Visit to New Choren BTL Plant

Figure 1. Choren BTL Production Process. (Source: Choren)

Introduction

I had to dig way back in my Gmail archives to figure out how it was that I first interacted with Choren. I had written several articles on biomass gasification in 2006, and when I announced that I would be moving to Scotland in early 2007, I received an e-mail from Dr. David Henson at Choren. David, at that time in Business Development at Choren and now the President of Choren USA, said he had been reading the blog, and he extended an invitation to visit the biomass-to-liquids (BTL) plant that Choren was building in Freiberg, Germany.

While I tentatively planned to visit several times while I was living in Scotland, it wasn’t until I recently moved to the Netherlands that I was actually able to make the visit. So here is some background information on BTL, followed by the trip report from my visit on April 18th, 2008 (the day after German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Rob Routs from Shell visited for the inauguration of the facility).

BTL Background

I have written a number of articles on biomass gasification. However, let’s review. Biomass gasification takes biomass – ideally some sort of waste (and I understand that the term “waste” can be contentious) plant material – and partially burns the material with a controlled amount of oxygen to produce carbon monoxide and hydrogen (synthesis gas, or syngas). One of the often overlooked benefits of the thermochemical approach over fermentation is that it can be used to produce chemicals, synthetic natural gas, or electricity – and from a wide range of feedstocks. There are many different variations of how the gasification process is done, and I will delve into the specifics of what Choren is doing in the next section.

Once you have produced syngas, you can go a number of different directions. You can burn the syngas to produce combined heat and power (this has some cleanliness and efficiency advantages over directly burning the biomass), produce methanol, ethanol (Range Fuels, Coskata, Syntec), mixed alcohols (Standard Alcohol, Power Ecalene Fuels), or hydrocarbons like diesel via the Fischer-Tropsch process (FT). This latter approach is what Choren is doing. The diesel they are producing is not biodiesel, but “green diesel” as I have described in this essay (scroll down to the “renewable diesel” section).

To my knowledge no other company in the world is as far along as Choren is in producing diesel (and maybe any liquid fuel) from gasifying biomass. Whereas Range Fuels is currently building a plant (and the schedule for that is already slipping), and Coskata is building a much smaller demonstration plant, Choren has been piloting their technology since 1998, and their new plant is mechanically complete. (Yet Choren – funded largely by private investors – has been pretty low-key, issuing a fraction of the press releases of some of the other biofuel companies).

Choren’s Process

The Choren process (incidentally, Choren’s name comes from Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and renewable) starts off by feeding biomass into a low-temperature gasifier (about 500 degrees C). The purpose of this step is to remove volatile components that will form tars at higher temperatures. What remains in the gasifier is called char, and is fed into the high temperature gasifier.

Figure 2. Choren Gasification Process. (Source: Choren)

The volatile components are mixed with oxygen and steam and also fed into the high temperature gasifier where temperatures are around 1400 degrees C. Under these conditions, the volatile components are broken down into syngas. The char is first pulverized, and then blown into the bottom of the high-temperature gasifier. The gas that exits the high-temperature gasifier is cooled, generating steam in the process that is used for power generation. The gas is then further treated (filtered and scrubbed), and it is ready for the Fischer-Tropsch process. You can see an animation of the entire process here.

The gasification section of the plant has been in operation since 2004, proving the scale up of the design. Since 2005, the FT section of the plant has been under construction and is now mechanically complete.

I won’t go into detail on the FT process. That technology has been around for almost 100 years, and is best-known as the process by which Germany produced their fuel from coal in World War II. Shell – a world leader in FT technology – provided the FT for the Choren plant. If you are interested in learning more about Shell FT, you can read here about the 15 years of experience they have gained from their gas-to-liquids (GTL) plant in Bintulu, Malaysia. (In addition to providing the FT technology, Shell is also an investor in Choren).

The Plant Tour

It was difficult to find the place, and I got to brush up on my German a couple of times when I had to ask for directions. But finally we (I was with a colleague) found the place and met up with David. He started off with an introductory slide show in which he walked us through the process. One of the more interesting comments he made was that the potential production of their second generation product (dubbed SunDiesel®) is up to 3 times the production of first generation fuels. A third party analysis of various biofuels may be found here, at the Fachagentur fur Nachwachsenden Rohstoffe (FNR). This agency is essentially the German Renewable Energy Department. Detailed information on various BTL platforms can be found here.

