We submit herein yet another proposal from the United Kingdom, defining a method wherein our Carbon Dioxide resource, generated in part as a by-product of our coal-use industries, can be recycled, using environmental energy to help drive the process, and converted into more liquid fuel.
As follows, with comment appended:
"Carbon-neutral jet-fuel re-synthesized from sequestrated CO2
Authors: K. J. Winch; P. N. Sharratt; R. Mann
Affiliation: School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, University of Manchester, UK
Publication: International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, Vol. 1, Issue. 2, June 2008, pp 142-150
Abstract: A chemical pathway combining reverse water gas shift, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and hydro-cracking was considered to re-synthesize jet fuel from CO2 captured at high purity by oxy-fueling of a typical coal-fired power station (Drax, UK). The oxygen for oxy-fueling and hydrogen for the fuel re-synthesis process are sourced by electrolysis of water. According to material and energy balances, 3.1 MT/year of jet fuel and 1.6 MT/year each of gas oil and naphtha can be produced from the Drax annual emissions of 20 MT of CO2, sufficient to supply 23% of the UK jet fuel requirements. The overall re-synthesis requires 16.9 GW, to be sourced renewably from (offshore) wind power, and releases 4.4 GW of exothermic energy giving scope for improvements via process integration. The energy re-synthesis penalty was 82% ideally and 95% on a practical basis. With the cost of offshore wind power predicted to reduce to 2.0 p/kWh by 2020, this 're-syn' jet fuel would be competitive with conventional jet fuel, especially if carbon taxes apply.
The re-use of CO2 sequestered from coal power stations to form jet fuel would halve the combined CO2 emissions from the coal power and aviation sectors."
-------------
Now, you know, that doesn't sound too bad. As our, US, Sandia National Lab proposes, environmental energy, in this case wind power, is proposed as a carbon-neutral source of energy to get the job done.
Not only that, but, as other references we've cited indicate, a part of the total reaction sequence is "exothermic", and can provide a part of the energy needed to drive the entire process.
They specify an "energy re-synthesis penalty" of about 90%. A 90% penalty might not sound all that good. But, consider: Paying to stuff all the CO2 down geologic storage rat holes results in an energy penalty that is infinite. We get nothing back from, there is 0 return on, the cost of pumping the gas to and down a depleted oil well. And, if we divide that cost by the zero return, the penalty is infinite - especially so since there are already, and will be more, laws which mandate eternal maintenance and monitoring, with associated costs, of the CO2 sequestration sites; and, in accordance with at least one law, from Louisiana, we cited for you, potential liability costs for the original producers of the CO2.