A Canadian company has used the current presidential race to plug it’s coal-to-liquid process. Citing positive statements by presidential hopefuls, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee, Silverado Green Fuel has posted a video on it’s front page, explaining the process of turning low-grade coal into a clean-burning, non-polluting product.
The Vancouver, BC firm claims their initial production costs will come in at $15 per barrel, on an oil equivalent energy basis. Not bad, they say, considering oil is hanging in there at $90 plus a barrel.
I have to warn you though, the video is ok, considering it’s a company product, so you can take that grain of salt along as you watch. You’ll hear from kids on how important clean air is, and you’ll see the annoucement of a $26 million Demonstration Plant in a joint venture with the State of Mississippi, and, of course, a demonstration on how it’s done.
Personally, I think the use of kids is a bit tacky, but all’s fair in love and commerce.
Think coal gasification and coal-to-liquid is the same? Not even close.
More coal to liquid fuels research from Penn State.
Coal-to-liquid fuels: Not ‘clean coal’, not economically viable, and just not cool
Kira’s right. In order to convert coal to liquid it requires energy thus means more greenhouse gases released. Coal to Liquid seems to be much dirtier than traditional oil refineries because of this extra step but this article makes it seem like they might have that covered or at least reduced to some degree. This article i was reading called The Coal to Liquid Debate gave me a great picture of why this is happening and let me better understanding what this means for my wallet as well. I like to know everything about a topic before I make a decision and this has definitely influenced me.
http://www.energyandoil.com/the-coal-to-liquid-debate-part-i
It could be a better solution for keeping the environment clean – only if adopted by the governmental policies.
Thanks, Kira for the comment and the link. CTL proponents are suggesting underground sequestration of greenhouse gasses produced in the CTL process. In all, a very expensive process.
Aack! Coal in any form generally releases more greenhouse gases! I suppose if they’ve found a way to genuinely sequester the carbon it could actually end up clean, but it’s a tall order.
This post by Bill Chameides explains how the particular molecular structure of coal releases more carbon per unit energy than other fossil fuels: http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/04/24/should-we-fill-our-gas-tanks-with-coal/