martedì 14 agosto 2012

Energia. Attenzione ai Cigni Neri: Politica ed SNG da Prox. Se pensavate che i Tedeschi scherzassero, riderete amaro e piangerete lacrime di acido solforico.

di Giuseppe Sandro Mela fonte rischiocalcolato.it 

Nassim Taleb definisce “Cigno Nero” un evento possibile ma altamente improbabile od addirittura impensato od impensabile. Caratteristica del Cigno Nero é di cambiare radicalmente le condizioni al contorno, in altri termini, la nostra vita. Se non avessimo casualmente incontrato colei che adesso è nostra Moglie, tutta la nostra vita sarebbe stata differente. Un brutto incidente d’auto potrebbe mandarci diritti all’altro mondo.
                Se ben ci si pensa sopra, la vita di ogni persona e di ogni Collettività é punteggiata di Cigni Neri. Sono questi i fatti che determinano mutamenti irreversibili. La routine é necessaria, utilissima ad aumentare le occasioni positive e minimizzare la possibilità di quelle negative, ma alla fin fine ci consente solo di gestire l’ordinario. Una vincita al gioco oppure un infartaccio, spesso sono eventi la trattazione dei quali presenta una certa quale agevolezza perché preannunciabili. Chi non giocasse non potrebbe mai vincere. Un’assicurazione sulla vita non lenirebbe certo il dolore della morte ma almeno consentirebbe la sopravvivenza dignitosa della Famiglia.

                Se talora il Cigno Nero ha effetti repentini, talaltra risulta di difficile individuazione perché quando compare é apparentemente piccolo, innocuo, individuabile solo da parte di occhi acuti e mente addestrate. Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici, poi Papa Leone X, finanziò a nome della sua Famiglia molte missioni esplorative dell’appena scoperta America, e costituì la base cognitiva della successiva transizione dei Medici in banchieri europei anche delle potenze atlantiche.
                Qui segnaliamo solo l’avvistamento di due Cigni Neri, che stanno per planare sul comparto energetico, dal petrolio al gas naturale, dalla produzione di energia elettrica a tutti i motori a combustione, piccoli oppure enormi.

                Il primo Cigno Nero si chiama “politica“.
                Esattamente come quando il Governo italiano e quindi dei referendum misero fuori legge l’energia nucleare, nulla vieta di pensare ad interventi governativi che vietino oppure “regolamentino” il settore produttivo o distributivo energetico. Il così detto “libero mercato”, sempre che mai sia esistito e che esista, ne risulterebbe stravolto.
                Poiché i termini del problema sono chiari, non ci addentreremo oltre nell’argomento e rimandiamo i Signori Lettori alle citazioni a seguito, che sembrerebbero essere auto-esplicative.

