John Petersen

After eight years of rarely speaking above a whisper, Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) has found its voice, taken the scientific wraps off its PbC® battery technology and shown potential customers, competitors and investors that it's carrying a big stick and is poised to dominate energy storage for stop-start idle elimination – a cheap and sensible fuel efficiency and emissions reduction technology that's expected to grow at spectacular rates for the rest of the decade as shown in the following forecast of battery demand in vehicles equipped with stop-start systems.



In a new white paper on dynamic charge acceptance that's available in the Investor section of its website, Axion has thrown down the technology gauntlet and shown why flooded and valve regulated lead-acid batteries from Johnson Controls (JCI), Exide Technologies (XIDE) and others aren't good enough for today's stop-start systems and won't be good enough for even more demanding second generation systems. In the process it's also shown why a dual device system from Maxwell Technologies (MXWL) and Continental AG (CTTAY.PK) that combines a supercapacitor module with a valve regulated AGM battery can't be an optimal solution either.

The basic problem is that stop-start systems require their batteries to operate at a partial state of charge and conventional lead-acid batteries rapidly deteriorate if they're not kept fully charged. There's a fundamental mismatch between the needs of the application and the capabilities of the battery. With flooded lead-acid batteries the deterioration is obvious within weeks. With valve regulated AGM batteries it takes a few months. As the battery deteriorates, the mechanical systems just stop working. Stop-start systems that lose their functionality over a few weeks or a few months because of feeble batteries aren't efficiency technologies at all - they're greenwash. Automakers desperately need a better solution, but it has to be easy to manufacture, easy to scale and cheap enough for a price sensitive mass market.

In simple terms, the PbC is a battery-capacitor hybrid that loves operating at a partial state of charge and doesn't deteriorate rapidly with age. While the basic chemistry is pure lead acid, Axion replaces the lead-based negative electrodes found in conventional batteries with carbon electrode assemblies that eliminate battery deterioration and pave the way for second-generation systems that will offer even better performance. Since the white paper does a fine job of explaining the science, I'll focus on the business dynamics that favor rapid launch and widespread implementation of the PbC technology.

The PbC offers 10x the dynamic charge acceptance and 20x the cycle-life of conventional lead acid batteries for one reason – it's a third-generation device that takes valve regulated AGM battery technology to a whole new level. While the science underlying the PbC technology was patented in 2002, the challenge was developing production methods and equipment that could leverage existing manufacturing and distribution infrastructure instead of replacing it. Axion spent eight years developing PbC electrode assemblies that can be used as plug-and-play replacements for the lead-based electrodes used by battery manufacturers worldwide. The last step is earning OEM certification for its automated electrode manufacturing processes. Once the OEM's have certified Axion's electrode manufacturing processes, it will be easy for an AGM battery manufacturer to substitute PbC electrode assemblies for their conventional lead electrodes and offer a better battery to customers without having to requalify their factories or their products.

Unlike other battery manufacturers that want to build new factories and develop new customers, or wrestle business away from entrenched competitors, Axion plans to pursue a platform technology strategy where it will focus on manufacturing a high value component for sale to existing manufacturers that want to offer a better product to current customers. Axion's strategy was lifted from the Intel playbook. They don't care who manufactures the battery for a particular customer as long as it uses Axion's electrodes. With a strong intellectual property estate that will keep new entrants away from its sandbox, Axion is well positioned to forge a variety of cooperative relationships with battery manufacturers worldwide.

The only battery technology on the market that can offer comparable performance in stop-start applications is lithium-ion. While lithium-ion developers like A123 Systems (AONE) are actively developing products for the stop-start market, their batteries are more expensive than the PbC and harder to scale because they can't leverage existing infrastructure. They also suffer from significant cold weather performance issues and have limited potential for future cost reductions while the PbC is at the upper left-hand corner of the learning curve. There's a reason that first tier battery buyers like BMW and Norfolk Southern publicly aligned themselves with the PbC technology before there was a PbC product.

In his seminal book The Innovator's Dilemma, Dr. Clayton Christensen uses the term disruptive technologies to describe low-cost innovations that satisfy new customer needs, improve over time and eventually displace established technologies. The following graph illustrates the phenomenon.



If you believe Dr. Christensen's theory it's impossible to believe that lithium-ion batteries that were developed for the most demanding uses will be the ultimate winner in energy storage for stop-start idle elimination. Technologies simply do not transition downstream from high quality uses to low quality uses. Disruptive technologies always start at the bottom and work their way to the top. Given a choice between embracing the PbC technology and working with Axion or losing critical market share to more expensive lithium-ion products, the lead-acid battery industry will do the only sensible thing.

