Coal Liquefaction.

Among the alternative means for replacing conventional oil as it begins to run-out are liquid fuels provided by the liquefaction of coal. Such coal-to-liquids processes fall essentially into two types: direct and indirect liquefaction. Both methods were exploited by Germany during WWII, with the former predominating. All direct liquefaction methods can be thought to be based around the Bergius process. Liquid transportation fuels are characterised as having a hydrogen content of between 12 and 15%, while coal typically contains around 5% hydrogen and rather more carbon. Friedrich Bergius received the Nobel Prize in 1931 for his work on high-pressure chemistry, shared jointly with Carl Bosch who worked in a similar field and whose work is most famously demonstrated by the "Haber-Bosch" process for making ammonia by combining nitrogen with hydrogen under a pressure of the order of 300 atmospheres in the presence of an iron catalyst at 500 degrees C.

Bergius also employed high pressure hydrogen in order to "add" it to coal partially dissolved in initially naphthalene at high temperatures, under pressure as a solvent, and then in the "heavy oil" fraction generated from the coal-liquefaction process itself. Bergius developed his process in 1913, at which time constructing the necessary apparatus to withstand high pressure hydrogen posed a considerable feat of engineering. The purpose of the high pressure was both to "contain" the hot solvent which would otherwise have volatilised (c.f. a pressure cooker) and to increase the concentration of hydrogen substantially, thus to accelerate the reaction to a usable rate. The remaining problem was the production of hydrogen in a state of near purity, which was solved serendipitously. Bergius discovered that at temperatures close to 400 degrees C, water would act on iron (initially from the pressure vessel itself) almost like an acid, thus liberating 99% pure hydrogen.

He adapted the chemistry employing finely divided iron (iron-filings), which reduced water to hydrogen, being itself converted to iron oxide, Fe3O4. Since it proved possible to reduce the oxide back to metallic iron using either hydrogen (which defeats the object some) or more usefully with carbon monoxide (CO), the iron could be recycled into the process. All of these things are described wonderfully and illuminatingly in his Nobel lecture, which I have referred to below.

The Germans employed, on the smaller scale, an indirect method based on the Fischer-Tropsch process. This technology goes back to 1923, and was developed by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, working at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute fur Kohlenforschung (coal research), which Fischer later became director of. [The Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes later became the Max Planck Institutes, and so it is now: the Max Planck Institute fur Kohlenforschung]. Essentially the coal is reacted with high-pressure steam (similar to "steam-reforming" of methane) to form a mixture of CO + H2, which when reacted over a catalyst of iron, cobalt or nickel (other metals will do too) is converted to a mixture of hydrocarbons. Direct liquefaction processes typically attain an energy efficiency of 65-70%, while indirect methods run close to 55%. During WWII Germany manufactured more than 4 million tonnes of liquid fuel annually through a combination of Bergius and Fischer-Tropsch technologies, which kept their war-effort running for five years, despite initial skepticism by the Allies that the war would be a flash-in-the-pan since the Germans had no indigenous supplies of fuel and would soon run out of it. The targeted bombing of the German coal-liquefaction facilities in 1945 contributed significantly to the end of the war.

South Africa is currently the only country that operates coal liquefaction plants (Sasol process), and produces close to 60% of its transportation fuel from coal based on the indirect Fischer-Tropsch approach. Trade embargoes imposed on them during three decades drove the very large-scale application of this technology. Large amounts of synthetic "oil" could undoubtedly be created from coal liquefaction (coal to liquids) processes, especially in the United States which owns around 30% of all known coal reserves and I expect to see a substantial installation of this technology within a country that by now relies on the rest of the world to provide it with nearly 3/4 of its entire oil budget of 22 million barrels a day. This will undoubtedly prove unpopular with environmentalists because converting coal to transportation fuels releases 7 - 10 times as much CO2 as processing crude oil does. This increase in CO2 emissions at the processing stage yields the overall result that CO2 emissions from transport will be raised by 50% over that currently supplied by oil. A new infrastructure of open-cast coal-mining is unlikely to please them either, and the technology is highly demanding in terms of the amount of water it uses, as is a problem in China who seek to expand the technology seemingly as much as possible, along with all other forms of energy supply. I imagine that water might be a problem in the US too, especially in the mid-West since I am told that supplying much of agricultural water rests on pumping it up from deep aquifers. Hence wide-scale coal-liquefaction would consume yet more of this precious resource.

However, coal-liquefaction is at the moment of writing the only proven technology that can make "oil" on the large scale required to match current petroleum use and while I remain optimistic about making biodiesel from algae, this technology has yet to be proven and developed on the massive scale necessary, if it is to make the difference between a world underpinned by oil or not. Probably direct coal-to-liquids methods will prove most useful, since under favourable circumstances, a 70% recovery of liquid hydrocarbons based on the weight of coal has been demonstrated.

Related Reading.
(1) http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/
1931/bergius-lecture.html
(2) "Coal Liquefaction", DTI Pub URN 99/1120.

Peak Gas Worryingly Close to Peak Oil.

There is a close connection between gas and oil and it is the case that between 15% - 20% of world oil is actually based in some way on gas. Due to the imminence of peak oil, there has been a shift away from conventional oil production toward such lighter hydrocarbon fuels described as NGL (natural gas liquids) and condensates, which are liquids that are condensed out from raw natural gas, while the gas-component is most often re-injected in order to maintain adequate pressure within the reservoir, or simply vented away or "flared-off". It is a familiar sight throughout the history of the oil-industry to have burning highly smoky gas flares that are actually contaminated with large amounts of liquid hydrocarbons (oil) and various minerals and metals too, most of them highly poisonous in nature. When the gas is simply vented it is invisible to the naked eye, but potentially nonetheless a threat in terms of climate change, dumping methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a particularly potent greenhouse gas, with around 100 times the "global warming" capacity of CO2. It is often quoted that methane is about 20x as bad as CO2 in this respect, but that refers only to the situation averaged over 100 years, during which course some of the methane is broken-down by being oxidised to CO2 in the troposphere. After 300 years, there will be practically none of the initial methane remaining. In reality, if equal volumes of methane and CO2 were released into the atmosphere, the heating effect, the "instantaneous radiative forcing factor" as it is known, is nearer 110 [I will supply the math(s) behind this conclusion if anybody asks me]. Worryingly, about 9% of world gas is pumped straight into the sky, in other words is wasted, without finding any use as a fuel.

Undoubtedly, peak oil comes before peak gas - and may have already done so, and there are numerous estimates for the times when either will arrive. It is not a simple stepwise advance of one over another though, due to their interrelated aspects, both physical (chemical) and economic. Increasingly, oil is made from gas as a raw material, from "hot greasy gas" as Andrew McKillop has described it, and which is formed at depths of 3 - 4 kilometers underground. In "extreme depth offshore" regions like Angola and the deep Gulf of Mexico, that "ground" may be seabed that is itself 3 - 4 km underwater. Using the classical wooden "derrick" of the oil-gusher days, for "conventional" production of oil, there would certainly have been some gas in the "oil-stream", but nothing to compare with present production of "unconventional" oil, which is reckoned at the equivalent of one oil barrel equivalent of gas produced and re-injected, vented or flared, for every 8 barrels of oil that are condensed out of "greasy gas", as a world average. As wells become "older" that ratio is much higher, and more determined strategies are employed to recover more oil from the "greasy" oil-gas stream, to the extent that in the US, "conventional" oil production amounts to just about one quarter of the total oil produced there, which is around 1.5 million barrels a day from near to 6 million barrels altogether. Since the US gets through around 22 million barrels daily in total, rough reckoning indicates that it must now import almost 3/4 of its oil. Now that figure is alarming, and we can draw our own conclusions as to what that will mean on the world stage.

It has been assumed that Russian gas is in practically unlimited supply, as was thought of the Saudi oil fields about two decades ago. We now know this is not true. Neither does it appear that the Russian Gazprom can supply Europe with sufficient of its gas requirements into the future. Despite claims of huge gas resources, it seems that in reality, falling supplies from the three critical ("biggest") west-Siberian gasfields are unlikely to be able to provide even in the short-term for Russia's own domestic, CIS and European customers. Part of the problem is the need for a massive investment programme, to extract more gas and to do it more efficiently, and in the absence of such a capital cash-injection it is only at a push that the period 2009-2015 will not witness significant gas-shortages across the whole of Europe and the former Soviet Union - a massive total region with somewhat over 1 billion people. Put bluntly, "Peak Gas" is likely to strike in 2009... in a couple of years from now.

