Talk:Bergius process

Chemistry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemical and Bio Engineering (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Chemical and Bio EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringChemical and Bio Engineering articles

Questions[edit]

1. WTF is "watergas?" Is this Martian for "steam?"

According to Mirriam-Webster, water gas is "a poisonous flammable gaseous mixture that consists chiefly of carbon monoxide and hydrogen with small amounts of methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen, is usually made by blowing air and then steam over red-hot coke or coal, and is used as a fuel or after carbureting as an illuminant". I believe the correct usage is two words. --User:Haligonian1 7 June 2006

Water gas --WhiteDragon 13:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. If the "heavy oil" is from this process, why is this the first time it's mentioned? Step 1 is said to produce only syngas.

3. What reactor? I thought we were making oil, not plutonium! Does the iron oxide catalyst make the mixture "hot," or do you have to cook it?

A reactor does not have to be nuclear. --User:Haligonian1 7 June 2006

4. Does "Reaction 1.st part" mean the "watergas reaction" in step 1?

This article doesn't really describe any process at all. Someone familiar with the process who is also familiar with the English language should rewrite it.

5. the article states that 97% of the coal feed can be converted to petroleum, is this by weigh or volume? I need to know how many litres of petrol could be produced from a ton of coal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.161.155 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning?[edit]

Does the author mean the "water gas shift reaction" in step 1? If so, the link should be changed accordingly. The steps of the process should be re-written in the passive voice. The "Future" section was not helpful as written, so I deleted it. Perhaps it could be re-written by an expert. I deleted the link to Jennings Randolph, since the important material is already covered in the article Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program. --User:Haligonian1 7 June 2006

removed ref[edit]

External link removed via User:JzG edit

The Karrick LTC Process

J. D. Redding 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kg or ton?[edit]

The article writes:"A typical hydrogen demand is ~8 kg hydrogen per ton of dry, ash-free coal". Well, just 8 Kg of hydrogen won't transform a ton of lignite into syntetic oil.Agre22 (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Last sentence[edit]

The last sentence:

"The objection to it by big oil in Houston was that the cost estimates for commercial production were so low that the corporations' oilfield resources would be rendered worthless, therefore the program had to be terminated to protect the profits of big oil."

May or may not be true, but definitely is not the sort of thing to include in this sort of article. An in depth discussion of the economics of utilizing this process today would be informative, and the reader can draw their own conclusions regarding the political influence of industry groups.

On an aside, if the technology could really render all conventional oil fields useless, it would be incredibly profitable to own and operate a plant utilizing it. Eventually if enough plants were built the demand for coal and the availibility of liquid fuels would increase, thus making the whole thing less profitable. It really is a question of the price of coal and catalysts versus the price of oil that will influence whether the process is implemented commercially or not.

If something cannot be cited or verified, it should not be mentioned in the article. Or at least use the words "certain people have alleged that...".

If the allegation is true then provide a reference for it, otherwise it is speculation and rather biased against the "big oil" - whatever that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.135.128 (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion Efficiency[edit]

5. the article states that 97% of the coal feed can be converted to petroleum, is this by weigh or volume? I need to know how many litres of petrol could be produced from a ton of coal?

Neutrality questioned[edit]

I'm no fan of "Big Oil" either but on WP we must author for a neutral POV, obviously. Can the person connected with the original authorship go in and 'fix' the issue here. Otherwise, this is a quite notable topic. Thanks. 99.32.160.175 (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bergius process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050319152020/http://www.engr.pitt.edu:80/pcc/Missing%20Papers/243.pdf to http://www.engr.pitt.edu/pcc/Missing%20Papers/243.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilsonville[edit]

Coal Conversion Processes, Liquefaction doi:10.1002/0471238961.1209172102011204.a01
Hydroprocessing of Direct Coal Liquefaction Product for Diesel Engine Fuel doi:10.4271/892131
[ Progress in Coal Liquefaction Including a Discussion of Wilsonville Data https://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint%20archive/Files/48_1_New%20Orleans__03-03_0424.pdf]

--Stone (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]