Showing posts with label co2 mitigation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label co2 mitigation. Show all posts

Feb 4, 2009

MIT Clean Energy Competition

The MIT (Masschusetts Institute of Technology) Clean Energy Entrepreneurship Competition for the year 2009 opens tomorrow (Feb 5 2009). It is open to full time students in the US. (However, non students can be part of the team as long as at least one of the team members is a student at a US university) [rules] Deadline for submissions is Feb 16 2009.
More information about the competition can also be found on the facebook group. Excerpts from the competition website:
The MIT Clean Energy Prize is a student business plan competition open to all full time students in the US. Over $500,000 in cash and other prizes will be awarded to the grand prize winning team, and to category winners.

Grand prize: $200,000 cash prize (sponsored by NSTAR and the US Department of Energy) plus legal advice and support to help launch successful businesses.

Categories: Biomass, Clean Hydrocarbons, Energy Efficiency, Renewables, and Transportation.

More information about the categories can be found under sponsor information and other locations on the CEP website.

Past year's winners included FloDesign wind turbine, Covalent solar and Catalyzed combustion technologies.

Note: A separate business competition that is held annually at MIT is the 100K Entreprenuership competition.

Read More...

Dec 19, 2008

X-Algae: Mutant algae for biofuel production?



Chlorophyll A structure showing the central magnesium atom in green, nitrogen in blue, oxygen in red, carbon in black and hydrogen in white. Image credits: Wikipedia


Researchers have found that genetic truncation of the size of chlorophyll arrays in algae leads to higher photosynthetic algal yields, by increasing light absorption/mass of algae. This article is available online. M. Mitra and A. Melis, "Optical properties of microalgae for enhanced biofuels production," Opt. Express 16, 21807-21820 (2008).

"Abstract: Research seeks to alter the optical characteristics of microalgae in order to improve solar-to-biofuels energy conversion efficiency in mass culture under bright sunlight conditions. This objective is achieved by genetically truncating the size of the light-harvesting chlorophyll arrays that serve to absorb sunlight in the photosynthetic apparatus."
Nature optimizes each algae to maximize its light absorption to survive in the wild. However, the large size of these light-absorbing chlorophyll arrays leads to sub-optimal light utilization when growing algae for biofuel production, because light has to be distributed as far as possible in the growth medium to ensure optimal light utilization and increased yields per unit time per unit area. When grown in the mass culture, the mutant algae evolved oxygen at a 2 to 3-fold higher rate compared to the wild-unmodified algae, indicating potential algal biofuel yield increases of 100% to 200%.

Implications for algal biofuel production:
Previous posts (yields, CO2 capture, economics) on this blog have focused on various aspects of algal biofuel production. Because algal yields significantly influence the economics, increasing the light absorption per unit volume in the algal growth medium would lead to accelerated commercialization.

Read More...

Dec 4, 2008

Graphic of the week: U.S. CO2 sources and regional cap-and-trade agreements



Here is a map of U.S. CO2 sources (from the NETL carbon sequestration atlas) overlaid with the states which are participants/observers in) various regional GHG reduction initiatives. More information from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Briefly, the abbreviations in the figure are:
  1. WCI: Western Climate Initiative
  2. MGGA: Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord
  3. RGGI: Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
In addition, through House Bill 7135, pending legislative approval, Florida's EPA will develop a GHG cap-and-trade program.
Note: Some provinces of Canada also participate in these agreements, however, they are not shown here.

Read More...

Dec 3, 2008

2007 US greenhouse gas emissions: cement, limestone, natural gas, and other industries

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has released a report on U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2007 (Note: ftp link).

What attracted my attention was the "other sources" category, of which cement contributed ~46 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2/year in 2007 (~0.8% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions). The next highest contributor was lime-making, which involves limestone calcination. Aluminium (3.8 MMT) production contributes much lesser to U.S. GHG emissions compared to cement production. Additionally, iron and steel production likely contributes ~45 MMT CO2/year. On the other hand, recent high-gas prices partly contributed to higher natural gas production (and higher CO2 co-produced from natural gas). CO2 emissions from natural gas-flaring in the U.S. were not projected to change from 2006 (7.8 MMT CO2/year). In the figure, the values for natural gas show a spike in 1995, from my data it appears to be due to significantly higher natural gas flaring, than CO2 production from natural gas.

