Talk:Karrick process

message: In 20-20 Hindsight
An appropriate time to note that if these conversion plants had been started when this page was opened they would already be online, producing synthetics for us from our 26% of known world coal reserves.
That would mean jobs, lower fuel prices, less foreign dependency, fewer dollars heading overseas, less money for our adversaries, lower trade and budget deficits, along with the attending boost for a severely faltering economy, right when the vast majority of folks could really use it.
But no, our myopic officials and activists, including those who make taxpayer-funded 'careers' of falsifying data to promote their agendas, once again receive only the Universal Dunce Cap for their inaction, and in some cases, their outright obstructionism.
Perhaps there is a time when those who either will not or cannot even help themselves deserve to fail. Perhaps that time has come. Jfcj1 (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Who keeps sticking these "protest" templates on this page and what is their specific dispute? Shouldn't there be a time restriction on a blank protest template? IOW, no specific, scientific objection, no template?
We realize that a number of greenies (thanks for another energy crisis) or merely garden-variety contrarians, can't cope with any reference to fossil fuels, but shouldn't they, out of common courtesy alone, be limited as to how long they can simply be pests for pestilence sake?
UPDATE: The latest bogus "potest" template was initiated in March 2008. It is now June of 2009 and still not one specific item of 'dispute' has been presented. That's 15 months and not a peep, i.e. just more phony slop from people who have bigger mouths than brains.
From now on why don't you pathetic trolls stick to what you're best at, like collecting fraudulent ACORN voter registrations and leave the 'tricky' stuff like national energy policy to those who wouldn't have gotten us into this fiasco in the first place. Jfcj1 (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I don't think this is a proper tone for having discussion. However, I don't understand what you are calling "protest" templates? The template from March 2008 you refer is about need for additional references and not about the content. This technical issue, so it is hard to understand what specific item of dispute should be presented. There are number of external links; however, there are no internal citations which compromises verifiability of this article. To be in line with WP:V and WP:CS, these links should be converted into inline citations. This is a maintenance issue and not a content dispute. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

text: This is not about what I like or dislike; WP:V and WP:CS are policies of Wikipedia, which should be followed. Please read these pages (WP:V and WP:CS) to learn how articles should be cited, especially scientific articles. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed neutrality

message: It's better without the "misallocation" part, but it still looks like a poster ad. --Sinus 14:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read NPOV. NPOV is one of the few rules here that is non-negotiable. -- The Anome 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: I just think people have a problem with the idea all you have to do to get oil, is crunch up coal, and superheat with steam. Yeah, it really is about that simple. Any emotional problems people have with the Karrick process, should not be part of an NPOV dispute. Timharwoodx 12:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Karrick process doesn't produce much oil directly.  It's just the front end distillation and reduction process. An additional cracking step is required to break down those long-chain hydrocarbons, usually some variant on the Fischer-Tropsch process.  Sasol in South Africa is running about 30 million tons of coal per year through such a process to create oil, and they've been doing that for decades.  They use the Lurgi process at the front end, rather than the Karrick process.    The technology works fine, but they got clobbered around 1999 when the price of oil was below $20/bbl. Now, they're cashing in: "Operating profit increased by R4.6 billion (71%) to R11.1 billion. Higher average international oil prices ... boosted operating profit by about R2.9 billion".  And that's for the second half of 2005.  2006 looks to be a really good year for Sasol. --John Nagle 07:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the argument I have read, is that at $5bn for an industrial scale Karrick plant, it would be *TOO EXPENSIVE* and not affordable. The fact there are half a trillion dollars worth of funds to fight wars for oil, suggest to me that $5bn COULD be found from federal budgets, if there was any political desire. Honestly, telling folks you can get oil from coal, its like saying you can turn lead into gold. Sounds nice, but no-one really believes you - except the South Africans have been doing this exact thing for decades, so it clearly does work. I can fly out to South Africa, and fill up on coal-oil. For real. Timharwoodx 16:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indisputable

message: Were one able to produce chemically pure carbon from coal and even burned it at low temperatures, he still gets a pollutant : carbon dioxide, which we can no longer tolerate.  Same comment for some hydrocarbon liquid product of equivalent purity.
:Shut up Global Warming scam artist.98.165.6.225 (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Carbon Dioxide

message: ;User:JzG removed the following:
*Engineering Factors Relating to the Utilization of the Cannel Coals of Southern Utah
J. D. Redding 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed ref

message: *http://english.people.com.cn/200706/22/eng20070622_386664.html
Towering above the sweeping grasslands of Erdos, in north China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, two 60-meter-high cylindrical structures stand out against the skyline....."Unlike South Africa's Sasol which produces transport fuel from coal in several stages, our project in Erdos will produce liquids from coal directly," said Wang
Looks like China has now gone commercial with the Karrick process. Some high efficiency direct coal liquefaction process, based upon the classic cyclinrical karrick process tower shape. 
The People's Daily article merely says that the Shenhua plant does not use Sasol's F-T process.  Is it certain that it uses the Karrick (vs. the Bergius) process?  IntlRisk 20:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: China commercializes Karrick process?

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: *http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203120753.htm
He claims this device is a '60-meter-high cylindrical structure.'
Anyone agree with him? Yet more broken / confused English from foreign WIKI editors?
We do get a lot of that these days...........sigh.
Timharwoodx (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Editor [[User:EKennel|EKennel]] - clearly confused

message: I made a number of edits, mainly three types:
# Adding inline citations. It was closely related with
# expanding history and process description based used sources; and
# removing information, which was not about the Karrick process, but promoting coal liquefaction in general. Please note, that Karrik process is not a synonym for coal liquefaction or even for the low-temperature carbonization because there are number of other processes and technologies. Most of this information was moved to the newly created Synthetic fuels in the United States as it dealt with the US issues.
The article still needs some more citations, but I removed the general maintenance tag. I have also some doubts about the reliability of this reference. Although this is a submission to the Australian Senate, its neutrality is not so clear. Beagel (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Karrick 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5nhxlQsjX?url=http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/CTL_Article.pdf to http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/CTL_Article.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) 19:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Karrick 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/20091002045506/http://web.senate@aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fuelenergy_ctte/submissions/sub0039.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/fuelenergy_ctte/submissions/sub0039.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091002042138/http://web.senate@aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fuelenergy_ctte/submissions/sub0028.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/committee/fuelenergy_ctte/submissions/sub0028.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060518050103/http://www.ultracleanfuels.com/articles/pr_031906.htm to http://www.ultracleanfuels.com/articles/pr_031906.htm
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) 18:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified