Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New venture to pursue coal-to-fuel project
AP ^ | May 28, 2007 | By Blake Nicholson

Posted on 05/28/2007 2:13:14 AM PDT by Rick_Michael

BISMARCK, N.D. — A proposal for a North Dakota plant to convert coal into diesel and jet fuel has more than tripled in size, and the three companies behind it have formed a single company to oversee the project.......

The three companies initially had talked about a plant that could produce up to 10,000 barrels of fuel daily. Ward said that figure has been increased to 32,000 barrels daily, and the estimated cost of a plant has risen from $750 million to $2 billion.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Miscellaneous; US: North Dakota
KEYWORDS: coal; energy
Permits, financing and build time should be around 6 years.
1 posted on 05/28/2007 2:13:14 AM PDT by Rick_Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rick_Michael

We need demo plants sooner than 6 years. We need proof of concept


2 posted on 05/28/2007 2:23:49 AM PDT by dennisw (The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Proven technology. The Germans fueled their Tiger tanks in WWII with this. South Africa presently has many of these plants.


3 posted on 05/28/2007 3:32:34 AM PDT by mmanager (Pray for the Flux Capacitor - Lib's can go back into time and abort themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
"We need demo plants sooner than 6 years. We need proof of concept"<

No, we don't. The "proof of concept" plants were done years back during the FIRST "oil crunch". Known technology.

4 posted on 05/28/2007 3:54:07 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog; mmanager

There have been lots of advances in coal conversion. We can get more diesel out of it today. Coal conversion needs to be updated in new demonstration plants ASAP so we we have models to copy when the oil crunch hits full force

Fischer-Tropsch process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process


5 posted on 05/28/2007 4:05:21 AM PDT by dennisw (The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
We need demo plants sooner than 6 years. We need proof of concept

Basin Electric has been operating Great Plains One for 20 years. Granted, they bought it for a song from the DOE after the consortium that was originally formed to build and operate it was sunk on the $2 Billion it cost to build it in the early eighties. Basin had built a Baseline Power Plant next door (Antelope Valley One. It only has one customer, GP1.

6 posted on 05/28/2007 5:09:08 AM PDT by woofer (Some strive to soar like an eagle, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: woofer

Step 1. Declare that our energy plan will reduce carbon emissions by 20% within six years only if environmentalist lawsuits are dropped.

Step 2. Dare environmentalists to come up with a better plan.

Step 3. Build five of these plants, ten more nuke plants, three more refineries, drill ANWR.

Step 4. Give tax breaks to American companies who can build electric buses for public transportation and give them a six year window to do it in.

Step 5. Change the Kyoto provision to say that “all” countries will reduce carbon emissions by 20% within six years or they will not get US aid or be allowed to export to the US.

Step 6. Make Al Gore chairman of the energy commission.


7 posted on 05/28/2007 5:42:25 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (If your representative will not vote for Term Limits, vote for the candidate who will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
Step 1. Declare that our energy plan will reduce carbon emissions by 20% within six years

How will using coal for fuel reduce carbon emissions?

8 posted on 05/28/2007 7:16:57 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: thackney

“How will using coal for fuel reduce carbon emissions?”

Cleaner burning technology.


9 posted on 05/28/2007 7:21:41 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (If your representative will not vote for Term Limits, vote for the candidate who will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

I believe you are mixing up sulfur and particulate emissions with CO2.

This process of creating a synthetic diesel fuel will not reduce CO2 emissions. It would probably generate more due to the energy required to first convert the coal to the liquid fuel. The liquid fuel is then going to produce CO2 as it is burned in the automobile engine.


10 posted on 05/28/2007 7:25:13 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
"We can get more diesel out of it today. Coal conversion needs to be updated in new demonstration plants ASAP so we we have models to copy when the oil crunch hits full force"

And I tell you once again that no "new demonstration plants" are needed. Shell, DOW, and others built FULL-SCALE plants of this type back in the late 1980s under DOE auspices. The technology is already developed.

To quote from your own link:

"The FT process is an established technology and already applied on a large scale, although its popularity is hampered by high capital costs, high operation and maintenance costs, and the uncertain and volatile price of crude oil."

The thing that killed those plants was the "oil bust" in the early 1990's. I suspect that DOW, in particular, is regretting tearing that demo plant down.

The basic plant designs have not changed. Any "new techology" is in the catalysts used. Those HAVE changed significantly and become much more efficient. But implementing those doesn't require "new demonstration plants".

11 posted on 05/28/2007 8:44:52 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

You are correct. The catalysts have been improved——>>> http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:DPgMYjvI4sQJ:www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/new_tandem_cata.html+%22Fischer-Tropsch%22+efficiency&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us


12 posted on 05/28/2007 9:32:11 AM PDT by dennisw (The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

One of my customers is breaking ground on one of these this year. In reality, it will be about a 5 year project before the whole plant is ready to rumble.

The engineering firm they are working with has built many of these.


13 posted on 05/28/2007 9:36:05 AM PDT by 2111USMC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Thank you for the clarification. I was thinking the coal burning was going to be used to produce electricity not fuel for cars.

My bad.


14 posted on 05/28/2007 12:02:27 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (If your representative will not vote for Term Limits, vote for the candidate who will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson