PRAVILNIK O IZMJENAMA I DOPUNAMA PRAVILNIKA O JEDNOSTAVNIM GRAĐEVINAMA I RADOVIMA

Hrvatski Centar Obnovljivih Izvora Energije (HCOIE)
prenosi Vam 
PRAVILNIK
O IZMJENAMA I DOPUNAMA PRAVILNIKA O JEDNOSTAVNIM GRAĐEVINAMA I RADOVIMA
Članak 1.
U Pravilniku o jednostavnim građevinama i radovima (»Narodne novine«, br. 21/09, 57/10, 126/10 i 48/11) u članku 1. iza riječi: »jednostavne« dodaju se riječi: »i druge«.
Članak 2.
Članak 2. mijenja se i glasi:
»Bez akta kojim se odobrava građenje i lokacijske dozvole, a u skladu s glavnim projektom ili tipskim projektom za kojega je doneseno rješenje na temelju članka 196. Zakona o prostornom uređenju i gradnji, može se graditi:
1. Pomoćna građevina koja se gradi na građevnoj čestici postojeće zgrade za potrebe te zgrade i to:
– cisterna za vodu i septička jama zapremine do 27 m³,
– podzemni i nadzemni spremnik goriva zapremine do 10 m³,
– bazen tlocrtne površine do 24 m² i dubine do 2 m,
– sustav sunčanih kolektora, odnosno fotonaponskih modula u svrhu proizvodnje toplinske, odnosno električne energije;
2. Priključak kojim se postojeća građevina priključuje na infrastrukturne instalacije (niskonaponsku električnu i telekomunikacijsku mrežu, vodovod, kanalizaciju, plinovod, toplovod, kabelsku televiziju);
3. Dječje igralište;
4. Građevina namijenjena:
– mjerenju kakvoće zraka, radioloških, meteoroloških i aerosolnih veličina, vodostaja rijeke ili drugim mjerenjima prema posebnom zakonu,
– istražnim mjerenjima na temelju odluke tijela nadležnog za ta istražna mjerenja;
5. Građevina protugradne obrane;
6. Građevina za sigurnost:
– cestovnog prometa (vertikalna i horizontalna signalizacija),
– plovidbe (objekt signalizacije),
– zračnog prometa (objekata za smještaj navigacijskog uređaja građevinske (bruto) površine do 12 m²);
7. Prenosiva autoplin jedinice (tzv. »skid« jedinica) zapremine do 10 m³ na građevnoj čestici postojeće benzinske postaje;
8. Privremena građevine za potrebe građenja građevine odnosno uređenja gradilišta kada se izvode unutar građevne čestice odnosno obuhvata zahvata u prostoru određenog lokacijskom dozvolom, osim asfaltne baze, separacije agregata, tvornice betona, dalekovoda i transformatorske stanice radi napajanja gradilišta električnom energijom te prijenosnog spremnika za smještaj, čuvanje ili držanje eksplozivnih tvari osim nadzemnog i podzemnog spremnika ukapljenoga naftnog plina, odnosno nafte zapremine do 10 m³;
9. građevina unutar pružnog pojasa željezničke pruge, namijenjena osiguravanju željezničko-cestovnog prijelaza i to:
– građevina za smještaj unutrašnje opreme, građevinske (bruto) površine do 6 m² i visine do 3,2 m mjereno od najnižeg dijela konačno zaravnanog i uređenog terena uz pročelje do najviše točke građevine,
– vanjski elementi osiguranja prijelaza (svjetlosni znakovi za označivanje prijelaza ceste preko željezničke pruge dodatno opremljeni s jakozvučnim zvonima, branici ili polubranici s uključno/isključnim elementi na tračnicama),
– kabel za međusobno povezivanje unutrašnje opreme u kućici i vanjskih elemenata unutar jednog prijelaza;
10. Građevina namijenjena gospodarenju šumom u skladu s posebnim propisom, kao što je:
– šumska cesta u šumi ili na šumskom zemljištu širine do 5 m, izvedena na tlu bez završnog zastora (makadam ili zemljani put)
– pješačka staze,
– šumski protupožarni prosjek;
11. Građevina i oprema namijenjene biljnoj proizvodnji na otvorenom prostoru, kao što je:
– hidrantski priključak za navodnjavanje i protumraznu zaštitu, razvod sustava za navodnjavanje i protumraznu zaštitu od hidrantskog priključka ili razvod na parceli krajnjeg korisnika,
– zacijevljeni bunar promjera manjeg ili jednakog 100 cm, za potrebe prihvata vode za navodnjavanje i druge aktivnosti poljoprivredne proizvodnje,
– kanal za sakupljanje oborinskih i erozivnih voda izveden neposredno u tlu i sa zaštitom od procjeđivanja izvedenom isključivo od fleksibilnih folija,
– akumulacija za navodnjavanje sa zaštitom od procjeđivanja isključivo fleksibilnom folijom,
– poljski put na poljoprivrednoj površini širine manje ili jednake 5 m, izveden u tlu bez završnog zastora (makadam ili zemljani put);
12. Građevina i oprema namijenjena biljnoj proizvodnji u zatvorenom prostoru, kao što je:
– plastenik s pokrovom mase plohe pokrova manje ili jednake 1,5 kg/m² izrađenim od polimerne folije odnosno od polikarbonatnih i/ili poliesterskih ploča i potkonstrukcijom s trakastim temeljima ili temeljima samcima, bez izvedenog poda i bez stacionarnih uređaja za grijanje i ostalih instalacija,
– staklenik s pokrovom najveće mase plohe pokrova manje ili jednake 12,5 kg/m² i potkonstrukcijom s trakastim temeljima ili temeljima samcima, bez izvedenog poda i bez stacionarnih uređaja za grijanje i ostalih instalacija,
– plastenik, odnosno staklenik iz alineje 1. i 2. ovoga podstavka s razvodom sustava za navodnjavanje, toplovodnog ili toplozračnog grijanja, niskonaponske električne instalacije te instalacije plina, uključivo priključak na postojeću građevinu za opskrbu vodom, plinom i električnom energijom, pripremu tople vode ili toplog zraka, pripremu mješavine hranjive otopine ili skladištenje CO2;
13. Građevina i oprema namijenjena držanju stoke, kao što je:
– vjetrenjača s bunarom i pumpom za crpljenje vode namijenjena parceli jednog korisnika,
– sabirališta mlijeka s pristupnim putem širine manje ili jednake 5 m, izveden u tlu bez završnog zastora (makadam ili zemljani put);
14. Građevina seizmološke postaje Seizmološke službe Republike Hrvatske;
15. Antenski stup elektroničke komunikacijske infrastrukture mobilnog operatera sa baznom stanicom;
16. Zamjenski informacijski stup oglasne površine veće od 12 m².
Bez akta kojim se odobrava građenje i lokacijske dozvole te bez glavnog projekta, može se graditi:
1. Vrtna sjenica i nadstrešnica tlocrtne površine do 15 m² na građevnoj čestici postojeće zgrade;
2. Ograda visine do 1,6 m i potporni zid visine do 1 m, mjereno od najnižeg dijela konačno zaravnanog i uređenog terena uz ogradu odnosno zid do najviše točke ograde odnosno zida;
3. Građevina na javnoj površini koja se gradi u skladu s odlukom nadležnog tijela jedinice lokalne samouprave prema propisima kojima se uređuje komunalno gospodarstvo i to:
– kiosk i druga građevina gotove konstrukcije građevinske (bruto) površine do 12 m²,
– nadstrešnica za sklanjanje ljudi u javnom prometu,
– spomeničko ili sakralno obilježje građevinske (bruto) površine do 12 m² i visine do 4 m od razine okolnog tla,
– reklamni pano oglasne površine do 12 m²,
– komunalna oprema (klupa, koš za otpatke, tenda, jednostavni podesti otvorenih terasa i sl.);
4. Grobnica i spomenik na groblju;
5. Privremena građevine za potrebe sajmova i javnih manifestacija s najdužim rokom trajanja do 90 dana;
6. Pješačka staza, promatračnica, obavijesna ploče površine do 12 m² i druga oprema zaštićenih dijelova prirode prema odluci javnih ustanova koje upravljaju tim zaštićenim dijelovima prirode;
7. Građevina i oprema namijenjene biljnoj proizvodnji na otvorenom prostoru, kao što je oprema za dugogodišnje nasade (vinograde, voćnjake, hmeljike, maslinike) i rasadnike ukrasnog bilja te voćnog i vinogradarskog sadnog materijala, što uključuje konstrukciju nasada bez obzira na materijal (stupovi, zatega, žice, podupore) ovisno o uzgojnom obliku, protugradnu mrežu s potkonstrukcijom i ograđivanje poljoprivrednih površina prozračnom ogradom sa stupovima bez trakastog temeljenja;
8. Građevina i oprema namijenjena biljnoj proizvodnji u zatvorenom prostoru, kao što je niski i visoki poljoprivredni tunel s tunelskim pokrovom koji nije krut (plastična folija i sl.) i potkonstrukcijom koja se ne temelji, najveće visine tunela manje ili jednake 2,5 m i širine tunela manje ili jednake 6 m;
9. Građevina i oprema namijenjena držanju stoke, kao što je:
– ograda za pregrađivanje i ograđivanje pašnjaka i prostora za držanje stoke, divljači i zaštićenih životinjskih vrsta na otvorenom, uključivo ogradu pod naponom struje 24 V (električni pastir),
– nadstrešnica za sklanjanje stoke s prostorom zaklonjenim od vjetra zatvorenim s najviše tri strane,
– pojilo za stoku,
– konstrukcija za držanje košnica pčela;
10. Čeka, hranilište, solište, mrcilište i gatar koji se grade u lovištu;
11. Ugljenara izvan građevinskog područja do 4 m promjera i do 4 m visine.«.
Članak 3.
Članak 3. mijenja se i glasi:
»Bez akta kojim se odobrava građenje i lokacijske dozvole, a u skladu s glavnim projektom ili tipskim projektom za kojega je doneseno rješenje na temelju članka 196. Zakona o prostornom uređenju i gradnji, mogu se izvoditi radovi na:
1. Vodotoku i vodnom dobru, javnoj cesti, građevini željezničke infrastrukture, unutarnjem plovnom putu i drugim građevinama, koji su prema posebnom propisu nužni za ispunjavanje obveza tehničkog i gospodarskog održavanja ako tim radovima ne nastaje nova građevina niti se mijenjaju lokacijski uvjeti;
2. Postojećoj građevini kojim se postavlja elektronička komunikacijska oprema (antenski prihvat);
3. Postojećoj građevini kojim se proširuje kapacitet glavnog razdjelnika nepokretne javne telefonske mreže na način da se s vanjske strane građevine prigrade najviše 3 ormarića oslonjena na tlo maksimalnih vanjskih gabarita 0,60 x 2 x 2 m, pod uvjetom da su ormarići smješteni na građevnoj čestici građevine;
4. Postojećoj zgradi kojim se dodaju, obnavljaju ili zamjenjuju dijelovi zgrade koji su dio omotača grijanog ili hlađenog dijela zgrade ili su dio tehničkog sustava zgrade, kao što su:
– prozori, vrata ili prozirni elementi pročelja,
– toplinska izolacija podova, zidova, stropova, ravnih i kosih krovova,
– hidroizolacija,
– oprema, odnosno postrojenje za grijanje, hlađenje ili ventilaciju, te za automatsko upravljanje, regulaciju i daljinsko praćenje potrošnje energije ili vode,
– vodovod i kanalizacija,
– plinske instalacije;
5. Postojećoj zgradi kojim se postojeći sustav grijanja i zagrijavanja potrošne tople vode zamjenjuje sustavom koji je riješen iskorištavanjem toplinske energije tla primjenom dizalica topline čiji podzemni izmjenjivači topline ne prelaze na susjedne čestice;
6. Postojećoj zgradi kojim se postavlja sustav sunčanih kolektora, odnosno fotonaponskih modula u svrhu proizvodnje toplinske, odnosno električne energije;
7. Postojećim instalacijama javne rasvjete u svrhu poboljšanja njihove energetske učinkovitosti;
8. Postojećoj građevini kojim se postavlja oprema namijenjena punjenju elektromotornih vozila.
Bez akta kojim se odobrava građenje i lokacijske dozvole te bez glavnog projekta, mogu se izvoditi radovi na:
1. Postojećoj građevini kojima se ne mijenja usklađenost građevine s lokacijskim uvjetima u skladu s kojima je izgrađena niti se utječe na ispunjavanje bitnih zahtjeva za građevinu;
2. Uređenju građevne čestice postojeće građevine kao što je građenje staze, platoa i stuba oslonjenih cijelom površinom neposredno na tlo s pripadajućim rukohvatima, vrtnog bazena ili ribnjaka građevinske (bruto) površine do 12 m² i dubine do 1 m od razine okolnog tla, otvorenog ognjišta građevinske (bruto) površine do 1,5 m² i visine do 3 m od razine okolnog tla, stabilnih dječjih igračaka;
3. Stubama, hodnicima i drugim prostorima na pristupima građevini i unutar građevine, te na javnim površinama radi omogućavanja nesmetanog pristupa i kretanja osobama s teškoćama u kretanju ako se time ne narušava funkcija i namjena građevine, odnosno ako se ne utječe na ispunjavanje bitnih zahtjeva za građevinu i /ili zadovoljavanje lokacijskih uvjeta, te druge radove denivelacije, ugradbe zvučnih semaforskih uređaja i ugradbe taktilnih površina u građevinama i na javno-prometnim površinama.«.
Članak 4.
U članku 4. stavku 1. podstavku 2. riječ: »ne« briše se.
Članak 5.
Članak 4.a mijenja se i glasi:
»Bez rješenja o uvjetima građenja, a u skladu s glavnim projektom, može se pristupiti rekonstrukciji zgrade kojom se ne mijenjaju lokacijski uvjeti u skladu s kojima je ista izgrađena.«.
Članak 6.
Ovaj Pravilnik stupa na snagu osmog dana od dana objave u »Narodnim novinama«.
Klasa: 360-01/12-04/10
Urbroj: 531-01-12-1
Zagreb, 13. srpnja 2012.
Na temelju članka 104. i članka 209. stavka 5. Zakona o prostornom uređenju i gradnji (»Narodne novine«, br. 76/07, 38/09, 55/11, 90/11 i 50/12) ministar graditeljstva i prostornoga uređenja
Ministar
Ivan Vrdoljak, dipl. ing. el., v. r.
Hrvatski Centar Obnovljivih Izvora Energije (HCOIE)
Advertisements
Posted in ALTERNATIVE, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, CCRES, CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES, GREEN ENERGY, HCOIE, HRVATSKI CENTAR OBNOVLJIVIH IZVORA ENERGIJE, PASSIVE ENERGY, RENEWABLE ENERGY, RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTER SOLAR SERDAR, RENEWABLES JAPAN STATUS REPORT, SOLAR SERDAR | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

News and Events by CCRES July 26, 2012

Croatian Center of Renewable Energy Sources 

News and Events July 26, 2012

Energy Department Investments to Advance Hydrogen Infrastructure

Photo of man fueling a car which has a metal storage tank in the trunk.

The Energy Department is supporting the collection and analysis of performance data for hydrogen fueling stations and advanced refueling components.
Credit: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
The Energy Department on July 18 announced a $2.4 million investment to collect and analyze performance data for hydrogen fueling stations and advanced refueling components. The five projects—located in California, Connecticut, and Illinois—will track the performance and technical progress of innovative refueling systems at planned or existing hydrogen fueling stations in order to find ways to lower costs and improve operation. These investments are part of the department’s commitment to support U.S. leadership in advanced hydrogen and fuel cell research and to help related industries bring hydrogen technologies into the marketplace at lower cost.
As part of a two-year initiative, the Energy Department will make $2.4 million available in fiscal year 2012, with a 50% cost share provided by the award winners. The projects selected for negotiation of award include: California Air Resources Board, which will analyze an operating hydrogen refueling station that uses natural gas to produce hydrogen; California State University and Los Angeles Auxiliary Services, Inc., which will collect data from hydrogen refueling architecture deployed at California State University – Los Angeles; Gas Technology Institute in Des Plaines, Illinois, which will analyze data from five hydrogen fueling stations; and Proton Energy Systems in Wallingford, Connecticut, which will conduct two projects providing operational data from two existing stations that integrate hydrogen generation, compression, storage, and dispensing, as well as deploying an advanced high-pressure electrolyzer at an existing hydrogen fueling station.
These new projects will collect data and monitor the performance of hydrogen fuel stations, advanced components, and other innovative hydrogen technologies using renewable energy or natural gas. By analyzing performance in real-world environments, these projects will help hydrogen fueling equipment manufacturers improve the designs of existing systems. The aim is to achieve higher efficiencies and test new system components. This data will help focus future research and development efforts, driving American manufacturing competitiveness in the next generation of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies.
In addition, the Energy Department recently released the final report from its National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) about a technology validation project that collected data from more than 180 fuel cell electric vehicles (EVs). Over six years, these vehicles made more than 500,000 trips and traveled 3.6 million miles, completing more than 33,000 fill-ups at hydrogen fueling stations across the country. The project found that these vehicles achieved more than twice the efficiency of today’s gasoline vehicles with refueling times of five minutes for four kilograms of hydrogen. See the DOE Progress Alert and the NREL final report on 180 fuel cell EVsPDF.

Energy Department Launches 2013 Better Buildings Federal Award

The Energy Department on July 20 began accepting nominations for its 2013 Better Buildings Federal Award (BBFA), which recognizes the federal government’s highest-performing energy efficient buildings. The year-long competition challenges agencies to achieve the greatest reduction in annual energy intensity—or energy consumed per square foot—and honors the federal building that achieves the greatest energy savings at the end of the designated 12-month period. The nomination process for 2013 will be open through September 7, 2012, and the winner will be announced late next year. Meanwhile, the winner of the 2012 competition is scheduled to be announced later this year.
The department will select finalists for the competition based on energy efficiency measures deployed in the facilities, best practices in energy management undertaken by facility personnel, and institutional change programs used to encourage sustainability efforts within facilities. Once selected, the finalists will compete head-to-head to attain the greatest reduction in energy intensity over 2013. Finalists will represent a range of building types, sizes, and agency functions. The BBFA is part of the Obama Administration’s Better Buildings Initiative, challenging the private and public sectors to make quick investments to improve energy efficiency in America’s buildings by 20% over the next decade. See the DOE Progress Alert and the Federal Energy Management Program website.

Administration Maps Solar Energy Development on Public Lands

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) announced on July 24 that in partnership with the Energy Department, it will publish the final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for solar energy development in six southwestern states—Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. The final solar PEIS represents a major step forward in the permitting of utility-scale solar energy on public lands throughout the west.
The solar PEIS planning effort has focused on identifying locations on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands that are most suitable for solar energy development. The solar PEIS will serve as a roadmap for solar energy development by establishing solar energy zones, which have access to existing or planned transmission and minimal resource conflicts, and incentives for development within those zones. The blueprint’s comprehensive analysis will make for faster, better permitting of large-scale solar projects on public lands.
These areas are characterized by excellent solar resources, good energy transmission potential, and relatively low conflict with biological, cultural, and historic resources. The final PEIS identifies 17 Solar Energy Zones (SEZs), totaling about 285,000 acres of public lands, as priority areas for utility-scale solar development, with the potential for creating additional zones through ongoing and future regional planning processes. The blueprint also allows for utility-scale solar development on approximately 19 million acres in “variance” areas lying outside of identified SEZs. It also excludes 78 million acres from solar energy development to protect cultural or natural resources. In total, the final PEIS estimates that 23,700 megawatts could be developed from the 17 zones and the variance areas, enough renewable energy to power 7 million U.S. homes.
The July 27 Federal Register Notice of Availability for the Final PEIS will begin a 30-day protest period, after which DOI may consider adopting the document through a Record of Decision. The BLM released the draft solar PEIS in December 2010, and in response to the over 80,000 comments received from cooperating agencies and key stakeholders, issued a supplement to the draft solar PEIS in October 2011. See the Energy Department press release and the solar PEIS.

‘Great Green Fleet’ Tests Biofuels in Hawaii Exercise

Photo of two Navy ships sailing.

The U.S. Navy tested its “Great Green Fleet,” a Carrier Strike Group’s aircraft and surface ships, on advanced biofuel.
Credit: U.S. Navy
The U.S. Navy recently used advanced biofuel to power its “Great Green Fleet,” a selection of aircraft and surface ships of the U.S. Navy’s Carrier Strike Group, to test the fuel’s performance in an operational setting. The demonstration took place on July 17 and 18 off the coast of Hawaii as part of the Rim of the Pacific Exercise. The operation was the first ever using biofuels in an exercise of this scale. The biofuel blends are 50-50 mixtures of biofuel (made from used cooking oil and algae) and either petroleum-based marine diesel or aviation fuel. Approximately 450,000 gallons of 100% biofuel were purchased in 2011 in preparation for the Great Green Fleet demonstration.
During this operation, the Great Green Fleet also showcased energy efficiency technology that increase combat capability by allowing Navy ships to achieve greater range and reduction of dependence on a vulnerable logistics supply chain. Further, this demonstration included the following maritime efficiency measures: the use of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to save energy, especially when replacing incandescent fixtures or in colored lighting applications; a ship energy dashboard which provides real-time situational awareness of energy demand associated with equipment; and a smart voyage planning decision aid, which sends messages to ships with optimized routing plans for both ship safety and fuel savings. The Navy signed a Statement of Cooperation with the Royal Australian Navy to formalize future cooperation on alternative fuel deployment.
The demonstration is a component of a broader administration effort to reduce reliance on imported petroleum by partnering with the private sector to speed the commercialization of next-generation biofuels. For example, in early July the Energy Department, the Navy, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced $30 million in funding to support commercialization of “drop-in” biofuel substitutes for diesel and jet fuel, and the Energy Department announced an additional $32 million to support research into advanced biofuel technologies that are in earlier stages of development. See the USDA press release , the Navy website, and the July 5 EERE Network News.

