OT: Coal Gasification

[Thomas Rogers]

How come we aren't pursuing Coal Gasification on a large scale?



Montana has 30% of the coal in the US, 9% in the world, and enough to fuel our country for the next 150 years if gasified.



The technology has existed for decades. Other countries are doing it and have been for decades.



Why don't we do this?



Google for more info, or click the link...

 

[Dan gelb]

probably because it makes sense and would save money

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Oh, and another link explains that clean diesel is a simple to produce by-product of coal gasification/liquification...



So we get Co2, Hydrogen, methane (NG), with a little work diesel, and other chemicals for fertilizers....why is this a bad thing?



Yeah, the process creates greenhouse gases, but we can capture/segregate those and use them for other purposes (didya know that CO2 is pumped into oil fields to pressurize the ground pushing the crude oil up and out increasing production)?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Oh, wait, strip mining, green house gases....the TREE-HUGGERS would rather buy little rice burners and point their fingers at SUV drivers than allow such things.



Never mind....I answered my own question!

 

[Deleted deleted]

This is not new technology... the Germans did it during WWII as they didn't have control over much oil-producing areas.

 

[Michael Cacioppo]

Coal gasification, shale oil, etc. were and probably are more expensive than even present prices. Billions would have to be invested with the chance that gas prices could plumet at the wim of several large producers. Having said that I think it is a great idea to persue but some kind of price protection would have to be afforded the entrenpeurs to assure them of some profitability. We need to get off the dependence of foreign fuel. BTW gasahole is no more than a farm subsidy in my opinion. I'm not even sure that there is a net gain in fuel energy from gasohol considering the fuel used to create it.

 

[Dale Carlson]

In answer to your question (which on a could belong to the larger issue of alternative fuel): because the corn lobby is stronger and spreads more PAC money around.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

MikeC, I heard today that the price of diesel fuel generated from coal gasification equates to crude oil at $43/barrell. Isn't that about 2/3rds the price of current crude?



TJR

 

[Gerald Pierce]

why would we do this? The oil companies are already making record profits, why invest in new things

 

[Tom Schindler]

cruzrtwdgt said it the best. Unless the government gets involved and MAKES them do it, they wont.



The government is too busy making Digital TV a requirement while most people are happy with analog TV signals.





Tom

 

[Mike Wilson]

Question...

How do you control consumer spending, while still producing large profits

for the oil industry and the government politicians who help run it?

(Hey, did I mention George Bush's name? You all just have a guilty conscience!)

Raise the price of gas!!!

You're not going to go out and buy that big screen t.v. with gas at 3.00-4.00

a gallon are you? At least most of us working stiffs can't!

And by the way, on the Hi-Def, digital thing. I agree. My eyesight is just

good enough to get the full effect of analog (almost).

Why would I want to spend thousands of dollars on something I can't see?!?!



:blink::wacko:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

One thing many may not know regarding the FCC's push to get broadcasters to digital/HiDef is that we have run out of bandwidth in the analog, over-the-air, broadcast frequency spectrum. And, because of this, we have real telecommunications issues related to emergency communications....we just can't grow this infrastructure easily.



One of the benefits of moving to digital is the return of much of the broadcast frequency spectrum used by analog, and it will be used by govt (fed, state, and local) for emergency communications, and for other govt and private uses.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

Coal Gasification and extracting Shale Oil are still too inefficient. It takes nearly as much energy to extract the fuel as they yield. If it cost 99 cents to get $1.00 worth of fuel. Hardly and energy saver.



Of course, they use natural gas to make electricity, so once the price makes it worth it, they will do it.



Solar power, Nuclear power and Hydrogen fuel cells is the future



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

As I said, RichardL, I heard the equiv price of fuel made from gasified/liquified coal was quoted as being equivalent to paying $43/barrel crude. Is it possible that your information and opinion dates back from when crude was around that price (and isn't it around $70 a barrell now)?



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Most of Europe runs on Nuclear Power. Solar power is not efficient, though once the cells are made, the energy os free. Fuel Cell technology. To be honest, I personally don't think it will work as well as they say it will.



There are two guys in the Cleveland, Oh area that has made a motor the produces NO emmissions and uses little to no fuel. The engine uses N2O to operate.





Tom

 

[Fred]

They could put that motor in a car with an optional fuel tank to cabin vent to make the trip a little more interesting. Man, I'm really sorry. I just feel too good today.

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

It's not my opinion, I am only repeating what was reported by so-called Experts.

It was based on a report on one of our local TV news programs that appeared just within the last week! They were interviewing a company that had some mining operations in numerous states that were rich in shale oil and coal, and that is looking in to shale oil and coal gasification.



One of the statements they made is that it required nearly as much fuel to extract the fuel as it yielded. This has nothing to do with the cost of a barrel of oil! It's a case of taking the energy equivelant of 99 barrels of oil to extract 100 barrels of oil. It's the amount of oil produced vs the amount of oil (energy) used to create the oil. Kind of like the caloric value of chewing a piece of celery. You burn up the calories in the celery just chewing it. So while it may taste good and contain needed fiber, it has little nutritional value.



...Rich

 

[TomT]

What about manure?

 

[Richard L]

TomT,

I don't know how many calories are in manure? :lol:



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Yup, RichardL, I believe you, it's just I heard just the opposite...that it is cost effective, and I heard it this past week too. I suspect your program and the program I saw were both from groups interested in two different outcomes.



I understand your point of cost vs yield. But, as I said, the program I was watching said that the COST was equivalent to what our fuel would cost today IF crude were $43/barrel. That sounded GREAT to me.



The program I watched had the governor of Montana praising coal gasification. So, of course, he is a little biased.



Tom