At yesterday's close Axion had a $48 million market capitalization and a serially patented technology that holds the price and performance keys to a multi-billion dollar market. The math seems obvious to me. In less than two weeks Axion will present at the Rodman & Renshaw conference in New York. It's stock had a strong run in February and March of this year after similar presentations at lower tier cleantech conferences sponsored by Piper Jaffray, Jefferies and Kaufman Bros. While the first run was crushed by selling pressure from a couple of large stockholders, cumulative trading data leads me to believe that the willing sellers are effectively out of stock and can't cause a comparable reversal of the next run.

Disclosure: Author is a former director of Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) and holds a substantial long position in its common stock.

Posted by John Petersen at 06:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

The London Accord took a look at what portfolio theory would suggest as the most effective ways to address Climate Change.  Knowing which technologies don't make the cut is at least as useful as knowing which technologies do.

Tom Konrad, Ph.D., CFA

I recently looked at a paper from the London Accord which used portfolio theory to recommend the best mixes of technologies to deliver different levels of carbon abatement.  The most useful technologies to achieve the needed levels of carbon abatement were Forestry, Hydropower, Biofuels, Wind, Efficiency, and Geothermal. I suggested stocks that investors might consider to invest in each of these sectors.

Other technologies played on bit parts in the abatement portfolios (left) the report found are likely to achieve the needed levels of climate reduction most efficienctly.  

If we were to assume intelligent political policies, these bit-part technologies should be avoided by investors.  The assumption of intelligent political policy is unlikely to be realistic, however:  Some of these technologies will turn out to be good for investors, even if they fail to achieve the desired goals for the climate.  

Below, I try to imagine the political decisions which would lead to each of these also-ran technologies rewarding investors. 

Nuclear

Nuclear power plays a large role in abatement portfolio 1, shown to the left.  This portfolio delivers about 3 gigatons of worldwide CO₂ equivalent (Gt CO₂e) abatement per year, at a cost of $25B annually.  Given that necessary level of abatement is at least 5 times that amount, portfolio 1 represents a vastly inadequate policy response to climate change.  We could get such an inadequate policy response if opponents manage to convince decision makers that an adequate response to climate change will do unacceptable harm to the economy.

Such policies would sad for humanity, ibut good for investors in suppliers of nuclear equipment.

Nuclear does not play a big role in the larger mitigation portfolios simply because it's potential for carbon mitigation is limited.  Nuclear plants take a very long time to build, and concerns about the disposal of waste and the desire of most people not to live anywhere near a nuclear plant are not likely to go away.  Furthermore, nuclear power and other baseload technologies which are difficult to stop and start quickly are somewhat incompatible with variable renewable energy such as wind and solar.  If wind is to meet its much larger potential for climate carbon mitigation, nuclear will have to play an even smaller role.

Solar

Solar only plays a significant role in the most aggressive portfolios, 4-6.   As you can see in the chart above, portfolios 5 and 6 do not produce much extra carbon savings even though they cost two and three times what portfolio 4 does.  The implication is that solar will do best if society decides that action against climate change is worthwhile regardless of the cost (scenarios 5 and 6,) or in a scenario where we decide that we need to be very aggressive about dealing with climate change, but should keep an eye on costs.

One significant caveat here is that the above abatement portfolios are based on the 2007 IPCC Working Group report, "Mitigation of Climate Change."  This report may have had much too conservative assumptions for cost reductions in solar technology (right).

With Sarasin's more optimistic assumptions about cost reductions for solar technology, it plays a large role in all mitigation portfolios on the efficient frontier.  Here "solar" refers to solar photovoltaic (PV) and Concentrating Solar Thermal Power (CSP): solar thermal collectors were not modeled.

Stock market investments in solar make sense so long as you believe that you are investing in a company which is capable of drastically reducing the cost of the technology, and will be able to cut solar costs more quickly than its rivals, including those which are yet to emerge.

Carbon Capture and Storage

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), the enabling technology for so-called "Clean Coal" does not play a role  in any of the mitigation portfolios which achieve less than 15 Gt CO₂e (portfolios 1-3) and only small roles in portfolios 4-6.  This is very similar to solar under the 2007 IPCC Working Group assumptions.  However, CCS differs from solar in that all the believable cost estimates I've come across (even those originating from CCS proponents) expect it to remain very expensive.

