http://www.netl.doe.gov/
"“…this has been our pattern. We go from shock to trance...oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up, everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back down and suddenly we act like it's not important, and we start… filling up our SUVs again. And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It's part of the addiction, all right…that has to be broken. Now is the time to break it.' President-elect Barack Obama, “'60 Minutes' interview, November 16, 2008."
As now-President Barack Obama knew, back in 2008, as witness his co-sponsorship of :
Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 (2007; 110th Congress S. 155) - GovTrack.us;
America has everything in hand she needs to break the economic stranglehold the nations that now comprise OPEC have had on the United States of America since the later 1970's. America's vast reserves of Coal can help us to break our "addiction" to imported oil, which addiction is just as hurtful, economically and socially, to our nation as would be an expensive drug addiction to an ordinary family of US citizens.
And, as can be seen in:
The Green Gripe With Obama: Liquefied Coal Is Still . . . Coal.; "The coal industry praises Obama's reintroduction, with Senator Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 last week, which would provide incentives for research and plant construction. The industry says the technology, which converts coal into diesel engine fuel, would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil through a new, home-mined fuel that burns as cleanly as gasoline";
Obama's support of Coal liquefaction was acknowledged both by the press and, supposedly, the "coal industry" itself, in the world outside of the insular enclaves of our US Coal Country press, and by those "green gripers" whose thoughts about Coal aren't any deeper than that it's just another dirty four-letter word.
Further, as we documented in:
West Virginia Coal Association | USDOE 2011 Coal to Economical Zero-Sulfur Diesel Fuel | Research & Development; concerning: "Production of Zero Sulfur Diesel Fuel from Domestic Coal: Configurational Options to Reduce Environmental Impact; December 2011; DOE/NETL-2012/1542; U.S. Department of Energy; DOE Contract Number DE-FE0004001; NETL Contact: Thomas J. Tarka, P.E.; Office of Strategic Energy Analysis & Planning; National Energy Technology Laboratory; Prepared by: Energy Sector Planning and Analysis (ESPA); Charles White (and) David Gray, Noblis; Summary: The conversion of domestic resources such as coal and biomass into diesel fuel is a near-term technology pathway to address the energy security, economic sustainability, and climate change concerns which currently face our nation. This study evaluates the economic viability and environmental impact of producing diesel fuel via Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis. Two facility design approaches - focused on fuels production and the co-production of fuels and electricity, respectively - were evaluated for the conversion of domestic resources such as coal or a mixture of coal and biomass. It was found that diesel fuel can be produced from coal that has a lower life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions profile than conventional petroleum-derived diesel fuel on a well-to-wheels basis";at least one supposedly non-political branch of our United States Government was, while all the politicking was going on, quietly, too quietly, going about the business of demonstrating that Coal, in combination with renewable resources, can be converted into liquid hydrocarbon fuels in ways which result, in total, in less emission of "global warming", and other, pollutants than the OPEC juice we now mortgage our grandchildren's future to keep ourselves supplied with in the here and now.
And, herein, we see that, at about the same time, our USDOE was also demonstrating the fact, that, not only could Coal and Biomass be converted into clean liquid hydrocarbon fuels, they could be converted into such fuels that we would actually be able to fit into our family budgets.
Comment follows excerpts from the initial link in this dispatch to:
"Affordable, Low-Carbon Diesel Fuel from Domestic Coal and Biomass
(Note: We have concerns about the reliability of link to this report enclosed above. We have downloaded the file of the report, and will be transmit it separately to the West Virginia Coal Association, should any problems arise with the link.)
January 14, 2009
DOE/NETL-2009/1349; Energy Systems Engineer Office of Systems, Analyses, and Planning National Energy Technology Laboratory
Prepared by: Thomas J. Tarka, P.E. USDOE National Energy Technology Laboratory, et. al.
Acknowledgements: Special mention is also due to Dr. Robert Williams and his team at the Princeton Environmental Institute for their guidance and early analysis and persistent advocacy of the significant advantages of the Coal and Biomass to Liquids (CBTL) process.
(Concerning the above mention of the Princeton Environmental Institute, as we've several times documented, as, for instance, in our report of:
West Virginia Coal Association | Princeton University November 20, 2012 CO2 to Ethanol | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 8,313,634 - Conversion of Carbon Dioxide to Organic Products; Date: November 20, 2012; Inventors: Andrew Bocarsly and Emily Barton Cole; Assignee: Princeton University, NJ; Abstract: The invention relates to various embodiments of an environmentally beneficial method for reducing carbon dioxide. The methods in accordance with the invention include electrochemically or photoelectrochemically reducing the carbon dioxide in a divided electrochemical cell that includes an anode, e.g., an inert metal counterelectrode, in one cell compartment and a metal or p-type semiconductor cathode electrode in another cell compartment that also contains an aqueous solution of an electrolyte and a catalyst of one or more substituted or unsubstituted aromatic amines to produce therein a reduced organic product. (The chemical) reduction of CO2 (as fully disclosed herein) can suitably yield formaldehyde, formic acid, glyoxal, methanol, isopropanol, or ethanol, depending on the particular aromatic heterocyclic amine used as the catalyst. In other words, in accordance with the invention, the products of the reduction of CO2 ... can be selectively produced";
the good people at Princeton University have been quietly doing some wonderful things for Coal Country, and for the entire United States of America. What we haven't yet reported to you, a deficit in our coverage of these issues we will eventually get around to correcting, is that Princeton scientists have gotten their hands dirty working, and accomplishing some worthy goals, with some of our good old Coal, as well as with nice, clean Carbon Dioxide.)
Executive Summary: The United States of America is currently faced with competing strategic objectives related to energy: energy supply security, economic sustainability, and concerns over global climate change.
(Note: The quote from President Obama with which we opened this dispatch is excerpted from the Executive Summary. We won't reproduce it again, but the authors make reference to it.)
As President-elect Obama alludes, the transportation sector is at the crux of this dilemma: high fuel price volatility directly affects the health of our economy and economic competitiveness, roughly two thirds of our transportation fuels are imported, and transportation is responsible for more carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than any other end-use sector of our economy.
Coal to Liquids (CTL) is a commercial process which converts coal into diesel fuel, producing a concentrated stream of CO2 as a byproduct. Coupling the process with carbon sequestration is relatively inexpensive (adding only 7 cents per gallon to the Required Selling Price (RSP) of the diesel product) and results in a fuel with appreciably less (5-12%) life cycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions than the average U.S. petroleum-derived diesel.
(The statement that "Coal to Liquids (CTL) is a commercial process" is irrefutable. As we've documented, in:
West Virginia Coal Association | China Makes "Huge Profits" from Coal Liquefaction | Research & Development; concerning the Chinese news report: "'China Coal Producer Reaps Huge Profits From CTL Project'; Shenhua Group, China's largest coal producer, has made huge profits from its pilot coal-to-liquid (CTL) project in north China in the first three months of this year, a company executive said"; and:
West Virginia Coal Association | US EPA Recommends Coal Liquefaction as a Clean Alternative | Research & Development; concerning: "'Clean Alternative Fuels: Fischer-Tropsch'; United States Environmental Protection Agency; EPA420-F-00-036; March 2002; A Success Story (!) For the past 50 years, Fischer-Tropsch fuels have powered all of South Africa’s vehicles, from buses to trucks to taxicabs. The fuel is primarily supplied by Sasol, a world leader in Fischer-Tropsch technologies. Sasol’s South African facility produces more than 150,000 barrels of high quality fuel from domestic low-grade coal daily. The popular fuel is cost-competitive with crude oil-based petroleum products in South Africa";
any number of truth-privileged, informed
This diesel fuel is compatible with our current fuel distribution infrastructure, can be used directly in existing diesel vehicles, and would be economically competitive with petroleum-derived diesel when the crude oil price (COP) is equal to or above $86 per barrel (bbl), based on a twenty percent rate of return ...
