[Smart Grid Market Research] Coal: Closer Look at CCS (Part 3 of 3), May 2012

Coal: Closer Look at CCS

Learn more @ www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org

May 2012

Copyright © 2012 Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC All rights reserved.

Zpryme Smart Grid Insights Presents a Special Report Series (Part 3 of 3):

http://zpryme.com/practices/smart-grid-insights.html







1 www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org Zpryme Smart Grid Insights | May 2012


Special Report Series | Coal: Closer Look at CCS (Part 3 of 3)

“We have a responsibility and a golden

opportunity to act, energy-related CO2 emissions

are at historic highs; under current policies, we

estimate that energy use and CO2 emissions

would increase by a third by 2020, and almost

double by 2050. This would likely send global

temperatures at least 6°C higher. Such an

outcome would confront future generations with

significant economic, environmental and energy

security hardships - a legacy that I know none of

us wishes to leave behind.”

Source: Richard H. Jones, IEA deputy executive director ambassador, April 2012











Table of Contents

CCS: In Brief .......................................................................... 3

CCS: Regulatory & Legal Issues ........................................ 4

United States .................................................................... 4

Globally ............................................................................. 4

CCS: Economics of Transportation .................................. 5

United States .................................................................... 5

Globally ............................................................................. 5

CCS: Environmental Policy Concerns ............................. 6

United States: ................................................................... 6

Globally: ............................................................................ 6

CCS: The Next Generation Work force ........................... 6

CCS: Capture ...................................................................... 7

CCS: Sequestration ............................................................. 8

CCS: Current Projects ......................................................... 8

United States: ................................................................... 8

Globally: ............................................................................ 9

CCS: Bottom Line .............................................................. 10

Q&A: Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Energy Institute,

University of Texas at Austin ............................................ 11







CCS: In Brief

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is the process

by which carbon dioxide is captured from coal fired

power plants and stored in either underground, offshore

(below the ocean bed) or in mineral deposits, thus

preventing it from being released into the air. The process

involves three stages:

(1) Capture of CO2 at point sources (such as power

plants) and compression of the gas,

(2) Transportation through pipelines and

(3) Sequestration (geological, marine, or mineral)

Although long-term costs associated with CCS may be

cost-competitive within each part of the process, different

technologies exist with varying costs based on their level of

development and maturity, elaborated below. CCS is an

emerging technology which has still uncertain costs. While

feasibility studies and pilot projects have been

undertaken, large-scale commercial demonstration

projects have not yet been carried out, although some

are in planning stages. Cost uncertainty also exists around

site-specific variability.

United States:

The United States currently has the largest number of

large-scale CCS projects and the largest number of fully-

operational projects worldwide, 25 out of 74 current and

potential projects in 2011 (Global CCS Institute). Funding

from sources such as the Department of Energy, the

National Energy Technology Laboratory, and the

Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy have

encouraged further CCS deployment and development.

Research and development has focused on advanced

technology programs such as coal to liquid technology,

hydrogen turbines, advanced combustion, gasification

technology, underground coal gasification, solid oxide

fuel cells, and hydrogen from coal technologies. In

addition, new regulatory emission standards as natural gas

facilities for coal-fired utility plants, as well as the

governmental dedication to furthering the CCS field has

solidified the nation’s commitment to further development

of the Carbon Capture and Sequestration field.

Globally:

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) was discussed

at mandatory at COP-17 in Durban, South Africa to

reduce worldwide emission standards, especially in

developing countries like China and India. CCS will now

be eligible for carbon credits under the Clean

Development Mechanism, a program funded by

developed countries to offset emissions in developing

countries. However, this proclamation comes at a time

when more CCS pilots are closing, rather than opening.

In October, the Swedish utility Vattenfall has cancelled the

proposed $2 billion CCS pilot project in Germany due to

concerns about environmental safety, as well as problems

with the regulatory framework. Another proposed $1.5

billion pilot in Scotland through Scottish power was also

canceled due to project costs.i The Schwarze Project in

the EU was also closed December 5.







CCS: Regulatory & Legal Issues

United States:

In the United States on the federal level, the majority of

regulation on CCS coal production lies with the

Environmental Protection Agency. The Clean Air Act

places the health of the general public as a priority and

requires the EPA to develop and enforce regulations to

prevent exposure to airborne contaminants. In January

2011, it was expanded to include Greenhouse Gases,

including Carbon Dioxide, and the EPA began issuing

permits to control Greenhouse Gases. Many states have

internal regulations that govern the release of greenhouse

gases including carbon dioxide, including California and

Oregon who regulate greenhouse gases produced by

coal-fired plants, while other states, such as Illinois and

Montana require CCS to be used by coal- fired plants in

their states. In March 2012, the EPA proposed the first

National Carbon pollution standards for the nation, where

all new plants would be held to emission standards.

Globally:

Canada has a well-developed regulatory framework for

existing oil and gas regulations and has been adapting

them to CCS. In addition, Natural Resources Canada and

the Department of the Environment provide additional

regulations. CEPA has classified Carbon Dioxide as a toxin

and had regulations such as the Reduction of Carbon

Dioxide Emissions from coal Fired Generation of Electricity

Regulations as well as developed emissions performance

standards to govern it on the federal level. However,

much of the CCS regulation is performed on the provincial

level. Most of the CCS projects are operating in Alberta

where several provincial regulatory boards oversee CCS

operations, and laws such as the Alberta Climate Change

and Emissions Act explicitly mention CCS, while the CCS

Act establishes long term liability. In addition, Alberta

announced it would be conducting a regulatory

framework assessment to be sure the CCS projects would

be operated in the safest way possible.

The EU has issued a number of directives that are

developed to govern Carbon Dioxide storage, integrated

pollution prevention, and Carbon Dioxide transportation.

Once the directives were established, the member states

have a period of time to modify the directives and institute

them as laws in their area. However, a lack of regulation

in areas such as Germany has halted pending CCS

projects, even in advanced stages of regulation. The

Netherlands are also facing a number of regulatory

challenges, as laws have not been significantly modified

to allow for successful sequestration. In the UK, it is

expected that most of the carbon storage will be offshore,

so most of the laws that govern CCS are in regards to

offshore storage. The Energy Bill and the Energy Act

establish a regulatory framework for CCS projects with

focus on offshore storage. In addition, the Energy Act

builds on the Petroleum Act of 1998 and the Electricity Act

of 1989 and would now require that all new large coal

fired plants demonstrate capture readiness. Norway

primarily regulates the permits assigned to CCS projects

because carbon dioxide has been classified as a

pollutant. In addition, the Norwegian Greenhouse Gas

Emission Trading Act established establishes limits on

greenhouse gas emissions, further regulating the field.







Australia has a very well developed framework for CSS

governance with six key areas of focus: certification

processes, property rights, monitoring, long-term liability,

financial issues, and incentivisation. Dating back as far as

2006, the subsequent laws govern both the onshore and

offshore storage of greenhouse gases, and processing of

coal fired plants.

China has established CCS as a priority, especially

considering that coal is the main form of electricity

generation for the country, which opens on average one

new coal fired plant a week. However, the country is in

the developing stages of CCS use and technology, thus

lacking significant regulations in the field.

CCS: Economics of Transportation

Transportation of captured CO2 is mainly done through

pipelines; however, shipping is an alternative transport

method; both processes are technologically mature

today.

The cost structure for the transportation phase is almost

entirely associated with fixed infrastructure i.e. construction

costs (materials, equipment, installation, labor). Operation

and maintenance costs are a relatively small portion of

the investment in transportation. The cost is mostly a

function of distance – and transport onshore is less

expensive than transporting to an offshore destination. In

either case shipments are subject to regulatory filing fees,

insurance costs, right-of-way costs, and contingencies

allowances.

United States:

There are existing CO2 pipelines in the US today of 2500km

that transport 50 million metric tons of CO2 annually.1

Transportation costs range from $1 to $5 per ton of CO2

transported 250 km, contingent upon the pipeline’s flow

rate.2

Globally:

In Europe and Asia, there are established pipelines in the

interior of the continent. A complex infrastructure

transports carbon dioxide from processing locations to

storage facilities or to transport vessels for offshore

deposition. In the future, it is likely this system will evolve to

form clusters, which will then utilize feeder pipelines to for

larger networks, thus increasing the efficiency and

decreasing the cost of transportation. In addition,

advanced shipping systems are being developed for

offshore storage, which is prevalent in countries like the

United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Norway. In

Rotterdam, rail systems transport the processed carbon

dioxide to large vessels which then transport the gas to

offshore facilities. As technology advances, these vessels

become larger and have integrated online injection

facilities to allow for ease in storing the carbon dioxide in

offshore facilities. In addition, utilizing cargo ships allows

for changes in storage location and offers increased

flexibility. As the integrated hub approach to storage and

1www.mckinseyquarterly.com/wrapper.aspx?ar=2247&story=true&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.mc

kinseyquarterly.com%2fWhat_is_carbon_capture_and_storage_2247%3fpagenum%3d1%23int

eractive_carbon_capture&pgn=whis08_exhibit 2 fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/~kolstad/HmPg/papers/CCS%20Costs%20Latrobe.pdf







the integrated carrier options are more fully developed,

worldwide transport of carbon dioxide will become more

efficient and affordable.

