China sells its soul for liquid coal
February 21st, 2008
Nothing is worse for the climate than large scale coal-to-liquids. Not even the tar sands. In September, the Chinese news agency said it would rein in liquid coal plants. A Guardian story yesterday puts the lie to that claim:
Nazi fuel. Has such an inviting ring to it.
The Chinese facility, operated by Shenhua Corporation, will be the first of its type in the world….
A study last year by the Chinese Academy of Sciences said: “Production of liquid fuels from coal is practically the most feasible route to cope with the dilemma in oil supply.”
I agree — if by feasible you mean, “will just about guarantee the end of the planet’s livability by 2100.”
Shame on the schizophrenic Chinese Academy, which in 2005 signed the Academies statement (along with the U.S., Russia, India, Brazil, and major European countries) that called for “substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions” — something that would be quite impossible with widespread use of Nazi fuel liquid coal.
At least two more commercial scale coal-to-liquids plants are under construction in China, although the Chinese government has expressed concern about the possible environmental impact of uncontrolled expansion, and has taken steps to limit the number of smaller facilities.
Oh, why didn’t you say that to begin with: The Chinese government “expressed concern” about environmental impacts and is limiting the number of “smaller” facilities. That almost restores my faith in the wisdom of their leaders. Almost. Significant production of liquid coal would officially make their climate policy as immoral as ours. I fear that the figurative “U.S.-China Suicide Pact on Climate” I describe in my book is starting to become a literal one.
Capturing the carbon dioxide from liquid coal would reduce the negative consequences, though “would still produce at least 20% more carbon dioxide than petrol and diesel made from oil.” But, in any case, the Chinese plants are not designed for capture, even if they had some large, certified repository to put the carbon dioxide in, which they don’t. So the life cycle emissions will be “almost twice the carbon pollution as using conventional diesel.”
And putting this in dry Inner Mongolia doesn’t strike me as a terrific idea given that “the energy-intensive conversion plants also require massive amounts of cooling water to stop them overheating.”
I thought the Chinese were supposed to be wise and holistic, what with Confucius and Tai Chi and the I Ching and yin & yang and acupuncture, and inventing paper, movable type, the compass, silk, and porcelain, and all that. Turns out they are as dumb as us. Or maybe dumber. I mean, we would never go for something dubbed Nazi fuel … would we?
Related Posts:
- Coal-to-Liquid Is a Dead End
- New Years Resolution #47: Get the real facts out on liquid coal
- Liquid coal means liquid problems
- Memo to Air Force: Stop misleading the public on liquid coal
- Congress should say NO to coal-to-diesel
- The WSJ (and Climate Progress) on Liquid Coal
- Liquid Coal Hearing Report
- China reins in liquid coal
- Liquid Coal Goes Down In Flames In Senate
- The Post Gets Coal-Liquids Story Mostly Right
- Plug-in Hybrids Beat Coal-to-Liquids (Duh!)
- Coal State Newspapers Attack Liquid-Coal Plans
- Some Thoughts on Coal to Diesel
February 21st, 2008 at 5:14 pm
While this may give tar sands a run for their money for top spot of eco-disaster… I’m sticking with tar sands. The forest destruction and water pollution up there would seem hard to match, though the Chinese can be fierce competitors. It will be a race to watch with much horror and dismay.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Our souls too…
February 21st, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Of course this is bad, but after all:
1) They must have started this years ago.
2) As elsewhere, once big projects get started, they can be really, really hard to stop, and the USA has plenty of those too. Of course, China, being China, has *big* projects. Three Gorges comes to mind, for better or worse. Obviously, it would be far, far better if they burned the coal and ran PHEVs, and even better if they didn’t burn the coal.
3) It’s been a few years since I’ve been there [I value my lungs], but I used to deal with some fairly senior people, and while I have no idea what they’re really thinking these days, I was quite impressed by the number of people in government with science and technology backgrounds. Of course, the politics is far less visible than here.
But, put another way, there might be at least some modest hope that this won’t be a widespread Chinese thing. ~20 years ago, gave a talk to the Chinese Petroleum Ministry’s research group, about 100 people. Maybe half of them had never met an American. The other half were wearing sweatshirts from Stanford, U of Michigan, etc, where they had done their graduate degrees. There were lots of smart folks.
