C
Captain Compassion
Guest
Alarm over new oil-from-coal plans
David Adam guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday February 20 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/20/china.ctl/print
A Chinese energy company is poised to open a chemical plant to make
liquid fuels for cars and aircraft from coal, a move that has alarmed
environmental campaigners who say it will increase carbon emissions
and worsen global warming.
The plant, in Inner Mongolia, will use technology developed by Germany
during the second world war to convert coal directly into synthetic
diesel, dubbed "Nazi fuel". China says the process will help break its
booming economy's reliance on foreign oil, and that it will build more
such plants.
The US and India are also investing heavily in the technology, which
is being heavily promoted by coal companies across the world as a
cost-effective solution to soaring oil prices and concerns about
energy security.
The Chinese facility, operated by Shenhua Corporation, will be the
first of its type in the world. Shenhua would not say when it expects
the plant to open, but industry experts said it would be within weeks.
Last month, company officials said construction work was 99.5%
complete.
Three similar 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.
Gordon Couch, of the International Energy Agency's clean coal centre
in London, said the plant's opening was "imminent". and that it marked
a surge of interest across the world. An IEA report on the technology,
due to be published this spring, will highlight similar projects
planned or under way in Japan, the US, Australia, China, New Zealand,
India, Botswana, Indonesia, the Phillippines and South Africa. The US
Air Force is very interested, and recently flew a B-52 bomber on fuel
made from coal.
Couch said: "There is now considerable interest in these types of
fuels, mainly in countries like China and the US that have large
reserves of coal and are worried about relying on imported oil." He
said the high price of oil could persuade more companies to turn to
the coal conversion technology, which has traditionally been too
expensive to compete with conventional petroleum-based fuel.
Analysts say the fuel could be economic if oil prices stay
consistently above US$25-40 a barrel. Oil currently costs double that,
and briefly touched $100 a barrel last month.
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."
It concluded: "Establishing large-scale CTL [coal-to-liquids] plants
on the pitheads of several main coalfields is feasible and competitive
when oil price is well over US$25 per barrel."
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.
Companies that promote the coal-to-liquids technique claim it is
clean, because contaminants such as sulphur are removed from coal
during the process. Some also herald it as a way to fight global
warming, despite the industry's own figures, which show that
converting and burning the liquid coal together releases almost twice
the carbon pollution as using conventional diesel.
Nick Rau, a climate campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said the move
was "in totally the wrong direction". He added: "We have great
concerns about the rush to develop new sources of energy-intensive
energies such as synthetic fuels from coal. We know they are
technically feasible and it looks like they are going to happen,
unless more people emphasise the sustainable options available."
Luke Warren of the World Coal Institute, admitted the process was
"carbon dioxide intensive", but said the greenhouse gas could be
captured and stored underground.
But the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change says that
large-scale carbon capture and storage remains unproven, and will not
be available for decades.
Of the 30 or so large-scale coal-to-liquids plants being worked on
around the world, only one in Australia plans to conduct a carbon
capture trial.
Even capturing the carbon may not solve the problem. An analysis by
the US Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory last year
said that liquid fuels from coal, even with carbon capture and storage
employed, would still produce at least 20% more carbon dioxide than
petrol and diesel made from oil. The energy-intensive conversion
plants also require massive amounts of cooling water to stop them
overheating.
The World Coal Institute is among the organisers of a major industry
conference in Paris this April to promote the coal-to-liquid
technology. US coal giant Peabody, the largest coal company in the
world, is listed as the event's main sponsor.
Coal is not the only unconventional source now being exploited for oil
substitutes. Other companies across the Middle East and North Africa
are making diesel in a similar way from natural gas. Airbus recently
carried out a test flight of its giant A380 aircraft that used
gas-derived liquid fuel. And Shell has just started an advertising
campaign in the UK that promotes its gas-to-liquids technology as a
"clean fuel" which provides "significantly lower emissions of local
pollutants". Shell says a study commissioned by the company shows its
new fuel produces no more greenhouse gas emissions than using
conventional diesel.
But scientists at the University of California, Berkeley have found
the gas-to-liquids process is typically some 7-16% worse for global
warming than using oil. Adam Brandt and Alexander Farrell of the
university's energy and resources group said a widespread transition
to both gas-to-liquids and coal-to-liquids technology was looking
"increasingly likely" but warned such "unconventional petroleum
production could be a significant source of additional carbon dioxide
unless mitigation steps are taken".
Farrell told the Guardian: "If companies are marketing these fuels as
environmentally friendly then they are misleading people. At best,
they could be as good as [existing] fossil fuels, but is that what we
want in a world where we have to cut greenhouse gas emissions?"
--
If you disagree with the theories and dogmas of Marxism or Scientific Socialism
then you are a tool of Capitalist interests. If you disagree with the theories
or dogmas of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming then you are a tool of
Capitalistic interests. Notice a pattern here? -- Captain Compassion
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius
"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
David Adam guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday February 20 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/20/china.ctl/print
A Chinese energy company is poised to open a chemical plant to make
liquid fuels for cars and aircraft from coal, a move that has alarmed
environmental campaigners who say it will increase carbon emissions
and worsen global warming.
The plant, in Inner Mongolia, will use technology developed by Germany
during the second world war to convert coal directly into synthetic
diesel, dubbed "Nazi fuel". China says the process will help break its
booming economy's reliance on foreign oil, and that it will build more
such plants.
The US and India are also investing heavily in the technology, which
is being heavily promoted by coal companies across the world as a
cost-effective solution to soaring oil prices and concerns about
energy security.
The Chinese facility, operated by Shenhua Corporation, will be the
first of its type in the world. Shenhua would not say when it expects
the plant to open, but industry experts said it would be within weeks.
Last month, company officials said construction work was 99.5%
complete.
Three similar 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.
Gordon Couch, of the International Energy Agency's clean coal centre
in London, said the plant's opening was "imminent". and that it marked
a surge of interest across the world. An IEA report on the technology,
due to be published this spring, will highlight similar projects
planned or under way in Japan, the US, Australia, China, New Zealand,
India, Botswana, Indonesia, the Phillippines and South Africa. The US
Air Force is very interested, and recently flew a B-52 bomber on fuel
made from coal.
Couch said: "There is now considerable interest in these types of
fuels, mainly in countries like China and the US that have large
reserves of coal and are worried about relying on imported oil." He
said the high price of oil could persuade more companies to turn to
the coal conversion technology, which has traditionally been too
expensive to compete with conventional petroleum-based fuel.
Analysts say the fuel could be economic if oil prices stay
consistently above US$25-40 a barrel. Oil currently costs double that,
and briefly touched $100 a barrel last month.
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."
It concluded: "Establishing large-scale CTL [coal-to-liquids] plants
on the pitheads of several main coalfields is feasible and competitive
when oil price is well over US$25 per barrel."
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.
Companies that promote the coal-to-liquids technique claim it is
clean, because contaminants such as sulphur are removed from coal
during the process. Some also herald it as a way to fight global
warming, despite the industry's own figures, which show that
converting and burning the liquid coal together releases almost twice
the carbon pollution as using conventional diesel.
Nick Rau, a climate campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said the move
was "in totally the wrong direction". He added: "We have great
concerns about the rush to develop new sources of energy-intensive
energies such as synthetic fuels from coal. We know they are
technically feasible and it looks like they are going to happen,
unless more people emphasise the sustainable options available."
Luke Warren of the World Coal Institute, admitted the process was
"carbon dioxide intensive", but said the greenhouse gas could be
captured and stored underground.
But the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change says that
large-scale carbon capture and storage remains unproven, and will not
be available for decades.
Of the 30 or so large-scale coal-to-liquids plants being worked on
around the world, only one in Australia plans to conduct a carbon
capture trial.
Even capturing the carbon may not solve the problem. An analysis by
the US Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory last year
said that liquid fuels from coal, even with carbon capture and storage
employed, would still produce at least 20% more carbon dioxide than
petrol and diesel made from oil. The energy-intensive conversion
plants also require massive amounts of cooling water to stop them
overheating.
The World Coal Institute is among the organisers of a major industry
conference in Paris this April to promote the coal-to-liquid
technology. US coal giant Peabody, the largest coal company in the
world, is listed as the event's main sponsor.
Coal is not the only unconventional source now being exploited for oil
substitutes. Other companies across the Middle East and North Africa
are making diesel in a similar way from natural gas. Airbus recently
carried out a test flight of its giant A380 aircraft that used
gas-derived liquid fuel. And Shell has just started an advertising
campaign in the UK that promotes its gas-to-liquids technology as a
"clean fuel" which provides "significantly lower emissions of local
pollutants". Shell says a study commissioned by the company shows its
new fuel produces no more greenhouse gas emissions than using
conventional diesel.
But scientists at the University of California, Berkeley have found
the gas-to-liquids process is typically some 7-16% worse for global
warming than using oil. Adam Brandt and Alexander Farrell of the
university's energy and resources group said a widespread transition
to both gas-to-liquids and coal-to-liquids technology was looking
"increasingly likely" but warned such "unconventional petroleum
production could be a significant source of additional carbon dioxide
unless mitigation steps are taken".
Farrell told the Guardian: "If companies are marketing these fuels as
environmentally friendly then they are misleading people. At best,
they could be as good as [existing] fossil fuels, but is that what we
want in a world where we have to cut greenhouse gas emissions?"
--
If you disagree with the theories and dogmas of Marxism or Scientific Socialism
then you are a tool of Capitalist interests. If you disagree with the theories
or dogmas of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming then you are a tool of
Capitalistic interests. Notice a pattern here? -- Captain Compassion
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius
"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
