Score One For the Stupid Fuel: Ohio Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Plant Gets Final Permitting
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY 
on 11.25.08
image: Baard Energy
Here’s a first for the United States that isn’t so great for the environment... I'm sure Baard Energy is thrilled.
The final permits required to build Ohio’s first coal to liquids fuel plant have been granted. This gives the regulatory go ahead for Baard’s planned construction of the Ohio River Clean Fuels project, a $6 billion 53,000 gallon per day facility which will convert a mixture of coal and biomass to diesel, jet fuel and naphtha. The plant will be located on the Ohio River in Wellsville, Ohio.
Baard further describes the procedure:
Coal & Biomass Turned Into Syngas, Then Fuel
The plant, when fully constructed, will blend coal and biomass and gasify this feedstock to produce a pure stream of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This stream, call synthesis gas, or “syngas” will next be converted in a Fischer-Tropsch (FT) section and produce ultra-clean, renewable diesel & jet fuel as well as naphtha, a low-octane gasoline that will be used as a feedstock in the chemical industry.
The plant is expected to be constructed in three phases, with the first phase to be completed in 2012 and the facility full completed by 2015.
Coal-To-Liquids Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Despite this project’s name, let’s not forget that coal-to-liquids is hardly a clean process. In fact the greenhouse gas emissions of burning diesel created from this process are about 50% higher than burning conventionally-produced diesel fuel. And even if 90% of the emissions from the plant itself were sequestered, the well-to-wheels emissions of diesel produced from coal would still be 8% higher than conventionally produced diesel. Not only that, but coal-to-liquids consumes three times as much water as does making conventional gasoline.
Still wondering why TreeHugger once called coal-to-liquids The Stupid Fuel?
More at: Baard Energy (press release)
via: Reuters
Unconventional Fuels
Air Force Asks Wall Street Investors for Coal-to-Liquids Money
Coal-to-Liquid Diesel Fuel: A Bipartisan Issue That Unites Environmentalists With Farmers
Liquid Coal: The Stupid Fuel
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Why Do Some States Have Significantly Lower Carbon Emissions Than Others?
- Obama Swats a Fly Ninja-Style; PETA Gets Fired Up (Video!)
- Does Recycling Really Make a Difference?
- Convenient, Tasty, Healthy Water is Only a Tap Away
- We Love 5min.com for Simple DIY Solutions
- Pearl Jam Offsets Their Tour: Rock Out Guilt-Free
It powered Germany through a world war, how bad could it be?
It makes more sense than grain ethanol, which is barely energy positive and requires a new fuel distribution infrastructure.
And it is 100x more sensible than hydrogen as a fuel.
In the end, though, all fuels will lose to electricity.
Looks like permitting was fast-tracked by state and federal agencies with the assistance of elected politicians. Surely not because of a changing admistration in Washington?
It's not going to sequester CO2. Gotta hope this is the last coal to liquid fuel project allowed ( unless someone figures out a way to actually sequester CO2 in a practical way ). DB
You said: "It powered Germany through a world war, how bad could it be?"
You *are* kidding here, right vboring? No alarm bells ringing?
"It makes more sense than grain ethanol, which is barely energy positive and requires a new fuel distribution infrastructure. And it is 100x more sensible than hydrogen as a fuel."
Corn ethanol is silly, but that does not mean all processes by which ethanol might be produced are or will be uneconomic and anti-environmental. Since the process is removing hydrogen from coal, how can it be less (or more) sensible than hydrogen as a fuel.
"In the end, though, all fuels will lose to electricity."
Electricity is not a fuel, but a form of energy that must be produced/harvested via industrial inputs and machines, and which may require storage.
"Not only that, but coal-to-liquids consumes three times as much water as does making conventional gasoline"
You seem to disapprove of coal to gas tech.
Does this mean you will now support drilling in ANWR and coastal US waters?
OR
Does this mean you will continue to support bloodthirsty (or at least real mean and corrupt) oil dictators coupled with massive transfer of wealth to said bad guys?
(sarcasm off)
It is going to be a while before the US can convert to an electric economy, worst yet, the bulk of our electric generation capacity is powered by (gasp) coal.
I have a suggestion - maybe a bit wild - but a suggestion. Nuke plants to replace the coal burning plants for electric generation, someday fusion may arrive to save the day - but until then, we are stuck. CNG as a motor fuel would be another good temporary measure, but unlikely to happen for lack of supporting infrastructure.
The plant in question will not be on line until 2012, by then, it may fail to finish for lack of credit, carbon taxes, or even a lack of market for its product.
Man, why must I live in a state about as green as coal itself.
I'm excitedly waiting all the changes in technology and availability of vehicles in the near future!!!