Guidelines Revised for U.S. Wave Energy, Ocean Current Technologies

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on July 19 announced revised guidelines for developers pursuing technology testing and commercial development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The revisions further clarify the regulatory process and help streamline the process for authorizing research and testing of marine hydrokinetics—energy developed from waves and ocean currents.
The revised guidelines replace 2009 guidelines; they also provide information about agency responsibilities and how best to navigate the process for obtaining a marine hydrokinetic lease and license on the OCS. They cover topics such as provisions for obtaining leases and licenses, fee structures, and hybrid (e.g., wind and marine hydrokinetic) project considerations. The guidelines were developed as part of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of the Interior and FERC. Under the Memorandum, BOEM and FERC will coordinate to ensure that marine hydrokinetic projects address public interest, including the adequate protection of fish, wildlife, and marine resources and other beneficial public uses. See the BOEM press releasePDF and the complete guidelines PDF.

CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES (CCRES)

  special thanks to U.S. Department of Energy | USA.gov

Greening Up the Sports World

How could 35 professional sports teams and 20 million square feet of sports facilities improve their energy efficiency and be more environmentally friendly?
That’s the question the Energy Department is answering through its Better Buildings Challenge. In order to illustrate the Department’s strategy for greening professional sports facilities, we are highlighting several green sports initiatives aiming to change the way our nation does athletics.
At a recent White House event, the Obama Administration celebrated the sports industry’s successes in saving energy, reducing waste, and adopting sustainable practices at sports facilities as part of the Challenge. President Obama established the Better Buildings Challenge to encourage major corporations, universities, and state and local governments to lead the way in saving energy and money and to showcase the best energy-saving results and strategies. Better Buildings has teamed up with the Green Sports Alliance, an organization whose mission is to help sports teams, venues, and leagues be more environmentally friendly. To read the complete story, see the Energy Blog.

Croatian Center of Renewable Energy Sources (CCRES)

Posted in ALTERNATIVE, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, CCRES, CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES, GREEN ENERGY, HCOIE, HRVATSKI CENTAR OBNOVLJIVIH IZVORA ENERGIJE, PASSIVE ENERGY, RENEWABLE ENERGY, RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTER SOLAR SERDAR, RENEWABLES JAPAN STATUS REPORT, SOLAR SERDAR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2012 The World’s 10 Biggest Oil Companies

2012 The World’s 10 Biggest Oil Companies

1. Saudi Aramco – 12.5 million barrels per day

Saudi Aramco is by far the biggest energy company in the world, generating more than $1 billion a day in revenues. This image depicts the Shaybah mega-project, sitting on more than 15 billion barrels of oil in the Rub al-Khali desert. Aramco’s biggest field, Ghawar, can do 5 million bpd.

2. Gazprom – 9.7 million barrels per day

Russia’s Gazprom is the world’s largest producer of natural gas. Controlled by the Kremlin, Gazprom’s monopoly on gas deliveries to much of Europe provides President Vladimir Putin a prime lever for projecting power in the region. Gazprom’s profits are more than $40 billion a year.

3. National Iranian Oil Co. – 6.4 million barrels per day

Iran has been forced to curtail oil production due to international sanctions, but remains a huge oil and gas producer. To skirt sanctions, Turkey and India have reportedly been paying for Iranian oil with gold. The Strait of Hormuz remains the world’s most significant choke point for oil. Iran has threatened to close the Strait if attacked.

4. ExxonMobil – 5.3 million barrels per day

Exxon’s $40 billion in annual profits don’t seem like a lot when you consider their $400 billion in sales. It takes giant projects to “move the needle” for the Big Unit. That means CEO Rex Tillerson has to make friends with potentates. In this picture from last April, Tillerson is meeting with Russia’s Vladimir Putin to iron out a joint venture between Exxon and Russia’s state-controlled oil giant Rosneft.

5. PetroChina – 4.4 million barrels per day

The largest of China’s three state-controlled oil giants, PetroChina also has the highest market cap of any of the publicly traded giants. The company already produces more oil than ExxonMobil, and considering the estimates of massive shale gas under China, could someday vie with Gazprom as a regional gas power.

6. BP – 4.1 million barrels per day

Bob Dudley is seeking to turn the giant formerly known as British Petroleum around. Selling assets, settling lawsuits, promising improvements. BP may not maintain its 4.1 million barrels per day for long; it is in talks to sell its 50% stake in Russian venture TNK-BP, which provides a quarter of production.

7. Royal Dutch Shell – 3.9 million barrels per day

Shell is hoping this summer to start drilling for oil in Alaska’s Chuckchi Sea. For years since leasing offshore blocks from the federal government Shell has been perfecting its drilling plan and preparing the Kulluk floating drilling rig, pictured here in the Puget Sound by Seattle.

8. Pemex – 3.6 million barrels per day

Production from Mexico’s biggest field, Cantarell (pictured) has plunged from 2 million bbl per day to roughly 600,000 now. State-owned Pemex is working to replace that shortfall with other fields. Mexico’s incoming President Enrique Pena Nieto has said reforming Pemex to allow foreign investment will be his signature issue.

9. Chevron – 3.5 million barrels per day

Chevron bought Atlas Petroleum in 2010 for $4.3 billion to gain acreage in the Marcellus and Utica shales. With gas prices low, some expect a bigger deal to come.

10. Kuwait Petroleum Corp. – 3.2 million barrels per day

Kuwait’s oil company was originally formed in 1934 by what are now Chevron and BP. In 1975 the company was nationalized. Kuwait’s fields suffered greatly by fires set by Saddam Hussein’s forces in 1990. Kurwait’s biggest field, Burgan, continues to be operated by Chevron.

Croatian Center of Renewable Energy Sources (CCRES)

Posted in ALTERNATIVE, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, CCRES, CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES, GREEN ENERGY, HCOIE, HRVATSKI CENTAR OBNOVLJIVIH IZVORA ENERGIJE, PASSIVE ENERGY, RENEWABLE ENERGY, RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTER SOLAR SERDAR, RENEWABLES JAPAN STATUS REPORT, SOLAR SERDAR | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Solar Market Insight Report 2012 Q1

  

CCRES 

share to you

U.S. Solar Market Insight 2012 Q1

U.S. Solar Market InsightTM is a quarterly publication of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)® and GTM Research. Each quarter, we survey nearly 200 installers, manufacturers, utilities, and state agencies to collect granular data on photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar. These data provide the backbone of this Solar Market InsightTM report, in which we identify and analyze trends in U.S. solar demand, manufacturing, and pricing by state and market segment. We also use this analysis to look forward and forecast demand over the next five years. As the U.S. solar market expands, we hope that Solar Market InsightTM will provide an invaluable decision making tool for installers, suppliers, investors, policymakers and advocates alike.
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. began 2012 with the second highest quarter for installations ever. Over 18,000 photovoltaic (PV) systems totaling 506 megawatts (MW) came online in the first three months of the year. This strong showing in the U.S. came amidst turmoil in the global solar industry. Germany and Italy were both locked in discussions to revise their respective feed-in tariff programs. Project developers in both countries rushed to complete installations ahead of tariff reductions, while suppliers benefited from a short-term burst of orders that has lasted into the second quarter.
Marking a shift from an almost exclusive focus on exports, shipments into the Chinese market were at an all-time high, but at such low prices that the market served as little more than a way to allocate otherwise-unsold inventory. Meanwhile, the U.S. maintained its status as a consistently growing, albeit complex, demand center for PV. Despite uncertainty surrounding the availability of project finance, import tariffs, and state-level demand (all of which are discussed in more detail in subsequent sections), the residential and non-residential markets in aggregate grew 35% quarter-over-quarter.

As a result of strong first half demand and shipments in the first half of the year, and accelerated project development timelines for utility-scale projects (discussed in greater detail in Section 2.2), the outlook for 2012 has improved and installations will likely total 3.3 GW. Given GTM Research’s global installation forecast of 29.9 GW, the U.S. market share of global installations will reach nearly 11% in 2012, up from 7% in 2011 and 5% in 2010. This will make the U.S. the fourth-largest global PV market and one of the few major markets (along with China, India and Japan) that can expect continued growth for the foreseeable future.

KEY FINDINGS

Photovoltaics (PV)

• PV Installations in Q1 2012 reached 506 MW, up 85% over Q1 2011
• New Jersey was the largest state market, with 174 MW of installations in Q1 2012
• Pricing for polysilicon and PV components continued to exhibit softness in Q1 2012 due to the persistence of the global oversupply environment that the industry has faced since early 2011. Blended module prices for Q1 2012 were down to $0.94/W, a staggering 47% lower than Q1 2011 levels of $1.78/W
• Installed prices fell in every market segment year-over-year compared to Q1 2011. Residential installed prices fell 7.3 percent, commercial installed prices fell 11.5 percent, and utility prices fell 24.7 percent over Q1 2011. The overall blended average installed price fell 17.2 percent year-over-year
• Cumulative operating PV capacity in the U.S. now totals 4,427 MWdc

Concentrating Solar Power (CSP and CPV)

• Abengoa’s Solana Generating Station received a $125 million investment from Capital Riesgo Global, a subsidiary of Banco Santander, for an equity stake in the project
• Construction of the Power Tower at the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project was completed in February 2012
• A total of 1.3 GWac of concentrating solar is now under construction

PHOTOVOLTAICS

Photovoltaics (PV), which convert sunlight directly to electricity, continue to be the largest component of solar market growth in the U.S.

INSTALLATIONS

The U.S. installed 506 MW of PV in Q1 2012, up 85% from Q1 2011. While installations were down from the 781 MW installed in Q4 2011, direct comparisons between these two quarters carry little meaning. The utility market accounted for the decline between Q4 2011 and Q1 2012 (443 MW and 124 MW, respectively). Construction timelines for a relatively few large projects can cause large swings from quarter to quarter more than any underlying market dynamics. A total 1.8 GW of utility PV will likely be connected in 2012, more than double the 2011 total, but the vast majority of that capacity will be completed in the second half of the year.

