Text I

Deepwater Oil Finds Spur NYK to Invest in New Vessels

by Mari Iwata

A raft of giant oil strikes in global deepwaters is prompting Japanese shipping company NIPPON YUSEN KABUSHIKI KAISHA (NYK Line) to invest more in floating production vessels that it can offer for lease, a senior executive said. NYK Line says Petroleo Brasileiro SA (PBR) will be its biggest customer in the near term, as Brazil’s state-owned oil company targets first production from large oil finds in the subsalt region.

Good news flowing from drilling campaigns in Brazil’s deep water continued Tuesday when Petrobras said its Guara prospect in the Santos Basin holds between 1.1 billion and 2 billion barrels of oil equivalent.

Other big discoveries in the area include Tupi, which was the Western Hemisphere’s largest discovery in more than 30 years. The oil lies under more than 2,000 meters of water and a further 5,000 meters under sand, rock and a shifting layer of salt.

Fewer Rivals

In June, NYK and three Japanese partners invested in Etesco Drilling Services LLC, which will lease drill ships to Petrobras. A drill ship is already on order and due for delivery in January 2012. It will be leased to Petrobras for a maximum 20 years for drilling in Brazil’s subsalt region.

Hitoshi Nagasawa, managing officer of NYK Line, said NYK isn’t involved in operating the drill ship in this project, and is merely an investor. “However, we’ll learn from our experience partnering companies, as our ultimate goal is to operate (floating vessels) on our own,” he said.

NYK is one of Japan’s two major crude oil and liquefied natural gas carrier companies, and has a track record in loading and offloading these products. It is also joint operator of a drilling vessel owned by the Japanese government. NYK aims to make operating and leasing floating vessels the third pillar of its business after LNG shipping and very large crude carriers, or VLCCs.

At present, Petrobras’s ambitious drilling plans in deepwater will ensure the Brazilian company remains its largest customer in the near term, Nagasawa said.

But the company is studying several more projects involving floating vessels, said Nagasawa. He declined to give specifics, but said: “We will partner with and invest in other companies if we think the project is good. But we won’t do a project alone, because the investment^(a) is too large for one company.”

NYK is also seeking other projects^(b) than drill ships.^(c)

These include floating production, storage and offloading vessels,^(d) or FPSOs, floating storage and offloading vessels, or FSOs, and floating storage and regasification units,^(e) or FSRUs.

NYK posted a net profit of Y56 billion for the fiscal year ended March 2009, roughly down by half from a year earlier. The earnings decline was due in part to weakening demand for shipping in the second half and higher costs due to a strong yen.

The container shipping sector was among the most attractive to new entrants until the global economy started to turn down in fall 2008, with the intensifying competition contributing to weaker margins. But the business of leasing and operating floating vessels for use in deep-water areas has more barriers to entry because it requires deeper technological knowledge and higher investment, Nagasawa said.

slightly adapted from: (TOKYO) Dow Jones Newswires Sept. 10, 2009

URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=80199, retrieved

on 22 December 2009.

In “These include floating production, storage and offloading vessels, …”, the pronoun ‘these’ refers to

Text I

Deepwater Oil Finds Spur NYK to Invest in New Vessels

by Mari Iwata

A raft of giant oil strikes in global deepwaters is prompting Japanese shipping company NIPPON YUSEN KABUSHIKI KAISHA (NYK Line) to invest more in floating production vessels that it can offer for lease, a senior executive said. NYK Line says Petroleo Brasileiro SA (PBR) will be its biggest customer in the near term, as Brazil’s state-owned oil company targets first production from large oil finds in the subsalt region.

Good news flowing from drilling campaigns in Brazil’s deep water continued Tuesday when Petrobras said its Guara prospect in the Santos Basin holds between 1.1 billion and 2 billion barrels of oil equivalent.

Other big discoveries in the area include Tupi, which was the Western Hemisphere’s largest discovery in more than 30 years. The oil lies under more than 2,000 meters of water and a further 5,000 meters under sand, rock and a shifting layer of salt.

