i would be remiss if i didn't. this is where a lot of the action is. these are required. the global environment is shared and one of the things that came out of lima is every country has a job. so we're trying to figure out what this looks like. in my program we have things like the carbon sequestration leadership forum actively supporting not just information sharing but the development of new policies and the development of new projects. we've been very excited by the leadership the secretary has shown with this group and the leadership that other administers have shown in response. the next ministerial will actually be in the kingdom of saudi arabia next november. watch this space. there's going to be interesting things to come. international partnerships are also required for the commerce. at the end of the day, what will help the climate negotiations is good trade. and so if we can figure out ways to support commercial engagements through ccs projects and reductions, that will help

everybody. things likes showcase projects for example in this country or in others. also international partnerships can accelerate the learning, sharing. can accelerate deployment. we don't have to build five kinds of plants in five different countries if we can just build one plant in one country and share the results, it saves money and saves time in a very useful way. the international landscape is also changing dramatically. i'm sure many of you here watched the u.s./china accord that was announced in november. we were all very, very pleased with this. it includes, among other things, a large ccs project in china and a science project that is a joint international project shared by the united states, china, and other nations. we're thrilled with this outcome. there's also a new kind of project that the chinese are going to pilot, an enhanced water recovery project. like enhanced oil recovery except pulling out oil you pull out brines and you use the pressure you're using in injection to drive a reverse osmosis process at the surface. we're ready to pilot. china is going to do a pilot and

we're seeking a pilot in the united states. i'm happy to say many other countries have come to us and said, hey, that sounds like fun. we'd like to do a pilot, too. there is this new european accord. i don't know if you had clocked that one. october 23rd, the european union inked a deal. it was a very ambitious climate target, 40% reduction but one of the things that was interesting is they called for policy parity with ccs and with nuclear and they said these are also clean energy options and should be considered in the context of what we do. about the same time the united nations economic council -- was it economic council of advisers, unece, amended its statutes to include carbon capture and ñ storage and ccs with eor as part of clean energy technology under the u.n. framework convention. so these policy shifts actually are materially important. in addition to that, they put forward an innovation fund. how that works, nobody quite knows yet but so far so good. it looks like that fund can be used to not only support the development of technology but hopefully to support projects as

well and we're busy discussing with our european counterparts to find out what it all means and what's useful and how we can help. there are new actors on the scene. the uk is putting forward this white rose project. we're very excited about that. two groups in the middle east, the kingdom of saudi arabia and the united arab emirates are in the process of building large projects. saudi arabia's will be online next year. they're capturing from refineries and steel plants. they're going to use the co2 for enhanced oil recovery. saudi arabia is building two 500 megawatt iggc plants. they are also looking at coal as part of their future which is a very interesting development i think. finally, with the energy reforms in mexico, we're seeing some interest from them also on ccs and eor that is also welcome. we just hosted the trilateral with canada and mexico and this

was one of the things discussed. we're eager to continue to work with all countries to try to figure out how we can further this kind of deployment. in many ways though china is the main event. china is the number one global emitter, uses half the world's coal, and they have to every once in a while shut down the freeway because people can't see the cars in front of them. so they are very serious about trying to figure out how to manage pollution in general but ccs is part of the conversation now. a lot of that is going forward under the climate change working group. i'm delighted to be part of that discussion and to help support that with state department and treasury as they move forward. and we are seeing them continue to invest and increase their investments in carbon capture and storage and enhanced oil recovery.

they are really very serious about this, but they see coal even with a coal cap, even with diminished coal use, it's going to be a big part of their future. they are currently using 4 billion tons a year of coal. that's just a lot of coal, and they're going to be doing that for a long time. so they acknowledge that this is part of the thing they have to do at some point and we're pleased they're really interested in doing this sooner rather than later. we continue to meet with them and talk with them. i'll be going to china next month in part to identify opportunities and discuss what can be done together. one example of this is the fact that we signed what we call a counter facing projects. we identified a series of projects, some in the united states and some in china, which would serve as an opportunity to accelerate learning and share deployments and this is what success to a lot of people looks like. you have john podesta and the climate envoy, vice chairman of

mdrc, and in front of thenmdrcd there's a commercial deal being inked by administrator zack. it's a commercial deal witnessed by governments and supported by governments. that's a lovely outcome and one we're trying to get more of. the last thing i want to say and trust me, again, i can do this all day but i'd rather have your questions, is part of the reason we are so committed to the technology angle of this, the research, development, and demonstration piece, is that technology offer presages and does, in fact, inform policy decisions. just as an example, in 2010 the epa put forward their first class six regulatory framework. as we build these projects, as we develop technologies and demonstrate their efficiency, as we ratchet down the cost through things like advanced manufacturing technologies or development of new materials or using supercomputers, these things are all going to result in technical findings which decisionmakers can look at and

think about. ultimately we have to build and deploy the large projects. that's the work. that's what's required. and there are real learning opportunities from doing that. opportunities to share that information, to build engineering prototypes of models which can be picked up by industry for industry to lead the development of these projects and to tackle financing through the many potential paths that are out there to get these things across the finish line. there's a lot of second and third generation technologies we're enthusiastic about. i'm happy to talk about those. we realize we have to partner in many in the united states at state level, at local level, with industry, and, of course, internationally. coal will be used. the first part of my talk was that. coal will be used. it will continue to be used and co2 must be controlled. we have to take the climate issues very seriously while we acknowledge that first part. as a consequence now is the time to build. now is the time to get on with the work which we know we have

to do. with that i thank you for the opportunity to talk and look forward to some questions. [ applause ] >> that was a really fantastic and wonderful conversation not only about the work that you're doing but, you know, over the course of the conversation -- or your presentation i recall being in the power offices many years ago where they put forward their idea for this plant that was right for their customers. it was really an important part of their message and there was a lot of criticism of whether it was possible or whether it was the right choice, and, again, they said if we weren't the ones to do it, we won't see the cost reduction and so it's nice to hear about the outcome of some of that. we've got about ten minutes for questions, so if you do have some questions, please raise

your hand. we have a couple ground rules. we have a number of cameras in the room so there are people watching on the web. we appreciate if you wait for the microphone so they can hear your question, state your name and affiliation and your question in the form of a question. test. >> that was a really fantastic end to a wonderful conversation, not only about the work that you're doing, but i -- over the course of the conversation -- your presentation, i recall being in the offices many years ago where they put forward their idea for, you know this plant that was right for their customers, it was a really important part of their message and there was a lot of criticism of whether it was possible or whether it was the right choice and again, they said if we weren't the ones to do it, we couldn't see the cost reduction. so it's nice hear about the outcome of some of that we have

got about ten minutes for question, so if do you have some question, please raise your happened. we have a couple of ground rules. >> thank you. this is actually one of my favorite topics from am technology standpoint, there's almost nothing to talk about, got 3,000 miles of co 2 pipe lines in this country already. the department of transportation has been managing them for 30 years much the issue is about the infrastructure itself. if want to take co 2 from where the's admitted to where you wish to store it pipelines are part of what you're going to do, almost always a large part of what you're going to do even in cases where there's opportunities to finance a project, try to get those pipelines built is kind of a different issue. and one of the questions i think we are asking ourselves at the department of energy and elsewhere is since we know we do have those things what are the option we was to get those up? what is the appropriate role for states? what is the appropriate role for

banks? it is not actually obvious. the issue with pipelines is on a per ton basis over the lifetime of the project, it's pretty cheap. maybe one, maybe two bucks a ton but all capital up front, somebody has to build the thing, day one, before you inject the z co2. so the up front costs are high and people are reluctant to carry those costs. so i think we as a nation need to think harder about that. i'm delighted that the department of energy not only is this a topic the secretary is interested in, melanie is passionately interested in and we are talking to her about this event along with other topics associated with national infrastructure and the national energy structure. >> [ inaudible ] you probably get this question every day, but right now, on average, a coal plant is being decommissioned in the united states every two weeks. and suspect there a risk that -- just kill the interest in coal investment, except for [ inaudible ] by the deo. and so how can you make sure investment in clean coal in a country with unlimited supply cheap gas, what is the plan for that? >> right. so you're correct.

