[Plantagenet]

Plantagenet, funny how you totally ignore the part where natural gas production is largely spoken for.

Natural gas production is not "largely spoken for." According to President Obama, the US now has a 100 year supply of NG thanks to frakking.

[Plantagenet]

the tooth fairy is running a fracting rig.

Put down the pipe, Peter.

[Ulenspiegel]

To replace a gasoline engine that works with 25% efficiency with a methanol fueled engine does not solve the problem, this is a sick attempt to continue BAU, sorry.

[Plantagenet]

To replace a gasoline engine that works with 25% efficiency with a methanol fueled engine does not solve the problem.

Why not? If peak oil is the problem then replacing gasoline with NG does indeed address the problem, especially since this new chemical process can produce alcohol from NG at a price lower than current price of gasoline

[Ibon]

A wonderful way to end the fossil fuel era would be to take the remaining natural gas, make ethanol and get drunk and have a party as the sun sets on our glorious way of life. Since we have been drunk all these decades anyway it would be a poetic end. Or an almost religious end like eating the bread that represents the flesh of Christ. Literally consuming the last of the fossil fuels playing the ultimate tribute to BAU.

[ROCKMAN]

"According to President Obama, the US now has a 100 year supply of NG thanks to freaking". But that of course doesn't take into account the substitution of NG for oil. OTOH if we did make the switch we might then have 100 years of oil supplies given the decrease in demand. Yeah, yeah...that's the ticket. LOL.

[ragged]

I saw the post on the main page here today and thought I'd post that with another article I read that didn't seem to get much attention. Here is the first article:

MIT Tech Review: Chasing the Dream of Half-Price Gasoline from Natural Gas: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/523146/chasing-the-dream-of-half-price-gasoline-from-natural-gas/

If Siluria really can make cheap gasoline from natural gas it will have achieved something that has eluded the world’s top chemists and oil and gas companies for decades. Indeed, finding an inexpensive and direct way to upgrade natural gas into more valuable and useful chemicals and fuels could finally mean a cheap replacement for petroleum.

A company named Siluria has been working with a new process to develop and test catalysts to convert NG into gasoline. They say they've tested over 50,000 catalysts and think they may have come up with one that works. They project the cost to produce the gas to be half what it costs to produce it from oil. They're building two demonstration plants to see how it scales up. They say the process could be duplicated at existing refineries and chemical plants to keep costs down. They say they could be producing gas commercially in four years.

Here's the one from here:

Science: The Key to the Next Energy Revolution? : http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2014/03/key-next-energy-revolution

It worked better than he expected, Periana says. When he and his colleagues at Scripps and Brigham Young University ran a methane reaction with thallium—a main group metal—alkanes pushed the solvent molecules aside 22 orders of magnitude faster than when the reaction was run with iridium, reducing the overall energy required by about one-third, they report online today in Science. The success brought other benefits as well. The reaction runs at 180°C, and works on all alkanes at the same time, unlike the conventional natural gas conversion technology that works on only one species of alkane at a time. That could make it far easier, and thus potentially cheaper, to build chemical plants to convert natural gas to liquids using the new approach.

“This is a highly novel piece of work that opens the way to upgrading of natural gas to useful chemicals with simple materials and moderate conditions,” says Robert Crabtree, a chemist at Yale University. But that way is not entirely clear yet, Periana cautions. For now, the chemistry works one batch at a time. To succeed as an industrial technology, researchers must work out the conditions to get it to work on a continuous basis, he says. If they do, it may one day make it cheaper to derive commodity chemicals and fuels from natural gas than from petroleum. And that would be an energy revolution indeed.

I don't have the science background to know if this stuff is likely to work. I know that peak gas exists, but it seems like being able to run existing cars on NG-based gasoline would buy America a few years?

[ROCKMAN]

ragged - "I don't have the science background to know if this stuff is likely to work". Of course it works. Mobil Oil was making gasoline from NG using a catalyst almost 40 years ago. We've known how to do it for a very long time. But the question always remains at what cost can it be done. I don't care to predict the future...I leave that to much smarter folks. Here’s the latest update on GTL actual applications. But notice the applications discussed are using NG that would be flared. IOW they are getting the NG for free. Those economics are much better than having to buy NG on the open market to convert to liquid fuel. Mobil Oil’s pilot project was conducted during the 70’s in New Zealand because they had large NG reserves with very little market for it. Thus very cheap NG. A GTL plant might spend $X to convert an mcf of NG to a liquid fuel. But the final cost will be $X + $4.50 to do the conversion after buying the NG:

Alternative fuel company Primus Green Energy developed the STG+ technology (a type of GTL technique) and is currently the only company utilizing this process. Bechtel Hydrocarbon Technology Solutions is leading development of designs for a commercial plant that will utilize the STG+ process.

At the other end of the scale from Shell's Pearl GTL facility in Qatar, the use of microchannel reactors shows promise for the conversion of unconventional, remote and problem gas into valuable liquid fuels. GTL plants based on microchannel reactors are significantly smaller than those using conventional fixed bed or slurry bed reactors, enabling modular plants that can be deployed cost effectively in remote locations and on smaller fields than is possible with competing systems.

