Ken wrote:
Coal liquefaction is a technology that takes a solid such as coal and breaks it down to form a fuel oil. To do so, it removes all the toxins such as mercury, sulfur and heavy metals. But the process does nothing to reduce carbon dioxide, which is why some environmental groups are objecting to its potential proliferation. Even more, about 40 percent of the energy is lost in the conversion process.
Ken
It is not just environmental groups who are objecting to proliferation of coal-to-liquids technology. I am an energy engineer with 38+ years of experience. Coal-to-liquids is a red herring; a straw dog; a total waste of time, energy, money and talent; a boondoogle. A solution that solves the wrong problem.
“But the process does nothing to reduce carbon dioxide.” Your article blows by this problem with coal-to-liquids technology as if it is irrelevant. It is not irrelevant; it cuts to the heart of our problem.
Reducing life-cycle carbon dioxide emissions from the use of fossil fuels, power generation and motor vehicles, is the primary objective of the search for new coal technology.
The National Academy of Sciences, the IPCC and responsible scientists have made their recommendations. The facts are compelling; the planet is starting to loose its’ ice caps and glaciers at an alarming rate. The projections are even more alarming. In response, responsible industry and political leaders, like Florida Governor Crist and California Governor Schwarzenegger, have adopted policy goals of 80% greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2050.
The target is an 80 % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in only 42 years, if not earlier. In fact, many leading scientists are now saying that the sooner we make substantial reductions in emissions, the better.
It is a fact that motor fuels comprise 40% of total carbon emissions in Florida; slightly less if you consider the entire country. But even if Florida consumers and utilities converted to 100% renewable electricity sources with zero carbon emissions, mobile source emissions would still have to be reduced by at least 60%.
You cannot reduce tailpipe fossil carbon emissions by 60% using a non-renewable hydrocarbon fuel. It is impossible.
So why, why, why do you ignore this inconvenient truth and continue to paint a rosy picture for coal-to-liquids technology?
Do the math.
There is absolutely no way that Florida drivers can continue to use liquid hydrocarbon motor fuels and meet this 80% reduction goal by 2050. There is no way that any wide-spread use of coal-to-liquid fuels can contribute to solving this problem. Tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide from hydrocarbon fuels cannot be captured.
Proliferation of coal-to-liquids technology only makes solving the fundamental problem that much harder. Coal-to-liquids does NOT reduce emissions; it merely diverts resources, investment and talent from solving real problems.
The math doesn’t work.
The only way the fossil fuel industry can solve the greenhouse gas problem is by reducing life-cycle emissions by 80%. Unless the coal industry is willing to shrink, the only way to reduce life-cycle emissions from the use of coal is to use the coal to manufacture zero-carbon energy carriers. Forget about production of liquid hydrocarbon fuels from coal; producing more liquid hydrocarbons is simply not a viable technology pathway.
This pathway is a dead-end. Do the math.
The coal industry must get serious and focus on sequestering carbon while learning how to produce and distribute zero-carbon energy carriers, electricity and hydrogen.
If motor fuels manufactured from coal have significant non-renewable carbon content the United States and the world will never meet greenhouse gas reduction targets that will preserve the ice caps and glaciers and slow the rate of sea level rise.
Do the math.
If society is willing to write off the ice caps, glaciers and a few thousand miles of coastal real estate then by all means society should commercialize and promote coal-to-liquids facilities.
But if society wants to try to preserve our ice caps and glaciers and slow the rate of sea level rise, then another pathway must be developed asap.
We will lose our ice and our coastal communities if coal-to-liquids technology is commercialized.
Will electricity production be 100% emission free by 2050? I think not, therefore motor vehicle emissions must be reduced by at least 80% as well; use of coal-to-liquid hydrocarbon fuels simply cannot meet this objective. The calculation is simple algebra; do the math.
Am I wrong?
Carpe diem.
dave bruderly
What he says that is important and often left unsaid: "Unless the coal industry is willing to shrink, the only way to reduce life-cycle emissions from the use of coal is to use the coal to manufacture zero-carbon energy carriers." Well, that's a pretty interesting statement; and it's certainly worth further discussion.
There are two common zero-carbon "energy carriers" of which I am familiar. One is electricity, the other is hydrogen. Of course, one has to make the assumption that the production of said electricity and hydrogen were themselves zero-carbon, or at least practiced 100% carbon capture and sequestration.
This is a technical problem on which I have worked for a few years now. In fact, I do believe that it is possible to gasify coal, creating a zero-carbon stream of energy carrier, and a near-100% stream of CO2 for subsequent sequestration.
Everyone wants to talk about the CO2 debate. I don't need to tell you my opinion on the global warming issue, because everyone else has worn us all out with the debate; my opinion is worthless to everyone else but me. I doubt that you REALLY care what I think about it.
However, I AM interested in a pragmatic and economically reasonable solution that might keep both sides of the debate satisfied. So, "I did the Math".
If one assumes that it takes 10 MCF of CO2 (0.58 short tons) to produce one incremental barrel of crude oil through miscible CO2 injection, or "Enhanced Oil Recovery", and that the carbon dioxide content from combustion of that barrel of oil is 8 MCF (0.47 tons), then the math says that every barrel of oil from this method results in a NET 2 MCF of CO2 being permanently sequestered. And yes, it is permanently sequestered, or oil operators would continually recycle their CO2 forever, and wouldn't need to buy so much of the expensive stuff like they do now.
10 MCF per ton is a little high for the Permian Basin fields, but a little low for Gulf Coast fields. However, 10 MCF is a reasonable overall indication of this metric; and it's an easy number to remember for bloviating at a cocktail party. Let's go with that.
I did the math on the Hydrogen. In a reasonably well balanced coal gasification project, one can make approximately 10 MCF of Hydrogen for every 10 MCF of CO2. 10 MCF of hydrogen has a higher heating value of 10 X 1000 X 325 = 3,250,000 BTUs.
And then I did the math on the Oil. A barrel of oil contains 42 gallons of crude. Not all crude is equal mind you, but let's say that 138,000 BTUs are found in the average gallon of oil. That means that there are 5,796,000 BTUs (higher heating value) in a barrel of oil.
Where is this exercise going? For every 3,250,000 BTUs of clean, clean, clean hydrogen produced, one can recover an additional 5,796,000 BTUs of oil from mostly-depleted oil fields. Corrected me if I am wrong, but that seems like a 178% bonus in energy. If this hydrogen is displacing natural gas or coal-fired energy options, then it seems to me that the more that one practices what I laid out above, the more that one would get net sequestration.
While it's impossible to make everyone in this debate happy; this sure seems like a pragmatic start for reasonable people to find consensus.
I sure would appreciate it if someone could recreate or disprove the above excercise.
Let's look at the scale of things one more time. The global ecosystem is threatened with collapse. Homo sapiens is just as vulnerable to extinction as the rest of them, and maybe moreso. Yes, this situation warrants attention. We're betting the farm.
Nope, Tom, this doesn't do it. It's like jumping out of a plane without a parachute from only 6,500 feet instead of from 10,000 feet. Doing the math to come up with a partial solution here obfuscates the issue. Sometimes a partial solution is a step in the right direction. Here, your partial solution is a step down a path headed the wrong direction. It doesn't get there.
Here's my standard response on the subject. And let's not forget that FutureGen, which was cancelled, was up to $6,500/kW in capital costs alone.
__________________________________________
The coal companies can whine and bluster, but simple physics tells us that matter is not created or destroyed -- only changed. Unfortunately, the coal, oil and gas industry gives lots of campaign money, perhaps giving them the illusion that they can change basic scientific principles.
Coal will never be "clean." The volume of CO2 -- and many other pollutants -- is enormous. Two to three pounds of CO2 are created for every pound of coal burned; and CO2 a very stable molecule. There are a number of times in our history that we have tried to synthesize liquid fuel from coal -- please see this CATO Institute article, which details how the U.S. has authorized over $85 billion -- yes, billion -- since the oil embargo in the 1970's : http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8280 But liquid and synthetic coal research began after World War II, when Hitler ran his airplanes on liquid coal.
And more recently, corporations like the Marriott Hotel "invested" $50 million in "altering" coal -- basically spraying it with diesel fuel -- for a whopping 250% return on investment -- a tax break over $150 million. See this interesting article from Time Magazine dated October 4, 2003. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031013-493241,00.html
A dozen IGCC plants have been cancelled or put on hold as of November 2007, Emerging Energy Research, Oct. 5, 2007, TECO, Nuon Cancellations Underscore IGCC's Woes. Since the report was issued, at least 2 more IGCC's have been cancelled: Colorado and Orlando. TECO's cancellation is notable it has been running an IGCC plant for the past ten years; while Orlando is notable because it received $235 million in federal funds, which it must now return.
there are only TWO IGCC (Ingrated Gasification Combined Cycle) plants that produce electricity in the U.S. (for a total of four in the world) - see attached 3 page report;
no IGCC plant currently captures CO2;
the costs and parasitic load (how much energy it takes to run the capture and storage processes) are enormous - the EPA and EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) estimate ~20% .
IGCC capital cost: $3,400/kW
cost of compression: $17/ton - see Ramgen's excellent description from the Western Governor's Ass'n meeting Oct. 23-24, 2007 in Denver: http://www..westgov.org/wga/initiatives/cdeac/inde...
The percentage of CO2 from coal plants that is being captured and stored right now is a pittance. Coal-fired power plants emit an average of ~3 million tons of CO2/year; with the largest plants emitting 20-25 million tons of CO2/year (for example, the Navajo power plant near the AZ-NM border). The U.S. burns 1.1 billion tons of coal every year to make electricity; thus creating about 3.5 billion tons of CO2 from coal plants every year.
Compare this 3 billion tons of CO2 emitted each year by the U.S. with the amount of CO2 currently being sequestered around the world. EACH location on the planet that is currently capturing and storing CO2 is capturing and storing about 1 million tons/year -- about 1/3 of the emissions from a single coal plant. That's not a solution, it's a niche market.
A July 2006 EPA study estimated the added costs of IGCC with carbon capture:
-plant output reduced 14%
- total capital cost increase - 47%
- cost of electricity increase 38%
Summary, page. ES-6: http://www.epa.gov/air/caaac/coaltech/2007_01_epai...
Finally, the risk is enormous. In the 1960s, the US Army Corps injected 165 million gallons of liquid toxic waste from Rocky Mtn Arsenal beneath the Denver basin, triggering 1,500 seismic events between 1962-67 -- three over Richter magnitude 5; induced seismic activity is a real danger when injecting large amounts of a pressurized -- and corrosive -- substance like CO2. High Country News recently reported on it: http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id...
CO2 is heavier than air and displaces air, which is why a cloud of CO2 released from a volcanic lake in Lake Nyos, Cameroon in the mid-1980's instantly killed the village's 1700 inhabitants and animals.
See this fact sheet on IGCC: www.energyjustice.net/coal/igcc.
Renewable energy is cost-compeititive. Xcel Energy"s 2007 Colorado Resource Plan estimated these capital costs:
- wind- $1645/kW (with Production Tax Credit);
- wind- $2,000/kW (no PTC);
- concentrating solar with 6 hrs thermal storage-$2572;
- IGCC with 50% capture- $3912/kW;
- pulverized coal, dry cooled with 50% capture- $3688/kW.
Energy efficiency is 1-3 cents/kWh! http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,3080,1-1-1_41994_45385-42116-2_68_135-0,00.html -(go to Vol. 1, p.1-55)
Why are we doing this? To make Peabody and Duke Energy rich? I am from Arizona, where there were 31 days over 110 degrees last year; where 20% of the forest has burned in the past 5 years; and which is becoming unliveable during the summer. Arizona could have been a leader in solar energy, but due to the complete lack of vision of Arizona Public Service Company, invested instead in a $4-6 billion nuclear plant. (To APS' credit, it recently signed a contract to build a 280 MW Concentrating Solar Power plant in Gila Bend, AZ, with molten salt storage, at a cost of 12-14 cents/kWh. National Renewable Energy Labs and its consultants tell us that CSP is expected to cost 7 cents/kWh by 2015.)
We can't afford to keep pretending that global warming doesn't exist, that coal isn't going to cook the planet, and that techno-babble will save us. Wind is cheap, efficiency is cheaper. And clearly solar power is a good investment. Scientists tell us that we are looking at permanent drought conditions. Solar photo voltaics, distributed widely, can reduce peak demand, reduce water use for producing electricity (currently 48% of our water is used for thermoelectric power, according the U.S.G.S.: http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wupt.html .
So should we invest in coal, which is killing us? Or bank on an unproven, risky venture like carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)? Or should we invest in our future, our children's future, our planet's future, and go with wind, solar and efficiency?