I've decided to replace this blog with a new one building on the themes I developed in my book, From Smoke to Mirrors.
Check out my Keep New Zealand Real blog over at kevincudby.com.
This blog will be discontinued when I get a round to it.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Converting Coal Into Liquid Fuels Is Dumb
A proposal to convert South Island lignite (coal) into liquid fuels is bouncing around the 'net.
This is a dumb idea.
Replacing only a third of our conventional fuels with FT synthetic fuels made from lignite would increase New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions by more than 25 percent*. That's because coal-to-liquid facilities emit lots of carbon dioxide. That is on top of the greenhouse gas emissions from engines, which are practically identical for conventional fuel, and for fuel made from coal.
Coal to liquid fuel will increase the carbon footprint of all New Zealand exports, including agricultural products and tourism. And that, in turn, would hurt our economy.
Synthetic Fuel Production
Coal promoters have been hyping up a coal-to-liquid (CTL) facility in the South Island for several years. They point out that this would satisfy New Zealand's diesel requirements.
The only proven way of making fuel suitable for modern diesel engines is the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis process. Although there are other ways of making coal into liquid fuels, we can safely assume this is what they are talking about.
The Fischer-Tropsch process can convert various raw materials into high-quality liquid fuels (petrol, diesel, jet fuel). The quality of the finished product depends on the characteristics of the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesiser, but not upon the raw material. However, the impact of carbon dioxide emissions from FT fuels depends on the raw material. Made from wood, they are carbon-neutral and will not affect the global climate.
Coal is a fossil fuel, which means that FT fuels made from coal will exacerbate global warming. There are no ifs, buts, or maybes about that.
Based on published information, we know that FT diesel is practically a drop-in replacement for present-day diesel. We also know that lighter FT hydrocarbons, known as naphtha, can be upgraded into good quality petrol.
If the proposed CTL facility were designed to focus on diesel, it would inevitably produce naphtha as a byproduct. This would account for about 20% of its output (on an energy basis).
New Zealand consumes roughly equal quantities of petrol and diesel, so we can be quite certain that the New Zealand fuel market can absorb all the CTL naphtha this hypothetical coal-fed diesel factory can make.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In 2007, New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions totaled 75.55 million tonnes (CO2-e), excluding the absorption of greenhouse gases by growing forests and land-use changes. If we take into account the effect of land use, land use changes, and forests, the total was 51.71 million tonnes (CO2-e).
Of that, 7.759 million tonnes resulted from diesel consumption.
Suppose we used CTL diesel instead of conventional diesel.
Based on the results of a 2008 analysis by New Zealand scientists**, I calculate we would have emitted 18.59 million tonnes (CO2-e) from CTL diesel (10.75 million tonnes more than ordinary diesel)
It doesn't end there.
In the process of converting CTL naphtha into petrol and burning it up in our engines, we would have produced an extra 2.63 million tonnes, compared with ordinary petrol.
Overall, CTL fuels would have produced an extra 13.38 million tonnes.
Excluding LULUCF, our greenhouse gas emissions would increase by 17.7 percent.
Overall, converting lignite into CTL fuels would increase total greenhouse emissions by more than 25 percent.
Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Agriculture accounts for 12 percent of New Zealand's diesel consumption. CTL diesel would directly increase agricultural greenhouse emissions by about 3.5 percent.
But.
Agricultural products are useless until they have been transported to markets. That requires diesel. The carbon footprints of our agricultural exports would grow by more than 3.5 percent.
Can't We Bury It?
No.
So-called carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) systems take carbon dioxide from the factory smoke-stack and pump it into the ground. This can only work if the ground happens to contain a suitable geological structure, such as a worked-out gas field. We don't know if Central Otago's underground structures can safely hold all this carbon dioxide. There's no point spending a lot of money and energy pumping it into the ground if it leaks out within a few years or decades.
CCS increases operating costs. If it were added to the proposed CTL facility, we would quite likely find that CTL fuels end up costing more than carbon-neutral FT fuels made from wood chips.
Unless coal promoters can point to an existing CTL facility with fully-functional CCS technology, I will not believe they have any intention of installing CCS technology on their proposed facility. To do so would involve developing new technology.
Even if someone does successfully invent CCS technology, coal promoters would need to demonstrate that the carbon dioxide will remain underground until the onset of the next ice age, in about 30,000 years, before I will accept that CCS technology can reduce anthropogenic climate change.
That will take, oh, I'd say about 20,000 years of practical testing and monitoring.
The Real Impact
British and European consumers are already avoiding products with large carbon footprints. CTL liquid fuels boost the carbon footprints of all New Zealand exports, making our products less attractive to foreign consumers. We will lose sales. We can be quite certain of that.
Farmers will quite likely respond by cutting production: either intentionally, in response to falling sales; or accidentally, when they go broke.
Is that what we want?
--
* Updated to take account of LULUCF, 4 June 2010
** Hall & Jack, 2008: Hall, Peter; & Michael Jack: Bioenergy Options for New Zealand – Pathways analysis. Rotorua, NZ: Scion, 2008. http://www.scionresearch.com/bioenergy+report.aspx, visited 20 Oct 2008.
This is a dumb idea.
Replacing only a third of our conventional fuels with FT synthetic fuels made from lignite would increase New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions by more than 25 percent*. That's because coal-to-liquid facilities emit lots of carbon dioxide. That is on top of the greenhouse gas emissions from engines, which are practically identical for conventional fuel, and for fuel made from coal.
Coal to liquid fuel will increase the carbon footprint of all New Zealand exports, including agricultural products and tourism. And that, in turn, would hurt our economy.
Synthetic Fuel Production
Coal promoters have been hyping up a coal-to-liquid (CTL) facility in the South Island for several years. They point out that this would satisfy New Zealand's diesel requirements.
The only proven way of making fuel suitable for modern diesel engines is the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis process. Although there are other ways of making coal into liquid fuels, we can safely assume this is what they are talking about.
The Fischer-Tropsch process can convert various raw materials into high-quality liquid fuels (petrol, diesel, jet fuel). The quality of the finished product depends on the characteristics of the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesiser, but not upon the raw material. However, the impact of carbon dioxide emissions from FT fuels depends on the raw material. Made from wood, they are carbon-neutral and will not affect the global climate.
Coal is a fossil fuel, which means that FT fuels made from coal will exacerbate global warming. There are no ifs, buts, or maybes about that.
Based on published information, we know that FT diesel is practically a drop-in replacement for present-day diesel. We also know that lighter FT hydrocarbons, known as naphtha, can be upgraded into good quality petrol.
If the proposed CTL facility were designed to focus on diesel, it would inevitably produce naphtha as a byproduct. This would account for about 20% of its output (on an energy basis).
New Zealand consumes roughly equal quantities of petrol and diesel, so we can be quite certain that the New Zealand fuel market can absorb all the CTL naphtha this hypothetical coal-fed diesel factory can make.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In 2007, New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions totaled 75.55 million tonnes (CO2-e), excluding the absorption of greenhouse gases by growing forests and land-use changes. If we take into account the effect of land use, land use changes, and forests, the total was 51.71 million tonnes (CO2-e).
Of that, 7.759 million tonnes resulted from diesel consumption.
Suppose we used CTL diesel instead of conventional diesel.
Based on the results of a 2008 analysis by New Zealand scientists**, I calculate we would have emitted 18.59 million tonnes (CO2-e) from CTL diesel (10.75 million tonnes more than ordinary diesel)
It doesn't end there.
In the process of converting CTL naphtha into petrol and burning it up in our engines, we would have produced an extra 2.63 million tonnes, compared with ordinary petrol.
Overall, CTL fuels would have produced an extra 13.38 million tonnes.
Excluding LULUCF, our greenhouse gas emissions would increase by 17.7 percent.
Overall, converting lignite into CTL fuels would increase total greenhouse emissions by more than 25 percent.
Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Agriculture accounts for 12 percent of New Zealand's diesel consumption. CTL diesel would directly increase agricultural greenhouse emissions by about 3.5 percent.
But.
Agricultural products are useless until they have been transported to markets. That requires diesel. The carbon footprints of our agricultural exports would grow by more than 3.5 percent.
Can't We Bury It?
No.
So-called carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) systems take carbon dioxide from the factory smoke-stack and pump it into the ground. This can only work if the ground happens to contain a suitable geological structure, such as a worked-out gas field. We don't know if Central Otago's underground structures can safely hold all this carbon dioxide. There's no point spending a lot of money and energy pumping it into the ground if it leaks out within a few years or decades.
CCS increases operating costs. If it were added to the proposed CTL facility, we would quite likely find that CTL fuels end up costing more than carbon-neutral FT fuels made from wood chips.
Unless coal promoters can point to an existing CTL facility with fully-functional CCS technology, I will not believe they have any intention of installing CCS technology on their proposed facility. To do so would involve developing new technology.
Even if someone does successfully invent CCS technology, coal promoters would need to demonstrate that the carbon dioxide will remain underground until the onset of the next ice age, in about 30,000 years, before I will accept that CCS technology can reduce anthropogenic climate change.
That will take, oh, I'd say about 20,000 years of practical testing and monitoring.
The Real Impact
British and European consumers are already avoiding products with large carbon footprints. CTL liquid fuels boost the carbon footprints of all New Zealand exports, making our products less attractive to foreign consumers. We will lose sales. We can be quite certain of that.
Farmers will quite likely respond by cutting production: either intentionally, in response to falling sales; or accidentally, when they go broke.
Is that what we want?
--
* Updated to take account of LULUCF, 4 June 2010
** Hall & Jack, 2008: Hall, Peter; & Michael Jack: Bioenergy Options for New Zealand – Pathways analysis. Rotorua, NZ: Scion, 2008. http://www.scionresearch.com/bioenergy+report.aspx, visited 20 Oct 2008.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Can Wellington Depend on Road Transport Indefinitely?
Some economists say that because humanity has always found new technologies, we will continue to do so. According to this perspective, economic growth can continue indefinitely.
Commonsense and the laws of thermodynamics suggest that exponential growth cannot go on forever. For example, fusion is sometimes promoted as a limitless source of clean energy. However, we will not see a self-supporting fusion reactor before 2030 at the very earliest. We won’t be able to realistically assess the technology’s potential until this first small-scale experiment is complete, and even then, there's no guarantee it will work. We might find it necessary to build another experimental reactor, which will take another twenty-odd years, before we can realistically make a judgement. In my opinion, it would be extremely unwise to make any plans based on this technology until 2050 at the very earliest. There's no basis for the idea that it will not be subject to some kind of constraint.
A contrary view is that road and air transport are not sustainable, because fossil fuels are finite, and because their consumption causes climate change, and because we have not yet commercialised suitable alternatives.
Extremist Perpsectives are Unrealistic
There's no reason to think that road transport will necessarily be constrained by energy shortages, or that its impact on climate change cannot be neutralised. Engineers know how to make renewable, carbon-neutral petrol, diesel, and jet fuel. Some of the necessary technologies are still being commercialised, but no new inventions are required.
It's also worth keeping in mind that present-day cars, trucks, buses, trains, aeroplanes, and ships are built mostly from readily recycled materials such as steel and aluminium.
The odd technological breakthrough might improve matters, but the world will not be forced to abandon motorised road transport if they don't happen. The same goes for aviation and shipping.
I’ve spent a good part of the last three years surveying the strengths and weaknesses of various carbon-neutral and carbon-free technologies. I've identified a raft of excellent technologies seldom mentioned in mainstream NZ media. After analysing their strengths and weaknesses, I’ve reached the following conclusions:
Later this year I’ll write about these future transport technologies. For the moment, my main concern is that Wellington’s transport infrastructure is being shaped by an inappropriate debate. On one side is the belief that roads will eventually become redundant. On the other side, the belief that our roading system can expand indefinitely. Both positions are wrong.
Both sides must accept that their opponents may have some worthwhile points to make. Wellington is very much a work in progress. It emerged from a series of historical accidents and the city was built by people trying to make the best of various unplanned situations. It has never had an effective land transport system. Its street layout is, at best, an ad hoc shambles, and it is getting worse.
Better Communication Can Lead to Genuine Improvements
Right now, Wellingtonians are talking past each other, and this lack of genuine communication is ruining our city.
Karo Drive exemplifies the problem. As far as I can tell, roading opponents wanted two things: They wanted uninterrupted pedestrian flow from the Aro Valley down through Cuba Street (and perhaps Willis Street) to the CBD; and they wanted the heritage neighbourhood to be preserved.
The purpose of the new road was to provide an unimpeded route for through traffic, bypassing the CBD.
Clearly, both of these results could have been achieved by building a four or six-lane tunnel from Willis Street to Taranaki Street, with the road then running alongside Buckle Street to the Basin Reserve.
Engineers would prefer to build such a tunnel by the "cut-and-cover" technique. That is, they dig a trench for the road, and then roof it over. They would have needed to move all the existing buildings, build the tunnel, and then restore the neighbourhood.
The original plan called for a trench.
Instead of calling for it to be converted into a tunnel, with restoration of the neighbourhood, objectors decided to fight the whole idea of a road. The upshot? Upper Cuba Street is divided in two by a very busy street, a bunch of very nice heritage buildings have been plonked into a fake heritage precinct that no-one uses, and Wellington still does not have a decent through road.
Some parts of the project can be salvaged, but for the money, we could have done a lot better if the various groups had communicated better.
Energy is not the Constraint
There is no technical reason why transportation should be constrained by the supply of carbon-neutral renewable energy. Oil producers would very much like us to believe there is, because if we think there's a looming energy crisis, we'll stoically allow them to rip us off.
In my opinion, humanity will quite likely encounter other constraints, such as possible shortages of minerals and water. Neglecting Wellington's transport infrastructure cannot, in any way, mitigate those problems.
In my next instalment, I'll write about the ways that Wellington can develop its road and rail systems to complement each other, preserving the things that make Wellington special, and eliminating the blockages that throttle its economy and make life difficult and stressful for tradespeople, transport operators, and
other folk who spend part or all of their workday using Wellington's roads.
Commonsense and the laws of thermodynamics suggest that exponential growth cannot go on forever. For example, fusion is sometimes promoted as a limitless source of clean energy. However, we will not see a self-supporting fusion reactor before 2030 at the very earliest. We won’t be able to realistically assess the technology’s potential until this first small-scale experiment is complete, and even then, there's no guarantee it will work. We might find it necessary to build another experimental reactor, which will take another twenty-odd years, before we can realistically make a judgement. In my opinion, it would be extremely unwise to make any plans based on this technology until 2050 at the very earliest. There's no basis for the idea that it will not be subject to some kind of constraint.
A contrary view is that road and air transport are not sustainable, because fossil fuels are finite, and because their consumption causes climate change, and because we have not yet commercialised suitable alternatives.
Extremist Perpsectives are Unrealistic
There's no reason to think that road transport will necessarily be constrained by energy shortages, or that its impact on climate change cannot be neutralised. Engineers know how to make renewable, carbon-neutral petrol, diesel, and jet fuel. Some of the necessary technologies are still being commercialised, but no new inventions are required.
It's also worth keeping in mind that present-day cars, trucks, buses, trains, aeroplanes, and ships are built mostly from readily recycled materials such as steel and aluminium.
The odd technological breakthrough might improve matters, but the world will not be forced to abandon motorised road transport if they don't happen. The same goes for aviation and shipping.
I’ve spent a good part of the last three years surveying the strengths and weaknesses of various carbon-neutral and carbon-free technologies. I've identified a raft of excellent technologies seldom mentioned in mainstream NZ media. After analysing their strengths and weaknesses, I’ve reached the following conclusions:
It is very unlikely that global supplies of petrol, diesel, jet fuel, fuel oil, and other hydrocarbon products will taper off when crude oil production starts winding down. We have plenty other other ways of making these
products.
Even if the world is forced to use an alternative road transport technology, energy will not be the constraint. The world can continue to support present levels of land, air, and sea transport using a mix of renewable fuels and well-proven alternative technologies. There is room for a small amount of growth, but not much.
New Zealand scientists and engineers know how to satisfy local transport requirements with carbon-neutral petrol, diesel, jet fuel, and fuel oil, made from renewable indigenous resources. Unlike the rest of the world, we already know we do not need alternative road transport technology such as ethanol, hydrogen, or batteries. The necessary technology has already passed the high-risk laboratory and pilot-scale development phases. We can expect it to be commercially mature within the next decade.
Later this year I’ll write about these future transport technologies. For the moment, my main concern is that Wellington’s transport infrastructure is being shaped by an inappropriate debate. On one side is the belief that roads will eventually become redundant. On the other side, the belief that our roading system can expand indefinitely. Both positions are wrong.
Both sides must accept that their opponents may have some worthwhile points to make. Wellington is very much a work in progress. It emerged from a series of historical accidents and the city was built by people trying to make the best of various unplanned situations. It has never had an effective land transport system. Its street layout is, at best, an ad hoc shambles, and it is getting worse.
Better Communication Can Lead to Genuine Improvements
Right now, Wellingtonians are talking past each other, and this lack of genuine communication is ruining our city.
Karo Drive exemplifies the problem. As far as I can tell, roading opponents wanted two things: They wanted uninterrupted pedestrian flow from the Aro Valley down through Cuba Street (and perhaps Willis Street) to the CBD; and they wanted the heritage neighbourhood to be preserved.
The purpose of the new road was to provide an unimpeded route for through traffic, bypassing the CBD.
Clearly, both of these results could have been achieved by building a four or six-lane tunnel from Willis Street to Taranaki Street, with the road then running alongside Buckle Street to the Basin Reserve.
Engineers would prefer to build such a tunnel by the "cut-and-cover" technique. That is, they dig a trench for the road, and then roof it over. They would have needed to move all the existing buildings, build the tunnel, and then restore the neighbourhood.
The original plan called for a trench.
Instead of calling for it to be converted into a tunnel, with restoration of the neighbourhood, objectors decided to fight the whole idea of a road. The upshot? Upper Cuba Street is divided in two by a very busy street, a bunch of very nice heritage buildings have been plonked into a fake heritage precinct that no-one uses, and Wellington still does not have a decent through road.
Some parts of the project can be salvaged, but for the money, we could have done a lot better if the various groups had communicated better.
Energy is not the Constraint
There is no technical reason why transportation should be constrained by the supply of carbon-neutral renewable energy. Oil producers would very much like us to believe there is, because if we think there's a looming energy crisis, we'll stoically allow them to rip us off.
In my opinion, humanity will quite likely encounter other constraints, such as possible shortages of minerals and water. Neglecting Wellington's transport infrastructure cannot, in any way, mitigate those problems.
In my next instalment, I'll write about the ways that Wellington can develop its road and rail systems to complement each other, preserving the things that make Wellington special, and eliminating the blockages that throttle its economy and make life difficult and stressful for tradespeople, transport operators, and
other folk who spend part or all of their workday using Wellington's roads.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Merry Christmas
If you're looking for positive practical thinking about carbon-neutral transport and liquid fuels for Wellington in particular, and New Zealand in general, you won't want to miss this blog in 2010.
Have a great holiday.
Have a great holiday.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
What a Difference!
I usually plan my workday to avoid commuter traffic. If I spend all day in Wellington I use the trains, and I try to schedule short meetings outside rush-hour.
Wednesday was an exception. For the first time in months I've been forced to drive along the Western Hutt Road during rush-hour.
I left Oriental Bay at 5 p.m. The trip along the waterfront and the motorway to Ngauranga was typically slow but tolerable. But what a difference when I reached Petone. Gone where those infuriating Korokoro and Maungaraki queues. The traffic flowed so smoothly it felt like normal weekday traffic and far better than the madness of a typical weekend.
Congratulations to everyone involved in the Dowse to Petone upgrade. The widened road through Petone, the grade-separated interchange at Maungaraki, and the continuous median barrier have dramatically transformed the road. If commuters use the trains whenever possible, business travelers and transport operators will be able to rely on getting around Wellington Harbour without resorting to helicopters, even at peak times.
Needless to say, the job is far from complete. We desperately need new trains, otherwise commuters will start buying battery powered cars or plug-in hybrids. If that happens, we'll discover the true meaning of congestion and high electricity prices, not to mention all the greenhouse emissions associated with making all those batteries.
About a third of all the traffic that uses the Western Hutt Road is commuter traffic. That's a lot of traffic to cram into a short period at the beginning and end of each day, which is why the road gets so congested at peak times.
However, it struggles to cope with normal business-day traffic, which is the main reason it needs improving. It's never been any good and we should have made it into a motorway forty years ago.
Melling is a shambles. Belmont's b*** awful, and Kelson is chronic. We need grade separated interchanges at Kelson and Melling. We need a two-lane slip road to link the other side roads to these grade-separated interchanges and eliminate intermediate intersections. We should also extend the Melling railway to Kelson, so that it can take as much commuter traffic as possible from Lower Hutt's Western Hills.
And, as I mentioned in my previous post, we absolutely must fix the cycle road. I notice another crappy "cycle-track" is being built at Petone. We must stop wasting money on these ridiculous white elephants and do a proper job.
Before we start on any of this we should commission a traffic study of the Akatarawa Motorway to find out if we can get away with four lanes between Maungaraki and Silverstream. We might need to six-lane this section (though I suspect we'll get away with four lanes if slow drivers learn to drive in the left lane instead of driving two abreast in their three tonne diesel-hybrid SUVs).
None of this detracts from the fine effort that has gone into the Dowse Interchange. I won't say it's perfect but it's damn good, it looks to me as if the road can be widened to six-lanes if necessary, and it has eliminated some very serious congestion.
Wednesday was an exception. For the first time in months I've been forced to drive along the Western Hutt Road during rush-hour.
I left Oriental Bay at 5 p.m. The trip along the waterfront and the motorway to Ngauranga was typically slow but tolerable. But what a difference when I reached Petone. Gone where those infuriating Korokoro and Maungaraki queues. The traffic flowed so smoothly it felt like normal weekday traffic and far better than the madness of a typical weekend.
Congratulations to everyone involved in the Dowse to Petone upgrade. The widened road through Petone, the grade-separated interchange at Maungaraki, and the continuous median barrier have dramatically transformed the road. If commuters use the trains whenever possible, business travelers and transport operators will be able to rely on getting around Wellington Harbour without resorting to helicopters, even at peak times.
Needless to say, the job is far from complete. We desperately need new trains, otherwise commuters will start buying battery powered cars or plug-in hybrids. If that happens, we'll discover the true meaning of congestion and high electricity prices, not to mention all the greenhouse emissions associated with making all those batteries.
About a third of all the traffic that uses the Western Hutt Road is commuter traffic. That's a lot of traffic to cram into a short period at the beginning and end of each day, which is why the road gets so congested at peak times.
However, it struggles to cope with normal business-day traffic, which is the main reason it needs improving. It's never been any good and we should have made it into a motorway forty years ago.
Melling is a shambles. Belmont's b*** awful, and Kelson is chronic. We need grade separated interchanges at Kelson and Melling. We need a two-lane slip road to link the other side roads to these grade-separated interchanges and eliminate intermediate intersections. We should also extend the Melling railway to Kelson, so that it can take as much commuter traffic as possible from Lower Hutt's Western Hills.
And, as I mentioned in my previous post, we absolutely must fix the cycle road. I notice another crappy "cycle-track" is being built at Petone. We must stop wasting money on these ridiculous white elephants and do a proper job.
Before we start on any of this we should commission a traffic study of the Akatarawa Motorway to find out if we can get away with four lanes between Maungaraki and Silverstream. We might need to six-lane this section (though I suspect we'll get away with four lanes if slow drivers learn to drive in the left lane instead of driving two abreast in their three tonne diesel-hybrid SUVs).
None of this detracts from the fine effort that has gone into the Dowse Interchange. I won't say it's perfect but it's damn good, it looks to me as if the road can be widened to six-lanes if necessary, and it has eliminated some very serious congestion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