Read More...

Nov 24, 2008

Typical yields from algal biofuel technologies


This is an examination of yields of "primary product" (algal oil/ethanol/biodiesel), expressed as barrels of oil equivalent/hectare of land area/year, from various algal (algae) biofuel technologies. I used data from company websites and press releases and converted the algal oil/ethanol production to a BOE/ha/year basis.
From the above figure, typical "yields" range from 100-1000 BOE/ha/yr. Compare this to Dr. Benemann's recent statement that the maximum algal yield without using genetically modified algae would be ~2000 gal algal oil/acre/year (101 BOE/ha/year).

Disclaimer: This is not meant to be a comparison of various processes or an endorsement/critique of a specific process. Utilization of and the value for the algal biomass and the biofuel determines the overall process economics. My assumptions and data are given below:

  1. Algenol: 6000 gal EtOH/acre/year
  2. Solix data from here.
  3. GreenFuel, from a previous post
  4. PetroAlgae: Assumed 200x current soybean oil yields (200x50 gal oil/acre/year).
  5. GSPI: Link here
  6. Theoretical maximum: from CircleBio's website, assuming 20,000 gal biodiesel worthy plant oil/acre/year.
  7. I further assumed that 1 T of algae oil gives 1 T of biodiesel, unless mentioned otherwise on the company's website (the ratio is ~0.96 for soy oil).
  8. Calorific value of 33MJ/L for biodiesel and 20 MJ/L for ethanol.

Related posts:
Analysis: Algae for CO2 capture - II
Analysis: Algae for carbon dioxide (CO2) capture

Read More...

Nov 9, 2008

Analysis: Algae for CO2 capture - II





I evaluate the process economics of algal CO2 capture from cement plant, using the GreenFuel Holcim facility mentioned in a previous post. Internal rates of return (IRR) and payback periods for various scenarios are presented. As shown in the above figure, both increased yields as well as higher oil prices significantly influence the economics of algal CO2 capture.

Base case
Capital expenditure: 92 million $, CO2 fixed: 50,000 T/year (2011).
Algal oil production: 1.3 million gal/year.
Cost algal oil: 4 $/gal.
Price of CO2 offsets: 20 $/T CO2.
Timeline considered for IRR calculations: 10 years.

The rest of the scenarios are explained in the figure. Doubling the yields (and CO2 captured) does increase the IRR and lower the payback periods more than doubling the oil prices (mentioned in my last post). Moreover, CO2 trading plays only a minor role by itself, but results in higher IRRs and lower payback periods when considered along with other possibilities. The highest IRR and lowest payback occur when both yields as well as the oil prices are significantly higher than in the base case scenario.

Read More...

Nov 7, 2008

Comments: Marine cement production process


Recently, Calera proposed a process suitable for power plants and other major CO2 emitters which converts CO2 to calcium carbonate (CaCO3). From the Scientific American:

"...The Calera process essentially mimics marine cement, which is produced by coral when making their shells and reefs, taking the calcium and magnesium in seawater and using it to form carbonates at normal temperatures and pressures. "We are turning CO2 into carbonic acid and then making carbonate," Constantz says. "All we need is water and pollution...
....Calera hopes to get over that hurdle quickly by first offering a blend of its carbon-storing cement and Portland cement, which would not initially store any extra greenhouse gases but would at least balance out the emissions from making the traditional mortar. "It's just a little better than carbon neutral," notes Constantz, who will make his case to the industry at large at the World of Concrete trade fair in February. "That alone is a huge step forward."..
"

In the following, I discuss some of the critical challenges to make this a feasible operation. The roles of the abundance of calcium and magnesium in sea water and its pH are discussed in detail. The formation of calcium/magnesium carbonates from sea water requires energy to proceed. This energy could be supplied either in the form of a pH shift (by adding strong base) or by coupling the carbonate formation to other processes (algal photosynthesis). Why does blending calcium carbonate in cement make economic sense? The unit price for medium ground (4-9 um) CaCO3 is around 95-100 $/T whereas portland cement retails at ~180 $/T . Each ton of CaCO3 blended will save 80 $.

Sea water has 0.01 gram-mol Ca2+/kg-sea water and 0.05 gram-mol Mg2+/kg-sea water . The precipitation chemistry of calcium and magnesium carbonates is complicated, involving many minerals. If we precipitate all of the Ca2+ and Mg2+ as carbonates (CaCO3 and MgCO3), sequestering 1 T of CO2 would require 360 T of sea water. Additionally, carbonate precipitation does not occur below a pH of ~10, whereas sea water has a pH of ~7.5-8.4 , which could be decreased by increasing the partial pressure of CO2. Increasing the pH of the solution to favor carbonate precipitation likely requires the use of a base, such as sodium hydroxide, NaOH.

Apart from the large volumes of sea water to be handled to make carbonates, the manufacture of NaOH involves the electrolysis of brine and is fairly energy-intensive, producing 4.6 T CO2/T NaOH. Depending on the extent of NaOH requirements, this could represent a significant source of CO2 emissions. (Therefore, using NaOH to sequester CO2 does not make much sense).

Switching gears to learning from nature, certain coralline algae form CaCO3 from sea water. This CaCO3 acts as a binder, stabilizing the coral reef. The mechanisms involved are fairly complex for my understanding, but an essential process is the equilibrium between the bicarbonate and carbonate ions, depending on the pH.

pH = 10.33 - log([HCO3-]/[CO32-])


Under sunlight, algae photosynthesize dissolved CO2 or HCO3- to form organic compounds (CH2O). This leads to an increase in the local pH. An example of how this happens is given in a paper by John Dodson (subscription required). This increased pH combined with the presence of ion-selective membranes, which admit only certain ions might be how algae use photosynthesis to drive an endothermic CaCO3 precipitation reaction.

Conclusions:
  1. Large volumes of sea water are required to sequester CO2 as calcium/magnesium carbonates. Membrane separations will likely play a critical role in reducing this requirement.
  2. On the other hand, CO2 sequestration in brines (by product of oil and gas production) also has been investigated. The advantage here is that these brines have high concentrations of calcium, iron and magnesium ions. Therefore, potentially less volumes of brine are needed compared to sea water to sequester the same amount of CO2. The obvious problem here is to increase the pH of the solution to precipitate dissolved CO2 as carbonate. Instead of using a strong base such as sodium hydroxide, folks at NETL used residues from bauxite (an ore of aluminium) processing to buffer the solution pH.
  3. One needs a driver to precipitate calcium/magnesium carbonates from sea water. In the chemical process described above, it is the addition of sodium hydroxide.
  4. The smarter way nature has found around that requirement is the formation of carbonates via the bicarbonate<->carbonate equilibrium, shifted towards the right by algal photosynthesis (a reaction converting bicarbonate/CO2 to organic carbon using sunlight, thereby increasing the pH).

Read More...

Oct 30, 2008

CO2 to fuels processes - II

Recently Carbon Sciences, featured in an earlier article on this blog revealed the source of hydrogen for their CO2 to fuels process.
"Dr. Naveed Aslam, inventor of the company's technology and chief technology advisor, commented: "Unlike other CO2 to fuel approaches, Carbon Sciences' technology does not use molecular hydrogen (H2) because the creation and reaction of H2 is very energy intensive. Rather, the company's approach is based on a low energy biocatalytic hydrolysis process where water molecules (H2O) are split into hydrogen atoms (H) and hydroxide ions (OH) using a biocatalyst. The hydrogen atoms (H) are immediately used in the production of hydrocarbons and the free electrons in OH are used to power the various biocatalytic processes." "Our technology is not based on photosynthetic plants where sun light is used to drive biofuel production reactions, such as in algae. Instead, it is based on natural organic chemistry processes that occur in all living organisms where carbon atoms, extracted from CO2, and hydrogen atoms extracted from H2O, are combined to create hydrocarbon molecules using biocatalysts and small amounts of energy. Our innovative technology allows this process to occur on a very large industrial scale through advance nano-engineering of the biocatalysts and highly efficient process design," concluded Dr. Aslam."
My opinions given below:
Understandably Carbon Sciences is justified in not fully revealing the details . However, the splitting of water to produce protons (H+) and hydroxide ions (OH-) still consumes energy. All the biocatalyst does is to speed up this transformation. It cannot influence the thermodynamics (feasibility) of this reaction. Judging by what the release says, I think that there is a sacrificial oxidant (something which gets oxidized, ex: simple sugars, providing the energy to drive the splitting of water) involved.

