Pet-coke is made up almost entirely of carbon, which means that it produces more greenhouse gas emissions than tar sands oil or even coal if it is used for electricity.
Umm, no, no, it doesn\’t mean that at all.
Sure, burning one tonne of pure carbon will produce more CO2 than burning 1 tonne of coal which might only be 90% carbon.
But you\’ll also get more energy out of burning 1 tonne of pure carbon than you will out of burning something that is only 90% carbon. Indeed, you\’ll get more useful energy as well: because you\’re not having to use up energy to heat up that 10% that isn\’t carbon: the alumino silicates and iron that end up as fly ash for example.
Think it through: what produces more CO2 per unit of electricity produced, burning lignite or anthracite? Which contains more carbon, lignite or anthracite?
Quite, the higher carbon material produces less CO2 per unit of electricity produced.
So it is true that burning one tonne of pet-coke does produce more CO2: but it\’s a horribly misleading way of putting it.