One other proposed solution is to use a novel FPSO for offshore conversion of gas to liquids (methanol, diesel, petrol, synthetic crude, and naphtha). Brazilian oil company Petrobras has ordered two small experimental GTL production facilities intended to be posted at offshore oil fields too distant or deep to justify gas pipelines to onshore GTL plant. In January 2012 Petrobras' Cenpes Research and Development Centre approved for commercial deployment the technology supplied by UK-based gas-to-liquids company CompactGTL. Petrobras is now assessing microchannel reactor technology supplied by Velocys.

[ragged]

^^^Thanks! I read a bunch of your comments on TOD but never posted there because I'm just trying to learn. I've asked this question on a few other forums and never got a real reply before.

[ROCKMAN]

ragged - The web is a great resource: I didn't know much about GTL but now I are an expert. LOL. Actually I just use my limited tech knowledge to filter thru too much info on the web and find the best info. I'm petty much trapped in a chair 95% of the day and use the web as my window to the world. I actually research non-energy topics from time to time. LOL.

[ragged]

This is getting more attention. Here is an article from the Christian Science Monitor:

Lab results raise question: Do we need oil if we have natural gas?: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2014/0314/Lab-results-raise-question-Do-we-need-oil-if-we-have-natural-gas

The carbon-hydrogen bonds are quite strong. This strength accounts for natural gas's long-term stability in underground reservoirs; it doesn't react with its surroundings. But that strength also requires a lot of energy to overcome it when trying to convert these hydrocarbons, known as alkanes, into their corresponding forms of alcohol.

Current techniques for producing these occur at temperatures as high as 900 degrees C (1,652 degrees F.). Indeed, since the 1930s and ’40s, high-temperature processes have been used to turn the components of natural gas into an intermediate form of gas known as syngas. Syngas is then used to make methanol or diesel fuel, Periana explains.

But this is a complex, multistep process that takes place in commercial plants costing billions of dollars, he continues. "The capital costs contribute 70 percent of the overall cost of a product" from the facilities, he says.

In principle, if facilities could convert alkanes at low temperatures, even at room temperature, and especially if the processing could occur in one step, the capital costs for exploiting the widest possible uses for natural gas would plummet.

Until now, he says, "no science existed to do that."

Although the results represent a significant breakthrough, Dr. Resasco of the University of Oklahoma says he's interested in seeing a second piece of the process fall into place. Periana and colleagues have demonstrated an ability to convert the alkanes, he says. But team also needs to regenerate the catalysts to show a complete "catalytic cycle."

The team has demonstrated the first part of the cycle, he says, adding, "We're keeping our eyes open to see the other shoe fall."

I'm going to add that my truck runs on CNG. I buy it by the "Gallon of Gasoline Equivalent" (GGE). I think there are something like 7-8 GGEs in every MCF. I found this chart:



http://www.nat-g.com/why-cng/cng-units-explained/ Maybe there is some potential to get a few gallons of gasoline out of one MCF?

[ROCKMAN]

Based on this article it sounds like they haven’t even gotten the new process to work on the lab bench let alone approach commercialization: “But team also needs to regenerate the catalysts to show a complete "catalytic cycle." The team has demonstrated the first part of the cycle, he says, adding, "We're keeping our eyes open to see the other shoe fall."

“Until now…no science existed to do that." And apparently still doesn’t. It reminds of why Ford went with gasoline engines instead of diesels: there was no market for gasoline so it was a cheap “waste product”. But times do change. Today NG is relatively cheap. Even if they perfect the science of GTL how feasible would it be in a world of $12/mmcf NG as we briefly had back in ’08?

[Poordogabone]

Researchers say they have uncovered a way to convert key compounds in natural gas to alcohols for use in industry and transportation far more cheaply than current approaches

Yes! sweet music to investors ears, but yet to put to test.
I'm skeptical, I don't foresee any break-thru energy conversion that will let us eat the cake and have it too.

[Plantagenet]

I don't foresee any break-thru energy conversion...

This discovery has just been announced. OF course there is a lot of work needed to see if it will scale up and if the promise that cheap liquid fuels can be produced from NG will come to pass.

On the other hand, its a pretty exciting concept.

[ROCKMAN]

P - I agree...a pretty exciting concept. I remember how excited I got 39 years ago when I saw the reports at Mobil Oil on their efforts to convert NG to gasoline in New Zealand. I figured it wouldn't be long before I had such fuel to power my personal jet pack that I would use to commute to work. LOL.

[Plantagenet]

P - I agree...a pretty exciting concept. I remember how excited I got 39 years ago when I saw the reports at Mobil Oil on their efforts to convert NG to gasoline in New Zealand. I figured it wouldn't be long before I had such fuel to power my personal jet pack that I would use to commute to work. LOL.

Yup.

Wasn't the future great?


an airplane powered by coal

[dolanbaker]

P - I agree...a pretty exciting concept. I remember how excited I got 39 years ago when I saw the reports at Mobil Oil on their efforts to convert NG to gasoline in New Zealand. I figured it wouldn't be long before I had such fuel to power my personal jet pack that I would use to commute to work. LOL.

Yup.

Wasn't the future great?


an airplane powered by coal

Someone's beat you to that!

U.S. Air Force testing coal powered planes
http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s-air ... red-planes
Houston-based company Accelergy has begun production of biojet fuel using a mix of Camelina oil and liquefied coal for evaluation by the US Air Force (USAF).

The company says it has come up with a way to convert the coal into an economical, clear, and arguably clean form of jet fuel.

[Graeme]

America's Gas Problem

Most US politicians regard natural gas as the key element in our energy policy. In his January State-of-the-Union address President Obama said, "[Natural gas is] the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change." Many environmentalists disagree; John Farrell describes natural gas as "a gateway drug."

President Obama isn't alone believing that the US must have an all-of-the-above energy policy; slowly reducing our use of coal while heavily relying on natural gas and ramping up renewables. The Washington conventional wisdom argues the US can't meet its energy needs, and reduce carbon emissions, without using natural gas as our primary energy source. This perspective has become one of the few points of agreement between Democrats and Republicans. (Although every time there's any disruption in the international oil market, Republicans reprise their "drill, baby, drill" refrain.) But there are four problems with this perspective.

History teaches that the conventional wisdom is often wrong and dogmatically clinging to it reduces opportunity, in the long run. After all, it was once the conventional wisdom that the earth was flat (and the center of the universe). Just before the Montgomery bus boycott, it was the conventional wisdom that it would take many decades to end segregation. (In 2007, it was the conventional wisdom that an African-American could not be elected President.)

As a (retired) technologist, I've seen the conventional wisdom about computers change numerous times: at first, computers were thought to have limited uses; then the mainframe was regarded as the "center" of the information universe; more recently is was believed that smart devices - such as phones and tablets - were not as versatile as personal computers.

The second problem with the natural-gas-as-a-bridge paradigm is that it creates the false impression we have the global-climate-change problem under control. Journalist Amy Harder observed:

First, shifting significantly away from coal to natural gas doesn't get the planet anywhere close to the carbon-reduction levels scientists say we must reach. And second, while the natural-gas boom is great for the economy and the immediate reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions, it has deflated the political urgency to cut fossil-fuel dependence, which was more compelling when we thought our resources of oil and natural gas were scarce.



We must move aggressively into renewables now.

The fourth problem is there are negative costs associated with the natural-gas-as-a-bridge strategy. A recent report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science enumerated the risks of global climate change. There are serious public health consequences including air pollution, infectious diseases, drought, flooding, extreme heat, and extreme weather, in general.

And, of course, there are major economic repercussions. A recent UN report indicated, "The effects of global warming could cost the world $1.45 trillion in economic damages, with the planet's crop production projected to decline up to two percent every decade." Reliance upon fossil fuels deflates the US economy. The Rocky Mountain Institute noted that 76 percent of American industry relies upon fossil fuel power. They projected that if the US moved off of carbon-based fuels to renewable fuels, there would be $5 trillion in savings, growing the economy by an estimated 158 percent.

John Farrell is right when he says, "Natural gas isn't a bridge, it's a relapse."

huffingtonpost

[ROCKMAN]

"...Republicans reprise their "drill, baby, drill" refrain." Silly me: all this time I thought President Obama was a Democrat. LOL.

To date the current POTUS has offered about 150 million acres in the GOM to the oil patch. Given that he is the darling of the left they can hardly give notice to let alone criticize his support for developing fossil fuels. And lets not forget the current POTUS has overseen a greater expansion of coal exports than the last 3 R POTUS's. And has approved more offshore drill permits per year after the Macondo blow out then President Busch did before the little BO incident:

Oil and gas operators offered over $850 million in high bids for 326 tracts covering more than 1.7 million acres in Wednesday’s GOM Sale 231. Fifty operators offered 380 bids totaling over $1.08 billion. BOEM offered 7,511 tracts encompassing over 39 million acres in the sale. BOEM Director Tommy P. Beaudreau said “While domestic energy production is growing rapidly in the United States, the central Gulf of Mexico, as demonstrated by today’s lease sale, will continue to be one of the cornerstones of the nation’s energy portfolio,” he said. “The Gulf of Mexico is one of the most productive basins in the world, and the Obama administration supports the development of our nation’s offshore oil and gas resources.

[Graeme]

Natural gas is by far a much better bet than say tar-sand oil because once burned less carbon is emitted to atmosphere. However, if we are going to consider climate effects as discussed in above article, then at some point, we have to stop using gas too. Is that point sometime next decade? I hope so. I recall posting elsewhere that next decade is the best time. The current exploration efforts are welcome as a transition to renewables but not a long-term substitute for oil. Also gas is (will be) used by far more American businesses and consumers than oil made from tar sands most of which will be exported to Chindia or EU.