Posted on 02/19/2010 2:44:12 PM PST by engrpat
ARLINGTON - How would you like to buy gasoline made from $30 domestic oil versus $75 imported oil?
Researchers at UT Arlington say they've found a practical way to make synthetic crude from cheap coal that's common in Texas.
They say they are just weeks away from signing a contract for commercial production.
People have been turning coal into oil for 100 years or more.
But researchers at UTA say they've invented a better way to do it. So much better, they expect to sign a deal with an oil company within weeks.
"This is east Texas lignite coal. We go from that to this really nice liquid," said Professor Brian Dennis of a light synthetic crude, easily refined into gasoline.
Professor Dennis and a team of scientists have been working on it for about a year and a half.
"I had the idea for this while I was walking to my car. And I ran back to the lab and I started drawing it out in my notebook," he said.
They only showed Channel 8 an early model reactor which doesn't look like much, but it's the only one they can show us.
The current reactor is secret, extremely efficient and they say emits no pollution.
"We're improving the cost every day. We started off sometime ago at an uneconomical $17,000 a barrel. Today, we're at a cost of $28.84 a barrel," said engineering dean Rick Billo.
That's $28 a barrel versus $75 we pay now for imported crude.
Texas lignite coal is dirt cheap - less than $18 a ton. A ton of coal will produce up to 1.5 barrels of oil.
UTA researchers expect micro-refineries to be built within a year, turning coal into cheap oil and producing new jobs.
It's still fossil fuel, but scientists say it could bridge the gap until greener technologies catch up.
I hope this is true and can be adopted quickly.
The basic idea of turning coal into gas is true without a doubt. It's only the cost factor that anyone could have a question about. But, if some a company is going to sign a deal to do that, you can bet they've examined it, or they wouldn't be putting their money on the line... :-)
The shear magnitude of the quantities of coal a refinery would require at the ratio given is mind boggling. How long does the process take to produce a gal of gas? Are the transportation costs factored into the price? Why not say 1 ton of coal equals 42 gal of gas? I have a hundred questions I like to ask.
Well, since it has been done during a lower-tech period of time, in the past, when "efficiencies" would have been more limited than they are now, in many different ways -- you can bet that since they were able to do it commercially before, that they will be able to do so now, as so much more efficiency than was ever accomplished way back then (with our entire technology in the world being so much less effective than it is now).
See post #38.
That's almost 50%. One hell of a lot more than a ton to 1.5 gallons.
An interesting alternative. But cost efficient? Not so much.
Apples to apples. Don't care about dirt to gold ratio.
Fischer–Tropsch process
The Fischer–Tropsch process (or Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis) is a catalyzed chemical reaction in which synthesis gas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, is converted into liquid hydrocarbons of various forms. The most common catalysts are based on iron and cobalt, although nickel and ruthenium have also been used. The principal purpose of this process is to produce a synthetic petroleum substitute, typically from coal, natural gas or biomass, for use as synthetic lubrication oil or as synthetic fuel. This synthetic fuel runs trucks, cars, and some aircraft engines. (Refer to Sasol.) The use of diesel is increasing in recent years.
...
Since the invention of the original process by the German researchers Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, working at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in the 1920s, many refinements and adjustments have been made, and the term "Fischer-Tropsch" now applies to a wide variety of similar processes (Fischer-Tropsch synthesis or Fischer-Tropsch chemistry). Fischer and Tropsch filed a number of patents, e.g. US patent no. 1,746,464, applied 1926, published 1930.
The process was invented in petroleum-poor but coal-rich Germany in the 1920s, to produce liquid fuels. It was used by Nazi Germany and Japan during World War II to produce ersatz (German: substitute) fuels. By early 1944 production reached more than 124,000 barrels per day (19,700 m3/d) from 25 plants ~ 6.5 million tons per year. However, the bombing of German oil facilities during World War II paralyzed much of Germany's synthetic fuel production.
The United States Bureau of Mines, in a program initiated by the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Act, employed seven Operation Paperclip synthetic fuel scientists in a Fischer-Tropsch chemical plant in Louisiana, Missouri in 1946.
In Britain, Alfred August Aicher obtained several patents for improvements to the process in the 1930s and 1940s, e.g. British patent no. 573,982, applied 1941, published 1945. Aicher's company was named Synthetic Oils Ltd. (There is no connection with the Canadian company of the same name.)
...
U.S. Air Force certification
Syntroleum, a publicly traded US company (Nasdaq: SYNM) has produced over 400,000 gallons of diesel and jet fuel from the Fischer–Tropsch process using natural gas and coal at its demonstration plant near Tulsa, Oklahoma. Syntroleum is working to commercialize its licensed Fischer-Tropsch technology via coal-to-liquid plants in the US, China, and Germany, as well as gas-to-liquid plants internationally. 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, Syntroleum has been working with the U. S. Air Force to develop a synthetic jet fuel blend that will help the Air Force to reduce its dependence on imported petroleum. The Air Force, which is the U.S. military's largest user of fuel, began exploring alternative fuel sources in 1999. On December 15, 2006, a B-52 took off from Edwards AFB, California for the first time powered solely by a 50-50 blend of JP-8 and Syntroleum's FT fuel. The seven-hour flight test was considered a success. The goal of the flight test program is to qualify the fuel blend for fleet use on the service's B-52s, and then flight test and qualification on other aircraft.
On August 8, 2007, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne certified the B-52H as fully approved to use the FT blend, marking the formal conclusion of the test program.
This program is part of the Department of Defense Assured Fuel Initiative, an effort to develop secure domestic sources for the military energy needs. The Pentagon hopes to reduce its use of crude oil from foreign producers and obtain about half of its aviation fuel from alternative sources by 2016.[17] With the B-52 now approved to use the FT blend, the USAF will use the test protocols developed during the program to certify the C-17 Globemaster III and then the B-1B to use the fuel. The Air Force intends to test and certify every airframe in its inventory to use the fuel by 2011.
Demonstration testing of the C-17 burning Fischer-Tropsch fuel was completed on October 22, 2007 at Edwards Air Force Base. Testing consisted of a ground test and two flights which demonstrated engine performance throughout the C-17 flight envelope and during some operationally representative maneuvers. Test data is still being reviewed by the 418th FLTS to validate the subjective results of the test. On December 17, 2007 a C-17 Globemaster III using the synthetic fuel blend lifted off shortly before dawn from McChord Air Force Base, Washington, and flew to McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey, where it was greeted by politicians and by officials from the airline and energy industries. Based on the two successful tests, the Air Force hopes to certify all of its C-17 fleet for the synthetic fuel mixture early in 2008.
US Navy
In 2009, the US Navy experimented with making jet fuel from seawater, using a variation of the Fischer–Tropsch process. To alleviate problems with global warming and potential oil shortages, Navy chemists tried to create fuel from seawater by splitting the molecules using electricity in order to extract the carbon dioxide. When combined with hydrogen using a cobalt-based catalyst this produces mostly methane gas, but by changing to an iron catalyst the process produced only 30 per cent methane with the rest being short-chain hydrocarbons. Further refining of the hydrocarbons produced could potentially lead to the production of kerosene-based jet fuel.
The abundance of CO2 makes seawater an attractive alternative fuel source. Robert Dorner, a chemist at the Naval Research Laboratory, stated that, "although the gas forms only a small proportion of air – around 0.04 per cent – ocean water contains about 140 times that concentration". Dorner presented the findings to the American Chemical Society on 16 August 2009, at the Marriott Metro Center in Washington DC.
Of course, the cynical me first thought that an oil company would first pay the money to buy the coal to gas process then bury it until it was a lot more economically prudent to introduce it.
Always have to be thinking of the bottom line, you know.
Lets see, we import approximately 9-10 million BOE’s /day so we would need to mine 6-7 million tons of lignite coal / day to replace that. Presumably this would have to be open cast mining. I’d like to put in an early bid for the Bass fishing rights once the mine is abandoned and flooded
An interesting alternative. But cost efficient? Not so much.
Here's your answer to that... :-)
"We're improving the cost every day. We started off sometime ago at an uneconomical $17,000 a barrel. Today, we're at a cost of $28.84 a barrel," said engineering dean Rick Billo.
That's $28 a barrel versus $75 we pay now for imported crude.
Of course, the cynical me first thought that an oil company would first pay the money to buy the coal to gas process then bury it until it was a lot more economically prudent to introduce it.
Always have to be thinking of the bottom line, you know.
But... but... they already did that for the "making gas from water"... I don't think they can get away with it again... LOL ...
Well, people have been talking about what to do with all that coal in the ground. It’s a cryin’ shame to let it just sit there... :-)
And there are by-products just as there are in oil to gasoline.
And there are by-products just as there are in oil to gasoline.
Ahhh..., some more money to be made, from the by-products, doncha know... :-)
There is no way to ever think of subbing gal for gal. It boggles the mind.
We shall see.
A pretty good sign that this is BS.
Who knows, let's hope.
What is the cost in energy and labor to get a ton of coal to produce 1.5 barrels of oil? They aren't saying. Do they put in more energy than they get out? Is the process 75% efficient? More? Less?
When that is known, then comparisons can be made.
I dunno. I'm running into a lot of really dumb people out there these days. =;^)
I think it could take something like this to boost the economy of the world. Just think, even the post office could save money.
I think you’d be suprised what a barrel of oil weighs. By my (rushed) math, the coal to make a barrel of oil looks like it weighs about twice what the barrel of oil does. In other words, they are similar magnitudes...
The fourth process would also require natural gas. NG would be run through a reformer unit to obtain the hydrogen, which would then be used in the hydrotreater unit. This is used typically for heavy (asphaltic) crude feedstocks.
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.