Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Ok steve, enjoy your night and the brews! Talk with ya tomorrow! Hope to see some green tomorrow...
BBB- Great post and so very true! I cant believe people would actually listen to them... BBB you are a very wise dude, and I like your mojo! Keep up the good work!
Amen Steve! Good to hear from ya! CCTC was very stable today!
Very well said! Exactly what I was thinking!
You are the weakest link! GOODBYE.
I have been waiting on funds, so I can buy more at this level! Hope Edurk is right on some of his predictions!
I wonder if an upgrade to the OTCBB is in the works? That would be a nice little bonus! I like the fact that the company has been cooperative with the SEC as of late...
Thanks for doing that! It is great to read that PR again!!!
UPDATE: Clean Coal Technologies, Inc. Provides Updates on Status of Current Projects
Press Release Source: Clean Coal Technologies, Inc. On Monday May 17, 2010, 4:20 pm EDT
CORAL SPRINGS, FL--(Marketwire - 05/17/10) - Clean Coal Technologies, Inc. (Pinksheets:CCTC - News) announced that the final approval for its estimated $350 million dollar annual revenue clean coal project in Inner Mongolia is expected within the next few weeks, after which we will announce the date for the official ground breaking. This time frame represents a delay in our original estimate for April, due primarily to delays in the completion and acceptance of the myriad of environmental impact, health and safety, land use, and human resources studies required by the Chinese provincial government. On completion, this project will represent one of the largest clean coal projects in China, providing for a 30-year contract with an estimated value to the company of some 10.5 billion dollars.
CCTC continues its negotiations with Tianjin Tianning Coal Traders, Co., Ltd., (TTCT) to finance and construct an initial 1.5 million ton clean coal facility in Inner Mongolia under a Technology Licensing Agreement (TLA). Our discussions include separate contractual negotiations in conjunction with our sub-contractor Benham, who are responsible for all project engineering, procurement, and construction oversight. The final approval of the agreement is predicated on CCTC receiving the final project approval for its Inner Mongolia joint venture agreement.
On December 18, 2009, the Company signed an exclusive Technology Licensing Agreement (TLA) with INK Global Consulting for the deployment of CCTC's technology in India. The TLA provided for the funding and construction of clean coal facilities for an increasing production capacity of up to 100 million tons annually for a period of 20 years. This would represent some 100,000 million dollars in licensing fees, plus 200 million dollars per annum in royalties to CCTC. The initial license fee was payable as of the end of January 2010, however, the parties continue to negotiate on amendments to the TLA.
Further to our business development activities in China and India, we are pleased with the initial progress we are making in the US. Additionally, the outstanding results CCTC achieved from the assessments conducted using the same power plant simulation model developed by the US Department of Energy in conjunction with Carnegie-Mellon University, indicates that CCTC's patented clean coal technology may reduce GHG emissions significantly when used in a coal-fired plant. This could realize a source for accumulating Carbon Credits that can be traded as an additional source of revenue for a power plant, and potentially provide access to State and Federal funding for the Company.
Matters discussed in this press release contain forward looking statements. Investors are cautioned that such forward looking statements involve risk and uncertainties, which could significantly impact the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the time frame for production of revenue, product development and commercial introduction, the impact of rapid price and technological change and competition, manufacturing and supply uncertainties and other risks.
No need to waste our time on worhtless posters! They will soon go away!
CCTC's Tech is a lot better than CCS as well! Come on CCTC there is more and more oppurtunities that are going to arise in the U.S.
Nice Find Pumpnass!!!
http://article.wn.com/view/2010/05/20/Obama_to_ask_Congress_for_9B_more_in_nuclear_loan_guarantees_y/
There is some good stuff in these videos! Obama talks about how we need to develope clean coal, and how they will keep financing such technologies!!! Along with all the TV clean coal commercials people have seen lately, its clear that money will flow into generating clean coal in our future!!! Obama wants to develope these type of technolgies here in the U.S. so we dont have to look over seas for answers!
Check out some of these videos... Very informative!
Hey Stevesc- Good morning... Lets hope for a good day here! I want to buy more at these levels!!! Well off to work... Talk to ya later.
Yeah I thought it had some great info on how bad China is in terms of pollution, and how they are trying to fix it...Hello CCTC is your answer!!! ;0
http://fortis.weblogmale.com/carbon-traders-find-extra-value-in-chinas-vast-methane-reserves/
Great Read! China needs CCTC!!!
Carbon Traders Find Extra Value in China’s Vast Methane Reserves
Posted in Fortis Articles by wanjai
May 18 2010 TrackBack Address.
Americans, the world’s largest polluters, consumed almost four tons of coal per person in 2006. Every ton of coal burned sends more than two tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
By 2009, experts believe China will overtake the United States as the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide.
According to the country’s National Reform and Development Commission (NDRC), China will produce 1.45 trillion kWh of electricity in the first half of 2007. About 75 percent of the China’s energy is generated by coal. By 2050, to serve China’s growing population, the country is expected to add the sum total of Canada’s generating capacity every four years!
While China hopes to rely more upon nuclear, coal is continues taking its toll until the country solves its energy quandary.On Tuesday, China’s state environmental watchdog reported that more than 62 percent of the country’s cities suffer from air pollution. Thirty-nine cities were placed on the State Environmental Protection Administration’s ‘Black List,” because they suffered severe air pollution.
Seven of those cities are located in China’s northern Shanxi province, the country’s largest coal supplier. Coal-fired power plants are reportedly the major culprit. Many were given preferential pricing terms to install sulfur removal systems. Some took the pricing, but skipped the systems.
China’s runaway pollution has become an international problem.
In early April, an American satellite spotted a dense yellow cloud of gases, chemical and desert sands floating across Seoul (Korea) – emissions from China’s coal-fired smokestacks. This weekend, the Korean government retaliated by launching Greenbelt Plantation Project. The Korean forestry service plans to plant 1.5 million trees in Mongolia to help reduce sandstorms wafting across the Yellow Sea, which bring its residents respiratory illnesses.
It is not that China is ignoring the problem, but that the country’s breakneck GDP growth rate is not only impacting global commodity prices (oil, copper, nickel, uranium, etc), but could also be accelerating the effects of abrupt climate change and global warming.
Just Bad Weather?
One can politely compartmentalize the disrelated weather events which occurred over the past seven days and call those a coincidence, or one can imagine the horrors Dr. James Lovelock has warned could occur as this century unfolds, as he told us a year ago.
A week ago, Cyclone Gonu was recorded as the strongest tropical storm since 1945 in the Arabic Gulf region. It peaked as a Category 5 along the coastline of the Gulf of Oman. At the time, many worried it might disrupt oil exports from the Middle East. It was the first cyclone in recorded history to enter the Gulf of Oman. Eastern Australia was battered by heavy rains and suffered major flooding and landslides this past weekend. So great was the impact that some compared it to 1989’s earthquake, near the same location.
There have been other firsts over the past few years. In 2004, Cyclone Catrina became the first cyclone to form in the South Atlantic and also hit Brazil. In 2005, Hurricane Vince became the first cyclone to hit the Iberian Peninsula. In 2006, super typhoon Chanchu formed in the South China Sea, hitting China, Taiwan, the Philippines and Taiwan.
Many have concluded these could be early warning signs of much greater catastrophes expected as sea waters further warm up.
China Aiming for Solutions
Electricity growth has been the global driver toward more nuclear and more environmentally friendly methods of power generation. For example, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) forecasts an additional 90 gigawatts of electricity would be required over the next twenty-five years in the United States. To generate this new capacity, the DOE calculated it would take 151 coal-powered plants, 100 mid-sized nuclear plants or 60,000 wind turbines.
China’s problem is magnified to accommodate its higher energy intensity per unit of GDP growth. Not to mention its whirlwind growth.
While we discussed several coal-replacement developments in our recent publication, “Investing in China’s Energy Crisis,” one has piqued our interest as more easily implemented. And it is also one where China has focused.
Kyoto Protocol Drives CBM Projects
Clean coal technology is being rapidly advanced in China because of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is an integral component of the Kyoto Protocol and which China signed in 1998 and approved in 2002. The CDM allows developing countries to sell their ‘certified emission reductions’ (CERs) to the wealthier nations.
By trading CERs, China has developed an additional revenue stream to fund local emission reduction projects. According to the World Bank, China obtained 62.5 percent of the total UN-certified carbon credits in 2006. This amounted to US$3 billion.
One such project benefiting from the CER mechanism is the Jincheng coalbed methane (CBM) power plant, which is scheduled to begin operation this August. At 120,000 kw, it will be the largest of its kind in Asia. Annually, the power plant is expected to transform 180 million cubic meters of CBM gas into 730 million kWh of electricity.
The power plant is attached to the Sihe coal mine from which the intense greenhouse gas will now be used to provide electricity. Jincheng Anthracite Mining Group, which owns the mine and the power plant, received US$150 million in funding in exchange for certified emission reduction credits.
On June 1st, Jiangxi province’s first coalbed methane (CBM)-fired power station was successfully connected to a power grid in this southern Chinese province. It had gone through two months of trial operations. This CBM plant could become a model for similar plants in other Chinese provinces.
There are negotiations for 60 CDM projects currently underway. Of the twenty approved by the state government, most are coalbed methane recovery projects.
China hopes to double the sale of the country’s carbon credits. The next five years could show intensified activity in carbon trading as Japan and Europe rush to the 2012 deadline for meeting their emission reductions targets. Using the present rate of China’s market share as a yardstick, this could mean more than US$7 billion in ‘foreign aid’ in 2007.
Financial institutions are scrambling to deal with the trading action. Fortis Bank, a Belgian Dutch financial group, which has carbon trading desks in Europe and the United States, plans to expand its Hong-Kong trading desk this year to capitalize upon the ‘easy pickings’ of methane projects. Fortis ranks 18th on Fortune’s Global 500 list with 2006 revenues of more than US$112.3 billion.
Fortis‘ Asian carbon market director Shane Spurway said, “Methane will probably be one of the most popular projects in the next three to four years.”