Peak oil is grudgingly becoming acknowledged and accepted, although the apocalyptic consequences of simply sitting by and letting the consequences of it happen are not routinely broadcast. Possibly there is a plan to avert mass-panic. The price of gas and that of oil will become inextricably linked and probably economic drivers - high cost - will kick-in and act as a brake on how much of these commodities is used. There will be little comfort found in this, however, especially in the midst of a very cold winter.

Related Reading.
Andrew McKillop, "Peak Oil to Peak Gas is a short ride". http://www.energybulletin.net/print.php?id=23462

Earth's Resources Can't Keep Pace with Us!

Many of the planet's resources are running increasingly and alarmingly scarce, especially petroleum ("oil"). Water, land and fish will also be unable to provide enough to match our growing human appetite for them. Gas and probably coal will begin to feel the pressure of our demands for them within foreseeable decades - coal is hard to predict since its true reserves are poorly known (see the posting "Peak Coal by 2025", which is the conclusion of one recent study), but peak gas is likely within 20 years or so after peak oil, and that may well be already with us. If everybody living on the Earth (around 6.5 billion of us) consumed resources at the rate of the world's richest nations (US, Europe and Australia), we would need to provide six times the present level of them, and should that population rise to 9 billion as it is predicted to by 2050, the demand would be ten times as great as it is now.

It all makes a nonsense of the unprecedented industrial expansion currently being forged in Countries like China, India and South America, all in the pursuit of a Western lifestyle, which even the West can no longer afford. Something will give, and soon, and most likely the weakest link in the resource supply chain is oil. The per capita area of productive land needed to provide one American with food, water, accommodation and energy is about 12 hectares; for an average Australian it is around 8 ha, close to that for a typical European. However, the mean per capita area of productive land held within the boundaries of the Earth is only about 1.3 ha for each of us. Thus, if the world shared all its resources equally, we would need to survive (and thrive?) on about one sixth to one tenth of our current "needs".

It is a consensus of opinion that the world is now in the grip of global warming and climate change, and that this is caused by human-induced CO2 emissions. There remain dissenters to the notion that it is "all our fault" but that there are underlying warming mechanisms related to the variable output of the Sun or well-established changes in the Earth-Sun orbital parameters which occur over cycles within a grand cycle of 100,000 years or so. This periodicity in global temperatures over geologic time is well established. Notwithstanding, something dramatic is happening to the Earth's climate now. As I wrote in "Australia in Drought", that nation's food production is seriously under threat from an epic shortage of water, with main rivers drying-up, and leaving little for irrigation. This is blamed squarely on global warming.

If we follow this reasoning and cut our CO2 emissions by 60%, and share the remaining fossil fuels equally among everybody in the world, we would suddenly find ourselves with just about 5% of current amounts. I have written before that it might be necessary to cut transportation by up to 90%, simply it terms of how much alternative fuel might be provided from renewable resources, and re-localise society into small, locally-provided for communities: these I have called "pods". I am highly skeptical that the "hydrogen economy" on the required grand scale of the "oil economy" can be implemented, certainly not within the timescale of oil supply depletion, and so all facts appear to point in the same direction: namely that on grounds of short petroleum supplies or driven by concerns over climate change, we have no choice but to cut back seriously on burning non-renewable oil-fuel - and that means cars left by the roadside.

The "global village" is on the way out, however you look at it. This means the end of consumer capitalism. Now that does require a paradigm shift, as indeed the appearance of plentiful oil did in the first place. It is not possible to reach the holy grail of "sustainability" (nor global social justice) unless we undertake a huge economic, moral and philosophical transition to what some have referred to as "The Simpler Way". This means the inauguration of a society that is based on a high degree of self-sufficiency (at least within small communities, if not as individuals per se, since the "pod" will share-out its various needs and contributions) and localised economies (farms and local businesses that do not depend on raw materials driven or flown over massive distances). In this "new world" our motivation will have to change.