                Il secondo Cigno Nero ha per nome una sigla: SNG, Substitute Natural Gas.
                Pensate quanto l’introduzione nel 1883 delle prime centrali elettriche ha sconvolto il mondo, non solo per quanto riguarda la produzione industriale, ma soprattutto il ritmo ed il tenore di vita: le abitudine della gente comune.
                Pensate alla produzione dell’ammoniaca sintetica. Il processo Bosch-Haber per la produzione di ammoniaca dagli elementi fu brevettato nel 1908 da Fritz Haber. Nel 1910 Carl Bosch, che lavorava per la BASF, commercializzò il processo, noto come processo Bosch-Haber. Durante la Prima Guerra Mondiale fu usato su scala industriale per la prima volta. Oggi la produzione mondiale supera i cento miliardi di tonnellate all’anno.
                Adesso pensate un po’ alla benzina sintetica. Usando la Fischer-Tropsch-Synthese, durante il 1944 la Germania produsse qualcosa come sei milioni di tonnellate di combustibile sintetico. Priva di risorse naturali petrolifere, la Germania si rese indipendente producendolo per sintesi.
                Pensiamo anche al sommergibile con turbine Walter.
                L’SNG, Substitute Natural Gas, consiste in breve nel processo di metanizzazione basato sul sistema Prox. L’annuncio riportato in calce di Staxera potrebbe fornire molti elementi di meditazione. Un Prox a nanotecnologie permette una catalisi eterogenea con ossidazione preferenziale: ha una resa di quasi il 97% (novantasette per cento), bidirezionale. Sono stati anche creati due grandi istituti di ricerca dedicati a questo progetto.
                Se la parte teorica è quasi completamente a punto resta solo la fase di passaggio da ricerca pura a produzione economicamente competitiva. Tre o cinque anni? Dopo di che procedura ed impianti saranno esclusivamente «hergestellt in Deutschland»: «made in Germany». Energia pulita con impianti dal TW al kW. Unico neo: servono grandi quantità di rubidio, cerio, cobalto e nikel.
                Adesso la politica estera tedesca dovrebbe essere diventata chiara come l’acqua di rocca, senza bisogno alcuno di ricorrere ad assurde dietrologie. La Germania non brevetta nulla, riservandoselo come segreto militare ed industriale. Difficile prevedere i costi, ma a regime, ossia a tecnologia consolidata, il costo del metano potrebbe essere circa mille volte inferiore all’odierno.
                Se il progetto andasse in porto, e nulla lascerebbe pensare ad un fallimento, improvvisamente i paesi produttori di petrolio, gas naturale oppure carbone si troverebbero in mano prodotti estrattivi del valore della sabbia. Pensate solo un momento a tutta la petrolchimica.
                Se aveste mai pensato che i tedeschi scherzassero ricredetevi rapidamente, ma molto rapidamente, oppure piangerete lacrime di acido solforico. E quanti ideologi si suicideranno!
                Buona lettura.

    EPA Issues Final Air Rules for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry
On April 17, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued cost-effective regulations, required by the Clean Air Act, to reduce harmful air pollution from the oil and natural gas industry while allowing continued, responsible growth in U.S. oil and natural gas production. The final rules include the first federal air standards for natural gas wells that are hydraulically fractured, along with requirements for several other sources of pollution in the oil and gas industry that currently are not regulated at the federal level. Based on public comment, EPA made a number of changes to the proposed rules to increase compliance flexibility while maintaining comparable environmental benefits, streamline notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and strengthen accountability.
    Final rule (PDF) (588pp, 2.1 MB)
    Overview fact sheet (PDF) (5pp, 354k)
    Summaries of requirements for:
        Natural gas well sites (PDF) (5pp, 411k)
        Gas processing plants (PDF) (3pp, 395k)
        The oil industry (PDF) (2pp, 320k)
        Information for States (PDF) (3pp, 233k)
        Regulatory Impact Analysis (PDF) (224pp, 1.8 MB)
Deadline for Final Oil and Gas Rule extended to April 17, 2012
April 2, 2012 – EPA and parties have agreed to a two-week extension – until April 17, 2012 – on a consent decree to issue final air rules for the oil and natural gas industry. The agency requested the additional time to fully address the issues raised in the more than 156,000 public comments we received on the proposed rules.
    Stipulation extending deadline for issuing final rule (PDF) (3pp, 10k) – filed April 2, 2012
EPA extends public comment period for oil and natural gas proposed rule
October 24, 2011 – EPA is granting requests for a 30-day extension to the public comment period for the Agency’s proposed standards to reduce air pollution from oil and natural gas drilling operations. The public comment period will now close on November 30, 2011. The standards would rely on cost-effective existing technologies to reduce emissions that contribute to smog pollution and can cause cancer, while supporting the administration’s priority of continuing to expand safe and responsible domestic oil and gas production. The standards would leverage operators’ abilities to capture and sell natural gas that currently escapes into the air, resulting in more efficient operations while reducing harmful emissions that can impact air quality in surrounding areas and nearby states.
In addition, the litigants in the suit have agreed to a 35-day extension of the date for the final rule, which would extend the deadline from February 28, 2012 to April 3, 2012.
    Proposed rule extension (PDF) (2pp, 147k) – Federal Register – October 28, 2011
    Stipulation extending deadline for issuing final rule (PDF) (3pp, 11k) – filed October 28, 2011
    Summary of topics on which EPA is seeking comments (PDF) (8pp, 129k) – Topics on which EPA is specifically seeking comment in the proposed regulations for the oil and gas industry. Comments are due by November 30, 2011.
Public Hearings
August 25, 2011 – EPA will hold three public hearings on the proposed standards to reduce air pollution from the oil and natural gas industry. The hearings will be Sept. 27, 28 and 29 in Pittsburgh, Denver and Arlington, Texas
    Hearing Notice (PDF) (2pp, 184k) – Federal Register – August 26, 2011
List of preregistered speakers
    Pittsburgh, PA (PDF) (4pp, 213k)
    Denver, CO (PDF) (3pp, 166k)
    Arlington, TX (PDF) (3pp, 75k)
EPA proposes air rules for the oil and gas industry
July 28, 2011 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a suite of highly cost-effective standards to reduce emissions of smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and air toxics from the oil and natural gas industry. The rules also would significantly reduce methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
    Proposed rule (PDF) (106pp, 772k) – Federal Register – August 23, 2011
    Fact sheet (PDF) (8pp, 419k)
    Overview Presentation (PDF) (15pp, 250k)
   Regulatory Impact Analysis (PDF) (204pp, 1.6 MB)

