. "I saw what this could be and took over the patents," says Appel, who formed a partnership with the Gas Technology Institute and had a demonstration plant up and running by 1999.
Thermal depolymerization, Appel says, has proved to be 85 percent energy efficient for complex feedstocks, such as turkey offal: "That means for every 100 Btus in the feedstock, we use only 15 Btus to run the process." He contends the efficiency is even better for relatively dry raw materials, such as plastics.
So how does it work? In the cold Philadelphia warehouse, Appel waves a long arm at the apparatus, which looks surprisingly low tech: a tangle of pressure vessels, pipes, valves, and heat exchangers terminating in storage tanks. It resembles the oil refineries that stretch to the horizon on either side of the New Jersey Turnpike, and in part, that's exactly what it is.
Appel strides to a silver gray pressure tank that is 20 feet long, three feet wide, heavily insulated, and wrapped with electric heating coils. He raps on its side. "The chief difference in our process is that we make water a friend rather than an enemy," he says. "The other processes all tried to drive out water. We drive it in, inside this tank, with heat and pressure. We super-hydrate the material." Thus temperatures and pressures need only be modest, because water helps to convey heat into the feedstock. "We're talking about temperatures of 500 degrees Fahrenheit and pressures of about 600 pounds for most organic material—not at all extreme or energy intensive. And the cooking times are pretty short, usually about 15 minutes."
Once the organic soup is heated and partially depolymerized in the reactor vessel, phase two begins. "We quickly drop the slurry to a lower pressure," says Appel, pointing at a branching series of pipes. The rapid depressurization releases about 90 percent of the slurry's free water. Dehydration via depressurization is far cheaper in terms of energy consumed than is heating and boiling off the water, particularly because no heat is wasted. "We send the flashed-off water back up there," Appel says, pointing to a pipe that leads to the beginning of the process, "to heat the incoming stream."
At this stage, the minerals—in turkey waste, they come mostly from bones—settle out and are shunted to storage tanks. Rich in calcium and magnesium, the dried brown powder "is a perfect balanced fertilizer," Appel says.
The remaining concentrated organic soup gushes into a second-stage reactor similar to the coke ovens used to refine oil into gasoline. "This technology is as old as the hills," says Appel, grinning broadly. The reactor heats the soup to about 900 degrees Fahrenheit to further break apart long molecular chains. Next, in vertical distillation columns, hot vapor flows up, condenses, and flows out from different levels: gases from the top of the column, light oils from the upper middle, heavier oils from the middle, water from the lower middle, and powdered carbon—used to manufacture tires, filters, and printer toners—from the bottom. "Gas is expensive to transport, so we use it on-site in the plant to heat the process," Appel says. The oil, minerals, and carbon are sold to the highest bidders.
Depending on the feedstock and the cooking and coking times, the process can be tweaked to make other specialty chemicals that may be even more profitable than oil. Turkey offal, for example, can be used to produce fatty acids for soap, tires, paints, and lubricants. Polyvinyl chloride, or PVC—the stuff of house siding, wallpapers, and plastic pipes—yields hydrochloric acid, a relatively benign and industrially valuable chemical used to make cleaners and solvents. "That's what's so great about making water a friend," says Appel. "The hydrogen in water combines with the chlorine in PVC to make it safe. If you burn PVC [in a municipal-waste incinerator], you get dioxin—very toxic."
Brian Appel, CEO of Changing World Technologies, strolls through a thermal depolymerization plant in Philadelphia. Experiments at the pilot facility revealed that the process is scalable—plants can sprawl over acres and handle 4,000 tons of waste a day or be "small enough to go on the back of a flatbed truck" and handle just one ton daily, says Appel.

The technicians here have spent three years feeding different kinds of waste into their machinery to formulate recipes. In a little trailer next to the plant, Appel picks up a handful of one-gallon plastic bags sent by a potential customer in Japan. The first is full of ground-up appliances, each piece no larger than a pea. "Put a computer and a refrigerator into a grinder, and that's what you get," he says, shaking the bag. "It's PVC, wood, fiberglass, metal, just a mess of different things. This process handles mixed waste beautifully." Next to the ground-up appliances is a plastic bucket of municipal sewage. Appel pops the lid and instantly regrets it. "Whew," he says. "That is nasty."
Experimentation revealed that different waste streams require different cooking and coking times and yield different finished products. "It's a two-step process, and you do more in step one or step two depending on what you are processing," Terry Adams says. "With the turkey guts, you do the lion's share in the first stage. With mixed plastics, most of the breakdown happens in the second stage." The oil-to-mineral ratios vary too. Plastic bottles, for example, yield copious amounts of oil, while tires yield more minerals and other solids. So far, says Adams, "nothing hazardous comes out from any feedstock we try."
"The only thing this process can't handle is nuclear waste," Appel says. "If it contains carbon, we can do it." à
This Philadelphia pilot plant can handle only seven tons of waste a day, but 1,054 miles to the west, in Carthage, Missouri, about 100 yards from one of ConAgra Foods' massive Butterball Turkey plants, sits the company's first commercial-scale thermal depolymerization plant. The $20 million facility, scheduled to go online any day, is expected to digest more than 200 tons of turkey-processing waste every 24 hours.

