<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

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.

54 comments on Coal gasification in National Geographic

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version