It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Coal liquefication = oil crisis solution?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Coal liquefaction is a process when the coal is converted into liquid fuels like gasoline or diesel. This is not new technology - it was used by Nazi Germany and South Africa apartheid regime (when they were in political isolation and unable to purchase crude oil).

There are 3 main liquefaction processes :

- syngas process - coal is gasified to make syngas (CO and H2 gas) and the syngas condensed to make light hydrocarbons which are further processed into gasoline and diesel.
Syngas can also be converted to methanol: which can be used as a fuel or further processed into gasoline.

- a direct liquefaction process (liquefaction by hydrogenation)- used especially in Germany during WWI and WWII.

- low temperature carbonization. Coal is coked at temperatures between 450 and 700*C compared to 800-1000* for metalurgical coke. These temperatures optimize the production of coal tars richer in lighter hydrocarbons than normal coal tar. The coal tar is then further processed into fuels.


The fuel gained through coal liquefaction should be competitive with oil prices when they reach 35$ per barrel. This was not possible in past, but today when the oil prices oscilate between 40-50$per barrel it could be very interesting idea. I personally don't understand why this is not made at least in USA - USA has the worlds largest coal reserves and according to some estimates the coal could last for 300 years!!! Or maybe the USA just want to use their reserves as last solution?


liquefaction technologies comparison (pdf)

china project on coal liquefaction


[edit on 29-5-2005 by longbow]




posted on May, 29 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Yes, this is one area of increasing our hydrocarbon supply as well as perfecting heavy-crude production, getting a handle on methane hydrates, etc.

As long as we are committed to using hydrocarbons and not spreading the use of alternative fuels, all these methods must be pursued.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow


- syngas process - coal is gasified to make syngas (CO and H2 gas) and the syngas condensed to make light hydrocarbons which are further processed into gasoline and diesel.
Syngas can also be converted to methanol: which can be used as a fuel or further processed into gasoline.



[edit on 29-5-2005 by longbow]


yes sir,

it seems there is at least 1 operation that has been working on this.

heres an excerpt

The prototype model has already been successfully tested using a number of inputs including low-grade coal, wood waste and other biomass, yielding superior results with lower costs and emissions than currently available technology.


from a Fairchild International Corp. (OTCBB: FCHL) press release,
recently trading at $ 0.44

"The SynGas Technology produces electricity and/or
pipeline quality synthetic gas, as a replacement for
quickly depleating natural gas and oil,
at low costs,
with the additional benefit of zero airborne emissions."
~~~~~~~~~~~

if TPTB, see fit, perhaps local substation types of these SynGas Generators
could be put in place, at community centers, or industrial parks, etc

which would phase out the present Regionalized MegaWatt power stations
[(which might be a future target or strategy of terrorists)] i whispered that

'de-centralize' the present systems of energy production, distribution,
refinery & storage.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I thought fossil fuels were used in the liquification process
If we still have to use FF to produce a usable fuel source from coal, then how far are we really advancing?



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

I thought fossil fuels were used in the liquification process
If we still have to use FF to produce a usable fuel source from coal, then how far are we really advancing?


Well you can teoretically use the alternative power sources/nuclear power plants to gain energy needed for coal liquification. Besides there is a talk about catastrophic oil peak - many people think that after the crude oil runs out we MUST use hydrogen or something similar, the US economy will collapse etc.. That's not true, you can gain hydrocarbons from coal, tar sands or other organic materials already today at 35$ per barrel. However I don't think "burning" the FF in cars is the best solution for future, they are much more usefull to make plast and other organic materials.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
However I don't think "burning" the FF in cars is the best solution for future, they are much more usefull to make plast and other organic materials.


I completely agree. We will have to find an alternative solution. However, I think the solution should not be dependant on using FF for purification purposes. We need to find a fuel source that is easily manufactured with as little byproduct as possible. Something alot of people dont realize is most of the polutants from fossil fuels doesnt come from burning emmissions. It comes from the byproducts and waste that is prodused along with the fuel.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
If the cost to convert coal to the equivalent of light sweet crude is, say, US$35/bbl, I'd think you'd still have to factor the cost of extracting the coal into the equation.

Although drilling for oil can be quite expensive, once the well is in and amortized, the per-bbl extraction (prior to refining) can't be all that great. With coal, though, it's gotta be higher.

I haven't run the numbers, but my guess is that it'd add US$10-20/bbl.

And remember, even if the extraction and processing costs are in the same range, we'd still be producing a fuel that pollutes the atmosphere, causes many health problems, most likely contributes to global warming, and is all-around Bad Juju for the environment and the critters that live here.

Why put off the move to a cleaner alternate energy like nuclear fission? We're going to have to go there sooner or later; why add a couple million tons of particulates into and already-stressed atmosphere?



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Longbow says:


Well you can teoretically use the alternative power sources/nuclear power plants to gain energy needed for coal liquification.


If that's the case ,it would be a lot cleaner and cheaper to use the alternative power sources for, well, power!

Why use nuclear or hydro (with the concomitant efficiency loss) to make a different, even more polluting fuel?

[edit on 29-5-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
If the cost to convert coal to the equivalent of light sweet crude is, say, US$35/bbl, I'd think you'd still have to factor the cost of extracting the coal into the equation.

Although drilling for oil can be quite expensive, once the well is in and amortized, the per-bbl extraction (prior to refining) can't be all that great. With coal, though, it's gotta be higher.

I haven't run the numbers, but my guess is that it'd add US$10-20/bbl.

And remember, even if the extraction and processing costs are in the same range, we'd still be producing a fuel that pollutes the atmosphere, causes many health problems, most likely contributes to global warming, and is all-around Bad Juju for the environment and the critters that live here.

Why put off the move to a cleaner alternate energy like nuclear fission? We're going to have to go there sooner or later; why add a couple million tons of particulates into and already-stressed atmosphere?


$ 35 per barrel doesn't mean the process cost that much. The liquified hydrocarbons from coal should be COMPETITIVE with oil at $35 per barrel - it's economic estimate that includes everything (minig, conversion costs etc.).

Besides in case of USA the fuels would be domesticaly produced - that means more jobs in US, less dependancy on foreign countries (like Persian Gulf states or Chavez Venezuela), lower trade deficit with this countries etc.
Remeber that US have 26% of WHOLE WORLD coal reserves - that means they could easily control or at least influence the market.

[edit on 29-5-2005 by longbow]



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
If that's the case ,it would be a lot cleaner and cheaper to use the alternative power sources for, well, power!

Why use nuclear or hydro (with the concomitant efficicncy loss) to make a different, more polluting fuel?



That's why I said it's not the best way to burn it in cars. But hydrocarbons are nessential for many other industry branches where they cannot be easily replaced (at least today). So there will be always need for hydrocarbons and after the oil is gone, the coal is the best solution how to gain them.

Besides the liquification doesn't need that much energy. It is much more energy effective than hydrogen for example. Also the resulting fuel products should be cleaner than those ones from crude oil.

[edit on 29-5-2005 by longbow]



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Longbow, I can't argue with that; with total production prices equal to, say, US$35/bbl (even US$55/bbl), the energy inependence from the various thugs that control so much of the world's petroleum is a great idea.

And, of course, a small waterfall in the trunk of my Scion or a mini-reactor in Dawn's Isuzu isn't going to cut it, either!

The good thing about goal gasification or petroleum distillate conversion is that we wouldn't have to modify the eighteen bazillion cars and trucks on the road. And I'd be an idiot to believe that we could convert all our individual petroleum users (i.e., vehicles) to hydrogen fuel cells any time soon.

But even with your coal conversion approach (and I have to admit you've convinced me of its cost-effectiveness), we still need to wean ourselves of burning hydrocarbons -- sooner or later, and better sooner than later!

Possibly a two-pronged approach to developing coal gasification / conversion to free ourselves from all that Mideast heartache, while going ahead with some hard-core R&D of fuel cells -- plus a streamlining of the paperwork involved in bringing safe fission reactors online and getting off the #$&*&$# dime to find a place to put the nuclear waste -- is our best approach.



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   
The coal gasification process disintegrates coal into its component parts by subjecting it to very high temperatures and applying pressure using steam and oxygen. The resulting synthesis gas or "syngas" is mostly carbon monoxide and hydrogen. It is much easier to remove pollutants such as mercury and sulfur from the syngas, allowing it to burn more cleanly.



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   
This same system could be used to make oil from trash and sewage

This would eliminate the need for landfills and the toxic leaching from them.
it would also eliminate the methane off gassing of landfills methane is a worse greenhouse gas then CO2.

This system could also be used to break down about 90% of the US hazardous waste, solvents, paints, medical waste,ECT
This system can be used to break down waste with dioxin and other cancer causing chemical in them safely and replace hazardous waste dumps that may leak in the future.

lets use the Fischer-Tropsch process for these problems first before using coal.
This would change these from costly problems to money making problems

The city of Los Angeles Calif could run there public transport system and all of there city vehicles from the trash produced in the city.

At $35 to $50 dollars a gal they could cut there transit fees and have even more riders on there trains and buses.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join