Coal-to-Liquid: Useless

Byoliveridley

Liquid transportation fuels derived from coal and natural gas could help the United States reduce its dependence on petroleum. The fuels could be produced domestically or imported from fossil fuel-rich countries. The goal of this paper is to determine the life-cycle GHG emissions of coal- and natural gas-based Fischer−Tropsch (FT) liquids, as well as to compare production costs. The results show that the use of coal- or natural gas-based FT liquids will likely lead to significant increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to petroleum-based fuels. In a best-case scenario, coal- or natural gas-based FT-liquids have emissions only comparable to petroleum-based fuels. In addition, the economic advantages of gas-to-liquid (GTL) fuels are not obvious: there is a narrow range of petroleum and natural gas prices at which GTL fuels would be competitive with petroleum-based fuels. CTL fuels are generally cheaper than petroleum-based fuels. However, recent reports suggest there is uncertainty about the availability of economically viable coal resources in the United States. If the U.S. has a goal of increasing its energy security, and at the same time significantly reducing its GHG emissions, neither CTL nor GTL consumption seem a reasonable path to follow.

Comparative Analysis of the Production Costs and Life-Cycle GHG Emissions of FT Liquid Fuels from Coal and Natural Gas.

To summarize, no cost benefits, increased GHG emissions, a lot of uncertainty, let’s not follow this madness of trying to make coal into gasoline.

Similar Posts

  • Are there Vogons on Canada’s National Energy Board?

    Byoliveridley

    I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I read this morning of the new rules put in place to “help” Canada’s residents voice their concerns on the numerous pipeline projects that are to be built to ship diluted bitumen out of Alberta. The rules arise from the Omnibus “Budget” bill passed in 2012 that “streamlined” environmental assessments.

    Ordinary Canadians who want to participate at the NEB hearings, or even write a letter to offer their thoughts, must first print the application form that was made available online on Friday, answer 10 pages of questions, then file it with both the NEB and Enbridge. And they must do so by April 19.The NEB also encourages those wishing to make submissions to include résumés and references. Only after an application is approved will the board accept a letter

    via Energy board changes pipeline complaint rules – The Globe and Mail.

    Sounds familiar?

    Mr Prosser said: “You were quite entitled to make any suggestions or protests at the appropriate time you know.”

    <snip>

    “But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.”

    <snip>

    “But the plans were on display…”

    “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

    “That’s the display department.”

    “With a torch.”

    “Ah, well the lights had probably gone.”

    “So had the stairs.”

    “But look, you found the notice didn’t you?”

    “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard.”

    Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy – Douglas Adams

    Just a note that the Vogons gave us nine months notice to demolish earth and did not ask for a 10 page application, résumés, references and first born (one of these is not a requirement).

    vogon

    Picture of Vogon from Tim Ellis’ Flickr stream used under a Creative Commons Licence

  • Mooning Cheney and Big Oil

    Byoliveridley


    Opus Comics, by Bloom County’s Berkeley Breathed – Salon

    A little simplistic, perhaps, but plugin hybrids need to get here soon. I want my next car to be a plugin hybrid. Hell, I would even buy an ugly ass GM car if it turns out to be as good as advertised, 65 km without gas. Note also the cool solar panels and power inverter.


    GM Volt

    Can I get a compact plugin hybrid instead of this behemoth two door, or is the size due to battery storage?

    Photo courtesy Corvair Owner Flickr photstream, used under a creative commons licence.

  • Value a forest, cool a planet

    Byoliveridley

    Cutting forests is the third-largest source of climate-warming carbon emissions today, larger than the emissions produced by either the US or China. Including them in a "carbon market" is a tempting solution.

    It comes down to this: Today, trees are worth more dead than alive. This despite the fact that they stash away billions of tons of carbon in their soil and themselves and constantly inhale more carbon from the atmosphere. They also help regulate the earth's climate in other ways, influencing rainfall patterns far away, including in the US. And they contain unique plant and animal life, the economic value of which is only beginning to be understood.

    Yet no dollar figure is placed on these vital services. Instead, tropical forests are cut down in favor of enterprises such as palm oil plantations or cattle grazing, endeavours that make money here and now. It’s easy to see why rain forests continue to disappear at an alarming rate.

    A report to the British government this month suggests that the way to recognize the true value of forests is by including them in carbon markets. Polluters around the world could earn credits to offset their own carbon emissions by paying for forest preservation.

    via Value a forest, cool a planet | csmonitor.com

    A carbon sink needs to be valued as much as a carbon source. Making this really happen is of course very difficult, needing accurate forest cover mappings (now available), and strict enforcement in countries that may be hard to monitor.

