Rest In Peace, old friend, your work is finished.......
If you want on or off the DIESEL "KnOcK" LIST just FReepmail me........
This is a fairly HIGH VOLUME ping list on some days......
Posted on 03/16/2007 5:52:03 AM PDT by Red Badger
Rest In Peace, old friend, your work is finished.......
If you want on or off the DIESEL "KnOcK" LIST just FReepmail me........
This is a fairly HIGH VOLUME ping list on some days......
KnOcK!!!!!!!!!
Wind and solar energy will/could be used to generate H2 to augment the FT process, so no excess CO2 will be produced. Electrolysis..............
This looks like a way of making fuel X from fuel Y by adding Hydrogen. The only way this would reduce dependance on foreign oil would be if the US had loads of Nuclear power plants to make the hydrogen. Might as well just drill in ANWR.
And why is CO2 important? Anybody?
But the final product still is a hydrocarbon which must be burned, giving off CO2, right?
P.S. Liberals will read "by-products" to mean "pollutants."
Windmills and other renewable electrical energy sources are used to break watr down to hydrogen and oxygen. That is the source of the hydrogen.
>>why is CO2 important?
CO2 is short for COO. And we know who the coo-coos are, right?
Geothermal, such as Yellowstone, or ocean current, such as the Gulf stream can supply the electricity needed for electrolysis. Now if someone could revisit the work of Steve Myers, who apparently discovered the proper resonant frequency of hydrogen needed for super efficient electrolysis, well then we have a program.
We have coal out the wazoo in the US and it's just waiting for us to use. The Coal Mining Unions should be all over this. The FT process is and has been a proven process for nearly a century. This is just a new tweak to make it more "green" and thus more acceptable. The petro-oil equivalent of this amount of fuel would still produce the same amount of CO2
except that this will produce more diesel than a barrel of oil will, which produces less CO2 and gets more mpg..............
Diesel gets more mpg than gasoline, Therefore produces less CO2 per mile driven. The US has coal deposits to last for a couple of centuries or more. A barrel of crude produces only a fraction of itself of diesel. A ton of coal is almost totally capable of being turned into diesel, thus less CO2........
That is a good answer - except that one part of the equation - the 300,000,000 tonnes of Hydrogen - still needs to be found.
But it looks like Texas (for instance) has had a surge in Nuclear generation licensing, so there is hope for releasing the power of America's coal.
Even without the H2 augmentation, the FT process is a good thing. As I have seen on other sites, there are H2 processes being developed that can fill the bill without the need for massive amounts of nuclear or other power sources. But if necessary, the FT process can be used to generate its own H2, kind of like the "Breeder Reactor" nuclear equivalent...........
The future is bright.
A few new generation nuclear plants.
Plasma gassification of garbage (a tecnology that is proven and on the market now), Throw in biomass gassification, some coal gassification, combined with US oil production and we will not need to import a drop of oil.
I hope to see the day when we can ban oil imports. Let Hugo, Mexico with their immigration demands and the Jihadis eat their oil.
This doesn't make any environmental sense from a greenhouse gas perspective. If you draw your control volume around the conversion procdess AND the end-use transportation system and if the HC ratio of the liquid fuel is the same as gasoline, then the the same amount of C is released into the atmosphere as CO2 during combustion as if you were using gasoline. Where's the benefit to reduced global warming (IF such were anthropogenic and caused by CO2)?
CO2 is a "pollutant." Didn't you get the memo last week? You were on the distribution list.
Hmmmmm, yet another source of raw materials....
It is expensive concentrating CO2. Losing CO2 when you are making fuel is like pouring half of your eggs out while making omelets.
It would not take that many more nuclear plants to create the hydrogen needed to fuel the nation, especially if you were using a direct heat method rather than hydrolysis.
Basically you would be making the nations cars nuclear powered.
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.