JohnnyG Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Would anyone like like a job in New Ginnea ? (South Africa) http://www.oilanalysis.com/learning_center...oup=OilAnalysis Never underestimate the amount of a persons greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDK Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 JohnnyG, The front end of the GTL process seems a lot like a typical NH3 (ammonia) reformer which heats the CH4 (natural gas) mixed with H2O (super-heated steam) to around 1,700F over a reduced iron-oxide catalyst to "crack" it into H2 (hydrogen) and CO (carbon monoxide). No free oxygen is involved at first or ...bang! If you want to make ammonia, then add air with the hydrogen (carefully now) in a following reformer at about 1,800F to burn off the O2 to leave the right ratio of N2 (nitrogen) to H2 (hydrogen). The CO can be shifted to CO2 (carbon dioxide) with a pair of high and low temperature copper-oxide catalyst reactors and removed later on via absorbents that regenerate with steam or other conditioning. If you did not add the nitrogen earlier (as in making ammonia), you probably have enough pure hydrogen running around in a synthesis loop to spool into any number of "custom carbon" molecules given the correct "carbon feedstock", reactor catalyst and conditioning (heat/pressure then cooling). Just don't try it at home. I wonder about their logic to convert gas to oil though, because natural gas can be liquefied (LNG) and shipped to users anyway. It seems like either end product (oil or LNG) could require the same amount of capital and operating costs in a given situation. One of the problems over time is that - it is taking ever-increasing amounts energy to bring energy to market. For example, when oil was first discovered, about 50 barrels could be pumped out of the ground with 1 barrel of fuel. Now, 1 barrel of fuel can pump out only 5 barrels in a typical oil field. Other energy harvests are also plagued with inefficiency, such as ethanol. If corn is used, then the true energy/cost balance can turn upside down when usages/costs of fertilizer, other fuel, wastes, etc are all counted (can you spell "subsidize"). Then consider that more ethanol has to be used compared to gasoline for the same power anyway. I suppose if we had enough solar cells (a number like the national debt - produced each month, and I'm not sure if we have enough sand for all the silicon we'd need...) dribbling out enough wimpy DC current to split water, then hydrogen fuel might make sense. But again, how to market it? Oh well, as the oil and natural gas peter out, almost anything else will become more attractive. Add power to leave problems behind. Most braking is just - poor planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob D Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Dang...Science!! JohnnyG, The front end of the GTL process seems a lot like a typical NH3 (ammonia) reformer which heats the CH4 (natural gas) mixed with H2O (super-heated steam) to around 1,700F over a reduced iron-oxide catalyst to "crack" it into H2 (hydrogen) and CO (carbon monoxide). No free oxygen is involved at first or ...bang! If you want to make ammonia, then add air with the hydrogen (carefully now) in a following reformer at about 1,800F to burn off the O2 to leave the right ratio of N2 (nitrogen) to H2 (hydrogen). The CO can be shifted to CO2 (carbon dioxide) with a pair of high and low temperature copper-oxide catalyst reactors and removed later on via absorbents that regenerate with steam or other conditioning. If you did not add the nitrogen earlier (as in making ammonia), you probably have enough pure hydrogen running around in a synthesis loop to spool into any number of "custom carbon" molecules given the correct "carbon feedstock", reactor catalyst and conditioning (heat/pressure then cooling). Just don't try it at home. I wonder about their logic to convert gas to oil though, because natural gas can be liquefied (LNG) and shipped to users anyway. It seems like either end product (oil or LNG) could require the same amount of capital and operating costs in a given situation. One of the problems over time is that - it is taking ever-increasing amounts energy to bring energy to market. For example, when oil was first discovered, about 50 barrels could be pumped out of the ground with 1 barrel of fuel. Now, 1 barrel of fuel can pump out only 5 barrels in a typical oil field. Other energy harvests are also plagued with inefficiency, such as ethanol. If corn is used, then the true energy/cost balance can turn upside down when usages/costs of fertilizer, other fuel, wastes, etc are all counted (can you spell "subsidize"). Then consider that more ethanol has to be used compared to gasoline for the same power anyway. I suppose if we had enough solar cells (a number like the national debt - produced each month, and I'm not sure if we have enough sand for all the silicon we'd need...) dribbling out enough wimpy DC current to split water, then hydrogen fuel might make sense. But again, how to market it? Oh well, as the oil and natural gas peter out, almost anything else will become more attractive. '93 STS.. opened, dropped, wide...fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyG Posted February 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 I wonder about their logic to convert gas to oil though, because natural gas can be liquefied (LNG) and shipped to users anyway. It seems like either end product (oil or LNG) could require the same amount of capital and operating costs in a given situation. One of the problems over time is that - it is taking ever-increasing amounts energy to bring energy to market. For example, when oil was first discovered, about 50 barrels could be pumped out of the ground with 1 barrel of fuel. Now, 1 barrel of fuel can pump out only 5 barrels in a typical oil field. Other energy harvests are also plagued with inefficiency, such as ethanol. If corn is used, then the true energy/cost balance can turn upside down when usages/costs of fertilizer, other fuel, wastes, etc are all counted (can you spell "subsidize"). Then consider that more ethanol has to be used compared to gasoline for the same power anyway. I think it only makes sense if oil is $80.00/BBL, and they do specifically mention stranded natural gas reserves, meaning more than we can ship to England from Africa. I don't know too much about LNG other than we were going to build a plant in Baja....I don't think it was ever built. Never underestimate the amount of a persons greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenJ Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 I think it only makes sense if oil is $80.00/BBL . . . . . Yes, but *WHEN* the black gold reaches $80/bbl, it will likely do so nearly overnight. And then march even higher. We need to p l a n a h e a d. Regards, Warren There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved. - Ludwig von Mises Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.