I recently wrote a response to a general energy piece that was posted on Grist, which is an interesting environmental news/blog site that I read regularly.
A guest contributor to the site, Michael Hoexter, posted an article that sharply criticized synthetic fuels based on info from the Natural Resources Defense Council. For those not familiar with the back story, the NRDC apparently has a problem with our industry because they have not bothered to educate themselves about the current state of the technology, and have made numberous efforts to inappropriately demonize synfuels on climate change grounds. (I guess they still have not figured out that we have the only process capable of producing carbon neutral fuels with existing commercial off the shelf technology).
It is my sincere hope that one of these days the NRDC will wake up and start working WITH us to commercialize and implement large-scale reduced or zero carbon footprint fuels production. Until then, they are only serving to confuse and slow the implementation of one of the best available tools to help alleviate global climate change, which would seem to me to be against thier charter… but then what do I know.
Anyway, the energy piece on Grist charactarized coal-to-liquids as a process that would “lead to climate disaster and resource exhaustion”.
I might have kind of taken that personally.
I wrote a lengthy response, and it seems that some have found that to be valuable information, so I thought I would post it up here for wider consumption by all.
The NRDC’s uninformed position on synthetic fuels
Michael, I must take exception at your blanket dismissal and incorrect environmental demonization of coal-to-liquids synthetic fuels.
You wrote that coal-to-liquids synfuels would “lead to climate disaster and resource exhaustion.”
First it is crucial to realize that coal-to-liquids is only one portion of a larger whole within the synthetic fuels space (which for today’s discussion we will define as gasification and Fischer Tropsch or Methanol To Gasoline conversion, producing ultra-clean gasoline, diesel , and jet fuel). Included within synthetic fuels are also Biomass-To-Liquids, which can use feedstocks such as switchgrass (read: cellulosic infrastructure-compatible diesel, jet, and gasoline fuels from proven off-the-shelf technologies), garbage, and other high-efficiency biomass sources.
The NRDC is not telling you the whole truth about the environmental performance of synthetic fuels.
Yes, if you develop thee plants wrong, and do not capture or sequester the carbon produced at the plant level, it is absolutely possible to produce a plant that will deliver a much larger lifecycle carbon footprint than the conventional fuels that they replace (corn ethanol, anyone?)
BUT! if you include CCS technology, which EVERY SINGLE SUBSTANTIAL SYNTHETIC FUELS PLANT IN THE US TODAY IS DOING, then that alone will reduce the lifecycle GHG footprint to one comparable with conventional fuels. But the story does not end there. These plants can consume a wide array of biomass feedstocks alongside coal (a concept to CBTL). These biomass sources can even include landfill garbage. And when you add biomass alongside coal, you can further reduce the lifecycle GHG footprint of these fuels, even down to the point of outright greenhouse gas neutrality, or even GHG negative.
So in essence, what I am telling you, is that the NRDC is lying to you by omission. CTL is not some horrible climate boogieman, provided the plants are developed even remotely responsibly (which they all are). In fact, if the CBTL approach is used, which is the case in at least three of the four major “CTL” synfuels projects, then the synfuels industry can and will deliver a fuel that not only dramatically outperforms existing fuels in all conventional pollutants, but also dramatically outperforms existing conventional, and ALL EXISTING NONCONVENTIONAL alternative fuels in the area of greenhouse gas emissions.
OK, so we have just established that CTL is not going to result in “climate disaster” if the projects that are developed are held to a high standard of carbon emissions control, which they all are, or they will probably not get their permits.
You second point is “resource exhaustion”. I am the first one to point out that converting our economy from oil to coal would be like taking us out of the frying pan (peak oil), and putting us right pack in the prying pan(peak coal). Doing so would be just effectively replacing one inherently depleteable fossil fuels resource with another. BUT, because these same processes can accept biomass as feedstock, you can leverage coal to make it economically and technically feasible to use these facilities as “consumers of first resort” for highly efficient second-generation biofuels and waste-to-fuel feedstocks. You can even engineer the facilities to eventually transition entirely off of coal and into advanced second-generation biorefineries. So these CTL plants can be made forwards-compatible to an eventual sustainable fuels economy.
So it is also not fair to say that CTL synfuels will result in “resource exhaustion”.
Perhaps it would be good for you to ask the NRDC why they are “omitting to mention” that CTL synfuels can be done responsibly, and are in fact doing everything they can to try and block the implementation of this economically and environmentally crucial fuels production method. Their current approach has them effectively attempting to block implementation of one of our best technical pathways to carbon neutral environmentally responsible sustainable fuels production. That would seem to me to be counter to their charter and advertised purpose. I bet it has something to do with them not liking coal (which admittedly is not without its very good reasons, I am not here to advocate blowing up Appalachia to make diesel). Still, not-liking something is not a good reason to obstruct such crucial work as the implementation of advanced second-generation fuels production.
Oh, and on your point of “there really aren’t too many of these and they don’t have political momentum anyway”, you are wrong there too.
The four leading synthetic fuels projects in the US have an announced combined capacity of 133,000 barrels per day, or 2,038,890,000 gallons per year. That is over four and a half times last year’s US output of biodiesel.
Just because the synfuels industry is not asking for a $1/gallon handout from the government, does not mean that it has little political support. These projects have been widely endorsed by unions, politicians, and civic leaders, and there are a number of bills currently under consideration to help further the development of this clean energy source.
Please do not take this comment personally. The misinformation on which you based your opinions is widely held, and as such should be reversed aggressively. My intent here is not to criticize you, but to set the record straight on this critical emerging industry.
Best Regards,
Stephen F. Johnson (no relation to the EPA)
President,
Illinois Clean Fuels
