Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Coal to Liquid Fuels (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Synthetic Fuel Could Eliminate U.S. Need for Crude Oil

Unread postby lper100km » Thu 06 Dec 2012, 13:18:02

What’s this? You burn fuel to make fuel that is then burned? So with all the inefficiencies involved you end up with maybe a third of the initial energy bank to provide ‘useful’ work. So we get to TEOTWAWKI three times faster?

Same reason why the hydrogen economy will never succeed.

What a fantastic solution.

The spiral of doom.
User avatar
lper100km
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon 05 Jun 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Over the tracks, left under the overpass, right, third boxcar on the left, ask for Jack

Re: Synthetic Fuel Could Eliminate U.S. Need for Crude Oil

Unread postby Poordogabone » Thu 06 Dec 2012, 14:40:59

The core of the plan is a technique that uses heat and chemistry to create gasoline and other liquid fuels from high-carbon feedstock ranging from coal to switchgrass


Germans did not turn coal into liquid fuel because they thought it was a good idea, they did it out of desperation.
The problem with harvesting switch grass and other wild plant matter on a industrial scale is the depletion of nutrients in the soil as all organic matter is removed generation after generation the soil does not get replenished and the yield gets smaller year after year. Another unsustainable bad idea born out of desperation.
User avatar
Poordogabone
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Synthetic Fuel Could Eliminate U.S. Need for Crude Oil

Unread postby rollin » Thu 06 Dec 2012, 18:12:52

Don't be fooled, these are some of the worst ways to energize our society. The natural gas conversion loses 40% of it's energy and the coal conversion loses 60%. So after this bad start, it is soon realized with increased coal and natural gas demand from transportation that electricity rates will rise as well as heating costs. The next downside comes when coal and natural gas synthetic production can no longer keep up with the total demand and prices skyrocket, then shortages occur. Not a good plan. All this may happen as the systems are being put into place, I doubt if full rollout would ever occur.

Switchgrass ethanol, due to it's ability to grow in harsh conditions, might be viable as a partial substitute for oil as it might not displace current cropland. Someone should do a study to see if it's more efficient to just burn the switchgrass to produce steam for vehicles rather than converting to ethanol. Or maybe we can use a gasification method directly in the vehicle.
Once in a while the peasants do win. Of course then they just go and find new rulers, you think they would learn.
rollin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu 06 Dec 2012, 17:28:24

Re: Synthetic Fuel Could Eliminate U.S. Need for Crude Oil

Unread postby SilentRunning » Sun 09 Dec 2012, 05:04:56

Graeme wrote:Synthetic Fuel Could Eliminate U.S. Need for Crude Oil



Yes, and I could win the Lottery...
Send more Cornicopians!
The last ones were delicious!!! :-)
User avatar
SilentRunning
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri 27 Mar 2009, 22:46:50
Location: Northeastern North America

Re: Synthetic Fuel Could Eliminate U.S. Need for Crude Oil

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 09 Dec 2012, 12:35:55

The combined German synthetic oil program during WWII was capable of producing 5,820,000 bpd of liquids, (though it is doubtful all the refineries ran concurrently). Until 1944 most of these targets were immune to allied attack as they were too far into the German empire for sustained heavy bombardment. That all changed with the development of the P-51 Mustang fighter plane and B-17 Heavy bomber. That combination of long-range defensive fire power and bomber load was capable of reaching and returning from the heavily defended refineries all over Germany and Poland. These were the targets of among the largest bombing raids in WWII.
There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.”
― Maya Angelou
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 25796
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Synthetic Fuel Could Eliminate U.S. Need for Crude Oil

Unread postby dorlomin » Mon 10 Dec 2012, 06:13:37

Cloud9 wrote:The Germans ran their war machine on synthetics. Production never met demand. Vehicles were abandoned on the battle field for lack of fuel.
They did not start building the quantity needed to replace imports until too late and they did not have the lift capacity to move the supplies needed for operations in Africa and deep in the USSR.

Logistics planning failures of a nation famed for its strategic logistics failures (Marne, Operation Micheal, Barbarossa, the Bulge etc) does not say much about the viability of a fuel source.

As to the fuel source, it will simply increase demand for coal that will drive up prices quicker.

Edited to add
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airc ... becker.htm
User avatar
dorlomin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Coal to Liquid Fuels (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 21 Jun 2013, 13:36:37

Hey ROCKMAN, it once again occurs to me that if Tight Oil is viable at prices over $85.00/bbl and Coal to Liquids is viable at prices over $50.00/bbl then something is very odd if nobody is building new CTL plants in 2013.

