Plans for Coal-to-Liquids Facility Announced

Fuel Frontiers, Inc. (FFI), a wholly owned subsidiary of Nuclear Solutions, Inc. (OTC:NSOL), announced that it is working with Shaw Stone & Webster (Shaw) to launch an engineering program that will provide a technical basis for a 400 Tonne per day Coal-To-Liquid (CTL) Ultra-Clean Diesel fuel production facility in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky.

FFI is planning to employ a commercially proven plasma gasification system designed by Westinghouse Plasma Corporation (WPC) coupled to commercially available Fischer-Tropsch (FT) gas-to-liquids (GTL) diesel fuel production systems, to be designed and constructed by Shaw for its coal to ultra-clean diesel production facilities.

The WPC website states that "in the plasma gasification process CO₂ can be captured and sequestered." Unless this option is selected I could not support the building of this facility. In this day and age I would think that if a process did not release any CO₂ it would be mentioned in the press release.  I would hope that vehicles with better mileage, plug-in hybrids, electric vehicle and biofuels could be developed to the extent necessary to minimize our liquid fuel needs.  On the other hand, if a coal-to-liquids plant could be built with no CO₂ emissions, that competes economically with other sources of liquid fuels, it could be another resource to add too the mix.

Comments

[JDT]

But the diesel so produced will result in massive secondary CO2 emissions!

If the CO2 can be sequestered, then they are better off producing power while totally sequestering the CO2 emissions, and charging BEVs and PI-HEVs with that power.

The whole point of carbon capture and carbon neutrality seems to be lost on them.

[DaveMart]

Sounds like dirty power with a bit of window-dressing to me

[Paul F. Dietz]

I assume the plasma gasification system means that the CO2 side stream is not contaminated with nitrogen, as it would be in an air blown gasifier. But any oxygen-blown gasifier would have the same property.

Plasma gasification might be interesting if the electricty comes from non-fossil sources. This would reduce the CO2 produced per unit of fuel output, since you don't have to burn some of the coal to provide heat to drive the gasification.

[IpsoFacto]

What a hoot, how about its "energy return on energy invested" (ERORI)? Is it negative, or just nearly so?? If the carbon gets compressed and sequestered, that involves huge parasitic load.

[Christopher]

Even with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), the only thing coal-to-liquids offers is replacing petroleum and localizing our fuel source. CO2 emissions from the synthetic fuel would be about the same as petroleum-based fuels assuming all emissions during fuel synthesis are sequestered. This is too much effort for not enough benefit.

It would necessitate capturing CO2 from the air and sequestering once more to approach carbon neutrality. Capturing CO2 from the air may be worthwhile in general, but sequestering once during production and once after consumption is an aweful lot of sequestered carbon. If we're going to sequester after consumption we might as well use gasoline and do less total CCS.

I agree with JDT: coal-to-electricity with full CCS is a better use of coal. Even coal-derived hydrogen, if one ignores all of the problems with hydrogen as a fuel, can be fully carbon-neutral since like electricity it carries none of the carbon in it.

I think we should be focusing our effort on fuels derived from CO2, as in biofuels and synthetic fuels derived from CO2.

[bigTom]

If we look at the proposed scale of this experiment, 400tons/year, if they have to do something uneconomic, such as chemical purification of the CO2 stream prior to compression, the low volume means they can afford to pay the price of the greenwashing. Given the coal industries history with CCS -(sorry not this plant, we promise to do it on the next one), their credibility is shot.

[GreyFlcn]

"CO2 emissions from the synthetic fuel would be about the same as petroleum-based fuels assuming all emissions during fuel synthesis are sequestered. This is too much effort for not enough benefit."

I'd just like to quote that point because thats really what it's all about.

[bigTom]

It's not about controling GHG, its about continuing business as usual beyond peak oil.

[Cyril R.]

JDT says it all.

The only serious argument I can think of would be that CTL is compatible with current liquid fuel infrastructure and vehicles.

But that's a poor argument as it takes a LONG time to get large capacities of CTL on line. Most electrical infrastructure is already in place for plugins so it's just the electrical vehicles themselves that have to be implemented. And the technology IS ready, contrary to popular assertions. Big Firefly's, small supercap, will do fine. Hell, even lead acid could do the job if you don't mind replacing the battery every few years.

Sure, with big government, big coal and big oil pushing CTL things would go faster. But then the same push towards electrification would likely yield better results in less time.

If only this was a rational world.

[An Engineer]

For all of the people who posted a comment, a little technical detail all of you seem to be misunderstanding...

CO2 is not a pollutant, is not a hazardous compound, and in fact critical to plant life. No plant life, no other life forms, including humans. Thus, why should CO2 be limited or controlled or eliminated?

And, one more minor detail. There is no scientifically proved link between CO2 emissions and global temperatures. Anyone out there have actual, verified proof of a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature changes? Proof that was not derived from a climate model? Provide the evidence derived by the scientific method. I'll be waiting...

[Mike]

An Engineer

Don't hold your breath.

[Mrweatherbee]

Let's substititute for just 1 word in An Engineer's main point, and imagine our audience is a group of residents in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans around the middle of 2005 ...

WATER is not a pollutant, is not a hazardous compound, and in fact critical to plant life. No plant life, no other life forms, including humans. Thus, why should WATER be limited or controlled or eliminated?

Just because something is generally a necessity does not make it universally good.

I realize that as an engineer, and not a true scientist, it must be frustrating to be asked to rely on things other than hard evidence. However, when a very widely accepted model suggests that empirical validation of the hypothesis would lead to cataclysmic damage, one needs to realize that modeling and simulation are quite useful and sufficiently reliable to avoid some rather nasty experimentation. For those who demand the empirical evidence, how about proposing the socially responsible experimental protocol? Meaningful results would only result from continuing to passively monitor the global climate without altering world CO2 emissions... seems a bit cavalier and irresponsible given the widely believed ramifications of such an approach. I personally don't want to be floating in a dinghy above what was once my beach house in a few decades to say "told you so!", as we wistfully look at old Coca-Cola advertisements picturing the now-extinct polar bear.

And by the way, many may not be aware that some of those crazy scientists using their wacky model have actually done quite a bit of validation of climate models, both at the component and system level. Take a read of the IPCC's overview of the evaluation process for climate models, I think it might help to broaden superficial understandings of models that most non-scientists (yes, that includes many engineers) have. It can be found here http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

[Marcus]

"And, one more minor detail. There is no scientifically proved link between CO2 emissions and global temperatures. Anyone out there have actual, verified proof of a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature changes? Proof that was not derived from a climate model? Provide the evidence derived by the scientific method. I'll be waiting..."

Of course to prove this you would have to run recent history over again while subtracting the CO2. Of course you also know this to be impossible. However if you are intellectually honest then it would seem that you don't know that this mode of experimentation isn't the only way science works. The current dogma in science is the hypothesis best supported by the available data. Certainly it has been shown that all other considered alternative causes for recent warming can be discounted since they do not show the required correlation over time with the observed warming. Increases in CO2 levels however do fit. We also know these increases have come from fossil fuels and lastly physics predicts warmer temperatures as a result. Guess what, the worlds temperature is actually increasing just as was predicted.

Your question is similar to that of a creationist asking for proof that evolution created the myriad of species now in existence. Do we have a time machine to prove this? No. But the weight of evidence is overwhelming.

If you knew all this then you were being intellectually dishonest and

[Marcus]

....If you knew all this then you were being intellectually dishonest and don't deserve any more of my time.

[Mike]

"But the weight of evidence is overwhelming."

Especially when you are a lightweight.

[Marcus]

So Mike you are not only a warming skeptic but also a creationist? What fun you must have living in the scientific age...

[Mike]

"current dogma in science"

That pretty much says it all. You see, unlike you I don't think of science as a "dogma."

The last time I checked the scientific method involved TESTING of hypotheses. If you can't test it then all you have are theories and correlation.

What is the correlation of CO2 to global temp by the way?

[Marcus]

Oh Man. So Astronomy isn't a science? Go back to school Mike.

[Paul F. Dietz]

Mike doesn't want to be exposed to things that contradict his irrational prejudices, Marcus.

Anyway, there is plenty of testing of hypotheses even in the 'observational' sciences like astronomy and climatology. The current consensus view of global warming is supported by the evidence, the crankish pseudoscience from the denialists is not.

[Marcus]

Perhaps Mike could learn something from ever-handy Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_science

[Mike]

Marcus

Controlled experiments are not the only way to test a hypothesis, as even Paul admits. You, however, instead of admitting that you were mistaken, accuse me of not believing astronomy is a science. Absurd. CAGW therory has/is being tested, and it is failing.

[Marcus]

"The last time I checked the scientific method involved TESTING of hypotheses. If you can't test it then all you have are theories and correlations"

Why did you post this Mike? Had I ever refuted this notion previously? I simply described how doing a controlled experiment on the climate isn't possible. You are right in that your illogical response then confused me.

Here is an example of a scientific "dogma". Despite being called "dogma", as science it is always open to revision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology

[Sam]

More proof that wacked out, fanatic environmentalists should have no say in determining our energy policy!

Time to wake up....America DESPERATELY needs to produce it's own domestic fuels.

Energy independence is not only an economic issue determining inflation but it is a vital national security issue!

The Kremlin and the islamists are fighting a war with us by trying to control the energy supply and blackmail the west into submitting to islam and/or communism.

Energy independence is the only way to take down the economies of the islamists and the Kremlin!

If we don't become energy independent we will continue giving the saudi muslim terrorists a billion dollars a day for years until we see islamist nukes detonating in American and European cities..Have you ever considered what would be more detrimental to the environment: burning liquified coal synthetic oil(about the same as oil+nuclear power instead of coal power plants..90% emissions reductions) or 6-10 nuclear explosions in American cities + retalitory nuking??

It is an easy choice.
Anti-energy independence environmentalists need to keep their ignorant opinions to themselves and stay out of the debate.

[Mike]

Marcus

"I simply described how doing a controlled experiment on the climate isn't possible."

Actually, what you said was:

"Of course to prove this you would have to run recent history over again while subtracting the CO2"

I think most "skeptics" would accept a model that actually worked and could accurately predict the climate. Of course no such thing exists, but that would be one way to "prove" AGW.

But according to you, we can't prove it, so we just need to go with the "dogma."

It's not too late to get out. Don't sacrifice your scientific integrity; head towards the light.

PS. I'm still waiting for that correlation of CO2 to temperature.

[DaveMart]

Clean coal sounds crazily expensive:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Nanotech/20166/

At $2.5bn for 629MW, that is dearer than the new 1.6GW nuclear plant in Finland looks like coming in at, around $6bn - and then you have fuel costs, which are a lot more for coal than nuclear.

That doesn't consider the extra costs of the actual sequestration!

It also does not take into account that series production of the Areva nuclear design should reduce costs in future - they had to train up the Finnish workforce.

[Marcus]

Mike, regarding the accuracy of GCMs, basically I would point you to here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

However I can summerise the main point. That is that the most accurate early projection was made by Hansen in 1988. In fact it seems to match spot on the observed subsequent trends. However a varient of this simulation using a different emission scenario produces an almost as accurate trend over the observed time frame. Extrapolating out over decades however the two models differ substantially. Thus the conclusion is that even if a model accurately predicts climate trends over 20 years that is not enough time to assess whether a model is correct.

Thus I quote Gavin:

"what is your standard for acceptable? My opinion, judging from the amount of unforced (and hence unpredictable) weather noise is that you would not have been able to say that even a perfect model was clearly better than this. Think of it was the uncertainty principle for climate models. After another 20 years we'll know more, but as of now, the models have done as well at projecting long term trends as you can possibly detect. Thus you cannot have a serious reason to use these results to claim the models are not yet sufficient for your purpose. If you will not make any conclusion unless someone can show accurate projections for 100 years that are within a few percent of reality then you are unconvincible (since that will never occur) and thus your claim to open-mindedness on this issue is a sham. Some uncertainty is irreducible and you deal with that in all other aspects of your life. Why is climate change different? "

Mike, I said the current "dogma" is the hypothesis best supported by the available data. If you want to abandon that for your own prejudices be my guest but don't expect rational people to do likewise.

[Marcus]

ps Mike, your question regarding CO2 correlations and temperature is answered by the accuracy of the GCM models since the observed CO2 trend is what is used as input to project future temperatures.

[Mike]

"ps Mike, your question regarding CO2 correlations and temperature is answered by the accuracy of the GCM models since the observed CO2 trend is what is used as input to project future temperatures"

LOL. I guess I shouldn't expect anything better from you. I'm talking about the actual historical data, mathematical correlation.

As far models, you brought up the Hansen et al. 1988 before; it's not looking so good:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=1

I guess we'll know for sure by 2010.

[Marcus]

Mike, its obvious you are a troll and I couldn't be bothered any more playing your silly games. If you really want a serious discussion about the climate take it to realclimate where people will take the time to educate you.

[Mike]

Giving up, huh? What about saving the planet?

You said:

"Certainly it has been shown that all other considered alternative causes for recent warming can be discounted since they do not show the required correlation over time with the observed warming."

So, I'm just asking: What is the correlation between CO2 and temperature?

[Kit P]

Mike, now that you have been labeled a troll by Marcus, I will answer your question. Warming leads CO2 increases.

[Marcus]

KitP! I expected just a little better from you. Actually, perhaps not.

You know my electric heater also didn't cause those particular warmings you are talking about. It seems that according to your thinking I must be mistaken about my heater warming my house right now. Funny, I could have sworn I started to feel hotter after I turned it on.

Never mind, its comforting to know that once warming starts, CO2 levels will positively feed back to make me even hotter!

[Kit P]

“Funny, I could have sworn I started to feel hotter after I turned it on.”

In the case of Marcus, the feeling was likely physiological. His weak mind at work.

If Marcus turned on his heater because it was getting colder in his house, his house would would continue to get colder if the heater was providing less heat than was being lost to the environment. I turned on my radiant heater this morning in the family room where my computer is. It feels warmer but the room is not actually warmer. I know this because the central heating system is maintaining the rest of the house at 59 degrees F.

A HVAC engineer can tell you what reference explains the heat transfer theory and physiological theory. It is a simple task to model the the theory and validate the model. In this case science becomes engineering because it is no longer theory.

AGW is a huge leap of logic since it models the climate based on one second order parameter and none of the models have been validated. Engineers and geologists who by training have huge amount of training in science are skeptical of AGW theory. When idiots with no science training call us trolls because they believe what some lawyers of journalists told them, I take it for what it is and dish it back out.

On the other hand, those who study the climate like Dr. Hansen should be ignored when they make irresponsible statements about how to produce energy. He has no standing in that field.

[Marcus]

KitP, silly games won't get you anywhere. I think the message is clear enough. Because CO2 didn't happen to cause one warming there is no logical reason why it can't be the instigator of a different warming, If you realized this you purposely ignored it to help Mike spread his denialist agenda. If you didn't realize this you need to do a little more reading.

If you were a scientist KitP you would be aware of the constant flux of papers in high ranking science journals documenting and providing further evidence for AGW. I see it all the time since I am a scientist, albeit not a climate scientist, Conversely there is the total absence of papers supporting the contrarian point of view, Why would this be? Is it a world conspiracy? All those sneaky little climate scientists scheming to promote communism? Or biased reviewers the world over not letting good data get through? Or perhaps, just perhaps, is it just a lack of evidence?!

Then I read about events such as "The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/

and I am simply shocked at the lengths people like yourself and Mike will go to in order to spread disinformation.

And you call yourself an environmental engineer KitP. Exactly what are you trying to engineer?!!

[Diesel to liquids]

The release of diesel producing the CO2 emissions and these emissions can be reduced by providing clean diesel.

[designer handbags on sale]

when will you post your new blog?

[Cheap Abercrombie and Fitch]

I am great to see this blog, I hope many people can research it.

[donne russe]

Plasma gasification might be interesting if the electricty comes from non-fossil sources. This would reduce the CO2 produced per unit of fuel output, since you don't have to burn some of the coal to provide heat to drive the gasification.

[coalportal]

Coal Mining shows that there are many companies answers to the call of a cleaner coal to help the environment preserve it's purity and as well as the coal industries longevity. Both must work hand in hand to see the sky rocket success in the coal prices and green house effect. Cherry of www.coalportal.com

[Furniture Stores in Los Angeles]

A coal to liquid plant with no C02 emissions would be amazing!! I hope we can figure out how to do this soon.

[coalportal]

Coal Mining shows that there are many companies answers to the call of a cleaner coal to help the environment preserve it's purity and as well as the coal industries longevity. Both must work hand in hand to see the sky rocket success in the coal prices and green house effect. Cherry of www.coalportal.com

[Korean Auto Lease Broker Los Angeles]

Is Westinghouse Plasma Corp the company that makes tvs too?

[Dentist Los Angeles]

Hopefully they were able to build this plant and completely sequester the CO2.

[Air Purifiers]

Haven't they already made facilities like this?

[Therapist San Francisco]

Plasma gastrification system? Amazing!

[Reversing sensors]

This sounds good, but you don't seem totally onboard with the idea...

[SEO Services]

Has this venture been successful?

[acting classes los angeles]

Gas to liquids seems like it would be a costly procedure.

[Microsoft Office 2010]

The new President will have to embrace this exact plan if the United States is to avoid economic catastrophe.

[las vegas wedding chapels]

I realize that as an engineer, and not a true scientist, it must be frustrating to be asked to rely on things other than hard evidence.