« Linc Energy and Shiv-Vani Sign MoU for Indian Underground Gasification and Coal-to-Liquids Projects | Main | Renault TCE 100hp Engine to Power Modus »
CMU: Plug-in Hybrids “More Sensible” Use of Coal Than Coal-to-Liquids
8 June 2007
 |
| Comparing life cycle CO2 emissions from plug-in hybrids, coal-to-liquids gasoline, and conventional gasoline. Click to enlarge. |
A study from the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center (CEIC) concludes that while enacting policies to subsidize the production of coal-to-liquids transportation fuel would enhance national security by lowering oil imports, encouraging plug-in hybrids powered by coal-generated electricity is a less costly policy that also reduces oil imports and does more to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
CEIC produced the paper in the context of the current work by the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce on transportation energy legislation, the current draft of which includes significant support for CTL. (Earlier post.) The CEIC paper compares GHG emissions of CTL gasoline to the emissions of plug-in hybrid vehicles powered with electricity generated from coal on a full life cycle basis.
Although CTL conventionally produces more diesel than gasoline, the process can be altered with catalysts to upgrade some of the diesel and waxes produced in the standard F-T process to gasoline, with an overall efficiency of around 52% (HHV).
The CEIC team used CTL inputs and outputs derived by Bechtel in 1993, and allocated the total emissions factor among the various CTL co-products using the method in the GREET model (by energy content of the co-products).
The allocated worst-case well-to-plant emission factor (no carbon capture and sequestration, current electricity generation mix) is 190 pounds CO2 equivalent per MMBtu of CTL gasoline, and 50 pounds CO2 equivalent per MMBtu of CTL diesel. With 80% CCS and zero-carbon electricity, the allocated factors drop to 50 pounds CO2 equivalent for gasoline and 15 pounds for diesel.
Adding in the other complete lifecycle factors (transportation for distribution, combustion in the engine) resulted in complete well-to-wheel CTL lifecycle emissions of 360 pounds CO2 equivalent per MMBtu of gasoline in the worst-case scenario and 220 pounds CO2 equivalent per MMBtu of gasoline in the best-case scenario.
CEIC then used a fuel consumption figure of 34 mpg and an annual driving distance of 12,000 miles to calculate the annual CTL gasoline emissions: 1.18 lbs/mile (536.7 g/mi) in the worst case; 0.72 lbs/mile (325 g/mi) in the best case.
For plug-ins, the CEIC researchers calculated the impact of both electricity and gasoline. For electricity generation, they used two scenarios: bituminous coal in a pulverized coal power plant and bituminous coal in an integrated gasification combined cycle power plant with carbon capture and sequestration (IGCC w/ CCS).
| Well-to-Wheel Greenhouse Gas Emissions | |
|---|---|
| Fuel | CO2-equiv. g/mi |
| CTL gasoline | 536.7 |
| CTL w/ CCS gasoline | 325.1 |
| Gasoline base case | 344.0 |
| PHEV, coal generation | 264.6 |
| PHEV, coal IGCC w/CCS | 105.8 |
For a vehicle, they assumed a plug-in hybrid built on a Toyota Prius platform in a parallel configuration with an all-electric range of 60 miles. To determine the fraction of vehicle travel powered by electricity or gasoline, they used the percentages resulting from the cumulative distribution function of daily vehicle miles traveled constructed in another paper from CMU (Samaras and Meisterling, “Decarbonized Electricity Needed for Plug-in Hybrids” 2007). The CEIC distribution estimates electricity would power about 85% of average annual vehicle travel for a plug-in hybrid with a 60-mile electric range, assuming vehicles are charged once per day.
The results: total well-to-wheel emissions of 264.6 g/mi for the conventional coal-generated scenario; 105.8 g/mi for the scenario with advanced IGCC with CCS). The conventional gasoline baseline in the study was 344 g/mi.
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.
The Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center (CEIC) was established in August 2001 as one of 20 centers of excellence in different industries that the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation has established at 13 universities. CEIC’s core funding comes jointly from Sloan and from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
Resources:
“For energy security and greenhouse gas reductions, plug-in hybrids a more sensible pathway than coal-to-liquids gasoline”; Paulina Jaramillo and Constantine Samaras; CEIC Working Paper CEIC 07-04 – June 2007
June 8, 2007 in Coal, Coal-to-Liquids (CTL), Plug-ins, Policy, Power Generation | Permalink | Comments (48) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/19141316
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CMU: Plug-in Hybrids “More Sensible” Use of Coal Than Coal-to-Liquids:
Comments
CCS will not happen for a long time, if ever. So, it is realistic to assume the worst case scenario for at least a decade and possibly longer. Those, like Senator Obama, who tout this as a clean alternative, are blowing smoke, literally, into the atmosphere, if not up our ass.
Also, as the study said, only in a few places in the U.S. would the worst case for the PHEV occur because of mixed sources for power geneation. In addition, we should be phasing out coal plants, anyway, unless they can sequester their co2.
Since the study resullts are in, the bill subsidizing these plants should not be allowed to pass. If they want to further study the issue, fine, but no funds should be allowed unless it can be convincingly shown that we could actually improve our co2 situation.
Also note that, even if one includes the embodied energy of batteries, it is still better to go for PHEVs.
Further improvement could possibly be achieved by v2g technology and/or consideration given to recharging these vehicle at night with wind as a way of overcoming the disadvantages of wind variability.
I hope other Senators who oppose this plan bring it up in the next debate.
Posted by: tom | Jun 8, 2007 6:07:53 AM
Of course the catch is that plug ins appear to need lithium based batteries to be doable and those lithium cells are still an R & D project. it will be at least a couple years yet, if then, till they are feasible for mass produced cars and have sufficiently low costs and an acceptable life cycle.
CO2 is very important, but its unrealistic to think Americans will prefer the economic implosion to come with depending on oil to a composite approach using everything thats available while we pursue clean renewable alternatives.
Posted by: iamsancho69 | Jun 8, 2007 7:30:20 AM
iamsancho69:
Any CTL plants would take many years before they are complete, so in the short term they won't make a difference anyways.
And if we did allow these CTL plants to gain a foothold, they would be damned near impossible to shut down when we finally did want to get serious about cutting CO2 emissions. Not building them in the first place makes far more sense to me.
And for that matter, I think battery technology is a lot closer than you think.
Posted by: eric | Jun 8, 2007 8:23:08 AM
If Congress accepts the findings of the the Carnegie study, which shows conclusively that PHEV's can generate substantial savings in CO2 over CTL technology, than any $$ subsidies being considered for CTL should be redirected towards improving PHEV battery technology first. That means all the billions of subsidy dollars, not just a few million.
Posted by: BrianD | Jun 8, 2007 8:53:37 AM
The use of CO2 as a feedstock to grow algae in bioreactors , whatever the configuration, should be aggressively applied to all fossil fueled facilities - power plants, chemical plants, oil sands processors etc., etc. This would increase the total useful output (energy & other raw materials) of the facility, making processes such as oil sands extraction and CTL more environmentally palatable. Most of the CO2 captured by the algae will eventually be released into the air when the fuel created from it is consumed, but at least more useful energy is ultimately extracted from the original fossil fuel, and therefore not as much needs to be used.
Posted by: techwatcher | Jun 8, 2007 8:57:29 AM
Gliders, but schedules will be iffy.
Posted by: Fat Man | Jun 8, 2007 9:29:43 AM
Another way to cut down on CO2 would be to stop the destruction of the rain forests, and try to revive the ones that have been razed. Is it just me, or why am I suprised I don't hear more about that?
Posted by: Bud Johns | Jun 8, 2007 10:24:20 AM
I have a question - what happens to coal fired units at night - do they throttle them back or keep them running producing electricity that no-one wants.
If you had a smart grid signalling system which could turn on the PHEVs when there was excess coal or wind, you could charge them for very little cost and excess CO2.
It strikes me there is a lot of potential in wind IF you can get people to consume it when it is plentiful (or store it [ unlikely ] )
Also, assuming the car gets 34mpg seems a bit rich.
Posted by: mahonj | Jun 8, 2007 10:25:01 AM
Regarding coal plants, they cut back on production, but there's a still a minimum base load that needs to be maintained. For that matter, we could run a lot of PHEVs on just the excess based load that is not being used. So, until we ramped up total production considerabley, the net co2 impact of the early PHEVs could be zero.
