Peak Oil News and Message Boards

TheAntiDoomer wrote:From the UT Arlington website:

http://www.uta.edu/ucomm/researchmagazi ... energy.php

The Germans successfully converted coal to synthetic oil in World War II using the Fischer-Tropsch process, notes Krishnan Rajeshwar, associate dean of the College of Science and CREST co-director. But even with modern methods, Fischer-Tropsch is still expensive, which is why CREST continues to research an alternative fuel technology using microfluidics.

Drs. Rajeshwar and Billo are convinced that a microfluidic reactor can convert coal to synthetic oil at a fraction of the cost of the German technology. Billo says microrefineries built at a low cost can produce large amounts of synthetic oil in a fraction of the time of existing Fischer-Tropsch refining processes.

Anti, I give you thumbs up for your article post, and I am sure deep down myself like the rest of us here yearn for this to be some semblance of reality "yesterday" in order to mitigate the disaster of consuming finite resources long enough so when the jist is finally up (planet/environment destroyed, resources consumed beyond any economical sustainability) we'll all be dead and buried and it won't matter for you and I anyways.

However, like the Hysterical Applause of a Hydrogen Economy, Solar and Wind, Green Energy Conservation This and That, it's another process that like oil, gas, and nukes is finite and doesn't address the process of sustainability, will accelerate the destruction of our planet's environment, and is not a "game changer." (it's just another product we'll convert to a finite energy to consume and product more material shit for a failing global economy)

I think instead of wasting our time and "more energy" we should just start ripping up Australia for their 200+ year supply of coal, burn it, destroy our planet, and keep the party going. Why waste time finagling with complicated process.

I see is another attempt at my past generation (my parents/their colleagues) doing what they can to move this sham forward enough so they know before they die they carried the ball far enough forward to know at least their children will have nothing to concern themselves with in their lifetime. That process can only be done enough times. No one has seemed to have figured out yet our planetary resources are finite, we cannot consume at the rate we're consuming at, our economy like energy in a mode of "sanity" is also finite, and the final result is the destruction of the planet/environment to a point that we cannot even live on it. I think the reason for this is the answer is so simple and remedial no one can see it. No Doomstead, prepping, hoarding, etc. is going to mitigate this disaster 100% either. Like this process of producing energy, it's only moving the ball forward and not changing the game either.

I say "bring it in" if you want to keep the party going with the same tunes going on the turntable. Trying to explain to the majority that this is simply not possible, well for myself I have given up on doing that. The majority of the world is stupid and the majority always rules.

NO, no no. The future this week is lithium metal air batteries, which are also waterproof & come with a free Michael Jackson glove. That's what's going to make oil only $70 I mean $35.



http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22926/

I had a post I did earlier with a lot of calculations but I have been having problems with the site today.

Essentially here is the gist of the attempted post.

Lignite mined in 2008 in the U.S. = 75M tons
Amount of Lignite required to replace diesel usage (20% of oil usage in U.S.) = 750M tons/year. This may just drive the of lignite cost up a wee bit.

Total coal production in the U.S. in 2008 = 1.17 billion tons
U.S. recoverable coal reserves in 2008 = 263 billion tons
R/P ratio in 2008 = 225 years
R/P ratio at 2008 production plus replacement of diesel by coal to liquids: 137 years

Doesn't look good and we import about 3 times as much oil as we use in diesel.

It may not be exactly FT but the concept is the same. You can call it what you will, but it still costs you energy to make it. Mining the coal is an energy intensive process and uses oil to accomplish it. I dont doubt that it may be more "efficient" than FT, but it still is not some sort of miracle source and I personally doubt the scale will ever be large enough for other than boutique uses.

CTL is just another indicator that we are in trouble and that alone should cause alarm.

The bottom line as I have always said is we all need to use a lot less and do it soon. That coupled with education/ conservation and efficiency will be what is required.

LIke AP said: [quote][The bottom line as I have always said is we all need to use a lot less and do it soon. That coupled with education/ conservation and efficiency will be what is required.
/quote]

We should be doing X, we could be doing Y, but we ain't doing squat! Just like all great parties, there comes a point in time, where it doesn't matter who shows up with another 6-pack (subsitute stimulant of choice),,, The party is over! The longer you hang around, the more obvious it becomes what a loser you are. Unfortunatey, for 6-7 billion people, this party is over!

Ok, maybe some of them never got officially invited...

AirlinePilot wrote:...the cap and trade frenzy will cause huge costs to be associated with this form of oil production.

Only in the U.S., EU, Japan, etc.

If it works, China, India and many other countries can do it without any tax consequences or environmental global warming regulation.

There's no air pollution with a chemical conversion because the carbon dioxide is reused in the process.

Lignite to oil produces excess carbon. Reusing CO2 can only work if you put in energy and a source of hydrogen (e.g. water).

In order to break down the lignite or shale it takes massive amounts of water and energy. They've some how managed to bypass the laws of physics? $35.? I don't think so. $150. maybe.

I think Lignite is an awesome idea! We can put the 7,000,000+ people to work in the U.S. who are unemployed to mine it eliminating joblessness and a the same time reducing the energy footprint of producing a useful energy output.

Yay!

ki11ercane wrote: and a the same time reducing the energy footprint of producing a useful energy output.

They make all sorts of claims, but not that they can reduce the energy footprint. I seriously doubt this is energy-efficient.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011 ... ion=justin

The Queensland Government has announced it will not allow a trial underground coal gasification (UCG) plant to restart operations.

Cougar Energy's plant near Kingaroy in the state's South Burnett region was shut down last year when traces of banned chemicals were found in water bores at the site.

Sustainability Minister Kate Jones says the company has not been able to show that it could operate without an "unacceptable risk of harm to the environment".

In a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange, Cougar Energy Limited has requested a trading halt effective immediately.

http://www.cougarenergy.com.au/publications.html

No mention of the demand for trading halt yet on their website. (at 1hr)

Hey Oily!!! What will this mean for your figures on Australia?

SeaGypsy wrote:http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/28/3124052.htm?section=justin

The Queensland Government has announced it will not allow a trial underground coal gasification (UCG) plant to restart operations.

Cougar Energy's plant near Kingaroy in the state's South Burnett region was shut down last year when traces of banned chemicals were found in water bores at the site.

Sustainability Minister Kate Jones says the company has not been able to show that it could operate without an "unacceptable risk of harm to the environment".

In a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange, Cougar Energy Limited has requested a trading halt effective immediately.

http://www.cougarenergy.com.au/publications.html

No mention of the demand for trading halt yet on their website. (at 1hr)

Hey Oily!!! What will this mean for your figures on Australia?

This extends to Coal Seam Gas as well, which has similar issues. The recent floods have also brought big problems for coal mining, with the water in the pits being too salty and or toxic to release into the waterways.

Nature bats last as they say.

.
No big loss , there is enough carbon lying around by the truck-full
no need to stuff up the water table

With the huge boom in Shale Natural Gas in the USA/Canada having taken off and the same thing in the beginning stages in Europe/Asia interest in this technology will become very low, having a viable excuse not to continue may be a blessing in the medium and long run.

All the way along this has been a battle between the farm lobby and the gas developers. One great thing to come of it was alignment of agriculturalist and environmentalists was what saved the day.

.
That's the way to go , each constituency has concern and interests
politics is about alliances ,
statesmanship is about positive outcomes

as a shareholder in CXY (Cougar Energy Ltd) i could hardly believe the opportunity to rapidly increase my shareholding at a significant discount

hoping for more bad news!!!

"be greedy when everyone else is fearful" Warren Buffett

From Adelaide Now : http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/feasibility-study-bid-for-fuel-project-in-south-australias-far-north/story-e6frea83-1226083143284

Including quote at end :

"It not only makes Australia self-sufficient in transport fuels, it also makes us a major exporter of oil in a time when oil is becoming short," Mr Shearwood said.


Further proof of our desperation.

http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akc ... ost=199181

Interested in others take on this idea and specifically the idea that we can replace a significant amount of imported oil with CTL via F/T using LFTR's. I dont see it. Some replacement can be done but IMHO not without a significant increase in coal production.

SASOL is a South African company turning coal to fuel developed during Apartheid. Not sure what method they use, but they are publicly traded. So, it can and is being done.

As for there being enough coal, not sure. I used to think so, then we had that thread here on the issue of coal. David Hughes, Canadian geologist, actually made a few posts here on that thread and pointed out the US imports coal from SA, the better low sulfur coal, which was news to me. He believed that coal wasn't quite as abundant as people thought.

In the end, I always believed we would have to turn to coal again, just like Germany in WWII and SASOL today. It is known technology and it works.