Comparison of CO2 From Coal Capture Processes and Valorisation Technologies

Coal is the most plentiful and evenly distributed fossil fuel worldwide. Based on current production, it is estimated that the reserves will last approximately 130 years. Its use worldwide has been increasing, mainly due to consumption by emerging countries. CO2 emissions generated by combustion and the repercussions of such on climate change support the view that it could no longer be used. CO2 capture may be the solution to continue using it, which would cater for the growing energy demand worldwide. The aim of this study is to compare different processes concerning CO2 capture that may be economically viable, ultimately showing that coal, a fossil energy source widely distributed around the world, can, as a result of using different CO2 capture processes, be used as a clean source of electricity. Hence, in places where geological hurdles may render the costs of CO2 storage considerably higher, since it might have to travel far, coal may be used for other purposes, thus valorising CO2 within the industrial sector. This research is focused on the technical and economic comparison of the most relevant CO2 capture projects designed in Spain using different existing technologies. The oxyfuel project in Ciuden (Leon, Spain), the IGCC Elcogas, precombustion CO2-capture project (Puertollano, Spain) and the postcombustion project in Carboneras (Almeria, Spain) will be analyzed in order to assess the options available to valorise captured CO2. Valorising captured CO2 may be an adequate solution in areas where, although CO2 capture is still possible, storage is not equally so, thus generating a further benefit. The possible uses of CO2 will be assessed in vegetable growing greenhouses, harnessing CO2 in vegetable life cycles. This will also be used in growing algae for subsequent biodiesel production. Both CO2 capture and valorising will eventually lead to the clean use of coal, which will thus enhance the level of self-supply, aiding the development of electric vehicles, which require large amounts of electricity, as well as improve the level of energy autonomy in countries around the world. Another type of fuel, biodiesel, will also be obtained, without this affecting international food prices.

Comparison of CO2 from coal captureprocesses and valorisation technologies

Coal is the most plentiful and evenly distributed fossil fuel worldwide. Based on current production, it is estimated that the reserves will last approximately 130 years. Its use worldwide has been increasing, mainly due to consumption by emerging countries. CO2 emissions generated by combustion and the repercussions of such on climate change support the view that it could no longer be used. CO2 capture may be the solution to continue using it, which would cater for the growing energy demand worldwide. The aim of this study is to compare different processes concerning CO2 capture that may be economically viable, ultimately showing that coal, a fossil energy source widely distributed around the world, can, as a result of using different CO2 capture processes, be used as a clean source of electricity. Hence, in places where geological hurdles may render the costs of CO2 storage considerably higher, since it might have to travel far, coal may be used for other purposes, thus valorizing CO2 within the industrial sector. This research is focused on the technical and economic comparison of the most relevant CO2 capture projects designed in Spain using different existing technologies. The oxyfuel project in Ciuden (Leon, Spain), the IGCC Elcogas, precombustion CO2-capture project (Puertollano, Spain) and the postcombustion project in Carboneras (Almeria, Spain) will be analyzed in order to assess the options available to valorizecaptured CO2. Valorizing captured CO2 may be an adequate solution in areas where, although CO2 capture is still possible, storage is not equally so, thus generating a further benefit. The possible uses of CO2 will be assessed in vegetable growing greenhouses, harnessing CO2 in vegetable life cycles. This will also be used in growing algae for subsequent biodiesel production. Both CO2capture and valorizing will eventually lead to the clean use of coal, which will thus enhance the level of self-supply, aiding the development of electric vehicles, which require large amounts of electricity, as well as improve the level of energy autonomy in countries around the world. Another type of fuel, biodiesel, will also be obtained, without this affecting international food prices.

Perspectives on the design and use of direct alcohol fuel cells fed by alcohol blends

The fast-growing power demand by portable electronic devices has promoted the increase of global production of portable PEM fuel cell, a quarter of them consist of direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC) units. These present the advantage of being fuelled directly with a liquid fuel, as well as direct ethanol fuel cells (DEFC) do.

Evaluación de las Consecuencias de la Nueva Regulación de la OMI sobre Combustibles Marinos

