I just realized it's been almost a week since I've published a coal-bashing post! This cannot stand.
I'll have to dig back a bit ... ah, here we go: a new study from the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center (CEIC) concludes that investing in plug-in hybrids would be much more sensible, in terms of both GHG emissions and energy security, than commensurate investments in liquid coal. Notes the study, "duh." No, wait, that was me. Here's a juicy pull quote (emphasis mine):
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.
Mike at GreenCarCongress has a detailed rundown on the study's contents.
And finally, via NRDC's new Switchboard blog, this clever advertisement, which NRDC ran in Roll Call in March (click for PDF):
Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 8:48 am
18 Jul 2007
Help, I need new coal-bashing material!
grist.org
Permalink
Rune Posted 12:02 pm
18 Jul 2007
First up, the railroad industry, darling of many environmentalists, is stepping forward as a shill for coal in the Rocky Mountain states.
Railroads putting money on coal despite pollution concerns
GILLETTE, Wyoming - The cloud that hangs over the coal industry for its contribution to global warming has yet to cast a shadow here, across the vast network of railroad lines that haul coal from the sun-baked flats of the Powder River Basin.
Railroads across the country are spending hundreds of millions of dollars buying locomotives, adding track and building cars. Much of the activity is focused on upgrades to the nation's coal transportation network that includes Colorado Springs, and nowhere is the spending as intense as in the Powder River Basin of northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana.
. . .
Coal accounts for 21 percent of industry revenues -- $11 billion of $53 billion in 2006. More than 852 million tons were hauled last year by the major railroads, accounting for almost 80 percent of the coal produced in the United States, according to the Association of American Railroads. Almost all of it went to power plants such as those in the Springs.
So as mining and utility companies wage a public relations campaign to parry rising criticism of their contribution to climate change, railroads are joining the fight. In public speeches, on media tours and in corporate reports, railroad executives are touting the advantages of coal as a low-cost energy source with ample domestic supplies.
Parroting the message of the utility industry, they point out that coal produces an estimated 52 percent of the nation's electricity. They stress future technologies could potentially reduce power plant emissions of carbon dioxide -- a major greenhouse gas. And they remind that rail remains the most efficient way of getting coal from mine to plant.
. . .
These actions have not gone unnoticed. Frank Wilner, an economist with the United Transportation Union, has accused the railroads of going a step beyond coal advocacy, to lobby against legislative proposals for a new tax or other restrictions on carbon emissions. Wilner described the utility, mining and rail industries as "arm in arm, fighting any carbon taxes or any additional costs that might be imposed to clean the coal."
Rail representatives have rejected those claims, arguing they have lobbied for policies favorable to moving coal -- not against environmental regulations that could affect their bottom line. Tom White with the railroad association said the group opposes carbon taxes but is not lobbying against specific legislation at this time.
FULL STORY at Colorado Springs Gazette
In other news, South Carolina is rushing through plans to build a billion dollar coal fired power plant in advance of its own environmental report and against the wishes of the people it will "serve."
S.C. utility pushes for coal plant
Other states choosing more environmentally friendly power sources
Coal-burning power plants have been shelved from North Carolina to Texas recently as concerns rise about pollution, high costs and global warming.
But in South Carolina, state-owned Santee Cooper is forging ahead with plans for a nearly $1 billion coal-fired plant on the Great Pee Dee River.
Conservation groups are outraged. Santee Cooper says it has no choice.
Last month, the company asked government regulators not to wait on completion of an environmental impact study before issuing a critical air permit.
Santee Cooper also held its own public meeting in May to make the case for the plant. Thursday night, company officials spoke at a state-sponsored public hearing about their plans.
The company wants to avoid an "unwarranted, indefinite delay'' that ultimately could cost customers, Santee Cooper president Lonnie Carter said in a June 15 letter to the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control.
Company officials say a coal-fired power plant is the most realistic way to meet a growing demand for power. Last year alone, Santee Cooper added 7,400 new customers. Santee Cooper wants the plant operating by 2014.
"We have a legal obligation to provide power to our customers,'' spokeswoman Laura Varn said. "Growth is increasing at such a rapid pace.''
Critics say Santee Cooper should slow down -- and look at what's happening in other states -- before deciding to build a new plant. .
Because of the link between pollution from coal-fired plants and global warming, many utilities are seeking to develop alternative energy sources and redoubling efforts to be more efficient. Conservation groups want Santee Cooper to do the same.
"You need to squeeze every drop out of the lemon before you build a billion-dollar coal plant,'' said Blan Holman, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center.
Dana Beach, director of the Coastal Conservation League in Charleston, said Santee Cooper has shown little interest in negotiating with environmentalists.
"They have a siege mentality right now,'' Beach said. "They feel like everybody is attacking them on the legitimacy of the plant. They are not realizing these same interests are very happy to work with them toward a collaborative analysis.''
. . .
In Santee Cooper's case, the company wants to build a 660-megawatt plant that would release more than 4 million tons a year of carbon dioxide, environmentalists say.
