[dohboi]

There will be huge pressures to go this route, in spite of the obviously catastrophic consequences for global warming. Individual Americans may say they care about the future of the earth, but if it interferes with their ability to climb into their cars and go where they want or "need" to go, their concern soon evaporates.

We will continue destroying the earth to keep our insane car culture alive.

And others around the world, particularly in Chindia, are scrambling to imitate our most destructive behaviors.

But I'm sure it will all turn out just fine.

[Graeme]

Yes, it great that you are concerned about CO2. However, they say in the article, quote:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he carbon dioxide produced will be sold for enhanced oil recovery in the region, where CO2 currently is in short supply and oil field needs are significant, he said. After being used to boost oil output, the CO2 will stay underground, he said.

[dorlomin]

Coal to liquid is a very mature technology. Not really any breakthroughs being announced here are there? Its pretty widely assumed that CTL will be big energy player as soon as the capital appears to build the plants. It is actualy the single biggest argument against artificialy high oil prices from OPEC, if they have all that oil and create investment enviroments for the damned coal to be competing with there crude the price would collapse to whatever was set by the amount of coal to liquid available to the market.

The two main arguments against are CO2 and production rates of coal. How much new coal can be brought online and when?

[Graeme]

Good questions. I read somewhere that South Africa provides 30% of its oil requirements with CTL.

In addition, if biofuels can provide 70% of the oil import, who needs crude from the ME!

[joewp]

Oh sure, coal is the answer...

Newcastle Thermal Coal Rises to Record on China Cuts
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Coal prices rose to a record for a third straight week at Australia's Newcastle port, a benchmark for Asia, as snowstorms in China cut exports, adding to supply disruptions in Australia and South Africa.

Power-station coal prices at the New South Wales port gained $9.04, or 7.8 percent, to $125.48 a metric ton in the week ended Feb. 8, according to the globalCOAL NEWC Index. The price rose 73 percent in 2007. European and South African prices rose to a record earlier this month.

[dinopello]

I'm sure this has been discussed before. There is a fair amount of coal, and we are going to use it and the question is what is the best way to use it (least damaging) and as with all limited resources, what are the best things to use it for (priorities). But, you can't find a different way to use the resource and all of a sudden think you have more of it. If you use it for one thing, there will be less available and more expensive for everything else.

[anarky321]

least damaging? to who?

its amazing people are still worrying about the environment when in reality we'll be out of energy way before we do any SERIOUS damage, not to mention the environment will mostly recover in less than a century after we hit bottom

the question shouldnt be "how bad is LTC to the environment" it should be "How long will LTC stave off the inevitable"; its going to be painfully clear soon to even the dimmest bulbs that ethanol is not an option when your populace cant afford to eat

the answer ifor LTC is no more than a decade, not at this rate of energy use, unless there's some serious demand destruction, but then we get into the problem of global economic meltdown which is just as deadly as far as the next 10 years are concerned

the achilles heel of capitalism is the end of growth, the great depression almost killed it in the 30's, this time the situation is at least 10x worse

[dinopello]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anarky321', 'l')east damaging? to who?

[sicophiliac]

I really dont think coal to liquids is necessarily a dirty and polluting way to produce energy, aside from CO2 emissions diesel fuel produced from coal is much cleaner vs oil sourced diesel. If we offset the coal we use now for electricity and instead use solar thermal, pv solar and wind power and nuclear for baseload power then the extra CO2 emitted is essentially neutralized. Great for jet fuel, big rigs and also various other petroleum based products, cars mean while could largely be powered by biofuels/electricity.

[dohboi]

sico, have you been listening to too many of those "increasingly clean coal" industry adds?

James Hansen sees the rapid reduction in coal burning as the most important part of a plan to avert runaway global warming (although it is possible that this is already underway).

We have to move rapidly away from fossil-fuel based energy, not find new ways to use them.

[dohboi]

Oh, and you are obviously not up to date on the latest about bio-fuels. Recent work published in Science pretty well proved that in almost all cases they lead to net increases in global warming gases beyond the fossil fuels they are supposed to replace.

Government support of bio-fuel production has been a huge boondoggle that was very good for a few mega-corporations (adm, monsanto...) and for some agribusiness farmers. But they have been a disaster for the living systems of the earth, already under lethal assault from pollution, global warming, introduced exotic species...

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'G')ood questions. I read somewhere that South Africa provides 30% of its oil requirements with CTL.

[Valdemar]

CTL is essentially what we had before bio-fuels, as Starvid states. It's basically us going in a circle in a misguided attempt to carry on regardless.

Runaway climate change or a few more years running blind. Let the people decide.

