Value of a 10% CO2 Reduction for the Coal Fired Power Plant?

im not going to go to deep here but like so much in life.......there's a cost to consider, not just an attractive "hook" like the one you used to suck people into reading your thread.

Ahhhhh (eyes rolling), It's always great when the first one to respond adds such intelligence to the discussion, which seems to be a syndrome here on CR4.

I'm assessing the cost as well but right now I am focusing on the possible revenue.

Any intelligent input is encouraged, seriously I would appreciate some input on this question.

Lyn,

Not sure if you have every been at a management level that would require an elevated and measured ability to communicate to obtain the best possible result or response from a given team or group but….

A specific technique used to ensure complete input to questions is to purposefully leave them open, that means fewer details rather than more. It does not demonstrate a lack of knowledge but of humility through the recognition that others may know more than me and that I am interest in learning as much as possible from those who do.

Additionally I find that open ended questions not only result in improved responses to the direct question at hand but more often than not results in a type of belt of other responses leading to interesting and sometimes indirectly applicable snippets of information that ultimately leads to the solution or answer desired.

My question is open ended for a reason because I want to learn from intelligent posters on CR4 who really want to help so it doesn't apply to you.

Please unsubscribe and let others who are interested in adding value to the discussion and uphold the values of CR4 comment.

a real comedian too funny.......do it my way now!!

Unfortunately, you don't get to make the rules here.

Your question was not open ended in the sense that an experienced manager would structure it, but rather phrased like a homework question.

Good luck.

Lyn, I certainly don't make the rules and you should be reminded again and again that neither do you, doesn't matter how many times you get ratty with your posts.

And to think that this latest post was your 24,541 th wow how many others added as much value as that one? 30% 40%.

Imagine how many more people would be interested in posting on CR4 if your posts were more constructive and inviting? Just sit back and think about it.

Like I said please move on and let others who are interested in adding value to CR4 input.

With pleasure.

<unsucscribe>

You must be a manager!

"A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He reduced altitude and
spotted a woman below. He descended a bit more and shouted, "Excuse me,
can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I
don't know where I am."

The woman below replied, "You're in a hot air balloon hovering
approximately 30 feet above the ground. You're between 40 and 41 degrees
north latitude and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."

"You must be an engineer," said the balloonist. "I am," replied the woman,
"How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is, technically
correct, but I've no idea what to make of your information, and the fact
is I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help at all. If anything,
you've delayed my trip."

The woman below responded, "You must be in Management." "I am," replied
the balloonist, "but how did you know?"

"Well," said the woman, "you don't know where you are or where you're
going. You have risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air.

You made a promise which you've no idea how to keep, and you expect people
beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is you are in exactly the same
position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my fault."

Good luck with attitude at altitude!

IS,

Please accept my apologies, it was certainly not directed to you.

It's impossible to tell.

Assuming that everything goes through as planned, that value will fluctuate just like any stock. The value will be determined by share price.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

Thanks again Kramarat,

Well going down the line of purely a Cap & Trade being the only cost savings from a CO2 reduction I get the following:

Typical Power Plant Annual CO2 Emission: 3,500,000 tons of CO2 (1)

Latest value of one ton of CO2 in Europe: Eur 4.84 or $6.65 at today's exchange rate

Therefore a 10% reduction would be a savings of:

€ 1,694,000 or $2,327,556

Annually per power plant.

Can you assist to evaluate the above and comment on other potential savings please?

(1) http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html

(2) http://www.eex.com/en/Market%20Data/Trading%20Data/Emission%20Rights

No.

In our current climate, laws are changed like underwear, and there is simply no possible way to put an accurate price tag on CO2 reduction.

I didn't look at your, (what should have been), links, but the best that they can do is speculate....it's the nature of markets. There is no sure thing.

Invest in your reduction, and you will either win or lose...depending on who's in office and controlling Washington.

If you're in the US, coal is a bad bet. If the politicians don't manage to kill it, natural gas will. I wouldn't invest a dime into CO2 reduction.

Agreed.

But today, now, given the value of a 10% CO2 Reduction would my calculation be correct?

It will just be a calculation! Whats your point in asking an easy percentage calculation is correct or not if you are not going to consider the multitude of government regulations, charges, subsidies and so forth?

And as somebody already mentioned the Dollar calculation is wrong!

Agreed.

Washington and special interests are unpredictable and sometimes illogical.

Europe has their act together on Greenhouse gas emissions more than anywhere else.

Are you afraid of tainting your name by posting anonymously or are you aware that your "open ended question" might just receive the response you did?

For the Savings:

Reducing CO2 costs money! Burning fuel makes money!

Burning less fuel more effeciently makes more money and reduces CO2.

Your choice! What is your proposal?

Other than that I am with Mark and confirmation of todays calculation is how much worth? ...

So my theoretical calculation is correct?

your 10% saving calculation is correct for Euro. Dollars worked out a little different.(??)

I don't see anything theoretical in this simple arithmetic mate.

Carbon trading is a UN controlled thing. UNFCC.

If your emitting 10% less CO2 then you're also using less fuel....that's a real good thing too.

Wal,

"...If your (sic) emitting 10% less CO2 then you're also using less fuel....that's a real good thing too...." Well, that's one point of view.

Now consider the other side of the coin. You're also producing less power in proportion to the reduction in fuel, unless you are simultaneously increasing the efficiency. Unfortunately adding coal cleanup processes and stack scrubbing equipment reduces the overall efficiency of a power plant, all other things being equal.

It's both a capital cost that has to be recovered as well as a further drain on the operating revenue of the plant operator. And then there's the question of what to do with the waste materials from the clean-up processes, and who pays for that aspect of the equation. There are no free lunches, there are many free-loaders.

Agree totally. Just saying is all.

The OP was a simple arithmetic question.

Even if it is, nobody is going to invest money on that theorie!

So let me get this straight; we are betting that a financial derivative will help address the CO2 challenge. Daaaa - your kidding me right?

Why is the focus always on the emission side of the equation while the protection and restoration of our planets natural sequestration potential is ignored?

And why do we focus on improving production efficiencies when the greatest payback comes from increasing end use efficiencies?

I don't get it.

Gavilan,

My company is working on a solution to abate CO2 and I am just trying to get a value on the revenue side and then work on the cost side.

But I agree with your comments, the world will not get greener unless there is an economical way to do it.

As the cost of hydrocarbon fuels increase and as governments monetize the adverse effects on the environment to the user there will be a crossover point with some new or existing technology where the savings / revenue outstrip the costs.

When I know more I'll post it on this thread.

my company is working on turning lead into gold. I'll post more to this thread when gold hits 5 grand an ounce

If your proposal reduces CO² by burning less fuel for the same energy output, the savings in CO² levy are totally swamped by the reduced fuel cost. Patent quickly, you are worth millions. But bear in mind that the UK and much of Europe is closing it's coal fired stations, thus making a 100% saving in CO² output, which makes your 10% seem a bit lame.

If it uses a novel technology to burn the same amount of fuel for the same energy output but sequesters CO² so it is not released into the atmosphere, there is a market but there are already lots of competitors. Annual savings divided by capital cost plus interest on capital gives the number of years for payback. Given the uncertainty involved in both the the carbon trading market and interest rates you may struggle to interest the power utilities.

If your proposal in any way reduces the efficiency of power conversion in order to make CO² output reductions, forget it, power demand predictions are already outstripping planned capacity increases. In case you hadn't noticed, that is one reason why power prices are increasing.

The question is too broad for a meaningful Engineering answer.

However, let it be known that were a technology to become available to reduce the CO₂ by 10% and produce the same amount of electricity, it would be in use already. Textbooks on the topic of thermodynamics would suggest that such a technology is unavailable.

PWSlack,

So you feel that any innovation in this space is impossible or just not likely or what?

Personal feelings are an insignificant feature of this poster's output.

<unsubscribes>

its rather difficult to calculate ROI without an "I" to begin with

I agree and that level of skepticism faces me every day.

Regarding your comment about the board in all seriousness, what is your background please?

We are a Nasdaq listed company heavy on "R" and catching up on "D".

If you are from the power industry as your avatar suggests I would take your offer seriously.

AP, You are correct, I have the requisite utility and executive experience to assist you and your company. Please contact me through the CR4 private messaging system, then we can talk.

Burn 10% less coal?

The answer is simple, it doesn't matter. Any reduction in CO2 emissions will result in less tax (penality) income for governments, which will be quickly adjusted to make up for the tax losses.

Look at what is happening in many US states to gasoline taxes due to hybrid and other fuel efficient car sales. More fuel efficient vehicles has affected the quantity of gasoline sales and thus the tax revenue. State governments took notice and upped the gas taxes to offset the difference and in some cases added additional taxes on hybrid vehicle sales as well.

Coal plants are steadily being shut down in favor of more expenseive, less efficient "green" energy companies, which politicians tend to either a. get lots of campaign contributions from and return the favor with stimulus or bailout money, or b. are personally heavily invested (read Al Gore).

A technique has been proposed (and may well have been proven on a laboratory scale) to use sequestered CO² as a feedstock material to produce new artificial fuel. At present this technology is in it's infancy and the costs/efficiencies have not been tested in a full scale plant. An additional revenue stream created by the sale of artificial fuel to offset the costs of carbon capture or to create additional profits for large CO² producers, is probably the only way that we will see the widespread use of sequestration. At present most of the efforts are being directed to separating CO² from other waste gasses and finding a long term storage solution. Finance redirected into developing recycling methods would be more productive than long term storage options with the possible risks of leakage.

Purest environmentalists would argue that this solves no problems because this artificially produced fuel still has the CO² entering the atmosphere at a later stage, but if it substitutes for new fuel extracted from the ground, then using the same CO² twice must be beneficial. If the made fuel is used by the original CO² producer, the same CO² could potentially recycled many times.

Perhaps electrolysis of the CO2 to C and O2 then using the C as fuel and releasing or selling the O2?

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-discovery-scientists-fuel-co2-atmosphere.html

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/12/03/carbon-nanofibers-play-role-in-low-cost-synfuels/

Maybe some day.