    The moral hazard of giving people money to do “nothing” of course is something conservatives will not like, but the trees are not doing “nothing”. Paying people for stewardship is not wrong. There would be an opportunity to change an extractive subsistence based economy into a service economy, with sustainable tourism, shade grown coffee, local guards and forest officers, etc.

    I like this idea very much. Carbon offset markets have gotten a bad name recently, but a larger scale program is necessary.

  • Bolivia's Lithium

    Byoliveridley

    In the rush to build the next generation of hybrid or electric cars, a sobering fact confronts both automakers and governments seeking to lower their reliance on foreign oil: almost half of the world’s lithium, the mineral needed to power the vehicles, is found here in Bolivia — a country that may not be willing to surrender it so easily.

    via In Bolivia, Untapped Bounty Meets Nationalism – NYTimes.com.

    Dear American reporter:

    Your country does not have God given rights to all the resources of the world. The fact that a country like Bolivia is not only wary of being exploited, but seems to have recently changed its constitution to ensure that its native people get a fair share of any resource exploitation is something to celebrate. I don’t think they should “surrender” their resources to your country, however much you lose your so called journalistic neutrality.

    Yours Sincerely

    The Olive Ridley Crawler

  • Today is World Water Day

    Byoliveridley

    World Water Day – World Water Day

    As opposed to every other day when water’s not all that important! But seriously, the site is a good compendium of resources. This year’s theme is coping with scarcity. I remember when Madras had severe water shortages in the late ’80s until a couple of years back. You had to be either very lucky to live in the right neighborhood/rich enough to buy water from private tankers to fill up your water tank. Running water was off and on, we had giant buckets of stored water, it was quite an adventure for me (and a great deal of stress for my parents, of course). Those days still leave a big impression on me. Everytime I leave the tap running for more than 30 seconds, or stand in the shower for longer than necessary, I can hear my mom yelling!

  • Nuclear Energy not Carbon Free?

    Byoliveridley

    Who would have thunk it, turns out that uranium mining and nuclear waste storage result in significant carbon emissions…
    New Debate Over Nuclear Option

    Now, some scientists and other experts are beginning to raise a different question about nuclear power: Is it really as clean as supporters contend? A report, released on Mar. 26 by a British nongovernmental organization called the Oxford Research Group, disputes the popular perception that nuclear is a clean energy source. It argues that while nuclear plants may not generate carbon dioxide while they operate, the other steps necessary to produce nuclear power, including the mining of uranium and the storing of waste, result in substantial amounts of carbon dioxide pollution. “As this report shows, hopes for the climate-protecting potential of nuclear energy are entirely misplaced,” says Jürgen Trittin, a former minister of the environment in Germany and a contributor to the report. “Nuclear power cannot be promoted on environmental grounds.”

    The report, called “Secure Energy? Civil Nuclear Power, Security and Global Warming,” examines a number of risks from nuclear power development, including concerns over the disposal of radioactive waste and the threats from terrorist groups. But its most novel component may be the quantitative examination of carbon emissions on a comprehensive basis. “Carbon emissions are a global problem and it’s time to look at the carbon released by nuclear power globally,” says Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, author of the report’s chapter on carbon emissions. “The assumption has long been that the [greenhouse] effect is zero, but the evidence shows otherwise.”

    carbonfacts_sm.jpg“Novel component”?, well, I would not go that far, it appears that the authors performed a carbon footprint analysis and concluded that the carbon footprint of nuclear fission energy production was somewhere between renewables and fossil fuel power generation, which is not entirely surprising. Coupled with all the other issues facing nuclear energy, and the obvious environmental justice issues that impact the siting of any new plant or waste repository, nuclear energy should not be a very serious option at all. Unfortunately, it’s a great boondongle for the developers of the plants because the subsidies and power pricing mechanisms ensure profits for the developer at the expense of the general public, and waste disposal issues can forever be postponed, eventually leaving governments (and tax payers) to pick up the tab.

    By the way, go read Jamais Cascio’s interesting post about the carbon footprint of a cheeseburger. The “nutrition like label” shown here is something I wish to see in almost every product used! It would make the regulation of carbon a lot less complicated. It appears that England will take the lead on this concept, see Carbon Labelling (yes, 2 L’s, the “correct” spelling!).