China’s Great Climate Joke: Switching to Gas, Made from Coal

Greens who celebrated China’s switch to gas are now worried the plans seem to be in disarray, as rushed conversions trigger a gas supply crisis. But behind the scenes, China is pursuing a gas production plan so carbon intensive, even Chinese greens are openly criticising central government policy.

Chinese officials point fingers as gasification crisis worsens

Meng Meng, Ryan Woo

DECEMBER 22, 2017 / 5:28 PM

BEIJING (Reuters) – When an inspector from a local environmental protection bureau visited a small village in China’s Shandong province in October to check on a gasification project, she said village officials became tearful in lamenting how far behind schedule they were.

For years, the village has been haunted by pollution from nearby coal mines and chemical plants. The village had been rushing to finish installing new gas boilers for residents as they ditched their old coal stoves, the inspector told Reuters.

The boilers are part of an ambitious gasification program under which millions of households, and some industrial users, are switching from coal to natural gas for heating, as Beijing tries to clean the tainted air in northern China after decades of galloping growth.

The effect of the dramatic switch has been felt globally, with internationally shipped gas prices almost doubling this year to more than $10 per million British thermal units, the highest since the end of 2014.

It has also been felt locally due to poor coordination among government bodies and gas producers, and miscalculations in demand, which have sent gas prices soaring, left many residents freezing in their homes, and shuttered factories.

Where there is gas supply, it cannot reach homes in some cases as the replacement gas infrastructure has not been installed.

“Everyone’s job is linked to whether we can meet the target,” the environmental protection inspector said, declining to be named and refusing to identify the village due to sensitivity of the matter.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-pollution-gas-criticism/chinese-officials-point-fingers-as-gasification-crisis-worsens-idUSKBN1EG0N9

Information about China’s carbon intensive plans to fix their gas supply problems is sparse – perhaps China is keen to maintain a fiction of climate leadership. But the plan to generate vast quantities of gas from coal has been in place since at least 2014.

‘Irrational’ Coal Plants May Hamper China’s Climate Change Efforts

By EDWARD WONG FEB. 7, 2017

YINING, China — When scientists and environmental scholars scan the grim industrial landscape of China, a certain coal plant near the rugged Kazakhstan border stands out.

On the outside, it looks like any other modern energy plant — shiny metal towers loom over the grassy grounds, and workers in hard hats stroll the campus. But in those towers, a rare and contentious process is underway, spewing an alarming amount of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas accelerating climate change.

The plant and others like it undermine China’s aim of being a global leader on efforts to limit climate change.

The plant, in the country’s far west, converts coal to synthetic natural gas. The process, called coal-to-gas or coal gasification, has been criticized by Chinese and foreign scholars and policy makers. For one thing, it is relatively expensive. It also requires enormous amounts of water, which exacerbates the chronic water crisis in northern China. And worst of all, critics say, it emits more carbon dioxide than traditional methods of energy production, even other coal-based ways.

“It is extremely irrational to develop coal-to-gas technology,” Li Junfeng, a climate change and energy adviser to the government, wrote in 2015 in China Energy News, a publication managed by People’s Daily, the Communist Party newspaper. He added that coal-to-gas was “unfit to become a national strategy.”

Despite such denunciations and a continuing policy debate, at least four such plants have begun operating in China in the past four years, pushed by local governments and state-owned enterprises in coal-rich regions. Dozens more have been under consideration.

No other country is considering building coal-to-gas plants on this scale.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/world/asia/china-coal-gas-plants-climate-change.html

Why is coal gasification so carbon intensive compared to simply burning coal?

To produce gas from coal, more than half the coal has to be converted into CO2 just to produce the gas. More coal may have to be burned to maintain the extreme pressures and temperatures required for this chemical process. This wasteful conversion process effectively doubles the amount of coal required to deliver the same energy.

All coal gasification processes are variations on the following;

3C (i.e., coal) + O2 + H2O → H2 + 3CO (carbon monoxide)

CO + H2O → CO2 + H2 (hydrogen gas)

The hydrogen from the gasification process can be combined with yet more coal to produce methane or propane or other hydrocarbons.

(See more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gasification)

At least some steps of the process are exothermic, so some of the heat from the reaction can potentially be recovered and used to power the system. But the process is still very wasteful – think tar sands on steroids.

The process is economically viable, despite the waste. Similar processes were used in the early 20th century by Western countries, to provide town gas to households.

The need to alleviate politically embarrassing and potentially life threatening gas shortages will make it difficult to refuse the coal gasification plan. The coal gasification plants will alleviate the heat and power gas shortage, improve Chinese energy security, and will drastically reduce pollution in major Chinese cities. More coal will be burned, far greater quantities of CO2 will be emitted, but the pollution from burning that coal will be shifted away from heavily populated cities to remote coal mining regions.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

107 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 26, 2017 8:18 am

China, especially in the north has two shale basins that shoild produce copious fracked natural gas. What china does not have is the technology, and the US frackers are not going to just give that away.
Coal gasification as at Edwardsport Indiana can ‘clean’ dirty (sulfur, ash) coal at a cost, feeding both residential and CCGT electricity.. This also would preserve coal mining jobs, apparently a big deal in China.