    42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq. (1970)
The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. Among other things, this law authorizes EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
One of the goals of the Act was to set and achieve NAAQS in every state by 1975 in order to address the public health and welfare risks posed by certain widespread air pollutants. The setting of these pollutant standards was coupled with directing the states to develop state implementation plans (SIPs), applicable to appropriate industrial sources in the state, in order to achieve these standards. The Act was amended in 1977 and 1990 primarily to set new goals (dates) for achieving attainment of NAAQS since many areas of the country had failed to meet the deadlines.
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act addresses emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Prior to 1990, CAA established a risk-based program under which only a few standards were developed. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments revised Section 112 to first require issuance of technology-based standards for major sources and certain area sources. “Major sources” are defined as a stationary source or group of stationary sources that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of a hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of a combination of hazardous air pollutants. An “area source” is any stationary source that is not a major source.
For major sources, Section 112 requires that EPA establish emission standards that require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of hazardous air pollutants. These emission standards are commonly referred to as “maximum achievable control technology” or “MACT” standards. Eight years after the technology-based MACT standards are issued for a source category, EPA is required to review those standards to determine whether any residual risk exists for that source category and, if necessary, revise the standards to address such risk.
Compliance and Enforcement
    Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring: investigations and inspections
History of the Act
More Information
The Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) develops national programs, policies, and regulations for controlling air pollution and radiation exposure.
Under CAA Section 112(r), the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) administers the Risk Management Plan Rule.

    WASHINGTON — A federal proposal to ban the construction of coal-fired power plants that release all of their carbon dioxide into the atmosphere would seem to smooth the way for carbon capture, a budding technology that traps the greenhouse gas for storage or other uses.
    But even as the Environmental Protection Agency prepares to open hearings on the proposed rule, unveiled in March, industry experts say the persistently low price of natural gas is threatening the viability of the nation’s carbon capture projects.
    Natural gas is so cheap and plentiful that utilities have little incentive to build coal-fired plants with the capture technology. And the proposed rule exempts existing coal- and gas-fired plants.
    In the tiny universe of American carbon capture projects, the first casualty may be the Taylorville Energy Center, a project in the coal fields of Illinois. The plan was to cook coal into methane, capture the carbon dioxide released in the process, then burn the methane in a conventional natural gas-style power plant.
    But Taylorville’s backers, unable to persuade the state legislature to approve the project because of its estimated $3.5 billion price, are considering deferring the coal element and simply building the gas-burning plant for one-third the cost.
“It’s primarily due to the low natural gas prices, and how that affects the political environment,” said Bart Ford, a vice president of Tenaska, the developer. “We’re not changing the nature of the facility, just deferring the synthetic natural gas portion.”
    Still, Tenaska is continuing to seek permits to inject carbon dioxide underground at the site, Mr. Ford said. “This allows us to say, we’ll wait until the price impact is lower because the price of natural gas is up,” he said.
    Making synthetic natural gas from coal makes economic sense only if the ordinary natural gas that it displaces is more expensive.
    The advent of hydraulic fracturing, a drilling method that has opened vast new supplies of natural gas, has helped to keep gas prices low. The industry’s expectation is that the price will rise somewhat from its current depressed level — near $2 per million B.T.U., compared with as much as $14 before the recession — but that it will not recover fully for many years.
    Edwardsport, a “capture-ready” Duke Energy coal plant, is scheduled to begin commercial operation this year. The plant, in Edwardsport, Ind., will cook coal into a fuel gas and could be retrofitted to capture carbon dioxide released in that conversion. But Duke, the builder, has no plan to capture the carbon dioxide and no place to sequester it for now. It is exempted from the new rule because construction began five years ago.
    The plant cost nearly $3 billion to build, about $1 billion over budget, and carbon capture would cost $380 million, not counting storage.
    Only two other major carbon capture projects are on the drawing boards in the United States. Neither is affected directly by low natural gas prices. But the ebbing interest in coal-fired construction may signal that even if the technology works well, there may be few commercial projects where it could be deployed.
   One is FutureGen 2.0, a $1.6 billion plan to burn coal in oxygen, generating exhaust gas that is pure carbon dioxide, and pumping it into geologic formations thousands of feet below the earth’s surface.
    The Recovery Act of 2009 is covering $1 billion of the cost of the project, which is in Meredosia, Ill. But the project, originally expected to be running by 2015, has run into a variety of bureaucratic problems and is now scheduled to be in service in 2017, barring further delays. An earlier version, FutureGen, was rejected by the Energy Department in 2008 to save money.
    The other venture is the Southern Company’s Kemper County project in Mississippi, which will turn coal into a cleaner gas and use it to power a turbine. The captured carbon dioxide is expected to be sold and travel through a pipeline to Texas, where it will be pumped under ground to force oil out of old oil fields, a process known as enhanced oil recovery.
    At the moment the market prospects look favorable, given that the price oil drillers will pay for the carbon dioxide depends partly on the price of oil, which is relatively high. But construction is just beginning, so the long-term picture is unclear. The plant is expected to start operating in 2014.
    Some in the power industry are debating whether the Obama administration’s carbon regulation will be blocked by Congress or a new administration. Still, the absence of a rule would not change the economic equation discouraging investment in capture technology for coal plants.
    Kelly Ziegler, a spokeswoman for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a nine-state consortium on the East Coast that seeks to limit carbon dioxide output, said that no regulation was necessary to stop new coal plants. “Natural gas has already done that for you,” she said.
    Hearings on the rule are to begin on May 24, and the E.P.A. is taking public comments until June 25. The agency may issue a final rule this year.

