Let’s think about the issue of coal-to-liquids from another angle!
Thread Content
This post was last edited by jordan569 on 2013-1-6 22:29. We should consider this issue from another angle. Let’s start with the source, which is how to solve the problem of vehicle fuel. * * From a strategic perspective, it is necessary to reduce dependence on oil imports. Based on the national conditions, my country has more coal and less oil. It is very necessary to use coal to reduce dependence on oil. But, from another perspective, why do we have to use oil as vehicle fuel? Since there is more coal and less oil, can we consider coal as an alternative fuel? That is to say, we should consider a method of how to extract vehicle fuel from coal efficiently and economically. Is coal-to-liquids the only or better way? The answer should be no. For example, the technology of coal-to-natural gas is much more mature than that of coal-to-liquids. It is superior to coal-to-liquids in terms of conversion efficiency, economy and environmental protection. Then as long as * * If corresponding policies are introduced to encourage the development of natural gas vehicles, it will be easier to form a market for this issue, and it can also promote the industrialization of domestically produced vehicles. In a word, we do not necessarily have to be like other developed countries * * Same, mainly gasoline or diesel vehicles. Instead, we should build some vehicles with other fuels based on our own national conditions, because there are no * * Like our country, coal consumption dominates. Of course, coal-to-natural gas is not necessarily the best solution. I just want to throw some light and hope that everyone will consider the issue of coal-to-liquids from a different angle. First of all, I hope everyone can discuss the issue on the same premise. For example, if the proportion of petroleum products in vehicle fuel is reduced by 10% (just a hypothetical condition), it is replaced by coal products. Which technical route is more suitable in terms of energy efficiency, environmental protection and economy. This post was last edited by Zhenyouci at 2009-3-23 01:40 ] .Note$#, $ $
Something interesting. However, coal-to-liquid is also indispensable. It is impossible for ships, tanks, aircraft, and artillery to all use natural gas, let alone for airplanes to pull coal into the sky. Economic structural improvement and technological progress cannot be achieved by patting one's head on the head. The starting point for doing things is to be based on the present. Looking to the future is something you can consider, but you must first be down-to-earth.
First of all thank you for your reply. It seems that the original poster didn't really understand what I meant. My post itself does not deny the irreplaceability of gasoline and diesel, at least for now. What I mean is that if coal is used to make vehicle fuel, it is debatable whether coal-to-liquid must be produced. As for the ships, tanks, aircraft and artillery you mentioned, they are not under discussion. In fact, there are also natural gas vehicles currently used in China. It's just that it's not popular. The main reason here is still policy-oriented, because there are no technical problems. In short, everyone can brainstorm ideas instead of always making a frame and then discussing issues within this frame.
Most of the current natural gas vehicles are light vehicles or vehicles with relatively small load capacity. Engines using natural gas may be very different from current gasoline engines and diesel engines in terms of output power and load capacity. For heavy-duty vehicles or trucks, there are still certain difficulties in using natural gas.
Hello, regarding the issue you mentioned, I think it is also a hot issue at the moment, which is the issue of new energy.； It’s not just you who thinks so, but everyone is making progress in this area day by day, but for now, it is only the direction of development. Everyone has not forgotten the coal and electricity crisis in early 2008, right? ； In the cold winter in the north, what should we do if there is no heating? ； Most of our current electricity and heating come from coal. You can look at the thermal energy conversion rate of thermal power generation and compare it with the thermal energy conversion efficiency of coal-to-liquid production, and many things will become clear. I think only crazy people may say now that for the sake of our precious energy and environment, we should not use coal to generate electricity. But I think that in the foreseeable future, we will be able to break away from fossil fuels and find an energy development direction suitable for mankind, but the road will be taken step by step. The application of a new technology is a comprehensive system project, especially when it comes to the basic energy industry of the national economy and people's livelihood. It does not mean that our energy sources will immediately move closer to natural gas and hydrogen. You can imagine that with the current technological state, cars all over the street are equipped with natural gas or hydrogen pressure vessels. What is the concept of that? Do you think it is safe? Anyway, with current gas storage technology, I would not be willing to sit in a car like this. The most important point is the oil issue. I think we should read the book "Oil War" by the famous German economist Wilhelm Engdauer.: Oil politics determines the new world order" ； This is a strategic issue. Although some people may think that human science and technology are very advanced, the fact is that all our activities still revolve around the dark underground oil and the food on the ground. Oil and food are the cornerstones of our seemingly "civilized" society. In the past year or two, the United States has conducted nationwide flight tests of coal-based mixed fuel aeroengines, and at the same time established a coal-to-liquids project and established a coal-to-liquids company. ； I think this can also explain some problems. “"China is rich in coal and short of oil" is an old saying, but when we look at it from different angles, it has different meanings. The security of energy supply is the most fundamental issue. Coal-to-liquids has paved a way for China's energy development. If you don't know the history, you can't comment on the present, let alone predict the future. Before World War II, Germany had already begun the research and industrialization of coal-to-liquids technology. The fuel of German fighter planes and tanks in World War II was coal-based fuel. FT (Fischer-Tropsch) synthesis technology has been around for a hundred years since its invention. South Africa's SASOL company has been operating successfully for half a century. You can also take a look at the history of China's oil refining. It started from coal-to-liquids. Don't forget your roots! Just think about the current oil refining technology, which is close to hydrogen, high temperature, and high pressure. If there was no energy crisis and no human demand for energy, would it be able to develop to this point? Why can't we give some time and space to a technology that is "not mature enough" (many people think so, but I don't think so. Whether it is mature or not depends on whether it is implemented or not. If it is not implemented, it will never be mature) or developing technology. Coal-to-liquids may not guarantee the security of China's energy, but it is a road, a road that has been used before, and at the same time, there are people in the world who have been very successful. Why don't we follow it. As the old man said, "The road is made by taking it." This post was last edited by wjh99 on 2009-3-20 11:11 ]
——“The energy efficiency of coal conversion from low to high is: Coal to oil (34.8%), coal to dimethyl ether (37.9%), coal to methanol (41.8%), power generation (45%), coal to natural gas (50% to 52%). ——Coal-to-natural gas has the highest energy efficiency, is the most effective way to utilize coal, and is also the best way to make energy products from coal. However, there are many types of energy, each with different uses, and should be treated and developed separately.
deep007 seems to focus more on coal-to-natural gas in the field of coal chemical industry. Of course, it should be affirmed that the coal-to-natural gas technology is very mature and simple. The main equipment is air separation, gasifier, and conversion device, and there is almost no technical risk. But you have obviously confused the positioning of coal-to-liquid and coal-to-natural gas. Coal-to-liquid is not used in ordinary household gasoline vehicles, while coal-to-natural gas is obviously suitable for a large number of private cars and urban low-power buses. The advantage of coal-to-liquid is that it can be used in high-power diesel vehicles, trains, airplanes, and tanks. In other words, coal-to-natural gas can replace gasoline, but it cannot replace diesel and aviation kerosene, and these are the advantages of coal-to-liquids. As for natural gas vehicles, * * It has been vigorously developed. If you look at urban taxis, they basically use natural gas, but when going up a steep slope, you have to switch to fuel mode. In the field of coal chemical industry, we should still have an inclusive spirit, and ultimately let the market and * * needs to decide who is the ultimate winner.
In 2007, the national standard coal consumption for power generation was 334 grams/kWh. You can do some calculations. I don’t know “The energy efficiency of coal conversion from low to high is: Coal-to-liquid (34.8%), coal-to-dimethyl ether (37.9%), coal-to-methanol (41.8%), power generation (45%), coal-to-natural gas (50% ~ 52%)", where did "power generation (45%)" come from. This post was last edited by Zhenyouci on 2009-3-25 14:22 ]
I don’t know what wjh99 wants to say. 1 I do not deny the irreplaceability of oil in energy (at least in recent decades). I just hope that everyone can seriously discuss it under China’s national conditions to ensure that * * Energy security is the question of what technical route should be chosen to reduce dependence on oil. 2 It’s great to have so many people taking part in the discussion. 3. I hope that when discussing, everyone will try to see other people’s opinions clearly and avoid talking about each other’s opinions. First of all, everyone should discuss the issue on the same premise. For example, if the proportion of petroleum products in vehicle fuel is reduced by 10% (just a hypothetical condition), it is replaced by coal products. What technical route is more suitable in terms of energy efficiency, environmental protection and economy? This post was last edited by deep007 on 2009-3-20 13:34 ]
Thank you wsc39 for the data. As far as I know, the efficiency of coal-to-natural gas production should be above 60%. In addition, the efficiency of power generation should be at the level of a higher-level power generation system such as IGCC.
What I mean is, if you use natural gas for cooking and heating at home, you can use coal-to-natural gas as an energy source. ! International joke. In terms of efficiency, it’s better to just use gas. Cold gas is very efficient. Why sacrifice the 30% more to make methane? The worst thing is to increase the pressure of the pressure vessel, install more, drive slower, and still use it. It’s energy-saving and environmentally friendly! good! As for IGCC, tell me, how many IGCCs are there in the world? I won’t ask how many there are in China. You can look at Huaneng’s standard coal consumption, and then you can ask Huaneng what they are doing and why they don’t all make it IGCC!
