Posted on 03/11/2013 11:02:28 AM PDT by thackney
What could go wrong?
(on the other hand, I think that a well managed nuclear facility is ok....)
hypocritical? maybe nuts?
ok, don't answer that.
I am in a wait and see mode on this one.
Waiting to see if they “need government assistance” to get this process off the ground.
If the process is viable, they will not need any government assistance.
And... I live less than a mile from an underground gasoline pipeline.
And... one of my frequent work locations is 700 feet away from that same pipeline.
Maybe I should write a book: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Gas.
San Francisco, there fore eath quake prone destruction, therefore bad
Why would anyone want to change the properties of a product that is already efficient and useful in it’s natural state?
Just like a Crude Oil Refinery, it works well when kept inside the pipes.
Because it is far more valuable as liquid transportation fuel. The value per BTU is 8~10 times higher as gasoline.
Probably the installed base of gasoline-powered internal combustion engines has something to do with it. A lot easier (goes the thinking) to change gas into gasoline than to retrofit every vehicle out there to work on natural gas.
They will be based out of Texas in the next year or so. The regulations Kalifornia will impose on them will put them out of business.
Turn the American genius on to this problem and in a few years the Greenies and hate-America types will be going crazy with frustration.
If the germans were doing it... for a profit, I’d have no problem. But with all the “green incentives” being tossed around like candy by our criminal govt, every upstart energy project/company should be looked at with suspicion, since they are most likely simply collecting free government money.
Anybody got an idea how this impacts the carbon issue? I would assume gasoline would release the same carbon whether it was made from NG or oil.
The best part is that it won’t be too much longer that the middle east and Venezuela for that matter will be awash in crude, with no where to go with it. Get me my violin. :)
But also remember.... 99+% of vehicles in the US do not run on NG. And from my persepctive, I am not too hip on having a NG cylinder strapped to my vehicle.
If the technology is truly there to cost effectively convert NG to gasoline..... this will be a true game changer.
I would think “cost effectively” is the key term here. Conversion of natural gas to gasoline in a pilot plant is one thing, conversion on a commerical scale to make it worthwhile is a different matter.
still sounds like Fischer-Tropsch to me...that’s been around >60 years.
The crux of their whole proposal is the break-even point in cost comparison to gas refined from oil, and the whole future of the company depends on assumptions on future oil prices; they have to hope that increased tight oil production won't simply drop the cost of crude so much that it doesn't make sense to make gasoline from natural gas.
I definitely wouldn't invest in these guys unless it was play money. All their technology could be brilliant and work perfectly, but their business model could be destroyed by a massive crude price collapse to $50 a barrel or something. And they have no control over that.
Cost effective in the US. Under our price and regulation conditions. Shell, Sasol and I think some others already have commercial scale Gas-To-Liquid plants in other countries. Both have been looking to bring it to the US, if it can be done economically.
Example:
About Shell > Our strategy > Our major projects > Pearl GTL
http://www.shell.com/global/aboutshell/our-strategy/major-projects-2/pearl.html
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.