Domestic coal mining giant Shenhua Group and US-based Dow Chemical Company have signed a cooperation agreement and announced plans for a feasibility study, bringing the two a step closer to building a world-class coal-to-chemicals complex in Northwest China’s Shaanxi Province.
The project will use “clean coal” technologies that convert coal to methanol to produce ethylene and propylene, the building blocks of various plastics and chemical products.
The feasibility study will encompass environmental impact assessment, water supply, front-end loading engineering design, market and product mix, logistics and supply chain, and economic evaluation.
The success of this project will provide China a new and viable way to produce chemical products from its indigenous coal and salt resources, helping it to reduce its reliance on oil imports and maintain sustainable growth, said Andrew Liveris, Dow CEO.
Doesn’t it make you worry about the Oil Guys? If China cuts back on purchases, I wonder who will pick up the slack?
I must admit that I’m a little unclear about the goals here. It seems that this is for energy production, despite the lengthy list of chemicals being produced. They are talking about oil substitutes.
On the assumption that that is the goal, I must say. There is no such thing as clean coal.
The chemical composition of coal is such that in whatever way it is burned, it will produce four times the carbon emissions of other fossil fuels. This can’t possibly be the answer to anything.
Uh, my reading is this is a plant for the production of raw materials usually derived from petroleum, Scott. Not energy production. Liquefaction of coal – then refining.
Aside from the fact that I think you’re wrong about coal combustion technology.
There has been abit of a ruckus going on in my little area…
The cost of power keeps going up.
So…
A few companies have decided to be built.
A few facts.
1. we have 2,000,000+ cattle in the area.
2. There is NO COAL.
A methane plant was to be built, based on the Cow manure produced per year, 20,000,000 ton based on EPA 1996.
But everyone stated it would STINK, so they DECIDED not to.
Coal companies have been trying to get into the state. But those that looked at the plans Found Out, that the construction WOULDNT be of a Modern/Cleaner versions, and that the Coal would need to be shipped through the state from out side the State.
WELL,
A small group is doing the methane, On their own. And are building 5 plants around our valley.. They will produce Methane and Methanol and a few other gases to be Shipped out.
God, these folks are getting stupid.
#2 – god,
I’m glad to reread this and agree that this is not for increased use of coal for power. I do, however, have the numbers wrong for coal, at least according to this article, it is:
Nations Environment Program, coal emits around 1.7 times as much carbon per unit of energy when burned as does natural gas and 1.25 times as much as oil
http://tinyurl.com/3xvo9p
I should point out though that there is a broad range in the quality of coal which affects the numbers as well as the numbers for other pollutants from coal. So, I’ll stand by my statement that there is no such thing as clean coal!
#3 – ECA,
Methane is odorless; farts smell due to the other gases in them. In addition, when methane is obtained from a source that would leak into the atmosphere anyway, burning it actually reduces its greenhouse properties. CO2 is a weaker greenhouse gas than methane. So, collecting methane from sources like garbage dumps and, if possible cattle, would actually reduce greenhouse emissions. Drilling methane out of the ground, of course, has no redeeming qualities. Or, more accurately, the best thing that can be said for natural gas from drilling is that it is the least bad of the fossil fuels.
5,
I understand this…
But try to defeat the corps trying to Bad mouth, Alternatives THAT WORK.
You shoud see the Power company Scrambling because they Installed Wind power…
The Power company dont like it. THEY have to pay the PREMIUM RATE to them and THEn sell the power to the RESt of the state, at COST.
INSTEd of Importing the power from Another state, and Adding their 20% on top.
Ok, let me add to that…
The Electic company would rather SELL power to other states, then to Buy it. When they Buy it from other states, they can Mark up the Price.
And selling it, to Califormia, they can make a profit with the States Resource.
#4, well, “clean” is a very relative term to begin with.
#8
Up there in China means no more soot landing on your rooftop.
Science and the Citizen
February 2000 issue
METHANE FEVER
An undersea methane explosion may have driven the most rapid warming episode of the past 90 million years
From Scientific American: http://tinyurl.com/2894pc
[Didn’t I tell you all those cows were dangerous??]
#10, Darnit, I just realized that the article is ‘subscription only.’ But the first few paragraphs are still interesting…
I actually researched alternative energy for investment purposes, and the most practical, clean, and attractive alternate fuel was biodiesel derived from algae. And who funded and initiated such a project? Our own department of energy, and much of this research has sat on the shelf for 20 years.
If you want to read ta review of he full report, you can do so here:
http://tinyurl.com/ywnyqp
For a more simplified version, you can go here:
http://tinyurl.com/2tby5c
The money sentence is, “Algae can produce up to 10,000 gallons of oil per acre and can be grown virtually anywhere”
As the article states, this biodiesel is clean (no smog unlike ethanol) and is CO2 neutral.
Then when you read this, “The state of Utah has given the Utah State Biofuels Program a five-year, $6 million grant.”, you have to say, $6 million? Isn’t that what we go through in like an hour in Iraq?
I only bring this up because all the other alternate fuel methods are plauged with problems. Some cannot generate enough energy, some are bad for the enviornment, and some are financially impractical. This one has none of those issues, but almost no one is talking about using algae for energy including our government despite the millions spent by the DOE on studies.
The one question I have for everyone is: why is everyone not talking about this? 10,000 gallons per acre?
#12, jz, thanks for the .pdf. A real piece of work and great (albeit long) read. Seems like a lot of bucks could be made using these methods. Wonder why nobody’s tried? Can’t find a real economic reason if the data are correct.
If we could just go fishin’ for bigmouth bass in the same tanks…
Coal can be *scrubbed*, which makes it cleaner to burn. In this country the areas with the best coal were put off limits by Clinton. He turned the area into a National Park. Since we have limited low sulfuer coal, we must import it if we need it since our largest supply was parked.
But it seems what the Chinese are doing is not burning the coal but breaking it down into the by products.