It appears China has taken the alternate route of sowing up deals to have access to oil imports for the next couple of decades no matter how the USA feels about it when the shortage arrives.

But why isn't the EU, Japan, Korea, Australia or South Africa building CTL plants as fast as they can to secure liquid transport fuels for the next couple of decades?

I have seen a few scattered stories in the media in 2011 and 2012 about new versions of CTL technology being demonstrated in Arizona and Australia, but other than the press releases nothing seems to have actually been done with the technology. According to the Sasol company web site the plant in the link
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/bus ... al-446384/
is still in full use and happily producing 160,000 bbl/d of reformulated liquid fuel. At $95.00+ to import oil it seems like that place should be making money hand over fist and other people should be trying to copy that success.

I just don't get it.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13825
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Coal to Liquid Fuels (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 21 Jun 2013, 15:59:13

Tanada – here’s the latest on the CTL hype and the reality. I suspect the basic problem boils down to taking a process that works fine on a laboratory bench and convincing someone to spend $billions of THEIR money to make it work on a large scale.

From:”Coal-to-liquid prospects dim, but boosters won't say die” http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059981383

“It's been two years since Sen. Joe Manchin (D) and other West Virginia politicians gathered near here to break ground for and sing the praises of what they said would be the first U.S. plant to turn coal into gasoline -- and create hundreds of jobs on a former strip mine near the Kentucky line. Engineering and site preparation followed the pep rally, but there's not much to show for the effort here in Mingo County. Developers haven't yet locked up financing for a $3 billion plant they say won't be up and running until at least 2016.”

As often is the case many cheerleaders who have lots of positive worlds to offer but not a penny of their own money.

"The details are much more time-consuming that we anticipated," said Randall Harris, technical director for TransGas Development Systems LLC's Adams Fork Energy project. "But we have so far not hit a roadblock."

I would consider not having the $3 billion loan a bit of a road block.

“But many question whether the coal-to-liquids effort is even on the road. The West Virginia project is one of several CTL proposals around the country struggling in the face of expanded stores of cheap domestic petroleum, heightened environmental scrutiny and increased focus on renewable sources of energy. "The big problem is the large front-end cost to build the plant," said Burt Davis, associate director for clean fuels and chemicals at the University of Kentucky's Center for Applied Energy Research. "And the only way you can see building the plant is that you're going to have 20 to 30 years to pay for it, and nobody has been willing to take that risk in North America."

Another problem for CTL boosters -- who have for decades been pressing to expand uses for U.S. coal -- is the new abundance of cheap natural gas, which has encouraged some companies to switch their focus from turning coal into gasoline to turning gas into liquid transportation fuel.

“TransGas' Harris, once a National Energy Technology Laboratory senior engineer, who is working to develop two other CTL sites in Kentucky, says that if more people knew more about coal-to-liquids technology, they would back the effort.”

And again the folks who do know about CTL don’t have the money but are “positive” it will be a good investment…for someone else.

"We are now focusing on the last of the detailed engineering in advance of placing fabrication orders," he said in a telephone interview. "We are talking with several international as well as domestic fabricators."

They can “talk” all they want but the fabricators need to see the money.

Along with the planned Mingo County plant, Houston-based DKRW Advanced Fuels LLC's Medicine Bow project in Wyoming's Carbon County is also among the most prominent CTL efforts. Last year the company announced it had entered a construction contract with Chinese Sinopec Engineering Group. DKRW said the facility would produce more than 11,000 barrels of low-sulfur gasoline every day and create 400 full-time jobs. "This project not only creates a bigger market for Wyoming coal," Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) said last year, "it helps develop its most abundant energy source -- coal."

But early this year, the company saw its fortunes turn as repeated construction delays jeopardized a key permit from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality's industrial siting office. "We required DKRW to submit an updated socioeconomic report to see how the local communities would be affected by this change in schedule," Esch said. "I've had no indication from DKRW that they don't intend to proceed."

PA coal magnate John Rich has been trying to build a Pennsylvania CTL plant for at least a decade.
At one point the company, hoping to get funding from the Department of Energy, backed by Pennsylvania politicians from both sides of the aisle, said construction would begin in 2006. Last year the company said it sued critics who called the project a failure. "As our company continues to obtain necessary commitments for this project, we cannot allow our name to be slandered in a political smear campaign," Rich said in a statement.