Fewer Rivals

In June, NYK and three Japanese partners invested in Etesco Drilling Services LLC, which will lease drill ships to Petrobras. A drill ship is already on order and due for delivery in January 2012. It will be leased to Petrobras for a maximum 20 years for drilling in Brazil’s subsalt region.

Hitoshi Nagasawa, managing officer of NYK Line, said NYK isn’t involved in operating the drill ship in this project, and is merely an investor. “However, we’ll learn from our experience partnering companies, as our ultimate goal is to operate (floating vessels) on our own,” he said.

NYK is one of Japan’s two major crude oil and liquefied natural gas carrier companies, and has a track record in loading and offloading these products. It is also joint operator of a drilling vessel owned by the Japanese government. NYK aims to make operating and leasing floating vessels the third pillar of its business after LNG shipping and very large crude carriers, or VLCCs.

At present, Petrobras’s ambitious drilling plans in deepwater will ensure the Brazilian company remains its largest customer in the near term, Nagasawa said.

But the company is studying several more projects involving floating vessels, said Nagasawa. He declined to give specifics, but said: “We will partner with and invest in other companies if we think the project is good. But we won’t do a project alone, because the investment is too large for one company.”

NYK is also seeking other projects than drill ships.

These include floating production, storage and offloading vessels, or FPSOs, floating storage and offloading vessels, or FSOs, and floating storage and regasification units, or FSRUs.

NYK posted a net profit of Y56 billion for the fiscal year ended March 2009, roughly down by half from a year earlier. The earnings decline was due in part to weakening demand for shipping in the second half and higher costs due to a strong yen.

The container shipping sector was among the most attractive to new entrants until the global economy started to turn down in fall 2008, with the intensifying competition contributing to weaker margins. But the business of leasing and operating floating vessels for use in deep-water areas has more barriers to entry because it requires deeper technological knowledge and higher investment, Nagasawa said.

slightly adapted from: (TOKYO) Dow Jones Newswires Sept. 10, 2009

URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=80199, retrieved

on 22 December 2009.

In the fragment “We will partner with and invest in other companies if we think the project is good.”, Nagasawa expresses a(n)

Text I

Deepwater Oil Finds Spur NYK to Invest in New Vessels

by Mari Iwata

A raft of giant oil strikes in global deepwaters is prompting Japanese shipping company NIPPON YUSEN KABUSHIKI KAISHA (NYK Line) to invest more in floating production vessels that it can offer for lease, a senior executive said. NYK Line says Petroleo Brasileiro SA (PBR) will be its biggest customer in the near term, as Brazil’s state-owned oil company targets first production from large oil finds in the subsalt region.

Good news flowing from drilling campaigns in Brazil’s deep water continued Tuesday when Petrobras said its Guara prospect in the Santos Basin holds between 1.1 billion and 2 billion barrels of oil equivalent.

Other big discoveries in the area include Tupi, which was the Western Hemisphere’s largest discovery in more than 30 years. The oil lies under more than 2,000 meters of water and a further 5,000 meters under sand, rock and a shifting layer of salt.

Fewer Rivals

In June, NYK and three Japanese partners invested in Etesco Drilling Services LLC, which will lease drill ships to Petrobras. A drill ship is already on order and due for delivery in January 2012. It will be leased to Petrobras for a maximum 20 years for drilling in Brazil’s subsalt region.

Hitoshi Nagasawa, managing officer of NYK Line, said NYK isn’t involved in operating the drill ship in this project, and is merely an investor. “However, we’ll learn from our experience partnering companies, as our ultimate goal is to operate (floating vessels) on our own,” he said.

NYK is one of Japan’s two major crude oil and liquefied natural gas carrier companies, and has a track record in loading and offloading these products. It is also joint operator of a drilling vessel owned by the Japanese government. NYK aims to make operating and leasing floating vessels the third pillar of its business after LNG shipping and very large crude carriers, or VLCCs.

At present, Petrobras’s ambitious drilling plans in deepwater will ensure the Brazilian company remains its largest customer in the near term, Nagasawa said.

But the company is studying several more projects involving floating vessels, said Nagasawa. He declined to give specifics, but said: “We will partner with and invest in other companies if we think the project is good. But we won’t do a project alone, because the investment is too large for one company.”

NYK is also seeking other projects than drill ships.

These include floating production, storage and offloading vessels, or FPSOs, floating storage and offloading vessels, or FSOs, and floating storage and regasification units, or FSRUs.

NYK posted a net profit of Y56 billion for the fiscal year ended March 2009, roughly down by half from a year earlier. The earnings decline was due in part to weakening demand for shipping in the second half and higher costs due to a strong yen.

The container shipping sector was among the most attractive to new entrants until the global economy started to turn down in fall 2008, with the intensifying competition contributing to weaker margins. But the business of leasing and operating floating vessels for use in deep-water areas has more barriers to entry because it requires deeper technological knowledge and higher investment, Nagasawa said.

slightly adapted from: (TOKYO) Dow Jones Newswires Sept. 10, 2009

URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=80199, retrieved

on 22 December 2009.

In paragraph, the author suggests that Tupi is

Text I

Deepwater Oil Finds Spur NYK to Invest in New Vessels

by Mari Iwata

A raft of giant oil strikes in global deepwaters is prompting Japanese shipping company NIPPON YUSEN KABUSHIKI KAISHA (NYK Line) to invest more in floating production vessels that it can offer for lease, a senior executive said. NYK Line says Petroleo Brasileiro SA (PBR) will be its biggest customer in the near term, as Brazil’s state-owned oil company targets first production from large oil finds in the subsalt region.

Good news flowing from drilling campaigns in Brazil’s deep water continued Tuesday when Petrobras said its Guara prospect in the Santos Basin holds between 1.1 billion and 2 billion barrels of oil equivalent.

Other big discoveries in the area include Tupi, which was the Western Hemisphere’s largest discovery in more than 30 years. The oil lies under more than 2,000 meters of water and a further 5,000 meters under sand, rock and a shifting layer of salt.

Fewer Rivals

In June, NYK and three Japanese partners invested in Etesco Drilling Services LLC, which will lease drill ships to Petrobras. A drill ship is already on order and due for delivery in January 2012. It will be leased to Petrobras for a maximum 20 years for drilling in Brazil’s subsalt region.

Hitoshi Nagasawa, managing officer of NYK Line, said NYK isn’t involved in operating the drill ship in this project, and is merely an investor. “However, we’ll learn from our experience partnering companies, as our ultimate goal is to operate (floating vessels) on our own,” he said.

NYK is one of Japan’s two major crude oil and liquefied natural gas carrier companies, and has a track record in loading and offloading these products. It is also joint operator of a drilling vessel owned by the Japanese government. NYK aims to make operating and leasing floating vessels the third pillar of its business after LNG shipping and very large crude carriers, or VLCCs.

At present, Petrobras’s ambitious drilling plans in deepwater will ensure the Brazilian company remains its largest customer in the near term, Nagasawa said.

But the company is studying several more projects involving floating vessels, said Nagasawa. He declined to give specifics, but said: “We will partner with and invest in other companies if we think the project is good. But we won’t do a project alone, because the investment is too large for one company.”

NYK is also seeking other projects than drill ships.

These include floating production, storage and offloading vessels, or FPSOs, floating storage and offloading vessels, or FSOs, and floating storage and regasification units, or FSRUs.

NYK posted a net profit of Y56 billion for the fiscal year ended March 2009, roughly down by half from a year earlier. The earnings decline was due in part to weakening demand for shipping in the second half and higher costs due to a strong yen.

The container shipping sector was among the most attractive to new entrants until the global economy started to turn down in fall 2008, with the intensifying competition contributing to weaker margins. But the business of leasing and operating floating vessels for use in deep-water areas has more barriers to entry because it requires deeper technological knowledge and higher investment, Nagasawa said.

slightly adapted from: (TOKYO) Dow Jones Newswires Sept. 10, 2009

URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=80199, retrieved

on 22 December 2009.

The main purpose of this article is to

Text II

Clean Coal, a Global Failure in the Making

By Chris Morrison | Oct 30, 2009

Here’s a bit of unalloyed pessimism for you: Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), more widely known as clean coal technology, is not going to work out. Governments and the coal industry are trying to bite off too much at once.

