Talk:Synthetic fuel/Archive 1

Time magazine article
The last external links from TIME magazine doesn't actually talk about synthetic fuel, but rather, a ploy by some corporations in the US to abuse regulations so they can benefit from synfuel tax break without having to actually produce "real" synfuel themselves. I think this link should be deleted because it doesn't provide more information about the fuel itself and tends to make readers think synfuel is not a legitimate technology.


 * Certainly not. On the contrary, the article should be expanded to point out the differences between "tax scam" and "legitimate technology". -- Petri Krohn 15:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not all synfuels are what they purport to be. Reference to continuing widespread industry corruption surrounding synfuels would be appropriate and responsible. There should be a link to the industry lobbying group Council for Energy Independence. --Panglos 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification
What price would crude have to be at for synthetic fuel to become economically viable if all other factors are constant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.226.180 (talk • contribs)


 * That is highly dependent on the exact location of the synfuel facility. The range is probably $35 to $70 per barrel oil, at present coal prices.  There are locations in China which are close to the bottom of that range, and locations in the USA which are in the middle of that range ($55-60 for some sites in Wyoming).  ObsidianOrder 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, ObsidianOrder is correct. This is also dependent on the scale of the facility, which has a major impact on the capital cost per daily barrel of capacity. Capital cost is also heavily subject to impact from factors such as quality of feedstock, inclusion of carbon capture, and fluctuation in the cost of concrete, steel, and labor. This industry (along with most others) has been subject to huge capital cost escalations over the last several years. For a 30,000 BPD CTL facility including CCS, roughly $45-55/BBL at a minimum is probably a good target. Sfj4076 (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Chem Project
I'm doing a project on Synthethic Fuel in my chem class. There's not as much information about Synfuel as there is Ethanol or Biodiesel. Basically, I'm lookiing for more facts about it. Anything containing the pros and cons, the process it undergoes, and long/short term benefits. I'd beyond appreciate anything anyone has. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.121.167.26 (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Added links to US synfuels projects currently under development
I added links to a number of US synfuels projects currently under development. There are other US and worldwide projects out there. This is not a comprehensive list.Sfj4076 (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Major New Additions/re-work of Process and Environmental Sections
Hi all, these sections were badly incomplete/out of date/not consistent with the current state of technology and I have just updated them. I will try to add some additional references and information shortly, particularly at the fuels emissions level (which is hwere I ran out of energy this evening). Sorry that it is heavily focused on the indirect FT process, but that is where the bulk of the research is, and where my expertise lies.

I eliminated ”If these methods were adopted to replace declining petroleum supplies, carbon dioxide emissions would be greatly increased on a global scale.” From the coal to liquids section, as that statement simply is not correct based on both the potential of these technologies, and what we are seeing in terms of real-world projects moving forward (even the Chinese are using CCS in their synthetic fuels plants). I substantially updated the discussion of lifecycle carbon footprints based on the results of the NETL “affordable Low Carbon Diesel from Domestic Coal and Biomass” study (dated 1-14-2009), and added a very useful graphic to show the range of emissions profiles (though that graphic is slightly dated relative to the range of footprints indicated in the latest NETL study). It was the best I had.

