Update on Methane Emissions Monitoring Trends in the Oil and Gas Sector

 

     Methane emissions abatement in the past several years has been focused on qualifying emissions via infrared satellite imaging measurements, LiDar and drone surveys, and abatement though changing out pneumatic devices. The upstream sector has led the way. Now, the midstream sector is beginning to catch up. With several new sensing technologies available more specific monitoring programs can be developed and tailored for different types and sizes of sites. Early emissions surveys were focused on finding large emission sources and fixing them. Continuous leaks are prioritized over intermittent leaks simply because they are easier to pinpoint, and they leak higher quantities of methane. Once large and continuous leaks are addressed for each site then intermittent leaks can be addressed.

     The focus is changing towards continuous monitoring, especially at sites where intermittent emissions occur or are suspected. Continuous monitoring can pick up those intermittent leaks. Apparently, most leaks are actually intermittent leaks so this focus should help to reduce overall emissions further. Continuous monitoring can be done with point sensors and infrared cameras. These are typically employed to find leaks by identifying leak plumes. They don’t always find the source of the leak. These devices measure methane concentration in the air. Continuous monitoring allows a time profile of emissions to be developed. Readings can be affected by weather and wind, by turbulent diffusion. By integrating data from cameras and point sensors leaks can be pinpointed to source and quantified. Taking point source readings by visiting a site by week, or month, or quarter is typically not enough to pick up many intermittent leaks.

     One goal is to develop a life cycle of an emission through continuous monitoring. As noted, the parameters of that emission may change through time in response to a change in turbulent diffusion or by a change in the leak rate. Turbulent diffusion is difficult to predict as wind changes locally considerably. Which equipment should be deployed depends on nature of site, size of site, how many potential sources of leaks there are, and leak rates. Large facilities like power plants or refineries will need a different approach than smaller sites like well pads. Something like a drone-in-a-box may be applicable for sites or facilities of middle size. Drone monitoring has the advantage that it can move around and cover more area, but it is also intermittent, not continuous for each area. Drones can be useful for finding leaks along spread-out sources like pipelines.

     One issue that arises at sites especially where there are multiple potential sources of leaks is that of false positives. The hard problem is whether a newly discovered leak is the same as an identified leak or a different leak. Employing multiple sensors and types of sensors is a good approach. The workflow for monitoring is sensing > detection > quantifying > attribution. Continuous monitoring through this workflow is best at mitigating false positives. The false positive issue is more an unintended result of having multiple sensors but is quite mitigatable with the right approach. Point source monitors are cheap and can be employed in different places. However, they also need good interpreters to resolve issues like false positives.

     The DOE just announced $47 million in funding for methane emissions reduction. The effort will involve 22 research projects “to advance the development of new and innovative measurement, monitoring, and mitigation technologies to help detect, quantify, and reduce methane emissions across oil and natural gas producing regions of the United States.”  

 

The following is from the DOE announcement:

 

The selected projects will advance cutting-edge technologies under five areas:

 

 

·        Mitigating Methane Emissions from Upstream/Midstream Sources – Six projects will address mitigating methane emissions from engines and machinery used in the extraction and production of natural gas and oil to advance the development of cleaner fuels for the industry.

·        Surface-based Methane Monitoring and Measurement Networks – Two projects will gather and compile surface-based methane emissions data and appropriate wind speed and direction measurements to effectively characterize methane sources and emission rates across a broad area that includes multiple operators of oil and gas production facilities.

·        Basin-Specific Needs to Mitigate Methane Emissions – Across the United States, oil- and gas-producing basins have characteristics that require unique approaches to resource production, transportation, and storage. Five projects will demonstrate methods to measure and quantify methane emissions along the natural gas supply chain focusing on basin-specific requirements.

·        Integrated Methane Monitoring Platform Design – Seven projects will aim to develop integrated methane monitoring platforms to continually collect and analyze methane emissions data across the natural gas supply chain to characterize methane emissions from chronic and super-emitters and inform near real-time mitigation decisions.

·        Investigating Emissions from Storage Tanks – Two projects will work to identify the primary sources of methane emissions from storage tanks and their associated equipment across the oil and natural gas value chain and evaluate monitoring technologies.  

 

The research will be conducted by several universities, institutes, laboratories, and companies. On the academic side will be Kansas State University, University of North Dakota, University of Oklahoma, University of Texas at Austin, Colorado State University, and West Virginia University. Institutes include the Gas Technology Institute (GTI Energy) and Southwest Research Institute. Laboratories include Prabhu Energy Labs and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Companies include UChicago Argonne, LLC., Kairos Aerospace, Inc., Sonoma Technology Inc., ABB Inc., and Piedmont Natural Gas Company-Duke Energy.

 

     I think these new research projects along with the oil and gas industry retuning its focus toward continuous monitoring will lead to better and more detailed quantification of methane emissions across the entire value chain of the industry, tighten the leaks further, and make natural gas and oil able to decrease emissions significantly further by establishing repeatable protocols and monitoring program designs and networks for different emissions sources and types of facilities.

     In a quick Hart Energy Tech Trends video Exxon described their methane emissions efforts in their Permian Basin operations. They are first utilizing a metal oxide detector to survey entire sites and fence lines of sites. They deploy OGI type cameras to detect plumes and decide where and how to respond. They are also using a variety of different equipment sensors to detect emissions from different kinds of equipment.  They plan to deploy satellite technology in a few years to pair with ground tech.

     Project Canary sent out a little summary of the recent CERAWeek, highlighting stuff about methane emissions. They noted that methane emissions reduction was being further prioritized and data gathering was key to tangibly demonstrating reductions. They noted recent data on the New Mexico part of the Permian where methane emissions and flaring are much higher than normal and the strong need there for abatement. They highlighted the importance of American LNG as the cheapest supply and best means of aiding energy security and decarbonization. They also noted that more data and better reporting is resulting in more LNG importers purchasing responsibly sourced gas (RSG) as the EU is working on rules requiring cleaner sources, mentioning the European companies: Engie, Uniper, and RWE.

     Another new development in methane emissions monitoring is companies offering ‘satellite-as-a-service.’ The Appalachian Methane Initiative (AMI), composed of companies EQT, Chesapeake Energy, and Equitrans Midstream is deciding whether to outsource satellite methane monitoring or to do it internally. Some satellites detect methane emissions over large areas while others can detect point sources. The Environmental Defense Fund is launching a new satellite aimed at detecting point-source emissions over large areas in order to bridge the data gaps. The AMI wants to develop a basin-wide satellite and aerial monitoring system that can detect super-emitters instantaneously that is focused on all sectors in the industry and the coal industry as well. A chief analyst for satellite provider Kayrros noted that image processing is complex so outsourcing would be the best choice for now as well as keeping it in the domain of an independent third party where transparency is maximized. ExxonMobil plans to launch 24 satellites over the next three years for methane emissions detection and monitoring. They acknowledge that uncertainty levels are too high and aim to lower them. They also noted that there is variation in the capabilities of different providers of methane monitoring. Midstream company Williams is launching its first satellites this year to monitor its facilities. 

 

References:

Quantifying Total Methane Emissions in Operations: Measuring the Unseen. Andrew Speck, SLB and Carsten Russenes, SLB. Moderator: Zachary Evans. SPE tech Talk March 14, 2023 Quantifying Total Methane Emissions in Operations: Measuring the Unseen - SPE Energy Stream

DOE Invests $47 Million to Reduce Methane Emissions From Oil and Gas Sector. U.S> Dept. of Energy. March 13, 2023. DOE Invests $47 Million to Reduce Methane Emissions From Oil and Gas Sector | Department of Energy

Project Selections for FOA 2616: Innovative Methane Measurement, Monitoring and Mitigation Technologies. DOE. Office of Fossil and Carbon Management. Project Selections for FOA 2616: Innovative Methane Measurement, Monitoring and Mitigation Technologies | Department of Energy

E&P Tech Trends: Check Out New Exxon Mobil Tech at CERAWeek by S&P Global. Jennifer Pallanich. Hart Energy. March 14, 2023. E&P Tech Trends: Check Out New Exxon Mobil Tech at CERAWeek by S&P Global [WATCH] | Hart Energy 

What you missed at CERAWeek: Energy Insights, Methane Emissions & transition Strategies. Project Canary. March 16, 2023.

Gas Industry Eyes Next Giant Leap for Methane Monitoring. Caroline Evans. March 17, 2023. Wenergy Intelligence. Gas Industry Eyes Next Giant Leap for Methane Monitoring | Energy Intelligence

The Sobering Realities and Challenges of Financing Decarbonization

 

     The daunting challenges of financing decarbonization at the level required by the more aggressive decarbonization scenarios being pushed by deep decarbonization and fast decarbonization advocates are quite sobering. Trillions of dollars per year from the private sector would be required to achieve those targets. That makes deep and fast decarbonization less likely in reality. It is really a longshot but in some ways that depends on how you look at it. Private capital deployment has constraints, and the number one constraint is financial risk, which must be mitigated to the satisfaction of the investors. As a business externality decarbonization is inherently unprofitable, especially at first. It requires government subsidization and/or the regulatory nudging of a carbon market. As long as public and support is maintained, and private capital is available there can be success. However, operating in crisis mode will probably not be helpful.

 

Cost Estimates

 

     A presenter at the recent Energy Futures Energy Finance Forum (EF3) live stream revealed that current private equity per annum for decarbonization is at about $600 billion and that would have to rise to $3-5 trillion annually to meet decarbonization targets. The IEA estimates we need $4.4 trillion annually from about $1.4 trillion from all sources now, which means total annual investment must more than triple to meet targets. Is that reasonable or sustainable? The number in the billions is already high for inherently unprofitable investments and increasing it by multiple times times is not going to be helpful to the world economy, which is already struggling due to inflation and high interest rates. Investors face many risks and to compel them towards more investments that are low return at best but more likely little to no return certainly doesn’t seem like a sound financial strategy. Of course, each project is different and must be evaluated individually. The government needs to be mindful of vetting projects so that subsidies are given to projects that can be viable and profitable at some point. Advanced nuclear and CCS both support lowering the emissions intensity of reliable non-intermittent energy sources and should perhaps be prioritized. Solar and wind are best supported by current levels of tax credits and by investments in infrastructure upgrades. Advanced nuclear is reliant on government subsidization. CCS, hydrogen, and biofuels are favored by the fossil fuel industry which is a major source of private capital for these projects as well as government incentives like 45Q.   

 

Emphases

 

     In the EF3 forum Senator Chris Coons emphasized the importance of investment for scaling up new tech that looks promising, like small modular nuclear reactors, carbon capture and sequestration, and hydrogen. He also noted the need for permitting reform in both clean and fossil energy projects and the need for developing countries to develop their fossil resources as well as clean energy. He also emphasized the effectiveness of switching from coal to gas. These are all pretty clear things to prioritize and expedite including stopping the nonsense of not lending to developing countries for the fossil fuel projects they need to help their economies, despite the emissions. In developing countries energy and modern electricity access should trump decarbonization concerns.