El 10 de octubre de 2008 la Organización Marítima Internacional (OMI) firmó una modificación al Anexo VI del convenio MARPOL 73/78, por la que estableció una reducción progresiva de las emisiones de óxidos de azufre (SOx) procedentes de los buques, una reducción adicional de las emisiones de óxidos de nitrógeno (NOx), así como límites en las emisiones de dióxido de Carbono (CO2) procedentes de los motores marinos y causantes de problemas medioambientales como la lluvia ácida y efecto invernadero. Centrándonos en los límites sobre las emisiones de azufre, a partir del 1 de enero de 2015 esta normativa obliga a todos los buques que naveguen por zonas controladas, llamadas Emission Control Area (ECA), a consumir combustibles con un contenido de azufre menor al 0,1%. A partir del 1 de enero del año 2020, o bien del año 2025, si la OMI decide retrasar su inicio, los buques deberán consumir combustibles con un contenido de azufre menor al 0,5%. De igual forma que antes, el contenido deberá ser rebajado al 0,1%S, si navegan por el interior de zonas ECA. Por su parte, la Unión Europea ha ido más allá que la OMI, adelantando al año 2020 la aplicación de los límites más estrictos de la ley MARPOL sobre las aguas de su zona económica exclusiva. Para ello, el 21 de noviembre de 2013 firmó la Directiva 2012 / 33 / EU como adenda a la Directiva de 1999. Tengamos presente que la finalidad de estas nuevas leyes es la mejora de la salud pública y el medioambiente, produciendo beneficios sociales, en forma de reducción de enfermedades, sobre todo de tipo respiratorio, a la vez que se reduce la lluvia ácida y sus nefastas consecuencias. La primera pregunta que surge es ¿cuál es el combustible actual de los buques y cuál será el que tengan que consumir para cumplir con esta Regulación? Pues bien, los grandes buques de navegación internacional consumen hoy en día fuel oil con un nivel de azufre de 3,5%. ¿Existen fueles con un nivel de azufre de 0,5%S? Como hemos concluido en el capítulo 4, para las empresas petroleras, la producción de fuel oil como combustible marino es tratada como un subproducto en su cesta de productos refinados por cada barril de Brent, ya que la demanda de fuel respecto a otros productos está bajando y además, el margen de beneficio que obtienen por la venta de otros productos petrolíferos es mayor que con el fuel. Así, podemos decir que las empresas petroleras no están interesadas en invertir en sus refinerías para producir estos fueles con menor contenido de azufre. Es más, en el caso de que alguna compañía decidiese invertir en producir un fuel de 0,5%S, su precio debería ser muy similar al del gasóleo para poder recuperar las inversiones empleadas. Por lo tanto, el único combustible que actualmente cumple con los nuevos niveles impuestos por la OMI es el gasóleo, con un precio que durante el año 2014 estuvo a una media de 307 USD/ton más alto que el actual fuel oil. Este mayor precio de compra de combustible impactará directamente sobre el coste del trasporte marítimo. La entrada en vigor de las anteriores normativas está suponiendo un reto para todo el sector marítimo. Ante esta realidad, se plantean diferentes alternativas con diferentes implicaciones técnicas, operativas y financieras. En la actualidad, son tres las alternativas con mayor aceptación en el sector. La primera alternativa consiste en “no hacer nada” y simplemente cambiar el tipo de combustible de los grandes buques de fuel oil a gasóleo. Las segunda alternativa es la instalación de un equipo scrubber, que permitiría continuar con el consumo de fuel oil, limpiando sus gases de combustión antes de salir a la atmósfera. Y, por último, la tercera alternativa consiste en el uso de Gas Natural Licuado (GNL) como combustible, con un precio inferior al del gasóleo. Sin embargo, aún existen importantes incertidumbres sobre la evolución futura de precios, operación y mantenimiento de las nuevas tecnologías, inversiones necesarias, disponibilidad de infraestructura portuaria e incluso el desarrollo futuro de la propia normativa internacional. Estas dudas hacen que ninguna de estas tres alternativas sea unánime en el sector. En esta tesis, tras exponer en el capítulo 3 la regulación aplicable al sector, hemos investigado sus consecuencias. Para ello, hemos examinado en el capítulo 4 si existen en la actualidad combustibles marinos que cumplan con los nuevos límites de azufre o en su defecto, cuál sería el precio de los nuevos combustibles. Partimos en el capítulo 5 de la hipótesis de que todos los buques cambian su consumo de fuel oil a gasóleo para cumplir con dicha normativa, calculamos el incremento de demanda de gasóleo que se produciría y analizamos las consecuencias que este hecho tendría sobre la producción de gasóleos en el Mediterráneo. Adicionalmente, calculamos el impacto económico que dicho incremento de coste producirá sobre sector exterior de España. Para ello, empleamos como base de datos el sistema de control de tráfico marítimo Authomatic Identification System (AIS) para luego analizar los datos de todos los buques que han hecho escala en algún puerto español, para así calcular el extra coste anual por el consumo de gasóleo que sufrirá el transporte marítimo para mover todas las importaciones y exportaciones de España. Por último, en el capítulo 6, examinamos y comparamos las otras dos alternativas al consumo de gasóleo -scrubbers y propulsión con GNL como combustible- y, finalmente, analizamos en el capítulo 7, la viabilidad de las inversiones en estas dos tecnologías para cumplir con la regulación. En el capítulo 5 explicamos los numerosos métodos que existen para calcular la demanda de combustible de un buque. La metodología seguida para su cálculo será del tipo bottom-up, que está basada en la agregación de la actividad y las características de cada tipo de buque. El resultado está basado en la potencia instalada de cada buque, porcentaje de carga del motor y su consumo específico. Para ello, analizamos el número de buques que navegan por el Mediterráneo a lo largo de un año mediante el sistema AIS, realizando “fotos” del tráfico marítimo en el Mediterráneo y reportando todos los buques en navegación en días aleatorios a lo largo de todo el año 2014. Por último, y con los datos anteriores, calculamos la demanda potencial de gasóleo en el Mediterráneo. Si no se hace nada y los buques comienzan a consumir gasóleo como combustible principal, en vez del actual fuel oil para cumplir con la regulación, la demanda de gasoil en el Mediterráneo aumentará en 12,12 MTA (Millones de Toneladas Anuales) a partir del año 2020. Esto supone alrededor de 3.720 millones de dólares anuales por el incremento del gasto de combustible tomando como referencia el precio medio de los combustibles marinos durante el año 2014. El anterior incremento de demanda en el Mediterráneo supondría el 43% del total de la demanda de gasóleos en España en el año 2013, incluyendo gasóleos de automoción, biodiesel y gasóleos marinos y el 3,2% del consumo europeo de destilados medios durante el año 2014. ¿Podrá la oferta del mercado europeo asumir este incremento de demanda de gasóleos? Europa siempre ha sido excedentaria en gasolina y deficitaria en destilados medios. En el año 2009, Europa tuvo que importar 4,8 MTA de Norte América y 22,1 MTA de Asia. Por lo que, este aumento de demanda sobre la ya limitada capacidad de refino de destilados medios en Europa incrementará las importaciones y producirá también aumentos en los precios, sobre todo del mercado del gasóleo. El sector sobre el que más impactará el incremento de demanda de gasóleo será el de los cruceros que navegan por el Mediterráneo, pues consumirán un 30,4% de la demanda de combustible de toda flota mundial de cruceros, lo que supone un aumento en su gasto de combustible de 386 millones de USD anuales. En el caso de los RoRos, consumirían un 23,6% de la demanda de la flota mundial de este tipo de buque, con un aumento anual de 171 millones de USD sobre su gasto de combustible anterior. El mayor incremento de coste lo sufrirán los portacontenedores, con 1.168 millones de USD anuales sobre su gasto actual. Sin embargo, su consumo en el Mediterráneo representa sólo el 5,3% del consumo mundial de combustible de este tipo de buques. Estos números plantean la incertidumbre de si semejante aumento de gasto en buques RoRo hará que el transporte marítimo de corta distancia en general pierda competitividad sobre otros medios de transporte alternativos en determinadas rutas. De manera que, parte del volumen de mercancías que actualmente transportan los buques se podría trasladar a la carretera, con los inconvenientes medioambientales y operativos, que esto produciría. En el caso particular de España, el extra coste por el consumo de gasóleo de todos los buques con escala en algún puerto español en el año 2013 se cifra en 1.717 millones de EUR anuales, según demostramos en la última parte del capítulo 5. Para realizar este cálculo hemos analizado con el sistema AIS a todos los buques que han tenido escala en algún puerto español y los hemos clasificado por distancia navegada, tipo de buque y potencia. Este encarecimiento del transporte marítimo será trasladado al sector exterior español, lo cual producirá un aumento del coste de las importaciones y exportaciones por mar en un país muy expuesto, pues el 75,61% del total de las importaciones y el 53,64% del total de las exportaciones se han hecho por vía marítima. Las tres industrias que se verán más afectadas son aquellas cuyo valor de mercancía es inferior respecto a su coste de transporte. Para ellas los aumentos del coste sobre el total del valor de cada mercancía serán de un 2,94% para la madera y corcho, un 2,14% para los productos minerales y un 1,93% para las manufacturas de piedra, cemento, cerámica y vidrio. Las mercancías que entren o salgan por los dos archipiélagos españoles de Canarias y Baleares serán las que se verán más impactadas por el extra coste del transporte marítimo, ya que son los puertos más alejados de otros puertos principales y, por tanto, con más distancia de navegación. Sin embargo, esta no es la única alternativa al cumplimiento de la nueva regulación. De la lectura del capítulo 6 concluimos que las tecnologías de equipos scrubbers y de propulsión con GNL permitirán al buque consumir combustibles más baratos al gasoil, a cambio de una inversión en estas tecnologías. ¿Serán los ahorros producidos por estas nuevas tecnologías suficientes para justificar su inversión? Para contestar la anterior pregunta, en el capítulo 7 hemos comparado las tres alternativas y hemos calculado tanto los costes de inversión como los gastos operativos correspondientes a equipos scrubbers o propulsión con GNL para una selección de 53 categorías de buques. La inversión en equipos scrubbers es más conveniente para buques grandes, con navegación no regular. Sin embargo, para buques de tamaño menor y navegación regular por puertos con buena infraestructura de suministro de GNL, la inversión en una propulsión con GNL como combustible será la más adecuada. En el caso de un tiempo de navegación del 100% dentro de zonas ECA y bajo el escenario de precios visto durante el año 2014, los proyectos con mejor plazo de recuperación de la inversión en equipos scrubbers son para los cruceros de gran tamaño (100.000 tons. GT), para los que se recupera la inversión en 0,62 años, los grandes portacontenedores de más de 8.000 TEUs con 0,64 años de recuperación y entre 5.000-8.000 TEUs con 0,71 años de recuperación y, por último, los grandes petroleros de más de 200.000 tons. de peso muerto donde tenemos un plazo de recuperación de 0,82 años. La inversión en scrubbers para buques pequeños, por el contrario, tarda más tiempo en recuperarse llegando a más de 5 años en petroleros y quimiqueros de menos de 5.000 toneladas de peso muerto. En el caso de una posible inversión en propulsión con GNL, las categorías de buques donde la inversión en GNL es más favorable y recuperable en menor tiempo son las más pequeñas, como ferris, cruceros o RoRos. Tomamos ahora el caso particular de un buque de productos limpios de 38.500 toneladas de peso muerto ya construido y nos planteamos la viabilidad de la inversión en la instalación de un equipo scrubber o bien, el cambio a una propulsión por GNL a partir del año 2015. Se comprueba que las dos variables que más impactan sobre la conveniencia de la inversión son el tiempo de navegación del buque dentro de zonas de emisiones controladas (ECA) y el escenario futuro de precios del MGO, HSFO y GNL. Para realizar este análisis hemos estudiado cada inversión, calculando una batería de condiciones de mérito como el payback, TIR, VAN y la evolución de la tesorería del inversor. Posteriormente, hemos calculado las condiciones de contorno mínimas de este buque en concreto para asegurar una inversión no sólo aceptable, sino además conveniente para el naviero inversor. En el entorno de precios del 2014 -con un diferencial entre fuel y gasóleo de 264,35 USD/ton- si el buque pasa más de un 56% de su tiempo de navegación en zonas ECA, conseguirá una rentabilidad de la inversión para inversores (TIR) en el equipo scrubber que será igual o superior al 9,6%, valor tomado como coste de oportunidad. Para el caso de inversión en GNL, en el entorno de precios del año 2014 -con un diferencial entre GNL y gasóleo de 353,8 USD/ton FOE- si el buque pasa más de un 64,8 % de su tiempo de navegación en zonas ECA, conseguirá una rentabilidad de la inversión para inversores (TIR) que será igual o superior al 9,6%, valor del coste de oportunidad. Para un tiempo en zona ECA estimado de un 60%, la rentabilidad de la inversión (TIR) en scrubbers para los inversores será igual o superior al 9,6%, el coste de oportunidad requerido por el inversor, para valores del diferencial de precio entre los dos combustibles alternativos, gasóleo (MGO) y fuel oil (HSFO) a partir de 244,73 USD/ton. En el caso de una inversión en propulsión GNL se requeriría un diferencial de precio entre MGO y GNL de 382,3 USD/ton FOE o superior. Así, para un buque de productos limpios de 38.500 DWT, la inversión en una reconversión para instalar un equipo scrubber es más conveniente que la de GNL, pues alcanza rentabilidades de la inversión (TIR) para inversores del 12,77%, frente a un 6,81% en el caso de invertir en GNL. Para ambos cálculos se ha tomado un buque que navegue un 60% de su tiempo por zona ECA y un escenario de precios medios del año 2014 para el combustible. Po otro lado, las inversiones en estas tecnologías a partir del año 2025 para nuevas construcciones son en ambos casos convenientes. El naviero deberá prestar especial atención aquí a las características propias de su buque y tipo de navegación, así como a la infraestructura de suministros y vertidos en los puertos donde vaya a operar usualmente. Si bien, no se ha estudiado en profundidad en esta tesis, no olvidemos que el sector marítimo debe cumplir además con las otras dos limitaciones que la regulación de la OMI establece sobre las emisiones de óxidos de Nitrógeno (NOx) y Carbono (CO2) y que sin duda, requerirán adicionales inversiones en diversos equipos. De manera que, si bien las consecuencias del consumo de gasóleo como alternativa al cumplimiento de la Regulación MARPOL son ciertamente preocupantes, existen alternativas al uso del gasóleo, con un aumento sobre el coste del transporte marítimo menor y manteniendo los beneficios sociales que pretende dicha ley. En efecto, como hemos demostrado, las opciones que se plantean como más rentables desde el punto de vista financiero son el consumo de GNL en los buques pequeños y de línea regular (cruceros, ferries, RoRos), y la instalación de scrubbers para el resto de buques de grandes dimensiones. Pero, por desgracia, estas inversiones no llegan a hacerse realidad por el elevado grado de incertidumbre asociado a estos dos mercados, que aumenta el riesgo empresarial, tanto de navieros como de suministradores de estas nuevas tecnologías. Observamos así una gran reticencia del sector privado a decidirse por estas dos alternativas. Este elevado nivel de riesgo sólo puede reducirse fomentando el esfuerzo conjunto del sector público y privado para superar estas barreras de entrada del mercado de scrubbers y GNL, que lograrían reducir las externalidades medioambientales de las emisiones sin restar competitividad al transporte marítimo. Creemos así, que los mismos organismos que aprobaron dicha ley deben ayudar al sector naviero a afrontar las inversiones en dichas tecnologías, así como a impulsar su investigación y promover la creación de una infraestructura portuaria adaptada a suministros de GNL y a descargas de vertidos procedentes de los equipos scrubber. Deberían además, prestar especial atención sobre las ayudas al sector de corta distancia para evitar que pierda competitividad frente a otros medios de transporte por el cumplimiento de esta normativa. Actualmente existen varios programas europeos de incentivos, como TEN-T o Marco Polo, pero no los consideramos suficientes. Por otro lado, la Organización Marítima Internacional debe confirmar cuanto antes si retrasa o no al 2025 la nueva bajada del nivel de azufre en combustibles. De esta manera, se eliminaría la gran incertidumbre temporal que actualmente tienen tanto navieros, como empresas petroleras y puertos para iniciar sus futuras inversiones y poder estudiar la viabilidad de cada alternativa de forma individual. ABSTRACT On 10 October 2008 the International Maritime Organization (IMO) signed an amendment to Annex VI of the MARPOL 73/78 convention establishing a gradual reduction in sulphur oxide (SOx) emissions from ships, and an additional reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from marine engines which cause environmental problems such as acid rain and the greenhouse effect. According to this regulation, from 1 January 2015, ships travelling in an Emission Control Area (ECA) must use fuels with a sulphur content of less than 0.1%. From 1 January 2020, or alternatively from 2025 if the IMO should decide to delay its introduction, all ships must use fuels with a sulphur content of less than 0.5%. As before, this content will be 0.1%S for voyages within ECAs. Meanwhile, the European Union has gone further than the IMO, and will apply the strictest limits of the MARPOL directives in the waters of its exclusive economic zone from 2020. To this end, Directive 2012/33/EU was issued on 21 November 2013 as an addendum to the 1999 Directive. These laws are intended to improve public health and the environment, benefiting society by reducing disease, particularly respiratory problems. The first question which arises is: what fuel do ships currently use, and what fuel will they have to use to comply with the Convention? Today, large international shipping vessels consume fuel oil with a sulphur level of 3.5%. Do fuel oils exist with a sulphur level of 0.5%S? As we conclude in Chapter 4, oil companies regard marine fuel oil as a by-product of refining Brent to produce their basket of products, as the demand for fuel oil is declining in comparison to other products, and the profit margin on the sale of other petroleum products is higher. Thus, oil companies are not interested in investing in their refineries to produce low-sulphur fuel oils, and if a company should decide to invest in producing a 0.5%S fuel oil, its price would have to be very similar to that of marine gas oil in order to recoup the investment. Therefore, the only fuel which presently complies with the new levels required by the IMO is marine gas oil, which was priced on average 307 USD/tonne higher than current fuel oils during 2014. This higher purchasing price for fuel will have a direct impact on the cost of maritime transport. The entry into force of the above directive presents a challenge for the entire maritime sector. There are various alternative approaches to this situation, with different technical, operational and financial implications. At present three options are the most widespread in the sector. The first option consists of “doing nothing” and simply switching from fuel oil to marine gas oil in large ships. The second option is installing a scrubber system, which would enable ships to continue consuming fuel oil, cleaning the combustion gases before they are released to the atmosphere. And finally, the third option is using Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), which is priced lower than marine gas oil, as a fuel. However, there is still significant uncertainty on future variations in prices, the operation and maintenance of the new technologies, the investments required, the availability of port infrastructure and even future developments in the international regulations themselves. These uncertainties mean that none of these three alternatives has been unanimously accepted by the sector. In this Thesis, after discussing all the regulations applicable to the sector in Chapter 3, we investigate their consequences. In Chapter 4 we examine whether there are currently any marine fuels on the market which meet the new sulphur limits, and if not, how much new fuels would cost. In Chapter 5, based on the hypothesis that all ships will switch from fuel oil to marine gas oil to comply with the regulations, we calculate the increase in demand for marine gas oil this would lead to, and analyse the consequences this would have on marine gas oil production in the Mediterranean. We also calculate the economic impact such a cost increase would have on Spain's external sector. To do this, we also use the Automatic Identification System (AIS) system to analyse the data of every ship stopping in any Spanish port, in order to calculate the extra cost of using marine gas oil in maritime transport for all Spain's imports and exports. Finally, in Chapter 6, we examine and compare the other two alternatives to marine gas oil, scrubbers and LNG, and in Chapter 7 we analyse the viability of investing in these two technologies in order to comply with the regulations. In Chapter 5 we explain the many existing methods for calculating a ship's fuel consumption. We use a bottom-up calculation method, based on aggregating the activity and characteristics of each type of vessel. The result is based on the installed engine power of each ship, the engine load percentage and its specific consumption. To do this, we analyse the number of ships travelling in the Mediterranean in the course of one year, using the AIS, a marine traffic monitoring system, to take “snapshots” of marine traffic in the Mediterranean and report all ships at sea on random days throughout 2014. Finally, with the above data, we calculate the potential demand for marine gas oil in the Mediterranean. If nothing else is done and ships begin to use marine gas oil instead of fuel oil in order to comply with the regulation, the demand for marine gas oil in the Mediterranean will increase by 12.12 MTA (Millions Tonnes per Annum) from 2020. This means an increase of around 3.72 billion dollars a year in fuel costs, taking as reference the average price of marine fuels in 2014. Such an increase in demand in the Mediterranean would be equivalent to 43% of the total demand for diesel in Spain in 2013, including automotive diesel fuels, biodiesel and marine gas oils, and 3.2% of European consumption of middle distillates in 2014. Would the European market be able to supply enough to meet this greater demand for diesel? Europe has always had a surplus of gasoline and a deficit of middle distillates. In 2009, Europe had to import 4.8 MTA from North America and 22.1 MTA from Asia. Therefore, this increased demand on Europe's already limited capacity for refining middle distillates would lead to increased imports and higher prices, especially in the diesel market. The sector which would suffer the greatest impact of increased demand for marine gas oil would be Mediterranean cruise ships, which represent 30.4% of the fuel demand of the entire world cruise fleet, meaning their fuel costs would rise by 386 million USD per year. ROROs in the Mediterranean, which represent 23.6% of the demand of the world fleet of this type of ship, would see their fuel costs increase by 171 million USD a year. The greatest cost increase would be among container ships, with an increase on current costs of 1.168 billion USD per year. However, their consumption in the Mediterranean represents only 5.3% of worldwide fuel consumption by container ships. These figures raise the question of whether a cost increase of this size for RORO ships would lead to short-distance marine transport in general becoming less competitive compared to other transport options on certain routes. For example, some of the goods that ships now carry could switch to road transport, with the undesirable effects on the environment and on operations that this would produce. In the particular case of Spain, the extra cost of switching to marine gas oil in all ships stopping at any Spanish port in 2013 would be 1.717 billion EUR per year, as we demonstrate in the last part of Chapter 5. For this calculation, we used the AIS system to analyse all ships which stopped at any Spanish port, classifying them by distance travelled, type of ship and engine power. This rising cost of marine transport would be passed on to the Spanish external sector, increasing the cost of imports and exports by sea in a country which relies heavily on maritime transport, which accounts for 75.61% of Spain's total imports and 53.64% of its total exports. The three industries which would be worst affected are those with goods of lower value relative to transport costs. The increased costs over the total value of each good would be 2.94% for wood and cork, 2.14% for mineral products and 1.93% for manufactured stone, cement, ceramic and glass products. Goods entering via the two Spanish archipelagos, the Canary Islands and the Balearic Islands, would suffer the greatest impact from the extra cost of marine transport, as these ports are further away from other major ports and thus the distance travelled is greater. However, this is not the only option for compliance with the new regulations. From our readings in Chapter 6 we conclude that scrubbers and LNG propulsion would enable ships to use cheaper fuels than marine gas oil, in exchange for investing in these technologies. Would the savings gained by these new technologies be enough to justify the investment? To answer this question, in Chapter 7 we compare the three alternatives and calculate both the cost of investment and the operating costs associated with scrubbers or LNG propulsion for a selection of 53 categories of ships. Investing in scrubbers is more advisable for large ships with no fixed runs. However, for smaller ships with regular runs to ports with good LNG supply infrastructure, investing in LNG propulsion would be the best choice. In the case of total transit time within an ECA and the pricing scenario seen in 2014, the best payback periods on investments in scrubbers are for large cruise ships (100,000 gross tonnage), which would recoup their investment in 0.62 years; large container ships, with a 0.64 year payback period for those over 8,000 TEUs and 0.71 years for the 5,000-8,000 TEU category; and finally, large oil tankers over 200,000 deadweight tonnage, which would recoup their investment in 0.82 years. However, investing in scrubbers would have a longer payback period for smaller ships, up to 5 years or more for oil tankers and chemical tankers under 5,000 deadweight tonnage. In the case of LNG propulsion, a possible investment is more favourable and the payback period is shorter for smaller ship classes, such as ferries, cruise ships and ROROs. We now take the case of a ship transporting clean products, already built, with a deadweight tonnage of 38,500, and consider the viability of investing in installing a scrubber or changing to LNG propulsion, starting in 2015. The two variables with the greatest impact on the advisability of the investment are how long the ship is at sea within emission control areas (ECA) and the future price scenario of MGO, HSFO and LNG. For this analysis, we studied each investment, calculating a battery of merit conditions such as the payback period, IRR, NPV and variations in the investors' liquid assets. We then calculated the minimum boundary conditions to ensure the investment was not only acceptable but advisable for the investor shipowner. Thus, for the average price differential of 264.35 USD/tonne between HSFO and MGO during 2014, investors' return on investment (IRR) in scrubbers would be the same as the required opportunity cost of 9.6%, for values of over 56% ship transit time in ECAs. For the case of investing in LNG and the average price differential between MGO and LNG of 353.8 USD/tonne FOE in 2014, the ship must spend 64.8% of its time in ECAs for the investment to be advisable. For an estimated 60% of time in an ECA, the internal rate of return (IRR) for investors equals the required opportunity cost of 9.6%, based on a price difference of 244.73 USD/tonne between the two alternative fuels, marine gas oil (MGO) and fuel oil (HSFO). An investment in LNG propulsion would require a price differential between MGO and LNG of 382.3 USD/tonne FOE. Thus, for a 38,500 DWT ship carrying clean products, investing in retrofitting to install a scrubber is more advisable than converting to LNG, with an internal rate of return (IRR) for investors of 12.77%, compared to 6.81% for investing in LNG. Both calculations were based on a ship which spends 60% of its time at sea in an ECA and a scenario of average 2014 prices. However, for newly-built ships, investments in either of these technologies from 2025 would be advisable. Here, the shipowner must pay particular attention to the specific characteristics of their ship, the type of operation, and the infrastructure for supplying fuel and handling discharges in the ports where it will usually operate. Thus, while the consequences of switching to marine gas oil in order to comply with the MARPOL regulations are certainly alarming, there are alternatives to marine gas oil, with smaller increases in the costs of maritime transport, while maintaining the benefits to society this law is intended to provide. Indeed, as we have demonstrated, the options which appear most favourable from a financial viewpoint are conversion to LNG for small ships and regular runs (cruise ships, ferries, ROROs), and installing scrubbers for large ships. Unfortunately, however, these investments are not being made, due to the high uncertainty associated with these two markets, which increases business risk, both for shipowners and for the providers of these new technologies. This means we are seeing considerable reluctance regarding these two options among the private sector. This high level of risk can be lowered only by encouraging joint efforts by the public and private sectors to overcome these barriers to entry into the market for scrubbers and LNG, which could reduce the environmental externalities of emissions without affecting the competitiveness of marine transport. Our opinion is that the same bodies which approved this law must help the shipping industry invest in these technologies, drive research on them, and promote the creation of a port infrastructure which is adapted to supply LNG and handle the discharges from scrubber systems. At present there are several European incentive programmes, such as TEN-T and Marco Polo, but we do not consider these to be sufficient. For its part, the International Maritime Organization should confirm as soon as possible whether the new lower sulphur levels in fuels will be postponed until 2025. This would eliminate the great uncertainty among shipowners, oil companies and ports regarding the timeline for beginning their future investments and for studying their viability.

