Listen to this Podcast
More 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]
Coal is everywhere. It can be dirty and dangerous to wrest from the ground, but we're probably not going to run out of it anytime soon. And, unlike oil, the U.S. has a large domestic supply.
As a result, some have suggested that for "energy security" transforming coal into a liquid fuel alternative for cars might make sense. To do that, coal is mixed with oxygen and steam at high temperatures and pressure to produce a gas. This gas is then reacted in the presence of a catalyst to produce a synthetic oil.
Already, several industrial conversion plants exist, and the U.S. Air Force, for one, has used the resulting fuel to fly planes.
But there are two flaws with turning coal into oil, beyond its cost. First, it takes a lot of energy to loosen up the carbon bonds in coal. Second, all that energy use results in the emission of a lot of carbon dioxide—the most ubiquitous greenhouse gas causing climate change.
In the journal Science this week, chemical engineers suggest that incorporating hydrogen produced from solar, wind or nuclear-derived electricity into the process could eliminate this problem. Of course, it would take billions of dollars to do that and there might be a few better uses for that money, electricity or even hydrogen: advanced biofuels, electric cars or fuel cell vehicles.
After all, electric cars running on juice from coal-fired power plants use no foreign oil, less coal and even emit less CO2 overall than cars burning gasoline.
—David Biello
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentThere are some old fossilized people who can't seem to get away from old fossils. Start mass producing electric cars and geothermal energy plants and you will not have to spend billions of dollars creating more pollution. You'd think these idiots would have enough sense to realize that. The greed and stupidity of some American politicians never fail to amaze me. Why can't they use coal to make carbon fiber to manufacture car and airplane bodies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you need to define the word "abundant", when talking about coal. US coal extraction has been static for at least a decade (at least in terms of energy content) and estimates of world supplies are based on very old and poorly researched country estimates. It's quite possible that coal production will peak within a few decades, even if no further use is made of coal. Once you start adding in more uses, coal is likely to become scarce far sooner than conventional wisdom would have it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe battle between peak oil and climate change mitigation just got a lot more interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDitto on sofistek comment on coal not being so abundant as is often claimed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out the detailed report on coal supplies at www.cleanenergyaction.org.
The report is called, "Coal: Cheap and Abundant--Or is It? Why Americans should stop assuming that the US has a '200 Year' Supply of Coal." It is very well referenced and there are more background materials also at www.cleanenergyaction.org.
The conclusion is that our planning horizon for moving beyond coal is much closer to 20 years than to 200--so why bother trying to convert coal to liquid fuels--especially with great electric vehicles just around the corner??
Burn coal or a liquified version ? What is the point ? It's dirty and brings unwanted CO2 to the atmosphere. This is not efficient and it's not a path forward. We, as a nation, are simply not this desperate. We have many good alternatives. Coal has done it's service and it's time to put it to bed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI evaluate technologies based on costs, benefits, and efficiencies. I suspect that burning coal to produce electricity and then putting that electricity into an electric car would be more efficient than trying to liquify coal. There is still plenty of coal in America and half our power comes from coal. Coal should be a part of our engery poduction for another half century.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat no one is even considering here is the ecological damage to the beautiful mountains of WV, MD, Pa, Tn, KY...or does it not matter that we are blowing up the land around generational homes, ruining farms, water and headwaters of rivers that are our drinking water for most of the South Eastern states, and hatcheries for fish and habitat for wildlife. My family has lived in WV for 8 generations , since the turn of the 18th century(1698). I guess we don't count because we are not rich, just hillbillies that are out of sight, out of mind of the coastal elites. The same mountains have huge wind potential potential, but I guess its just more satisfying to blow up the mountains. We have many health problems and low employment because the strip mines only use a few people to operate, while the rest of us get sick and die from the dust in air and on the crops, and in the water. Before anyone says why don't you move? I have I can't live in my beloved home for the very coal dust that is in everything. Why should we leave our homes? We were here before the coal mines were. My ancestors go back as long as anyone lived there, I am part Cherokee and Pamunkey Indian as well as of European descent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we all put our minds to it and saved energy through efficiency measures which for the most part do not cost much. Our home is using a bit over half what it took when we moved in here almost 3 years ago. We have spend about 2,000 in caulking, weather stripping, insulation, being mindful with lights and cooking slowly in covered pots, double wrap on the water heater on and on , little things anyone who can walk can do. We plan on roof, siding and roof replacement and added insulation later, then solar panels.
We literally cut our power bill from 450 to 166-175, simple conservation.
We have changed to all CFLs, and 2wks ago bought 10 pair LEDs (14.86$ pair @ Sams club) in the most used fixtures.