While degasifying China’s coal mines helps save lives, the financiers aren’t attracted to methane projects for humanitarian reasons. Because methane gas is far more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, every ton of methane gas captured and utilized is the financial trading equivalent of twenty tons of CO2.
As a result, we believe China’s coalbed methane gas should become a very valuable commodity and attract widespread foreign capital to those companies developing CBM in China. We also suspect that foreign-owned CBM companies developing these projects could become beneficiaries of carbon trading credits – potentially adding cash to their revenue streams.
Until now, coalbed methane projects have lagged in development. The CER mechanism in the Kyoto Protocol shoots them to the top of the list. Carbon traders make money so the CBM projects will become easier to finance. They neither require the capital-intensive component of nuclear energy power plants nor the gamble of an offshore natural gas discovery.
Kyoto’s CERs and China’s CBM projects appear to be a banker’s dream project, for at least the next few years as the world’s richest nations rush to capitalize upon those carbon trading credits.
China’s Guizhou Province
China hopes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out many obsolete thermal power plants and replacing them with small-scale natural gas or coalbed methane electric power plants. Holding one of the world’s top coal reserves, and the world’s largest producer and consumer of coal, China relies upon coal for its energy. The country’s top experts know coal better than any other energy source.
Consequently, China’s turning to CBM gas as one means of reducing air pollution and continuing to power its double-digit GDP growth is a natural extension for its scientists, miners and environmentalists.
After researching Shanxi province, which hosts one-third of China’s coal reserves, we began studying comparable coal provinces and regions to find which areas had prolific CBM reserves. Guizhou province stood out. It is also about 400 miles northwest of Hong Kong.
In the course of researching the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Coalbed Methane Outreach Program, we were fortunate to uncover an analysis released in late 2005 jointly published by the China Coal Information Institute and the US EPA.
“Guizhou province has the largest coal reserve in southern China as well as rich CBM resources. The CBM reserve in Guizhou is 3.1KB m3, accounting for 22 percent of the total in China.”
Guizhou ranks second behind Shanxi province.
The report continued, “The CBM resources in Guizhou are not only rich but of high quality as well, with the CBM reserve 29KB m3 in the methane-rich areas of over 8 m3 methane per ton coal, accounting for 94 percent of the total amount of local CBM resources.”
This government report also noted the plan was utilize the ‘local rich CBM resources on a large scale.’
As a result, we anticipate Guizhou province may be one of the targets of the certified emission reduction credits. The high quality and abundant CBM reserves could help develop the small-scale CBM plants now operational or under construction to the east and north. The regional population is equivalent to more than 80 percent of the U.S. population.
In April, China announced Guizhou province would utilize 100 million square meters of CBM this year. Later that month, the NDRC announced it would encourage coal mine investors to exploit CBM. In May, a new preferential policy to promote CBM exploitation was announced.
To our knowledge, only one foreign-owned company holds properties in Guizhou province. Pacific Asia China Energy is presently developing its Boatian-Qingshan property in the Longtan coal formation in this province.
In summary, we don’t believe the high-pitched excitement for the next few years will be about China’s nuclear power plants. Certainly there will be growth in China’s nuclear, and over the next decade, nuclear could represent a higher level of electrical capacity. And China has announced it plans to build a strategic uranium reserve. But, the country has also limited the amount of molybdenum it exports (effective earlier this month). Of course, this should drive those metal prices higher.
However through 2012, China’s coal mines and the methane contained in those mines is more likely to be a major energy driver in attracting foreign capital. After all, carbon trading credits can’t be taken lightly. The CERs are attracting foreign investment, bringing the country new technologies and gifting the Chinese government billions of dollars for trying to reduce their air pollution.
COPYRIGHT © 2007 by StockInterview.com
ask is inching up!
http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2010/05/epa_tightens_industrial_air_pollution_rules.html?t=recent
May 18, 2010
EPA Tightens Industrial Air Pollution Rules
By Ilya Leybovich
The EPA has announced new measures to more strictly regulate greenhouse gas emissions from major emission sources, such as power plants, while reducing restrictions on smaller industrial businesses. Some groups oppose the ruling, but others claim it will benefit small businesses in the long-term.
On Thursday, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the final version of a new regulatory measure designed to create a phased approach to controlling greenhouse gas emissions. The ruling establishes standards that exempt smaller companies from many of the enforcement requirements, while setting stronger controls over larger emitters.
"After extensive study, debate and hundreds of thousands of public comments, [the] EPA has set common-sense thresholds for greenhouse gases that will spark clean technology innovation and protect small businesses and farms," EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson said. "It's long past time we unleashed our American ingenuity and started building the efficient, prosperous clean-energy economy of the future."
Known as the "tailoring rule," the EPA's measure will adjust policies based on an emitter's size and scale of impact, focusing on facilities such as power plants and oil refineries, which account for roughly 70 percent of the country's greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources. At the same time, the measure will loosen restrictions for smaller manufacturing firms and industrial businesses.
The tailoring rule will take effect in January 2011, when industrial firms obtaining Clean Air Act permits for other pollutants will be required to also gain permits for greenhouse gas emissions if they increase those emissions by at least 75,000 tons per year.
Beginning in July 2011, the permit rule will extend to new facilities that emit at least 100,000 tons per year and to existing facilities that make modifications that would increase emissions by at least 75,000 tons per year. According to the EPA, the permits "must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies to minimize GHG emission increases."
The final rule applies to six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
By increasing the enforcement threshold to emissions of 75,000 tons per year, the measure is intended to exempt small businesses and other minor emission sources from most of the permitting requirements. The EPA estimates that 900 additional permits will come under review each year and 550 new permits will be issued for the first time due to greenhouse gas emissions.
Without the tailored rule, the EPA says, earlier requirements targeting emitters at a much lower range would take effect in January, "greatly increasing the number of required permits, imposing undue costs on small sources, overwhelming the resources of permitting authorities and severely impairing the functioning of the programs."
"Last fall the E.P.A. had indicated that the bar would be set at 25,000 tons a year, which would have imposed the permit requirement on smaller entities like family farms and large apartment buildings," the New York Times reports. In its current form, the regulation is expected to affect 15,550 sources, including coal-fired plants, cement manufacturers, refineries and solid waste landfills.
The EPA's announcement came shortly after an energy and climate bill dealing with many of the same issues was introduced to the Senate, leading to speculation that the new enforcement rules are part of an effort to achieve broader legislative goals.
"The Obama administration has long said it would prefer that Congress pass a bill to cut greenhouse gas emissions but has used the threat of EPA regulation to push lawmakers in states heavily dependent on fossil fuels to support the climate bill," the Associated Press reports. "Many large utilities and other energy companies have said they want Congress to act, believing they would be in a better bargaining position with Congress than in regulations issued by the EPA."
The new EPA rule has been criticized by various industry groups, with some citing concerns that the present threshold may eventually be lowered to include smaller and smaller businesses or to impose unrealistic requirements on existing industries.
"Fundamentally, this 'tailoring rule' takes the country in the wrong direction by using the Clean Air Act to expand the power of the EPA and allow the Agency to choose which energy sources American consumers will use," the National Association of Manufacturers said in a statement issued last week. "This new rule also creates uncertainty and adds confusing and costly new permitting requirements. The EPA has set a short timetable for implementation, which will undoubtedly cost jobs and prevent manufacturers from growing their businesses."
Although the EPA's latest round of changes to the greenhouse gas guidelines might "soften the regulation's impact on small businesses," the Washington Post reports that it is "sure to face a court challenge."
Yeah Edurk keep up the good work! I think your doing a fine job.
Thanks Admiral, Enjoy the rest of your day!
Would be nice to see a close at or near .11
Hey Stevesc yeah its great to have a PR like we had to today! Good times are ahead. Patience is a mighty fine virtue if you know what I mean... Enjoy your day, and lets keep backing the truck up!
Can someone Add the latest PR to the sticky note, at the top of the page? Thanks...
I sure noticed!!! A lot of people still think its a bunch of fluff... Come on people this is great news... HELLO!
Whats with all these negative Nancys on this board today? I just got home to see the PR, and what people are saying... People should be excited to see that Doug actually is updating the shareholders, and informing us that the big money is coming! Doug couldnt be any more clear here... IMO he is saying buy all you can its a great time!!! People wake the Phuck up! Good things take time, and Doug will deliver... And Ospreyeye WTF? Are you a Schizo?LOL
I would also think that Doug will actually have the next PR on time or even early... I think it would not look good to some who CANT wait! I am holding for a while because I can wait to be handsomly rewarded!
It should be a good week then since they were wrong on the Buy-if last week! What do they know?
Yeah its really funny watching this zoo of a board! Hang there and dodge the hostil fire, and you will be rewarded in the end! GL.
it was dated today! It was a bit more info on some press that was mentioned yesterday in an article, but its quite encouraging! LONG
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2010/2010-05-14-091.html
U.S. EPA Regulates Greenhouse Gases for Large Industrial Sources
WASHINGTON, DC, May 14, 2010 (ENS) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a final rule to address greenhouse gas emissions from the largest industrial facilities, while shielding millions of small sources of greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act permitting requirements.
Announced Thursday, the rule will address facilities like coal-fired power plants and oil refineries that are responsible for 70 percent of the greenhouse gases from stationary sources that threaten American's health and welfare.
The rule flows from a determination by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson last December that the emission of greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare. This endangerment finding paved the legal path for this so-called "tailoring" rule, which sets greenhouse gas emissions thresholds to define when permits under the Clean Air Act's New Source Review program are required for new and existing facilities.
"After extensive study, debate and hundreds of thousands of public comments, EPA has set common-sense thresholds for greenhouse gases that will spark clean technology innovation and protect small businesses and farms," said Administrator Jackson introducing the rule.
Power plant and transmission lines in Commerce City, Colorado (Photo by Shawn Parker)
"There is no denying our responsibility to protect the planet for our children and grandchildren," she said. "It's long past time we unleashed our American ingenuity and started building the efficient, prosperous clean energy economy of the future."
Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who co-authored the American Power Act introduced in the Senate on Wednesday, said the EPA rule increases the urgency of Senate action on energy and climate legislation. The bill establishes a nationwide cap on greenhouse gas emissions and a market for trading emissions allowances.
