"We have a second plant under construction in Inner Mongolia (Golden Concord project), and a third is under development under a preliminary agreement with YIMA Coal Industry Group Co. Ltd."
-You mean "we" refers to SES.

The cost of coal is going out of sight.

Reference:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coalnews/coalmar.html

This project will greatly increase the cost to the electric customer. Reasonable electric costs are important because many people use electric to heat and cool their homes. These low income customers may freeze of bake in their homes before too long.

It's good to know they will capture and bury the CO2 at some unspecified future time. I'm sure they'll keep their word on that maybe do it sooner than later. The great virtue of a carbon cap is the 2-for-1 deal between CTL and petrofuels ie you can have two tanks of oil based for every one of coal based liquid. The only thing that will save us is the fact the price of coal is going up at least 50% a year world wide.

Aussie

The great virtue of a carbon cap is the 2-for-1 deal between CTL and petrofuels ie you can have two tanks of oil based for every one of coal based liquid. The only thing that will save us is the fact the price of coal is going up at least 50% a year world wide.

Can you suppy a link, I would like to learn more about this. Thanks!

Axil I take it you are interested in the CTL vs petro angle not so much coal price rises. I think in truth I was one of the first to point it out and others have picked up on it.

Refining + tailpipe emissions of petrol are 2.3 kg of CO2 per litre according to this auto club. A range of CO2 values from higher Fischer-Tropsch or Bergius processing are given here but in the literature range from 1.2 to 2.3 times petroleum based. If we take 1.8 X as preferred multiplier then CTL gasoline without process carbon capture creates 1.8 X 2.3 = 4.1 kg of CO2 per litre.

Without going through the arithmetic a spot price of $40 per tonne of CO2 in a cap and trade scheme works out about 9c/L on oil based petrol or say 16c/L on coal based petrol. That extra 7c is minor if petrol prices are already near $2/L so I guess I exaggerated when I said a 2-for-1 deal. It's currently a marginal effect until CTL becomes dominant in which case the carbon cap will bring liquid fuel into competition with coal based electricity production.

Aussie
Interesting figures 1.5 and 2.2 , Although I wasn't up to the Greenhouse commission site search.
The NRMA blogsite you offer is representative but not necessarily accurate
I'm sure that the later 2.2 for some F.T.process is well enough explained and stands up (If not understated by as much as 30%!). Lpg is a little different depending on source - and transport handling etc. (I feel that the figure is somewhat high), but we need to consider that for many years and in many places today this fuel is flared of or dumped in even worse ways as the handling is not as easy as the oil components and so is in he way.
Lpgas has a lower energy content than petrol/gasoline but that does not translate to lower power or higher consumption IF the system is properly designed.
The general perception that gas is less efficient is brought about by poor industry practice, say unsuitable engines, unsuitable control devices and unoptimised fitment. Lpg gas in a fair comparison will come out on top.

Combining the last two posts I think a mainly-methane gas is the way to go for replacing liquid fuels in buses and trucks. LPG which is mainly propane-butane mostly from oil refining not only has higher energy density but is easier to liquify at around 8 bar room temperature IIR whereas methane dominant gases like NG need around 200 bar. Thus CNG needs heavier cylinders for less range unfortunately.

However mainly-methane gas can also be made from landfill, farm waste and pyrolised biomass. The traffic will just have to go a little slower.

Green energy will take decades to replace fossil fuels. If the dolos who want to cut all coal, oil, gas, and non-conventional fossil fuels are willing to let us convert their bodies to biodiesel via thermolysis, perhaps we can just get by until green energy is mature enough to fill the gap. Lord knows there are enough of those fools for fuel.

Lpgas has a lower energy content than petrol/gasoline

Propane in particular has a higher octane rating than most gasoline, and LPG's high heat of vaporization would permit its use in direct-injection engines with higher compression and turbocharging.

We're not going to get green energy overnight - this is a great intermediate step in the right direction away from the thugs in the middle east.

Where does this "thugs in the middle east" rhetoric come from? Current high oil prices are being driven by geology, physics, and the economic development of Asia. If the middle east was filled with liberal democracies we would still be in the same tight spot that we are in today. Don't forget that the Saudis, who are religiously even more extreme than the Iranian Ayatollahs, are our buddies. The only reason that they are not pumping enough oil to allow us go on driving our gas guzzlers is because they are no longer physically capable of doing it.

This "thugs in the middle east" rhetoric is a distraction from the central problem facing us today. A system of production which defines economic "health" as producing and selling as much stuff as you possible can is structurally insane in a world which is pushing up against finite resource limits. The tyranny we are facing is that of our own endlessly greedy appetites and not that of the owners of the world's dwindling supplies of oil.

With the past and present flaring of gas and the energy required to refine crude oil as well as the carbon released by the burning of residue oils and petroleum coke as well as the CO2 cost of transporting the oil, it is not clear that there is a lower CO2 release for fuel from petroleum or that from coal. The CTL plant can use charcoal from biomass mixed with its coal without modification. For the same amount of energy, frequently, bagged charcoal can be bought in the local grocery for less than gasoline or diesel.

Plug-in-hybrid cars would use electricity generated at high efficiency from coal directly and this would cause less and easier controlable emissions to the air than CTL fuels in ordinary cars. The energy density of methanol is high enough for all cars and trucks and should be used directly if possible. Engines with electric valves can have a compression ratio suitable to all fuels and exhaust converters can be built for all problematic gases whilst the highest efficiency is gained from the particular fuel being used. The smaller engine required for serial plug-in-hybrids is automatically more efficient.

The concept of plug-in-hybrid allows for the use of tiny highspeed turbine generators that produce low nox automatically. The single moving part of a CAPSTONE stationary turbine generator has been used in some buses and reduces the maintenance costs greatly but not quite enough to make up for the initial cost in the low production quantities.

Nuclear power is the only low cost way to reduce CO2 emissions. There is not enough biomass of any type of enough area to grow it to match large fraction of the requirements of industry or automobiles. There is not enough area for wind-turbines that never will produce even their half rated output for a week. "Wind wind stay away come again at three today!!" does not work but the burning of gas can be started in seconds and stopped faster. The only reason Denmark can have so many windmills is because they are tied to Norway that can shut off its hydroturbines in a second. Coal takes a few minutes or even hours. Solar cells have had much development, and are good for very rich people to pretend with. Honda cogeneration systems are much more price effective for homes, and Capstone turbines for buildings.

Almost no car was bought in the US for its actual energy efficiency. To misquote a long forgotten politician "You shall not crucify mankind on a cross of carbon.". ..HG..