The north side of Carthage smells like Thanksgiving all the time. At the Butterball plant, workers slaughter, pluck, parcook, and package 30,000 turkeys each workday, filling the air with the distinctive tang of boiling bird. A factory tour reveals the grisly realities of large-scale poultry processing. Inside, an endless chain of hanging carcasses clanks past knife-wielding laborers who slash away. Outside, a tanker truck idles, full to the top with fresh turkey blood. For many years, ConAgra Foods has trucked the plant's waste—feathers, organs, and other nonusable parts—to a rendering facility where it was ground and dried to make animal feed, fertilizer, and other chemical products. But bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also known as mad cow disease, can spread among cattle from recycled feed, and although no similar disease has been found in poultry, regulators are becoming skittish about feeding animals to animals. In Europe the practice is illegal for all livestock. Since 1997, the United States has prohibited the feeding of most recycled animal waste to cattle. Ultimately, the specter of European-style mad-cow regulations may kick-start the acceptance of thermal depolymerization. "In Europe, there are mountains of bones piling up," says Alf Andreassen. "When recycling waste into feed stops in this country, it will change everything."
Because depolymerization takes apart materials at the molecular level, Appel says, it is "the perfect process for destroying pathogens." On a wet afternoon in Carthage, he smiles at the new plant—an artless assemblage of gray and dun-colored buildings—as if it were his favorite child. "This plant will make 10 tons of gas per day, which will go back into the system to make heat to power the system," he says. "It will make 21,000 gallons of water, which will be clean enough to discharge into a municipal sewage system. Pathological vectors will be completely gone. It will make 11 tons of minerals and 600 barrels of oil, high-quality stuff, the same specs as a number two heating oil." He shakes his head almost as if he can't believe it. "It's amazing. The Environmental Protection Agency doesn't even consider us waste handlers. We are actually manufacturers—that's what our permit says. This process changes the whole industrial equation. Waste goes from a cost to a profit."
He watches as burly men in coveralls weld and grind the complex loops of piping. A group of 15 investors and corporate advisers, including Howard Buffett, son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett, stroll among the sparks and hissing torches, listening to a tour led by plant manager Don Sanders. A veteran of the refinery business, Sanders emphasizes that once the pressurized water is flashed off, "the process is similar to oil refining. The equipment, the procedures, the safety factors, the maintenance—it's all proven technology."
And it will be profitable, promises Appel. "We've done so much testing in Philadelphia, we already know the costs," he says. "This is our first-out plant, and we estimate we'll make oil at $15 a barrel. In three to five years, we'll drop that to $10, the same as a medium-size oil exploration and production company. And it will get cheaper from there."
"We've got a lot of confidence in this," Buffett says. "I represent ConAgra's investment. We wouldn't be doing this if we didn't anticipate success." Buffett isn't alone. Appel has lined up federal grant money to help build demonstration plants to process chicken offal and manure in Alabama and crop residuals and grease in Nevada. Also in the works are plants to process turkey waste and manure in Colorado and pork and cheese waste in Italy. He says the first generation of depolymerization centers will be up and running in 2005. By then it should be clear whether the technology is as miraculous as its backers claim.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EUREKA:

Chemistry, not alchemy, turns (A) turkey offal—guts, skin, bones, fat, blood, and feathers—into a variety of useful products. After the first-stage heat-and-pressure reaction, fats, proteins, and carbohydrates break down into (B) carboxylic oil, which is composed of fatty acids, carbohydrates, and amino acids. The second-stage reaction strips off the fatty acids' carboxyl group (a carbon atom, two oxygen atoms, and a hydrogen atom) and breaks the remaining hydrocarbon chains into smaller fragments, yielding (C) a light oil. This oil can be used as is, or further distilled (using a larger version of the bench-top distiller in the background) into lighter fuels such as (D) naphtha, (E) gasoline, and (F) kerosene. The process also yields (G) fertilizer-grade minerals derived mostly from bones and (H) industrially useful carbon black.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Garbage In, Oil Out

Feedstock is funneled into a grinder and mixed with water to create a slurry that is pumped into the first-stage reactor, where heat and pressure partially break apart long molecular chains. The resulting organic soup flows into a flash vessel where pressure drops dramatically, liberating some of the water, which returns back upstream to preheat the flow into the first-stage reactor. In the second-stage reactor, the remaining organic material is subjected to more intense heat, continuing the breakup of molecular chains. The resulting hot vapor then goes into vertical distillation tanks, which separate it into gases, light oils, heavy oils, water, and solid carbon. The gases are burned on-site to make heat to power the process, and the water, which is pathogen free, goes to a municipal waste plant. The oils and carbon are deposited in storage tanks, ready for sale.
— Brad Lemley

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Boon to Oil and Coal Companies

