Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Coal-to-liquids plant is considered
UPI ^ | 05/21/07

Posted on 05/21/2007 5:48:17 PM PDT by nypokerface

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last
To: MinimizeGovernment

I agree that hydrocarbon fuel is dirty and I am an advocate of H from H20, fuel cells and nuclear power; not to mention superconducting transmission facilities. I was trying not to go off topic.


21 posted on 05/21/2007 7:55:41 PM PDT by granite ("We dare not tempt them with weakness" - JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
"US restaurants produce 28,000,000,000 gallons "

A drop in the bucket.

22 posted on 05/21/2007 7:58:16 PM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Never insult small minded men in positions of power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: granite

The weak dollar boosted oil prices too.


23 posted on 05/21/2007 8:03:44 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MinimizeGovernment
Given that the cost of gasoline today is actually on par with the inflation-adjusted price from 1980, I have to assume that coal liquifaction still doesn't make economic sense.

I recall reading that one problem is that even if OPEC drives up the price of oil above the cost of oil shale, that wouldn't make oil shale economically viable as long as OPEC retains the ability to reduce prices.

Suppose, for example, that for one billion dollars a company could gain the ability to produce an unlimited quantity of oil for $40/barrel. It's been a long time since OPEC has sold oil that cheap, but if someone started selling oil for $40/barrel, OPEC would probably respond by selling its oil for $39/barrel. Almost everyone in the U.S. would be better off as a result of OPEC's being forced to cut its prices, except for the company that spent $1B which it may never recover.

24 posted on 05/21/2007 8:05:51 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface; thackney; Red Badger

Bump


25 posted on 05/21/2007 8:11:23 PM PDT by CPT Clay (Drill ANWR, Personal Accounts NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinimizeGovernment

“They proved the commercial viability of converting coal to a liquid, not unlike gasoline, and to a gas not unlike natural gas. Unfortunately the cost per gallon to produce it at that time was well above the cost of gasoline.”

Then wouldn’t it be they proved technical potential but commercial non-viability.


26 posted on 05/21/2007 8:20:54 PM PDT by bricks4all2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

Hmmm... let’s think about this...

28 billion gallons - population 300 million - works out to 93-1/3 gallon per year for every man woman and child in the country.

For family of 4 - 373 gallons per year - more than 1 gallon per day... JUST in resturants.

That’s a lotta deep-fat-fryin goin on.

I doubt this is correct...


27 posted on 05/21/2007 8:23:53 PM PDT by muffaletaman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: supercat
produce an unlimited quantity of oil

Pure fantasy. You might as well talk about cars that run on pixie dust.

OPEC is not capable of produce even half the world's demand for oil.

28 posted on 05/21/2007 8:25:47 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface

Thanks for posting, will read into.


29 posted on 05/21/2007 8:39:42 PM PDT by Rick_Michael (Fred Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muffaletaman
28 billion gallons - population 300 million - works out to 93-1/3 gallon per year for every man woman and child in the country.

You are spoiling my fun ^^, but that's OK. What you pointed out is interesting because even if it was true (which it obviously isn't) it would only supply a fraction of our energy needs.

30 posted on 05/21/2007 9:55:38 PM PDT by LeGrande (Muslims, Jews and Christians all believe in the same God of Abraham.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sully777; Fierce Allegiance; vigl; Cagey; Abathar; A. Patriot; B Knotts; getsoutalive; ...

Rest In Peace, old friend, your work is finished.......

If you want on or off the DIESEL "KnOcK" LIST just FReepmail me........

This is a fairly HIGH VOLUME ping list on some days......

HAT TIP TO NYPOKERFACE!.....

31 posted on 05/22/2007 5:01:36 AM PDT by Red Badger (My gerund got caught in my diphthong, and now I have a dangling participle...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface

IT’S ABOUT TIME!!!!!.......


32 posted on 05/22/2007 5:02:58 AM PDT by Red Badger (My gerund got caught in my diphthong, and now I have a dangling participle...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

In round numbers thats about a barrel per ton of coal. As far as BTU’s is concerned there is a whole lot of wasted energy going somewhere. Do you know if the byproduct of the oil extraction be used as solid fuel anymore?


33 posted on 05/22/2007 5:08:15 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly catching hell for posting without reading the article since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

I dunno about by products, but there are companies using CTL technology TODAY! Why the DOE needs to stdy this is a mystery.......oops! Truban Durbin and Bareback Osama
are Senators from Illinois!.....mystery solved.......

From WIKI on Fischer-Tropsch CTL:

UTILIZATION
Currently, only a handful of companies have commercialised their FT technology.

1. Shell in Bintulu, Malaysia, uses natural gas as a feedstock, and produces primarily low-sulfur diesel fuels and food-grade wax.
2. Sasol in South Africa uses coal and natural gas as a feedstock, and produces a variety of synthetic petroleum products. Sasol produces most of the country’s diesel fuel.

The process was used in South Africa to meet its energy needs during its isolation under Apartheid. This process has received renewed attention in the quest to produce low sulfur diesel fuel in order to minimize the environmental impact from the use of diesel engines.