this is something -- this is a constant and frequent topic of conversation in our office. we do see the emergence of low-cost abundant natural gas. it is not just a real market phenomenon but the science shows thanks we are likely to have a lot of it for a long time. broadly speaking, i think that served the nation well. we have through that reduced some emission. we have also through that, kept production prices low. doesn't actually solve the climate problem. actually still need to do ccs on gas plants eventually as well, underscored eventually there. we haven't sort of figured out exactly when that is. but even with the closure of some coal plants, even with au abundant low-cost natural gas, our analyses reveal there remains a large fraction of coal in the infrastructure and our analysis suggests any number of

potential scenarios you would still deploy ccs on some of those plant. we have looked at the plants from a heat rate perspective, from a permit perspective, from a space available perspective, from an engineering design, from a vintage perspective and you do actually end up retrofitting some of those plants. i think we also learn from the polar vortex last year that gas prices can spike and do, even in an era of abundance a lot of our utility partners in building more gas but still worried about those price shocks and they see keeping coal in the mix is one of the ways that they can avoid those kinds of shocks as part of what they do. last thing i will say, of course, is that's the united states' story. in other countries, coal is much more prevalent and the availability of gas much more limited. so, from a global perspective, we certainly see coal as an important player, not just in the united states or not just in north america but many parts of the world.

>> hi, charles ebinger from brookings. julio, it seems to an outsider that the administration a bit schizophrenic on ccs and coal, in general, because the one hand, we have the excellent would, that you have highlighted the doe is doing, the other hand, we look at the organizations like opec, xn bank, so forth, as well as our positions in financial institutions, we seem to take a very negative attitude toward financing coal in other localities. could you make a comment on whether you think there's any chance the administration might follow your lead and pursue these opportunities to help other countries advanced coal? >> um, let me start by saying from inside, it doesn't seem schizophrenic. and i would sort of reject that characterization outright. i think the administration, even in casting its policies around

the xm bank said they are flood finding clean coal project, one that have a certain emission thresholds and would include ccs that seems actually to be a very consistent position. i would also say that on that topic, obviously, the landscape is changing in realtime, we are talking to the administration, we know what the policy position is now, which is we don't want to finance plans that will lead to locked in large emission. and we are trying -- because that's serious concern. beyond that, we are trying to figure out what other things we can do, what is rational. and i would watch this space. it's an interesting time. >> gina, csi initiative program. thank you so much, julio, for coming in, doing a great keynote. my question concerns, i guess -- i can see how the ccs with er feature is economically viable for some of the economies with hydrocarbon resources, for example, including china.

when we look at the less developed countries though, how -- you know, what are some of the ways that the ccs could be a little more viable and then also, i wanted to see if you could please elaborate on the potential role that in-house water recovery sort of benefit may have. i'm not sure if it's -- i haven't really thought about the different structures and you say africa or say south asia, but how that may be potential game changer to go with the ccs implement. >> sure. let me start with that second part first. secretary moniz has repeatedly and voluably underscored his commitment to energy water progress and he sees that as a very important undertaking, the announcements that came out of the china agreement actually was that the u.s./china clean energy

research centers were adding were on energy water and that that's very welcomed much we look at that enhanced water recovery technology, we are mindful of the fact that oil is between, say, 1,000 to $2,000 a ton, in terms of its value, and water is on the order of half a dollar a ton. you can't actually really finance these things but we do think about this as a good news story because in part about the social right license to operate and water-scarce areas, the value of the water can be very real. it wouldn't surprise you to know that some countries that are very water scarce are very interested in this technology. our estimate, part of the reason we need to pile it and demonstrate, our estimate is that the cost about half the

cost of convention desalination if that proves true that can become a very interesting option in terms of thinking about pairing carbon management with water treatment. with respect to developing countries, first of all, i'm simply not the state department, i'm not the person who talks about develop emission and their roles in this. what i would say is took sort of our school in thinking this through, if you're a developing country without enhanced recovery opportunities, ccs may not be the best option for your country. we are not technology shoving. we are not trying to make everybody do everything all the time. if you're in a country like south africa, it might work, but it might not. and those countries have to determine on their own what makes sense for their nations in terms of both its emissions reductions strategy and its national needs.

i think a good role for developed countries, in particular, industrialized countries like the united states and japan, like china and members of the eu is how can we ratchet down those costs through demonstration to create a wider optionality for more countries? because if we can get the cost down a place where more countries want to adopt it that gives them an option that they can consider that's rational for their lands. the last one? >> we have got time for one last question and i promise we will get you out of here. >> as far as ccs is concerned, you need to have specific ground properties to be able to push that so there are restrictions on where it could be applied it cannot be applied every place. is that a correct assumption? >> so, that is 100% correct. i didn't put that in this talk but i put it in very many talks and it's something that a lot of people don't really internalize in their thinking.

if you do not have a storage site, you do not have a sequestration project, period. if there's no police to put the co2, your options are limited. in some countries, let say south korea, they don't have a lot of storage options. north america is blessed in opportunity in this way, but not every country is. in the initial assessment, china is good. in india, we don't know and we don't know what deployment of south asia is. in south africa, it looks promising. it is a natural resource. and it is a natural resource and one that if you have you can in thinking about the deployment of ccs in the united states,

states that have this option have an option that other states don't and they will put that into their calculus and figure out how to make it work and if that option is viable for them. but the gulf coast and the illinois basin are world class co2 storage options. those states, i'm sure are more glad that they have that option than not. with that, i really appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today. thank you very, very much. thanks very much, julio. [ applause ] now more on the role of coal in today's energy environment as a panel looks into how the resource factors in the climate change debate. for the center of strategic and international studies, this is an hour and a half. so, thank you so much for, well, i guess staying with us. my name is jane nekano. it is my true pleasure to

moderate the second panel of examining the role of technology in addressing coal related carbon emissions challenge. i think that, you know, the panel, the first panel, very much -- so some key, sort of consensus type of messages in that coal will stay as part of the power generation mix. certainly for developing economies. but also for the u.s. it has important role in economic development but also for energy security as well. supply security and diversification. but then at the same time, carbon clael is something that you know, everyone has in mind. and i think for some of the countries that really is the overarcing message as policy makers formulate. i think for some other economies, perhaps the supply

security is the overriding concern as opposed to climate. but generally, i think that the public awareness on the climate challenge is rising around the world. excuse me. so certainly, this makes technology as one of the areas for solution and make our discussion particularly timely. and during this panel, and i would like to invite our panelists to sort of discuss with us some of the opportunities and challenges that are associated with the development and deployment of clean coal technologies around the world. and also some key issues that we -- there are also key issues that we may explore in this technology area. such as, you know, what are the relative advantages and disadvantages of ccs, say versus, ultra super critical

clean coal technologies. both from the climate but also in economic perspective. and also, i would be interested in hearing a panel perspectives on, you know, commercial viability for ccs. especially, you know, without the er option. and it is not to say it's not important, it varies from market to market, economy to economy. it may be good to have some sort of a time line that we can, you know, start thinking as we look to technology being one of the solutions.line that we can, you know, start thinking as we look to technology being one of the solutions. and also, maybe we can spend a little more time on the r and d side of it. certainly dr. friedman talked a little bit about it. but what's the framework, the right framework. and what are some of the key ingredients in success for roadmap for ccs r & d. for the u.s. l[cdmainly. but perhaps in other leading

economies that are experimenting with ccs deployment. so it is my true pleasure to introduce the excellent panel here. to my immediate left is chief representative of the washington office of new energy and industrial technology development organization of japan. it is a very catchy name. neitdo is the largest technology and the affiliate of their trading industry. he manages existing bilateral technology demonstrations among others. his previous roles include drafting policy at the ministry in such areas of waste computer recycling and biofuel quality regulation. so he is certainly not a stranger to the energy related

technology opportunities and challenges here. to his left is mr. bob per accepty. president of center for climate and energy solution, also known as ctes. it is recognized around the world as leading independent voice for practical policy in action to address twin challenges of energy and climate change. so it is perfect to have him. and you know, probably i don't really need to mention this, but he was most recently deputy demonstrator of the u.s. environmental protection agency from 2009 through 2014. during his time as deputy administrator epa set stricter emission in mileage standard, increase the streams and rivers and developed carbon emission standards for power plants. his previous public service includes secretary of environment for the state of maryland in early '90s and

senior planning official for the city of baltimore. to his left is mr. ben yagamata he is a partner in law. he practices federal legislative and administrative issues in the area of energy, environment and natural resources related matters. mr. yamagata represents clients before the u.s. congress as well as, including but not limited do, doa, epa, interior on project specific and problematic issues that relate particularly to technology research development demonstration and deployment relating to the use of both fossil and renewable energy resources. in addition to his work on this, he serves as executive director of coal u tillization research council, in education institutions, with an interest in promoting clean coal technology. so we could not have had a

perfect -- a more perfect panel, than these three leading practitioners and thinkers as we try to take a closer look at what clean coal technology can do in our efforts to address the carbon emissions challenge. and i'm going to invite each speaker to speak for 20 to 25 minutes. then we will hopefully have enough time to take a lot of great questions, then and certainly open up for further discussion. please. >> okay. thank you very much. and ladies and gentlemen. it is a great honor for me to be enjoying this important panel. even though i have to postpone my florida vacation one week. today i'm happy to talk to you about what coal technology can do in order to reduce global co2 emission.

as introduced, my name is hiro hatada from the washington, d.c. office of neitdo. before getting started, let me just briefly introduce neitdo to you. neitdo is the technology development agency under the jurisdiction of the japanese ministry of economy, trade and industry. and we are the japan's largest probably technology project management agency. and so we formulate our technology development projects and we manage those projects. and we have consortium of project managers that work on projects for us. in the scope of our activities pretty diverse and that ranges from energy related technology, to nonenergy related

technologies. to give you some examples, renewables, renewable energies, and robotics, electronics and materials and of course clean coal technologies. now, finally getting started, speaking about coal, we have seen this kind of chart a couple of times today. but this is the forecast of iea and for the, you know, growing consumption of goal. and the one point i want to draw your attention to is this chart is called a new policy scenario. which means this chart has taken into account some new policies of different countries. even policies that have not yet implemented. so this means coal consumption will grow even though we have some proposed policies or trends or, you know, administrative

measures. and then another point is, the major portion of the increase will come within ten years from now. so we have to be thinking about what we can do, you know, in years, not in decades. today i want to talk more about the qualify of power plant opposed to coal itself. so the same kind of chart from the perspective coal plant, the coal itself, coal plant. increase as well. and capacity addition projected in the world, in 2014 will be 1,360 gigawatt. so when a coal power plant is

above .5 gigawatt, it is a large scale power plant. simple calculation will tell you how many power plant this will transfer into. in 2014 we are going to have 2,300 -- 2,630 gigawatt capacity. so now the forecast say that the coal consumption and coal power plants will increase. we have to think how we could decrease co2 emission from coal power plants. so these are the three points that we will talk about today. this is pretty much my agenda for today. number one, carbon capture and sequestration and enhanced oil recovery. and two, the higher efficiency on coal fire generation technologies. and lastly, i want to talk about making sure that best

technologies available today are actually used today. okay. so first, first item, carbon capture and sequestration. this technology is one of the most important technologies that we should be working on as technology government agency. however, the point is that we are still working on this. the smaller scale project on what we call a pilot project is complete, which is the left hand picture. smaller one. that is 8 mega waut scale. we are complete with this. but we are still working on middle scale project on the right hand picture. this is a 250 megawatt scale. we are still working on this. it won't be finished until 2019. we are working hard on this.