The company has plans for a second coal-fired plant that could increase those emissions to more than 8 million tons annually, according to the Coastal Conservation League.
That's a concern in the Palmetto State, Beach said.The state has 13 coal-fired power plants and is among the nation's leaders in increasing carbon dioxide emissions since 1990, the Associated Press recently reported. Statewide, coal-fired power plants pump about 30 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air every year, statistics show.
Varn acknowledged the new coal-fired plant will release carbon dioxide, but she said it will control 85 to 97 percent of other major pollutants when compared to older coal-fired plants.
. . .
Varn said Santee Cooper isn't any different from other utilities. It has plenty of incentives and programs to save energy.
In fact, Santee Cooper says it has one of the most successful energy-savings programs in the region.
Company programs include burning landfill gas to produce energy and offering solar water heaters. It also is studying other ways to provide solar and wind energy.
But Varn said fewer than 1 percent of Santee Cooper's customers take part in key energy efficiency programs offered by the company.
"We can't force people to conserve energy,'' Varn said. "There's a dual responsibility with that.''
FULL STORY at The State (of South Carolina)
Sounds to me like South Carolina's government could do more good by forcing people to start conserving energy by beefing up the building code and requiring performance based inspections when houses are sold or built, as California is now doing, rather than throwing up it hands and claiming it must force a dirty coal plant on the people for their own good, even if it kills them.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:48 pm
18 Jul 2007
Permalink
Rune Posted 2:22 pm
18 Jul 2007
Permalink
JohnCaley Posted 9:12 pm
18 Jul 2007
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 1:03 am
19 Jul 2007
Just a couple of observations. The reason the rail industry shills for coal is that they are big transporters of it. One power plant I know of in Texas gets a train of 100 cars of coal every other day, and it comes from Montana.
Also, in practically every area of the country, Amtrak does not own the tracks they run on (the exception is in the NE), but the freight rail companies own them, so their own trains have priority. Also, safety and maintenance standards for freight rails is not as high as for dedicated passenger rails.
The passenger train system is a great way to travel, but the corporations and the government have reduced it to near nothing. If we were smart we would restore and rebuild the system.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:00 am
19 Jul 2007
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/E85ResptoComm ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:03 am
19 Jul 2007
http://greyfalcon.net/lcarough7.png
(^^ And no, I don't think this factors in deforrestation)
_
However theres a misconception that Palm Oil is the only offender when it comes to rainforrest destruction.
When in reality, Soy and Corn play a pretty big role too.
http://greyfalcon.net/soy
http://greyfalcon.net/soy2
Permalink
Kristina & Jason Makansi Posted 3:46 am
19 Jul 2007
Over the last 10 years, many coal-fired power stations switched to a low-sulfur coal available from a vast mine and reserve known as the Powder River Basin (PRB) in Wyoming. This is an energy source that is relatively cheap to mine but expensive to transport. In fact, more than two-third of the cost of a typical trainload of PRB coal goes to the railroad company, not the coal supplier.
In many ways, this switch has proven to be a Faustian bargain. Plants managed to postpone the cost of expensive pollution controls, but usually this coal has less energy content than the coal it replaced, and more pollutants that were not as tightly regulated at the time. In fact, the reason why the coal has less energy is because it contains more water--roughly 3 percent of the material is water. So, put two and two together. We're paying to transport huge quantities of water that eventually end up as water vapor (also a global warming gas, by the way) discharged through the power plant smokestacks.
...Each year, more than 40,000 unit trains carrying PRB coal move around the country. The diesel fuel to power those trains also represents a significant energy impact. Look at it this way: One third of that diesel fuel is moving water because one third of the load is moisture in the coal.
PRB coal supply has not only greatly extended the supply lines for U.S. power stations, it has reduced the efficiency of the plants that burn it and causes them to run in a derated condition, meaning that the plant cannot achieve the electricity output it was designed for....Coal shipments now account for more than 40 percent of the nation's railroad freight by tonnage; 58 percent of the coal-fired power stations in the United States are fed only by rail lines...
By the way, Lester Lave, Professor of Economics and the Co-Director of the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center reviewed Lights Out and said, "Jason Makansi gives us a succinct, insightful view of recent electricity problems. His lively, provocative writing explains the mysteries of the technology, the politics, the regulation, and the market manipulation. Parts of the book may make you mad, but you won't be able to put it down and you will always be learning something."
That's my shameless book plug for the day...
Pearl Street/Jason and Kristina Makansi
Learn more and order Lights Out at http://www.jasonmakansi.com/lightsout_endorsements.html
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:51 am
19 Jul 2007
Water vapor in the tropsosphere (i.e. Greenhouse layer) is dependant on the temperature of the troposphere.
Only if it's a daytime high cloud, or a nighttime low cloud would it cause warming.
And on average, thats not an issue.
