May 26th, 2008, 01:44 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
| | Pump you sucker! Pump!
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Sacto, Colliefornia
Posts: 7,170
| Air Force Plans to Switch Fuel for Coal
__________________
America has spoken; Now it is time for our enemies to speak.
|
| |
May 26th, 2008, 10:18 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Vernon, BC, Canada
Posts: 8,141
| AAAS - Center for Science, Technology and Congress Quote: Costs
In terms of economics, coal-based liquid fuel becomes viable when the per-barrel price of oil has exceeded the $45-50 range, according to separate MIT and National Mining Association studies. This is because of high front-end expenditures-a 10,000 barrel-a-day plant would cost approximately $600-700 million to construct-and the price of CO2 capture. All told, the refinement process is three to four times more expensive than refining an equivalent amount of oil. Not included in the above estimate is the cost of sequestrating the captured CO2, which would increase the price of the end product by a projected $5 a barrel. The imposition of a strict carbon cap and trade regime would also raise the cost of fuel produced with CTL technology, because of the CO2 emissions associated with it. Still, given the current high price of oil, coal to liquids is likely to remain an economically sound alternative. Arguments for Coal-Based Liquid Fuel
Proponents of using coal-based liquid fuel for the transportation industry say that it would help the United States achieve energy independence. Currently, the United States consumes approximately 13 million barrels of liquid fuels for transportation each day and imports more than 55 percent of its oil. The more than 250 billion tons of recoverable coal the country has in its reserves could replace 800 billion barrels of oil, according to industry analyses. Other benefits of fuel made from liquefied coal cited by proponents are that it can be used in gasoline engines and that plants designed for indirect CTL processes can easily be converted to hydrogen fuel cell production plants, once fuel cell technology becomes more viable. Arguments against Coal-Based Liquid Fuel
Opponents of CTL technology note that the lifecycle of synthetic fuel derived from coal produces large amounts of greenhouse gas. If the CO2 removed from the fuel during the refinement process is not sequestered, the quantity of CO2 released by extracting, refining and burning coal-based liquid fuel is more than twice the amount emitted by conventional hydrocarbons. Even with carbon sequestration, synthetic fuels derived from coal release nearly 10 percent more CO2 than oil. Moreover, reliance on coal as a transportation fuel would increase the other environment stresses associated with coal mining in the United States and potentially affect other energy markets. The MIT study estimates that an additional 250 million tons of coal, equivalent to 25 percent of the United States current annual production, would have to be mined each year to replace 10 percent of the country's present consumption of liquid transportation fuel.
| Same old problem that needs to be solved before they break ground. Sequestration of CO2 at the plant and the end use in transportation vehicles of all kinds. There's billions of dollars to be saved with a better fuel but it's still fossil fuel. At the moment it seems to be as practical as fuel from corn.
__________________
Beware of promises of life where death is prerequisite.
|
| |
May 26th, 2008, 10:24 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
| | Pump you sucker! Pump!
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Sacto, Colliefornia
Posts: 7,170
| Quote: |
Sequestration of CO2 at the plant
| Only if you buy into the Global Warming fad. |
| |
May 26th, 2008, 10:43 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Vernon, BC, Canada
Posts: 8,141
|
You're invited along for the ride too Chuck. Pisses you off, doesn't it? lol |
| |
May 27th, 2008, 12:35 AM
|
#5 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: Jackson,MS
Posts: 4,028
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckiechan Only if you buy into the Global Warming fad. | Ignorance is BLISS. ‘Effects of global warming worse than thought’ -DAWN - Top Stories; May 25, 2008 Global Warming by the Numbers - Global Warming - Environmental Defense Fund Global Warming- Science - The New York Times Climate Change American Rivers: Global Warming & Rivers Interior Declares Polar Bears ‘Threatened’ by Global Warming | cooler heads Global warming, photography, pictures, photos, climate change, impact, science, weather, arctic, antarctica, climate zones, glacier, arctic warming, antarctica warming, documentation, effects, effects of climate change, paleoclimate, mountain glacier
Chuckie: If you could only come back to reality  |
| |
May 27th, 2008, 01:52 AM
|
#6 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: May 2000 Location: Miami, FL.
Posts: 2,781
|
Global warming is a scam.
I know the real cause of Global Warming.
it's that big shiney thing in the sky.
Us evil conservatives call it... THE SUN. |
| |
May 27th, 2008, 03:57 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Sea-Ninja wannabe
Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Albany, Ga.
Posts: 8,147
|
Hi Spinky.web! Welcome to TechIMO!
Please, post any proof, some of us will read it and point out errors if there are any.
__________________
They say technology slows down for no one. I know it outruns my wallet. I figure its because my wallet isn't light enough yet.
|
| |
May 27th, 2008, 04:22 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
| | Green-dildo-riding banana
Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: PA, USA
Posts: 16,783
|
el oh el @ global warming... 
__________________ Send lawyers, guns and money; the shit has hit the fan. |
| | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | |
Posting Rules
| You may post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | | Most Active Discussions | | | | | Recent Discussions  | | | | | |