"The Obama administration has again reminded Washington that if Congress won't legislate, the EPA will regulate," said Senator Kerry. "Those who have spent years stalling need to understand: killing a Senate bill is no longer success. And if Congress won't legislate a solution, the EPA will regulate one, and it will come without the help to America's business and consumers contained in the American Power Act."
"That's why businesses that have opposed every previous piece of legislation are supporting this one because the American Power Act will create millions of new jobs, move us towards energy independence, strengthen our national security, and give us cleaner air at the same time," Kerry said. "We need to get it done this year."
EPA's phased-in approach will start in January 2011, when Clean Air Act permitting requirements for greenhouse gases will kick in for large facilities that are already obtaining Clean Air Act permits for other pollutants. Those facilities will be required to include greenhouse gases in their permit if they increase these emissions by at least 75,000 tons per year.
In July 2011, Clean Air Act permitting requirements will expand to cover all new facilities with greenhouse gas emissions of at least 100,000 tons per year and modifications at existing facilities that would increase GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tons per year.
These permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies to minimize greenhouse gas emission increases when facilities are constructed or significantly modified.
Senate Republicans oppose the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Commenting Thursday, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe put the Obama administration on notice that the rule will be challenged in court.
"EPA's legal basis for the rule rings hollow," Inhofe said. "The rule violates the Clean Air Act, and it won't survive legal scrutiny. Even if the courts uphold the rule, EPA makes absolutely clear that commercial buildings, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and thousands of other small sources eventually will find themselves caught in the web of EPA's global warming regime."
"In short," said Inhofe, "EPA is buying political time because it knows the political and practical consequences that will arise from its endangerment finding. The only way to stop EPA is for Congress to overturn that finding and provide certainty for employers so they can create jobs, expand their businesses, and get America on the path to economic recovery."
While Inhofe and other Senate Republicans are opposed to EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, they are also opposed to the American Power Act introduced by Senator Kerry and co-author Senator Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Independent.
Inhofe reacted to the Kerry-Lieberman bill by saying, "The sooner we reject global warming cap-and-trade legislation, and get to work on an all-of the-above energy policy, the sooner the American public will have access to affordable, abundant, American-made energy."
The American Forest & Paper Association objects to the rule because it fails to differentiate power generated by burning biomass, such as logging slash and agricultural waste, from fossil-fuels.
AF&PA President and CEO Donna Harman said today, "We are deeply disappointed the EPA failed to reaffirm its own precedent and the internationally recognized carbon neutrality of biomass. This rule treats biomass fuels identically to fossil fuels, in effect undermining the Administration's support for renewable energy policy in this country."
The Woodland Biomass power plant near Sacramento, California burns 200,000 tpy of waste wood and agricultural waste and sells the power to PG&E. (Photo courtesy Woodlandwiki)
"The forest products industry is proud of its voluntary reductions in greenhouse gases and our increasing reliance on domestically grown, renewable and carbon neutral biomass to power our mills - all of which are important for a sustainable future," said Harman.
"Biomass is the renewable fuel that forest products facilities use for two-thirds of their energy needs as an alternative to fossil fuels," she said. "Emissions from the combustion of biomass historically have not been included in greenhouse gas reduction policies because biomass combustion does not increase carbon in the atmosphere when the overall biomass stock is renewed."
"EPA's own data show that the biomass carbon cycle in the U.S. removes more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than it emits," Harman pointed out. "This rule undermines this important precedent and jeopardizes public and private investment in biomass-based renewable energy, which is fundamental to existing and future green jobs in rural communities hit hard by the economic downturn."
"This rule is another example of why the Clean Air Act is the wrong tool to regulate greenhouse gases," she said.
But meanwhile, the EPA's final rule governing greenhouse gas emissions will take effect in January and ramp up in July 2011.
Under the new emissions thresholds for greenhouse gases that begin in July 2011, EPA estimates approximately 900 additional permitting actions covering new sources and modifications to existing sources would be subject to review each year.
In addition, 550 sources will need to obtain operating permits for the first time because of their greenhouse gas emissions.
In April 2010, EPA set the first national greenhouse gas tailpipe standards for passenger cars and light trucks.
When greenhouse gas emissions limits for these vehicles go into effect in January 2011, EPA is also required to address greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act's permitting programs, which it is doing in the final rule.
The final rule addresses a group of six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
EPA issued a proposed rule in October 2009 and held a 60-day public comment period. The agency received about 450,000 comments, which were reviewed and considered during the development of the final rule.
You hit the nail on the head! Check back end of summer, and you will like what yo see! Too many want instant gratification...We will have our day!!!
http://www.sooperarticles.com/news-society-articles/environmental-articles/replacing-coal-clean-coal-64554.html
Offsetting Carbon Emissions in Developing Economies 5/13/2010
The world is making a transition towards energy generated by renewables, however, it is generally accepted that coal will remain an important strategic fuel for the coming decades. This is due to rising energy demands and the time required for renewables to gain the capacity required to meet these demands. Fossil fuels, particularly coal, will therefore remain important in order to secure global energy supplies. Given the fact that changes in the climate are already taking effect, new clean coal technologies, that aim to reduce the environmental impact of coal energy generation, will play a major role in global strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
As the Kyoto Protocol is nearing the end of its term and a follow-up is still being negotiated, clean coal developments are being highly scrutinised. This is especially evident when it comes to carbon offsetting in the developing world within the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The CDM is an arrangement under the Kyoto Protocol allowing industrialised countries with a GHG reduction commitment to offset carbon emissions by investing in ventures that reduce emissions in developing countries. Nevertheless, despite the challenges, there are approved avenues under the CDM that provide opportunities for Clean Coal to Power.
