Filed under: Etc.
A poor argument for coal liquefaction
On Monday, The American Thinker posted an article by Jonathan D. Strong titled A Proven Way to Lessen Dependence on Foreign Oil. In the article, he argues that obtaining oil from coal liquefaction is a proven, clean process that would eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern Oil.
I'm by no means an expert on coal liquefaction, but I found some holes in Mr. Strong's argument I'd like to point out.
First of all, Mr. Strong says that "[t]he refining process does not pollute." Now, if you take the Bush administration's stance that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, you'd be correct. However, Wikipedia states that coal liquefaction production methods "release carbon dioxide (CO2) in the conversion process, far more than is released in the extraction and refinement of liquid fuel production from petroleum. If these methods were adopted to replace declining petroleum supplies carbon dioxide emissions would be greatly increased on a global scale."
Secondly, Mr. Strong brings up the estimated cost of producing a single barrel of oil from coal as $30 to $35. While this seems to be about correct, he deceptively posits these numbers against the $70 per barrel we've been seeing lately on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Production cost and market value are two very different things. Now, I won't pretend to be able to forecast the the profit margin of a barrel of oil produced from coal, but Mr. Strong also fails to include the cost of CO2 sequestration. On the College Du Management De La Technologie website, the Association Internationale de Specialistes en Energie (AISEN) estimates this process to add $10 to $20 per barrel. So in actuality, we're looking at the production cost of a barrel of oil from coal to be between $40 to $55 per barrel. Now add a profit margin to that to get your market value.
Lastly, I'm slightly confused by Mr. Strong's math. He says, "Montana has 2.4 billion tons of coal, which could produce mass quantities of oil for years to come." I'm assuming that Mr. Strong's tons are short tons, so by converting them to metric tonnes (multiply by 0.907185) we get 2.177 billion. Now, according to this oil industry conversions page, "a barrel a day is roughly 50 tonnes a year," so 50 tonnes should equal 365 barrels meaning 2.177 billion tonnes equals 15.892 billion barrels of oil potentially available from coal in Montana. Sounds like a lot, but according to the University of Nebraska Omaha, the U.S. uses 19.6 million barrels of oil per day. At that rate, Montana's entire oil from coal supply would be consumed in 811 days. Technically speaking, I suppose Mr. Strong is correct when he says "for years to come," but 2 years and 81 days hardly seems like a long term solution. Now, I do understand that Montana would not be the only source of oil produced from coal, however, I do have a problem with the way Mr. Strong deceitfully states his case. (If my calculations or terms are incorrect, please correct me.)
I'm not trying to claim here that coal liquefaction is an evil production process, but Mr. Strong's argument seems to stand on shaky ground.
[Source: The American Thinker]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Charles S 12:43PM (9/06/2006)
I am tired of the propaganda about "clean" coal when there is NO EFFORT to upgrade current, existing infrastructure to any of such technologies. The ploy is to convince the public to believe that coal is clean, so that they can develop the industry and make more money.
Just because there may be one or two clean coal plants popping up here and there, doesn't mean that burning coal as a whole is any cleaner.
Reply
charlie 2:28PM (9/06/2006)
"Mr. Strong also fails to include the cost of CO2 sequestration."
If he was including that, then there would be zero CO2 emmissions. It would be cleaner than pumping regular crude, because they don't sequester their released CO2.
". Strong is correct when he says "for years to come," but 2 years and 81 days hardly seems like a long term solution."
Mr. Strong says "Mass quantities", and to be fair to him, if coal could produce even 5% of our annual gasoline needs, that would be an extremely large quantity. Lets say coal would be 10% of our solution, then you just multiply your 2.25 year guess by 10. Not too bad.
Reply
bob 2:41PM (9/06/2006)
CHECK YOUR NUMBERS
Montana has 120 billion tons (at least) of coal, not 2.4 billion as both you and Mr. Strong stated.
BTW, 1 ton of coal produces about 1.5 barrels of oil.
So...Montanta's coal supply could provide enough oil for the entire country for 25 YEARS!
Also...the diesel fuel that is produced in this process burns much cleaner than diesel fuel derived from crude oil.
Reply
Charles S 2:54PM (9/06/2006)
It's not important how many tons of coal there is, what's more important is how much of it is available, and how much of that is usable.
There are plenty of natural gas in Texas, but a few wells are close to residential areas. Several explosions has given the residents a wake-up call. New local legislations may actually prevent some future wells.
For coal, what if new mines will affect local and remote water supplies? What is the content of that coal. If there is too much sulfer, the coal plant will have to pay more for scrubbers. If less, the energy content is less.
The coal industry LOVES to push the propaganda that there is plenty of coal to fuel us for a long time, but they never would tell you all the gotcha's and how "clean" coal will cost a lot more than today's prices.
If we want cheap energy and let coal industry to pollute all they want, then so be it, we will reap what we sow. Just wait a few more years, and see how China will suffer for its lax regulations. If we are willing to pay more to bring in "clean" coal technology, then other renewables would not only be more competitive, but will be better for us all in the long run.
Reply
davidl340 9:05AM (9/07/2006)
I saw we just use all Arab oil, pay top dollar and be depenent on Islamic countries who HATE us for it, and eventually run out of it and let chaos insue. Then again, I'm a freak: live in the deep south, love drag racing, but drive a Prius.
Reply
Rick 11:11AM (9/07/2006)
This coal to gas (not oil) process is perhaps better and does sequester about half the CO2. http://www.greatpointenergy.com/about.html
Reply
Haluk Direskeneli 6:18AM (11/27/2006)
Dear Colleague
We have new tender here in Ankara Turkey as announced by public electricity generation comapny EUAS,
EUAS announced that a new investment plan totaling $5 billion would be launched within this month at Afsin - Elbistan thermal power plant for additional generation units. Afsin-Elbistan has already a significant share in total Turkish power generation sector.
Officials from Energy and Natural Resources Ministry told correspondents that the international tender inivitation for commissioning `C' and `D' power generation units in the Afşin- Elbistan plant would be finalised by end of January 2997.
According to the initial plans, private companies will lease the coal fields and operate the power generation units for a period of 30 years with an extension option of 20 years in case of an agreement.
C and D generation units are planned to have an installed capacity of 1,000 to 1,600 megawatts, each.
Total cost of the construction of these units are estimated to reach $4 billion. Including the adjacent coal field costs, overall investment would reach $4.5 billion.
The operation of coal fields are planned to churn a total of 17 mln tons of output per year, for each unit.
It is stated that, during the tender process bids with the earliest operation start date, the highest installed capacity, the highest power generation promise, and the highest share offered for Electricity Generation A.S. (EUAS) will be favored.
Contract terms in the tender require the latest operation start period to be 6 years, the minimum installed capacity as 1,0000 MW, and, the minimum annual generation volume as 5,000 bln kwh.
A lot of domestic and foreign companies are expected to participate in the tender process. Some companies from USA, Japan, and Germany are said to be interested in the project. Official say that preliminary talks with likely investors on tendering model were positive.
Meanwhile, in another tender EUAS will offer an open-pit coal field with a capacity of 17.2 mln tons of output at its Collolar site. The investment amount in the project is estimated as $200 million.
This is for information and further evaluation
Thank you& best regards
Haluk Direskeneli
Ankara Turkey
http://energynewsletterturkey.blogspot.com/
Reply
J. Strong 4:18PM (5/26/2008)
For the record, you write: . Strong says that "[t]he refining process does not pollute." I was quoting another source, so please do not impune those comments to me. Much has changed since I wrote this article, but I still believe that the clean coal option is a good one for America and the world.
Reply
Ward campbell 1:50PM (9/25/2008)
The 2 billion ton figure is a fraction of the total.
There is 1700-1750 tons per acre foot
20 ft x 1700 x 1 million acres = 34 billion tons
the 1.5 bbls/ ton is low. We can get 2 bbls
Reply