Jump to content

Talk:Syngas: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 87: Line 87:
== removal ==
== removal ==
I removed the specifics on the copper CO purification system. Although nice, it has nothing to do with syngas itself. [[User:Sikkema|Sikkema]] 12:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed the specifics on the copper CO purification system. Although nice, it has nothing to do with syngas itself. [[User:Sikkema|Sikkema]] 12:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

== Energy effiicient / energy intensive ==

This sentence doesn't make sense to me:

'The total energy efficiency of cryogenic processing is not very high, if the gas is used to make fuel, meaning that it is not very energy intensive.' [[Special:Contributions/78.151.175.249|78.151.175.249]] ([[User talk:78.151.175.249|talk]]) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:53, 11 October 2008

Template:HowtoTalk

Does that mean to say CO(H2)3?

It says that syngas is CO + 3H2. Does that mean to say CO(H2)3? ---The Penguin--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.134.38 (talkcontribs) March 28, 2005(UTC)

No, it means that it consists of carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas in a 1:3 molar ratio HappyCamper 02:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gasified coal is one source of syngas

Gasified coal is one source of syngas and so you could merge this topic into the syngas page, but to treat syngas fully, it is necessary to also mention that syngas can be produced by reformation of NG and by gasification of biomass. NG production of syngas is infact quite important since several large auto and energy companies are now using or considering using this technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.223.50.144 (talkcontribs) 2 August, 2005 (UTC)

What under Gasified coal isn't covered in coal's Liquefaction section? Simesa 04:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an article on town gas

There is also an article on town gas, could these all be merged together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.24.22 (talkcontribs) 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No, one involves gassification, one involves liquefaction. Lokiloki 07:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but neither involve liquification directly although there are processes to create liquid products (GTL) from syngas. Jcaiken 02:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Syngas" should be a disambiguation page

Don't forget wood gas, which is an extensive article. I think putting all of these under the heading of "gasified coal" gives the impression that coal is the only (or best) source of hydrocarbon gases. In my opinion "syngas" should be a disambiguation page that points to the various methods. --Benjamindees 04:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. Creat an article for "Synthetic Gas" with the current contents of Syngas and make it a disamiguation page. Who all is in favor of this solution? Reflux 17:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Benjamindees, I strongly disagree with this idea. Anyone who carefully reads the opening paragraphs in this article with a neutral point of view (NPOV), as required by Wikipedia's NPOV policy, will see that it does not stress coal gasification as the only or best way of producing syngas. The term "syngas" has been widely used in the engineering community for about 40 to 45 years of my 55+ years as a chemical engineer ... and I don't think it should be relegated to a disambiguation page.
Reflux, I welcome you to Wikipedia. We badly need more engineers. But please don't be in such a rush to ask for some sort of straw vote on this. Wait until there has been at least 4 or 5 other responses. After all, Benjamindees made this suggestion 8-9 months ago and had no response until now ... which indicates to me that it had little support. - mbeychok 18:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Looking at how the page is setup, especially with "See Also" links at the bottom, I think it's good the way it is currently. I didn't mean to have my, "Who all is in favor of this solution?" as being a vote but simply a calling for other people to voice their opinion on the idea. I figured all this time without a response was simply because this topic doesn't get as much traffic as others. Reflux 05:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just found this in my other searching of wikipedia. Look how Flux has their disamiguation page setup. I mean, assuming someone else thinks we need one still. Reflux 09:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water gas article that should merged here

There is also a water gas article that should merged here, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.36.128.14 (talkcontribs) 1 April 2006 (UTC)

water gas is a different gas and chemical than Syngas Reflux 10:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They'r all different fuels they need different pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.224.60 (talkcontribs) 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The wikipedia article on "water gas" claims it is hydrogen + carbon dioxide, but I don't think that is a hard and fast definition. Other sources define water gas to be hydrogen + carbon monoxide, which is syngas. That is what the encyclopedia britannica says, for example. I think these old coal gasification schemes, and their various names, are getting confused in wikipedia. DonPMitchell (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that Syngas and Towngas remain separated

Since the name ˈˈˈsyngasˈˈˈ has a specific background and ˈˈˈtown gasˈˈˈ is very generic I recommend that they remain separated. Benkeboy 16:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they should be kept the on their own pages. The reading I've done about research with syngas uses that term, Synthetic Gas, and not "town gas" or "wood gas" Reflux 10:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree the two should remain on separate pages --Alex 14:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the suggested merging of the Town gas article into this one

On March 27, 2006, User:Petri Krohn tagged this article with a suggestion of merging the Town Gas article into this article and the tag asks for discussion. I do wish that when someone tags an article like that, he/she would state the reasons for doing so here on the Discussion page to start the ball rolling. It would only be courteous to do so.