 

Investment Risk Management

 

     Investors face several types of risk. There is technology risk, revenue risk, regulatory risk, infrastructure risk, financial reg risk, reputational risk. The government can alleviate some of those risks with subsidization, regulatory and permit reform and streamlining, and longer-term financial backing. The IMF notes that subsidies must be credible and irreversible. Corporate and institutional investors require investments that are stable and steady in the longer term, even if returns are low. All these risks need to be priced. Investors understand the “why” of what they are doing in decarbonization investment but the “how” is the challenge. There is a need to be pragmatic and to avoid being overly aspirational with emissions reduction. We know that early-stage projects often have much higher costs before scaling can happen, but we still need to concurrently assess costs as projects are being developed. Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz emphasized the government nudges that are now in place in the U.S. with the infrastructure bill, the IRA, and the Chips Act. He suggested some goals for 2030 including bringing projects to “manufacturability” so that scaling and filled “order books” can bring down prices and increase speed and quality. He said that demonstrable tech that can be deployed at scale should be a major goal for 2030. That does seem to be the case for both advanced nuclear and CCS. He also noted that the hard to abate heavy industry sector needs to get moving as well with government support. He also noted that the investment, tech, and policy communities all need to be provided with enough information to be able to determine feasibility of projects. Since there is blended public and private finance, there needs to be a retuning of information sharing to all parties so that risks can be shared and understood as best as possible by all parties.  

     These different risks need to be evaluated for each technology and at each point along the value chain of each technology. In order to attract institutional investors these risks must be thoroughly analyzed, understood, and hedged. Decarbonization investments are long-term and can be aligned with institutional investment but only if properly risked. Below is a graph of the perspectives of each class of investors. One can see that each class is more or less aligned with a different phase of these energy decarbonization projects.

 

Source: Increasing the Quality of Investments for Deep Decarbonization. Energy Futures Finance Forum. February 2023. EF3-Framing-the-Energy-Futures-Finance-Forum-1.pdf

Energy Futures gives the innovation process itself four phases: invention, translation, adoption, and diffusion. Between each of these phases is a “valley of death,” a phrase which shows that there are several perilous journeys that must be undertaken for each project where risk may kill the project. This is why announcements of new scientific breakthroughs do not often end up being new technological breakthroughs.

 

Source: Increasing the Quality of Investments for Deep Decarbonization. Energy Futures Finance Forum. February 2023. EF3-Framing-the-Energy-Futures-Finance-Forum-1.pdf

 

The third figure below simply shows that each of the aforementioned risks need to be evaluated and mitigated as potential roadblocks for each technology I order to get it across those valleys of death.

 

 

Source: Increasing the Quality of Investments for Deep Decarbonization. Energy Futures Finance Forum. February 2023. EF3-Framing-the-Energy-Futures-Finance-Forum-1.pdf

 

Climate Investment Exposure to Silicon Valley Bank Failure

 

     While there has been quite a lot of blame going around about the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) failure and now the Signature Bank failure, its hard to pinpoint any specific blame except to those managing the assets. I’m no finance expert by any means but I can understand what I read. Progressives are blaming Trump (weakening of Dodd-Frank in 2018). Conservatives are blaming Biden. Some are blaming the Fed. Some are blaming woke investment. Some are blaming wealthy investors. However, it seems that most agree that the banks exhibited poor risk management in light of prevailing market conditions. Certainly, inflation and the reactionary climbing interests rates were a factor, but one the bank managers should have been hedged more against. SVB was involved in clean energy investment as well as other investments with unpredictable returns involving startups and volatile markets like cryptocurrencies. Fervo Energy, the company involved in a major DOE funded geothermal energy research project in Utah, was an SVB customer. No doubt, many other decarbonization investments were involved as well. SVB lent to a majority of the community and residential solar projects in the country. Some have called it a ‘climate bank.’ While solar projects are not considered risky, they are generally low return and a portfolio full of low return projects is as not well-hedged as one with high return projects to balance them. Some solar CEOs think that the bank’s failure will indeed have an impact on the industry going forward but will sort out eventually as other banks concur that these solar projects are sound in the long term. Others think they will find other lenders quickly with little disruption. While demand for solar projects is high, they dropped by 16% in 2022 for a few reasons: Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, higher interest rates, and supply chain issues.     

     Unfortunately, risky investments can become catastrophic as we have seen with some cryptocurrency investments and the current bank runs. Decarbonization investments need not be overly risky but by nature they are low return and often involve venture capital. Thus, their risk profile is higher than most investments. The current high inflation/high interest rate environment does not favor a majority of investments and high risk is amplified in such an environment. This is yet another among many reasons to tap the brakes on the energy transition. Aggressive decarbonization pledges and mandates are due for re-tunings for a number of reasons.

     Even though I have heard deep decarbonization advocates say we can’t afford to slow down decarbonization, perhaps a better question is can we afford to speed it up? I would say no, we can’t. Once again, as I have concluded in other articles the near-term to 2030 decarbonization goals will likely have to be scaled back and they can be since they are front-end loaded, meaning we can still approach later goals without adhering to deep emissions cuts in the near term. One might also fault the 1.5 deg scare with the ICCPs 2018 report as the reason 2030 goals got so front-end loaded. I read that Greta Thunberg ‘quietly’ deleted a tweet from 2018 where she claimed the world would end in 2023 if we did not aggressively address climate now. Oops.     

 

Implications of U.S.-China Competition

 

     As noted by Jennifer Lee in the Atlantic Council’s Energy Source Newsletter, while the Chips Act and other maneuvers to beef up U.S. domestic production of semiconductor chips, solar panels, lithium, and other critical minerals, and associated supply chains are no doubt useful in order to increase energy and tech security, in themselves they do not increase the rate of decarbonization and will use up a significant portion of funding from the infrastructure bill and the IRA. These useful spends won’t help us meet decarbonization targets any faster. China strongly dominates rare earths and rare earth processing as well as the solar the PV solar supply chain. They also dominate wind energy supply chains. The expected U.S. restrictions on exports to China of semiconductor chips is expected to be countered by China with a restriction on solar panel equipment in a typical tit-for-tat. The reality is that our current geopolitical tensions with China will hurt both countries, particularly in the short-term, again leading to a slowing of decarbonization efforts as costs go up. Another recent row involves the Ford-CATL EV battery deal which involves Chinese-made lithium iron phosphate battery technology. Elements in both the U.S. and China are claiming that they are wary about sharing technology. This kind of suspicion and distrust is not conducive to successful cooperation. Of course, some competition is healthy, but we need to be careful to avoid creating unnecessary obstacles between the world’s two biggest carbon emitters.  

