Two thoughts for a quiet Sunday
Posted by Heading Out on October 16, 2005 - 4:01pm
They also predict a slightly colder winter than NOAA, but clarified this by pointing out that they review heating needs, so that they look at who needs what where, rather than overall temperature changes. Thus there is a difference in the overall perception because, for example, a higher demand for fuel in the North East may over-ride a reduction in the South.
And to be mildly mischievous a response to a comment.
The University of Alaska-Fairbanks is supposed to be running a test with a generator to demonstrate that it is possible way of changing to coal. Unfortunately it appears that they cannot currently find an Alaskan supplier for the fuel, and so a preliminary test will take place in Kentucky with a smaller power system. However, to run this mixture the coal must first be ground to below 5 microns, and there were some problems in ensuring that enough ash is taken out of the coal to stop erosion of the cylinder walls of the engines, in the earlier test programs.
It does not appear to have a whole lot of momentum behind the program, but it does answer Dave's comment. (Oh, and yes there are better EROI figures on coal crushing than the usual ball mills etc, but that is another program that seems to have disappeared from the American scene, although there is an apparent current interest in picking up the idea in China.)
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
WILMA!!!
and the plot thickens... (and the NE shivers a little more)
Also, some have questioned my sanity wrt my September forecast for 900-Bcf as the next cycle low. Well, we will be releasing the October Energy Reserves shortly and we have upped to low cycle point to 950-Bcf based on better news from the Gulf, as outlined by Stuart. In watching the other estimates it is my humble opinion that all have missed the LNG import component. Remember last winter, when long-term contracts in the Pacific were as low as $2.25? Not much of it was destined for the USA but that was indicative of the marketplace and the future for Nat'l Gas thax to lotsa new terminals and ships (many from Poland).
In 2004, the USA imported 650-Bcf. 680 in 2005. And 1000-Bcf is the estimate for 2006.
Similarly with crude, of the over 700-Mb in the SPR, only 13 were needed for refinery shortfalls. As the Secretary for Energy keeps saying, "what we have folks is a fear of shortages!"
As pointed out, the ash content of the coal is a major stumbling block.
But, in times of crisis people come up with all sorts of half-assed yet workable ideas. I've read that in Sweden during WW II, some cars were equipped with wood gasifiers that essentially pyrolyzed wood and fed the pyrolysis gas into the engine's carburetor. Or course, it also sent all manner of gums and goos into the engine as well, and thus caused engine damage and resulted in the need to do frequent engine overhauls, but the point is that people were able to drive their cars without petroleum-based fuel, albeit rather poorly.
All of us peak-oil students need to familiarize ourselves with F-T since it is a proven and least-disruptive route to the post-peak economy. (This is especially the case for the U.S. which is the Saudi Arabia of coal).
So for all who are interested, these are the steps in the F-T process:
(1) Pulvurized coal is gasified--partially oxidized--to CO and H2 (if it was completely oxidized, i.e. combusted, we would have CO2 and H2O as products instead); the CO/H2 mixture is called synthesis gas or "syngas" for short. Note that the heavy metals like mercury mostly end up in the ash and not in the syngas.
(2) The sygas can be cleaned using a number of different technologies, such as scrubbers and/or hydrodesulfurizers. The Sulfur content in the syngas can be lowered down to 1 ppm without any exotic technologies.
(3) The clean syngas enters the F-T reactor where it comes into contact with an iron or cobalt catalyst. The desired reaction is given in Eq 1 below:
CO + 2 H2 --> -(-CH2-)- + H2O (1)
The -(-CH2-)- is the hydrocarbon chain which represents the liquid product. If the chain is 10 to 20 carbons long, we have diesel. If it is 9 to 14 we have kerosine/jet fuel, and so on.
(4) Note that since coal has a high carbon-to-hydrogen ratio, the syngas will not have the desired 2:1 H2:CO ratio for Eq 1. So a "shift" reactor is used upstream to convert some of the CO to H2 through the "gas-water shift reaction" of Eq 2.
CO + H2O --> CO2 + H2 (2)
(5) Depending on the F-T reactor operating conditions, the product will need to be refined differently to make gasoline, diesel, kerosine, or chemicals. Overall, the refining section is nothing new and many of the existing crude refineries can be used to convert the products of Eq 1 into fuels that today's cars, buses, trucks and planes can run on.
(6) The fuels are low in sulfur (because of the ease of gas cleanup in Step 2), and in the case of diesel, better performing (the highly linear chains lead to higher cetane numbers). Low sulfur means better catalytic converter performance. There are no aromatic compounds (alkyl benzenes or polynuclear aromatics)-- these lead to particulates in the tail gas, and can cause cancer.
So in terms of product quality, F-T synthesis makes a much more environmentally friendly fuel than the highly aromatic hydrocarbon that is recovered from tar sands and oil shales.
On the negative side, the overall thermal efficiency (or EROEI) of the coal based process is about 60%. Clearly this extra inefficiency translates to incrementally higher green-house gas generation (cf Eq 2).
The reason I am giving this "lesson" is because I have noticed some degree of skepticism on this web site regarding the viability of coal-to-liquids. Sure, it will increase our CO2 generation; but for an economy so dependent on the internal combustion engine and so blessed with coal, it is the most viable medium-term post-peak strategy I can think of.
Other question: What quantity of coal is required to produce one gallon of fuel?
A good rule of thumb is that you burn two CH to get CH2 and CO2 and power, that is, one ton of dry coal will make one half ton of oil and two tons of CO2. Very roughly.
In real life the plant will produce power and oil at whatever ratio is profitable, at roughly two cents a kilowatt hour baseload, ten cents a kilowatt hour for peaking (using a turbine to burn stored CO from the burner side of the plant) and two dollars a gallon for methanol, which will sell retail for three because of taxes, transport, etc.
Unless the Saudis really so have all the oil they say they have, in which case oil will go back to ten dollars a barrel and bankrupt all the synfuel plants.
There is another problem. Technological advances could abolish liquid fuels completely. In the case of carbon nanotubes we could have energy densities that would give us not merely flywheels that will drive our car across the country before requiring a "fillup", but enough power density to run an aircraft, probably a flying saucer ducted fan design.
How lucky do you feel?
I'd go with some syfuel plants, just in case.
I have seen pictures. Not many cars need to have a chimney.
Remember pre hurricanes, every week, we'd hear reports like "we're at capacity" and, "there is no more refining capacity", etc?
After the first hurricane, we had some ~$3/gal gas. Then after the second hurricane, and some refining capacity got shut down.. The result? Gas has been ~$2.19/gal for the last couple of weeks... Something does not compute..
2 things come to mind:
A lot of people down south that don't do too much driving these days now?(no car?)
Supposedly, the EPA requirements for having different fuel blends around the country have been removed and now they are making the easiest, simplest blend so that is why the prices are at what they are now and not ~$4/gal or more? Considering how things were and how things are and all..
Just seems strange to me.
And I challenge anyone to show me a US Stat showing where we have lost over 10% of our gasoline refinery output. That's not MMS but actual inventory somewhere.
The LOOP was/is the only facility in the US capable of handling Supertankers and the NO port is closed or intermittent.
So where's all this new import unloading?
And weren't world tankers at capacity before Katrina?
And finally, Thunderhorse is down for AT LEAST a year with over $100 million of damage to the platform, meaning it will have to be taken into Somewhere, stripped to the hull and refitted.
Deepwater GOM may never be back to pre Katrina levels.
I haven't read the one you linked to, but I will tomorrow, when I have the time and sufficient working gray cells to do it justice.
The world is awash in energy, our only problem is being held back by vested interests and a surfeit of stupidity.
Plus we've outsourced a lot of our capability to actually build things like refineries, gasifiers, etc.
We can't afford these things any more, and we've got a lot of work to do to fix the consequences (such as no proper markets in electricity at retail and just one product of this, no good demand-side management).
You can use coal in diesel cars after you leach out the ash using supercritical CO2 leach, or acids and bases.
You can use lysed or pyrolised waste paper to make fuels. You can use liquid nitrogen to get motive power and airconditioning. You can use all of them separately to add up to what you need collectively.
Lots of ways to move wheels around with today's engineering and off the shelf capabilities. Oil is just cheaper and already has the infrastructure.
"Debate brews: Has oil production peaked?"
The article has the "four horesmen of the appocalypse" quote from Defeyyes, and mostly consists of competing quotes from Yergin and Simmons.
BUT. if you do not have liquids, or want to use stuff that diesels or turbines do not like much, and if you are willing to forget the crank stirling and go for a free piston stirling riding on gas bearings and pumping gas over a high speed turbine alternator, then the answer is yes, we could do well with a stirling vehicle engine. I would run mine on wood pellets.