    Lo sviluppo dei giacimenti di gas non convenzionale, cioè di shale gas, negli Stati Uniti verrà d’ora in poi regolato e controllato da una nuova agenzia governativa. Lo ha deciso il presidente Barack Obama, firmando un ordine esecutivo con il quale chiede che si crei una sorta di task force formata da rappresentanti di 14 tra dipartimenti ed agenzie già esistenti. Si legge nell’ordine di Obama:
    Anche se la produzione di gas naturale è portata avanti da soggetti privati, e gli Stati sono principalmente dei regolatori delle estrazioni onshore di gas e petrolio, il Governo Federale ha un ruolo importante da giocare nel regolare le attività gasifere e petrolifere sul suolo pubblico e su quello dei nativi indiani, incoraggiando un maggior sviluppo delle estrazioni e del trasporto di gas e istituendo standard di salute pubblica e tutela dell’ambiente sensibili e produttivi per implementare la legge federale e aumentare le misure di sicurezza degli Stati.
    La novità è stata presa bene dalla grande industria estrattiva americana che, in una nota diffusa dall’American Petroleum Institute (API), rende noto:
    Siamo lieti che la Casa Bianca riconosca la necessità di coordinare gli sforzi delle dieci agenzie federali che stanno rivedendo, studiando e proponendo nuove regole sullo sviluppo del gas naturale dell’hydraulic fracturing.
    L’hydraulic fracturing, detto anche fracking, è la contestatissima tecnica utilizzata per estrarre il gas non convenzionale dai giacimenti sotterranei che, secondo i primissimi studi scientifici, potrebbe causare danni tutt’altro che trascurabili all’equilibrio geologico delle zone di estrazione e alle vicine falde acquifere.
    Nell’ordine esecutivo di Obama, però, pur comparendo più volte le parole “unconventional gas” non compaiono mai né “hydraulic fracturing” né “fracking”. Questo, per i petrolieri, è già un successo perché dimostra che Obama, che è già in campagna elettorale, ha intenzione di seguire la linea morbida e di non aprire un altro fronte di guerra con il “Big Oil”.
    Monitorare lo sviluppo del gas di scisto, ed eventualmente limitarlo, ma senza puntare il dito specificatamente contro la tecnica più criticata. Ciò, di fatto, permette alle grandi sorelle petrolifere di continuare ad estrarre shale gas anche se, d’ora in poi, dovranno collaborare maggiormente con il Governo. Bicchiere mezzo pieno o mezzo vuoto?

    Arrivare a una piena indipendenza dal petrolio nell’ambito dei trasporti pubblici e privati è un’impresa molto complessa e non raggiungibile di certo in pochissimi anni, ma se in molti credono che la risposta a tale problema passi per la trazione elettrica, sono in diversi a ritenere che la soluzione più efficace, come alternativa ai combustibili fossili, sia puntare sui veicoli a gas naturale compresso (CNG, Compressed Natural Gas), più comunemente conosciuti come mezzi a metano.
    A sostenere tale tesi sono alcuni centri di ricerca degli USA, tra i quali l’Argonne National Laboratory, uno dei principali laboratori impegnati nello studio sulle batterie agli ioni di litio impiegate sulle auto elettriche. Eppure, nonostante l’impego verso questo tipo di propulsione a zero emissioni, c’è chi, all’interno dell’Argonne, vede i veicoli a metano come la soluzione ideale quanto meno nella fase di transizione dai derivati dal petrolio a forme di autotrazione pulita.
    I ricercatori americani del laboratorio, come ad esempio Mike Duoba, sostengono infatti che nonostante i mezzi a metano inquinino di più rispetto a quelli elettrici, grazie a una diffusione capillare nei prossimi anni essi possano essere di grande aiuto nell’abbattere le emissioni inquinanti, oltre che aiutare gli USA a svincolarsi dalla dipendenza dal petrolio.
    Questo tipo di pensiero potrebbe diffondersi in Nord America anche per il fatto che ci sono grossi giacimenti di gas naturale, fattore che sarebbe gradito anche ai governanti nell’ottica di favorire una ripresa economica che tarda ad arrivare. Dal punto di vista tecnico, sottolineano i sostenitori dell’auto a metano, i vantaggi sarebbero legati alla maggiore autonomia dei veicoli CNG rispetto a quelli elettrici, al minor peso complessivo (in quanto non è necessaria l’installazione di pesanti pacchi batterie), così come una maggiore praticità in termini di ricarica, con risparmio di tempi e di costi.
    Nonostante le diverse posizioni di vari esperti quel che appare certo è che per raggiungere l’obiettivo di abbandonare definitivamente i derivati del petrolio non è sufficiente un solo tipo di soluzione, ma sarà decisiva l’unione di più tecnologie alternative ognuna con i propri pregi e i propri difetti, i quali, si spera, saranno via via eliminati nel corso degli anni.

