Does MT Gov. Schweitzer Have The ANSWER TO THE OIL CRISIS?????

[Beetwasher]

Montana's governor eyes coal to solve U.S. fuel costs

HELENA, Montana (Reuters) - Montana's governor wants to solve America's rising energy costs using a technology discovered in Germany 80 years ago that converts coal into gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel.

The Fischer-Tropsch technology, discovered by German researchers in 1923 and later used by the Nazis to convert coal into wartime fuels, was not economical as long as oil cost less than $30 a barrel.

But with U.S. crude oil now hitting more than double that price, Gov. Brian Schweitzer's plan is getting more attention across the country and some analysts are taking him very seriously.

Montana is "sitting on more energy than they have in the Middle East," Schweitzer told Reuters in an interview this week.

--SNIP--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050825/pl_nm/energy_montana_dc

Honestly, I wasn't aware this technology even existed. This seems like an amazing opportunity to wean the nation off of ME oil and eventually ease us into a hydrogen economy.

This guy Schweitzer just keeps impressing the hell out of me. I love this guy.

[wli]

1. not a solution per se, but it alleviates things

It still doesn't end the relevance of renewable energy resources; coal too is finite.

[Mass]

3. And coal is bad for global warming as well!

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Yes it is. Better towns start helping their citizens

put up solar powers and wind mills in order to become their own power plants.

[wakeme2008]

9. They are not burning coal

:)

[Mass]

12. Does not change anything - this is still carbon based energy...

[Beetwasher]

16. Supposedly It Does Burn Cleaner

And if you read my post and what Schweitzer has to say, you'd see it's not put forth as a permanent solution, but as an interim measure that would help ease us into a Hydrogen/renewable energy economy.

[Mass]

21. I am sure that Schweitzer is honest, but do you trust the coal industry

and Bushco on that?

[Beetwasher]

24. Heh?

This is a good beginning and a concrete solution (short term yes, but still something concrete). I wouldn't have to trust Bushco. Let's hope Schweitzer can get this up and running in MT and use it as a test case.

[Coastie for Truth]

53. NO

I don't trust big coal. When I was a kid our garage collapsed in a coal company sink hole - scared the daylights out of our dog; and my Dad was a United Mineworkers of America lawyer. -- but it is a matter of misguided progressive "faith" that Nuke is bad.

Ladies and gentleman, boys and girls -- I worked for Pennsylvania General Assembly Democratic leader Ivan Itkin (a PhD nuke engineer, ACLU Board member, President of Pittsburgh's most Progressive Democratic Club - the 14th Ward Democratic Club) -- and being Pro Nuke was not inconsistent with his Progressive Credentials.

So, I am going to nail my Theses to the Wall here in DU Wittenberg -- Nuke is not 100% evil, nuke is not 100% Satanic, being pro-Nuke does not read one out of Progressivism or the Democratic Party. Nuke is probably the lesser of all evils, followed closely by Fischer-Tropsch.

The choices are (for all practical purposes) - Fischer Tropsch, even dirtier and less efficient Alberta Oil Sands, Nuke, Solar with more rationing/conservation then we would put up with, and a Kunstler-Malthusian world (we are tasting that now with Bush's "First American War for Oil"). We have waited too long.

My blog: http://thinkersunderground.blogspot.com/

Yes - I am an in energy engineering - green, renewable, alternative.

[Oerdin]

57. It's still a hydrocarbon but...

Essentually all oil is coal (or other Bitumen) which has been subjected to heat and pressure long enough to break down. Keep the heat and pressure on the oil long enough and it will break down into natural gas. All we're doing is taking long hydrocarbon chains and breaking them into smaller hydrocarbon chains with heat and pressure.

Like the OP said this isn't new but it is rearly used because it costs so much and it isn't economically profitable. Germany, Japan, and the UK used it in WW2 because they were experiencing oil shortages and wanted to convert coal into oil for use by their militaries. In normal conditions this process just isn't worth much but if oil prices keep going up then some day this will become economically viable and we'll start converting coal into oil & gas. I don't see that happening unless prices really go up; we're talking 200%-300% (inflation adjusted) the current price.

[Beetwasher]

8. Definitely NOT A Permanent Solution

But in the short term, this could be very promising while we develop Hydrogen and renewable energy.

[Mass]

18. The problem is that this never happens like that...

The only times renewable energy technologies are developped in this countries is when we are in a catastrophic situation. Offer a compromise where special interests are involved and nothing happens.

Why do you think that Byrd and Dorgan voted for Cheney Energy Bill, even if it is both terrible for people health and for our budget: subventions for special interests (coal and corn respectively).

[Beetwasher]

22. Never Say Never

You don't know that and it's better than where we're at now.

[Mass]

27. We have to agree to disagree.

[wli]

50. renewable energy hasn't seriously been developed anywhere

This crisis is unprecedented. Either we figure out its magnitude in advance and convert in advance, or massive numbers of people are going to die.

In a very real sense, it's already too late for oil. We are effectively at Peak Oil now. So if we don't find a way to buy time AND use that time to convert post haste, we're massively screwed.

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. kick

:kick:

[BlueJac]

4. Take more supplaments......ha,ha,ha

[wakeme2008]

5. Sounds good

"We can do it cheaper than importing oil from the sheiks, dictators, rats and crooks that we're bringing it from right now."

The governor estimated the cost of producing a barrel of oil through the Fischer-Tropsch method at $32, and said that with its 120 billion tons of coal -- a little less than a third of the U.S total -- Montana could supply the entire United States with its aviation, gas and diesel fuel for 40 years without creating environmental damage.

[SidDithers]

31. sheiks, dictators, rats and crooks that we're bringing it from right now?

Does he not know that Canada is the biggest single supplier of oil to the US?

Not a very friendly way to talk about ones neigbour :)

Sid

[wicket]

6. very interesting

I had never heard about this before- thanks for sharing!

:kick:

[wli]

17. I knew about it from WWII history

The Nazis couldn't get into the Middle East and were embargoed, so they had to rely on this almost exclusively.

[rman]

10. oil companies know this to

they know they'll have to start refining coal eventually. along with tar-sand and oil-scale.
problem is, it's expensive and production capacity isn't very high.

[wakeme2008]

13. he is saying $32 per barrel

and the Repugs Fucked up big time

"Schweitzer added that the recently passed federal energy bill includes an 80 percent loan guarantee for a Fischer- Tropsch plant."

[Coastie for Truth]

54. Tar sand and oil shale make Fischer-Tropsch and Nuke look very good

by comparison.

Exxon (when it was Esso Standard) had a Fischer-Tropsch R&D Program with the steel industry (the steel industry uses lots of coal to make metallurgical coal/coke as a reagent for smelting iron; the coal chemistry, coke over, Fischer-Tropsch engineers and chemists are pretty much in the same discipline).

DuPont had a major Fischer-Tropsch program in the 1970's.

If you have ever flow into the PIT airport - that island in the middle of the Ohio River - Neville Island - major coke oven byproduct and Fischer-Tropsch plant.

If you ever flew into PIT airport from the south east - that chemical plant just SE of the amusement park on the Mon River - USSteel's Clairton Works - major coke oven, coke over chemicals and Fischer Tropsch plant.

Fischer Tropsch is the technology at Penn State, Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon, West Virginia, Ohio State, Kentucky, Illinois.

We have the expertise.

The ballot has three choices--

1. || - Fischer Tropsch

2. || - Nuke

3. || - James Howard Kunstler Malthusian Recession plus George Walker Bush Resource Wars

My blog: http://thinkersunderground.blogspot.com/

Yes - I am in renewable, green, alternative energy engineering.

[mainegreen]

11. Use up everyone elses energy first

Somehow I suspect our governments logic is this: that we should use up all the oil resources in other countries before really hitting up our coal. Or Canadas uranium and tar sands. That way when everyone else runs out, we keep on truckin'

[phantom power]

14. My understanding is that the Fischer-Tropsch process isn't economical

But I've heard other opinions. And "economical" is always relative to the price of the alternative, which is of course rising rapidly :-)

My beef with "solutions" like this is
1) It does nothing to curb greenhouse warming
2) Coal will also run out, and pretty fast, if we start getting all of our fuel from it as well as burning it in power plants
3) If we're going to spend lots of money on new fuel infrastructure (and we will, no matter what), then let's spend that money on a technology which is genuinely renewable. Otherwise, we're just going to have to do it all again.
4) We're currently destroying the Appalachians with our coal mining. This would only make it that much worse, not better.

[Beetwasher]

19. It's Proposed as an INTERIM Solution

To wean us off ME oil and ease us into Hydrogen and renewable energy.

[phantom power]

23. There's no need for an interim solution. For the same money,

we can start getting our fuel from truly renewable processes. The only people the F.T. process would benefit are the coal-company CEOS.

[Beetwasher]

26. Not True, There Is a Need Because Our Infrastructure Would Need Radical

change for and immediate cross over to renewable. A more gradual progression would be far more sensible.

[phantom power]

32. There are several ways to produce current fuels renewably

One example: high quality diesel can be made from farmed algae. Our entire nation's energy needs (not just fuel) could be met with about 1/3 the land we currently use to raise cattle.

Another example: there is reformer technology that can hydrogenate virtually any organic feed-stock, including waste wood, plastics, or sewage.

It is possible to generate hydrocarbons from CO2 taken directly from the air, although it may be most practical to let plants do that for us (see example-1).

Any of these solutions would represent a carbon-neutral cycle. Or, any combination of them. Since we're going to spend the effort and money of converting, let's do it right the first time.

[Beetwasher]

33. And We Should Pursue All Of Them

If they are in fact practical. However, I don't see anyone except Schweitzer actually putting concrete ideas like this on the table.

[phantom power]

35. I'm guessing that Schweitzer isn't aware of better options.

Or, maybe he's being influence by the coal lobby. I hear they have the ear of the occasional congressman :-)

[Mass]

39. I think he has been seduced by the perspective of many jobs in Montana.

Apparently, Baucus is with him on that, according to an article in the latest American Prospect on the Energy Bill.

[wli]

20. seriously running out of oil is far more catastrophic

Buying more time for renewable energy resources is very important. Famine, economic collapse, etc. are the consequences otherwise.

Also, IIRC coal is "plentiful" in some sense. I was not under the impression that it would run out quickly.

[phantom power]

25. Current estimates are 200 years, but that is at present usage rates.

If we start using it for all our fuel needs, it's going to be gone a lot sooner than 200 years.

And continuing to use fossil fuels isn't going to prevent those famines. They'll be coming due to climate change.

[Mass]

28. Thanks for stating the obvious

I wonder how long it will take to Dems to say that renewable energy and clean environment may be a key element for so many of our problems, including health issues, economical issues, ...

They seem so anxious to allow special interest to flourish.

[wli]

29. the famines are not necessarily inevitable

Farmland in the Arctic (esp. Siberia) and eventually Antarctica will hopefully suffice.

[Mass]

30. So you're fine with global warming?

[wli]

41. no, I'm just vaguely hoping it won't kill more people than bubonic plague

[Mass]

45. I am just hoping that we will succeed to elect a few govt that care about

it.

It is not inevitable. But people have to be aware of his dangers and this needs to be made a main point in the future campaigns.

[wakeme2008]

37. The Gov is saying $32 per barrel cheap

with today's oil prices.

[BlueJac]

15. This is his answer!

[n2doc]

34. USA today article on coal

Says they are already having infrastructure problems:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2005-08-24-coal-usat_x.htm

[murray hill farm]

36. I have read in a number of places that..

this process, including the refinery start up costs is so expensive, that it oculd never be cost effective. i believe we will use coal..and we will use it to burn when we absolutely need to do that...not ahead of time...but everything i have ever heard about this processs..including its use in germany..is that it is not cost effective on the large scale...now, i cannot remember where i read this...since i am on to so many information sources that i go to...but my guess is that i read it at least one of the times at from the wilderness.com.

[Beetwasher]

38. According to Schweitzer it Depends on the Price Of Oil

and that it would now be cost effective.

[KamaAina]

40. Apartheid-era South Africa relied heavily on this

the civilized world had them under an oil embargo, so they used Fischer-Tropsch to make do. The plant was called SASOL.

So, it has been demonstrated that Fischer-Tropsch works in full-scale industrial production, not just in the lab.

Then again... Nazi Germany... apartheid South Africa... and US?!

[hunter]

47. Creepy, isn't it?

I once met an engineer who had worked for sasol during the arpartheid era. He was one of those disturbingly apolitical people.

http://www.sasol.com

[On the Road]

42. I Believe Conversion of Coal to Oil or Gas

was part of a big energy bill under Jimmy Carter in 1980. It may have remained a proposal after the price of oil started freefalling in Reagan's first term.

[hunter]

43. It would be much more damaging to the environment than oil.

Modern production processes would be more efficient and cleaner than the old German tecnologies (we now have better catalysts, engineering, etc.), but even under the best circumstances, production of synthetic fuels from coal would greatly increase air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions.

Certainly we have this technology, but we need to use it wisely. The potential environmental problems are severe. Powering an S.U.V. with synthetic fuels made from coal, or even hydrogen made from coal, is not a wise use of the technology. Using synthetic fuels from coal to keep people from starving or freezing to death might be worthwhile.

It may turn out that the damage done to earth's climate by using coal is more harmful to humans than the damage done by any scarcity of fuels.

[Strelnikov_]

56. "Powering An S.U.V. With Synthetic Fuels Made From Coal . . . "

I couldn't agree more. Coal liquids, GTL etc. need to be limited to providing baseline liquid fuel needs over the 20-30 years needed to transition to a sustainable energy infrastructure.

Baseline does not include 6,000 lb. 4 wheel living rooms carrying 1 person down the highway at 80 mph.

If Simmons et.al. worst case estimates for depletion rates are correct, we are in trouble, and are going to need these sources just to prevent collapse.

[satya]

44. Why use coal when you can use organic waste, such as sewage?

http://changingworldtech.com/

The Thermal Conversion Process, or TCP, mimics the earth’s natural geothermal process by using water, heat and pressure to chemically reform organic and inorganic wastes into specialty chemicals, gases, carbons and fertilizers. Even heavy metals are transformed into harmless oxides.

[skids]

46. Precisely.

What's the cost of a facility to process coal into liquid fuel compared to the cost of a pyrolytic biomass reactor facility?

[SmokingJacket]

48. If it's doable, sounds good, though I hate the idea of more mining

in Montana. Parts of it -- Butte, for ex -- have been totally devastated by mining.

[marbuc]

49. Schweitzer isn't alone

This technology is quietly becoming a growth industry in the US, China, and elsewhere. An F-T Coal-to-liquid project is slated for Pennsylvania, and perhaps Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky.

[rustydad]

51. This is sooo sad

That there is so much misinformation floating around is both sad and fightning. Folks here is the deal. We have for all intents and purpose hit the world peak in oil extraction. We have peaked in natural gas on this part of the planet (North America). The America we know is built on the back of CHEAP gasoline. Our strip mall suburbia addicted culture uses twice the per person amount of fossil fuel as does a European, en times a Japanese person, 100 times a Chinese person.

If there ever was a Plan B it would have involved massive changes in the way we live that might have greatly reduced our use of fossil fuels. We could mostly be living packed into highly efficient multi-family buildings with solar heating and cooling. They would be a walking distance to a job. Food would be produced on small mostly human powered farms on the outskirts of towns. War and the military would have been baned. Mass transit would be the norm for travel.

Plan B would have needed to be put in motion decades ago. Too late now. Coal liquids may help put a few dollars in some hands. It WILL NOT replace oil derived liquid fuels....period. If you count on that you will be in serious trouble when the train goes over the cliff. There are a number of Yahoo list serve sites devoted to helping the masses understand the coming crisis and hopefully prepair for it. I love DU folks and conversations but the lack of understanding of the worst crisis to effect human civilization is profound. Checkout these sites and get educated on this issue. Your very lives will depend on it. Bob

http://rclsgi.eng.ohio-state.edu/~korpela/
http://www.postcarbon.org/
http://www.postcarbon.org/ (VERY good info here)
http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/Default.htm
http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/
http://www.kunstler.com/index.html

And Yahoo group sites;
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlasBabylon/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dieoff/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EnergyRoundTable/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RunningOnEmpty2/?yguid=137278875
and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_dieoff_QA/?yguid=137278875

[Coastie for Truth]

52. It is not "burning" the coal--> It is a limited burning to get CO

and with some neat chemistry you get liquid hydocarbons.

When I was in college the US center of excellence was the DOI lab in Bruceton. That lab recently developed a thin film membrane to "filter" ot the heavy metal impurities.

It is certainly cleaner then burning coal directly.

Process:
Hot Coal + Water (Steam) ==> CO + H2 ("Water Gas")

(The H2 is then filtered of heavy metals like Hg, U)

H2 + CO ==><catalyst> ==> Hydrocarbon fuels

The "Water Gas" process gives you the heat to run second step.

(I was a student tech 45 years ago at Bruceton)

[Strelnikov_]

55. F-T Is Also Being Applied To GTL (Methane To Liquids)

to make 'clean' diesel (clean being relative in this case). One company has developed a modification of the process to build small plants that can be located in remote locations to convert 'stranded' gas. That is, gas that is now burnt off. The company brief notes a potential of 1 M bbl/dy worldwide through conversion of this 'stranded' gas.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/03/syntroleum_targ.html

Company glossies:

http://www.syntroleum.com/media/brochure.pdf (.pdf)

http://www.syntroleum.com/media/Syntroleum_S2.pdf (.pdf)


Qatar is also moving heavily toward GTL.

http://www.eyeforenergy.com/news.asp?id=352

Personally, I think GTL makes a lot more sense than LNG for these remote gas fields that cannot be connected by pipeline to markets. GTL product, being basically fuel oil, can be easily and safely transported. LNG, on the other hand . .

The immediate energy shortage is going to be in liquid transportation fuels, and that is where we will need the methane. Home heating, through a comprehensive energy plan, can be transitioned to geothermal, which would permit use of electricity, generated by renewable sources where possible, for heating. Feedstock utilization of methane can be transitioned over time, in most cases, to other compounds.

A good overview on the capability of GTL and coal liquids to mitigate the coming liquid fuels crises is in the following report.

Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management.
Hirsch, Bezdek, Wendling, February 2005

www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/The_Hirsch_Report_Proj_Cens.pdf (.pdf)

The study included liquid fuels development from coal liquids, GTL, heavy oil and enhanced recovery, along with vehicle efficiency measures. Speed of implementation of the modeled actions were as stated:

As a limiting case, we choose overnight go-ahead decision-making for all actions, i.e., crash programs. Our rationale is that in a sudden disaster situation, crash programs are most likely to be quickly implemented. Overnight go-ahead decision-making is most probable in our Scenario I, which assumes no action prior to the onset of peaking.

The depressing conclusions of this report are as follows.

Because conventional oil production decline will start at the time of peaking, crash program mitigation inherently cannot avert massive shortages unless it is initiated well in advance of peaking.

Specifically,
* Waiting until world conventional oil production peaks before initiating crash program mitigation leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for two decades or longer.
* Initiating a crash program 10 years before world oil peaking would help considerably but would still result in a worldwide liquid fuels shortfall, starting roughly a decade after the time that oil would have otherwise peaked.
* Initiating crash program mitigation 20 years before peaking offers the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

Without timely mitigation, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), accompanied by huge oil price increases, both of which would create a long period of significant economic hardship worldwide.

[amandabeech]

58. I disagree. The immediate problem may very well be lack of

natural gas for home and other space heating in North America. We've already lost much of our chemical and fertilizer industries. Many of the gas-fired power plants are lying idle because they were built based on the rosy gas price assumptions put out by the USGS in the late '90s. The Canadians have been using their natural gas to process tar sand bitumen into diesel.

The world may run out of petroelum before gas, but not us here in N.A.

[Strelnikov_]

59. Then It Appears We Are In Disagreement

Residential heating is a small part of overall US energy consumption.

In addition, nearly all the methane we are consuming is produced in North America. We could stretch the remaining methane further by limiting it's use in electric generation and 'making expensive oil from cheap natural gas' (tar sands).

We are importing 60%+ of our petroleum, most of which comes from unstable regions. Therefore, my conclusion that a liquid fuels crises is more likely to be imminent.

Following is natural gas consumption by sector, which indicates 28% used for 'residential' (note that I assumed that 70% of industrial was used for non-fuel purposes):

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm

Following is breakdown of US energy consumption in Quads. Natural gas represented 23% of energy consumed. Therefore, natural gas used for residential use represents 6% of US energy consumption.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0103.html

Admittedly, a lot of energy, but an energy use that can be mitigated by a crash program to electric geothermal. We have no such options for transportation fuels.