A Case Study of the Economic and Environmental Impacts from a Bio-fuel Facility (Southwest Georgia Ethanol, LLC) on the Surrounding Communities, Southwest Georgia

Bio-fuels such as ethanol provide an extraordinary opportunity to address our dependency on foreign oil. This case study examines the economic and environmental impacts associated with constructing and operating a dry mill ethanol manufacturing facility in a Southwest Georgia town and surrounding communities. The case study found that the plant had little impact on air quality, water quality, and habitat fragmentation. However, economic results showed the plant produced $1.5 million in tax revenues, and 86 jobs. Ethanol producers and communities must consider both the economic and environmental impacts on a local community when searching or attracting a bio-fuels plant. Likewise, communities should be aware of these challenges when attracting ethanol production plants.

The EU regime on biofuels in transport: Still in search of sustainability. Egmont Paper No. 68, July 2014

Like other regions of the world, the EU is developing biofuels in the transport sector to reduce oil consumption and mitigate climate change. To promote them, it has adopted favourable legislation since the 2000s. In 2009 it even decided to oblige each Member State to ensure that by 2020 the share of energy coming from renewable sources reached at least 10% of their final consumption of energy in the transport sector. Biofuels are considered the main instrument to reach that percentage since the development of other alternatives (such as hydrogen and electricity) will take much longer than expected. Meanwhile, these various legislative initiatives have driven the production and consumption of biofuels in the EU. Biofuels accounted for 4.7% of EU transport fuel consumption in 2011. They have also led to trade and investment in biofuels on a global scale. This large-scale expansion of biofuels has, however, revealed numerous negative impacts. These stem from the fact that first-generation biofuels (i.e., those produced from food crops), of which the most important types are biodiesel and bioethanol, are used almost exclusively to meet the EU’s renewable 10% target in transport. Their negative impacts are: socioeconomic (food price rises), legal (land-grabbing), environmental (for instance, water stress and water pollution; soil erosion; reduction of biodiversity), climatic (direct and indirect land-use effects resulting in more greenhouse gas emissions) and public finance issues (subsidies and tax relief). The extent of such negative impacts depends on how biofuel feedstocks are produced and processed, the scale of production, and in particular, how they influence direct land use change (DLUC) and indirect land use change (ILUC) and the international trade. These negative impacts have thus provoked mounting debates in recent years, with a particular focus on ILUC. They have forced the EU to re-examine how it deals with biofuels and submit amendments to update its legislation. So far, the EU legislation foresees that only sustainable biofuels (produced in the EU or imported) can be used to meet the 10% target and receive public support; and to that end, mandatory sustainability criteria have been defined. Yet they have a huge flaw. Their measurement of greenhouse gas savings from biofuels does not take into account greenhouse gas emissions resulting from ILUC, which represent a major problem. The Energy Council of June 2014 agreed to set a limit on the extent to which firstgeneration biofuels can count towards the 10% target. But this limit appears to be less stringent than the ones made previously by the European Commission and the European Parliament. It also agreed to introduce incentives for the use of advanced (second- and third-generation) biofuels which would be allowed to count double towards the 10% target. But this again appears extremely modest by comparison with what was previously proposed. Finally, the approach chosen to take into account the greenhouse gas emissions due to ILUC appears more than cautious. The Energy Council agreed that the European Commission will carry out a reporting of ILUC emissions by using provisional estimated factors. A review clause will permit the later adjustment of these ILUC factors. With such legislative orientations made by the Energy Council, one cannot consider yet that there is a major shift in the EU biofuels policy. Bolder changes would have probably meant risking the collapse of the high-emission conventional biodiesel industry which currently makes up the majority of Europe’s biofuel production. The interests of EU farmers would have also been affected. There is nevertheless a tension between these legislative orientations and the new Commission’s proposals beyond 2020. In any case, many uncertainties remain on this issue. As long as solutions have not been found to minimize the important collateral damages provoked by the first generation biofuels, more scientific studies and caution are needed. Meanwhile, it would be wise to improve alternative paths towards a sustainable transport sector, i.e., stringent emission and energy standards for all vehicles, better public transport systems, automobiles that run on renewable energy other than biofuels, or other alternatives beyond the present imagination.

A guide to commercial-scale ethanol production and financing : a product of the Solar Energy Information Data Bank /

"SERI/SP-751-877, UC-61."

An Overview of Illinois ethanol production and gasohol sales.

"June 1981."

Energy and labor cost of alternative coal-electric fuel cycles /

"Project no. 80.172."

Hydrogen production and utilisation opportunities for Australia

Worldwide, research and policy momentum is increasing in the move towards a hydrogen economy. Australia is one of the highest per capita users of energy, but relies heavily on fossil fuels to fulfil its energy requirements-thus making it one of the highest per capita polluters. It is also a country rich in natural resources, giving it the full range of options for a hydrogen economy. With the first Australian Hydrogen Study being completed by the end of 2003, there has as yet been little analysis of the options available to this country specifically. This paper reviews the resources, production and utilisation technology available for a hydrogen economy in Australia, and discusses some of the advantages and disadvantages of the different options. It points out that coal, natural gas, biomass and water are the most promising hydrogen sources at this stage, while solid oxide and molten carbonate fuel cells may hold the advantage in terms of current expertise for utilising hydrogen rich gases for stationary power in Australia. (c) 2004 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Matching poultry production with available feed resources: issues and constraints

Corn and soyabeans may not be available in many countries particularly those which do not have sufficient foreign currency or the capacity to grow them. This paper outlines strategies that may be important under these circumstances. Alternative feedstuffs and various feeding systems may be used to support poultry production. Alternative ingredients such as rice bran, pearl millet, cottonseed meal and grain legumes are discussed. Evidence is presented showing that amino acid requirements of layers and broilers may be too generous particularly in countries where climate, management and disease can impose production constraints. The ability of finishing broilers to perform well on very low-energy diets allows the inclusion of alternative feeds and by-products into formulations. Very low protein diets based on cereals and free amino acids can be used for layers without loss of performance. Self-selection of feedstuffs may be an important strategy in reducing feed costs of broilers and layers. The concept of matching production with available feed resources may compromise broiler growth and egg production, but in many countries this may be the most economical choice. Countries in the humid tropics usually have reduced poultry performance. The effects of high temperature and humidity are difficult to overcome. The vexed questions of the escalation in the price of fossil fuel and the outbreak of avian influenza, both seemingly without a solution, are clouds hanging over an otherwise buoyant industry.