    Dresden, 17 May 2011. The technology developer SunFire is taking over staxera, a developer and manufacturer of SOFC high-temperature fuel cells sited in Dresden, from Webasto, one of the world’s leading suppliers to the automotive industry. The acquisition will enable SunFire – the developer of a process to generate renewable fuels from CO2 and H2O – to extend its expertise along the value chain by adding the technical core component for the electrolysis process.
    “We are looking forward to forming a powerful team together with staxera. Due to its many years of experience in the field of fuel cell technology, staxera is in an excellent position to develop efficient electrolysers. For us, this acquisition is a significant milestone since the foundation of SunFire,” says Carl Berninghausen, CEO of SunFire.
    The process developed by SunFire begins with the decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen by using electrolysis, driven by renewable electrical energy (derived from sunlight, wind or water). A subsequent step is the reaction of hydrogen and the greenhouse gas CO2 to form renewable, synthetic petrol, diesel and kerosene. An important precondition for the economic viability of the process is a high efficiency of the electrolysis.
    Staxera develops, manufactures and sells SOFC high-temperature fuel cells. A wide range of liquid and gaseous fuels can be used to generate electricity and heat in high-temperature fuel cells. Fuel cells are suitable for both mobile applications and for decentralised, stationary applications such as residential microCHP units using natural gas, biogas or wind gas. The acquisition means that SOEC high-temperature electrolysis will be added to staxera’s product portfolio. The combination of both business sectors means that synergies can be utilised and future production costs will be reduced, thus also strengthening the existing SOFC business.
    While, in a fuel cell hydrogen containing fuel gas reacts with oxygen from the air by generating electricity, electrolysis is used to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen by adding electrical energy. Electrolysis reverses the principle of the fuel cell, while the components of electrolysis and fuel cell stacks are very similar. Thus staxera is in a good position to develop highly efficient electrolysers and fuel cells.
    Webasto will remain a silent partner in staxera, thus keeping a hand on the technology of the future, while focusing on growth in its main sectors, i.e. roof and thermal systems.
    The sites of SunFire in Bremen and staxera in Dresden will remain in place. Carl Berninghausen will become chairman of the management board.
About staxera:
Staxera GmbH was established in Dresden in 2005 to develop and manufacture SOFC fuel cell stacks. The company has successfully positioned itself as an independent stack supplier on the international market. With 25 employees staxera supplies among others Vaillant GmbH with integrated stack modules for wall-mounted fuel cell heaters. This device will be used in the field test programme CALLUX 2011.
More information is available from: www.staxera.de
About SunFire:
    SunFire GmbH was established in Bremen in June 2010. The company is developing a competitive process to produce synthetic renewable fuels (e.g. petrol, diesel, kerosene or methane) from carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O), using renewable electrical energy. The directors of SunFire GmbH are Carl Berninghausen (CEO) and Christian von Olshausen (CTO). The initiator and co-founder of the new company is Dr Bodo Wolf, the founder of CHOREN Industries. The company is being financed by a group of private investors.
    Since 2008, the process has been extensively tested from both an economic and a technical point of view during the course of a detailed viability study. In 2010 an initial prototype on a laboratory scale was commissioned. The next milestone will be the establishment of a test plant with a production capacity of one barrel of fuel per day. The first pre-industrial prototypes are to be constructed in 2016.


Pubblicato da alle
Etichette: , , , , , , , ,

Nessun commento:

Posta un commento

Iscriviti a: Commenti sul post (Atom)