Submit your comments on this article |
Science & Technology |
(95,000 Barrel/Day) Coal-to-fuel conversion facility |
2006-08-22 |
![]() A Washington-state energy company may soon announce it has chosen the county port authority’s industrial park here as the site for a $4 billion coal-to-fuel conversion plant. 25 such plants would replace all the 2.4M barrels of oil imports from the Persian Gulf at a capital cost less than $100 billion (and once built the plant will be useful for 40-50 years). Port Authority Chief Executive Director Tracy Drake declined to either confirm or deny the rumors or identify the company when contacted Thursday. “There’s been no formal announcement,” he said. “I can say there have been discussions with the company about locating here.” The rumored company is Baard Energy, and phone calls left at its headquarters in Vancouver, Wash., went unreturned by press time Thursday night. But John Baardson, president and CEO of Baard, told the July meeting of the Ohio Coal Association in Columbus they had selected the county and showed slide photographs of an industrial park site, according to coal association official Mike Carey. Sources say the plant complex requires 200 acres and would take four years to build, creating 200 to 300 permanent jobs and 1,000 to 2,000 construction jobs. The operation is expected to create the need for 1,000 coal-mining jobs and generate another 500 to 1,000 spin-off jobs in businesses that would supply the operation. The plant is expected to need seven million tons of coal a year to convert into 35 million barrels of fuel. That's $2.6 billion at $75/barrel. Even higher since the output does not need to be further refined. The Fischer-Tropsch process produces very high quality diesel and kerosene (jet fuel). The news would come two months after the port authority announced it was purchasing 192 acres across state Route 7 from its Wellsville industrial complex. At the June 19 authority meeting, Drake said they were acquiring the property in part because he was in talks with a company interested in building a coal-conversion plant on the site. Drake said at the time the industrial park location was ideal because of its location along the Ohio River, a four-lane highway and major railroad. All of this would allow for the coal and finished product to be transported by barge, truck and rail car. The process of converting coal to liquid fuel and natural gas has been around since World War II, having been first used by Germany to fuel the Nazi war machine. The process has been largely ignored since then because of the expense involved, but today’s rising oil prices have made the conversion process a cheaper alternative. There have been a large number of Coal-Liquid conversion plant announcements, mostly in the 20,000 barrel/day range. The US is burning $100 billion/year trying to bring civilization to those savages. Five Years of War on Terror Has Cost $437 Billion. For that money, the US could build plants to replace ALL oil imports with CTL conversion. Or replace all non canadian or Mexican oil for $300 billion. Though doubling coal production is another matter but doable. According to a news release on the coal association’s July meeting, Baardson said the coal conversion process being proposed by his company would be able to supply cleaner diesel fuel for the U.S. military and they have been in talks with the defense department. It's crucial for the military to have fuel supplies not controlled by enemies. This war will be over when the muslims spend all their time and energy scraping up enough money to import food. |
Posted by:ed |
#19 NS, not sure what you mean by no money left on the table. Page 59 shows the Rate of Return on investment. At $63/barrel: Barrels/day IRR 10,200..........75% 11,890..........86% 20,400..........95% 23,780.........109% I think coal is now $7/ton, vs $5/ton. But oil/diesel hasn't been 63/barrel in a while. I dare you to find another (legal) line of business with that kinds of return. There are other coal gasification tech that has the potential to be cheaper (e.g. molten iron reduction) at the cost of more CO2 produced per barrel. |
Posted by: ed 2006-08-22 22:31 |
#18 That one also did the IRR with oil at $63 per barrel. Pretty generous. Note there's no money on the table. What is also interesting is these guys are all using the Germans' WWII technology with updates. No real breakthrough. |
Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-22 20:45 |
#17 Interesting - thanks. It only shows very high level conclusions, not the real analysis that went into developing the numbers. But a couple points in the slides ed linked to. One is that they are aiming at the DOD market for synthetic diesel and aviation fuel. Not surprising, DOD has been looking for a supplier. And the other is that a couple issues like water supply factor heavily into the attractiveness (or not) of the plan. I hope it works. |
Posted by: lotp 2006-08-22 20:24 |
#16 lotp, Here is one study from a Rentech who is building a CTL plant: The Economic Viability of an FT Facility Coals (1.3MB pdf) |
Posted by: ed 2006-08-22 20:03 |
#15 Yeah, that makes sense. It's been a good long while since my 5th grade project on coal, complete with lumps of each grade and shaded maps. LOL The house we lived in when I was a young kid was coal heated. You come to appreciate anthracite for hot heat and low emissions. But it's not always the best for other purposes. |
Posted by: lotp 2006-08-22 20:03 |
#14 Looks like Bituminous.
There's not much anthracite outside NE Pennsylvania. Cost of extraction would be a big issue there. This coal will be strip mined, I'm pretty sure. |
Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-22 19:56 |
#13 Thanks, NS. I grew up near coal mining areas, mostly bituminous, some anthracite. Did a brief google and didn't identify what grade coal is needed, but if bituminous is clean enough then yeah, we've got a lot fortunately. The US military has been trying to get people to invest in this for a while. |
Posted by: lotp 2006-08-22 19:33 |
#12 According to the EIA Estimates of the world's total recoverable reserves of coal in 2002 were about 1,081 billion sort tons. The resulting ratio of coal reserves to production exceeds 200 years, meaning that at current rates of production (and no change in reserves), coal reserves could in theory last for another two centuries. The distribution of coal reserves around the world varies notably from that of oil and gas, in that significant reserves are found in the United States and the Former Soviet Union (FSU) but not in the Middle East. The United States with 26 percent and the FSU with 23 percent account for nearly half of global coal reserves. China (12 percent), Australia (8 percent), Germany (7 percent), South Africa (5 percent), and Poland (2 percent) also have significant amounts of the world's recoverable coal reserves. |
Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-22 19:27 |
#11 One other thought -- we have lots of coal, but Europe, a lot less. I wonder if these plants, if widely built, might have the side effect of tightening the Eurabian alliance to keep oil flowing to the continent. Dont' mind me tonight, folks - I appear to be in a skeptical state of mind about all sorts of things and countries. ;-) |
Posted by: lotp 2006-08-22 19:04 |
#10 Does anyone have a link to a serious economic analysis of this option? I see a reference to the capital costs of building plants, but not to operating costs, transportation costs, whether the process depends on a certain grade of coal (and how much of that grade we have, how easy it is to mine etc.). I'm not pooh-poohing this article or the idea. I would dearly love to see us remove our economic dependence on oil from places like the Middle East and Venezuela. I'm just curious to see how the full numbers play out and what assumptions have gone into the potential decision to create this pilot plant. |
Posted by: lotp 2006-08-22 19:02 |
#9 25 such plants would replace all the 2.4M barrels of oil imports from the Persian Gulf at a capital cost less than $100 billion (and once built the plant will be useful for 40-50 years). A delightful vision, that. Without wishing to be too cynical, please do not rely upon any of these changes coming very soon from an executive branch whose predominate source of wealth centers upon petroleum extraction. I refer any of you who doubt this to the amount of Republican (and Democrat) re-election campaign funding donated by Big Oil. |
Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-22 18:55 |
#8 Between shale oil, coal conversion and other methods we CAN get off the arab oil tit. It will just take foresight and guts to do it. I guess that leaves the government out of it though doesn't it. |
Posted by: remoteman 2006-08-22 15:47 |
#7 What about underground CO2 storage? Have they figured it out yet? |
Posted by: Ulereting Greretch1657 2006-08-22 15:39 |
#6 Plant more trees and lawn grass to soak up the CO2 and that problem largely goes away. American Forests Global ReLeaf project will plant trees at US$1/tree. Or the Appalachian strip mines can be treed over, after, for the same result, at about the same cost. |
Posted by: trailing wife 2006-08-22 13:47 |
#5 They aren't building it in Washington but in Wellsville, Ohio. My family is from there. It is the living definition of Appalachian poverty. I doubt there are 300 legal jobs there now. It will be built there and they will love it. It will be much better than the WTI industrial waste incinerator or the Lisbon asbestos landfill. |
Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-22 13:09 |
#4 It costs a little under $1/gallon to produce. Existing pipelines and tankers can transport it. Buy diesel cars (sorry Californicators, you are screwed) and this fuel does not even need to be refined, freeing up tight capacity. In addition diesel engines get 40% more mileage than gas engines so you burn a lot less fuel. |
Posted by: ed 2006-08-22 12:51 |
#3 To be honest, if a bunch of gas stations pumped only Coal-to-Fuel gas and not a cent went to anybody in the Middle East I'd use them exclusively and pay $4 a gallon without a gripe. Perhaps more. |
Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-08-22 12:13 |
#2 Just a related trivia... Do you know that shale oil deposits (Colorado/Utah) are calculated as equivalent of all world's oil deposits combined? And that's the lower end estimate. Economical extraction methods are refined at present. |
Posted by: twobyfour 2006-08-22 12:08 |
#1 Uner existing technology these plants a huge producers of CO2. I very much doubt these guys could get this thing built in Washington state. Far more likely these plants will be built near coal supplies in the mountin states or midwest. |
Posted by: DoDo 2006-08-22 11:46 |