http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/39430/page2/ Cleaner, Cheaper Liquid Fuel from Coal A new conversion process promises zero carbon emissions during production—but some question whether it will scale. Friday, January 6, 2012 By Peter Fairley Audio » SRI International is developing a process that combines coal and natural gas to produce liquid transportation fuels that are substantially cleaner and cheaper to make than existing synthetic fuels. SRI claims its process addresses three liabilities that have slowed the commercialization of the technology. By blending some natural gas into the conventional coal-to-liquids (CTL) process, the private research lab, based in Menlo Park, California, claims to have eliminated CTL's carbon footprint, slashed water consumption by over 70 percent, and more than halved its capital cost. Chan Park, a gasification and synthetic fuels expert at the University of California, Riverside's Center for Environmental Research & Technology, cautions that SRI's work is at an early stage. But Park says the process "could be really exciting" as a domestic alternative to petroleum fuel in coal and gas-rich countries such as the U.S.—if it can be demonstrated at pilot scale. SRI's process is the fruit of a 2008 solicitation by the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) seeking a cheap, carbon-free CTL process for producing jet fuel. DARPA awarded SRI $1,612,905 to pursue a novel concept: using methane from natural gas as a hydrogen source instead of water in a new CTL process. Advertisement Conventional CTL plants blend pure oxygen, steam, and coal at high temperatures and pressures, generating carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas that can be catalytically combined to synthesize liquid hydrocarbon fuels. The gasification also generates carbon dioxide, partly from the combustion of some coal with the pure oxygen, and partly through undesirable reactions between water and carbon. In SRI's process, methane preheated to 600 °C displaces much of the water required, thus reducing the unwanted reaction with the coal. The methane also reduces the amount of heat absorbed by the gasification process, eliminating the need for oxygen and combustion to maintain the 1,400 to 1,500 °C temperatures the process requires. As a result SRI says it can eliminate the use of oxygen-fired combustion that the process requires, making do with zero-carbon renewable or nuclear power instead. Skipping oxygen not only eliminates a source of carbon dioxide, but contributes substantial cost savings by eliminating the need for an oxygen plant. Further savings are achieved through more efficient fuel synthesis. SRI estimates that its zero-carbon process will generate jet fuel for $2.82 per gallon, which is under DARPA's $3 target. SRI's projected capital cost for a 100,000 barrel/day plant—$3.2 billion—is well below the $6 billion cost of a CTL plant, but still well above DARPA's $1.5 billion target. Park says SRI needs to prove its process beyond its "bench-scale" demonstrations in order to provide such cost estimates with any degree of certainty. Based on experience with his own oxygen-less gasification scheme—which is being developed for waste-to-energy plants by Riverside-based spinoff Viresco Energy—Park is skeptical that electrical heating will prove feasible at larger scale. Eric Larson, a research engineer with Princeton University's Energy Systems Analysis Group, says SRI's zero-carbon process could prove to be "technically doable" and still suffer from a critical flaw: producing a carbon-based fuel that will release carbon dioxide when it is burned. "On a life-cycle basis, the fuel is no better than petroleum fuel on greenhouse-gas emissions," says Larson.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CGwQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.proactiveinvestors.co.uk%2Fcompanies%2Fpdf%2F38042%2Faltona-energy-raises-1-mln-in-placing-with-chinese-high-net-worth-investor-38042.html&ctbs=qdr%3Ad&ei=_n8ZT6qNH4Xf0QHXrJjMCw&usg=AFQjCNEh-ZYMm3_0UcTt886we21SLn08Pw Altona Energy Plc, formerly Altona Resources Plc, is engaged in the evaluation of the development of an integrated coal-to-liquid plant and co-generation power facility, supported by an open-cut coal mine at its Arckaringa Project in South Australia.

http://peakoil.com/forums/post1100342.html TransGas Development Systems, LLC announced an agreement with SK Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd (SKE&C) leading to engineering, procurement and construction of its first US coal-to-gasoline plant—Adams Fork Energy—to be located in Mingo County, West Virginia. _GCC US coal deposits contain 12 X as much energy as all known oil in Saudi Arabia. The gasification process to be used in the new West Virginia CTL plant could cleanly utilise coals of any grade -- including the cheapest and dirtiest coal. By moving US coal reserves into the liquid fuels arena, the prospects for peak oil continue to remain slight -- unless the Obama administration decides to shut down all coal, even clean coal projects. Obama has promised to bankrupt coal companies, and all his other policies are consistent with an "energy starvation" approach to shutting down US industrial production. Time will tell. The Adams Fork Energy project will convert regional coal into premium-grade gasoline, producing 18,000 barrels per day (756,000 gallons US, 2.86 million liters). When fully developed, the Adams Fork project will be the largest coal-to-gasoline project in the world, according to Adam Victor, President and CEO of TransGas Development Systems.