 

 

Big Oil as Integrated Energy Companies Likely to Be a Big Part of Private Decarbonization Investment

 

     Big oil majors have long been major investors in alternative energy, being instrumental in the very development of tech like solar energy and lithium batteries. Now, as some of the Euro-majors in particular are pivoting to become so-called integrated energy companies, investment in clean energy is expected to increase in the coming years. However, there will be bumps in the road. One bump was recently revealed as BP pulled back their previously ambitious green energy investments. It could simply be that their enthusiasm was too high and their goals overly ambitious in the short-term. After the highly profitable 2022 for oil and gas they perhaps wish they would have waited a bit longer to divert funds away from oil and gas toward renewables and other green tech. Despite record profits, BP’s underperformance relative to their peers led their management to scale back their goals to decrease oil production by 40% by 2030 to a 25% reduction. Thus, their decarbonization has been decelerated a bit, although they claim their overall goals and plans for net-zero by 2050 have not changed. BP had increased their investments in their so-called “transition growth engines” which include renewables, bioenergy, CCS, hydrogen, and EV charging, from 3% to 30% since 2019. Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown, noted that BP has two sets of investors to please: those seeking the highest profits and those seeking responsible investing in clean energy tech. Half of BP’s largest investors are in the Climate Action 100+ group of activist investors. They have nudging sway and were not pleased by BP’s pullback. Shareholders approved BP’s initial planned 40% production increase by 2030 so BP will have to be careful going forward. In any case, the extreme profitability of 2022 allowed them to actually increase their investments in those transition growth engines as well as in more oil and gas production so the shear profitability of oil and gas is funding both ventures. Indeed, many oil and gas companies are still flush with cash so that will help with decarbonization capex in the near-term. This is true of oil and gas companies across the board: majors, independents, and private equity companies. Fiscal discipline has paid off and geopolitical forces have added to the bounty. However, weather has not been cooperative for the natural gas sector at least for the short term. Even so, the outlook is decent as natural gas and LNG demand is expected to remain high for some time to come.

 

Abated vs. Unabated Fossil Fuels

 

     Ministers form the 27 EU countries agreed on March 9 to focus on phase-out of unabated fossil fuels at this year’s COP28. They also want the fossil fuel peak to come sooner and to phase out all unabated fossil fuels well ahead of 2050. I see this as more rhetoric since it is unlikely China and India are going to heavily pursue CCS and methane emissions abatement in the near or medium term. Poor developing countries would be burdened even more to be subjected to abatement. A question would be what constitutes abated vs unabated. I see it as just another aspirational statement but also as a nudge. While it may be fine to nudge those that can financially handle abatement costs like Big Oil companies, the idea of nudging those less able to fund abatement does not seem fair to me. African countries have complained about restrictions on acquiring financing for fossil fuel projects. I see this focus on abatement as an extension of that. I would suggest that they be excluded from such requirements, with the caveat that they could add abatements later or be subsidized for those abatements by other countries.

 

 

Conclusions  

 

     New decarbonized technologies like advanced nuclear, CCS/CCUS, and hydrogen can be economic or relatively economic under the right circumstances and with adequate support to get each technology going towards full commercialization. However, support will need to be maintained and economics will need to be constantly evaluated in order to fund the best options optimally. Energy sources providing reliable power should be prioritized over intermittent sources. Options like blue hydrogen should be favored over green hydrogen where applicable, such as where natural gas is abundant and cheap. The EF3 report acknowledges that profitability will take time as first-of-a-kind projects will cost more, next-of-a-kind projects somewhat less, and nth-of-a-kind projects will begin to gain financial advantages. But Moniz’s admonition still stands – we need to demonstrate by 2030 that these projects can be deployed at scale.  

 

 

References:

Increasing the Quality of Investments for Deep Decarbonization. Energy Futures Finance Forum. February 2023. EF3-Framing-the-Energy-Futures-Finance-Forum-1.pdf

Energy Futures Finance Forum: Increasing Clean Energy Investment Quality: Live Stream February 28, 2023.

Solar companies offer reassurance after renewables financier Silicon Valley Bank collapses. Diana DiGangi. Utility Dive. March 14, 2023. Solar companies offer reassurance after renewables financier Silicon Valley Bank collapses | Utility Dive

BP’s green energy dilemma: investor confidence goes both ways. William Farrington. Proactive. March 6, 2023. BP’s green energy dilemma: investor confidence goes both ways (proactiveinvestors.com)

Beauty and the beast: Implications of the US-China tech war on climate and energy. Jennifer Lee. Atlantic Council. EnergySource. March 6, 2023. Beauty and the beast: Implications of the US-China tech war on climate and energy - Atlantic Council

EU agrees to push for global fossil fuel phase-out ahead of COP28. EURACTIV/Reuters. March 10, 2023. EU agrees to push for global fossil fuel phase-out ahead of COP28 – EURACTIV.com

 

Geologic Energy Storage

 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) just put out a nice fact sheet with an informative explanation of geologic energy storage with includes some useful graphics.

The following is excerpted from the fact sheet:

Geologic energy storage methods may be divided into three broad categories:

• Chemical methods, where energy is stored as potential energy in chemical bonds. These methods include storage of methane or natural gas, natural gas liquids, and hydrogen.

• Mechanical methods, where energy is stored as potential energy using materials or fluids. These methods include compressed air energy storage, with constant or variable temperatures; gravity energy storage using suspended loads; and pumped hydroelectric energy storage.

• Thermal methods, where energy is stored as a temperature difference in materials or fluids to be used later for heating, cooling, or industrial processes such as drying.

Different geologic settings for energy storage include the following:

• Depleted or abandoned gas reservoirs;

• Abandoned mine tunnels and shafts, both lined and unlined;

• Purpose-drilled boreholes or shafts;

• Mined caverns in salt formations; and

• Freshwater or saline aquifers

Here is a a link to the full PDF  fs20223082.pdf - Geologic Energy Storage (usgs.gov)

 

Reference

Geologic Energy Storage: U.S. Geological Survey. Buursink, M.L., Anderson, S.T., Brennan, S.T., Burns, E.R., Freeman, P.A., Gallotti, J.S., Lohr, C.D., Merrill, M. D., Morrissey, E.A., Plampin, M.R., and Warwick, P.D., 2023, Geologic energy storage: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2022–3082, 4 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20223082.

 

The Potential of Thermophotovoltaic (TPV) Cells for Converting Heat into Electricity: New Higher Conversion Efficiency Announced

 

         According to Wikipedia: “Thermophotovoltaic (TPV) energy conversion is a direct conversion process from heat to electricity via photons. A basic thermophotovoltaic system consists of a hot object emitting thermal radiation and a photovoltaic cell similar to a solar cell but tuned to the spectrum being admitted from the hot object.” The problem with TPV systems is that they work at lower temperatures, have lower output voltages than solar PV, and tend to have lower conversion efficiencies. Lower conversion efficiencies mean they are not economic in most scenarios. However, they do have niche uses and new research is suggesting that efficiency improvements to get them on par or better than lithium-ion battery efficiencies and costs are possible. The niche uses of TPV include powering spacecraft, collection of waste-heat from sources like steam turbines, off-grid co-generation or combined heat and power, and as a form of thermal energy storage. It is for the latter use, as a ‘thermal battery,’ that new research suggests it could one day compete with lithium-ion batteries if conversion efficiency could be increased sufficiently and at scale. 

     Different TPV system designs exist. Radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) power conventional spacecraft using radiation from a radioactive material to heat a block of material which is converted into electricity using a thermocouple. However, thermocouples are very inefficient, and the use of TPV cells could increase the efficiency of RTGs. TPVs as the basis of a thermal storage system involves using off-peak time electricity to use resistance heating to heat a block of carbon to very high temperature. The block is surrounded by TPV cells which are surrounded by a reflector and insulation. When the system is not collecting heat. i.e., charging, the photons are reflected back to the carbon block to keep it warm and able to provide power as needed.

     The earliest TPV systems were built in the late 1950’s and the 1960’s. 30% efficiency was reached in 1980. In 2022 MIT and NREL announced that they had achieved nearly 41% efficiency with a TPV system, and they think it could be tweaked to achieve up to 50% efficiency. According to Diederik van der Hoeven in biobasedpress.eu (I think he explains it a bit better than the paper in Nature)  

 

“In the new device, both the emitter and the TPV have been changed. Previous thermal battery setups heated the emitters to about 1400°C. This maximized their brightness in the wavelength range for which TPVs were optimized. The new device has a temperature 1000°C higher; tungsten then emits more photons at higher energies, which could improve the energy conversion. But in order to catch that energy, the team had to rework the TPVs as well.”

 

He also notes challenges and the potential future implications, including much cheaper storage than current:

 

“The TPVs are made from III-V semiconductors, more expensive than the silicon used in rooftop solar cells. But other parts of a thermal batteries, including graphite, are cheap. The team also created ceramic pumps that can handle the ultra-high-temperature liquid metals needed to carry heat around an industrial scale heat energy storage setup.”

 

“There is much commercial interest for this technology. Researchers estimate that thermal batteries could store electricity for $10 per kilowatt-hour of capacity, less than one-tenth the cost of grid-scale lithium-ion batteries. And it could store electricity for a longer time than batteries, even for many days at a time. Moreover, thermal batteries are modular. They do not have to be constructed at a massive scale. They could also provide electricity for a small village. That makes thermal batteries unusually flexible. To be continued, therefore.”

 

The researchers in their Nature paper conclude:

 

“These cells can be integrated into a TPV system for thermal energy grid storage to enable dispatchable renewable energy. This creates a pathway for thermal energy grid storage to reach sufficiently high efficiency and sufficiently low cost to enable decarbonization of the electricity grid.”

 

Source: Thermophotovoltaic efficiency of 40. Alina LaPotin, Kevin L. Schulte, Myles A. Steiner, Kyle Buznitsky, Colin C. Kelsall, Daniel J. Friedman, Eric J. Tervo, Ryan M. France, Michelle R. Young, Andrew Rohskopf, Shomik Verma, Evelyn N. Wang & Asegun Henry. Nature. 604, 287–291 (2022). April 13, 2022. doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04473-y. s41586-022-04473-y.pdf

Since this research has come out, other researchers have proposed ways to increase efficiency further. Researchers in Spain have been employing bifacial TPV cells with mirrors to reflect back photons:

"The key behind such high efficiency is the inclusion of a highly efficient mirror in the rear of the TPV cell that turns back to the thermal emitter the outband energy photons. Efficiencies over 50% could be theoretically attainable by approaching a mirror reflectance of 100%."

The authors note that these bifacial TPV cells could enable high-efficiency low-cost TPV systems for power generation from thermal storage in an extended range of heat source temperatures.

     If the issues can be worked out with this storage technology and it could be scaled up it could be a game changer for decarbonization. However, it is uncertain if or when that could occur, only that it is more likely to occur than it was.

