| Should we make oil from coal?
Posted: 7/6/2008 3:45:22 PM | | A company called Sasol does it in South Africa. is . The cost of a plant that does this is billions, but since they have been doing it for so long in S. Africa the cost of oil made by this process something like $25 a barrel. Apparently the process produces a lot of carbon emissions, but with the price of oil heading to $200 a barrel don't you think we should start building facilities to make oil from our coal? US coal deposits contain more energy than all the world oil deposits. | |
|
| Should we make oil from coal?
Posted: 7/6/2008 7:24:20 PM | | We'll get around to doing that as soon as G Dubya's friends figure out how to profit from it. I think the carbon emissions could be cleaned up, one of the benefits of EPA regulation is that the US leads in emissions control technology. | |
|
| Should we make oil from coal?
Posted: 7/6/2008 7:57:26 PM | Coal/oil/gasification has already been developed for some years now at SIU. That is why many of all of those old high sulfur coal mines are reopening as well as new shafts being sunk deep into the earth. Look up Akin, IL where one is going down and more being planned? Look up Whitington, IL for even more shafts being driven deep for more mines? W. Va and S. IL have lots of them. Wonder where the phrase coal oil came from? Now not knowing that is truly cruel and inhumane.
Yup dubya approved the move with funds but don't tell a damn soul He surely needs to take on more beatings. Lame ducks always do just as old Bill before him. Of course, JFK would most likely have ordered even old Bill to be shot.
I heard it all on the real news on the BBC. The Japanese news confirmed the BBC's news. Imagine that? Maybe there were simply no journalist(s) available in those foreign countries? | |
|
| Should we make oil from coal?
Posted: 7/6/2008 9:46:36 PM | From Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt:
Coal oil is a specific oil shale oil used for illuminating purposes. It is sometimes confused with kerosene or lamp oil, but coal oil was obtained from the destructive distillation of cannel coal, mineral wax, and bituminous shale, and hence called coal oil. A special type of coal known as cannel coal (classified also as terrestrial type of oil shale) is required to produce it.
Coal oil was first produced in 1850 by James Young on the Union Canal in Scotland. He was the first to patent the process of distilling this cannel coal into kerosene. This industry thrived in Scotland creating much wealth for James Young.
It consists mainly of several hydrocarbons of the alkane series, having from 10 to 16 carbon atoms in each molecule, and having a higher boiling point (175–325°C) than gasoline or the petroleum ethers, and a lower boiling point than the oils. Don't get your hopes up, making gasoline or kerosene from coal on the scale necessary will probably take a decade, and it likely won't be much cheaper than petroleum-derived gasoline when it does hit the market.
Any way you look at it, we're in for a rough ride the next few years. | |
|
| Should we make oil from coal?
Posted: 7/6/2008 9:50:23 PM | | If only Jesus turned water into oil instead of wine, then this world would be a better place. | |
|
| Should we make oil from coal?
Posted: 7/6/2008 10:30:38 PM | | If prices apporach over $200 a barrell then start to make oil out of coal, but you need subidies on production of alernative energy. Switichgrass fuel should be subidized to speed developement up, and a graudal reduction of subidies to corn based ethanols. Still, gonna be carbon based economy 40 years from now but if we can reduce oil usage or halt its growth over the long term it gives time to maintain are living standards. Were gonna have to accept $3.00 to $4.00 a gallon fuel, but cant let congress idle by force oil prices more than they have to be. It means Drill, explore, and also subidise switchgrass, lawn clippings and things to make fuel out of. | |
|
| Should we make oil from coal?
Posted: 7/6/2008 11:15:18 PM | Almost any surplus crops (rice, corn, barley, weeds, grass, wheat) can be used to produce ethanol for less than $3 per gallon. Everything from french fry oil to hemp seed oil can be used to produce inexpensive biodiesel, often for less than $1 per gallon. Nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal, and wind power can be used to convert seawater into hydrogen fuel, which can run cars that produce no pollution.
Secondly, about 55% of America's vehicles are vans, trucks, and SUV's, not cars. Greenies keep trying to convince people to give up their 33 mpg Corolla for a 50 mpg minicar. A far greater fuel savings could be found by making weight reduced, efficient versions of those trucks, vans, and SUV's that consume about 70% of the fuel. Why not just make a truck that much more efficient?
Congress will continue operating at the behest of the oil companies, which will continue to rape us by outlawing every alternative to oil and coal as long as we continue reelecting their puppets. | |
|
~tag~
|
Joined: 2/7/2008
Msg: 8 | |
| Should we make oil from coal?
Posted: 7/6/2008 11:30:33 PM | You're kidding, right? I mean, look what mining does to the land. Com'on now. The technology exists TODAY to have fuel efficient vehicles - they have them in other countries - we just don't have them in the U.S. due to the auto industry and the oil companies working hand in glove to keep us only able to purchase those guzzlers.
Look at South America (Brazil, I think) has switched over to the sugar beet. It was difficult - but it was accomplished. Much more economical than corn. We don't need to destroy every thing we touch - we just need to have our government stand up for We The People, and not We The Corporate World Greedily Lining Our Pockets At The Expense of Middle America. | |
|
| Should we make oil from coal?
Posted: 7/6/2008 11:35:21 PM |
If only Jesus turned water into oil instead of wine, then this world would be a better place.
I strongly disagree with this statement. Wine is much better for you.
Potential foods based energy production are idiotic. One can live without oil. One most certainly cannot live without food.
We must reduce our usage. Living standards are already being affected...for many in a serious way.
$4.00/gallon is cheap compared to most of the world. Get ready for $7 to $10...it's going to happen.
Lawn clippings? That sounds awfully desperate. Their utilization in compost for food growth is much more effective.
In the tar sands of Alberta, it already takes the equalivant of two barrels of oil of energy to produce one barrel of oil energy.
Screw oil....go solar...wind...tidal...geothermal...(to name but a few)
Yes, we can squeeze more oil out of the ground in more effective ways, but that's only a short term solution. If you'd like to see the economy of future generations succeed, a carbon based one is the most likely one to be doomed to failure. | |
|
| Should we make oil from coal?
Posted: 7/7/2008 8:33:39 AM | IIRC Brazil uses sugar cane to make ethanol.
Sugar beets would probably make better feedstock than corn, but ADM doesn't grow sugar beets, to my knowledge, because sugar beet production isn't subsidized. | |
|
| |
| Should we make oil from coal?
Posted: 7/7/2008 1:47:49 PM | Lots of mines reopening...but the "greenies" always freak out screaming about the "carbon footprint". Yeah...it's dirty. It pollutes" it is messy...but you got that gallon of fuel, didn't you? That is all that truely matter to the taxpayer...having a cheap source of fuel for their joyriding and such. Even the daily commute form work is actually becoming a luxury, what with the expanding commuter systems, form extra bussing to trains to car pools, etc. So those saying "I need a car to get to work"...not if you live within public transport of your workplace you don't.
Those who DO need fuel for work purposes should be getting a heavy subsidy. Especially farms. Those who live in rural communities and have to go to the city to work. They can drive to the nearest public transport, park the car and commute into their jobs. No need for them to be driving to work all the way.
Oil from coal? Why? Might as well heat the house with the coal...it'll produce as much pollution in the end...only more widely scattered so it won't be as noticable...till you put the laundry out on the line! lol! | |
|
| Should we make oil from coal?
Posted: 7/7/2008 3:36:21 PM |
We'll get around to doing that as soon as G Dubya's friends figure out how to profit from it. I think the carbon emissions could be cleaned up, one of the benefits of EPA regulation is that the US leads in emissions control technology.
Too late. West Virginia's ultra majority Moderate Democrats beat any Republican to the punch....3 years ago.
Manchin unveils coal conversion mission
By Mannix Porterfield
REGISTER-HERALD REPORTER
Published: October 13, 2005 11:41 pm
A vast mission aimed at exploiting West Virginia’s coal for a myriad of by-products in the fuel arena was mapped out Thursday by Gov. Joe Manchin.
As opposed to plans suggested in other states, Manchin said West Virginia’s entails state-of-the-art, multi-product facilities capable of keeping in step with a changing market.
Put simply, he explained, the plan would be capable of meeting specific needs as they arise — from diesel fuel to hydrogen to chemicals.
“We aren’t trying to re-invent the wheel,” the governor said.
“We’re just trying to do our part to keep it balanced and moving in the right direction.”
With some 50 billion tons of estimated coal reserves, able to generate three barrels of liquid fuel per ton, Manchin said the idea is sensible.
Manchin said his initiative would embrace both public and private development of liquefaction and other coal conversion facilities and infrastructure in West Virginia.
Intent is for such facilities to transform coal into liquid fuels and other products for both commercial and non-commercial uses, he said.
