Talk:Fischer–Tropsch process

message: The article speaks of conversion of carbon monoxide to alkanes, from coal to synthetic petrol. But how do you get the carbon monoxide from coal? This simple basic information is missing and jeopardizes the whole understanding. 
From start to end, this article is a horrible mess, readable only to a chemist with a knowledge of the process.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.110.171 (talk) 21:4021 December 2011 (UTC) 
You get it the easy way, BURN hot with short oxygen supply. The hotter it is it creates mostly CO and heat. Seniorsag (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "carbon monoxide from coal? " What do you mean? CO is not extracted from Coal. CO is precursor of the FTS. 85.145.234.113 (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreadable 

message: This page really needs an image that actually represents anything. The current image merely shows a succession of black boxes, all of which are oddly named -- Ec5618 11:53, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I like the three pipes and a no smoking sign labelled as a pilot process plant. "LOOK AT OUR PILOT PROCESS PLANT! YOU CAN LEARN A LOT FROM OUR THREE PIPES AND A NO SMOKING SIGN!"; I'm half tempted to remove the picture because of its utter ridiculous uselessness. Without the caption, it could just as easily be a picture of a paper mill, an oil refinery, or a particularly ambitious office building.SJ Zero (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestions: (i) take your medications, (ii) find improved images and replace those that you find deficient, (iii) go kick a wall.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So sorry. In the future I'll be sure to only write using Smokefoot-approved sentences.SJ Zero (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I cannot see where the step from coal to Syngas is discussed, nor where the excess CO2 comes from in the overall process from coal to diesel. The Fischer-Trope process itself doesn't show any CO on the output side of the equation. Since this CO production is one of the major disadvantages of the process, I think it would be useful to outline that preliminary step. 
Hsfrey 05:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't about the Global Warming scam.98.165.6.225 (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to page author 

message: Fischer-Tropsch was widely used in Nazi Germany but it was not the only way to produce synthetic fuels from coal. The other one was direct coal liquefaction, which accounted for an even larger fraction of the production of fuels. In 1944  in the Reich there were 18 direct liquefaction plants vs. only 9 FT plants.
Source: 
Hispalois 16:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That link doesn't seem to work. And may I ask what your reason for posting this is? -- Ec5618 16:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooops, you are right, here is the updated link. My point is that the current version of the article says that in 1944 Germany "synthetic fuel production reached more than 124,000 barrels per day from 25 plants", which is true but the way it is written it leads to thinking that all 25 plants were Fischer-Tropsch. In actual fact, only 9 of them were FT whereas the majority (18, according to my source) were direct liquefaction. I propose that the article be rewritten to avoid this misunderstanding. Since it is a peer-reviewed article, I preferred to submit the information and get feed-back before editing the article myself. Hispalois 21:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Think you might find that this process was obsolete by the start of the 2nd world war and it was the 'Coalite' process that had taken over. From memory, I think they sold the pattern in 1936. --Aspro 21:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FT in Nazi Germany 

message: While FT liquid fuels were produced during the Apartheid era - Apartheid and the sanctions that ultimately resulted from that policy were not the cause of SA using FT - it was simply its lack of oil resources.
-------------
"The world’s only commercial integrated coal-to-liquid fuels and chemicals are
currently produced in South Africa by the Sasol company, and there currently exist two
commercial GTL plants -- Shell in Malaysia and PetroSA in South Africa -- a third one is
now being commissioned by Sasol in Qatar. The history of Sasol’s success stretches
back many years and in retrospect it is a development based on astute planning,
foresight, willpower, and fortuitous timing. This history is covered briefly, and it provides
some lessons for alternate liquid fuel technology commercialization.
A white paper was submitted to the South African Parliament in 1927, indicating
the fact that since no oil has been discovered in South Africa, the new German FT
invention held promise for South Africa. Dr. Fischer visited South Africa and plans were
developed to establish a production facility, and at that time there was no issue of
political pressures or limited access to internationally traded oil.
With the advent of the Second World War, these negotiations were interrupted
and in 1950 the “South African Coal, Oil and Gas Corporation” was established as a
private sector company under government funded sponsorship of the Industrial
Development Corporation. A commercial CTL plant was erected on a green field site
about 50 miles south of Johannesburg at a place named Sasolburg, and it began
producing synfuels in 1955......
...The next major phase in Sasol’s history came about due to the energy crisis of
1973. When oil prices rose sharply, Sasol proposed to the South African Government
to build a much larger facility, Sasol Two, since there was a clear economic justification
for this project at prevailing and projected prices. In 1974, approval was given and
negotiations with the government through the Industrial Development Corporation
included assurances regarding a floor price and loan guarantees. A major thrust was
the desire to save foreign exchange associated with oil imports. At that time, the
mandatory international sanctions against South Africa were not in place,1 and it is a
common misperception that Sasol Two was built in response to the sanctions. This
second facility was located at a green field site at a site called Secunda."
------------
Refer: SSEB (Southern States Energy Board) 2006, American Energy Security: Building A Bridge To Energy Independence And To A Sustainable Energy Future, [Online], Available:   [22 August 2006], (pp.
69-70)
------------
UndineCarmichaels 21:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FT in South Africa 

message: Can anyone find references to, and summarise, the efficiency of this process, ie starting from coal and water, how much calorific value of oil do you get out for a given CV of coal (and other energy) in?  A discussion of greenhouse emissions would also be valued Greglocock 01:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Efficiency

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

message: This article is about the FT process which is CO+H→hydrocarbons.
This article is NOT about biomass→CO+H which is a whole other process, concerns about which have now been moved to the synthetic fuels page where they are relevent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.9.192 (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Environmental Concerns about a different process altogether have been deleted from this article

message: Has anyone ever heard of the Anderson-Schultz-Flory distribution?  I just did a Google search for Anderson Schultz Flory, yet found no useful leads, so I have tagged this phrase with a citation needed. DFH (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No "t" in "Schulz".  You'll get loads of hits. LeadSongDog (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I added a reference describing the "Anderson-Shulz-Flory model" as applied to the Fischer-Tropsch process.  If someone would like to produce a graph similar to that in the reference, that would be a very nice addition to this article.  Stokerm (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops, looks like I'm not the only one with problems figuring out how to spell Schulz.  According to Google, Anderson-Schulz-Flory appears to be the preferred spelling, although quite a few hits pop up for Shulz, Schultz, and Shultz as well. Stokerm (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anderson-Schultz-Flory distribution? 

message: Edited the bit about South Africa as it was misleading. Work on the FT process began in SA in the 1920s long before any apartheid concerns,  motivated purely by the fact that the country did not have oil resources. The wording, in the past rather than present tense, suggested it was not used anymore.
We must try to avoid bringing apartheid into every SA-related topic. The fashion seems to be to introduce an anti-apartheid flavour or angle to every topic where it can be smuggled in, even when not directly related or even inaccurate. Booshank (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa/SASOL 

message: I just undid this edit for an apparent COI (though it also lacked sources and carried evident WP:POV). If there's something useful in there, perhaps another editor can find it.User:LeadSongDog come howl 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted 

message: "Cobalt seems to be the most active catalyst, although iron may be more suitable for low-hydrogen-content synthesis gases such as those derived from coal due to its promotion of the water-gas-shift reaction. In addition to the active metal the catalysts typically contain a number of "promoters," including potassium and copper."
What is written above is only partly true and very confusing. A distinction should be made between cobalt and iron catalysts in terms of promoters they benefit from . Although alkali metals can be beneficial for an iron catalyst it will effectively kill a cobalt catalyst. Even extremely small amounts of any group 1 alkali metals (Li, Na, K etc.) cause the turn over frequency to drop by a lot. Why the activity drop is a topic of controversy.
The way the quoted text is written could lead people to believe that both cobalt and iron use the same type of promoters which is clearly not true. 
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j576361540506w81/   <--- ref for alkali metals on cobalt..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandahls (talk • contribs) 13:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  alkali promoters 

message: The last paragraph on the page says "When it was combined with the dissolved carbon dioxide using a cobalt-based catalyst...." But never indicates what "it" is.  This whole section needs to be rewritten.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.213.65 (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reuse of CO2 

message: This is at best a very controversial topic. I am not sure if it can be described as a psuedo science though. Any suggestions? Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we call Fischer–Tropsch a pseudo science? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fischer–Tropsch process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081116015532/http://www.sasol.com/sasol_internet/frontend/navigation.jsp?navid=1600033&rootid=2 to http://www.sasol.com/sasol_internet/frontend/navigation.jsp?navid=1600033&rootid=2
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billingsgazette.com/newdex.php?display=rednews%2F2005%2F08%2F02%2Fbuild%2Fstate%2F25-coal-fuel.inc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Fischer–Tropsch process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217093857/http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/DOE/DOE_reports/510/510-34929/510-34929.pdf to http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/DOE/DOE_reports/510/510-34929/510-34929.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924013714/http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/presentations/ft_ww2/ft_ww2_slide33.htm to http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/presentations/ft_ww2/ft_ww2_slide33.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217093903/http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/patents/GB/gb573982.pdf to http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/patents/GB/gb573982.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515095901/http://www.oxfordcatalysts.com/press/egs/world_gas_intelligence_121219.pdf to http://www.oxfordcatalysts.com/press/egs/world_gas_intelligence_121219.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515134815/http://www.oxfordcatalysts.com/press/egs/keeping_the_options_open_2012_LNG.pdf to http://www.oxfordcatalysts.com/press/egs/keeping_the_options_open_2012_LNG.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128055653/http://tbp.org/pages/Publications/Bent/Features/Su07Uhrig.pdf to http://tbp.org/pages/Publications/Bent/Features/Su07Uhrig.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section on U.S. Air Force certification reads like an ad for the company it mentions, Syntroleum. In any case this seems like a lot of text for an issue that is only tangentially related to the subject of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewsteen (talk • contribs) 15:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Air Force certification seems like promotion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Clearly a catalyst is necessary. The article talks about adsorption of CO and metal carbonyl complexes but no mention is made of what exactly the catalyst is. In fact the reaction itself makes no mention of it. This is an important thing to be left out. 142.147.85.2 (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The section has been addressed.  There is not a lot of info on the actual catalysts, and none of our current editors are expert on this topic.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  catalyst