Coal is a combustible sedimentary rock that has become the world’s most used energy source. Because it is so abundant and therefore cheap, much research has been done to see what other kinds of uses it can have other than direct burning for electricity production. The liquefaction of coal is one concept that is being given new life due to higher petroleum prices. Currently it is cost-prohibitive and environmentally unfriendly. But according to a new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), as early as 2015 and without a solid climate policy, coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuel may be economically viable in the US and China.

CTL fuels have been in existence since the 1920s, and were used extensively by Germany in the 1940s. At the time, it produced about 90 percent of their national fuel needs. Then Middle Eastern oil became dirt cheap and CTL technology was largely abandoned. The only country that still uses it in a significant way is South Africa where it covers about 30 percent of their fuel needs.

The production of liquefied coal has a large carbon footprint, much larger than that of petroleum fuel production. One method of production is carbonization where the coal is coked at temperatures up to 1,380 F to produce coal tars rich in hydrocarbons. The coal tar is then further refined into fuels. The process produces a large amount of carbon dioxide emissions. If done without carbon capture and storage technologies, the life-cycle carbon footprint is about double that of crude oil.

The new MIT study examined different future scenarios with variables such as potential climate policies, the availability of biofuels, and other economic and regulatory factors. They found that in 2015, CTL technology will be economically viable in coal-rich countries like the US and China. In other regions, it could be viable by 2020 or 2025. In this scenario, carbon capture technology would not be used because it would raise the costs too much. In this scenario, liquefied coal would account for a third of the world’s liquid fuel supply by 2050.

The study notes that the viability of CTL will by vary greatly on whether or not certain regions adopt prohibitive climate policies. If lower-carbon fuels are available, CTL would not be considered as an option. Liquefied coal may only be available in developing nations with lax environmental rules, and where low-carbon alternatives are not available.

One of the study’s authors, John Reilly, stated, “Various climate proposals have very different impacts on the allowances of regional CO2 emissions, which in turn have quite distinct implications on the prospects for CTL conversion. If climate policies are enforced, world demand for petroleum products would decrease, the price of crude oil would fall, and coal-to-liquid fuels would be much less competitive.”

Article by David A Gabel, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Smaller Nuclear Reactors Recommended as Good Option for U.S.
• U.S. Trucking Companies Making Shift to Liquid Natural Gas
• Capturing CO2 from the Air Remains Cost-Prohibitive, Study Says
• Cleaning Up Coal
• Global Gas? An International Market Survey

Twenty-one new carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration projects were launched worldwide in 2010, despite rising technology costs, according to a new report by Australia’s Global CCS Institute.

That growth represented a 10 percent increase from the previous year, and bumped the total number of projects active or planned worldwide to 234. Of the 77 fully integrated, large-scale projects — all still in the experimental stage — 39 are in the United States and 21 in Europe, according to the report, “The Global Status of CCS: 2010.”

Five large-scale, state-funded demonstration plants also are being developed in China. Worldwide, government support for the experimental technology increased in 2010, the report says, when $40 billion was spent, with most of that money going to 25 individual projects. However, another 22 projects were either shelved or canceled worldwide because of global economic conditions and rising technology costs.

In Australia, officials recently approved the Gorgon CO2 Injection Project, which will be the largest carbon storage project in the world.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• The Storage Act: Putting Energy Storage on a Level Playing Field
• Cleaning Up Coal
• Why Energy Storage is Real
• MIT Researchers Create Better Lithium Batteries
• Megawatt Energy Storage Projects Debut in Hawaii

Computer models that simulate and predict future climate change patterns are far from accurate according to climate scientist Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change at the University of Manchester. Anderson believes that this is because the Integrated Assessment Models (IAM’s) that are widely used by researchers to predict the future of climate change are built on assumptions. Anderson believes that these assumptions are very optimistic and do not highlight the reality.

“The vast majority of IAM’s assume low emission growth rates; early emission peaks; annual reduction rates limited to between 2 and 4%; untested geo-engineering; and a high penetration of nuclear power alongside untested ‘carbon capture and storage’ technologies. Because IAMs typically use similar and inappropriate sets of assumptions, they repeatedly come up with the same narrow and fundamentally flawed answers,” said Anderson.

“This requires radical changes in behaviour, particularly from those of us with very high energy consumption, but as long as the scientists continue to spread the message that we will be ok if we all make a few small changes, then climate change will never be on top of the policy agenda and we will fail to meet our international commitments to avoid a 2°C rise,” he said.

Anderson believes that much of the published research is highly optimistic and that the issue of climate change is not effectively highlighted because of reasons such as economics and politics.

“The reality is far more depressing, but many scientists are too afraid to stand up and speak out for fear of being ridiculed. Our job is not to be liked but to give a raw and dispassionate assessment of the scale of the challenge faced by the global community,” he said.

Anderson admitted that many people didn’t want to face up to the reality of climate change, but the scientist insists that it is better to give the public the most accurate rather than avoiding the issues. “Too many models use an extrapolation of old data and this gives results that are too optimistic. When I present my findings I am often pulled apart for taking away people’s hope, but what these models are giving us is false hope. Surely that is worse?” he said.

“All too often, climate change is described as a problem of the future, but climate change is a cumulative problem that needs to be tackled now. And this can only be done if researchers use realistic data and report brutally honest results, no matter how disturbing or depressing,” added Anderson.

Article by ciaran hogg, appearing courtesy Justmeans.

Related posts:

• Coal or Natural Gas, Climate Effects
• Monks’ Diaries Shed Light on Climate Change
• Can Uranium 238 Solve the Energy Crisis?
• Energy-Proportional Computing and Climate Change
• Accusations of Flawed Climate Science Rejected by the EPA

Each year energy-related carbon dioxide emissions account for more than 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. According to the Energy Information Association, that adds up to over 5,814 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon in 2008 alone. The Obama administration recognizes that this is not sustainable and that’s why we’ve actively sought to not only drive innovation in the renewable energy sector but also curb the emissions produced by fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum and natural gas through the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies.

In February 2010, President Obama went so far as to issue a challenge to the federal government: come up with a plan to achieve widespread, cost-effective deployment of carbon capture and storage within 10 years, with a goal of bringing five to 10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016. This was accompanied by the creation of an Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage, co-chaired by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE), which yesterday delivered a series of recommendations to the President.

Their findings, which reflect input from 14 federal agencies and departments as well as hundreds of stakeholders and CCS experts, state that CCS is viable, concluding that there are no insurmountable technical, legal, institutional, or other barriers to the deployment of CCS technology. The report also concludes that CCS can play an important role in domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions while preserving the option of using coal and other abundant domestic fossil energy resources.

They also noted that widespread cost-effective deployment of CCS will occur only if the technology is commercially available at economically competitive prices and we have supportive national policy frameworks, such as a cap on carbon. Already, the United States has made the largest government investment in carbon capture and storage of any nation in history and these investments are being matched by private capital. The Department of Energy is currently pursuing multiple demonstration projects using close to $4 billion in federal funds, matched by more than $7 billion in private investments, which will begin to pave the way for widespread deployment of advanced CCS technologies within a decade.

In fact just this week, Secretary Chu announced the selection of 15 projects to develop technologies aimed at safely and economically storing carbon dioxide in geologic formations. Funded with $21.3 million over three years, the 15 projects will complement existing DOE initiatives to help develop the technology and infrastructure to implement large-scale CO2 storage in different geologic formations across the Nation.

This announcement, in tandem with the Task Force’s set of recommendations, marks an important milestone in our efforts to mitigate the growing atmospheric CO2 emissions from human sources. These actions bring us one step closer to achieving a cleaner, greener economy.

The full report and the presidential memorandum establishing the task force can be found on DOE’s site for the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage.

Article by Victor Der, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy

Related posts:

• SolarMaid: One Unique Solar-Panel Cleaning Service
• Take a Bite Out of Coal!
• Video: Too Dirty For College
• How is Energy Efficiency Like Dry Cleaning?
• U.S. Coal to China Equals 7,000 Mile Supply Chain

Carbon dioxide air emissions is one of the big issues in global warming debate. However, before you start controlling by putting the carbon in the ground, you first have to put lawyers in a room to argue. After a year that saw billions of dollars spent around a variety of carbon capture and storage pilot projects, the focus in 2010 will shift from press conferences and engineering discussion to court cases and conference tables.

Everyone has an opinion on what is the right thing to do in global warming. Far from just an engineering decision the task of making technology an effective weapon in the fight against climate change will take a lot more than working out funding details and letting the engineers work.

This is an issue not just in the USA but world wide. The recent Copenhagen meeting has shown us that everyone is resisting making any necessary reduction in carbon dioxide air emissions. All prefer someone else to be cut first.

In Canada there are the carbon dioxide producing provinces in the west such as Alberta and the consumers in the east such as Ontario and Quebec.

“At the same the governments of Canada and Alberta are providing significant subsidies for carbon capture and storage, we haven’t even announced an outline for a national approach to reducing greenhouse gases,” says Simon Dyer of the Pembina Institute, an environmental think tank.

In October, Prime Minister Stephen Harper visited a coal-fired power plant west of Edmonton to unveil $779 million in federal and provincial money for a project that could, in about five years, be injecting about one million tons of CO2 deep underground every year.  The previous week, Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt was in Edmonton to announce an $865 million federal-provincial subsidy for a $1.35-billion carbon capture and storage project at the Shell’s Scotford oil sands upgrade.  The companies involved in the projects combined will have to put up about $1 billion of their own money for things to go ahead.  The soonest any of these projects is expected to begin actually storing carbon is Saskatchewan’s relatively small refinery project in 2013. None of the Alberta projects start shooting gas underground until two years later. And that’s if they pass corporate muster, winning approval from the various company boards involved in the work as well as any local resistance from injecting the carbon dioxide into the ground in the first place.

“We don’t have regulations in place to reduce pollution, we’re not investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency,” he says. “It seems like governments are focusing on subsidizing end-of-pipe pollution control at the expense of all the other opportunities out there.”

Environmentalists in Canada point out that other countries, including the United States, are spending far more on renewables and conservation. Without the kind of public support now focused almost entirely on carbon capture and storage, they warn Canada will miss out on the energy opportunities of a post-carbon economy.

Yet renewable sources or conservation are not options that will automatically solve all problems by themselves. Renewable energy sources have their problems too. Many object to the giant wind mills for example as unsightly or dangerous to birds. Hydroelectric dams may cause cause other environmental stress or lose valuable ecosystems to a new lake.

As can be seen there are a number of options available to reduce and control air emissions. The problem in Canada as well as the US and elsewhere is that every option has its supporters often at the detriment of other options. What is needed is a balanced approach that both reduces and controls carbon dioxide air emissions.

Most agree that carbon capture and storage can play a role especially for large industrial emitters that send most of their CO2 out as a single source such as a smokestack. Coal-fired power plants in Alberta and Saskatchewan are natural places for such technology, especially since the geology of two provinces seems to offer plenty of underground formations to stash the gas. Not every site in the world offers such advantages.  These advantages should not be lost as other options are pursued.

The lawyers will be discussing the pros and cons for a long time.

Article by Andy Soos, appearing courtesy of ENN

[photo credit: Vattenfall]

Related posts:

• Carbon Capture Project is Launched at UK Yorkshire Plant
• Improved CO2 Capture Methods Are Investigated
• U.S. Carbon Capture Projects Selected for Further Development
• Report: Carbon Capture Adds 50%+ To Power Cost
• Key CO2 Capture Project Is Suspended by Major U.S. Utility

Amid a growing call for reducing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to 350 parts per million, a group of economists maintains that striving to meet that target is a smart investment — and the best insurance policy humanity could buy.

The climate change news from Washington is cautiously encouraging. No one in power is listening to the climate skeptics any more; the economic stimulus package included real money for clean energy; a bill capping U.S. carbon emissions emerged, battered but still standing, from the House of Representatives, and might even survive the Senate. This, along with stricter emission standards in Europe and a big push for clean energy and efficiency standards in China, provides grounds for hope for genuine progress on emissions reduction.

But while climate policy is finally moving forward, climate science is moving faster. One discovery after another suggests the world is warming faster, and climate damages are appearing sooner, than anyone had expected. Much of the policy discussion so far has been aimed at keeping the atmospheric concentration of CO2 below 450 parts per million (ppm) — which was until recently thought to be low enough to prevent dangerous levels of warming. But last year, James Hansen, NASA’s top climate scientist, argued that paleoclimatic evidence shows 450 ppm is the threshold for transition to an ice-free earth. This would imply a catastrophic rise in sea levels, eventually flooding all coastal cities and regions.

To avoid reaching such a crisis stage, Hansen and a growing number of others now call for stabilizing CO2 concentrations at 350 ppm. The world is now around 390 ppm and rising; since CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a long time, it is difficult to reduce concentrations quickly. In Hansen’s scenario, a phaseout of coal use, massive reforestation, and widespread use of carbon capture and storage could allow the world to achieve negative net carbon emissions by mid-century and reach 350 ppm by 2100.

Can we afford to reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to 350 ppm by the end of this century? To address this question, Economists for Equity and Environment (www.E3Network.org) — a group dedicated to applying and developing economic principles to protect human health and the environment — conducted a study of “The Economics of 350.”

Why the wide range of cost estimates?

At first glance, there is a bewildering range of estimates of the costs of climate protection. Look more closely, however, and there are just a few projections of economic disaster, out in right field by themselves. Other estimates range from modest costs to small net economic gains.

The outliers are the handful of private consultant studies funded by partisan lobbying groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. Using proprietary models (or their own adaptations of standard models), and pessimistic economic assumptions, these studies forecast that even mild U.S. proposals, such as last year’s Lieberman-Warner bill, would cost many thousands of dollars per household and would cause widespread unemployment and economic dislocation. An analysis by journalist Eric Pooley documents the excessive, often uncritical attention given to these studies by the media.

These projections of economic ruin have not been reproduced by any major academic or non-profit research group. Many economic models find that the modest steps called for in recent U.S. proposals would have very small costs and virtually undetectable effects on total employment — as documented in a report by Nathaniel Keohane and Peter Goldmark for the Environmental Defense Fund.

But to reach 350 ppm, we will have to go far beyond the emission reductions considered in recent U.S. proposals. How much will it cost to reach this more ambitious target? Until recently, most economic research focused on higher targets such as 450 ppm or more. There are, however, four major climate economics modeling groups — all at European universities — that have analyzed the costs of reaching 350 ppm.

One group starts from the (realistic) assumption of high unemployment, and finds that long-run employment and economic growth would be

Needed emissions reductions will cost 1 to 3 percent of world economic output, some studies find.

increased by a program of public investment in green technology and emissions reduction that leads to 350 ppm. The other three groups adopt the common assumption that short-run unemployment can be ignored in long-run models. They generally find that the needed emissions reductions will cost an average of 1 to 3 percent of world economic output, for some years to come.

Other studies have reached more optimistic conclusions about costs. McKinsey & Company, an international consulting firm, has carried out detailed studies of the costs of hundreds of emission-reducing technologies. They find that some emissions can be eliminated for no cost or even an economic savings; more than half of worldwide business-as-usual emissions in 2030 could be eliminated at very small total cost. The net costs of reducing carbon emissions (i.e. investment costs, minus the value of energy saved) go down when the price of oil goes up, and vice versa. McKinsey’s entire package of reductions, eliminating more than half of world emissions, would have zero total cost if the price of oil were $90 per barrel.

Studies from major environmental groups, including Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), have reached even more optimistic conclusions than McKinsey. Both Greenpeace and UCS project substantial economic savings from emission reduction, with fuel savings much larger than the costs of investment. Both assume high oil prices — up to $140 per barrel for Greenpeace — along with rapid change in emissions-reduction technologies.

Deciding whether it’s worth the price

The range of cost estimates for reaching 350 ppm, combined with uncertainties about oil prices and future technologies, make it difficult to choose a single estimate of the total economic cost. Suppose that, for the sake of argument, 2.5 percent of world output must be spent on climate stabilization for years to come. Is that an unacceptably large number?

Imagine an economy growing at 2.5 percent every year (a little slower than the recent U.S. average). Suppose it skips one year’s growth — all too easy to imagine in 2009 — and then resumes growing. That makes GDP 2.5 percent smaller than it would have been, forever. So the “skip year” has the same effect as spending 2.5 percent of output on climate protection every year. Household incomes would take 29 years to double, instead of 28.

Alternatively, we know we can afford to devote 2.5 percent of income to protection against a remote but disastrous threat — because we already do,

We can afford to protect the climate, and leave a livable world to future generations.

year after year. In 68 countries, military spending exceeds 2.5 percent of GDP. In the United States and China, the top greenhouse gas emitters, military spending absorbs more than 4 percent of GDP. Both countries would be safer, not more vulnerable, if they diverted half of their defense spending to defense against climate crisis.

The most important conclusion of our research involves what we did not find. There are no reasonable studies saying that a 350 ppm stabilization target will destroy the economy. This is not surprising. The ominous recent research on potential climate damages does not examine the cost of doing something; instead, it looks at the cost of doing nothing about emissions.

If the worst happens, our grandchildren will inherit a degraded Earth that does not support anything like the life that we have enjoyed. On the other hand, if we prepare for the worst but it does not quite happen, we will have invested more than was absolutely necessary — in perfect hindsight — in clean energy, conservation, and carbon-free technologies. Which extreme presents the greater danger?

Climate risk and insurance

Think about climate risk as an insurance problem. You don’t buy fire insurance because you’re sure your house will burn down; rather, you are not, and cannot be, sure enough that it will not burn down. Likewise, projections by Hansen and others of dangerous climate risk from staying above 350ppm CO2 are not certainties; they are necessarily uncertain (although becoming more likely as temperatures rise).

The analogy to insurance is important but inexact; there is no climate insurance company to which the world can hand 2.5 percent of output, if that is what it costs. There is, however, a need for large-scale investment, both in proven emissions-reducing technologies and in research and development.

The role of government in climate policy is not only to set appropriate price signals through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system; the public sector must also guide research on clean energy technologies. Despite free-market mythology to the contrary, this has worked well in the past. Wind power is profitable today as a result of decades of government investment in the United States and Europe. In another arena, the U.S. government essentially invented microelectronics in the 1950s and 1960s: At first, almost all transistors, integrated circuits, and the like were bought by agencies such as the Pentagon and NASA, because no one else could afford them. Just a few decades of massive government purchases of these items turned microelectronics into the premier private-sector success story of the late-20th century, transforming everyone’s life in countless unexpected ways.

The climate crisis challenges us to do it again, to invent the new technologies and industries that will transform life in the mid-21st century and beyond. We know it’s possible: We can afford to protect the climate, and leave a livable world to future generations.

Author Frank Ackerman is senior economist with the Stockholm Environment Institute at Tufts University. He is also a co-founder of Economists for Equity and Environment (E3), and the lead author of E3’s “Economics of 350” study.

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360

[photo credit: pfala]

Related posts:

• Installing Solar Panels and Wind Turbines on Homes is “Eco-Bling”
• Europe Calls for $73 Billion in Energy Research
• Waxman-Markey’s Chevron Redux?
• Natural Gas Use in U.S. To Double in Coming Decades
• New Report Reveals Levels of GHG Emissions in 2009