In theory, clean coal is a fine idea. The process of burning coal releases gases, which all modern plants already “scrub” off harmful substances like sulfur dioxide.

To fight global warming, coal mine and plant owners want to do the same for carbon dioxide.

Sounds great, except that a fairly average-sized 1,500 megawatt coal plant produces about three billion tons of CO2 yearly (update: This figure is closer to yearly emissions from all U.S. coal plants. A reader notes that the correct number is around 12 million tons per year, per plant.). All that CO2 has to be separated out, a process that uses up a lot of the energy the plant produces. Then, according to current thinking, we must bury the CO2 and hope that it doesn’t come back up.

That’s a hell of a challenge. A report released Thursday by the pro-CCS Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSSI) helps outline just how much.

A few bullet-points: projects exist today, and all are attached to gas plants

!$ ullet !$ The GCCSSI expects national governments to coordinate to give $100 billion yearly to CCS research.

!$ ullet !$ Provided the money is forked over immediately, we might have 20 plants by 2020.

!$ ullet !$ And if those initial plants work out as expected it will take until 2030 to have a significant number operating.

!$ ullet !$ If the technology works as expected, it will add an average of 78 percent to the cost of electricity from coal.

Anyone familiar with the basics of risk wouldn’t bet on that many “ifs”, especially given the looming difficulty of not only coaxing governments to throw trillions of dollars into research, but also share the technology as it develops.

Nevertheless, everything could work out perfectly and clean coal could be spreading in 2030. By that time, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere may be over 500ppm. That’s no problem if the climate change skeptics are right; if the 97 percent of climatologists who study climate change are right, that number would mean we’re in for some major upheaval.

In other words, we need better solutions, right now. For coal, there are already some available. Old, inefficient plants can be shut down in favor of new ones that operate at a much higher thermal efficiency, and work on new concepts like underground coal gasification could be accelerated.

The $2.4 trillion the International Energy Agency says we should spend researching clean coal should also be spent other ways; research and investment into renewables like geothermal and solar power come to mind, and it’s also enough money to buy several hundred nuclear plants.

If we do insist on clean coal, the concept needs a rethink. Trying to figure out the most cost-effective way to scrub CO2 is enough of a challenge. The additional problem of permanently sequestering it underground adds too much expense and uncertainty.

There are better ways. One would be to use the CO2 to create liquid fuels for transportation. Oddly, this idea is rarely brought up in the debate over clean coal, although scientists are already working on ways to use CO2 they captured from ambient air for fuel.

It’s a more energy-intensive process (read: expensive) process to capture CO2 from the air around us than the flue of a coal plant, where it’s already highly concentrated. But the attitude toward CO2 from coal is that it must be buried, because it’s new to the atmosphere — nevermind whether the fuel could replace a petroleum product, which also emits new CO2.

But the thinking on clean coal is, for the moment, quite rigid. One can only hope that, in the wholesale rush toward what seems immediately sensible, we don’t forget one of our best weapons — creativity, and adaptation to new circumstances.

Chris Morrison, a reporter on energy, renewables and climate change,

is the former lead cleantech writer for VentureBeat.

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?

aid=2517, retrieved on 22 December 2009.

Chris Morrison believes that a more desirable alternative to CCS would be to

Text II

Clean Coal, a Global Failure in the Making

By Chris Morrison | Oct 30, 2009

Here’s a bit of unalloyed pessimism for you: Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), more widely known as clean coal technology, is not going to work out. Governments and the coal industry are trying to bite off too much at once.

In theory, clean coal is a fine idea. The process of burning coal releases gases, which all modern plants already “scrub” off harmful substances like sulfur dioxide.

To fight global warming, coal mine and plant owners want to do the same for carbon dioxide.

Sounds great, except that a fairly average-sized 1,500 megawatt coal plant produces about three billion tons of CO2 yearly (update: This figure is closer to yearly emissions from all U.S. coal plants. A reader notes that the correct number is around 12 million tons per year, per plant.). All that CO2 has to be separated out, a process that uses up a lot of the energy the plant produces. Then, according to current thinking, we must bury the CO2 and hope that it doesn’t come back up.

That’s a hell of a challenge. A report released Thursday by the pro-CCS Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSSI) helps outline just how much.

A few bullet-points: projects exist today, and all are attached to gas plants

!$ ullet !$ The GCCSSI expects national governments to coordinate to give $100 billion yearly to CCS research.

!$ ullet !$ Provided the money is forked over immediately, we might have 20 plants by 2020.

!$ ullet !$ And if those initial plants work out as expected it will take until 2030 to have a significant number operating.

!$ ullet !$ If the technology works as expected, it will add an average of 78 percent to the cost of electricity from coal.

Anyone familiar with the basics of risk wouldn’t bet on that many “ifs”, especially given the looming difficulty of not only coaxing governments to throw trillions of dollars into research, but also share the technology as it develops.

Nevertheless, everything could work out perfectly and clean coal could be spreading in 2030. By that time, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere may be over 500ppm. That’s no problem if the climate change skeptics are right; if the 97 percent of climatologists who study climate change are right, that number would mean we’re in for some major upheaval.

In other words, we need better solutions, right now. For coal, there are already some available. Old, inefficient plants can be shut down in favor of new ones that operate at a much higher thermal efficiency, and work on new concepts like underground coal gasification could be accelerated.

The $2.4 trillion the International Energy Agency says we should spend researching clean coal should also be spent other ways; research and investment into renewables like geothermal and solar power come to mind, and it’s also enough money to buy several hundred nuclear plants.

If we do insist on clean coal, the concept needs a rethink. Trying to figure out the most cost-effective way to scrub CO2 is enough of a challenge. The additional problem of permanently sequestering it underground adds too much expense and uncertainty.

There are better ways. One would be to use the CO2 to create liquid fuels for transportation. Oddly, this idea is rarely brought up in the debate over clean coal, although scientists are already working on ways to use CO2 they captured from ambient air for fuel.

It’s a more energy-intensive process (read: expensive) process to capture CO2 from the air around us than the flue of a coal plant, where it’s already highly concentrated. But the attitude toward CO2 from coal is that it must be buried, because it’s new to the atmosphere — nevermind whether the fuel could replace a petroleum product, which also emits new CO2.

But the thinking on clean coal is, for the moment, quite rigid. One can only hope that, in the wholesale rush toward what seems immediately sensible, we don’t forget one of our best weapons — creativity, and adaptation to new circumstances.

Chris Morrison, a reporter on energy, renewables and climate change,

is the former lead cleantech writer for VentureBeat.

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?

aid=2517, retrieved on 22 December 2009.

In paragraph, Morrison mentions that creativity and adaptation to new circumstances are our best weapons because he believes that

Text II

Clean Coal, a Global Failure in the Making

By Chris Morrison | Oct 30, 2009

Here’s a bit of unalloyed pessimism for you: Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), more widely known as clean coal technology, is not going to work out. Governments and the coal industry are trying to bite off too much at once.

In theory, clean coal is a fine idea. The process of burning coal releases gases, which all modern plants already “scrub” off harmful substances like sulfur dioxide.

To fight global warming, coal mine and plant owners want to do the same for carbon dioxide.

Sounds great, except that a fairly average-sized 1,500 megawatt coal plant produces about three billion tons of CO2 yearly (update: This figure is closer to yearly emissions from all U.S. coal plants. A reader notes that the correct number is around 12 million tons per year, per plant.). All that CO2 has to be separated out, a process that uses up a lot of the energy the plant produces. Then, according to current thinking, we must bury the CO2 and hope that it doesn’t come back up.

That’s a hell of a challenge. A report released Thursday by the pro-CCS Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSSI) helps outline just how much.

A few bullet-points: projects exist today, and all are attached to gas plants

!$ ullet !$ The GCCSSI expects national governments to coordinate to give $100 billion yearly to CCS research.

!$ ullet !$ Provided the money is forked over immediately, we might have 20 plants by 2020.

!$ ullet !$ And if those initial plants work out as expected it will take until 2030 to have a significant number operating.

!$ ullet !$ If the technology works as expected, it will add an average of 78 percent to the cost of electricity from coal.

Anyone familiar with the basics of risk wouldn’t bet on that many “ifs”, especially given the looming difficulty of not only coaxing governments to throw trillions of dollars into research, but also share the technology as it develops.

