Filed under: Coal to Liquid, Carbon Capture
EPA says coal to liquid could cause 119% INCREASE in greenhouse gases
Even if you disregard the environmental catastrophe that is mountaintop removal, the reasons not to increase the use of coal are numerous. The current popular idea for using coal is convert it to liquid fuel via the Fischer-Tropsch process for use in transportation. Like petroleum, coal is a fossil fuel so burning it or any derivative of it is taking carbon that is trapped in the earth and releasing it into the atmosphere.
While coal to liquid diesel fuel is definitely an alternative fuel, it is most definitely definitely not renewable and absolutely not green. According to the EPA even if coal to liquid production is combined with carbon capture and storage, greenhouse gases will rise by four percent compared to petroleum. Since no one has done a commercial scale coal to liquid plant with carbon capture it is likely that at least early plants will not have it. Without carbon capture, coal to liquid could increase well to tank greenhouse gas emissions by 119% compared to petroleum.
It would appear that the only advantage of coal to liquid technology is the security issue since we have lots of coal. Beyond that it is even more of a boondoggle than corn ethanol.
Update: Hank the EcoGeek has more on this on this story as well.
[Source: New York Times via TreeHugger]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Greg G 12:22PM (5/30/2007)
The US needs to get off foreign oil before it breaks its addiction to all oil, so this is still attractive as a temporary solution. And if it helps to avoid any more wars then just imagine the greenhouse emissions that will also be avoided. (Not to mention the loss of life.)
I think the process can still be greener than imported oil since less transport is involved. (I am curious about a few other factors that could affect the EPAs results.) However, we absolutely need to make sure that best available controls are in place if plants are built. The DOE study included CO2 capture, but did not go into real details:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2007/07040-Coal_to_Liquids_Study.html
Reply
small-wee-wee 1:13PM (5/30/2007)
The fact that the EPA has released these findings in a day and age where science gets rewritten by partizan political appointees in favor of industry views should be a clear indicator if not the nail in the coffin that any form of coal for energy is not the answer.
The Answer is, Conservation, Education and for people to actually care about the world in which they raise their families.
Reply
susan.kraemer 1:30PM (5/30/2007)
Autoblog green,
I linked to your story in my dailykos diary that shows what CO2 levels like this could mean for this country, all the different results in different areas.
NASA says we could have a 10 degree rise by 2080.
We have to work together to avert this catastrophe. To car buyers green or not, please read:
Obama On Coal To Gas Synfuel - WRONG!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/30/122446/528
Reply
pkuhl 1:32PM (5/30/2007)
What Small said is correct. The administration and the EPA are corrupt, yet the data was so damning that it made its way out. So it must be an extreme bad idea.
We should also remain very cautious when considering and carbon sequesertisation because its a gas, it will be very hard to measure for leaks ("Oh, that's just naturally occuring CO2 there"), and the motivation is to continue to do nothing.
Reply
TDIMeister 7:13PM (5/30/2007)
The above shown EPA graphic comparing CO2 emissions loses almost all credibility by showing 3 different forms of ethanol but lumps Biodiesel into a single category without any explanation of the assumed feedstock or processing method.
Developing technologies for Biodiesel production, just like developing technologies for ethanol production like cellulosic feedstocks, will drastically shift GHG emissions in more favourable light. Some examples include second-generation full-plant biomass gasification into tailor-made hydrocarbons, and using fast-growing oil-bearing algae as feedstock.
Reply
GreyFlcn 2:04AM (5/31/2007)
Except that Algae claims are currently unsupported, and running close to the theoretical limit.
Now "Theoretically" we'd all be grabbing all the energy we need from cold fusion.
An expert from NRELs Algae programs calls for people to calm down on the algae hype unless it produces real results.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/algae
http://www.greyfalcon.net/algae2
__________
That said, yes. BioDiesel shouldn't be listed as a -68% decrease in CO2.
It should be listed as a +1000% increase in CO2.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/palmoil
http://www.greyfalcon.net/soy
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0516-ethanol_amazon.html
Reply
GreyFlcn 2:10AM (5/31/2007)
That said.
Driving an electric car on dirtiest coal electricity availible, would be like driving a Prius in CO2 emmisions.
http://aceee.org/pubs/t061.htm
Considering a Prius offers rougly a "47% decrease in CO2".
That leads me to believe this chart's "Electricity" comes from Coal.
Where as Electricity from Solar and Wind can reduce emmisions 98%
http://blog.stanford.edu/unofficial/2007/04/ethanol_not_sounding_so_great.html
Reply