Coal with CCS also has the same problem as nuclear: because it is difficult to ramp such "Clean Coal" plants up and down, they are relatively incompatible with large penetrations of wind.  If CCS does take its place as part of an efficient carbon abatement portfolio, it will probably be CCS used in conjunction with natural gas turbines, rather than coal. 

Hence, it would only be reasonable to make stock market investments in CCS technology if you expect significant spending on the technology by governments with little regard to cost.  Given the power of the coal lobby, such a scenario is a real, if unappealing, prospect.

Conclusion

I do not include any of these technologies in green investment strategy.  Even though I believe that the optimistic case for quick reductions in the cost of solar technology makes sense, I do not think that I have the skills necessary to pick a company today which will be able to survive the rapid industry upheaval a technological revolution in PV technology would entail.

All three technologies have the potential to receive large amounts of government largesse, even if the economic case for such help is weak.  However, I am not confident that I can predict the direction of such largess, and more deserving green technologies with better economic prospects seem just as likely to receive government money than these three.  Given my uncertainty about the future direction of government support, I think it makes more sense to invest in forestry stocks, building and industrial efficiency stocks, transport efficiency stocks, and geothermal stocks, than it does to invest in nuclear, carbon capture and storage, or solar stocks.

DISCLOSURE: None.

DISCLAIMER: The information and trades provided here and in the comments are for informational purposes only and are not a solicitation to buy or sell any of these securities. Investing involves substantial risk and you should evaluate your own risk levels before you make any investment. Past results are not an indication of future performance. Please take the time to read the full disclaimer here.

Posted by Tom Konrad at 02:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Economist recently had a story on how the cement industry is beginning to confront the fact that the industry produces 5% of the world's emissions of greenhouse gasses.  Carbon dioxide is emitted not only by the fossil fuels used to create the heat used in the creation of cement, and by the chemical reaction in that process.

Unfortunately for us, cement is a remarkably useful building material, not least as a structural material which can also serve as thermal mass in passive solar buildings.  

All the large cement firms: Lafarge, Holcim, and Cemex (NYSE:CX) have joined a voluntary emission reduction initiative, the Cement Sustainability Initiative, pledging to reduce their emissions per ton of cement they produce.  This is more likely to be effective with industry PR than to actually produce reductions in industry greenhouse gas emissions, even if they meet their goals of per ton emissions reductions, since production continues to grow.  (All three are on track to reach their voluntary targets.)

One avenue of CO₂ reductions they are pursuing is fuel substitution for their kilns, such as using agricultural waste or used tires.  This can lead to opposition due to the concern about more conventional emissions.

Cement plant prototype?

The Economist article was titled "Concrete Proposals Needed."  Here's my proposal: consider more radical fuel-switching, and build new plants in deserts with abundant direct-ray radiation.  Then the heat can be provided by the sun, in the form of concentrating solar.  I'd almost certainly buy a public cement firm adopting that strategy in a big way.  We may need a lot of cement for levees in the not-so-distant future.

DISCLOSURE: none.

DISCLAIMER: The information and trades provided here are for informational purposes only and are not a solicitation to buy or sell any of these securities. Investing involves substantial risk and you should evaluate your own risk levels before you make any investment. Past results are not an indication of future performance. Please take the time to read the full disclaimer here.

Posted by Tom Konrad at 01:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

On November 27, I attended the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) Fifth Energy Analysis Forum, hosted by NREL's Strategic Energy Analysis & Applications Center.  The forum focused on carbon policy design, the implications for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency.  As a stock analyst focused on that sector, I am extremely lucky to have NREL as a local resource: the quality and the level of the experts at NREL and the ones they bring in is probably not matched anywhere in the country, and conferences like these provide priceless insights into what these Energy Analysts are thinking.  

Why should investors care what analyst think about the best form of carbon regulation, when it will be the politicians who eventually implement it?  Because these are the very experts politicians will call on when designing their legislation.  While interest groups will also undoubtedly have a large say in regulation, they are unlikely to come up with new ideas which help shape future regulation.  The new ideas will come from the 50 or so analysts that gathered in Lakewood last Tuesday, and the regulations based on these ideas will be critical to the business plans of the companies we invest in.

This is a link to my notes.  I will likely find many investment ideas there, only some of which will make it into articles.  For those with the time and interest, I expect they will be a valuable resource.  For the other 99% of readers, here are ten interesting, intriguing, or just plain surprising ideas that pop out for me.

From Howard Gruenspecht, Deputy Administrator: Energy Information Administration

INSIGHT #1: "Clean Coal" is a Solution to a Political Problem

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (IGCC w/ CCS or "Clean Coal") is popular with legislators because it is a solution to a political problem, not because the technology is ready or because analysts expect it to be the most economical solution. Nuclear power is likely to be cheaper, and it is an existing technology. 

INSIGHT #2: Electricity Generation may be a Better Use of Biomass than Liquid Fuels

If the goal is to reduce net carbon emissions, burning biomass for electricity (either by cofiring in coal power plants, or in dedicated biomass generation stations) is more effective than using the same biomass to produce liquid fuels, such as cellulosic ethanol.  TK note: I believe that many investors in companies developing methods to produce cellulosic ethanol are underestimating the competition for available feedstock from biomass based electricity generation.

From Joe Kruger, Policy Director National Commission on Energy Policy

INSIGHT #3: Electricity Generators May Get Windfall Profits

Allocation of Emission Credits is likely to create windfall profits for existing generators except in carefully designed auctions.

From Eric Smith, EPA Climate Economics Branch.

INSIGHT #4: EPA May Have to Regulate More than Tailpipes

Because of the Massachusetts vs. EPA lawsuit, the EPA must now regulate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from automobile tailpipes.  The EPA is now studying GHG, and if the EPA concludes that GHG represent an endangerment to the public, the EPA will be forced to regulate GHG emissions from many more sources than just vehicles.

From Rich Cowart, Regulatory Assistance Project

INSIGHT #5: It's Better to Allocate Credits to Electricity Distributors than Producers

Greenhouse Gasses need not be regulated at power generators, and other approaches may lead to more efficient reductions.  Mr. Cowart was introduced as "Father of the Load-based Cap," in which GHG emissions are distributed to power distributors on behalf of their customers.  Carbon regulation can occur anywhere from the mine/wellhead when a fossil fuel is first taken from the ground, to the final consumer.  Where this regulation takes place matters because different actors have different abilities to change the way power is consumed.  Mr. Cowart argues effectively that for the electricity and natural gas sectors, energy distribution companies are best placed to work with consumers to reduce overall energy use.

BONUS INSIGHT (my own): China Can Build Coal Plants, But We Can Cap Their Emissions

Worries about the number of coal plants built in China and other developing countries might be best dealt with by applying carbon regulation at the mine mouth.  China is now a net coal importer.  Given that, the rest of the world does not need China's acquiescence to regulate carbon emissions: the coal exporters of the world could form an Organization of Coal Exporting Countries (OCEC), which would effectively be able to limit the total amount of coal burned around the globe.  The United States, which I have previously called the "Saudi Arabia of Coal," could play the role of the swing producer, much as Saudi Arabia has traditionally played in OPEC.

From Karl S. Michael, NYSERDA 

From Karl S. Michael, NYSERDA 

INSIGHT #6: Reggie Never Asked, "Where are GHGs best Regulated?"

The Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI, or "Reggie") will be an emissions cap on power plants because the question was never asked: are power plants the right place to regulate Greenhouse Gasses?  Future climate regulations should ask this question up front.

Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute.  I've long been a fan of Todd Litman.  Among other things, his comprehensive economic analysis was very influential in providing the ideas for my recent articles Investing in Mode-shifting, and my current love affair with commuter rail stocks.

INSIGHT #7: A Carectomy is Better than a Better Car

Regulations designed to solve a single problem often end up making others much worse.  For instance, an increase in CAFE standards will make vehicles more efficient, lowering fuel costs.  Driving will rise somewhat because it is less expensive, but this will only reduce the fuel savings by a small amount.  However, the increased distances driven will increase accidents, congestion, parking costs, road costs, and other indirect costs to society, and these costs are likely to swamp the savings from better fuel economy.  Society would be better served by policies which reduce driving, rather than increase it.

INSIGHT #8: Put the Car back into "A La Carte."

The current pricing system for driving is like the "all you can eat buffet."  It encourages people to over-consume (drive too much) because the marginal cost of driving (fuel and maintenance) is only a small fraction of the average cost of driving, which consists mainly of fixed costs such as vehicle ownership and parking costs.   Since most of the costs to society of driving are correlated to the number of miles driven (road safety, road maintenance, pollution), this leads to much higher costs to society for increased driving than to the individual.  The all-you-can-eat pricing model is also unfair to the poor, because it makes it impossible for many to drive at all, when an a-la-carte pricing model would allow them to drive small amounts for essential trips.

Mark Meliana, NREL Hydrogen Technologies Program, speaking of California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), on which he worked until recently being hired by NREL.

INSIGHT #9: Some Fuels are Better than Others

The California LCFS incorporates "Drive Train Efficiency" for different fuels, which reflects the quality of the energy in various transportation fuels.  A Btu of electricity is worth a lot more than a Btu of gasoline, because electric motors are inherently more efficient (by a factor of 5) than gasoline engines.  This is completely independent of vehicle aerodynamics, and drive train design, factors which will also effect efficiency.  Diesel engines are inherently 1.28 times as efficient (on a Btu basis) than gasoline engines, while hydrogen is 2.13x as efficient, and electric motors are 5 times as efficient as gasoline engines.  This is why an electric vehicle powered by electricity from a coal plant is still much less carbon intensive than a gasoline powered vehicle.  These numbers are the inverse of the factor "eta" in the LCFS.

John Sheehan, Live Fuels (formerly of NRELs Biofuels division.)  Incidentally, I had the opportunity to hear John speak (PDF 100 KB, (Powerpoint 4.5 MB) over a year ago while he was still at NREL.  At that time, he was constrained in expressing his opinion about conventional biofuels... this time he didn't pull any punches.

INSIGHT #10: Water is the 800 Pound Gorilla

Narrowly defined incentives in biofuel policy are likely to lead to more boondoggles as we have seen in the domestic corn ethanol and biodiesel industries (see notes for specifics.) Water use is "the 800 pound gorilla" we need to be talking about when considering which biofuels we can sustainably produce.

Final Thoughts: For analysts, it's clear that a narrow focus, be it in biofuels, transportation policy, or allocation of GHG allowances, will lead to more perverse effects.  For investors, we need to be aware that the perverse effects of bad policy will eventually fail to sustain an unsustainable model, as investors have recently learned about corn ethanol. On the other hand, shorter term investors may be able to profit handsomely from regulatory windfalls, a trend we have also seen in corn ethanol.

Will likely policies which will be designed to encourage IGCC and a focus on cheaper driving rather than more efficient transport in the future follow this same pattern?  They may, and it is likely to lead to substantial costs to society and investors who jump on the trends at the wrong time.   

In contrast, good policies will allow investors to do well by doing good, and profit as companies solve societal problems, rather than reaping transient rewards at the taxpayer's expense.  These good policies include load-based rather than generation based carbon caps, which will allow energy efficiency companies to more easily reduce consumers' electric bills and make profits for their shareholders.   Likewise, transport policies which provide viable alternatives to driving and incentives to use those alternatives will allow investors in alternative transit to profit while reducing commuting costs, traffic fatalities, congestion, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions.

We all like making money in the market.  Good energy analysts, like the ones at this forum, are working to provide us the opportunity not only to make money, but to solve societal and environmental problems at the same time. For that, we're all lucky to have them.

DISCLAIMER: The information and trades provided here are for informational purposes only and are not a solicitation to buy or sell any of these securities. Investing involves substantial risk and you should evaluate your own risk levels before you make any investment. Past results are not an indication of future performance. Please take the time to read the full disclaimer here.

Posted by Tom Konrad at 05:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

This morning, I read an article in this week's Economist that summarized well what I've been hearing over the past few weeks: coal is back in fashion with power utilities. As pointed out in the article, on a BTU basis, coal remains the cheapest fuel for thermal generation, an the prospect of high carbon prices is not deterring even European power generators from investing in coal-fired assets.

A few months ago, Tom discussed his peak coal portfolio. The long-term perspective is of course critical to keep in mind, and that piece helps putting recent news around coal into perspective. Nevertheless, in the near term, coal is making a comeback.

Coal is dirty, very dirty. Besides greenhouse gases, which I believe will represent a material hurdle to economically burning coal in the long term (10 years and beyond) in most Western markets, coal creates significant localized pollution problems.

If estimates of the pace at which new coal capacity is currently being added in China and India are anywhere near accurate, both countries (and their populations) stand to suffer greatly from increased levels of air pollution. There is, however, evidence that China has begun taking pollution control seriously, especially in light of the fact that Beijing is currently too polluted to host Olympic Games.

A (Clean) Coal Stock

I'm no fan of coal for a number of reasons, but one play on cleaner coal caught my attention in late 2006: Fuel-Tech Inc. (NASDAQ:FTEK). Fuel-Tech makes pollution control technologies that could see significant uptake with tightening air quality standards. You may remember an interview with their CEO that we published back in March.

I followed the stock for while but always found it expensive on a PE basis. Then, in the spring, the stock took off with the rest of the market (but not the earnings) and I just stopped paying attention. Fuel Tech remains, however, a bit of a tech play and so it's been correcting heavily with the recent market slump.

According to Yahoo data, Fuel Tech is still trading at a whooping 12-month trailing PE of 166x. However, its forward PE (fy 08), arguably a much more important stat, is around 40x. While that is no Buffet stock, there are a number of investors out there who seem willing to pay up for a piece of Fuel Tech's future growth (keep in mind too that when the article linked to was written, the stock was staging a bit of a comeback).

While I'm not sure this is something I'm ready to jump on right now, both on an intrinsic basis and because I don't think the markets are currently likely to be gentile to this type of security, it is definitely back on my radar.

I don't like coal at all, but if I had to play it I would do it through Fuel Tech.

DISCLOSURE: The author does not have a position in this stock.

Posted by Charles Morand at 10:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"We have over 200 years of coal reserves, and we have to/will use them."

I have heard some variation of this line far too many times, and I have little patience for it.  Here's why:

1. We don't have over 200 years of reserves.  The real number for economically accessible coal is less than half that.
2. A square, 100 miles on a side in the Southwestern deserts of the US could meet the electricity needs of the entire nation, if solar energy were converted to electricity at 10% efficiency.  There's a lot of desert in the Southwest, and we're never going to run out of sunshine.  A similar argument can be made about the wind in the Dakotas plus Texas, Kansas, and Montana, although wind could only meet our electricity needs 2 or 3 times over, rather than thousands of times over, as is the case for solar.  Clearly this does not mean that we have to or will meet all our energy needs with either solar or wind.  
3. Just because you have something does not mean it's a good idea to use it.  Saying we need to use our coal reserves is like a diabetic saying he has a cupboard full of candy bars, and he needs to eat them.
4. Even if all the emissions from coal are somehow managed, using coal will continue to have serious environmental impact from mining, which will only increase as we mine more and more challenging deposits.

Last week, I heard Howard Herzog of Massachusetts Institute of Technology speak on the economics of Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS).  Dr. Herzog  is one of the authors of The Future of Coal, a report that advocates greater research into CCS "because it allows significant reduction in CO2 emissions while allowing coal to meet future energy needs."  Nevertheless, he provides some excellent numbers on the costs of CO₂ Capture and Storage, and the remainder of this article will look at those numbers, that most "clean coal" advocates don't usually like to talk about.

Research

Dr. Herzog was clear that CCS is still in the research stage, and needs considerably more research to become commercially viable (even if there were a regulatory framework to induce power plant owners to install CCS equipment on their new coal plants.)  How much will it cost?  $1 billion a year for in excess of a decade, he said in response to an audience question.  He also noted that he has since inflated all the costs from the MIT study by around 50% because of the extraordinary rise in the costs of materials and labor in the two years since the study was published.

The $1 billion dollar a year research price tag is slightly higher than that called for by another interdisciplinary MIT Study, The Future of Geothermal Energy over a similar period.  This study found that with a combined public/private investment of about $800 million to $1 billion over a 15-year period, EGS technology could be deployed commercially on a timescale that would produce more than 100,000 MWe or 100 GWe of new capacity by 2050. This amount is less than the cost of a single, new-generation, clean-coal power plant without CCS (300-500 MWe.)  

Cost of Capture and Storage

Dr. Herzog presented estimates of the expected efficiency losses for coal plants that would be needed to sequester 90% of the carbon emitted.  Depending on the technology choices, the parasitic energy requirements of CO₂ capture and compression would be between 19% (IGCC with CCS) and 24% (Pulverized coal plant with Amine capture) of the power produced.  In addition to raising the cost of electricity from coal, CCS would therefore also effectively reduce the amount of coal available to meet our electricity needs by at least one fifth, transforming the 100 years of coal reserves we have at current rates of use into only 80 years or less of reserves.  This would also magnify the effect of coal prices rises on the cost of electricity by a similar factor.  Unless we reduce our demand for coal, price rises will be inevitable as producers move to harder-to-extract reserves.  According to the Energy Information Administration, the price of coal for electricity increased from a relatively stable price of slightly less than $30 per metric ton before 2004 to over $38 per metric ton in 2006.  Most other countries saw similar increases.

By adding CCS to a coal plant, Dr. Herzog expects the levelized cost of energy (LCoE) from coal would increase between 36% and 61%.  If the technology becomes mature, he expects it to add 2-3 cents (2005$) per kWh to the price of electricity from coal.  For comparison, according to the geothermal study referenced earlier, even low grade geothermal sites such as might be built in New Hampshire (a state with geothermal resources previously considered negligible) would have a  LCoE of between 7 and 10 cents per kWh.  High grade sites such as Kelseyville in California would have an LCoE of around 3-4 cents per kWh, comparable with the cost of CCS alone.

Some costs of CCS which Dr. Herzog did not analyze were the costs of getting the CO₂ to a location suitable for sequestration, the costs of long term stewardship of the CO₂ reservoir, and pipeline transport of CO₂ to the reservoir.  Given the uncertainty about how a carbon sequestration industry might look, it is currently very difficult to say what they might be.  Over the long term, who will take responsibility for ensuring that sequestered carbon stays where we put it?  How likely is the emergence of a dedicated NUMBY (Not Under My Back Yard) movement?  CO₂ is not as dangerous as the radioactive waste that the United States still lacks a suitable place to store, but it still can have toxic effects on marine life.

Conclusion

We will have to produce our electricity without coal at some point, either because we choose to in order to avoid further global warming, or because we simply run out of coal.  Given the uncertainties about carbon sequestration, and the certainties about the cost of performing sequestration, it makes sense to spend our limited research dollars on technologies which are likely to be more benign on the environment.  Enhanced geothermal has the potential to provide significant baseload power, while Concentrating Solar Power with thermal storage has the potential to power our entire nation many times over with both peaking and baseload power.   Concentrating Solar Power with storage has been successfully demonstrated, and requires no mining for a limited fuel supply, while wind is already cheaper than IGCC even before adding the costs of capture and sequestration.. 

 

Source: Trans-Elect, LLC, testimony before the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (July 24, 2007). PTC=Production Tax Credit.

Perhaps coal with CCS will be part of the route we take on the road to a clean energy supply.  However, it is far from the only route to take, and given the uncertainties and ongoing harmful effects of mining for coal regardless of what happens to the emissions, there are many other candidates more deserving of limited research dollars.  The same holds true for our investment dollars.

DISCLAIMER: The information and trades provided here are for informational purposes only and are not a solicitation to buy or sell any of these securities. Investing involves substantial risk and you should evaluate your own risk levels before you make any investment. Past results are not an indication of future performance. Please take the time to read the full disclaimer here.

Posted by Tom Konrad at 06:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

There has been a lot written lately about how to turn climate change into an investment opportunity, including on this site. Not all of it is, however, especially useful or relevant. In the worst cases, commentators have ascribed the 'climate change investment opportunity' label to just about any industry out there, indiscriminate of whether or not there really is a strong and direct connection.

If you are seriously interested in playing the climate story, you should stay focused on near and medium term opportunities with real and tangible links to what is currently going on with the climate file. In plain English, this means that if you invest your money in a boat maker tomorrow because you expect sea levels to rise at some point in the future, you may not be putting your money to its best possible use.

Regulation: Where Real Climate Opportunities Lay

The most immediate investment opportunities related to climate change are connected to regulatory developments such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and California's AB 32 (PDF document). These regulatory initiatives all have the same intent: to cap emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) across a range of industrial sectors. As such, they will create demand for certain technologies and solutions for which there would otherwise be no market.

We have discussed opportunities linked to carbon finance on several occasions in the past. Today, I want to speak about another area that is sure to get a boost for climate change legislation: end-of-pipe technologies to control emissions of GHG.

There are 2 main approaches to end-of-pipe GHG control: (1) carbon capture and storage (CCS) and (2) technologies seeking to transform the CO2 contained in flue gas into an innocuous - or even useful - commodity. The former has been in the news a lot over the past few months but the latter has pretty much fallen below the radar, mostly because these technologies are only just emerging and investing in them at this stage can be considered speculative. This is what I want to discuss today, and will leave CCS for another post.

Managing GHG Emissions: No Need to Re-invent the Wheel

Most of our readers will no doubt be familiar with just how prevalent coal is in power generation today, and how this role is not forecasted to diminish over the next 2 decades (see also Tom's excellent article on investing in peak coal published a few days ago). Coal is the 'dirtiest' of fossil fuels and burning it to make electricity is often blamed for contributing significantly to global GHG emissions.

A number of companies are now working to find ways to make coal 'cleaner' by removing carbon dioxide from flue gas and transforming it into something either neutral or useful, rather than burying underground as is the case with CCS. Such solutions can be applied to any industrial process that entails a pipe spewing out GHG, but the most immediate opportunities are definitely related to coal-based power generation.

