China to Cancel Project to Turn Coal into Liquid Fuel
by Alex Pasternack, New York, NY 
on 06.12.07
China's plans to put part of its abundant coal supply to use as methanol are likely being scrapped, over concerns about the great costs and energy required to liquefy coal. That coal mining is already quite dirty and that the coal-to-liquid (CTL) process produces large amounts of pollutants and greenhouse gases was not explicitly mentioned by the official who raised the possibility of such a move. "Liquefied coal projects consume a lot of energy, though the successful industrialization of liquefied coal could help reduce the country's dependence on petroleum," the anonymous official of the National Development and Reform Commission told Xinhua on Saturday.
Many, including John at Treehugger, heralded news of China's interest in "a major alternative fuel which does not exist in any other country in the world", that could produce 6 million tons of oil a year starting in 2008, not least because China is not oil rich, is growing increasingly dependent on petroleum, and, of course, has a hell of a lot of coal. Last year, as China's car population skyrocketed, it imported about 16.3 million tons of oil, driving up the country's reliance on foreign sources 4 percent to 47 percent. And despite concerns about its toxicity, methanol also burns cleaner than regular petroleum, and could prove cheaper too if gas prices go higher. Not to mention that it's not ethanol, which China has lately rejected for its threat to the nation's grain supply. In short, methanol seemed like a good solution to China's alternative energy needs...
But the fact is, methanol is highly polluting without the right technology to produce it. A report in April by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said liquid coal could lead to a 119 percent jump in greenhouse gases released per barrel of fuel if production and vehicle emissions were taken into account. At this stage, the technology for clean liquefication, such as carbon sequestration, is far from ready, certainly for China. Nuclear power for refining the oil has been floated as one "clean" option.
Still, no alternative energy is perfect, and China, like the rest of the world, needs some now. Just because the technology isn't there yet doesn't mean that it won't be with the right investment now. China is of course a great place for renewable energy investment (VC investment is up 159 percent this year), what with the government's interest in boosting cleantech innovation and the country's dire environmental situation. But if that investment is going to happen, at least in the case of CTL, it might need to start in the United States. For its part, China (in the wake of its climate change action plan) needs to continue thinking about how to improve energy conservation and efficiency, while gathering domestic and international investment into other alternative energies--and (cough) hopefully move away from coal altogether. : : Associated Press
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Get Behind Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor—60 Green Groups Already Have
- 7 Ways the Troubled Automotive Industry Could Change Your Car and Your Commute
- Green Glossary: Great Wall of Traffic
- 5 Reuses for: Watermelon
- Green Glossary: Bagasse
- Feed 8 Friends for Under $100 with this Green Frugal Feast: Sustainable Fish Fry
Liquefied coal is still a fossil fuel and should be considered off the table in light of the associated greenhouse gas emissions. Clean coal is simply an advertising gimmick. Carbon sequestration technologies are so far off in the future that it is irresponsible to be advocating the use of one of the highest carbon content fuels we know of as an "alternative fuel". I was getting put off by the "clean coal" ads on the site, and this article added to that. This is the classic "its ok to smoke because they will find a cure for cancer soon" argument. With so many known actually green power technologies, using coal is a matter of doing what is cheap today instead of what is cheapest(and wisest) for the longterm. Just because it is abundant and cheap does not mean it is smart to use it. Liquefied coal is a giant leap backward for the environment, you might as well burn the coal directly and save one energy conversion and associated efficiency loses (2nd law of thermodynamics anyone?). From an environmental perspective almost every other fuel, except perhaps oil shale or tar sands, is a better choice than using coal. At least the Chinese government recognizes this and hopefully so will the US gov't. It is really odd that treehugger.com doesn't.
--
Alex responds:
I think we do recognize that CTL is far, far from perfect, especially in China's case; please see the end of the piece.
it would be ironically stupid to think the solution is in coal. it too is obviously fossil and WILL run out no matter how much they think they have. (same with uranium).
temp patches should not be in focus, kinda like hybrids ;) .. dont quote me but i heard if every car was hybrid today, in 5 years we'd be using the same amount of oil as today. besiding the fact it would invoke further newer better technologies.
Anyhow. when figures come out with out much world wide power blows in wind and falls from the sun, i dunno why anyone would still consider burning the sun the fell millions of years ago.
i hope CTL does get cancelled. just as much as i hope oil doesnt peak before we "produce" a fix
China gets it totally right. No coal-to-liquid-fuel and no ethanol from corn. Too bad Obama is supporting CTL. He just is getting bad advice or toadying up to bad people.
FROM MOVEON.ORG - Last week
Stop Liquid Coal
In the next two weeks, Congress could vote to double the amount of greenhouse gases America produces from cars and planes.
It's the greatest single threat to solving the climate crisis in a decade.
Coal is the dirtiest energy, and the technology just doesn't exist yet to burn it cleanly. We can't afford this kind of risk.
A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to your Senators and Representative.
http://pol.moveon.org/stopkingcoal/
At 119% worse in CO2 emissions than even gasoline, I can't imagine why treehugger would even in part of a newspiece imply that its a good thing. Glad its too expensive.
The only king coal that I wanna hear about is Nat King Cole. That man could croon nice and smooth like none other. His Christmas music is a holiday tradition in my family.
Let's get King Solar inaugurated and listen to Sun Ra forever and ever.
At 119% worse in CO2 emissions than even gasoline, I can't imagine why treehugger would even in part of a newspiece imply that its a good thing. Glad its too expensive.