and you know, the -- that's pretty much the capturing technology. even after being successful with capturing technologies, there will be other issues. there will be some things that we have to work out. like transport and sequestration. the transport might not be technology that hard but sequestration has some issues and those take a lot of technology government effort. and there are other concerns and challenges that we have to make efforts to overcome. namely, you know, like someone said in the previous panel, but not everywhere is suitable foresee questions tracing so depending on where you are and depending on where you have to carry your co2, to the place that transportation length, it

might be long and then even after sequestration, even after you put your co2 into deep underground, there is still a concern about a long-term storage. what will happen when we try to store co2 deep underground for over a long period of time. and on top of that, the [ indiscernible ] we have secret underground. some talk about the regulation issues in some countries. i this i this comes from these issues. and lastly, what we want to think about also is where it says economic incentive, we have to think about how this system

could work economically for profitably, financially. so speaking of the economic aspect of ccs, we are working very hard to reduce the cost of ccs. there are some technologies that might contribute. but still, you know, ccs will add significant amount of cost to the operation cost of the coal fired generation. our estimate, or that might be different kind of estimate, but our estimate says that only capturing, you know, the capturing as 30 hours megawatt hour of the coal operation plus there will be transport and

sequestration which is unknown. that will be different depending on what environment you are doing ccs. so i'm not saying ccs won't work but we have to think and work to come up with a good way to make ccs economically viable or workable. when speaking about this, there is one way that could make ccs work economically, which has been already touched upon today. that eor, is like putting co2 into the old or, you know, old oil fields or maybe dead or dying oil fields. so that you get more oil than originally expected from the oil fields, right. so by producing more oil, that makes economic sense.

so in that sense, it is very good technology. that makes it economically viable. but the issue is it only works where it works. the left picture is, you know, the lotions of the oil fields that are suitable for co2, and the right picture is the distribution of stationary co2 sources with blue dots representing the co2 emission sources. as we see this, they do not really match with each other so where it works, it works very well. but there are so many places that where you are it does not work. so that's why we have to continue to work to come up with other ways to utilize, you know,

to utilize co2 from carbon capture or maybe some other ways to make tosure that ccs makes economic sense. by the way, the u.s. -- this is touched up on that. but the u.s. is one of the few countries where eor works well. so even in the u.s., the situation is like this. so that's about my first item. and moving on to the second point, before getting into detail, you know, about higher efficiency footprint, this is about the coal fire technology 101. you know, by the way, this is too simple. maybe inaccurate. when i talk to one of my experts, he said he didn't like this. but that is okay. that's okay.

as you go down, the top is the sub critical. if you go down from the top, the sub critical, super critical, ultra super critical. he would be mad, but the difference is that you get the higher pressure of steam from boiler so that your steam induce water so super critical. so you know, the most efficient technology that is commercially available at this point in time, then speaking about technologies that is two in the bottom or second from the bottom, and you somehow turn coal into gas which goes into gas cash onning which is the general ritor, first generator, before the steam is

going into steam car bien, your second generator. on the bottom, igcc, after you turn gas into coal, that gas goes through pure cell before getting into gas turbine. so you get three generations here. that's why it is the most efficient and promising technology. having under mind this technology map is here. this is around our technology roadmap that we are working hard to go with this plan you see, the arrow sheet here. we are around 40-something percent. &háhp &hc% best efficiency that is achieved today is 43%. but our plan is to achieveu&jv÷

65% by 2050. we are working hard it achieve this goal by 2050. however, the point is that why we are working very hard on technology for the future, people, you know, the many plants are being built. many plants are standing up today. right. and that is why we have to -- that is why we have to talk about using what is available today. the third point. so now moving on to the third point, they use what is available today. so how does the best plant today look like? this so picture from the best coal plant in japan and also in the world.

this is a -- another picture from the same plant was shown in the previous panel. but the reason i prefer this picture, is it is not because of the plant. the plant is beautiful. it was beautiful in the picture. but the difference is you see the residential houses on the bottom. this means, you know, i don't know the exact distance but you see it houses so close to coal power plants. okay. so this means, you know, that not only beautiful, but that power plant is clean and also silent. okay. not sure how much being beautiful matters here, but if the picture is not enough, that's right, how efficient the current best technology is by

number. okay. so the calculation tells you that if we use super good technology for all the replacements, and all the newly built plants in nonocd asia the reaction is 180 million ton a year as posed to sub critical technology, and now how big is 1100 million tons per year. to give you an idea, by the way, japan's totalq9k co2 emission, d total, i mean, not all the coal firepower plants, including automobiles, manufacturing plants, household offices, everything, japan's total co2 emission is 1200 million tons

per year. so by choosing super critical as opposed to sub critical, this is like japan -- i don't want japan to disappear, but this is like japan totally stopping its co2 emission. this is how efficient the and in addition to co2 -- well, before co2 started to be called pollution, traditionally when we speak about pollution, it was about sox and nox. and in looking at that aspect, this is about the same -- i mean, the -- you know, the plan from the picture that you saw, the power plant, you know, i had to circle the problem. it was invisible.

the number is so small compared to others. and here i'm comparing this to the numbers from u.s., canada, uk, france and all those counk y countries. the numbers are not from coal power plants. but the numbers here are from the average of fossil fuel power plants. which includes gas. even after including gas, power plants, with technology, is clean, this much. okay. so that's about usc, however, what is happening is the people are not choosing this technology. okay. the iea says around half of the world, using subdv critical, t around one-third of china is sub

critical. in india, almost all of the new plants are using sub critical. the reason is easy. you know, if you look at the table on the bottom, the reason it is sub critical is the cheapest. the cheapest is a good thing. but the down side is that it is least efficient sufficiency. what least efficient means, they need more fuel. than how much more fuel. and 20% more fuel compared to -- so by choosing the cheapest they are losing money. you might not care if they lose money, but what is important is they are producing more co2 than necessary by choosing this.

so that is why we have to help them make a right decision for the sake of them and us. and for this purpose, providing financial assistance, can be an option. but from, you know, talking about something else today, that is visibility and assistance that we are providing to different countries. and so far, there are 19 projects in 11 countries and analyzing how the new technology would work. we are helping the countries make a right decision in terms of what technologies to use. right. and then, i think everyone is looking at the triangle in the u.s. but this is the project in

california. i talk about this later. the aspect of coal technology is maintenance. after building a new plant, you have to use this for over like 40 years. so keeping up the plant's performance over time is important. this example, this plant, this power plant that they love is too new for this. this plant is operating around 40%, originally designed e efficiency over 40 years. compared to another plant that dropped off quickly. i can't say what country that this is from. this is is difference. that's why maintenance technology is important as well. last, this is the last point.

then the u.s. japan corporation is going on. and some examples are here,!qñ÷ number one. thãcññ project located in california and this began with our visibility study project and because of companies participating in construction hoping to see its completion. and second one is, discussion is going on on rhett tro fitting project on the u.s. existing&$ú plant for the sake of provision reduction. and also we are happy to reach out for potential partners and the picture is from the -- the reasons that we have with the west virginia and university technology of doe and hopefully there will be more opportunities to cooperate. and if you have something, please let me know. with that, i would conclude my

presentation and i am happy to take any questions you might have later. thank you very much. [ applause ] actually, i'd like to ask a quick qualifying question. let's save the definitely sort of substance questions later. but your slide on -- excuse me. slide number 13, just wanted to make sure i understood this correctly. 13? the one before. yeah, 13. yes, that one. the u.s., canada, uk, european ones, did you say that's average from the coal, oil and gas power plant or the sum? those average? okay. average from coal, oil and gas. okay, just wanted to make sure. >> yes. compared to average. coal, fire, coal is much greener. >> okay, average, okay. sorry.

and just the other -- quickly, eps sorry.j this one. the blue line just to make sure, when you say a certain coal fire plant for comparison, you mean a nonjapanese. >> yes. not from japan. >> okay. >> i don't think it is good to say what country. >> no, just wanted to make sure. it$:nx sounded very plmysteriou. >> next spot, please. >> again, thank you, jane. and for the introductions earlier and it is a pleasure to be here with everyone. thanks, hiro, for that presentation. i'll try not to duplicate all of the information you had on the efficiencies of the different technologies and try to lay out a little bit of history as well as where i think we need go. if you think of all the -- if

i'm going to say the word power plant, i'm going to mean a site where there so power plant. sometimes there's more than one generator or boiler at that site. but let me juste@uñ use the wor plant forsake of use her sake o. in the united states a couple years ago there were 557 coal power plant sites. in china, there's 620. in the world, there's 2,300. so china and the u.s. have 51% of the power plants. i'm not counting units again. but probably close. so u.s. and china have 51% of the coal firepower plant sites in the world. and we know that from some of the reports that we received

from iea and others that we currently, you know, in the last couple years, and you had similar data hiro, that about we've got about 1.6 -- 1,600 -- i'm sorry, 1,600 gigawatts of coal fire electricity capacity and it's expected, and i think it matches your chart pretty well to grow by 2040 to about 2,600. you had 2,630. so we're, you know, this is current growth. so that's a -- that's a 60% growth between today and let's say 2040 or mid 2030s. a lot of that growth is going to be in asia and india and other

parts of the developing world. less so in the u.s. but there will be some growth in the u.s. as heat raid is improved on plant and additional technologies are built in. and the global coal demand is expected to rise just over the next five years from 7.8 billion tons in 2013 to a little over 9 billion tons in 2019. so there's going to be continued growth in the demand for the fuel as well. and i put these numbers out there, because i heard some of these already today. they are very similar to some of the numbers you had. and what it shows is that the world is making a huge commitment in this fixed infrastructure. and we are talking about -- we are talking about 40s, 42, something like that part of the

world's electricity being generated from this type of fuel. and i'm not counting in natural gas which is another big hunk fossil fuels, we're probably in that 50% zone of the world. so electricity being generated from it, for at least another getting us into the middle part of this century, where we are supposed to make substantial reducks in grown house gas emissions. but at the same time, you know, we're trying to, as a world, that you may wonder sometimes whether we're able to think about this stuff or not from all of the world events you hear, but as a world, we're trying to raise everybody's standard of living. and quality of life. and in order do that, there's over a billion people on earth that do not have electricity. and so, you have to think through that we have that other conflicting characteristic of

our modern thinking in the world is that we want people to have a better quality of life. i thinkw"f+v that most of us wo agree that sometimes int6s thin tent in the woods would be good, a quality of life in modern society includes having some electricity. and so, these conflicting or at least let's say challenging, mutually challenging goals that we have as a planet to reduce our grown house gas emissions, but at the same time, try to grow the quality of life of all of our citizens on the planet. it is a very difficult con textural thing that we have to think about.contextural thing t to think about. so the reality is, and i think maybe you asked know be here, if the reality is we are going to have there kind of power generation on earth for quite a while in this century, we need to figure out how we're going to

deal with the emissions. so i actually often say, it's not the fuel, it's the emissions that we have to deal with. and the history piece that i want it lay in here, jane, is that in the u.s., this is pulling back into the u.s., and you saw the performance of the u.s. plantsing, aggregately, we have those in the u.s. also, those are averages, we have plants that are getting very, very low. i want to say very close to zero almost. in sulfur oxide emissions and nitrous oxide emissions. that's a phenomenal achievement. when i started in air control 30 years ago, we had things like lonox burners, where we hoped to get 20 or 30 or maybe if we were lucky 40% reduction. and i remember having conversations with engineers and they say, what's wrong with you, bob?

tp]] air is 80% nitrogen. i can't burn something and not have it be exposed to that nitrogen. well, today we have selective catalytic reduction. we have developed catalysts. we have perfected the way to deal with this and change it into a different kind of gas and different kind of product. so we've made some fantastic -- and i have to say, fantastic reductions in coal fire. and the cost of coal is 10.5 cents. in 1985 our average cost for killa watt hour was 6.5 cents. in today's dollars that would be 14 cents. 6.5 cents, our average today is 10.5 cents. so you could say we're starving our infrastructure here by not

charging the same amount of money in buying power than we did in 1985. but what we've done over the last 20 years is invested in pollution control that has had fantastic reduction in pollution and amazing impact on public health.