Energy & Nuclear

In August last year when the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, announced a $1.576 billion funding package over eight-years to promote alternative fuels in particular ethanol I received an email from Ray Wilson with the comment that:

“Ethanol is not a good fuel because a standard petrol engine needs to be extensively modified to use 100% ethanol as it has only half the energy density of petrol.

However, just as one can produce petrol and diesel from coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process, one can use cellulosic (Wood, leaves, grass, grains, etc) matter too to make petrol and diesel by this method. This can be done profitably and the process is well-known…

“The Fischer-Tropsch process is normally used to convert coal to fuels, but it works equally well with cellulosic matter as a feedstock.

So instead of just using the sugar cane juice to make ethanol and discarding the residue, one can convert the entire plant into diesel and petrol and discard very little. Any plant material will do too.

The subsides are available for anyone who wants to proceed with this R&D and the project itself, provided one has the collateral to cover 50% of the Federal loan. I do not have this, so it is very difficult for me to do anything myself. I actually looked into this in some detail recently.

Plant oils are suitable for use as a diesel fuel, but the rest of the plant is discarded as waste. For example, oil-palm nuts are crushed to yield their oil, but the pulp is discarded. Not very efficient.” [end of quote]

Today I received another email from Ray Wilson, this time with comment, “the Germans are using FT [Fischer-Tropsch process] to produce diesel from wood commercially; precisely what I was trying to get going here in Queensland.”

You can read about it at Times Online:

“Ken Fisher, vice-president for strategy at Shell, expects full-scale production on a commercial basis by the middle of the next decade.

“We would like to be the leading provider of second-generation biofuels,” Mr Fisher said. …

All the technologies are based on the Fischer-Tropsch process, invented in Germany in the 1930s to synthesise liquid fuels from coal. The process was initially uneconomic, but was used in Nazi Germany and in South Africa under apartheid when the country lacked access to crude oil.

“The discovery of better catalysts and the rising price of crude is improving the commercial equation…

“Shell has a second BTL [biomass to liquids] investment in Iogen, a Canadian company that this week secured an $80 million (£41 million) grant from the US Government to build a plant in Idaho, which will produce cellulosic ethanol from plant waste and straw. [end of quote]

Dear Sir Richard Branson,

Upon reading the information on the recently announced Virgin Earth Challenge I feel that although I admire the noble effort, I have difficulty with the terms and conditions of the challenge. I believe that if you and the Virgin group of companies were serious regarding improving our planet that you have the resources to make an immediate change in the world energy situation and to lower the risk of climate change.

I believe that we have an initial design for an implementable system that uses indirect solar collection to generate electricity and store thermal energy in an economical, environmentally friendly, scalable, reliable, efficient and location independent manner using common construction materials. This system design is not under limited Intellectual Property protection and a pilot project and further commercial ventures may be initiated under the Virgin brand.

I am challenging you to invest some resources, form an engineering team and take the energytower.org idea and to build some massive bright red convection tower renewable energy systems with the Virgin logo painted on the side.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Rohatensky
Regina, SK Canada
www.energytower.org

Hi Jennifer,

We are involved in a not-for-profit project to develop a system for clean, location independent and renewable electrical power generation that can be built from common materials.

The system design of the project is being managed in a not-for-profit and open manner and applies the same methodologies and principles that have made Linux and other Open Source Software projects such a success.

The information is presented here: http://www.energytower.org
We have some initial electrical and thermal output calculations of the system for various locations here:
http://www.energytower.org/index.html#Calculations

I believe that this project will create an implementable, economical, reliable and serviceable system. Although the entire project is being managed in a not-for-profit manner, the intent is to work with business.
The detailed design, manufacture of the sub-assemblies, construction, system operation and integration with existing operations and waste heat sources can have large economic benefits for the entire economy.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Rohatensky
Regina, Canada

A couple of days ago I reported on a landmark decision in the Queensland Land and Resources Tribunal. It was decided that operations at a coal mine in central Queensland could be expanded without any of the conditions sought by two environmental groups, inparticular that mining giant Xstrata avoid, reduce or offset the greenhouse gas emissions likely to result from the mining, transport and use of the coal from the mine.

