Clean Coal Stays in Obama's Stimulus Package

Bill Georgevich reporting

Hear the 1 minute show:

Obama talked about it along with John McCain in the presidential campaign. And despite environmentally-friendly cabinet members, clean coal got 3.4 billion dollars in the US 2009 stimulus bill under the line item - Fossil Energy and Carbon Capture. All that money despite the fact that there is no electricity made through clean coal technology and right now that technology doesn't even exist.

A lot of people don't realize that clean coal is a concept not a fact. The sequestration or hiding of carbon in abandoned oil wells is a great idea to relax folks worried about the single greatest producer of greenhouses gases in industrial countries. But the one zero-emission coal test facility operated by the DOE was abandoned after many years for lack of productivity after over 1 billion dollars were spent.

The clean coal concept is very important to the coal industry but it is also very important to countries like the US and China that have very high energy needs and lots of cheap coal. If you could set up a smoke screen that clean coal is coming, you could justify building more coal plants now and promise to retrofit them later when the technology for clean coal is invented and tested. This gives first world nations decades to continue to pollute, something climate change envrionmentalists say we don't have.

Some of this research money in the stimulus bill will go into coal gassification, a method of producing gasoline developed by the Nazis during World War II when they were converting coal into much needed gasoline for their war effort. Billions of gallons of gasoline could be produced from US coal reserves, a process seriously considered during the first oil crisis of the mid 1970's. There are still 2 remaining problems with that technology. It is an extremely inefficient way of making gasoline therefore it would make it very expensive and this technology is a terrible greenhouse gas polluter.

All this points away from coal and towards the refinement of all renewables. Why was the 3 billion+ placed in the new stimulus budget? Obviously the new administration doesn't think this country's energy policy can survive without coal.

Oil Prices Down, Gas Prices Up

Bill Georgevich reporting

Hear the 1 minute show:

Last year on The Renewable Minute we asked, How can oil prices plummet after being so high? The answer: SPECULATION, and the speculators were fleeing the market. Now gas prices are creeping up, even as oil prices continue to fall. How? Oil refineries are reducing the supply to increase demand and pump up the price. Guess Exxon-Mobile doesn’t want a world recession to interfere with windfall profits for 2009.

And speaking of deja vu from late 2008: Have you noticed those Exxon ads are starting to show up everywhere as they did when gas was $4 a gallon? About 2 weeks before gas prices started creeping up again, Exxon was back in my Yahoo inbox, this time with a kinder, gentler message about renewable energy research, a politically more correct position in line with the Obama-Chu-Al Gore cultural creatives who currently rule the roost.

Our next program will be dedicated to the unveiling of the renewable energy provisions Obama's Stimulus Package. We’ll be visiting the new government website Recovery.gov, which promises total transparency, to look into a curious 3+ billion dollar line item for "fossil fuel renewable energy research." Join us next time to find out what that means.

Chinese Electrics Beat the U.S.

Bill Georgevich reporting

Hear the 1 minute show:

With Chevrolet’s decision to power their hybrid electric car with batteries made in China, the globe’s greatest polluter may also become the world leader in zero-emission cars. At the 2009 Detroit car expo China shocked the auto industry presenting 3 different working models of electric cars that use the same battery as the Chevy Volt, which doesn’t arrive until 2010 or later.

We are not kidding. Not only does China have 3 working models that will be sold in the mainland this year, but their batteries really are going to be used by GM despite the fact that Detroit vowed that they were going to invent their own battery,

The story gets even stranger when you look at why China is building electrics. Not to save the environment and not to fight pollution although these cars will help with both. China simply has too much coal and imports most of it’s oil. So they can make a lot cheap electricity building more and more dirty coal-fired plants and feed their new middle class, hungry for transportation, by selling them electric cars.

Add that to the fact that the Chinese, as a culture, famous for their low standards of safety, will build those electrics to crash safety standards far below those established for the US. Which is why in the short term we will not see the Chinese electric cars in the US even though they will be available far ahead anything GM, Chrysler or Ford can actually put on a car lot for sale.

What's Really Behind That Changing Price of Gasoline?

Bill Georgevich reporting

Hear the 1 minute show:

In October of 08 we reported that the Saudi’s believed the wild fluctuation in oil prices was based on commodity market speculators. This week, “60 Minutes” reports that the same investment bank that got billions in bailout money also used commodity trader techniques from Enron to hyper-inflate the price of oil last summer when supply was high and demand was actually diminishing.