Given the wars in the Persian Gulf in recent years, and the recent destruction along the Gulf Coast by two hurricanes, Manchin said dependence on a small area of the world for energy needs has come into sharp focus.
“It’s no secret that the United States is at an energy crossroads in which our economy and way of life are now under constant threat from the possibility of petroleum and natural gas resource shortfalls,” he said.
“West Virginia is one of several states that are rich in natural resources, and it is time that we stepped up to the plate and took responsibility for doing our part to address the nation’s growing energy crisis.”
In Washington, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., applauded Manchin’s proposal, saying, “A perfect storm has been brewing regarding our nation’s continued lack of a comprehensive energy policy. Gov. Manchin and I know that it is time to utilize West Virginia’s rich human and natural resources.
“We should be exploring new ways to use our vast coal resources as well as recognizing the exciting opportunities to develop our renewable resources like hydroelectric, wind, solar and biomass energy.”
Byrd said the coal industry can provide “a compass point for a serious energy strategy and West Virginia can set that course.”
Manchin pledged to re-establish the Public Energy Authority in an effort with the Department of Environmental Protection, researchers, scientists and energy leaders to devise a plan for implementing a coal conversion facility.
The state Development Office would be directed to identify potential site locations, infrastructure requirements and private sector partners to help with siting, permitting and construction.
Playing integral roles will be Commerce Secretary Tom Bulla, DEP Secretary Stephanie Timmermyer, the state Public Service Commission, West Virginia University Tech President Charles Bayless, along with other college and university presidents, Pat Esposito, the governor’s liaison to the Southern States Energy Board, and leaders of the West Virginia Coal Association, United Mine Workers of America and the state’s skilled work force.
Manchin said the facility envisioned will more easily trap carbon dioxide, considered by some as a major contributor to climate change.
“To simplify, what we’re talking about is the process of converting coal into liquid fuels and other products — something that I have long been a proponent for and have been seeking more information on since I first took office,” he said.
Meetings are planned soon with national industry leaders, allowing him to outline West Virginia’s commitment to the idea, Manchin said.
“These efforts, along with those of other states, will help to address, once and for all, the vulnerability of America’s refining capacity and ensure West Virginia’s energy independence well into the future,” he added.
— E-mail: mannix@register-herald.com | |
|
| Should we make oil from coal?
Posted: 7/7/2008 9:59:56 PM | There are many things to love about West Virginia. Our residents are by and large as kind and wonderful as any you'll find anywhere. We have the lowest crime rate in the country, and our cost of living is well below the national norm. The parts of the state not devastated by coal mining have incredible natural beauty.
But one curse I hope we get beyond in the decades to come is our addiction to coal.
Yes, we are actively pursuing technologies to convert coal to a wide range of 'clean' fuels. There are even billboards outside our state capitol proclaiming coal to be both abundant and 'carbon neutral', although I haven't found anyone who can explain exactly what justification could possibly be used for the 'carbon neutral' claim. A friend asked if that wasn't like declaring a war to be 'violence neutral'? Coal has the highest carbon content of any of the fossil fuels.
The president of the state coal association often claims there are a couple centuries worth of coal here yet to be mined. And that may be true, if we're willing to move cemetaries, towns, and mountains to get to it. The easily extracted coal is already gone.
Here, as well as globally, coal is our most abundant fossil fuel, so it's tempting to view it as a potential savior as all energy prices rise. It may well be possible to convert a very dirty fuel into a cleaner energy source if the price is right. But that neglects the incredible environmental and social cost mining that coal brings with it.
I mentioned some of the positive attributes of 'Wild, Wonderful' West Virginia. But we languish at the bottom of most economic indicator categories, and our most depressed communities are located in our coal fields. Health problems abound. Life expectancy is significantly less than in other parts of the state and country. Unemployment is rampant even though we're mining as much coal as we ever have. We just use machines to do what people used to do.
And those machines can lop off entire mountain tops and deposit the non-coal 'spoil' into nearby valleys, inundating streams. It will take centuries or longer for forests to regenerate on the rocky moon-like terrain left behind.
Other machines conduct longwall mining, which as often as not cut through property owners' drinking water well shafts before letting all of the surface above drop a few inches or feet, cracking foundations, road beds, and any other once-solid formations.
In areas where pyrite is associated with coal, which is a significant portion of the state, acid mine drainage(AMD) is created, lowering stream pH levels dramatically, leaching iron, aluminum, and other metals out of surrounding bedrock, and essentially killing thousands of miles of streams that now flow orange and devoid of even insect life. Theoretically regulations prevent modern mines from creating AMD problems, but violations occur regularly, and mines that turn belly up and forfeit their bonds pass water treatment responsibility over the the state, which is ill-equipped to address the problem.
Yes, the technology exists to get liquid fuel from coal. Germany did it during WWII. I haven't even touched on the air pollution and climate change implications of increasing our emphasis on coal-based energy. I'll leave that to others for the moment.
I've been on mountain top removal sites and inside longwall mines. I've had my eyes burned by acid mine drainage. I've spent hours working with coal executives trying to encourage them to improve their practices. Some were receptive, but interestingly enough, none of those are still involved in the WV coal industry.
So forgive me for not getting excited by the prospect of increasing demand for a natural resource whose extraction has brought so much damage to my home state and its residents.
I can't help but think there there have to be better options.
Dave | |
|
| Should we make oil from coal?
Posted: 7/8/2008 10:40:25 PM | Outdoor 2 America is not Europe nor will it want its way of life that way, and therefore food arguement is a ploy by food producers complaining of making lower profit margins then they would with cheaper corn. Sweden is making food for fuel for years, and why cant uppper midwest and places with plenty of land to grow food. Food costs are burnt regressively to the poorest people of society, but the goverment can tax polices to reflect that. Innovation is what drives innnovation and better living stardards. Turn of the century Chicago streets are full of horse dung, and the air was smoking and air quality was a lot worse. Economic progress makes air clearner. Critics should use thier high IQs resreach ways to make energy.
Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey lamented the loss of the state's signature agricultural product for the Fourth of July. Northey noted that the vast majority of Iowa's corn crop is raised for animal feed and is inedible to humans, a fact overlooked in the food-vs.-fuel debate surrounding ethanol.
"People think we're feeding sweet corn into the ethanol plants, when that doesn't happen," Northey said. "The ethanol industry isn't depriving humans of corn to eat."
Sweet corn is a small fish in Iowa's agricultural ocean, with fewer than 6,000 of the state's 13 million acres of corn devoted to sweet corn. A 2002 census of farmers showed 462 farmers in Iowa who planted sweet corn. A good crop will yield about 12,000 ears per acre.
The average price has gone up, from $3-$3.50 per dozen ears a decade ago to $4-$5 per dozen in recent years, primarily because of rising fuel and fertilizer costs.
Sweet corn has always been available before field corn because it is picked and eaten when still moist and immature. For decades Iowa's sweet corn growers were obligated to wait until the warmth of late April to plant sweet corn and eat Southern corn at Fourth of July picnics.
That changed two decades ago when Grimes Sweet Corn and other producers adopted the outdoor greenhouse concept of laying plastic or mesh coverings over fields. That practice afforded some protection from cold weather in April and allowed - with luck - a sweet corn harvest in time for July Fourth.
"Last year, I took 180 dozen ears to market on June 28. This year was different. I still don't have a completed crop," said Wilber.
There can be little question that the increased supply of biofuels is not only lowering oil
demand, but also helping to mitigate the devastating impacts of volatile oil and gasoline
markets. Francisco Blanch, a senior commodity analyst at Merrill Lynch, concluded in a
June 6 investors report that, “On a global scale, biofuels are now the single largest
contributor to world oil supply growth. We estimate that retail gasoline prices would be
$21/bbl higher, on average, without the incremental biofuel supply.”
The food inflation should not be blamed on Europe and America 100% the goverments like China, India subidize thier fuels below its real cost. You think for one second that Americans nor Canadains working class grunts gonna belive this uber crap about energy policy.
Still, if we did not use corn the food companies would sell the food at the same price. Also, using corn for ethanol saved billions of barrells being bought by thugs like Chavez, Amjediadad. | |
|
| Should we make oil from coal?
Posted: 7/9/2008 11:26:27 AM |
You're kidding, right? I mean, look what mining does to the land. Com'on now. The technology exists TODAY to have fuel efficient vehicles - they have them in other countries - we just don't have them in the U.S. due to the auto industry and the oil companies working hand in glove to keep us only able to purchase those guzzlers.
Or maybe......the cost to make these cars meet safety standards in the US would then negate any other advantage.Hey...sign a waiver that you won't sue after your daughter,aunt,wife,grandmother,son,the list is endless....dies in one and you might be able to convince the 300,ooo,ooo others who live here to go along with it. | |
|
|
Home
login 
