Important: The following is a text only archive!
For full features; Go to Why Aren't We...
Converting coal into oil/gasoline?
I've been reading on the "Karrick Process", and it's a way to make oil from
coal. The way I understand it, it's pretty efficient too. Since oil prices
are rising daily, at an alarming rate with no reason, why don't we start
converting the coal, and make the Middle East feel like we don't need them
anymore, they lower their prices to let's say half of what they are today,
and we either use the plants at a small rate, or just leave them until
prices go up again?
The greatest part: converting coal to gasoline results in more power and an
average of 20% increase in fuel-efficiency.
Opinions?
chris_knows
It's too late for me to look this up now, but I'll check it out when I get
a chance. I'm just thinking here though, although you're somehow getting
20% greater fuel efficiency, I'm guessing when you add all of the energy it
must take to convert coal to gas that the overall process is incredibly
inefficient. Not to mention that coal is pretty dirty.
Also, if we do this to force the middle east to lower their rates on oil,
the far east will raise their prices for coal (demand would REALLY
skyrocket).
giant016
Yeah, but the known coal supply in the U.S. accounts for 26% of all coal in
the world, which would be sufficient for hundreds of years. I don't know
about efficiency, but China's recently started adopting it (the process is
not new, it's been around for over 70 years, and can apparently (I don't
know if anyone can prove that) keep costs around $40 a barrel.
chris_knows
That is so weird, I'm currently reading a novel from 1979, called "The
Formula". Its about a cop who's ex-cop-friend gets murdered and he
investigates etc etc, but it goes back to some big conspiracy about the
Germans making synthetic fuel during WW2 and having a secret formula etc
etc.
Anyway, the point is, I was wondering how true it was and I haven't heard
anything about this until you just mentioned it.
Mathew
Now I'm not going to pretend to know alot about this, because I don't, but
surely it's still a source that's going to see us in the same situation in
years to come? If it's just a cost thing, then fair enough, but if it's an
environmental thing, surely it'll never work because of pollution and the
availability of the coal in the first place?
Cliffy
No, it makes gas cheaper than it is today by about half, and there's plenty
of coal. The reason that we probably aren't doing it is because of the
environmental problems; it apparently releases lots of CO2. In the article
below, it says that the plants themselves are expensive to build, but
technology is advancing, and it's becoming more efficient, as it says in
the second quote, both from the site:
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0816-wsj.html
The growing use of coal energy source, combined with concerns over climate
change, is fueling the push for cleaner ways to produce energy from coal.
Even the chairman of Shell has called for green coal technologies to fight
global warming.
chris_knows
Thats not a bad idea. Never heard of this before, on paper it looks good
but you never know how things will actually go in real life. What about
ethanol 100, i hear that will replace gasoline at some point before
hydrogen power takes over. Many sources can be used to create e100 but i
guess it is costly to produce pure ethanol. But that would give the boys in
the middle east a run for their money, plus its alot more effiecent than
gasoline.:smoke:
speeder
Still won't completely solve the astronomical prices of petrol we have to
fork out, bear in mind that most of this is due to the taxes our government
have slapped on to get money in. 96p/litre is rediculous and it's only
gonna rise before christmas, it's not even economical to drive around in a
1.3l anymore!! Things look a bit brighter with diesels as you can run the
engine on biodiesel or straight vegetable oil.
fudge
Yeah, like 2/3 of what you guys pay goes to taxes. In Canada I believe it's
about 50%. Fuel prices are probably going to drop back down to like $80 a
barrel soon, but that's still phenomenally high. There's some stupid law in
California that doesn't allow diesel cars because they release too much
sulfur dioxide, so most car manufacturers don't import that many diesel
cars in the U.S./Canada (I think we only have the Golf TDI and maybe one
other model).
