Clean Carbon Technology Foundation of Texas

Breakthrough Industrial Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage Project Begins Full-Scale Operations

Admin — Fri, 10 May 2013 20:32:04 +0000

May 10, 2013 – 11:36am

Energy.gov

WASHINGTON — The Energy Department’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Christopher Smith today attended a dedication ceremony at the Air Products and Chemicals hydrogen production facilities in Port Arthur, Texas. Supported by a $284 million Energy Department investment, the company has successfully begun capturing carbon dioxide from industrial operations and is now using that carbon for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and securely storing it underground. This first-of-a-kind, breakthrough project advances carbon capture, utilization and storage technologies and demonstrates the potential to safely secure carbon dioxide pollution underground while providing an economic benefit and increasing our energy security.

At full-scale operation, more than 90 percent of the carbon dioxide from the product stream of two methane steam reformers — or approximately one million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year — will be delivered for sequestration and EOR, which will lead to an estimated annual increase in oil production of 1.6 to 3.1 million barrels from the West Hastings oil field located about 20 miles south of Houston, Texas.

“The Energy Department is investing in cutting-edge technologies that will help us safely and more sustainably develop all of America’s rich energy resources,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Christopher Smith. “This groundbreaking project demonstrates the potential to produce economic benefits and increase our energy security while greatly reducing the environmental impacts of our fossil energy use.”

The two retrofitted Air Products and Chemicals plants produce commercial bulk hydrogen primarily for use at the nearby Valero refinery. The approximately $431 million project, supported by $284 million from the Energy Department, included retrofitting the plants with an innovative system that separates carbon dioxide from the steam reformer product gas during hydrogen production, followed by compression and drying processes. The Energy Department investment also helped construct a 13.1-mile-long feeder that connects the two plants to an existing 325-mile, 24-inch carbon dioxide pipeline, Denbury’s Green Pipeline, that begins in Louisiana and ends at the West Hastings field. Careful carbon dioxide monitoring, verification, and accounting activities to ensure the injected carbon dioxide remains in the underground geologic formation will take place throughout the lifetime of the project.

The first plant has been capturing carbon dioxide since December 2012, while the second plant completed construction in February and began carbon capture operations in March. Both units are now operating at full capacity. Over 222,000 tons of carbon dioxide have been captured and provided for storage as of early May.

The Port Arthur project is part of the Energy Department’s broader efforts to leverage cutting-edge research to show that not only can Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology help industry make fossil energy use cleaner, safer and more sustainable, it also shows promise as a method to extract more, hard-to-access and presently untapped fossil energy resources. By putting the captured carbon dioxide to use, Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) provides an additional business and market case for companies to pursue the environmental benefits of CCS.

To learn more about CCUS, watch the short video HERE

Texas Legislature Should Invest In Water Infrastructure

Admin — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:36:56 +0000

Thursday, Apr. 25, 2013

By Mabrie Jackson, James C. Oberwetter, Bill Thornton and Jodie L. Jiles

Special to the Star-Telegram

More than 98 percent of Texas counties and communities are experiencing ongoing drought — nothing new or surprising in a state that struggles with the devastating impacts of drought at least once every 10 years.

The Legislature has a real shot at protecting us by making a one-time investment in our State Water Plan. But less than six weeks remain in the session, and consensus has not emerged.

Without consensus, the future of our state’s water supply — arguably the most important issue facing our lawmakers — is in jeopardy.

As Texans have become more educated about drought and its debilitating effects on public health and our economy, the number of stakeholders supporting water infrastructure investment has grown to include water providers, municipalities, agricultural interests, conservationists and representatives of every major economic driver in the state.

Despite this alignment of broad-based support, an investment in water infrastructure could still slip from our hands if legislators cannot agree on how that investment should be structured.

Many statewide elected officials and legislators are working hard to ensure that Texas has the water infrastructure necessary for future growth and development.

House Bill 4, by Rep. Allan Ritter, R-Nederland, and Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Belton, who chair the House and Senate natural resources committees, would create a historic water infrastructure bank to operate as a revolving loan program to finance water projects identified in the State Water Plan.

The chairmen also are trying to pass companion legislation that would fund HB4 with an injection of capital from the rainy-day fund. Alternate funding options include a constitutional amendment proposed by Sen. Tommy Williams, R-The Woodlands, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Ritter’s funding proposal was approved by the House Appropriations Committee on Monday, and Williams’ proposal was approved by the Senate on Tuesday.

With only weeks to go in the session, we encourage lawmakers to pass HB4, fund the loan program it prescribes and ensure that the funding mechanism is aligned with the financing tools laid out in HB4.

Texas Water Development Board projections warn that by 2060, 50 percent of Texans will lack enough water during severe drought. The crucial water infrastructure projects identified in the State Water Plan — water treatment plants, reservoirs, pipes for water conveyance and conservation strategies — can be implemented if the Legislature accomplishes these goals.

By making the one-time State Water Plan investment contemplated in HB4, our Legislature could provide water for generations of Texans.

Failure to deliver an investment in water infrastructure this session could lead to public health challenges, decreasing real estate values and billions of dollars in lost economic development opportunity.

When it comes to water, Texas cannot afford to wait any longer.

Mabrie Jackson is president and CEO of the North Texas Commission. James Oberwetter is president and CEO of the Dallas Regional Chamber. Bill Thornton is president and CEO of the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce. Jodie Jiles is chairman of the Texas Business Leadership Council.

Fayette Power Project receives top performance award for reliability, efficiency and cost management

CCTFT — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:37:43 +0000

The Fayette Power Project (FPP) near La Grange has been selected top performer among an international group of large coal-fired power plants for high performance in reliability, efficiency and cost management.

EUCG Inc., an electric utility industry group, on April 4 announced its selection of FPP as the 2010 Top Performer for the category of large coal-fired power facilities with average unit capacities of more than 300 megawatts. The awards were announced at EUCG’s spring conference in Charlotte, NC. EUCG is a global association of utility professionals and member companies that are recognized as the electric energy industry standard for performance.

The awards are based on each generating facility’s management of operations and maintenance costs and reliability record in 2010. Information was submitted by member companies throughout the United States, Canada, Asia and Israel. The large coal-fired power plant category includes 84 generating units from 31 power plants. Other utilities in this category include CPS Energy and Tennessee Valley Authority.

“LCRA is committed to providing its wholesale electric customers with reliable, affordable and environmentally responsible power,” said Tom Mason, LCRA general manager. “This designation and other benchmarking studies show that coal-fired power generation continues to play a very important role in the diverse mix of generation resources that serve LCRA’s customers.”

“Our employees are always looking for ways to manage costs while maintaining safe and reliable operations,” said Jane Luedecke, FPP plant manager. “We are pleased that FPP is being recognized for high marks related to these important performance metrics.”

FPP also received the EUCG’s top performer designation for its performance during the 2005 and 2006 calendar years. Other international benchmarking studies also have placed FPP among the best in its peer group for safety, reliability and efficiency.

FPP is located on a 10-square-mile site seven miles east of La Grange. LCRA and Austin Energy share ownership of FPP units 1 and 2. LCRA owns the third unit. LCRA operates all three units, which have a combined net capacity of 1,641 megawatts. FPP generates enough electricity to serve about 410,000 typical Central Texas homes when the demand for power is highest, such as very hot summer afternoons or cold winter nights. FPP has a long history of operating in an environmentally responsible manner. Its main fuel source is coal from the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, which burns cleaner than other types of coal. In March 2011, FPP completed a project that will help remove almost all of the sulfur dioxide emissions from the plant. It also has taken steps to reduce plantwide nitrogen oxide emissions by 65 to 70 percent.

For more information about FPP, visit www.lcra.org/energy/power/facilities/fayette.html.

University of Texas Scientists Seek Means to Burn Coal Cleanly

CCTFT — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:40:24 +0000

In a four-story test plant just behind a warehouse-like research building in north Austin, University of Texas researchers are hoping for a revolutionary breakthrough to the question of how to continue to burn coal without contributing to global warming.

The mini power plant, only big enough to theoretically power a few homes, pipes carbon dioxide in and captures it with the aid of some fancy stack filters and a variety of solvents. The aim is to capture about 90 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted by the mini-facility and then to scale up the project in a half-dozen years to a commercial plant.

The technology could “keep a (coal plant) going for another 30 years,” said Gary Rochelle, the UT scientist heading the project.

The success or failure of this experiment, along with several others by UT researchers, could help spell the future of coal policy in the United States. Playing a prominent role in paying for and organizing the projects are coal-burning utilities, who have a lot to win or lose if the researchers can show that carbon emissions can be captured and piped underground for storage.

Though carbon limits have stalled in Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is setting up rules to limit carbon emissions from refineries and power plants.

The Obama administration has pumped millions of dollars into carbon capture demonstration projects, sprinkling money around a handful of research universities. Over the past five years, the Department of Energy has invested more than $4 billion in carbon capture and storage projects nationally and about $765 million into projects in Texas.

A clean-burning plant, or at least its promise, is key to the future of coal as the government grapples with how to regulate carbon emissions from coal plants, which scientists have linked to global warming. For all the cost of retrofitting an existing coal plant — as much as $500 million — it would produce much more power, more reliably than all sorts of current renewable setups.

Texas, the researchers say, could be a national repository for carbon dioxide, which can be buried in underground salt domes and below the Gulf of Mexico. As a bonus, the carbon storage method could be used to push out hard-to-reach deposits of oil, like floss pressing up against teeth.

So far, no such capture and storage project has been built on a commercial scale.

Critics say the projects are part of an expensive fantasy promulgated by coal companies to stave off stricter federal legislation and to entice government subsidies for new coal-burning projects. Clean coal, they say, is a kind of unattainable holy grail of energy.

“The rush to throw up an old coal plant, bolt on some new scrubbers, and sell it as `clean coal technology’ is a transparently cynical attempt to cash in before the economic hurricane of global warming hits,” Jeff Goodell writes in Big Coal, his 2006 book. “The executives who are building these plants know that once they are constructed, no one is going to tear them down, giving the companies fifty years of steady profits.”

“The scale of my activity is not approached elsewhere in the US,” said Rochelle, a chatty, precise and candid man.

At its most basic, Rochelle’s group examines how a solvent called piperazine and packing alternatives that look like space-age air-conditioning filters can be used to capture carbon dioxide molecules before they escape into the atmosphere.

The money for their work is largely paid for by the Luminant Carbon Management Program, named for the Texas generator Luminant, which donated another $500,000 to Rochelle’s group in mid-January. The check came during a semiannual get-together in which Rochelle and his students gave presentations about project progress.

Sponsors like Luminant and other utilities can participate in the talks and comment on drafts of research articles. In addition to the Luminant money, Rochelle’s group will get $800,000 this year from a consortium of 32 companies, including more than a half-dozen power-generating companies (among them, LS Power, Southern Company and NRG) and a handful of oil companies, including blue-chip companies Exxon, BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips.

The money pays to “educate future experts in the subject matter to solve a problem of great technical and societal impact,” Rochelle said.

The companies “participate by attending oral research review meetings, and they generously contribute comments, and criticisms, and hurrahs,” Rochelle said. “In practice we don’t see much in writing during the year.”

“They make comments on interpreting data and experiments we could be running, and we certainly implement that,” he continued. “They provide technical direction for our research and development activity.”

As for the articles, Rochelle said Luminant “has not exercised any control at all of what we publish or how we publish.” But, he added: “Frankly, I’m not independent. Money talks. If I had a result embarrassing to Luminant, I’m probably not going to publish it.

“It’s not our job to say this is technology that doesn’t work and you shouldn’t do it,” he said. “Our job is to find technology that works.”

He said that if his group has an unfavorable result for a process used by a company that contributes far less — $25,000 is the minimum, according to a four-page prospectus posted on Rochelle’s Web site — he would “feel free to tromp all over them.”

“If they decide to leave because I offend them, I don’t care. If it was Luminant, then I’d care.”

He said that industry is crucial to paying for the work the state and federal government can’t fully fund.

“The upside is, corporate money fills in important holes in research the government doesn’t cover,” said Michael Webber, associate director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at UT. “There’s a huge downside risk, with research money being used to steer the results or the perception that it is. I worry constantly about both.”

“I get a lot of calls from potential corporate sponsors where they say, `Here’s the answer, can you demonstrate why?’ I tell them you can buy the research, but you can’t buy the answer. I have people tell me they’re not comfortable with that and politely decline.”

Texas Energy and the Energy of Texas

CCTFT — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:14:03 +0000

Steven F. Hayward, Ph.d. & Kenneth P. Green, Ph.D. prepared a following report for the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The findings of the report show that the best energy strategy to maintain a strong economy in Texas is one that keeps a diversified energy portfolio and creates an adaptable marketplace for competing energy supplies and technologies.

Read the full report here.