The Oil Drum | Clean fuel from dirty coal?

Clean fuel from dirty coal?

Posted by Heading Out on February 27, 2006 - 1:53am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: coal, coke, fischer-tropsch, montana, tech talk, town gas, wyoming [list all tags]

Part of the problem with coal is that, when it was first grown (as in the peat bogs back when) the region was occasionally inundated with floods, and, as the Hurricanes showed last year, this carried mud and sand into the bog. Over the passage of time, as the bog turned from peat to brown coal, and then into coal itself, these dirt bands turned into sandstone, mudstones and other rocks. The layers are often found inter-layered within a coal seam, either as very thin stringers, or as partings that can separate a single seam into layers that end up several feet apart. The bedding planes and vertical joints (referred to as cleat) provide the permeable paths through the coal, and are often partially filled with additional minerals that deposit out of the water that percolated through the coal at one time. This can also introduce lenses of pyrite and calcite, so that coal is not the simple carbon lump that people often anticipate.

This is another in the short technical posts that show up at weekends, dealing with one aspect or another of fossil fuel production. Given that, as Super G noted the Governor of Montana was on 60 minutes tonight, it seemed like a good time to return to a coal-related theme. A list of related posts will be appended at the end of this one, and relate to the mining of coal, either on the surface or from underground, though it is the surface mining of coal, that currently entices the Montana Governor. It should be noted that the adjacent state of Wyoming produces around 400 million short tons a year of coal, about ten times the current production from Montana.

The way in which the coal was formed gives it a number of impurities, the two of most initial concern being the dirt in the coal (which leaves an ash when the coal is burned and thus is referred to as the ash content), and the amount of sulfur in the coal, because of the sulfur dioxide that is produced, since this will, in turn, generate acid rain. In order to remove these from the coal, it is usually first passed through a coal preparation plant. These plants (known as washeries in the UK) use differences in the density of the coal and the ash particles to separate the two, and this will also remove most of the sulfur that is found in the coal as pyrite and other inorganic forms. The problem, however, is that some of the non-carbon content is part of the original plant life, or related, so that it is bound to the carbon organically and this is more difficult to remove, particularly the organic sulfur. Even relatively clean coal can contain significant ash, and it is this that forms the fused ash or clinker, after coal is burned.

The problems of using coal, particularly unwashed coal, with the pollution it caused have been recognized for decades. Back in the 1960's much of Europe still burned coal in stoves and open fires for heating and cooking, and the resulting fumes and soot meant that buildings were blackened, and, on foggy days a combination of smoke and fog generated smog which reduced visibility to the point that you could not see your hand in front of your face (personal experience), and which had serious health consequences to those caught in one. During the London Smog of 1952 it was estimated that 12,000 people prematurely died. These smogs led to Clean Air Acts, which led to the development and use of smokeless fuels, coal that had been cleaned so that soot was not produced, and the encouragement of gas fires.

At that time in Europe the North Sea Oil and Gas fields were not developed, and so the gas was, particularly in the UK, generated from coal. It was known as town gas and often produced concurrently with coke (which is a smokeless fuel). Coke is made by heating coal, that has been washed and crushed, in larger vertical retorts, but with no air present. This drives off the gases and any volatile matter in the coal (such as hydrocarbons, tars, gasses etc).

The basic process of coke production is also that used for manufacture of town gas. Bituminous coal of the gasmaking type is perhaps 86% carbon, 5.5% hydrogen, 6% oxygen, and 2.5% or so nitrogen and sulfur. An elemental analysis is all that can be meaningfully given, since coal is a complex substance. When heated in the absence of air, coal produces carbon (coke) and a mixture of many gases, (crude coal gas). The heat for the carbonization of coal is provided by use of some of the the coke product in the strongly exothermic producer gas reaction:
C + O2 --> CO2, DH0 = -393.509 kJ/mole
which in the presence of insufficient oxygen drives the endothermic formation of carbon monoxide:
CO2 + C --> 2CO, DH0 = +172.459 kJ/mole
Partial use of the endothermic water gas shift reaction equilibrium:
C + H2O(g) <--> CO + H2, DH0 = +131.293 kJ/mole
permits control of the temperature of the reaction zone and raises the heating value of the output producer gas slightly. The final composition of producer gas is about 12% hydrogen, 25% carbon monoxide, 7% carbon dioxide, and 56% nitrogen; the nitrogen comes from the air used in the producer gas reaction.
Producer gas is mixed with crude coal gas to give crude town gas. Impurities are condensed out as the gas cools (water, tar, napthalene, ammonium chloride) or by absorption in water (NH3, H2S, CO2). The rest of the H2S is removed by reaction with Fe2O3, and the purified town gas is ready for delivery. A typical composition of town gas would be about 51% hydrogen, 15% carbon monoxide, 21% methane, 10% carbon dioxide and nitrogen, and about 3% other alkanes.

Until the 1950's up to 80% (pdf file) of British homes were connected to the town gas grid. Electricity replaced some of that energy, but it was the advent of North Sea gas that led to the change to natural gas, a change completed in 1974. (It required different burners on stoves and other changes that I was not there to see). Gasification from coal, however, had been the major source of gas in the UK from 1920.

The Fischer-Tropsch process is developed from these gases. As the Bureau of Mines reported

The catalyst employed in the pilot plant was nickel-manganese-aluminum oxide supported on kieselguhr and prepared by precipitating from the nitrates with potassium carbonate. Synthesis gas was prepared by conversion of coke-oven gas with steam over coke and freed from organic sulfur by heating to 400 degC in the presence of an iron catalyst and subsequent scrubbing with alkaline ferrocyanide solution. Operating conditions were specified as 1 atmosphere pressure and a temperature of 190 to 210 deg C. The catalyst was re-activated every 1,000 hours by extraction of the solid paraffin with gasoline. The catalyst chambers, suspended in an oil bath for temperature control, were narrow boxes 1.2 by 10 by 500 cm. The gasoline product of the synthesis consisted mainly of straight-chain hydrocarbons, of which 15 to 38% were olefins. The fraction of the oil product boiling over 220 deg C was better than gas oil for diesel fuel. The solid paraffin had a melting point of 48 deg C. These materials were produced in the ratio of gasoline:oils boiling above 220 deg; paraffin of 4:1:0.2.

The Bureau report goes on

If and when natural-gas reserves are exhausted, coal could be substituted for natural gas with a gasoline cost of about 10 cents per gallon, exclusive of possible cost-lowering technological advances, according to an estimate by Hydrocarbon Research ,Inc.

Should I mention that this was written in 1946?

Tonight the Montana Governor showed that the fuel produced is hard to distinguish visually from water, and stated that the fuel is more beneficial to engines than petroleum-based fuel. He also commented that the carbon dioxide produced in the process could be used relatively locally to enhance oil recovery, as we have discussed here earlier.

This is a part of a series of talks that has, most recently, dealt with coal mining.

Surface Mining

Longwall Mining

Room and Pillar Mining

As usual any concerns, corrections, or questions, should be addressed in comments.

78 comments on Clean fuel from dirty coal?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Boof on February 27, 2006 - 1:38am

A tough target for net CO2 emissions could be a form of insurance. It would take into account capture and storage/EOR as well as blending coal and biomass feedstocks for the FT process. A national target for the US could be something like 3 billion tons of net CO2. When the yearly quota gets used up distributors would have to ration CTL fuel or cut it with ethanol.

I've wondered if people would feel guilty about driving a car on CTL (while wearing clothes made in sweatshops). I think the answer is no, hence the need for government to keep it in check.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SocraticGadfly on February 27, 2006 - 2:20am

Schweitzer gets some dirty words from inside the state

Actually, not quite a direct reply, but Dave's post was so long (you should have resisted, respectfully speaking), that I didn't want to get buried 150 lines below.

I seriously suggest the governor, and anyone not skeptical of his claims, go to the home page of the Northern Plains Resource Council, out of Billings, at www.northernplains.org, and download their PDF "Old, dirty and insecure" near the bottom of the homepage.

Some talking points from it:

The only commercial-scale coal-to-liquids plants in the world are operated by Sasol, a South African corporation with its roots in the apartheid era. Sasol's coal-to-liquids plants emit huge quantities of a long list of airborne, liquid, and solid wastes. Sasol is converting its operations to produce liquid fuels from natural gas rather than coal to reduce environmental impacts.
Sasol officials outlined the environmental benefits of switching from coal to natural gas at Sasolburg:

Elimination of hydrogen sulfide emissions.

Sulfur dioxide emissions lowered by 15,000 tons per year.

Nitrogen oxide emissions lowered by 10,000 tons per year.

Carbon dioxide emissions lowered by 47%, or five million tons per year.

Particulates lowered by 25%.

Fine ash reduced 73%.

Solid waste reduction of 50%.

Water consumption reduced 27% - 30%.

After that comes an excellent reference chart noting just how much water would be needed for a one million barrel/day of oil offset industry and 20.000 and 80,000 barrel/day individual plants. (which is of modest size).

One million bpd of Fischer-Tropsch industry would require half again as much water as the entire Tongue River annual flow.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dave Cohen on February 27, 2006 - 2:54am

You're right, I should have resisted the Monty Python. Attempt at Absurdist humor.

I agree with your comments.

Re: "excellent reference chart noting just how much water would be needed for a one million barrel/day of oil offset industry and 20.000 and 80,000 barrel/day individual plants."

Excellent point. The same water problems apply to coal bed methane and so-called "tight gas" recovery here in the Rocky Mountain regions out west where I live. Water supplies here depend on winter snowfall and depleting deep water aquifers is not a good idea. Since climate change is bound to dry out these regions (there will be no operating ski areas in 20 years), then it seems crazy to think that large-scale oil & natural gas operations requiring large amounts of water could ever work here in the time-frame we care about (next 5 to 15 years).

best, Dave

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TJ on February 27, 2006 - 10:23am

I wish you anti-coal types well in your universe where there is a replacement for coal. Not that I'm particularly fond of CO2 emissions, but when natural gas shortages start appearing coal will be gasified whether you like it or not. As HO has pointed out the tech is a century old and it will be reactivated. What he didn't point out is that producer gas generators, water gas generators, and coking ovens are dirt cheap to build, quicker to build, and are about an order of magnitude more damaging to the environment than the Montana proposal. More than that, you will not be able to retrofit them for sequestration. You want to sequester a modern gasifier plant you need a compressor and a hole in the ground.

If you don't do it the right way then others will do it the cheap way. The smog and the smells will return.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

bjj on February 27, 2006 - 3:36pm

..when natural gas shortages start appearing coal will be gasified whether you like it or not.

Sadly, that's what's showing in my crystal ball. And I don't like it. Not one bit.

The cynic in me sees us burning through every possible energy source at the max sustained rate, consequences be damned.

But the hopeful dreamer part wants to help avoid that future. Y'all keep up the excellent posting around coal, GW, production data, etc. As I try to influence those around me, TOD is a significant source of hard, cold data.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on February 27, 2006 - 3:49pm

The good news is that coal mining seems to be already pretty much strained (I have that as a general impression from HO posts). Probably we are far from peak coal yet, but significantly ramping it up could be very difficult.

So.. look again in that crystal ball; I think you will see this:

not this:

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TJ on February 27, 2006 - 4:14pm

Maybe. But if the coal deposits exist then it becomes a question of what's cheaper and quicker to expand: coal strip mining with coal gasifiers, FT units, and steam power plants; or reactor building and mass conversion of oil and natural gas usage to electricity. Since your base investment for the second alternative is essentially zero right now my guess would be the first would be way cheaper and quicker. This would especially be true if a crisis hits and pollution concerns go out the window.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tom deplume on February 28, 2006 - 1:07pm

Last month I was driving down west coast of Michigan on a bright sunny morning. It was a very rare cloudless day with one exception, the plume of vapor from the Palisades Nuclear Powerplant near South Haven. It stood out clearly for 50 miles as the only blemish on a extremely blue sky. It is truly amazing how much energy those cooling towers throw away while its neighbors are burning nat gas and propane on a cold January morning.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Paula on February 28, 2006 - 1:13pm

It's worth bearing in mind that water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas than C02.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on February 28, 2006 - 4:39pm

AFAIK water vapor is in a thermodynamical balance in the atmosphere and there is not a lot that we humans can do to affect it.

Oceans are producing million times as much vapor as all human activities combined. It would be interesting though to see how GW plays on this - we can expect with rising temperatures the air humidity to grow producing a positive feedback. On the other hand the water cycle (evaporation -> precipitation) will intensify, taking away some of the energy absorbed by the oceans thus cooling them off. I have to check but probably the total efect would be neutral because it is absent in the climatographic models I've seen.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SocraticGadfly on March 1, 2006 - 1:31am

Ahh, but a warmer atmosphere cdan hold more H2O vapor.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on February 28, 2006 - 4:41pm

Unfortunately our urban development pattern was not designed for the central heating that could utilise this energy.

Maybe Kunstler would turn out being right that it is mostly Suburbia to blame for our worries.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jim burke on April 17, 2006 - 4:32pm

I live in the arid west, and the fight over water supplies is fierce. It's hard to imagine very much local water can be diverted to FT and other methods of coal conversion.

Two possibilities: build a water pipeline from the East/North to the west; or ship the coal to where it will be used, and FT it there.

Any comments? Is this feasible?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on February 27, 2006 - 11:02am

Probably technically incorrect suggestion, but could not they pump water from the sea?

Considering how much fresh water would be wasted maybe it would be economically and enviromentally better decision to build a pipeline to deliver it... just a wild idea :)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TJ on February 27, 2006 - 11:11am

The water is used in a boiler to make steam, so it would be possible to use sea water, and if they went big time they probably would put in a pipeline. Also, apparently they are going to use lignite coal, which has a water content of 30-40%, which cuts down the external water requirement by quite a bit.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

JayD on February 27, 2006 - 11:37pm

Water is used for the process, and while lignite has high moisture content it doesn't have enough to provide all of the water needed to produce the fuel.

The down side of the high moisture content is you have to heat up all that water along with the coal to very high temperatures, which is inefficient and costly. You also need a lot more water for cooling.

We are a very long way from the ocean here in Montana. It's hard to judge since there are no plants in the world like what is being proposed, but it's safe to say this is an economically marginal prospect, even at a lot higher than $35 or $40 a barrel or whatever the going rate on guesses about breakeven price is nowadays.

We have no where near the extra capacity in our existing mines you'd need to supply the first plant, and we'd need tons of infrastructure (railroads, roads, hospitals, jails, towns, apartments, trailer courts, municipal water systems, drug treatment centers) for it/them, too.

Then you've gotta have a pipeline and compressors to send the CO2 wherever it is you're going to sequester it.

Can't tell you if you'd have to have a desalinization plant. With or without that, I think I'd rather buy people hybrid cars with the several hundred billion you'd need to build enough plants to replace a significant percentage of foreign oil.

