Coal liquefaction - Political Forum

Grez · 11-15-2007, 05:51 PM

Coal Liquefaction is something I had read about as a possible alternative fuel that Mitt Romney was behind. I think also Barack Obama was in favor of this method as well. I did some reading on it and it seems like a very good and plausible alternative to crude oil.

First off, the US has the most coal supply than any other nation. We have way more coal supply than oil. If we liquefy all recoverable coal reserves in the U.S., we have a total of about 590 Gbarrels The U.S. has about 3 times as much potential oil available in the form of coal as all the oil it has ever pumped (or will pump). This stat is amazing really.

It has been said that its a profitable way to make gasoline as long as oil remains at or below 35$, which right now its approaching the 100$ mark.

After some reading, we had a big push on it in the early-mid 80s but it was shut down, mainly due to oil being cheaper for gas production, since oil was averaging around 25$ at that time period (also some theories that big US oil companies had major pushbacks on it at the time which is quite feasible).

There is some controversy at the cleaniless of this method, however it seems that it is actually better for the environment than diesel fuels, but may not be better than conventional gas. It is more biodegradeble than diesel fuels. The coal first goes through a gasification process in which can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is then later liquefied to gas.

To me at this time, seems like a very good method. It is profitable, everything comes from US and we have a large supply and reserve of coal, and its comparatively clean. It's definitely not the end all, but I think it would be a great step into weaning our dependency off oil, could create a major export in our favor, and would likely drop the oil price significantly after it was up and running.

Any thoughts or further information?

Grez · 11-15-2007, 07:31 PM

Just read that article on algae and its very interesting indeed. It does seem to be a ways off in the future however. That is what I find beneficial about the coal liquefaction process. All that we need is there except for the mass production facilities. We need some relief from foreign oil dependency in the meantime, while these other technologies are further researched and developed, and coal seems to be a good bridge to use. I mean its already noted that its profitable when oil is above 35$ and the profitablility is generally what holds back the other sources, such as ethanol.

btphone54 · 11-16-2007, 08:03 AM

I feel like I'm going off topic, but Global Warming doesn't exist, dammit!

Anyway, it's good that we have an alternative, but we should save it and hide it from other countries. As a military advantage. If we run out of oil and other countries refuse to sell, well, we can still kick the hell out of them. They'll think they have an advantage and when America doesn't crash, they'll realize that America is a stronger power than they originally thought.

It'll provoke fear of reprisal and probably give any potential enemies second thoughts.

dahermit · 11-16-2007, 08:17 AM

Quote:

I feel like I'm going off topic, but Global Warming doesn't exist, dammit!

Please list your scientific source or your science credentials to support your statement. Have you taken any ice core borings from glaciers?

africanhope · 11-16-2007, 08:24 AM

This process has been the ain supply of petrol in my country for years, with the company, SASOl, being one of the leaders of this technology in the world.

This came to being in the 70's and 80's wehn SA was facing huge embargo's and sacnctions, and wanted to become self-sufficiant. The problem is that coal, like oil, is not renewable, the sources will run out evnetually too, and the process does create a lot of polution.

Quote:

The Fischer-Tropsch processes, gasification and allied petrochemical technologies typify Sasol's innovative approach to products and processes.

Sasol has developed two new-generation Fischer-Tropsch technologies with significant benefits. These are the high-temperature Sasol Advanced Synthol (SAS) process and the low-temperature Sasol Slurry Phase Distillate (SPD) process.

Two sources of gas are utilised. In our SAS reactors, synthesis feed gas from coal
is converted to yield gasoline and light olefins. In the SPD process, natural gas is reformed into synthesis gas and then converted to high-quality diesel.

Our separation technologies have enabled us to become an international marketer of
1-pentene, 1-hexene and 1-octene. These technologies have also generated a phenols and cresols business with excellent potential for growth, as well as production of mining chemicals, alcohols, and ketones.

AH

AzTeK · 11-16-2007, 08:28 AM

Coal Liquefaction (is that the way it's written?) is a rather old technology actually.

You could, if generalising a bit, say that the Nazis during WW2 made this technology feasible for large-scale production, since they, of course, had only very little oil ressources on their own and in general were lacking oil as a country/empire.

Also South Africa is, even nowadays, generating a rather large amount of its fuel consumption from liquifying coal, with 2 (I believe) large plants in developement/planning/shortly finished. So yes, it is feasible from an economic standpoint. The American Airforce also tested/modified some of its bombers to run with "Diesel" made from coal and it worked quite well.

That doesn't change the fact that it potentially emmits even more CO2 than normal petrodiesel and therefore it would be catastrophical if the world would turn to this technology to cover its fuel needs on a large scale basis.

Technologies with much more foresight, and also in a stadium close to becoming economically feasible, are BTL fuels - Biomass to liquid. At the moment it only works well from wood, but in essence, it is possible to convert ANY sort of biomass into biodiesel - which in essence is a carbon-neutral fuel (as the plants growing absorb the same amount of CO2 thats then realeasing when burning the fuel).

With this technology, biofuels no longer really compete for land with food products (corn, sugar cane, rape, etc.)

As to the people saying "Global warming doesnt exist" - everyone saying so somehow seems to me like those kiddies recently being taught the theory of relativity and trying to sound smart by proclaiming Einstein was wrong...

Oregon Elephant · 11-16-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by btphone54

I feel like I'm going off topic, but Global Warming doesn't exist, dammit!

Let's not let this get off topic. We have a ton of threads debating GW, we don't need to hyjack another one.

Oregon Elephant · 11-16-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainMike

AzTek:

"That doesn't change the fact that it potentially emmits even more CO2 than normal petrodiesel and therefore it would be catastrophical if the world would turn to this technology to cover its fuel needs on a large scale basis."

You are right. However, we need to brace ourselves for the onslaught of billionaire corporation propaganda aimed primarily at sustaining their monopolies. For example, oil from shale will be promoted, liquified coal will be promoted, and a return to nuclear power plants will be promoted.

"Technologies with much more foresight, and also in a stadium close to becoming economically feasible, are BTL fuels - Biomass to liquid. At the moment it only works well from wood, but in essence, it is possible to convert ANY sort of biomass into biodiesel - which in essence is a carbon-neutral fuel (as the plants growing absorb the same amount of CO2 thats then realeasing when burning the fuel)."

Before you started with this discussion board, I posted an article (National Geographic) and information about biofuel from algae. Since they harvest biofuel DAILY instead of by the year, this is a real breakthrough. They set up greenhouses with large plastic tubing next to regular power plants emitting CO2. It greatly reduces the CO2 emissions, and helps plant meet air quality and emission standards. I believe the article is in the Environment Forum.

"With this technology, biofuels no longer really compete for land with food products (corn, sugar cane, rape, etc.)"

And similarly, we need to brace ourselves for the onslaught of billionaire Ag corporation propaganda for corn ethanol. They have basically usurped most of the support currently for ethanol. But if you take the government subsidies away and look at the fossil fuel used to produce it, it is really not a viable direction.

I am turning into an algae biofuel fanatic. We need to take all subsidies away from oil, coal, nukes and corn to jump start this new direction. This is not some type of future technology like hydrogen. It is here now and we need to jump at the opportunity NOW.

IMO, no one should jump onto this algae biofuel until they release their science regarding how effective it is and how clean it is, and how much it costs. They still have all these numbers locked up while they study it, and so we have no real scientific evidence to support this and so we shouldn't jump on until they release those.

Slartibartfas · 11-16-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grez

Coal Liquefaction is something I had read about as a possible alternative fuel that Mitt Romney was behind. I think also Barack Obama was in favor of this method as well. I did some reading on it and it seems like a very good and plausible alternative to crude oil.

First off, the US has the most coal supply than any other nation. We have way more coal supply than oil. If we liquefy all recoverable coal reserves in the U.S., we have a total of about 590 Gbarrels The U.S. has about 3 times as much potential oil available in the form of coal as all the oil it has ever pumped (or will pump). This stat is amazing really.

It has been said that its a profitable way to make gasoline as long as oil remains at or below 35$, which right now its approaching the 100$ mark.

After some reading, we had a big push on it in the early-mid 80s but it was shut down, mainly due to oil being cheaper for gas production, since oil was averaging around 25$ at that time period (also some theories that big US oil companies had major pushbacks on it at the time which is quite feasible).

There is some controversy at the cleaniless of this method, however it seems that it is actually better for the environment than diesel fuels, but may not be better than conventional gas. It is more biodegradeble than diesel fuels. The coal first goes through a gasification process in which can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is then later liquefied to gas.

To me at this time, seems like a very good method. It is profitable, everything comes from US and we have a large supply and reserve of coal, and its comparatively clean. It's definitely not the end all, but I think it would be a great step into weaning our dependency off oil, could create a major export in our favor, and would likely drop the oil price significantly after it was up and running.

Any thoughts or further information?

I doubt the cleanliness of this method. Not that I say its impossible that it is, but I won't believe it before I see some evidence for that claim.

About the principal large scale feasability there is for sure no doubt, the Nazis could lead a whole World War running on this sort of energy source.

Principally, my support for that method depends very much on its real environmental impacts.

Wheeldog · 11-16-2007, 09:16 PM

TorontoSun.com - World - Ringing alarm of peak oil

Quote:

World oil production may have reached its peak and will affect everything from cheap airfares, grocery lists and the auto industry, according to a new report released yesterday.
....
"I think future historians looking back will probably use the terms BPO, Before Peak Oil, and APO, After Peak Oil, because this could be one of the great fault lines in economic history."

Global oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s. Since 1984, world oil production has exceeded new discoveries: Last year, 31 billion barrels of oil were extracted while nine billion barrels were discovered, the report said.
...
"(Peak oil) will also introduce a new era," said Brown,...... "No country can get more oil unless another country gets less."
....
"We're going to see changes in long distance travelling. It may not end abruptly, but it will certainly be squeezed."

A former senior Saudi oil official reports the annual output from the world's 20 largest and oldest oil fields is falling by four million barrels a day.

.....Canada has "substantial potential for increasing output" with its oil sands ....
But it's not a viable solution to offset cheap oil since it takes two units of energy to produce three units of oil, Brown said.
......
Over the past two years, oil prices have doubled from $50 to $100 a barrel. But the world has undergone multiple oil scares, critics note, and technology is always evolving.

The difference, Brown said, is politics.

"In the 1970s, oil price rises were entirely politically driven ... But today the rise in prices is driven by geological forces."

The above pretty much summarizes the current state of the world in re: to oil. We are quite literally at a tipping point in history where the future will almost certainly be greatly different than the recent past. Even as new discoveries, such as offshore Brazil, are made the rate of depletion is greater than what they can contribute. At this point, we need to kick ourselves in the pants and get really serious about doing whatever it takes to reduce oil dependence and prepare for a future with less oil.