Coal may hold solution to gas prices

www.post-gazette.com ^ | 06-23-2008 | By Daniel Malloy

[Red Badger]

Later this year, a plant in China will begin churning out liquid fuel made from coal, a technology that -- if all breaks right for the coal industry -- is headed to American shores. From the CTLtec Americas 2008, which begins today at the Omni William Penn Hotel, Downtown, to Capitol Hill, coal-to-liquids is a popular topic, spurred by rising gasoline prices and this country's ever-present need to wean itself from oil imports. Coal-to-liquid proponents insist that the technology would strengthen national security and be a cheaper alternative than current petroleum. Estimates vary widely, but Richard Bajura, director of the National Research Center for Coal and Energy at West Virginia University, said liquid coal could be produced for $60 to $70 a barrel. Last week, oil prices approached $140 a barrel. Still, coal-to-liquid plants would cost several billion dollars to build, and if the whims of OPEC were to drive down oil prices, there would be little market for a more expensive domestic product. That's why the coal industry has taken its case to Washington. Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association, said the industry would push for government backing, as Wall Street has been timid to provide capital. Coal companies, such as Bethel Park-based Consol Energy, are seeking startup capital and government bailouts for investors if oil prices drop too far. But a bigger hurdle than funding is the environmental lobby, which is vigorously attacking the technology for its greenhouse gas production. From the time it's hauled out of the mine until it leaves the tailpipe, coal-to-liquid produces about twice as much carbon dioxide as petroleum.

[headstamp 2]

Do you have a good reference on coal gas? Is this a manufactured gas?

[JimRed]

CTL (coal-to-liquid) - YES! We are going to have to do this anyway so why not get started now. It is expensive but we know this works. With oil at $130 a barrel it is very viable.

GTL (gas-to-liquid) YES! Same as CTL above.

Or even a rope-a dope move where we fake them out by pretending to start building dozens of coal to liquid/gas facilities...they'll drop the price in self defense.

[Ditto]

We should not build any more plants that use Nat Gas to generate electricity. Let's replace these plants with Nuclear Power Plants.

Agree that burning gas to make electricity is foolish. But replacing gas fired plants with Nukes has major technical and financial problems. Gas fired plants are virtually always used a 'peakers' not base load units. Nukes on the other hand are both technically and financially designed to operate at or near full load around the clock for long periods of time. They don't like to cycle up and down. They operate best when they sit at full power.

Replace the gas with coal fired cycling units and use the gas for CNG city fleet vehicles.

[RightWhale]

coal gas is a gas such as methane and is manufactured by the city on a daily basis for those who need gas service.

coal to liquid produces liquid fuel, the usual range being the same as petroleum to fuel: gasoline, diesel.

[rurgan]

The U.S. does have massive reserves of Coal,hundreds of years worth as you admitted.

To reduce prices all you would need to replace with coal to oil is a small percentage of the oil the U.S. uses.

We don’t have to replace all the oil as oil has not been totally cut off. All we need to do is start drilling for more oil off the coasts, OCS, oil shale (trillions of barrels of oil), in addition to coal to oil liquefaction AND nuclear and other energy initiates like fuel cells.

You assume that we would use coal as our only source of fuel for decades when we still have huge supplies of oil ,hundreds of years of oil shale, oil sands,alternative fuels, fuel cells, nuclear etc.. That is irrational thinking and you are wrong by saying that coal to oil should not be tried. Coal to oil should be massively implemented as China and India are doing.

Yes coal to oil liquefaction would lower oil prices in the near future or even instantly because investors would see the U.S. is willing to do something.

[rurgan]

The U.S. does have massive reserves of Coal,hundreds of years worth as you admitted.

To reduce prices all you would need to replace with coal to oil is a small percentage of the oil the U.S. uses.

We don’t have to replace all the oil as oil has not been totally cut off. All we need to do is start drilling for more oil off the coasts, OCS, oil shale (trillions of barrels of oil), in addition to coal to oil liquefaction AND nuclear and other energy initiates like fuel cells.

You assume that we would use coal as our only source of fuel for decades when we still have huge supplies of oil ,hundreds of years of oil shale, oil sands,alternative fuels, fuel cells,natural gas, nuclear etc.. That is irrational thinking and you are wrong by saying that coal to oil should not be tried. Coal to oil should be massively implemented as China and India are doing.

Yes coal to oil liquefaction would lower oil prices in the near future or even instantly because investors would see the U.S. is willing to do something.

[RightWhale]

coal to oil liquefaction would lower oil prices in the near future or even instantly

Then sanity would return as investors find out how much these plants cost and how long they take to build.

[Red Badger]

I’ve driven the Autobahns. They are fantastic!...............

[Red Badger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_gas

[litehaus]

"how long they take to build."

Read someplace that the Canadians have a company that built a 'nuke lee ir' reactor in four years.....Don't know if they ever 'turned it on'....

[rurgan]

So I guess all the coal to oil liquefaction plants India and China are building are just bad investments? I don’t think so.

The U.S. government is wasting 3.2 trillion dollars annually. What the government gave a lot of that money back to investors? Would they have money to build these plants then? Yes.

I didn’t say coal to oil liquefaction was the only solution either. All our resources should be used including, more domestic oil drilling, oil shale, oil sands in Canada, building of nuclear power plants to power electric cars and everything else, natural gas fueled cars, fuel cells etc.

[rurgan]

So I guess all the coal to oil liquefaction plants India and China are building are just bad investments? I don’t think so.

The U.S. government is wasting 3.2 trillion dollars annually. What if the government gave a lot of that money back to investors? Would they have money to build these plants then? Yes.

I didn’t say coal to oil liquefaction was the only solution either. All our resources should be used including, more domestic oil drilling, oil shale, oil sands in Canada, building of nuclear power plants to power electric cars and everything else, natural gas fueled cars, fuel cells etc.

[rurgan]

“With current levels of use, American coal reserves, which are the richest in the world, would be exhausted in 250 years. Doubling coal extraction to feed liquid coal plants would give the nation 125 years to develop reliable renewable energy sources”.....
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08175/891993-28.stm

[Brilliant]

My point is that even without using the coal to produce gasoline, the price of coal is skyrocketing right now. And we’re expecting to add a bunch of power plants over the next several years, which is going to make the problem even worse. There is already a big cost increase in the price of electricity caused by increased coal prices, which is currently working its way thru the system, and will likely come to a boil next year. Most of our electricity is regulated, so the price doesn’t shoot up immediately after the cost of coal goes up, but the regulators will eventually have to increase prices in order to keep pace with costs. By this time next year, the number one complaint will not be the cost of gasoline, but rather the cost of electricity. So you’re going to add more demand onto that?

The solution to the gasoline problem is not to use coal, but rather to drill.

[truthguy]

Sorry Ditto, not true. In California we get over half of our electricity from Natural Gas and they are Baseline Plants. For all of California's boasting about energy policy this is just about the stupidest policy imaginable. We do this because it is the only way we can meet clean air requirements. We have a moratorium on Nuclear Power Plants from the era of the quantum Moron Governor Moonbeam (now AG) so this is the policy. Madness! Absolute Madness! We need the Nukes ASAP!

[rurgan]

Democrats won’t allow oil drilling or coal mining. That is what is causing price increases , a shortage of supply.

If companies are allowed to drill more and mine for coal more than prices will go down in both. And if in addition to oil and coal companies are allowed to use coal to oil, natural gas, nuclear, fuel cells etc.

The environmentalist movement and Democrat party has to be stopped first or we will all be riding bicycle and in the dark soon. That is if we can afford to buy a bicycle in the depression the Democrats are driving us into.

[Brilliant]

“Doubling coal extraction to feed liquid coal plants would give the nation 125 years”

Well, yeah, that seems pretty obvious, if we are starting with 250 years supply. And quintupling it would leave 50 years. All of that is assuming, of course, that we don’t increase our consumption of coal used in the production of electricity over the next 50 years.

The question is how much of the coal would you have to use in order to produce a meaningful dent in the gasoline shortage. It doesn’t say. My suspicion is that it would be a whole lot more than you think. We use a whole lot more gasoline than we do coal in this country. I suspect that doubling coal production would do very little to increase the supply of gasoline.