Related links:
Opinion: CO2 to fuels processes
Carbon Sciences Announces Prototype Plan for CO2-to-Fuel Technology

Read More...

Oct 22, 2008

PBS Frontline: Heat

Global Warming, can we roll it back?
Image courtesy of PBS.org

Read More...

Oct 21, 2008

Analysis: Algae for carbon dioxide (CO2) capture

Summary
This post describes a simplified economic analysis of an algal biofuel technology that converts carbon dioxide (CO2) from cement plants into (potentially) useful algal oil. I examined various key factors such as CO2 offset price, price of algal oil, and productivity that affect the profitability of such a process.

Based on my analysis I conclude that the single most important factor that affects the economics of CO2 capture is the algal biomass yield (mass produced/unit area). Doubling the productivity (and the CO2 offset) per hectare decreases the payback time by 50 % (15 years to 7 years).

Disclaimer: This is not a critique of the specific algal biofuels process proposed. CO2 mitigation using algae is one of the answers to our grand energy challenges, and we must continue to address these issues.

Assumptions:
The Holcim plant in Jerez likely produces a fraction of the total 5.1 million tonnes of cement per annum (5.1 MTPA). (A cement plant in India I worked at produced 2.6 MTPA, and it was the largest in Asia at that time. Not having first-hand data for this specific facility, lets assume that this plant is 1 MTPA, for the sake of comparison. The exact production does not alter the results significantly).

Cost of algal oil: 4 $/gal
Price of carbon offsets: 15 Euros/T CO2 (20 USD/T CO2)
(A high-cost scenario for algal oil and carbon offsets would be 6$/gal, 50 $/T CO2. This is also addressed in the analysis.)

Data:
Each lb of cement produces 1.0 lb of CO2 (U.S. average, pg.10).
Total CO2 to be mitigated annually by 2011: 50,000 T in 100 ha (0.05 MTPA
CO2 in 100 ha) .
Algal biofuel production: 1.3 million gallons/year

Calculations:
Total CO2 production: 1 MTPA
By 2011, the 100 ha. facility would mitigate 50,000 T of CO2 (0.05 MTPA CO2). This would be 5% of the CO2 emissions (if the Jarez facility production is 1 MTPA)
Average CO2 use of algae: 0.0005 MTPA/ha.
Revenues from algal biofuel: 5.2 million $/year
Revenues from carbon offsets: 1 million $/year
Total revenues: ~6 million $/year

Results
Capital cost of algal facility: $ 92 million/0.05 MTPA
CO2.
Area needed for 5% of the cement plant's CO2 output (assuming 1 MTPA production): 543 U.S. football fields (5.4 football fields = 1 ha.)

Payback on investment: 92/6 =~ 15 years. In comparison, typical payback for a new chemical plant is ~ 7 years.

Higher CO2 prices (50 $/T CO2), decrease the payback period by ~ 3 years. Higher algal oil prices (6 $/gal) and 20 $/T CO2 prices will result in a payback period of approximately 11 years.

Higher oil and higher CO2 prices will lower this period (11 yrs) by an additional ~2 years. However, doubling the productivity (and the CO2 offset) per hectare decreases the payback time by 50 % (15 years to 7 years).

The revenues from algal biodiesel + carbon offsets will be partly offset by the parasitic losses from the power plant to run the system. I don't have a feel for how much these utility costs would be. Any comments, anybody?

Bottomline The single most important factor that affects the economics is the productivity of algal biomass/unit area. Doubling the productivity (and the CO2 offset) per hectare decreases the payback time by 50 % (15 years to 7 years).

Read More...

Sep 17, 2008

Projected (2030) greenhouse gas abatement potentials and costs



[SVG GHG abatement potentials and prices for clean energy technologies] (Using the link to view the image requires a stand alone SVG viewer and your browser needs to be configured to use this player)

The data are taken from a McKinsey report. I have compared only renewable energy technologies and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) on this figure. The size of the circle approximately indicates the relative CO2 abatement potential in megatons of CO2 equivalents. (The report indicates that energy conservation, mainly by switching off electronics and computers, switching from incandescents to CFLs constitutes "low-hanging fruit". On the other hand, clean energy technologies such as wind, solar PV etc. require some investment in order to realize CO2 emission reductions. The cheapest among the renewables is producing cellulosic biofuels. Another obvious "low-hanging fruit" is the reduction of industrial non-GHG emissions; 250 MTCO2 equivalents at next to nothing prices represents a huge source of cheap carbon credits.This is my first SVG file (created using Gnuplot).