Cleaning Up Coal
Within the developing world, China, India and South Africa have a natural abundance of coal and to a large extent rely on this source for their energy supply. With a total annual consumption of around 40 quadrillion BTU (British Thermal Units) of coal, these three countries are the leading coal producers and consumers in the developing world. Realising that the existing power base is dominated by coal and the fact that many new coal based power facilities will be built in the coming decades, the impact of clean coal technologies will be significant.
Numerous clean coal technologies have been introduced worldwide yet there are still only a few which can currently find support under the CDM. On the one hand this is caused by very strict requirements for accuracy and conservativeness. On the other hand not all clean coal technologies address GHG emissions but other emissions such as sulphur dioxide, dust and traces of heavy metals which don't fall under the CDM framework.
The current CDM framework provides methodologies that can accommodate high efficiency technologies such as super critical coal power plants. A methodology relevant to this was approved in May 2008 and applies to countries whose electricity supply relies on more than 50% of coal. Although the methodology was welcomed by several interested parties in China and India, up to now there is no official public record of CDM projects utilising it.
Furthermore, a recently submitted methodology by EcoSecurities for large scale biomass co-firing was approved by the CDM Executive Board at the 51st meeting in December 2009. The methodology was developed for a plant in Chile but provides opportunities for co-firing in coal fired plants in general. Biomass co-firing is a well developed technology in Europe.
A third option, which is currently under debate, concerns Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). This new technology is entering the stage of semi-commercial demonstration. It involves the capture of CO2 from power plant emissions - in most cases from the flue gas after combustion - and subsequent storage underground in deep saline aquifers, oil and gas reservoirs or deep coal seams that can't be mined.
There have been methodologies developed for CCS but up to now none have been approved. The CDM Executive Board has decided not to evaluate any new methodologies until a political decision has been made on whether CCS will be included in the post-Kyoto mechanisms. Although discussed at the Copenhagen climate negotiations in Dec 2009, the Conference of Parties (COP15) did not provide any clarity and thus CCS will still be on the table during the negotiations in Mexico at the end of this year.
Is CCS really part of the solution?
At present CCS in emerging economies may be looked at with false hope due to the high costs involved and the risks identified in industrialised nations. However, a lot of lessons and technical improvements will come from the early demonstration projects in the US and Europe, planned to be operational between 2012 and 2015. All said, advancements in South Africa and China indicate that CCS technology is seen as a positive way forward – laying the foundation for future construction.
A CCS centre was established in South Africa in early 2009 with funding provided by local and international private investors. The funding secures a five year commitment to mapping and exploring the possibilities of CCS in the country. To this day no physical drilling has been performed, however a CCS atlas is to be made publicly available by mid 2010. Pre-atlas studies have identified a theoretical capacity of 104 Gt in the Karoo of which South Africa requires 4 Gt to store 40 Mt/yr for 100 years. Even though theoretically the Karoo, a 400,000 km2 semi-desert region, has expansive storage space, there are dolerite intrusions and low porous and low permeable formations that can reduce the theoretical capacity dramatically.
Tony Surridge, head of the CCS Centre, indicates that further research is still in progress to advance from theoretical to practical implementable estimates. The situation today, however, indicates that the best storage location in Southern Africa is likely to be the Outeniqua Basin where the depleted gas fields have a history of gas storage.
The centre currently plans to prepare for a pilot project in the short term and a small demonstration in the medium term, which will eventually lead to a possible large scale demo in 2020. Barry MacColl, chairman of the CCS Centre, highlights the fact that national targets, rather than company targets, are a way in which this process could be implemented. As South Africa is a developing economy, the problem of whether the government could implement such a strategy without any external aid is questionable.
A developing nation, which is actively taking initiatives to reduce GHG emissions is China. China's government has identified the importance of reducing emissions and a portfolio of stimulating measures has been implemented. China signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol and currently holds a substantial amount of the CDM projects in operation.
With regard to CCS, studies have been incorporated into key national research and development plans including China's National Climate Change Programme and China's Scientific & Technological Actions on Climate Change. China has assessed the CCS potential in the Northeast, Central and Southwest China, whilst the South needs further exploration. Currently the total storage capacity is estimated at 1445.8 Gt for approximately 400 years. China has emphasised that incorporating international cooperation is of eminent importance. A new type of CO2 storage being investigated is called Enhance Coal Bed Methane (ECBM). CO2 is injected and stored in un-minable coal seams whilst at the same time displacing methane from the pores and generating a gas stream comparable to natural gas. Several regional pilots concerning ECBM as well as the capture of CO2 from power plant flue gasses are on the way.