http://www.manicore.com/fichiers/Australian_Govt_Oil_supply_trends.pdf

Gas To Displace More Coal In 2012, Lowering Carbon Emissions Gas is increasingly displacing coal in electricity generation, and that is a major reason why US energy related carbon emissions have fallen to 1998 levels. The trends of gas displacing coal and thereby gas lowering carbon emissions will continue in 2012, driven forward by low gas prices produced by the shale gas boom, according to the EIA's latest Short-Term Energy Outlook that was released yesterday. See data at: www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/pdf/steo_full.pdf. For some, these facts are inconvenient, causing more than a few to fall silent about the historic shift from coal to gas that is inexorably taking place every year. Ignoring these facts damages the truth, our environment, and economy so let's dive into them. While coal provided 52% of America's electricity in 2000, coal's electricity generation market share fell again in 2011 to about 43% and gas's rose to 24.4%. Coal has been losing market share to gas and renewable energy at the rate of about 0.6% per year. This long-term trend will continue, according to EIA. EIA's January 10 Short-Term Energy Outlook writes: "EIA expects coal to fuel 42.2 per cent of total generation this year and 41.5 per cent in 2013, down from a share of 43 per cent in 2011. In contrast the share of generation fueled by natural gas is forecast to rise from 24.4 per cent in 2011 to 25.4% in 2012 and 25.8% in 2013" EIA states at page 8: "Coal consumption for electricity generation fell by 30 million short tons (MMst)(3.1 percent) in 2011. Electric power sector coal consumption is forecast to decline by an additional 2.1 per cent as generation from natural gas, nuclear, wind increases and electricity consumption remains flat. EIA expects the decline in electric power sector coal consumption to continue in 2013, although at a slower rate, as increases from other sources continue to displace coal-fired electricity generation." The two main reasons why gas is displacing coal is the low-price of natural gas and the low capital costs of building new gas-fired generation. The 2011 average Henry Hub spot price for gas was $4 for a thousand cubic feet, low indeed. Stunningly EIA forecasts that the 2012 average Henry Hub gas price once more will drop sharply and reach an amazingly low $3.53. Why is the gas price falling so that gas is winning market share from coal in the electricity generation market? The shale gas revolution is the one and only reason. Shale gas provided 1% of US natural gas supplies in 2000; 16% by February 2011; and 34% by December 2011. All that shale gas has crashed the price of natural gas in the USA. The results of this revolution include huge savings for consumers, avoidance of a recession in 2011, and lower carbon emissions from electricity generation, as gas and renewable energy displace more carbon intensive coal. Inconvenient or not, those are the facts. http://johnhanger.blogspot.com/2012/01/gas-to-displace-more-coal-in-2012.html

The boom in shale gas production is causing prices to bottom out. The irony here means that consumers are getting the cheapest natural gas in quite some time at the expense of those producers hoping to cash-in on the craze. With the advent of new technologies to allow shale gas explorers to reach deep inside the earth’s surface to retrieve such fuel, the market place has felt the effect. Prices, in fact, have been trending down for a few years. And while that fundamental should persevere, the retail cost of that gas is expected to rise over time. That’s because an increasing number of utilities will come to rely on it. “Natural gas used to generate power has half the carbon dioxide emissions of conventional coal power generation and near zero sulphur emissions,” says BP’s Energy Outlook. “Gas is expected to displace coal in power generation across the (developed world) due to rising carbon prices, permitting constraints for new plants and mandates.” BP goes on to say that natural gas is the fastest growing fossil fuel and that its share of the electric generation market will continue to climb. Unconventional gas such as shale and coal bed methane will help drive up those ratios, it adds, noting that such forms will comprise 57 percent of all natural gas production by 2030. That potential is the prevailing force even though it is causing short-term prices to drop -- 30 percent to 40 percent in a year. In the dead of winter, the price of natural gas is now $3 per million BTUs, which is $10 less for the same unit in the summer of 2008. None of the investment banks that analyze natural gas are bullish on prices this year; most are forecast to be in the $3 range with some in the low $4s. Despite the reduced price, producers can’t get enough of natural gas: The October 2011 monthly data presented by the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows gross production of 2,483 billion cubic feet, the highest month on record. Beyond the new technologies that now allow access to abundant supplies, the developers are aided to a large extent by policy makers who are making it difficult on the competition: coal. Reports are suggesting that will it cost as much as $70 billion to comply with all of the pending federal rules. Utilities are finding that it is easier and cheaper to retire their older, smaller coal units. Electric Power According to the Brattle Group, it will cost $101 billion to $181 billion to retrofit the existing coal-fired generation portfolio. That is 5-7 percent of the total capacity but 16-21 percent of the total coal capacity. Altogether, it expects 50-66 gigawatts to be retired by 2020, and coal demand to fall by 15 percent by that time. But many of the utilities that have used coal to fuel their electricity needs say that they are well positioned to deal with those changes. Not only do utilities such as Duke, Progress Energy and the Tennessee Valley Authority have diversified portfolios to cushion against such regulatory risks, they have also been moving into other types of generation, or they have installed scrubbers on their coal plants. In some cases, previous legal issues have forced the moves. “To stay ahead of the EPA's rule-making, utilities have announced they are retiring generally older or smaller coal units that are uneconomic,” says S&P credit analyst Gerrit Jepsen, in a report. “In addition, several utilities plan to build new gas-fired combined-cycle units to replace the retired capacity.” While developers view the buying of natural gas fields an essential step to position themselves to meet future energy demands, they also have other reasons to sop up such land now: Natural gas is blessed with other base elements, namely ethane, propane, butane and natural gasoline. Those “wet” gases are more closely correlated with the price of oil, which is more than $100 a barrel today. The relative high prices for such extracts are making producers happy, despite the current weak prices that they are getting for “dry” natural gas, whether that be shale gas or conventional gas. Dry gas, which used to move in unison with the price of oil, has now decoupled itself. Under any set of circumstances, developers are committed to the production process. While vast natural gas supplies and a tepid economy are dampening their current fortunes, producers know that those factors will change as more utilities move from coal to gas. http://www.energybiz.com/article/12/01/shale-gas-boom-causes-prices-bottom-out