The primary appeal of end-of-pipe solutions is that they don't entail 're-inventing the wheel', meaning that they can be appended to existing technologies relatively painlessly without the need to overhaul entire operations. End-of-pipe solutions for environmental control typically form a bridge between existing and emerging technologies that might be too risky for more conservative players such as utilities to get involved with.

While these GHG management solutions are sure to add to the cost of producing power and might not get uptake under a business-as-usual scenario, the economics will be different once coal-intensive power producers are forced to internalize the costs of emitting carbon dioxide.

Four Stocks With Exposure to This Space

I know of 4 companies currently active in this area:

NRG Energy Inc (NYSE:NRG)

NRG is primarily engaged in wholesale power generation and in the development, construction, and operation of power generation facilities. The company has significant exposure (PDF document) to coal as a generation fuel, and so could be a prime beneficiary of technological developments in this area.

NRG is currently involved, with a privately-held partner called GreenFuel Technologies Corporation, in testing a process that entails turning carbon dioxide from flue gas into algae, which can then be turned into biofuel or high-value animal feed supplements. Both can be commercialized and turned into revenue streams.

While this is unlikely to represent a material development for NRG in the very near term, successful testing could provide the company with an important competitive advantage should strict CO2 caps be imposed at the federal level. This could thus be a safer way to play this space, especially if you're also looking for exposure to utilities.

CO2 Solutions (TSE: CST.V)

According to its website, CO2 Solutions "has developed a biological process allowing for the transformation of carbon dioxide (CO2) into bicarbonate, which is an environmentally safe product. This process takes place inside a bioreactor with the help of an enzyme that accelerates the transformation of CO2 into bicarbonate in an aqueous environment.". The company was recently profiled in Technology Review.

CO2 Solutions signed, in mid-March, a licensing option and R&D cost-sharing agreement with Babcock & Wilcox, a large provider of boilers and other components for coal-fired power plants. This agreement will, in effect, allow CO2 Solutions to 'move out' of the lab and test the scalability of its technology. The exclusive license part could, however, limit the company's ability to commercialize its technology as fast as it might want to should tests prove successful.

Babcock & Wilcox is a unit of McDermott International, Inc. (NYSE:MDR), and this technology can be considered a direct competitor to NRG's.

Greenshift Corporation (OTC BB:GSHF.OB)

The angle here is Greenshift's recent merger with GS Carbon Corporation. GS Carbon Corporation currently has patents pending for what it calls "decarbonization technologies".

From rapidly skimming over its website, it does not appear that GS Carbon Corporation is anywhere near ready to commercialize any of its technologies, and I couldn't find anything on strategic partnerships with large players. This is very much a spec play.

CO2 Tech Ltd. (OTC:CTTD.PK)

In its own words: "CO2Tech engineers, manufactures, installs and services the optimum system for its clients' needs implementing a total systems approach to anti-global warming. The company integrates the most precise, sophisticated testing equipment for performance evaluation and monitoring, allowing its customers to comply with ever-changing, stringent environmental regulations."

The company offers a range of pollution control solutions. CO2 Tech was recently hired to provide environmental assessment services for the Sakhalin II project in Siberia, to help Romania devise a Kyoto compliance program, and to provide environmental assessment services for a conservancy project in Guyana.

It does not appear that CO2 Tech has, so far, been able to generate much interest with its GHG management technologies. Moreover, while based in London, CO2 Tech only has a Pink Sheets listing in the US. Given the popularity of London's AIM with emerging environmental tech companies because of its very lax listing requirements, it is somewhat worrying that CO2 Tech would choose to go with the Pink Sheets. This is definitely one that I would not touch.

To Conclude

Quite clearly, the GHG management technology space is in its infancy, and is thus very much in a speculative phase of its evolution. Nevertheless, this is an industry worth keeping an eye on, in my view, for 2 main reasons:

(a) Coal and other fossil fuels will not be phased out of power production overnight, simply because there are no cost-effective alternatives in the near and medium terms

(b) Regulatory developments in industrialized countries in the near term and in certain dominant emerging markets such as India and China in the medium term will 'create' demand for end-of-pipe solutions to GHG emissions

If our readers know of other players involved in this industry, or have any insight on the companies discussed above, we would very interested to hear about it.

DISCLOSURE: The author does not have any position in any of the stocks discussed above.

Posted by Charles Morand at 12:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)