<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Coal-to-liquid is a dead end if there’s a price on CO2]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Iredeu http://www.grist.org/article/ctl-follies/ Sun, 09 Sep 2007 19:38:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ctl-follies/1 Romm is a CTL fool

To say that CTL is not cost effective without a good price for CO2 is ridiculous, because the cost effectiveness of CTL has been determined WITHOUT the additional revenue stream for CO2.
CTL is profitable with an oil price of 40 to 45 dollars per barrel. Add an extra revenue stream and the picture becomes even better.
CTL (with CO2 sequestration) is inevitable, and will be very big in the US.
There is NO other solution to keep transport going when the second leg of rising oil prices brings it to 100 dollars and beyond. Be a patriot and help CTL (with CO2 sequestration) along, don't help bringing the US society down by working against it.
You may not know it, but you have no option!



]]> Romm is a CTL fool

To say that CTL is not cost effective without a good price for CO2 is ridiculous, because the cost effectiveness of CTL has been determined WITHOUT the additional revenue stream for CO2.
CTL is profitable with an oil price of 40 to 45 dollars per barrel. Add an extra revenue stream and the picture becomes even better.
CTL (with CO2 sequestration) is inevitable, and will be very big in the US.
There is NO other solution to keep transport going when the second leg of rising oil prices brings it to 100 dollars and beyond. Be a patriot and help CTL (with CO2 sequestration) along, don't help bringing the US society down by working against it.
You may not know it, but you have no option!



]]> Comment #2 by justlou http://www.grist.org/article/ctl-follies/ Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:56:43 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ctl-follies/2 Joseph, Thanks!

Thank you for presenting this testimony before Congress!  
Lou

]]> Joseph, Thanks!

Thank you for presenting this testimony before Congress!  
Lou

]]> Comment #3 by samircmi http://www.grist.org/article/ctl-follies/ Mon, 10 Sep 2007 01:35:47 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ctl-follies/3 Carbon Neutral with Biomass Co-gasification

Co-processing coal and biomass could reduce carbon emissions from synthetic fuels. The use of coal gives you the scale economies needed for these types of plants as well as the ability to use existing technology (co-gasification with biomass is already being done) and the biomass input with carbon capture and storage gives you negative emissions which brings the overall emission rate down to near-neutral thus making this approach viable in a carbon-constrained world.


With CCS, the GHG emission rate for coal F-T liquids could be reduced to about the rate for crude oil-derived fuels. The net GHG emission rate could be reduced further, to near zero, via coprocessing biomass and coal with CCS so as to exploit the negative emissions of storing photosynthetic CO2. At a carbon price of $100/tC the co-processing option is the most economically attractive of all the options considered for F-T liquids production and requires far less net biomass input to realize near zero GHG emissions than conventional biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol.
If the CO2 captured in F-T or IGCC plants were used for CO2-EOR, the economics of CO2 capture and storage would often be attractive even at a carbon price of $0/tC. CO2-EOR  pportunities in the USA (and perhaps elsewhere) are sufficiently large to make the CO2-EOR application an attractive way to gain extensive near-term experience with gasification-based energy and CCS technologies and the opportunity to "buy down" the costs of these technologies substantially as a result of learning by doing.

http://www.princeton.edu/~ssuccar/Williams_Pres_NETL_2007 ...

http://www.princeton.edu/~ssuccar/Williams_GHGT8_2006.pdf ...




]]> Carbon Neutral with Biomass Co-gasification

Co-processing coal and biomass could reduce carbon emissions from synthetic fuels. The use of coal gives you the scale economies needed for these types of plants as well as the ability to use existing technology (co-gasification with biomass is already being done) and the biomass input with carbon capture and storage gives you negative emissions which brings the overall emission rate down to near-neutral thus making this approach viable in a carbon-constrained world.


With CCS, the GHG emission rate for coal F-T liquids could be reduced to about the rate for crude oil-derived fuels. The net GHG emission rate could be reduced further, to near zero, via coprocessing biomass and coal with CCS so as to exploit the negative emissions of storing photosynthetic CO2. At a carbon price of $100/tC the co-processing option is the most economically attractive of all the options considered for F-T liquids production and requires far less net biomass input to realize near zero GHG emissions than conventional biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol.
If the CO2 captured in F-T or IGCC plants were used for CO2-EOR, the economics of CO2 capture and storage would often be attractive even at a carbon price of $0/tC. CO2-EOR  pportunities in the USA (and perhaps elsewhere) are sufficiently large to make the CO2-EOR application an attractive way to gain extensive near-term experience with gasification-based energy and CCS technologies and the opportunity to "buy down" the costs of these technologies substantially as a result of learning by doing.

http://www.princeton.edu/~ssuccar/Williams_Pres_NETL_2007 ...

http://www.princeton.edu/~ssuccar/Williams_GHGT8_2006.pdf ...




]]>