Nevertheless, everything could work out perfectly and clean coal could be spreading in 2030. By that time, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere may be over 500ppm. That’s no problem if the climate change skeptics are right; if the 97 percent of climatologists who study climate change are right, that number would mean we’re in for some major upheaval.

In other words, we need better solutions, right now. For coal, there are already some available. Old, inefficient plants can be shut down in favor of new ones that operate at a much higher thermal efficiency, and work on new concepts like underground coal gasification could be accelerated.

The $2.4 trillion the International Energy Agency says we should spend researching clean coal should also be spent other ways; research and investment into renewables like geothermal and solar power come to mind, and it’s also enough money to buy several hundred nuclear plants.

If we do insist on clean coal, the concept needs a rethink. Trying to figure out the most cost-effective way to scrub CO2 is enough of a challenge. The additional problem of permanently sequestering it underground adds too much expense and uncertainty.

There are better ways. One would be to use the CO2 to create liquid fuels for transportation. Oddly, this idea is rarely brought up in the debate over clean coal, although scientists are already working on ways to use CO2 they captured from ambient air for fuel.

It’s a more energy-intensive process (read: expensive) process to capture CO2 from the air around us than the flue of a coal plant, where it’s already highly concentrated. But the attitude toward CO2 from coal is that it must be buried, because it’s new to the atmosphere — nevermind whether the fuel could replace a petroleum product, which also emits new CO2.

But the thinking on clean coal is, for the moment, quite rigid. One can only hope that, in the wholesale rush toward what seems immediately sensible, we don’t forget one of our best weapons — creativity, and adaptation to new circumstances.

Chris Morrison, a reporter on energy, renewables and climate change,

is the former lead cleantech writer for VentureBeat.

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?

aid=2517, retrieved on 22 December 2009.

The aim of the information given in parenthesis

Text II

Clean Coal, a Global Failure in the Making

By Chris Morrison | Oct 30, 2009

Here’s a bit of unalloyed pessimism for you: Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), more widely known as clean coal technology, is not going to work out. Governments and the coal industry are trying to bite off too much at once.

In theory, clean coal is a fine idea. The process of burning coal releases gases, which all modern plants already “scrub” off harmful substances like sulfur dioxide.

To fight global warming, coal mine and plant owners want to do the same for carbon dioxide.

Sounds great, except that a fairly average-sized 1,500 megawatt coal plant produces about three billion tons of CO2 yearly (update: This figure is closer to yearly emissions from all U.S. coal plants. A reader notes that the correct number is around 12 million tons per year, per plant.). All that CO2 has to be separated out, a process that uses up a lot of the energy the plant produces.^(a) Then, according to current thinking, we must bury the CO2 and hope that it doesn’t come back up.

That’s a hell of a challenge. A report released Thursday by the pro-CCS Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSSI) helps outline just how much.

A few bullet-points: projects exist today, and all are attached to gas plants

!$ ullet !$ The GCCSSI expects national governments to coordinate to give $100 billion yearly to CCS research.

!$ ullet !$ Provided the money is forked over immediately, we might have 20 plants by 2020.^(b)

!$ ullet !$ And if those initial plants work out as expected it will take until 2030 to have a significant number operating.

!$ ullet !$ If the technology works as expected, it will add an average of 78 percent to the cost of electricity from coal.

Anyone familiar with the basics of risk wouldn’t bet on that many “ifs”, especially given the looming difficulty of not only coaxing governments to throw trillions of dollars into research, but also share the technology as it develops.

Nevertheless, everything could work out perfectly and clean coal could be spreading in 2030. By that time, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere may be over 500ppm. That’s no problem if the climate change skeptics are right; if the 97 percent of climatologists who study climate change are right, that number would mean we’re in for some major upheaval.

In other words, we need better solutions, right now. For coal, there are already some available. Old, inefficient plants can be shut down in favor of new ones that operate at a much higher thermal efficiency,^(c) and work on new concepts like underground coal gasification could be accelerated.

The $2.4 trillion the International Energy Agency says we should spend researching clean coal should also be spent other ways; research and investment into renewables like geothermal and solar power come to mind, and it’s also enough money to buy several hundred nuclear plants.

