Posted on 10/05/2005 5:27:20 AM PDT by shrinkermd
India, China and the United States are among very few countries in the world which can easily attain energy independence by substituting synthetic fuel obtained from petroleum with coal, an expert has said.
India, the US and China are rich in coal deposits and can easily attain energy independence by producing synthetic fuel or Synfuel from coal, Governor of Montana and soil scientist Brian Schweitzer said in an article in The New York Times.
Observing that Synfuel production will give energy independence in the purest sense as it will be free from wild market fluctuation of fuel prices, Schweitzer said Synfuel has become very economical in view of soaring crude oil prices.
The former soil scientist said the high-performing fuel would cost only $35 a barrel.
The Synfuel process, which is nothing like conventional coal use, removes greenhouse gases as well as toxins like sulfur, mercury and arsenic.
A Synfuel plant can generate electric power, make synthetic natural gas, and produce hydrogen that many, including President George W Bush, believe is the energy source of the future.
Schweitzer also says, "Most people are surprised to learn that we can produce gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other petroleum products out of coal. Indeed, the process was used in America as early as 1928.
In World War II, 92 per cent of Germany's aviation fuel and half its total petroleum came from synthetic fuel plants. South Africa has used a similar technology for 50 years, and now makes 200,000 barrels per day of synthetic gasoline and diesel, he said.
That and it will put the Coal Miners back to work.... I am sure that they would love a steady paycheck.
We already burn a lot of coal in this country. What we need it nuclear power.
Mike
I use to post about this technology. Glad to see your post. China was suppose to have already started building plants to convert coal to gas but I haven't checked lately to see if they have actually done it. Just this technology getting started should cause the oil producers to fear it.
I heard this guy get interviewed by Frank Beckman (Detroit) a couple weeks ago. Very impressive man, wish he was our governor.
Of course, that would be d@mned rude to our good friends, the Saudi's.
Mostly wrong. "Direct" coal and nuclear are only good for generating electricity, and don't replace petroleum or provide fuel for transportation. Synfuels do.
I'm as pro-nuke as it gets, but synfuels definitely have a place in the "total energy picture".
The article is incorrect regarding China's coal reserves. The main reason China has the worlds highest number of coal mine accidents is that with coal depletion, the miners have to go deeper to get coal. In fact, some mines have been converted into tourist destinations.
The book appears to only address the use of coal to generate electricity---not the synfuels issue.
Right, but it addresses the larger concept. We're currently using natural gas and some fuel oil to make electricity. It's assinine. We should be using coal, that alone would free up vast resources for home heating and automotive transportation.
That move and change is relatively simple compared to syn fuels. I think Syn fuels should be the next step, but let's clear the easy one first.
Well, to that extent, we agree. Gasification and gas-turbine/steam turbine combined cycle power plants are the way to go.
Yes. However the coal can be used soonere than more nukes can be built and would make a dandy stopgap. And the capability should be developed just so we have it standing by.
Here in Orlando, we have two trains, each carrying 100 some odd coal cars come thru here each day to keep the power plant going. The idea that we aren't using coal is not persuasive to me.
Silly, we can't mine coal in areas stolen by the moron Clinton, and all his environmentalist whacko buddies.
After all, we must respect the diversity inherent in the woman-hating Islamic theocracies.
"I saw Schweitzer on Kudlow yesterday. His pitch was impressive. Why don't we use this resource?"
Because big business is in the oil sands and coal business pretty large.
There are some independents, like EnCana in Canada. By and large, however, the large oil producers also own most of the coal.
So the energy producers have something to say to the average shmoe (they have prepared a statement):
"Why in the name of all that is holy would we intentionally hose our shareholders? We have a resource in oil with a lower operating cost of production that is worth almost twice what a barrel of oil made from coal. You want me to stop producing oil and refining products from oil in favor of coal based production and give up 50% operating margin in the process?
Not at gunpoint. Fact is, we have no real competitors and the average customer doesn't care about the brand. The station owners aren't making anything on our product anyway, which is why the average gas station has transformed into a restaurant. Only government and oil companies make money retailing gasoline.
And by the way, thanks for the exploration tax credits. It's the equivalent of loaning a crack addict $100K, but it will allow us to continue hammering in these lovely profits at your expense. It'll allow us to look under your bed for oil if we have to until every last liquid drop has been extracted.
When we've got the last drop of oil out of the ground, we'll turn to oil sands and coal, but not a minute sooner. Oh, and one more thing - there is no shortage of energy. Canada and the US in coal alone has about 400 years worth without considering oil sands, and we've got another 300 years worth there too. Nuclear Power? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Why do you think we hire and fund all of those anti-nuclear groups to scare the bejeebers out of you - it's the only real competitor we've got.
Nothing is dirtier than burning oil products, but after Fonda, Douglas, and Lemon did their number on the sheeple in The China Syndrome, there was no chance of getting another reactor built in your lifetime. Do you have any idea how much particulate pollution is created per day from petroleum, compared with the waste produced by all the nuclear power plants combined? There's no comparison.
Folks, we have shareholders to pay, and we are very good at our jobs. Bend over and get greased for $4.00/gallon diesel. That's an even bigger joke - Diesel is a lower grade of energy than unleaded gas is. It's cheaper to produce, but we are charging more for it."
I have no love for big oil. Not at all.
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.