The price of Oil closed yesterday, March 12, 2013, at $92.59 per barrel. And, all informed projections we've seen have it at over $100 per barrel within the year. And, the bulk of that money heads overseas. Further, the above statement of competitiveness is based on a "twenty percent rate of return". If we could turn our backs on OPEC and put more of our own people to work, why wouldn't we settle for ten percent?)
This same basic process can be used to leverage domestic and widely available biomass (non-food) resources. For example, a mixture of eight percent (by weight) biomass and ninety-two percent coal – Coal and Biomass to Liquids (CBTL) – can produce fuels which are economically competitive when crude prices are equal to or above $93/bbl and which have 20% lower life cycle GHG emissions than petroleum-derived diesel.
(It) is anticipated that CTL and CBTL with modest biomass percentages (less than thirty percent by weight) would, as a part of the United States’ energy portfolio, provide a balanced solution to the nation’s transportation fuel dilemma, providing affordable fuels from domestic feedstocks, and enabling significant reductions in GHG emissions.
Furthermore, a national commitment to promote the use of CTL and CBTL would have a tremendously positive impact on the economy, creating skilled jobs and reducing the amount of money sent overseas for oil imports, valued at $326 billion in 2007 and between $400 and $500 billion in 2008.
The production of domestic diesel would also improve the economic competitiveness of domestic industries by easing supply constraints associated with diesel fuel, thereby reducing overhead costs associated with high fuel costs.
Should oil prices resume their upward trend, the benefits of CBTL to the nation could be enormous.
This study evaluates the use of the United States’ abundant domestic resources to address the concurrent strategic objectives of energy supply security, economic sustainability, and the mitigation of global climate change. Addressing these objectives in the transportation sector is of particular immediate concern based on the high level of petroleum imports for this sector and recent high oil price volatility which negatively impacts both the health of the economy and economic competitiveness.
Moreover, the vast distributed nature of point sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within transportation, a sector accounting for over a third of the country’s total emissions, renders emission reduction inherently difficult. The indirect liquefaction of coal is a near-term pathway that allows these objectives to be achieved.
This Coal to Liquids (CTL) process uses three existing technologies – carbon capture, gasification and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis – to convert coal to diesel fuel, producing a concentrated stream of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a byproduct. In other words, carbon capture is already part of the process. The results of a detailed modeling effort by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) show that when coupled with carbon sequestration, the overall process produces a product that has significantly less (5-12%) life cycle GHG emissions than the average U.S. petroleum-derived diesel. These fuels are economically competitive with petroleum-derived diesel when the crude oil price (COP) is at or above $86 per barrel (bbl) (based on a twenty percent rate of return, in January 2008 dollars, carbon price is zero). When carbon prices increase, the Required Selling Price (RSP) falls.
This same process can be used to leverage domestic biomass (non-food) resources. When an 8 percent by weight (8wt%) biomass feed is co-gasified with coal, the resulting process – Coal and Biomass to Liquids (CBTL) with carbon sequestration – can produce fuels which are economically competitive at crude prices above $93/bbl and which have 20% lower life cycle GHG emissions than petroleum-derived diesel. Based on these findings, CTL and CBTL with modest amounts of biomass (less than 30% by weight) would provide a balanced solution to the nation’s energy dilemma, producing affordable fuels from domestic feedstocks and enabling significant reductions in GHG emissions.
Furthermore, a national commitment to promote the use of CTL and CBTL would, at large scale, greatly benefit the economy, creating highly technical jobs and reducing the amount of money sent overseas for oil imports, estimated at $326 billion dollars in 2007 and between $400 and $500 billion in 2008.
The United States of America - like many other oil-importing countries in the world - is currently faced with competing strategic objectives related to energy, each with its’ own set of significant challenges: Energy supply security: A lack of secure, reliable and adequate supplies of energy, combined with a relentless growth in imports from a world market that is heavily dependent on unreliable or potentially unstable sources of supply, Economic sustainability: A widespread concern for the health and sustainability of the nation’s economy and standard of living, with the combination of high and volatile prices and import dependency sapping the nation’s competitiveness, Climate Change: A growing consensus regarding the need to widely transform the nation’s energy industries, infrastructure and consumption patterns to dramatically reduce GHG emissions, in an attempt to reduce the potential impacts of energy use on climate change.
