Canadian company to look at coal as a means for nitrogen fixation.

[NNadir]

Oh shit.

HOMER -- Agrium Inc. announced Wednesday it is taking a close look at coal gasification as a way to supply its big Nikiski fertilizer plant, which is slated to close next year when low-cost natural gas runs out.


The Canadian company said it is studying construction of a gasification plant next to its Nikiski facility, using coal delivered by barge. Under the plan, the plant would probably shut down as scheduled next October, then reopen in five years when the new project is complete, company officials said.

The new facility would include a coal-fired power plant generating 100 megawatts of power for converting coal to gas and as much as 250 megawatts for sale to the Railbelt power grid. This could be the state's second-largest power plant, behind Chugach Electric Association's Beluga plant across Cook Inlet from Anchorage...

...Agrium has dubbed the project "Blue Sky." The company said the name refers to new, environmentally friendly coal gasification technology.

Speaking at an Anchorage press conference Wednesday, Boycott said the company is pessimistic about finding new supplies of low-cost gas barring a major discovery of gas in Cook Inlet. The Nikiski fertilizer plant, Alaska's largest value-added manufacturer, would likely shut down permanently next October if the gasification plan doesn't pan out, he said.

I don't know if people appreciate just what bad news this is.

China by the way has begun manufacturing vinyl chloride from coal. In China, this method is cost competitive with the use of ethylene.

Another oh shit.

[buddysmellgood]

1. Coal gasification is a good thing.

[NNadir]

2. No it is not.

It is a fatal thing.

[aquart]

4. How?

Wildly ignorant person here.

[NNadir]

6. It starts but does not end with the matter of global climate change.

The reaction to make nitrogen fertilizers is called the Haber process. The reaction is written thusly: 3H₂ + N₂ -> 2NH₃. The nitrogen, of course, is obtained from the air, but the hydrogen must be made with the investment of energy.

The modern reaction, called a reformation reaction, for making hydrogen, uses natural gas. The reaction is CH₄ + 2H₂O -> CO₂ + 4H₂.

The corresponding reaction using coal rather than natural gas is: C + 2H₂O -> CO₂ + 2H₂. Notice that there is less hydrogen made for each molecule of carbon dioxide generated, half as much in fact.

Therefore the process is more inefficient from a carbon utilization standpoint. This is especially true when you consider the temperatures at which the reactions must be conducted, and the extra energy in mining, transporting, pulverizing and otherwise treating coal.

The other issue of course is that "clean coal" is an oxymoron. The mines never become clean. The "scrubbed" waste is actually dumped. In any case the scrubbing removes only part of the aerosol contaminants.

I am long on record on this forum in opposing the expansion, indeed the continued use, of fossil fuels. We don't have very much time left in the matter of global climate change. The rest is icing on the cake.

[buddysmellgood]

10. Key to any coal gasification would be sequestering the CO2. The proposals

I've seen gasify coal to make hydrogen and CO. There is a great deal of energy in the conversion of CO to CO2. This should be the standard for using coal.

[eppur_se_muova]

11. Sequestration = sweeping it under the rug.

Pump it into the ground now, so it can seep back out later.

[buddysmellgood]

16. I don't know. That's a big question mark for me.

[eppur_se_muova]

17. to clarify...'sequestration' means different things to different people...

To some, it only refers to what I would call 'recycling', that is, the CO2 is absorbed by vegetation and converted back to biomass. (This tends to be very slow, though.) Mostly, though, it's used to refer to "trapping" CO2 underground -- basically brute-force, short-term thinking, just like the fossil-fuel industry, who are (no surprise) its chief advocates.

[buddysmellgood]

18. Trapping it underground has been tested and is claimed effective, but

obviously, the testing has been short term, and like you say, how is it kept from seeping out? I suppose it's similar to keeping other gases from seeping out. I'm not writing it off. I just don't know.

[Trillo]

22. Thanks for the chemistry formulas.

If I can understand the simple formulas, they're well explained.

[aquart]

3. Why?

Ignorant person here.

[Botany]

5. Coal Gasification ..... would add to global warming

* As the energy is used to convert coal to gas

* and when the gas is burned

[rfkrfk]

7. co-generation is the way to go .n/t

[EC]

8. Plus the danger I also noticed this:

which is slated to close next year when low-cost natural gas runs out.

natural gas is running out next year?

[Dogmudgeon]

9. The low-cost stuff

We've been very lucky to have had warmish winters for the past few years. But this winter has been very cold in Eurasia, and only partially counterbalanced by a warmish winter in North America.

Because of this, the price of natural gas is artificially low right now, but it was up around $14 mmcf in mid-autumn. It had risen on fears that the easily-recovered natural gas was just about completely gone (it's "natural" methane that is formed along with petroleum).

There's plenty of natural gas left, but it's all a lot harder to recover. Some of it requires off-shore drilling, ironically below seabed methane clathrate ices (actually, they're more like slush), which will probably be impossible to develop economically any time soon.

Anyway, natural gas is also a greenhouse gas, and burning natural gas gives off greenhouse gases. It's a short-term solution, but it's not going to be a cheap one.

--p!

[Strelnikov_]

21. Nine Years Of Proven Reserves Left In North America

And it will also have a 'hubberts peak', only with a much steeper regression leg.

Better start finding more boy-howdy quick.

[eppur_se_muova]

12. I was afraid this would happen eventually.

As the price of oil and/or gas goes up, this is only going to get more widespread. Some industrial H2 is made from oil as well, which used to be more common. Underutilization of gas (CH4) made this less competitive. Now that oil and gas are both getting priced out of reach, they are turning to coal, which is *economically* cheaper but environmentally more damaging. (Low ratio of H/C, see post #6)

Even worse, much of the NH3 is converted to nitric acid, and then to nitrates. This means that the NH3 gets burned to NOx and H2O. The net result (including the Haber process) is that N2 (from the air) combines with O2 (from the air) and H2O to form HNO3. So there's no hydrogen or carbon in the product -- in that sense, neither is really necessary, they're only burned for energy. Unfortunately, direct combination of N2 and O2 is too energy-inefficient to compete, at least as long as environmental costs are not factored in, and perhaps not at all.

[NNadir]

14. The real irony of course is that the direct reaction takes place all the

time inside internal combustion engines, where it is a big problem. Of course, it is dilute and the reaction does not make anybody (except catalyst companies) any money, but it is a real source of fixed nitrogen on a planetary scale.

The most long lived species among the nitrogen oxides is N₂0, nitrous oxide, which has a mean lifetime in the atmosphere of over 100 years. The global warming potential of nitrous oxide is about 300 compared to CO₂.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUM9T/$File/ghg_gwp.pdf

I recall reading somewhere that the quantity of nitrogen fixed by humanity now exceeds the quantity that is fixed by natural means. I'm not sure that I'm correct about that, but the problem of fixed nitrogen is a very serious matter along with the matter of CO₂.

This coal business is going to make things much worse.

[eppur_se_muova]

15. "quantity of nitrogen fixed by humanity now exceeds..." probably true.

I remember it was up to 30% around 1980, probably passed natural processes by now.

There are SO MANY people trying to duplicate azobacter enzyme catalyst behavior in the lab, it's hard to believe no one's succeeded yet.

[jpak]

13. The US should start making anhydrous ammonia using wind power

and hydrogen produced from the electrolysis of water.

Wind power is coming on strong in the Bread Basket and could be used to produce NH3 locally.

[NNadir]

19. Any idea about the efficiency and environmental impact of electrolysis?

No?

I didn't think so.

[jpak]

20. Environmental impact of electrolysis?????

none

Efficiency of electrolysis???

~5 kWh per Nm3 H2 produced

But you're right - we should make it out of coal...

:rofl:

[NNadir]

23. I guess you never heard about how electrodes are made.

This is unsurprising.