- Details
In our previous dispatches concerning your Cap&Trade op-ed, we mentioned the work of David Pimental, at Cornell University.
Herein is more documentation of his, and his UCal-Berkely collaborators', findings that most biofuel concepts, such as ethanol from corn, are neither economically sound, nor sustainable.
There might be a few worthwhile exceptions, one of which we'll note in our comment, following.
Some excerpts:
"ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study."
"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."
"Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76)."
"In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:
- corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; (much of it from coal - JtM)
- switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
- wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced."
Our one qualifying comment relates to "wood biomass". We have provided documentation that cellulose - i.e., wood pulp - can be processed, perhaps as a co-feed with coal, in an appropriately-selected and designed coal-to-liquid facility, with Methanol as the end product. Methanol can be used itself as a liquid fuel, a much more potent and effective one than ethanol, and can be converted rather directly into gasoline (i.e., ExxonMobil's "MTG" technology).
When it comes to coal versus corn ethanol, and it's ilk, Coal is the King of the ring.
- Details
We wanted to follow up quickly on our dispatch concerning your Cap & Trade Legislation op-ed piece, and our first response concerning the research at Cornell which illustrates that Ethanol isn't a very attractive option compared to other liquid fuels - especially those made from coal..
We will provide documentation of what we herein relate, if needed/requested.
But, Cornell's Pimental asserts that ethanol requires about half again as much energy to produce as it actually provides.
What isn't clearly stated is that much of that needed extra energy comes from burning coal in the Iowa power plants serving the several ethanol producing facilities there.
Iowa has some of it's own coal, but it's mostly lignite that will generate a lot of waste ash, relative to WV-type bituminous, and just as much CO2 when it's combusted to generate electricity.
They might import coal for their power plants from southern Illinois, in which case it would be about the same as "Pittsburgh" seam types widely exploited in our area. It wouldn't be any worse than what we have, but no better, either.
Point is: They are burning coal to get the power to convert corn into ethanol. The process of making ethanol is just a very indirect and wildly inefficient coal-to-liquid fuel conversion process.
We would be far better off converting our coal directly into methanol, an established technology whose end product has more "energy density" than ethanol in the first place, provides a material which can be efficiently converted into gasoline, and is, plainly, a more direct, more efficient and cleaner use of coal.
- Details
Relative to the comment I just sent you about your op-ed on C&T, enclosed is some of the research we've uncovered illustrating that ethanol isn't very attractive compared to coal. Joe and I will work together later and dig up some more. By the way, they burn a lot of coal to get the energy to make the ethanol. Melissa
"David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs."
- Details
Some of our previous posts documented how coal and used auto tires can be co-liquefied to produce raw materials that could be converted into liquid fuels. And, we noted there were "synergies" - the researchers' word, not ours - generated in the process by combining those feed stocks.
Herein is more documentation attesting to that fact.
The excerpt:
"Titre du document / Document title
An effective coal liquefaction solvent obtained from the vacuum pyrolysis of waste rubber tiresAuteur(s) / Author(s)
ORR E. C. (1) ; SHI Y. (1) ; JI Q. (1) ; SHAO L. (1) ; VILLANUEVA M. (1) ; EYRING E. M. (1) ;Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Chemistry, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, ETATS-UNISRésumé / Abstract
Oil derived from vacuum pyrolysis of waste rubber tires was used as a coal liquefaction solvent with a high-volatile A bituminous coal and a Mo catalyst. The vacuum-pyrolyzed tire oil along with the Mo catalyst was found to convert over 90% (daf) of the coal to gas, oil, and asphaltenes. Reactions were carried out in tubing reactors heated to 430 °C under 1000 psig (cold) of hydrogen gas. The vacuum-pyrolyzed tire oil (PTO) obtained from waste rubber tires contained various polyaromatic molecules which have been shown to be beneficial in coal liquefaction. Coal conversion was found to be hydrogen pressure dependent for reactions where coal and PTO were coprocessed together. Conversion results show that most of the coal reacted within the first 10 min of coprocessing. Electron probe microanalysis (EPMA) detected the presence of Mo inside coal particles after 20 min of coprocessing coal and PTO."As we understand this, old tires will help convert more than 90% of our coal to petroleum products. In other words, for every ton of coal, we would get the equivalent of more than 3 barrels of, essentially, crude petroleum. That, we would suspect, in terms of chemical engineering, is more than "pretty good".
- Details
Some critical excerpts from this very recent story:
"UT Arlington researchers' work could lead to $35-a-barrel oil
12:00 AM CDT on Sunday, June 28, 2009
After a year of trying, University of Texas at Arlington researchers say they have succeeded in producing Texas intermediate-quality crude oil out of lignite.
In a few years, the researchers predict, their discovery could lead to oil that costs $35 a barrel instead of the current $65 to $70.
Richard "Rick" Billo, UTA's associate dean of engineering and research, explained the coal-to-oil project in a column a year ago. His team had three goals:
• "To produce a quality oil out of coal.
• "Get the production cost of that oil down to at least $35 per barrel.
• "Come up with a concept for refining the oil."
The team has accomplished all those things, Billo said, and coming up with a way to refine the oil was key.
The group developed a microrefinery that can manufacture oil from coal without the huge financial cost associated with traditional refineries.
"The team's microrefinery would fit anywhere you could put a structure that's 20 feet wide by 20 feet long by 20 feet high," Billo said. "Each microrefinery would cost about $5 million and could produce 500 to 1,000 barrels of crude per day.""
And, Mike, here's the kicker for us:
"UTA's methodology was based on work at the University of West Virginia, which holds patents on converting bituminous soft coal, a much higher grade than lignite, into crude oil."
And, some more:
"The two schools still work together, but UTA found that working with lignite presented demands different from those of bituminous coal."
"Guido Verbec of the University of North Texas Chemistry Department analyzed the UTA oil from lignite and said: "The distribution of the hydrocarbon chains are between C23 and C33, so that's a good distribution and looks more refined than standard crude oil.""
"Shack Hawkins, a chemical engineer with Polaris Engineering Inc. of Louisiana, said: "Based on the data UT Arlington has presented for analysis, the products they have produced look like a very promising petroleum."
WVU holds coal-to-liquid patents that could deliver oil at $35 per barrel. And, that's from low-grade Texas lignite. What would oil from our "higher grade", higher Btu, bituminous cost?
And, if UT's relatively inexpensive micorefinery can profitably process low-Btu, high-ash lignite, could they be made semi-portable and moved about WV to clean up - profitably utilize - coal mine waste accumulations, many of which are still laden with sub-bituminous organic content?
Join Friends of Coal
Be part of West Virginia's coal industry future. Together, we can continue building a stronger, more prosperous Mountain State by supporting our miners and communities.
West Virginia Coal Association
The West Virginia Coal Association has been the voice of the coal industry for over 100 years, advocating for safe, responsible mining practices and supporting the communities that depend on coal.
Join the FOC
Become a Friend of Coal and download our app to stay connected and support the industry.