One might expect fossil-fuel companies to fight thermal depolymerization. If the process can make oil out of waste, why would anyone bother to get it out of the ground? But switching to an energy economy based entirely on reformed waste will be a long process, requiring the construction of thousands of thermal depolymerization plants. In the meantime, thermal depolymerization can make the petroleum industry itself cleaner and more profitable, says John Riordan, president and CEO of the Gas Technology Institute, an industry research organization. Experiments at the Philadelphia thermal depolymerization plant have converted heavy crude oil, shale, and tar sands into light oils, gases, and graphite-type carbon. "When you refine petroleum, you end up with a heavy solid-waste product that's a big problem," Riordan says. "This technology will convert these waste materials into natural gas, oil, and carbon. It will fit right into the existing infrastructure."
Appel says a modified version of thermal depolymerization could be used to inject steam into underground tar-sand deposits and then refine them into light oils at the surface, making this abundant, difficult-to-access resource far more available. But the coal industry may become thermal depolymerization's biggest fossil-fuel beneficiary. "We can clean up coal dramatically," says Appel. So far, experiments show the process can extract sulfur, mercury, naphtha, and olefins—all salable commodities—from coal, making it burn hotter and cleaner. Pretreating with thermal depolymerization also makes coal more friable, so less energy is needed to crush it before combustion in electricity-generating plants.
— B.L.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can Thermal Depolymerization Slow Global Warming?

If the thermal depolymerization process WORKS AS Claimed, it will clean up waste and generate new sources of energy. But its backers contend it could also stem global warming, which sounds iffy. After all, burning oil creates global warming, doesn't it?
Carbon is the major chemical constituent of most organic matter—plants take it in; animals eat plants, die, and decompose; and plants take it back in, ad infinitum. Since the industrial revolution, human beings burning fossil fuels have boosted concentrations of atmospheric carbon more than 30 percent, disrupting the ancient cycle. According to global-warming theory, as carbon in the form of carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, it traps solar radiation, which warms the atmosphere—and, some say, disrupts the planet's ecosystems.
But if there were a global shift to thermal depolymerization technologies, belowground carbon would remain there. The accoutrements of the civilized world—domestic animals and plants, buildings, artificial objects of all kinds—would then be regarded as temporary carbon sinks. At the end of their useful lives, they would be converted in thermal depolymerization machines into short-chain fuels, fertilizers, and industrial raw materials, ready for plants or people to convert them back into long chains again. So the only carbon used would be that which already existed above the surface; it could no longer dangerously accumulate in the atmosphere. "Suddenly, the whole built world just becomes a temporary carbon sink," says Paul Baskis, inventor of the thermal depolymerization process. "We would be honoring the balance of nature."
— B.L.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED WEB SITES:
To learn more about the thermal depolymerization process, visit Changing World Technologies' Web site:
www.changingworldtech.com.
A primer on the natural carbon cycle can be found at
www.whrc.org/science/carbon/carbon.htm.
By Brad Lemley
Photography by Tony Law
Discover May 2003
discover.com



To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (18)4/23/2003 6:44:00 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Respond to of 123
 
WIND ENERGY:

World Energy Council, 2001:

World wind energy capacity has been doubling every three years during the last decade and growth rates in the last two years have been even faster. It is doubtful whether any other energy technology is growing, or has grown, at such a rate. Total world wind capacity at the end of 2000 was around 17 500 MW and generation from wind now approximately equates to annual consumption of electricity in Chile or Singapore. Germany, with over 6 000 MW, has the highest capacity but Denmark, with over 2 000 MW, has the highest level per capita and the production accounts for about 12% of Danish electricity.

The attractions of wind as a source of electricity which produces minimal quantities of greenhouse gases has led to ambitious targets for wind energy in many parts of the world. More recently, there have been several developments of offshore wind installations and many more are planned. Although offshore wind-generated electricity is generally more expensive than onshore, the resource is very large and there are few environmental impacts.

Whilst wind energy is generally developed in the industrialised world for environmental reasons, it has attractions in the developing world as it can be installed quickly in areas where electricity is urgently needed. In many instances it may be a cost-effective solution if fossil fuel sources are not readily available. In addition there are many applications for wind energy in remote regions, worldwide, either for supplementing diesel power (which tends to be expensive) or for supplying farms, homes and other installations on an individual basis.

Types of Modern Wind Turbine

Early machines - less than twenty years ago - were fairly small (50-100 kW, 15-20 m diameter) but there has been a steady growth in size and output power. Several commercial types of wind turbine now have ratings over 1 MW and machines for the offshore market have outputs up to 3 MW.

Machine sizes have increased for two reasons. They are cheaper and they deliver more energy. The energy yield is improved partly because the rotor is located higher from the ground and so intercepts higher velocity winds, and partly because they are slightly more efficient. The higher yields are clearly shown in Figure 13.2, which shows data from machines in Denmark; the productivity of the 600 kW machines is around 50% higher than that of the 55 kW machines. Reliability has improved steadily and most wind turbine manufacturers now guarantee availabilities of 95%.

The majority of the world's wind turbines have three glass-reinforced plastic blades. The power train includes a low speed shaft, a step-up gearbox and an induction generator, either four or six-pole. There are numerous other possibilities, however. Wood-epoxy is an alternative blade material and some machines have two blades. Variable speed machines are becoming more common and most generate power using an AC/DC/AC system. Variable speed brings several advantages - it means that the rotor turns more slowly in low winds (which keeps noise levels down), it reduces the loadings on the rotor and the power conversion system is usually able to deliver current at any specified power factor. A few manufacturers build direct-drive machines, without a gearbox. These are usually of the variable speed type, with power conditioning equipment.

Towers are usually made of steel and the great majority are of the tubular type. Lattice towers, common in the early days, are now rare, except for very small machines in the range 100 kW and below.

As the power in the wind increases with the cube of the wind speed, all wind turbines need to limit the power output in very high winds. There are two principal means of accomplishing this, with pitch control on the blades or with fixed, stall-controlled blades. Pitch-controlled blades are rotated as wind speeds increase so as to limit the power output and, once the "rated power" is reached, a reasonably steady output can be achieved, subject to the control system response. Stall-controlled rotors have fixed blades which gradually stall as the wind speed increases, thus limiting the power by passive means. These dispense with the necessity for a pitch control mechanism, but it is rarely possible to achieve constant power as wind speeds rise. Once peak output is reached the power tends to fall off with increasing wind speed, and so the energy capture may be less than that of a pitch-controlled machine. The merits of the two designs are finely balanced, which accounts for the roughly equal numbers of machines.

Energy Production

Contrary to popular opinion, energy yields do not increase with the cube of the wind speed, mainly because energy is discarded once the rated wind speed is reached. To illustrate a typical power curve and the concept of rated output, Figure 13.3 shows a typical performance curve for a 1.65 MW machine. Most machines start to generate at a similar speed - around 3 to 5 m/s - and shut down in very high winds, generally around 20 to 25 m/s.

Annual energy production from the turbine whose performance is charted in Figure 13.3 is around 1 500 MWh at a site where the wind speed is 5 m/s, 3 700 MWh at 7 m/s and 4 800 MWh at 8 m/s. Wind speeds around 5 m/s can be found, typically, away from the coastal zones in all five continents, but developers generally aim to find higher wind speeds. Levels around 7 m/s are to be found in many coastal regions and over much of Denmark; higher levels are to be found on many of the Greek Islands, in the Californian passes - the scene of many early wind developments - and on upland and coastal sites in the Caribbean, Ireland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Spain, New Zealand and Antarctica.

Wind speed is the primary determinant of electricity cost, on account of the way it influences the energy yield so, roughly speaking, developments on sites with wind speeds of 8 m/s will yield electricity at one third of the cost for a 5 m/s site. Offshore wind speeds are generally higher than those onshore. Offshore wind farms have been completed, or are planned, in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, the United Kingdom, Ireland and elsewhere. Offshore wind is attractive in locations such as Denmark and the Netherlands where pressure on land is acute and windy hill top sites are not available. In these areas offshore winds may be 0.5 to 1 m/s higher than onshore, depending on the distance. The higher wind speeds do not usually compensate for the higher construction costs but the chief attractions of offshore are a large resource and low environmental impact.

Wind Energy Costs

As wind energy is not generally cost-competitive with the thermal sources of electricity generation, the pattern of development has been largely dependent on the support mechanisms provided by national governments.

Wind costs have declined steadily and a typical installed cost for onshore wind farms is now around US$ 1 000/kW, and for offshore around US$ 1 600/kW. The corresponding electricity costs vary, partly due to wind speed variations and partly due to differing institutional frameworks. Wind prices are converging with those from the thermal sources but it is not easy to make objective comparisons, as there are few places where totally level playing fields exist. Two examples may be given. Until recently, the UK operated a competitive tender market for renewable energy sources which guaranteed payments for 15 years. Vigorous competition drove prices down rapidly and the prices realised in the last round of the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation may be compared with prices for new gas and coal-fired plant. These comparisons, show that wind prices are very similar to those for coal-fired plant and only a little more than those of gas-fired plant. The second set of comparisons, has been drawn from two US sources: a Department of Energy projection for 2005 and a recent analysis for the State of Oregon in 2000. This comparison shows a bigger gap between wind and gas although wind is significantly cheaper than nuclear. Other US data suggest that wind prices down to around 4 US cents/kWh can be realised in some areas.

Wind farms

The way in which wind energy has developed has been influenced by the nature of the support mechanisms. Early developments in California and subsequently in the UK, for example, were mainly in the form of wind farms, with tens of machines, but up to 100 or more in some instances. In Germany and Denmark the arrangements favoured investments by individuals or small cooperatives and so there are many single machines and clusters of two or three. Economies of scale can be realised by building wind farms, particularly in the civil engineering and grid connection costs and possibly by securing "quantity discounts" from the turbine manufacturers. Economies of scale deliver more significant savings in the case of offshore wind farms and many of the developments involve large numbers of machines. Figure 13.6 gives an indication of typical parameters for offshore and onshore wind farms. It may be noted that the offshore project uses machines with three times the power rating of the onshore project.

Small wind turbines

There is no precise definition of "small", but it usually applies to machines under about 10 kW in output. In developing countries small wind turbines are used for a wide range of rural energy applications, and there are many "off-grid" applications in the developed world as well - such as providing power for navigation beacons. Since most are not connected to a grid, many use DC generators and run at variable speed. A typical 100 W battery-charging machine has a shipping weight of only 15 kg.

A niche market, where wind turbines often come into their own as the costs of energy from conventional sources can be very high, is in cold climates. Wind turbines may be found in both polar regions and in northern Canada, Alaska, Finland and elsewhere. To illustrate the point about economic viability, data from the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment quotes typical costs of energy at 10 kW capacity in remote areas:

Micro-Hydro ~ US$ 0.21/kWh
Wind ~ US$ 0.48/kWh
Diesel ~ US$ 0.80/kWh
Grid Extension ~ US$ 1.02/kWh

Environmental Aspects

No energy source is free of environmental effects. As the renewable energy sources make use of energy in forms that are diffuse, larger structures, or greater land use, tend to be required and attention may be focused on the visual effects. In the case of wind energy, there is also discussion of the effects of noise and possible disturbance to wildlife - especially birds. It must be remembered, however, that one of the main reasons for developing the renewable sources is an environmental one - to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Noise

Almost all sources of power emit noise, and the key to acceptability is the same in every case - sensible siting. Wind turbines emit noise from the rotation of the blades and from the machinery, principally the gearbox and generator. At low wind speeds wind turbines generate no noise, simply because they do not generate. The noise level near the cut-in wind speed (see Figure 13.3) is important since the noise perceived by an observer depends on the level of local background noise (the masking effect) in the vicinity. At very high wind speeds, on the other hand, background noise due to the wind itself may well be higher than noise generated by a wind turbine. The intensity of noise reduces with distance and it is also attenuated by air absorption.

The exact distance at which noise from turbines becomes "acceptable" depends on a range of factors. As a guide, many wind farms with 400-500 kW turbines find that they need to be sited no closer than around 300-400 m to dwellings.

Television and Radio Interference

Wind turbines, like other structures, can scatter electro-magnetic communication signals, including television. Careful siting can avoid difficulties, which may arise in some situations if the signal is weak. Fortunately it is usually possible to introduce technical measures - usually at low cost - to compensate.

Birds

The need to avoid areas where rare plants or animals are to be found is generally a matter of common sense, but the question of birds is more complicated and has been the subject of several studies. Problems arose at some early wind farms that were sited in locations where large numbers of birds congregate - especially on migration routes. However, such problems are now rare, and it must also be remembered that many other activities cause far more casualties to birds, such as the ubiquitous motor vehicle.

In practice, provided investigations are carried out to ensure that wind installations are not sited too near large concentrations of nesting birds, there is little cause for concern. Most birds, for most of the time, are quite capable of avoiding obstacles and very low collision rates are reported where measurements have been made.

Visual effects

One of the more obvious environmental effects of wind turbines is their visual aspect, especially that of a wind farm comprising a large number of wind turbines. There is no measurable way of assessing the effect, which is essentially subjective. As with noise, the background is also vitally important. Experience has shown that good design and the use of subdued neutral colours - "off-white" is popular - minimises these effects. The subjective nature of the question often means that extraneous factors come into play when acceptability is under discussion. In Denmark and Germany, for example, where local investors are often intimately involved in planning wind installations, this may often ensure that the necessary permits are granted without undue discussion. Sensitive siting is the key to this delicate issue, avoiding the most cherished landscapes and ensuring that the local community is fully briefed on the positive environmental implications.

Integration into supply networks

Electricity systems in the developed world have evolved so as to deliver power to the consumers with high efficiency. One fundamental benefit of an integrated electricity system is that generators and consumers both benefit from the aggregation of supply and demand. On the generation side, this means that the need for reserves is kept down. Consumers benefit from a high level of reliability and do not need to provide back-up power supplies. In an integrated system the aggregated maximum demand is much less than the sum of the individual maximum demands of the consumers, simply because the peak demands come at different times.

Wind energy benefits from aggregation; it means that system operators simply cannot detect the loss of generation from a wind farm of, say, 20 MW, as there are innumerable other changes in system demand which occur all the time. Numerous utility studies have indicated that wind can readily be absorbed in an integrated network until the wind capacity accounts for about 20% of maximum demand. Beyond this, some modest changes to operational practice may be needed, but there are no "cut-off" points. Practical experience at these levels is now providing a better understanding of the issues involved.

