China sells its soul for liquid coal

Nothing is worse for the climate than large scale coal-to-liquids. Not even the tar sands. In September, the Chinese news agency said it would rein in liquid coal plants. A Guardian story yesterday puts the lie to that claim:

A Chinese energy company is poised to open a chemical plant to make liquid fuels for cars and aircraft from coal, a move that has alarmed environmental campaigners who say it will increase carbon emissions and worsen global warming.

The plant, in Inner Mongolia, will use technology developed by Germany during the second world war to convert coal directly into synthetic diesel, dubbed “Nazi fuel”.

Nazi fuel. Has such an inviting ring to it.

The Chinese facility, operated by Shenhua Corporation, will be the first of its type in the world….

A study last year by the Chinese Academy of Sciences said: “Production of liquid fuels from coal is practically the most feasible route to cope with the dilemma in oil supply.”

I agree — if by feasible you mean, “will just about guarantee the end of the planet’s livability by 2100.”

Shame on the schizophrenic Chinese Academy, which in 2005 signed the Academies statement (along with the U.S., Russia, India, Brazil, and major European countries) that called for “substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions” — something that would be quite impossible with widespread use of Nazi fuel liquid coal.

At least two more commercial scale coal-to-liquids plants are under construction in China, although the Chinese government has expressed concern about the possible environmental impact of uncontrolled expansion, and has taken steps to limit the number of smaller facilities.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/21/china-sells-its-soul-for-liquid-coal/

You're supposed to sell your soul for ROCK AND ROLL, not liquid coal!

Who translated this for them? :banghead:

...and I got the blues.

If we are all gonna die we might as well entertain ourselves while we wait - right?

:(

And they can't even make safe dog food........

A prominent Democrat - henceforth to go unnamed - sponsored a bill with a senile old baseball player who happens to serve in the US Senate as a Repuke, to do exactly the same thing.

I don't believe for a New York minute that there is ONE car apologist - including the shits like hydrogen hypercar Amory Lovins - who won't be putting lipstick on this pig in the US.

It's rather disingenuous for people in a 12,000 watt average power consumption country to be criticizing with self righteousness the citizens of a 1,000 watt average power consumption country.

There are a lot of rather stupid fuckheads around who will try to sell you on the stupid notion that you can power your car with a bunch of solar cells.

What they fail to tell you is that the famous yuppie brat Maine Solar House, for instance, produces only as much energy as 134 gallons of gasoline in an entire year.

there was no knowledge of the potential dangers of CO2. So your point is???

Likewise, climate change, which was first discussed by Arrhenius in 1896.

In fact, now that you mention it, King Edward I banned coal burning in England in 1306. He said it was too dirty.

"Actually, some of the environmental damage associated with coal has been known since the 19th century."
There, that's better.
The negatives you are speaking of have absolutely nothing to do with the negatives we are concerned with now; but you knew that before you wrote it, didn't you?

;-)

But what are the consequences of coal to liquids?

IIRC, CTL produces about twice the CO2 per gallon of final fuel as regular gasoline or diesel. The reason is that you have to burn some of the coal to make the steam used in the process. The process is called Fischer-Tropsch, and uses a carbon source and water to produce H2 and CO that are then catalyzed into synthetic petroleum.

The problem is you need to heat the water to make steam, so about half the coal is used for this. The other half goes into the reaction, ands up in the synthetic hydrocarbons that are burned as fuel. So first you burn the coal, then you burn the fuel - voila, excess CO2.

There's a lot of talk about sequestering the CO2 from the first part of the process, but it's still just talk. The only thing that might be as bad as agrifuels is CTL, but for different reasons.

to power the process the coal using a 'cleaner' power source (as is done with tar sands). I don't know of anybody planning on doing that, though.

is being brought to bear on the tar sands?

From a CO2 perspective it's much cleaner than coal. It's even cleaner than natural gas. Wouldn't you agree?

You're joking.....
Right?