Read More...

Jul 8, 2008

Flue gas or Fuel ? : India's CTL Dilemma

India currently imports 72% of its crude oil consumption. It does have recoverable reserves of 50-71 billion tonnes of coal, currently primarily used for power generation. Here is a recent article on possible externalities from adopting coal to liquids (CTL) technologies in India. The authors (Ananth Chikkatur and Sunitha Dubey) underscore three issues surrounding the implementation of CTL technologies in India : the availability of coal, water requirements for CTL plants, and the emissions from CTL processes.

The article outlined three different proposals submitted by OIL, Tata-Sasol and Reliance. The OIL proposal is a direct liquefaction facility using low-ash, Assam coal, significantly lower in initial process investment (2.5 billion $) compared to Tata-Sasol and Reliance (8 billion $), which use high-ash coals. Both Tata-Sasol and Reliance proposals are expected to produce 80,000 barrels of liquids/day by consuming more than 30 million metric tonnes of coal/year. Accordingly, both Tata-Sasol and Reliance have ~1.4-1.6 billion tonnes of coal as their requirements (over the plant lifetime). This is 2-3 % of India's recoverable coal reserves. There is considerable resistance within the Indian government to open up coal for fuel production, mainly because Indian coal imports for power generation are projected to increase.

According to the article, the water requirements for CTL processes are around 12-14 barrels/barrel liquid fuel. Most of this is projected to come from ground water because of low supply of surface water in the areas where these CTL plants are planned to be sited. However, I think that this is less of a limiting factor, because coal can be transported relatively easily in trains. Therefore, the exact siting of the CTL facility may not be near the mining site itself, but where adequate water supplies are available. Additionally, because the direct liquefaction process uses hydrogen to cook coal to liquids, I would expect the water requirements for direct liquefaction process to be lower than the indirect liquefaction process.

The third challenge outlined in the article is the emissions from CTL plants. Being a believer in industrial ecology, I think that the emissions of H2S and VOCs can be used for fruitful purposes. For example: H2S can be captured and used as a source of sulphuric acid (H2SO4), which is an intermediate in the production of ammonium phosphate-based fertilizers. Therefore, I do not agree with all the points in the article. However, the article does raise valid questions regarding the CO2 emissions from CTL processes.

Summing up, the article does not advocate that India promote CTL plants in a normal business-as-usual scenario. On the other hand, I think that increased demand for coal (arising from CTL and power generation) will lead to improved coal mining technologies. I have been told that coal mines in India are relatively inefficient compared to their couterparts in the US. Why are such technologies not being put in place currently? There is no additional incentive for the coal mining company(ies) to invest because the profit margins on power generation will be small compared to the profit margins on CTL plants. Additionally, I think that high crude prices are here to stay. Therefore, I think a balanced approach, promoting energy conservation as well as cleaner, novel technologies are what India needs to develop sustainably.

More links below:
Is India ready for CTL fuels?
Articles on Indian coal from Ananth Chikkatur, on his website.

Read More...

Jun 30, 2008

Politics of climate change legislation

Here is an inside view of how the recent Lieberman-Warner climate change bill was debated in the Senate. It is funny (and sad) how some senators talk of cap & trade as a carbon tax. The notion that one can generate revenues and jobs by a cap & trade system completely intrigues me. Meanwhile the Chicago Climate Exchange already has a voluntary trading system for carbon. When is the best time to take action against global warming? NOW. As Senator Boxer points out, waiting to legislate until the gas price comes down will be a fatal mistake.

Read More...