[Starvid]

I don't think climate change is going to be that big an issue, especially not "runway". There aren't enough fossil fuels around with a reasonable ROI and EROEI to push CO2 concentrations that high.

The IPCC are ten, a hundred times worse than the USGS when it comes to estimating reserves. Possible because they don't have any geologists around...

[Valdemar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'I') don't think climate change is going to be that big an issue, especially not "runway". There aren't enough fossil fuels around with a reasonable ROI and EROEI to push CO2 concentrations that high.

The IPCC are ten, a hundred times worse than the USGS when it comes to estimating reserves. Possible because they don't have any geologists around...

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t doesn't matter, because runaway climate change is likely already happening.

[dohboi]

Starvid, I'm glad to find you in a shiny, happy mood today.

I am curious to know what you think an ice free summer Arctic Ocean (now predicted by NASA to occur by 2013) absorbing solar energy 24 hours, 7 days a week will mean for the surrounding Siberian and North American tundras.

Do you expect that all that added warmth will slow the already-underway thawing down? Do think it likely that all that melted tundra won't produce any CO2 or methane as it starts to rot?

Or are you of the school that believes that more clouds will form of just the right kind to block out sun but not hold in heat?

Please do lighten my day with more of your sunshiny disposition. I could use it today.

[Temperedoil]

The Coal to Liquids idea is another example of people seeking any way they can, or we can, to continue our high energy, high resource lifestyles, economies, societies. Those of us who check into these message boards may fret about such things as the limitations imposed by availability of energy and other resources once the supply of oil can no longer meet demand, but most people have enough to worry about with getting the kids to school, paying the bills, trying to put some money aside for a rainy day, paying off debt, buying new shoes, and keeping up with the shifting trends in technology, toys, fashion, and holiday destinations.

Even where people are aware of such issues as Peak Oil, Global Warming, shortages of water and food, and so on, these will be considered problems that are not as important or as immediate as putting food on the table at the end of the current day.

The already mentioned issues, and others, have not suddenly appeared in the public consciousness overnight. For example, we had warnings of just how dangerous our very heavy dependence upon a growing supply of oil can be back in the 1970's. That awareness, however, will not lead to a dramatic shift in how we live until either we are forced to adapt to and by the changing circumstances (as is looking likely to happen soon) or our leaders (political, corporate, technology, etc) rapidly implement solutions that will allow us to change as we wish to.

Coal to Oil is an attempt at the latter. Unfortunately, it might at best offer a temporary stop-gap measure before either the supply of coal fails to keep up with demand, or global warming or other crises lead to our being unable to continue with our lifefstyles anyway.

As I see it, the bottom line is that there are no technological solutions, because we are not looking at a technological problem. The solutions lie in lifestyle changes, in greatly reducing our resource (particularly energy) consumption, in radically altering our economies and reorganising our societies. Do we want to do this? Most people in the affluent industrialised nations would say "Only if it means greater affluence", or, in other words, no.

Before we can adapt by choice, we need to make that choice to adapt. Right now, that choice, or will, is not there to a sufficient degree to make it happen.

Will Coal to Liquids make a difference? Will solar power make a difference? Will wave, tidal, wind, nuclear power make a difference? Will intensive exploration of arctic and other frontier prospects make a difference? In my view, only if we collectively have the will to adapt in such a way as to make it possible for them to make a difference. In other words, based upon observation of real people living real lives, the answer is no.

[dohboi]

Temperedoil wrote

"In my view, only if we collectively have the will to adapt in such a way as to make it possible for them to make a difference. In other words, based upon observation of real people living real lives, the answer is no."

Exactly right, but it is not just "your view." It is the clear truth, a truth that is obvious to anyone brave enough and honest enough to look at the situation for what it is. We have to start stating real truths without hedges. This is not a case of everyone having an equally valid point of view.

The only choices are radically and immediately changing our way of life to one which requires much less energy and far fewer resources, or watch as the world spins ever further into climate chaos (which it may be starting to do anyway, in spite of Starvid's cheery, unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, bless his happy, nuke-infatuated soul!)

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dohboi', 'S')tarvid, I'm glad to find you in a shiny, happy mood today.

I am curious to know what you think an ice free summer Arctic Ocean (now predicted by NASA to occur by 2013) absorbing solar energy 24 hours, 7 days a week will mean for the surrounding Siberian and North American tundras.

Do you expect that all that added warmth will slow the already-underway thawing down? Do think it likely that all that melted tundra won't produce any CO2 or methane as it starts to rot?

Or are you of the school that believes that more clouds will form of just the right kind to block out sun but not hold in heat?

Please do lighten my day with more of your sunshiny disposition. I could use it today.