This sounds kinda weird. There are much better and easier coal deposits to work than Arckaringa. Australia is supposed to be under a strict carbon cap starting 2010. The nearby Adelaide to Darwin railway carries yellowcake from the Olympic Dam mine (see map) for ocean shipment from Darwin. If that mine can get enough water and energy to expand it will become the world's single largest producer of uranium. It would be strange if coal gets the go ahead while nuclear is held back.

How could 1 ton of coal make 2 tons of CO2.

Have they factored in the cost of geo-sequestration of CO2 ?

Given that the project timeline provided is aiming for plant start-up in 2013, how will they implement CCS in support given the current outlook for production readiness of the technology?
And if there's no CCS, how does this affect the lifecycle CO2 emissions?
Lifecycle analysis of Aust GTL production pathways indicates it to be more carbon-intensive than conventional fossil fuels (ref CSIRO report, http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/transport/comparison/pubs/2ch3.pdf) - I would therefore question the suggestion that this project is "environmentally clean".

Part 1

With carbon sequestration, it would take 127 days for a pebble bed reactor to pay for itself. It would also save 83.5% of the coal used. The coal deposit will last over 4 times longer if a reactor is used to produce heat.

Assumptions:

Reference.

http://web.mit.edu/coal/The_Future_of_Coal_Summary_Report.pdf

Excerpt:

CO2 capture and pressurization (about $25/tonne) and CO2 transportation and storage
(about $5/tonne)..

Carbon sequestration cost = $30/ton of CO2

Reference.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html

Excerpt:

Complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of this coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide.

Reference:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html

Part 3

Tons of CO2 per day for diesel

(30,000 barrels/day) x (42 gallons/barrel) = (1,260,000 gallons/day) x (22.2 lbs CO2 /gallon) = (27,972,000 lbs/2000 lbs/ton) = 13,986 tons CO2 per day

(30,000 tons/day) x (2.86 short tons CO2) = (85,800 tons/day CO2) - 13986 tons CO2 per day for Diesel = 71,814 tons/day CO2 = x ($85.5/ton CO2) = $6,140,097 /day sequestration coast for CO2

$820,000,000 total cost of reactor/ $6,140,097 per day sequestration cost for CO2 = 133.55 days pay down

Coal waste calculation

(1,260,000 gallons) (2.778 / carbon / gallon) (2.20462262 lbs/kg) = 7,716,796.46 lbs carbon in Diesel

/ 30000 tons(.78/ ton carbon) (2000 lbs/ton)= (46,800,000 lbs carbon in coal) =

7,716,796.46 lbs/ 46,800,000 = 16.5% of the carbon in coal is used in Diesel

83.5 % of coal is wasted in heat production.

Part 5

Conclusions from the aforementioned analysis as follows:

Carbon sequestration will not happen because it adds too much to the price of Diesel without a reactor.

To eliminate CO2 emissions a reactor is required.

How could 1 ton of coal make 2 tons of CO2.

The oxygen has mass, and most of it comes from the atmosphere, not the coal.

@Henrik Paul F. Dietz

Gentlemen, the calculations are fully referenced. I did it quickly and would be honored to have it checked. It is hard to believe. The coal price is for power river coal, but that price is not a major factor; it is the cost of CO2 sequestration that is the big cost factor.

@ Pradeep

1. Earlier in the calculation, you assumed a price of 35 $/T CO2 for CCS, whereas in the actual calculation, you used 85 $/T. I just want to make sure that the first price is not a typo.

Carbon sequestration cost = $30/ton of CO2

Complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of this coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide.

Carbon sequestration cost for a ton of coal =
(1 ton of coal) = (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide) X $30/ton of CO2 = $85.6/ton of coal

2.How much power does a PBR (costing 820 million $) produce? In your PBR analysis, I do not think that the results will change drastically if you included the CO2 emissions from fuel processing etc., but how much nuclear waste/day is generated from a PBR and typically how much does a nuclear plant have to pay to get rid of this waste?

From http://web.mit.edu/pebble-bed/papers1_files/OilSands.pdf
Page 7 table 5

Nuclear fuel coat is 225.3 million. 10% of that is for waste storage/disposal and is included in the total amount.

Assuming that the cogen unit feeds off the hot gases from the CTL process, did you discount the electricity produced from this unit for your calculation? (This scenario can be considered as not mining extra coal to produce the power; 1 T coal approximately produces 2500 kWh electricity; if I did my math right, it would "save" an additional ~5376 T coal/day from being mined for electricity).

I discounted electricity since reactor process heat could also be used to produce the same electric power in the same way.

Furthermore, the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor can produce hydrogen simultaneous with electric and process heat. If this approach is used no CO2 from steam decomposition would result. Then I would be comparing apples and pears, but here it is as follows:

Reactor cost = 2817 million.

Payback time = $2,817,000,000/($6,453,935 Total wasted coal cost)= 436.48 days

As in my original calculation, this is for a 300 megawatt reactor but now with 10% used for hydrogen production. Electrical generation is adjustable depending on how much power can be salvaged form waste heat.

This is an overestimate since the coal to liquid plant would be greatly smaller and simplified and therefore cheaper is price.

My Guru Charles Barton has written this in the current Economist.com debate as follows:

Reference:

http://www.economist.com/members/persona.cfm?econUId=3031249

Ercerpt:

We ought to look at Joe Romm’s future energy scenario carefully. For example Joe describes a future in which 800 huge coal fired plants are pumping CO2 into the ground at a furious rate. Each plant would pump millions of tons of CO2 into there earth every year. This whole scenario ought to be examined carefully. There are at least two issues here. First, there is the question of energy returned on energy invested. Mining and transporting coal requires energy. Capturing CO2 from the stack of a coal fired power plant takes 25% of the energy produced. Transporting it to the spot where it is to be sequestered, compressing it and pumping it into the ground takes another 20% of the energy produced. Stripping combustion gases of nitrous oxides and toxic heavy metals consumes another 12% to 25% of the electricity produced in the plant. Thus from the viewpoint of EROEI over carbon capture and sequestration would appear to be very problematic. At best over 57 percent of the energy produced would be used to mine, transport, clean noxious materials from combustion gases and capture and sequester CO2, and this is by no means a complete energy account. A second problem has to do with what would happen to the CO2 underground. The usual scheme involves dissolving the sequestered CO2 in underground water, like CO2 is dissolved in soda water. CO2 dissolved in water forms Carbonic acid. And guess what, carbonic acid causes erosion underground. Erosion by Carbonic acid is responsible for the formation of caves. . Carbonic acid attacks feldspar, calcite, augite, biotite, and dissolves out of elements such as K, Na, Mg, and Ca. Thus far from staying put when sequestered, CO2 in the form of carbolic acid, opens up migration channels in rock, that can either put the acidic and heavily mineralized water into aquifers, or alternatively opens up migration routes for heavily pressurized CO2 to return to the surface. Either case would be highly undesirable.

IMHO, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is the key fraud in the global warming debate. It will not work. All these big CTL projects say that they will execute CCS but they won’t. CCS is green washing of the first order. It is a ploy by big energy to keep building coal plants and stop nuclear power.

Just out of curiosity, did you think of publishing/writing this as an article?

You write the article and I will do some research for you. I have the PBMR material under control.

OC

I wonder why CNOOC or BP signed MOU`s with Altona, if they are dreaming. That is fact. For sure they wont have a problem paying some additional $bn or provide their own labour. Altona is valued only a few million dollar on LSE, a very attractive speculation.