Posted on 09/23/2008 11:10:02 AM PDT by doug from upland
DFU NOTE: Because of the technology that produces "clean" diesel, diesel vehicles may well make a comeback in the United States. Coal, of which we have an enormous supply, could be an important part of attaining energy independence. Joe Biden says NO to coal. Another good one from the walking gaffe machine. I thought the messiah was in favor of clean coal. Maybe this is the kind of stuff that gets Biden removed from the ticket. Stand up, Chuck.
Biden - "No coal plants here in America" at the end of this video
From the article on greencar.com:
Both indirect and direct liquefaction – the process for creating a liquid from a solid or gas – are already used to produce liquid fuels from coal on a large scale in China, India, Indonesia, and the Philippines. South Africa uses coal liquefaction to provide a substantial percentage of its transportation fuels.
In indirect coal liquefaction, intense heat and pressure turns coal into hydrogen and carbon monoxide. After impurities are removed, the synthesis gas is converted into clean liquid fuels and other chemical products through what’s called the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process. Diesel fuel produced by FT synthesis is virtually sulfur-free with low aromatics, has a high cetane number, and burns more completely with less emissions than the recently introduced low-sulfur diesel fuel that’s enabling a new generation of “clean” diesel vehicles. In direct coal liquefaction, coal is pulverized and mixed with oil and hydrogen in a pressurized environment, converting the coal into a synthetic crude oil that can then be refined into a variety of fuel products.
LLS
I could have sworn Biden told a PA crowd he was a “coal man” last week.
LLS
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2071459/posts
More than 15 billion barrels later, I'm glad he failed back then as well.
Look at the graph
Just use the hydrogen from the syngas
or electricity + water
I heard Newt finally mention Hydrogen yesterday on Hannity
hydrogen is the best long term answer for fuel - it is really easy and clean - just bulky
I also like electric cars, hybrids with Diesel/ NG / petrol / biofiuels
they are all good
H2 can be made in your house with electricity and water
the Oil industry fights H2 more than anything else- just like PV is the main threat to the electric utilities in the long term
Once you have them, you DONT NEED THE UTILITIES OR OIL COMPANIES ANYMORE
how about them apples
BTW kudos to your good and sardonic swipes at the Klintonistas over the years (love the MIDIs)
Listen to this empty suit idiot!
This guy knows absolutely nothing about which he is blathering. “...to capture the coal, pump it into the ground just like natural gas.” He is afraid to answer a simple question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLWkxzWhpRw
Dems oppose coal because we have lots of coal. Almost everything Dems do leaves us ever more dependent on the sheiks.
So now they are promoting wind farms as an alternative to foreign oil. What? Most people won’t think it all the way through. Build all the wind farms you want, put all the subsidy dollars you want into the pockets of Pickens and Pelosi and the rest, and it won’t reduce our bill for overseas oil by a single cent.
But build at least a couple coal liquefaction plants in every coal producing state, and you will make a real difference. Its old technology. Its been done now for decades and it works fine. Only we don’t do it because we’d rather send half a trillion dollars a year out of the country.
Where does the syngas come from? Where does the electricity come from?
Hydrogen is not an energy source, only a storage meduim and a poor on at that.
Oil industry fights H2 more than anything else
LOL! The second biggest user of H2 (after NASA) is the Petroleum Industry. Hydrogen is an important input for a modern refinery.
ping
Wtg, mate!
The NAZI's did it in WWII, but now there are far more efficient processes, using new catalysts. Way better now, with NEW technology.
Yes, you can. However, you will not get out as much energy as you put in. For hydrogen to become usable, you'll have to compress it and store it, requiring an even greater net loss of energy. The whole process would be less effective than recharging a car battery.
The cell phone has made video footage ubiquitous and now we can catch all these phonies on tape without their knowledge.
Well batteries have several major problems for transport
(1) recharge time- hours - unacceptable
(2) range - less than 200 miles at the MOST
(3) expense - depending on how long they are used and how they are cycled
(4) weight - depending again on the TYPE of battery
(5) efficiency - 80 % at most (90% charge/discharge)
All of these combined have doomed electric only cars from the mainstream - they are fine for local commuting and small batteries work well in hybrids
hydrogen is a fuel and a light gas to boot and can refuel quickly and fuel airplanes for example- which batteries will NEVER be able to do
EVERYTHING needs to be tried but certainly EtOH is a LOSER
a COMPLETE AND UTTER DISASTER actually
cheers
And still, batteries beat hydrogen overall.
What does the Miles per Dollar come out to for electric? That's the true question, IMO.
Why didn't GWB immediately reverse this vicious federal land grab?
I don’t know why Bush didn’t change it. Once Clinton named it as a national monument, perhaps he couldn’t without Congressional approval???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.