 

  

References

Thermophotovoltaic energy conversion. Wikipedia. Thermophotovoltaic energy conversion - Wikipedia

MIT’s new heat engine beats a steam turbine in efficiency. Big Think. May 30, 2022. MIT's new heat engine beats a steam turbine in efficiency - Big Think

‘Thermal batteries’ could efficiently store wind and solar power in a renewable grid. Science.org. Robert F. Service. April 13, 2022. ‘Thermal batteries’ could efficiently store wind and solar power in a renewable grid | Science | AAAS

Thermal batteries could back up green power. Robert F. Service. Science. Vol. 376 Issue 6590. Thermal batteries could back up green power (science.org)

Bifacial Thermophotovoltaic Energy Conversion. A. Datas. American Chemical Society. ACS Photonics. February 9, 2023. Bifacial Thermophotovoltaic Energy Conversion | ACS Photonics

Thermal batteries that store solar and wind power. Diederik van der Hoeven. Bio Based Press. April 30, 2022. Thermal batteries that store solar and wind power - Bio Based Press

Thermophotovoltaic efficiency of 40. Alina LaPotin, Kevin L. Schulte, Myles A. Steiner, Kyle Buznitsky, Colin C. Kelsall, Daniel J. Friedman, Eric J. Tervo, Ryan M. France, Michelle R. Young, Andrew Rohskopf, Shomik Verma, Evelyn N. Wang & Asegun Henry. Nature. 604, 287–291 (2022). April 13, 2022. doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04473-y. s41586-022-04473-y.pdf

 

Propane, Butane, and LP Gas: Versatile Natural Gas Liquids: U.S. Propane Production, Exports, and NGL Recovery Innovations

 

(some of the content below is from my 2022 book Natural Gas and Decarbonization)

Propane

     Propane is well-known as the main component of liquid petroleum gas, or LP gas. LP gas is mostly propane with some butane. It is one of the natural gas liquids (NGLs), also known as hydrocarbon gas liquids (HGLs). The formula for LP gas can vary according to source. In the U.S. the formula is 60% propane (C3H8) and 40% butane/isobutane (both C4H10). About 70% of propane in the U.S. is made from natural gas and about 30% is made from petroleum as of 2021. The chemical formula for propane is C3H8. The lightest and least carbon emitting hydrocarbon molecule is methane (CH4). Methane is the main component of natural gas. The second lightest hydrocarbon is ethane (C2H6). Propane is the third lightest hydrocarbon. Ethane is the hydrocarbon most present in natural gas after methane. Propane is third. It has some advantages over methane (as compressed natural gas). It can occupy a smaller onboard space for transport vehicles which gives it a longer range. It can be easily transported in tanks via truck, rail, or even a car with small home use tanks. Thus, it can easily be used in remote places where there are no natural gas distribution lines. The emissions intensity of propane is higher than that of methane but lower than gasoline. It is also the cheapest way to make polypropylene which is a feedstock for plastics. It is still cheaper to heat with natural gas than LP gas, but LP gas does provide a higher BTU heat. Propane has great potential as a reasonably affordable and cleaner energy source to replace wood, charcoal, and dung cooking fires in developing countries, especially in Asia and Africa. These fires are very strongly implicated in indoor air pollution which is well documented as a significant health problem, especially among women and children in these countries. Governments in those countries should promote, support, and perhaps subsidize propane as a cleaner cooking fuel. Propane is also used as a transport fuel and has many other uses from flame weeding to drying grain and fruit to cutting and welding torches. Heaters, furnaces, stoves, smokers, BBQs, dryers, hot water tanks, refrigerators, soldering tools, kilns, forges, livestock floor sanitizers, industrial burners, jewelry melting and moulding tools, and other devices are powered by propane.

     Propane as R290 is very likely to become a refrigerant of choice for air conditioners around the world as it has very clear cost, performance and climate benefits relative to the HFCs now being used. The chemical industry has pushed back as they stand to lose market share and value from the change. They have argued that propane as a flammable hydrocarbon is unsafe but experts have said that those arguments are poor and rely on highly unlikely and extraordinary situations that would make the R290 dangerous. I wrote about it in my 2022 book Natural Gas and Decarbonization.  

     Propane can be a useful alternative vehicle fuel offering only slightly less combustion carbon emissions as gasoline and diesel, lower pollutant emissions, lower fuel costs, lower operating and maintenance costs, and range. Fuel cost depends on the “spread” between propane and gasoline/diesel, but propane is always cheaper. Propane Autogas is becoming especially popular for Class 3-7 fleet vehicles, notes a recent article in LPGas Magazine. This includes a lot of delivery, food and beverage, and buses. Many US Postal Service contractors are using Propane Autogas, saving about 40% over diesel costs. According to the DOE life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by 13% using propane since it is more efficient to process it out from the natural gas stream than to make it through oil refining. It has good carbon emissions reductions in the medium-duty truck range, where it is being marketed the most. Compared to compressed natural gas (CNG) propane offers smaller on-board fuel storage space.  The Gas Technology Institute notes in their GHG and Criteria Pollutant Emissions Analysis from 2017 that “Propane has several advantages for fleets, including lower total-cost-of-ownership, comparable performance to conventional fuels, onsite fueling, reduced maintenance, and lower emissions. Small to mid-size fleets with high mileage and based at a single location are one of the most cost-effective applications that can benefit from lower fuel costs and reduced maintenance.” The same paper also notes that propane has a similar fuel efficiency to diesel in the medium-duty range which includes bobtail trucks. “For bobtail trucks, propane GHG emissions are 11% lower and NOx emissions are 4% lower than comparable diesel vehicles. SOx and particulates are also lower.   

     In Muskingum County, Ohio Sheriff’s Department there are 20 of 31 primary response vehicles that are powered by propane. These are added tanks and systems, at around $70K per vehicle. Apparently, fuel savings, system life, and less maintenance are favorable to economics. They began converting vehicles to propane in 2015. There have been no safety issues and system performance has been good.

     The Ohio Propane Gas Association website has some data on comparative costs, carbon and pollution emissions, and comparative maintenance costs. For medium duty trucks the advantages are a 12% reduction in greenhouse gases and a 4% reduction in NOx vs. diesel, decent but not stellar. For light duty truck the advantages are 36% reduction in NOx vs. diesel though only 5% less vs. gasoline. For light duty truck greenhouses gases there is a 12% reduction vs, gasoline. For school buses there is a 96% reduction in NOx for propane vs. diesel. This is important since NOx from buses contribute to city smog. The chart below, adapted from the data, shows more comparisons favorable to propane. It should be noted, however, that electric has the lowest fuel, maintenance, and total operating costs per mile by a wide margin.