Figure 3. Choren BTL Plant in Freiberg, Germany. (Source: Choren)

The new Choren plant, utilizes forest residue and waste wood and will take in 68,000 tons of biomass per year and produce 18 million liters of diesel and 45 MW of power. One thing David mentioned that too many in this business don’t seem to get is “You know, biomass just isn’t very energy dense.” Therein lies the source of a lot of people’s misconceptions about rapidly scaling up biomass to replace petroleum. The energy density is problematic to say that least – and this poses big logistical challenges.

We finally got to walk around the plant, and they have done a really nice job. Everything was brand new, and the design was well-thought out and well-engineered. This was not like a typical dirty, old refinery or ethanol plant I have walked through before: This plant was a Cadillac. Of course it’s a Cadillac yet to be driven, but it sure was a pretty picture. Here are some facts about the plant, courtesy of Choren:

Maximum production: 18 million litres of BTL p.a (= the annual requirement of about 15,000 cars)
Biomass requirement: About 65,000 tonnes of wood (dry matter) p.a.
Raw materials: Forest residue and waste timber
Supply is secure for several years
Investment: About €100 million
Technical details: 31.5 km pipelines, 57 km electrical cables,
5,000 fittings, 5,000 measuring signals,
60 pumps, 181 containers and reactors
45 MWth output
Partners: SHELL, Daimler and Volkwagon
Synthesis/hydrocracking partner: Shell

Of particular interest was the material handling piece, as this is a major cost factor in driving up the capital costs in a BTL plant. We traced out how the material comes into the plant, and how the flows of volatiles and char come off of the low-temperature gasifier. The one piece we didn’t really look at was the FT back end, but then again I have seen those before.

So, where do things stand, and what’s next? From the Choren site:

Over 150 suppliers and around 50 assembly companies, including many from the region, were involved in the building of the Beta plant. CHOREN designed and manufactured 180 main components itself. Over 600 companies had been involved in the development of the Carbo-V® technology. By April 2008 around 800,000 man-hours have been utilized in development and assembly, and the overall number of employees almost doubled.

In the coming months 113 sub-systems in 26 main operating units will be started up individually then in sequence. Around 1,200 steps will be needed for the commissioning of these systems, which in themselves consist of several sub-steps. A highly-complex process, which, not unusually for plants of this complexity, will take 8 to 12 months. CHOREN will receive valuable support for this from Shell.

What’s the Catch?

Capital costs for BTL are still pretty high. On the other hand, Choren’s costs were sunk at a much lower capital cost. Oil at $120/bbl should help them out quite a bit – provided they have a pretty good contract on their biomass. I have no doubt that they will be successful from a technical standpoint. They have a lot of experience on the gasification piece, having piloted it since the 90’s. Shell has many years of experience on the back-end FT piece. No doubt there will be some unexpected bumps as they commission the plant; after all it is a first of its kind and speaking from experience issues will come up. But they have a lot of engineers on staff, and I don’t think they will find any show-stoppers.

There are those who insist that using biomass for fuels can never be sustainable – so there are likely to be critics on that front. However, I disagree with this. There are a number of biomass sources that are true waste, and biomass can be grown sustainably. On the other hand, it can also be used to strip-mine the soil. Like most things, there are right ways and wrong ways to go about it. Biofuels have a part to play. But it would be foolish to try to completely replace petroleum with biofuels. That would require unsustainable practices. Incidentally, Choren has a life-cycle-analysis (LCA) on their process. Highlights can be seen here.

Short-term, I don’t know that this plant will be large enough to be profitable. I don’t think that’s the primary purpose; I think proving the technology for future plants is the purpose. In the longer-term, even though I am a fan of electrifying our transportation options, we will always have a demand for liquid fuel. Choren is trailblazing in an area that I believe will supply our liquid fuel in the future. The only question is, “How far off is that future?”

Additional Reading Material

Brochures and lectures for downloading may be found on Choren’s site here.

41 thoughts on “Visit to New Choren BTL Plant”

  1. This is a good explanation, I got a lot out of the essay.

    I think you have seen the idea that I had for a self-propelled agricultural biomass gasification system. In the first stage of the Choren process where they use a low-temperature gasifier to separate char from pyrolysis gas, how long does it take the material to “cook” in the first stage?