If we do insist on clean coal, the concept needs a rethink. Trying to figure out the most cost-effective way to scrub CO2 is enough of a challenge.^(d) The additional problem of permanently sequestering it underground adds too much expense and uncertainty.

There are better ways. One would be to use the CO2 to create liquid fuels for transportation. Oddly, this idea is rarely brought up in the debate over clean coal,^(e) although scientists are already working on ways to use CO2 they captured from ambient air for fuel.

It’s a more energy-intensive process (read: expensive) process to capture CO2 from the air around us than the flue of a coal plant, where it’s already highly concentrated. But the attitude toward CO2 from coal is that it must be buried, because it’s new to the atmosphere — nevermind whether the fuel could replace a petroleum product, which also emits new CO2.

But the thinking on clean coal is, for the moment, quite rigid. One can only hope that, in the wholesale rush toward what seems immediately sensible, we don’t forget one of our best weapons — creativity, and adaptation to new circumstances.

Chris Morrison, a reporter on energy, renewables and climate change,

is the former lead cleantech writer for VentureBeat.

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?

aid=2517, retrieved on 22 December 2009.

The expression in bold type and the item in parenthesis are semantically equivalent in

Text II

Clean Coal, a Global Failure in the Making

By Chris Morrison | Oct 30, 2009

Here’s a bit of unalloyed pessimism for you: Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), more widely known as clean coal technology, is not going to work out. Governments and the coal industry are trying to bite off too much at once.

In theory, clean coal is a fine idea. The process of burning coal releases gases, which all modern plants already “scrub” off harmful substances like sulfur dioxide.

To fight global warming, coal mine and plant owners want to do the same for carbon dioxide.

Sounds great, except that a fairly average-sized 1,500 megawatt coal plant produces about three billion tons of CO2 yearly (update: This figure is closer to yearly emissions from all U.S. coal plants. A reader notes that the correct number is around 12 million tons per year, per plant.). All that CO2 has to be separated out, a process that uses up a lot of the energy the plant produces. Then, according to current thinking, we must bury the CO2 and hope that it doesn’t come back up.

That’s a hell of a challenge. A report released Thursday by the pro-CCS Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSSI) helps outline just how much.

A few bullet-points: projects exist today, and all are attached to gas plants

!$ ullet !$ The GCCSSI expects national governments to coordinate to give $100 billion yearly to CCS research.

!$ ullet !$ Provided the money is forked over immediately, we might have 20 plants by 2020.

!$ ullet !$ And if those initial plants work out as expected it will take until 2030 to have a significant number operating.

!$ ullet !$ If the technology works as expected, it will add an average of 78 percent to the cost of electricity from coal.

Anyone familiar with the basics of risk wouldn’t bet on that many “ifs”, especially given the looming^(a) difficulty of not only coaxing governments to throw^(b) trillions of dollars into research, but also share the technology as it develops.

Nevertheless, everything could work out perfectly and clean coal could be spreading^(c) in 2030. By that time, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere may be over 500ppm. That’s no problem if the climate change skeptics are right; if the 97 percent of climatologists who study climate change are right, that number would mean we’re in for some major upheaval.^(d)

In other words, we need better solutions, right now. For coal, there are already some available. Old, inefficient plants can be shut down in favor of new ones that operate at a much higher thermal efficiency, and work on new concepts like underground coal gasification could be accelerated.

The $2.4 trillion the International Energy Agency says we should spend researching clean coal should also be spent other ways; research and investment into renewables like geothermal and solar power come to mind, and it’s also enough money to buy several hundred nuclear plants.

If we do insist on clean coal, the concept needs a rethink. Trying to figure out the most cost-effective way to scrub^(e) CO2 is enough of a challenge. The additional problem of permanently sequestering it underground adds too much expense and uncertainty.

There are better ways. One would be to use the CO2 to create liquid fuels for transportation. Oddly, this idea is rarely brought up in the debate over clean coal, although scientists are already working on ways to use CO2 they captured from ambient air for fuel.