Shell Oil Improves Coal to Methane Conversion Wednesday - January 11, 2012 Share Methanation catalyst We've documented quite a number of times that various technologies for gasifying Coal, and then catalytically transforming the synthesis gas thus produced into a high-Methane content synthetic, or substitute, "natural" gas, quite suitable for introduction into, and compatible with, existing natural gas pipelines, had at one time become almost commonplace. One of our previously-reported examples of such technology can be accessed via: Pennsylvania Coal to Methane | Research & Development; concerning: "US Patent 3,779,725 - Coal Gasification; 1973; Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Allentown, PA; Abstract: A method for producing a synthetic pipeline gas by reacting a carbonaceous fuel in a gasifier to form a gas and thereafter subjecting the gas to additional process steps including a final cryogenic separation of high methane content gas for use as the pipeline gas." Perhaps surprisingly, one of the corporations that devoted considerable effort into the development of such Coal conversion technology was the Royal Dutch Shell Company, originally founded in the Netherlands. Some examples of our reportage concerning their achievements can be accessed via: Shell Oil Maximizes Carbon Use in Coal Gasification | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 4,969,931 - Process for the Preparation of Synthesis Gas; 1990; H.L. Wu, et. al., Amsterdam; Assignee: Shell Oil Company, Texas; Abstract: A process for the preparation of synthesis gas by the partial combustion of an ash-containing fuel with an oxygen-containing gas is described, the synthesis gas formed being removed from the top of the reactor through a gas discharge pipe, and slag formed through a slag discharge at the bottom of the reactor, the process being characterized by the counter-current contact of the synthesis gas in the reactor with cold fly-slag agglomerates"; wherein gasification slag is re-circulated within the Coal gasifier to maximize extraction of Carbon; and: Shell Oil Coal + CO2 + H2O = Hydrocarbon Syngas | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 7,829,601 - Partial Oxidation Process of a Solid Carbonaceous Feed; 2010; Johannes Ploeg, et. al., Netherlands; Assignee: Shell Oil Company, Texas; Abstract: The invention is directed to a process for preparing a mixture comprising CO and H2 by operating a partial oxidation process of a solid carbonaceous feed, which process comprises the steps of: (Supplying) the solid carbonaceous feed and an oxygen-containing stream to a burner, wherein a CO2 containing transport gas is used to transport the solid carbonaceous feed to the burner"; wherein the Coal gasification reaction had been made so efficient that Carbon Dioxide, recovered and supplied from whatever source, could be used as one of the agents of gasification for the Coal, with most of the CO2 being transformed via the gasifiction process into the more-desired Carbon Monoxide. However, no matter how efficient the Coal gasification process could be made, it seems, even to the point where, as in the above process of "United States Patent 7,829,601", Carbon Dioxide could be added to the mix of gasification reactants, there was still some "slippage", as it were, of CO2 into the product syngas. Given that fact, Shell it seems, as a corollary effort, devoted attention as well to the improvement of syngas catalysis, in the development of what we are compelled to view as an advancement of the Sabatier process, which won the Nobel Prize in 1912, as we reported, for one example, in: CO2 Solution Wins Nobel Prize - in 1912 | Research & Development; and, wherein it's said of the Sabatier process, that: "Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are both changed immediately into methane, which can therefore be synthesized with the greatest ease"; and, wherein it's seen that, with the proper catalysts, and a supply of Hydrogen, both Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide, as might be present in a synthesis gas generated from Coal, as perhaps via Shell's above process of "United States Patent 7,829,601", and wherein any Carbon Dioxide present in that synthesis gas would only be a remaining residual amount of the Carbon Dioxide originally used to initially gasify the Coal, can be converted into Methane. As seen, with comment inserted and appended, in excerpts from the initial link in this dispatch to: "United States Patent 3,996,256 - Methanation Catalyst Date: December, 1976 Inventor: Lynn Slaugh, Texas Assignee: Shell Oil Company, Houston Abstract: The reaction of ... carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide ... to form methane at temperatures above 300C is promoted by carrying out the reaction in the presence of a catalyst containing molybdenum disilicide. (Note, that, while it won't be reflected well in our excerpts, as we have previously documented, methanation reactions of Carbon oxides with Hydrogen are exothermic, and generate heat energy. Once the reaction is started, it will itself sustain the necessary "temperatures above 300C", and, won't require the supply of any extra energy to keep going. It might, in fact, have to be cooled a little.) Background: Catalytic methanation is a well-known reaction which is widely employed in the chemical and energy industries. Probably it's most widespread current and potential application is in the treatment of the gaseous effluent from the gasification or partial oxidation of carbonaceous fuels with oxygen and/or water, (that, is) the steam-hydrocarbon reforming and partial combustion of ... solid carbonaceous fuels to produce a hydrogen-rich gas for chemical synthesis (such as) to form a methane-rich gas having high Btu value and low CO content for residential and industrial heating ... . (The) gasification or partial oxidation effluent, which typically contains substantial quantities of H2, CO, CO2 and H2O as well as N2 when air is used as the oxidant source, is generally subject to a process known as the carbon monoxide shift-conversion reaction prior to catalytic methanation (which reaction) converts a substantial quantity of the CO present to H2 and CO2 by reaction with H2O in the presence of a catalyst. (The) gasification or partial oxidation effluent gas is subject to (such) CO-shift to obtain the appropriate ratio of H2 to CO ... and the CO-shift product gas is then subject to catalytic methanation for conversion of carbon oxides and hydrogen contained therein to methane. Because of the increasing demand for a high BTU, clean gas as an energy source in the United States and the acknowledged decreasing and finite nature of natural gas reserves in the United States as well as happenings on the world scene which make energy self-sufficiency desirable or even essential, there has been a dramatic increase in interest in the manufacture of a clean, high BTU gas energy source which will meet pipeline standards from alternative carbonaceous sources such as coal ... . (With) conventional catalyst systems, methanations have been limited to the lowest temperatures consistent with acceptable catalyst activity, in part because of catalyst instability at high temperatures, the highly exothermic nature of the methanation reaction and the inability to effect an equilibrium shift towards methane at high temperatures under practical circumstances. A novel methanation catalyst has now been found that not only is active in promoting the reaction of carbon oxides and hydrogen, but is also relatively sulfur resistant. The present invention is a continuous process for the production of methane from a gaseous reactant mixture containing gases selected from the group comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide .... (and) which process comprises contacting said gaseous reaction mixture in the reaction zone maintained at temperatures above about 300C with a catalyst containing molybdenum disilicide (MoSi2). (Note: The "molybdenum disilicide" catalyst might sound dreadfully exotic and expensive, maybe even poisonous. It isn't. It is actually a ceramic-type material, that, as can be learned via: Molybdenum disilicide (MoSi2 Electric heating elements and heating system controls for industrial heating., ZIRCAR Ceramics: MOSI2, I SQUARED R Element Co., Inc. - Moly-D®: Molybdenum Disilicide Heating Elements, and: Molybdenum Disilicide Powder (MoSi2) from READE; is widely used in certain, specific industrial and consumer applications, and is readily available in a variety of product forms, i.e., powder, granules, etc.) In addition to being an active methanation catalyst, molybdenum disilicide is also relatively sulfur resistant. Gaseous reactant feed mixtures which can be suitably methanated with catalyst compositions of the instant invention typically contain 10 to 99.9% H2, 0.1 to 50% CO, 0 to 20% CO2 (and) 0 to 70% H20 ... . (That, we submit, is a pretty broad range; and, it allows and enables a number of options when it comes to actually generating the mix of feed gases, as we elaborate further on.) One of the applications of the catalytic methanation process of the present invention is in the upgrading of methane-rich gas derived from the partial oxidation or gasification of coal. Several coal gasification processes employing non-catalytic gasifiers in which coal is converted into a crude product gas comprising principally CH4, H2, CO, H2O and CO2 by high temperature reaction with steam and oxygen are quite well known, e.g., the Lurgi process, the Koppers-Totzek process, etc., and need not be detailed herein. (Note: Perhaps "the Lurgi process (and) the Koppers-Totzek process" do need to be "detailed" for some of our readers, however; and, if so, see, for example: Pittsburgh 1942 Coal Gasification Utilizes CO2 | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 2,302,156 - Process and Apparatus for the Production of Useful Fuel Gas; 1942; Inventor: Friedrich Totzek, Germany; Assignee: Koppers Company, Pittsburgh, PA; Abstract: This invention relates to the production of fuel gas or high heating power out of dusty of finely granular fuels, such as black or brown coal, or coke or semi-coke made therefrom, the fuel being converted at a high temperature with air (oxygen), steam and carbon dioxide whereby a gas is produced which is rich in hydrogen and carbon monoxide"; and: Germany 98% Pure Carbon Monoxide from Coal, CO2 and O2 | Research & Development; concerning: "Carbon Monoxide from Coke, Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen; Hydrocarbon Process(US); 1986; Research Organization: Lurgi GmbH, Frankfurt (Germany); Abstract: Many valuable organic chemicals-both as intermediate or final products-can be made from high purity carbon monoxide (CO). Mainly, this includes: Diisocyanates; Polyurethane; Fatty acid derivatives; Acrylic glass. In order to provide a source of inexpensive CO for the above syntheses, a very attractive new scheme has been developed. This is very competitive indeed when compared to processes using natural gas or oil as feedstock. The scheme is well suited for (plants with low capacities) though much higher capacities can easily be accommodated. According to this concept merely two process steps are required to convert coke to high purity CO. The purpose of the first process step is to gasify coke using a mixture of CO2 and O2 as gasification agent"; making note in the above of the clearly stated further potentials for actually utilizing Carbon Dioxide as an agent of Coal gasification.) Claims: A process for the production of methane from a gaseous reactant mixture containing hydrogen, carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide (using a catalyst) comprising molybdenum disilicide." --------------------- We'll close our excerpts there so that we can emphasize a few things. First, obviously, we can convert Coal, via long-established, and perhaps somewhere "well known", initial gasification processes, efficiently into Methane. Coal is the initial raw material specified herein by Shell Oil. However, we submit, that, should we wish, instead, to conserve our precious Coal resources for other vital uses, such as the generation of electrical power, then, since this Shell Oil process, of "United States Patent 3,996,256 - Methanation Catalyst", as confirmed herein by our own US Government, will efficiently convert "hydrogen (and) carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide", with the emphasis on "or carbon dioxide", the "carbon monoxide" isn't really needed, into Methane, then, via the process disclosed in our report of: USDOE Algae Make Hydrogen for Coal and CO2 Hydrogenation | Research & Development; concerning: "Photosynthetic Hydrogen and Oxygen Production by Green Algae; Oak Ridge National Laboratory; USDOE Contract Number: AC05-96OR22464; Abstract: Photosynthesis research at Oak Ridge National Laboratory is focused on hydrogen and oxygen production by green algae in the context of its potential as a renewable fuel and chemical feed stock"; we could have certain strains of Algae make the Hydrogen for us in specially-designed Algae cultivators, while those Algae go about their more routine business of photo-synthetically recycling Carbon Dioxide. Or, as seen in: NASA Hydrogen from Water and Sunlight | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 4,045,315 - Solar Photolysis of Water; 1977; NASA; Abstract: Hydrogen is produced by the solar photolysis of water ... . (A) method ... in which the soluble photo-oxidizable reagent is a material which absorbs strongly in the solar range at ground level and is capable of photolyzing water to produce hydrogen"; we could let the Sun make the Hydrogen for us out of Water. And, then, as seen in: Efficient Power Plant CO2 Capture for CO2-to-Fuel Conversion | Research & Development; concerning: "Development of an Economic Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Process; Siemens AG and EON Energie AG, Germany; Siemens develops an improved CO2 capture process with minimized energy demand, optimized for integration in conventional coal-fired power plants"; and, in: CO2 Recovered from Air for CO2-to-Gasoline Conversion | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 4,047,894 - Removing Carbon Dioxide from the Air; 1977; Assignee: Siemens AG; Abstract: An improved method and apparatus for removing carbon dioxide from the air"; we could efficiently collect some Carbon Dioxide from whatever source we find most convenient. And, then, we could combine that Hydrogen and that Carbon Dioxide, utilizing the process of our subject herein, "United States Patent 3,996,256 - Methanation Catalyst", and efficiently synthesize Methane. Finally, CO2-based Methane in hand, we could collect some more Carbon Dioxide; and, via a process such as that disclosed in our report of: More Standard Oil 1944 CO2 + CH4 = Hydrocarbons | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 2.347.682 - Hydrocarbon Synthesis; 1944; Assignee: Standard Oil Company of Indiana; Abstract: This invention relates to an improved method and means for effecting the synthesis of hydrocarbons from carbon monoxide and hydrogen. In practicing my invention I ... prefer to employ... methane (which is) mixed with such proportion of carbon dioxide and steam as to give a gas mixture having an atomic hydrogen:carbon:oxygen ratio of about 4:1:1. (The specified) reforming operation converts the methane-carbon dioxide-steam mixture into a gas consisting chiefly of hydrogen and carbon monoxide ... hereinafter referred to as ... 'synthesis' gas (which) may be converted ... into high quality motor fuels"; and, by reacting that CO2-based Methane with that additional Carbon Dioxide, brew ourselves up some "high quality motor fuels". Sounds a whole lot better than letting ourselves get taxed into impoverishment through Cap & Trade levies, or cementing our economic enslavement to OPEC and Big Oil, don't it? http://www.wvcoal.com/Research-Development/shell-oil-improves-coal-to-methane-conversion.html

http://www.solarplaza.com/event/world-clean-coal-week-india-focus-2012 World Clean Coal Week, India Focus 2012 India, Delhi June 15, 2012 - June 14, 2012 World Clean Coal Week, India Focus 2012 Overview Following on the success of last two years’ conference in Beijing, we are proud to announce 2012 World Clean Coal Week, India Focus will be held from June 14 to15, 2012 in Delhi, India. With coal will continue playing a key role in India’s energy mix, low emissions coal technology may become an ...expand Organizer: SZ&W Group June 14, 2012 00:00 Price: 2585USD Website June 15, 2012 00:00 Venue: Delhi Contact Phone: 86 21 58300710 Toolbox Flag this item Add Connections Print ShareThis text size: T T Following on the success of last two years’ conference in Beijing, we are proud to announce 2012 World Clean Coal Week, India Focus will be held from June 14 to15, 2012 in Delhi, India. With coal will continue playing a key role in India’s energy mix, low emissions coal technology may become an option in the long-term. WCCW will bring together over 300 leaders and specialists from more than 30 countries. The theme of this year’s conference, Roadmap to Active Deployment of Cleaner Coal Technologies, covers a wide spectrum of important topics on gasification, coal to liquid, syngas, clean power generation and environmental issues. In 2010 and 2011, WCCW attracted more than 700 attendees from 50 countries, with a record 74% being C-Level. We expect to top these numbers in 2012, as we offer even more business-generating opportunities. The only clean coal dedicated event in India Ÿ Featuring 35+ speakers who are in charge of clean coal projects in India, China, the U.S., South Africa and Europe Ÿ Platform for technology providers from coal mining, steel making, power generation and chemical sector Ÿ Road to commercialization for UCG, Gasification, CTL, IGCC, and the applications at industrial level WCCW Advisory Committee Ÿ Fredrick Palmer, Chairman, World Coal Association Ÿ Andrew Minchener, Associate Principal, IEA Clean Coal Center Ÿ Dennis Bracy, CEO, US-China Clean Coal Forum Ÿ Thomas Sarkus, Director, NETL, DOE Ÿ B. Bhambhani, Former Executive Director, BHEL Ÿ Sun Maoyuan, Former Chairman, China United Coalbed Methane Co. Ÿ Li Jinping, President, Lu'an Group Ÿ Zhang Minling, Vice President, Yankuang Group Ÿ Huang Shengchu, President, China Coal Information Institute & National Institute for Occupational Safety Key discussion points Ÿ Overview of the role of coal in the world energy outlook and future of clean coal development Ÿ Spotlight on rich coal resources and developing world class project in India Ÿ Presenting the development and investment opportunities in India for clean coal projects developers and technology licensors Ÿ Challenges in the utilization of low ranking coal and the impact on national energy security Ÿ Investment and financing opportunities in India Ÿ India’s growth in coal gasification and opportunities for advanced clean coal projects Ÿ Advanced technologies of coal gasification, combustion, CTL, low ranking coal upgrading Ÿ WCCW panels and sessions Ÿ Global clean coal development & India strategy Ÿ Joint opportunities to accelerate the deployment of advanced coal technology – next steps Ÿ Clean coal fundamental: gasification Ÿ Identify the priority for India underground coal gasification development Ÿ Clean coal applications: ranging from steel, power to refinery industry Ÿ Low ranking coal upgrading Ÿ Brainstorm: Overcoming key challenges of coal upgrading in India Ÿ Addressing future challenges and opportunities Participation of senior government officials, coal and power companies from India, China, U.S.A., Indonesia, Australia, Poland as well as top executives from international technology licensors, EPCs, power equipment providers, investment banks and international media. Contact information: Time: 14 Jun. - 15 Jun. 2012 Location: Delhi, India Hosting Organization: SZ&W Group Event Website: www.szwgroup.com/wccwindia2012 Tel: +86 21 5830 0710 Fax: +86 21 5831 1668 E-mail: wccw@szwgroup.com

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG754.html Producing Liquid Fuels from Coal Prospects and Policy Issues

On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its list of top greenhouse gas emitters from 2010. Of the top 100 emissions sources, 96 were power plants, virtually all of them coal-fueled. The EPA recently developed new air emissions standards to curb pollution. This follows a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled greenhouse gases can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. This week's report will provide more ammunition for the EPA to move on air quality standards. But the EPA is not just targeting carbon dioxide levels. As I have discussed previously, new interstate air standards focusing on mercury, nitrous, and sulfurous oxide emissions will likely have a more immediate impact on coal's prospects in generating electricity. Even without a renewed EPA push, coal's prospects were diminishing. Even though it remains the cheapest fuel for power production on average, the environmental impact looms large. And then there are the enormous reserves of unconventional gas that will capture portions of coal's market share. The sources are primarily from shale basins, but they also include the rising production of coal bed methane and tight gas that have exploded onto the market in the last several years. This gas largesse has put the cost advantage of coal into perspective. With that gas supply now guaranteed, and the price differential between the two fuel sources narrowing, there are few genuine prospects left for renewed interest in building either new coal-fired plants or even co-fueled ones (that could make use of both coal and gas). The advent of some tax incentives and government subsidies will result in a few coal-to-liquid (CTL) plants. But despite the PR push from the coal industry, CTL is not a cost-effective solution once the umbilical cord of public sector money is withdrawn. All of this is happening at a pivotal point in the development of the national grid. And that is why investors need to understand what it means for the future of both coal and natural gas. This Graph Says it All Back in late September, I addressed a meeting of Western power-company executives held in Pebble Beach, Calif. One of the slides I presented to them tells us everything about the future of coal and natural gas. Take a look. OEIElectricity As you can see, new electricity capacity is turning quickly to natural gas, with coal suffering most for the change. By 2020, some 90 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired capacity will be "retired." The EPA's non-carbon standards could easily add an additional 20 GW to that total. My current baseline estimate is a projection of 30% to 35% of additional natural gas use in the power sector within the next eight years. This is why those EPA mercury, nitrous, and sulfurous oxide standards are rather significant. They require a 90% cut of mercury and a 52% reduction in nitrous oxides by 2015, along with an 80% cut to sulfurous oxides by 2018. I am projecting that additional major coal-fired plants in 17 states will be affected. Republican candidates and Congressional leadership are arguing that the EPA standards – both carbon and non-carbon – will hurt corporate development and employment, as well as lower the prospects for ready energy essential to a continuing economic recovery. Yet, the balance of analysis indicates that the replacement of coal with gas will not result in any major dislocations on a national level. Of course, the case regionally is quite different, which is why most areas adversely hit will probably end up seeing existing major power plants grandfathered by legislative action. That buys time and softens the local blow. It does not, however, reverse the imminent trend. The EPA Will Move Quickly In 2008, Congress gave the EPA explicit instructions to develop stricter standards sooner rather than later. The results of this year's elections may delay that somewhat, depending on the makeup of both Congressional chambers once the political smoke clears. But a reversal of the trend to enforce clean air standards is very unlikely. This has become a global move, with even the heaviest polluter (China) admitting it has a problem and committing to the use of gas over its massive domestic poor-quality coal. Coal will remain the primary choice in Asia (China, for example, must put a new decent-sized power plant on line each week to meet rising power demands). However, coal's market share has been reduced. This is even the case in Germany, where a decision to phase out nuclear plants has placed more emphasis on gas and less on coal. All of this points in the same direction. The EPA report simply reflects the change in direction. The agency is hardly driving it, and the ability to delay implementation of new standards will only delay what is coming anyway. Coal will remain a major power source in the United States. And it is still essential for essential processes like steel production and a range of industrial and heating uses. However, over time, it will not return to its position as the main driver in the electricity market. And investors need to plan accordingly. http://seekingalpha.com/article/319557-another-blow-to-coal-fired-power-plants

Coal Cleaner Cheaper Liquid Fuel from Coal A new conversion process promises zero carbon emissions during production—but some question whether it will scale. BY PETER FAIRLEY TECHNOLOGY REVIEW – PUBLISHED BY MIT - FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 2012 SRI International is developing a process that combines coal and natural gas to produce liquid transportation fuels that are substantially cleaner and cheaper to make than existing synthetic fuels. SRI claims its process addresses three liabilities that have slowed the commercialization of the technology. By blending some natural gas into the conventional coal-to-liquids (CTL) process, the private research lab, based in Menlo Park, California, claims to have eliminated CTL's carbon footprint, slashed water consumption by over 70 percent, and more than halved its capital cost. Chan Park, a gasification and synthetic fuels expert at the University of California, Riverside's Center for Environmental Research & Technology, cautions that SRI's work is at an early stage. But Park says the process "could be really exciting" as a domestic alternative to petroleum fuel in coal and gas-rich countries such as the U.S.—if it can be demonstrated at pilot scale. SRI's process is the fruit of a 2008 solicitation by the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) seeking a cheap, carbon-free CTL process for producing jet fuel. DARPA awarded SRI $1,612,905 to pursue a novel concept: using methane from natural gas as a hydrogen source instead of water in a new CTL process. Conventional CTL plants blend pure oxygen, steam, and coal at high temperatures and pressures, generating carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas that can be catalytically combined to synthesize liquid hydrocarbon fuels. The gasification also generates carbon dioxide, partly from the combustion of some coal with the pure oxygen, and partly through undesirable reactions between water and carbon. In SRI's process, methane preheated to 600 °C displaces much of the water required, thus reducing the unwanted reaction with the coal. The methane also reduces the amount of heat absorbed by the gasification process, eliminating the need for oxygen and combustion to maintain the 1,400 to 1,500 °C temperatures the process requires. As a result SRI says it can eliminate the use of oxygen-fired combustion that the process requires, making do with zero-carbon renewable or nuclear power instead. Skipping oxygen not only eliminates a source of carbon dioxide, but contributes substantial cost savings by eliminating the need for an oxygen plant. Further savings are achieved through more efficient fuel synthesis SRI estimates that its zero-carbon process will generate jet fuel for $2.82 per gallon, which is under DARPA's $3 target. SRI's projected capital cost for a 100,000 barrel/day plant—$3.2 billion—is well below the $6 billion cost of a CTL plant, but still well above DARPA's $1.5 billion target. Park says SRI needs to prove its process beyond its "bench-scale" demonstrations in order to provide such cost estimates with any degree of certainty. Based on experience with his own oxygen-less gasification scheme—which is being developed for waste-to-energy plants by Riverside-based spinoff Viresco Energy—Park is skeptical that electrical heating will prove feasible at larger scale. Eric Larson, a research engineer with Princeton University's Energy Systems Analysis Group, says SRI's zero-carbon process could prove to be "technically doable" and still suffer from a critical flaw: producing a carbon-based fuel that will release carbon dioxide when it is burned. "On a life-cycle basis, the fuel is no better than petroleum fuel on greenhouse-gas emissions," says Larson http://www.coal2nuclear.com/Coal%20-%20Cleaner%20Cheaper%20Liquid%20Fuel%20from%20Coal.pdf

We all know that oil reserves are running low, gasoline prices are increasing and eventually it will become too uneconomical for many people to run their vehicles. Several solutions are being researched from electric cars to hydrogen fuel cells. One of the solutions currently pursued is that of synthetic fuels, created to be a direct replacement for gasoline. A popular method for producing these fuels is via a process called coal-to-liquid (CTL), conventionally this blends pure oxygen, steam, and coal at high temperatures and pressures, generating carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas that can be catalytically combined to synthesize liquid hydrocarbon fuels. However this process generates CO2 during the combustion of the coal and the pure oxygen, and also in some reactions between the water and carbon atoms. Back in 2008 the Pentagon's Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) awarded SRI International, a private research laboratory based in Menlo Park, California, $1,612,905 to pursue an innovative concept of using the methane from natural gas as a hydrogen source, rather than water, in an attempt to discover a cheap, carbon-free CTL process for producing jet fuel. SRI’s research has led them to a procedure in which methane preheated to 600 °C displaces much of the water required, thus reducing the unwanted reaction with the coal. The methane also reduces the amount of heat absorbed by the gasification process, eliminating the need for oxygen fuelled combustion to maintain the 1,400 to 1,500 °C temperatures the process normally requires. The redundancy of the combustion means that the process can receive all the energy it needs from alternative sources such as renewable or nuclear power. The lack of oxygen required also vastly reduces the costs due to the fact that the facility no longer requires an oxygen processing plant. SRI claims its process addresses three liabilities that have slowed the commercialization of the technology. The use of the methane means that the carbon footprint of the CTL process has been eliminated, water consumption has been reduced by over 70 percent, and the capital cost has more than halved. Effectively they have made it cheaper and cleaner. Chan Park, a gasification and synthetic fuels expert at the University of California, Riverside's Center for Environmental Research & Technology believes that it "could be really exciting" as an alternative to petroleum fuel in coal and gas-rich countries such as the U.S., although the development is still in relatively early stages and needs to be reproduced on a much larger scale before it can become truly “exciting”. However Park holds some doubts in reserve. He is currently researching an oxygen-free gasification scheme of his own for converting waste into energy at the Riverside-based spinoff Viresco Energy, and suggests that electrical heating will not work on a large scale. Even so, SRI remain confident and claim that their zero-carbon process will generate jet fuel for $2.82 per gallon, which is under DARPA's $3 target, and in plants that cost just $3.2 billion, unfortunately over DARPA's $1.5 billion target, but far less than the current $6 billion cost of conventional CTL plants. So really there are still a few hurdles ahead of this new alternative to gasoline. Will the process successfully scale up to production levels capable of 100,000 barrels per day, and will DARPA ignore the fact that the plants are currently coming in at well over their initial target budget? There is also another factor to consider that I have not yet mentioned. Sure the process claims to be 100% carbon free, but it is all based towards producing a carbon based fuel to replace gasoline. Which, when burned in engines will still produce CO2 emissions, and therefore doesn’t really help combat climate change. Eric Larson, a research engineer with Princeton University's Energy Systems Analysis Group, says that “On a life-cycle basis, the fuel is no better than petroleum fuel on greenhouse-gas emissions.” So perhaps it should not be described as “a clean CTL fuel”, but rather “a bit cleaner than original CTL fuels, but still just as dirty as gasoline”. By. James Burgess of Oilprice.com

Coal to liquids: getting greener? Author: Samuel Fenwick Source: GTForum 12 Jan 2012 Categories: XTL Topics: CTLSasolGTL coal-pile Coal stacking GTForum takes a look at the latest developments in the CTL sector, focusing on recent technical progress and major projects. Coal to liquids (CTL) is expected to grow over the coming decades, with implications for refiners, given that such projects can produce finished fuels as opposed to synthetic crude, through indirect liquefaction, which involves first converting the coal to syngas and then converting to fuel through the use of the Fischer-Tropsch process. The US Department of Energy predicts in its International Energy Outlook that international CTL capacity could rise to 1.7mbpd under its reference case scenario by 2035 (with high and low oil price scenarios predicting 4.1mbpd and 0.4mbpd, respectively). Meanwhile the International Energy Agency (IEA) expects the average crude oil import price for its members to approach US$120/bbl (in year 2010 US$) in 2035 (over US$210/bbl in nominal terms). CTL in the US One of the most interesting recent developments to take place in the sector is the push for a US$2.7 billion CTL project in southwest Wyoming, which is being championed by DKRW Advanced Fuels. The project’s significance stems from the US’s position as the country with the largest coal reserves and the potential for further projects should the Wyoming venture prove a financial success. The plant, which is expected to begin production in 2015, will have the capacity to produce 10,600bpd of gasoline (Associated Press), with the gasoline to be purchased by a Vitol subsidiary. The project operator, Medicine Bow Fuel & Power, a fully owned DKRW subsidiary, will sell the CO2 produced by the CTL process to a subsidiary of Denbury Resources for enhanced oil recovery. An air quality permit was granted in March and has survived a challenge before the Wyoming Supreme Court. Construction is expected to begin this year and DKRW has 180Mt of on-site coal reserves, or 360mbbl boe. “ We have received front-end engineering and design (FEED) work and are finalising the overall construction and procurement plan for the project,” said Robert Kelly, executive chairman, DRKW in a press release, dated December 1, 2011. Sasol: An old hand at CTL One name to watch when it comes to assessing the current appeal of CTL is South Africa’s Sasol. According to the IEA, Sasol had a CTL capacity of 160,000bpd in 2010. The company abandoned plans to build a US$10 billion CTL complex in China in September 2011 and appears to be shifting its focus to GTL projects, in Uzbekistan, the US and Canada. It also expects to complete its joint venture Escravos GTL project in Nigeria with Chevron, in 2013. “Our strategic objective is to grow our global GTL portfolio and related upstream asset base. This is aligned to the growing emphasis internationally on gas as an energy source with lower GHG emissions than coal,” says the company in its 2011 annual report. However, in the same document, Sasol states that its subsidiary, Sasol Synfuels International (SSI), “is conducting a pre-feasibility study into a CTL facility in India. The government has awarded the SSI and Tata Group joint venture long-term access to a portion of the Talcher coalfield in the state of Orissa.” Technical advances Some of the approaches currently explored with GTL projects can be applied to their CTL counterparts. For example, a modular approach is attractive for both types of projects, given lower initial capital requirements and more flexibility when it comes to increasing or decreasing scale in response to changes in the market or the project’s resource base. Australia’s Syngas says this approach is instrumental in its planned 15,000bpd CTL plant in Clinton, South Australia and 3,500bpd plants in Victoria and Queensland, according to its 2011 annual report. On the technical side, SRI International has claimed that it has been able to more than halve the capital cost of CTL, slash its water consumption by over 70% and reduce its carbon footprint, through blending natural gas into the process. Conventionally, CTL plants blend oxygen, steam and coal at high temperatures and pressures, producing syngas (a mix of CO and H2), which is then used to produce liquid fuels via the Fischer-Tropsch process. The methane also lowers the heat absorbed by gasification, which can eliminate the use of oxy-fired combustion, SRI says. This means that the heat source could come from a “green” source, further reducing the carbon footprint of the overall process. The company estimates that the process could produce jet fuel for US$2.82/gal without producing CO2 in the process, and predicts that a 100,000bpd plant could cost as little as US$3.2 billion, compared with around the US$6 billion seen today. However, this is short of the US$1.5 billion target set by the Pentagon’s Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which has given SRI US$1.6 million in funding for the project, and SRI’s work has yet to move beyond laboratory scale demonstrations. Even if SRI is successful in converting coal to liquids without producing CO2 emissions, the fuel would still generate emissions upon combustion. SRI indicates in a press release that it is looking to partially solve this issue through the use of biogas. Based on a series of analyses, the company claims that “if diesel were produced using biogas as the source of the methane, the resulting product would qualify as an alternative fuel under the revised Renewable Fuels Standard of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.” This requires alternative fuels to result in a 50% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions compared with conventional fossil fuels. "The critical aspect is the reduction of the CO2 in the conversion process because in the traditional process about two-thirds of the carbon in the coal ends up emitted as CO2. Our process now has zero CO2: all the carbon in the coal ends up in the transportation fuel. That’s the big advantage of our technology over conventional technology, ” says Robert Wilson, director of the chemical science and technology laboratory at SRI International. Another company looking to lower the costs and environmental footprint of CTL is Accelergy, a Houston-based start-up which started producing liquid fuels in June 2011 at the Beijing Research Institute for Coal Chemistry. It also has signed agreements with the US Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Centre (TARDEC) and the US Air Force. Accelergy is looking to incorporate a biofuels element, both through the use of traditional biomass and “algae biomass in a carbon capture and recycle system”. The company is looking to build a pilot facility in Pittsburgh, funded by a US$1.3 million grant received from the state government of Pennsylvania. coal-mining With coal seams thinning and mining companies struggling to maintain productivity, underground coal gasification is starting to draw attention. A different approach The IEA notes that coal mining productivity (average production per employee per hour) has “declined substantially over the past five years in major producing countries such as Australia and the US”, driven by a shift to deeper mines, thinner seams and increased overburden. It also expects total US coal production to decline over the 2015–2035 period, with a shift away from the Appalachian region, partly due to environmental concerns. Given this trend, the future of obtaining liquid fuels from coal may lie in projects that combine underground coal gasification (UGG) with GTL technology. By gasifying the coal in situ, many of the costs and safety issues associated with conventional mining can be avoided. However, current projects are only operating on a pilot scale and have been impeded by concerns over aquifer pollution and surface subsidence, coupled with the lack of suitable UCG regulations, according to the IEA Clean Coal Centre, which told GTForum that currently Australia’s Linc Energy is the first company to combine the Fischer-Tropsch process with UCG, to produce liquid fuels from underground coal deposits without conventional mining. linc-energy Linc Energy's UCG to GTL demonstration facility. © Linc Energy Linc owns the only commercial UCG facility the world. Located in Angren, Uzbekistan, it has been producing 1Mm3pd of UCG syngas for power generation since 1961. In 2011, it marked 50 years of continuous operation. Linc has built and commissioned a UCG demonstration facility in Queensland, Australia, with GTL Fischer-Tropsch processing and a research laboratory. Linc recently announced the completion and start-up of a fifth gasifier at its UCG to GTL demonstration facility, in a newsletter for investors. The company has also established a memorandum of understanding with BP Australia, under which BP will take a minimum of 70% of produced synthetic fuels from the facility. All that glitters is not gold… One company that perhaps serves as a cautionary tale for those looking for a quick breakthrough in this technically challenging sector is Bixby Energy. It drew attention back in 2010, with its claim to have developed a commercially available system for converting coal to synthetic gas, but a statement issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission alleges that “Bixby’s former CEO Robert Walker and former CFO Dennis DeSender made repeated misstatements both verbally and in writing to investors about the company’s core product… They told investors that Bixby’s coal gasification machine was proven and operating when in fact it had substantial technological defects, did not function properly, and was at risk of self-destruction.” A December 14 press release from the US Attorney’s Office states that Bixby “has admitted defrauding investors of between US$2.5 and US$7 million”. After several unidentified employees were forced to leave Bixby, “the company agreed to co-operate fully with the government’s investigation…The investigation into this matter continues.” A Bixby spokesperson gave no comment when asked about the financial health of the company. An article in the Star Tribune said that Bixby’s Ordos unit in China produced synthetic gas three months behind schedule and the gas is being flared, not sold commercially. Bixby told GTForum: “Our unit is complete and installed and able to flare gas but the insulated equipment that the customer needs to have in place is not able to take that gas and deliver it to its use.” The bottom line For data on the current cost of CTL with or without CCS, GTForum turned to a 2011 paper authored by Hari Chandan Mantripragada and Edward Rubin and published in Energy Policy. This puts the specific capital cost of CTL at US$91,900 per barrel per day (bpd) of design capacity, rising to US$93,100 per bpd if CCS is used. This compares with the US$32,000 per bpd estimated by SRI. The paper puts the cost of liquid product from conventional CTL at US$76.1/bbl, rising to US$88.4/bbl, under a US$25/t CO2 regime, compared with US$81.8/bbl for CTL using CCS. The authors of the paper note that another approach, using the plant to produce both electricity and liquid fuels from coal (co-production), results in a higher specific capacity cost (US$117,100/bbl), but lower costs per liquid product (US$58.5/bbl at US$0/t CO2 and without CCS). The IEA notes that CTL is economic in the US$60–100/bbl range and under all three of its energy scenarios to 2035. It also states that estimates for specific capital costs tend to range between US$80,000/bbl and US$120,000/bbl in its latest World Energy Outlook. Under its ‘new policies scenario’, it predicts that worldwide CTL capacity will grow to 1.2mbpd by 2035, with China making the largest single contribution followed by South Africa, the US, Australia and Indonesia. As far as China is concerned, the IEA expects the country’s CTL industry to consume around 15Mta of coal in 2015 rising to 50Mta in 2035, “as higher oil prices make new investments in this technology more profitable.” This latter figure is equivalent to roughly 2% of China’s predicted primary coal demand in 2035. What are the implications of CTL for refiners? The overall impact on the refining sector, through greater use of CTL is hard to assess. CTL products boast close to zero sulphur content and are low in both particulates and nitrogen oxides (on combustion). (World Coal Institute). This suggests that if the ongoing global push for tighter air quality continues, some of the cost advantage held by conventional refineries could be eroded. This may be partially offset by the fact that by meeting demand for refined products through the use of coal, CTL projects will work to reduce apparent crude demand. Given the relatively modest scale of capacity growth predicted by the EIA, CTL could be argued to be rather modest as far as traditional refiners are concerned. The currently high cost of CTL matters, given today’s economic climate and the fact that oil prices above US$100/bbl have been historically linked with recession in the US and the antagonistic relationship between high energy prices and disposable income (and by extension, employment). While the production of liquid fuels from coal cannot fully mitigate the negative effects of a shift to lower-quality fossil fuel resources, it may play a role in extending the period over which society can transition towards more sustainable energy sources. http://www.gtforum.com/gtf/feature/2137147/coal-liquids-getting-greener