The decision included comment from Tribunal President Koppenol that Professor Ian Lowe, an expert witness for the environment groups, had exaggerated greenhouse gas emissions by a factor of 218 in his evidence. Professor Lowe immediately hit back in comment to media claiming he had only got the facts wrong by a factor of 15.

I must say, this seems like rather a large amount!

A reader of this blog, Cinder (aka Alan Ashbarry) has done his own calculations and concludes the Professor overstated the emissions but by not quite as much as President Koppenol claimed:

Hi Jennifer,

The decision by the Queensland Land and Resources Tribunal is supported by a well argued assessment of the merits of the development of this mining enterprise. It also critically examines the evidence presented on behalf of the Queensland Conservation Council by its ‘Expert Witnesses’.

Whilst not privy to the verbal presentation of the witnesses we can see that the written evidence may be confusing to many. QCC witness, Dr Hugh Saddler, first calculated the emissions from the mine’s operations, the transport of the coal and then the use of that coal. Dr Saddler then determines an annual figure and a total mine life’s figure. He does so by using his own methodology rather than the Australian Greenhouse Office that he states “this calculation of emissions yields a higher figure than would be the case if the default emission factor given in the AGO Factors and Methods Workbook were used.” Dr Saddler did not provide the AGO figure.

In Dr Saddler’s written evidence http://www.envlaw.com.au/newlands5.pdf the calculated total annual greenhouse emissions and the total greenhouse emissions were compared with Australia’s total greenhouse gas emission including Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry. A similar comparison was made with Global Annual emission (excluding LULUCF).

Dr Saddler’s comment “The total greenhouse gas emissions from the mining, transport and use of the 28.5 Mt of coal from the 15 year life of the Project (84 Mt CO2-e) are, therefore, equivalent to approximately 0.24% of international annual greenhouse gas emissions based on 2000 levels of emissions (of 34 Gt CO2-e).” appeared in Professor Lowe’s written evidence as

“To put the potential release of CO2 from the proposed mine extension into context, the lifetime emissions from the proposed mine extension … about 0.24 per cent of the current annual global release of greenhouse gases.”

The Chair of the Tribunal correctly points out that this should only be an annual comparison, and correctly points out that the 0.24% figure is calculated on the 15 year life of the mine. However in his attempt to correct the evidence of Professor Lowe who used Dr Saddler’s figures the Tribunal appears to have divided the annual emissions by 15 rather than the total of 15 years output.

The Tribunal should have calculated 84 Mt divide 15 years = 5.6Mt to determine annual, then divide by 34 Gt equaling 0.0164%, an overstatement by 14.63 times.

Such an error is understandable given the number of equations, calculations and comparisons presented to the Tribunal, and whilst it changes the order of magnitude of the exaggeration, it still shows an exaggeration. The correct figure still agrees with the conclusion that the mine’s annual contribution to annual global GHG emissions was “very small”.

The Tribunal also could have added the LULUCF figure of about 8Gt to the global annual figure or excluded the estimated 5.5 Mt per annum usage figure as it could have been argued that coal from another source would be used, thus this mine would not have a net impact on global use of coal.

Excluding the use of the coal, the mine’s operation and the transport of the coal is in the order of 0.1 Mt each year or 0.0003% of yearly Global emissions

It would appear that the expert evidence, by including comparisons of life time emissions and annual emission, has created a mathematical dilemma that is not easily understood by the lay person, and takes more than a 15 second grab on TV to explain.

This appears to be identical to the tactics employed by the Wilderness Society in Tasmania when they apply mathematical comparisons to official government figures in the forest debate, such as comparing today’s old growth forest to the area that estimated to have existed in the year 1750 even though the forest in 1750 was of all ages, and only a percentage would have been considered “Old Growth”.

The word “Statistics” can be found in a well known phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularised by Mark Twain: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

As Wikipedia says this semi-ironic statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, and succinctly describes how even accurate statistics can be used to bolster inaccurate arguments.

Cheers, Cinders