Just Say ‘No!’ to Coal
May 31st, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
There needs to be a call to action. Big Coal (like Peabody Energy Company aka Peabody Coal Company) is pushing hard to get us (via the government) to make massive investments in coal, and coal to liquid fuel legislation. The plan is to take our current estimated 250 year supply of coal and use it as a liquid fuel to replace imported oil. Imported oil makes up 60% of the oil used in the United States. This plan is so stupid on so many levels that it is difficult to know where to start.
Coal is being pushed as an “alternative” fuel. Oh please spare me. Coal is neither “clean,” “green,” or renewable. There is a big push to increase coal for electric generation as well. Even though the “scrubbing” technology for emissions have improved, more plants using more coal means more emissions - including CO2 emissions. Let us not forget that “energy” is not the only crisis facing us. There is the “little” issue of global warming. The New York Times (May 29, 2007) produced the nice graphic (below) comparing the greenhouse gas emissions o0f different fuel sources. It is instructive in this discussion:
The next dumb part of this is that if our current coal supply is estimated to last 250 years at existing use levels, what happens if we quadruple the use? Well, that 250 years just became 60 years (or less). Then what?
Dumb idea take three. Can we replace 60% of our current oil consumption with liquefied coal? That seems highly unlikely to me. I do not know how much usable liquid fuel one can get out of say a ton of coal, but it would seem to take one heck of a lot of coal to produce 12 million barrels of gasoline a day (we currently use approximately 20 million * 60% foreign oil = 12 mil.). That translates into roughly 505 million gallons of gasoline (from coal) a day (roughly 42 galls in a barrel). Now that is one heck of a production line, and my estimate of quadrupling coal use just shot up dramatically. Say maybe 10-15 years of coal in the U.S. instead of 250 years?
Dumb idea take 4. This is expensive and the plan is to subsidize research, development, and production. Subsidize means that our tax dollars will underwrite the cost of this little adventure while we may look at $4.00 per gallon pump prices as a real steal. This is a freaking bonanza to the “energy” industry, but it is not a bonanza for us, or the next generation, or for the planet.
Among those who have sponsored and promoted this legislation is Presidential candidate Barak Obama. I am sure he feels he is representing Illinois coal interests with this support. However, one might wonder whether Illinois is represented - much less the rest of us.
I do not see one positive thing in this plan, but it is being pushed and pushed hard. The goal is to have it passed and to Bush by early July (2007). If you want to express yourself to your legislators, then I recommend that you do so quickly.
Here is a link to get you to your Congress people and Senators - Contacting Congress
Resources for further information
CNN Money. 5/24/07. Lawmakers mull coal-to-liquid fuel plans
Edmund Andrews. NY Times. 5/29/07.
Senate Bill 154 Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Energy Act of 2007 (pdf)
Sponsors: Mr. BUNNING (for himself, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. PRYOR, Ms. MURKOWSKI,
Mr. BOND, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. ENZI, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. CRAIG
Senate Bill 155 Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 (pdf)
Sponsors: Mr. BUNNING (for himself, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. PRYOR, Ms. MURKOWSKI,
Mr. BOND, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. ENZI, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. CRAIG
House Bill 370 Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 (pdf)
Sponsors: Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. CANNON, Mrs. DRAKE, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. REHBERG, Mr. HASTERT, and Mr. YARMUTH)
Entry Filed under: NEGATIVE SPACE, ONE PLANET, RESOURCE WARS
6 Comments Add your own
1. under_hog | June 1st, 2007 at 8:12 am
Do the math (chemical stoichiometry) and you’ll find out these numbers, especially the coal ones are wildly optimistic. The “usable” part of coal are carbon atoms. Any original hydrogen atoms in the coal are largely sequestered by S, O, N impurities. Out of 6 coal atoms, there “might” be enough H left over during gasification to make one -CH2- link in a hydrocarbon (diesel) chain. A second carbon will have to be fully gasified to CO2 to provide enough heat for the process to go forward, the other four now appearing as CO. To get into a diesel chain as -CH2-, a CO molecule needs 4 hydrogen atoms, which are made by converting two of the CO’s to 2 H2’s using water, also forming 2xCO2. The last CO (with H2O) is needed to drive the F-T reaction to completion, for chain ending reactions, and to cover misc. inefficiencies.
At the end, only two carbon atoms from the original six remain as liquid carbon fuel. Finally of the two “product” -CH2-’s, one will have to be used to mine, transport, and grind the coal, provide “loot” for coal company execs (you didn’t really think they weren’t going to by Escalades and take frequent exotic vacations, did you?) and then transport the final “product” to it’s intended location.
Bottom line: at least 200% more greenhouse emissions as compared to conventional oil, not 119%.
2. Rowan Wolf | June 1st, 2007 at 11:11 am
Thank you for passing on the information. Since the EPA (like the FDA) has industry as is main “customer,” they are likely to give the “best spin.” Interestingly, that even the best spin is damaging.
I appreciate having additional hard data on this.
3. kenneth spencer | June 1st, 2007 at 8:04 pm
good article. the 250-300 year supply we are supposed to have is misleading because it does not take into account the aspect of energy quality. a great deal of the supply consists of bituminous, and sub-bituminous coal. these types typically only possess 60-80% carbon. we will have to mine and burn a lot of this garbage
4. under_hog | June 2nd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
You might be suprised to know that even I was being “optimistic” in the above analysis, like the EPA and EIA often are in their analyses.
I didn’t even consider the “embodied” energy in the coal gasification facility, called “emergy” by its inventor, the late Prof. Odum from the University of Florida, Gainsville. It’s all the oil and gas consumed in the planning and construction of the facility. Although it is actually “spent” during the fabrication of equipment and the construction (including transportation costs of the workers). Neither have I included the operating cost energy debit. In “money” terms, it might be considered “interest” on the required loans.
As in the case of ethanol (Pimentel and Paztek) an even more careful analysis may, in fact, reveal that the process produces no “net energy” at all. That’s not even considering the escalation effect that it has on equipment prices and diversion of engineering talent from “other” processes that might, in fact, have a positive “net energy”.
CTL is nothing less than a very costly attempt to convert a “sow’s ear” into a “silk purse”.
If we go down this blind alley, I fear that any chance of surviving this “last” energy crisis will be lost.
5. Publius | June 6th, 2007 at 11:41 am
We have very tough choices ahead. Ultimately voting “NO” for nuclear will mean voting “YES” for coal.
6. trefsaner | June 29th, 2007 at 7:11 am
casino download: download casino slots htrk
cvx773yets
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed