Talk:Karrick process

Untitled
In 20-20 Hindsight

An appropriate time to note that if these conversion plants had been started when this page was opened they would already be online, producing synthetics for us from our 26% of known world coal reserves.

That would mean jobs, lower fuel prices, less foreign dependency, fewer dollars heading overseas, less money for our adversaries, lower trade and budget deficits, along with the attending boost for a severely faltering economy, right when the vast majority of folks could really use it.

But no, our myopic officials and activists, including those who make taxpayer-funded 'careers' of falsifying data to promote their agendas, once again receive only the Universal Dunce Cap for their inaction, and in some cases, their outright obstructionism.

Perhaps there is a time when those who either will not or cannot even help themselves deserve to fail. Perhaps that time has come. Jfcj1 (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC) -

Disputed neutrality
Who keeps sticking these "protest" templates on this page and what is their specific dispute? Shouldn't there be a time restriction on a blank protest template? IOW, no specific, scientific objection, no template?

We realize that a number of greenies (thanks for another energy crisis) or merely garden-variety contrarians, can't cope with any reference to fossil fuels, but shouldn't they, out of common courtesy alone, be limited as to how long they can simply be pests for pestilence sake?

UPDATE: The latest bogus "potest" template was initiated in March 2008. It is now June of 2009 and still not one specific item of 'dispute' has been presented. That's 15 months and not a peep, i.e. just more phony slop from people who have bigger mouths than brains.

From now on why don't you pathetic trolls stick to what you're best at, like collecting fraudulent ACORN voter registrations and leave the 'tricky' stuff like national energy policy to those who wouldn't have gotten us into this fiasco in the first place. Jfcj1 (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, I don't think this is a proper tone for having discussion. However, I don't understand what you are calling "protest" templates? The template from March 2008 you refer is about need for additional references and not about the content. This technical issue, so it is hard to understand what specific item of dispute should be presented. There are number of external links; however, there are no internal citations which compromises verifiability of this article. To be in line with WP:V and WP:CS, these links should be converted into inline citations. This is a maintenance issue and not a content dispute. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

--

Dear (Mr./Miss/MS.) "maintainance issue" guru,

So in other words, you don't have a specific dispute, either. You just don't "like" something, so you stick on another template.

Here's a clue, "like" isn't a scientific critique, and neither is the "style", in case they neglected to teach you that in school, as has already been the case with others who have so graciously visited this site to "do something".

Thus, if you don't "like" something, why not just "fix" it, scientifically and appropriately, instead of slapping more useless graffitti on what you yourself admit is an informative and more than adequately referenced page?

As for the "tone" business, like many other "politically incorrect" pages, this page has endured its share of childish acts of drive-by sabotage, emotionally performed by those whose indoctrination was never scientific, thus confining their available responses to what they "like" or "don't like" or the "style" of what they "don't like", with destruction or distortion of contradictory evidence as last-ditch backup talents. Apparently, some tones are more equal than others, wouldn't you know.

So I'll simply ask nicely, in a soothing tone, to either go down the list in your head of the horrifyingly awful things which you object to on this page and "repair" them, or muster the common courtesy to remove the otherwise meaningless templates.

Or, if you can't manage that, you could hire on with the EPA, etc. and use those limited skills to shred or hide evidence contradicting anthropogenic "climate change" and other such items on the agenda and get handsomely paid with taxpayer dollars for it, too.

In other words, spare everybody here the double-talk, and thank you so much in advance.

We anxiously await your potentially life-changing choice. Jfcj1 (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not about what I like or dislike; WP:V and WP:CS are policies of Wikipedia, which should be followed. Please read these pages (WP:V and WP:CS) to learn how articles should be cited, especially scientific articles. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

-- That's alright. We'll just wait until you folks land some of those new "green" jobs. But instead of merely repeating the same drivel, you could have tacked on another half-dozen or so of those nifty banners, effectively shoving the whole page off the screen, -in the pristine interest of scientific accuracy, of course. Say, why not redeem yourself while there's time and hop over to the wiki template library right now, you know, before anyone else can still see the actual content on the page? Think of how great something like that will look on your resume. And thank you once again for your great concern.Jfcj1 (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Disputed
It's better without the "misallocation" part, but it still looks like a poster ad. --Sinus 14:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read NPOV. NPOV is one of the few rules here that is non-negotiable. -- The Anome 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Karrick process, including conversion of the oil to motor fuel, destroys only 25% of the thermal value, or one-half that of the Bergius process.

The Bergius process is vastly inferior to the karrick process, as stated in the main article. This is a repeatable, and established, scientific fact. The criticism of the congressional decision to throw vast amounts of taxpayer's money, at a technology that is known to be so inefficient as to be largely impracticable, follows from this verifiable fact. NPOV is something that can not be backed up, fully evidenced, or justified, by reference to reputable information outside of the WIKIPEDIA. Since, the higher efficiency of the Karrrick process is externally verifiable, I can not see any NPOV point here. The posters seem to think whether Bergius or Karrick is better, is some kind of NPOV point of view / opinion, whereas its an area of fact and hard physics / science. Timharwoodx 13:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Indisputable
I just think people have a problem with the idea all you have to do to get oil, is crunch up coal, and superheat with steam. Yeah, it really is about that simple. Any emotional problems people have with the Karrick process, should not be part of an NPOV dispute. Timharwoodx 12:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Karrick process doesn't produce much oil directly. It's just the front end distillation and reduction process. An additional cracking step is required to break down those long-chain hydrocarbons, usually some variant on the Fischer-Tropsch process.  Sasol in South Africa is running about 30 million tons of coal per year through such a process to create oil, and they've been doing that for decades.  They use the Lurgi process at the front end, rather than the Karrick process.    The technology works fine, but they got clobbered around 1999 when the price of oil was below $20/bbl. Now, they're cashing in: "Operating profit increased by R4.6 billion (71%) to R11.1 billion. Higher average international oil prices ... boosted operating profit by about R2.9 billion".  And that's for the second half of 2005.  2006 looks to be a really good year for Sasol. --John Nagle 07:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the WIKI probably does need a couple more pages on this subject. Go ahead. It never ceases to amaze me how many folks think one of the following:


 * 1) The world is running out of oil
 * 2) Middle east oil is in some way strategically important

I put it down to technological ignorance. As you said, in South Africa they grind out oil from coal. Have been doing so for decades. The Germans did in WW2 on a large scale also. Yet you mention the idea in conversation, and I find most people think I'm talking about warp drive or something i.e. wacko stuff that would never work. I'm convinced this whole war-for-oil in Iraq was misconceived. Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al bought into the 'peak oil' myth, and acted thinking middle East oil was in some way important - which it is clearly NOT.

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20060504-112948-6189r Iraq, Afghan war costs: $439 billion, and counting

If they'd only spent the war money on coal liquifaction plants, America would by now be 100% oil / energy self sufficient. Bone headed policy making from the Washington set. Timharwoodx 09:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the argument I have read, is that at $5bn for an industrial scale Karrick plant, it would be *TOO EXPENSIVE* and not affordable. The fact there are half a trillion dollars worth of funds to fight wars for oil, suggest to me that $5bn COULD be found from federal budgets, if there was any political desire. Honestly, telling folks you can get oil from coal, its like saying you can turn lead into gold. Sounds nice, but no-one really believes you - except the South Africans have been doing this exact thing for decades, so it clearly does work. I can fly out to South Africa, and fill up on coal-oil. For real. Timharwoodx 16:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is probably not the place for this, but the scepticism you meet when mentioning coal liquefaction is probably down to two things: 1) economics, coal liquefaction plants are extremely capital intensive and investors need to be sure the oil price will stay high for decades to come in order to ensure they will not make a loss on their investment, and understandably people are not sure that the oil price will do that, given past events, and 2) from an environmental point of view coal liquefaction emits a huge amount of greenhouse gases and pollution.

Also, have you actually done the sums? e.g how much liquid fuel does the US consume in a year, how much coal would this require, how much coal is there, would this compete with coal requirements for power generation, how long would the coal last if all US transportation fuel needs were met from coal etc. Also coal liquefaction as a technology for producing unconventional oil has to compete with oil from the tar sands, which IIRC is economically viable at a much lower price per barrel. User:Jaganath 06/06/2006 17:18 UTC

Tar sands oil extraction and refining costs are comparable to coal to liquids ($35-50/bbl), for that matter building a new conventional oil refinery is going to be many billions, any new construction with lots of dedicated infrastructure, custom designed and fabricated components, vast sites, massive inputs of treated water and 8-150 Megawatts of base load electricity (50,000 bbl/day takes 8-15mw while new oil refineries are more likely to be in the 300,000-500,000bbl/day scale), raillines, highways, pipelines for crude and refined products... most of the discussion tends to focus on building something brand new versus a facility built in the 1930's-1950's.  When the majority of the oil infrastructure and refining capacity in the U.S. was built, the largest tax subsidy to any industry ever was in place, the Oil Depletion Allowance, which for vertically integrated oil companies provided enormous amounts of capital for this that otherwise would have gone to the U.S....notice they quit building refineries about the time Congress finally repealed the Oil Depletion Allowance. Much of the refining, pipelines, and port capacity was built with federal funds during World War II and then sold for pennies on the dollar to the oil companies... so if you know the history, discussions of relative costs and subsidies is far from as straightforward as it would appear. Higman and Van der Burgt's summary of worldwide research and progress in their recent book "Gassification" is very helpful on this complex topic too...the authors are long-time researchers and it's lucid enough for a lay audience (i.e. me.)

Carbon Dioxide
Were one able to produce chemically pure carbon from coal and even burned it at low temperatures, he still gets a pollutant : carbon dioxide, which we can no longer tolerate. Same comment for some hydrocarbon liquid product of equivalent purity.


 * Shut up Global Warming scam artist.98.165.6.225 (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So, what is the point of the entire discussion in this article and in this talk section ? We MUST get off fossil fuels, not just find some new ones. True, we could use a temporary scheme such as this to get out of Middle East dependence -- but the same money and effort spent on truly renewable fuels would produce a permanent rather than a temporary solution.

Of course, the same pockets might not get filled ???

ANYONE speaking here who has financial interests in the subject beyond that of a consumer needs to identify himself as such ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.42.87.58 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 September 2006 ---

Oh yeah? Here's a guy with massive financial interests:

AL GORE’S Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”. Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average. -'nuff said. Jfcj1 17:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Newsweek: "Al Gore Now Worth More Than $100 Million" Jfcj1 (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And let's not overlook the biggest racketeering organization of all, with the most astronomical financial interest in mandating costly & controlled energy: The U.S. Government aka the Political Class. The No.1 cause and beneficiary.Jfcj1 (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC) -

There is no renewable fuel as of October 2007 which can completely replace fossil fuels. While I can't overemphasize our need to invest in them we should also be looking towards oil alternatives to reduce our dependence on foreign nations (Venezuela and most of the middle east don't share our interests). Carbon sequestering is just as important for research as renewable fuels. -

Removed ref
J. D. Redding 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User:JzG removed the following:
 * Engineering Factors Relating to the Utilization of the Cannel Coals of Southern Utah

China commercializes Karrick process?

 * http://english.people.com.cn/200706/22/eng20070622_386664.html

Towering above the sweeping grasslands of Erdos, in north China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, two 60-meter-high cylindrical structures stand out against the skyline....."Unlike South Africa's Sasol which produces transport fuel from coal in several stages, our project in Erdos will produce liquids from coal directly," said Wang

Looks like China has now gone commercial with the Karrick process. Some high efficiency direct coal liquefaction process, based upon the classic cyclinrical karrick process tower shape.

The People's Daily article merely says that the Shenhua plant does not use Sasol's F-T process. Is it certain that it uses the Karrick (vs. the Bergius) process? IntlRisk 20:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've even posted the relevant part above, and you've clearly not read it! QUOTE: 60-meter-high cylindrical structures. So lets recap:


 * Karrick is a direct conversion - so is Chinese process
 * Karrick uses very tall cylindrical structures - so does the Chinese process

Now.... there is a saying... if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... well... then its probably a duck. Yes? Timharwoodx 15:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

-

Reply: The Shenhua plant uses the Bergius process. quote:

"Shenhua's plant, in contrast, chose Fischer-Tropsch's lesser-known rival, invented by Friedrich Bergius a decade earlier. Though used extensively by the Nazis, Bergius's process was subsequently abandoned. The process has come to be known as direct liquefaction, because it bypasses the syngas step. In direct liquefaction, the bulk of the coal is pulverized and blended with some of the plant's synthetic oil, then treated with hydrogen and heated to 450 °C in the presence of an iron catalyst, which breaks the hydrocarbon chains into the shorter chains suitable for refining into liquid fuels." http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17963/page3/

Agmart 06:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC) -

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Editor EKennel - clearly confused

 * http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203120753.htm

He claims this device is a '60-meter-high cylindrical structure.'

Anyone agree with him? Yet more broken / confused English from foreign WIKI editors?

We do get a lot of that these days...........sigh.

Timharwoodx (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms
(?) How does one deduce failure due to mechanical problems from different processes under different conditions? It could be that this process addresses the problems the other plants had.

(?) 100,000 KW hours of electricity is a limited market? Kerosene is also known as jet fuel. One airline and not even the largest, will spend approximately $9.5 BILLION dollars for fuel in 2008. Who thinks that is a limited market? How does Fuel Oil (it powers the curise lines, the cargo ships and the fishing boats just to name a few.) qualify as a limited market?

Please look at all the facts before you criticise something! Or at least back up your criticisms with some facts of your own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.105.231 (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The preceding is from this misplaced edit.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 07:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is related?
 * "a postulation based on previous failures of other plants using different processes under different conditions. Although markets for the described coal products are limited, making such a venture economically unsound."
 * To begin with, I see no connection. Also, the final clause doesn't seem to be a complete thought, & I have no clue what was intended.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  04:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits
I made a number of edits, mainly three types:


 * 1) Adding inline citations. It was closely related with
 * 2) expanding history and process description based used sources; and
 * 3) removing information, which was not about the Karrick process, but promoting coal liquefaction in general. Please note, that Karrik process is not a synonym for coal liquefaction or even for the low-temperature carbonization because there are number of other processes and technologies. Most of this information was moved to the newly created Synthetic fuels in the United States as it dealt with the US issues.

The article still needs some more citations, but I removed the general maintenance tag. I have also some doubts about the reliability of this reference. Although this is a submission to the Australian Senate, its neutrality is not so clear. Beagel (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karrick process. 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

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) 19:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Karrick process. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20091002045506/http://web.senate@aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fuelenergy_ctte/submissions/sub0039.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/fuelenergy_ctte/submissions/sub0039.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091002042138/http://web.senate@aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fuelenergy_ctte/submissions/sub0028.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/committee/fuelenergy_ctte/submissions/sub0028.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060518050103/http://www.ultracleanfuels.com/articles/pr_031906.htm to http://www.ultracleanfuels.com/articles/pr_031906.htm

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) 18:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)