Reply to  ristvan
December 28, 2017 6:34 am

Rud, they have large hydrocarbon shale areas in South China as well. I wrote a report under contract on “Proppants, North American Industry Markets and Outlook” in 2015 for Roskill in the UK. In it I also reviewed the rest of the world, too. China flooded the US market with cheap ceramic manufactured ‘frac sand’ (used in deep high pressure plays) gearing up for their own development.They failed miserably but they aren’t innovators (yet?) and attempted to copy US tech while it was still evolving. Russia was shipping good quality ceram sand made from asbestos tailings and shipping it to Duluth, MN generally in your neck of the woods, Rud.

I even saw fracking as the “commoditization” of O+G since the practice of developing plays for future production during the decline in prices (and completion cost bargains that were offered) gave the industry a turn-key inventory. They also have some 60-70k wells that were fracked and can be re-entered with improved tech at low cost. This gave me the nerve to predict oil and gas prices to 2020! Which I have been asked not to share but are still in the hunt!

Shanghai Dan
December 26, 2017 8:41 am

On the bright side, China is a signatory to the Paris Accord, so everything is going to A-OK, right?

😉

Sean
December 26, 2017 9:27 am

The aspect I don’t really understand is that tight gas deposits that can be fracked are usually found in regions rich in coal. I can’t imagine the Chinese aren’t working feverishly on this.

Bruce Cobb
December 26, 2017 9:35 am

A point many people fail to realize is that coal and NG are natural competitors. NG prices can skyrocket due to spikes in demand, such as during the winter. US coal has taken a double-whammy, due to the “kill coal in favor of renewables” campaign, as well as the huge uptick in NG supplies due to fracking. What is needed now is a rebalancing of the scales in favor of coal. I believe that can happen during an 8-year Trump Administration. Four years won’t do it.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 26, 2017 12:53 pm

4 years of Trump-Pence and then 8 years of Pence-Haley would work for me.

December 26, 2017 9:52 am

I’m not clear that the CO2 is so much. The first “half” coal produces CO2, but this is part of the feed stock.Assuming high reactor efficiency, there would be no added CO2. Of course the lower the efficiency of conversion the more wasteful and higher CO2 emissions, but this would have to be measured against a higher efficiency of the gaseous fuel, too. You may be right about the increased CO2, but you havent demonstrated it with your equations.

Anyway, the thing that impresses me is the left expecting the ultra left to not be making fake news and empty promises like they themselves pump out every day. Do they think that the Chinese system unlike theirs is honest, non manipulative and unselfishly altruistic? Boy oh boy, it seems sceptics are good to have around outside of the scientific sphere ,too. Anyone here surprised at China’s skill at prestidigitation.

PW Gibbons
December 26, 2017 9:56 am

I hear that China is the world’s primary source of coke, a necessary for steel production. They emit at their convenience.

Bryan A
Reply to  PW Gibbons
December 26, 2017 10:14 am

I thought that came from Columbia

BillP
December 26, 2017 12:15 pm

It seems to me that coke would be a more sensible solution to reducing pollution in cities.

– Making it is simple, well established technology.
– It can uses the existing coal infrastructure for distribution.
– Many of the existing furnaces/stoves could burn it with little or no modification.
– It is easy to stockpile.

Tim
December 26, 2017 12:57 pm

There is a coal gasification plant right here in the USA. The CO2 is piped to a Canadian oil field for EOR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Gasification_Company

December 26, 2017 1:26 pm

The more CO2 the merrier, CO2 is not a pollutant, CO2 increases plant efficiency of the use of water and acts as a fertiliser, increasing productivity. CO2 has no downside and any warming of northern and southern latitudes would be a benefit, slowing the migration from cold to warm latitudes and reducing storms Win/win again..

michael hart
December 26, 2017 1:50 pm

It does seem like one of those silly centrally-planned schemes that the communist states are so good at.
Unless they are doing it to produce synthetic-petroleum products as chemical feed-stock, for which there seems little strategic need at present, then why not just burn the coal cleanly to generate electricity? The coal combustion can be efficiently scrubbed at source. The Chinese already know how to do this, and they know how to transport the electricity via the grid to where it is needed.

Unless they are doing it in order to promote the economics of a gas distribution grid, it doesn’t seem very sensible. But, as others point out, it may well just be due to internal politicking amongst China’s powerful bureaucrats trying to out-manoeuvre each other.

December 26, 2017 2:40 pm

Are we sure this is anything other than a gap filler? This is a rational country going nuclear plus hydro grid as fast as it can build both. And they have the largest reserves of shale gas in the World to decarbonise dirty coal with clean CCGT gas at 40% the CO2. So they will go for shale as fast as possibe, once they figure out how to make the politburo and lobbyist insiders involved rich from it, that is. They can get this done really fast, CCGT is cheapest and fastest to build, need more pipelines but that’s easy in China, just lock any protestors that appear up, or shoot them and use them to plug unproductive holes with, Tiananmen square style. Of the people, by the powerful, for the powerful. Usually picks the right solutions w/o an irrational extremist lobbyist industry to bother about. IMO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas_in_China

golf charlie
December 26, 2017 2:43 pm

China has a lot of internal combustion engines on the road. China has oil, but not enough. Converting internal combustion engines to run on gas produced from coal, requires only minor adjustment (plus a new fuel tank and pipework)

China doesn’t like being reliant on “politics” in the Middle East or Russia, anymore than the US does. The EU is stuck with it.

December 26, 2017 3:46 pm

Most coal has a lot of gas in it when it’s in situ, and coal-bed methane extraction via wells with a bit of fracking can extract most of that gas and put it to use, before the coal is mined. Taking out the CBM before mining also makes underground coal mining hugely safer, which would be a badly needed improvement in China. Apparently, 5,000 coal miners die every year in China from mining accidents and explosions due to gas are a major contributor to these unnecessary deaths. In the USA. 29 miners (all mines, not just coal) died in accidents in 2015 (statistics from MSHA show a steady decline from the 242 in 1978).

The ignorance of these science journalists is quite astonishing. The NYT article has no mention of coal-bed methane, and makes the childish assumption that coal is just carbon. I’ve just referred to the gas that is mostly lost to the atmosphere if they don’t extract CBM before mining. But what about the tar?

The “gasworks” that used to be a feature of every town in Britain when I grew up, produced not only coal gas but coal tar, and depending on the size of the plant, would process it into various fractions that were the entire basis of the organic chemistry industry before more convenient and cleaner petrochemical products took over that role. Unrefined coal tar was also used for road surfacing in the same way as asphalt/bitumen is used today. Coal tar went into soap because of its antiseptic properties (mainly pheno IIRC)
comment image

Steel plants using coal to make coke and gas, without onward processing of the tar into chemicals, led to dumping the tar into pits, Here’s an article that describes “North America’s largest toxic waste site” (they are environmentalists so they are allowed to exaggerate shamelessly, but it still was a significant clean up despite the hyperbolic claims of health issues):

https://ejatlas.org/conflict/sydney-tar-ponds-contamination-nova-scotia-canada

December 26, 2017 3:49 pm

I meant to say phenol

December 26, 2017 7:24 pm

Fischer-Tropsch, the Real Alternative Energy Solution for America

Wind and solar will never power much of the world’s economy. The energy density, variability, and unreliability of these sources simply aren’t practical. The real solution to America’s energy problem is to produce fuel using our abundant renewable biomass, natural gas, and coal resources. Believe it or not, that ability already exists in a commercially viable and proven method called the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) Process. The FT Process first turns a carbon source into a “syn-gas,” and then recombines that short carbon chain into longer carbon chains like gasoline and diesel fuel.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/06/10/fischer-tropsch-the-real-alternative-energy-solution-for-america/

December 26, 2017 7:26 pm

President Obama Mis-Directed Billions of Tax Dollars Away from Real Energy Solutions

There is also promising solutions like the one developed by a now bankrupt company named KiOR. It was Silicon Valley’s major attempt at producing a renewable fuel. Countless certain to eventually fail wind and solar projects were funded, yet President Obama let KiOR, with its extremely promising technology, die. Why? I can only speculate that it was because it wasn’t focused on the PC solution of wind and solar, and continued to support the dreaded internal combustion engine.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/06/10/president-obama-mis-directed-billions-of-tax-dollars-away-from-real-energy-solutions/

archibaldperth
December 26, 2017 8:29 pm

Nope, the article is wrong. The energy conversion loss through the gasifier to methane is about 40%, much the same as the loss if you converted the coal to electric power. There is very little in transmission losses in piping methane around. Unless you go to very high voltage, there are larger transmission losses in power distribution. Methane is also efficient at the burner tip. So I believe that the Chinese did their sums and they get more out of their coal this way. At one stage they were going to build capacity to burn 400 million tonnes per annum, and may still be doing so.

Dennis Sandberg
Reply to  archibaldperth
December 26, 2017 9:00 pm

Well said. When by-products from gasification are included it may be more efficient than combustion for steam raising. Hope it works out for the Chinese, we world need the CO2,

Reply to  archibaldperth
December 27, 2017 7:01 am

40% loss from coal to electricity means 60% efficiency.

Where do you find such efficient coal plants?

Remember this is inland, so it is dependent on cooling towers.

Verified by MonsterInsights