MUENCHHAUSEN, May 12, 2009

MUENCHHAUSEN

AN ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER ABOUT ENVIRONMENT,

RENEWABLE RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY,

AND RELATED TOPICS

By BOOTSTRAP PRESS, INC.

BETHESDA, MD

JJGREENBARON(at)VERIZON.NET

WELCOME!

The Green Baron (TGB) welcomes one and all who take the time to read Muenchhausen. He aims to “tell it like it is” as much as possible, and avoid advocacy and ideological positions. There are enough of those to go around in other publications.

The Green Baron also welcomes comments from anyone who may read Muenchhausen. Please send comments to the e-mail address above or to Green_Baron99.muenchhausen@blogger.com.

SASOL FUEL

In a nutshell, SASOL stands for South African State Oil. Its main growth occurred during South Africa’s deplorable years of apartheid, during which races were segregated according to strict law to such an extent that it made the old Jim Crow in the American South look almost mild by comparison (this is not to excuse Jim Crow; that, too, was execrable).

The period of apartheid, which lasted in its very worst form from 1946, when South Africa’s somewhat more forward-looking Prime Minister Jan Christiaan Smuts (United Party) was defeated by Daniel F. Malan (National Party), finally ended in 1994 when then-President Frederik de Klerk declared it ended. During these times, South Africa came under increasing world pressure to abolish this system, especially from the mid-1970s on. Among the sanctions was an embargo on oil exports to South Africa, which had to purchase such petroleum as it could get on the spot market in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

South Africa is rich in coal (although some have argued that the grade of this coal is not so good and have characterized it as more like “carbonaceous dirt”). Be that as it may, as a riposte to the embargo, South Africa embarked on, and materially expended its SASOL project to make synthetic oil and automotive fuel via the liquefaction of coal. The SASOL company was founded in 1950 in a town that came to be known as Sasolburg, about 80 kilometers (km) south of Johannesburg. In essence SASOL developed its process for coal liquefaction and consequent hydrocarbon production on the general basis of the Fischer-Tröpsch process, a German process that dates back to World War II (Nazi Germany also needed to produce hydrocarbon fuels from coal after it lost access to petroleum sources). In principle, coal is converted to carbon monoxide, which, with hydrogen, can be converted to liquid hydrocarbons by use of proprietary catalysts (1).

Over the years since 1950, SASOL developed and improved its coal-to-liquid hydrocarbons processes. At nearly every filling station in South Africa, there is SASOL fuel pump, with its fuel so priced, partly through government intervention, that it remains competitive with automotive fuels from conventional sources. The SASOL Corporation continues to refine and expand its processes for coal conversion.

Given the end of apartheid, however, and the lifting of the oil embargo against South Africa after 1994, it could be asked why that country still needs the coal-based SASOL process, especially given world efforts (at least in some parts of the world) to curtail the generation of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and reduce, if not phase out altogether the use of coal. To discuss that question, TGB had the signal honor on May 5 of a brief interview at the National Press Club with former President de Klerk, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, together with Nelson Mandela, for bringing apartheid to its long-awaited end. De Klerk told TGB that regardless of the availability of petroleum to South Africa, his country wants to curtail energy-source imports as much as possible. He added that coal will play a major role in South Africa’s energy and economic future for many years to come, and that SASOL continues to expand and to improve its processes, while giving heed to protection of the environment insofar as possible. Given that nation’s geographic and resource situation, this approach is quite understandable economically, despite the objections of those who want to see coal phased out. In this regard, South Africa takes the same attitude as China and India, only the latter two currently are far more committed to coal use by comparison. This causes much trouble, tumult, and gnashing of teeth among environmental advocates.

De Klerk: Coal still important for his country.

POWER FOR THE SOUTHEAST

Phasing out the use of coal for electric power generation in the American Southeast will be fraught with problems, Bill Johnson, chief executive officer of Progress Energy (Raleigh, NC). Progress furnishes electricity to parts of North and South Carolina and Florida.

Johnson told a National Press Club conference May 7 that CO₂ emission reduction “is an imperative, but let’s do it right. The [American] Southeast is very carbon-intensive, and [has] low renewable-energy potential, not to mention some of America’s lowest-income families—perhaps 12% lower income than elsewhere. We are doing work in solar and biomass, but the Southeast is not blessed with much wind.”

Johnson also pointed out that solar energy is not currently a very workable option because of the variability of available sunlight in the Southeast. “You have lots of rain or none at all.” In short, the Southeast has lots of carbon (coal) available nearby and poor renewable resources. Johnson maintains that a “one size fits all” approach to CO₂ reduction nationwide, as envisioned in the Waxman-Markey bill now working its way through Congress, is not the way to go (2).

“What about wind energy obtainable by building wind turbines in the Atlantic Ocean off the coat of the Carolinas?” Johnson was asked. He suggested that perhaps there is sufficient wind to operate turbines in that part of the ocean, “but remember,” he added, “that the Carolinas are in ‘hurricane alley.’ There are turbines that could withstand a category 3 hurricane, but likely not a category 4 or 5 storm” (a category 5 hurricane has sustained eyewall winds with velocities at or above 155 miles/h; it is hard to envision a wind turbine that could survive such huge forces).

Darryl Basset, a former Public Utilities Commissioner in Arkansas, generally agreed with Johnson: “The Waxman-Markey bill [as it currently stands] would have a very harsh effect on families and businesses in the Southeast. If, [for instance], carbon dioxide cap-and-trade becomes law, its costs could be $983 billion according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); others, however, estimate costs in excess of 1 trillion dollars. The problem is not with the law’s intent; the devil is in the details. Right now, the poor in the Southeast pay 25% or more of their income on energy, so imagine the effect on them of major cost increases.”

“Progress Energy is funding some research in CO₂ reduction,” Johnson told TGB. “But we don’t have much in the way of funds for research and development.” “Public Utilities Commissions do support such R&D,” Bassett noted. Johnson added, however, “[In the Southeast], renewables won’t do much for you. We would be better off going for carbon reduction. However, carbon dioxide storage won’t be available by 2013 [when it is theoretically supposed to come into use],” Johnson noted. “And in any case, in the Southeast, there are no real repositories.

TGB also is curious: How does one store carbon dioxide in an underground repository? It would seem that storing it in gaseous form, even under pressure, would be unreliable, because of the general fugacity of gases. Could it be stored in liquid phase? Here is a problem: for CO₂ to be in liquid phase, the ambient pressure must exceed 5.2 atmospheres (760 torr X 5.2 or 29.92 inches X 5.2; a torr is the new name for an mm Hg). Perhaps the deep subterranean pressures are high enough to sustain carbon dioxide in liquid form? It’s a thought, but bear in mind that the critical temperature T_c for CO₂ is 31.1 °C (about 88 °F) at 70 atmospheres, so what if the deep-earth temperature is higher and the CO₂ becomes supercritical? This is food for thought!

REFERENCES:

1. http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/rd/R&D089.pdf

2. Johnson, B.; Bassett, D. Presentation at National Press Club, Washington, DC, May 7, 2009.