Future Developments

Recent rapid growth in Denmark, Spain and Germany shows no sign of slowing and there are plans for further capacity in the United States, Canada, the Middle East, the Far East and South America. If the current growth rate continues, there may be about 150 GW by 2010. The rate of development will depend on the level of political support from the national governments and international community. This, in turn, depends on the level of commitment to achieving the carbon dioxide reduction targets now internationally agreed. Although the technology has developed rapidly during the past ten years, further improvements can be expected both in performance and cost.
worldenergy.org



To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (18)4/23/2003 7:09:36 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Respond to of 123
 
Alberta Oil/Tar Sands:

(2003 production of) almost 1 million barrels of crude or refined oil each day. Production is expected to reach 1.8 million barrels a day by 2010, with known recoverable reserves of 315 billion barrels, comparable with Saudi Arabia. ...Production costs now range from about $7 to $11 a barrel, depending on the project...

Scientists figured out as early as 1920 how to mix the black, sticky oil sand with hot water and caustic soda, then shake it up to separate the components, with the heavier sand sinking to the bottom and the bitumen rising to the top. It took until 1967, though, for Suncor to develop the first major project, and others including Syncrude, ExxonMobil, Imperial and Shell have since put up money to get huge operations going, with a boost from government incentives that helped write down the investment more quickly
nctimes.net

In recent years, investors' negative views about oil from tar sands have largely faded as technological improvements have pushed production costs down sharply. When the construction cranes come down next summer from the upgrading units of the Millennium Project of Suncor Energy, costs will be around $9 a barrel, roughly one quarter of 1970's levels... With much of North America's low-hanging energy fruit already culled, mining existing oil sand deposits is now less expensive than searching for new oil fields and pumping it from deep-water platforms off the coasts of Newfoundland or Louisiana. 1/01 spaceship-earth.org

Alberta has huge deposits of oil sands that underlie about 77,000 square kilometres (30,000 sq. miles ) of the province. The tar (oil) sands contain about 1.7 trillion barrels of oil in place, of which approximately 300 billion barrels are ultimately recoverable. The Government of Alberta has played a major role in encouraging and promoting the development of the tar sands through technology and research programs. The two most common methods of extracting bitumen from the oil sands are surface mining and in situ ("in place") extraction. The reserves that are economically mineable from the surface lie under less than 75 meters of overburden.

To date, over 1 billion barrels of synthetic crude oil has been recovered from western Canadian oil tar sands... The industry is currently concentrated in the Fort McMurray areas of northern Alberta, where Syncrude Canada and Suncor, the country's two big oil sands producers, are located.

Much of the energy used to extract tar sands oil is from using natural gas. Natural gas is closely tied to the price of conventional oil, on a BTU basis. So when the price of oil zooms up, the price of natural gas raises accordingly. In fact, today, it is possible that the price of natural gas could increase more than conventional oil due to its environmental benefits over burning coal for generating electricity. This would leave tar sands production in an even worse economic situation. It appears that in order for tar sands producers to even make a profit, they need tax breaks and other subsidies from the provincial and federal governments. Here are the economic and environmental down sides to tar sands:

1 uneconomical: tar sands oil is hard to unstick from the trillions of grains of sand and costs too much in money and energy to do so.

2 Huge energy requirements: tar sands extraction is much more energy-intensive that the extraction of conventional reserves of oil and natural gas, thus it never escapes the oil-energy cost cycle, and it generates many times more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil and gas.

3 large greenhouse gas emissions: the greenhouse gas emissions from uncovering, extracting, refining, upgrading and transporting tar sands oil is many times more than that associated with extracting refining and processing either conventional oil & gas, and even coal.

4 tar sands strip mine: tar sands is a stripmining operation; it requires of the stripping of hundreds of thousands of acres of fertile ground to get at the bitumen 40 feet under the surface; forests, wildlife habitat; and water sources are ruined. Some operations are using underground, in-situ extraction methods that don't require stripmining, however they pose their own set of groundwater contamination problems

5 severe water pollution: tar sands extraction and processing requires massive amounts of water for steam-stripping and sand washing; groundwater and surface water
(quantity) takings are enormous; resulting oil and phenol contamination are serious for large areas outside just the area of the tar sands stripmine.

6 severe air pollution: direct discharges from the processing and refinery upgrade facilities, and fugitive emissions, generate major amounts of toxic and carcinogenic cancer-causing) contaminants which spread for miles over human and animal populations.
csf.colorado.edu

Production:
138,000 b/d 1980
345,000 b/d 1990
645,000 b/d 2001
almost 1 million b/d 2003
1.9 million b/d 2010 (expected)
energy.gov.ab.ca

Economically recoverable proven reserves
(in 11/02 with oil at 30$/b):
180 billion barrels of oil from Canada (oil + tar sand) (#2 in world)
260 billion barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia (#1)
30 billion barrels of oil in U.S.
energy.gov.ab.ca

When Great Canadian Oil Sands, Ltd. the predecessor to Suncor Energy Inc., began commercial production in 1967, its cost was more than $23 per bbl. When Syncrude Canada Ltd., a joint venture, opened a larger open-pit mine nearby in 1978, its cost was similar. But by the late 1990s, according to the Calgary-based Petroleum Communication Foundation, costs had fallen to around $8.70 per bbl, competitive even with the $10-per-bbl low reached by world oil prices in 2000. Investors took notice.
enr.construction.com

