-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Coal fueled vehicles? This is progress?
- Thread starter TEG
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
Coal in your car's tank
Coal in Your Car's Tank - Business - redOrbit
Moderator's note:
Above article suffered link-rot. However, the original article can be found here: Coal in Your Car's Tank
Coal in Your Car's Tank - Business - redOrbit
Moderator's note:
Above article suffered link-rot. However, the original article can be found here: Coal in Your Car's Tank
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting. I've heard of Liquefied Coal before, but not the idea of using heat from a nuclear reactor in the process. I have to say, though, the lack of balance in the article was a bit disturbing. Instead of simply reporting on the concept, it actively promotes it. It's also poorly written, repeating the same information a couple paragraphs later.
The author clearly has a political bias and derides those that might have environmental concerns. I'd like to see a comprehensive energy analysis of the CTL process. They are certainly using a lot of energy to attach hydrogen atoms to carbon, just to have them separated again in combustion. I'm sure you're better off just burning that coal directly to produce electricity.
Edit: Well this explains it. Apparently the source of the article is The New American, the bi-weekly publication of the John Birch Society.
The author clearly has a political bias and derides those that might have environmental concerns. I'd like to see a comprehensive energy analysis of the CTL process. They are certainly using a lot of energy to attach hydrogen atoms to carbon, just to have them separated again in combustion. I'm sure you're better off just burning that coal directly to produce electricity.
Edit: Well this explains it. Apparently the source of the article is The New American, the bi-weekly publication of the John Birch Society.
Last edited:
David Sandalow, author of "Freedom From Oil" writes,
"South Africa’s coal-to-liquid plant is the “largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions in the world”.
Amazon.com: Freedom From Oil: How the Next President Can End the United States' Oil Addiction: David Sandalow: Books
"South Africa’s coal-to-liquid plant is the “largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions in the world”.
Amazon.com: Freedom From Oil: How the Next President Can End the United States' Oil Addiction: David Sandalow: Books
Not that I'm defending either coal-to-gas or the South African apartheid regime, but I can understand their solution to a genuine problem. They had pretty effective oil blockade and needed gasoline for transportation, regardless of monetary and enviromental cost. This was a refining of what germany did a lot during WW2. I guess the reason they continue doing it is the cost of the entire structure is sunk and hence the price of a barrel of gasoline is lower now than on the free market.
Cobos
Cobos
Coal is available worldwide
Coal is available worldwide enabling countries to access domestic coal reserves and decrease reliance on oil imports – improving energy security. Coal liquids can be used for transport, cooking, stationary power generation, and in the chemicals industry.
For more information visit: Coal to liquids
Coal is available worldwide enabling countries to access domestic coal reserves and decrease reliance on oil imports – improving energy security. Coal liquids can be used for transport, cooking, stationary power generation, and in the chemicals industry.
For more information visit: Coal to liquids
As TEG says: Snake oil
See also:It's not clean and certainly not green - it's a coal-powered Caddy - AutoblogGreen
graham
Active Member
*shrug* seems to make about as much sense as corn-based ethanol. I mean that in both the bad and good sense.
Methanol from coal is a globally available resource that is pretty much rich in the areas of the world that are oil-poor. It is a way to break the oil cartel which is a more immediate and tangible problem for most than global warming.
As an ultimate solution, it is lousy, obviously. As a bridge solution to a fleet that is affordable, non-petrol based and eventually better for the environment... Well, it is better to have options than not.
If this were used as an expedient solution to help break OPEC, it doesn't necessarily slow down the conversion of the fleet to electricity. If used just as a bridge to that goal, it would be less damaging to the environment, economy, global stability than keeping the oil-based status quo.
Methanol from coal is a globally available resource that is pretty much rich in the areas of the world that are oil-poor. It is a way to break the oil cartel which is a more immediate and tangible problem for most than global warming.
As an ultimate solution, it is lousy, obviously. As a bridge solution to a fleet that is affordable, non-petrol based and eventually better for the environment... Well, it is better to have options than not.
If this were used as an expedient solution to help break OPEC, it doesn't necessarily slow down the conversion of the fleet to electricity. If used just as a bridge to that goal, it would be less damaging to the environment, economy, global stability than keeping the oil-based status quo.
SByer
'08 #383
I don't know about "less damaging". I think the TVA has shown us a bit about that.
Coal is just an unmitigated disaster.
Coal is just an unmitigated disaster.
Personally I think actually OPEC is good for the BEV producers. This means you get people that don't care about the enviroment but do care about national security to also buy an EV. And in this phase of the development you need a bit of faith and not just cold-hard economics to buy a BEV.
Cobos
Cobos
Similar threads