Now we are driven by profit, but in a sustainable economy of necessarily low or zero economic growth our intentions would need to be amended. That prospect is frightening in comparison with the status quo. However, it might prove ultimately a more satisfying way to live - communities working together to provide what that community needs collectively. The word "Utopia" comes into my mind too, and I suspect the real barrier and hindrance is a lack of belief it could even be possible to make the transition. But whether we like it or not there will be radical transformation of the present society which is simply unsustainable. But to avoid descending into anarchy en route, some clear plans need to be drawn up rather than an unseeing, iron-fist grabbing at the resources such as oil that remain. They will run-out, and we are driving that outcome harder and more certainly each day. When they do, what then? What way is really left to us but "The Simpler Way?". Why not begin to take that step now, while we still have some resources in hand to make the transition easier?


Related Reading.
(1) Ted Trainer, http://www.omlineopinion.com.au/print.asp?article=5754
(2) www.dieoff.com (Here it is suggested than 3 billion or around half the world's current population might perish in consequence of the looming and catastrophic fall in world petroleum supply).

Australia in Drought.

Australia is in the grip of the most severe drought on record. The nation are warned that unless heavy rains come soon to break the unprecedented dry-spell, it might prove necessary to cut water supplies for food production. The Murray-Darling basin in south-eastern Australia produces 40% of the continent's agriculture and is supplied by two rivers, which are now so low that soon there will only be enough water available for drinking, not for irrigation. It is thought that the reason for the drought is climate-change, and the government are blamed for not acting sooner. John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, has said that unless there is a significant rainfall during the next six to eight weeks, irrigation will be prevented in the main farming area, with the consequence that crops such as rice, cotton and grapes (for wine) will fail, while citrus, olive and almond trees will die, as will livestock.

In 2002 - 2003, drought halved wheat production in Australia. Mr Howard said: "It's a grim situation, and there is no point pretending to Australia otherwise. We must all hope and pray there is rain." The causes of the present drought are believed to be complex, but few scientists doubt that climate change is part of the problem, which is making Australia hotter and drier. With pastures reduced to dust, some farmers have resorted to selling-off their livestock at rock-bottom prices, or they try to keep them going on feed that is now massively expensive. The suicide rate among rural communities has soared, as indeed it did in the UK, when our farming industry was hit by BSE and then foot-and-mouth disease.

Australians enjoy one of the best standards of living, and have the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the world. Average temperatures in Australia have increased by 0.7 degrees C over the past 100 years, and most of that during the last 50 years. 80% of the population live on the eastern seaboard or the coastal perimeters of the continent. 50% of all Australia's CO2 emissions arise from burning coal, which as noted in an earlier posting, is very abundant there. The Great Barrier Reef is suffering from rising sea-temperatures, and 60% of it was bleached in 2002. At 2,575 and 2,739 kilometers in length, respectively, the river Murray and its tributary, the Darling, provide 84% of all water used for irrigating farmland; however, there will soon be just enough for essential supplies. Australia is also beset by forest-fires which consume large areas of land. The south-eastern region is especially prone to them and the hot, arid climate there will be worsened by the current drought.

The death toll of wildlife is significant when the fires strike, particularly in the eucalyptus forests, where the flammable vapours from them fuel intense firestorms, and wombats, koalas and many of Australia's other unique indigenous creatures are greatly at risk from this kind of fire. Environmentalists refer to the rising number of El Nino events which bring drought, and blame them on global warming. Until only recently, Mr Howard and his minsters remained skeptical about the issue of global warming and climate change, and he refused to meet Al Gore during a recent visit he made there to promote his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. He was also less than sanguine about "The Stern Report", published in the UK by the economist Sir Nicholas Stern, which contains the warning that large arable areas of Australia would be rendered barren if global temperatures increased by an average of four degrees C.

George Bush has said that "the jury is out" on the link between human-produced CO2 emissions and global warming, despite the consensus of world scientists that there is no doubt they are connected. Mr Howard has responded to the view of his citizens' opinion, and recently announced the intention to ban inefficient light bulbs, with the view to cut Australia's CO2 emissions. It is a serious business and I wonder whether there will be a massive re-immigration of Australians who are originally of British and European stock back to these countries. Almost certainly, populations will follow climate change, moving to warmer, cooler or wetter lands in order to survive.


Related Reading.
Kathy Marks, "The Epic Drought", writing in The Independent, April 20th, p.2-3.

Carbon-Trading, the Ozone Layer and Frying Fish.

While the developed nations have all but banned manufacture of CFC's (chlorofluorocarbons) and related compounds, in the interests of trying to preserve the ozone layer, they are paying billions to countries like India and China to produce them. The problem is a loophole in the Kyoto Protocol which allows industrialised nations to meet their own greenhouse gas emissions by paying for cheaper emission reducing projects in developing nations. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) means that for every tonne of carbon saved (or its equivalent, denoted CO2e), one "carbon credit" is earned. Nearly half of all CDM credits have been issued for destroying HFC-23 (trifluoromethane), which is 11,700 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and is produced during the manufacture of HCFC-22 (chlorodifluoromethane), which is widely employed as a refrigerant. The situation is very opportune for China and India, since they hold most of the developing world's facilities for manufacturing refrigerants, and foreign investors are prepared to pay up to 15 Euro for each CO2e credit - a lot less than it would cost to reduce emissions in Europe or the US!

In a recent paper published in Nature, it was estimated by Michael Wara, who is both a lawyer and an authority on CDM, the total cost of destroying HFC-23 via carbon credits is 4.7 billion Euro, whereas the actual cost to do it is more like 100 million Euro. He points out that this isn't merely an expensive loophole, it also discourages more desirable CDM projects based around biomass or wind-power, and might engender an incentive for companies in the developing nations to expand production of refrigerants for the simple purpose of destroying by-products from HFC-23 production.

So, how is the "ozone hole" these days? You may recall that the whole business of ceasing to manufacture CFC's and indeed of destroying existing stockpiles was to do with the fact that these volatile compounds survive transport through the troposphere, to reach the stratosphere where the ozone is, and there they are photolysed in a series of chemical reactions that result in decomposition of the ozone layer. This is also sometimes called the ozone-shield, in emphasis that ozone absorbs harmful UV radiation (UV-A and UV-B), and helps to protect life on earth from its harmful effects, e.g. causing skin-cancer. A well-documented "hole" has appeared in the ozone layer, most dramatically over Antarctica and worryingly over Europe too.

Earth systems are complex, and it is probably misleading to consider any aspect in isolation from the highly interconnected whole. There is no better example of a holistic system at work than the Earth and its climate. (A philosophical overview of this has been espoused in the novel Jagged Environment, by Chris James). Indeed, it is now thought that marine and freshwater systems might be placed at risk by the increasing levels of UV now reaching the Earth' surface. Aquatic ecosystems constitute more than half the biomass of the planet and are hence an essential component of the biosphere. According to a report by the United Nations, marine organisms may be killed-off by the UV, especially in the polar regions above where the ozone layer is thinnest, and such a diminution in marine organisms, e.g. phytoplankton, may reduce the capacity of the oceans to soak-up CO2 from the atmosphere.

I have noted previously, "Carbon in the Sky" (6-1-07), that since 1950 the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere from burning fossil-fuels appears to have exceeded the planet's ability to absorb it by an average of 40%, or around 2 ppm per year. That excess seems to be increasing, probably in consequence of steadily increasing levels of emissions but also destruction of the world's forests and the phytoplankton - "green lawns" - of the oceans. Phytoplankton is thought to absorb more than half the CO2 that is taken-up from the atmosphere by the plant kingdom altogether through photosynthesis, and hence is responsible for over 50% of the atmosphere's oxygen. The fear is, of course, that an increase in atmospheric CO2 might lead to more dramatic global warming.

It is interesting that although there appears to be no direct link between "global warming" and the "ozone layer", there are indirect connections. Here, through the interactive ozone-hole/UV/phytoplankton/CO2 system, and that while rising CO2 levels cause the troposphere to warm, they cause the stratosphere to cool, leading to more cloud formation upon the surfaces of which more ozone is decomposed, we have a perfect (deadly!) "feedback mechanism". The interconnected processes of the Earth "systems" indeed constitute an intricate and delicate mechanism, and we tamper with it at our peril.


Related Reading.

Jagged Environment, by Chris James. http://www.jepublications.co.uk/ This is described as: "A discussion on the origins of life and the relative impact of humankind on the environment". Personally, I found it interesting from a philosophical point of view, whether I agree with the "science" or not! "

Chemistry World, April 2007, Vol. 4, No. 4, p.8/p.32.
D.P.Hader et al., Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2007, 6, p.267.
M.Wara, Nature, 2007, 445, p.595.