Best Regards, Stephen

--Sfj4076 (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

How long will synfuels last
This statement needs justification: "While at present synthetic fuel are primarily produced because of subsidies, they are a proven technology that offers the potential to solve the energy crisis due to the depletion of oil (Hubbert peak), at least for the next few hundred years." --Nagle 20:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The following is all straight from EIA data: current oil use for energy is at ~160 quadrillion Btu/year and coal is at ~90 quadrillion Btu/year . World reserves of coal are 1081 billion short tons .  Coal energy density ranges widely, but typically between 11,500-13,000 Btu/lb for bituminous/anthracite and 6,500-8,200 Btu/lb for lignite/sub-bituminous.  If coal synfuels replaced all oil tomorrow at an 80% conversion efficiency, and coal averaged 9000 Btu/lb, coal use will have to be ~16 billion short tons per year, calculated as ( 160 quadrillion Btu / 0.8 + 90 quadrillion Btu ) / ( 2000 lb/ton * 9000 Btu/lb ).  If energy usage does not increase (unrealistic, I know, but nobody can predict the rate of increase either), coal will be sufficient for 1081/16 = 70 years.  So it's not "hundreds", but "close to a hundred" ;)  On the other hand there is still plenty of oil, plus other untapped sources such as shale... so it basically works out that without major increases in demand coal synfuels can "pick up the slack" for well over a hundred years.  ObsidianOrder 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an impressive conversion efficiency you are suggesting, the efficiency of a gas to liquids plant is significantly greater than that of coal to liquids and yet a gas to liquids can only acheive 50% efficency. How is coal going to get to 80% efficiency?


 * This article describes both Syntroleum's GTL and Sasol's CTL processes to have 60% energy efficiency today.  Other studies show CTL gasifier efficiency close to 80%. and suggest that co-generation can bring overall efficiency close to that mark.  I am assuming some technology improvements (iron or iron-cobalt nanocatalysts) and some increase in efficiency from scale-up.  In any event, since petroleum consumption above is listed as pre-refinery energy content, you only need to look at the efficiency of a CTL plant relative to that of a petroleum refinery which is typically around 90%.  When running GTL/CTL, you can synthesize methanol or dimethyl ether instead of gasoline, and burning those in an internal combusion engine is considerably more energy efficient (up to 15-20%, although diesel is even more efficient), so that would mostly make up for the inefficiency of conversion.  Finally, mining coal (particularly open-pit) requires less energy than extracting oil.  Because of all these factors, 80% relative energy efficiency is conservative, on a "well/mine-to-wheels" basis.  ObsidianOrder 01:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, given the ability to produce synthetic fuels from renewable biomass, theoretically the timeline is infinite, assuming that when coal runs out facilities switched to biomass feedstocks. --Sfj4076 (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Attached picture
The picture of a plant in ruins is not representative for the article, which only briefly mentions the use in Germany during World War II and doesn't even mention reasons for decline. Furthermore, the picture is not even in that same paragraph, it's next to current developments which gives a false impression of the current state of synfuel development. Robert John Kaper (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Have been having difficulty finding a free picture of a synthetic fuels plant that is not copywritten. If anyone from Sasol comes across this, see if you can get a picture of the Secunda plant authorized to go on wikipedia. In lieu of this, I moved the picture from commercialization to a more appropriate location within the article where the processes and history of synthetic fuels was being discussed. Sfj4076 (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Synthetic Oil merger suggestion

 * Disagree. It was suggested that this article be merged into the article on synthetic oil. I disagree with this suggestion, as "synthetic fuel" and "synthetic oil", though sometimes produced through similar chemistry, refer to fundamentally very different products. In my view, the encyclopedic discussion of these different products does not benefit from such a merge. I have been working on improving the synthetic fuel article up to good article status, and it was recently suggested that this matter be resolved to further that effort. I thought it best to open this for discussion for a time in an effort to resolve the matter. Sfj4076 (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Although I support and implement WP merges in general, in this case I disagree for two reasons: (i) The main contributor of "Synthetic fuel" expressed a wish to work on this topic separately and to bring it to the GA status. (ii) Fuel and oil are different topics and should not be mixed up if being expanded. Materialscientist (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree that fuel and oil are different topics that should not be mixed. It is even more complicated as the synthetic oil means both: lubricates with synthetic compounds and synthetic (crude) hydrocarbon fuels produced from coal, oil shale, natural gas etc. If we talk about the synthetic fuel in wider term, at least different synthetic gases also should be included. This article is currently about the synthetic crude oil (or non-conventional oil) and not about the synthetic fuel in general. It starts with the definition in the lead, which says that "Synthetic fuel or synfuel is any liquid fuel obtained from coal, natural gas, or biomass." All these processes (coal-to-liquids; gas-to-liquids; biomass-to-liquids; and oil shale-to-liquids, which is missed in the definition) produce synthetic crude oil. The "synthetic oil" article, although dealing mainly with lubricates, also consists of some information about the process to produce synthetic crude oil.  That was the main reason to propose merging these article. As an alternative for merging, both articles need to be cleaned-up, "synthetic oil" article should deal only with specific lubricates, and this article should include also syngases. Alternatively, the title of this article should be changed to "Synthetic liquid fuels". If these issues would be addressed and both articles are cleaned-up to remove duplications, I have no objections to withdraw the merger proposal.Beagel (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the articles do overlap, and this should be avoided. Merging is a usual WP approach, which works fine if articles are abandoned, which is not the case. This article is yet unshaped, and I was just watching where will it go (your comments are helpful in this regard). Another issue is who will clean up synthetic oil ? Materialscientist (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved most of the history section of the synthetic oil here as it was about the history of production of synthetic fuel (synthetic crude) and not about production of lubricants. However, it needs some cleanup and expansion. I aalso shaped the lead of synthetic oil to make it clear that it deals with lubricants and not with synthetic fuels. Beagel (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

