Back to Coal
Germany did it in WWII, we can do it now.
Posted on 04/19/2006 5:56:25 AM PDT by aculeus
As the cost of oil soars and worries over the U.S. dependence on foreign petroleum escalate, coal is becoming an increasingly attractive alternative as a feedstock to make a range of fuels. Now chemists have invented a new catalytic process that could increase the yield of a clean form of diesel made from coal.
The method, described in the current issue of the journal Science, uses a pair of catalysts to improve the yield of diesel fuel from Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) synthesis, a nearly century-old chemical technique for reacting carbon monoxide and hydrogen to make hydrocarbons. The mixture of gases is produced by heating coal. Although Germany used the process during World War II to convert coal to fuel for its military vehicles, F-T synthesis has generally been too expensive to compete with oil.
Part of the problem with the F-T process is that it produces a mixture of hydrocarbons -- many of which are not useful as fuel. But in the recent research, Alan Goldman, professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, and Maurice Brookhart, professor of chemistry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, use catalysts to convert these undesirable hydrocarbons into diesel. The catalysts work by rearranging the carbon atoms, transforming six-carbon atom hydrocarbons, for example, into two- and ten-carbon atom hydrocarbons. The ten-carbon version can power diesel engines. The first catalyst removes hydrogen atoms, which allows the second catalyst to rearrange the carbon atoms. Then the first catalyst restores the hydrogen, to form fuel.
Diesel fuel produced in this way has several potential advantages. Ordinary diesel contains molecules, called aromatics, that, when combusted, produce particulates, Goldman says. But the diesel formed by the new catalysts does not include aromatics, so it burns much cleaner, overcoming one of the major objections to diesel fuel. This could lead to more vehicles using diesel engines, which are about 30 percent more efficient than gasoline engines.
But the biggest advantage may be that the United States has huge amounts of coal: "We have as much energy in coal as the rest of the world has in oil. That's enough to last us the next hundred years or so," Goldman says. Thus, a more efficient, and so less expensive method of converting coal to diesel could significantly cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and do so for a long time.
"When I saw this I thought it was really a terrific contribution that could be very important," says Richard Schrock, professor of chemistry at MIT, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2005, with two other scientists, for discovering the type of catalyst used in the second step. Combining two catalysts this way "is pretty rare," he says. "You can't just throw any two things together and expect to get the results you anticipated."
According to Robert Grubbs, professor of chemistry at Caltech, who shared the Nobel prize with Schrock, "The key is finding catalyst systems that are compatible, and will operate at the temperatures where you can do both processes together."
At this time, the new catalytic method is still a proof-of-concept, and not ready for commercial use. For example, the second catalyst tends to break down. But Schrock says this problem should be solvable: "It's theoretically possible that this could become practical. I e-mailed Alan Goldman and said, 'Look, we've got a lot of catalysts, and I can think of some things that might be thermally more stable.' So I'm going to send him some catalysts, and he's going to try them out."
It also might be possible to make catalysts that use products from the first reaction to regenerate themselves. "Then the catalyst wouldn't die, and you could in fact keep the reaction going," says Schrock.
According to the Governors of WV and MT, the break-even point for coal gasification is $43/bbl.
I believe during the latter part of WWII, the german luftwaffe planes were flown with a fuel derived from coal.
IIRC, Shell Oil is involved in a joint venture with PA and some other entities, building a gasification plant in PA right now.
Lots of energy sources in this price range, but require large investments. Few will take this risk when the arab cost of production is $4-5. (which means they can drop the price under your cost anytime they want) This difference is the reason that the arabs have played us on this global oil market since 1973. The only solution is to produce all of their oil and then get on to the alternatives.....which I think is what we are doing.
Long term contracts at a firm fixed price can redistribute the risk faced due to Arab, Mexican or Russian price arbitrage. Span the contract over about 7 years, and a potential arbitrager will suffer a great deal in the process.
The problem is that a futures market for an untested fuel production system doesn't exist. Nobody is going to take the other side of the counterparty risk.
bump
Europe is miles ahead of us in clean diesels.
I think you got it just right.
Everything will take care of itself in the long run when the true cost of oil increases to the point that it makes various other alternatives feasible.
In the meantime though, we'll no doubt do everything we can to screw that up via politics.
Arab countries do not have the ability to produce enough oil to meet the worlds oil demand.
No.
T.Y.
All foreign taxes paid by US corporations including oil companies are deducted as credits from US taxes payable, dollar for dollar. The "royalties" paid by US oil companies were (during my working years) considered taxes by IRS and were therefore deducted from US taxes payable.
PING! to #17
It was my understanding that during the reign of the Sha, Kissinger suggested to him that he raise the royalties on oil in order to help Iran to pay for arms from the US. Kissinger's thought was that since these would be deductible by the oil companies, their relationship with the administration would not be hurt, the arms industries would get a boost, the Sha would get his arms and the only one to get hurt would be the US drivers.
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.