3 ms·
If we're talking about fuel for gasoline engines, probably the Bergius process would be more suitable, as that produces fairly high octane gasoline. It was exte
by jabl 4y ago
If we're talking about fuel for gasoline engines, probably the Bergius process would be more suitable, as that produces fairly high octane gasoline. It was extensively used by Nazi Germany for producing aviation gasoline, FWIW.
Fischer-Tropsch, while more widely known, is better for producing diesel and turbine type fuels.
Though the same basic objections you present are there for the Bergius process as well, capital intensive and consumes a lot of energy, so hard to imagine such fuels being economically viable.
- ComputerGuru 4y agoCurious because Porsche no longer makes any diesel engines. I don’t know about Ferrari but I assume they’re gasoline-only.
- jabl 4y agoTBH, probably a lot of the non-expert literature seems to use FT fuels as a synonym for any kind of synthetically produced liquid hydrocarbons.
- jgamman 4y agoyou want to turn coal into gasoline? i think most people consider use of FT fuels as an approx. neutral carbon emissions assuming clean energy source. >>The process involves the hydroliquefication of brown coal, also known as lignite, into crude oil.
- jabl 4y agoNo, I don't wanna turn coal into gasoline; we should try to reduce the net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, not increase it further. AFAIU the Bergius process can use any source of carbon, doesn't need to be coal. The reason Nazi Germany used it for aviation fuel was that it apparently produces a lot of aromatics, whereas FT tends to produce more straight alkanes which are fine for diesel or jet fuel but have very poor octane rating. Though the lots-of-aromatics approach to increasing octane might not be compatible with current day pollution specifications.