• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Liquid Coal : The New Fuel of The 21st Century? (1 Viewer)

Liquid coal: A cheaper, cleaner 21st century fuel? - Yahoo! News

EXTRA EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!

I'd like to know if it burns clean - Coal has a nasty reputation so I'd like to see the effects it would have on the environment.

Major coal mining companies in the United States, which has more coal reserves than Saudi Arabia has oil, are investing in ways to develop fuels derived from carbon.

The technology of producing a liquid fuel from coal or natural gas is hardly new. The Fischer-Tropsch process was developed by German researchers Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in 1923 and used by Germany and Japan during World War II to produce alternative fuels. Indeed, in 1944, Germany produced 6.5 million tons, or 124,000 barrels a day.

And coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuel is already in use elsewhere, like South Africa, where it meets 30 percent of transportation fuel needs.

In addition to being cheaper than oil, advocates point out that the fuel is environmentally friendlier and would also help America wean itself of foreign oil imports.


Peabody Energy Chief Executive Gregory Boyce said of CTL: "Stay tuned, as the sector continues to evolve.

"I have heard reports that China can produce oil for $25 per barrel from coal. We see it more in the $45 range here."

Peabody recently announced an agreement with Rentech to evaluate sites in the Midwest and Montana for CTL projects. The plants could range in size from producing 10,000 to 30,000 barrels of fuel per day and use approximately 3 million to 9 million tons of coal annually.

Another alternative fuel company, Syntroleum , said recently that its ultra-clean jet fuel was successfully tested in a USAF B-52 at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. The bomber flew with a 50/50 blend of CTL and traditional JP-8 jet fuel.

Looks promising.
 
Yes but how clean is it? How much damage if any is it going to add to the environment.

If its cleaner than oil as the article I cited states, then its an improvement.
 
Yes, Syntroleum and Swiss company Sustec are planning to build a factory like 50 miles to the north from where I live. This factory is designed to produce 3000 barrel a day. They will offer like 300 jobs in the beginning, I heard, but the Swedish company Vattenfall has to agree to supply the coal to make it work. Vattenfall does have surface mining close to this location.

The decisions are to be made at the end of first quarter 2007.

Syntroleum - NewsRelease
 
Yes but how clean is it? How much damage if any is it going to add to the environment.

Why do you assume that car's will run on traditional gas AND liquid coal? B/c I'm pretty sure that cars will either run on one, or the other. That way, the pollution won't get any worse then it is now, and can only get better since liquid coal is cleaner.
 
Yes but how clean is it? How much damage if any is it going to add to the environment.

So, its mot enough that this is a source of fuel that can, in theory, eliminate our dependence on ME oil -- it has to be as clean, if not cleaner than oil, too?

Talk about moving goalposts...


Coal to oil has been around for a long time -- the Germans prduced a significant quantity of their fuel this way during WW2.
 
So, its mot enough that this is a source of fuel that can, in theory, eliminate our dependence on ME oil -- it has to be as clean, if not cleaner than oil, too?

What good is freeing ourselves from ME oil if 30 years from now we'll be 30 feet under water? Do you understand that this is not "the lesser of two evils" we're talking about? That by going from oil to liquid coal will still do damage to the environment? If it burns cleaner good it's a nice step forward but it's foolish to dismiss questions about how much damage it's stills going going to do to our environement.

Talk about moving goalposts...

Hmmm....alright?

Coal to oil has been around for a long time -- the Germans prduced a significant quantity of their fuel this way during WW2.

Yes, and? Other then promote useless nazi knowledge from wikipedia what have you done to enlighten me?
 
What good is freeing ourselves from ME oil if 30 years from now we'll be 30 feet under water?
Replacing ME oil with "liquid coal" and global warming are seperate issues.

Yes, and? Other then promote useless nazi knowledge from wikipedia what have you done to enlighten me?
Far, far more than what you have done to enlighten anyone else.
 
Replacing ME oil with "liquid coal" and global warming are seperate issues.

I'm sorry do you not understand that anything that we use as fuel has a direct effect on global warming and all of this together is part of the same issue? To blindly agree that it might burn cleaner and not ask the simple question : "Well it's cleaner but how much damage are we still doing?". Is the equivalent of a mental patient saying "Well I'm not cutting my wrists as much but I still do it."

