No words on global climate change Mike? I'm assuming carbon emissions are low on your list of priorities.

Australia must either ween itself off coal for energy production or develop practical carbon capture technology. I would imagine that there is no carbon capture options for liquid transport fuels.

The capital investment required to scale this technology up to a point were it could mitigate peak oil (which is IMO, 2008-12) would be much better spent on pursuing demand reduction strategies. This approach would also address the issue of carbon pollution.

This discussion has an amazing blind spot when it comes to greenhouse consequences. One estimate puts well-to-wheels greenhouse emissions of coal-to-liquids at 180% of petroleum based fuels. CTL transfers more carbon from the ground to the atmosphere than does oil and about the same if the CO2 is captured. If we made low sulphur, low aromatics fuel out of unwanted inmates of gaols or nursing homes we could call it 'clean fuel' by your definition. I'd call CTL 'climate change fuel'. Other things to think about are the local impacts of all the extra coal mining and the possibility of a future government bringing in carbon taxes or EU style carbon trading. Since coal deposits will be used up more quickly in time yet another fuel source will be needed. A better idea I think is centralised FT synthesis of locally made oil from waste biomass. Not only is the carbon recycled within the biosphere but it would benefit areas that lack coal deposits.

We must advance in all areas.

Finding an energy source which doesn't emit the greenhouse gases of coal (such as nuclear) is important. Yet it is impossible to not use cars, trucks and other such modes of transport at the same time, so research is necessary. I worry about F-T's cost, especially for rural and regional areas, which will have less ease in moving to electrified transport.

F-T might be part of the solution, especially in removing these poisons from our air. Increasing the market-share of electrified public transport (trains and trams) and then improving the electricity sources (clean coal, nuclear, sequestered coal) is the best way to improve things.

Mike Clarke has produced a credible statement for an alternative fuel source by any measure. The only criticism might be that he has confined it to coal and not addressed gas which represents a vastly cleaner alternative to using coal or shale.

One can use emotive criticisms but it does not undermine the fact that the FT technology is vastly more efficient than the use of what amounts to using foodstuffs for fuel that in the end are subsidised by the taxpayer. It has emotive appeal to tag these as renewable resources and they might be cleaner but they all require vastly more energy, notably the use of sugar cane or starch to produce ethanol, than is produced (never mind the damage to the vastly more valuable Barrier reef by the leaching of fertilisers). Ethanol and the other biofuels are simply 'economically inefficient' to manufacture. Not surprisingly the recent push for its use in petrol has required extensive subsidies paid by us taxpayers by way of payment to the venturers and exemptions from excise (which is a form of assistance).

Biofuels are a nonsense only workable when the assistance to the rural sector needs to be disguised as with ethanol, here as in Brazil.

Mike's article is remiss in not exploring the use of gas (LNG), notably from stranded gasfields with a low opportunity value.

Academics like the good professor are strong on hitting the assistance needed button, but they forget it is us that pay for it with real and substantive economic costs. Biofuels will always remain a niche activity unless political expediency to prop up the sugar industry costing us already $65 million per year apart from the allocations to the venturers.

Congratulations Mike for a good expose. Perhaps you might acknowledge gas as a superior alternative than coal however.

Cheap liquid transport fuel is an aberration even in our modern times.

I must agree when Mike Clark concludes in his article “If Australia is to avoid a depression brought on by liquid fuel shortages coupled with excessive fuel costs, then it must develop alternative liquid fuel resources based on its plentiful solid fossil fuel reserves as quickly as possible” .

Also a rigorous discussion on greenhouse issues resulting from the introduction of F-T technologies here is somewhat out of place considering that every one must start thinking about peddling their cars to work soon.

Mike however remains quite academic on the practical side of producing F-T alternatives to our existing oil refineries. Big questions remain. For instance; who wants anything other than bio diesel? And where are all the skilled technicians needed for upgrading our coal to gas to oil?

I could also ask what happens to background radiation in coal slag dumps after processing. But that’s nit picking a good article.

Perhaps detractors thinking only about increases in CO2 should return to times when we had to live right on the job what ever it was and where ever it was. I can relate to folks who worked their hearts out in the days of steam power building railways between towns without roads after WW2.

There is another argument in favor of converting coal to gas or gas to oil and it’s about replacing all those plastics we take for granted now.

Perhaps wood can again fill the gaps.

Tas, I think you’re spot on.

Getting Australia through the forthcoming peak oil scenario with a gentle downtrend instead of societal collapse is vastly more important than worrying about greenhouse gas emissions. If we can turn coal into liquid transport fuel at a non-prohibitively expensive price, then we should do it, regardless of emission quality.

Even if emissions were highly unhealthy, we should go for it. Much better that than societal collapse or something close to it. As it is, general health aspects appear good with this technology.

So why haven’t we launched into it? What’s the catch? O of course, petroleum is still affordable, and our government is not going to act until it has to react to a crisis, as always. Its time then to tell them that a crisis looms large. O yes, some of us have been telling them that for some time now. O well, they’ll react to a crisis when the crisis becomes full-blown then, then.

A good article Mike. I agree with your conclusion, except for one point; I think we are in for much more than ‘just’ a depression as fuel prices rise. This will potentially lead to collapsed businesses, massive job losses, food shortages as lines of transport break down, rapid inflation and in short the collapse of society as we know it. So I think the urgency to implement your ideas is somewhat greater than you state.

crikey Taz, you've got a three-letter name.... and I missspelt it!

pfpfpfpfpfpffff

Apologies

Ludwig: Don’t panic. Looking beyond our hopes in new technology we can restart with fresh expectations by looking backwards for a moment.

We have a strong tradition based on good old fashioned Celtic?? enterprise. Strength is a feature of all modern Australian industry with its healthy helping of home grown innovation. We now have quality as one of our mainstream objectives.

I see considerable merit in Mike’s article based on my own exposure to major industry here however readers should be aware that in the full range of engineering here we built a number of white elephants along the way

I recommend this long review of Australian technology in practice on the www. Let’s start with the chemical industry, use the index a-z for everything else -

http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/598.html

My interest in retirement includes another area of enterprise, our exploitation of resources. This provides the basis of our trade and industrial wealth that underpins our modern lifestyle. Leadership here can provide huge benefits and offsets elsewhere particularly as we now take many of our designs and developments to places like China. I recently suggested some modern town planners here look at how work and living improved at mining operations like our first big tin mine Mt Bischoff with the advent of hydro power and steam railways through the West Coast region of Tasmania.

http://images.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/Search/Search.asp?Letter=M&Subject=Mines+and+mineral+resources+%2D+Tasmania+%2D+Waratah+%2D+History+%2D+Photographs

Tons of tin are used in window glass manufacture and electronics today and gold still supports our banks. For scenes of great exploitation dating back to the late 1800’s go to these fantastic tourist postcards. Regarding transport; at Williamsford we still had a working silver lead gold and zinc mine at the top of the self acting haulage (gravity) that employed blind ponies underground high up on Mt Read long after the ww2. An aerial ropeway carried the precious ore in buckets over the mountains to the EZ crusher at Rosebery and the old EBR railway to Burnie. There was no through road till 1963. Mt Reid looked across an isolated old hydro scheme at Lake Margaret and on to Mt Lyell and its famous gold and copper mines. Before cheap oil thoughts about major roads in this region were ridiculous.

http://images.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/Search/Search.asp?Letter=M&Subject=Mines+and+mineral+resources+%2D+Tasmania%2C+Western+%2D+History+%2D+Photographs.

Today the larger open cuts and underground mining operations depend on diesel. In considering all our demands for oil, where can we find an electric lift motor today that uses no copper? But more importantly, can we build modern circuits without plastics?

Technology means lots of things to different people.

Mike Clarke’s Reply to comments re: ‘Clean Transport Fuels for Australia’. In THREE PARTS

Firstly I thank those who posted comments and for their contributions to the question of clean transport fuels.

Remco asked the question of why not use natural gas in place of coal or oil shale, since gas is ‘vastly’ cleaner. In reply I must point out that the demand for gas is accelerating (apologies for the pun), and that demand as shown by Chinese and US involvement in Australia’s natural gas (NG) production (as LNG) is likely to prevent the major diversion of gas into GTL operations in Australia, with the exception of some Middle East projects, around the World, ie in reality there will be few stranded gas resources in the near future.

In the case of the Gorgon natural gas project (Western Australia), the Sasol/Chevron proposal to produce GTL essentially fell over due to the US pressure for a reliable LNG supply and due to the immediate economic advantages of a much shorter development time to establish a LNG facility (to the benefit of Chevron). You may remember that John Howard went off to California to convince Governor Arnie to allow the construction of a LNG receival terminal off Longbeach, in place of a terminal in Baja California, where those pesky Mexicans would have a hand on the tap!

Are natural gas resources vastly cleaner than coal or oil shale? Advocates of natural gas point to its considerably lower carbon to hydrogen ratio as compared to coal or oil shale. This ratio means that in burning NG more water is produced than carbon dioxide, but this relationship only holds true at the fence of the utilising facility (eg a power station). Piped natural gas needs compressors every 100 – 150 km of pipe. These compressors utilise a considerable portion of the total gas. Compressor stations also ‘leak’, and leaks are largely methane – thus putting a gas of high global warming potential into the atmosphere.

Mike Clarke’s Reply to comments re: ‘Clean Transport Fuels for Australia’. In THREE PARTS - 2

Returning to Gorgon, the resource is quoted as being 20 Trillion Cubic Feet (TCF), with a carbon dioxide content of 17% by volume. On a mass basis, this means that for every 30 ktonnes of raw gas produced, 10 ktonnes carbon dioxide will be stripped out, and 20 ktonnes of purified gas (equal to one petajoule) will be produced. Note: All the carbon dioxide will need to be stripped from the NG to make it suitable for LNG production and export. There are suggestions that the carbon dioxide will be geo-sequestrated, however this operation is energy intensive and thus produces further carbon dioxide emissions.

A much bigger regional gas field, the Indonesian Natuna gas field (300 TCF) even presents greater challenges. The gas composition is reportedly methane 28%, carbon dioxide 71%, hydrogen sulphide 0.5% and nitrogen 0.5% on a volume basis. There are proposals for using this gas for LNG and/or GTL production, however the environmental consequences of its use are considerable. So natural gas is not always vastly cleaner than coal or oil shale.

Another related question. How safe is carbon dioxide geo-sequestration? In Africa there are two lakes (Nyos and Monoun) that can regurgitate vast amounts of carbon dioxide and cause many deaths and much suffering. Are the geo-sequestrators certain of the safety of their activities? I for one would not want to be too close to their geo-sequestration operations, in case of bubble, bubble -- > whoosh!

And Remco, I do not support endless assistance to politically correct but practically stupid projects like producing large quantities of biofuels.

Peakro asks why, ‘No words on global climate change Mike?’. Well overall I am a Greenhouse sceptic or as some would put it, a ‘denialist’!

I agree that we have climate change, but according to the eminent scientist, Professor Bob Carter (James Cook U), it is not exceptional and fits into a cycle that has been around for 500,000 years. See Page 4, the Australian, January 7 – 8, 2006.

Mike Clarke’s Reply to comments re: ‘Clean Transport Fuels for Australia’. In THREE PARTS - 3

As to the consensus science peddled by the IPCC, I remember that the great brains of the World has had such undisputable facts as, Phlogiston and Miasma to hold onto. That fossil fuel emissions cause global warming is nothing but a theory.

I however understand that the major Greenhouse gas is water vapour. I am curious to understand how the extensive and on-going deforestation are effecting the planet, and hope that the study of the global climatic effects of deforestation are seriously studied in the future.

In reply to Taswegian, my article points out the desirability of producing GTL in complexes that are also major power stations. I look to closing the ‘well-to-wheels greenhouse emissions of coal-to-liquids at 180% of petroleum based fuels’, very significantly, and possibly totally. In other words maximising the energy extracted from every tonne of coal. As to using waste biomass as the carbon source for F-T fuels, the poor relative carbon content of such fuel feed-stocks and their dispersed nature, make such activities near useless. More biodiesel would be used in collecting feed-stock, synthesising and purifying product, and distributing product, than would be produced.

DFXK raised the idea of nuclear energy for reducing Greenhouse emissions. This will likely be the solution to stationary power uses, but has difficulties re transport fuels. Please watch for developments in Latent Heat Storage and Recovery; there may be a few answers.

To Tas & Ludwig, thanks for the comments. I do not want to see a fuel shortage engineered World depression.

One last point, although I am very much a GHG and Kyoto sceptic, I do agree in fuel/energy conservation. It is only mugs that go out and waste energy, so may we all stop being mugs!

Mike Clarke winds up with an interesting comment-

“I however understand that the major Greenhouse gas is water vapour. I am curious to understand how the extensive and on-going deforestation are effecting the planet, and hope that the study of the global climatic effects of deforestation are seriously studied in the future”.

Mike: We need another discussion stream on this matter, water vapour is frequently overlooked in many comments on greenhouse gases.

Let’s have something solid on this one soon.

I am a woods man in all of this

Mike: Can we look deeper? From a METTS Doc. Bushfire, Storms and Soil Erosion - “The optimal situation is to schedule controlled burning during periods of light rain, with minimal disturbance of decomposing leaf-litter and cryptogams”.

http://www.metts.com.au/bushfire-storms-soil.html

Wild fire is my major concern today. Can we say a bushfire behaves like a furnace on the run? Also; to stop it must we eliminate the fine fuel?

Thanks for your feedback

"Peakro asks why, ‘No words on global climate change Mike?’. Well overall I am a Greenhouse sceptic or as some would put it, a ‘denialist’!"

Well, what a surprise that an engineer, who will probably profit from the continuation of fossil fuel exploitation, is a Greenhouse sceptic.