Coal to Liquids (CTL)

Moped · Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:11 am Post subject: Coal to Liquids (CTL)

Could someone please explain why CTL technology doesn't offer coal rich countries a post peak oil energy solution.
_________________
"I'm here to fight for truth, and justice, and the American way" - Superman
Moped

Hagakure_Leofman · Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:39 am Post subject: Re: Coal to Liquids (CTL)

Well it is a post-peak oil solution for coal rich countries. Who says it isn't?

It's certainly going to ramp up. If you mean who isn't it a solution that will enable a smooth transition from oil to liquid coal, it's a question of scale and infrastructure. Currently everything is setup for oil. You can't just switch over and bob's your uncle. Also, oil is almost ready to go. You've got to make liquid coal fuel; which means large scale alternative refinaries.

Apparently it's immensely polluting. There is a plant in south africa that does that, and it can be seen from space - and provides only 1 quarter of south africas fuel needs (from memory).

In short, oil is too easy. Alternatives like coal to liquid will be exploited no doubt (in desperation, the nazi's did this when there fuel lines were cut I think, and it didn't save them).

But the bottom line is that we're currently swimming in easy energy, and coal to liquids isn't as easy as oil.

Moped · Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:20 am Post subject: Re: Coal to Liquids (CTL)

Assuming the market price for oil based fuels keeps ramping, then the only thing that will prevent adoption of CTL is the green issue, and I think we can assume once people start dieing enmass the green fears will go out the window. Countries therefore with sufficient coal will be able to make all the CTL plants they like and eventually replace their oil with coal. Sounds like a plan to me, beats moving to a bunker in the desert.
_________________
"I'm here to fight for truth, and justice, and the American way" - Superman
Moped

Hagakure_Leofman · Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:24 am Post subject: Re: Coal to Liquids (CTL)

Kingcoal · Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:53 am Post subject: Re: Coal to Liquids (CTL)

CTL generates a large amount of CO2, sulfur and requires significant energy input. Whenever you study alternatives, you always have to keep in mind where we came from with our gasoline culture. Gasoline was a waste byproduct from the kerosene refining business. Early automakers started to use gasoline to power their engines because it was cheap and plentiful. Everything sprang from there.

The idea of burning this cheap, waste byproduct in an internal combustion engine made sense back then - it doesn't now. In other words, cars don't make sense anymore. They are a very inefficient use of valuable energy. They only make sense when energy isn't so valuable.

Energy has become valuable again. We can't waste it like we used too. Trying to prop up our current system of cars, trucks, roads and highways with alternatives is futile. It's called Energy Returned on Energy Invested. The EROEI for CTL is low and more importantly, the scale of trying to supply our inefficient system of energy usage with these alternatives is basically downright stupid. It makes more economic sense to become more efficient, then to feed an inefficient monster.
_________________
"That's the problem with mercy, kid... It just ain't professional" - Fast Eddie, The Color of Money

SoylentGreen · Heavy Crude Joined: May 25, 2008 Posts: 168

the Nazi's did it with coal towards the end of WWII .Its possible.Theyre talking about shale oil now.Whether the process is more efficient from shale or coal would be a question I would like to have answered.

GASMON · Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:06 am Post subject: Re: Coal to Liquids (CTL)

Coal to Liquids (CTL) just buys a bit more time. The technology is there, and it works, but NOT sustainable, renewable or very green.

Incidentally, when Britain was ramping up on North Sea Gas, a HUGE conversion excercise was carried out. EVERY appliance had to be converted from town gas (coal derived) to natural gas. Mainly burner injector change.

The process of actually "changing" the gas in the pipes was complex, done in small areas (sectors), and in 1 DAY, several thousand appliances were converted & mains purged to Nat Gas. I was involved, interesting & busy days, back then.

Back in the 1970's, the (then) nationally owned British Gas invested in a research plant at Westfield in Scotland, to make substitute natural gas from coal. The gas was to be the same calorific value & specific gravity as nat gas, therfore no re-conversion was neccesary. It worked, but the technology wasn't needed, plant decommisioned. (we found LOTS of North Sea gas). SO, if we run out of nat gas, we can make it from coal. ('til the coal runs out !!).

Here is an extract for anyone technically interested. (1970's costs) on testing various American coals.

During the reporting period, the design and evaluation of a Commercial Coal Gasification Plant, using the British Gas/Lurgi slagging gasifier technology, was completed.The Commercial Plant is designed to produce 241.7 million standard cubic feet of pipeline gas per day from Illinois No. 6 coal.The gas has a heating value of 960 Btu/SCF.The capital cost of the Commercial Plant is estimated to be $1.3 billion (first quarter, 1978 dollars) and the cost of gas ranges from $6.00 to $4.85 per thousand standard cubic feet depending upon the assumptions about financing, taxes, etc. Thirteen slagging gasifier pilot plant runs were completed at the Westfield Development Centre in Cardenden, Scotland, under a technical support program.This program produced extensive experience with the operation of the gasifier on eastern coals.Ohio No. 9 coal and Pittsburgh No. 8 coal were successfully gasified.It is concluded that Pittsburgh No. 8 coal is somewhat easier to gasify than Ohio No. 9 coal, but both coals could be handled in a Demonstration Plant gasifier designed on the basis of the data from the Westfield technical support program.

As usual, problems are NOT technical. They are non-renewable (coal), carbon output, etc etc, discussed regularly on peak oil.

Gasmon
_________________
Oiyl be back !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Moped · Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:36 pm Post subject: Re: Coal to Liquids (CTL)

If CTL offers a viable solution to PO then it will be adopted even if its not a long term solution. The market will decide, if the price of oil makes CTL profitable then the only inpediment will be Kyoto. Its not good enough to say CTL will be bad for the environment, so are tar sands, we'd have to hope for carbon sequestration or some better future tech to save the planet from global warming.
_________________
"I'm here to fight for truth, and justice, and the American way" - Superman
Moped

Ludi · Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:42 pm Post subject: Re: Coal to Liquids (CTL)

What will people do when people start dying en masse from climate change? Or do you think we just won't notice those deaths?
_________________
"...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy

errorist · Tar Sands Joined: May 28, 2008 Posts: 49

People start dying. As you said. En masse.

MonteQuest · Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:26 pm Post subject: Re: Coal to Liquids (CTL)

Moped · Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: Re: Coal to Liquids (CTL)

Thanks for the link, I'll get reading....................
_________________
"I'm here to fight for truth, and justice, and the American way" - Superman
Moped