CCS: Environmental Policy Concerns

United States:

Of key concern in the United States are the newly

announced environmental policy regulations. 106 coal

plants are predicted to close since 2010 due to the cost of

environmental improvements. While these standards are

beneficial for the overall environment, they are cost

prohibitive in many cases. Other concerns have been

expressed by environmental groups about the effects of

CCS technology. Greenpeace has launched a “Coal is

Dirty” campaign where it explains its position that events

such as the spill of coal ash sludge in December 2011 in

Tennessee and carbon dioxide leaks from naturally

sequestered sites and their damage to the surrounding

environment should be closely monitored. Clearly both

sides of the issue have very differing opinions and the

environmental policy decisions of the United States must

examine both the past and potential failures of current

policies, as well as its effect on the coal industry as a

whole in the future.

Globally:

Globally the focus on environmental policy is of a different

focus. The environmental standards of Europe are more

stringent than those of the United States, but it also

understands the impact of their close neighbors that are in

an earlier development phase, such as China and India.

Many areas have absolutely no regulation in place, such

as Malaysia and India. However, the EU has created

programs where more developed nations are able to

invest in these lesser developed counterparts to allow for

faster utilization of clean coal technology. To be truly

successful, more uniform standards need to be developed

across the world that establishes emissions standards,

especially in the newly constructed plants in places like

China. A collaboration of countries, as demonstrated in

United States and China joint ventures will allow China to

take advantage of the more developed technology of

that in the United States.

CCS: The Next Generation Work force

There are several workforce concerns as new CCS

technology is employed. The industry has evolved from

fairly straight forward coal burning facilities, to employing

very advanced laboratories where coal is burned in

oxygen rich environment to allow for the most

concentrated form of carbon dioxide to be removed. The

skill level of operators to run these facilities has also

increased with these changes. In addition, the number of

workers will shift, from many lower skilled positions, to fewer

highly skilled positions. However, as these plants grow with

the new technologies, the number of highly skilled workers

is likely to grow. To be able to meet these challenges, the

coal industry has to offer skill advancement opportunities,

where they can groom the workforce to meet the

changing needs. In addition, several universities, such as

the University of California San Diego offer advanced

environment technology programs, where engineering







students are able to design cleaner technologies to guide

clean energy in the future. The education these students

obtain is priceless and can provide leaders for the future

development of CCS, as well as develop better and safer

storage and/or utilization opportunities for carbon dioxide.

The industry must become more forward looking, spurring

their own innovation instead of being controlled by

stronger standards. The future is guaranteed to hold

higher emissions requirements. By looking to employ better

solutions now, instead of being affected by changing

requirements, the industry can thrive and lead the way to

a more carbon-free coal future. To do that, it must

employ the highest skilled workers possible, and transmit its

employees with this knowledge, thus being able to

develop, construct, operate and maintain future coal

technology.

CCS: Capture

Capturing CO2 emissions from the point source has the

highest associated costs of CCS; representing 70 percent

of the total cost.3 These costs include the compression of

carbon dioxide for transport to the storage site. Capture

can take place pre-combustion, post-combustion or by

Oxyfuel combustion (only the latter two will work for

retrofitting). For the capture phase, industrial separation

and combustion techniques such as CO2 scrubbers and

Oxyfuel are relatively mature, while technology such as air

capture is primarily in a research phase.4

3 /tmp/PreviewPasteboardItems/Costs of CCS Wiki Page (dragged).pdf 4 www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_summaryforpolicymakers.pdf

A study completed by the International Energy Agency

(IEA) in 2011 studying 50 CO2 capture installations at power

plants found the capital cost and levelized cost of energy

is approximately $105 per megawatt hour for coal-fired

plants. On average, the cost of CO2 avoided is $55 per ton

of CO2 (using a pulverize coal plant without CCS as a

reference point).5 The overnight costs of power plants with

CCS in the OECD regions are $3,800 per kilowatt hour,

approximately 74% higher than plants without capture

technology.6 It was also found that none of the capture

technologies outperformed any of the others in cost and

performance.