If there's some left over we could spread some cellulosic ethanol plants and a couple of biodiesel plants around Eastern Montana (1/10th the investment cost per daily barrel of capacity) in amongst the windmills. That's more appropriate to the scale of economic development we need.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TJ on February 28, 2006 - 8:52am

The $40/bbl is certainly too low. However, I see no signs that oil will ever go that low again. And as far as all the new infrastructure required, I suspect the governor sees that as a bonus. It's a hell of a lot of jobs in state, that don't show up if you import a bunch of Priuses.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

JayD on March 2, 2006 - 2:19am

I'm sure you are right, that is what he is thinking. It might be wise for Governor Schweitzer to talk to former Colorado Governor Lamm, or anyone who remembers Black Friday in Parachute, Colorado.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Heading Out on February 27, 2006 - 1:49pm

The CBS piece did have an opponent to the idea on the show, and though the picture is small I suspect that it was Helen Waller of the NPRC.

Western coal in general is lower sulfur than some of the Midwestern and Eastern coals, though I have not checked the numbers (they are in the EIA data files).

We have devoted some column feet to discussing how the natural gas supply in the United States is depleting. Thus the option of a Gas-to-liquid conversion may not be realistic. Further, some of the countries abroad that have been considering this have decided not to.

Bear in mind that the oil shortage will not be solved by a single silver bullet, but rather by a whole variety of bb's - of which this could well be one - all contributing their portion.

The opponent was pushing biofuel, and if I remember, the Governor pointed out that this would produce much less oil than his choice.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

JayD on February 27, 2006 - 11:53pm

You are correct that the counterpoint on 60 minutes was Helen Waller, of the Northern Plains Resource Council. On that site you can find criticisms that did not make it onto 60 minutes.

It is correct that the oil shortage will not be solved by a single silver bullet. Beyond efficiency (mileage investments e.g. hybrids), the question becomes what is the best investment that will be fastest, cleanest, cheapest. Montanans are also interested in something that maximizes economic benefits to local people.

Using these criteria biofuels are a better fit than F-T diesel. The Governor said that if the U.S. diverted our food crop exports, it would only replace 15% of our liquid fuel needs. However, biofuels can be produced from non-feed crops, and from perennials (e.g. switchgrass) that can be grown on acres not suitable for row crops like corn, soybeans and wheat.

The unstated assumption was that there are not more severe obstacles to producing 5% or 15% of our liquid fuel needs from coal. As you can see here, the obstacles are environmental, economic, and physical.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SocraticGadfly on March 9, 2006 - 3:52pm

I did my post from the Northern Plains' PDF on the F-T process and its shortcomings, which I have saved.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TrueKaiser on February 27, 2006 - 1:48am

do you know how much energy is lost through all the conversion steps compared to just burning the coal directly?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dave Cohen on February 27, 2006 - 1:55am

Clean fuel from dirty coal? What method should we choose? Just coal gasification? tack on a Fischer-Tropsch technique? Regardless of the method, taking CO2 emissions into account, it is a losing proposition. That's it, bottom line. I defy anyone on this website to show me technology and data that refute that without a carbon emissions tax and sequestration program in place that makes everything OK somehow, that it is not necessary to put such programs into place to reflect the true cost of using modified, converted coal--this would be a world-wide tax (beyond Kyoto) which takes into account actual costs going into the future.

Conventional coal usage (as in power plants for electricity) is simply a climate change disaster happening as we speak. The governor of Montana's solution offers little else beyond boosterism of the local economy and political ambition without CO2 markets and sequestration. He says he can sell the captured CO2 and sell it to oil producers for EOR (assuming sequestration after EOR on their part) to make the whole thing work out. Really? That's a really small market right now as far as I can see.

How about something, as Monty Python said, "... for something completely different..."? Still waiting for that....

BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3:
B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
BEDEVERE:
Good! Heh heh. CROWD: Oh, yeah. Oh.
BEDEVERE:
So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1:
Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE:
Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #1:
Oh, yeah.
RANDOM:
Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
BEDEVERE:
Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1:
Throw her into the pond!
CROWD:
The pond! Throw her into the pond!
BEDEVERE:
What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1:
Bread!
VILLAGER #2:
Apples!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1:
Cider!
VILLAGER #2:
Uh, gra-- gravy!
VILLAGER #1:
Cherries!
VILLAGER #2:
Mud!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2:
Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR:
A duck!
CROWD:
Oooh.
BEDEVERE:
Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1:
If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE:
And therefore?
VILLAGER #2:
A witch!
VILLAGER #1:
A witch!
CROWD:
A witch! A witch!...

Sorry, couldn't resist.... From The Holy Grail, Scene 5. Read it all to get the point and enjoy the whole thing. Just about the same as using coal for gasification or liquids.

Good luck and good night.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

JLA on February 27, 2006 - 3:17pm

I agree with you entirely. The only problem is that just because something is stupid and self destructive doesn't mean that we won't do it.

If we respond to PO by rolling up our sleeves and getting serious about conservation, efficiency, R&D, and deploying clean technologies / energy sources, I like our chances in the long run at building a more sustainable civilization.

On the other hand, if we respon in large part with CTL and evermore ambitious tar sand / heavy oil projects, we will only dig a deeper hole for ourselves with climate change.

What concerns me more than PO is that the longer we delay option 1, the more likely we are to reach for option 2 in large measure (we'll probably see a little bit of everything) when things get interesting.

Okay, I'll stop ranting about stuff you already know and get back to work now. ; )

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Mykobar on February 27, 2006 - 3:22am

Thank You, HO, for another great post. Your reality-based seminars have always been my favorite part of the TOD experience.

I have an unrelated question that I have been studying and need some help on. I keep reading in different sources that one indicator of the coming of a "peak" in oil production, or of the existence of the peak itself is volatility in prices. This seems to be the consensus opinion. The market will supposedly respond to events that cause uncertainty about the future of oil with both increased price and volatility - so the argument goes, if peak-oil is in fact becoming closer.

However, I've never seen anybody explain what price volatility is or how it is measured, never mind present an analysis of volatility over the last several years. Can anybody provide some guidance or links to price-volatility analysis?

For instance, if the price of oil goes up by 5% in January, down by 6% in February, and then up by 7% in March, does this mean the price was more volatile in February and March and therefore that the trend(from this theoretical data)is that the price is becoming more volatile? Or is my example off base? Should I be using straight dollar amounts instead of percentages?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

magwitch on February 27, 2006 - 6:47pm

There's a hundred definitions of volatility in technical and theoretical senses, with the best forward measurement of volatility today a market-based measurement based on option pricing ala the ^VIX. You could use the NYMEX's light sweet options in a similar way.

Yours is as useful as any for most purposes, though. Stick to percentage change.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

skylar on February 27, 2006 - 7:27pm

You might also look into Queuing Theory.

It's been mentioned on this site a few days ago. And Deffeyes has said -- somewhere -- that it might be useful in modeling price volatility at PO.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on February 27, 2006 - 9:00pm

I've devised my own (probably invented elsewhere) way to judge volatility in time series data. I look at the rate of change in the revisions to forecasts. You can think of this (roughly, not exactly) as taking the first derivative (say to get acceleration instead of velocity). Sometimes, when things get hairy I look also at the "second derivative."

Yes, yes, I know that you cannot use infinitesimal caluclus with discontinuous functions; that is not the point. I am looking for the discontinuities in a rough-and-ready way.

Nobody knows how to find the point where expectations turn on a dime; my technique is just tossing a few straws into the wind.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Luis de Sousa on February 27, 2006 - 4:54am

Thanks HO for another great post.

Some aditional questions:

. Is there any study on F-T EROI? Any idea of what it might be?

. What wieght of coal is needed to make a liter (or a boe) of synfuel?

In order to assess the feasability of F-T we'll need to know if we have the needed coal reserves.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

StigDK on February 27, 2006 - 12:45pm

This link regarding Sasol states:

Sasol has produced almost 1.5 billion barrels of synthetic fuel from about 800 million tonnes of coal since the first sample of synthetic oil from coal was produced fifty years ago at its Sasolburg plant near Johannesburg in South Africa on 23 August 1955.

