<Open threadThe Oil DrumA Touch of Stagflation?>

20 comments on Brian Schweitzer replies

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TJ on October 7, 2005 - 8:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
To be picky the Fischer-Tropsh process involves building mostly straight chain alkanes to get a diesel fuel from methane or syngas.  The SASOL type of F-T has a front end of coal gasifiers and water shift reactors, and the process does require water as an input.  He kinda danced around the water requirement question.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on October 7, 2005 - 10:35am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
He didn't dance around it, he told an outright falsehood about it (though his chemistry is probably so rusty I bet it was  an honest misunderstanding rather than a lie).  Any process which takes in mostly pure carbon and emits hydrocarbons is going to get hydrogen from somewhere.  That somewhere is not going to be its own byproducts.

A coal-to-liquids plant which uses no water but has a large waste stream of boron-11 would cause as many problems as it solved (as remarkable as it might be). ;-)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TJ on October 7, 2005 - 12:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I didn't say it was a good dance.  Anyway, the west end of Montana is about 500 mi from the sea.  A 24" sea water pipeline to the gasification plants could be put in for maybe 600 million (at $10/diameter in-ft).  Expensive, but the plants are already multi-billion dollar affairs.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mcain6925 on October 7, 2005 - 1:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Much of the coal reserve in Montana is in the east end of the state, with extensions into the Dakotas. The site most often discussed for a pilot plant is in the southeast part of the state. From Broadus, one of the locations frequently mentioned, to Duluth at the tip of Lake Superior is 650 miles. Probably less total length, but more importantly in my mind, much less vertical distance (only about 2300 feet) and fresh water so there's no problem disposing of all that salt. My real concern would be EROEI -- pumping water >600 miles for feedstock has to hurt numbers that aren't terrific to start with.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TJ on October 7, 2005 - 1:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The trouble with using the Great Lakes is that there is only about 1% excess water accumulation in the system; any more usage and the lake levels will start to fall.  I'm just guessing, but with the current drought, any Great Lakes water released would probably go to potable supplies.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LJR on October 7, 2005 - 10:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Water needs, traditionally an enormous hurdle, have been all but eliminated with the advent of a process that actually produces water with its excess hydrogen and oxygen.

Danced?  Misrepresented is more like it.  Coal doesn't have much hydrogen in it.  The hydrogen has to come from somewhere and water's the usual suspect.  It's not hard to produce water from "excess hydrogen and oxygen."  Light a match.  It IS hard to understand where the source of the excess.  This claim needs a lot of attention.

If he's claiming that the water is generated when the fuel is finally burned then I'd say that's gross misrepresentation. F-T still requires water in situ to make the fuel and the water released is far away and unrecoverable.

The other possibility, even more disturbing, is that the "excess" hydrogen comes from natural gas.  I don't think there are any other candidates.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.