And it gets worse. 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft points the finger at Morgan Stanley, claiming that the same company that needed billions in US government bail-out funds also took advantage of deregulation pushed through the Bush Administration’s first term by lobbyists from Enron. Remember Enron, the largest contributor to the Bush 2000 campaign, the oil and gas company that created artificial rolling blackouts in California to successfully raise electricity rates? It’s the same corporation that created fake companies to boost its stock price. Well, according to the CBS news story, those loopholes for oil commodities trades still exist and those techniques used by Enron in California were used to buy and sell oil contracts for a company, Morgan Stanley, that is not in the oil business.

Connect the dots and you have a scenario in which one of the greatest contributors to the global financial meltdown also made the strongest contribution to the world recession by artificially boosting oil prices during a time of increased oil supply and lagging demand.

And what does the Bush administration do? Send them to jail like Ken Lay? No, they receive a $20 billion bailout from the US government.

Clean Coal: The New Weapon of Mass Delusion?

Bill Georgevich reporting

Hear the 1 minute show:

You heard McCain talk about it, you heard Obama support it in the presidential campaign as well. The clean burning of coal by means of capturing and sequestering its carbon exhaust. Let’s be clear. There is no tested technology existing today to produce "clean coal". Scientists don’t even know if it will work. It’s just a concept brought to you by the coal industry.

Keep in mind that coal plants supply roughly one-half of all electricity in the US! And since it is a domestic source of energy, this dinosaur of energy production has been looking real attractive to our leaders.

The clean coal concept refers to an array of technologies that sharply reduce pollutant emissions from coal-burning power plants. In the 1980s and 1990s, efforts focused on reducing emissions of sulfur, nitrogen oxides and soot — which cause acid rain, damage forests and pollute watersheds.

The latest and larger concern about burning coal is the production of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. This has presented the coal industry with an engineering challenge it has not been able to pull off.

Traditional coal combustion emits far more carbon than other fossil fuels. Thus, maintaining coal as an option for power generation (electricity), will require dramatically reducing these emissions. A breakthrough is critical to the long-term energy needs of the US, which is considered the "Saudi Arabia of coal." Coal represents some 90 percent of the nation's recoverable fossil fuels, with reserves sufficient for 200 years, at current rates of use.

Clean coal depends on being able to ‘capture’ carbon dioxide emissions and then to safely dispose of them indefinitely underground, in a process known as sequestration, capabilities not expected to be commercially deployable until 2020.




There are two leading approaches to meeting the challenge. The first is an advanced steam cycle technology, known as ultrasupercritical (USC) cycles. The other is integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology.

USC promises significant efficiency gains, which could reduce carbon emissions by about a third. The US, long a leader in advanced coal combustion technology, has 170 supercritical units in operation.

IGCC, which is still a few years from commercial deployment, promises a potential quantum leap, approaching zero-emissions. Full-deployment, however, depends on overcoming another technological challenge — not just the ability to capture carbon but also to safely dispose of it indefinitely underground, in a process known as sequestration. This is not expected to be commercially deployable until 2020.

The choice of technology is hardly academic. In planning for new base-load (constant) power plants, utility companies must choose plants with carbon capture capabilities or face steep future costs under anticipated new laws establishing a cost to carbon.

There are just four commercial-sized coal-fired IGCC plants in operation. Two are in Europe and two in the US, one each in Florida and Indiana.

There have been significant capital and engineering investments made in IGGC technology in recent years by a small number of industry leaders, including Conoco Phillips, Shell and GE.

The federal government made a significant commitment to advancing this technology through its $2 billion FutureGen project, but support was withdrawn in January 2008 because of cost overruns and concerns the technology might quickly become obsolete. The next administration is expected to revive support.

Despite the compelling need, there are precious few IGCC projects still being pursued. Known plans include one by Duke Energy and a joint project undertaken by Hydrogen Energy and Edison Mission Energy, a subsidiary of Edison International.

Are there other potential solutions?

Anticipation of some form of carbon controls (most likely a market-based cap & trade system) has stimulated investment in other ways to capture carbon. Most are a variation on how other pollutants have been controlled.

For instance, liquids or solids (or static electricity) are injected into the plant’s flue gas exhaust to capture particles. Carbon is currently captured by exposing flue gas to an ammonium carbonate solution, which is then heated under pressure, reversing the absorption process so pure carbon is recovered. Georgia Tech University researchers recently reported using a solid adsorbent called "hyperbranched aminosilica" to capture seven-times more carbon. The substance can be recycled and reused.

