 | ||
 | | |
 | ||
| | |
 | ||||||||||||||
|  |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 | ||||||||
Dutch IGCC pioneers chalk up pain and gain Emergency response is behind schedule in the European public sector A new refining industry in Europe's Asian Corridor Commission proposes milestone energy proposal Replace fuel oil with distillate? Cancelled projects will sustain margins “Marine distillate not fuel oil from 2010” Branson's biofuels megastore You heard it here first: refinery CO2 storage a reality in Norway Buncefield 2: Investigation critical Where now for Swedish Class 1 diesel My slow awakening to climate change The luckiest motorist alive Safety row goes on over Europe's largest LNG terminal New WHO guidelines on city air quality put focus on diesel Would LNG really 'evaporate harmlessly' in an accident? Another lesson in the thermobaric bomb Spare a thought for the oil-rich But will the good times keep on rolling? Carbon storage and the zero emissions refinery Everything just changed E85 and high octane gasolines The problem of small-minded young engineers New Permit Regulations Biodiesel newbuilds and a new green superfuel Spilled wine and our split industry Drilling down into the prospects for IGCC The beginning of the start of the end of oil | Little reported statement that changes everything As far as I can see, the G8 Communiqué on Climate Change, Energy and Sustainable Development changes just about everything we do. You might as well have classified CO2 as a hazardous waste. It has thrown the switch on the hydrogen economy and will quite simply have massive impact on anyone who produces or consumes hydrocarbon fuels. For example, I’m prepared to venture that because of it, the next refineries to get regulatory approval in Europe, the US or Japan* will be fundamentally different integrated sites run on oil and gas which emit dramatically less CO2 to air while producing zero sulphur, low aromatics fuels, large amounts of hydrogen for processing, power and transport fuel, and useful chemicals industry feedstocks. Come on Tim, get real, you may say. Well, up until the G8, I’d probably have said the same. But because the fundamental premises of the US and therefore global energy industry changed in July, I think the nature of the global processing industry will now change beyond measure – starting with power, gas, coal and that new kind of integrated process plant. At the Scotland summit, the United States accepted for the first time that the reason that a million square kilometres of sea ice has melted and that the ten hottest summers in history have occurred since 1991 is because the climate is changing due to anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas emissions. That’s big news – a big, big change. What’s more, Bush, Blair, Schroeder, Chirac and company called on technology to be the key facilitator of our efforts to combat climate change. Well, that’s us, isn’t it? Here’s what they said in paragraph 1. (a): “Climate change is a serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the globe. We know that increased need and use of energy from fossil fuels, and other activities, contribute in large part to increases in greenhouse gases associated with the warming of the Earth’s surface… we know enough to act now…” I’ve spent most of the last six or seven years seeing all this incredible investment in hydrogen, and fuel cell cars especially, as confused and distracting from the key issues of climate change. As target after target for fuel cell vehicles-in-use has been missed, I’ve felt vindicated – reassured that my scepticism was well-founded. That the US government’s hydrogen research has for the large part gone hand in hand with an outspoken and intransigent invective on climate change has made me feel that the initiative was meant to obscure issues, rather than address them. But with the US now lining up alongside 12 other countries which together represent 70% of global CO2 emissions, I’ve been forced to reconsider what’s been going on over there. Look at the trend. The power industry’s announcing zero CO2 projects. The coal industry’s demonstrating carbon-free projects. The International Energy Agency is leading the adoption of carbon storage underground. Europe’s rewriting every national body of legislation because of climate change. 141 nations have pledged to take action on it. International maritime and pollution prevention treaties are being opened up because of it. Billions of dollars, thousands of engineers and researchers and hundreds of projects are engaged in it. Then there’s the well-reported billions of dollars being spent on fuel cell development by the likes of Daimler Chrysler, General Motors, Toyota and Honda. The US government is putting tens of billions into hydrogen, including into a coal plant that will burn hydrogen and put the carbon back underground. The Japanese government has a target of 10 gigawatts of fuel cell power and five million fuel cell vehicles by 2020. Here in Europe, we’re trading CO2 emissions in much the same way as SO2 credits became a commodity in the US. The price of a ton of credits doubled over the last 12 months to around EUROS 25 and that economic fact is a major driver behind the recent announcement of a brown coal gasification and carbon capture plant in Germany operated by Swedish Vattenfall. And add to that the extraordinary announcement by BP we reported last month. The company is the lead investor in a 600 million-dollar project that will reform natural gas, transmit the captured CO2 back out and below sea for use in enhanced oil recovery, and burn hydrogen in one turbine of a gas-fired power station. The International Energy Agency chief, Claude Mandil, immediately acknowledged after the summit the implications of the G8 announcement, both for the agency and for the energy industry. The agency’s role was changed in a major way overnight, as it was asked to lead the Climate Action Plan. “The potential of the Action Plan is immense,” said Mr Mandil. For one thing, the IEA is convinced that industry needs to capture and store CO2 underground to make progress on climate change. “Our analysis shows that if you’re going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions then you need storage,” said Fridtjof Unander, the Norwegian who is Acting Divisional Head of Energy Technology. Human activities are currently emitting seven gigatonnes a year of carbon, with forecasts showing a doubling of that figure, which would mean CO2 concentrations skyrocketing over the 550ppm target of the Kyoto objectives. Whether or not you’re directly involved in gasification, hydrogen, reforming, efficiency or the other technology fields that will lead the newly intensified efforts on climate stabilisation, then you can still count yourself to be part of an industry that was just called on by the world’s leaders to go out there a play your part in saving the world. That makes my daily 9 to 5 a little more meaningful. How about you? * I didn’t say they’d be built tomorrow. • Tim Lloyd Wright has edited refining publications, chaired international downstream meetings and reported for UK newspapers and BBC Radio. Tim also runs a motivation and lifestyle business in Sweden which has created 12weekfitness.com. | |||||||
Download Energy Industry Resumé with work samples Profile: Tim Lloyd Wright MA Here you'll find a brief profile of my work with international energy, transport and associated environmental issues. Energy trends articles You heard it here first: refinery CO2 storage a reality in Norway From the archive... Over-processed fuel leaves oil tankers adrift | ||||||||
| | | | | | | | |
