Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumChina’s plans to cut coal pollution will unleash another environmental catastrophe instead
The country plans to build up to 40 massive projects to convert coal to synthetic natural gas (SNG), a process that would dramatically increase China’s greenhouse emissions, and emit huge volumes of toxins while consuming vast quantities of water, according to a study released today by Duke University.
So far the government has approved nine SNG projects to produce 37.1 billion cubic meters (1.31 trillion cubic feet) of synthetic natural gas a year. According to Duke University researchers Robert Jackson and ChiJen Yang, SNG emits seven times the greenhouse gases of natural gas. If it is burned to generate electricity, the carbon spew is up to 82% greater than a coal-fired power plant. Tailpipe emissions from a SNG-powered vehicle are twice those of a conventional car.
Bottom line: Over the 40-year life of China’s nine approved SNG plants, their carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions would hit 21 billion tonnes, compared to three billion tonnes from a “natural” natural gas plant. If China builds the 40 planned SNG plants, their emissions would skyrocket to 110 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases over 40 years. China’s total CO2 emissions in 2011 were 7.7 billion tonnes (pdf).
It gets worse. Most of the nine approved plants would be built in desert regions and consume more than 200 million tonnes of water a year. To produce a cubic meter of SNG requires 6 to 12 liters (1.6 to 3.2 gallons) of water compared to 0.1 liters to 0.2 liter of water for a cubic meter of natural gas. “The water consumption for SNG production could worsen water shortages in areas already under significant water stress,” states the report, published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Bring on Chinese renewables, I tell ya! Clear skies are just around the corner. OK, maybe around the next corner, or the one after that. But hey, at least they don't use much of that there nucular. That stuff will kill ya.
Fuck.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
liberal N proud
(60,348 posts)Chinese society appears to be the biggest denier of all!
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It's human nature deniers.
Human beings are thermodynamic dissipative structures, built on the same genetic foundations as all other life, to break down energy gradients as fast as possible, in order to ensure their own survival in a naturally selective, competitive universe. This causes us to seek and use greater amounts of energy wherever possible, splitting it into exergy (useful work energy that we use to expand the human realm) and entropy (which creates increasing disorder in the surrounding environment).
This thermodynamic tendency is built into our genetic code, just as it is for all other living organisms. In fact, it may even be the foundation of our genetic code. We are blind to the instincts that underpin our behavior, re-framing them instead in human terms as "wanting a good job" or "wanting our kids to have a better life than we did". The result is behavior that leads to industrial agriculture, deforestation (when the only energy source was wood), the blithe acceptance of carbon-based energy sources, and eventually to nuclear power, Chernobyl and Fukushima - and to this monstrous plan.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in ourselves.
Those who deny this, those who see human behavior as a rational undertaking limited only by such impediments as under-education and moral shortcomings, are part of the problem and can never be part of any solution - if there is one.
Life as a Manifestation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (PDF)
The evolutionary psychology that set the stage for Fukushima
Locrian
(4,522 posts)and thanks for the link to the pdf. This has bothered me for a long time - we are missing the big issue and how we have to change our whole mindset if we want to have a chance at a future (humans at least).
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It's still a very new idea, but I think it's the crucial missing piece for understanding what's going on.
I'm pretty sure now that there's a continuous chain of development that links thermodynamics, the creation of life and its genetic information system, evolution by natural selection, the evolved, adapted psychology of human beings, our anthropology and sociology, and finally to culture as a general human expression of the whole process.
The implication is that the thermodynamic foundations of the universe shape and constrain human behavior today. Our vaunted cortical reasoning skills have been added on like last-minute icing on the evolutionary cake. Their main functions seem to be to enable the thermodynamic process of degrading energy gradients, and to provide a set of rational justifications for it. Basically, decisions made in corporate boardrooms today have one foot back in the Big Bang, but so much has happened between then and now that we don't/can't see it. I'm convinced this is why humanity is marching so resolutely off the cliff.
I've posted a bit of thinking about this on my web site, and I'm working up a more comprehensive treatment.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)that you have. Is this your site? http://www.paulchefurka.ca/
I've been looking for info on work that shows that systems are more correctly modeled as 'organic systems' (ie interconnected vs isolated).
However the stuff you're talking about goes into the "WHY" behind the "interconnected-ness".
I've said for a long time that humans have not evolved to be able to have an intuitive understanding of statistics and non-linear events. We can recognize the immediate threat (tiger, etc), but not the long term. We also seem to be more focused on competition vs cooperation - even though evolution has shown *both* are essential.
It just seems that at this point in time - we cannot continue to react the way we have in the past. Playing the zero sum game of the current system (economic, etc) is not going to make it when we're talking bouncing off the very real limits of the planet/ecosystem.
Maybe we have a chance if we realize this and can come up with a way to not play the current game and cooperate more. Of course, this requires a fundamental change in some of our most basic biological 'urges'.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I take it as a starting assumption that the whole thing is an interconnected system - no matter what thread you pull on, everything else wiggles. Some other things will wiggle only a tiny, imperceptible bit, wile other threads will pull right out of the fabric.
I started down this investigative road trying to figure out why the Copenhagen climate conference failed. I've decided it failed because of what we are.
I don't think we can change our collective biological urges by rational intervention. To think we can IMO represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and nature of human reason, as well as a fully understandable ignorance of the physical and biological drivers at work. In social settings (like nations and global economies) individual beliefs and actions become entrained by the consensus of the group. As a result outlying opinions like ours have little chance of shaping group behavior.
As a result I've essentially abandoned all hope of an end-game solution. Instead, I concentrate on how to make life a more fulfilling experience on an individual level no matter what the circumstances become.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)I too have come to the same logical conclusion. Looking outward and at the 'connected-ness' of things helps see things on a different level, and avoids a narcissistic perspective.
Wonderful website - great source of inspiration
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I'm on FB as well, if you do that.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)in my town the christian science building was built on top of a coal gasification plant built in the late 1800`s.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)That's a good study. I wish we had a clearer picture of what was actually happening with their shift in emphasis away from coal, but we are going to have to wait for that to materialize. This wasn't on my radar, so I'm glad to have the issue raised - especially when it comes by way of a Nature article.
I had relegated IGCC plants to the dustbin, but clearly that only applies firmly to the US with Europe close behind.
Here is some background for anyone not familiar with the process and who is using it.
2010 Worldwide Gasification Database
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/worlddatabase/currentworld/region.html
IEA ETSAP - Technology Brief S01 – May 2010 - www.etsap.org Syngas Production from Coal
http://www.iea-etsap.org/web/e-techds/pdf/s01-coal%20gasification-gs-gct.pdf
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)NickB79
(19,277 posts)It would cost MORE than just burning the coal directly, it produces MORE greenhouse gases than a conventional coal-fired plant, and it consumes MORE water than a coal-fired plant.
The only reason to do this is that a plant burning SNG would release far less particulate matter than a standard coal-fired plant. Granted, this is very important to the Chinese government because of the recent fire they've come under for their horrific air pollution, but wouldn't simply adding smokestack scrubbers to existing coal-fired plants like the US and Europe already use be cheaper?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Syngas Production from Coal
HIGHLIGHTS
␣ PROCESS AND TECHNOLOGY STATUS - Coal gasification – and virtually gasification of other carbon-based resources such as biomass or refinery residues - is a versatile conversion technology adding flexibility to the energy systems. In the gasification reactors, the feedstock is converted into a synthesis gas (syngas), a mixture of H2, CO and CO2, which enables the production a variety of downstream energy carriers. A large experience exists on coal gasification worldwide as the so-called town-gas was produced from coal as early as 1792, a high-temperature fluidized- bed gasifier was patented in 1921 by Winkler, and synfuels production from coal was common practice in Germany during world war II. According to the Gasification Technologies Council, in 2007, some 144 gasification plants and 427 gasifiers were in operation worldwide, adding up to an equivalent thermal capacity of 56 GWth, of which coal gasification accounted for approximately 31 GWth.
␣ PERFORMANCE & COSTS - Performance and costs of coal gasification plants depend largely on the plant design and on the final production objectives. A gasification system that is part of an integrated chemical plant producing methanol, ammonia and electricity differs substantially from a system whose only purpose is feeding an IGCC plant with carbon capture and storage (CCS). Coal quality is also very important for coal gasification output. The overnight capital cost of coal gasification plants is given per GJ of syngas output and ranges from $13/GJ for bituminous coal to $17.2/GJ for sub- bituminous coal (US$ 2005). Similarly, the syngas production cost decreases with increasing coal quality and ranges from $15.6/GJ to $19.3/GJ. The production cost is dominated by the investment cost. However, costs may significantly depend on location. Chinese plants may cost 60%-65% of the US and European installations. Syngas may be further upgraded to meet specific demands. Co-production of a 20% of H2 using a H2 separation unit is only slightly more costly than the basic process, resulting in 5% higher capital and 4% higher product costs. The conversion into synthetic natural gas (SNG), i.e. pipeline quality gas, requires additional processes and costs. If the syngas is converted into SNG, the capital cost increases by approximately 25% and the cost of the final product increases by 40%, while the conversion efficiency of the process decreases by some 14 percentage points, reaching about 60%.
␣ POTENTIAL & BARRIERS – There is a huge potential for coal gasification worldwide, as the technology allows fuels production for many applications such as transport, chemicals, heat and power production. High natural gas prices and limited availability at regional level are driving factors for investments in coal gasification. Based upon planned projects, the Gasification Technologies Council, a non-profit organization promoting technological advances and surveying the market, does expect further market growth to reach a global equivalent thermal capacity of 73 GWth by 2010. Other projections indicate up to 155 GWth by 2014. Most of the growth will materialize in Africa and Middle East (64%), Asia and Australia (27%), compared with only 9% in Europe and almost no investment in America. Marketable products from new gasification plants include Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) liquids (69%), chemicals (22%) and power (9%). However, because of the need to mitigate GHG emissions and climate change, these market projections appear realistic only if CCS technology will be made available.
________________________________________________________________________
PROCESS AND TECHNOLOGY STATUS –.......
http://www.iea-etsap.org/web/e-techds/pdf/s01-coal%20gasification-gs-gct.pdf
NickB79
(19,277 posts)Fuck.
Also, from your link, this stood out to me:
Since the Chinese are doing fuck-all to implement CCS, a roll-out of SNG on a large scale would show just how "serious" they are about addressing climate change.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Using coal to make transportation fuel is one approach. But they are also pursuing the other avenue with great vigor - electric battery drive vehicles and a grid powered by renewables.
The last ten years have seen a remarkable shift in their stance regarding energy development and it is going to take some time to play out. I believe the economics dictate that the non-carbon solution will win out. And, given their pivots since becoming aware of the scale of their renewable resources I think it will be sooner than later, but I don't think the fog will clear for a definitive answer until we are approaching the end of this decade. YMMV
NickB79
(19,277 posts)After all, fossil fuels are a finite resource (unless we figure out a way to run a hose to Titan). What I (and many others on this board) are concerned about is whether or not renewables will grow fast enough and make enough of a dent in global carbon output before so much climate change is "baked into the cake" that we still lose a sizable chunk of the planet's ecosystems and human population by the end of the century.
My Magic 8-ball says "Outlook not so good".
Nihil
(13,508 posts)> So it's all about maintaining profit streams
> Since the Chinese are doing fuck-all to implement CCS
But the scale at which they are doing it really deserves the "Fuck." response.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Like Germany during WWII. Concerns about GHG emissions are obviously not a factor for this project.
It looks to me like they're thinking about maintaining their transportation fuel supplies for as long as possible. In a world with declining oil and classical NG supplies, the nation with the most transportation fuel would have an enormous economic advantage. That's obviously just a short to medium term consideration, with climate change on the horizon, but that's the time frame national economists care about.
It makes sense to me that China would be looking to secure its transportation infrastructure through diversification - SNG on one hand, electrics on the other. Having both increases their chances of remaining a global economic hegemon.