Plug-ins vs Coal-to-Liquids

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce (2007) is considering enacting policies to subsidize the production of transportation fuel from coal-to-liquid projects (CTL), which would enhance national security by lowering oil imports. However encouraging plug-in hybrids is a less costly policy that also reduce oil imports and does more to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A paper, by Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center (CEIC), compares GHG emissions of CTL gasoline to the emissions of plug-in hybrid vehicles powered with electricity generated with coal as well as various fuel usage scenarios. A life cycle approach was used so that all stages of the life cycle of each fuel, from production to use, are included.

Quoting from the report:

Figure 1 shows the annual life cycle GHG emissions for conventional sedans using CTL gasoline and for plug-in hybrid vehicles. It can be seen that gasoline derived from CTL plants with no CCS could increase GHG emissions from vehicles by almost 60%. If CCS is available, then a reduction of less than 6% could be obtained. It is important to note, once again, that in this best-case CTL scenario, not only is there CCS at the CTL plant, but also a low-carbon electricity source is used for CTL production. This might not be a very realistic assumption, but is presented here to show that at best we could only obtain a very small reduction in GHG emissions following a path of increased CTL production.

Plug-in hybrids look more promising as a pathway for reduction of GHG emissions. Even if coal electricity without CCS is used, plug-in hybrids could lead to a GHG emissions reduction of almost 25%. This demonstrates the worst case for plug-in hybrids, as GHGs would be further reduced with a low-carbon electricity portfolio. It is important to note however, that this analysis does not include the emissions from manufacturing the storage battery used in plug-in hybrids. If GHG emissions from lithium-ion batteries for plug-in hybrids are included, total annual GHGs from plug-ins would increase by about 800-1,500 pounds of CO2 Equivalents, depending if a twelve or eight-year vehicle life is assumed (Samaras and Meisterling 2007). Battery technologies are difficult to predict, but even when emissions from current battery production are included, plug-in hybrids result in substantially lower emissions than CTL pathways.

In this analysis we assumed that conventional sedans have achieve an efficiency of 34 mpg, while plug-in hybrids have an gasoline efficiency of 44 mpg and an electric range of 60 miles. Fuel efficiency and vehicle types will affect the results, however a conventional sedan would have to achieve 69 mpg before emissions from coal-to-liquids gasoline are comparable with plug-in hybrids at their current fuel efficiency. Similarly, electrical efficiency of plug-ins would have to fall by 50% to 1.6 kWh per mile for emissions from plug-ins to be comparable to coal-to-liquids.

Enhancing energy security is the main argument in favor of supporting CTL developments. CTL will help the U.S. decrease its demand for foreign sources of oil. We find, however, that plug-in hybrids could also help the U.S. achieve this goal. Since about 60% of passenger vehicles travel less than 30 miles per day (USDOT 2003), plug-in hybrids can travel on electricity for nearly all of daily travel, displacing up to 85% of gasoline use in vehicle travel each year. For these reasons, plug-in hybrids are better suited than CTL fuels to simultaneously achieve the goals of energy independence and reducing GHG emissions, and a major program to subsidize CTL may not make much sense.

One thing that their analysis leaves out is the time it would take to implement CTL production, which has already been started vs the time to implement, on a significant scale the use of PHEVs. As most readers know the large auto companies claim that the battery technology for PHEVs is not yet available. As was discussed in a recent post some claim that PHEVs could be produced, on at least a limited scale, now.  It is rather clear to me that accelerating PHEV production, by intensifying battery research and production, is the best use of government funds. 

Comments

[Engineer-Poet]

A vehicle dependent upon a fuel like gasoline or E85 has a rather high floor under its direct per-mile carbon emissions, let alone its indirect emissions.  The PHEV can potentially head toward zero, if the batteries can be upgraded (e.g. start with Firefly Energy carbon-foam lead-acid cells, move to Li-ion when they get cheap enough).  On top of this, the lifespan of the vehicles we'll produce while waiting for PHEV's is much smaller than the engineering life of a CTL plant.

The only reason we're not ready for PHEV's is because of Detroit's foot-dragging (and complicity in the termination of the PNGV).  It's time to push on.

[Richard Wilson]

We don't have to worry about Detroit's foot dragging. I don't drive a Detroit made car today and I will likely drive a non-Detroit made PHEV.

[Engineer-Poet]

Unfortunately, the foot-draggers in Detroit have powerful political protection.  Dingell's capabilities include throwing up roadblocks in front of other companies.

[ElectRich]

The real flex-fuel is Electricity. When will they realize this. CO2 emissions go to zero on motive side and electric generation can migrate to wind, solar or whatever without increasing emissions. Think of all the reduced emissions without having trucks hauling fuel! Off peak nearly 30% of our generated electricity is run to ground. PHEV's are a stop gap, true electric drive vehicles are the answer.

[marcus]

I urge anyone that views California's tailpipe emission regulations positively to write to their representative asking them to oppose proposed ammendments to the clean air act that would prohibit EPA waivers to states that are intended to reduce GHG emissions.

See: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/06/federal_legisla.html

[david foster]

Another interesting comparison would be coal-to-liquids vs ethanol...and it would be a more direct one, since the energy storage of ethanol is more comparable with gasoline than is the energy storage of batteries.

[amazingdrx]

What is left out of the calculations? Something that is very important to Dingel's constituents.

The cost of driving. with gas going well over 3 bucks will CTL be cheaper? Nope, it will be more expensive.

Electricity in a plugin like the gM Volt will cost the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon. But Dingel will serve automakers, not voters. Automakers that Dingel serves favor internal combustion as usual, not plugins like the Volt.

The Volt could help save GM and the US economy and the uS manufacturing base and the human friendly climate of planet earth. But Dingel's campaign "contributions' come from big oil and big auto that favors big oil. So he will favor CTL. So it goes.

We are Rome. Governance for sale to the oiliest bidder.

[GreyFlcn]

since the energy storage of ethanol is more comparable with gasoline than is the energy storage of batteries.

Not neccisarily.

You can charge a battery in 1 minute and drive about a hundred miles on it.

http://www.greyfalcon.net/quickcharge
http://www.greyfalcon.net/quickcharge2

[GreyFlcn]

Ah here's a more specific reference to the 1 minute charge.
http://www.altairnano.com/documents/NanoSafeBackgrounder060920.pdf

[Petey]

Not to be obtuse, but isn't it also somewhat helpful to fuel the fueled portion of PHEVs with CTL fuel?

[GreyFlcn]

Ah yes, here's another report which claims basically the same thing.

In it's findings it compares a conventional Prius to a Plugin Prius.

It finds that even on the dirtiest coal grid electricity availible, the two vehicles are virtually idential in CO2 emmisions.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3

Emmisions like a Prius for driving on Coal?
Thats not such a bad worst-case-scenario for electric vehicles.

[GreyFlcn]

Not to be obtuse, but isn't it also somewhat helpful to fuel the fueled portion of PHEVs with CTL fuel?

Depends what "helpful" means.

Helpful at reducing a speck of our oil usage from Saudi Arabia.
I guess.

Helpful at reducing net CO2 emmisions.
Compared to Oil? No
Compared to BioFuels that cause rainforrests to be destroyed? Maybe
(Lesser evil?)

You have to realize CCS, which is carbon capture and sequestration, is a completely unproven (and dangerous) technology.

And the real kicker, even with CCS, while it decreases CO2 for gasoline by 11%, it increases CO2 from diesel by 20%.

And frankly this chart is being kind to the red bar. Others peg it as a 109% increase in CO2 emmisions without CCS.

[GreyFlcn]

Whups, wrong link on the CCS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBfN-wJQ--U

[Engineer]

People are fools to think green energy can produce the power demanded by the world. For example, it takes 100 wind turbines to produce 250 MegaWatts of power. 250 MW is a small power source. It takes an square mile of mirror fields to fire a 100 MW solar boiler. People need to understand all other green technologies are literally smoke and mirrors. They are nowhere commercially feasible or in the case of ethanol and hydrogen they consume more energy than they produce. Fossil fuels (coal) or nuclear energy are the only two fuels which can meet the world's energy demands for years to come. Since everyone is so hyper over green house gasees this leaves only nuclear power. I personally do not like nuclear power but it is the only technology which can meet the world's energy demands.

[GreyFlcn]

Then how about geothermal.

Has all the benefits of nuclear, without the downsides.

Raser Technologies has perfected some iron-core AC motors with dramatic torque for drilling motors.

They plan to get into the geothermal business and create a buildup schedule comprable to building a nuclear power plants.

_

However I don't see how we're running short on raw landmass anytime soon.

Particularly roofs and deserts, which are largely unusable for other utilities.

Certainly we have enough land to spare for solar or wind.

[mds]

Engineer,
It is a simple mind, or poorly informed individual, who thinks all of our power will come from one source.

My favorite WIND link:
http://www.upi.com/Energy/view.php?StoryID=20070108-042749-8563r (BP acquires Orion & total potential 15 GW wind power)
“…gain the opportunity to develop almost 100 projects with a total potential generating capacity of about 15,000 megawatts.”
This is a large oil company developing lots of wind power. Wind is very cost competitive now, is likely to become more so, and will generate a more significant portion of our power in the future. (A mere 100 wind mills?)

SOLAR will drop in price and will also contribute. Cost to produce raw Si was $35/kg in 2004. It can now be produce for half this and is selling for $85/kg (up to $200/kg on spot market): http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/12/how_long_will_t.html http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=20157
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/04/lower_priced_si.html
Raw Si comes from sand and increased raw Si is coming on line at a staggering rate.

In spite of this, prices are dropping due to larger, more cost effective, production techniques. There is enough roof top area to generate most of the power needed in the USA using solar PV. Add some large plants in the desert or bad lands, or wind, or nuclear, or clean coal... Solar will also be producing a larger share.

WAVES: This is a large, low impact, source of power that is now being developed at several sites along USA western sea board and off western Europe/Britain. At least one reference states cost will be lower than wind. Look up Finavera Renewables, Ocean Power Technologies, and Ocean Power Delivery Ltd.

TIDAL: I'm not sure of environmental impacts here, but there is enough tidal energy in Puget Sound, SanJuan Islands, and the Straits of Fuan de Fuca to power all of western WA state. Alaska is probably similar. Britain has some potential here and maybe a lead on the technology.

Lastly GreyFlyn is correct GEOTHERMAL could supply most (all?) of our power needs 24/7 if developed more fully AND this is happening without much help from our government. (I think with nothing from the Federal government. Gee coal and oil don't have that problem.)

Sure we will still have coal (hopefully clean coal) and nuclear (hopefully more and better plants), but you are very wrong.
THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH GREEN ENERGY TO MEET OUR NEEDS.

It is more a question of cost and green energy is increasingly closing the gap.

[mds]

BTW There have been several studies showing that ethanol production is a net positive. I'm not a fan of using food sources for this, but cellulosic ethanol is now being produced and huge strides are being made here.

[mds]

I'm not as apposed to CTL as some of the rest of you. We may need this supply of oil during our transition to PHEVs, and then to EVs, for fully electric transportation. This has already started, but will take some time. 20 years? In the mean time a secure supply of oil may forestall economic recession. This is the only thing that can really slow down the PHEV/EV revolution. (my opinion) Sure there's some risk the oily empire will continue unabated, but maybe a compromise is in order here. I think the risk may be low because PHEV/EV technology has now advance far enough and an economic advantage will begin to become very apparent within the next few years ...even with CTL. Gasoline from CTL will still be expensive. The greed of some players in the oil empire is already their undoing.

[Doug]

Plug-ins are only "fine". Californians forget that the rest of the world doesn't think like them. This post is interesting as it follows another post about MIT developing a cordless electrical broadcast to recharge small electronic devices. People don't like to plug things in. They just won't turn out in numbers to drive it - the same thing that happened to the EV1. Not to mention that the electrical grid is still relatively unstable and electricity prices are going up. Increasing demand on the dirtiest environmental polluter doesn't sound like a good deal to me. Electric vehicles and plug-ins (for whoever is nerdy enough to want one) are fine. Chemical storage is still more efficient and user friendly. Maybe we can find a way where we can power a car and not need either.

[GreyFlcn]

THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH GREEN ENERGY TO MEET OUR NEEDS.

We got that in spades, we just need to go out and grab it. http://greyfalcon.net/energy.png

__________________________________________

There have been several studies showing that ethanol production is a net positive.

And there's some studies that show that the CO2 produced from biofuels makes the last centuries worth of coal CO2 look tiny in comparison. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1909827.ece
http://greyfalcon.net/palmoil
http://greyfalcon.net/soy

Even China things CTL and grain Ethanol are dumb ideas.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/10/its-not-just-coal-to-liquid-under-fire-in-china-but-grain-ethan/

_______________

Ironically, one of the best ways to reduce Oil consumption is to use Oil.
Diesel offers a pretty solid alternative to hybrids.

[Kit P]

As is my custom, I read the base report before forming an opinion. What we have is a LCA comparing proven technology (CTL) to unproven and unworkable technology. In any case, the study is so poorly done as to be useless.

Again, PHEVs are DOA.

[GreyFlcn]

And once again, you have Kit P not offering even the slightest effort to cover his ass with a single citation or reason as to why his statement might be true.

i.e. A kindergartener could form a stronger arguement.

[Engineer-Poet]

I think Kit P is one of the paid trolls, doing the dirty work of defending the oil companies by attacking any idea which threatens their interests.

Oil companies have plenty of experience with chemical engineering, so CTL will be their bitch.  But they'll never dominate the electric industry, and the total revenue at under $1/gallon equivalent would mean a drastic shrinkage of their profits (and influence).  So they'll fight it all the way, including with trolls like Kit P.

[Kit P]

Actually it did take some effort to read the study. It was wasted effort because the study was so worthless. Some advocates like to be spoon fed by journalist and call it a citation.

Since I do not work in the oil industry or use very much of their product I do not really care about their products. I do care a lot about the profits of the electricity generating industry. I think PHEV and EV are a swell ideal. Renewable energy is cool too.

However, liking something does not make it practical or a good idea. I can not prove a negative. There is a complete lack of citations documenting that PHEV and EV work and that renewable energy can be a source of power for them.

[Craig Bolon]

Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in polluter

September 29, 2007

If the Chevrolet Volt were driven 10,000 miles per year (about 40 miles per workday), powering it from the electrical grid instead of the gasoline pump would save about $200 per year in energy costs but emit about 925 pounds more carbon dioxide. The vehicle is estimated to cost about $5,000 to $10,000 more than a conventional gasoline powered vehicle, so the cost recovery time from using household electricity would be at least 25 years. See details at http://ergament.blogspot.com/2007/09/chevrolet-volt-plug-in-polluter.html

Powering the Chevrolet Volt from the power grid is mainly burning coal instead of gasoline. The gasoline efficiency estimated for the vehicle is more than a match for the efficiency of electrical power generation, transmission and conversion. The energy cost difference comes mainly from not paying taxes on gasoline and instead burning largely untaxed coal. When powered from the electrical grid, the Chevrolet Volt becomes a small energy cost saver and a net polluter.

[Steam Coal]

The use of sophisticated software systems for coal mining (thermal coal, steam coal and metallurgical coal) that is mostly burnt for power generation and steel production and adds to the greenhouse effect is valid for western countries who may allocate resources and funds to alternative and more greener sources of power. Some of the alternatives may be "safer" than the traditional mines. Unfortunately, coal reports and coal statistics show developing economies are more likely to increase their use of thermal coal & metallurgical coal in coming years because of its affordability and to meet increasing demands for electricity and steel. Whether they will embrace and utilise sophisticated software systems that no doubt add to the cost of production is yet to be seen. Cherry of www.coalportal.com