You should try it sometime.

millions of acres of our last wild lands for low grade oil?

I don't believe we need it, I'm against it, and I'll fight to prevent you from doing it.

I think your reading comprehension needs a tune up.

But you are on record as being in favor of tearing up our Western lands for uranium to power recovery of low grade oil from Canadian tar sands. I'm in opposition to both of your schemes. My position is to leave the uranium where it lays and leave the tar where it lays. The environmental destruction isn't worth it in either case. I know you can read that, whether you can comprehend it or not.....

But you knew that, of course.

is?

Don't make me laugh.

Ignorance kills.

to recover oil from tar sands?

It doesn't surprise me at all that you are entirely oblivious to the point.

I claim that the anti-nuke cult is by default, nothing more than dangerous fossil fuel apologetics.

that nuclear power is the best way to recover oil from tar sands.

I say there is no best way.

Even if you get the uranium from seawater-- which is pure fantasy--- I still say, leave the tar where it lays.

Once upon a time, I used to be surprised by illiterate children attempt describe what is and is not fantasy.

There is NOT ONE illiterate anti-nuke who is familiar with the chemistry of uranium or, for that matter, the thermodynamics of chemical separations.

It may come as a surprise to the fundie anti-nuke cult, but the tar sands are already being mined.

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/tar/tarsands.html

This is hardly my fault. I'm not some illiterate fundie driving around in Mom's car telling everybody that cars are OK because someday they'll all be powered by some fucking mindless solar fantasy.

that supports your bogus claims.

The economics and the resource dictate that plutonium breeder technology is the direction we will pursue, there is no debate on this point.

Breeder reactors are even more dangerous than regular old fashioned reactors.
Plus they produce weapons grade plutonium.
They are usually favored by nations who use them as part of their nuclear weapons program.
We sure need more of those in the world....

so that we can all have a good laugh....

There are multiple theoretical and in use methods for extracting useful minerals from seawater. It isn't exactly that difficult when you consider that we get many types of product from air at sealevel.

Yes it's 100 percent, grade A industrial to do so. But it sure as hell beats ruining more land.

Yet I think it's quite fair to accept the damage done from extracting Uranium from mines. From what I read on extracting Tar Sands it will be a disaster for the environment as a whole.

Living on this earth comes with the need to accept that you cant say. "No to both" without getting ignored by the many millions of people who take energy for granted and will crave anything to restore it when we run out of "Cheap oil" which some say is closer than ever.

You can say no to nukes and watch as more and more places to drill for oil is approved with glee from the people desperate for its cheap energy.

You can say yes to nukes and accept the miniscule danger they give.. The high initial investment costs.. and the damage done to the local environment when the fuel is mined and burned.

Yet all of this dosent matter because at this rate we wont have time to build 100 new reactors before earth becomes a less pleasant place to live in if you arent rich. We need a way to cleanly remove massive amounts of greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere NOW.

http://pubs.acs.org/wls/journals/query/subscriberResults.html?line1=seawater+uranium&op=searchJournals&yearrange4=true&field1=abs%2Catl%2Ctitle&Submit=Search

Let me guess: All this so called "evidence" and "facts" may be interesting, but they are irrelevant...

Alternatively, of course, you have absolutely no interest at all in anything resembling science, and prefer to get all "your" opinions from op-eds.

Gee, I wonder which it is. :eyes:

You say that nuclear energy is your Preferred way of boiling out the tar sands underlying some of our last wild places, and that seawater is your PREFERRED source of uranium.

I say, leave the tar where it lays.

I also say that no uranium is being obtained from seawater. All uranium is obtained by tearing up the earth in obscene ways.

I have asked you to show me where any uranium has been obtained from seawater, and you couldn't do it.

Corect?

I'd rather leave all fossil fuels in the ground. Period. I would, however, remind you that when Pidwidgeon pointed out that the solution is not to have cars, you compared him to Rush Limbaugh.
DainBramaged got it.
Xithras got it.
OLTG got it.
Salien got it.
You think he's http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=134206&mesg_id=134447"> psychotic. Cute.

