Applying new technologies is admirable. But
sticking businesses with huge bills to pay that
progress is not. That’s what Exelon and other
critics are saying about a proposed plant to convert
coal to a synthetic natural gas.
In this particular case, Exelon is taking on
Tenaska, which needs Illinois legislators to force
the state’s utilities to buy power from its proposed
$3.6 billion generator -- one that would take coal
and gasify it for the purposes of making
electricity. Exelon is emphasizing that it is
cheaper and easier to just burn the natural gas,
noting that its own studies show that the state’s
taxpayers would pay heavily for this facility, about
40 percent more than just two years ago.
“It makes absolutely no sense to take coal and make
synthetic natural gas out of it,” says Paul Grimmer,
chief executive of Eltron Research in Boulder,
Colo., in a talk with this reporter. “The processes
are too expensive. But if you see a huge run-up in
natural gas, it may make sense then.”
The developers of that power plant, Tenaska,
acknowledge that the current low price of natural
gas makes the investment look expensive. But the
company goes on to say that such pricing is an
anomaly and that over the 40-year lifespan of the
investment, the financing would make sense. It is
adding that Exelon has a vested interest in stopping
construction: Capacity from the unit would be bid
into the system and therefore make Exelon’s energy
offerings less valuable.
Moreover, Tenaska is saying that older coal-fired
power plants are closing and that if coal is to
remain viable then modern uses of it must be found.
The Illinois state legislature is now debating the
issue.
A similar discussion is occurring in the U.S.
Congress. Lawmakers from coal-producing states are
trying to make the case that the abundance of coal
supplies could be used to not just generate
electricity but to also make transportation fuels.
To their dismay, however, the Obama administration
has eliminated funding for such “coal-to-liquids”
technologies.
That, in turn, has severely slowed a West Virginia
project where such a plant is “underway.” It would
be modeled in part after South Africa’s Sasol Co.
that now produces about 150,000 barrels a day of oil
from coal.
“Last year, when you came before us, you said that
the Department of Energy was eager to promote
research on coal-to-liquids,” says
Senator Joe Manchin, D-WV, at a recent
congressional hearing to Energy Secretary Steven
Chu. “Why would you have such a reversal?”
Expensive Process
Let’s answer that question. For starters, the
process is expensive and when combined with a global
credit crunch, such projects are out-of-reach for
all developers -- unless the government pitches in.
The start-up costs of a coal to liquids plant is
high at about $1 billion. Besides that capital
costs, there’s the price of removing all the
contaminants from the solid product before it can be
gasified and converted to oil. Meantime, the process
of turning natural gas into liquids is a possible
competitor to turning coal into liquids. Not only is
gas-to-liquids a cleaner process but is also less
capital intensive.
Environmental worries are also a part of the
equation. While the United States is seeking to
limit its foreign oil consumption, it is also trying
to cut its carbon emissions. The conversion process
whereby coal is transformed into gasoline is a
double-whammy: During the alteration, greenhouse
gases are produced and then again after the
newly-formed gas is burned. And in a typical
coal-to-liquids plant, about 40 percent of the
energy is lost in the conversion process.
That’s why a Wyoming-based developer has dropped its
plans to use coal to make transportation fuels. It
will, instead, use natural gas a feedstock.
Nerd Gas expects to spend between $700 million
and $1 billion on a “gas-to-liquids” project in
Wyoming that would make 10,000 to 15,000 barrels of
a day of gasoline.
Eltron’s Grimmer says that is a much smarter bet in
today’s environment. “Coal to synthetic natural gas
is dead (for now) and I believe coal to liquids is
too expensive to be viable even with crude over $100
a barrel.” On the other hand, “There is a huge
incentive to increase the value of natural gas,
especially by the gas producers who have large gas
reserves that they thought would be worth a lot when
they got the leases but aren’t worth so much now.”
Coal is trying to reinvent itself. That’s a noble
goal. But such a transformation is impractical right
now given that the technologies to achieve that
mission are prohibitively expensive at a time when
the nation has other options.
EnergyBiz Insider is the Winner of the 2011 Online
Column category awarded by Media Industry News, MIN.
Ken Silverstein has also been named one of the Top
Economics Journalists by Wall Street Economists.
Twitter: @Ken_Silverstein
energybizinsider@energycentral.com
Copyright © 1996-2012 by
CyberTech,
Inc.
All rights reserved.
To subscribe or visit go to:
http://www.energycentral.com
To subscribe or visit go to:
http://www.energybiz.com