Another capture method uses chilled ammonia, with which Alstom has demonstrated (in a lab) a capture rate of more than 90 percent and at a far less cost. The company is running a pilot project at Wisconsin Energy’s Pleasant Prairie Power Plant.

Technologically-based upstart companies — as well as infrastructure firms — offer investors limited entry into this sector, which is for the most part dominated by large firms.

Petrol Cheaper Than Ethanol?

Bill Georgevich reporting

Hear the 1 minute show:

Yes, it’s true. The corn-sourced distilled ethanol that is mixed with gasoline is now more expensive than plain old gasoline. Gasoline blenders have always used more ethanol than required because it was cheaper than gasoline. Not any more. With today’s lower oil prices, ethanol will be blended with gasoline by decree from Congress for cleaner air, another finger pointed at a misguided national strategy for alternative fuel.

On a purely voluntary basis, gasoline blenders have always used more ethanol than the required minimum because increasingly high oil prices made ethanol an attractive fuel in its own right. This month with oil under $50/bbl and wholesale gasoline under $1/gal and ethanol at $1.60/gal it makes no economic sense to blend ethanol with gasoline. The national blending requirement will become binding for the first time in 2009. Gasoline blenders will have to use 11.1 billion gallons of ethanol because that is what the law tells them, not because it makes economic sense.

In our last program I shared what it cost the Saudis to extract 1 barrel of oil - $2/barrel or less 4 cents/gallon. Well, I stand corrected. The oil minister of Saudi Arabia was just interviewed by 60 Minutes' Leslie Stahl ,and he told her on Dec. 7 of 2008 that it cost LESS than $2/ gallon.

This means that with US current laws, gasoline will be more expensive because of the mandatory blending with ethanol than by itself! This would be inconceivable in the summer of 08 and I don't think Americans have really taken it all in yet. As we talked about on several programs, oil commodity speculators poured billions into futures contracts that artificially raised the price of oil for years finally resulting in the $4+/gallon fiasco of the summer of 2008. When money left the stock market it fled the commodity markets as well forcing oil and gas prices to get closer to their actual Fair Market Value.

The other fear that drove prices up artificially was the notion that the Saudis had somehow reached peak oil production. They have consistently heartily denied this and demonstrated to 60 minutes in Dec. 08 how they intend to actually double their output at least for the next decade.

Today drivers are relieved to get was is essentially a $200/month economic stimulus package but they're also outraged that the stories about India, China, and the rest of the "increased demand" for oil really was only increased demand by speculators!

We also promised on our last program some insight as to what this means for renewables. The magic number for renewables to be competitive is for oil to sell at $35/barrel. It hasn't got there yet so the question we will explore next time is what happens now that gasoline is cheaper and how best to take advantage of it for clean energy. In the meantime, all those who told us that the era of cheap oil is over will have to eat those words at least for now.

Are you driving 75% less? If not, then why is gasoline so cheap?

Bill Georgevich reporting

Hear the 1 minute show:

We want to know why no one is investigating the relationship between oil prices and oil demand. Unless the world is using 75% less petroleum, it appears that the sky rocket in prices this summer was driven purely by speculation in the energy stock markets. If that’s so, what is the real cost of oil?

We know that it costs about $2/barrel or 4 cents a gallon to pump pure crude oil out of an existing oil well. There also are relatively small transportation and refining costs involved in turning that oil into consumer gasoline.

We know that in America a new oil refinery has not been built in 30 years. And we know that 30 years ago those refineries were producing gasoline that sold for less than 75 cents/gallon. Add to that the fact that in some countries like Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela, gasoline sells for less than 40 cents a gallon right now.

What does it all mean? Certainly this points to the fact that there is no relationship between “demand” and the market price of oil anymore than the value of a company is represented by it’s stock value. Companies can be over- or under-valued in the stock market….So too in commodity markets.

Without speculation inflation, oil would sell these days for between $10 and $20 per barrel with the retail cost of gasoline under a dollar per gallon. Keep in mind that oil sold for $45/barrel in early December 2008, even though OPEC had lowered production by 60 million barrels/month in a vain attempt to create a $50/barrel floor through which prices would not drop. Short term predictions point to even lower oil prices. What does this mean for the consumer and for renewable energy? Stay tuned, we’ll talk about low fossil fuel prices and its effect on renewables in our next program…