Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 6/7/2008 7:13:05 AM EST
english.people.com.cn/200706/22/eng20070622_386664.html

Towering above the sweeping grasslands of Erdos, in north China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, two 60-meter-high cylindrical structures stand out against the skyline.

The structures -- reactors for liquefying coal -- are part of a project to mass produce desperately needed fuel oils from China's rich coal resources.

More than 10,000 workers from across China are constructing the massive project, the first industrial facility in Ejin Horo Banner.

"The project is in its final stage of construction and will start production late in the year," said Wang Yulong, deputy manager in charge of the coal liquefying arm of the Liquefied Coal Oil Company of Shenhua Group Corporation Limited, the country's top coal producer.

Coal liquefaction is a process that converts coal from a solid state into liquid fuels, usually to provide substitutes for petroleum products. Coal liquefaction processes were first developed in the early years of the 20th century but progress was hindered by the relatively low price and wide availability of crude oil and natural gas.

The facility in Erdos will produce mostly diesel oil, plus liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), naphtha (a volatile, flammable liquid hydrocarbon mixture), and hydroxybenzene.

On completion, it will be the largest facility in the world producing liquids from coal using a technology known as direct gasification.

"Unlike South Africa's Sasol which produces transport fuel from coal in several stages, our project in Erdos will produce liquids from coal directly," said Wang, who remained tight-lipped about the technology his company is using.

Indirect liquefaction, the technology used by Sasol, calls for gasification of the coal in the first place, purification of the gaseous raw material before reaction takes place, and a series of adjustments to the proportion of hydrogen and oxygen monoxide before liquids can be produced.

Listed as a key state project to help deal with China's petroleum security concerns, the massive Erdos coal liquefaction facility began construction in August 2004 with the blessings of China's top leaders.

During an inspection tour in June 2006, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao called the project a major scientific and technological experiment.

With a budget of 12.3 billion yuan and an annual production capacity of five million tons of oil, the project will be completed in two stages. In the first phase, three production lines will be installed.

"We're installing the first production line and its infrastructure," said Wang. "On completion, the line will be able to process annually 3.45 million tons of coal into 1.08 million tons of oil, including 720,000 tons of diesel oil."

Before starting the project, Shenhua successfully trialled technology at a specially built converter in Shanghai, according to Wang.

"The project in Erdos is about 1,000 times the size of the Shanghai model," said Wang, claiming it would be both environmentally friendly and lucrative.

Preliminary estimates show 3.4 to 3.5 tons of coal could produce a ton of oil, and if the price of a barrel of crude remains above 35 U.S. dollars, the facility will be profitable, said Wang.

The coal liquefaction project is big on recycling. Workers have constructed two 100,000-kw power plants for generating electricity from burning grease stain, and a sewage treatment plant that will go into service in October.

Industry observers say the Erdos project is significant to China's food and energy security.

"The efficiency of conventional coal use is very low, but the profits from coal-oils can be much higher," said an expert surnamed Wu. "This takes away the need to process grain such as maize into ethanol."

Shenhua Group Corporation Limited is a 100 percent state owned venture that came into being in 1995. Its scope of business ranges from coal, power, heat, coal-liquefied oils, coal-based chemical industries and railways to ports.

It produced 203 million tons of coal last year and was the first enterprise whose coal output exceeded 200 million tons in China.

Coal accounts for more than 84 percent of China's energy reserves.Statistics provided by the Land and Resources Bureau of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region show that proven coal reserves in the region exceed 500 billion tons, double that of Shanxi Province and elevating Inner Mongolia to the top rank in China in terms of coal reserves.

Many believe coal-to-liquid projects are the most practical way for China to achieve self reliance in oil supply.

In the meantime, constantly rising oil prices have prompted the coal-based chemical industry to flourish in a bid to find alternatives for petroleum in China, the world's fourth-largest economy.

Oil prices in the international market currently hover around 70 U.S. dollars a barrel.

To avoid a possible overheating in the coal-based chemical industries, however, China raised the threshold for projects converting coal to liquid fuel last year, for fear that excessive development of the fossil fuel will pollute the environment and strain water supply.

On July 7, 2006, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), China's industrial watchdog, issued a circular requiring local governments to tighten control of new coal liquefaction projects prior to the completion of the national development program for the coal liquefaction industry.

The government will not approve coal liquefaction projects with an annual production capacity under three million tons, said the commission circular.



Interesting when the US sits on %26 of the worlds coal reserves. Just mention coal anything and the eviro-nazis flip the fuck out
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 7:15:17 AM EST
It's all just hydrocarbons.

The only question is at what price is it cost-effective?
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 7:22:04 AM EST
The US should be leading this type of technology. We've started using ethanol which is a stop-gap measure, causing world prices of corn to go up.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 7:47:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/7/2008 11:22:00 AM EST by Wojo]

Originally Posted By warlord:
The US should be leading this type of technology. We've started using ethanol which is a stop-gap measure, causing world prices of corn to go up.


+1

Not to mention the amount of water needed for corn in water critical areas it uses. I read some where a while back, that it almost takes a gallon of petro to make a gallon of ethanol...so where is the benefit?

If we could only squeeze coal and illegals / politicians for oil, now wouldn't that be something.

Link Posted: 6/7/2008 8:08:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By giacutter:
It's all just hydrocarbons.

The only question is at what price is it cost-effective?

They give a figure,but it sounds very questionable....
Preliminary estimates show 3.4 to 3.5 tons of coal could produce a ton of oil, and if the price of a barrel of crude remains above 35 U.S. dollars, the facility will be profitable, said Wang.
$35 per barrel and above it's profitable? That seems way,way low. We'd have refineries all over the coal belt if that was the case.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 8:12:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By Wojo:

Originally Posted By warlord:
The US should be leading this type of technology. We've started using ethanol which is a stop-gap measure, causing world prices of corn to go up.


+1

Not to mention the amount of water needed for corn in water critical areas it uses. I read some where a while back, that it almost takes a gallon of petro to make a gallon of ethanol...so where is the benefit?
.
.
I would also like to add fertilizer. It is also derived from petroleum. I am relatively sure that we are not ending up ahead, just that the air gets a bit cleaner at a tremendous price.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 8:16:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By giacutter:
It's all just hydrocarbons.

The only question is at what price is it cost-effective?


It would make the equivilant of crude at $55 per barrel.

With our coal reserves we would have a 200+ year supply of it.

Link Posted: 6/7/2008 8:20:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/7/2008 8:21:00 AM EST by stickfigure]

Originally Posted By Poodleshooter:

Originally Posted By giacutter:
It's all just hydrocarbons.

The only question is at what price is it cost-effective?

They give a figure,but it sounds very questionable....
Preliminary estimates show 3.4 to 3.5 tons of coal could produce a ton of oil, and if the price of a barrel of crude remains above 35 U.S. dollars, the facility will be profitable, said Wang.
$35 per barrel and above it's profitable? That seems way,way low. We'd have refineries all over the coal belt if that was the case.



No you wouldn't because with oil at $135 a barrel someone is obviously happy to be making a profit and we keep buying the oil.

There are alot of energy substitutes that are cheaper.

But the energy companies don't want you to be paying less.

America is right where they want us, paying $4.00 a gallon and doing it regardless of what we are driving. We haven't digressed into anarrchy yet and not matter what the cost we are still paying it.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 8:20:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By warlord:
The US should be leading this type of technology. We've started using ethanol which is a stop-gap measure, causing world prices of corn to go up.



Corn-based ethanol is all about the politics, the money wasted there would pay for an awful lot of R&D into a dozen other technologies.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 8:24:00 AM EST
This article is from June 2007, so presumably if they were on schedule it should be operating currently.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 8:27:15 AM EST
The first

I dont know about you guys but I am calling

Didn't the Nazis do the same shit during WWII?
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 8:34:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By warlord:
The US should be leading this type of technology. We've started using ethanol which is a stop-gap measure thinly-veiled farm subsidy, causing world prices of corn to go up.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 8:35:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By Poodleshooter:

$35 per barrel and above it's profitable? That seems way,way low. We'd have refineries all over the coal belt if that was the case.


