Talk:Coal liquefaction

Economical at how many dollars per barrel?
I know the Nazis did this in WWII, so it's solved, so we must know at how many dollars per barrel this becomes more economical than oil. I thought I had read $30 in the 1990s, but someone on ##chemistry on IRC says $80. 99.60.2.8 (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked on Reference desk/Science and got the following responses:


 * According to this article from China (2006??) "International indicators show that if the cost of liquefied-coal oil ranges from US$22 to US$28, the process is still profitable.... Presently, it costs around US$25 per barrel to produce one ton of coal-liquefied oil with three to five tons of coal used in the production." (Does that cost include the environment and transportation?) Here's another, 2007, Bloomberg article (ref'd in the WP Synfuel article). Twang (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if it's only $25/barrel and oil is $40/barrel, then WHY THE BLOODY HELL AIN'T WE DOING IT?! This technology could EASILY gain us energy independence and stop our money from going to the Arab terrorist savages and oil sheikhs, so why not start liquefying coal and start doing it TODAY?! 76.21.37.87 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, the price depends of the price of coal. This range US$22 to US$28 may be true in case of China; however, it may be more complicated in the case of the United States. Also, this is a price in case of a full-scale commercial production. However, the main problem is a high initial cost to build a liquefaction plant and quite a long payback time. Beagel (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to this source, using Powder River Basin Coal at $30 per ton plus 10 percent interest would be $1.85 a gallon, which is $77–78 per barrel. Beagel (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(deleted lengthy discussion copypasted at by a sock of User:Nrcprm2026 --Enric Naval (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

This discussion is very interesting; however, please note that this is an article's talk page and not a forum (please see: WP:NOTAFORUM). Beagel (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Invention by Texas University
I deleted the section about the invention of the Invention by Texas University because it says nothing about the technology. The source consists of only claims of being new technology, but at the same time not disclosing any detail of this. As there is no reliable confirming existence of this technology, it does not belong here. Even case when details of this technology are published, it belongs here if this technology is in principle different from the existing methods—pyrolysis and carbonization, hydrogenation, and indirect conversion processes. Beagel (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Product columns miss CO2
The tables listing the plants and their products are very useful IMO. I missed
 * sources and
 * the production of C02, though.

Does anyone know where the responding figures for C02 can be found ?--Wuerzele (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coal liquefaction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5nhxlQsjX?url=http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/CTL_Article.pdf to http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/CTL_Article.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819083523/http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/documents/82184/7171/Review-of-worldwide-coal-to-liquids-R%2C-D%26D-activities-and-the-need-for-further-initiatives-within-Europe to http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/documents/82184/7171/Review-of-worldwide-coal-to-liquids-R%2C-D%26D-activities-and-the-need-for-further-initiatives-within-Europe

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)