<2005 Exploration Round-Up The Oil Drum Barack Obama on Energy>

54 comments on Coal gasification in National Geographic

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Gets IT on March 2, 2006 - 11:42am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Given that its a well understood process, of which I don't understand anything chemically or thermodynamically, more than the concept, I would say that it has not been economical to power stationary power plants with gassified coal.  Logically, it would make zero sense to take the time and cost of gassifying coal, if you can burn it in its present form, unless there was some efficiency to gain, or there were some other overwhelming benifit to doing so, like gaining ease of mobility, or a nice clean efficient burn.  Obviously, ease of mobility is something of little use to a stationary power plant and I would suspect that there is also no advantage in its burning cleanliness.  Now there may be no alternative.

Can we move on to lithium crystals?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on March 2, 2006 - 12:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Consider the following possibilities and facts.

"Coal gas" powering a combined cycle plant will use 21% less coal to produce the same electricity (others guess).

It takes six or so years to build another coal steam plant (low efficiency).

94.5% of new US power plants in 2004 were NG, most combined cycle.  A trend in recent years.  I saw a number a while back that we had 60 GW of NG combined cycle plants.

NG hit $14/MMBTU recently and may go there again, or higher.

A NG combined cycle plant can be modified to burn coal gas by GE at "reasonable cost".

Idle plants use few spares, a MAJOR profit center and most NG combined cycle plants were made by GE.

Take the above facts & hypothesis and I can make a business case for GE.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gets IT on March 2, 2006 - 7:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Just trying to answer the thread's question, "why its not common now?".

I agree, if it will convert clean.

I still want to know how you knew Manifa had high V content?  I can't find anything more other than API and S%.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on March 2, 2006 - 7:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I heard that a long time ago, from this article:

http://www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/after-oil-david-fleming.html

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gets IT on March 2, 2006 - 7:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Thank you Leanan.  Just went in the Saudi DB.  
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LJR on March 2, 2006 - 5:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
DILITHIUM!!!! Puleeze!
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gets IT on March 2, 2006 - 6:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I realize that turbine efficiencies have changed over the last years and that the time for coal gas could very well be now, I was only giving reasons why it has not been very popular up until now.

Ya, I know.  As soon as I hit post, I realized it was Di-, but I was too lazy to change it.  Besides, the wife was on my case to get off the #$*&%^ computer, so I left it as a test.  Congradulations, you passed.  Starfleet hereby promots you to Chief Engineering Officer.  Keep up the good work L.J. Romulan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Madman on March 2, 2006 - 8:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Gee, I thought I was the only one who's wife bitched that they spent too much time on the computer here at TOD
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gets IT on March 2, 2006 - 9:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I don't get it.  Are they all crazy???
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

54 comments on Coal gasification in National Geographic

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version