Recent Progress in the Direct Liquefaction of Coal -- LUMPKIN 239 (4842): 873 -- Science
We previously noted the US Department of Energy's inexplicable assignment of oversight for a coal-to-liquid conversion development facility, in Kentucky, to Big Oil's Amoco Corporation, and the fact that the most detailed reportage on the project that we could find, also as we earlier reported, was published in Greece, or Turkey; somewhere "else", in any case.
But, we did manage to unearth the enclosed artifact, published directly from Amoco, it seems.
Comment follows:
"Recent Progress in the Direct Liquefaction of Coal
Robert E. Lumpkin, Director of Coal Utilization Projects for Amoco Corporation; P.O. Box 87703; Chicago, IL 60680
Science: 19 February 1988; Vol. 239; No. 4842; pp. 873 - 877; DOI: 10.1126/science.239.4842.873
Abstract/Summary:
Interest in direct coal liquefaction steadily decreased during the 1980s as the price of crude oil dropped; there is now only one integrated coal liquefaction pilot plant active full time in the United States. The economics derived early in the decade established the price of transportation fuels from coal at $80 per barrel or higher. However, there have been dramatic improvements in the technology since 1983 that have not been widely appreciated. Recent designs and cost estimates show that a 60 percent decrease in the cost of liquid fuels from coal to an equivalent of $35 per barrel for crude oil. Although this cost is not low enough to justify immediate commercialization, additional improvements have been identified that could make direct liquefaction an attractive way to produce gasoline and other conventional fuels."
A few statements bear emphasis:
First: "... there have been dramatic improvements in the technology (for converting coal into liquid fuels) since 1983 that have not been widely appreciated."
And: "Recent designs and cost estimates show that a 60 percent decrease in the cost of liquid fuels from coal to an equivalent of $35 per barrel".
This article was published in 1988. We submit that: "there have been dramatic improvements in the technology" (for converting coal into liquid fuels) since 1988 "that have not been widely appreciated", as our previous, and extensive, documentation of coal liquefaction developments should attest.
Moreover, coal, in 1988, could be converted into liquid petroleum-type products for the "equivalent of $35 per barrel".
Petroleum, in 1988, according to web-based sources, was selling in the range of $23 to $30 per barrel, so the $35 per-barrel cost for coal-derived oil might not have seemed all that appealing.
However, oil prices, over the past few months of this year, August and September, 2009, hovered around the rough average of $130 per barrel.
Coal prices, in 1988, again according to web-based sources, had a spot market value, in Appalachia, that centered on $30 ton.
Now, in early October, 2009, Appalachian coal is selling at a little over $50 per ton.
And, again: "there have been dramatic improvements in the technology that have not been widely appreciated".
Do the math. Way past time we revisited the subject, a bit more publicly and thoroughly, don't you think?
We previously noted the US Department of Energy's inexplicable assignment of oversight for a coal-to-liquid conversion development facility, in Kentucky, to Big Oil's Amoco Corporation, and the fact that the most detailed reportage on the project that we could find, also as we earlier reported, was published in Greece, or Turkey; somewhere "else", in any case.
But, we did manage to unearth the enclosed artifact, published directly from Amoco, it seems.
Comment follows:
"Recent Progress in the Direct Liquefaction of Coal
Robert E. Lumpkin, Director of Coal Utilization Projects for Amoco Corporation; P.O. Box 87703; Chicago, IL 60680
Science: 19 February 1988; Vol. 239; No. 4842; pp. 873 - 877; DOI: 10.1126/science.239.4842.873
Abstract/Summary:
Interest in direct coal liquefaction steadily decreased during the 1980s as the price of crude oil dropped; there is now only one integrated coal liquefaction pilot plant active full time in the United States. The economics derived early in the decade established the price of transportation fuels from coal at $80 per barrel or higher. However, there have been dramatic improvements in the technology since 1983 that have not been widely appreciated. Recent designs and cost estimates show that a 60 percent decrease in the cost of liquid fuels from coal to an equivalent of $35 per barrel for crude oil. Although this cost is not low enough to justify immediate commercialization, additional improvements have been identified that could make direct liquefaction an attractive way to produce gasoline and other conventional fuels."
A few statements bear emphasis:
First: "... there have been dramatic improvements in the technology (for converting coal into liquid fuels) since 1983 that have not been widely appreciated."
And: "Recent designs and cost estimates show that a 60 percent decrease in the cost of liquid fuels from coal to an equivalent of $35 per barrel".
This article was published in 1988. We submit that: "there have been dramatic improvements in the technology" (for converting coal into liquid fuels) since 1988 "that have not been widely appreciated", as our previous, and extensive, documentation of coal liquefaction developments should attest.
Moreover, coal, in 1988, could be converted into liquid petroleum-type products for the "equivalent of $35 per barrel".
Petroleum, in 1988, according to web-based sources, was selling in the range of $23 to $30 per barrel, so the $35 per-barrel cost for coal-derived oil might not have seemed all that appealing.
However, oil prices, over the past few months of this year, August and September, 2009, hovered around the rough average of $130 per barrel.
Coal prices, in 1988, again according to web-based sources, had a spot market value, in Appalachia, that centered on $30 ton.
Now, in early October, 2009, Appalachian coal is selling at a little over $50 per ton.
And, again: "there have been dramatic improvements in the technology that have not been widely appreciated".
Do the math. Way past time we revisited the subject, a bit more publicly and thoroughly, don't you think?