History section
Currently, the history section describes only German activities. I think that the summary of the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program should be added. Beagel (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Propose to merge the Synthetic crude article into this article. Synthetic crude produced from oil sands or oil shale belongs in the scope of the Synthetic fuel article. At the same time, the Synthetic crude article is very short consisting only four sentences. Beagel (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT the merge
 * I support the merge proposal as synfuel is synfuel regardless of the geological form of the non-traditional petrochemical formation, whether coal, oil sands or oil shale. N2e (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I also support merging, preferably of synthetic crude into synthetic fuel, since the latter seems to be more of an umbrella term. The synthetic crude article appears to be just a stub, if someone added a great deal more detail about it then maybe it would be more reasonable to have it as a separate article.  TastyCakes (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE the merge
 * I would generally oppose the merge. Synthetic crude refers to a product requiring further refining prior to eventual end use (generally tarsands, shale oil, ETC). From my perspective "Synthetic Fuel" generally refers to a refined end product. Synthetic Crude is generally blended in with conventional crude and refined (fairly) conventionally into traditional diesel and jet fuel. It is basically just a refinement of really really really heavy crude, or immature oil source rock. Synthetic fuels such as FT diesel, etc, are generally manufactured all the way from coal/biomass/natural gas feedstock to finished product all in one facility, and go through a vastly different chemical process in thier manufacture. My .02 Sfj4076 (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Other or Comments regarding the merge
 * Comment
 * I went ahead and slightly expanded the synthetic crude article, and am eliminating the merge proposal. "Synthetic fuel" is a term referring to something somewhat specific and demonstrably very different from "Synthetic crude", in both it's physical form, function, processing, and eventual end-use. Sfj4076 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)



Definition
Does the current definition of synthetic fuel covers also methanol and ethanol fuels produced from biomass? Because it says "any liquid fuel obtained from coal, natural gas, or biomass". Beagel (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is something that I don't think has really been well-defined yet. Functionally, as it is used in the language, as I have encountered it to date, I have only heard "synthetic fuel" used in reference to FT, MTG, and DCL processes.

I would think that an argument could be made that the term could theoretically be expanded to cover ethanol produced catalytically from thermochemical processing of biomass, though I think there is the possibility that such an expansion of the usage of the term could create confusion among end users. Functionally, the biological and thermochemical routes to produce ethanol from non-conventional (not corn or sugarcane) sources seem to be covered more under the blanket term "cellulosic ethanol" in conventional usage. I see no real reason to migrate away from such terminology.

As it relates to methanol, methanol itself is generally not used as a transportation fuel. DME would definitely qualify as a synthetic fuel, as would methanol refined into gasoline using the Mobil process (MTG).

So in a nutshell, I think it is probably best that ethanol be kept generally under the "cellulosic" category, unless it is manufactured from a non-biomass source, though I am sure some might argue to the contrary.

My .02 on the matter. Sfj4076 (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So, the definition definitely should explain, what is the broader mean of 'synthetic fuel' versus how it is usually understood versus how the term is used in this article. By your explanation I understand that you actually mean even more narrow definition than the current definition in this article, applying this only to the transportation fuels. It could be done, but it needs to be explained in the lead how and why the article is defined this way. Even if 'synthetic fuel' is usually used in the context of transportation fuels, it is not the only possible definition and also broader definitions are exists. As a limit, it could be any produced fuel which does not exist naturally. So, maybe Synthetic liquid fuel or Synthetic liquid transportation fuel would be more precise title for this article? Beagel (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead an added a more precise explanation of the "common usage" of synthetic fuel. I don't think renaming the article the the admittedly more precise "synthetic liquid fuel" et al is probably the best idea, primarily because of the common usage of the term "synthetic fuel", which would lead people looking for article on the term to possibly not find the appropriate page. I also eliminated oil shale and oil sand from the list of feedstocks in the intro, because those are both typically upgraded into [Synthetic crude], which is a demonstrably different intermediate product that is upgraded using conventional refining. Sfj4076 (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead is definitely looks better and the definition is easier to understand. However, this does not solve the problem. Although the "common usage" use "synthetic fuel" mainly in meaning of products of CYL and GTL processes, the term itself is not trivia and there is no scientific consensus, what should be included and what not. Just looking "synthetic fuel" search results by Google Books and Google Scholar, you could see that there are different understangs about mean of "synthetic fuel". The most restrictive definition is given by the IEA-published "Tracking Industrial Energy Eﬃciency and CO2 Emissions" according to which "Synthetic fuel, or synfuel, is any liquid fuel obtained from coal or natural gas." (page 289). At the same time, several authors are talking in the context of synthetic fuels about hydrogen and methane, fuels produced by biomass or waste pyrolysis. Some authors includes also gaseous fuels. Oil sands and oil shale are also quite often mentioned. E.g., "Handbook of alternative fuel technologies" by Sunggyu Lee, James G. Speight, and Sudarshan K. Loyalka has a a chapter 8.1 "Oil shale as synthetic fuel (synfuel) source. On its "Synthetic fuels handbook" James G. Speight uses term "synthetic fuel" in the broader context as an synonym to the "alternative" fuel and in the context of the handbook he defines it more narrow to include liquid and gaseous fuels derived from coal, oil shale, oil sands and biomass (page 2). These are not just some minor views, but views of well-established authors published in reliable sources. Therefore, to be in line with the WP:NPOV, these views should be mentioned in the article even if the article will be based on the more narrow approach. Maybe we should create a separate (first) section describing different views and explaining, which approach is used in this article?


 * I am also not fully agree with your reasoning removing oil sands and oil shales from the lead. Yes, oil sands are usually upgraded and fed after that to the conventional refinery. It is more complicated with oil shales, because very different oil shales processed by very different technologies give shale oil with very different properties. There is no commercial production of motor fuels from shale oil; however, some shale oils are used for example as a marine fuel (that mean transportation fuel) without going through the conventional refining process. Also, e.g. Lurgi-Ruhrgas process like some other oil shale processing technologies was originally invented for the coal liquefaction. Beagel (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sugar to gasoline
there are few new developments Technocrat discussion on converting sugar and cellulose to gasoline using artificial bacteria. Seems it worths to be mentioned in the article.

sustainability
I just added a section on synthetic fuels and sustainability. I put it in the environmental category, but I think that there is a decent argument for giving sustainability it's own section, as it is both an environmental, economic, and arguably even social consideration. Any thoughts on the matter? Support or oppose?Sfj4076 (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * After a quick glance I would say yes, this topic could be separate, but. The section does read as an essay. It is tempting to express own opinion, but this will quickly be bashed on WP as inappropriate (if on some other pages it is not then only because few people care to read :). Materialscientist (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not find any hint to the energy efficiency of the energy carrier GTL compared to its feed material. It would be of interest to know how much energy is lost within the fuel conversion process, respectively how much energy is need to convert 1 unit of natural gas to 1 equivalent unit of GTL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.199.43.41 (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a good question, and a somewhat complicated one. In terms of the impacts to the article, it would probably be better answered in detail on the GTL page. Generally speaking, natural gas is not an easily transportable fuel. This is a comparison that is really, at least in terms of the relative efficiency of the use of natural gas as a transportation fuel, highly dependent on WHERE the natural gas is coming from, where the fuel will be burned, how far and by what method the gas was transported, and what infrastructure is available. GTL fuel is very easily transportable (just like conventional liquid transportation fuels). Natural gas needs to be shipped through a pipeline, or for transoceanic shipping, via LNG (which has to be cooled, compressed, moved, and regasified, all at a huge energy cost). Relative availability and cost of natural gas are also highly location dependent. In Qatar, it is extremely plentiful and cheap. At the new-york city gate, you can be talking $15/MMBTU in the middle of winter. Natural gas is also far more difficult to store, and far more environmentally impactful in the event of a leak/spill (look up the GHG impact of methane). I would imagine, off hand, that at the wellhead in Qatar, from a BTU to BTU standpoint, CNG for transportation MIGHT beat out GTL (not sure about the relative vehicle efficiencies). But in most real-world applications, GTL will win, both on energy, environment, and economics (assuming that we are rational, and the GTL only comes from a sane gas source, like Russia or Qatar). Just a few considerations on the topic. Sfj4076 (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Coal Liquefaction merge proposal
I would like to propose a merge of the coal liquefaction article into the synthetic fuel article.

Coal liquefaction may provide a slightly better description of two of the direct conversion technologies, which was already the section next on my "to be improved" list, but is otherwise basically a dramatically smaller and less complete duplicate of this article. Sfj4076 (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. Coal liquefaction topic is already a part of Synthetic fuel, and I see no reason for having duplicates. Materialscientist (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Synthetic fuel is about a product in general while coal liquefaction is about the processing of the certain fuel. Although sometimes it could be useful to merge articles about the same product and same process, this is not the case. Synthetic fuels produced from coal seem to be most promising; however, they are only part of the whole specter of synthetic fuels. From technological point of view, fuels produced from different sources (coal, natural gas etc) are using different technologies (sometimes even different processes). By my understanding, the synthetic fuel article should be an umbrella article summarizing all synthetic fuels, while different synfuels and processes are described in specific articles. They should be interlinked, of course. In addition to the Coal liquefaction article we already have also Biomass to liquid, Gas to liquids, Shale oil and Shale oil extraction articles. Beagel (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but the blanket category "coal liquefaction" is also not descriptive of a given process or technology. Any one of four different primary processes could be used under that category, all of which identically match broader synthetic fuel processes. While I agree that each process (FT, bergius, MTG, Kerrack, ETC) should have it's own page, I am not sure that the conversion of a given feedstock necessarily deserves that distinction, particularly since many synthetic fuel projects under development are starting to use multiple feedstocks through the same process (CBTL plants for instance). Perhaps if there was some content in the article that was somehow specific just to coal liquefaction, and was not duplicated in the broader "synthetic fuel" category, I might be convinced to take a different view, but right now it is an incomplete stub that adds no additional content to the broader "synthetic fuel" category... my .02. Sfj4076 (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is exactly why we need to agree about the definition of 'synthetic fuel' in the first place. Right now it looks like that synthetic fuel and liquids produced from coal are the same thing. While coal-to-liquid produce definitely synthetic fuel, not all synthetic fuels are produced from oil. They are just different level terms. And GTL, BTL and shale oil processes are quite different from the coal liquefaction. I also disagree that the article is stub (at least according to the WP stub criteria), although it also needs a work. It is a spin-off from the coal article for different reasons and merging it here will cause adding some information back to the coal article. Beagel (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree that settling on the definition of the term will help clarify these type of questions (something I don't have the energy to tackle directly tonight). However, I must strongly disagree that "GTL, BTL, and Shale Oil processes are quite different from coal liquefaction". The process flow diagram of a typical BTL plant, from the point of input materials handling down, looks virtually identical to that of a CTL plant. And there is huge crossover in technologies used for coal liquefaction with certain shale oil processes for instance (Lurgi Ruhrgas). Some pyrolysis technologies probably have crossover between DCL processes and BTL processes (some BTL processes are using pyrolized biomass for feedstock densification for transport prior to gasification, for instance). We are, quite definitively, talking about the same technologies here, just different materials going into the front-end. Sfj4076 (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * They are similar in the general principles of the process; however, all of these have their own unique details in exact technologies. That would be correct, if you describe here general principles of the processes to produce synthetic liquid fuels, but it is not the same as describing the coal liquefaction only. Beagel (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And none of those unique details are covered here. All we have is general process principles. Now if we were getting into the ability/inability of a GE gasifier VS a Lurgi gasifier VS a COP E-gas gasifier to accommodate biomass alongside coal, for instance, or perhaps even better the relative efficiencies of those technologies in coal-only plants, that would be getting really specific, and would be better suited to a CTL specific article. Or if you got into really detailed information about any CTL-specific projects, or CTL specific legal issues, etc... But no such content exists in either article, beyond brief 1-sentence mentions of the existence of various plants and processes. Additionally, a very big chunk of the new projects coming forward include biomass alongside coal, making them no longer exclusively part of "coal liquefaction" as a topic, but really part of broader "synthetic fuel", because of the mixing of feedstocks, as the plant is now both part CTL, and part BTL. So for the topic at hand, I suppose the important question really is, "If there is no data that is really uniquely "coal liquefaction", and not also part of "Synthetic fuel" in the article, then why leave it there, unless the article is going to be expanded beyond the scope of general process descriptions that are also directly applicable to the broader multi-feedstock category of "synthetic fuel"? Sfj4076 (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Direct conversion process section improvements
I just wanted to mention that I just significantly expanded the direct conversion section to include the info in the Coal liquefaction article. I do believe, however, that there is still a significant hole in this section. there is no mention of the direct liquefaction processes currently under construction/undergoing startup currently in China. This section will not be complete till that is addressed.

There is also probably a need for a section addressing hybrid processes. There is some fairly recent DOE work published on the matter which, if memory serves, proposed combining DCL and FT processes in the same facility. Also, some of the processes mentioned include a gasification step, probably primarily for hydrogen production, thereby making it no longer truly a _direct_ conversion, but also including an element of indirect. Sfj4076 (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Size of the article
The size of this article is growing too long. It would be better to use a summary style in this article and to provide more detailed information in the topical articles. If necessary, that kind of daughter articles should be created. e.g., as this article is still concentrating to much to the U.S. issues, this information is better to move into the Synthetic fuels in the United States article and only summarize here. Also, this article concentrates to much to the coal liquefaction, which by the hierarchical structuring is not a synonym of the synthetic fuel. Beagel (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * US centricity
 * I am not sure how you are getting a US-centric spin on this article. Certainly some US sections were filled in first, primarily because that is the portion of the industry which which I am most familiar, but the existing/in construction projects are almost entirely international, the carbon management questions are a global phenomenon, the historical technology development, with the exception of Karrick LTC, has been virtually entirely international, ASTM is an international body, CAAFI is a cross-border effort (though led by US companies and govt primarily). Perhaps initial customers could get some more international bits, if you know of any sources that could be cited there. The "non-transportation "synfuel"" section is definitely US centric, and frankly very tertiary to this article. I would lean towards it's deletion generally except for it's historical value and general factual accuracy as something that has indeed occurred.


 * Length
 * I don't really see any sections that go into excessive detail. Perhaps some very minor trimming could be done in the new direct conversion process section, but it would be difficult to eliminate much content for "shortening" without cutting out critical data. This IS a very broad topic, and thus could be expected to be a bit lengthy, and I would point out that the article is still shorter than many others, such as the article for coal, for instance. If you have any suggestions on how content could be condensed to maximize presentation, by all means, please voice them.


 * Coal VS other feedstocks.
 * The content here does generally lean harder to the coal side, but that is also where most of the development in the industry is occurring right now, and that is where most of the historic work has been done. If you have some good studies or data that can boost up the GTL/BTL/other end, then please do include it. CTL/BCTL was an easy starting point because there is a ton of recent third-party data available on the topic, and that is also where some of the worst misinformation has been occurring. Current GTL developments ARE covered, but that space receives less environmental/other scrutiny generally due to the physical location of the projects and the nature of the players.Sfj4076 (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Synthetic fuel
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Synthetic fuel's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "handbook2": From Shale oil extraction:

 From Karrick process:

 From Coal liquefaction:

 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't understand what the problem with these references, they seems to be correct and linking right pages. Beagel (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am guessing it's something I inadvertently broke when pulling elements of that section from the coal liquefaction article. Looks like the bot fixed it automatically? probably just a shorthand ref that wasn't present in this article, but was in the other.Sfj4076 (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, looks like this. It seems to be fixed correctly, so there is no problem. Beagel (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Few topics which could be added
I noticed preparations for GA nomination, few suggestions

to mention supercritical water approach see http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/07/ignite-20090710.html and http://igniteer.com/pdfs/presentation.pdf

mention that Craig Venter approach to develop synthetic organisms to produce synthetic fuels got 600m funding. So the approach is not ready, but develops http://www.reuters.com/article/earth2Tech/idUS401267908720090714 and could bring results  ( his video lecture on TED is already linked in external links ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyKurdakov (talk • contribs) 00:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of company as an information source in projects section
RE the use of the company as an information source in the projects section, I believe that this falls under a legitemate exception to the normal wikipedia reliable sources guidelines, as detailed in the self-published sources section found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

The pertinent language in the wikipedia guidelines reads: "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Considering that the information referenced is literally nothing more then company/project name, location, expected capacity, and expected startup date, I think that the company itself could be expected to be a reliable information source, as it is that company's project! You are literally talking about THE expert in the topic, because you are getting the information officially directly from the one and only real source of information on a given project.

In any other situation, I would agree that there would be a potential objectivity issue, but in this case, anything you get from a third-party will just be a direct reiteration of information sourced from the company itself.

in this limited case, I believe it fits the manual's criteria of "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.". Further, the link is a better information source to point people to, because if there are later any project delays, capacity changes, ETC, citation of this source will point people to the most current and accurate source of information about that company's efforts. Sfj4076 (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Company sources could be used (e.g. for technical details) if accompanied with reliable third party sources about the project (at least confirming general information). In addition, it is questionable to have this section like it is right now because of possible violation of the WP:SPECULATION.Beagel (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That is all the information we are pulling from there at the moment. Extremely basic technical details of the project: name, location, capacity, and anticipated startup date. Anything more is generally starting to get out of the scope of discussion for this article. I disagree strongly that this section represents a violation of WP:SPECULATION. The key language in that section reads: All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. These projects are appropriately referred to as being in the development stage, and references to each developer are included. Each of these projects has undergone millions of dollars worth of development work, and is actively being pursued. I have not included any projects that have been shelved or canceled, or where little or no verifiable information exists. Now if you really want, I can go dig up papers from industry conferences, or news articles about these projects, so "the information can come from a third-party", but as I have mentioned before, those third-party sources will just be parroting back information given to them by the company, as it is that company's project, making them the only true expert on that given project.  But WP:SPECULATION EXPLICITLY STATES that discussion about future projects is appropriate, as long as the information is referenced, and as long as such an event would warrant inclusion upon it's completion (which is clearly the case here).Sfj4076 (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ebensee
Can Ebensee be mentioned as a underground complex producing synthetic fuel ? I am certain it produced it given a documentary I saw. Pictures of the complex: http://www.thirdreichruins.com/ebensee.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.117.89 (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)