The same 2011 IEA study identified post-combustion CO2

capture as to be the most researched and cost-effective

option for gas-fired plants. The capital cost and levelized

cost of energy is $102 per megawatt hour and the costs of

CO2 avoided are $80 per ton of CO2 (using a natural gas

combined cycle as a comparison). In this case, overnight

costs are $1,700 per kilowatt hour; 82% higher than plants

without capture technology. On average, these costs are

higher in OECD countries, and cheaper in countries like

China.

Available technology allows 85-95% of the CO2 produced

to be captured. However, CCS use does impose an

energy penalty, requiring 10-40% additional energy (for

Natural Gas Combined Cycle plants, Pulverized Coal

plants, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plants) to

store the captured CO2 than a non-CCS plant.7

5 www.iea.org/papers/2011/costperf_ccs_powergen.pdf 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid.







The cost structure associated with the capture phase is

split between capital costs and operational costs at 60

percent and 40 percent respectively. 8

CCS: Sequestration

Sequestration involves taking the compressed CO2 and

storing it for a geological timescale. Storage strategies for

CO2 fall into three categories: geological, marine and

mineral. Of these, geological is the most mature while

mineral sequestration is still in a research phase.11

Geological storage sites include deep saline formations,

oil/gas or unmineable coal beds (still in demonstration

phase).12 There are considerable cost uncertainties with all

of these storage methods as none are currently performed

at scale. Captured CO2 can also be used for EOR, as

discussed above. Storage costs are split between capital

and operational investments: 80 percent of the cost of

storage is in capital; the remaining 20 percent is

associated with ongoing operations, monitoring and

maintenance.13

EOR is the most mature of all of the storage technologies

and its costs can range from -$99 (in the case of highly

successful EOR) to 67 per ton of carbon dioxide injected.

This is largely dependent on the market price of oil at the

time of extraction. If oil prices are high, the oil extracted

8 Carbon Capture & Storage: Assessing the Economics. McKinsey & Company, McKinsey

Climate Change Initiative. 22 Sept. 2008. 11 www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_summaryforpolicymakers.pdf 12

www.mckinseyquarterly.com/wrapper.aspx?ar=2247&story=true&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.mc

kinseyquarterly.com%2fWhat_is_carbon_capture_and_storage_2247%3fpagenum%3d1%23int

eractive_carbon_capture&pgn=whis08_exhibit 13 Carbon Capture & Storage: Assessing the Economics. McKinsey & Company, McKinsey

Climate Change Initiative. 22 Sept. 2008.

through EOR can be sold, offsetting the cost of storage

and producing a profit. If oil prices are low, however, EOR

may not be profitable. The cost of storage in depleted oil

and gas wells ranges from $0.5-12 per ton of carbon

dioxide injected. The cost for storage in onshore deep

saline aquifers ranges from $0.2-5.1 per ton of carbon

dioxide injected, while the cost for storage in offshore

aquifers ranges from $0.5-30 per ton of carbon dioxide

injected.14

For marine storage from a fixed pipeline, the cost ranges

from $5-30 per ton of carbon dioxide injected. This cost

variability can be attributed to distance from the shoreline

and the differing depths and conditions at which the

injection needs to occur. For marine storage via ship, the

cost ranges from $12-16 per ton of carbon dioxide

injected. The cost range for ship-based injection is smaller

because costs do not increase with distance from the

shoreline. 15 These costs are estimates based on research

phases of projects – a demonstration project using marine

storage has yet to be implemented.

CCS: Current Projects

United States:

In the US, there is currently no economic incentive for

industry to capture carbon, as it adds additional cost. Sally

Benson, energy profession at Stanford elucidates this point:

“It's really just a matter of money. If we had a price on

carbon that was $50 a metric ton, carbon capture and

14 www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf 15 Ibid.







storage would take off. But with no price on carbon in

sight, companies can only sustain a certain amount of

investment. So really the impediment is creating the

incentive where people will pay that price for capturing

carbon." 16 This could be changed by implementing an

economic incentive for plants to reduce emissions, such as

a tax break or a fine for emissions above a certain level.

Scientists from the Midwest Geological Sequestration

Consortium, one of seven public-private partnerships

created by the Department of Energy to promote CO2,

are currently injecting 1 million metric tons of CO2 into a

sandstone site in Illinois, a project which will take a year (a

coal plant on average emits 3 million metric tons of CO2

annually). The site has the potential to store 245.5 billion

metric tons.17 This project will provide us the best estimate

of what sequestration will look like, practically, and is one

of the largest CCS projects to date and the first in the US.

The CO2 is coming from a nearby ethanol refinery and will

arrive at the site via pipeline.

Emissions from ethanol are comprised almost completely

of CO2 so capture and compression costs are significantly

lower than with a coal-fired plant. It will be stored 7,000

feet underground.18 The Illinois Basin – Decatur Project cost

is $96 billion dollars in total. There are currently 150 small-

scale projects being carried out in the United States.19

16 news.stanford.edu/news/2011/december/benson-climate-change-120611.html 17 www.carboncapturejournal.com/displaynews.php?NewsID=869 18 boingboing.net/2011/12/02/a-hole-in-the-ground.html 19 summitcountyvoice.com/2011/11/28/climate-large-scale-carbon-capture-tried-in-illinois/

Globally:

IEA predicts that by 2050, 10% of CO2 emission reduction

related to energy will come from CCS globally.20 Many

projects are currently operating that demonstrate the

enormous potential of the CCS technology worldwide.

Perhaps one of the most known CCS projects is the

Sleipner Project, off the coast of Norway, ongoing since

1996, where CO2 is being stored in an offshore saline

formation. 12 million tons of CO2 have been stored to

date.21 The project has been successful in many regards

due to the Norwegian carbon tax implemented 20 years

ago ($50 per metric ton).22 Injecting the CO2 offshore was

less expensive than paying the tax.

In Alberta, Canada, $2 billion has been pledged to CCS

over a 15 year period, beginning in 2008. This is the largest

amount a government has dedicated to CCS projects to

date, and the project will store 4 million tons of CO2 by

2015 with a goal to store 140 metric tons by 2050.23 In

Saskatchewan, the world’s largest CCS project is housed in

Weyburn. The site will hold 20 million tons of CO2 used for

EOR when completed.24 This site is now providing

evidence as to the long-term storage capacity of CCS.

The site is now part of an $80 million international

monitoring project investigated to determine if the CO2 is

20 www.iea.org/papers/2011/costperf_ccs_powergen.pdf 21 news.stanford.edu/news/2011/december/benson-climate-change-120611.html 22 Ibid. 23

www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/Thomson+Redford+dogged+carbon+capture+plan/573

7238/story.html?cid=megadrop_story 24 www.co2captureandstorage.info/project_specific.php?project_id=98







bubbling up – so far it has been deemed safe.25 However,

it is difficult to predict over time if the CO2 will stay in

place.

CCS: Bottom Line

Unless national or international efforts focus on creating a

price on carbon, CCS is unlikely to be adopted in the near

term. The Coal Industry itself is opposing the forced

adoption of CCS technologies, as the cost of retrofitting

the currently operating coal facilities is prohibitive to

adoption. In fact, many facilities are citing these costs

(specifically the costs of achieving the required higher

emissions standards) as the main reason for the plant

closures. Although new technologies are being

developed to lower the cost of these improvements, they

have not reached the point where they are affordable

and offer a high return on investment in the short term.

These costs are likely to be recouped over years, making

them less attractive. However, its use in EOR may become

more prevalent as the costs associated with coal increase.

More pilot projects are necessary in order to understand

the long-term costs and potential health and

environmental impacts of CCS.

Currently, the Global CCS Institute lists 74 large scale CCS

projects currently being operating or in various stages of

development. These projects will set the pace and

develop new technology as they advance. Additionally,

the modes of transportation are also evolving from an

inefficient system to a hub-based system, which will

25 www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/cenovus-study-finds-co2-not-leaking-from-

ground/article2254078/

provide additional cost savings. Finally, the cost of

sequestering the concentrated carbon dioxide is also

expensive, and although several sites have been identified

for potential storage facilities, the number of approved

sites is still limited.

As more improvements in the processes and technology

utilized through all parts of the CCS process advances,

from the processing at the coal fired utility plants, to

transporting the gas to approved storage sites, the CCS

technology will be more cost efficient, more readily

adopted, and utilized worldwide.







Q&A: Dr. Raymond L. Orbach,

Energy Institute, University of

Texas at Austin

About Dr. Raymond L. Orbach: Created by the Energy Policy Act of

2005, Raymond Lee Orbach was nominated by President Bush to serve

as the first Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE). On May 26, 2006, Dr. Orbach was unanimously

confirmed by the U.S. Senate and sworn in as Under Secretary on June

1, 2006. Dr. Orbach received his Bachelor of Science degree in Physics

from the California Institute of Technology in 1956. He received his

Ph.D. degree in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley, in

1960 and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa.

1. ZP: What current technology trends are influencing

CCS in the US?

Dr. Orbach: The principal technological development is

improvement of the “amine” liquids used to capture

CO2 from flue gas from coal fired power plants. This

development, led by Professor Gary Rochelle at UT

Austin, operates at slightly higher temperatures, but

promises increased efficiency for CO2 capture.

2. ZP: What US regulatory and legal initiatives will have

the greatest impact on CCS in 2012/13?

Dr. Orbach: The recent EPA rule on greenhouse gas

emissions will have a profound effect on

CCS. Practically, it will mean that no new coal fired

power plant can be built, unless it has sufficient CCS

capability.

3. ZP: What environmental policy concerns are

currently affecting CCS the most in the US?

Dr. Orbach: The cost of CCS is the greatest concern in

the U.S. It takes about a third of a power plant’s energy

to capture CO2, making it uneconomical unless there is

an offset.

4. ZP: What should the energy industry look forward to

from the University of Texas Energy Institute in 2012?

Dr. Orbach: The Energy Institute is developing a process

for sequestration that is much more efficient than

current technologies, and includes an energy offset

that would substantially reduce the net cost of CCS.

About: Energy Institute, University of Texas at Austin

The Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin

(http://energy.utexas.edu/) was created to address the

most challenging energy issues facing society today. Our

mission is to provide guidance in the pursuit of a new

energy paradigm that is at once viable and

sustainable. The Institute’s overarching goal is to alter the

trajectory of public discourse in a positive manner, as

exemplified in our credo – good policy based on good

science.

Q&A with

DR. RAYMOND L. ORBACH Director, Energy Institute

University of Texas at Austin




http://www.energy.utexas.edu/






The Energy Institute’s formation is premised on the notion

that colleges and universities are uniquely positioned to

conduct independent and impartial scientific

research. This concept is illustrated in our approach to

research, in which we assemble inter-disciplinary teams of

faculty from schools and colleges across campus to

address complex energy issues in a comprehensive

manner. Our aim is to inject science- and fact-based

analysis into what is often a contentious dialogue, and in

so doing bring clarity to the debate that shapes public

policy on energy issues.

The Institute’s mission also includes the development of

interdisciplinary certificate and degree programs in

energy, to broaden the educational experience of

students in this critical field of study.

Zpryme Credits Editor

Megan Dean

Managing Editor

Samarth Bahl

Research Lead

Stefan Trifonov

Special Thanks To Dr. Raymond L. Orbach,

Director

Energy Institute,

The University of Texas at Austin

Disclaimer

These materials and the information contained herein are provided by Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC and are

intended to provide general information on a particular subject or subjects and is not an exhaustive treatment of

such subject(s). Accordingly, the information in these materials is not intended to constitute accounting, tax, legal,

investment, consulting or other professional advice or services. The information is not intended to be relied upon as

the sole basis for any decision which may affect you or your business. Before making any decision or taking any

action that might affect your personal finances or business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. These

materials and the information contained herein is provided as is, and Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC makes no

express or implied representations or warranties regarding these materials and the information herein. Without limiting

the foregoing, Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC does not warrant that the materials or information contained

herein will be error-free or will meet any particular criteria of performance or quality. Zpryme Research & Consulting,

LLC expressly disclaims all implied warranties, including, without limitation, warranties of merchantability, title, fitness

for a particular purpose, noninfringement, compatibility, security, and accuracy. Prediction of future events is

inherently subject to both known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to

vary materially. Your use of these and the information contained herein is at your own risk and you assume full

responsibility and risk of loss resulting from the use thereof. Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC will not be liable for any

special, indirect, incidental, consequential, or punitive damages or any other damages whatsoever, whether in an

action of contract, statute, tort (including, without limitation, negligence), or otherwise, relating to the use of these

materials and the information contained herein.







Learn more @ www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org