4) Needless to say, it might help if the US government were leading the charge, rather than doing what it’s been doing.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:34 pm
But China has signed AlGores Bible, the Kyoto accord. Maybe that’s why many don’t buy into it, it’s as phony as “carbon credits”.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:47 am
South Africa has been making CTL for over Six years, When the coal makes it to shore, seem the darn Chinese have bid up the price. Didn’t the CTL plants run during the early 40s by the Axis partners based in Northern Europe count?–I’m trying not to offend the sensitive. Jet fuel(Kerosene) preceded fossil oil sources, 1851 developed to replace the last peak fuel-whale oil. History deja vu all over almost again.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:14 am
Dear Dr. Romm,
I love reading your blog; thanks so much for the terrific information, analysis, and opinions.
In this post, though, I think you went too far in your final paragraph, specifically in calling the Chinese “dumb.” As a Westerner working on climate change-related issues in China, I am quite sensitive to China’s receptiveness - or lack thereof - to Western perspectives, especially on energy and environmental issues.
Insulting or otherwise demeaning Chinese policies (or people) bolsters two trends: China ignoring the opinions of foreign experts and xenophobic Westerners blaming all of the Earth’s problems on China. Neither is the direction we want to be working towards.
It’s true that the Chinese government has confusing and sometimes contradictory statements and policies on CTL. Let’s work constructively on understanding and reconciling these contradictions, rather than dismiss them with insults.
Best regards,
Vance Wagner
Program Manager, Low Carbon Fuels Program
The Innovation Center for Energy and Transportation
Beijing, China
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:02 am
Vance, your point is well taken and I appreciate your comment. I do try to avoid ad hominem — but liquid coal is different. I confess I was very surprised by this news after the Chinese news agency report from September suggesting they were not going to aggressively pursue Nazi fuel.
I thinkit is clear to anyone who reads this blog or even this post that I don’t blame all the earth problems on China — though it is now clear that the United States and China together will either solve this problem or destroy the planet. I don’t think China pays attention to foreign experts, honestly. If they did, they wouldn’t have so many climate-destroying policies.
I believe the Chinese have a perception of themselves as wiser than the rest of the planet — and many of us have admired them for the ancient wisdom of their culture. Their actions on global warming will forever destroy that image — and I think they ought to know that.
the irony is that they are taking all of these actions in order to become a world economic leader — if not the world economic leader — but by the time they do so they will, like us, be a pariah nation for having destroyed the climate in their single-minded pursuit of “wealth.”
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:12 am
could just as easily be called “obama fuel”. one of the few bills sponsored by the junior senator from illinois during his brief tenure in was the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Energy Act of 2007.
http://www.govtrack.us/ congress/ bill.xpd?tab=summary&bill=s110-154
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:59 am
http://www.barackobama.com/ issues/ pdf/ EnergyFactSheet.pdf
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Lets hope somebody convinces the next president of the United States that his CTL ideas are terribly misguided.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Oh, I missed seeing Jay Alt’s post. So it seems somebody has already convinced him.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Dear Dr. Romm,
Just like GM, you say, “In all-around driving, plug-ins could thus get between 80 m.p.g. and 160 m.p.g., compared to about 45 m.p.g. for today’s Toyota Prius,” as if you want us to believe that electricity is free. If it is generated by natural gas, the co2 from the necessary electricity generation is a little better than corresponding Prius operation. If it is generated from coal, it will be quite a lot worse. If this use of electricity ends up with coal power enabling large SUV’s, with electric motors to help them meet the CAFE requirements, then the disaster.
The problem with reliance on the electricity grid, is that it “puts the environmental policy focus squarely on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, where there is the greatest opportunity to make high-volume” (my view) disaster. If we can simply ban coal fired power plants, my point is invalid, but our mining, railroad, and power generating infrastructure based on coal is not easily banned. Were that what could happen, what would be the political effect of US electric bill tripling, or more.
Even ethanol, in its various forms, does not seem to hold up as a real and significant path to co2 reduction.
I listened to your Berkeley speech with that of Art Rosenfeld, where you asked “why students aren’t marching over this?” I provide some strong, potential answers at http://www.miastrada.com. I ask, “isn’t this worth getting over pre-conceived notions about how cars should look?” Up to this point, I sense that the Detroit fashion industry is still in control.
I also make a complaint that the misleading representation of plug-in hybrid mileage has the effect of lulling the public into complacency. The public generally sees only the MPG. When you leave out the electrical energy, it makes it look like there is a real answer there.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Interesting post, if a bit vitriolic. It’s Fischer-Tropcsh fuel. Yes, it was invented in Germany, but in the 1920’s… A bit before the Nazi era. The “smear name” is just silly.
BTW, the same process can be used to turn TRASH into fuels. See the web site for Rentech ( see http://www.rentechinc.com ). The same process can be used for good or for ill. I would be happy to see our landfills emptied. This is not a hypothetical, they are doing it. They can also use biomass and have a project in N. California to do so. FT can be a green solution.
Syntroleum (http://www.syntroleum.com/main.aspx) has a joint venture with Tyson to turn left over chicken “junk” into fuels. Again, a much better use for trimmings than a landfill.
It is quite feasible to convert a coal driven plant to consuming trash (or biomass) at a later date. I would rather rail against the coall than against the process, since the process can help make a cleaner world or use biomass.
Also, BTW, the last time an oil crisis came about (’70s) Volkswagen engineers figured out a way to replace the coal process heat in F-T fuels creation with nuclear process heat. To the extent Nuclear becomes acceptable, this becomes acceptable. That cuts the CO2 down by about 75% if I remember it right. Yes, you can put a nuke in your fuel tank.
I would also point out that your PHEV will still need some amount of motor fuel from some source for longer trips. I’d rather that be made from recycled trash via FT than that it be OPEC oil.
One last minor point: AGW (human caused global warming) is having a Reality Check right now. The debate will be settled one way or the other (and not just by shouting that “THE DEBATE IS OVER!!!!” when it isn’t.). How? Solar cycle 24 has failed to start. This is a Big Deal. See: http://www.solarcycle24.com for the current state of the sun.
If this continues, we get a Dalton Minimum or worse, a Maunder Minimum type event (see the wiki on sun spots). That would be a Very Bad Thing in that one of these was the Little Ice Age and the other was “1800 and froze to death”. We would be one volcano way from “froze to death”. For a description, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
In the next 2 to 5 years we will have a definitive answer. Either we start to freeze or we don’t. If we don’t, and it gets hotter, then it’s time to “duck and cover” and embrace AGW. If we start to freeze, then it’s time to burn coal. Lots of it and fast. (And start talking about the AlGore Cold Period
I’d rather have the FT plant built and the ability to switch between coal and trash than to have nothing and to be staring at mountains of trash and the harbor frozen around New York… as it was in the past.
BTW, the present non-start of Cycle 24 was predicted many years ago by a guy named Landscheidt. It will be interesting to see if he is proved right. When it does start, it is expected to be very short with few spots. Cycle 25 is predicted to be even weaker. If the prediction is correct we get very cold fast.
So we are at a cross roads: In the next few years we find out if “We Did It” is right or if “The Sun Did It” is right. I see no reason to panic until we know for sure. Until then we ought to build for a flexible future and FT lets us do that.
Political Bias:
My bias is toward PHEV with an onboard small Diesel engine fueled with Diesel derived from algae. I own a few thousand shares of stock in Global Green Solutions (GGRN) who have the fuel process and in Quantum Fuels World Wide (QTWW) who make the powerplant for the Fiskar Hybrid coming Real Soon Now
and make the hydrogen fueling systems going into Norway and Iceland.
I trade into and out of SYNM, SYMX, and RTK as the market moves them and have no particular emotional / political attachment to them though I like the trash recycle aspect. Sometimes I own SSL (SASOL - the folks in S. Africa who have been doing FT for more like 30 years since the ’70s oil embargo, not 6 years as stated above) but have avoided them since the electrical and coal supplies in S. Africa became political footballs.
I *want* a PHEV future with algae derived Diesel sucking CO2 out of the air, but accept that FT may be the right solution especially as a bridge solution away from OPEC. It will take 10 to 20 years to retire the existing vehicle fleet, since trains, trucks, and ships are not re-engined very often and cars last about 10 years in the fleet. Fleet change is a decades process, just like drilling. So we make FT plants to get off OPEC oil, then cut them over to trash / biomass feedstock if AGW is proven in the next couple of years. It’s the coal that’s the issue, not FT.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
E.M. Smith, feeding FT from America’s Strategic Trash Reserves (STRs, aka landfills), or from coal, would put CO2 into the atmosphere that would have been sequestered (e.g. as plastic in the STRs).
We cannot grow enough switchgrass to feed inefficient ICEs, whether it be by cellulosic ethanol or FT processes. We could however easily power PHEVs with electricity from wind or solar, using a tiny fraction of the land area. FT liquids are a dead end.
One can also put a “nuke in your tank” using the Los Alamos GreenFreedom process. Doing so is as stupid as using nukes for FT because the ICE is so inefficient that you waste most of the energy that went into making liquid fuel. Producing electricity and feeding it to PHEVs is much wiser (as you suggest at the end–one of the few points on which we agree).
July 6th, 2008 at 4:00 am
[JR: Contents deleted. This is not a stock-picking site.]
July 9th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Just want everyone clear on my thoughtcrime, so I’m including the moniker bestowed upon me during my last visit.