It’s a more energy-intensive process (read: expensive) process to capture CO2 from the air around us than the flue of a coal plant, where it’s already highly concentrated. But the attitude toward CO2 from coal is that it must be buried, because it’s new to the atmosphere — nevermind whether the fuel could replace a petroleum product, which also emits new CO2.

But the thinking on clean coal is, for the moment, quite rigid. One can only hope that, in the wholesale rush toward what seems immediately sensible, we don’t forget one of our best weapons — creativity, and adaptation to new circumstances.

Chris Morrison, a reporter on energy, renewables and climate change,

is the former lead cleantech writer for VentureBeat.

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?

aid=2517, retrieved on 22 December 2009.

In terms of meaning,

Text II

Clean Coal, a Global Failure in the Making

By Chris Morrison | Oct 30, 2009

Here’s a bit of unalloyed pessimism for you: Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), more widely known as clean coal technology, is not going to work out. Governments and the coal industry are trying to bite off too much at once.

In theory, clean coal is a fine idea. The process of burning coal releases gases, which all modern plants already “scrub” off harmful substances like sulfur dioxide.

To fight global warming, coal mine and plant owners want to do the same for carbon dioxide.

Sounds great, except that a fairly average-sized 1,500 megawatt^(a) coal plant produces about three billion tons of CO2 yearly (update: This figure is closer to yearly emissions from all U.S. coal plants. A reader notes that the correct number is around 12 million tons per year, per plant.). All that CO2 has to be separated out, a process that uses up a lot of the energy the plant produces. Then, according to current thinking, we must bury the CO2 and hope that it doesn’t come back up.

That’s a hell of a challenge. A report released Thursday by the pro-CCS Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSSI) helps outline just how much.

A few bullet-points: projects exist today, and all are attached to gas plants

!$ ullet !$ The GCCSSI expects national governments to coordinate to give $100 billion^(b) yearly to CCS research.

!$ ullet !$ Provided the money is forked over immediately, we might have 20 plants by 2020.

!$ ullet !$ And if those initial plants work out as expected it will take until 2030 to have a significant number operating.

!$ ullet !$ If the technology works as expected, it will add an average of 78 percent^(c) to the cost of electricity from coal.

Anyone familiar with the basics of risk wouldn’t bet on that many “ifs”, especially given the looming difficulty of not only coaxing governments to throw trillions of dollars into research, but also share the technology as it develops.

Nevertheless, everything could work out perfectly and clean coal could be spreading in 2030. By that time, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere may be over 500ppm. That’s no problem if the climate change skeptics are right; if the 97 percent^(d) of climatologists who study climate change are right, that number would mean we’re in for some major upheaval.

In other words, we need better solutions, right now. For coal, there are already some available. Old, inefficient plants can be shut down in favor of new ones that operate at a much higher thermal efficiency, and work on new concepts like underground coal gasification could be accelerated.

The $2.4 trillion^(e) the International Energy Agency says we should spend researching clean coal should also be spent other ways; research and investment into renewables like geothermal and solar power come to mind, and it’s also enough money to buy several hundred nuclear plants.

If we do insist on clean coal, the concept needs a rethink. Trying to figure out the most cost-effective way to scrub CO2 is enough of a challenge. The additional problem of permanently sequestering it underground adds too much expense and uncertainty.

There are better ways. One would be to use the CO2 to create liquid fuels for transportation. Oddly, this idea is rarely brought up in the debate over clean coal, although scientists are already working on ways to use CO2 they captured from ambient air for fuel.

It’s a more energy-intensive process (read: expensive) process to capture CO2 from the air around us than the flue of a coal plant, where it’s already highly concentrated. But the attitude toward CO2 from coal is that it must be buried, because it’s new to the atmosphere — nevermind whether the fuel could replace a petroleum product, which also emits new CO2.

But the thinking on clean coal is, for the moment, quite rigid. One can only hope that, in the wholesale rush toward what seems immediately sensible, we don’t forget one of our best weapons — creativity, and adaptation to new circumstances.

Chris Morrison, a reporter on energy, renewables and climate change,

is the former lead cleantech writer for VentureBeat.

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?

aid=2517, retrieved on 22 December 2009.

The explanation given for the numerical figure corresponds to the information in Text II in