We have this additional problem that the Chinese don't have. They're called "hippies", and they have lawyers.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 8:39:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By WarWeapon762:
The first

I dont know about you guys but I am calling

Didn't the Nazis do the same shit during WWII?


I believe MOST of their fuel came from this.

The US has HUNDREDS of years of coal, Ibelieve 500 was a tossed about number. Try to do ANYTHING that mentions coal tho and the green weenies stroke out and go into convulsions uncontrollably.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 8:50:54 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 8:51:33 AM EST
We should be building hundreds of these...
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 8:51:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By stickfigure:

Originally Posted By Poodleshooter:

Originally Posted By giacutter:
It's all just hydrocarbons.

The only question is at what price is it cost-effective?

They give a figure,but it sounds very questionable....
Preliminary estimates show 3.4 to 3.5 tons of coal could produce a ton of oil, and if the price of a barrel of crude remains above 35 U.S. dollars, the facility will be profitable, said Wang.
$35 per barrel and above it's profitable? That seems way,way low. We'd have refineries all over the coal belt if that was the case.



No you wouldn't because with oil at $135 a barrel someone is obviously happy to be making a profit and we keep buying the oil.

There are alot of energy substitutes that are cheaper.

But the energy companies don't want you to be paying less.

America is right where they want us, paying $4.00 a gallon and doing it regardless of what we are driving. We haven't digressed into anarrchy yet and not matter what the cost we are still paying it.


Ahh, the 'big oil' conspiracy bullshit again...

Here's a hint for you: Oil companies could make ALOT MORE money at a lower per-barrel price, selling more barrels...

Which is pretty much what they have been lobbying for (increased drilling, etc)...

There is NOT ONE SINGLE alternative fuel that is cheaper & efficiently producible on a national scale... Ethanol & biofuels are a gigantic scam...

The 'problem' is the greenie-weenies & their allies in government restricting energy production to absurdly low levels...
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 8:54:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By Wojo:

Originally Posted By warlord:
The US should be leading this type of technology. We've started using ethanol which is a stop-gap measure, causing world prices of corn to go up.


+1

Not to mention the amount of water needed for corn in water critical areas it uses. I read some where a while back, that it almost takes a gallon of petro to make a gallon of ethanol...so where is the benefit?

If we could only squeeze coal and wetbacks for oil, now wouldn't that be something.



Goodbye...
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 8:58:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By fxntime:

Originally Posted By WarWeapon762:
The first

I dont know about you guys but I am calling

Didn't the Nazis do the same shit during WWII?


I believe MOST of their fuel came from this.

The US has HUNDREDS of years of coal, Ibelieve 500 was a tossed about number. Try to do ANYTHING that mentions coal tho and the green weenies stroke out and go into convulsions uncontrollably.


Thats what I thought.. I've been hearing this ALOT from alot of the older crowd that it was done, specifically during WWII. I've read it in a few books as well (especially pertaining to Nazi Germany's fuel infrastructure) ..

Where people get off thinking this is something "new" it makes me wonder where the fuck people have been for the last 20 years..
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 9:00:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Wojo:

Originally Posted By warlord:
The US should be leading this type of technology. We've started using ethanol which is a stop-gap measure, causing world prices of corn to go up.


+1

Not to mention the amount of water needed for corn in water critical areas it uses. I read some where a while back, that it almost takes a gallon of petro to make a gallon of ethanol...so where is the benefit?

If we could only squeeze coal and wetbacks for oil, now wouldn't that be something.



Goodbye...


Yup, you outa here!!!!!!
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 9:04:07 AM EST
Wetbacks....

Pretty fucked up quote you have there, I would change it to:

Illegal Aliens with less than dry backs.

Sorry that kinda stuff don't fly here.

FREE



Originally Posted By Wojo:

Originally Posted By warlord:
The US should be leading this type of technology. We've started using ethanol which is a stop-gap measure, causing world prices of corn to go up.


+1

Not to mention the amount of water needed for corn in water critical areas it uses. I read some where a while back, that it almost takes a gallon of petro to make a gallon of ethanol...so where is the benefit?

If we could only squeeze coal and wetbacks for oil, now wouldn't that be something.

Link Posted: 6/7/2008 9:16:01 AM EST


Originally Posted By stickfigure:

Originally Posted By giacutter:
It's all just hydrocarbons.

The only question is at what price is it cost-effective?


It would make the equivilant of crude at $55 per barrel.

With our coal reserves we would have a 200+ year supply of it.



And since it's a solution other than 'Everybody ride bicycles & the train', our enviro-weenie/hippy population will never let it happen...

Death by infinite lawsuit...
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 9:43:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/7/2008 9:44:51 AM EST by stickfigure]

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By stickfigure:

Originally Posted By Poodleshooter:

Originally Posted By giacutter:
It's all just hydrocarbons.

The only question is at what price is it cost-effective?

They give a figure,but it sounds very questionable....
Preliminary estimates show 3.4 to 3.5 tons of coal could produce a ton of oil, and if the price of a barrel of crude remains above 35 U.S. dollars, the facility will be profitable, said Wang.
$35 per barrel and above it's profitable? That seems way,way low. We'd have refineries all over the coal belt if that was the case.



No you wouldn't because with oil at $135 a barrel someone is obviously happy to be making a profit and we keep buying the oil.

There are alot of energy substitutes that are cheaper.

But the energy companies don't want you to be paying less.

America is right where they want us, paying $4.00 a gallon and doing it regardless of what we are driving. We haven't digressed into anarrchy yet and not matter what the cost we are still paying it.


Ahh, the 'big oil' conspiracy bullshit again...

Here's a hint for you: Oil companies could make ALOT MORE money at a lower per-barrel price, selling more barrels...

Which is pretty much what they have been lobbying for (increased drilling, etc)...

There is NOT ONE SINGLE alternative fuel that is cheaper & efficiently producible on a national scale... Ethanol & biofuels are a gigantic scam...

The 'problem' is the greenie-weenies & their allies in government restricting energy production to absurdly low levels...



Why would oil companies want to sell more oil now a a lesser cost when they know that the price of oil has doubled in two years? By 2010 gas will be at $6.00 a gallon and still rising with no alternatives.

Big Oil has suppressed alternative fuel production until it has become benificial for them to do so.

The enviromentalist have fought building more refineries and nuclear power plants, and we haven't build coal gasification plants to use our coal instead of buying oil.

So we are stuck buying oil, now that China's oil appetite has exploded by 1000% in the past twelve years we have to compete with them buying up all the Middle Easts Oil. IN 1996 China was importing 165.6 Millon barrels a year, today it is importing 1.06 billion barrels a year with nearly 600 million of that coming out of the Middle East.

Brazil is completely energy independent they do not import foriegn oil. And they export ethanol.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

If we had done this years ago we could be at least keeping our heads above water.

It boggles my mind that you really don't take a look at the facts before you open your mouth.

Link Posted: 6/7/2008 10:26:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By WarWeapon762:
The first

I dont know about you guys but I am calling

Didn't the Nazis do the same shit during WWII?


Karrick Process

Bergius Process

Fischer-Tropsch Process

Biomass, garbage, plastic, tires, even animal & human waste can conceivably be turned into liquid fuels. Yes, the Germans did that, and I belive the post war Japanese did as well. Shell is current running GTL plants in other countries that turn natural gas into liquid fuel using the Fischer-Tropsch Process.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 10:48:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By fxntime:

Originally Posted By WarWeapon762:
The first

I dont know about you guys but I am calling

Didn't the Nazis do the same shit during WWII?


I believe MOST of their fuel came from this.

The US has HUNDREDS of years of coal, I believe 500 was a tossed about number. Try to do ANYTHING that mentions coal tho and the green weenies stroke out and go into convulsions uncontrollably.


Unless you bring up nuclear. Just outside of Boulder (the other San Francisco) one of the energy companies just tried to put up a nuclear plant to meet the needs of the ever growing Denver/metro area. Well, the hippies/greenies/wackos went had a fit about how we were all going to die of explosion/radiation/terrorists, and went on about how "safe and clean" coal was. I guarantee the same people arguing for coal in Boulder will forget, and protest coal the day that the plant opens.

Damn dirty hippies
Top Top