Permalink
Kristina & Jason Makansi Posted 5:04 am
19 Jul 2007
But, this is not the point here. The point is simply that there is an awful lot of low-sulfur coal from the PRB that contains a lot of water, and that is being transported increasingly long distances by diesel-powered trains to generate electricity in plants that can't run at their highest efficiencies because they're not designed to run low-sulfur coal that contains a lot of water. This whole process just adds layers of waste, cost, and additional pollution.
I know coal bashing is popular, but we've got lots of it in this country. It currently generates 50% of this nation's electricity. Until we're all ready to go cold turkey and cut our electricity consumption in half, we ought to--at the very least--use it as wisely as is technologically possible. Transporting an inefficient fuel half-way across the continent doesn't seem to fit that bill.
Pearl Street/Jason and Kristina Makansi
Learn more and order Lights Out at http://www.jasonmakansi.com/lightsout_endorsements.html
Permalink
peterfairley Posted 5:05 am
19 Jul 2007
Peter Fairley
Independent Journalist & Author
Editor, Carbon-Nation (http://carbonnation.wordpress.com)
Permalink
Kristina & Jason Makansi Posted 5:19 am
19 Jul 2007
Pearl Street/Jason and Kristina Makansi
Learn more and order Lights Out at http://www.jasonmakansi.com/lightsout_endorsements.html
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:27 am
19 Jul 2007
While it may be Clean, that doesn't neccisarily make it Green.
For instance, CTL Diesel is actually quite Clean.
Despite the fact that it has nearly double the GHG emmisions.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:28 am
19 Jul 2007
Of course power and politics matter, and they may make liquid coal one of the only available paths in China. But that doesn't mean we should endorse it. We should be trying to show China's gov't, just as we try to show our gov't, that cheaper, faster, cleaner means are available, given the political will.
grist.org
Permalink
peterfairley Posted 6:16 am
19 Jul 2007
Your comments are fair enough. China's coal lobby certainly has plenty of clout (although there are signs of a pushback against coal liquefaction, primarily from concern over its outsized water consumption).
I wonder if you could push your argument a little further. Are there "cheaper, faster, cleaner means" available to eliminate the open burning of coal and biomass in homes across China? What alternatives do you propose?
My overall point stands: Different societies are facing different challenges and that they may not agree that greener must equal more climate friendly in every case.
Peter Fairley -- Independent Journalist, Author and Editor of Carbon-Nation
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:11 am
19 Jul 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:33 am
19 Jul 2007
Sure,
1. Household Methane Digesters.
http://www.cityfarmer.org/biogasPaul.html
2. Grass powered stoves
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March07/Barn.pellet.s ...
CNG, Propane, Butane, Diesel for transport.
For the longer term, I'd say that Coal as electricity would be more ideal than turning it into a liquid or gas.
http://aceee.org/pubs/t061.htm
_
Also it's a bit idealist, however given the command and control style of China, and the lack of present infrastructure, perhaps this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoRjz8iTVoo
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:43 am
19 Jul 2007
The tricky part is how to make it happen given the constraints of Chinese gov't, economics, and social dynamics. I'm guessing the Chinese will be better at figuring that out than I will (hell, I can't even figure it out for the U.S.). We can, however, make information about alternatives available to them.
To loop back to the original topic: I wouldn't wish coal on my worst enemy, no matter their circumstances.
grist.org
Permalink
peterfairley Posted 8:16 am
19 Jul 2007
What's more apt for this discussion is that we're not using it ourselves. Until North Americans begin shifting to more sustainable but likely more labor/time-intensive alternatives like methane digesters and bicycles, isn't it a bit much for us to ask the Chinese to make do with them?
RE CNG, Propane, Butane, Diesel for transport: China has limited natural gas and petroleum reserves with which to make these products, hence their increasing reliance on coal.
Don't get me wrong. I agree that there are more desirable options, including solar thermal and wind power. My point is simply that all options need to be considered.
Peter Fairley -- Independent Journalist, Author and Editor of Carbon-Nation
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:07 am
19 Jul 2007
So the only best way to solve that problem is to at very least use it as effeciently as possible.
Heh, dreamworld, I guess that could mean direct carbon fuel cells, operating at 70-80% effeciency.
http://www.llnl.gov/str/June01/Cooper.html
Plus using it as 85% delivered to the motor, and 90% to the wheels.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
Which theoretically would be 53% of the coal energy delivered to the wheels.
____
Rather than only 36% with a fischer tropsch process, 12% loss in transport, with 40% delivered to the wheels (diesel).
For only about %12.672
Half that if it's a gasoline engine.
_____
As much accolades there is about Carbon Capture and Storage, even if we could get it to work, it would be so cost prohibitive that the Chinese wouldn't do it.
As is, they don't even want to install scrubbers donated by the Japanese. (Since it's their air too) Since that would drop down the effeciency of the plants.
So it looks like the only real answer is either:
Coal Gas/Liquid
Coal Electric
Renewable Electric
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:09 am
19 Jul 2007
Permalink