That would indicate a conversion efficiency of only 43% according to my rough calculation.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

StigDK on February 27, 2006 - 1:18pm

As I searched for the Sasoil link obove, I stumbled across this:
Sasol's Potential Climate Solution

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

JayD on February 28, 2006 - 12:01am

You would get 1.5 barrels of fuel from a ton of coal, more or less, depending on the quality of the coal and the process used. To see how that plays out for coal tonnage, acres stripmined, water, and capital requirements, click on the "analysis of the Fischer-Tropsch coal-to-diesel process (PDF 543K" at the bottom of this web page.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Luis de Sousa on March 1, 2006 - 4:19am

Interesting... that's about the same for oil shale...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

writerman on February 27, 2006 - 5:20am

Wrong place to mention this I know, but I do think we're starting to see TOD reflect some of the characteristics of the world outside in realation to PO. Is this true, relevant, worthy of even mentioning? We've recognised the problem, poured time and effort into the numbers, and are convinced PO in real and the consequences will be Enormous. Now we, at least, have got that out of the way, comes the Real Problem. What the hell do we do about it! This is why the Politics are increasingly coming to dominate the debate here, or am I wrong about this too? As don't live in the U.S. and can't vote it's all rather academic for me. However, there does no seem to be a bit of friction developing and political partisanship creeping into our discussions, even when we deal with "practical solutions" like "terra-forming" the North Pole.

Basically what I'm saying is, if even we on TOD, home of an intelligent and educated minority, can't keep a reasonanbly civilised tone and debate form, then it really doesn't look good for the rest of the planet! Maybe I am just an incurable optimist as my partner insists! Let's do our best to remain part of the reality based and rational community, without letting ourselves be provoked unduly. What's so funny about peace, love and understanding!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dave Cohen on February 27, 2006 - 5:36am

Re: "Basically what I'm saying is, if even we on TOD, home of an intelligent and educated minority, can't keep a reasonanbly civilised tone and debate form, then it really doesn't look good for the rest of the planet!"

You're right. I do make the occasional attempt at humor (sometimes fails). I am sometimes at a loss as to what to do with ignorant trolls on the website.

A public forum has its attendant problems, doesn't it? On this thread, I would say that coal is dirty and any way you process it is going to yield lots of CO2 which can either be sequestered underground at great depth underground or simply emitted into the atmosphere. There is no getting around it.

Thanks for participating.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Twilight on February 27, 2006 - 10:19am

Given the water requirements, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, I will be writing off this technology as yet another one that won't save our asses. There are major issues with every new source we consider, which is the problem I see, and the source of some tension at TOD. Something to consider: using oil as we have was never viable to begin with, given the environmental impacts and the inability to sustain it. So now we're trying to find something to replace it with that is free from these impacts, and also has to replace the energy density, portability, and EROEI of oil? Good luck.

Only conservation is free of these issues - the only issue with conservation is if it can be done without crashing our economy (although I would think it could create whole new industries).

But as I've said before, I don't think the environmental issues will carry much weight, concerns about global warming notwithstanding. We'll do whatever it takes to keep from changing our lifestyle, until we absolutely cannot pull it off anymore. Then there will be hell to pay.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

louGrinzo on February 27, 2006 - 12:50pm

I think that if we look at our situation objectively we can't escape the conclusion that eventually we will need and exploit everthing at our disposal--oil and gas deposits in currently off-shore areas of the US, coal, much more nuclear power, lots of conservation, increased government intervention in markets, and conversion to renewables as quickly as possible. As Simmons says, we'll have to pull all levers.

I've often said that there will be plenty for people from all parts of the political spectrum to hate, but those objections won't last long once peak oil and peak natural gas really start to have an effect.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tom deplume on February 27, 2006 - 1:27pm

I agree with Lou that the coal will be certainly be used if not for CTL then just burned to generate electricity. Either way I doubt that CO2 will be successfully sequestered.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tom deplume on February 27, 2006 - 1:15pm

Why can't the water needed be recycled internally? Does the process require a water shift step?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Engineer-Poet on February 27, 2006 - 1:59pm

Yes, it does. You need to add hydrogen from something (coal is about C1H0.5, you need to make roughly CH2) and it comes from water in this process.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on February 27, 2006 - 3:21pm

Well stated.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Luis de Sousa on February 27, 2006 - 6:10am

From Wikipedia:

Recent work by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that full fuel cycle greenhouse gas emissions for coal-based synfuels are nearly twice as high as their petroleum-based equivalent.

So were does the word 'Clean' fit?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dave Cohen on February 27, 2006 - 6:29am

Re: "full fuel cycle greenhouse gas emissions for coal-based synfuels are nearly twice as high as their petroleum-based equivalent"

Clean fit? As I tried to say above, the answer regarding "[CO2] gas emissions" from synfuels production is a lot more of them. This promotes climate change disaster if we ever made a major switch to this kind of liquid (or gas) fuel base to replace light sweet crude domestic production and imports. That's the bottom line and we'd better get used to it and find something else to do.

Bad news, eh? The governor of Montana is whistling in the wind.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Nick Rouse on February 27, 2006 - 7:17am

I remember the great smog of 1952 and trying to walk home from school through it coughing and trying to follow the kerb but even from the modest height of a 6 year old I could not see it and had to bend down. My mother had tried to come and meet me but we must have passed within feet of each other. The street lighting was on, then one of the few streets still lit using town gas. The lights were not visible themselves but created a spooky green yellow glow in the stinking swirling smog.

I also remember the change over to natural gas, It took my mother a long time to get used to lighting it as it had a much slower flame velocity. She used matches as she did not like the idea of pilot lights. On a gruesome note it put an end to suicide by putting your head in an unlit oven. The 15% carbon monoxide was very effective for this purpose.

There were some accidents around the time caused by leaks as the natural town gas was drier than the town gas and dried out some joints.

My abiding memory of town gas was the smell. It spread out from every gas works for a mile or more. Doubtless those that propose to build these gas to liquid plants will say that there will be no leaks and smells from their shiny new plants but I counsel great caution in accepting these claims.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

worried on February 27, 2006 - 9:20am

Is this the source of the missing barrels of oil in production?

The US military oil consumption

According to the US Defense Energy Support Center Fact Book 2004, in Fiscal Year 2004, the US military fuel consumption increased to 144 million barrels. This is about 40 million barrels more than the average peacetime military usage.
By the way, 144 million barrels makes 395 000 barrels per day, almost as much as daily energy consumption of Greece.
The US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world.

and

Did Saudi Arabia and the UAE report that fuel as export? Did the US report it as import? Was it counted as Saudi or UAE domestic consumption? Or Was it counted as the US consumption?
I am afraid the answers to those three questions are No, No, No and No!
But that amount was surely counted in production.
My experience with international oil statistics tell me that the US military oil consumption overseas disappears in world oil demand. Hence, demand is understated at least that much.
Is about 350 000 barrel per day missing oil demand important?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

joule on February 27, 2006 - 11:32am

Heading Out -

As usual, a very informative tutorial on coal!

One question that I have, which I suspect has probably already been answered somewhere on TOD, has to do with the removal and final disposition of the sulfur content of the coal.

Having been in the environmental field for many years, I am familiar with some of the SO2 removal systems for power plants and the sulfur removal systems for oil refineries. So, with these various coal-to-liquid process schemes, what is anticipated to be the sulfur removal process and what will be the final disposition of the removed sulfur? Currently, isn't there a glut on elemental sulfur in the US?

Or are they planning to just let the sulfur be discharged as S02 emissions?

As I recall, low-sulfur coal has a sulfur content of less than 1 percent. While this doesn't sound like much, when you are dealing with many millions of tons of coal a year, it adds up. And if the sulfur is removed as a calcium sulfite/sulfate sludge, the volume is increased accordingly. While sulfur disposition may not be the biggest issue regarding the attractiveness of coal-to-liquid, it is by no means trivial, either.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Engineer-Poet on February 27, 2006 - 2:03pm

Some of the papers I've read claim that co-capturing H2S along with CO2 is cheaper than capturing them separately. If they are both send to geologic disposal, the market price of sulfur (or gypsum) wouldn't matter.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

joule on February 27, 2006 - 5:48pm

It's not at all obvious to me that the injection millions of tons of highly toxic sulfur dioxide into the subsurface is such a great idea. Do we really know what's going to happen to it once it's down there?

If the H2S comes in contact with water, some of it will dissolve and then have the opportunity to enter into all sorts of aqueous oxidation/reduction reactions, not to mention migration via groundwater movement. Do we really understand the environmental behavior of gaseous/aqueous H2S in the subsurface? I know there's some H2S in crude oil and natural gas, so maybe we do.

In any event, if indeed the plan is to inject a mixture of C02 and H2S into the subsurface, I sure hope it's real deep and being injected into a highly confined zone, because the toxicity of H2S is even greater than that of hydrogen cyanide, and an appreciable amount migrated to the surface, it could be bad news.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Heading Out on February 27, 2006 - 6:58pm

The objective of geological sequestration is to inject the gases into formations where there is a cap rock that will seal the gas in place, and where the host rock will retain it. These require prior analysis to ensure that the rocks are compatible with this intent. Given the repercussions of failure, pre-injection checks can be quite rigorous.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TrueKaiser on February 27, 2006 - 7:42pm

i have my doubts they would do all the checks properly.
take the fact that they have been pushing the yucca(spelling?) mountain while ignoreing geological evidence that the place is not realy suited for it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wkwillis on February 28, 2006 - 6:10am

SO2 will react with water to make sulfurous acid, an active agent that will react with any carbonates to make CO2 and a sulfite. This might mobilise stuff like arsenic and heavy metals into the groundwater, so it had better stay sealed.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Heading Out on February 27, 2006 - 6:54pm

The pyritic sulphur is retained in those rock particles, and collected with the other ash-making rock pieces from the washery and then disposed of in the appropriate site, which could be a fill, or a pond depending on the particle size.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Generaly on February 27, 2006 - 12:20pm

Coal - The fuel of the near future!

Years ago I was involved in a study researching the "mining" of the minerals in coal ash. In addition to the expected sulfur, aluminum, iron, arsenic and mercury, most analyses of coal ash shows huge quantities of just about all other minerals. A little like micro-mineral content of seawater, but more concentrated. The gold content was what got my attention! Because we were also involved in a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant redesign, I was also very interested in the fissionable uranium-235 content. It turned out that at the time the economics of such a thing wasn't great, but look at it this way, all those mountains of coal ash will one day be considered very, very, very valuable. On the other hand, they will also be considered as an easy place for terrorists to get sufficient bomb material. Ouch!

Of course much of the radioactives end up in the air, with cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937 predicted to be: U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons): Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235) Thorium: 357,491 tons, Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons): Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235) and Thorium: 2,039,709 tons. Yuck! For a good overview of the whole depressing story, see: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

One of the guys at work was giving me a hard time about my usage of plastic disposables, and I told him I was doing our great corporate country a favor. We are stealing the resources of the whole world and hiding them in our garbage dumps! One day we will dig up all of my old Styrofoam coffee cups and with a smirk on our faces, we will say to the world - "We still have your oil, ha, ha, ha, ha, etc...." Then we will go to our coal ash mines and wearing our heavy gold medallions, we will brag of their great reserves. Then, the world will nuke itself into a cultural and technological reboot.

Just call me Nasty-damus - maybe I shouldn't post before coffee...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on February 27, 2006 - 10:41pm

Thanks for the link. I wonder how many people will read it and still keep rejecting nuclear power or pushing for marginal alternatives like wind.

It would be interesting to note that all nuclear reactors in the world use 67000 tons of uranium which stays in the reactors. At the same time the coal power plants are releasing the same amount of uranium in the air we breath each 8 years!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Generaly on February 28, 2006 - 11:55am

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE "marginal" solutions like wind; if there was a regular wind here in Atlanta, I would have had home wind power long ago. Instead, I am waiting to time a PV cell purchase. I am also for nuclear power! Whatever it takes is better than freezing, or being rebooted into the Stone Age.

I even have some solutions to some of the problems of nuclear energy. One: avoid the cleanup cost for power plants by never shutting them down - just keep replacing the cores and other parts. Two: avoid NIMBY by putting all of the new cores on the same property as the existing ones. This also makes them easier to protect, and some of the distribution equipment can be shared. Three: While you are at it, put a reprocessing plant next to all of those cores. You can really reduce the radioactivity and volume of wastes using such things - you can even grind up the old metal parts and run them through the system. After we get rid of those nasty neutron sinks, we can use the fissionable materials (mostly uranium and plutonium) to make new cores (maybe breeders) and more bombs! Whee!!!

So, what will it take to get nuclear energy growing? Maybe a little freezing will do it; I can't imagine that it will be from forward looking planning. Too bad...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on February 28, 2006 - 12:20pm

Actually while I was waiting for the train today I felt like a diconnected windmill on that platform :) Atlanta is not windy in general, but I guess those platforms have some wind-channeling capabilities... I imaganine installing a single unit on the roof of each station and also on those skyscreepers would not be that bad idea.

FWIW, I'm for wind too. What I dislike is presenting it as a panacea which it certainly is not. This gives a very strong boost to the brain-dead nuclear power NIMBY-sm, which is partially responsible for the hole we are slowly but certainly sliding towards.

I also fear the moment of freezing. I'm not certain how our society will choose to react; I have the feeling that short-term soutions like coal gasification, increased LNG, outbidding other countries and subsidising consumption at home will be the preffered response. People will resist a change until the last minute, and NIMBY-sts will become even stronger - there is a little perverse psychology in lots of people that makes them support others that help deny there is a problem. Denial is always a better choice.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Generaly on March 1, 2006 - 1:34pm

One day we might have enough people here from Atlanta/Georgia/SE to start our own "local" blog - I'm guessing after this summer's hurricanes we will have all kinds of local things to chat about!

Who knows what will happen when we here in Atlanta, as TechGuy points out below, start to get HOT!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TechGuy on February 28, 2006 - 7:38pm

>One: avoid the cleanup cost for power plants by never shutting them down - just keep replacing the cores and other parts.

The core and surrounding equipment and material becomes highly radioactive do to neutron bombardment. The high neutron flux embrittles the stainless steel that make up the core. Because of the radioactivity, reactor materials can't be safely or economically recycled. Nor is retrofitting feasible because of the danger of radioactivity exposure to workers.

>While you are at it, put a reprocessing plant next to all of those cores. You can really reduce the radioactivity
and volume of wastes using such things.

Reprocessing is a nasty job required the use of many harsh chemicals that also become containated and the volume of radioactive materials isn't reduced by reprocessing light water reactor spent fuel.
Instead of using light water reactors, other reactors that make better use of the fuel would be more practical such as heavy water reactors (more expensive). HWR's can operate on natural uranium, enriched uranium or plutonium, and have an neutron efficiency of 0.9, where as LWR have an efficient of 0.4. Note anything over one produces more fuel than is consumed by converting U238 to P239 which is fissible.

The issue is that like fossil fuels, Uranium is a finite supply. There are only a few dozen sites world wide that can offer economical Uranium mining, and only 0.7 percent of natural uranium is fissible. As of today, no one has been able to develop a economical (and safe) breeder reactor (that would make use of U238 which is 99% of natural Uranium), nor has anyone solved the issue of material embrittlement cause by fast neutrons produced in breeders.

Nuclear power is really only useful for generating electricity. Coal to liquid or gas fuels is a replacement for transportation fuels, commericial and residental heating, and for petro chemicals. Generating electricity isn't really a problem, (although distributing electricity will be, since it would require a massive investment in infrastructure and require large amounts of property that has already been developed).

>So, what will it take to get nuclear energy growing? Maybe a little freezing will do it; I can't imagine that it will be from forward looking planning.

Actually a few significant blackouts or rolling blackouts during a hot summer would probably help. Electricity is used for air conditioning, not heating, since the majority of homes and commericial buildings are heated with oil and natural gas. However, building more nuclear plants will probably not solve the problems because nuclear plants require a much bigger footprint than gas fired plants and require a source of water. This leads us back to a distribution problem, because the new plants will need to be built in areas that have available building space and require more distribution infrastructure because of the increased distance. In order to route the power lines, you will need to remove existing developed property (both residential and commerical buildings). The distribution problem also affects coal, since you either need to build plants near the coal beds, or you need to transport the coal to power plants. In either case, there is a huge cost in setting up new infrastruction to provide more electricity, since most of land near populated areas has been developed.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Engineer-Poet on March 1, 2006 - 1:12am

I don't think that you've got your facts straight.

The problem with reactor vessels is not neutron activation, it's radiation embrittlement. Embrittlement can, in principle, be reversed by annealing the metal.
Spent fuel can also be "electrorefined", in a bath of molten salts rather than organic liquids. Once cooled, the salts become stable solids; no harsh chemicals, no Hanford-like mess.
Nuclear power is useful for any process which requires heat. There is some on-going effort into the thermochemical production of hydrogen from nuclear heat, and the Midland Cogeneration Venture (now running on natural gas) was originally intended to supply Dow Chemical's process-heat needs from nuclear steam.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TechGuy on March 1, 2006 - 3:45pm

>The problem with reactor vessels is not neutron activation, it's radiation embrittlement.

Neutrons emitted by the reactor is radiation. Gamma, beta, or Alpha radiation has virtually no impact on the structural integrity of the steels. Its the result of neutron bombardment that causes the embrittlment.

Neutron activition makes it unsafe to handle exposed materials by increasing a person chances of getting cancer or other radiation caused diseases.

>Nuclear power is useful for any process which requires heat. There is some on-going effort into the thermochemical production of hydrogen from nuclear heat

For safety reasons is also better to run reactors at a much lower temperature and pressures. Operating at higher temperatures and pressures is more efficient but raises the risk of a reactor containment failure or coolant leaks. For safety and economical reasons, I doubt using nuclear power for chemical processes would ever become a commerical enterprise. For instance hydrogen embrittles steels as liberated hydrogen is easily asorbed by the metals. The higher the temperature of the steel the higher faster hydrogen is absorbed by the steel and embrittled. Its possible to use a liquid metal to transport heat, but to get to the temperatures required to dis-associate hydrogen from water there are few metals or alloys that are appropriate because they need to be inert to reactor tube steel and water. For instance one metal is Bismuth, but this metal is transmutable to Polonium under a heavy neutron flux. Metals that are neutron safe and steel inert, such as sodium are usually very chemical reactive. Liquid sodium burns when exposed to air and is explosive if exposed to water. Salts are impractical because they cake on the tube walls and clog pumps.

The costs involve to make a commerical size plant that would be safe is uneconomically feasible. It would probably be more cost effective and technically feasible to look at biological processes to liberate hydrogen. There is a huge logistic issue with use nuclear power as a heat source. Either every Chemical plant will need to be moved next to a nuclear plant (expensive), or each existing chemical plant will need a nuclear plant, equally expensive. There are also numerous other infrastructure and safety reasons that will prevent this idea from being practical.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

djd on March 2, 2006 - 7:56am

> Its possible to use a liquid metal to transport heat ...

What about a gas? Some sucessful British designs use carbon dioxide. I don't know if these would be applicable to higher temperatures; the gas-cooled high-temp proposals I've heard of propose using helium.

(Note: I think it's a bad idea to advocate increasing helium use, considering "peak helium". Although hopefully the loss rate will be low even though much would be required to fill a reactor cooling system.)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Magnus Redin on March 1, 2006 - 5:09am

It is possible to work inside reactor vessels. The bottom of the Oskarshamn 1 BWR were manually inspected and renovated in 1993-1995 after 20 years of use. The surface oxides on the inside of the reactor vessel were ecthed and washed away, a radiation screen were inserted along the sides of the reactor vessel and then people walked around working on the bottom in simple overpreassure suits to avoid getting any radiactive particle contamination stuck on them or inhaled.

http://www.analys.se/engsite/engokg.html

If it is dark, cold and desperate you do not need to move developed property to build new power lines, you only need higher poles and hopefully a fair compensation for the economical damages.
The nice technological solution is to use HVDC and perhaps cablifie the HVDC high tension lines.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TechGuy on March 1, 2006 - 4:50pm

>If it is dark, cold and desperate you do not need to move developed property to build new power lines, you only need higher poles and hopefully a fair compensation for the economical damages

Converting existing power lines is a problem because they will need to be shut off during the upgrade disrupting service. Its also likely the the new plants won't be built near existing power lines anyway.

Determing "fair compensation" is a big chunk of the problem. Most home and commercial real estate owners will want more money than will be offered. This means years in court, before construction can be begin. The US is also the litigation capital of the world.

>The nice technological solution is to use HVDC and perhaps cablifie the HVDC high tension lines.

This reminds me of the Tesla vs Edison debates over DC vs AC power. HVDC isn't really solution either because of the huge expensive to retrofit input/output substations to work with DC. You cannot use transformers with DC power, unless a switching circuit is added. Transformers only work with AC power and Ultra high voltage (> 100KV) switching circuits are extremely costly. I doubt much of a power gain could be improved by switching to DC. As I recall, the purpose of moving to DC is to avoid the complexity of syncronizing multiple plants attached to the same distribution grid.

Before we can even begin to produce more power, a large number of new nuclear plants must be constructed just to replace decomissioned gas and oil fired power plants as these fuels become too expensive, and there are operating differences between gas/oil fired plants and nuclear plants.

Who pays for the construction costs during an energy crisis? The power companies that are already facing financial problems, the debt laden consumers that will be facing higher energy costs for heating, transportation and food, or the gov't that is about to face a huge retiring work force starting in 2008? Even if we start today, where does the money to replace or upgrade the electric grid infrastructure come from?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Greko on February 27, 2006 - 2:15pm

Lloyd's List International: Total head urges slowdown in oil consumption growth. [2006, Feb.16]

"Total oil group chairman Thierry Desmarest has called for an effort to slow down world oil consumption as a means of gaining time for the development of alternative energy resources.

Mr Desmarest, who announced yesterday that the group's adjusted net income rose 31% last year to reach a record EU12bn ($14.4bn), said that, paradoxical though it appeared, it was in the group's interest that oil demand should grow by less than 1% per year in future.

"We can't allow oil demand to grow at high rates without the danger that peak oil will arrive too early, before other sources can come into play," he said.

At the current demand growth rate of 2% per year, oil production was expected to peak in 2020, he said.

Reducing demand growth to 1% per year would postpone the arrival of peak production for 10 years, and reducing it to 0.7% per year would put back the peak to 2040.

He argued that demand growth could be slowed by making greater use of other energy sources in such fields as transport, petrochemicals production, power generation and heating..."

http://energycrisisnow.blogspot.com/2006/02/total-slow-down-consumption.html

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

millercs on February 27, 2006 - 3:48pm

There is a clean process in a mature pilot stage of development for converting carbohydrates of all kinds into liquid energy. It is the same process that is being planned for converting agricultural, forestry, MSW, and other urban waste. It could be applied for converting coal (clean or dirty) into clean energy without toxic emissions.

Gasify the coal, scrub the syngas of the sulfur and other toxins, use the heat to generate electricity, use a breakthrough bacterial fermenting process to convert the syngas gas into ethanol and water, remove the water. Result: sequestered toxins, converted carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, no toxic emissions, over 120 gallons/ton ethanol.

I have heard of one country that is seriously looking at reviving their dirty coal mining after years of restriction because of the promise of being able to use the BRI Energy process to effect the conversion to ethanol.

Let's just hope it scales up to commercial usage successfully.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Engineer-Poet on March 1, 2006 - 1:17am

The word I hear is that the productivity from biomass is more in the region of 50 gallons/ton. There are substantial entropy losses in the gasification stage, and the energy tapped for electric production is no longer in chemical form.

Iogen's cellulosic process is claimed to have much higher conversion efficiency (to liquid fuel) than the gasification process (330 liters/ton, about 87 gallons/ton). Unfortunately, I have not seen any solid figures for either process.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Magnus Redin on February 27, 2006 - 4:38pm

These smogs led to Clean Air Acts, which led to the development and use of smokeless fuels, coal that had been cleaned so that soot was not produced, and the encouragement of gas fires.

The reaction to this problem in Denmark, Sweden and Finland were building of district heating systems. Denmark where the pioneers since they had no hydro power and depended on condencing coal power that easily could be converted to combined heat and power production.

I do not know about Norway but I guess they used resistive electrical heating due to an abundance of cheap hydro power. Iceland probably used their famous natural geothermal heat as soon as they could buy cheap iron pipes.

What solutions were used in Canda and different parts of USA?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 27, 2006 - 4:42pm

Here in the U.S., we've switched to natural gas for home heating, in a big way. Most new homes now are heated with natural gas, because it's the cheapest way for the contractor to comply with clean air laws.

Of course, that may not be a good thing, given that peak natural gas for North America is now in our rear view mirror. They never saw it coming...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Magnus Redin on February 27, 2006 - 5:39pm

Natural gas is becomming more popular for heating in Sweden but it is slowly being implemented in about 100 MW chunks as combined heat and power plants in our larger towns excisting district heating systems. They will provide most of their power when it is cold and our grid is strained from the load of heat pumps and resistive heaters. This double revenue stream from electricity and heat will hopefully allow them to outbid electricity only or heat only producers when natural gas gets scarse in western and central europe. When natural gas gets too costly they will become peak only powerplants fueled with any diesel equivalent.

The base load for heating is usually garbage incinerators and biomass burners. They are fairly often combined heat and power plants, I think all new ones are such, but the steam temperatures are low and thus the percentage of electricity output is low.

You could get more electricity output from gasified biomass but I find it more likely that raw biomass of the right quality for that will be turned into heating pellets for small houses or turned into synthetic wehicle fuel.

Our farmer union is adamantly against any expansion of the natural gas network, partly becouse they think it will compete with their biomass. They have a point buit I think peak oil will force natura gas into niches where there no longer is much competition.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

unplanner on February 27, 2006 - 7:29pm

"Of course, that may not be a good thing, given that peak natural gas for North America is now in our rear view mirror. They never saw it coming..."

And many still don't. I had a fruitless talk with someone intent on switching their (cheap hydro-powered) electrical powered appliances to natural gas. My place is 100% electric and my total utility bills are lower now than when I had gas.

But I remember when that wasn't the case.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Donal on February 27, 2006 - 11:47pm

Last weekend, my sister and brother-in-law toured a new single-family development, with houses in the $500,000s, which is entirely heated with propane. They told them that the propane is to be delivered and the tanks maintained by the local gas company.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on February 28, 2006 - 11:15am

IMO propane is an awful choice. It is an oil refining by-product, so it will also become scarce, probably much faster than NG. We have the potential to relief the NG situation in the medium term with LNG and by replacing NG fired power plants, but oil will be increasingly pushed for transportation.

Also someone has to deliver, install and return the bottles (which are pretty heavy by the way) and the continuos replacement of bottles increases the risk of something to fail. In addition in Europe they add some smelling agents to propane (I don't know how is it here) to prevent accidental gas escapes, so heating with it may not be that pleasant experience.

In general I hope they will be able to swith to NG if needed.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Donal on February 28, 2006 - 1:08pm

Propane has popular in rural areas for quite some time, and in trailer parks, too. Still I was surprised to hear about it in half-million dollar homes. I assumed people would leave gas for electric.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 28, 2006 - 4:03pm

One of my coworkers had his propane tank stolen over the weekend.

One reason to stick with gas or electric, I guess...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Sunlight on February 27, 2006 - 9:48pm

ACT NOW TO MAKE WIND AND OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY AVAILABLE OVER THE COMING DECADES

Write to MMS and Help Make the Rules that will Govern Offshore Renewable Energy for the Next 10-30 Years - DEADLINE IS FEBRUARY 28, 2006

A Rare Situation in Which INDIVIDUAL Comments will get noticed, heard, and even written into crucial Federal Regulation!

The Minerals Management Service (MMS), an agency with the US Department of the Interior is now soliciting public comments for the regulations it is writing to govern alternative energy projects to be located on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). These comprehensive and far reaching regulations will govern every aspect of the business of offshore energy generation, including: project siting, leasing, environmental protection, navigation safety, and royalty payments.

Why this matters: As some of you know, after Congress makes a law, the relevant executive agency often solicits comments from affected parties (state and local governments, companies, consumers). These comments are given great weight when the regulators and staff sit down to draft final rules. Especially in this age of "small government," understaffed agencies often don't have the manpower to sort through the legal and scientific implications of proposed regulations. They let the commenters do it!

Usually that means: industry lawyers and lobbyists decide how civil laws apply to the industry they represent. Industry has the most at stake when rules affect their business and they will spend the money it takes to make regulations come out their way. They hire the lawyers, scientists, and engineers they need to understand what an ideal regulation would look like from their point of view and then try to make it happen. Rulemaking is normally an arcane and technical process and rarely do agencies get even a thousand comments on comment solicitations. Not too many private citizens keep up with the arcane world of regulation, and few have the time or expertise to comment even if they did. But since the number of comments on most issues is so rare, even a few hundred comments from private citizens could have a real impact on the future of offshore wind, solar, and tidal energy over the next ten, twenty, or thirty years.

This time it will be different! We have talked to representatives of the offshore alternative energy industry. We have learned about their concerns and what kind of regulations will allow offshore alternative energy to happen while protecting other legitimate interests. We are providing some of that key information below. If Oil Drummers use it to respond to the MMS in force, we will be listened to. Today, every single e-mail will have real weight. I am counting on the passion, education, and civility of our readership to ACT NOW at this point of MAXIMUM LEVERAGE. It will never matter more than this.

To send a comment to the MMS, use the following link: http://ocsconnect.mms.gov/pcs-public/do/ProjectDetailView?objectId=0b011f8080050473

Here is a copy of the letter I already submitted to MMS; I ask that you NOT copy it exactly but use it as a model. Washington officials know the difference between individually written letters that demonstrate passionate concern - the authentic "grass roots" - from form letters solicited by a few insiders with money and a database of addresses - "Astroturf!" Therefore after the letter I provide some links to other information so you can understand the basic issues for yourself and make this letter your own.

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear sir or madam:

I understand that you will soon be drafting regulations for offshore alternative energy platforms. I am very concerned about US dependence on foreign oil and hope that you will make the final rule as friendly as possible to offshore alternative energy development without compromising other vital interests of the United States. Here is what I would like to see:

A simple application process. The applications should minimize the burden for those who would put up alternative energy projects. MMS should rely on the developer to evaluate feasibility; he wouldn't go ahead if it made no economic sense.

Fair access to lease properties. I would like to see the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) policy for wind also extended to OCS renewables. The BLM process allows prospective developers to lease development rights while proving up their potential for a limited time. Then the developer must put up his wind farm or give up the lease, but an operating lease should have a term of twenty years or more. This is similar to the use it or lose it philosophy that underlies oil leases let by the MMS.

A streamlined review process. I believe that the standard of single agency review and federal pre-emption that current law permits builders of liquefied natural gas terminals (LNG) demonstrates the seriousness with which our Government properly views our energy supply situation. Given that most types of renewable energy arguably entail fewer environmental risks than LNG, it would seem that a similar standard should obtain. Failing this I would like to see a "one stop shopping" procedure whereby alternative energy project builders would submit an application to MMS and all affected parties - other federal agencies, state and local governments, shipping companies, airlines, oil companies with nearby platforms--would comment to MMS. MMS would then make its recommendation. It is to be hoped that as lead agency with expertise in this area, and with input registered by all other interested parties, the MMS recommendation would receive due weight in the courts if need be.

Low and fair royalty payments. In its regulation of onshore wind farms the Bureau of Land Management charges a 3% royalty on wind farm revenue once the wind farm is up and running. This would seem to be fair for offshore renewables in all forms. We believe that offshore renewable energy revenues should not exceed the BLM precedent. OCS oil is property of the citizens of the United States and can be extracted only once; that is the very good reason for the traditional 27% OCS oil royalty. By contrast, energy will continue to flow from the sun, winds, and tides indefinitely. What renewable energy we use today will not diminish what we can use tomorrow or the day after that.

It is my hope that the general spirit of the final rule will be to minimize obstacles to bringing OCS renewables projects online and to keeping them there. We need not decide to prefer solar, wind, tidal or any form of alternative energy over any other; science and the free market will show us the way. Finally, it is my hope that MMS will do its best to unleash the entrepreneurial energy of OCS alternatives developers so that they can contribute to US energy independence.

Yours truly,

The following links might prove useful to anyone drafting a customized letter:

Minerals Management Service- main page for offshore renewables
http://www.mms.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/RenewableEnergyMain.htm

Link to Explanation of MMS's new authority to regulate offshore renewables
http://www.mms.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/RenewableEnergyAndAlternateUses.pdf

Link to Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) - the actual legal basis for soliciting comment for OCS development of alternative energy projects
http://www.mms.gov/federalregister/PDFs/AD30_ANPR.pdf

Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition - these folks are doing excellent work on this issue
www.oceanrenewable.com

The Cape Wind Project - Proposed Windfarm on Nantucket Sound
http://www.capewind.org/

Excellent newspaper article on proposed wind farm off Long Island, NY - hat tip, Peak Guy
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liwind174473327oct17,0,3905799.story?page=2

Below is an (edited) list of comments to MMS given to me by the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA), one of the key agencies working on the proposed offshore Long Island wind farm.

Public Comments to the

Minerals Management Service (MMS)

Alternate Energy-Related Uses on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

*    Offshore wind power facilities will not be developed or operate successfully on the OCS if MMS establishes regulations that impose significant additional costs, measured both in terms of dollars and time, beyond those inherent to planning, construction, and operation
*    Unduly burdensome regulation of renewable energy development in the OCS only benefits the fossil fuel-fired and other generators with which wind energy must compete.
*    MMS must recognize that the actual potential for wind energy development on the OCS is acutely sensitive to the price and schedule imposed by the agency's regulatory program. The Administration and Congress have clearly stated that they are seeking ways to reduce the Nation's dependence on foreign energy sources, prevent worsening oil and natural gas shortages and allocation problems, and encourage the private sector to voluntarily invest in non-greenhouse gas emitting energy technologies. MMS, while protecting the public interest in environmental quality and safety, should also seek every opportunity to resist imposing unwarranted burdens on this emerging industry.
*    MMS should make access for resource and site assessment as simple and efficient as possible.
*    MMS should employ a relatively simple "permit" process to administer the short-term activities involved in performing site and resource assessments.
*    MMS should allow industry to conduct the necessary due diligence of potential development projects and approach MMS for development review and approval.
*    MMS should allow developers to sign a Wind Resources Evaluation Lease with provisions that would allow conversion by the developer to into a Wind Power Production Lease at the end of the evaluation term.
*    The duration of a lease issued for OCS wind energy development should be at least 20 years or the life of the project, with rights of renewal and assignment. The 20-year period would match the length of a typical power purchase agreement for a wind energy facility.
*    MMS should use every means possible to constrain the time period required to complete the agency decision-making process leading to issuance or denial of leases or other agreements needed to allow renewable energy development on the OCS.
*    Many wind energy projects are financially feasible today because Congress has enacted a Production Tax Credit (PTC). The PTC has been authorized several times by Congress. Wind energy developers must be able to plan, receive permit approvals, construct and commence operations of facilities within the window afforded by the PTC. If the application and leasing process extends beyond this window, it is likely that no developer will be able to count on taking advantage of the PTC, jeopardizing the financial feasibility of the project.
*    Any payment structure should recognize the nascent state of the industry and be designed to encourage the development of these activities until the technologies are better established. In this regard, MMS should consider following the example of other nations and waive any royalties, fees, rentals, bonuses, or other payments during the first ten years of operation of an offshore alternative energy project..
*    The requirements contained in the 3800-page Cape Wind Draft Environmental Impact Statement are excessive and would halt future offshore wind development if required from every project.
*    Develop timely leasing and permitting schedules that include NEPA flexibility.
*    Identify where interested parties can provide input. Currently it is unclear.
*    Public involvement is critical early in the process to identify potential issues at a site.
*    MMS should view OCS wind development as a vital strategy to conserve the Nation's non-renewable energy resources and protect the Nation's air, water, and lands.
*    MMS should incorporate the cost of externalities associated with fossil fueled electric generation into any assessment of the benefits and impacts of OCS renewable energy development.
*    MMS engage in a full dialogue with wind regulators and developers in Europe, particularly the United Kingdom.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ET on February 28, 2006 - 2:26pm

One analyst's assessment of peak coal.

http://www.energybulletin.net/359.html

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ET on February 28, 2006 - 2:31pm

I shoulda realized the graphics don't show in the EnergyBulletin version. The pdf of Gregson's article is available in the energyresources files section at:

http://f4.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/oI8ERL4BMmyv61rXOQxXGpsaNgJWi52FXXUc58aHk7GKsGyVftGOl4AeaUbhZxNsy5dAISe goYo9pmYdmGPskpk7R0gQfHw/GregsonVaux-ThePeakinU.S.CoalProduction.pdf

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

drdigipol on May 31, 2006 - 2:18pm

For me, the idea that the Administration is pushing coal as an "alternative energy sopurce" is ridiculous. Not only is coal aa long-established energy source, it is not the solution we need. In addition to weaning ourselves off of foreign oil, we need to be very concerned about global warming and coal is clearly not the solution for that.

I wanted to refer you all to two interesting resources:

First, the NYT ran an article on coal this past weekend that is worth reading:

"2 Industry Leaders Bet on Coal but Split on Cleaner Approach" (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/business/28coal.html)

and

Jeff Goodell's new book "Big Coal" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618319409/sr=8-1/qid=1149098936/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-2428829-5042239?% 5Fencoding=UTF8 )

Happy reading!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.