Posted by: tom | Jun 8, 2007 10:43:00 AM
Even if the Carbon footprint were the same, PHEVs using electricity would still be better than CTL in ICE for the simple fact that they don't create as much pollution where people live.
Posted by: Neil | Jun 8, 2007 11:04:57 AM
READ "BIG COAL"
Posted by: HUMAN | Jun 8, 2007 11:09:06 AM
I drive a Citroen Saxo Electrique. The electricity for driving is generated by a CNG powered motor (5kw el/12,5kw th) which is heating my house and generates warm water (neighborhood in summer) same time. Where ist the problem?
German
Posted by: German | Jun 8, 2007 11:17:22 AM
This study will hardly be surprising to anyone here, but it will be nice to have a study to point to when someone less informed gives me the old "pollution elsewhere" argument about my BEV.
Posted by: Neil | Jun 8, 2007 11:28:01 AM
This study supports the gut feeling of even semi-technical observers. CTL is to be avoided. Use that coal (if you must it at all) to generate electricity.
The needed batteries for PHEVS vehicles are very near. And we have steady increases in ICEs. Stop sweating about every 'whatif'.
People will turn away from those three ton SUVs and Winnebagos. The effect of vehicle downsizing, etc. is a dip in cash. And occasional inconvenience.
e.g. you had planned to drive that whale for fifteen years. But you replace it with a Prius after five, you take the cash hit for the Prius. Then the cash starts coming back at the pump.
As far as electricity loads. I advocate solar for the daytime power bulge and nuclear for base and nights. Night consumption should soar as PHEVs become common.
Coal, NG, and oil are wonderful chemical brews which are far too useful to waste them for heat.
Posted by: K | Jun 8, 2007 11:31:35 AM
I am enthusiastic about this study, and about PHEV technology in general. I continue to resist the urge to void the warranty on my Prius, but I don't know how long I'll hold out.
Still, I'm nervous about some of the study's assumptions. The authors assume that PHEV-60 is available. That's a tall order.
Furthermore, I once did a calculation which suggests that Americans can't all drive PHEV-60's at this time anyway, not without building more power plants. I concluded that putting a PHEV-10 in everyone's driveway was practical today, but not much more than that. I'll provide details if anyone wants them.
Building more power plants to service PHEV could defeat the purpose of avoiding CTL. Renewable energy would be best, of course. But we would be likely to see more natural gas and coal plants constructed. These would add to pollution, CO2 emissions, and could decrease our energy independence.
I would have liked to see an analysis which included PHEV-10 and PHEV-25, so that we could see whether the benefits of PHEV can be obtained at an earlier, more achievable stage.
Posted by: John L. | Jun 8, 2007 11:36:33 AM
Tanks and fighter jets don't run on electricity. So unless the military gets bio-fuel online, which they are working on, we're going to be stuck with some level of CTL as an issue of national security. This after all was why it was first developed in Germany and later South Africa.
Posted by: rhapsodyinglue | Jun 8, 2007 11:43:10 AM
The chance such an academic study will talk louder than money from the coal industry is almost zero. All we can do is write to our senators and at least bring their attention to it. Right now the coal industry is trying to get a goverment garuantee for purchases over the next 25 years...
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0917FD3F540C7A8EDDAC0894DF404482
Posted by: marcus | Jun 8, 2007 11:46:45 AM
Right now the coal industry is trying to get a goverment garuantee for purchases over the next 25 years...
It's not enough that the Coal industry wants big subsidizes.
They want windpower to fail!
U.S. Senators Mount Assault on Wind Power
New Legislation Would Bring Wind Power to 'Grinding Halt'
NEW ANTI-WIND LEGISLATIVE PROVISION WOULD MAKE IT
A CRIME TO PRODUCE CLEAN WIND ENERGY
Posted by: DS | Jun 8, 2007 12:49:01 PM
DS if what you posted is true I wonder what the powers of the USA country are smoking on a day to day basis... how the **** can you just ban something that's renewable and clean? Better yet WHY THE **** MAKE IT A CRIME? WTF ARE YOU SMOKING DOOD?
Posted by: philmcneal | Jun 8, 2007 1:21:59 PM
"if what you posted is true"
H.R.2337 Title: To promote energy policy reforms and public accountability, alternative energy and efficiency, and carbon capture and climate change mitigation, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Rahall, Nick J., II [WV-3] (introduced 5/16/2007) Cosponsors (7) Latest Major Action: 6/7/2007 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02337:
Golly!! Look at the title! How could this be bad??
Posted by: DS | Jun 8, 2007 5:03:29 PM
Go BTL, for ICEs, then transition to biomass fired electric plants as PHEV and EV gain market penetration. Use IGCC setups for electric generation and liquid/gas fuels production.
Posted by: allen_xl_z | Jun 8, 2007 8:22:08 PM
Use biomass fired IGCC plants and stored/displaced hydro to even out some of the gaps in wind energy.
Posted by: allen_xl_z | Jun 8, 2007 8:26:13 PM
Unfortunately, the American Wind Energy Association losses a lot of credibility with people like me when they state things like "one thousand times lower than bird mortality associated with house cats." Anyone that has read about the problem knows that the issue has nothing to do with how many versus how many twitty birds fluffy eats. The problem is that in ill suited locations, such as Altamont pass in California, many environmentally sensitive species of birds, particularly raptors such as hawks and eagles, are being killed. In certain other locations bats can be put in unnecessary harms way.
While THIS particular piece of legislation may indeed be an anti-wind ploy requiring inspections that are then not funded, if after all these years people have known this issue it's only the AWEA's fault for not having already come up with workable regulations. They state that the Audubon Society supports wind power, they don't state that Audubon opposes this bill. I would tend to check with someone like Audubon and see what their view is of this bill rather than trust the AWEA position.
Posted by: rhapsodyinglue | Jun 9, 2007 6:25:52 AM
Absurd measures like this indicate that the coal and oil industries are getting desperate. They see the writing on the wall.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 9, 2007 8:07:45 AM
Its amazing how ready some are to swallow nonsense.
Wind Power is NOT pollution free. Wind is just a manifestation of the world trying to equalize temperature extremes in weather. If you steal energy from the wind, you steal energy from this equalization process, condemning some places to so-called bad effects; "hot spots" to "global warming" and cool spots to "global cooling". That is elementary Thermodynamics for any thtat managed to graduate without a modicum of Science training.
Please dig the dirt of the kindergarten level ecology you've been taught out of your ears.
Like "Coal is BAD". "WIND is pollution Free and GOOD". Please use the noggin that you came equipped with for a change.
Every Energy extracting method has some drawbacks. Every single one. The measure of how much of want you want is created, versus what you don't want (where the bad side effects usually occur) is called efficiency. Hence, the least meretritious methods are generally the most efficient ones. So those that produce least side effects by being efficient, are generally more benign.
Wind energy extrtaction is not very efficient. Lots of effort for not much return. So you need lots of installations, over lots of territory, to accomplish much. Is it any wonder that windfarms end up being a visual blots on the landscape? Or that they kill lots of Birds? Or that they are difficult to maintain? Or that they must be tax-subsidized to waste resources constructing them? Or that soon after the subsidized tax benefits expire, and they break down, it is too expensive to repair them? Aand they become junkyards on the skyline?
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Jun 9, 2007 8:16:40 AM
CTL is an answer to a question that few asked except in dire emergency. This study confirms its basic inefficiency for the overall enduse.
The only reason that we are seeking to convert to liquids hydrocarbons is that one particular industry as presently constructed REQUIRES liquid hydrocarbons, and has no effective substitute to date. If that key industry, Transportation, didn't need ONLY liquid hydrocarbons, there would be little need for phase, conversion of materials. This is the truth regardless of how much many here long for a CONSPIRACY basis to believe otherwise.
So it is quite expected that reducing the demand for liquid hydrocarbons, through diversification, will be the most efficient approach to solving this price and availability dilemma for those liquid hydrocarbons.
Resolve that demand fromn that one industry for liquid hydrocarbons, and replace it with satisfaction by diverse energy sources is the most efficient and probably least costly approach.
And that is what isgalloping toward us, in a massive wave, pushed by the blind hand of market efficiency manifesting itself as least cost, I.E LOW PRICES.
The electrification of ground transport is coming; and its operating cost is even now well below the present alternatives, (at $ .75 per gallon eqv). Its technical feasibility was long unknown, but is finally being established (LiIon & PHEVS). Only the capital cost is still in question, without the economies of scale and mass manufacture yet applied. So that issue too is being resolved.