As I said in the main post above, coal-to-natural gas is not necessarily the best route. Just give an example to illustrate the problem. It does not mean that I personally prefer coal-to-natural gas. There are other examples, such as methanol, DME, etc. Hope everyone can brainstorm ideas. Discuss in depth. First of all, everyone should discuss the issue on the same premise. For example, if the proportion of petroleum products in vehicle fuel is reduced by 10% (just a hypothetical condition), it is replaced by coal products. What technical route is more suitable in terms of energy efficiency, environmental protection and economy?
wjh99You need to calm down first. I don’t make irresponsible remarks about coal-to-liquids, I just want to think about it from a different angle. Everyone is discussing the issue, there is no need to act like a quarrel. I have emphasized the conditions under which I asked the question. Which one is more suitable based on a comprehensive evaluation of the technical route, energy efficiency, environmental protection, and economy? The IGCC you mentioned has advantages in terms of efficiency and environmental protection, but in terms of economy, at least for now, there are still problems. In addition, without making any international jokes, natural gas itself occupies an important proportion in the world's primary energy utilization. us * * It is also increasing its proportion in primary energy. So can coal-to-natural gas be regarded as an alternative to natural gas? This post was last edited by deep007 on 2009-3-20 14:14 ]
Sorry, I was a little rushed when I spoke. First of all, I apologize. In fact, the reason for this is mainly because coal-to-liquids has been criticized too much, which makes me a little emotional, haha. At the same time, regarding methanol and DME, if they are directly used as fuel, first of all, the toxicity and non-degradability of methanol will cause problems with groundwater pollution. ； As for dimethyl ether, the toxicity is currently considered very low in China, but foreigners have reservations about the potential toxicity of dimethyl ether. Therefore, methanol to olefins is still good, but it is not so good when used as fuel. As for DME, you can say that it can be used in diesel engines, but the O atom in DME accounts for 1/3 of the molecular weight. During the transportation of the fuel, the energy consumed by the extra 1/3 of the O will not be needed. It needs to be included in the thermal energy conversion rate of coal-to-DME. Therefore, thermal energy conversion rate and product quality are two contradictory aspects. The extra energy used in coal-to-liquid is used to improve the quality of the fuel. Imagine that DME is H3C-O-CH3. The extra energy used in coal-to-liquid is used to grow the -H2C-CH2-n carbon chain. Remove that O. Is there anything wrong with this? Can it be said that this is a waste of energy? I don't think that can be said. Regarding the issue of natural gas, I agree with you very much, because the place where I live now uses natural gas, and the heating is burned by natural gas. You can imagine that if our country's civil energy and some industrial energy are diversified, China's energy situation will definitely be greatly improved. But again, the issue of coal-to-liquids must be viewed in conjunction with the strategic issue of petroleum. To this extent, coal-to-liquids is irreplaceable. This is my opinion and I hope everyone can discuss it.
* * Sometimes we have to look at the attitudes of Sinopec and PetroChina. Everyone went to fill up the gas tank and stopped filling up the gas tank. This affected the interests of the two big names, and their faces changed. This post was last edited by Zhenyouci on 2009-3-31 20:27 ]
The idea is very good. I had similar ideas at the beginning, but the technology implementation is still a problem. Besides, the conversion process is still long.
The original poster suggested reducing the proportion of petroleum products by 10% (just a hypothetical condition) and replacing them with coal products. What technical route is more suitable in terms of energy efficiency, environmental protection and economy? I have thought about this myself 2 years ago. I don’t understand the theory very well. However, through my practice, coal products can completely replace petroleum. However, they must be deeply processed. If not processed, it will cause damage to the car. Coal products can completely replace petroleum. However, * * It’s not recognized yet, and customers don’t really recognize it either. Let's put it this way, I have now invested in a small factory, which is not large in scale. It is deeply processing coal products and then selling them to gas stations or oil depots. It has been in operation for more than half a year without any problems. It’s just that there is a problem with sales now and many people don’t recognize this thing~ So when I buy takeout, I don’t say it’s kerosene, I just say it’s good diesel. “It seems a bit despicable, but society is such a reality.”~
Hua'er is not here, your name is good, haha. I don’t know the specific process and raw materials of the factory you invest in. Coal tar? Tar refining? It should be this way. When tar is used to make diesel, the cetane should not be high. ； However, I still admire your sense of business and market. study * middle!
The coal-to-liquids project is purely based on* * Starting from the petroleum strategy, it does not make much sense from the perspective of economic calculations.
Coal-to-liquids is a strategic utilization direction, but there are still many problems to be solved in technology and engineering. Although Shenhua's current official statement is good, the economics are not mentioned for the time being. The most important thing is that it has not been tested for a long time. There is a serious lack of operating experience, and whether it can operate normally on an industrial scale remains to be further verified.
Economic benefits must follow the changes in international crude oil prices. It is said that crude oil prices will be meaningful when the price reaches 70 US dollars. The highest price of crude oil last year was 147 US dollars!