So tell us, Mr I-can-drive-my-Prius-forever, what do you intend to run it on? Abiotic oil? Biofuel? If everybody is attached to their car as you are, you can bet your arse we'll wind up with liquefaction of some sort - In which case yeah, let's do it with as little impact as possible.

Or we could level the remaining forests, of course. Does that sound like fun to you?

If, on the other hand, you might actually consider giving up your Prius and getting a bicycle or working from home, maybe we can leaving the tar sands alone. Your call.

As for uranium from seawater, I linked you to 20 papers from people who have been doing it for years. Just from one publication. But, like a creationist confronted with a fossil, you simply ignore any facts that don't fit your predetermined conclusions.

Frankly, that's your problem, not mine.

Would you have us believe that uranium mining is a thing of the past? That is not true. In fact the methods of uranium mining are becoming more and more environmentally destructive as we run out of the last good ore. You described nuclear energy as a "clean" way to rape the West for tar sands. There is no excuse for it, in my opinion, and most of us know that nuclear energy is not clean. Continuing to assert that we can get uranium from seawater is the saddest trick you learned from Nnadir. It just ain't so.

I'm surprised that you want to rehash a thread where you and Dick Cheney's merry men ridiculed the auto industry for moving to hybrid technology. We all know that hybrids are already getting up to 100 miles per gallon. We also know that the range of all electric vehicles is increasing, and you can charge them from solar panels on your roof. So how does that justify raping the West for tar sands or uranium, either one? It doesn't.

Your arguments don't hold water. Seawater, or any other kind....

In my view you really ought to get that help.

And while you are at it why not get learned about mineral extraction from seawater and about radioactive element abundance on earth and its origins throughout the history of earth.

The only fantasy here in my view seems to be your fantasy world of peter pan free energy and free respect without having to do any kind of homework. You have proven in my view that you will not accept any kind of evidence if it refutes your fantasy world so you lash out with more idiocy.

You can get many types of minerals from seawater. Filter enough seawater and you have a pound of gold. It's not that difficult to understand that ocean water contains small amounts of all sorts of stuff.

And you COMPLETELY in my view do not understand the type of energy needed to power a vehicle with any kind of safety factor. Unless you can pull a full size sedan with a solar roof that can give you 200 miles in 4 hours with no gas out of your hat it is complete crap.

BTW did I mention that in my view I think you need to get help? Well let me say it again.

In my view I think you need help.

Just like the people pushing Intelligent Design..

What on earth man?! Are you that messed up?

If you do not want to have anything resembling a sort of realistic debate (You know where you atleast go over the bold parts of the papers and try to look up the words you dont understand) then go back to your fantasy world! Let me guess? (Not assume! guess!) A fantasy world where all we have to do to eat is go outside and look lovingly at a plant and all we have to do to move around is think happy thoughts like that wonderful Disney movie? Grow Up and face the horror that is modern society like we all have had to.

This is earth which has to support 6 billion people without that fantasy magic and that are growing at an insane rate which you have no right to say they need to slow down. And of those 6 billion and growing people there is a percentage who is addicted to cheap oil and wont give a flying damn about anything unless it has low investment and cheaper bills for them NOW!

I ask you! Tar sands/Coal or Uranium? Unless you can suddenly use magic to "Appear" enough fields of solar panels and wind turbines fully equipped with batteries to supply over 50 percent of the grid and lines within a year or two the people I spoke of above will say "both" like a spoiled kid in a cake shop.

Keep in mind that environmentalism will QUICKLY die when people start getting withdrawal syntoms over the loss of cheap oil. They will cry out for 100 percent extraction of Alaska and every spot of the US of A that has more than 10 barrels of oil. And the few environmentalists able to afford their love at that point will be unable to say anything to stop the call and response as the gov will gleefully approve drilling to "help the economy"

Again it dosent even matter WHERE they get the Fission fuel from at this rate. Because the time for acting like an idiot in denial as some on earth do is OVER. You ought to be happy the Anti-nuke folks diddnt kill more reactor projects else things would be far worse for earth.

