Synthetic fuel

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Yep - to the tune that coal converted to gas from the reserves in this country alone could run this country at it's current level of consumption for 250 more years. Basically, long enough to design clean and efficient alternative power sources before it even came close to running out.

That's just not true, current coal reserves last, according to the American Coal Foundation, 245 years, if consumption stays the same. The Fischer-Trops synthesis gives a yield of about 50% gas. The yearly demand of fuel per capita in the USA in the year 2005 was 604 gallons, which is about 1,7 tons of fuel. Given the 50% yield of the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis you would need 3,4 tons of coal to produce that fuel, given that current coal consumption per capita per year is 3,8 tons of coal that is nearly doubling the demand of coal per capita per year.... how should that last for 250 years? Just doesn't add up. Even if the synthesis process has been refined, how much does it yield? I've searched hard and haven't found anthing on it, but even if it were 100% which is impossible, it would still drive the demand up by 1,7 tons per capita per year which would nearly be a 50% increase in demand for coal, which cuts the 245 years down to roughly 165 years (and the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle between that and 130 years)... Still long enough to design clean and efficient alternative power sources, but not nearly as long as you say.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

That's just not true, current coal reserves last, according to the American Coal Foundation, 245 years, if consumption stays the same. The Fischer-Trops synthesis gives a yield of about 50% gas. The yearly demand of fuel per capita in the USA in the year 2005 was 604 gallons, which is about 1,7 tons of fuel. Given the 50% yield of the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis you would need 3,4 tons of coal to produce that fuel, given that current coal consumption per capita per year is 3,8 tons of coal that is nearly doubling the demand of coal per capita per year.... how should that last for 250 years? Just doesn't add up. Even if the synthesis process has been refined, how much does it yield? I've searched hard and haven't found anthing on it, but even if it were 100% which is impossible, it would still drive the demand up by 1,7 tons per capita per year which would nearly be a 50% increase in demand for coal, which cuts the 245 years down to roughly 165 years (and the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle between that and 130 years)... Still long enough to design clean and efficient alternative power sources, but not nearly as long as you say.

Not the same sources I have seen, but at 165 years, do I really care? Add the Oil Shale from Utah (more oil than Saudi Arabia has), and you have a total of 215 years. Add in the tar sands, the oil from AK, the oil from the Atlantic to the Gulf and does it really matter? You are 2.5x to 3 x my life span if I live 100 years! More than long enough to make power from water permanently.

-S

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Add the Oil Shale from Utah (more oil than Saudi Arabia has), and you have a total of 215 years.

Some of here were pretty upset when Ol' Bill signed off on protecting that land. It's not too far from some nice canyonlands, but it's basically desert, and Utah was pretty much all for developing it.

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Not the same sources I have seen, but at 165 years, do I really care? Add the Oil Shale from Utah (more oil than Saudi Arabia has), and you have a total of 215 years. Add in the tar sands, the oil from AK, the oil from the Atlantic to the Gulf and does it really matter? You are 2.5x to 3 x my life span if I live 100 years! More than long enough to make power from water permanently.

-S

The thing is, the equation here is made, without the additional energy that is needed to crack up the coal to gasoline, you won't get that from thin air, and atm about half of the electricity in the USA is made using coal. Lets say you go the nuclear route, then you're polluting the earth with nuclear waste that will radiate for millenias to come, all for 250 years of fuel supply... I think time is running out, if we don't make the push for efficient alternative non-fossil energy sources now, rather than delaying the inevitable.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

The thing is, the equation here is made, without the additional energy that is needed to crack up the coal to gasoline, you won't get that from thin air, and atm about half of the electricity in the USA is made using coal. Lets say you go the nuclear route, then you're polluting the earth with nuclear waste that will radiate for millenias to come, all for 250 years of fuel supply... I think time is running out, if we don't make the push for efficient alternative non-fossil energy sources now, rather than delaying the inevitable.

Thats an ignorant view of how things really are. We have plenty of hydrocarbon based fuels left. problem is, the Tree Huggers left us needing, not wanting.

For your info, Nuclear energy is the least polluting energy maker on the planet. Nothing comes close. Nothing even comes close to its energy output. Only one thing in the entire world could match a reactor for energy output - Grand Coulle Dam. No other energy producer, not coal, nor hydro, nor nothing comes close. With nukes, there is no emmisions, nothing. Just basic waste, and very little of it. as for clean energy, nothing will ever come close except maybe a fusion reactor or anti matter reactor. Two techonologies we need to push for.

-S

[August]

I see coal based fuels as just another fossil fuel source. Fine to exploit while it lasts but will eventually run out.

The link i just posted talks about a renewable long term solution:

LS9 has created special genetically engineered yeast and E. Coli bacteria. These friendly microbes can take biowaste and weeds (instead of sugar) and use "previously undiscovered metabolic pathways" to convert the sugar components of cellulose into long chain hydrocarbons, resembling crude oil.

[bookworm_020]

There was a story on oil sand / oil shale mining here in australia on the 60 minutes program. It is possible to produce oil and do so at a cost less than the current price of oil, but what about the damage to the area they dig up to get at it? Not to mention all the waste that is produced (more CO2 than producing a standard barrell of oil.

As one of the figures that was put up was in all the time of oil sand mining in the U.S. less than 1 km2 has been rehabilitated back to the natural state.

Time to start thinking out side the box for energy production.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

There was a story on oil sand / oil shale mining here in australia on the 60 minutes program. It is possible to produce oil and do so at a cost less than the current price of oil, but what about the damage to the area they dig up to get at it? Not to mention all the waste that is produced (more CO2 than producing a standard barrell of oil.

As one of the figures that was put up was in all the time of oil sand mining in the U.S. less than 1 km2 has been rehabilitated back to the natural state.

Time to start thinking out side the box for energy production.

Actually BP was allowed to test in Utah and found a way to extract it for less money than normal oil at the time, and this was back in 2000.

They did some form of chemical process that made it easy.

-S