And again a great and viable project…if he could just get someone else to pay for it. I would think a “coal magnate” could afford to do it with his own capex.

“With the United States' status as the world's second largest coal producer coupled with its long-term dependence on foreign sources of energy, many companies and politicians have for decades wanted to capitalize on CTL here.”

Companies that want to get paid for building the plants, companies that want to sell coal to the plants and politicians who want someone to spend their money to build plants in their states. Great…got everything they need. Except someone who wants to write the check.

“The late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) used his clout as an appropriator to secure funds for CTL development in his home state. His push for CTL began during the Kennedy administration, and he continued to champion the effort until his death in 2010. More recent CTL backers include President Obama, who introduced legislation as an Illinois senator along with retired Kentucky Republican Sen. Jim Bunning.”

And since Senator Obama couldn’t get a CTL plant built to use his Illinois coal two years ago president Obama’s EPA gave the final Clean Air permit for a plant built in Texas that would buy Illinois coal for the next 30 years.

“And the Obama administration has sought to cut funding for CTL technology to focus on carbon capture efforts, coal gasification and making power plants more efficient. Current federal spending levels for coal and coal biomass to liquids are under $5 million a year. Obama's latest budget request says, "This area of research is a low priority relative to other activities which are expected to yield greater public benefits."

But Department of Energy researchers say they haven't given up on the technology. Jenny Tennant, a gasification leader for DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory, said ongoing research on gasification can benefit CTL, too. That's because while there is a way of turning coal directly into liquid fuel, under the more popular Fischer-Tropsch process, companies must first turn coal into synthetic gas or syngas.

And again someone else who won’t be investing a penny into building a CTL plant thinks it’s a good idea.

“Even with federal, state and private efforts, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said late last year that it projected the startup of the first CTL plants in the United States to be in 2023, "with penetration of the technology far more modest" when compared with previous estimates. A peer-reviewed study by Sweden's Uppsala University senior lecturer Mikael Hook questioned the prospects of CTL around the world, and particularly in the United States. "The economic analysis shows that many CTL studies assume conditions that are optimistic at best. In addition, the strong risk for a CTL plant to become a financial black hole is highlighted," he wrote in a paper presented last fall at the Pittsburgh Coal Conference. "It is unrealistic to claim that CTL provides a feasible solution to liquid fuels shortages created by peak oil," Hook added. "At best, it can be only a minor contributor and must be combined with other strategies to ensure future liquid fuel supply."

The International Energy Agency in its most recent coal market report noted that China has several CTL projects in various stages of development. Sasol is involved in CTL projects there and in India. "China has actively pursued coal liquefaction technology since the 1950s," said the report. "Throughout this time, China has treated coal-to-liquids as a research and development topic, yet this mindset has changed over the last two decades as CTL moved from laboratories to large-scale demonstration projects." However, the IEA report also said that China's National Development and Reform Commission had told local governments to hold off on approving CTL projects, especially smaller ones.

During a recent briefing in Washington, D.C., IEA analyst Laszlo Varro was pessimistic about CTL. "Essentially, energy policy needs to replicate a war blockade," he said. "The only country that has meaningful investments in coal to liquids is China."

Coal against petroleum - Among the major impediments to CTL efforts in the United States are development costs, intense water need and emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The question has been whether getting liquid fuel from coal creates fewer emissions than through drilling oil. CTL boosters say that with carbon capture and sequestration technologies, a CTL plant can meet or outperform petroleum as a raw material for liquid transportation fuel. Adding biomass to the process, they say, can make it more environmentally friendly. "It was found that diesel fuel can be produced from coal that has a lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions profile than conventional petroleum-derived diesel fuel on a well-to-wheels basis," DOE said in a 2011 report. The report adds, "This requires the sequestration of carbon dioxide produced at the facility, and methane mitigation practices may be required in the case of certain bituminous coals which are particularly high in methane content."

So if someone else pays to sequester the CO2 and they eliminate the methane emissions from coal mining that they’ve yet been able to do CTL will work great.

“TransGas Development's Harris brags about emission controls at the proposed Mingo County plant.” Our technology," he said, "captures all the CO2 because you have to remove it before it gets to the catalyst." Using stored CO2 for enhanced oil recovery can help make the process more economical. And with a barrel of crude oil hovering at around $95 on the world market, Harris said, "Oil prices are still in the sweet spot for CTL." But carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), and the use of CO2 enhanced oil recovery (EOR), has yet to prove itself on a significant commercial scale. Harris says that while the EOR market has yet to develop here in the Appalachians, he envisions TransGas becoming the top supplier of CO2 for increasing the region's oil production, which he said holds significant potential.

IOW he can sequester the CO2 but at the moment but they has no place to put it. I thought sequester meant you put it someplace where it would do no harm. BTW once the CO2 is pulled out of the process it has to be shipped via pipelines. I suspect they haven’t worked that into their project economic analysis.

Environmentalists are not convinced. They see CTL with the same skepticism that they view "clean coal" projects overall. Plus, the technology means continued reliance on mining and fossil fuels that many don't even want to consider. "Relying on liquid coal as an alternative fuel could nearly double carbon pollution per gallon of transportation fuels, and increases the devastating effects of coal mining felt by communities and ecosystems stretching from Appalachia to the Rocky Mountains," the Natural Resources Defense Council says in a 2011 fact sheet.

Such arguments don't hold much sway with Steve Jenkins, gasification services vice president at CH2M Hill Inc., a major engineering and construction firm. "I can never explain for the environmentalists," he said. With the continued demand for oil coupled with coal's abundance and high petroleum prices, Jenkins sees a market for the CTL technology. "And so we are seeing foreign investors that want to get into the U.S. because they see that we are not reducing our use of gasoline," he said in a recent interview. "Particularly when you site the plant [near the mine], you have eliminated a large portion of the feedstock, which is transportation," Jenkins added. "Your economics show that today and in the future, coal to liquids plants make economic sense."

And one more time: a cheerleader that will make a nice income whether the CTL is a profitable effort or not since he’ll get paid for building the plant and won’t have a penny invested in it. Reminds of a couple of years ago when 3 groups tried to sell me their Eagle Ford Shales acreage. They had great things to say about the drilling potential. So I made all 3 the same offer: I would pay them the $millions they were asking for but instead of handing them a check I would use that money to pay for a portion of the drilling and give them the equivalent ownership in all the wells. Great offer, eh: not only would they get the money they wanted but I could make even more profit for them by investing in the wells. None of them took my offer which was Justas well since I never planned on doing the trades in the first place. We call it “having skin in the game.” A great way to separate the hustlers from the real earnest players.

So now that you know the current scoop how much of your life's saving are you ready to invest in a CTL plant? There seems to be a number of opportunities developing. LOL.

I have no doubt you get it and already did before this post.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10451
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Coal to Liquid Fuels (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 21 Jun 2013, 21:11:57

Oh I get the bit about the huckster and the crooks easily enough, the difference is unlike a lot of the technobabble solutions proposed CTL has a proven track record, at least in South Africa. Sasol has been running a 160,000 bbl/d plant down there for something like 40 years, and right now they are raking in the cash because at the current oil prices it is very profitable. Their motives were not exactly pure when they built it to avoid the consequences of oil embargo's, but motivation has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the technology.

Seems like the people in the news article you cited above tried to eat the whole pie with a massive $3G plant instead of building something in the $100Million range that would be proof of concept and shut the naysayers up. It is always a toss up, build it huge and you profit from economies of scale, but the payback time is extended and the project can turn into a white elephant almost overnight. On the other hand build it too small and it won't be as efficient so people will complain about how badly it preforms. Finding that sweet spot is a real challenge, maybe these guys thought Exxon-Mobile would leap in with both feet and be majority owner?

Anyhow, there have been at least two other systems to process coal into liquid fuels not using the Fischer-Tropsch method used by Sasol, one uses brown coal and is supposed to be coming along any day now in Arizona, the other was the Thermal Depolymerization system that is lab scale proven to take in coal or tire derived fuel and put out methane, diesel fuel and petroleum coke. That pilot plant in Missouri worked technologically, but the odor problem was stunning and the towns folk where it was located filed many complaints and some law suits and it closed down.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13825
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Coal to liquid idea....

Unread postby JV153 » Sat 23 Nov 2013, 05:40:04

peripato wrote:
MD wrote:
AirlinePilot wrote:...
There's 13 times as much energy in coal (in the form of the thorium in it) as there is available from burning the coal...


I'm having a hard time overcoming my skepticism on this one.

I'd have to agree. There are many reports that pour water all over the CTL idea, mainly due to the high monetary, time and environmental cost. But mainly because CTL has never existed in commercial quantity, nor seems ever likely too. Not to say some governments mightn't be crazy enough to try it on a grand scale, given half the chance. Mercifully in that case, for the sake of future generations and the other species, we can only surmise that, on the balance of probabilities, by the time that happened, the world economy will have collapsed before yet another leg of the fossil fuel suicide machine gathered any pace.


SASOL in South Africa operates a commercial CTL plant. Output is 160,000 bls/day.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/co ... sasol.html
JV153
 

Re: Coal to Liquid Fuels (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 23 Nov 2013, 08:33:34

JV - And I wonder had a company anticipated the rise in oil prices over the last 10 years might they have built a huge CTL plant on top of those massive Wyoming coal reserves that are currently being shipped half way around the world to China. I suspect the risk of price volatility has made it difficult for CTL expansion as well as other major capex projects to take hold. Consider how quickly the expanded US LNG import capability is now trying to be salvaged by converting to export. Most of these huge investments take 5 to 10 years to recover the initial cost let alone start generating a profit.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10451
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Coal to Liquid Fuels (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 23 Nov 2013, 10:20:53

ROCKMAN wrote:JV - And I wonder had a company anticipated the rise in oil prices over the last 10 years might they have built a huge CTL plant on top of those massive Wyoming coal reserves that are currently being shipped half way around the world to China. I suspect the risk of price volatility has made it difficult for CTL expansion as well as other major capex projects to take hold. Consider how quickly the expanded US LNG import capability is now trying to be salvaged by converting to export. Most of these huge investments take 5 to 10 years to recover the initial cost let alone start generating a profit.


IMO technological implementation is the one place my Libertarian mind can justify Federal no interest loans. Things like CTL plants and new Fission power plants should not be at the mercy of the commercial banking system when they are so vital to our future with Peak Oil breathing down our necks. Just like GM, the Government gets half the profits until the loan is fully repaid. In the meantime lots of people have jobs and pay lots of income taxes which is where the Government profit comes from without interest on the loan.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13825
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Coal to Liquid Fuels (merged)

Unread postby Ulenspiegel » Mon 25 Nov 2013, 03:23:45

@Tanada, Rockman

My issue with CTL is that this technology simply supports BAU, which is unsustainable. The first step IMHO should be to analyse alternatives, especially, how we could reduce the usage of oil.

As long as saving is cheaper than CTL I support the former and support governmental programs that increase efficiency.
Ulenspiegel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 02:15:29

Re: Coal to Liquid Fuels (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Mon 25 Nov 2013, 03:39:49

Ulenspiegel wrote:@Tanada, Rockman

My issue with CTL is that this technology simply supports BAU, which is unsustainable. The first step IMHO should be to analyse alternatives, especially, how we could reduce the usage of oil.

As long as saving is cheaper than CTL I support the former and support governmental programs that increase efficiency.


BAU can only exist with cheap oil so in my opinion it is going bye bye in the car car no matter how much CTL we can make. CTL isn't as expensive as some of the more esoteric alternatives, but that doesn't make it cheap like the oil we used to buy with such total reckless abandon.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4027
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Coal to Liquid Fuels (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 06 Dec 2013, 09:48:32

Maybe we should rebrand this thread as "Coal to something". LOL. It seems as we stumble further down the PO path coal energy, in one form or another, will be playing a bigger role.

Reuters – Privately-run Chinese firm Guanghui Energy Co Ltd will invest $4 billion in the northwestern region of Xinjiang to turn rich coal deposits there into cleaner-burning gas, the company said on Friday. The firm said the project, which would produce four billion cubic metres of gas a year, would need final government approval after getting an initial greenlight from the National Development & Reform Commission in September. China, the world's top energy user, wants to turn coal in remote areas into gas and then pipe it to cities, where residential and industrial use of the fuel is growing rapidly. From coal miners to power producers and private firms to state giants, companies are pushing to convert China's abundant and cheap coal into gas, using a mix of locally developed and imported technology similar to that used to produce synthetic fuel in apartheid-era South Africa. Beijing has so far approved four pilot projects able to supply 15 billion cubic metres of natural gas annually by 2015. The first such project, built by state-run utility Datang Power, started pumping gas to Beijing this month.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10451
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Coal to Liquid Fuels (merged)

Unread postby Loki » Mon 03 Feb 2014, 01:05:19

China's first direct coal liquefaction line produces 866,000 tonnes

HOHHOT, Jan. 29 (Xinhua) -- China's first direct coal-to-oil project, operated by the country's leading coal producer, Shenhua Group, produced 866,000 tonnes of oil products last year.

The direct coal liquefaction line is located in Ejin Horo Banner, Ordos City in northern Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. It produces 3,000 tonnes of oil products with consumption of nearly 10,000 tonnes of coal per day, said Shenhua Coal Liquefaction and Chemical Co., Ltd.

With an investment of 12.6 billion yuan (2.06 billion U.S. dollars), Shenhua Group began construction of the project in 2004, using self-developed technologies.

The project began trial production at the end of 2009 with a designed annual capacity of 1.08 million tonnes of diesel, naphtha and liquefied petroleum gas.

Proven coal reserves around Ordos are estimated at 160 billion tonnes, or 11.4 percent of the country's total coal reserves.

As part of its clean energy strategy, China has launched a number of direct or indirect coal liquefaction and coal gasification projects in Inner Mongolia, Shaanxi, Ningxia, Xinjiang and Liaoning in the past three years.
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Oregon

Re: Coal to Liquid Fuels (merged)

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 03 Feb 2014, 01:08:40

ROCKMAN wrote:Tanada – here’s the latest on the CTL hype and the reality. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
etc.
Dang, that was a bunch of hype and reality.

Loki, 3,000 tons/day is around 10,000 barrels, the output from a bunch of rusty stripper wells in my mother-in-laws back '40. LOL
There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.”
― Maya Angelou
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 25796
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Coal to Liquid Fuels (merged)

Unread postby Loki » Mon 03 Feb 2014, 01:29:52

pstarr wrote:
ROCKMAN wrote:Tanada – here’s the latest on the CTL hype and the reality. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
etc.
Dang, that was a bunch of hype and reality.

Loki, 3,000 tons/day is around 10,000 barrels, the output from a bunch of rusty stripper wells in my mother-in-laws back '40. LOL

More like 17,400 bbls using the annual production figure of "oil products," but yeah, still small, about a tenth of South Africa's Secunda plant.
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Oregon

Re: Coal to Liquid Fuels (merged)

Unread postby Synapsid » Mon 03 Feb 2014, 18:03:09

Loki,

Does the process require water? If so, does the source say how much is used?
Synapsid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: Coal to Liquid Fuels (merged)

Unread postby Graeme » Sun 06 Apr 2014, 17:31:48

Is The Energy Department Still Looking To A Give Coal-To-Liquid Plant A Loan Guarantee?

According to the Casper Star-Tribune, the Department of Energy (DOE) is reconsidering the loan guarantee application for a stalled coal to liquids (CTL) project in Wyoming.

Worst. Idea. Ever. By. Far. Seriously.

Or, as one senior administration official told me, “we may be carrying this ‘all of the above’ strategy a bit too far.”

The CTL process is a very old (and expensive) one used by the Germans in World War II and subsequently by the South Africans.

Coal is the most carbon-intensive fuel. The more you burn, the worse for the climate — and making petrol out of coal generates almost twice as much total greenhouse gases as simply making diesel out of crude oil — unless you can find some way of capturing all of the carbon dioxide and storing it forever, in which case it’s only a little worse (see figure above from the NY Times).

For this particular project, however, the DOE is requiring only that “the facility would capture at least 50 percent of the CO2.” So the resulting fuel will have more than 50 percent higher carbon pollution than normal petrol production. Also, “the CO2 stream” will be used for “enhanced oil recovery operations and geologic storage at a location to be determined.” In short, whatever CO2 is captured can be used to squeeze more uneconomic oil out of the ground — oil whose combustion will result in as much if not more CO2 being released into the atmosphere than was stored in the first place. Woo-hoo!

On February 14, Politico reported:

Today is the first of six rolling deadlines for DOE’s call for greenhouse gas-reducing fossil energy projects. DOE has made $8 billion in federal loan guarantees available to all sorts of natural gas, oil, coal projects — so long as they cut emissions relative to conventional fossil operations — as part of the president’s climate action plan.

Memo to DOE and White House: There is no scenario whatsoever under which coal-to-liquids cuts emissions relative to conventional fossil operations.

So why is CTL back on the table? The Casper Star-Tribune reports:

Talks between the company and the Energy Department resumed shortly after Ernest Moniz was named secretary of energy last spring, said DKRW Executive Vice President Wade Cline.

“It was not moving forward,” Cline said…. “Once Secretary Moniz hired Peter Davidson to be the new head of the loan program, they have taken a fresh look at it and are moving forward.”

Let’s hope not. Backing this project would be wholly incompatible with the president’s climate action plan.

As of March 20, “DKRW is out of compliance with its Industrial Siting Council permit. The company has been given until June to get back into compliance.


theenergycollective
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Master
Master
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests