Difference between revisions of "Coal-to-Liquids"
Bob Burton (talk | contribs) (SW: add ref) |
(SW: add CTL study) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Shell is one global oil company that has invested substantially in CTL technology and has developed plants in China, Malaysia and the Netherlands. In July 2008, the Executive Director of Gas and Power for Shell, [[Linda Cook]], told the ''Australian Financial Review'' that while the company had proven the technology works, the economic viability of such projects is not guaranteed. "What's not proven is more on the commercial side and whether you can afford to do those two technologies back to back and have it economically attractive," she said.<ref name="Garvey">Paul Garvey, "Counting cost of converting coal", ''Australian Financial Review'', July 22, 2008, page 18.</ref> | Shell is one global oil company that has invested substantially in CTL technology and has developed plants in China, Malaysia and the Netherlands. In July 2008, the Executive Director of Gas and Power for Shell, [[Linda Cook]], told the ''Australian Financial Review'' that while the company had proven the technology works, the economic viability of such projects is not guaranteed. "What's not proven is more on the commercial side and whether you can afford to do those two technologies back to back and have it economically attractive," she said.<ref name="Garvey">Paul Garvey, "Counting cost of converting coal", ''Australian Financial Review'', July 22, 2008, page 18.</ref> | ||
| − | "You have to build a coal gasification plant and a gas-to-liquids plant, so [it's] very capital intensive. It would work economically in a place where you have low construction cots, where you are relatively close to market, and where you have a lot of low-cost coal reserves. So you can see maybe Australia has some of those ingredients ... On top of being capital intensive, it is also | + | "You have to build a coal gasification plant and a gas-to-liquids plant, so [it's] very capital intensive. It would work economically in a place where you have low construction cots, where you are relatively close to market, and where you have a lot of low-cost coal reserves. So you can see maybe Australia has some of those ingredients ... On top of being capital intensive, it is also CO<sub>2</sub> intensive and I think in today's environment one has to figure into the development of a coal-to-liquids project a means to offset the CO<sub>2</sub> emissions associated with it," she said.<ref name="Garvey"/> |
| + | |||
| + | ==Carbon dioxide emissions== | ||
| + | A study released in October 2008 found that if the United States tried rely on gasoline made from domestic coal as a means of achieving independence from foreign oil, the result would likely be an increase in carbon emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions could actually almost double if natural gas or domestic coal were to replace foreign oil, the researchers found. Even if all potential means of reducing emissions were used, including any future development of carbon capture and storage technologies, the alternative fuels would not provide a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.<ref>[http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/37829/title/Clean_coal_for_cars_has_a_dirty_side "Clean Coal for Cars Has a Dirty Side,"] ''ScienceNews'', October 20, 2008.</ref> | ||
| + | |||
==Articles and Resources== | ==Articles and Resources== | ||
Revision as of 21:34, 21 October 2008
{{#badges: Climate change |CoalSwarm}}Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) is a process of converting coal to fuels such as diesel. The process involves first building a plant to convert coal to gas and then another plant to covert the gas to a liquid.
Shell is one global oil company that has invested substantially in CTL technology and has developed plants in China, Malaysia and the Netherlands. In July 2008, the Executive Director of Gas and Power for Shell, Linda Cook, told the Australian Financial Review that while the company had proven the technology works, the economic viability of such projects is not guaranteed. "What's not proven is more on the commercial side and whether you can afford to do those two technologies back to back and have it economically attractive," she said.[1]
"You have to build a coal gasification plant and a gas-to-liquids plant, so [it's] very capital intensive. It would work economically in a place where you have low construction cots, where you are relatively close to market, and where you have a lot of low-cost coal reserves. So you can see maybe Australia has some of those ingredients ... On top of being capital intensive, it is also CO2 intensive and I think in today's environment one has to figure into the development of a coal-to-liquids project a means to offset the CO2 emissions associated with it," she said.[1]
Contents
Carbon dioxide emissions
A study released in October 2008 found that if the United States tried rely on gasoline made from domestic coal as a means of achieving independence from foreign oil, the result would likely be an increase in carbon emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions could actually almost double if natural gas or domestic coal were to replace foreign oil, the researchers found. Even if all potential means of reducing emissions were used, including any future development of carbon capture and storage technologies, the alternative fuels would not provide a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.[2]
Articles and Resources
Sources
- ↑ Jump up to: 1.0 1.1 Paul Garvey, "Counting cost of converting coal", Australian Financial Review, July 22, 2008, page 18.
- ↑ "Clean Coal for Cars Has a Dirty Side," ScienceNews, October 20, 2008.
Related SourceWatch Articles
External Articles
- Bruce Nichols, "Fuel Your Car With Coal? Less Likely Now", Reuters, October 17, 2008.
| This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it. |
