What It Takes to Be Carbon Neutral
Posted by irsquared on July 9, 2007 at 02:28:15 PM
A popular newspaper in Scotland, The Scotsman, has detailed what it will take for Britain to be carbon neutral within 20 years. I have said before that despite Al Gore's pleas, despite the awareness and scientific consensus on Global Warming, I do not see the world become carbon neutral as long as there are fossil fuels left to burn. Some highlights from the article drive that point home:
Also note that this is only for Great Britain, whose 60 million population is 1/5th that of the U.S. Furthermore, consider that UK citizens already only use half the per capita energy usage of the average U.S. citizen, and it soon becomes clear that carbon neutrality for the U.S., or the world, is a pipe dream. All of the Live Earth concerts in the world aren't going to change that. I fear that carbon dioxide concentrations will continue to climb, and the outcome of this atmospheric experiment is uncertain. Incidentally, there are a number of reader comments following the original article. If you think there is any possibility of realizing such a scheme, a quick review of the comments should put that notion to rest.
Green Future Demands a Radical Shift in Lifestyles for British Meat-free menus, battery-operated cars and an end to affordable flights. These are among the radical visions outlined in a report which says Britain could be carbon neutral within 20 years - but only if major steps are taken to change our lifestyles. Tumble-dryers would disappear and an "armada" of wind turbines would need to be built around the coast to achieve the goal, says the research by scientists from the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT). But there is scepticism as to whether any of the scenarios suggested in the report are achievable. CAT says achieving such a drastic cut in emissions is possible and may be the only way to tackle climate change. Paul Allen, CAT's development director, said: "What we are saying is that we need a huge programme, a bit like the US space project in the Sixties.Now, for some details:
Among the major effects would be that electric, battery-operated cars would quickly overtake use of the internal combustion engine. Households would be forced to invest in ways to make their homes energy efficient, and switch from gas to biofuels or renewable electricity. But there would also be "negative" effects in terms of the lifestyle that people enjoy. Air travel would become far too expensive unless the industry "pulls something out of the hat" and finds a green fuel. And the diet of the country would have to change to include much more organically-grown, locally-produced vegetables, and less meat. The result of the new "carbon economics" would be to cut energy use by half, and this new demand would then be met entirely by a green supply. Tens of thousands of wind turbines would be built, mainly around Britain's shores, to provide 50 per cent of the country's new energy needs. The rest would come from a combination of biofuel "combined heat and power" stations, wave power, hydroelectricity and tidal schemes.Is that realistic? Tens of thousands of wind turbines. An end to air travel. Fewer steaks. Is it achievable? It may be achievable in a dictatorship, but not realistic in a democracy. People are not going to accept those consequences unless they are forced to.
Also note that this is only for Great Britain, whose 60 million population is 1/5th that of the U.S. Furthermore, consider that UK citizens already only use half the per capita energy usage of the average U.S. citizen, and it soon becomes clear that carbon neutrality for the U.S., or the world, is a pipe dream. All of the Live Earth concerts in the world aren't going to change that. I fear that carbon dioxide concentrations will continue to climb, and the outcome of this atmospheric experiment is uncertain. Incidentally, there are a number of reader comments following the original article. If you think there is any possibility of realizing such a scheme, a quick review of the comments should put that notion to rest.
Our Coal-Fired Future
Posted by irsquared on June 6, 2007 at 01:27:47 PM
Introduction
I have stated on several occasions that I believe global warming is a greater immediate threat than Peak Oil. As long as the demand is there, energy companies will strive to supply fuel to the marketplace. To meet the demand, we will develop tar sands, while consuming enormous quantities of natural gas. We will turn natural gas (or even coal) indirectly (and inefficiently) into corn ethanol. Finally, we will turn vast quantities of carbon into fuel via what I term "XTL" technologies. XTL technologies consist of a partial oxidation (POX) reaction followed by the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) reaction. When the POX feedstock is natural gas, this is referred to as a gas-to-liquids (GTL) process. If the feedstock is coal or biomass, this is referred to as CTL, or BTL respectively.
I won't go into a detailed explanation of the POX and FT reactions. What I will give is a quick, layman?s overview. When a hydrocarbon material is burned (e.g. natural gas, coal, biomass, etc.), it can be completely oxidized (combusted) to carbon dioxide and water, or it can be partially oxidized to carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The latter POX reaction is accomplished by restricting the amount of oxygen during the combustion, and it is a potentially deadly reaction should it inadvertently occur inside your home. The resulting mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen is called synthesis gas (syngas) and can be used in the manufacture of an abundance of organic compounds.
The FT reaction is a bit more complex than the POX reaction. You can find in-depth information on the FT reaction here. In short, the FT reaction converts syngas generated via the POX reaction into a distribution of long-chain hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons in the diesel fuel range are very common, making this reaction an ideal way to extend the fossil fuel economy.
The Promise
At present, the economics for GTL are far more favorable than for CTL or BTL. There are enormous reserves of natural gas throughout the world. Worldwide reserves of natural gas are estimated to be 6,200 trillion cubic feet, of which 3,000 trillion cubic feet are estimated to be stranded. (Reserves are considered to be stranded if it is uneconomical or impractical to get them to market.) This is enough stranded natural gas to produce 300 billion barrels of fuel, according to Syntroleum (Warning: It's a 3.4 meg PDF).
GTL is not a pipe dream. The process is technically viable, having been demonstrated on numerous occasions. It is economically viable depending on the price spread between natural gas and oil. Despite the fact that the capital costs for GTL plants are approximately twice those of conventional oil refineries, a number of projects have been announced in Qatar. Plants are being built, and the fuel produced will help supply some of the shortfall that Peak Oil will generate.
The Peril
Of course there is a catch. GTL is not all that efficient. There are efficiency losses during both the POX and the FT processes. It would be far more efficient to run automobiles directly on the natural gas. Due to the fact that the gas is stranded, this is obviously not an option. But the efficiency losses are significant. According to the Syntroleum link, it takes 10,000 cubic feet of gas to make 1 barrel of fuel. 10,000 cubic feet of natural gas contain roughly 10 million BTUs, but a barrel of fuel contains only around 5.5-6 million BTUs. Forty percent of the BTUs are either lost as radiant heat, or turned to steam and consumed in the GTL plant. Unless carbon sequestration is in place (unlikely), all of those BTUs ended up as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. On top of that, the BTUs from the barrel of fuel are going to end up as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere once the fuel is burned in an engine.
The reason I find this more worrisome than Peak Oil is that I believe this path is inevitable, yet the consequences are unpredictable. We will make and use GTL fuel, as inefficient as it may be. Our carbon dioxide emissions are likely to accelerate in our quest to maintain affordable energy. As stranded gas supplies are consumed and GTL production peaks, there is CTL, with the same efficiency problems, waiting in the wings. From my view, the fossil fuel economy will be with us for a long time to come.
Look at the figure below, and think of the experiment we are conducting. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are at their highest levels in human history. The trend in the graph shows a linear increase in atmospheric levels. The trend didn't deviate at all during the oil shocks of the 70's.
Source: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
I believe I can see the foresee the consequences of Peak Oil. It certainly won't be a picnic. But I think I can plan for it, and I believe that we will eventually adjust to a post-oil world. But I can't foresee the consequences of warming the earth up by 5 or 10 degrees C. Humanity has never had to deal with this problem. The Sahara Desert was once lush with vegetation and teemed with wildlife. Consider the impact if this is the fate of the Corn Belt of the Midwest. Yet I see nothing to indicate that we are going to veer from the course we have set.
I have stated on several occasions that I believe global warming is a greater immediate threat than Peak Oil. As long as the demand is there, energy companies will strive to supply fuel to the marketplace. To meet the demand, we will develop tar sands, while consuming enormous quantities of natural gas. We will turn natural gas (or even coal) indirectly (and inefficiently) into corn ethanol. Finally, we will turn vast quantities of carbon into fuel via what I term "XTL" technologies. XTL technologies consist of a partial oxidation (POX) reaction followed by the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) reaction. When the POX feedstock is natural gas, this is referred to as a gas-to-liquids (GTL) process. If the feedstock is coal or biomass, this is referred to as CTL, or BTL respectively.