Factors Common To All Petroleum Projects:
All petroleum development projects face risk, which must be assessed by decision-makers in industry and government. Categories of risks include:
• Technological risks
• Construction cost risks
• Market risks
• Regulatory risks
• Financial and fiscal risks
• Political risks
• Environmental risks
• Legal risks
• Terrorism risks
All engineers are sensitive to the presence of technical problems which are associated with projects which have not been undertaken before. If innovation is required, the new technology must be proven in a sequence of experiments at small, medium, and large scale levels, before it can be confidently incorporated into a major project. There is the probability of “negative geotechnical surprises”, a term coined by the Chief Engineer of the trans-Alaskan Pipeline Project to explain construction cost over-runs. Many factors can contribute to such over-runs. There is always a difficulty in predicting the price which a petroleum product will bring over a 25-year period in a free market, and in the case of petroleum, in a market which is only
partially controlled by OPEC and other major producers. Regulatory risks can come from the various governments which control the region of petroleum production and transportation. Pipelines crossing the territory of more than one country are a typical example, as are political upheavals which install new governments, new laws, and new regulatory agencies to enforce these laws.
Financial risks include the interest rates prevailing at the time of construction of a project, the expectation of a rate of return to equity shareholders, and the threat of new taxation by national, regional, and local governments.
Political risks include, in some regions, rebellion, guerrilla warfare, civil war, strikes, and war between countries, as well as international treaties and cartel arrangements which can be created after a project is in place, which might adversely affect a project.
Environmental risks include dramatic effects such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, lightning, fires, earthquakes, volcanoes, moving sea ice, thaw-subsidence of frozen ground, and many other possibilities.
Legal risks include the initiation of legal action by concerned special-interest groups to cause curtailment of a project or adverse economic burdens, at any time during the life of a project. These may be at the national level, and although petroleum production is not included under the WTO, there may be bilateral treaties (such as NAFTA) which add risk related to the evolution of the enforcement of treaty obligations.
Terrorism has emerged as a new risk, in recent years, and the design of a petroleum project must take into account reasonable protective measures, both by way of construction and in the manner in which responsible government authorities deploy protective forces.
----------------------------

Even without the strip mines that stretch to the horizon, the steaming ponds brimming with byproducts, and the absence of any living thing save big black ravens and the occasional bird of prey, the landscape surrounding the giant Syncrude facility in northern Alberta would be forbidding. Carved out of 14 square miles of birch and pine forest some 400 miles north of Calgary, near the town of Fort McMurray, Syncrude is the world's largest producer of oil from tar sands. Getting the oil-bearing, gravel-like material out of the ground and turning it into something resembling conventional petroleum--and making a profit--is a formidable challenge. But thanks to $4 billion in investments from Canadian companies and U.S. giants like Conoco and Exxon Mobil, Syncrude is doing it, producing 250,000 barrels a day of high-quality, low-sulfur crude.

When you figure it takes two tons of oil sand to make just one barrel of oil, you begin to comprehend the vast scale of the operations here. As 30-foot-high Caterpillar trucks haul nearly 400 tons of rock out of the pits every few minutes, mining team leader Pat Crisby notes that at 25 degrees above zero, today's weather is rather mild for his workers--the 3,800 Syncrude employees routinely work at temperatures approaching minus 40 degrees for much of the winter. Since 6 a.m. Crisby's men and women have processed some 41,000 tons of rock, removing not just tar sand but tons of soil and stone as well. The oily grit is heated to 176 degrees and mixed with hot water before being thrown into the equivalent of a giant washing machine that separates the oil from the sand. Then the slurry is upgraded and refined until it reaches its final form--a tan, viscous liquid resembling motor oil.

Very expensive motor oil. While it costs the Saudis about $1 a barrel to get their oil out of the ground and into the hands of customers, Syncrude spends roughly $12 to make a barrel of crude. With oil prices at $21 a barrel, the company's margins are "decent right now,'' says Syncrude President Jim Carter. But if oil drops back into the mid to low teens, as it did in the late 1990s, Syncrude's profits will get hammered. Nevertheless, says Carter, "we see this as the logical alternative to declining conventional reserves in the U.S. and Canada. Similarly, this can replace imported oil from OPEC.''

Several factors make oil sands an important part of the equation if the U.S. is to reduce its dependence on Middle Eastern oil. For starters, they're close to home, with major deposits in Canada and Venezuela. They're also abundant--300 billion barrels of recoverable oil is estimated to be in the tar sands in northern Alberta alone--about 30 times the maximum amount of oil thought to lie in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Venezuela could possess up to 400 billion barrels in its sands--more than the entire proven reserves of Saudi Arabia.

