Are we getting close to Coal Liquifaction prices?
Todd Bandrowsky
conversion of coal to oil begins to make economic sense? If not,
where is it that point?
Thanks!
Eunometic
It should be viable now at about $35.00, however it's too risky to
invest becuase a coal to oil plant is a huge capital inventment that
needs to be made near a coal field that lasts long enough. Such a
plant would need some kind of government guarantees because the price
of oil could drop again and the price of coal could go up. The only
program I've herd of is Rich's ultra-clean fuels project which aims to
get started using waste coal tailings that need to be disposed of
anyway. (this free fuel and the environmental aspects hopefully
securing the necessary tax exemptions)
I've also heard that becuase a coal to oil plant requers a lot more
construction and energy inputs many in the form of oil that the extra
cost would feed into other coal to oild plants. Thus the changover
cost could be around $50/barell.
Coal to Oil technology is around 55%-60% efficient if based on the
Fischer-Trpsch process.
In 1999, on a dollars-per-million-Btu basis, natural gas was the most
expensive fossil fuel ($2.59), petroleum was second ($2.56), and coal
was least expensive ($1.22)
Assuming 60% conversion efficiency that means a 1.66BTU's of coal
costing 1.66 x $1.22 = $2.05 would produce a BTU of oil worth about
$2.56.
Note however a BTU of Fischer-Tropsch derived oil is of much higher
quality: being fully desulpherised (to protect the FT catalysts) and
requires less refining and produces superior diesel fuels.
However note that any widespread use of coal for oil production would
lead to an increase in the price of coal.
Also the investment costs of a FT plant are apparently much higher
than an oil refinery and the cost of the capital needs to be figured
in.
Apparently to produce a barrel of oil from coal at 33% efficiency per
day the Germans in WW2 needed 15 tons of steel in their reactor plant.
(they were working on fluidised bed reactors to reduce this and the
situation is much much better today)
Also you also may need to supply your FT plant with Calcium Carbonate
for desulpherisation just like a power station. One of the biggest
cost is that apprently every so often the catalysts need to be removed
and regenerated with an acid like nitric.
Building a coal to oil plant would also likely rekindle environmental
protests becuase for the same amount of oil burned coal derived oil
releases twice as much CO2. The only way around this is to supply the
plant with hydrogen and oxygen from an electrolyser or halve the fuel
consumption of cars.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/coalprice.htm
During the early 1970s, natural gas was the least expensive fuel used
to generate electricity. In 1970 electric utilities paid on the
average, about 28 cents per million Btu of natural gas, 31 cents per
million Btu of coal, and 42 cents per million Btu of petroleum. Since
1976, however, coal has been the least expensive fossil fuel used to
generate electricity. In 1999, on a dollars-per-million-Btu basis,
natural gas was the most expensive fossil fuel ($2.59), petroleum was
second ($2.56), and coal was least expensive ($1.22). Although, these
figures show that the cost of generating electricity from coal has
increased significantly, it is still lower than the cost of generating
electricity from either natural gas or petroleum. The average price
for coal delivered to electric utilities was $24.28 per short ton in
2000, with the spot-market price being only slightly higher at $24.85.
The average coal export price for 2000 was $34.90 per short ton.
***************************
roustabout
Coal will never replace oil as a motor fuel in any significant amount.
Period.
"But converting it to a liquid fuel which might be used in motor
vehicles is expensive, and doing this on a scale which could
significantly replace oil in vehicle use would require impossibly
large mining projects."
Alternative Energy Sources
by Walter Youngquist, Consulting Geologist
Eugene, Oregon, October 2000
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Menwith
with synthetic methanol from coal,
US coal production whould have to increase
somewhat more than double current production.
Very do-able. (numbers, available, if you want)
Menwith
The Enlightenment
"Menwith" <men...@hill.com> wrote in message
news:40598D3B...@hill.com...
> To replace the energy in US gasoline use,
> with synthetic methanol from coal,
> US coal production whould have to increase
> somewhat more than double current production.
> Very do-able. (numbers, available, if you want)
>
> Menwith
>
It becomes even more doable if the coal fired power stations are
slowly replaced with nuclear and the coal reassigend to coal to oil.
If the number of nuclear plants is then doubled to provide electricity
for electrolytic production of hydrogen only 1/3rd the coal is needed.
Easy to prove with rough calculations.
The US consumes about 37kw.hr electricity per day. Most, over half,
of this is coal fired. To make this amount of electriciy at 40%
efficiency 2.5 time as much coal has to be burned i.e. about 90kw.hr
of coal has to be burned.
Coal to oil is about 60% efficient so we end up with 54.kw.hr of coal
derived oil. That's 7 Liters. This is about the daily per capita
consumption.
Even if the price of coal doubled to match the price of oild in energy
terms it would probably only cost about 65c/liter to make coal derived
fully refined fuel. Europeans pay more than twice this amount at the
bowser and can get by.
Tom Simonds
coal as a car fuel is to generate electricity and feed it to a plug-in
gas electric vehice. Toyota claims that when used as a car fuel,
electricity costs about 1/3 of gasoling.
sort of clean, too. Diamler Chrysler to unleash one soon...
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jan04/0104epow1.html
Dez Akin
> tban...@mightyware.com (Todd Bandrowsky) wrote in message news:<d43b6e1.04031...@posting.google.com>...
> > With oil hitting $38/bbl, are we getting close to a point where
> > conversion of coal to oil begins to make economic sense? If not,
> > where is it that point?
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> It should be viable now at about $35.00, however it's too risky to
> invest becuase a coal to oil plant is a huge capital inventment that
> needs to be made near a coal field that lasts long enough. Such a
> plant would need some kind of government guarantees because the price
> of oil could drop again and the price of coal could go up.
Thats the real issue. If the Saudi's really went at it they could drop
the price of crude to under $20.00 a barrel. They've got enough
capacity to really flood the market still.
pelesrightleg
> My favorite rant, which you've all heard before - the best way to use
> coal as a car fuel is to generate electricity and feed it to a plug-in
> gas electric vehice. Toyota claims that when used as a car fuel,
> electricity costs about 1/3 of gasoling.
> sort of clean, too. Diamler Chrysler to unleash one soon...
>
as you well know we are still using the same one.Because of
disasterous results with efficiency, price and even marketing of the
eco-friendly alternatives.
Eric Gisin
news:dd43b4da.04031...@posting.google.com...
> euno...@yahoo.com.au (Eunometic) wrote in message
news:<e935396a.04031...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > invest becuase a coal to oil plant is a huge capital inventment that
> > needs to be made near a coal field that lasts long enough. Such a
> > plant would need some kind of government guarantees because the price
> > of oil could drop again and the price of coal could go up.
>
> Thats the real issue. If the Saudi's really went at it they could drop
> the price of crude to under $20.00 a barrel. They've got enough
> capacity to really flood the market still.
The Saudi's cannot, but OPEC can. Why would they do that? They have stated
their goal is $25+-2.
Anyone know why OPEC is dropping production when consumption is increasing?
Menwith
cost of the coal , minor issue.
Menwith
Eunometic
At least the threat of coal to oil technolgy will set an upper limit
to the price of oil even if it is $50/barrel. Unfortunatly spot
prices will occaisionaly hit $80/barrel for a short time and then
settle back after their huge profit taking to enusure no synthetic
fuel plants are in fact built.
I think there is something to be said for a nation supplying say 10%
of its fuel by coal to oil technology in order to stabalise prices.
The other big problem is the enviro political issue. Coal to oil will
produce more CO2 by a factor of 2.
I can see three ways around this
1 Halve the consumpotion of cars. (feasilbe as Toyota's Prius has
shown)
2 Convert all coal fired power station to breader nuclear and use the
coal for production of snythetic fuel. This neatly balances out.
3 For each kg of say black coal containing 0.8kg carbon, 70 grams
tar-oil and balance ash and moisture add 120 grams of hydrogen. This
120 grams of hydrogene would take about 3-5kw.hr to produce depending
on whether one of the newer electolysers was used. Either way we end
up with nearly 1kg or 1.35L of oil.
Even if fed with solar thermal electricity in the dessert from a LUZ
type SEGS units or wind at 13.5c/kw.hr and coal at 20c/kg we can end
up making oil for about $0.80/L
Menwith
have stated<
The reason you believe what OPEC says...
is what?
Menwith
Eric Gisin
"Menwith" <men...@hill.com> wrote in message
news:405AB625...@hill.com...
> >They
> have stated<
>
> The reason you believe what OPEC says...
> is what?
>
Dez Akin
> > > invest becuase a coal to oil plant is a huge capital inventment that
> > > needs to be made near a coal field that lasts long enough. Such a
> > > plant would need some kind of government guarantees because the price
> > > of oil could drop again and the price of coal could go up.
> >
> > Thats the real issue. If the Saudi's really went at it they could drop
> > the price of crude to under $20.00 a barrel. They've got enough
> > capacity to really flood the market still.
>
> At least the threat of coal to oil technolgy will set an upper limit
> to the price of oil even if it is $50/barrel. Unfortunatly spot
> prices will occaisionaly hit $80/barrel for a short time and then
> settle back after their huge profit taking to enusure no synthetic
> fuel plants are in fact built.
>
> I think there is something to be said for a nation supplying say 10%
> of its fuel by coal to oil technology in order to stabalise prices.
>
> The other big problem is the enviro political issue. Coal to oil will
> produce more CO2 by a factor of 2.
Yeah, but the CO2 produced is at an industrial site, so it is at least
_possible_ to do sequestration. Are there any oil fields that need CO2
injection for secondary and tertiery recovery near any coal fields?
> I can see three ways around this
>
> 1 Halve the consumpotion of cars. (feasilbe as Toyota's Prius has
> shown)
Global consumption will only rise I believe.
> 2 Convert all coal fired power station to breader nuclear and use the
> coal for production of snythetic fuel. This neatly balances out.
Thats my favorite option; Unfortunately nuclear power is still mired
in a regulatory nightmare, and conspired against by fearmongers still.
> 3 For each kg of say black coal containing 0.8kg carbon, 70 grams
> tar-oil and balance ash and moisture add 120 grams of hydrogen. This
> 120 grams of hydrogene would take about 3-5kw.hr to produce depending
> on whether one of the newer electolysers was used. Either way we end
> up with nearly 1kg or 1.35L of oil.
You could feed in natural gas as a feedstock also for extra hydrogen;
Balance out the high hydrogen gasses with the low hydrogen content
coal to get a useable liquid fuel. I think this would be cheaper and
more cost effective than electrolysers, but I guess it depends on
having access to a natural gas source.
> Even if fed with solar thermal electricity in the dessert from a LUZ
> type SEGS units or wind at 13.5c/kw.hr and coal at 20c/kg we can end
> up making oil for about $0.80/L
Thats William Mooks plan. I managed to just barely convince myself
that he's not completely lunatic and perhaps not a fraud, though his
claims are still a bit outlandish. If you need industrial scale
electricity in a sunny area he claims to be able to deliver it quite
at a very inexpensive price on a contract basis. We'll find out over
the next five years or so if he can deliver on his promise. I hope so;
It sure would be neat.
Menwith
This is my opinion, and speculation.
OPEC does not want competition from synthetic liquid fuels.
OPEC wants as much money as possible.
However, OPEC is willing to forgoe , tempararilly, its income,
for the sake of wiping out (synthetic-fuel) competitors.
So, at times of their choosing, OPEC opens the oil taps,
and price goes way down, and syn-fuels businesses,
go out of business.
Menwith
Eunometic
> > > > It should be viable now at about $35.00, however it's too risky to
> > > > invest becuase a coal to oil plant is a huge capital inventment that
> > > > needs to be made near a coal field that lasts long enough. Such a
> > > > plant would need some kind of government guarantees because the price
> > > > of oil could drop again and the price of coal could go up.
> > >
> > I think there is something to be said for a nation supplying say 10%
> > of its fuel by coal to oil technology in order to stabalise prices.
> >
> > The other big problem is the enviro political issue. Coal to oil will
> > produce more CO2 by a factor of 2.
>
> Yeah, but the CO2 produced is at an industrial site, so it is at least
> injection for secondary and tertiery recovery near any coal fields?
Yes, though someone would have to actualy do a large scale trial
first.
>
> > I can see three ways around this
> >
> > 1 Halve the consumpotion of cars. (feasilbe as Toyota's Prius has
> > shown)
>
> Global consumption will only rise I believe.
>
> > 2 Convert all coal fired power station to breader nuclear and use the
> > coal for production of snythetic fuel. This neatly balances out.
>
> Thats my favorite option; Unfortunately nuclear power is still mired
> in a regulatory nightmare, and conspired against by fearmongers still.
>
> > 3 For each kg of say black coal containing 0.8kg carbon, 70 grams
> > tar-oil and balance ash and moisture add 120 grams of hydrogen. This
> > 120 grams of hydrogene would take about 3-5kw.hr to produce depending
> > on whether one of the newer electolysers was used. Either way we end
> > up with nearly 1kg or 1.35L of oil.
>
> You could feed in natural gas as a feedstock also for extra hydrogen;
> Balance out the high hydrogen gasses with the low hydrogen content
> coal to get a useable liquid fuel. I think this would be cheaper and
> more cost effective than electrolysers, but I guess it depends on
> having access to a natural gas source.
Natural gas is becoming a scarcer commodity than oil in some ways.
Miniture GTL gas to lquids technology is seen as a way of recovering
energy now flaired of.
>
> > Even if fed with solar thermal electricity in the dessert from a LUZ
> > type SEGS units or wind at 13.5c/kw.hr and coal at 20c/kg we can end
> > up making oil for about $0.80/L
>
> Thats William Mooks plan. I managed to just barely convince myself
> that he's not completely lunatic and perhaps not a fraud, though his
> claims are still a bit outlandish. If you need industrial scale
> electricity in a sunny area he claims to be able to deliver it quite
> at a very inexpensive price on a contract basis. We'll find out over
> the next five years or so if he can deliver on his promise. I hope so;
> It sure would be neat.
I wouldn't say he originated it. His plans are extravagent but do
have a sense about them. If you look at the major electrolyser R&D
projects supply of hydrogen for petrochemicals and fertalisers is one
of their goals. (H2 production for fertilisers in hydroelectric rich
nations was one of the main users of electroysers)
I've done a rough analysis of the costs of this solar photovolatic
coal to oil synthesis.
Coal fired combined cycle gas turbine plants cost about $1/watt. If
1kg of caol is burned in an hour it would produce abour 3kw.hr of
electricity and the capital costs would be $3000.
I assume this would be the cost of a Fisher Tropsch plant of the same
sized coal gasifier. (our FT plant doesn't need a oxygen plant or a
CO2 Scrubber to adjust the h2/co levels becuase of the suppy of o2 and
h2)
That 1kg of coal would require 150 grams of H2. Thats 4.8kw.hr of H2.
To account for electrolyser efficiency we would really need 6kw
solar cells.
The cost of solar cells is down to $3/watt. The cost of an
electrolyser is $0.5 watt. We would also have to buy 2.5 times more
capacity to account for night time absence of power. $3.5 x $2.5 x
6000 = $52,500
So to convert 1kg of coal per hour to oil using photovoltaic derived
h2.
$3000 for the gasifier and FT synthesis reactors.
$52500 for the photovoltaics, electrolyser, storage
Lets say $60,000.
Assuming the palnt lasts at leat 15 years and we fator in 10% per year
to over interest costs, running and maintenance.
$60,000 x 15 x 10% = $90,000
Total 15 year life cyle costs: $150,000
The oil produced from that 1kg of coal per hour is about 1.3Liters per
hour.
Over 24 hours x 365 days year 15 years
1.3 x 24 x 365 x 15 = 170820.
That's about $0.90 per liter of fuel. To that we need to add 15c for
the cost of the coal.
I.E. It cost a $1.05/L to produce oild by this method.
If the photovoltaics is replaced by windmills things look much better.
Wind mills cost $1/peak watt but need to be incread by a factor of
2.5 to account for low or zero wind. This brings the total capital
costs down from $60,000 to $21,000 and should bring the production
costs down to $0.30L plus $0.15 for the coal to bring the cost to
$0.45/L
Solar thermal as opposed to photovoltaics is about 20% more expensive
than wind and should get the cost down to about $0.55/L
All of these costs are acceptable when combined with some increased
efficiencies in transport use.
cyril
>"But converting it to a liquid fuel which might be used in motor
>vehicles is expensive, and doing this on a scale which could
>significantly replace oil in vehicle use would require impossibly
>large mining projects."
What about in-situ gasification?
This technology can use deep coal seams that can't be mined.
It produces syngas (CO+H2), that can be used for electricity, for H2
production (CO + H2O -> H2), hydrocarbon synthesis and so on.
--
"Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism"
--Thomas Jefferson
cyril
>The other big problem is the enviro political issue. Coal to oil will
>produce more CO2 by a factor of 2.
Yes, because the extra hydrogen (when converting coal or petcoke, ie
mostly carbon, into fuels with higher H/C ratio) is produced from
carbon (C + 2H2O -> H2 + CO2).
The ideal solution would be the use of H2 from solar or nuclear energy
to "enrich" the coal.
Some calculation, maybe false, please someone correct the likely
mistakes.
Use a autothermal gasifiers, fed with O2 and steam (such gasifiers are
worldwide used).
Two reations occures :
(1) C + 1/2 O2 -> CO (partial oxydation, -111 kJ)
(2) C + H2O -> CO + H2 (thermolisys, +131 kJ)
To get thermal neutrality, one need 0.54 (1) and0.46 (2) per mole of
carbon. In fact, probably a bit more (1) because of thermal losses.
So one get a syngas with 0.46 mole of H2 for 1 mole of CO
However, the coal itself have rougly one atom of H for two C.
Adding this hydrogen, we have :
1 CO + 0,71 H2
A solar or nuclear heat-fed thermochemical reaction splits water into
O2 and H2. O2 is used for the gasifier. Let's try to get the better
ratios (all O2 and H2 used).
To get 1CO + 0.71 H2, our gasifier used 0.27 O2 (reation #1). Let's
round to 0.3 (unideal processes, some losses). 0.6 H2 was produced
simultaneously.
The H2 is added to the syngas, now 1CO + 1.3 H2.
That's a 2.6 H/C ratio. The syngas is perfect to synthetize a mixture
of C3H8 (propane, 2.66 H/C ration) and C4H10 (butane, 2.5 H/C ratio).
This mixture can be marketed as LPG.
If higher H/C fuels (like methane) is produced, we have extra O2, and
it would be better to find a outlet for it. Similarly, if gasoline or
diesel fuel is produced, we have extra H2 for sale.
Of couse, the problems are :
1- the large-scale thermochemical reactor does not exist today.
2- Neither does the high-temp nuclear reactor. The HT solar collector
exists as small prototypes.
3- extreme cost reductions are needed to make this cost-efficient.
4- Societal acceptance is a issue for nuclear energy.
So we can't see that before several years.
However, several countries, USA, China, India, Australia, South
Africa, are poor in oil and rich in coal and sun.
cyril
prévaut en France, dez...@usa.net (Dez Akin) a écrit :
>
>Yeah, but the CO2 produced is at an industrial site, so it is at least
>_possible_ to do sequestration. Are there any oil fields that need CO2
>injection for secondary and tertiery recovery near any coal fields?
In Pennsylvannia, Wyoming, north Dakota.