Cleaner, Cheaper Liquid Fuel from Coal

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/39430/?mod=chfeatured

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]Cleaner, Cheaper Liquid Fuel from Coal[/font]
[font size=4]A new conversion process promises zero carbon emissions during production—but some question whether it will scale.[/font]

Friday, January 6, 2012 | By Peter Fairley

[font size=3]SRI International is developing a process that combines coal and natural gas to produce liquid transportation fuels that are substantially cleaner and cheaper to make than existing synthetic fuels.

SRI claims its process addresses three liabilities that have slowed the commercialization of the technology. By blending some natural gas into the conventional coal-to-liquids (CTL) process, the private research lab, based in Menlo Park, California, claims to have eliminated CTL's carbon footprint, slashed water consumption by over 70 percent, and more than halved its capital cost.

Chan Park, a gasification and synthetic fuels expert at the University of California, Riverside's Center for Environmental Research & Technology, cautions that SRI's work is at an early stage. But Park says the process "could be really exciting" as a domestic alternative to petroleum fuel in coal and gas-rich countries such as the U.S.—if it can be demonstrated at pilot scale.

SRI's process is the fruit of a 2008 solicitation by the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) seeking a cheap, carbon-free CTL process for producing jet fuel. DARPA awarded SRI $1,612,905 to pursue a novel concept: using methane from natural gas as a hydrogen source instead of water in a new CTL process.

…[/font][/font]

[FBaggins]

1. Wouldn't it be something if this turned out to be true?

We have lots of coal and gas resources, but they don't do much (with the current infrastructure) to offset our needs to oil imports.

We also have entrenched coal interests that combat any attempts to move to cleaner forms of electricity generation.

It would be great if we could simultaneously cut back (or even eliminate) the need for oil imports, shift to cleaner electricity, and clean up some of the damage from coal.

[kristopher]

2. Process carbon footprint eliminated, not the carbon footprint of the fuel.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Of course not

I don’t think anyone will think that this is a magic process which produces a fuel which burns without producing GHG’s.

We’ve been able to produce liquid fuels from coal for decades (the Germans did it during WW II.) However, it’s a wasteful process, producing CO2 as a byproduct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction#Carbon_dioxide_emission

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=4][edit] Carbon dioxide emission[/font]
[font size=3]Coal liquefaction methods involve carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the conversion process. Different liquefaction processes have different lifecycle carbon footprints depending on which processes and environmental controls are employed. … Currently all US and at least one Chinese synthetic fuel projects, are including sequestration in their process designs.

…[/font][/font]

This new process does not.

[kristopher]

4. Excuse me if I'm underwhelmed...

If you think it is a good idea to build infrastructure to make emitting GHG less expensive and "greener" then you and I obviously have very different priorities.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. You are only interested in things you like

That is why the idea of (pro-nuclear/anti-nuclear) sub-groups appeals to you.

I am interested in things as they are (whether I like them or not.)

I anticipate that coal will be converted to liquid fuels, regardless of whether it is done cleanly or not, and regardless of whether you or I think it is a good idea or not.

[kristopher]

6. You defend the technology then attack me?

The OP is straightforward, but creates a bit of ambiguity regarding the carbon footprint.

I clarified that and you have a hissyfit.

Bizarre.

[Yo_Mama]

7. It's already being done

http://www.chinamining.org/News/2010-01-15/1263520023d33418.html
http://www.americanfuelscoalition.com/2011/08/22/doe-training-center/
http://www.clean-energy.us/facts/igcc.htm
http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/gasificationpioneer.html
http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/publications/Brochures/dg_knowledge_gained.pdf
http://www.rite.or.jp/Japanese/labo/choryu/workshop/futuregenws2008/2008FGWS_MrHIGMAN.pdf
http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/lctrcty/clfrdpwrgnrtn2008/clfrdpwrgnrtnnrgybrf-eng.html

If a cleaner way can be found overall to do what is being done out of necessity, I'm all for it.

[kristopher]

8. So you would be for building modern coal plants to replace older less efficient coal plants?

Same premise.

[Yo_Mama]

10. IGCC tech or something similar

Is part of the German plan to reduce net emissions.

They need that type of plant to be able to compensate for grid fluctuations.

[NickB79]

9. We're already looking at Peak Coal within a few decades at current rates of consumption

This would only accelerate the process.

[FBaggins]

11. There no chance that we're anywhere near peak coal

We'll intentionally reduce coal production long before dwindling supply forces us to...

... Or we'll hit Peak Humanity first.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Study: World's 'Peak Coal' Moment Has Arrived

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/09/29/29greenwire-study-worlds-peak-coal-moment-has-arrived-70121.html?pagewanted=all

[font face=Times,Times New Roman,Serif][font size=5]Study: World's 'Peak Coal' Moment Has Arrived[/font]

By PATRICK REIS of Greenwire
Published: September 29, 2010

[font size=3]Is the world about to begin running out of coal?

Two researchers say so. In a peer-reviewed article published in the journal Energy, they write that the world will hit "peak coal" production next year or shortly thereafter, and then mining would begin a long, steep decline.

Bottom line, say the paper's co-authors, Tadeusz Patzek, a University of Texas engineering professor, and Greg Croft, a St. Mary's College of California earth science professor, is that the 7 billion tons of coal the world is now mining and burning each year is about the best it can do.

"Our ability to produce this resource at 8 billion tons per year, in my mind, is a dream," Patzek said.

…[/font][/font]

[FBaggins]

16. They're just plain nuts

A perfect example of garbage-in=garbage-out.

What we choose to do and what is possible are two very different things.

[NickB79]

39. I kinda doubt it

The problem is that coal comes in varying grades that each produce different BTU's/ton of energy. What we're been doing is burning up the highest-quality grades first, and then being forced to burn the lower grades once those are exhausted.

We may still have a lot of coal in the ground based on tonnage and volume, but the amount of energy derived from what remains won't be equivalent to what we've been burning. We will be forced to use more tonnage of coal just to maintain current rates of electricity production.

It would probably be more accurate to say Peak Coal Energy rather than simply Peak Coal.

[kristopher]

40. We are running out of easy to access coal

that is, if you consider stripping the tops off of mountains to be easy access. Most of our coal reserves are in narrow seams that are not economically viable to mine with any known technology.

[wtmusic]

12. Coal-powered cars?

The problem of carbon emissions during production is miniscule compared to carbon emissions from driving vehicles.

Fischer-Tropf, even powered by nuclear, will do nothing to keep carbon in the ground from ending up as carbon in the air. Let's skip this inefficient, coal-industry boondoggle and power vehicles electrically. There's more than enough oil being pulled from the ground to power airplanes.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. On the other hand

If the process of producing the liquid fuels is cleaner, people will be more willing to accept it.

Bottom line: Burning stuff to get energy is a bad idea, but we do it any way.

[wtmusic]

15. It's probably cleaner to just burn gasoline.

Going through this convoluted process to turn coal into a liquid is just putting lipstick on the coal-pig.

I agree that burning stuff to get energy is a bad idea, we do it any way, but for most transportation uses do we need to do it at all?

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. Well…

At this point, some people burn stuff to make their cars move. Others burn stuff to boil water to generate electricity to make their cars move. (Which is worse?)

[wtmusic]

18. Burning stuff to make your car move is worse. A no-brainer.

EVs, even powered by coal, are cleaner than gas-burners.

EVs get cleaner as power generation gets cleaner. ICE vehicles get dirtier as their performance degrades.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. On the other hand

Take an EV, with a small battery, and put a fuel cell in it…
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/39203/?p1=A1

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]Gasoline Fuel Cell Would Boost Electric Car Range[/font]
[font size=4]The advanced fuel cell could eliminate range anxiety and make electric cars more practical, while keeping carbon-dioxide emissions low.[/font]

Friday, December 2, 2011 | By Kevin Bullis

[font size=3]If you want to take an electric car on a long drive, you need a gas-powered generator, like the one in the Chevrolet Volt, to extend its range. The problem is that when it's running on the generator, it's no more efficient than a conventional car. In fact, it's even less efficient, because it has a heavy battery pack to lug around.

Now researchers at the University of Maryland have made a fuel cell that could provide a far more efficient alternative to a gasoline generator. Like all fuel cells, it generates electricity through a chemical reaction, rather than by burning fuel, and can be twice as efficient at generating electricity as a generator that uses combustion.

…

The work is part of a larger U.S. Department of Energy effort, over the past decade, to make solid-oxide fuel cells practical. The first fruits of that effort likely won't be fuel cells in cars—so far, Wachsman has only made relatively small fuel cells, and significant engineering work remains to be done. The first applications of solid oxide fuels in vehicles may be on long-haul trucks with sleeper cabs.

Equipment suppliers such as Delphi and Cummins are developing fuel cells that can power the air conditioners, TVs, and microwaves inside the cabs, potentially cutting fuel consumption by 85 percent compared to idling the truck's engine. The Delphi system also uses a design that allows for a thinner electrolyte, but it operates at higher temperatures than Wachsman's fuel cell. The fuel cell could be turned on Monday, and left to run at low rates all week and still get the 85 percent reduction. Delphi has built a prototype and plans to demonstrate its system on a truck next year.[/font][/font]

http://www.eng.umd.edu/html/news/news_story.php?id=6128
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1204090

[font face=Times, Serif]Science 18 November 2011:
Vol. 334 no. 6058 pp. 935-939
DOI: 10.1126/science.1204090

[font size=5]Lowering the Temperature of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells[/font]

[font size=3]…

Fuel cells are the most efficient means to directly convert stored chemical energy to usable electrical energy (an electrochemical reaction). Although the more common proton-exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) require hydrogen fueling, because they are based on proton conducting electrolytes, solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) can oxidize essentially any fuel, from hydrogen to hydrocarbons to even carbon, because the electrolyte transports an oxygen ion.

…

Among the technologies available to convert hydrocarbon-based resources (which include not only fossil fuels but also, potentially, biomass and municipal solid waste) to electricity, SOFCs are unique in their potential efficiency. For stand-alone applications, SOFC chemical to electrical efficiency is 45 to 65%, based on the lower heating value (LHV) of the fuel (1), which is twice that of an internal combustion (IC) engine’s ability to convert chemical energy to mechanical work (2). In a combined cycle, there are numerous combined heat and power (CHP) applications using SOFC systems, which have the potential to achieve efficiencies of >85% LHV (3).

…[/font][/font]

[wtmusic]

20. Wow. The fossil-fuel industry is working overtime.

Of course, would it even matter if batteries could take an EV 500 miles?

http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/smart_grid/article/battery500.html?lnk=ibmhpcs2/smarter_planet/energy/article/battery_500

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Of course it would matter

A larger battery capacity would do nothing to clean up how grid electricity is generated.

http://www.eereblogs.energy.gov/energysavers/post/Driving-on-Green-Electrons.aspx

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=3]… while the average gasoline-powered vehicle produces 87 pounds of greenhouse gases during a 100 mile trip, PHEVs produce only 62 pounds and EVs only 54. …[/font][/font]

[wtmusic]

22. If someone buys a PHEV he/she is dependent on fossil fuels for the life of the car

so if these miracle fuel cells come into being, the infrastructure to support them will remain in place for even longer, as will the CO2 output. Let's face it - probably forever, or until the oceans boil over.

If we jumpstart Gen IV nuclear with a $billion or so, and throw a $billion at 500-mile batteries, we could be providing 100% carbon-free, economical transportation in 10-15 years. And the EV early-adopters' cars will be just as clean as everyone else's.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. 10-15 years!?

You’re dreaming.

[wtmusic]

32. Yep, so was getting to the moon before 1970.

All depends on the level of commitment.

[OKIsItJustMe]

33. That level of commitment you won’t get

Getting to the moon was easier and cheaper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Program_costs_and_cancellation

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=3]… In January 1969, NASA prepared an itemized estimate of the combined cost of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. The total for Apollo came to $23.9 billion …

The final cost of project Apollo was reported to Congress as $25.4 billion in 1973. …

In 2009, NASA held a symposium on project costs which presented an estimate of the Apollo program costs in 2005 dollars as roughly $170 billion. …[/font][/font]

[wtmusic]

34. Piece of cake.

"According to ORNL-4812, up to 1972 ORNL had spent $130 million dollars on MSR development. In 2009 terms this was less than than one billion dollars,
In 1980 the ORNL staff estimated that a commercial DMSR could be developed for $700 million (about 2.5 billion in 2009 dollars). Given another 2.5 billion for the development of the LFTR prototype we would have a total investment of between 5 and 6 Billion 2009 dollars investment. At that point there would be a product ready to go on the assembly line. Thus the total investment in the LFTR would be comparable to the Federal investment into the LWR. It would be one fourth the investment in so far unsuccessful LMFBR technology."

http://energyfromthorium.com/2009/04/28/lftr-development-and-manufacturing-costs/

Misconceptions abound.

[OKIsItJustMe]

35. Wait a second…

You’re talking about replacing our entire vehicle fleet, as well as building several reactors, which only exist on drawing boards.
http://www.ne.doe.gov/geniv/neGenIV1.html

[wtmusic]

36. Oh ferchrissake.

The first successful MSR, building off little more than a hunch and a shoestring budget, took less than six years.

All depends on the level of commitment (it will be interesting to see how that level corresponds to the level of seawater flooding Manhattan).

As far as replacing our entire vehicle fleet, that would be completely unrealistic. There will no doubt be ICE holdouts into the 2030s - but they won't get invited to any parties.

[OKIsItJustMe]

37. “… we could be providing 100% carbon-free, economical transportation in 10-15 years …”

The Gen IV R&D Outlook doesn’t call for anywhere near that rapid deployment.

http://www.gen-4.org/PDFs/GIF_RD_Outlook_for_Generation_IV_Nuclear_Energy_Systems.pdf

[font face=Times, Serif]

…

[font size=5]2.5 Generation IV Deployment[/font]

[font size=3]The objective for Generation IV nuclear energy systems is to have them available for wide-scale deployment before the year 2030. The deployment dates anticipated for the six Generation IV systems in the Roadmap assumed that considerable resources would be applied to their R&D. This has proven to be difficult, but a good start has been made by the Forum as described in the most recent 2008 Annual Report. Also challenging was the three-year period needed to finalize the legally binding agreements covering multilateral R&D contracts.

…[/font][/font]

[wtmusic]

38. Jan. 9, 2025 - I'm throwing a party in celebration of the first commercial LFTR to enter service

You're invited, but only if you come in your coal-powered car.

[kristopher]

24. That isn't representative of normal use.

Normal use averages less than 40 miles per day. The analysis you've posted is based on a single continuous drive of 100 miles.

You'll note the table (at link below) that goes with the discussion shows that 70% of the PHEV's miles driven are in electric mode.

Here is the discussion from the US government's (no copyright concerns) EERE website. :

Hybrid Electric Vehicle Emissions
To calculate HEV emissions, consider that during a typical 100-mile trip, an HEV averages 42 miles per gallon and uses about 2.4 gallons of gasoline. Gasoline contains about 24 pounds of CO2 equivalent per gallon (source: GREET), resulting in 57 pounds of CO2 emissions for the trip. At a gasoline cost of $3.69 per gallon, the trip costs $8.78.

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Emissions
To calculate PHEV emissions, consider the emissions of both power sources: electricity from the grid and the fuel, such as gasoline.

Electricity (first 35 miles)—The electricity used depends on the vehicle's electricity consumption while in electric mode. If the vehicle uses 360 watt-hours to travel 1 mile, the vehicle will use 12,600 watt-hours—or 12.6 kilowatt-hours (kWh)—during the first 35 miles. The amount of emissions caused by generating 12.6 kWh of electricity depends on how that electricity was generated. Using the U.S. national average grid mix (source: GREET), 12.6 kWh of electricity results in 20 pounds of CO2. If the vehicle is charged from a non-polluting, renewable source, such as wind or solar, the emissions for this portion are zero. If electricity costs $0.11 per kWh (national average), this portion costs $1.39.

Gasoline (remaining 65 miles)—The amount of gasoline used depends on the vehicle's fuel consumption while using the gasoline engine. If the vehicle gets 37 miles per gallon, 65 miles requires about 1.8 gallons of gasoline. Gasoline contains about 24 pounds of CO2 equivalent per gallon (source: GREET), resulting in 42 pounds of CO2 for this portion. At a gasoline cost of $3.69 per gallon, this portion costs $5.71.

During a typical 100-mile trip, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles with a 35-mile all-electric range that starts with a full battery charge will use electricity for the first 35 miles before switching to gasoline.

All-Electric Vehicle Emissions
To calculate EV emissions, consider the electricity consumption (in watt-hours per mile) and the fuel used to produce the electricity. EVs produce no tailpipe emissions because the electricity consumed to drive the electric motor produces no emissions. However, producing the electricity that charges the vehicle's battery might produce emissions.

During a typical 100-mile trip, EVs with an electricity consumption of 340 watt-hours per mile require 34,000 watt-hours (34 kWh) of electricity. Using the U.S. national average grid mix (source: GREET), 34 kWh of electricity results in 54 pounds of CO2 equivalent. If the electricity used to charge an all-electric vehicle comes from a non-polluting, renewable source, such as wind or solar, driving the vehicle produces no emissions. If electricity costs $0.11 per kWh (national average), the total electricity cost for the trip is $3.7

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/electric_emissions_sources.html

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. Wait a second…

Are you telling me that an EV running 10, 10 mile trips will use less grid electricity than the same EV running a single 100 mile trip?

[kristopher]

26. Look to PHEVs

"You'll note the table (at link below) that goes with the discussion shows that 70% of the PHEV's miles driven are in electric mode."

As for EVs and (10) 10 mile trips vs (1) 100 mile trip, yes, it would also be different. The ICE's best performance is long drives at highway speeds while the EVs and PHEVs perform best in more urban driving where their regenerative braking systems are heavily used.

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. Let’s look at the extremes, shall we?

The BEV calculations are based on a simple 0.34 kWh/mi figure (based on Nissan Leaf specification.)

The “Conventional Vehicle” calculations are based on a simple 27.6 MPG figure (CAFÉ standard)

(The trip length doesn’t really figure into these calculations at all, aside from as a multiplier.)

[kristopher]

29. You're chasing your tail, those numbers are weighted in a way that favors the ICE.

They do not reflect real world usage.

[OKIsItJustMe]

30. They are simple assumptions, you’re reading far too much into them

For example, the mere idea of a 100 mile trip in a LEAF is… well… unrealistic.

But, go ahead, if you want to argue with the Department of Energy on this. Be my guest.

[kristopher]

28. Now I understand your disproportionate defense of this technology

You see a source of hydrogen for your beloved fuel cells, no?

Other energy industries
The post-oil future is clearly attractive for natural gas, renewables, and virtually all forms of energy efficiency, whether in conversion, distribu- tion, or end-use. Surprisingly, it may even prove attractive for coal—not as a direct combustion fuel (the main use, fueling central stations, will be increasingly challenged to compete with efficiency and distributed generation), but as a feedstock. Coal contains less hydrogen than oil, let alone natural gas, but is an exceptionally cheap and effective feedstock for syngas processes, especially those that drive steam reformers producing hydrogen. Ultimately this may prove a very cheap way to produce bulk hydrogen...

Pg 257 Winning the Oil Endgame: Innovation for Profits, Jobs, and Security

[OKIsItJustMe]

31. Oh, good God. No.

You always look to impugn others, implying some sort of ulterior motive or other.

Have fun! I’m done.