Converting coal to gasoline...

[Tonio]

I'd like to see the US wean itself off foreign oil. We could probably do that using a combination of ethanol, biodiesel and coal-derived oil. It might take a national program on the scale of the artificial rubber project from World War II, when Japan controlled the natural rubber sources in the Far East.

 

[MMDad]

I'd like to see the US wean itself off foreign oil. We could probably do that using a combination of ethanol, biodiesel and coal-derived oil. It might take a national program on the scale of the artificial rubber project from World War II, when Japan controlled the natural rubber sources in the Far East.

Don't forget Nuclear.

Solar, wind, and tidal sources ahould also be used, although they aren't short term solutions. In order to get off a teat as big as foreign oil, we have to take advantage of every possible resource.

 

[Lugnut]

http://www.pharmaciaretirees.com/refining_gasoline_from_coal.htm

Now I haven't checked the validity of the claims but it's a point to start from.

Thanks Ken.

 

[MMDad]

Larry

Here's another one to consider. A huge part of the cost of fuels, whether gas, biodiesel, or ethanol, is the cost to generate heat to distill or refine it.

Here's my solution: Nuclear powered refining/distilling. Heat direct from the reactor. No loss in transmission lines, no loss in generating electricity, just pure heat.

Powering the coal processes with nukes would probably make them cost effective today.

 

[ericw]

Montana's governor, Brian Schweitzer (a Democrat!), is a big booster of the coal into gas idea, and he says the process is much cleaner and environmentally friendly than in the past.
He might just be boosting his state, since Montana is a coal state. He claims Montana alone could provide enough gas for America for 40 years.

 

[SamSpade]

WISH I could remember my sources but - when I was in high school, I did a one of those Academy of Science projects on gasification - of *trash*. Basically, any trash that contained wood pulp or paper products. Stuff that'd burn. I started with destructive distillation to extract the alcohols, and then use the charcoal that was left to begin the rest of the process. I used to know the names of the processes - and all I can remember is it required super-heated steam and a few metallic catalysts along with the charcoal. It consumed some fuel to produce fuel, but being a high school student, I postulated that the source of the power could always have come from a nuclear reaction. So the steam was heated by nuclear power, and it made something CLOSE to gasoline.

My experiments produced only slightly flammable sludge, but the idea was good. We're NEVER gonna run out of trash. We could always just take someone ELSE's trash.

The supposition is one I've always maintained - octane - gasoline - really, really IS an outstanding fuel. It delivers a fantastic punch per liter, and it's very safe to transport. I didn't, and still don't think it'd be a waste of good, nuclear power to be converted into something transportable - and *storable*.

Anyway, it came in second place. That was almost thirty years ago.

 

[Larry Gude]

That sounds...

Here's another one to consider. A huge part of the cost of fuels, whether gas, biodiesel, or ethanol, is the cost to generate heat to distill or refine it.

Here's my solution: Nuclear powered refining/distilling. Heat direct from the reactor. No loss in transmission lines, no loss in generating electricity, just pure heat.

Powering the coal processes with nukes would probably make them cost effective today.

...brilliantly simple. The time has come to change energy policy.

 

[dck4shrt]

Here's another one to consider. A huge part of the cost of fuels, whether gas, biodiesel, or ethanol, is the cost to generate heat to distill or refine it.

Here's my solution: Nuclear powered refining/distilling. Heat direct from the reactor. No loss in transmission lines, no loss in generating electricity, just pure heat.

Powering the coal processes with nukes would probably make them cost effective today.

Not knowing much of anything about nuclear power's intricacies...would the regulation/safety concerns of a reactor next to a huge source of fuel be a problem? In the past 10 yrs how many refinery explosions have their been? If there was a nuke plant on site would that have been a problem?

 

[MMDad]

Not knowing much of anything about nuclear power's intricacies...would the regulation/safety concerns of a reactor next to a huge source of fuel be a problem? In the past 10 yrs how many refinery explosions have their been? If there was a nuke plant on site would that have been a problem?

Good point. Reactors today are built to withstand a direct impact from a large plane. But as the WTC showed, an intense fire can destroy the structural integrity of a well designed building.

The good thing is that the reactor wouldn't have to be too close to the refinery or distillery. Transferring heat a couple of miles is not difficult, and could leave a safety buffer between the two.

The trash gasification process is also very interesting. Can you imagine any tree huggers protesting if we wanted to empty every landfill in the nation? Stop all dumping at sea? I imagine the waste and effluent from sewage systems could even be used.

There are a number of obvious hurdles, and none of these solutions are short term, but if we don't start now it will hurt worse later.

 

[MMDad]

WISH I could remember my sources but - when I was in high school, I did a one of those Academy of Science projects on gasification - of *trash*. Basically, any trash that contained wood pulp or paper products. Stuff that'd burn. I started with destructive distillation to extract the alcohols, and then use the charcoal that was left to begin the rest of the process. I used to know the names of the processes - and all I can remember is it required super-heated steam and a few metallic catalysts along with the charcoal. It consumed some fuel to produce fuel, but being a high school student, I postulated that the source of the power could always have come from a nuclear reaction. So the steam was heated by nuclear power, and it made something CLOSE to gasoline.

My experiments produced only slightly flammable sludge, but the idea was good. We're NEVER gonna run out of trash. We could always just take someone ELSE's trash.

The supposition is one I've always maintained - octane - gasoline - really, really IS an outstanding fuel. It delivers a fantastic punch per liter, and it's very safe to transport. I didn't, and still don't think it'd be a waste of good, nuclear power to be converted into something transportable - and *storable*.

Anyway, it came in second place. That was almost thirty years ago.

They had nuclear power back then?

 

[jazz lady]

A very interesting article from National Geographic:

The End of Oil? Breakthrough Turns Coal Into Clean Diesel

Last week, scientists announced what may be a new end-run around the oil problem: producing diesel fuel from coal, natural gas, and organic material.

Reporting in the current issue of the Journal Science, researchers say they have developed a way to shuffle the carbon atoms derived from cheap fuel sources like coal to form more desirable combinations, such as ethane gas and diesel fuel.

In their study, scientists scrambled the makeup of hydrocarbons—organic compounds found in fossil fuels—using two chemical processes, one of which earned last year's Nobel Prize in chemistry.

The reaction produced ethane gas and diesel fuel.

The synthetic diesel "is much cleaner burning than conventional diesel, even cleaner burning than gasoline," said Rutgers University chemist Alan Goldman.

But...and there's ALWAYS a but...

One thorny issue is the net environmental impact of coal-based synthetic fuels.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, FT fuels are cleaner burning than petroleum-derived products, producing fewer particulates and less dangerous nitrogen oxide.

But as FT fuels burn, they also release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, coal-based synthetic fuels may produce twice the greenhouse gas emissions of petroleum-based fuels.

 

[FromTexas]

In their request, the senators noted not only the industry profits, but "an extremely lucrative retirement plan by one oil and gas industry executive, benefits which may have been subsidized in part by the taxpayers."

The retirement compensation package given by Exxon Mobil Corp. to outgoing Chairman Lee Raymond is said to total $400 million when all pension payoffs and stock options are included.

Since when is making money by a private company a taxpayer subsidy? Everything a company makes could be "subsidized by taxpayers"...

 

[Larry Gude]

But...

But...and there's ALWAYS a but...

...CO2 makes plants grow better!

 

[StanleyRugg]

This is very interestin. I just may have figgered out a humdinger for my next project. Me bein a scientist and all it fits right into my trainin and I can get coal pretty cheap to experiment with.

I could try a squisher, or heat. I don't have a nucular reactor but I might talk Momma into givin me back my laser if I promise to be careful.

 

[SamSpade]

They had nuclear power back then?

What makes this even MORE ironic is that I started my college career in '78 as a NUCLEAR engineer - and in '79, Three Mile Island happened. Then came Jane Fonda and Tom what's his name, and next thing you know, the country stops making nuclear plants. As luck would have it, even though I switched to electrical engineering, I worked for a while for the Harvard Health Physics department - from around the time of the opening of Seabrook - the last new plant to open in the United States, around twenty years ago - up until Chernobyl, where we got some of the original data from Kiev, from data submitted to Brigham and Women's Hospital.

From MY perspective, thirty years ago is when they began to STOP doing nuclear power - or at least, building any NEW plants.

 

[MMDad]

What makes this even MORE ironic is that I started my college career in '78 as a NUCLEAR engineer - and in '79, Three Mile Island happened. Then came Jane Fonda and Tom what's his name, and next thing you know, the country stops making nuclear plants. As luck would have it, even though I switched to electrical engineering, I worked for a while for the Harvard Health Physics department - from around the time of the opening of Seabrook - the last new plant to open in the United States, around twenty years ago - up until Chernobyl, where we got some of the original data from Kiev, from data submitted to Brigham and Women's Hospital.

From MY perspective, thirty years ago is when they began to STOP doing nuclear power - or at least, building any NEW plants.

Sad isn't it. People point out Hanoi Jane and how she hurt the country then, but her influence over nuclear paranoia probably hurt us more.

People freak out about things they don't understand. It'd be nice if people learned a little something about nuclear power before they . It's safer for me to sit in my house near Calvert Cliffs than it is for me to drive there, but are you more likely to see people protesting nuke plants or protesting roads?

When the Navy first started home basing nuke carriers in San Diego, my Mom was freaked. "What if???"

I took her out to Point Loma and pointed out to her just how many reactors there already were out there in the bay. She was worried about refueling, so I explained that they can't do it there. Then I pointed to an oil fired ship belching a huge black cloud, and asked her if that's really better? She finally came to the conclusion that there was nothing to worry about.