7 responses to “Coal-to-Liquid, Greenhouse Gases…Discuss”

1. 

   Rebecca Kimmons

   July 29, 2008

   Bravo. I have been struggling with the pros and cons of this issue and I think this blog says it best: those of us who are dreaming of the very best WV imaginable would like to think that somehow, there’s a seat at the banquet table for everyone. The answer is in innovation, and we don’t have that answer yet, but the main guide to getting that answer is telling the truth about the cost of coal as we presently use it, and hope to use it. The cost has to include the cost to our own habitat.

   Reply
2. 

   Mike

   July 29, 2008

   The problem is in searching for energy independence using technologies that are no better than what we have now. Corn-based ethanol is not efficient enough to replace gasoline, and in fact, may be costing us money. Likewise, coal-based fuel may use coal and keep WV on the energy map, but it’s not going to significantly replace oil, and may also be a waste of energy. Until people look at the whole story, they will keep jumping for the easy answers, not the right ones.

   Reply
3. 

   hollergirl

   July 31, 2008

   Why does West Virginia–the Mountain State –Have to be an energy leader? With liquid coal—we are only switching who we write the check to—from a dirty oil company to an even dirtier coal company. Both are finite resources that is causing us to destroy this Earth, our home , our children’s home and God’s creation. With solar based electric cars —we will never have to purchase “fuel” again. Coal to liquids doubles green house gas. West Virginia can’t handle any more irresponsible mining like mountaintop removal and we must certainly stop injecting coal waste sludge into abandoned mines that are leaching into our wells and poisoning our water here in West Virginia. Our future is with clean water and peaceful mountains, clean streams and our friendly mountain folk. We have a lot to offer in a clean way. Tourists don’t usually like to fish, swim or bath in water that has a skull and cross bones posted by it. We must realize our potential and move forward. Our potential is not in a dirty fuel that blows up mountains and poisons our air and water.

   Reply
4. 

   Rory McIlmoil

   July 31, 2008

   Coal-to-liquids technology is highly polluting, wasteful and inefficient, and a danger to the health of West Virginia’s citizens and the vitality of its ecosystems. A few facts about CTL: Each gallon of coal fuel produced consumes ten gallons of water. One ton of West Virginia coal can produce 2 barrels of coal fuel. 100 million gallons equals 2.4 million barrels, therefore 1.2 million tons of coal will be required, annually, just to produce the expected coal fuel from the proposed Benwood plant. At current coal prices ($130/ton), the price of the coal to produce the fuel would amount to $156 Million a year. And how much more coal will be required to produce the 720,000 metric tons of methanol that is expected from the plant? As a rough estimate, West Virginia coal is, at most, 80% carbon. So you would need at least 900,000 tons of coal to cover the direct carbon requirement for the methanol. Total for direct conversion is a minimum of 2.1 million tons a year, and I’m probably way low on the coal required to produce the expected methanol. And dont forget, then you have to power the plant, which I’m guessing would require another 2-3 million tons annually. Lets say 3. Total coal required, 5 million tons. At $130/ton, that amounts to $650 million a year for just operation and production. Add the $800 million (likely a low estimate, it always is) for development, and over just the first ten years of operation the proposed Benwood plant could cost upwards of $8.5 Billion. Just to give an idea. Over ten years, that is an average cost of $850 million a year. And you can expect the development cost of the plant to be far above $800 million (I’ll be you $800 million on it). Also, 100 million gallons of coal fuel annually = 1 billion gallons of water annually, or 2.8 million gallons daily. And 720,000 metric tons of methanol would require approximately 250 million gallons of water (this needs to be checked), annually. And one gallon of coal fuel produces nearly twice as much CO2 as a gallon of unleaded gasoline. Here’s a quote from the Washington Post: “The energy required to convert coal to liquid fuel doubles the amount of carbon dioxide released compared to fuels refined from oil.” (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/100-oil-liquid-coal/) A gallon of gasoline burned results in 19.5 pounds of CO2 emitted (http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/how-to-turn-8-p). So a gallon of coal fuel, just in the burning process, results in 39 pounds of CO2 emitted. Total ANNUAL carbon releases based on coal for conversion and power, plus CO2 released from the burning of methanol and coal fuel: Burning coal fuel: 100 million gallons = 2 million tons CO2 Burning methanol: 720,000 metric tons = 630,000 tons CO2 Producing methanol and coal fuel = 5 million tons coal = 1.5 million tons CO2 Total estimated annual CO2 emissions related to the Benwood plant: 4.13 million tons. I know that is alot of random data and calculations but they are necessary to show what the true impact of the proposed plant would be. And I havent even mentioned the risks (or COSTS) associated with CO2 storage. But as an idea, speculating on the costs of just DEVELOPING storage technology at the proposed coal-fired plant in Wise County, Virginia, Dominion Power recently requested an 18% increase in electricity rates for its customers. And Appalachian Power last January requested a 15% rate increase, citing “rising cost of coal” as one of their reasons. So is this Benwood plant, or any Coal-to-Liquids or purported “Clean” coal plant, really a good economic idea for West Virginia? And I havent even touched on the additional strip-mining (read, Mountaintop Removal) that will occur as a result of increased coal demand for this and other coal-based plants. But so far in West Virginia over 300,000 acres of valuable hardwood timber have been permanently eliminated. Imagine the board feet that could have been harvested from those 300,000 acres over the next hundred years? And now its not there, and wont be for far past that 100 years. With all of this, it has to be said that the $8.5 billion that it will cost to develop and run this one plant could be used in far more efficient and beneficial ways. For example, it would take only $10 Million to build a new elementary school for the Marsh Fork communities in Raleigh County. It would take only $ Millions to ship clean water to the communities whose water has been contaminated by underground coal slurry injections or leakages from sludge impoundments. It would take only $ Hundreds of Millions to improve West Virginia’s education infrastructure, as well as the quality of that education through training and hiring more experienced teachers. It would take merely $6 billion to develop all of West Virginia’s wind potential (3,000 MW minimum), which would create a minimum of 400 direct operations and maintenance jobs related to the operation of the wind farms, and an additional 2000 new manufacturing jobs, at least. I havent even touched on all of the other more sane and beneficial uses of the $8.5 billion that it will cost to develop and operate the Benwood plant for a mere ten years. But education and and wind, and even clean water and good health, if we let it, lasts forever. Coal doesnt, and wont. Thirty years from now, when West Virginia is running out of coal, will we all look back and regret the decision to waste our money on a single coal-to-liquids plant? Will we be looking at the additional water contamination, at the impacts on the land and health of WV’s communities, at the lack of progress in educating our citizens to prepare for the new, renewable economy, and at the additional contribution to climate change that the Benwood plant wrought, and say, “That was a good idea”?? Or will we – given the readiness and willingness of the rest of the nation – regret that we didnt take the opportunity to transition away from strip-mining and bad economic decisions reliant on the additional use of coal, and spend our money on developing the true resources and economies of the future, those based on the wind and the sun.

   Reply
5. 

   Rory McIlmoil

   July 31, 2008

   I forgot to mention (oops!), that the $800 million that they say will be spent on the Benwood plant could be better spent on the development of a wind farm on Coal River Mountain in Raleigh County, WV. Coal River Mountain has been slated for strip-mining, and the mining will completely eliminate the vast wind potential that the mountain now holds. Studies have shown that a 440 Megawatt wind farm can be developed on the mountain for approximately….well, $800 Million. That is basically a one time cost. To compare this wind farm to the proposed Benwood plant, a Coal River Mountain wind farm will cost an average of $80 Million over the first ten years of operation ($850 Million for the Benwood plant). A wind farm requires little to no fuel to operate. The wind farm would use no water once it is developed. It would result in zero injections of contaminated slurry into your groundwater. It would actually preserve the timber and water resources for alternative economic development. It would release zero carbon emissions, zero mercury emissions, and zero sulfur emissions. You would not have to move communities or schools in order for the wind farm to operate. And the wind will still be blowing when there is no more coal in West Virginia. The thing is, it blows the strongest along high-altitude ridges, not along lower altitude man-made plains. Support the future of your children, your jobs and your state by supporting the development of renewable energy in West Virginia, and begin by getting behind the Coal River Mountain Wind Farm. For more information visit http://www.coalriverwind.org.

   Reply
6. 

   Dianne

   August 5, 2008

   Coal to liquid is a horrible use of OUR WV taxpayer dollars. Wouldn’t it make more sense for tens of millions of dollars (or more) of taxpayer money to be spent on LONG term, non-life-endangering energy development – solar power has been gaining in efficiency with leaps and bounds, and of course the best method to gain more energy is through energy conservation and efficiency wherever possible. Spending millions of taxpayer dollars to facilitate more mountaintop removal and *more* global-warming-causing carbon emissions is indicative of the sort of mindset that got our planet into the global warming crisis it faces today. The mindset that looks at the bottom line profits for big fossil fuels corporations, with no care about the future of the people who suffer when mountains are blown up and their homes are destroyed, or no care for what kind kind of planet our grandchildren will inherit.

   Reply
7. 

   Robin Wilson

   August 9, 2008

   I think the Coal To Liquids project is a big mistake. We need a culture that is able to change and be flexable. We can build a transition culture to lower energy use but it will require everyone helping to build the political will. Below is an article from Scientific American about Coal to Liquids – “Worse than Gasoline” August 2007 issue Worse Than Gasoline Liquid coal would produce roughly twice the global warming emissions of gasoline Lawmakers of both parties are proposing amendments to the so-called energy independence bill that would massively subsidize the coal industry to produce liquid coal as a replacement for foreign oil. (The admirable original bill is designed to increase fuel efficiency in cars and light trucks, encourage production of biofuels, and provide funds to develop technology that will capture carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.) Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, opposed big subsidies for coal-based fuels until mid-June, when he moved to offer up to $10 billion in loans for coal-to-liquid plants. At the same time, Senator Barack Obama, from coal-rich Illinois, abruptly shifted his support for subsidizing coal-derived fuel production to concentrate on another bill he had been sponsoring that would cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce carbon content in transport fuel. The shifting positions of Bingaman and Obama underscore the tension between efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil and to slow global warming. Liquid coal—produced when coal is converted into transportation fuel—would at best do little to rein in climate change and would at worst be twice as bad as gasoline in producing the greenhouse gases that blanket the earth and lead to warming. The conversion technology is well established (the Germans used it during World War II), and liquid coal can power conventional diesel cars and trucks as well as jet engines and ships. Coal industry executives contend that it can compete against gasoline if oil prices are $50 a barrel or higher. But liquid coal comes with substantial environmental and economic negatives. On the environmental side, the polluting properties of coal—starting with mining and lasting long after burning—and the large amounts of energy required to liquefy it mean that liquid coal produces more than twice the global warming emissions as regular gasoline and almost double those of ordinary diesel. As pundits have pointed out, driving a Prius on liquid coal makes it as dirty as a Hummer on regular gasoline. One ton of coal produces only two barrels of fuel. In addition to the carbon dioxide emitted while using the fuel, the production process creates almost a ton of carbon dioxide for every barrel of liquid fuel. Which is to say, one ton of coal in, more than two tons of carbon dioxide out. Congressional and industry proponents of coal-to-liquid plants argue that the same technologies that may someday capture and store emissions from coal-fired plants will also be available to coal-to-liquid plants. But even if the carbon released during production were somehow captured and sequestered—a technology that remains unproven at any meaningful scale—some studies indicate that liquid coal would still release 4 to 8 percent more global warming pollution than regular gasoline. Liquid coal is also a bad economic choice. Lawmakers from coal states are proposing that U.S. taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big purchases by the government for the next 25 years. Their mantra is that coal-based fuels are more American than gasoline. But no operating coal-to-liquid plants exist in the U.S., and researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimate it will cost $70 billion to build enough plants to replace 10 percent of American gasoline consumption. Some energy experts worry that the scale of the incentives could lead to a repeat of the disastrous effort 30 years ago to underwrite a synthetic fuels industry. The country would be spending billions in loans, tax incentives and price guarantees to lock in a technology that produces more greenhouse gases than gasoline does. This is unacceptable at a time when leading scientists from all over the world are warning that greenhouse gases must be cut by at least 60 percent over the next half a century to avert the worst consequences of global warming. Instead of spending billions to subsidize a massively polluting industry, we should be investing in efficiency and in renewable energy technologies that can help us constrain global warming today.

   Reply