I can't see ethanol replacing fossil fuels unless we either get really
desperate or the technology improves. The problem is that first of all, we
don't have enough to grow. Right now (in the U.S.), ethanol is highly
subsidized (the government is really pushing for it--no other fuel has ever
required subsidizing), and farmers can make more money off of it, so about
1/4 of all U.S. corn crops this year have been used for ethanol, causing
prices for food to go up, hurting the middle/lower classes. Same thing is
happening in Mexico, where people have been protesting. Ethanol from corn
is inefficient, and ends up polluting more than it saves through soil
erosion, chemicals like insecticides, etc. Also, ethanol costs about 4
times gasoline to produce, but it's selling for less because of the
government subsidies. Also, cars get worse fuel efficiency; with E85, you
will get about 25% less MPG than pure gasoline, which also offsets the
price.
Ethanol could replace fossil fuels, but definitely not with the technology
available today. Even if every single crop was used for ethanol (in the
U.S.), that would only be enough for 4% of U.S. energy needs.
chris_knows
Why arent we converting water into hydrogen/oxygen and using hydrogen to
power everything for the rest of time?
nighthawk
I never knew that, I always thought that ethanol was the answer to our
problems. Hopefully the technology of making e100 improves quickly.:smoke:
speeder
Ethanol has a higher octane rating than regular petrol, thats why more and
more teams in motorsport are using this fuel. The pollution is
significantly less than petrol as alcohols burns more cleanly, I also don't
think it'll replace fossil fuels but it's a start.
There are many other options in the future, I for sure would love to drive
a TZero and smoke a Ferrari in a drag race with an electric car.
fudge
Beating a Ferrari would feel good until it catches up to you and guns the
amazing gasoline engine :laughing:.
chris_knows
Bullsh*t. With the exception of the first half of the first sentence, all
you're doing is repeating propaganda.
1. Racing teams are not using ethanol unless the rules of the series
specifically call for it or allow it's use along with other modifications
to give their car a competitive edge. Besides, several racing series have
been using methanol (a close brother to ethanol) for years.
2. Some pollutants are less, some are more. There are certainly less
hydrocarbons but there is about twice as much carbon dioxide produced for
an engine at the same power level. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and
is considered by many to be the worst tailpipe pollutant because it's the
hardest to control.
3. Producing ethanol is nothing more than a feel good project for
governments, politicians and environmental do-gooders. Because of the
amount of energy required to produce and transport ethanol, it has about a
3% efficiency level. For those of you who are in denial, that means that
for every gallon of ethanol produced and pumped into a gas tank, it
requires the equivalent of .97 gallons of ethanol to produce it. And
because it contains less power potential than gasoline, you end up using
about 15-20% more. What a wonderful tradeoff. Let's also not forget how
it affects (raises) the price of any type of food that uses corn, including
livestock that eats it.
Bottom line is that for transportation, ethanol is nothing more than a pipe
dream. If the US really was serious about energy independence, or at least
lower dependence, the liberals and the greenies would not block every
attempt to build new nuclear power plants. Then fossil fuels would only
need to be used for transportation, instead of heating our homes,
businesses and producing ethanol. Nuclear power may even set the stage to
allow electric cars make sense under certain circumstances.
vwhobo
And in the ALMS, BTCC and British GT; teams are using bio-ethanol. I guess
the advantage would be to run a higher compression but with around 20% less
fuel mileage they would have to carry more fuel than the gasoline cars
which would put them at a disadvantage at the start of the race. I'm well
aware that some series such as Champ Cars have been using methanol for
years but isn't the stuff toxic and burns invisibly in daylight? I
remembered seeing a pit incident a few years ago where a pit crew had
methanol splashed over him and he was frantickly rolling around -thing is
you couldn't see the flame.
Some argue that global warming is bullsh*t and that its a natural process,
that in itself is yet to be proven. Some of the carbon dioxide is offset
by the photosynthesis from the crop grown whereas the impurities you get
from crude oil contributes to smog, much more harmful to humans.
Producing ethanol costs more but the price of fuel sold to us is dictated
more in the taxes slapped on top. As I said it's not a fuel to replace
normal petrol but its an alternative which has it's advantages in terms of
performance. And as we're getting blatantly ripped off in petrol, we need
to look for more alternatives.
fudge
Okay, I'll play your silly game.
1. Yes methanol burns with no discernable color in daylight. Same as
ethanol. What's your point?
2. Global warming is a fact. It happens every thousand or so years. The
debate among the non-chicken little crowd is how much, if at all, the human
race is contributing. I say not much. It’s the liberals and greenies who
are making it an issue, I just mentioned the fact.
3. I believe you are in the UK based on your use of the word petrol. Your
petrol is taxed at a much higher rate than ours, while diesel and LPG is
subsidized with that money. That's part of your semi-socialist economy.
In the states, while gasoline is fairly heavily taxed, the price IS NOT
dictated by taxes. It is dictated by supply and demand on the world market
for crude oil and then refinery capacity based on demand. Never the less,
nobody is ripping you off. It’s all a matter of choice. You have the
choice NOT to purchase it. You have the choice to move somewhere with
lower prices. If you fail to act on that choice, then you have nothing to
complain about.
Bottom line is that ethanol would never be on the table at this point in
time if it wasn't for huge government subsidies, much the same as electric
cars which were tried and failed. Gasoline was brought to market by
private corporations 100 or so years ago and is the standard today because
the demand was there and oil was/is cheap and plentiful. When it no longer
is, when people no longer are willing to pay for it, when the demand is no
longer there and the consumer wants something else, private corporations
will respond and find the alternative, WITHOUT SPENDING MY TAX DOLLARS TO
MAKE SOMEONE FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES.
vwhobo
Not to start an argument or anything, but how is it possible that the
Earth's temperature stays still for 1,000 then increases for a couple of
years, then it stays still for another 1,000 years.
chris_knows
When exactly did that happen? I know you get most of your "news and
information" from that Colbert idiot, but please. I expected better from
you. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but during the last 100
years, most of the hottest years were in the earliest part. Can you
explain that? Can you also explain what changes ahve been recorded not
because of actual temperature change, but by how the temperatures are
taken?
http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg
vwhobo
No. Neither can I explain why the ice on Antarctica is increasing lol. I
don't believe in global warming, I'm just trying to understand your
statement about how global warming "happens every thousand or so
years"--that just implies that between the climate changes, temperature
increase stays latent.
Also, anybody hear about the judge that ruled Al Gore's movie had 11
inaccuracies? Basically, whoever saw the movie knows that he only makes 11
points, and then throws some personal stories and Bush-bashing in between
lol.
One final point--I get most of my news from CNN, generally from Glenn Beck.
Colbert is just funny; I don't think anybody should take him seriously
though lol.
chris_knows
Okay, you're right. I could have worded it better. What I meant was that
climate change is cyclical with temperatures going up and down on a regular
basis over the course of thousands of years. Better?
BTW, stay away from CNN. They're called the Communist News Network or the
Corrupt News Network for a reason. As for AlGore, he's doing what his ilk
do best... Use half truths and even lies to further his own personal
agenda. The sad thing is that so many people are gullible enough to
believe his trash. He needs to walk the walk. His houses use more energy
than my shops do, and my stuff improves the economy and helps people.
vwhobo
Yeah, now that I look at it, the diagram explains that lol.
I would avoid CNN but we don't get Fox News here, which actually has the
most centrist news shows according to a study conducted by the ACLU
(Anti-American Communist Liberal Underground) lol.
Also, anyone see the half-time show on NBC last night?...Complete idiocy
lol:
Click here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=dFt3yZiNmow)
chris_knows
It's not much, but it's something.
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html
Where I live there's no cable and satellite can't get through the trees, so
this has to do.
vwhobo
Sweet, thanks!
chris_knows