Broadly, three major factors have impacted installation totals in the first quarter of 2012:
1. Seasonality – As noted, the first quarter is generally the smallest in the U.S. market in terms of activity. This is due to adverse weather conditions in the northern part of the country and a seasonal overhang from the rush to complete projects by the end of the previous year. Installation totals will grow throughout the year.
2. Expiration of the Section 1603 Treasury Program and Safe Harbored Products – As we have noted in previous editions of this report series, it was a common strategy at the end of 2011 to ‘safe harbor’ either modules or inverters in order to qualify for the Section 1603 Treasury Program before its expiration. At least 1 GW of modules was safe harbored, and that product is currently being allocated to individual projects.
3. Import Tariff – The pending preliminary decision on the anti-dumping portion of the trade petition filed by SolarWorld created a great deal of uncertainty in the U.S. market in Q1 2012. Anecdotally, a number of Chinese suppliers offered ‘tariff-proof’ modules by being the importer of record and taking on the tariff risk themselves. This is reflected in the Q1 tariff charges that were announced by a number of suppliers in their quarterly earnings following the preliminary determination. Apart from this, developers report having shifted some procurement to non-Chinese producers.

Residential installations grew 12% quarter-over-quarter (Q/Q) and 31% year-over-year (Y/Y). This represents the fourth quarter in a row of steady, incremental increases in residential installations in the U.S. While the residential market remains the smallest segment in terms of volume, it has also shown the least volatility over the past three years. As noted in previous reports, the overarching trend in the residential market is the shift from host-owned systems to third-party ownership through power-purchase agreements (PPA) or lease structures. At least 16 companies offer residential leases/ PPAs, either in their own installations or through partner installers. Many residential integrators now have access to a lease/PPA program of some kind, and customers increasingly select third-party ownership over direct ownership. SolarCity, one of the pioneers of this model, filed to go public in April 2012 and may be among the first pure-play residential solar integrators/financiers to be publicly traded – along with Real Goods Solar, which is currently listed on the NASDAQ.
Non-residential (commercial, government and non-profit) installations grew 14% Q/Q and 77% Y/Y. As was the case throughout 2011, the non-residential market was supported substantially by a rapidly growing New Jersey market (122 MW in Q1 – the first time a single state has installed over 100 MW of non-residential solar in a single quarter). California also had a strong Q1, installing 87 MW. Given the expected downturn in the New Jersey non-residential market and the competitiveness of California, many developers are hoping to find other non-residential growth markets. The full version of this report highlights three states with in which we expect substantial near-term growth prospects in non-residential installations: New York, Massachusetts, and Hawaii.
Utility installations reached 124 MW in Q1 2012 coming from 18 projects.The largest of these projects was the first phase (30 MWac, 34.5 MWdc) of the 290 MWac Agua Caliente project in construction by First Solar. In Q2, another 70 MWac was completed, and the majority of the project is expected to be on-line by the end of 2012. Apart from this, the majority of the utility projects completed in Q1 could be considered wholesale distributed generation, generally defined as a 1MW to 20 MW project connected at the distribution level. This is an increasingly popular tactic with a number of benefits, ranging from fewer land use and permitting issues to easier grid interoperability.

INSTALLED PRICE

Year-over-year, the national capacity-weighted average installed price declined by 17.2 percent to $4.44/W. Q/Q the average system price rose by 8.25 percent. This average number is heavily impacted by the volume of utility-scale installed in a given quarter, and there was substantially less utility-scale solar connected in the first quarter of 2012 compared to the fourth quarter of 2011. It should be noted that prices reported are weighted averages based on all systems that were completed in Q1 in many locations. Average installed price within each market segment fell both quarter-over-quarter and year-over year.

• RESIDENTIAL system prices fell by 4.8 percent from Q4 2011 to Q1 2012, with the national average installed price falling from $6.18/W to $5.89/W. Y/Y, installed costs declined by 7.2 percent. This quarterly decrease is largely a result of price reductions in the major state markets of California and New Jersey, though many secondary markets witnessed price drops as well. With the exception of a few regions which can sustain higher installed costs, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) costs in established markets are typically in the mid-$4-per-watt range. With developer margins and financing costs stacked on, average prices climb into the $5 to $6 per watt range. States with solar carve-outs saw a noticeable drop in prices, largely necessitated by the decreasing value of solar renewable energy credits (SRECs).
NON-RESIDENTIAL system prices fell by 6 percent Q/Q, from $4.92/W to $4.63/W. Year-over-year, installed costs declined by 11.4 percent. New Jersey, the largest non-residential state market in Q1, led the low-cost charge as developers worked hard to mitigate plunging SREC prices. The same was seen in DE, MA, and MD, but on a less drastic scale. For projects in excess of a few hundred kilowatts, EPC costs have fallen to the mid-$2-to-$3-per-watt range. Moreover, larger, well established installers increased their competitiveness by buying significant quantities of low-cost modules on the spot market or via short-term supply agreements.
• UTILITY system prices declined for the eighth consecutive quarter in a row, dropping from $3.20/W in Q4 2011 to $2.90/W in Q1 2012. This 9.4 percent quarterly reduction is largely a result of low-cost modules continuing to be available in significant quantities. Y/Y, installed costs declined by 24.7 percent. The four largest projects that came online in the first quarter, all in excess of 10 MW, used an even split of low-cost Chinese-made c-Si or CdTe panels.

COMPONENT MANUFACTURING AND PRICING


Pricing for polysilicon and PV components continued to exhibit softness in Q1 2012 due to the persistence of the global oversupply environment that the industry has faced since early 2011. Blended polysilicon prices declined by 12 percent to $38/kg. Price drops for wafers, cells and modules were steeper at 18 percent quarter-over-quarter. Blended module ASPs for Q1 2012 were down to $0.94/W, a staggering 47 percent lower than Q1 2011 levels of $1.78/W.

MARKET OUTLOOK

Early strength in New Jersey, the large volume of safe-harbored modules combined, and positive industry outlooks for California, Massachusetts, and Hawaii suggest that 2012 will be a stronger year for installations than previously anticipated. As such, total installations could reach 3.3 GW this year. 2013, however is an open question. The impacts of the import tariff on Chinese cells, as well as the expiration of the 1603 Treasury Program, will be felt most next year. This could coincide with the trough of demand in New Jersey and California’s adjustment period into a post-CSI world to create a temporary slow-down of growth in that year. The market should regain its momentum thereafter and continue along its path to become a global PV market leader by 2015.

CONCENTRATING SOLAR

INSTALLATIONS

Q1 2012 saw just one 20 kW concentrating PV (CPV) project completed. There were no concentrating solar power (CSP) projects completed in Q1 2012. While less than 1 MW came on-line in the first quarter, there was additional progress on several of the large concentrating solar projects under development.
Significant developments in Q1 2012 include:
• Abengoa’s Solana Generating Station received a $125 million investment from Capital Riesgo Global, a subsidiary of Banco Santander, for an equity stake in the project.
• Construction of the Power Tower at the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project was completed in February 2012.
• SolarReserve’s Saguache Project received its final land use permit from the Saguache County Board of County Commissioners.
• A total of 1.3 GWac of concentrating solar is now under construction

U.S. Solar Market Insight Full Report

Get the latest Strategic Data & Analysis Today!

U.S. Solar Market Insight™ is a collaboration between the Solar Energy Industries Association® (SEIA®) and GTM Research that brings high-quality, solar-specific analysis and forecasts to industry professionals in the form of quarterly and annual reports.
Each quarter, GTM Research gathers a complete account of industry trends in the U.S. photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP) markets via comprehensive surveys of installers, manufacturers, utilities and state agencies. Annually, we supplement our PV and CSP analysis with coverage of the latest in the solar hot & cooling (SHC) and solar pool heating (SPH) markets. The result is the most relevant industry data and dynamic market analysis available.
The U.S. Solar Market Insight™ Reports are offered in two different versions– the Executive Summary and Full Report. The Full Report is available individually or as part of an annual subscription. Please find a description of each publication below, or click here to see our quarterly report Table of Contents by solar technology.
Figure: 2011 Year-in-Review
Source: GTM Research and SEIA

Executive Summary

Each quarter’s Executive Summary provides a general breakdown of the current state of the PV, CPV and CSP markets in the U.S. Executive Summaries feature the following level of analysis and detail:
  • National aggregate capacity additions
  • National weighted average installed price
  • National aggregate number of installations
  • National aggregate manufacturing production

full report contents

The quarterly Full Reports are comprehensive, timely perspectives on the PV, CPV and CSP sectors. These versions are approximately 70 pages in length and include all the data and analysis from our Executive Summary plus incisive, state-level breakdowns of installations, costs, manufacturing and demand projections. The full reports feature the following:
  • Installations by market segment for the top 23 states
  • Manufacturing capacity & production by component by state
  • Installed cost by market segment for each state
  • Demand projections to 2016 by technology, market segment & state
  • State-by-state strategic market analysis
  • Component pricing across the value chain
Download a free copy of this quarter’s Executive Summary today.
Pdf Icondownload
 
  CCRES special tanks to

SEIA

Established in 1974, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) is the national trade association of the U.S. solar energy industry. Through advocacy and education, SEIA is building a strong solar industry to power America.
As the voice of the industry, SEIA works with its member companies to make solar a mainstream and significant energy source by expanding markets, removing market barriers, strengthening the industry and educating the public on the benefits of solar energy.
SEIA is a 501(c)6 non-profit trade association. Our sister organization, The Solar Foundation, a 501(c)3 non-profit charitable organization, oversees policy-driven research and develops education & outreach programs to promote the further development of solar energy in the U.S.
In January 2012, SEIA merged with the Solar Alliance, an advocacy organization working to establishing solar policies at the state level. The two organizations now operate under the SEIA brand in order to present a unified solar industry voice in all state and federal advocacy efforts.
If your business is involved in solar energy in the U.S., joining SEIA can help give you the tools you need to succeed in a rapidly-changing market, including:
  • Powerful advocacy – SEIA’s government affairs staff works with state and federal policymakers to pass pro-solar, market-based policies to help your business grow
  • Comprehensive market research – Along with our partners at GTM Research, we provide information on the full supply-chain for the domestic market through the U.S. Solar Market Insight Report
  • Industry networking – Connect with solar industry veterans and entrepreneurs at our exclusive networking events and B2B trade shows like PV America and Solar Power International, produced with the Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA)
  • Public relations – SEIA works to highlight positive stories about solar energy and promotes industry news to members of the press
Croatian Center of Renewable Energy Sources (CCRES)
Posted in ALTERNATIVE, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, CCRES, CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES, GREEN ENERGY, HCOIE, HRVATSKI CENTAR OBNOVLJIVIH IZVORA ENERGIJE, PASSIVE ENERGY, RENEWABLE ENERGY, RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTER SOLAR SERDAR, RENEWABLES JAPAN STATUS REPORT, SOLAR SERDAR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Geotermalni izvori – gdje je zapelo ?!

 Geotermalni izvori

Geotermalni izvori

U Hrvatskoj postoji tradicija iskorištavanja geotermalne energije iz prirodnih izvora u medicinske svrhe i za kupanje. Brojne toplice koriste upravo geotermalnu energiju (Varaždinske Toplice, Daruvarske Toplice, Stubičke Toplice, Lipik, Topusko itd.). Proizvodnja geotermalne vode za navedene toplice prije se vršila kroz prirodne izvore, dok se danas uz prirodni protok koristi geotermalna voda iz plitkih bušotina. Ukupno postoji 28 nalazišta, od kojih je 18 u upotrebi.

INA-Naftaplin je 1970-ih godina započela s istraživanjem rezervi nafte i plina na poljima u kontinentalnom dijelu Hrvatske. Istražne bušotine pokazale su postojanje izvora tople vode. Najviše istražena ležišta, a ujedno i ležišta s najvišom temperaturom geotermalnog fluida su ležište u blizini Koprivnice (Kutnjak-Lunjkovec) i Bjelovara (velika Ciglena).

40 godina kasnije nezamisliv i neoprostiv zastoj.

Zašto?

1998. godine Energetski institut “Hrvoje Požar” je pripremio program korištenja geotermalne energije u Hrvatskoj, koji pokazuje da Hrvatska ima nekoliko srednjetemperaturih geotermalnih izvora s relativno niskim temperaturama geotermalne vode u rasponu od 100 do 140°C, pomoću kojih je moguća proizvodnja električne energije, npr. Lunjkovec (125°C), Ferdinandovac (125°C), Babina Greda (125°C) i Rečica (120°C). No, konkretne inicijative za gradnju geotermalnih elektrana pokrenute su tek posljednjih godina. Za proizvodnju električne energije iz srednjetemperaturnih geotermalnih izvora dolaze u obzir elektrane s binarnim ciklusom, bilo s organskim Rankineovim ciklusom (ORC) ili Kalina ciklusom.

U literaturi se Kalina ciklus navodi kao termodinamički povoljniji ciklus od ORC, tj. koji postiže veću termodinamičku iskoristivost i daje više snage. S druge strane, spoznaje autora objavljene u prethodnim radovima, a predstavljene i na 3. međunarodnom forumu o obnovljivim izvorima energije ovdje u Dubrovniku, dobivene na temelju proračuna za srednjetemperaturni geotermalni izvor u Hrvatskoj (Velika Ciglena) s relativno visokom temperaturom geotermalne vode (175°C) pokazuju suprotno. ORC je termodinamički bolji od Kalina ciklusa. To se objašnjava relativno visokom temperaturom geotermalne vode kao i relativno visokom prosječnom godišnjom temperaturom zraka za hlađenje u kondenzatoru (15°C), koja ima nepovoljniji utjecaj kod Kalina ciklusa nego kod ORC-a. U ovom će se radu usporedba ORC i Kalina ciklusa provesti za srednjetemperaturno geotermalno polje s relativno niskom temperaturom geotermalne vode (125°C) i ponovo uz relativno visoku prosječnu godišnju temperaturu zraka za hlađenje u kondenzatoru (15°C): konkretno za geotermalno polje Lunjkovec. Usporedba ORC i Kalina ciklusa će se provesti na temelju rezultata energetske i eksergetske analize.

 Konačni cilj usporedbe je predložiti povoljnije binarno postrojenje, bilo s ORC ili Kalina ciklusom, za srednjetemperaturne geotermalne izvore u Hrvatskoj s relativno niskim temperaturama geotermalne vode.

14  godina kasnije nezamisliv i neoprostiv zastoj.

Zašto?

Geotermalna energija je toplinska energija koja se stvara u Zemljinoj kori polaganim raspadanjem radioaktivnih elemenata, kemijskim reakcijama, kristalizacijom i skrućivanjem rastopljenih materijala ili trenjem pri kretanju tektonskih masa. Količina takve energije je tako velika da se može smatrati skoro neiscrpnom.
Iskorištavanje geotermalne energije podrazumijeva iskorištavanje energije nagomilane u unutrašnjosti Zemlje u obliku vruće vode i pare ili u suhim stijenama. Pri tome je bitna razlika temperatura između površine i unutrašnjosti Zemlje. Temperaturni gradijent, odnosno povećanje temperature po kilometru dubine, najveći je neposredno uz površinu, a s povećanjem udaljenosti od površine postaje sve manji.

Za praktično iskorištavanje geotermalne energije potrebno je iskoristiti prirodno strujanje vode ili stvoriti uvjete za takvo strujanje. Osnovno načelo je da se voda dovodi s površine Zemlje u dublje slojeve, u njima se ugrije preuzimajući toplinu nagomilanu u Zemljinoj unutrašnjosti i tako ugrijana ponovno pojavljuje na površini.
U većim dubinama Zemljine kore nalaze se velike mase suhih stijena koje sadrže znatne količine energije. Voda s površine ne može prodrijeti u te stijene prirodnim putem. Da bi se ta energija iskoristila, potrebno je duboko ispod površine razdrobiti suho stijenje kako bi se dobila dovoljno velika površina za prelazak topline sa stijena na vodu. Pritom bi se voda s površine dovodila među raspucalo stijenje umjetno stvorenom bušotinom, a ugrijana voda odvodila drugom bušotinom na površinu. Još uvijek nije tehnološki razrađeno komercijalno isplativo iskorištavanje energije suhih stijena, niti vruće vode koja se nalazi u vrlo velikim dubinama.
Danas se geotermalna energija koristi u mnogim zemljama u sljedeće svrhe:

  • za potrebe liječenja i rekreacije,
  • za potrebe grijanja i tople vode,
  • za proizvodnju električne energije,
  • za potrebe poljoprivrede (primjerice. zagrijavanje staklenika, ribnjaka, zemljišta),
  • za potrebe industrije.

Hrvatski geološki institut

Croatian Geological Survey

Hrvatski geološki institut najveći je istraživački institut u području geoznanosti i geološkog inženjerstva u Republici Hrvatskoj. Geološki podaci predstavljaju temelj za rješavanje mnogih projekata od nacionalnog značaja kao što su opskrba pitkom vodom, zaštita voda i tala, izgradnja prometne infrastrukture, urbanističko planiranje, definiranje rezervi mineralnih sirovina i zaštite okoliša.
U istraživanjima se koriste najsuvremenije metodologije kao i informacijske i računalne thgiehnologije. U institutu je aktivno 66 znanstvenika i istraživača i 12 znanstvenih novaka na realizaciji Programa temeljne djelatnosti (Geološke karte), pitanjima zaštite okoliša, istraživanju podzemnih voda, inženjerskogeoloških karakteristika terena te istraživanju mineralnih sirovina.
Hrvatski geološki institut surađuje s mnogim srodnim institucijama, organizacijama i fakultetima u zemlji, a kao takav prepoznat je i u međunarodnoj akademskoj zajednici o čemu svjedoče mnogi međunarodni istraživački projekti koji se izvode u Institutu.

Energetski potencijal u Republici Hrvatskoj

Geotermalni gradijent

Dva sedimentna bazena pokrivaju gotovo cijelo područje Republike Hrvatske: Panonski bazen i Dinaridi. Velike su razlike u geotermalnim potencijalima koji su istraženi istražnim radovima u svrhu pronalaska nafte i plina.
U Dinaridima prosječni geotermalni gradijent i toplinski tijek iznosi:
G=0,018 °C/m
q=29 mW/m2
Na ovom području se ne mogu očekivati otkrića značajnijih geotermalnih ležišta. Moguća su otkrića voda sa temperaturama na površini prikladnim za rekreativne i balneološke namjene. Vode takvih karakteristika su otkrivene u Istarskim Toplicama, Splitu, Omišu, Sinju i Dubrovniku.
Za razliku od Dinarida, koji nemaju značajnih geotermalnih potencijala u Panonskom bazenu prosječni geotermalni gradijent i toplinski tijek su mnogo viši:

G=0,049 °C/m
q=76 mW/m2

Budući da je geotermalni gradijent na panonskom području znatno veći od europskog prosjeka na ovom području se može očekivati, pored već otkrivenih geotermalnih ležišta, pronalaženje novih geotermalnih ležišta.

Geotermalni potencijal

Ukupni toplinski geotermalni energetski potencijal iz sve tri skupine iznosi MWt:
do 50°C do 25°C
Iz već izrađenih bušotina:
203,47 319,21
Uz potpunu razradu ležišta:
839,14 1169,97
Geotermalne potencijale u Hrvatskoj možemo podijeliti u tri skupine – srednje temperaturne rezervoare 100 – 200 °C, niskotempraturne rezervoare 65 do 100°C i geotermalne izvore temperature vode ispod 65 °C.

Srednjetemperaturni geotermalni potencijali

Geotermalna energija iz ovih ležišta može se iskorištavati za grijanje prostora, u različitim tehnološkim procesima te za proizvodnju električne energije binarnim procesom.
Područje
Bjelovar
Bjelovar
Ludbreg
Đurđevac
Karlovac
Županja
Lokacija (ležište)
Velika
Ciglena
Velika
Ciglena
Lunjkovec
Ferdinan-
dovac
Rečica
Babina
Greda
Kategorija rezervi
Dokazane
Vjerojatne
Vjerojatne
Vjerojatne
Vjerojatne
Vjerojatne
Dokazane
Dubina bušotina,  m
2800
2800
2500
2500
2500
2500
Način pridobivanja vode
samoizljev
samoizljev
samoizljev
samoizljev
crpka
samoizljev
Izdašnost elementa razrade,  m3/s
0,11566
0,347
0,156
0,1
0,1
0,2
Temperatura vode, °C
170
170
125
125
120
125
Broj bušotina na elementu; (proizvodne + utisne)
2 (1+1)
5 (3+2)
3 (2+1)
3 (2+1)
3 (2+1)
2 (1+1)
Mogući broj elemenata razrade
1
1
10
1
1
1
Broj izrađenih/aktivnih bušotina
2/0
2/0
3/0
1/0
1/0
1/0
Tablica 1. Ležišta s geotermalnom vodom toplijom od 100°C
Ukupna toplinska snaga geoterlmalne energije iz ovih ležišta iznosila bi MWt:
do 50°C do 25°C
Iz već izrađenih bušotina:
168,74 218,07
Uz potpunu razradu ležišta:
755,79 986,64
Moguća snaga proizvedene električne energije iz ovih ležišta iznosila bi (capacity factor 0,9):
Iz već izrađenih bušotina:
10,95 MWe
Uz potpunu razradu ležišta:
47,88 MWe
Neki važniji pokazatelji značajnijih polja:
Lunjkovac – Kutnjak
Na polju Lunjkovec-Kutnjak, geotermalno ležište je ispitano s dvije istražne (naftne) bušotine. Geotermalna voda sadrži 5 g/l otopljenih minerala i 3 m3/m3 plina (85 % CO2, oko 15 % ugljikovodika i tragove H2S). Kamenac se počinje taložiti pri uvjetima tlaka nižeg od 10 bar. Ležišna stijena je karbonatna breča s prosječnom poroznošću od 7,5 %. Procijenjeni volumen pora je oko 109 m3, a područje ležišta oko 100 km2. Temperatura ležišta varira u ovisnosti o dubini vrha ležišta. U nepropusnim stijenama, između ležišta i površine temperaturni gradijent je viši od 0,06 °C/m.
Izdašnost bušotina je 58 l/s s temperaturom od 120 do 130 °C. Na ovom ležištu moguće je pretvoriti geotermalnu energiju u električnu pomoću binarnog ciklusa.
Velika Ciglena
Na dubini od 2500 m u vrlo propusnim stijenama otkrivena je 1990. godine termalna voda visoke temperature (172 °C). Temperaturni gradijent iznosi 0,062 °C/m. Geotermalna voda sadrži 24 g/l otopljenih minerala, 30 m3/m3 CO2 i 59 ppm H2S. Kamenac se počinje taložiti pri uvjetima tlaka nižeg od 20 bar. Iz dvije postojeće bušotine moguće je proizvoditi 115 l/s geotermalne vode.

Niskotemperaturni geotermalni potencijali

Geotermalna energija iz ovih ležišta može se iskorištavati za grijanje prostora te u različitim tehnološkim procesima. U ovom pregledu izneseni su podaci o geotermalnim ležištima i bušotinama s temperaturom vode većom od 65 °C i značajnijim izdašnostima. U tablici 2 izneseni su osnovni tehnički i energetski pokazatelji ovih ležišta. Iz geotermalnih ležišta koja su označena kosim slovima proizvodi se geotermalna voda i iskorištava u energetske svrhe za grijanje prostora, tople sanitarne vode te za rekreaciju.
Ukupna toplinska snaga geotermalne energije iz ovih ležišta iznosila bi (računano do 50°C):
Ukupna toplinska snaga geoterlmalne energije iz ovih ležišta iznosila bi MWt:
do 50°C do 25°C
Iz već izrađenih bušotina:
25,81
47,67
Uz potpunu razradu ležišta:
74,42
129,86
Područje
Zagreb
Valpovo
Osijek
Samobor
Lokacija (ležište)
Mladost
Sveuč.bolnica
Bizovac -TG
Bizovac -PP
Madrinci
Ernesti -novo
SvetaNedelja
Kategorija rezervi
Dokazane
Dokazane
Dokazane
Dokazane
Vjerojatne
Vjerojatne
Vjerojatne
Vjerojatne
Dubina bušotina,  m
1300
1300
1800
1800
1900
1700
1400
Način pridobivanja vode
samoizljev
samoizljev
samoizljev
crpka
samoizljev
crpka
samoizljev
Izdašnost elementa razrade,  m3/s
0,05
0,055
0,003
0,046
0,01
0,046
0,09
Temperatura vode,  °C
80
80
96
90
96
80
68
Broj bušotina na elementu; (proizvodne + utisne)
3 (1+2)
4 (2+2)
2 (1+1)
3 (2+1)
2 (1+1)
3 (2+1)
3 (2+1)
Mogući broj elemenata razrade
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
Broj izrađenih/aktivnih bušotina
3/3
4/1
2/2
1/1
1/0
1/0
1/0
Tablica 2. Ležišta s geotermalnom vodom temperature manje od 100°C
Neki važniji pokazatelji značajnijih polja:
Bizovac
Geotermalna voda se proizvodi iz dva rezervara Biz-gnajs i Biz-pješčenjak i sadrži određene količine otopljenih minerala i ugljikovodičnih plinova. Voda se koristi za grijanje hotela i bazenske vode, a plin u hotelskoj kuhinji. Do sada se otpadna voda ispuštala u lokalne vodotoke, a projekt separacije i reinjekcije otpadnih voda je u pripremi. Voda će se utiskivati u rezervar Biz-gnajs u kojem se ležišni tlak (30 bara iznad hidrostatskog) smanjuje velikom brzinom. Ležišni tlak u rezervaru Biz-pješčenjak smanjuje se vrlo sporo. Taloženje kamenca se pojavilo u gornjem dijelu proizvodnog niza i u površinskim instalacijama. Protiv njih se uspješno primjenjuju inhibitori.
Zagreb
U Zagrebu je naftnom istražnom bušotinom pronađen velik vapnenački vodonosnik, ali njegova propusnost u največem dijelu nije dovoljna za proizvodnju geotermalne vode.
Dio ležišta s dva područja visoke propusnosti nalazi se u jugozapadnom dijelu grada: Blato i Mladost. Na području Blato nalazi se Sveučilišna bolnica, koja je još u izgradnji. Planirana toplinska snaga bušotina na području Blato je 7 MWt, koja će uz korištenje toplinskih pumpi biti veća.
Na Mladosti se nalazi nekoliko većih objekata, koji sve svoje toplinske potrebe zadovoljavaju iz geotermalnih bušotina. Nema tehničkih problema pri eksploataciji navedenog ležišta. Geotermalna voda protječe u zatvorenom sustavu cjevovoda i utiskuje se u utisnu bušotinu, bez otpadnih nusproizvoda i dodira sa zrakom. Instalirana termalna snaga na Mladosti je 6,3 MWt (direktno korištenje).

Geotermalni izvori temperature manje od 65°C

U ovu skupinu izvora pripadaju geotermalni izvori koji se koriste za balneološke i rekreativne svrhe u većem broju toplica i rekreacionih kompleksa. To su izvori Daruvar (Daruvarske Toplice), Ivanić Grad (bolnica Naftalan), Krapinske Toplice, Lipik (Lipičke toplice), Livade (Istarske toplice), Samobor (Šmidhen SRC), Stubičke Toplice, Sveta Jana (Sveta Jana RC), Topusko (toplice Topusko), Tuhelj (Tuheljske toplice), Varaždinske Toplice, Velika (Toplice RC), Zagreb (INA-Consulting), Zelina (Zelina RC), Zlatar (Sutinske toplice).
Ukupna toplinska snaga geoterlmalne energije iz ovih ležišta iznosila bi MWt:
do 50°C do 25°C
Iz već izrađenih bušotina:
8,92
53,47
Uz potpunu razradu ležišta:
8,92
53,47 

Hrvatski Centar Obnovljivih Izvora Energije (HCOIE)

Posted in ALTERNATIVE, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, CCRES, CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES, GREEN ENERGY, HCOIE, HRVATSKI CENTAR OBNOVLJIVIH IZVORA ENERGIJE, PASSIVE ENERGY, RENEWABLE ENERGY, RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTER SOLAR SERDAR, RENEWABLES JAPAN STATUS REPORT, SOLAR SERDAR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

News and Events by CCRES July 19, 2012

Croatian Center of Renewable Energy Sources 

News and Events July 19, 2012

 

Energy Department Breaks Ground on Turbine Test Facility

The Energy Department joined with Texas Tech University and the department’s Sandia National Laboratories on July 17 to break ground on a new state-of-the-art wind turbine test facility in Lubbock, Texas. Supported by a $2.6 million investment from the department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Scaled Wind Farm Technology (SWIFT) facility will be the first public facility of its kind to use multiple wind turbines to measure how wind turbine wakes interact with one another in a wind farm. Scheduled to begin operation later this year, the facility will help wind turbine designers and manufacturers continue to drive down the cost of wind energy by reducing the aerodynamic losses of wind energy plants, enhancing energy capture, and mitigating turbine damage.
Along with the ability to monitor wind plant performance, the SWIFT facility will have additional advanced testing and monitoring capabilities, as well as space for up to ten wind turbines, allowing researchers to examine how larger wind farms can become more productive and collaborative. The facility, which will host both open-source and proprietary research, is the result of a partnership between the department’s Sandia National Laboratories, the Texas Tech University Wind Science and Engineering Research Center, Group NIRE, and wind turbine manufacturer Vestas. The site will initially be equipped with two research-scale wind turbines provided by the Energy Department and a third installed by Vestas Technology R&D in Houston. See the DOE Progress Alert and the Wind Program website.

 

Energy Department Offers Public Review of Savings Protocols

The Energy Department is developing new voluntary procedures that will help standardize how state and local governments, industry, and energy efficiency organizations estimate energy savings. These protocols are being developed by technical experts through collaboration with energy efficiency program administrators, industry stakeholders, and home energy assessors. The department invites stakeholders from the public sector, industry, and academia to participate in an online public review of these new protocols in an effort to estimate energy savings from energy efficiency programs.
The new procedures provide a straightforward method for evaluating potential energy savings in residential and commercial building upgrades offered through ratepayer-funded initiatives. These common energy efficiency upgrades include energy-saving lighting, lighting controls, commercial air conditioning, and residential furnaces and boilers. These voluntary protocols will help energy efficiency program administrators and local governments improve the objectivity, consistency, and transparency of energy savings data; it will also help strengthen consumers’ confidence in the results expected from energy efficiency upgrades. The protocols, being developed under the Uniform Methods Project, are available for review through July 27. See the DOE Progress Alert and the protocols for review.

 

New ARPA-E Projects to Boost Natural Gas Vehicle Technologies

Photo of large garbage truck parked in a lot.

A refuse truck powered by compressed natural gas in Washington state.
Credit: Western Washington Clean Cities
The Energy Department on July 12 announced $30 million in funding for 13 research projects designed to find new ways of harnessing natural gas supplies for cars and trucks. Researchers in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin will work on the initiative. The grants are made through the Energy Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E). The projects are part of Methane Opportunities for Vehicular Energy, which aims to engineer lightweight, affordable natural gas tanks for vehicles and develop natural gas compressors that efficiently fuel a natural gas vehicle at home.
Today’s natural gas vehicle technologies require tanks that can withstand high pressures. They are often cumbersome, and are either too large or too expensive to be suitable for smaller passenger vehicles. ARPA-E’s new projects are focused on removing these barriers, which will help encourage the widespread use of natural gas cars and trucks. For example, REL, Inc. in Calumet, Michigan, will receive $3 million to develop an internal “foam core” for natural gas tanks that allows tanks to be formed into any shape. This will enable higher storage capacity than current carbon fiber tanks at one-third the cost.
The projects will also focus on developing natural gas compressors that make it easier for consumers to re-fuel at home. The Center for Electromechanics at the University of Texas at Austin will use $4 million to develop an at-home natural gas re-fueling system that compresses gas with a single piston. Unlike current four-piston compressors, these highly integrated single-piston systems will use fewer moving parts, leading to a more reliable, lighter, and cost-effective compressor. See the Energy Department press release and the complete list of projects PDF.

CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES (CCRES)

  special thanks to U.S. Department of Energy | USA.gov

USDA Funds Improved Rural Electric Infrastructures

 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on July 12 that rural electric cooperatives and utilities in 15 states will receive $287 million in loan guarantees to make improvements to generation and transmission facilities and to implement smart grid technologies. The announcement includes support for more than $10 million in smart grid technologies. This will help utilities make efficiency improvements to the electric grid and help consumers lower their electric bills by reducing energy use in homes and businesses. With this funding, USDA Rural Development moves closer to reaching a department goal to fund more than $250 million for smart grid technologies.
In Texas, Houston County Electric Cooperative is receiving $9 million to build and improve 421 miles of distribution line and make other system improvements, serving 2,000 customers. The loan includes $670,000 in smart grid projects. The loan guarantees are provided by USDA Rural Development’s Rural Utilities Service. The funding helps electric utilities upgrade, expand, maintain, and replace electric infrastructure. USDA Rural Development also funds energy conservation and renewable energy projects. See the USDA press release.

 

Global Clean Energy Spending Rebounds in Second Quarter of 2012

Global clean energy investments increased 24% in the second quarter of 2012 compared to the first quarter, with new investment totaling $59.6 billion, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The amount was still 18% below the near-record quarterly figure of $72.5 billion in the second quarter last year.
The United States enjoyed solid gains in investment in the second quarter of 18% over the first quarter, reaching $10.2 billion, the report said. China surged 92% in investment to $18.3 billion in the April-to-June period. Overall, solar accounted for $33.6 billion of investment in the second quarter, up 19% over the first quarter, and wind had $21.6 billion, up 47% quarter to quarter. The largest venture capital and private equity deals of the quarter saw U.S. automaker Fisker clinch $148 million for its plug-in hybrid vehicle development. The figures draw on a comprehensive database of transactions in clean energy worldwide. See the Bloomberg New Energy Finance press release.

 

California Awards $1.1 Million for Energy Research Projects

The California Energy Commission on July 11 awarded $1.1 million for energy research projects, including a variety impacting renewable energy and energy efficiency. Funds for the 10 projects come from the Commission’s Public Interest Research Project program. Commissioners approved $300,000 to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California at San Diego in order to better understand differences in regional climate model projections for California and how they impact hydropower generation forecasting.
The remaining nine projects are from PIER’s Energy Innovations Small Grant program. The program provides money to small businesses, non-profits, individuals, and academic institutions to conduct research establishing the feasibility of new, innovative energy concepts. These grants are capped at $95,000. Among the projects is a project dealing with small soluble organic molecules designed to increase the lifetime and reliability of photovoltaics, and a study of enhanced cooling towers for cooling buildings. See the California Energy Commission press release.

Croatian Center of Renewable Energy Sources  (CCRES)

Posted in ALTERNATIVE, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, CCRES, CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES, GREEN ENERGY, HCOIE, HRVATSKI CENTAR OBNOVLJIVIH IZVORA ENERGIJE, PASSIVE ENERGY, RENEWABLE ENERGY, RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTER SOLAR SERDAR, RENEWABLES JAPAN STATUS REPORT, SOLAR SERDAR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS)

  
 
Everything you wanted to know about
CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS), but had no one to ask .
 
1. What is CCS?

CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) describes a technological process by which the carbon dioxide (CO2) generated by large stationary sources – such as coal- fired power plants, steel plants and oil refineries – is prevented from entering the atmosphere.

That’s because it enables at least 90% of these CO2 emissions to be captured, then stored in geological formations – safely and permanently – deep underground (at least 800m). In fact, it uses the same natural trapping mechanisms which have already kept huge volumes of oil, gas and CO2 underground for millions of years.

Currently, all of the CO2 produced by these large stationary sources is released into the atmosphere – directly contributing to global warming.

2. Why is it a critical technology for combating climate change?

CCS is the single biggest lever to combat climate change (compared to, for example, energy efficiency which requires many different actions). In fact, CCS has the potential to address almost half of the world’s current CO2 emissions.

Experts estimate that by 2050, CCS could reduce annual CO2 emissions by 0.6 to 1.7 billion tonnes in the EU and by 9 to 16 billion tonnes worldwide. The upper end of this range would require its application to all fossil fuel power plants and to almost all other large industrial emitters – with the large volumes of hydrogen produced used for transport fuel.

3. What other benefits will CCS provide?

In addition to its potential to reduce CO2 emissions on a massive scale, CCS will also provide greater energy security – by making the burning of Europe’s abundant coal reserves more environmentally acceptable and reducing its dependency on imported natural gas. CCS could also facilitate the transition to a hydrogen economy through the production of large volumes of clean hydrogen which that could be used for electricity or transport fuel.

EU demonstration efforts on CCS will not only demonstrate the EU’s commitment to delivering on its own CO2 reduction targets, but spur other countries to do the same – especially large CO2 emitters, such as China, India and the US. As a global solution to combating climate change, CCS could therefore also give a major boost to the European economy – promoting technology leadership, European competitiveness and creating jobs.

4. How does CCS work?

CCS consists of three stages:
i. Capture: CO2 is captured and compressed at the emissions site.
ii. Transport: The CO2 is then transported to a storage location.
iii. Storage: The CO2 is permanently stored in geological formations, deep underground.

Each of these stages – capture, transport and storage – can be accomplished in different ways.

i. Capture processes:

Post-combustion: CO2 is removed from the exhaust gas through absorption by selective solvents.
Pre-combustion: The fuel is pre- treated and converted into a mix of CO2 and hydrogen, from which the CO2 is separated. The hydrogen is then used as fuel, or burnt to produce electricity.
Oxy-fuel combustion: The fuel is burned with oxygen instead of air, producing a flue stream of CO2 and water vapour without nitrogen; the CO2 is relatively easily removed from this stream.

ii. Transport options:
Pipelines are the main option for large-scale CO2 transportation, but shipping and road transport are also possibilities.

iii. Storage options:

Deep saline aquifers (saltwater-bearing rocks unsuitable for human consumption)
Depleted oil and gas fields (with the potential for Enhanced Oil Recovery)

5. How long has CCS been in existence?

Although there are currently no fully integrated, commercial-scale CCS projects for power plants in operation, many of the technologies that make up CCS have been around for decades:

CO2 capture is already practised on a small scale, based on technology that has been used in the chemical and refining industries for decades.
Transportation is also well understood: it has been shipped regionally for over 17 years, while a 5,000km network has been operating in the USA for over 30 years for Enhanced Oil Recovery.
Small-scale CO2 storage projects have been operating successfully for over a decade, e.g. at Sleipner (Norway), Weyburn (Canada) and In Salah (Algeria). The industry can also build on knowledge obtained through the geological storage of natural gas, which has also been practised for decades.

6. What’s the next step?

CCS technology now needs to be scaled up – including full process integration and optimisation – with demonstration projects of a size large enough to allow subsequent projects to be at commercial scale. This will also build public confidence in CCS as more and more people see that CO2 storage is safe and reliable.
7. Why should we use CCS, given its link to fossil fuels?
Scientists have confirmed that unless we stabilise CO2- equivalent concentrations at their current level of 450 parts per million (ppm), average global temperature is likely to rise by 2.4ºC to 6.4ºC by 2100. If we fail to keep below 2ºC, devastating – and irreversible – climate changes will occur.

This means reducing CO2-equivalent emissions by 50% by 2030. But with world energy demand expected to double by 2030 and renewable energies to make up ~30% of the energy mix by this date, only a portfolio of solutions will achieve this goal. This includes energy efficiency, a vast increase in renewable energy – and CCS.

Around 750 new coal power plants are already planned for the period 2005–2018, totaling more than 350 Gigawatt (GW), of which 50 will be in Europe, almost 300 in China, 200 in India and 50 in the US.

8. Why is it so important to deploy CCS as soon as possible?
Time is of the essence. Any delay in the roll-out of CCS could not only lead to unnecessary CO2 emissions but additional costs, as instead of being able to apply it to the current pipeline of coal plants, a retrofit would be required, increasing the cost of achieving the same emissions reduction. With decisions on the building of new power plants being made now in Europe, it is vital that we are not locked into an infrastructure that is not optimised for CCS.

Indeed, every year that CCS is delayed is a missed opportunity to reduce CO2 emissions. Today, we have ~450 parts per million (ppm) CO2 equivalent in the atmosphere, with concentration rising at over 2 ppm per annum. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that if we are to avoid major climate change effects, we must not exceed this 450 ppm. Delaying the implementation of CCS by just 6 years would mean CO2 concentrations increasing by around 10 ppm by 2020.

9. If we are at such a critical phase, why isn’t it already being deployed?

The incremental costs of the first large-scale CCS demonstration projects will be exceptionally high – too high to be fully justifiable to company shareholders.

That’s because all ‘First Movers’ will incur:

Unrecoverable costs from making accelerated investments in scaling up the technology.
Market risk due to uncertainty over:
a) which CCS technologies will prove the most successful
b) the future CO2 price and
c) construction and operational costs.

Based on an independent study recently undertaken by McKinsey and Company, it is estimated that the total incremental costs of 10-12 CCS demonstration projects would be €7 billion – €12 billion.

Industry has already declared its willingness to cover both the base costs of the power plant (without CCS) and a major portion of the risks of implementing these CCS demonstration activities. Given that it will bring incalculable benefits to both the public and European industry and that these projects are inherently loss-making, public funding has therefore been provided to support 12 industrial-scale CCS projects. Without this, commercialisation will be severely delayed – until at least 2030 in Europe.

10. Why are public funds needed for CCS demonstration projects?
Currently, a CCS demonstration project would be a loss-making enterprise for industry, given the current price of implementing and using the technology; the current price of carbon; and uncertainty surrounding long-term viability and profitability. No shareholder can therefore be expected to fund it fully at this stage.

The typical cost of a demonstration project is likely to be in the range €60-90 per tonne of CO2 abated. Recent analyst estimates for Phase II of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) range from €30 to €48 per tonne of CO2 and, at this stage, similar levels are assumed beyond Phase II (up to 2030). In this range, the carbon price is insufficient for demonstration projects to be “stand-alone”, commercially viable.

Assuming that CCS demonstration projects would cost between €60 and €90 per tonne of CO2, and projecting a median carbon price of €35 per tonne of CO2, there is an “economic gap” of €25-€55 per tonne of CO2 per project. This corresponds to around €500 million – €1.1 billion, expressed as a Net Present Value (NPV) over the lifespan of a 300MW size power plant. The range depends on variations in specific project variables, such as capture technology and capex, transport distance and storage solutions.

11. The UK and the Netherlands are well on their way to implementing CCS demonstration projects – won’t these be enough to make the technology commercially viable?
As it is not yet known which CCS technologies will prove the most successful, it is vital that the full range is tested – including higher-risk technologies – optimised across projects and locations. As each region has its own challenges, local demonstration is also important in order to maximise public and political support.

As importantly, EU CCS demonstration efforts will ensure that cross-border projects – where CO2 is stored in a different country or region to where it is captured – are not excluded. As capture and storage locations are unevenly distributed throughout Europe, cross-border pipelines will play a crucial role in the wide-scale deployment of CCS and the development of clusters in major industrial areas as the next key step.

12. How much will it cost to retrofit CCS technology to existing power plants?
In general, retrofitting an existing power plant would lead to a higher cost for CCS, but these are highly dependent on specific site characteristics, including plant specifications, remaining economic life and overall site layout. For this reason, no generalisation or “reference case” would be meaningful.

There are four main factors likely to drive the cost increase for retrofits:

The higher capex (capital costs) of the capture facility: the existing plant configuration and space constraints could make adaption to CCS more difficult than for a new build.
The installation’s shorter lifespan: the power plant is already operating so where (for example) a new plant with CCS may run for 40 years, the capture facility of a 20 year-old plant is likely to have only a 20 year life, reducing the “efficiency” of the initial capex.
There is a higher efficiency penalty, leading to a higher fuel cost when compared to a fully integrated, newly-built CCS plant.
There is the “opportunity cost” of lost generating time, because the plant would be taken out of operation for a period to install the capture facility.

13. How can we accelerate the building of CCS projects?

Building a CCS project is a lengthy process: a fully integrated project can take 6.5-10 years before it becomes operational. However, Final Investment Decision can only be made once permits have been awarded across the entire value chain. In the case of CO2 storage, this can take as long as 6.5 years. In such a scenario, even a commercial project started as early as 2016 would not itself become operational until 2024.

Ideally, 10-12 CCS demonstration projects should be operational by 2015. The first early commercial projects should be operational by 2020, with the remaining demonstration projects sufficiently advanced for early commercial projects to be ordered from 2020 onwards. Some 80-120 large- scale CCS projects could therefore be operational in Europe by 2030.

There are several ways we can fast-track the building of CCS projects:

Starting a commercial project as early as possible during the building of the demonstration project so that – for example – build can start after just one year of the demo being in operation.
Accelerating feasibility studies etc.
Making faster investment decisions
Shortening the tender process
Introducing special measures to shorten the permitting process.

Some projects, by their very nature, will of course be quicker to build than others, e.g. retrofitting existing power plants with CCS; using well-known oil and gas fields with infrastructure and seismic data already available; those with only a short distance from the power plant to the storage site, etc.

14. How much CO2 can be captured using CCS?

One 900 MW CCS coal-fired power plant can abate around 5 million tonnes of CO2 a year. If, as projected, 80-120 commercial CCS projects are operating in Europe by 2030, they would abate some 400 million tonnes of CO2 per year.

By 2050, CCS could reduce annual CO2 emissions by 0.6 to 1.7 billion tonnes in the EU and by 9 to 16 billion tonnes worldwide. The upper end of this range would require its application to all fossil fuel power plants and to almost all other large industrial emitters – with the large volumes of hydrogen produced used for transport fuel.

15. Isn’t more energy utilised where CCS is implemented?

The absolute efficiency penalty, estimated at around 10% for the reference case (meaning plant efficiency drops from 50% to around 40%), drives an increase in fuel consumption and does require an over- sizing of the plant to ensure the same net electricity output.

However, next-generation technology – such as ultra-supercritical 700°C technology for boilers, coupled with drying in the case of lignite – will achieve a 50% level of overall plant efficiency. While this technology is not currently available, it is expected to be when early commercial CCS projects are built around 2020.

16. Where will CO2 be stored?
The regional distribution and cost of storage in Europe will play an important role in any roll-out of CCS. Most experts agree that depleted oil and gas fields and deep saline aquifers have the largest storage potential.

Depleted oil and gas fields
Depleted oil and gas fields are well understood and around a third of total oil and gas field capacity in Europe is estimated to be economically useable for CO2 storage. With an estimated capacity for 10 to 15 billion tonnes of CO2, this is sufficient for the lifetime of around 50 to 60 CCS projects. However, most of these fields are located offshore in northern Europe and the transportation to and storage of CO2 in these fields (excluding capture) is around twice as costly as onshore fields.

Deep saline aquifers
While much less work has been done to map and define deep saline aquifers, most sources indicate that their capacity should be sufficient for European needs overall. Preliminary conservative estimates by EU GeoCapacity indicate that Europe can store some 136 billion tonnes of CO2 – equivalent to around 70 years of current CO2 emissions from the EU’s power plants and heavy industry. At the higher end of these estimations, EU GeoCapacity estimates some 380 billion tonnes of CO2 could be stored in Europe alone.

17. Storing enormous quantities of CO2 underground must present some risk?
The geological formations that would be used to store CO2 diffuse it, making massive releases extremely unlikely. Indeed, because the CO2 becomes trapped in the tiny pores of rocks, any leakage through the geological layers would be extremely slow, allowing plenty of time for it to be detected and dealt with. In fact, it would not raise local CO2 concentrations much above normal atmospheric levels.

Higher concentration leaks could come from man-made wells, but the oil and gas industry already has decades of experience in monitoring wells and keeping them secure. Storage sites will not, of course, be located in volcanic areas.

18. But won’t CO2 storage increase the likelihood of seismic activity?

A detailed survey takes place to identify any potential leakage pathways before a CO2 storage site is selected. If these are discovered, then the site will not be selected. In areas where some natural seismic activity is already taking place, we can ensure that the pressure on the CO2 does not exceed the strength of the rock by making the volume of CO2 stored relative to that of the storage site. CO2 storage has even proved to be robust in volcanic areas: in 2004, a storage site in Japan endured a 6.8 magnitude earthquake with no damage to its boreholes and no CO2 leakage. But then CO2 has remained undisturbed underground for millions of years – despite thousands of earthquakes.
19. How will we know if the CO2 is leaking?

Before a CO2 storage site is chosen, a detailed survey takes place to identify any potential leakage pathways. If these are found to exist then the site will not be selected. In Europe, underground gas storage (natural gas and hydrogen) has an excellent safety record, with sophisticated monitoring techniques that are easily adaptable to CCS. On the surface, air and soil sampling can be used to detect potential CO2 leakage, whilst changes underground can be monitored by detecting sound (seismic), electromagnetic, gravity or density changes within the geological formations.

The risk of leakage through man-made wells is expected to be minimal because they can easily be monitored and fixed, while CO2 leaking through faults or fractures would be localised and simply withdrawn; and, if necessary, the well closed.

20. Who will be liable for CO2 storage sites over the long-term?
As the CO2 will remain stored underground indefinitely, long-term liability will follow the example set by the petroleum industry, whereby the state assumes liability after a regulated abandonment process. Indeed, EU law governing the safe and permanent storage of CO2 has already been approved and is currently being implemented at national level.
21. Large stationary emitters of CO2 also include refineries, steel and cement plants – how are they linked into what the EC is doing?
The EC encourages the deployment of CCS in other sectors, as 25% of all European CO2 emissions addressable by CCS come from refineries and the cement, iron and steel industries.

The European CCS Demonstration Project Network

The EC has established a Network of CCS demonstration projects to generate early benefits from a coordinated European action.
CCS demonstration projects fulfilling minimum qualification criteria are invited to join the Network and benefit from its operations.
The Network allows early-movers to exchange information and experience from large-size industrial demonstration of the use of CCS technologies, to maximise their impact on further R&D and policy making, and optimise costs through shared collective actions.
It is envisaged that, as the Network evolves, its EU-wide, integrating and binding role may be reinforced and complemented by other measures in support of further development of CCS technologies, building towards the establishment of a European Industrial Initiative.

To help fulfil the potential of CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS), the European Commission is sponsoring and coordinating the world’s first network of demonstration projects, all of which are aiming to be operational by 2015. The goal is to create a prominent community of projects united in the goal of achieving commercially viable CCS by 2020.
The CCS Project Network fosters knowledge sharing amongst the demonstration projects and leverage this new body of knowledge to raise public understanding of the potential of CCS. This accelerates learning and ensures that we can assist CCS to safely fulfil its potential, both in the EU and in cooperation with global partners.

CCS Project Network Advisory Forum

To guarantee that the Network is valuable to the wider energy community in Europe, an annual Advisory Forum has been established to review progress and specify the knowledge that can most usefully be generated by the CCS Project Network.

  • The first Advisory Forum meeting was held in Brussels on 17 September 2010.
    Read more..
  • The second Advisory Forum Meeting was held on 16 June 2011 in Brussels. Read more..

CCS World News

Membership of the CCS Project Network is open to all European projects that are at a sufficient scale and level of maturity that will generate valuable output and knowledge about industrial-scale CCS demonstration.
The application process for membership of the Network is designed to be as simple and transparent as practicable, but sufficiently robust to ensure that all members are large-scale demonstration projects at a similar level of maturity.
Project developers may submit applications at any time to demonstrate that they fulfil the eligibility criteria, can provide evidence of the maturity of the project, commit to knowledge sharing and agree to the Network organisation and procedures. The qualification criteria and application process are described in the Qualification Criteria document. The Network is open to all qualifying projects and will not distinguish between EU-funded and non-EU funded projects.

Eligibility Criteria

Projects in the Network shall have sound plans to demonstrate the full CCS value chain by 2015 and shall fulfil the following technical criteria:

  • The CCS project shall for a fossil fuel-fired power plant have a minimum gross production of 250MWe before CO2 capture and compression
  • The CCS project shall for an industrial plant realise a minimum of 500kt per year of stored CO2
  • The CO2 capture rate shall not be less than 85% of the treated flue gas stream
  • The project, i.e. the plant to which CCS is applied, shall be located within the European Economic Area (EEA)

Knowledge Sharing

Projects in the Network are committed to knowledge sharing with similar projects and other stakeholders in order to help accelerate CCS deployment and raise public engagement, as described in the Knowledge Sharing Protocol document.

Key documents

European CCS Demonstration Project Network Qualification Criteria
European CCS Demonstration Project Network Knowledge Sharing Protocol

Learn more about CCS

To learn more about CCS, please have a look at the following videos, kindly provided by ZEP:

http://www.ccsnetwork.eu/index.php?p=videos

CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES (CCRES)
special tanks to

Daniel Rennie
Global CCS Institute
Actualis, Level 2
21 & 23 Boulevard Haussmann
PARIS 75009 France


Jose Manuel Hernandez
Programme Manager – EU Policies
European Commission

CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES (CCRES)

Posted in ALTERNATIVE, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, CCRES, CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES, GREEN ENERGY, HCOIE, HRVATSKI CENTAR OBNOVLJIVIH IZVORA ENERGIJE, PASSIVE ENERGY, RENEWABLE ENERGY, RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTER SOLAR SERDAR, RENEWABLES JAPAN STATUS REPORT, SOLAR SERDAR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment