Biodiesel plant planned in North Dakota

[Anonymous]

What's to keep oil prices from taking a dive as they did in the 80's, and wipe out the investments in alternative technology?

Isn't it smarter to put thought towards getting a new high-efficiency refrigerator, replacing the most-used lighting with LED lights, and getting a vehicle that gets 25-50% better mileage than you now have?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

What's to keep oil prices from taking a dive as they did in the 80's, and wipe out the investments in alternative technology?

Yep, that's why all these new energy policy initiatives need some form of federal guarantee to make sure the investors don't get burned. This includes some initiatives that I do favor, such as coal liquefication and deep exploration/drilling for new hydrocarbon sources. I think the idea of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower continent is also part of the federal support system. Remember back in the 80's when all those shale oil and oil sands projects got burned by falling oil prices after the OPEC embargo? This nation cannot afford to let these new initiative fail before commercial viability is obtained.

QUOTE:

Isn't it smarter to put thought towards getting a new high-efficiency refrigerator, replacing the most-used lighting with LED lights, and getting a vehicle that gets 25-50% better mileage than you now have?

Now you are getting away from the proper role of government policy and getting into personal choice. It is not any of our business if our fellow Americans decide to drive SUV's with the windows rolled down and the air conditioner on full blast. If some SUV owner does that but only drives it once a week, he/she is probably using less gasoline than the person driving the hybrid every day.

But if you are talking about replacing older power plants with newer more efficient power plants et al, then you are on the right track.

[Murphy Siding]

Now you're getting into something of a Catch-22. Biodiesel and ethanol would need no subsidy, if gas and diesel stayed above $ 3.

[Tulyar15]

I think it would take a big recession to bring oil prices crashing like they did in the 1980's. (At that time in Britain unemployment was at a 50 year high; so were interest rates; at the present time they're both at a 40 year low).

Coal can be a cleaner fuel if newer plants are built. In South Wales the miners who bought their own pit have built a new state of the art coal fired generating plant which is both clean and efficient - almost matching the gas fired combined cycle plants.

During WW2 a lot of vehicles in Britain were converted to run on coal gas. I'd have thought this could be developed by countries like GB and the US who have lots of coal so as to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil.

[Tulyar15]

Now I've really seen it all! Apparrently the Swedes are making methane gas from cow dung! See:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4373440.stm

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4112926.stm

[owlsroost]

Using methane from decaying organic waste as an energy source is nothing new - some large sewage treatment plants have been doing it for years (they burn it to produce electricity to power the pumps etc), and a local cement manufacturing plant used methane from the landfill sites surrounding it as fuel for the drying ovens for a few years.

(Also locally there is an example of Victorian technology for using waste as fuel - a stationary steam engine plant that burnt domestic refuse to pump sewage from the town to the treatment works, now a museum piece - replaced by electric pumps powered by waste methane as above).

Tony

[Anonymous]

Yes, that would be personal choice. It would be voting with one's dollars.

Isn't the government "guaranteeing a profit" just asking for another floor to be built on an economic house of cards?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

Yes, that would be personal choice. It would be voting with one's dollars.

Isn't the government "guaranteeing a profit" just asking for another floor to be built on an economic house of cards?

I don't think it's a case of government "guaranteeing a profit" so much as it is facilitating an incubation period until the enterprise can stand on it's own feet. Also, when you look at the mountains of regulations our government has laid down on such capital-intensive enterprises, it is apt to suggest that government support for such enterprises is a way of mitigating the unfunded mandate of over-regulation in the first place.

Of course, I also favor the government getting rid of most of those regulations, which in and of itself would allow the cessation of the subsidies, et al.

This is the price of environmental regulation - we end up having to subsidize the industries most affected by environmental regulations so they can stay competitive.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Now you're getting into something of a Catch-22. Biodiesel and ethanol would need no subsidy, if gas and diesel stayed above $ 3.

Actually, its more of a Catch-22 x 2. Gas and diesel would never have gone above $2 a gallon in the first place if we had been allowed to develop our own hydrocarbon resources and if we had been allowed to construct new refineries without all the costly regulations, most of which were brought to us by the same people who are pushing "renewables" such as biodiesel and ethanol.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

I think it would take a big recession to bring oil prices crashing like they did in the 1980's. (At that time in Britain unemployment was at a 50 year high; so were interest rates; at the present time they're both at a 40 year low).

Coal can be a cleaner fuel if newer plants are built. In South Wales the miners who bought their own pit have built a new state of the art coal fired generating plant which is both clean and efficient - almost matching the gas fired combined cycle plants.

During WW2 a lot of vehicles in Britain were converted to run on coal gas. I'd have thought this could be developed by countries like GB and the US who have lots of coal so as to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil.

Actually, what coal gasification people are discovering is that the best way to utilize coal gasification is to methanize the coal gas into synthetic natural gas. They convert the coal gas (which is mostly CO and Hydrogen) into methane by running the coal gas over a nickel catalyst. This way, you can run the synthetic natural gas through a combined-cycle power plant by day (when electricity demand is peaking), and then pump the synthetic natural gas into the natural gas pipelines by night (when natural gas demand is peaking). The Great Plains lignite gasification plant in North Dakota is doing just that, and is making money hand over fist in the process. It's ironic that this same plant was basically subsidized by the DOE when natural gas was going for under $3.00/mmBtu, then when natural gas prices shot up to $6.00/mmBtu+ they found out they didn't need the subsidy anymore (although I doubt they have endeavored to pay back the original subsidy!)

Is that Welsh gasification plant using the methanization process, or are they running the coal gas directly into the combined-cycle turbines?

As for using coal to run cars and locomotives, it is looking now like the best way to do so is to gasify the coal, then methanize it into synthetic natural gas, then liquefiy the synthetic natural gas into LNG (LSNG?) and run your vehicles on that. LNG made from coal is the most cost efficient transportation fuel out there, more so then gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, ethanol, methanol, or the higher chain alcohols. All it's lacking is the infrastructure, but specialize vehicles could take advantage of it.

BTW, aren't there still some LNG locomotives running out there?

[Tulyar15]

I'm not sure how the Welsh power station works, but I suspect you could be right about gasification. The Ffestiniog Railway also experimented with gasification recently but I think they've re-converted the loco in question back to oil firing. (They've used oil firing since the 1970's because their line runs thru a lot of forests and oil fired locos are less likely to cause forest fires than coal fired ones.

Meanwhile I gather the enterprising miners of Tower Colliery, having bought their pit in the 1990's and kept it going, are open another pit in a neighbouring valley which will also result in a disused line re-opening.

I'm not sure if any one else is experimenting with gas producer steam locos right now (though I think some guys in Argentina may be) but I am aware of people making Natural Gas from coal. I suspect the Zimbabweans are doing it as they've plenty of coal. I gather they're returning steam locos to traffic because they can't afford the diesel oil. Unfortunately with the situation as it is in that country I don't think many people are likely to go there to find out!

[Anonymous]

Ever hear of coal bed methane? It takes no conversion process and is pumped directly into the natural gas pipelines. It's done all over the country.

Other coal bed gasses might need some conversion to make them work.

Electric generating plants are EXPENSIVE. The latest numbers being kicked around are in the neighborhood of $2,500-$5,000 per kilowatt of capacity. In case your wondering, the average house needs between 3 and 6 average KW's to keep going. That doesn't include the cost of fuel and power lines to get the power to your house. That puts a 1,000 megawatt power plant some where in the price range of $2.5 - $5 billion. If you're an investor would you risk that much money on an unproven technology? I didn't think so.

Electric utilities WANT high efficiency power plants. Several years ago it was said that roughly 1/3 of your power bill was the cost of the power plant, 1/3 was the cost of power lines and substations to get it to your home, and 1/3 was the cost of the fuel to make the whole thing move. I'm guessing that with the rapid increase in the cost of fuels that ration has been twisted to more like 1/4, 1/4, 1/2. Some factors that get in the way of making plants more efficient:

1. You CANNOT replace any major piece of equipment in a plant with going through the whole regulatory headaches for New Source Review. This applies to both power plants AND oil refinery boilers. You can increase the efficiencies AND reducing the polution levels by changing out the boilers, but the environmentalists would shut you down. The increased costs in the madated Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) would scuttle the project.

2. Many high efficiency proposals have yet to be scaled up to utility sizes. Coal gasification for combined cycle gas turbines is a good example. Another is fuidized bed boilers for using "junk" coal and other burnable fuels. Imagine being able to throw your junk tires into the local power plant? It's being done, but only on smaller plants.

3. Nobody wants a plant in their back yard. This forces the utilities to build plants far away from the loads (which creates other significant problems) and having to build expensive power lines to get the power to where you want it.

I think the whole energy mess is just going to get worse, and not better as time goes on. China used to export oil, and now they import a LOT of it to support their growing economy. Same thing for India and many other growing 2nd world countries. The same thing has happened to the copper and steel markets. 1 billion chinese are now wanting cars and homes with electric lights. Go figure.

Diesel fuel costs are now over $0.50 MORE than gasoline in our area. The oil refineries are maxed out, and selling a LOT more than they ever have. Gasoline is expensive, diesel is really expensive, and gas is moving up there really fast. Coal has also jumped up in cost lately as well as utilities have shifted from burning gas to burning more coal.

There is no cheap fuel out there. It's going to cost more. You're going to pay more.

As for bio fuels / syn fuels / alternative fuels? We need them all. Some make economic sense today. Some are hoped that they'll make economic sense tomorrow but need a helping hand today with subsidies, and some simply don't make a lot of sense but are politically expedient to support.

Mark in Utah

[Anonymous]

The problem with coalbed methane is how to deal with all that salt water. Once and if that problem is sufficiently addressed, it is true that coalbed methane could be the major domestic source of natural gas. One reason coal gasification/methanization may be preferable to coalbed methane in the meantime is that water issue.

Ideally, it would be doubly good if the producers could extract the coalbed methane first, and then mine the coal itself.

[Tulyar15]

In Britain at a number of land fill sites (old quarries that have been filled in with household garbage) they now extract the methane and feed it in to the gas grid.

[Anonymous]

Using biodiesel allows refiners to take the petro diesel and recrack it into gasoline. Biodiesel uses corn husks, etc as its base product. Instead of throwing them away they are reused. As I remember it is a simple chemical process to turn these wastes into biofiesel. One product used is lye. I do not remember what else is added. This is one way to become more fuel self sufficienct and tell the Arabs to shove there high price crude oil.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by sierrarr

Using biodiesel allows refiners to take the petro diesel and recrack it into gasoline. Biodiesel uses corn husks, etc as its base product. Instead of throwing them away they are reused. As I remember it is a simple chemical process to turn these wastes into biofiesel. One product used is lye. I do not remember what else is added. This is one way to become more fuel self sufficienct and tell the Arabs to shove there high price crude oil.

The only biodiesel "recipe" that I am aware of is to take any vegetable based oil and convert it to an ester via transesterification. Transesterification involves taking the oil, blending it with an alcohol such as methanol or ethanol, and then adding a catalyst such as sodium hydroxide to separate the ester from the glycerol. The ester is your biodiesel, and the glycerol is removed and can be used as a byproduct. Some earlier attempts at biodiesel involved trying to emulsify vegetable oil with an alcohol or ketone (which allows 100% recovery), but such attempts did not address the glycerol component and it's affects on compression combustion engines.

The point is, you have to start with some type of organic based oil to qualify as biodiesel. Cellulose material and starches can be converted to alcohols, so I wonder if your corn husks are actually being used in an ethanol plant, or as a combustable heat source for the process.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

The problem with coalbed methane is how to deal with all that salt water. Once and if that problem is sufficiently addressed, it is true that coalbed methane could be the major domestic source of natural gas. One reason coal gasification/methanization may be preferable to coalbed methane in the meantime is that water issue.

Ideally, it would be doubly good if the producers could extract the coalbed methane first, and then mine the coal itself.

Salt water in coal bed methane is a localized problem. Many coal beds are dry, while some have fresh (but cruddy) water. I wonder if Evian would bottle some good vintage anthracite water? [:p]

Mark in Utah