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
Graeme wrote:Synthetic Fuel Could Eliminate U.S. Need for Crude Oil
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.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.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
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.
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.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
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.
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.
pstarr wrote:Dang, that was a bunch of hype and reality.ROCKMAN wrote:Tanada – here’s the latest on the CTL hype and the reality. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
etc.
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
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 99 guests