Let me just point out that the loonies told us that using subsidized corn to produce ethanol would solve our gasoline problems. Instead, their plan gave us a shortage of corn, and our gasoline problem is worse than ever. I am content to let the market decide whether we get our gasoline from oil or from coal. Government bureaucrats should have no role in the process, other than to do their best to let private industry have access to whatever resources they need.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

More base load capacity could easily be absorbed in various ways. For instance, if a major market develops for plug-in-hybrid cars, or all-electric cars, owners would be encouraged to recharge them during off-peak hours. That would require smart meters — but, those could be used to encourage more time-shifting of demand (from air conditioners to water heaters, etc.).

Even today's dumb grid can be used to time-shift loads — by transmitting any surplus power to a different time-zone, where loads are peaking.

If the base load is increased, without an increase in peak-loading — that would also result in smaller requirements for expensive peak load generators. (Raise the level of the base & the peak isn't as much above the base any more.)

[rurgan]

The U.S. does use a lot of coal. Most of the electricity the U.S. uses is from Coal. If more nuclear plants are built then coal could be used almost exclusively for coal to oil.

Coal to oil would only need to replace a small percentage of the oil the U.S. uses to lower prices because there is more oil drilling to be done, nuclear, natural gas, oil shale etc.

I’m just saying that this coal to oil shouldn’t be discounted so rapidly but that other people should be told about it.

I’m for the government being reduced so that there is more investment capital and for the repeal of restrictions on oil drilling and coal mining, and for the repeal regulations and environmental laws

[CarrotAndStick]

Proved recoverable coal reserves at end-2006 [million tonnes (teragrams)]

Country	Bituminous & anthracite	SubBituminous & lignite	TOTAL	Share
USA	111,338	135,305	246,643	27.1
Russia	49,088	107,922	157,010	17.3
China	62,200	52,300	114,500	12.6
India	90,085	2,360	92,445	10.2
Australia	38,600	39,900	78,500	8.6
South Africa	48,750	0	48,750	5.4
Ukraine	16,274	17,879	34,153	3.8
Kazakhstan	28,151	3,128	31,279	3.4
Poland	14,000	0	14,000	1.5
Brazil	0	10,113	10,113	1.1
Germany	183	6,556	6,739	0.7
Colombia	6,230	381	6,611	0.7
Canada	3,471	3,107	6,578	0.7
Czech Republic	2,094	3,458	5,552	0.6
Indonesia	740	4,228	4,968	0.5
Turkey	278	3,908	4,186	0.5
Greece	0	3,900	3,900	0.4
Hungary	198	3,159	3,357	0.4
Pakistan	0	3,050	3,050	0.3
Bulgaria	4	2,183	2,187	0.2
Thailand	0	1,354	1,354	0.1
North Korea	300	300	600	0.1
New Zealand	33	538	571	0.1
Spain	200	330	530	0.1
Zimbabwe	502	0	502	0.1
Romania	22	472	494	0.1
Venezuela	479	0	479	0.1
TOTAL	478,771	430,293	909,064	100.0

 

 

• Peat, considered to be a precursor of coal. It has industrial importance as a fuel in some countries, for example, Ireland and Finland.
   

• Lignite, also referred to as brown coal, is the lowest rank of coal and used almost exclusively as fuel for steam-electric power generation. Jet is a compact form of lignite that is sometimes polished and has been used as an ornamental stone since the Iron Age.
   

• Sub-bituminous coal, whose properties range from those of lignite to those of bituminous coal and are used primarily as fuel for steam-electric power generation. Additionally, it is an important source of light aromatic hydrocarbons for the chemical synthesis industry.
   

• Bituminous coal, a dense mineral, black but sometimes dark brown, often with well-defined bands of bright and dull material, used primarily as fuel in steam-electric power generation, with substantial quantities also used for heat and power applications in manufacturing and to make coke.
   

• Anthracite, the highest rank; a harder, glossy, black coal used primarily for residential and commercial space heating. It may be divided further in to metamorphically altered bituminous coal and petrified oil, as from the deposits in Pennsylvania.