Скачать презентацию Pollution Probe August 2 2006 Profitably Reducing CO Скачать презентацию Pollution Probe August 2 2006 Profitably Reducing CO

832840f5f30ca0575b3e156a6fec3877.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 27

Pollution Probe August 2, 2006 Profitably Reducing CO 2 by Recycling Energy Some ‘Convenient Pollution Probe August 2, 2006 Profitably Reducing CO 2 by Recycling Energy Some ‘Convenient Truths’ Thomas R. Casten Chairman & CEO Primary Energy, LLC

Presentation Summary · Ontario can profitably eliminate coal fired generation with unconventional, innovative governance Presentation Summary · Ontario can profitably eliminate coal fired generation with unconventional, innovative governance · Must remove barriers to efficiency and encourage local generation in order to: l l stimulate energy recycling, Avoid new T&D capital Cut fossil fuel use Improve manufacturing competitiveness

Climate Change Mitigation A Governance Dilemma? · The declining cost of energy services has Climate Change Mitigation A Governance Dilemma? · The declining cost of energy services has driven income growth throughout history l Exploiting fossil fuel has produced 150 years of per capita income gains, but l Resultant CO 2 emissions are changing climate l 2/3’s of fossil fuel use is for heat and power · The Governance Dilemma: How to supply affordable energy services and maintain a healthy biosphere?

False Prophets Say We Must Chose Between Economy and Environment Pollution Cost False Prophets Say We Must Chose Between Economy and Environment Pollution Cost

But North American Energy Systems Are Far from Optimal · Regulations ignore new technologies But North American Energy Systems Are Far from Optimal · Regulations ignore new technologies · Regulations block innovation · Energy price signals do not include externality costs · Utilities are seldom rewarded for fossil efficiency or conservation · These many rules are ‘barriers to efficiency’

Conventional Central Approach 1960 Data (& 2003 Data) Pollution Waste Heat Transmission Line Losses Conventional Central Approach 1960 Data (& 2003 Data) Pollution Waste Heat Transmission Line Losses 3 units (9. 0%) 67 units Waste Energy Fuel = 100 units End User Power Plant 33 units Electricity

Recycling Thermal Energy with Combined Heat and Power Pollution 33 units Waste Energy Fuel Recycling Thermal Energy with Combined Heat and Power Pollution 33 units Waste Energy Fuel 100 units = 33 units Thermal Energy CHP Plant 33 units Electricity Recycle Waste Heat End User Site 66 units Useful Work

Comparative Deployment of Combined Heat and Power in 2004 Comparative Deployment of Combined Heat and Power in 2004

Ontario CHP Potential · Current CHP @ 10% 2, 600 MW · If German Ontario CHP Potential · Current CHP @ 10% 2, 600 MW · If German CHP @ 19% 4, 900 MW · If Netherlands CHP @ 39% 10, 400 MW · If Denmark CHP @ 52% 13, 520 MW · Compare with current coal 7, 000 MW

Affordable Clean Energy Potential Recycling Industrial Waste Energy · Recycled energy is useful energy Affordable Clean Energy Potential Recycling Industrial Waste Energy · Recycled energy is useful energy derived from: l l l Exhaust heat from any industrial process or power generation Industrial tail gas that would otherwise be flared, incinerated or vented, Pressure drop in any gas

Fuel-Free Heat and Power Recycling Industrial Energy Saved Energy Input Energy Recycling Plant Electricity Fuel-Free Heat and Power Recycling Industrial Energy Saved Energy Input Energy Recycling Plant Electricity Finished Goods Process Fuel Waste Energy Electricity Steam Hot Water End User Site

Primary Energy’s Approach 90 MW Recycled from Coke Production Primary Energy’s Approach 90 MW Recycled from Coke Production

Ontario Energy Recycling Potential (Rough Estimate 2, 300 MW) · Steel (Defasco, Stelco, Algoma) Ontario Energy Recycling Potential (Rough Estimate 2, 300 MW) · Steel (Defasco, Stelco, Algoma) est. 400 MW l Blast furnace gas, exhaust heat, pressure drop · Refineries and chemical factories est. 900 MW · Natural gas pumping station exhaust – 560 MW of fuel-free power · Pressure drop at gas delivery points est. 100 MW · Glass & fiberglass factory exhaust heat · Sewage gas, landfill gas, biomass, construction waste, recycled carpet, other.

Ontario CHP Potential · Gas fired combined cycle plants next to thermal energy users Ontario CHP Potential · Gas fired combined cycle plants next to thermal energy users to recycle heat l Toronto and London district energy systems, hospitals, breweries, refineries, universities, industrial plants using heat · Biomass fueled plants for greenhouses, agricultural processing, paper recycling · Other opportunity fuels including tires, sludge, wood waste, construction waste, petroleum coke

Conventional Power Thinking: Local Generation Saves Fuel, But Economies of Scale Make Central Generation Conventional Power Thinking: Local Generation Saves Fuel, But Economies of Scale Make Central Generation Optimal

Economies of Scale? Central versus Decentralized Generation (US Dollars) KW Total costs/ Transmission Total Economies of Scale? Central versus Decentralized Generation (US Dollars) KW Total costs/ Transmission Total / k. W Generation & Distribution of required/ k. W New Generation k. W Load Central Generation $890 $1380 $2, 270 1. 44 $3, 269 Local Generation $1, 200 $138 $1, 338 1. 07 $1, 432 Savings (Excess) of Central vs. Local Generation $310 $1, 242 $1, 068 0. 37 $1, 837 74% 1000% 213% 135% 228% Central generation capital as a % of local capital

What is Optimal New Generation · Reduced cost versus present systems (including all subsidies What is Optimal New Generation · Reduced cost versus present systems (including all subsidies and externality costs) · Reduced overall capital investment · Reduced criteria pollutant emissions (NOx, SOx, particulates, mercury, CO) · Reduced green house gas (GHG) emissions · Society should demand win/win answers

Future Generation Options Renewable Energy Options Central Generation Options No incremental fossil fuel line Future Generation Options Renewable Energy Options Central Generation Options No incremental fossil fuel line Recycled Energy Options (33% efficiency) (50% efficiency) (100% efficiency) Avg. Retail Power Price 8. 1¢ / k. Wh Avg. Industrial Power Price 5. 5¢ / k. Wh (net fossil savings)

CO 2 down CO 2/MWh CO 2 up Power Cost and CO 2 Policy CO 2 down CO 2/MWh CO 2 up Power Cost and CO 2 Policy Choices Cost and Emissions Today Central generation with coal, no criteria pollutant control Cost down, CO 2 up Coal gasification, CCGT, Cost up, CO 2 up Policy Goal CHP, industrial energy recycling (Requires local generation) off grid solar, local hydro Cost down, CO 2 down Cost down Wind, Geothermal, CO 2 sequestering, on grid solar Cost up, CO 2 down Cost / MWh Cost up

Ontario Recycled Energy Potential · · · Avoid 730 trillion Btu’s of fossil fuel Ontario Recycled Energy Potential · · · Avoid 730 trillion Btu’s of fossil fuel per year Add 9, 000 megawatts of clean generation Largely eliminate need for added T&D Reduce annual energy costs by $3 billion Reduce CO 2 and other emissions by 20% Preserve manufacturing jobs, stimulate construction jobs · Reduce electric system vulnerability · Force bordering U. S. states to follow or lose jobs to Ontario

How Can Ontario Governance Spur Profitable CO 2 Reduction? · Modernize old rules that How Can Ontario Governance Spur Profitable CO 2 Reduction? · Modernize old rules that are now barriers to modern technology · Raise energy taxes to cover the externality costs of burning fossil fuel, cut other taxes, send accurate price signals · Reward local generation for avoiding T&D capital and line losses · Encourage all clean energy, including recycled energy

Specific Suggestions · Provide standard offer for CHP, no time limits · Provide Provincial Specific Suggestions · Provide standard offer for CHP, no time limits · Provide Provincial loan guarantees for industrial energy recycling plants · Shift energy subsidies into cost of energy services and lower tax rates to remain revenue neutral · Tax externality costs of fossil fuel and then lower other taxes to stay revenue neutral but send clear signal · Ask all to identify specific barriers to efficiency and suggest new rules that serve the social purpose but do not block efficiency.

Convenient Truth: Energy Recycling Can Profitably Reduce CO 2 · Ontario can profitably replace Convenient Truth: Energy Recycling Can Profitably Reduce CO 2 · Ontario can profitably replace coal with 9, 000 megawatts of recycled energy – all affordable and clean · Requires innovative governance · The biggest challenge is to change conventional thinking! · Denmark made this change in two decades, and we can do better

Denmark Changed in Two Decades Source: Danish Energy Center Denmark Changed in Two Decades Source: Danish Energy Center

Conclusions: · Global warming a very serious problem · Mitigating climate change will require Conclusions: · Global warming a very serious problem · Mitigating climate change will require all clean energy solutions. to reduce atmospheric CO 2 buildup · Recycling energy will reduce the cost of energy services and lower CO 2 l This will buy time for development of lower cost renewable energy · Our collective future depends on how fast governments remove barriers to efficiency and encourage clean energy

Thank you for listening Thank you for listening