Posted on 10/06/2011 12:50:33 AM PDT by neverdem
An old energy source has the potential to drive down the cost of gasoline, thanks to new technology. Lower fuel prices effectively provide a non-artificial stimulus for the economy by leaving more money in taxpayers'/consumers' hands. I've long been an advocate of the notion that the best way to lower energy -- and, as a byproduct, food -- costs and to increase energy availability is to increase the supply of conventional, practical, domestic energy assets. I'm fascinated by one alternative to petroleum-based liquid fuel.
Gasification and liquefaction of coal, generally thought to be an old-technology source of motor fuel, has gotten new life in recent years.
Coal is not a popular energy source among American progressives. During his first campaign, President Obama promised to effectively eliminate coal as an energy source. The Obama administration has at least complicated coal usage. Difficulty in securing permits, the passage of cap-and-trade legislation in the House, and an EPA-proposed carbon tax, to be implemented through regulatory means, have effectively halted development or expansion of the coal-generated power plants which in the past have produced upwards of 50 percent of America's electricity. Dozens of projects have been canceled or postponed.
But, as administration roadblocks to exploration and extraction limit new sources of petroleum and oil prices remain high, converting coal to liquid fuels has become more attractive.
During World War II, driven by desperation for motor fuel after Axis access to the Ploesti oilfields was cut, Nazi Germany made synthetic gas from coal. So did South Africa during the apartheid embargoes. The technology to make liquid fuel from coal has been available for a long time, but, historically, the energy efficiency of "ersatz gas" has been poor, the emissions a nightmare, and the conversion costs high. There are legitimate doubts that coal-to-liquid-fuel can successfully compete...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“There are legitimate doubts that coal-to-liquid-fuel can successfully compete...”
I don’t believe that is correct. Look up the south african company SASOL. They used the Fisher process during the embargos on South Africa very successfully. I think they can compete with $35 a barrel oil and they are worth several billion dollars.
Coal oil. Kow-um-bonga, another fuel source for 0’b to cripple.
But there will come the usual load of fools claiming that since it can’t be done at the community level by a bunch of activists it is a tool of capitalism to enslave the masses.
The only times coal gasification has been successful....Nazi Germany (not much oil available in Germany/most of conquered Europe), and your own example of South Africa (embargos).
CG is both very difficult and very expensive (having worked for a company that put a major research effort into CG..up to the point of a full-scale proto plant...I have direct experience in the area). Oh, and that proto plant is now a vacant lot.
With the advent of shale gas and shale oil, CG "ain't gonna happen" any time soon.
IMHO if some of the advances in the process are real that I read about over on Green-Car-Congress, and what this CEO wanted to do, It is a no brainer IMHO to want to get our domestic airlines and the Military 100% sourced on this fuel. The the Saudi's to go pound sand...
IMHO that would free up refinery stock of the JP type fuels for other uses.
I'll save my thoughts on LPG for cars and why we are not going full throttle R & D on Thorium Reactors, not to mention the Shale Gas revolution...
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.