I oppose the suggestion most strongly. Anyone reading the Town gas article in detail will see that:

  • It is badly in need of some good organization.
  • A lot of it is very badly written. Some of it reads like some notes written on a piece of scrap paper. Other parts read as if they are just lists of what else is needed.
  • It needs some thorough Wikifying.

In my opinion, before the Town gas article is merged with any other article, it needs a complete rework and rewrite by an expert in the field. - mbeychok 07:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manufactured gas plant article globalisation and merge

This article is essentially extremely good.

I suggest that the article “Manufactured gas plant” should be merged here as it talks of the process and history while not the describing the plant. This would also give the Manufactured gas plant article the global perspective that it currently lacks and would enhance this article with North American Information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactured_gas_plant Jewell.box 20:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manufactured gas

I have read the articles on "Town gas", "Wood gas", and "Water gas", and concur with those who suggest some revisions/merging are desirable.

The three terms above are not in generally commmon use, and users searching WP might never find them directly. They are all terms that should be replaced with one term: Manufactured gas . The chemistry of converting organic materials or carbon to CO and H2 are similar. The three terms can be defined and compared in a new "Manufactured gas" article. There may also be other WP articles that should be subsumed into the new "Manufactured gas" article.

The "Manufactured gas" article should emphasize historical processes, the basic chemistry, the amount of energy required, and so forth. Other terms such as "producer gas" should be introduced. It's important to describe the way manufactured gas can be altered by the water gas shift reaction to produce a high-hydrogen manufactured gas. This naturally leads to the modern era, where the historical "manufactured gas" technology has been replaced by quite sophisticated processes, using special catalysts, equipment, and sensors. This is the SynGas industry, which makes feedstock for chemical plants, and so forth.

The reason I suggest a comprehensive "Manufactured gas" article is that there has traditionally been a technological separation between which fossil raw materials are used as a feedstock to produce some kind of gas. In early days, we used controlled oxidation of solid biomass, coal, or coke to manufacture gas, which was common before large quantities of natural gas had been discovered and made available. Such "manufacturing" of gas has since dwindled or become obsolete (except for niche cases) because of the advent of natural gas. Natural gas has now replaced almost all uses of "manufactured gas" for heating and electrical energy production.

For special purposes, we now use controlled oxidation of natural gas to produce a mixture of gases, and this is called gas reforming. Gas reforming is used extensively to produce industrially-important chemical feedstock material, or the reducing gas for iron ore reduction.

Therefore, there is logic in creating an article on "Manufactured gas", with content and emphasis as described above. The chemistry is still relevant, so it would be useful in other WP articles. I suggest that the SynGas article cover modern industrial processes, such as natural gas reforming, hydrogen production, and processes for synthetic production of methane and other hydrocarbons (from any biomass or fossil substance), especially those operating commercially, plus any which are currently in serious development.

If you try to include everything in the SynGas article, it will be really big, and a huge amount of work for one or more authors. Thermbal 22:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To merge or not to merge?

The scale and range of the information available on the conversion of hydrocarbon feedstocks into a 'syngas' which can then be used for synthesis of other hydrocarbon products is so large that putting it all under a single heading of "Syngas" would probably generate more confusion. This topic covers a number of industries (domestic gas manufacture, ammonia, hydrogen, methanol, Synfuels, GTL etc.) that have their own history, standards, terminology etc. I suggest that careful cross-referencing of these topics would make the topics more accessable to a reader. Jcaiken 02:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removal

I removed the specifics on the copper CO purification system. Although nice, it has nothing to do with syngas itself. Sikkema 12:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energy effiicient / energy intensive

This sentence doesn't make sense to me:

'The total energy efficiency of cryogenic processing is not very high, if the gas is used to make fuel, meaning that it is not very energy intensive.' 78.151.175.249 (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]