Conservation is not that hard. The CFL's are okay in some places and the LED's are good in other situations - and wow are they efficient. You just don't need to drive as much. Plan and organize trips - spend a whole day at home without driving - it's not bad. Turn off the heat at night - an extra blanket in a cold house is just a mild reflection of that camping trip you enjoyed so much. Buy local food, cook at home. WE DON'T NEED COAL.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBrian, we turn off heat day or night when we can trap solar gain then close Blackout curtain liners, plan out trips to town to do as much as I can manage on one go. I don't like camping so much that I want to feel authentic and freeze in bed, but do have a quilt and several blankets on the bed. We did not have indoor plumbing til I was 10 or so and therer is not a damn thing noble about trotting to the outhouse when its 20 F or bathing in a tub of water on the back porch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have sealed up the house (still has positive ventilation from the Energy Recovery system) to the point that when it drops to 30 like it did last night, we only had drop inside over night, from 68 to 62 degrees and have small kero heater on for an hour or so to take the chill off the bathroom.
We replaced all of the lights when we moved in to this place a few years ago with CFLs, swapping to LEDs as I can afford them and change out for light fixtures that will direct them where needed.
I would like to see a total end to burning any fuels. We are working toward a total solar powered house with passive solar where we can work it in. I am hoping on getting the solar hot water system up this summer so that we will have domestic hot water and radiant floor heat in at least the bathrooms by next winter. The pumps will be solar powered as well. We plan on being fossil and wood fuel free in the next ten years or less. We have a whole list of green things we plan to do, the shortage of $ is our main hold up, though as we increase our savings on power bills that will go toward more and more solar/green stuff, such as solar oven/dehydrator for the garden produce that can be dried for later use and so on.
South African company SASOL has been doiong this for many years. What lessons are there to learn from this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAhmed Bawa
I have to agree with the majority of people who say we need to get away from vehicles that use gas,but you have to think about the big picture too.The fact is your not going to get rid of gas powered vehicles anytime soon.I'm sure there were quite a few purchased this year in fact.I can't afford an electric vehicle,or any other kind of new vehicle for that matter.The last I checked no one has even mentioned an electric truck anyway.(truck guy)Of course if there was a way to drop an electric motor,and the power storage medium under the hood of a truck It would probably help matters.I would even be willing to do without the regenerative breaking if you could save me some upfront cost.I use my clutch to do a lot of my braking anyway.The fact is if we can produce the fuel from coal cheaper than buying oil from overseas we are only helping ourselves.Maybe we will run out sooner,if so so what.what are you saving it for anyway.Use it now,or use it later,but you might as well use it than not to profit from it at all.If they can use it there will be more jobs for people to do.Plants to build,and run,people to transport it,cheaper fuel prices,and the few people that do have a job actually mining the coal will get a little more work.It all helps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"carbon dioxidethe most ubiquitous greenhouse gas causing climate change." Is not true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most ubiquitous greenhouse gas is Di-hydrogen monoxide vapor (H2Ov), which averages 10,000 ppm in the earth's troposphere vs. less than 400 ppm for CO2.
just as there is enough food for all even at these difficult times
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissimilarly there is no need to burn carbon
it is an organisational thing
as a society - our organisation skills are an illusion
we are very poor at it
we should clearly use carbon reserves as a material not a fertiliser or fuel etc
if we saw the enemy as our own stupidity
and the war upon selfish greed
the victory is how do we use our systems to produce happy non consumptive children with energy harnesed [and reduced consumption] from a diversity of energy harvesting
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i doubt you will manage it
speaking as an alien anthropologist
your track record is poor
i think the easter islanders had a better idea
and it got them no where
Mr. Biello, the problems that you reference are primarily there only because the last major plant to do coal to liquids was designed in the 1960s (Sasol).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNewer synthetic fuels plants can capture and sequester their carbon emissions (bringing the footprint lower than that of conventional oil-derived fuels), but they can also blend biomass (enabling fully lifecycle carbon neutral fuel production.) See this NETL study: http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/CBTL%20Final%20Report.pdf
on the the topic.
This same process technology (gasification and synthetic fuel production (via either MTG or FT)) can also be used with biomass. The aforementioned study projects that a plant transitioned to BTL could achieve a ~350% lifecycle carbon footprint reduction (that's WAY carbon negative).
So before you tar and feather the whole industry as "dirty and bad coal", you might catch up on the last 50 years of industrial process technology improvements.
Mr. Biello, the problems that you reference are primarily there only because the last major plant to do coal to liquids was designed in the 1960s (Sasol).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNewer synthetic fuels plants can capture and sequester their carbon emissions (bringing the footprint lower than that of conventional oil-derived fuels), but they can also blend biomass (enabling fully lifecycle carbon neutral fuel production.) See this NETL study: http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/CBTL%20Final%20Report.pdf
on the the topic.
This same process technology (gasification and synthetic fuel production (via either MTG or FT)) can also be used with biomass. The aforementioned study projects that a plant transitioned to BTL could achieve a ~350% lifecycle carbon footprint reduction (that's WAY carbon negative).
So before you tar and feather the whole industry as "dirty and bad coal", you might catch up on the last 50 years of industrial process technology improvements.