You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
You're absolutely correct. Should it be proven to be cost-efficient AND environmentally friendly (or as environmentally friendly as a fossil fuel could be expected to be), it WOULD solve our energy problem (reliance on foreign sources)....and would make us a net exporter. That would be exciting times.
AND we have the closest thing to an "inexhaustible" supply of coal anywhere in the world.
This has been discussed in other energy threads...and as you can imagine, the discussions were fairly lively.
What do you do with all the CO2 that is a byproduct? GTL, which uses the same process, but with natural gas as feedstock is actually "clean". Science be damned, coal states want taxpayer funded projects, just like the midwest farm states want ethanol subsidies, its all the same game.
If it is so cheap to do, why ask for tax credits or other taxpayer assistance?
Since the 1970's, the US government has spent on the order of half a trillion dollars on "alternative energy" projects and research. What has all that money produced, a few windmills?
What do you do with all the CO2 that is a byproduct? GTL, which uses the same process, but with natural gas as feedstock is actually "clean". Science be damned, coal states want taxpayer funded projects, just like the midwest farm states want ethanol subsidies, its all the same game.
If it is so cheap to do, why ask for tax credits or other taxpayer assistance?
Since the 1970's, the US government has spent on the order of half a trillion dollars on "alternative energy" projects and research. What has all that money produced, a few windmills?
Jim
So I guess that means you're not a fan of this energy alternative?........
Is it just diesel fuel that is able to be produced with this process? Or could they produce any oil derived fuel, such as gasoline? If they could make straight 100 octane gasoline, for $40 a barrel, that would be nice!
Let's say, Rusty, that the coal-process only produces diesel fuel (and prob. kerosene, etc.)......And let's say that the oil shale reserves do the same thing....but that the sources would supply ALL of our energy needs (not even including nuclear) for 200 years....even while exporting some of the liquid gold.....Would it be so bad....or so difficult, to...over a period of years....make nothing but diesel engines for passenger cars and trucks, etc.?.....particularly with the advances in clean diesel, etc.?......
Is it doable?....Of course, the gas fanatics would probably hate it, but the country would be better off......
Distillates (diesel, kerosene, jet) and waxes are the main output of this process. They are hydrocarbon molecules with more carbon atoms than gasoline. Gasoline could still be hydrocracked from this feedstock, just like in a conventional refinery. It just takes more energy in to convert it to gasoline, which raises the cost.
But we're not talking about burning coal (and different grades of coal pollute at different levels).....We're talking about turning coal into something different and burning that.....and is THAT final product (used in diesel cars, etc.) an undue pollutant.........If not, then hey.................
I kinda doubt that -- we'd need much more miners and mines, plus many plants. However, it would definitely lessen dependency on foreign oil (in the foreseeable future) and ensure more predictable pricing on diesel and gasoline.
Quote:
coal states want taxpayer funded projects, just like the midwest farm states want ethanol subsidies
Of course!! Who wouldn't?
In any case, if ethanol were to become a major fuel (which is highly unlikely in the US) tax subsidies would go away.
Quote:
Since the 1970's, the US government has spent on the order of half a trillion dollars on "alternative energy" projects and research. What has all that money produced, a few windmills?
Green energy (one that doesn't involve greenhouse gases) will be a lot more important in 10 - 20 years, and there will likely be caps on CO2 emission, and that's when other sources will become very handy. You may see that as a wasted money, but IMHO it's not. Especially in comparison to the cost of nation building exercises in Asia....
I kinda doubt that -- we'd need much more miners and mines, plus many plants. However, it would definitely lessen dependency on foreign oil (in the foreseeable future) and ensure more predictable pricing on diesel and gasoline.
And more miners wouldn't be hired or plants built if there was a profit in it? :shrug:
And more miners wouldn't be hired or plants built if there was a profit in it? :shrug:
You assume there's a profit in it, but that depends, in big part, on the oil prices. This process should be profitable at some point, but even then, you can't just double coal production overnight.
I think what the feds want is to have several technologies ready when oil prices go up, that's why the tax subsidies on ethanol, for instance.
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
