<China as the US, or vice versa? The Oil Drum The European cold is continuing>

180 comments on Midweek Open Thread and News Drop...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

PhilRelig on January 25, 2006 - 12:59am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Wow, what luck!  A virgin open thread for me to set the tone of discussion on!

OK, here's my topic:  Coal-to-Liquid conversion.  Just what is its EROEI?  How favorably or unfavorably does it compare to tar sands, heavy oil, oil shale, etc.?  How difficult and expensive is it to scale up the infrastructure necessary for it to make a significant contribution to pending US and/or liquid fuel shortages?  Etc., etc.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PhilRelig on January 25, 2006 - 1:04am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Addedum: In my haste to be the FIRST PERSON to post on this open thread, I left out a word in my last question.  It should read "US and/or world liquid fuel shortages."
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Heading Out on January 25, 2006 - 1:32am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I was planning on a weekend chat on this in about a couple of weeks, if you can wait.

HO

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PhilRelig on January 25, 2006 - 1:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I suppose I can wait - after all, I don't think that world civilization will collapse between now and when you post your thread even if the most extreme "apocalypticons" are correct, now will it?

Still, if there are any experts floating or "lurking" around out there, don't be shy!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PhilRelig on January 25, 2006 - 2:02am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Another gaffe: I meant to say "any OTHER experts!" :)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TJ on January 25, 2006 - 12:29pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
A short answer, while you're waiting for HO.  There is no CTL process that has been done on an industrial scale.  What's been done is coal gasification combined with GTL.

Some processes that have been done on small scale:

  1. Solvent refined coal
  2. H-coal process
  3. Various pyrolysis and hydro-pyrolysis

And all of them require more investment than your typical refinery.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PhilRelig on January 25, 2006 - 3:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Tbanks for the information.  What about the Fischer-Troepsch process that famously allowed the Nazis to hang on a bit longer in WWII?  I take it from what you say that that process also invovles some sort of GTL conversion as a component?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TJ on January 25, 2006 - 3:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What the Germans did is gasify coal first.  They developed the Lurgi gasification process (which is the granddaddy of gasification if you ignore water gas generators) to produce synthetic gas, which is a mixture of H2 and CO.  Using that, they could produce methane or use Fischer-Tropsch synthesis to produce diesel (easy) or gasoline (harder).  You can still buy Lurgi gasifiers from Germany, though there now are other types.

Fischer-Tropsch is the only GTL process in large-scale industrial use today, AFAIK.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tom deplume on January 25, 2006 - 6:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The Graf Zeppelin, the Hindenburg's older sister, was fueled with gasified coal. Blimps are an energy efficient form of transport of cargo that DOESN'T absolutlely, possitively have to be there overnight.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Mad Maxout on January 26, 2006 - 1:14am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The Zeppelins had the one flaw: Hydrogen lifting gas. Of course, a mix of rust and powdered aluminium didn't help. Helium came from Texas gas wells and was stockpiled by us. For helium blimps, there is a limited amount of helium with none left in the ground since we Yanks had the monopoly.

While blimps are energy-efficient, you can't replace the planes with them due to lack of new helium reserves. We already had a full depletion cycle!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
cerqueira on January 25, 2006 - 7:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
In fact, according to the EIA "by the end of WWII, Germany 's nine indirect and 18 direct liquefaction plants were producing approximately 4 million tonnes of liquids per year, satisfying 90 percent of Germany' s total petroleum consumption".

The direct coal to liquids process was used to produce high quality gasoline, while the FT process yielded diesel fuel. The 1931 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Friedrich Bergius for the development of the direct process.

I don't know of anybody using his process nowadays.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TJ on January 26, 2006 - 12:06am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Looked it up om Wikipedia.  The process looks close to the H coal process that Exxon was examining once upon a time.  Looks like the Germans started from a syngas feedstock to get the required hydrogen.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

180 comments on Midweek Open Thread and News Drop...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version