    I grew up around making hay and silage on a large scale and I have a very good understanding of how much effort is required to gather agricultural biomass and how difficult it is to deal with high moisture material once it is harvested. In the area where we farmed, there were many seasons where crop had to be taken off with too high of a moisture content and dried in a propane grain dryer. It takes a huge amount of energy to dry biomass and that was just to 14% moisture (for wheat) for storage and probably not dry enough to attempt to burn it.

    In the case of cereal straw traditionally harvested, once it is lying on the ground it is going to have a higher moisture content than if it was dessicated standing. The idea I had was to grow crops in a rotation specifically to harvest the biomass, utilized intercrop techniques to lower input costs (which in some cases can’t be done if the crop was intended for food) and then dessicate and gasify the whole plant including the seed.

    Anyway, I can’t see agricultural biomass being feasible whatsoever unless it is processed to a higher energy density interim material and that’s where I was going with the Energy Harvester idea. I don’t think biofuels have any value besides as a recycling tool, so I haven’t put much effort into developing the idea.

  2. ROBERT–

    one question/one reference:
    1] what happens to CO products?

    2] a visit to dkrwadvancedfuel.com may be of interest. this covers USA venture towards 15000+ BBL/day petroleum products–2009STB, 2013 production. multiple world site outlook[CERA 2008 video].

    fran

  3. When I read up on these processes a while ago, material handling was one major issue as you pointed out. I also recall that a catalyst is required, and its life expectancy (and replacement cost) was another big factor.

    I’ve also looked at boilers for burning wood with other waste products as fuel, and it seems hard to find a supply of wood that is low in moisture content (as Bob mentioned). A lot of the energy required on the front end of the process goes into vaporizing water.

  4. “There are a number of biomass sources that are true waste”

    For example?

    You know as well as I do that any kind of biomass can be used as fertilizer, either directly or composted. And demand for biomass for agricultural purposes is already picking up due to skyrocketing fertilizer prices.

    Let me hasten to add that I am not against this technology. But I still don’t see how any kind of biofuel operation can be scaled up to sustain what oil has built.

  5. Biomass is an excellent solution to local and regional energy and economic needs. Think locally and regionally. Don’t try to replace all fossil fuels with biomass.

    There is no “magic bullet” replacement for fossils. We’ve built the fossil fuel infrastructure over a 100+ year interval, so don’t expect instant gratification from other energy sources. It takes time and investment.

    Choren is a good approach, a good feasibility study to learn from. Better to learn these lessons at $120 a barrel than at $220 a barrel.

  6. What do you think of this story?

    I had seen that, and I tend to agree. While I think it would be a lot better all around if we could move to electric cars, the reality is that internal combustion is going to be with us for a long time.

    Cheers, RR

  7. 1] what happens to CO products?

    In the FT process, CO is incorporated into the hydrocarbon chain. This is what actually builds the chain up (the “C” part).

    Cheers, RR

  8. “There are a number of biomass sources that are true waste”

    For example?

    I am going to be a little coy about that for now, as I am having discussions with people about utilizing some of those sources. But I am aware of situations in which they are struggling with what to do with excess biomass.

    Flying back to Europe today, so I will be out of contact for a bit.

    Cheers, RR

  9. And if you supplement this process with an external heat source for gasification and excess hydrogen what would the yield be?

    Can they use municiple waste as a feedstock?

  10. Their annual production would supply the US for about 20 minutes, if we could substitute diesel for all our gasoline use.

  11. ROBERT–

    thanks for answer on disposition of CO. had i done my reading properly, the answer was in the CHOREN animation reference you provided. i’ll try to be better disciplined next time.

    BTW, DKRW also has master license contract for FT process thru RENTEK[iron catalyst]. RTK is about to begin pilot production of various feed stocks in Colorado facility[less than 100 bbl/day testing facility]. more definition may be forthcoming with RTK quarterly report 5/9/08.

    fran

  12. There will be huge demand for their product.

    Europe is heading rapidly towards a 5% biofuels mandate and the output of this plant will go some way to providing this biofuel with less impact (on food prices) than traditional ethanol crops.

    I realise that this is only a demonstration scale plant, but even then just to provide 5% of the UK’s 0.8 mbd diesel habit, you’d need 129 of these plants. Thats just for 5% of the UK’s diesel demand. It doesn’t include any of the gasoline demand fraction.

    I think its fair to say that biomass doesn’t scale well.