 

 

	total cost/mile	maintenance cost/mile	fuel cost/mile	bus purchase price	bus cost/lb. of NOx reduced
Propane	$0.24	$0.06	$0.16	$95,000	$91
Diesel	$0.53	$0.24	$0.28	$90,000	$1330
Electric				$300,000	$268

 

Vehicle Fleet and Bus Comparisons. Adapted from data from the Ohio Propane Gas Association. 

 

 

Butanes (Normal Butane and Isobutane)

 

     Butanes, the other components of LP Gas also have many uses alone or in combo with propane. There are two butanes, normal butane and isobutane, both C4H10. They have a vapor pressure 3 to 4 times lower than propane which makes butane an ideal source as a lighter fuel. A small tame flame is the result. In so-called “refined” iso-butane, or iso-butane with impurities removed, concentrated flames in special-made torches can heat up to 2700 deg F, which makes these specialized torches applicable for many specific scientific, medical, construction, soldering, and craft uses. Both butanes are also a common component in LP gas (liquefied petroleum gas) but propane is typically the main component. Butane is the lighter fuel of choice as well as being commonly used for camp stoves. It is also used as an aerosol propellant and increasingly as a refrigerant that replaces the CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) implicated in global warming and making a hole in the ozone layer. Butane does have one limitation as a heating fuel: it can fail to gasify in real cold weather. This is why butane is not higher in LP gas. Since camp fuel is mostly used in the summer, the butane canisters are popular. Butane is also a feedstock for butadiene, a key component of synthetic rubber. Isobutane is the preferred form for refrigerants and much of that is now coming from natural gas processing of shale gas. It is mostly made from normal butane in isomerization units at alkylate plants. Alkylate is made from isobutane and NGL byproducts. Alkylate and normal butane are both used as gasoline additives. Butane lowers vapor pressure and alkylate increases octane rating. Alkylate typically makes up 11-13% of gasoline and more than that in the summer months. So, one can say that NGLs (both butanes) are a significant feedstock for gasoline. Appalachian wet shale gas has also increased normal and iso butane supplies.

     In a similar fashion to propane as the R290 refrigerant there is an isobutane refrigerant R600a that has great potential for use in domestic refrigerators. R600a has better performance, lower energy use, negligible global warming potential, and zero ozone depletion potential compared to the HFC 134a. In 2019 R600a began to be used in some U.S. refrigerators. The energy and cost savings are significant and should be regarded as a significant decarbonization action as well since the global warming potential of R600a is about 500 times less than that of 134a.

 

 

Natural Gas Liquids Exports from the U.S., Mainly from Shale Gas

 

     Natural gas liquid (NGL) exports from the U.S. have skyrocketed since shale gas resources were unleashed through horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing from around 2010. Through 2020 propane exports make up 60% of those exports. The main reason is as its use as a polypropylene feedstock. Making propane or polypropylene from petroleum is both more expensive and more carbon intense than making it from propane. That is expected to continue as the highest number of global petrochemical projects expected to be built and expanded between 2023 and 2027 are polypropylene projects. China is expected to have the most. As noted, US exports of hydrocarbon gas liquids have increased dramatically since 2010. In those 11 years exports increased by a whopping 25 times from about 5 million barrels per day to about 75 million barrels per day. In 2020 Japan was the biggest buyer followed distantly by Canada. China, Mexico, South Korea, India, Indonesia, Brazil, the Netherlands, and the UK are also key buyers. For 2020 propane is by far the most exported natural gas liquid at 60% of all exported NGLs followed by normal butane then ethane then natural gasoline then isobutane. The graph below just shows the growth in HGL/NGL exports alongside the growth in propane exports, the major component of HGL exports. Clearly, the advent of shale gas production is the driver for this export growth. Ethane exports from the US have grown by 20 times since 2014 after pipelines, export terminals, and new ethane tankers were built. Normal butane exports have grown similarly to ethane exports. In contrast, natural gasoline exports have grown only very slightly in recent years and isobutane exports have dropped. Since about 30% of propane is derived from oil refining that suggests about 18% of total NGL exports could be derived from refineries rather than natural gas wells if the average is similar with exports.   

    

 

US Exports of Hydrocarbon Gas Liquids vs. US Exports of Propane. Data Source: Energy Information Administration

 

 

New Propane Recovery Innovation Announced That Will Boost Natural Gas Processing Profitability

 

     A new innovation for propane recovery improvement at natural gas processing plants was recently announced by BCCK, an engineering, procurement, fabrication, and field construction services firm. The company reported in February that propane recoveries were improved to greater than 99% in ethane rejection and that their new design can also improve ethane recovery. Their new design utilizes a skidded BCCK patent-pending design, the G2R-Flex, “which will be available to enhance propane recoveries at many of the existing 200 MMSCFD gas subcooled process (GSP) facilities operating throughout the United States.” This improvement may be able to help many underperforming cryogenic natural gas processing plants and boost their profitability at current propane prices. BCCK describes their new design as a simple, efficient, and effective modification. They offer complete turnkey capabilities through full EPC services on this new propane recovery design. The new successful tests of the design were implemented at a premier midstream group in Ohio’s Marcellus-Utica Basin.

 

New Innovation in Dividing Wall Column Distillation

 

     Another innovation announced in 2022 is a patent for dividing wall column distillation that can be used to combine two distillation towers into one for the extraction of purity products, or different NGLs or combinations of NGLs. Dividing Wall Column distillation has been explored since the 1940’s. The design can potentially lower both capex and opex by 20 to 50%. It is used for separating a multicomponent mixture into three or more high purity product streams in a single column. The method is being used more and more in refineries as company DWC Innovations recounts on their website. DWC technology is able to combine two distillation columns into one. Energy consumption, emissions, and costs are reduced.  Engineering firm, Burns & McDonnel is adapting the method for NGL fractionation. They announced a patent on their design in early 2022. This tech allows the usual four column NGL fractionation facility to be reduced to three columns (fractionation towers) and still yield the five purity products: ethane, propane, normal butane, iso-butane, and natural gasoline. As noted, the tech can also be used in oil refineries and chemical facilities. The new tech reduces footprint, carbon emissions, and costs. Gas Processing News writes: “In 2019, Burns & McDonnell completed construction of the first dividing wall column train in the NGL fractionation industry for a confidential midstream company. The facility processes 125,000 bpd of Y-grade feed. The DWC methodology was successful in lowering capital costs and providing significant operational and utility savings after startup.” The tech can be customized and scaled for different facility requirements. With lower capex, opex, and emissions this tech could become widely adopted in the future.     

 

 

References:

 

Natural Gas and Decarbonization: Key Component and Enabler of the Lower Carbon, Reasonable Cost Energy Systems of the Future: Strategies for the 2020’s and Beyond. Kent C. Stewart. 2022. Amazon Publishing.

 

Petrochemicals New Build and Expansion Projects Analysis by Type, Development Stage, Key Countries, Region and Forecasts, 2023-2027. GlobalData. February 1, 2023. Petrochemicals New Build and Expansion Projects Analysis by Type, Development Stage, Key Countries, Region and Forecasts, 2023-2027 (globaldata.com)

 

BCCK boosts propane recovery at cryogenic gas processing facility. Gas Processing News. February 27, 2023. News (gasprocessingnews.com)

 

BCCK BOOSTS PROPANE RECOVERY WITH NEXT-GENERATION TECHNOLOGY AT CRYOGENIC GAS PROCESSING FACILITY. BCCK Boosts Propane Recovery with Next-Generation Technology at Cryogenic Gas Processing Facility - BCCK

 

BCCK HOLDING COMPANY TO ENHANCE RECOVERIES AT CRYOGENIC GAS FACILITY IN MARCELLUS-UTICA BASIN. BCCK Holding Company to Enhance Recoveries at Cryogenic Gas Facility in Marcellus-Utica Basin - BCCK

Convictions in Ohio Bribery Scheme Show That Energy and Policy Nexus Attracts Cheaters and That Personal Integrity is the Antidote

 

     As an Ohioan, I like many others was appalled by the revelations of a $60 million bribery scheme to ensure House Bill 6 passed so that two nuclear plants and two smaller coal plants owned by FirstEnergy could be bailed out with $1.2 billion to be paid by all Ohio electricity ratepayers. The defendants stated that there was no racketeering or criminal activity, it was just good policy. Now, I agree with bailing out the nuclear plants but not the coal plants. Nuclear plants provide very low emissions/very low pollution baseload energy vs. coal plants which provide the same kind of energy but with much higher carbon emissions along with much higher air and water pollution. Gas can replace the coal plants, but the nuclear plants should be kept in operation for as long as possible.

     The recent trial showed without a doubt that this set of high-level Republican operatives in Ohio were as corrupt as they come. They engaged in mob-like bribery and threats and flexed their powers and charms for the sake of personal profit. One of the potential defendants committed suicide long before the trial. Former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder boldly proclaimed his innocence when the cards were stacked against him. He had to be forced out after he ran for re-election and won, even though he was indicted with strong evidence. Our political divisions are such that many would rather vote for a criminal than for someone from the other team. Republican Party Chair Matt Borges was also convicted in this case, the largest corruption scandal in Ohio history. The defense argued that the defendants were merely engaged in normal hardball politics and not racketeering but the exchange of money, the evidence from FBI informants, and evidence of the setup of shell companies and dark money transfers strongly suggested otherwise.

     I wonder what will happen with the FirstEnergy executive(s) that may be implicated including former CEO Chuck Jones. FirstEnergy was able to funnel hidden dollars into Householder’s election campaign. He was selected to be House Speaker in January 2019. Evidence in the trial included secretly taped phone conversations that show the power these men wielded against anyone that would consider crossing them. FirstEnergy even bribed the state’s then top utility regulator, PUCO chairman Sam Randazzo. Their goal was to stop a repeal of HB6 referendum from reaching the ballot and they were successful in that regard. Having state regulators in one’s pocket is certainly an advantage to a large corporation. These kinds of pay-to-play and bought loyalty schemes are unfair to the spirit of the laws and to the people of the state. We need better and fairer relationships between companies and those who regulate them, not corruption schemes. Randazzo, a top utility law expert, helped write the legislation for the bailout.

     From what I have read and heard I think justice was served. We need relationships between companies and regulators to be professional, without corruption, and always demonstrably in line with all applicable laws. Backroom deals and bribery need to be discouraged, pushed back against, and called out whenever possible. The world is full of corruption, and it generally hurts everyone and sets up systems where fairness is replaced by mob-like rules. This hurts everyone. We certainly can’t root out all corruption but high-level corruption involving millions and billions of dollars on this scale should not be tolerated at all. To let such actions go unattended sets up bad precedents and leads to more of such behavior. People are tempted by money and payoffs but if they are in high positions, they especially need to have the personal integrity to resist them. Anyone who doesn’t needs to be rooted out of those positions of power. Personal integrity should be a prerequisite to those with powerful positions. People entering those positions should be warned and taught the consequences of such behavior as well as screened for vulnerabilities in a fair way. I know I would certainly prefer that the politicians and corporations in my state do not act in the ways these men have acted.

 

References:

 

Ex-GOP Ohio speaker, lobbyist guilty in $60M bribery scheme. Julie Carr Smyth. AP News. March 8, 2023. Ex-GOP Ohio speaker, lobbyist guilty in $60M bribery scheme (msn.com)

 

TAKEAWAYS: Ex-utility regulator had outsized role in scheme. Mark Gillispie. AP News. July 22, 2021. TAKEAWAYS: Ex-utility regulator had outsized role in scheme | AP News

 

CEO, Speaker worked closely to pass tainted energy bill. Mark Gillispie. AP News. July 30, 2021 CEO, Speaker worked closely to pass tainted energy bill | AP News.