I won't go into a detailed explanation of the POX and FT reactions. What I will give is a quick, layman?s overview. When a hydrocarbon material is burned (e.g. natural gas, coal, biomass, etc.), it can be completely oxidized (combusted) to carbon dioxide and water, or it can be partially oxidized to carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The latter POX reaction is accomplished by restricting the amount of oxygen during the combustion, and it is a potentially deadly reaction should it inadvertently occur inside your home. The resulting mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen is called synthesis gas (syngas) and can be used in the manufacture of an abundance of organic compounds.
The FT reaction is a bit more complex than the POX reaction. You can find in-depth information on the FT reaction here. In short, the FT reaction converts syngas generated via the POX reaction into a distribution of long-chain hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons in the diesel fuel range are very common, making this reaction an ideal way to extend the fossil fuel economy.
The Promise
At present, the economics for GTL are far more favorable than for CTL or BTL. There are enormous reserves of natural gas throughout the world. Worldwide reserves of natural gas are estimated to be 6,200 trillion cubic feet, of which 3,000 trillion cubic feet are estimated to be stranded. (Reserves are considered to be stranded if it is uneconomical or impractical to get them to market.) This is enough stranded natural gas to produce 300 billion barrels of fuel, according to Syntroleum (Warning: It's a 3.4 meg PDF).
GTL is not a pipe dream. The process is technically viable, having been demonstrated on numerous occasions. It is economically viable depending on the price spread between natural gas and oil. Despite the fact that the capital costs for GTL plants are approximately twice those of conventional oil refineries, a number of projects have been announced in Qatar. Plants are being built, and the fuel produced will help supply some of the shortfall that Peak Oil will generate.
The Peril
Of course there is a catch. GTL is not all that efficient. There are efficiency losses during both the POX and the FT processes. It would be far more efficient to run automobiles directly on the natural gas. Due to the fact that the gas is stranded, this is obviously not an option. But the efficiency losses are significant. According to the Syntroleum link, it takes 10,000 cubic feet of gas to make 1 barrel of fuel. 10,000 cubic feet of natural gas contain roughly 10 million BTUs, but a barrel of fuel contains only around 5.5-6 million BTUs. Forty percent of the BTUs are either lost as radiant heat, or turned to steam and consumed in the GTL plant. Unless carbon sequestration is in place (unlikely), all of those BTUs ended up as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. On top of that, the BTUs from the barrel of fuel are going to end up as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere once the fuel is burned in an engine.
The reason I find this more worrisome than Peak Oil is that I believe this path is inevitable, yet the consequences are unpredictable. We will make and use GTL fuel, as inefficient as it may be. Our carbon dioxide emissions are likely to accelerate in our quest to maintain affordable energy. As stranded gas supplies are consumed and GTL production peaks, there is CTL, with the same efficiency problems, waiting in the wings. From my view, the fossil fuel economy will be with us for a long time to come.
Look at the figure below, and think of the experiment we are conducting. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are at their highest levels in human history. The trend in the graph shows a linear increase in atmospheric levels. The trend didn't deviate at all during the oil shocks of the 70's.
Source: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
I believe I can see the foresee the consequences of Peak Oil. It certainly won't be a picnic. But I think I can plan for it, and I believe that we will eventually adjust to a post-oil world. But I can't foresee the consequences of warming the earth up by 5 or 10 degrees C. Humanity has never had to deal with this problem. The Sahara Desert was once lush with vegetation and teemed with wildlife. Consider the impact if this is the fate of the Corn Belt of the Midwest. Yet I see nothing to indicate that we are going to veer from the course we have set.
About R-Squared Energy Blog
Discussion of the serious energy challenges we face today and in the coming
years.Visit R-Squared Energy Blog
Search this Blog
Recent Posts
Subscribe
| RSS |  |
 |
|
| Yahoo |  |
| Newsgator |  |
| Netvibes |  |
| MSN |  |