I wont argue with people if it burns cleaner the oil. I'd just like to know the amount of damage this type of fuel is going to do. It's really that simple.

Far, far more than what you have done to enlighten anyone else.

Ah yes. One step above the "I know you are but what am I?" response.
 
I'm sorry do you not understand that anything that we use as fuel has a direct effect on global warming
I'm sorry that you do not understand that this is an issue seperate from that of not importing ME oil.

I wont argue with people if it burns cleaner the oil. I'd just like to know the amount of damage this type of fuel is going to do. It's really that simple.
Like I said -- moving goalpost:

We need an alternative to ME oil!
We have one -- its liquified coal.
Oh yeah? Well, is it clean? If not then it doesnt count!

Ah yes. One step above the "I know you are but what am I?" response.
Yes-- thats what I ezpected from you, and thats what you delivered.
Good work.
 
Like I said -- moving goalpost:

We need an alternative to ME oil!
We have one -- its liquified coal.
Oh yeah? Well, is it clean? If not then it doesnt count!

I never said it didnt count. Once again your blind rage goes 10 steps ahead of your brain. Like I've stated in the last oh 3 posts. If it burns cleaner then oil. Thats great. Good improvement. When can we use it? However to look at how much money we're going to save without calculating all the pros and cons of said fuel first is like I've said "Foolish" with a capital F.

Yes-- thats what I ezpected from you, and thats what you delivered.
Good work.

Ah yes. The "I knew you'd do that and now I'll act big on the internet" move. Touché.
 
The Liberals cry about Nuke power, off shore drilling, and Alaska drilling. I am sure Al Bore will find a problem with this also.
 
I never said it didnt count. Once again your blind rage goes 10 steps ahead of your brain.
Its pretty clear that only one in rage here is you.

Like I've stated in the last oh 3 posts. If it burns cleaner then oil. Thats great. Good improvement. When can we use it? However to look at how much money we're going to save without calculating all the pros and cons of said fuel first is like I've said "Foolish" with a capital F.
And to think that you JUST said "I never said it didnt count".
How does your statement, above, -not- translate into just such a statement.

AND... the issue isnt "how much mioney we'll save" but "independence from ME oil".

Ah yes. The "I knew you'd do that and now I'll act big on the internet" move. Touché.
I guess thats what happens when you make pathetically inane comments like "Other then promote useless nazi knowledge from wikipedia what have you done to enlighten me?"
 
Its pretty clear that only one in rage here is you.

Yes, Yes We all know I accentuate my rage with capitalized words and my lack to see the entire picture and making what hasn't been said against what is yet to be said and will never be said the same thing.

And to think that you JUST said "I never said it didnt count".
How does your statement, above, -not- translate into just such a statement.

AND... the issue isnt "how much mioney we'll save" but "independence from ME oil".

Translation is up for those doing the translating. I stated that it's great that it burns clean and it's a good step forward. I'd just like to know how much damage it's going to add to our environment. Do you still not comprehend this simple question?

Independence from ME oil = Saudi Princes aren't able to rip a new a-hole into the everyday american everytime he/she goes to the pumps. Pun intended. Have you not made that connection yet?

Coal liquefaction is one of the backstop technologies that could potentially limit escalation of oil prices and mitigate the effects of transportation energy shortage under peak oil. This is contingent on liquefaction production capacity becoming large enough to satiate the very large and growing demand for petroleum. Estimates of the cost of producing liquid fuels from coal suggest that domestic U.S. production of fuel from coal becomes cost-competitive with oil priced at around 35 USD per barrel, (break-even cost). This price, while above historical averages, is well below current oil prices. This makes coal a viable financial alternative to oil for the time being, although production is not great enough to make synfuels viable on a large scale.

In the end it's all about money.
 
Well, money DOES make the world go 'round.
 
Well, money DOES make the world go 'round.

Round and around. Let's make ourselves rich. Leave the money to our children and render that money worthless because by the time our kids turn 30 the world will be 60 feet under water. Lunacy I tell ya Lunacy.
 
Yes, Yes We all know I accentuate my rage with capitalized words and my lack to see the entire picture and making what hasn't been said against what is yet to be said and will never be said the same thing.
Ok, now you're so upset that what you're typing doesnt make any sense.

Translation is up for those doing the translating.
I see. You wont try to defend yourself, and thus, a concession of the point.

I stated that it's great that it burns clean and it's a good step forward. I'd just like to know how much damage it's going to add to our environment. Do you still not comprehend this simple question?
i do not comprehend how you think this isnt moving the goalpost set for alternatives to ME oil from beng an alternative to ME to being a clean alternative to ME oil.

Independence from ME oil = Saudi Princes aren't able to rip a new a-hole into the everyday american everytime he/she goes to the pumps.
No, that's not the reason behind the argument for independence.
No wonder you're having so much trouble here -- you dont understand the basic argument. Sheesh.
 
Sweden probably has the strictest enviromental laws concerned with the extraction of Coal, I believe that it is virtually a closed to the atmosphere system and they produce the end product as liquid.
The burning of any Fossil fuel means that contaminents are released into the atmosphere, that will not change unless and until we are all running around in either electric or Hydrogen powered vehicles.
Whether Liquid coal produces more or less or even the same amount of enviromental contaminents is something neither I nor any one else has answered, for myself, I do not have the answer.
Whether Liquid Coal; will be able to free us from dependance on ME oil, short term like 5-10 years, NO, after that, perhaps.
Whether Oil from oil based shale will do the same, same time scale as Liquid Coal.
Drilling North Slope in Alaska, perhaps a shorter time scale.
Deepwater drilling in Gulf of Mexico, 5 - 10 years, but new technology is required as Oil is at depths of 30,000' +, deeper than anyone has ever extracted oil previously.

The World is not running out of Oil, there is more Oil still in the ground and under the seas than mankind has up till now ever used.

With regard to the enviromental damage caused by Fossil fuelled vehicles, this is enormous especially in our and indeed any Metro area anywhere in the entire world.
If you really need or want to see the effects, if any of you travel anywhere by air, during daylight hours, look out the window of the aircraft as it is nearing any airport, what you will see is a brownish haze surrounding the Metro area as you approach it. This is pollution, I have seen it for the last 30 years, almost everywhere from Russia, to UK, USA, Australia, ME, North Africa etc etc.

Air travel in itself is one of the largest methods of polluting the planet, it causes almost as much if not more than land vehicles.
This is not to say that vehicles do not produce pollution, they do.
There are also many other reasons for pollution, some are natural, over which mankind has no control, others where we do have direct control.
So long as mankind has this insatiable need or desire to travel, pollution will be caused, even to the extent if animal transport were used instead of mechanical transport, the only difference beiing that the levels of pollution would be spread out over a longer time period.

At the moment is is PC to suggest that we are running out of oil, that we are causing irreversible damage to the enviroment.
We are and have done far more damage through dumping Plastics, Toxic Metals and Liquids into our oceans than we have ever done with Fossil based fuel contaminants.
 
Round and around. Let's make ourselves rich. Leave the money to our children and render that money worthless because by the time our kids turn 30 the world will be 60 feet under water. Lunacy I tell ya Lunacy.

Yeah, screw people that are trying to make themselves rich! Infact, give me all your money so you won't have any of that 'worthless' cr-p lying around.
/sarcasm
 
Round and around. Let's make ourselves rich. Leave the money to our children and render that money worthless because by the time our kids turn 30 the world will be 60 feet under water. Lunacy I tell ya Lunacy.
Sea level going up 60 feet wont render money worthless, and its not going to rise 60 feet in the next 20 years.
Hyperbole will get you nowhere.
 
What good is freeing ourselves from ME oil if 30 years from now we'll be 30 feet under water?

Side discussion, but the maximum that the IPCC claims sea level might rise is 17 inches over the next 94 years.
 
This will solve nothing with people complaining about humans. If we were able to use water in cars, they would complain we were creating thunderstorms by releasing too much water vapor in the air.
Liquid coal will just lead to some other blame for naturally occuring weather patterns.
 
This will solve nothing with people complaining about humans. If we were able to use water in cars, they would complain we were creating thunderstorms by releasing too much water vapor in the air.
Liquid coal will just lead to some other blame for naturally occuring weather patterns.

Like I said -- moving goalposts.

As you meet their criteria, they change the criteria they want met.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom