Coal to liquid - Fuelly Forums
Go Back   Fuelly Forums > The Pub > General Discussion (Off-Topic)
Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-10-2008, 09:14 PM   #1
Registered Member
civic_matic_00's Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 101
Country: United States
Coal to liquid

Coal Liquefaction for Alternative Fuel?

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 1:48 PM

By: E. Ralph Hostetter

Coal liquefaction is a process that has been around for a long time.

Although relatively unfamiliar in the American energy vocabulary, it dates back to 1923 when German scientists developed the Fisher-Tropsch process for converting coal into the liquid fuels of gasoline and diesel.

The process was used extensively by Nazi Germany during World War II.

It came into its most extensive use when South Africa faced a world oil embargo during that nation's political practice of racial apartheid in the latter part of the last century.

The government of South Africa formed the South African Synthetic Oil Ltd. corporation which has become known as Sasol.

The Sasol operation at its peak during the apartheid embargo years, was producing as much as 70 percent of South Africa's liquid fuel needs.

Prices at the pump were competitive with world prices for importing oil.

As demand grew for increased production of synthetic fuels, Sasol built a much larger facility at Secunda.

Sasol today converts 120,000 metric tons of coal per day to 150,000 barrels of oil at a ratio of 1.25 barrels of oil per ton of coal.

Predictions are that Sasol will be producing 200,000 barrels per day by the year 2016.

Coal represents some 95 percent of all U.S. fossil fuel reserves. The nation has 275 billion tons of recoverable coal, 25 percent of the entire world's estimated coal resources.

The United States mines more than 1 billion tons of coal per year as compared to the 4 billion tons the rest of the world produces.

Less expensive coal is normally used in coal liquefaction. Coal costs in June of 2008 ranged in price from $14 per ton for Powder River Basin, 8,800 BTU coal, to $54 per ton for Uinta Basin, 8,700 BTU coal. The $14 per ton coal would be adequate for coal liquefaction.

The cost ratio of 1.25 barrels per ton of coal at a cost of $14 to $54 per ton would prove very advantageous with oil at $119 per barrel on Aug. 11, 2008.

The profitability of the liquefaction process will be in line with Sasol profits in South Africa. Profits there were so excessive that excess profit taxes were assessed.

The United States consumes more than 20 million barrels of oil per day, of which 12 million barrels are imported. Some say the imported oil amounts to 14 million barrels per day or 70 percent of America's needs ? and the imported figure is rising daily.

The cost to the United States of some $700 billion represents the largest transfer of wealth from one nation to another in all history. This is more than the annual cost of the combined wars of Iraq and Afghanistan.

A number of U.S. corporations are taking up positions in the coal-to-liquid field. Among those that have developed coal or gas-to-liquid at the pilot plant or commercial stages are Shell, Rentech, StatoilHydro, Syntroleum and Exxon, with combined capacity of 60,000 barrels per day. These plants are located in South Africa, Malaysia, and New Zealand.

American Clean Coal Fuels, in its Illinois clean fuels plant, is developing a 30,000 barrel per day biomass and coal-to-liquid operation with the addition of a Carbon Capture and Sequestration project in Oakland, Ill.

Baard Energy, at its Ohio River Clean Fuels project, is building a 53,000 barrel per day coal- and biomass-to-liquid operation.

Rentech is building a 29,000 barrel per day coal-to-liquid operation at its Natchez, Miss., site.

DKRW is constructing a 20,000 barrel per day coal-to-liquid plant with Carbon Capture and Sequestration in Medicine Bow, Wyo.

The U.S. Department of Energy predicts that consumption of coal-to-liquid fuels will increase to 3.7 million barrels per day by the year 2030.

Synthetic fuels are very attractive when compared to competing technologies such as biofuels and ethanol and, in particular, they offer no competition to the food markets.

Coal, the raw material, is available in abundance and in quantities that will meet current demands for centuries to come.

Coal can produce gasoline, diesel and kerosene directly, and its use in U.S. motor vehicles does not require the addition of costly technologies of reforming or cracking.

Coal, direct to liquid, is readily adaptable to all new standard design automobiles. There is no need to convert current cars to the use of synthetic fuel.

Coal to liquid fits present methods of delivery to distribution points for filling the fuel tanks of automobiles and trucks.

With gasoline at $4-plus per gallon, the American public is clamoring for alternative sources of energy. Coal to liquid provides an exceptional example of an alternative energy source.

The best news of all is the cost of producing synthetic fuels. Rentech of Denver, Colo., a principal producer of synthetic fuels, performed a ?scoping? study for the state of Wyoming in 2005. Based on those figures, synthetic fuel production ? including both capital and operating costs ? using Powder River Basin Coal at $30 per ton plus 10 percent interest would be $1.85 a gallon.

Increasing the present mining of 1 billion tons of coal per year by an additional billion tons, with the conversion into synthetic fuels at the ratio of 1.25 barrels per ton, the U.S. could reduce imports of crude oil by 15 percent, or reduce import costs by $100 billion per year.

================================================== ====

this is another technology shunned by many due to CO2 fears. Coal liquifaction allowed South Africa to laugh at any oil embargos and it can allow America to save on oil dollars. Coal can replace 15% or more of imported oil. the technology is available, Europe is doing it, why not in America.

combining conservation, more domestic oil, and coal liquifaction, America can get rid of foreign oil.

civic_matic_00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2008, 06:24 AM   #2
Registered Member
theholycow's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,624
Country: United States
Send a message via ICQ to theholycow Send a message via AIM to theholycow Send a message via MSN to theholycow Send a message via Yahoo to theholycow
I didn't read the whole article, but it looks like a common article about coal-to-gasoline. I've read about it many times before and I'm all for it.

I would love to see all possible sources of fossil fuels converted into automotive fuels like gasoline and diesel, while stationary power usage should be from other sources. I don't even mind what other sources, though I suspect that nuclear would end up being a large portion of it. Whatever it is, automotive fuels aren't easy to replace, but stationary energy usage is.
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ave MPG reporting issue, and Total "garage" costs/consumption by months? Tom400CFI Fuelly Web Support and Community News 3 11-26-2012 09:43 PM
Cold weather wind deflector trebuchet03 People Powered 11 09-29-2008 04:52 PM Stickers GasSavers_DaX General Discussion (Off-Topic) 47 06-13-2008 06:47 PM
Pick up truck drivers come in Three6Eight General Discussion (Off-Topic) 15 12-05-2007 04:43 AM
Can someone give me the abridged version... Bunger General Fuel Topics 11 03-22-2006 06:32 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.