Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE COAL TO GAS (CTG) Thread (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Coal gasification what are some good companies?

Unread postby Eli » Sat 04 Mar 2006, 15:28:39

I am thinking of moving some of my cash out of some of the oil stocks I have in favor of companies that are developing coal gasification and CO2 injection into old oil wells.

I think there is a huge upside to CO2 injection and when CO2 is produced through coal gasification you get Syn Gas that will become profitable when ng is over 9 bucks so we are real close to the point where coal gasification is really going to take off.

So what companies are doing this?
User avatar
Eli
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3710
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 02:00:00
Location: In a van down by the river

Re: Coal gasification what are some good companies?

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 04 Mar 2006, 18:54:50

Eli wrote:I am thinking of moving some of my cash out of some of the oil stocks I have in favor of companies that are developing coal gasification and CO2 injection into old oil wells.

I think there is a huge upside to CO2 injection and when CO2 is produced through coal gasification you get Syn Gas that will become profitable when ng is over 9 bucks so we are real close to the point where coal gasification is really going to take off.

So what companies are doing this?


The oldest US company I know of is Dakota Gas
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: 13518
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Coal gasification what are some good companies?

Unread postby aflatoxin » Sat 04 Mar 2006, 23:43:25

I've been involved with the gas business for 15 years. CO2 Injection is not new.

Exxon-mobil and chevron-texaco has been doing this since before my time in the permian and wy/ut areas.

Florida power and light has a pretty neat coal gasification plant. It is at least 10 years old. They run a super-low emissions gas turbine off it.

Smoke and mirrors.
User avatar
aflatoxin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Sun 31 Jul 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Coal gasification what are some good companies?

Unread postby Eli » Sun 05 Mar 2006, 15:17:43

I am a huge doomer but coal gasification is not smoke and mirrors.

Just like CO2 injection it is a very old technology too. It has been used since the 1850s when it was used to produce "water gas".

It may be more cost intensive than Nat gas but it is not like converting the tar sands into fuel. The combustion cycle is fueled by the coal and whit nat gas in decline ICCG will become much more common.

The products that you end up with at the end are Naptha for fuel,
Ammonium sulfate and Anhydrous ammonia- fertilizer
Krypton and xenon gases
Dephenolized cresylic acid
Liquid nitrogen
User avatar
Eli
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3710
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 02:00:00
Location: In a van down by the river

Re: Coal gasification what are some good companies?

Unread postby OneLoneClone » Mon 06 Mar 2006, 17:26:35

Sasol was doing it in apartheid South Africa for years, prolly have the most experience. Haven't evaluated stock tho.

GE is into it (and everything else) in the US. Stock has underperfomed for years tho. I would like to own some, tho.

Headwaters is also a player, but thier stock is expensive right now. I would like to own some.

I think stocks are expensive right now and I'm waiting for a sale day.
OneLoneClone
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri 07 Oct 2005, 02:00:00
Location: San Francisco

Re: Coal gasification what are some good companies?

Unread postby topcat » Thu 09 Mar 2006, 14:58:14

I'm not up on coal gasification.

There is a company doing work on "low rank coal-water fuel' that I know of; Silverado Green Fuels, Inc. I would image that there are others too. From what I read on their site, it might be a viable oil substitute for power generation. We're supposed to have lots of coal, at least that's what 'they' say. Its even supposed to be an environmentally friendly product?!?!?!

They have received some funding from the Fed to continue their work. I think DOE and DOD both are involved. The parent company is Silverado Gold Mines, Ltd.

They had quite a nice run up in their stock about a month ago, and now it looks like some consolidation/profit-taking going on.

Disclamer:
I did buy some shares when the run up started, as I have been watching them for some time now. And then, I bought some more.

I do hold other gold stocks and when I learned about SLGLF's LRCWF receiving some $$$'s, I thought what the heck. Its one that I intend to keep for the kids, not one I want to try and time and trade. At the price (around .11/share today) its like an option that never expires.

More disclaimers:
I am not: a broker, an SLGLF employee, in any way related to the financial/banking/brokerage/oil/coal industries, or a financial advisor.

Any and all thoughts here are worth what they cost - nothing!

Always perform 'due diligence' before investing money in anything you cannot eat.

What I am: an agrculturial engineer (LOL), an untrained fruit and vegetable grower procrasting the pruning of my apples, peaches, pears, plums, apricots, and grapes. And Wed I saw robins!
User avatar
topcat
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed 01 Feb 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Northern US

Coal to the rescue? Coal to Natural Gas

Unread postby ararboin » Tue 25 Apr 2006, 09:38:42

Turning Dirty Coal Into Clean Energy by Elizabeth Shogren, NPR, Morning Edition, April 25, 2006:
Today's expensive gasoline is making people look for alternatives. That has opened doors of opportunity for entrepreneurs such as Andrew Perlman, who is betting that the "clean" fuel of future will be made from one of humanity's oldest -- and dirtiest: coal.
Perlman wants to turn coal into clean natural gas. The concept isn't new. In the 1800s, cities such as Boston used big, dirty ovens to turn coal into town gas to fuel streetlights and gas lamps in homes. During World War II, Nazi Germany turned coal into liquid fuel to run tanks.
During the energy crisis of the 1970s, the U.S. government promoted research projects to produce gas and liquid fuel from coal. But those efforts were abandoned after the crisis passed. Now, instability in the Middle East and record-high prices for petroleum products have prompted a new wave of interest in technologies to turn coal into natural gas and liquid fuel. For entrepreneurs such as Perlman, these technologies hold the promise of producing cleaner fuel out of coal, which is abundant and affordable.
"The U.S. has more coal than any other country in the world. It's actually about as cheap as dirt," said Perlman, co-founder and CEO of Greatpoint Energy, a Cambridge, Mass.-based company.
GreatPoint Energy is refining a process called catalytic gasification to convert coal into methane or substitute natural gas. In their process, coal is mixed with a catalyst and fed into a gasifier: a tall, narrow, metal cylindrical container.
Inside the gasifier, the coal and the catalyst are combined with steam and subjected to pressure. That causes a chemical reaction that converts them into carbon monoxide and hydrogen. GreatPoint says the key to its new technology is the catalyst it uses. Perlman says it's a combination of readily available metals, but so far, the ingredients are secret.
Because of that catalyst, GreatPoint's process works at a lower temperature than other technologies, which makes the process much cheaper. The catalyst also enables GreatPoint to separate out about half of the carbon dioxide, a chief cause of climate change. (The company plans to sell that carbon dioxide to be injected into oil or gas wells to facilitate production.) Other pollutants also are removed at the plant, which makes the product much cleaner than the synthesis gas produced by other gasification processes.
Greatpoint's technology works in the laboratory. Sometime this summer, the company will learn whether it also will work at a small-scale plant in Des Plains, Ill.
User avatar
ararboin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Coal to the rescue?

Unread postby Windmills » Tue 25 Apr 2006, 09:55:48

I heard that just a few minutes ago.

The report said the technology wouldn't be available on a commercial scale for at least four years. I have the gut feeling that we are very close to peak oil now, so I don't know if it would make any difference. Even if it di, it's success might be even more of a disaster because it would mask the underlying causes, overpopulation and overconsumption, that have gotten us into resource depletion. Physical technologies are only going to take us so far. What we really need are advances in "social technology," learning how to better organize and operate our socieities. Finally, it mentioned that coal was "cheap as dirt," but for how long? Once demand for coal via various technologies begins to ramp up, what are it's long term prospects? How cheap will it continue to be, and how long will it last under the new parameters?

It would have been nice to hear about the EROEI for their plant, too.
Windmills
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Tue 11 Oct 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Arizona, USA

Re: Coal to the rescue?

Unread postby nth » Tue 25 Apr 2006, 10:34:39

Windmills wrote:I heard that just a few minutes ago. The report said the technology wouldn't be available on a commercial scale for at least four years. --snip-- How cheap will it continue to be, and how long will it last under the new parameters? It would have been nice to hear about the EROEI for their plant, too.
I think you are right in that it does not matter. The only thing that matters is whether we can power down.
User avatar
nth
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 03:00:00

Coal Gasification May Relieve Effects?

Unread postby caliginousface » Thu 29 Jun 2006, 23:27:13

Hey all, it's been a while since i've been around, still pursuing the goals of flying airplanes and hot air balloons (foolishly). HOWEVER! I am also pursuing a degree in Environmental Studies, so does that give me some points back?

Anyways a while ago a friend told me of coal gasification and I figured that given enough time we (the US and the World) would end up gasifying coal for liquid fuel needs. While pollution would be high and all that good stuff I think that this will be the only option. I've been out of the loop for a while so I don't know the exact status of everything that's going on in the worldwide Peak Oil discussion forum. But yes anyways, with a crapload of coal in this country I figure gasification will be the "savior," and the killer.

Thoughts...ready? Go! :-D
User avatar
caliginousface
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun 05 Mar 2006, 03:00:00
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Coal Gasification May Relieve Effects?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 30 Jun 2006, 00:16:39

We been all over this some time back. CTL will just make us dependant upon another fossil fuel that will soon peak in as little as 30 years. We don't have a "crapload" of coal.

Read this:

http://peakoil.com/fortopic3722.html
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16291
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Coal Gasification May Relieve Effects?