Syntroleum, a publicly traded US company (Nasdaq: SYNM) has produced over 400,000 gallons of diesel and jet fuel from the Fischer-Tropsch process at its demonstration plant near Tulsa, Oklahoma. Using natural gas as a feedstock, the ultra-clean, low sulfur fuel has been tested extensively by the US Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, and most recently, the Department of Defense, which utilized the fuel in a flight test of a B-52 bomber at Edwards Air Force Base, CA. Syntroleum is working to commercialize its proprietary Fischer-Tropsch technology via coal-to-liquid plants in the US, China, and Germany, as well as gas-to-liquid plants internationally.

A small US-based company, Rentech, is currently focusing on converting nitrogen-fertiliser plants from using a natural gas feedstock to using coal or coke, and producing liquid hydrocarbons as a by-product.

Also Choren in Germany, CWT (Changing World Technologies) Alchem Field Services, and The GTL Corporation have built FT plants or use similar processes. Alchem and the GTL Corporation employ a micro-GTL process that is compact in that their equipment is used directly at natural gas well sites.

The FT process is an established technology and already applied on a large scale, although its popularity is hampered by high capital costs, high operation and maintenance costs, and the uncertain and volatile price of crude oil. In particular, the use of natural gas as a feedstock only becomes practical when using “stranded gas”, i.e. sources of natural gas far from major cities which are impractical to exploit with conventional gas pipelines and LNG technology; otherwise, the direct sale of natural gas to consumers would become much more profitable. There are several companies developing the process to enable practical exploitation of so-called stranded gas reserves. It is expected by geologists that supplies of natural gas will peak 5-15 years after oil does, although such predictions are difficult to make and often highly uncertain.

There are large coal reserves which may increasingly be used as a fuel source during oil depletion. Since there are large coal reserves in the world, this technology could be used as an interim transportation fuel if conventional oil were to become more expensive. Combination of biomass gasification (BG) and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis is a very promising route to produce renewable or ‘green’ transportation fuels.

In Sept. 2005, Pennsylvania governor Edward Rendell announced [2] a venture with Waste Management and Processors Inc. — using technology licensed from Shell and Sasol — to build an FT plant that will convert so-called waste coal (leftovers from the mining process) into low-sulfur diesel fuel at a site outside of Mahanoy City, northwest of Philadelphia. [3]. The state of Pennsylvania has committed to buy a significant percentage of the plant’s output and, together with the U.S. Dept. of Energy, has offered over $140 million in tax incentives. Other coal-producing states are exploring similar plans. Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana has proposed developing a plant that would use the FT process to turn his state’s coal reserves into fuel in order to help alleviate the United States’ dependence on foreign oil. [4]

In Oct. 2006, Finnish paper and pulp manufacturer UPM announced its plans to produce biodiesel by Fischer-Tropsch process alongside the manufacturing processes at its European paper and pulp plants, using waste biomass resulted by paper and pulp manufacturing processes as source material. [5]


34 posted on 05/22/2007 5:15:51 AM PDT by Red Badger (My gerund got caught in my diphthong, and now I have a dangling participle...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface

So, we could produce fuel from an abundant domestic resource for a turbo charged compression ignition engine that today can be designed to be very clean burning, get 40+MPG, carry 4 passengers and be reliable for 500,000+ miles with minimal maintenance.

I can’t imagine who would be opposed to such an advancement as that! /s

It’s going to take some serious American entrepreneur spirit to overcome the forces opposing this type of innovation. Technologically speaking, this isn’t a gamble. It is very doable.


35 posted on 05/22/2007 5:16:04 AM PDT by IamConservative (I could never be a liar; there's too much to remember.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple

What do you think?


36 posted on 05/22/2007 2:51:05 PM PDT by CPT Clay (Drill ANWR, Personal Accounts NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: granite

Good post!!!


37 posted on 05/22/2007 3:00:04 PM PDT by CPT Clay (Drill ANWR, Personal Accounts NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MinimizeGovernment

From what I recall, Ashland Oil was primarily if not strictly a refiner and had little, if any oil production themselves. It certainly would have been in their best interest to make coal liquefaction work if they could and diversify away from the oil markets.

Today, by far the biggest refiner in this country is Valero and they have little if any oil. It would be in their best interest to make this technology work. Must be a good reason.


38 posted on 05/22/2007 3:32:06 PM PDT by bricks4all2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface

This idea makes a lot of sense as the US has nearly 300 years worth of coal and declining oil production. There technology is very well-established and has been practiced on a large-scale in South Africa for over 50 years. The only issue is the high capital cost of the plants and the time needed to build them and bring them on-stream. Because of this, it might be decades before a significant fraction of our gasoline could be produced from coal.”


39 posted on 05/22/2007 4:16:28 PM PDT by pesto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bricks4all2
"Must be a good reason."

I think it's called ROI.

I'm a big believer in the economics of free enterprise and a free market. An honest and informed evaluation of ROI makes for good decisions. For a good ROI, private investment dollars are always available.

But that's where government steps in. When the ROI doesn't make sense, but politicians can get votes from dishonest or ill-informed people, spending tax dollars is the solution. Our county just started a government-run bus service after touting how much money the county was going to make once it was operational. Of course it took public "investment" of tax dollars to get it operational. They're still waiting for the "return."

The proposed CTL plant is the same thing. Buy votes in Illinois by making a bad ROI decision.

40 posted on 05/23/2007 6:00:29 AM PDT by MinimizeGovernment (Where have all the conservatives gone? They're not in the Republican Party anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson