Posts
I have graduated from Penn State and now work for a contract research/eng organization. This means that the frequency of my postings would be a bit lower. Also, I plan to highlight issues of energy conservation at home/office in some of my posts, now that I am paying both electric and water charges in my new apartment. So long, and hope to write a proper post soon!
May 18, 2009
Apr 17, 2009
GHG update: EPA's endangerment finding & Pew Center's analysis of Waxman-Markey draft
My take of this will follow in a separate article. Meanwhile, read the Environmental Capital blog's reaction here.
Apr 16, 2009
Book Review: "Energy & International War: From Babylon to Baghdad & Beyond"
The author presents a somewhat academic description of the role played by access to (both fossil fuel and other mineral) resources in international conflicts. Not withstanding the numerous typos, the book is interesting from a historic as well as future-energy policy standpoint. For example, the author describes how access to the iron and coal-rich Alsace-Lorraine region shaped the frontline positions during WW I, how the conversion of British naval fleet from coal to oil gave them an advantage over the Germans before WW I, how the inferiority of the German Fischer-Tropsch aviation fuel contributed to their defeat in the Battle of Britain during WW II, and how Japanese pre-war thinking was heavily influenced by access to energy and mineral resources in south east Asia. On a more contemporary note, the author examines the current war in Iraq and presents some interesting conclusions. Additionally, natural gas, uranium and renewables markets are also explored in a similar vein. French foreign policy towards uranium-producing countries in Africa, and its role in civil/international regional conflicts is discussed. The author notes that after being assured of a dependable world supply for uranium, French policy has undergone a sea-change. The author discusses natural gas markets and the relations of the biggest supplier (Russia) with its former client states and Western European consumers.
The author notes that the European Union evolved from the European Coal and Steel Community, which was established to prevent future wars between France and Germany. One theme expressed in this book is that energy rarely is the main driver for international conflict, however, access to energy resources does play a role in shaping them, or as in WW I and II, influences their eventual outcomes.
The author notes that the European Union evolved from the European Coal and Steel Community, which was established to prevent future wars between France and Germany. One theme expressed in this book is that energy rarely is the main driver for international conflict, however, access to energy resources does play a role in shaping them, or as in WW I and II, influences their eventual outcomes.
Apr 12, 2009
Curiouser and curiouser!: Underground Coal-to-Liquids (UCTL) pilot test
UCTL Process flow diagram (click for an enlarged picture), source
The GCC reports that Regal Resources, an Australian company, is planning to acquire Magma Oil, which holds patents in underground coal-to-liquids (UCTL) processes. According to Magma Oil, hydrothermal reactions of coal (lignites) in the presence of suitable catalysts produce steam, methane and hydrocarbon liquids. The hydrocarbon liquids are separated for further refinery processing, whereas the steam (and other products) are reinjected. According to Magma Oil, the advantages of the process are the use of oilfield equipment (significantly lower capital costs compared to surface- and underground coal gasification technologies)and lower temperature (350 C), maximizing liquid hydrocarbon yields.
My comments
One cannot strictly compare the UCTL process to UCG (underground coal gasification) process. UCG technology aims to utilize stranded coal resources (not necessarily limited to lignites), and therefore requires some capital outlay for advanced (horizontal) drilling equipment. On the other hand, from the information available, it seems that the UCTL process works with mineable coal seams as well (seam depth > 50 m). Whereas previous UCG pilot tests have established to some level of certainty that groundwater pollution can be avoided, this is doubly important for the UCTL technologies where significantly higher quantities of water and other chemicals (catalysts) are likely injected. Other competitors to UCTL processes include the Syntroleum-Linc Energy air-based UCG-synfuel process also produces above-ground Fischer-Tropsch liquids from air-blown UCG syngas.
Two other issues might also be important: namely, the availability of supplementary "natural catalysts/impurities located in all coal seams" (coals are necessarily heterogeneous) and the real extent of zeolite-formation and CO2 sequestration.
My comments
One cannot strictly compare the UCTL process to UCG (underground coal gasification) process. UCG technology aims to utilize stranded coal resources (not necessarily limited to lignites), and therefore requires some capital outlay for advanced (horizontal) drilling equipment. On the other hand, from the information available, it seems that the UCTL process works with mineable coal seams as well (seam depth > 50 m). Whereas previous UCG pilot tests have established to some level of certainty that groundwater pollution can be avoided, this is doubly important for the UCTL technologies where significantly higher quantities of water and other chemicals (catalysts) are likely injected. Other competitors to UCTL processes include the Syntroleum-Linc Energy air-based UCG-synfuel process also produces above-ground Fischer-Tropsch liquids from air-blown UCG syngas.
Two other issues might also be important: namely, the availability of supplementary "natural catalysts/impurities located in all coal seams" (coals are necessarily heterogeneous) and the real extent of zeolite-formation and CO2 sequestration.
Apr 10, 2009
UCG update: Lower CO2 emissions compared to NGCC
World Coal ($ubscription required) has an article in their March 2009 issue [Next Generation Drilling, World Coal, v. 18(3), p.28-36] detailing an economic-engineering analysis of underground coal gasification (UCG). According to Kempka et al., producing UCG-syngas to electricity has lower CO2 emissions per unit energy produced compared to natural gas combined cycle power plants. I think this is significant because natural gas-fired power plants have almost half the CO2 emissions of a conventional pulverized coal-fired power plants. Therefore, in a high-gas price scenario, UCG might become economically as well as environmentally favorable (provided sulfur, VOC, ground water contaminant emissions are taken care of).
My previous UCG post:
Underground Coal Gasification: Keep the coal in the ground, convert it to gas
My previous UCG post:
Underground Coal Gasification: Keep the coal in the ground, convert it to gas
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)