CTL/CBTL with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) addresses these concomitant concerns, producing affordable, low-carbon diesel fuel from domestic resources, and therefore providing a balanced and elegant solution to (our national) dilemma.
(We're not excerpting anything from the body of the report. Following are excerpts from this official, United States Government publication's Summary and Conclusions. If they don't stimulate thought and, much more importantly, action, on the parts of our public Coal Country press and elected representatives, then, we might as all as well just pee on the fire and whistle in the dogs. This racoon hunt is over. First, though, to yet again address the specious issue of "carbon capture and sequestration", since the whole intent of this piece is to demonstrate that we can supply ourselves with all the hydrocarbons we need from domestic resources, we remind you that the USDOE, the overall "author" of our subject herein, have, themselves, already, as seen for just a few examples in:
West Virginia Coal Association | USDOE Says CO2 is a 'Vast Natural Resource' | Research & Development; concerning, part: "United States Patent 4,197,421 - Synthetic Carbonaceous Fuels and Feedstocks; 1980; Assignee: The United States of America; Abstract: This invention relates to the use of a three compartment electrolytic cell in the production of synthetic carbonaceous fuels and chemical feedstocks such as gasoline, methane and methanol by electrolyzing an aqueous sodium carbonate/bicarbonate solution, obtained from scrubbing atmospheric carbon dioxide"; and:
West Virginia Coal Association | USDOE CO2 + Hydrogen = Methanol and Ethanol | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 7,858,667 - Alcohol Synthesis from CO or CO2; 2010;
Assignee: Battelle Memorial Institute, WA; (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory); Abstract: Methods for producing alcohols from CO or CO2 and H2 utilizing a palladium-zinc (Pd--Zn) on alumina catalyst are described. ... A portion of this work was funded by the U.S. DOE ... under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830.
Claims: A method of synthesizing alcohols from CO or CO2";
thoroughly established the fact that Carbon Dioxide is a valuable raw material resource from which we can synthesize even more liquid fuels, among other things. The obligatory genuflection to "carbon capture and sequestration" is now a meaningless and distracting gesture to the uninformed and dogmatic.)
The effect on the trade deficit is an issue that excites much debate. Some assert nearly a one to one relationship; that is, for every dollar not spent on imports, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increases by that dollar, whereas others disclaim any positive effect, which is akin to asserting the trade balance is always net zero.
(Which "net zero" assertion, of course, as the USDOE makes plain, is nonsense.)
Projecting trade deficit effect is quite uncertain, since the nation’s terms of trade and appetite for imports are factors difficult to establish for future periods. Nonetheless since net exports are a component of GDP, we observe that for every dollar not sent overseas, foreign purchases of US exports will be reduced by some fraction. Between 1969 and 2007, exports averaged 85% of imports; between 1999-2008, 70%; between 2002-2007 for the Middle East, 60%. A range of benefit determined by the excess of imports could thus be quite wide.
Finally, the topic of job creation should be addressed. In a 2006 report for NETL, the authors employ an economic input-output model to determine that, approximately, 150,000 jobs would be created for every million bpd of production."
----------------------
We'll close right there. According to our US Government's own Energy Information Agency, via:
Countries - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA);
we consume in excess of 18 million barrels of oil per day (bpd).
And, according to our United States Government's own United States Department of Energy, as herein, we can make oil, from our domestic Coal, and a relatively small proportion of home-grown Biomass, that is not only cleaner than conventional imported petroleum, but cost-competitive with that imported petroleum, as well; and, every "million bpd" of oil we make from such methods would lead to the creation of "150,000 jobs".
Somebody wanna do the math?
Far past time someone did, and publicly, ain't it?