    Andy

  13. I deeply admire the technical virtuosity and determination that led to creation of the Choren plant. The Choren crew strikes me as very smart people doing good work.
    That said, I have to ask: Would it not make more sense to gather biomass and just burn it, to turn a steam engine? Use resultant power to juice PHEVs.
    In addition, this would make pollution control easier.
    I am not in the AGW crowd, but if CO2 is sequestered at the plant, then the system becomes CO2 negative. I have read it is possible to produce CO2 chars and use them for fertlizer.
    Of course, the PHEVs are not on the road yet…

  14. Anon – the article on the IC engine I think is spot on. In another post I listed about a dozen things I think automakers coudl do to increase fuel efficiency.

    I’ve been looking at electrifying components on my vehicle to boost fuel efficiency. The idea is to reduce the mechanical drag on the engine. While not a true “hybrid” you could add a couple of deep cycle batteries to run the accessories in your car. You could charge them up in the garage over night, or even install a small solar panel to charge up the batteries during the day. At $3.50/gallon for gasoline and 15% efficiency, you are paying the equivalent of 64 cents/kWh. A

    Imagine covering the hood and roof with thin film solar panels which charge up batteries to run the accessories.

  15. “There are a number of biomass sources that are true waste”
    For example?

    The bulk of landfill waste is paper, as discussed here. Even after all the recycling everyone likes to pat themselves on the back for. Please explain the fertilizer value of paper. Note that landfill waste is 61% renewable and 87% organic. Huge opportunity, right there. Build your Choren plant next to a landfill, and have the added bonus of no (additional) transportation costs, and significantly increasing the life of the landfill. Can you say win-win-win?

    And note that using biomass for fuel does not preclude the recovery of some of the nutrients. The ash from the process would contain the bulk of the nutrients, and can be used as fertilizer.

  16. There is an answer to your concerns about the huge energy demand required for drying biomass prior to gasification: wet gasification. That’s right folks, as long as it is more than 2% solids, the claim is that this technology is a net energy producer.

    And you thought Uncle Sam wasn’t capable of making a positive contribution. The only odd thing is that this is USDA, not DOE. I guess DOE is tied up with corn ethanol…

  17. Dynomotive in Canada (with US and Argentina offices) which appears to have some of the same pyrolysis ideas as Choren says they have shipped Bio-Oil from their Guelph plant.

    RR: You didn’t answer my question way up at the top about how long the material takes to go through the low-temp initial pyrolysis.

  18. RR: You didn’t answer my question way up at the top about how long the material takes to go through the low-temp initial pyrolysis.

    I don’t recall David ever mentioning the residence time in the pyrolysis step. You could probably calculate a rough number, given the planned production rates of the plant.

  19. Al Fin Said: “Biomass is an excellent solution to local and regional energy and economic needs. Think locally and regionally.”

    Maybe, maybe not.

    In the 1500s England was powering itself exclusively with biomass — wood from the forests that covered the land.

    Before they figured out coal was a better, more dense source of energy, they had almost denuded their green and lovely land of forests, and only the very rich were able to stay warm in the winter.

    If England’s biomass fuel wasn’t sufficient to power a country even when energy demands were extremely low by today’s standards, why do you think biomass can power us today?

    Full speed ahead to reliable, safe, fusion energy.

  20. If England’s biomass fuel wasn’t sufficient to power a country even when energy demands were extremely low by today’s standards, why do you think biomass can power us today?
    Oh, I don’t know, but the following comes to mind:
    1. Increased efficiency, including such things as improved insulation.
    2. Ability to ramp up primary production.
    3. Ability to recover energy from true waste, i.e. landfill waste.
    4. A better understanding of sustainable use of the available biomass, such as Finland’s harvesting its forests for paper production.

  21. Too true, Doggy.

    But did you notice the other day when the president spoke about the oil reserve available in ANWAR he measured it in GALLONS. Made me suspect there isn’t much there…

  22. Robert,

    I read your essay on TOD, and a user named “half full” posted a good question, politely expressed, about nutrient recycling with respect to the Choren plant. Unfortunately, the thread exploded into a flame war, and the original question was ignored. I’ll ask it again here and hope you can respond with your usual thoroughness. Quoting half full:

    “I have a question about the sustainability though. Do they recover nutrients? I expect some ammonia and volatile amines will be produced in the first step as they are in low-temp coal gasification. Potassium is volatile at 1400 C, so where does it go, and phosphorus should remain as glass in the ash, acid leachable, so do they?”

  23. Good question, mister.

    The phosphorus and potassium would be part of the slag that would drop out of the Carbo V gasifier (note that the temperature at this point is only 800°C). I read somewhere that this is considered a waste, although I suspect the potential is there for recovery as a fertilizer.

    The nitrogen (I suspect) would convert to NOx during gasification (King? RR?). The NOx would be removed from the syngas in the scrubber just before the FT synthesis, together with SOx and Cl. Got to yield a nasty mixed acid. Not sure recovery from this is practical, but I could be wrong.

    Remember, this is a demonstration scale plant, only 310 bbl/d, as Doggy pointed out. Recovering nutrients may not make sense at this scale. At a full scale plant it might be a different story.

    RR, did you forget to include the link to the LCA?

    Posted this at TOD, did you? You are a brave man! Such optimism is not well received over there.

  24. Do they recover nutrients? I expect some ammonia and volatile amines will be produced in the first step as they are in low-temp coal gasification. Potassium is volatile at 1400 C, so where does it go, and phosphorus should remain as glass in the ash, acid leachable, so do they?”

    I need to be careful what I say here, because I am covered by a secrecy agreement. Let me speak in generalities. First, remember that this is a demonstration plant on a fairly small scale. As such, it won’t necessarily have all the bells and whistles of a larger plant. But these guys are very aware of the sustainability issues. I don’t suppose any of those guys complaining about lack of sustainability actually read the LCA.

    Now, having said that, they do scrub the gas, which captures certain volatiles, and the ash contains the minerals.

    On my recent trip to India, I saw that they capture the ash from burning bagasse, mix it with compost derived from one of the waste streams, and give it all back to the farmer as fertilizer to put back on the soil. What they are practicing is very sustainable.

    Cheers, RR

  25. The nitrogen (I suspect) would convert to NOx during gasification (King? RR?).

    The majority is generally lost through respiration by the plants. That’s why you either have to apply nitrogen fertilizer to many crops, or rotate with something that fixes nitrogen.

    Recovering nutrients may not make sense at this scale. At a full scale plant it might be a different story.

    Heh. We were writing the same things at the same time.

    RR, did you forget to include the link to the LCA?

    No, it’s there. Second to last paragraph.

    Posted this at TOD, did you? You are a brave man! Such optimism is not well received over there.

    You should check out some of the comments. Some were really over the top. Others were well-received. But there is always a vocal minority who will argue against any possible efforts at mitigation. They would rather sit on the sidelines, eating popcorn, as they gleefully watch the world end.

    Cheers, Robert

  26. The majority is generally lost through respiration by the plants. That’s why you either have to apply nitrogen fertilizer to many crops, or rotate with something that fixes nitrogen.
    You’re a smart guy, RR, but biology is obviously not your field. What you are describing happens to water, not nitrogen.

    Like all living organisms, plants need nitrogen to survive. In biochemical terms the nitrogen is contained in proteins (including all enzymes) and nucleic acids (including DNA & RNA). The basic nitrogen cycle may be of interest.

    From a BTL point of view, the bottom line in this: that woody waste will contain some nitrogen. Although, I have to admit, it is lower than I would have guessed: Nitrogen concentrations vary between 0.03 and 0.50% (average 0.20±0.002).

    My question remains: is it fair to assume it ends up as NOx in the scrubber blow-down?

    BTW, the keep-applying-the-nitrogen you know of as a farmboy, is due to the fact that nitrates are mobile and gets leached out by rains, irrigation, etc.

    You should check out some of the comments.
    I did, now. It was better received than I was expecting, excluding the odd ecocidal ape (Turn to the whales for wisdom, he implores!). Idiot!

    Also, the 45 MW thermal [throughput](equivalent to 65,000 t/a dry wood) caused a lot of confusion. You may need to explain that bit.

  27. RR, did you forget to include the link to the LCA?
    – No, it’s there. Second to last paragraph.

    There’s a comment, but no link in the second to last paragraph. You do have the link in your TOD piece. Not sure why it did not get through here…

  28. There’s a comment, but no link in the second to last paragraph.

    Last word of the 2nd to last paragraph is the word “here.” I just clicked the link, and it took me to the LCA highlights.

  29. You’re a smart guy, RR, but biology is obviously not your field. What you are describing happens to water, not nitrogen.

    That’s true, which is why I posed the exact same question to a Professor of Plant Physiology at a major university. I was asking about application of nitrogen fertilizer, and the possibility of recycling all of the biomass back to the field to recover the nitrogen. His response? Won’t work, because the nitrogen is mostly lost to the atmosphere as the plant grows. If I recall correctly – and I do have this written down in my notebook somewhere – he said the bulk of the nitrogen escapes the leaves as ammonia.

    And the reason I posed the question is that the raw analysis of the biomass in question showed very little nitrogen. I wanted to know where it had gone.

    Cheers, RR

  30. Won’t work, because the nitrogen is mostly lost to the atmosphere as the plant grows.
    Let me get this straight: this guy says in nature, plants would have to fix nitrogen, at cost, and then just release it into the atmosphere? That would make forests pretty bad for air quality. And what happens to the ammonia once it’s released into the air?

    Perhaps it’s a recent discovery, because I see no mention of plant release of ammonia (or NOx) to the air in the referenced discussion of the nitrogen cycle. More likely, the good professor got his wires crossed.

    The ammonia in the fertilizer gets oxidized to nitrate. The nitrate is water soluble (like ammonia) and mobile (unlike ammonia). This is why you need to redose fertilizer after major rains.

    You still haven’t commented on the fate of what little nitrogen is present in the feedstock.

    I guess the future of renewable nitrogen fertilizer is manipulation of nitrogen fixing bacteria. I guess the GM researchers are working on that as we speak…

    Last word of the 2nd to last paragraph is the word “here.” I just clicked the link, and it took me to the LCA highlights.
    Don’t ask me how this works, but it (that “here”) is not showing up as a link (blue with underline) on my computer. Can’t click it!~?!?!?

  31. Let me get this straight: this guy says in nature, plants would have to fix nitrogen, at cost, and then just release it into the atmosphere?

    Some of it, was what he said. I was trying to do the nitrogen balance, and it was entirely unclear to me why the biomass couldn’t be recycled. It had very little nitrogen remaining in it. So I wanted to know where it went.

    As far as what is in there, yes, I would suspect that the remaining nitrogen would end up as NOx in the high temperature gasifier, and eventually make its way out a vent somewhere.

    Don’t ask me how this works, but it (that “here”) is not showing up as a link (blue with underline) on my computer. Can’t click it!~?!?!?

    I think this solves a mystery. For some reason, Blogger editing software inserted those links as “blocked”. The format is title=”blocked::http://www.choren.com

    The thing is, I couldn’t figure out why it put the “blocked” in there, nor what it did. I think you have answered the “what it did” question. It blocks the links from showing up under some circumstances. I am going to reinsert the link (there were several others like that) and remove that qualifier. Then tell me if you can see it.

    In fact, I just did it. Let me know if you see the link now.

    Cheers, Robert

  32. As far as what is in there, yes, I would suspect that the remaining nitrogen would end up as NOx in the high temperature gasifier, and eventually make its way out a vent somewhere.
    Or into the scrubber blow-down, as it were.

    In fact, I just did it. Let me know if you see the link now.
    OK, that works. Sorry to be a PITA.

  33. OK, that works. Sorry to be a PITA.

    Not at all. I was very puzzled as to what that qualifier meant. I still don’t know “why” it blocked you from seeing it. Further, at TOD it has the exact same “blocked” qualifier, so funny that you could see it there. I tried to look up the qualifier to determine what it means, but could never find anything on it.

    Let me ask you this. When I list all of those companies in the BTL Background section, they all showed up with “blocked.” Do you have a link to “Range Fuels” or “Coskata”?

    Cheers, RR

  34. Perhaps it’s a recent discovery, because I see no mention of plant release of ammonia (or NOx) to the air in the referenced discussion of the nitrogen cycle. More likely, the good professor got his wires crossed.

    By the way, this is who told me that:

    Professor Benjamin L. Legendre

    Cheers, RR

  35. OK, here it is: missing links compared to TOD:
    1. Angela Merkel
    2. Range Fuels, Coskata, Syntec
    3. Standard Alcohol, Power Ecalene Fuels
    4. Fischer-Tropsch process
    5. “as I have described in this essay (scroll down to the “renewable diesel” section)”

    By the way, this is who told me that: Professor Benjamin L. Legendre
    I’ll look into this and let you know what I find. Off the bat it just sounds weird.

  36. Will gasification whttp://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.htmlork for coal??

  37. Gasification works with any source of carbon. With coal it is CTL instead of BTL.

Comments are closed.