Carbon Emissions | February 20, 2008 |
Coal-to-Liquid Plants Set to Spew
The global environmental movement seems to be stuck in a pattern: two steps forward, one step back. Case in point is this week’s news that a Chinese energy company is ready to open a chemical plant that uses coal to make synthetic diesel fuel, which creates almost twice the carbon pollution as conventional diesel fuel.
The Chinese facility, operated by Shenhua Corporation, is in Inner Mongolia, and is only of several such plants that are in the works. But China is hardly alone in its plans to build coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants. With the high price of oil, just about every country with large coal reserves is pursuing more developments with the technology. Energy analysts say the CTL plants are feasible and competitive when oil prices are over US$25 per barrel. With today’s price at $100 a barrel, it doesn't take a mathematician to see that CTL plants represent one of the best bargains in the world energy market.
The plant developments couldn’t have come at a better time for the coal industry, as new emissions regulations are threatening the industry worldwide. In the U.S. there is a growing public discontent with coal-fired energy plants, and a leading environmental analyst recommended that the U.S. should invest more in renewable energy, and leave coal where it belongs -- in the ground.
In any case, similar CTL plants are planned or under way in the U.S., India, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Botswana, Indonesia, and the Phillippines. Three plants were built in South Africa to beat the apartheid-era oil sanctions, and still produce almost a third of South Africa's energy needs.
The CTL technology was originally developed by Germany during the second world war, and is thus dubbed "Nazi fuel". Good thing these companies don’t have to worry about PR, huh.
Reddit
Digg
Stumble
ShareThis
Comments By Readers
The only ones calling this "Nazi Fuel" are anti-CTL activists such as the NRDC, who are using that nice PR trick of "negative association" to try and make FT synthetic fuels sound bad.
The correct term is Fischer Tropsch synthetic fuels (or FT for short).
What your article also "conveniently neglects to mention" is that this process is the _ONLY_ alternative transportation fuels process available to us today that has the proven and bankable technical capability of producing a carbon neutral diesel or jet fuel.
In fact, there is mounting evidence that other alternatives, such as various biofuels, are actually worse greenhouse gas polluters than conventional petroleum fuels on a lifecycle basis, making the anti-synthetic fuels position of many within the “global environmental movement”, ostensibly over greenhouse gas concerns, that much more absurd in light of our proven capability to deliver a dramatically improved emissions footprint relative to what is available today.
Now, if you do synthetic fuels wrong, with no emissions control whatsoever, yes, coal-derived FT fuels can cause increased lifecycle GHG emissions. Like all things in the energy industry, responsible development practices are very important. But what irresponsible so-called environmentalists continue to willfully ignore, is that with the application of carbon capture and sequestration technologies, and the blending of biomass alongside coal, this process produces a fuel that results in a dramatic reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. With enough biomass, these plants go carbon neutral. There is also absolutely no technical reason why these plants cannot ultimately transition 100% over to biomass as a feedstock source, and even operate on a carbon-negative basis (pulling GHGs out of the air, and putting them in the ground, on a full lifecycle basis, for every gallon of fuels that is produced and ultimately consumed).
Of the plants going forward in the US, at least three of the front-runners are doing carbon capture and sequestration and biomass blending. I know, because I am developing one of them. The US synthetic fuels industry is truly taking a leadership position on the forefront of delivering synthetic fuels with a reduced, or even eventually eliminated carbon footprint, on a very large scale.
If you really want to protect and improve the environment, as we do, spare us the media tricks, the negative association, the only-half-true statements, and the rhetoric, and instead advocate for responsible development practices, because industry will step up and work with you, and will deliver.
Want a reduced carbon footprint on a lifecycle basis? GREAT, set that standard for development, and we can and will meet it.
Want independent third-party verification of these reductions? Let's talk. We can set up a verification and monitoring program.
The approach that is being taken by those concerned about CTL's potential to increase GHG emissions is 0 steps forward, 5 steps back. You are helping to create an adversarial relationship that ultimately is polarizing, and does not contribute to industry's efforts to deliver to the consumer reduced carbon footprint fuels.
We have the technical capability. We can prove it. If you want to be part of the solution, stop lying and telling half-truths about the process, and help us get this technology deployed responsibly.
Right now, the effect if your article is that you are attempting to slow or stop our best realistically deployable technical supply-side solution to global warming (and YES, demand reduction has to be a big part of this too, but we need both).
Work with us, and we can and will solve this problem of global warming.
Best Regards,
Stephen Johnson
President
American Clean Coal Fuels
Post Your Comment