Unread postby dogf » Fri 30 Jun 2006, 13:17:00

You actually do have a crap load of coal. In fact based on the current CTL technology available, expensive as it is, you have 200 years worth of L from C based on todays driving and machinery. But you are correct in thinking about the enviromental aspect of it. But that will change as it becomes profitable to protect the enviroment, as is now starting....
User avatar
dogf
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon 08 May 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada

Re: Coal Gasification May Relieve Effects?

Unread postby sch_peakoiler » Fri 30 Jun 2006, 16:05:14

can you please provide a link to that number 200, or a link to the data that were the basis for your calculations which yielded this number.
User avatar
sch_peakoiler
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Coal Gasification May Relieve Effects?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 30 Jun 2006, 16:25:23

dogf wrote:You actually do have a crap load of coal. In fact based on the current CTL technology available, expensive as it is, you have 200 years worth of L from C based on todays driving and machinery. But you are correct in thinking about the enviromental aspect of it. But that will change as it becomes profitable to protect the enviroment, as is now starting....


Obviously, you didn't read the link I posted. Here's a quote from it.

Montequest wrote:Total proven world reserves of coal are estimated to total almost one trillion tons and are projected to last over 200 years at current rates of consumption. The US has about 250 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves. According to the EIA figures, we can see that we have 255 years of coal remaining in the year 2000 given our current rate of consumption. That prediction assumes equal use of all grades of coal, from anthracite to lignite. Population growth alone reduces the calculated lifetime to some 90-120 years. However, if we look back in history, we see that there were 300 years of coal reserves in 1988, 1000 years reserves in 1904, and 10,000 years reserves in 1868! As each year goes by, our coal consumption increases and we see that the projection becomes meaningless. And if we suddenly move to a bigger reliance on coal, and coal liquidfaction for gas, then this estimate would surely drop dramatically.

Coal peak projections:
Hubbert Model Peak 2032
EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2004 Peak 2060
Flat gas consumption and greater coal consumption Peak 2053
Flat gas consumption and synfuels from coal to replace oil Peak 2035

http://www.energyedge.net/The_Coal_Story.pdf


So, with no increase in gasoline consumption, CTL will peak coal in 29 years. Since gasoline consumption will increase, CTL will peak coal in just a few years.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16291
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby Graeme » Sun 21 Oct 2007, 23:39:59

U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Much talked-about U.S. efforts to build a coal-fired power plant with near zero emissions are now concentrated in a single project, as the costs and difficulties of the endeavor have mounted and the stakes have risen.

FutureGen, a $1.5 billion public-private venture, aims to design and test the technology required to turn coal into a gas that can be stripped of harmful emissions, then burned to produce electricity and hydrogen. It will also capture carbon dioxide -- widely blamed for global warming -- and store it underground forever.


reuters
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

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby jbeckton » Mon 22 Oct 2007, 12:22:17

When operational in 2012, technology developed by FutureGen could help transform the nation's plentiful supply of coal into a friendly and affordable fuel to meet growing demand for electricity. But success of the project will not be quick or cheap, said Lawrence Makovich, a vice president with Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

"Reducing carbon in electric production is a very big challenge and it's something that is going to be very expensive," Makovich said.

"That's why there is so much government involvement


First they say by 2012, we will transform coal into a friendly and affordable fuel. Then they say that it is going to be very expensive.

What gives?

I am all for trying to clean up coal fired generation because it is becoming increasing obvious that we will burn it all sooner or later, I just hope that these projects don't take subsidized money away from renewable energy.
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 03:00:00

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby roccman » Mon 22 Oct 2007, 12:30:18

Graeme wrote:U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Much talked-about U.S. efforts to build a coal-fired power plant with near zero emissions are now concentrated in a single project, as the costs and difficulties of the endeavor have mounted and the stakes have risen.

FutureGen, a $1.5 billion public-private venture, aims to design and test the technology required to turn coal into a gas that can be stripped of harmful emissions, then burned to produce electricity and hydrogen. It will also capture carbon dioxide -- widely blamed for global warming -- and store it underground forever.


reuters


There is no such thing as clean coal.

Mercury and CO2 are still released into the atmosphere.

SO2, NOX, and VOCs are captured with scrubbers and air is "cleaner" utilizing super critical boilers, but the trade off is increased fly ash.

"Cleaner" air = more waste that needs disposed of and because the gypsum market has collapsed...this waste now gets buried and has the potential to effect ground water supplies.

Then on the Global Dimming side of the equation ...less pollution = accelerated global warming.

Sorry folks - IGCC is like pissing on a volcano.
"There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
User avatar
roccman
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4034
Joined: Fri 27 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Great Sonoran Desert

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby Gazzatrone » Mon 22 Oct 2007, 12:33:31

jbeckton wrote:
First they say by 2012, we will transform coal into a friendly and affordable fuel. Then they say that it is going to be very expensive.

What gives?


What gives?

Well I'm not one for superstitious nonsense, but the second someone says 2012, you're getting into bad Kharma territory.

That date has some seriously heavy baggage attached to it.
THE FUTURE IS HISTORY!
User avatar
Gazzatrone
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2005, 03:00:00
Location: London, UK

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby jbeckton » Mon 22 Oct 2007, 12:45:32

roccman wrote:There is no such thing as clean coal.

Mercury and CO2 are still released into the atmosphere.

SO2, NOX, and VOCs are captured with scrubbers and air is "cleaner" utilizing super critical boilers, but the trade off is increased fly ash.


Guess you didn't read the article.

The technology allows for the separation of the pollutants currently regulated in the United States -- nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury -- from the gas before burning it. Carbon dioxide can also be separated.


They propose sequestion, hence no CO2 into the atmosphere but it remains to be seen if it is effective. I doubt it. Gasification also separates mercury.

SO2 scrubbers scrub mercury as well. And where on earth did you come up with the notion that scrubbers lead to increased flyash???

If anything, adding SO4 to the flue gas will make particles more susceptible to ion charging and it is more likely to be captured by the precipitator. Hence, less flyash.
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 03:00:00

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby roccman » Mon 22 Oct 2007, 13:26:38

jbeckton wrote:
roccman wrote:There is no such thing as clean coal.

Mercury and CO2 are still released into the atmosphere.

SO2, NOX, and VOCs are captured with scrubbers and air is "cleaner" utilizing super critical boilers, but the trade off is increased fly ash.


Guess you didn't read the article.

The technology allows for the separation of the pollutants currently regulated in the United States -- nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury -- from the gas before burning it. Carbon dioxide can also be separated.


They propose sequestion, hence no CO2 into the atmosphere but it remains to be seen if it is effective. I doubt it. Gasification also separates mercury.

SO2 scrubbers scrub mercury as well. And where on earth did you come up with the notion that scrubbers lead to increased flyash???

If anything, adding SO4 to the flue gas will make particles more susceptible to ion charging and it is more likely to be captured by the precipitator. Hence, less flyash.



A 1500 MW (power to supply 1.5 million homes) plant will produce around 500-600 pounds of Hg per year. Most is captured, but around 120-150 pounds are released into the atomosphere. Link

Additionally, 9,000 pounds of selenium are released each year from a 1500 MW plant.

A 1500 MW also produces 12.5 million tons of C02 annually. CO2 Seq. has never been proven effective or economical.

Fly ash from a 1500 MW plant is somewhere in the area of 1-2 million tons million tons per year.

Read more here JB:

Desert Rock Emissions

Sithe says that Desert Rock will be a flagship for a new generation of “environmentally friendly” coal-fired plants. According to Desert Rock Energy vice-president Nathan Plagans, fly ash from the plant will be sold to make concrete, reducing the plant’s solid waste output dramatically, and the plant will use as little water as possible.

Jeff Stant, who has studied the project permit, disagrees. “Assertions of plans are one thing. What the permit says is another.” Desert Rock’s pollution permit application says: “Solid wastes produced by the combustion of the coal and the air pollution control system will be returned to the mine.”

Sithe has also made a voluntary agreement to reduce mercury emissions by 80 percent above what the pollution permit requires. But the Sierra Club, another national environmental group, estimates that the plant will put 114 to 555 pounds of mercury a year into the local environment, along with tons of other toxins. Regional waterways including the San Juan River are already subject to fish warnings because of high mercury content.

The plant will also emit an estimated 13.7 million tons of global warming pollution per year, Sithe claims that it has designed the plant to function at super-critical heat, to get more energy out of less coal. Yet Sandra Ely, environment and energy policy coordinator for the New Mexico Environment Department, told the Farmington Daily Times that the plant would raise statewide greenhouse gas levels by 25 percent.

While it is a leading cause of global warming, the EPA currently has no restrictions on carbon dioxide.

That may change soon. California utilities' strict emission standards mean that state will not buy power from coal-powered plants, and other states may soon follow.

Carol Oldham of the Sierra Club is sanguine. “It’s just a matter of time before carbon is heavily regulated,” she says. “A number of industry groups have called for an 80 percent carbon reduction by 2050. So we could end up with a lot of empty plants paid for by our taxes.”


Link
"There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
User avatar
roccman
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4034
Joined: Fri 27 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Great Sonoran Desert

Next

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cog and 8 guests