Thanks. But they dismiss the use of coal and gas because of the inefficiency of the Fischer-Tropsch process, which requires lots of hydrogen. But the OX-ZEO process avoids it, meaning it’s able to use syngas directly with high efficiency.
That’s a useful pointer, and OX-ZEO is genuinely interesting chemistry. My understanding, though, is that it doesn’t overturn the basic objection.
It improves direct syngas conversion, especially for light olefins, and DICP has demonstrated it at small pilot scale. But that is still a long way from commercial, durable, commodity-scale economics.
It also doesn’t avoid the hard upstream problem. The process still needs syngas, so the CO and hydrogen still have to come from somewhere, be cleaned, compressed, reacted, and separated. Better selectivity is valuable, but it isn’t the same as eliminating the hydrogen, carbon, capital cost, and plant-complexity issues.
So I’d put OX-ZEO in the “worth watching for China’s coal-chemicals sector” bucket, not the “this makes coal or gas to synthetic fuels viable” bucket. Paul Martin’s basic critique still looks intact to me.
I’m in the midst of a world view series that articulates a handful of major perspectives I hold onto when considering the transition. Writing down the stuff I rarely say out loud. They will have a page devoted to them, as do my reports and 2100 scenarios which I’m formalizing.
Do you know if there are any ways to make petrochemicals economically without oil, gas and carbon emissions?
In addition to the piece you found, my go to is Paul Martin's refinery of the future piece on LinkedIn.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/refinery-future-thought-experiment-paul-martin-4pfoc/
Thanks. But they dismiss the use of coal and gas because of the inefficiency of the Fischer-Tropsch process, which requires lots of hydrogen. But the OX-ZEO process avoids it, meaning it’s able to use syngas directly with high efficiency.
Here’s some more pieces on it:
https://archive.ph/u61QZ
http://www.fruit.dicp.ac.cn/info/1043/4177.htm
https://fruit.dicp.ac.cn/info/1005/4000.htm
That’s a useful pointer, and OX-ZEO is genuinely interesting chemistry. My understanding, though, is that it doesn’t overturn the basic objection.
It improves direct syngas conversion, especially for light olefins, and DICP has demonstrated it at small pilot scale. But that is still a long way from commercial, durable, commodity-scale economics.
It also doesn’t avoid the hard upstream problem. The process still needs syngas, so the CO and hydrogen still have to come from somewhere, be cleaned, compressed, reacted, and separated. Better selectivity is valuable, but it isn’t the same as eliminating the hydrogen, carbon, capital cost, and plant-complexity issues.
So I’d put OX-ZEO in the “worth watching for China’s coal-chemicals sector” bucket, not the “this makes coal or gas to synthetic fuels viable” bucket. Paul Martin’s basic critique still looks intact to me.
What I was thinking of was using coal/gas with carbon capture to make the syngas, not of capturing CO2 from the atmosphere and making green H2.
I’m sorry if I’m talking too much
It would help to avoid dependence on imported oil.
Found it: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aea0774
This is an important framework. Spread the word, help lead the way, Michael. Well done.
Brilliant. You are on a roll with such insightful analyses, articulated with clarity and brevity. Thanks so much, Michael
michael
I’m in the midst of a world view series that articulates a handful of major perspectives I hold onto when considering the transition. Writing down the stuff I rarely say out loud. They will have a page devoted to them, as do my reports and 2100 scenarios which I’m formalizing.
Great analysis as usual.
I wrote my own piece of the death of the oil refinery and it's consequences if transport electrification succeeds. It it linked below.
https://mdnadimahmed888222.substack.com/p/after-the-refinery
I would love to get your opinion on the piece.