Mar 2, 2008

Redwoods vs solar panels

A CNN article on the conflicts between growing more trees and getting lesser sunlight for solar panels was interesting. Some bare facts:
  1. Mark Vargas, who owns solar panels (an investment of 70,000 (2001 USD)) contends that his neighbour, Treanor's redwood trees are blocking sunlight for his solar panels
  2. After 6 years, a judge cites CA's obscure sunlight availability law to rule in favor of Mark Vargas.
  3. As alternate energy sources become more mainstream, many experts predict that conflicts similar to this case, will happen.
In response to Treanor's claims that the redwoods help capture CO2, Vargas "counters it would take two or three acres of trees to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as much as the solar panels that cover his roof and backyard trellis."
Legal issues aside, this case represents an interesting conflict. For starters, if we assume that the solar PV panels indeed help prevent more CO2 emissions than the redwoods (which turns out to be valid, see the appendix for back-of-the-envelope calculations), the question for environmental economists would be which option would generate the least negative externalites ? In other words, if we could put a price/ton on every pollutant (including CO2) evolved, which option would result in a lower price? Can the amount of services provided by redwoods be quantified in monetary terms?

Appendix
-----------
Analysis of net CO2 emissions prevented by using solar PV and amount of CO2 fixed by redwood trees over the course of a year:
The data on photosynthetic CO2 fixation in coastal redwoods was taken from this paper (Osborne and Beerling, 2003). The authors of the above study used 3 year old trees to measure photosynthetic rates in a controlled atmosphere. Only results for coastal redwoods at pCO2 (partial pressure of CO2)=40 Pa (pascal) (corresponding to 395 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere) will be used in this analysis.
The PVWatts website was used to estimate costs and energy production from a single solar PV panel. San Francisco was chosen as the location (due to its proximity to Sunnyvale). The DOE web page puts the amount of CO2 emitted/unit of energy produced for coal power plants at 2.12 lb/kWh.
In Fig.7 (Osborne and Beerling, 2003) show the average rates of photosynthetic fixation (milli moles of CO2/plant/day) for different species. The area under the curve (in Fig.7 of the paper) for coastal redwoods gives the total CO2 photosynthetic fixation over the entire year. It comes to ~1650 mmol CO2/plant/year. This amount is however, for 3 year old plants. Let us assume that the amount of CO2 fixed increases linearly with the leaf growth and the plant age. If we consider a 12 year old tree, ~3350 mmol CO2/year are fixed by a single redwood tree. This amounts to 0.15 kg CO2/tree/year.

In comparison, Vargus installed 70,000 $ worth of solar PV panels. I assumed the average 2001 costs of solar PV panels to be 0.2$/kWh (current costs from the PVWatts website are 0.125 $/kWh). Per a 4 kW panel, the energy produced/year (from the PVWatts wevsite) would be ~5800 kWh. This represents an investment of ~1150 $/4kW panel. Since Vargus invested ~70,000$, he probably has 60 solar PV panels installed.
In a year, the AC electricity produced from all the panels (from the PVWatts website) would be 464000 kWh.If we assume that only 70% of the panels are operational at any given time, the figure becomes a little lower, ~330,000 kWh/year. I took electricity from thermal power plants as the basis for comparing CO2 emissions. Using the value of 2.12 lb CO2/kWh generated (and not accounting for transmission and distribution costs), I calculate that emissions of ~312 T of CO2/year will be avoided with the 60 solar PV panels.

Comparing the above two values (CO2 fixed/plant/year and CO2 avoided/year), we can clearly see that there is orders of magnitude difference between these two quantities. 60 solar PV panels prevents more CO2 emissions than ~1000 redwood trees. However, this is not the end of the story.

Solar PV panels are produced in a energy-intensive process which leads to CO2 emissions. For a complete CO2 emissions analysis, the emissions for solar PV manufacturing also need to be taken into account. However, this will not change the results here by very much as there is clearly differences in orders of magnitude between solar PV panel and a redwood tree.


Read More...

Feb 29, 2008

New Carbon Capture Pilot Plant in Wisconsin

ALSTOM, The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and We Energies just announced a CO2 capture demonstration power plant in Wisconsin using a chilled ammonia process to remove the CO2 from the flue gas. The plant aims to capture about 90% of the CO2 emitted by the power plant. The size of the power plant is ~1210 MW (electric) [actually 2 x 617 MW]. According to this presentation on the web, ALSTOM clearly is seeking to take the lead on making conventional pc fired plants ready for a carbon constrained environment by retrofitting the plant.

Read More...

 
The Energy Webring