> Keep in mind that environmentalism will QUICKLY die when people start
> getting withdrawal syntoms over the loss of cheap oil. They will cry out
> for 100 percent extraction of Alaska and every spot of the US of A that
> has more than 10 barrels of oil. And the few environmentalists able to
> afford their love at that point will be unable to say anything to stop
> the call and response as the gov will gleefully approve drilling to
> "help the economy"

Don't forget the rush to "take advantage of the opportunity" that the
melting arctic ice-cap has provided ...

:banghead:

Especially in comparison to a breeder reactor's production of plutonium.

http://jolisfukyu.tokai-sc.jaea.go.jp/fukyu/mirai-en/2006/4_5.html

As you'll see, the cost is still higher than normal mining, which is why is hasn't taken off - from a purely economic POV, it doesn't make sense. Only when you take into account non-dollar values (like not have a big mine in the middle of a desert, or security of supply), does it become more attractive than the conventional methods. I believe the Japanese are planning a commercial extraction plant in the few years, but you'd have to hit google for confirmation.

you "believe?"
Well, everybody's got to believe in something.....

I'll save you the time, it doesn't. The cost factor favors breeder reactors so strongly that there is not even a discussion on the topic. That is the main obstacle to most informed people jumping on the nuclear bandwagon at this time. It doesn't make sense to build uranium facilities with the current economics of the resources, and plutonium is just so damned nasty - not to mention that security vulnerabilities associated with shipping for recycling.

These only address initial uranium extraction, not the reactor type or fuel cycle thereafter. I like the idea of a thorium cycle, btw, but I can't help feeling we're running a little late in the day with no working prototype.

Although as GG points out, nuclear is an option (or possibly hydro, in Canada at least).

To my knowledge there's no way to use tar sands as fuel directly, although I wouldn't be surprised it someone was looking at it... :scared:

Leave our last wild places alone.

Pointing out there are different levels of dumb-fuckery doesn't mean I'm favour of any of them.

Of course, whether that means we'll avoid all them is another question entirely.

ought to clue these DUers that the idea is insane.


The age of oil is nearing the final note.

No way in hell that many nukes will ever get built in ALberta, its a pipe dream.

Last year a B-52 was flown in liquid fuel from Coal, so how does the plant get to be the first of its type....

The Chinese facility, operated by Shenhua Corporation, will be the first of its type in the world….

is forming a reluctant partnership with nuclear. The urgency of the CO2 buildup is forming an unlikely alliance. You guys are debating nonissues. I see that NNadir is contemptuous of Lovins. Well, I don't agree with everything he has said either, but the Wedge Strategy he has written about is the same place any comprehensive evaluation of the greenhouse gas problem leads us. The choice is stark and simple, choose the route of least damage from existing technologies, or wait while the search for a silver bullet solution continues. Both directions have risks and positive arguments.
Those most familiar with the climate science, however, are trending strongly towards immediate action with existing technologies.

Every main stream environmental organization is opposed to nuclear power.
There is no "partnership with nuclear," reluctant or otherwise.

I really wasn't talking about grass roots organizations that represent broad public opinion. I'm talking about policy scientists and physical scientists who are working in the environmental area. The general thinking is that we proceed with dedicating resources to combat climate change in the least to most order of negative environmental impact.

Wind is tops on the list, then solar (pending increased production and technological improvements) and then nuclear. That gives a little more time to work on negative associated with breeding plutonium. There are a lot of reasons for this view of sequencing and most of them have to do with public perception of risks and or resource availability.

That should tell a rational person something.

You know libel could mean a lawsuit these days.

Edit: Than maybe again you need a lawsuit thrown at you by an organization to get you out of this peter pan fantasy world (In my view, haha legal protection) you seem to inhabit and think the real world is supposed to be. (in my view)