India is also investigating the geological CO2 storage potential they may have. A total of 572 Gt has been identified with the majority coming from deep saline aquifers and volcanic rock.
Carbon Commerce
A need to reduce GHG emissions globally saw the birth of a carbon trading system. The selling and buying of carbon credits from under-emitting nations to high emission operators, has been positively embraced as it assists in short to medium term planning.
The carbon trading arena has witnessed rapid, exponential growth. ABI Researchers have forecasted that the global carbon emissions trading market will reach $395 billion transactions in 2014, which is three times the allowances traded in 2008. With the introduction of a diversity of players, the market is able to expand creating incentives for more players to enter into the process. Even though the market has shown immense growth and development, some still have reservations concerning the effectiveness of the system.
A cap and trade system implemented in South Africa or China could prove costly – not to national bodies but rather to the consumers who would have to foot the bill. Currently, China and South Africa have extremely low per capita incomes. Hence, increases in electricity bills and gas prices would potentially lead to a reduction in the standard of living of a large proportion of the population.
The global downturn that occurred saw a readjustment of focus away from the carbon market as industrial output declined considerably. EU carbon credit prices saw a decline of nearly 60% from 2008 and felt a 21% drop in 2009. A non-conclusive agreement at Copenhagen further depressed the market as stricter carbon emission caps would have increased the demand for carbon credits, resulting in higher prices. A single, high price on carbon to create incentives for investment and trade needs to be reached. A price of $40 per ton of CO2 equivalent has been suggested. The price, combined with effective policies, regulations and advancements in the CCS technology would bring CCS into commercial viability. All considered, the global market for carbon credits rose to $136 billion last year. If the market follows past patterns, carbon is set to become a commodity.
Future evolution
Even though the inconclusive outcome from Copenhagen may have left some in dismay, a crucial result did occur– the developing world has found a voice. The engagement of the whole world is an important step, as a successful solution needs both industrialised and emerging countries to collaborate and work together.
The summit recognised the importance of the CCS technology, yet until further solutions have been found to the issues raised the technology cannot be unconditionally approved by the CDM Executive Board. However, it has been placed on the agenda for the next summit in Mexico in 2010.
Paul Soffe, Head of Research and Development and Associate Director at EcoSecurities commented "There is a need to structure a financing mechanism for CCS in developing countries under climate frameworks that provide financial incentives for long term sequestration. The CDM is one such mechanism; it can provide carbon funding to developing countries and has a very robust monitoring and verification (M&V) system. However, if the CDM is politically too difficult, then an alternative mechanism can be developed using a similar M&V system, either under the UNFCCC or bilaterally between the EU and key countries such as China and South Africa."
Previously the CDM offered a preliminary solution to the issues surrounding financing in developing nations. Copenhagen saw a development in this regard by the commitment of $30 billion dollars per year by 2012. The funding of this has been divided, with most funds being provided by the EU and Japan.
At the final address in COP15, President Obama turned to rapidly emerging economies such as South Africa, India and China as essential participants in the future of climate change. This is a significant advancement from the initial Kyoto meeting which saw the exclusion of these emerging economies.
Following the summit, the emerging nations had significant pledges. South Africa committed to a 34% emission reduction below business-as-usual by 2020 and 42% by 2025. President Jacob Zuma, however, stipulated that these actions will be conditional on a fair, ambitious and effective outcome of international negotiations surrounding climate change. He further added that financial and technological support was needed from international participants.
Chinese Prime Minister, Wen Jiabao, insists that China's efforts are voluntary rather than binding. Hence, they would do their share regardless of the outcome from Copenhagen with a tremendous pledge to reduce China's carbon intensity by 40-45%.
As Asia's third largest energy consumer, India guaranteed a reduction of 25% by 2020 from 2005 levels. The employment of forestry and an increase in energy efficiency would be pursued to reach this goal.
Even though funding has been committed to developing nations, global synergy would be the most optimal solution. The synergy would create incentives for industrialised countries to dramatically reduce their emissions and for emerging economies to grow their low carbon technologies. The synergy would occur through the continuation of the CDM process and the consideration of a global trading market with a global carbon price.
Following Copenhagen, the meeting in Mexico in 2010 should and must result in a legally binding international protocol. As stated by Rwanda's President Kagame, at the UN heads of state meeting on Climate Change in September 2009, "Africans want to be part of the solution – not part of the problem". Developing nations must be equipped with the tools necessary to facilitate successful implementation of climate change targets.
Longs will be rewarded soon enough people! CCTC has a lot going right now and will deliver on china/india, as well as the U.S. later in the year. Big contracts take time, and sometimes get caught up for many different reasons... We all need to remember why we invested, and understand how good the technology really is!!! I believe Doug is doing much more than we know to grow this company into a clean coal powerhouse. Like many of us know he is not the best PR person that will all be water under the bridge IMO. The big news is still yet to come, and the PPs will get back to where it belongs...
So be patient, and watch all the bashers try like hell to steal shares, or convince you to sell because they know just like us she will blast off to da moon!LOL Hang in there folks, and dont listen to those crazy bashers. They are all over Yahoo as well working overtime! Good times ahead my fellow CCTC investors.
Its a good sign let me tell you... The more bahers the better I feel! You aint scaring me fellas!
http://chicagopressrelease.com/news/epa-moves-to-regulate-smokestack-greenhouse-gases-ap
Business | Released on Thursday, May 13, 2010 16:00 - 0 Comments
EPA moves to regulate smokestack greenhouse gases (AP)Topics: energy, greenhouse, News, regulations
WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency moved Thursday to more tightly control air pollution from large power plants, factories and oil refineries, a step to limit emissions widely blamed for global warming.
The EPA said it is completing a rule requiring large polluters to reduce the amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that they release into the air. Those emissions can exacerbate asthma and other breathing problems.
The rule would require companies to install better technology and improve energy efficiency whenever they build, or significantly modify, a plant.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the rule applies only to large polluters such as power plants, refineries and cement production facilities that collectively are responsible for 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
Jackson said the rule sets commonsense standards that will clean the air and protect public health, while avoiding burdensome regulations that could harm farms and small and medium-sized businesses.
“There is no denying our responsibility to protect the planet for our children and grandchildren,” she said in a statement. “It’s long past time we unleashed our American ingenuity and started building the efficient, prosperous clean energy economy of the future.”
The EPA announcement comes a day after an energy and climate bill was introduced in the Senate that seeks to accomplish many of the same goals. But EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan denied any connection, saying “rules are ready when they are ready.”
The pollution rule will take effect in January, when industrial facilities that already obtain Clean Air Act permits for other pollutants will be required to obtain permits for greenhouse gases, if they increase those emissions by at least 75,000 tons per year.
Starting in July 2011, the rule would apply to any existing plant that emits at least 75,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year, or any new plant that emits 100,000 tons per year.
The rule comes as Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., made public a long-delayed bill aimed at curtailing greenhouse gas emissions. The bill introduced on Wednesday would set a first-ever price on carbon dioxide emissions produced by coal-fired power plants and other large polluters.
The legislation aims to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020 and by more than 80 percent by 2050. Both targets are measured against 2005 levels and are the same as those set by a House bill approved last year.
The Obama administration has long said it would prefer that Congress pass a bill to cut greenhouse gas emissions but has used the threat of EPA regulation to push lawmakers in states heavily dependent on fossil fuels to support the climate bill.
Many large utilities and other energy companies have said they want Congress to act, believing they would be in a better bargaining position with Congress than in regulations issued by the EPA.
Even so, the energy bill faces a steep hill in the Senate. No Republican has signed on as a co-sponsor. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who had been working with Kerry and Lieberman, withdrew his support last week, saying it is impossible to pass the legislation in the current political climate.
The rule announced Thursday substantially raises the threshold amount of pollution required before greenhouse gas permits are needed. A proposal announced last September would have required permits for facilities that emit 25,000 tons per year.
Gina McCarthy, an assistant EPA administrator, said the change was made in response to complaints that the earlier proposal would have affected many small and medium-sized businesses, and even large apartment buildings. Such limits “clearly were not appropriate,” she said.
Environmentalists hailed the pollution rule but industry groups and some GOP lawmakers called it a job-killer.
“Just as pollution standards for cars have spurred the auto companies to make hybrids and other cleaner cars, these standards will start to move America away from dirty, inefficient and outdated coal plants toward more efficient, cleaner energy,” said Emily Figdor, director of the global warming program at Environment America, an advocacy group.
A spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said the EPA was overreaching its authority. Murkowski has threatened to introduce legislation blocking the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
“Sen. Murkowski remains convinced that the (EPA) tailoring rule won’t stand up in court — that the agency can’t change a law that was passed in Congress,” said Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Murkowski. The senator remains committed to allowing all 100 senators a vote on whether they think EPA is the appropriate body to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, he said.
http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/0027303874/articles/powergenworldwide/emissions-and-environment/regulation/2010/05/Senate-climate-change.html
U.S. climate change bill unveiled
12 May 2010-- U.S. Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., have released their version of climate change legislation that includes carbon dioxide reductions for power plants and revenue sharing for states that participate in offshore drilling.
The Kerry-Lieberman bill also includes a price for carbon starting at $12 and increasing at 3 percent over inflation annually, and a ceiling set at $25, which will increase by 5 percent over inflation.
The Senate's version calls for a 17 percent reduction in carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050. Power plants will have the first restrictions and manufacturers' restrictions will follow six years later. The bill will also give distribution companies that service electric utilities free allowances through 2029.
The bill also allows states to opt out of drilling up to 75 miles from their shores and can veto offshore drilling plans if an accident will cause a significant impact. However, states that move ahead with drilling will receive 37.5 percent of the revenue.
The legislation would pre-empt states ability to implement greenhouse gas reductions and provide credit through allowances for states that already have cap and trade policies that are supposed to end because of federal law. Even though the Environmental Protection Agency will have authority over many of the new climate programs, the bill restricts the agency's ability to regulate GHG under several sections of the Clean Air Act.
Read more emissions and environment regulation news
Now is the time for CCTC to take full advantage and get their tech. noticed! The future is so bright!!! Cant you all see it?