These costs are not impossible at present, but not yet attractive. There is little reason from an engineering viewpoint, to believe it is intrinsically more expensive to construct a HEV/PHEV/BEV drive train than a conventional one, in the long term.
As for CTL its a good technology to have when we need some liquid hydrocarbons and it is cheaper to manufacutre liquid hydrocarbons than to mine them in the way distant future, perhaps several hundred years from now.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Jun 9, 2007 8:48:41 AM
There's at least one energy source that has negligible environmental costs: space-based Solar. The only drawback of it is, it's expensive to build. But it would meet all of humanity's energy needs forever with no pollution. We really ought to be taking the lead in this.
Posted by: richard schumacher | Jun 9, 2007 9:02:14 AM
But coal IS bad, period. Coal has greater relative environmental costs in every respect than every other energy source. The only current benefit in using coal is low direct cost to the producers and users. We could try to price all the indirect costs of coal into it and let market forces take their course, but the clock has about run out on the looming disasters of global warming. We're out of time; we need to start making coal illegal.
Posted by: richard schumacher | Jun 9, 2007 9:19:35 AM
>The electrification of ground transport is coming...
Electrification of rail doesn't require any batteries at all. It requires some capital for overhead wires, and some local tax issues probably need to be resolved, but that's about it.
Posted by: eric | Jun 9, 2007 9:57:12 AM
Richard,
It is really too bad that your views are so extreme.
I can envision a dozen meretricious effects from beaming Solar energy from Space. How many birds would you like to fry? What extreme weather based phenomena are you willing to endure burning a hole in the atmosphere? What areas of receiving beamed energy are you willing to sacrifice from the inevitable "leakage" ? These will be just two or three of the inevitable meretricious side effects.
As to your comment about "COAL IS BAD". What drivel. Compared to what? Burning wood? No its not! Burning animal dung after we revert to Paleolithic lifestyle and kill off all but a few million of the world's population? No its definitely not.
I prefer Hydro. I will select and prefer Fusion. I will accept Fission in the meantime. IGCC with CSS is the next best alternative. All are technological answers that don't make requirements like killing off lots of the world's population.
This gloom over a little temporary increase in the level of a necessary trace gas is puzzling. That concern over trace gas increase that may or may not have a causal effect of the present tiny rise in global temperatures to a BETTER more BENIGN climate is throughly ridiculous.
Golden ages of the Man's' historical past came when the climate warmed. We emerged from the stone age to the bronze age and the rise of civilization in that first recorded warming. Man emerged from the Dark Ages to the rise of the Renaissance in another warm epoch.
On the other hand, We descended into uncivilized chaos in the cooling of the 300-500 AD when both Rome and China fell as many northern tribes had to move South or die. We call that time the Dark Ages.
At most, the temperature of Boston Mass would rise to that of Providence RI in a hundred years of full all out global warming. Philadelphia's temperature would climb to Wilmington Delaware's in a hundred years, Where is the problem? Where is th end of world consequences? The more realistic estimate is Boston warms to a place about one third of the way to Providence so Providence's temperature today is 300 hundred years in Boston's future.
That is ONLY TRUE if the Cassandras are all correct and WE DID IT (via CO2) which is becoming less and less obviously true, as more research emerges.
In the second IPCC, they didn't even recognize the Sun had any part of the climate. In IPCC III they suggested that the Sun could have some effect as much as two thirds maybe, but it needed research before including it.
Even the IPCC, the hallowed home of the enviro wacko bureaucrats who summarize not the Science the scientists offer, but their own opinions, now agrees the Sun is going through a periodic increase in output.
The bureaucrats say its still undetermined how the Sun warms the Earth, so we can't add its contribution until we do in the current IPCC IV.
If you can actually believe such a ridiculous position.
Roll that on your tongue once more. It's unknown if the Sun effects the warmth of the Earth!! Can You believe such pure Horse manure ?!?
The solar near constant is up about 0.2% and surprise so is the global mean temperature by a similar 0.2% or so.
Even if WE DID IT ALL, we have plenty of time to change our course, adopt other better approaches, say a thousand years or so before the warming aspects go from benign to even questionable.
As a Red Sox fan, I wouldn't want to live in a country so warm that it can produce a Team like the Yankees in the unbearably hot world of Mordor-like New York City. Boston might warm to that temperature in only 350 or 400 years or so, in the worst case,( mor elikely 900-1000 years). If global warming continues and WE DID IT ALL, and will keep on doing it for that long.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Jun 9, 2007 10:28:57 AM
DENIALIST! DENIALIST! MIKE, BAN HIM, PLEASE! HE DISAGREED WITH US!!!!!!
Or maybe people could be open minded and think about what he said.
Posted by: mike | Jun 9, 2007 10:59:15 AM
When will solar activity effect get its due? For some reason it gets buried under tons of CO2 while there's significant science indicating its role in global temperature change. We should be able to address GHG and acknowledge solar activity without mutual annihilation - or have we yet to leave the dark ages?
Posted by: gr | Jun 9, 2007 11:11:14 AM
Hat tip to Stan for somehow tying the superior if heartbreaking Red Sox to the globally overheated Yankees! Both great and temperate cities... (Boston's better).
Posted by: gr | Jun 9, 2007 11:18:04 AM
If Stan Peterson is more than just a ranting denialist troll, let's see the peer-reviewed science which supports his assertions. He can start by substantiating his claim about the relative climate of NYC and Boston.
As a counter-example to his assertions, the effect of a wind turbine is generally considered undetectable a mere 10 rotor diameters downwind. Air flow is affected by a wind farm in much the same way it's affected by a forest. Should we stop growing trees to avoid changing wind patterns? That's the conclusion one is nearly forced to draw from his claims.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 9, 2007 2:15:35 PM
People! People! Focus! This is about using coal.
Pollution from fossil fuels is a problem. We don't want NOX or unburned hydrocarbons out of tailpipes. We don't want soot from anywhere. And that is true whether man's CO2 is causing GW or not.
It stays true if the sun is causing GW. Or the Earth's orbit. It is even true if there is no GW at all.
Similarly, pollution from fuels is separate from the issue of whether we are running out of oil. It is separate from whether Arab oil $$ fund terrorists. It is separate from US balance of payment problems or national debt.
We have a lot of coal. The report says CTL will emit much more CO2 than coal generated electricty(CGE?) On the other hand, it doesn't cover sulfur and mercury emissions from the different approaches. Or fly-ash. Or whether the magical, long suppressed, Fish carburator would solve all our problems.
Posted by: K | Jun 9, 2007 2:27:24 PM
It seems that various types of energy solutions will be implemented with the disapproval of a minority that put country survival aside. Maybe it does not matter, as 2012 the sun will do a flop and take care of all problems.
Posted by: Devarity | Jun 9, 2007 9:37:13 PM
It seems that various types of energy solutions will be implemented with the disapproval of a minority that put country survival aside. Maybe it does not matter, as 2012 the sun will do a flop and take care of all problems.
Posted by: Devarity | Jun 9, 2007 9:37:46 PM
Actually, we may not have a whole lot of coal left. Our production of anthracite is down to less than 5% of peak, bituminous has peaked and is falling, and the only things still going up are subbituminous coal and lignite (EIA tables of US coal production). Each step down the ladder means less energy per ton. If we haven't already hit peak energy from coal, we will soon.
I'd love to know how much coal comes out from under a typical West Virginia mountain, vs. how much wind blows over the top. If levelling a mountain only gives you 15 years of the energy obtainable from the wind blowing over its ridges—or even 50 years—the foolishness of flattening it for the sake of removing the coal cheaply becomes obvious.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 9, 2007 10:37:03 PM
Read the paper and check the math. This study starts with the assumption that a plug-in gasoline/electric hybrid will get 44 miles per gallon when burning gasoline. This is based on what a standard hybrid available at your dealer today will do. However, the gasoline that comes from the CTL plant will be used in a car that gets 34 miles per gallon. Why? What possible reason could there be for assuming that the CTL gasoline is used in a car that is less efficinet than the gasoline engine in the hybrid? Redo the calculations just using the same 44 mpg in both cars, and the conclusions of the study are not so clear. CTL gasoline without carbon sequestration still produces more CO2 than the coal to electricity case. But CTL gasoline with carbon sequestration actually produces less CO2.
Why not put the CTL gasoline in an out-of-tune 1996 Chevy Suburban that gets 9 mpg? Then, the results would show even more benefit from the plug-in hybrid.
On the other hand, why assume that the output of the CTL plant is converted to gasoline? Most likely it would not be, because the normal output of the process is predominantly an ultra-low polluting form of diesel. Why not assume that the diesel goes into a diesel engine which is 30% more efficient than a gasoline engine? Why not assume it is a diesel hybrid?
I have spent my career in the electricity industry. If I have a bias, it not in the direction of CTL. However, I am very concerned about both climate change and national security. Carnegie Mellon needs more more rigerous and more intellectually honest if they expect to be listened to in this policy debate.
Posted by: Stephen Pearlman | Jun 10, 2007 2:27:24 PM
Stephan: At least you looked at the report. But I think you are mistaken.
The reason they give less MPG to the gasoline vehicle is that CTL doesn't produce any electricity for the hybrid.
So the hybrid receives some mileage from gasoline and some from electricity and it totals to more than a straight gasoline vehicle.
They state what model they used for allocating electric miles and gasoline miles.
Why do they assume gasoline and not diesel output? Think about it. If the CTL makes diesel and they compare a diesel to diesel hybrid the electric miles still aid the hybrid.
I am never too adamant about this stuff. Maybe I misread or misunderstood the point. Technical matter or even a synopis sometimes has that effect.
Posted by: K | Jun 10, 2007 3:10:35 PM
Here's a couple more studies.
84% of all US vehicles (220 million) could be supported by offpeak electric capacity without building even 1 new power plant.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins4
Driving a PHEV Prius off of the dirtiest coal electricity availible in the US, as compared to a conventional Prius would produce near identical CO2 emmisions.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3
We already have the batteries.
AltairNano makes batteries which can get 96 mile range in 1 minute of charging.
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge
A123 Systems plans to market 50 mile lithium polymer batteries for Prius PHEV conversions for 2008.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/05/a123systems_to_.html
Here's an interview with everything you ever wanted to know about AltairNano's battery specs.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/07/autobloggreen-qanda-altairnano-ceo-alan-gotcher/
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Jun 10, 2007 3:58:47 PM
Mentioning hybrids in a discussion of CTL is like putting lipstick on a pig. There is no demonstrated economical CO2 sequestration technology on a scale within orders of magnitude of what would be required to make a significant difference to global warming. Please, prove me wrong: show us where anyone has demonstrated storing even as little as one billion tons of CO2 somewhere with a reasonable expectation of permanance.
In contrast, there are no technical limits to building as many fission, Solar, and wind power plants as we like, anytime we like. Hydro, unfortunately, is pretty nearly tapped out globally. It would be difficult to even double the existing installed capacity. As for future options, someone who thinks that space-based Solar power stations will "burn holes in the atmosphere" needs to do some basic reading on the subject.
The deniers need to explain how drowning our coastal cities and turning central North America (the world's grain belt for wheat and corn) into a dustbowl will lead to another Golden Age for humanity.
Posted by: richard schumacher | Jun 11, 2007 7:33:21 AM
Though admittedly a side trip, there are apparently lots of studies on the sun's significant effect on global temp.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=11182
Curious and typical of media cracking, this NASA scientist's data changes in a somewhat whimsical and unconvincing way. When tinkering with data becomes so ubiquitous - the exercise of education falls on deaf ears.
Posted by: gr | Jun 11, 2007 8:12:13 AM
So if coal is ok despite puttings tons of mercury, co2, particulates and radiation in the air...
Why not just go nuclear instead? Almost zero air polution and no global warming. With a well thought nuclear fuel cycle and breeder reactors or fuel reprocessing its a very secure source of power.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Jun 11, 2007 9:10:19 PM
Once you've dealt with the 10-year lead time for putting a nuclear plant on line, I agree that it's far better than coal.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 13, 2007 7:07:46 AM
Lets look at the efficiency here:
Coal to Electricity: 30-40% (new combined cycle plants can do ~50%), Power grid: ~95%, EV: 80-90%, Total: 24-32%
Coal Gasification: 60%-70%, Car gasoline ICE: 25%, Total: 15-18%
So you could power nearly 1.5-2 times as many cars on Coal-to-Electricity then on Coal Gasification.
Posted by: Ben | Jun 14, 2007 5:12:19 PM
ben
Thanks for the efficiency calculations. They point to the obvious better approach of Coal to electricity for PHEVs, over CTL.
Thanks for the points you made about the relative efficiency gains to be made from Combined Cycle.
For the non engineers here, IGCC coal plants first wash the coal and then heat it to turn it into gas without burning it, the gas is scrubbed and them burned in gas turbines (think jet engines) attached to generators making electricity. The jet exhaust is then used to boil water and make steam, fed through steam turbines connected to generators, making more electricity from the same rediual lower temperature heat. Hence the "combined cycle".
The beauty is that the coal gas prior to burning is easy to clean of sulfer, mercury, heavy metals, and other pollutants. Similarly, the burned gas turbine exhaust is pretty clean CO2 gas and can be sequestered after extracting heat,(to boil the water), making it easier to capture and Sequester if you need to do so.
Overall efficiency is 50% or so; much, much, better than anyother electrical generation including natural gas one-pass gas turbine generatation. Its really a similar first cycle, with a standard steam palnt on the back end.
EPoet,
Thanks to the rationalizing of standardized Fission designs and combined building and operating approvals, fission plants are aimed at 48 -60 month building cycles, not 10 year cycles as of old. These are the benefits, as well as knowing that it should be a higher construction quality plant having built multiples of the same design. That sloppy construction was one of my concerns ando why I was a charter member of the UCS.
There is a drawback though. The way progress used to be made, was that improvements were incorporated in every plant built, each subsequent one slightly better than its predecssor. Now that will be be impossible with frozen designs. Eexcept on "model turnovers" every generation or so.
gr,
Thanks for the refereneces to the Sun's not quite steady output. I didn't think any one would question the great and omnipotent Wizards of The Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their periodic summaries of the Climate Science. If even these global warmists admit the Sun might have some possibilty of warming or cooling the earth, who would complain?
To re-iterate: in IPCC TARI they ignore the sun; A few years later in IPCC TAR II they did the same although pressure was now building for a variable solar contribution that was ignored.
In the subsequent update in IPCC TAR III, they said well it could account for a lot, maybe most, but didn't know how much, so they wouldn't count it at all.
In the latest IPCC TAR IV, just released, they said the Sun definetly contributes to the curwent gloal warming, but warms by two methods, direct radiation responsible for about 15% of the observed warming (previosuly assigned to CO2); and an indeterminate amount of indirect warming, not thoroughly understood, so they ignored that much bigger piece. And attributed it to CO2.
A lot of research is piling up now coming from the Solar space probes flown since the turn of the century; and mapping of the Earth's cloud cover by satellites since too, revealing coordinated response to solar activity. Meanwhile CO2 continues to have problems. Research tends to confim it as a consequence not a cause of warming as more and more historical core samples are researched. It appears the Oceans expell or more accurately slow down absorbing CO2 as the climate warms, leaving an elevated CO2 level in the atmosphere.
eric,
When I refer to The Electrification of Ground Transport, I am talking primarily about the conversion from hydrocarbon to electric LDV fleet not the Rails. Ssome more rail electrification will come but not much. Transmission losses limit how much is efficient The RR have built out about all the useful electrical mileage by now. But rail series diesel hybrids are coming.
K,
Hand you the Prize for keeping your eye on the ball. It IS ALL ABOUT POLLUTION. That is the target. Removing Real baddies H2S, CO, NOx, SOx Paeticularites from the air. Although that job is 99.9% done, it's not finished yet.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Jun 18, 2007 1:20:52 AM
How about getting solar panels with PV systems outside of each home garage in America where we can plug in on natural juice. Well, especially in the southern states. Or how about a better idea. Diversify all our energy needs between geothermal, wind, solar and refuel and cellulosic ethanol/butanol and lets stop allowing the coal and big oils to hold us all hostage while they make their pockets fatter. Clean coal technology sounds like BS to me. All these companies want to do is keep feeding is their own crack whether it be at the pumps or what powers our homes. By diversification, the citizens of America bring it back to the PEOPLE. That is true democracy and capitalism. Imagine all homes with solar power. Solar power makes sense even in Germany where they have much more cloud cover on average than we do even in the Northeast, USA. So Coal can kiss my you know what. We need tostart thinking of fuel and water as something owned by everyone not by a few big companies who control us like robots on crack fuel!
Signed,
Sick of the Bull
Posted by: James | Aug 2, 2007 8:04:48 PM