The role of carbon in fuel cells

Carbon possesses unique electrical and structural properties that make it an ideal material for use in fuel cell construction. In alkaline, phosphoric acid and proton-exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs), carbon is used in fabricating the bipolar plate and the gas-diffusion layer. It can also act as a support for the active metal in the catalyst layer. Various forms of carbon - from graphite and carbon blacks to composite materials - have been chosen for fuel-cell components. The development of carbon nanotubes and the emergence of nanotechnology in recent years has therefore opened up new avenues of matenials development for the low-temperature fuel cells, particularly the hydrogen PEMFC and the direct methanol PEMFC. Carbon nanotubes and aerogels are also being investigated for use as catalyst support, and this could lead to the production of more stable, high activity catalysts, with low platinum loadings (< 0.1 Mg cm(-2)) and therefore low cost. Carbon can also be used as a fuel in high-temperature fuel cells based on solid oxide, alkaline or molten carbonate technology. In the direct carbon fuel cell (DCFC), the energy of combustion of carbon is converted to electrical power with a thermodynamic efficiency close to 100%. The DCFC could therefore help to extend the use of fossil fuels for power generation as society moves towards a more sustainable energy future. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Hydrogen from coal: Production and utilisation technologies

Error condition detected Although coal may be viewed as a dirty fuel due to its high greenhouse emissions when combusted, a strong case can be made for coal to be a major world source of clean H-2 energy. Apart from the fact that resources of coal will outlast oil and natural gas by centuries, there is a shift towards developing environmentally benign coal technologies, which can lead to high energy conversion efficiencies and low air pollution emissions as compared to conventional coal fired power generation plant. There are currently several world research and industrial development projects in the areas of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycles (IGCC) and Integrated Gasification Fuel Cell (IGFC) systems. In such systems, there is a need to integrate complex unit operations including gasifiers, gas separation and cleaning units, water gas shift reactors, turbines, heat exchangers, steam generators and fuel cells. IGFC systems tested in the USA, Europe and Japan employing gasifiers (Texaco, Lurgi and Eagle) and fuel cells have resulted in energy conversions at efficiency of 47.5% (HHV) which is much higher than the 30-35% efficiency of conventional coal fired power generation. Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) and molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFC) are the front runners in energy production from coal gases. These fuel cells can operate at high temperatures and are robust to gas poisoning impurities. IGCC and IGFC technologies are expensive and currently economically uncompetitive as compared to established and mature power generation technology. However, further efficiency and technology improvements coupled with world pressures on limitation of greenhouse gases and other gaseous pollutants could make IGCC/IGFC technically and economically viable for hydrogen production and utilisation in clean and environmentally benign energy systems. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Using biomass-based fuels including pyrolysis liquids for power and CHP production

The use of biomass-derived liquids (in short: bioliquids) instead of solid biomass can help overcome some of the barriers hindering a wider use of biomass in smaller-scale CHP systems. Relevant bioliquids included biodiesel, vegetable oils as well straight and upgraded pyrolysis oil. In this joint EU-Russian research project Bioliquids-CHP prime movers (engines and turbines) will be developed and modified so that these can run efficiently on bioliquids. At the same time, bioliquids will be upgraded and blended in order to facilitate their use in prime movers. Preliminary results with regard to bioliquid selection, production, and characterisation; the selection and modification of a micro gas turbine; and the development of engines and components are discussed. The research also covers NOx emission reduction and control and an assessment of the benefits and economics of bioliquids-based CHP systems in EU and Russian markets.

Upgrading fast pyrolysis liquids:blends of biodiesel and pyrolysis oil

Fast pyrolysis liquid or bio-oil has been used in engines with limited success. It requires a pilot fuel and/or an additive for successful combustion and there are problems with materials and liquid properties. It is immiscible with all conventional hydrocarbon fuels. Biodiesel, a product of esterification of vegetable oil with an alcohol, is widely used as a renewable liquid fuel as an additive to diesel at up to 20%. There are however limits to its use in conventional engines due to poor low temperature performance and variability in quality from a variety of vegetable oil qualities and variety of esterification processes. Within the European Project Bioliquids-CHP - a joint project between the European Commission and Russia - a study was undertaken to develop small scale CHP units based on engines and microturbines fuelled with bioliquids from fast pyrolysis and methyl esters of vegetable oil. Blends of bio-oil and biodiesel were evaluated and tested to overcome some of the disadvantages of using either fuel by itself. An alcohol was used as the co-solvent in the form of ethanol, 1-butanol or 2-propanol. Visual inspection of the blend homogeneity after 48 h was used as an indicator of the product stability and the results were plotted in a three phase chart for each alcohol used. An accelerated stability test was performed on selected samples in order to predict its long term stability. We concluded that the type and quantity of alcohol is critical for the blend formation and stability. Using 1-butanol gave the widest selection of stable blends, followed by blends with 2-propanol and finally ethanol, thus 1-butanol blends accepted the largest proportion of bio-oil in the mixture. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.