The problem is that making oil from tar sands isn't just expensive. It's also really messy. Not far from the sprawling pit mines, a 600-foot smokestack spews a white cloud of steam tinged with brown and yellow. "We create our own weather,'' one worker says proudly. "When it's cold, the steam turns into snow. But I wouldn't make a snow cone out of it.'' In fact, Syncrude emits roughly 240 tons of sulfur dioxide every day, nearly 25 times what a conventional refinery of similar size in Texas would release. Although Syncrude is spending hundreds of millions to reduce emissions and lessen the facility's environmental impact, one glance at the yellowish cloud over the lunar landscape illustrates the tradeoffs in moving away from cheap Mideast oil.
fortune.com



To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (18)4/24/2003 12:49:17 AM
From: Jacob Snyder  Respond to of 123
 
ANWR development vs. energy efficiency:

...whenever an oil crisis appears, we reach for the shelf entitled "Project Independence" and dust off the remedies of opening up prospective lands, now denied, for exploration. We take a second look at alternative forms of energy, and we once again discuss the need to become more efficient in our use of oil. But then the crisis passes, as this one will, and these remedies are returned to the shelf, to once again gather dust, to be revisited upon the occasion of the next crisis...
anwr.org

The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 25% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 1.4 million barrels a day.

Should leasing be permitted and subsequent commercial discoveries be made, it will be an estimated 15 years or more before oil and gas production from ANWR reaches market.
anwr.org

the USGS estimated in 2000 that, assuming a price of $24 per barrel, there is:
a 95% chance of finding 1.9 billion barrels (BBO) of economically recoverable oil in the Arctic Refuge's 1002 Area;
a 5% chance of finding 9.4 BBO; and
a 50% chance of finding 5.3 BBO.
Reported estimates of 16 BBO from the 1002 Area and adjacent private lands and offshore State waters do not factor in the costs of developing the oil field.
At prices less than $16 per barrel, there is reportedly no economically recoverable oil in the 1002 Area.
r7.fws.gov

19.5 million acre Refuge is the size of South Carolina;
scenery, from US Fish and Wildlife Service:
r7.fws.gov

Since the development of the Prudhoe Bay field, geologists have known that the trend for gigantic oil deposits extends to the eastern part of the North Slope. However, the environmental movement in the U. S. Congress was successful in 1980 in expanding the eastern one-third of the North Slope designated as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), from 3.64 million hectares to 7.7 million hectares. At the same time, 0.6 million hectares of the Arctic Coastal Plain area, the "Designated 1002 Area" along the coast, was designated for further study, after which exploration drilling would only be permitted by a future Act of Congress....The pipeline has already operated for 25 years, the design life, and is expected to be uneconomic after about another 20 years, unless new oil is connected to it. Industry argues that new small-footprint technology means that less than 800 hectares of land would be used for development, with minimal environmental effect. The U.S. House of Representatives, and the President, are in favor of ANWR development, but it requires a 60% majority in the U.S. Senate to prevent indefinitely long delay of legislation by filibuster, and this majority cannot be reached by those favoring development. It seems that a national emergency in oil supply would be needed to open ANWR to petroleum development.
arcticcentre.urova.fi

Oil and Gas in ANWR? Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources 3/03:

The 1002 Area consists of 1,500,000 acres of highly prospective terrain in the northeastern portion of the North Slope. The region is situated between the prolific North Slope oil fields to the west and the petroleum-rich Canadian Mackenzie Delta province to the east....

...somewhat more than 6 BBO could be economically produced from the 1002 Area at today’s $28.00 - $30.00/barrel price. An oil price of about $15.25/barrel would support exploration for and development, production and transport of only a few hundred million barrels...

Directional control of the drill bit is an engineering marvel. A drilling engineer can now plan a well-bore
trajectory that will penetrate one or more small targets, identified by the 3-D seismic, at distances of more
than four miles from the drill rig location. Application of this “extended reach” drilling method - “designer
well” as it is sometimes called - allows numerous exploration and development wells to be drilled within a
radius of nearly five miles from a single drill pad....only do these engineering advances reduce the surface area of individual drill sites, they also reduce the number of drill sites required.
dog.dnr.state.ak.us

simply upgrading the quality of replacement tires to match that of tires that come as standard equipment on new cars would save 5.4 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years -- 70 percent more than the total amount of oil likely to be recovered from the Arctic Refuge over the same period. Updating fuel efficiency standards to reflect the capabilities of modern technology would produce even greater savings. Increasing fuel efficiency standards for new passenger vehicles to an average of 39 miles per gallon over the next decade would save 51 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years -- more than 15 times the likely yield from the Arctic Refuge
nrdc.org

...between 1975 and 2001, manufacturers developed a new generation of energy-efficient refrigerators that consumed 75 percent less electricity than ones built before, saving 60,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity and reducing power plant emissions. Constructing power plants to produce this 60,000 MW would have cost $50 billion, compared to the refrigerator industry’s investment of less than $1 billion to produce these more efficient refrigerators. Similar advances have been achieved with clothes washers, windows, fluorescent lighting, and heating and air conditioning systems.
nrdc.org