We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by Nomen Nescio, Apr 19, 2006.

  1. Nomen Nescio

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    The People of the United States could build a people-owned coal-to-oil
    conversion plant and extract as much gasoline, from domestic coal, as we
    need, independently of foreign nations. We could just about balance our
    budget just on that one item alone. Just call it Manhattan Project II and
    get started.

    Gasoline would be cheap and stay that way, once foreigners, greedy oil
    companies, and profits are taken out of the picture. And even if it wasn't
    cheap, its still cheap enough compared to losing our manhood to the Arab
    sheiks, Venezuelan strongman, Nigerian Mau-mau, and so on down the line.

    That is, if we wanted to. Call the troops home today and we will have
    collectively, $1,500,000,000.00 a month to invest in Manhattan Project II
    until its done. Put it to the vote of the people: Do they want
    gasoline-a-plenty at low cost for ourselves and generations to come, or do
    they want to see our beloved country go bankcrupt...to Hell in a handbasket
    with empty tanked SUV cars and Pickups littering the landscape and
    cemetaries full of their dead soldier-children?

    I'm waiting, Mr. President. Please answer before the impeachment
    proceedings begin to put you out of the warmongering business (or the
    Generals do a coup d'etat).
    Nomen Nescio, Apr 19, 2006
  2. Nomen Nescio

    mark_digital Guest

    You forget one little obstacle. The "Not in my backyard" crowd.
    mark_digital, Apr 19, 2006
  3. Nomen Nescio

    Jeff Guest

    Better yet, you we could build fuel-efficient motor vehicles, develop
    alternative sources of energy that don't cause global warming, improve the
    efficiency of our houses, and use buses, subways, bikes and our feet to get
    around more.

    Jeff, Apr 19, 2006

  4. The first sentence turned me off right away. "people owned"? I hate
    those words because it reminds me of the old U.S.S,R.

    You must be a socialist.
    The BEnevolent dbu, Apr 19, 2006
  5. Nomen Nescio

    Jason Guest

    The problem is that no town or city wants any type of power plant to be
    built in their back yard. I live in a county that has a Nuclear Power
    Plant. The liberals in this state have been trying to close down that
    Nuclear Power Plant for the past 20 years. There has not been a new
    Nuclear Power Plant built in the past 20 years. The reason is because
    no person in America wants a Nuclear Power plant or a Coal to Oil
    Conversion Plant to be built in their back yard. There is even a name
    for it---NIMBY--.
    Jason, Apr 19, 2006
  6. But you would still be an idiot!
    I think 'people-owned' is significant... Aint no crooks in them communes,

    Life is so simple for the simple minded...
    Backyard Mechanic, Apr 19, 2006

  7. Exactly what South Africa did when the UN sanctions were on them in
    the sixties/seventies. Made all their own gasoline from coal, and
    their gas cost less in 1973 than real gas dis in Zambia, who could buy
    wherever they wanted.
    *** ***
    clare at snyder.on.ca, Apr 19, 2006
  8. Read the Washington Post op-ed... not just nimby, now it's BANANAs (build
    absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.

    No it's time for people to take action alright. First step: The Fed's
    should reclaim all territory 12 miles off the beach in the Gulf and
    Backyard Mechanic, Apr 19, 2006
  9. Forget coat to oil - when was the last OIL REFINERY built in the
    *** ***
    clare at snyder.on.ca, Apr 19, 2006
  10. Nomen Nescio

    Mike Hunter Guest

    No need to wait, the President has already provided 100 million in federal
    money to do almost exactly that, as part of his plan to reduce our
    dependency on imported crude. It is not gasoline from coal but clean
    burning, low sulfur, diesel fuel.

    A plant is being built as we speak in Schuylkill County Pennsylvania that
    will convert coal calm (waste coal) into fuel to be used by the state of
    Pennsylvania. Eastern Pennsylvania has the world largest reserves of
    clean burning low sulfur anthracite coal. Using new coal would be more
    costly than using culm. Even producing diesel fuel from waste coal cost
    much more the conventional fuel oil and much more than it would coat to
    produce gasoline. The only thing that is making that plant cost effective
    is the Company has been given a ten year tax exemption, under Pennsylvania's
    Keystone development plan that is designed to return "brown fields,"
    polluted areas, into tax producing lands. In addition the diesel fuel will
    not be taxed by the state of federal government. The current federal tax is
    ..185c per gallon and the Pa state tax is .26C The sad part is even at $70
    a barrel gasoline is still so cheap as a motor fuel that crude will need to
    go over $100 a barrel before ANY of the alternate fuel will cost less and
    can be sold at a profit.

    Search "The Bud Angst Report » Blog Archive » PA Leads With Coal-to-Oil
    Solution To Address Energy Needs"

    mike hunt
    Mike Hunter, Apr 20, 2006
  11. Nomen Nescio

    Jason Guest

    In New Orleans--the Fed's should not allow anything to be built in those
    areas that were destroyed during the last hurricane. Someone stated,
    "Let's rebuild New Orleans in a different part of the state that is ABOVE
    sea level."
    I agree with the person that made that statement. However, they will not
    follow this advice. The end result will be that New Orleans will be
    destroyed again within the next 10 years by another hurricane. It's kind
    of like rebuilding a house located next to a large river everytime there
    is a flood.
    New Orleans should be declared "Wetlands". The Fed's protect the Wetlands
    in some areas but they don't seem to care about the fact that New Orleans
    is a
    Jason, Apr 20, 2006
  12. Nomen Nescio

    Mike Hunter Guest

    The folks in Schuylkill County Pa do not agree with your assessment, they
    seekm to welcome a coal conversion plant being build there ;)

    mike hunt
    Mike Hunter, Apr 20, 2006
  13. Nomen Nescio

    Mike Hunter Guest

    The folks in Schuylkill County Pa do not agree with your assessment, they
    seem to welcome the coal conversion plant being build there ;)

    mike hunt
    Mike Hunter, Apr 20, 2006
  14. Nomen Nescio

    Mike Hunter Guest

    That is a good idea, the only problem is it will not solve the problem. It
    will reduce the INCREASE in the amount of oil we import but not our need for
    the fast amounts of crude we use to fuel the various economies of the world.
    Gasoline is only a small part of why we need to import crude. The people
    in every other major industrial country in the world pays a lot more for
    gasoline than do we, and they are still using more every year. If every
    vehicle in the US miraculously got twice as many miles per gallon some day
    we would still need crude for it carbon stocks and the excess gasoline would
    simply be burned off at the refineries, as it was before it became a motor

    mike hunt
    Mike Hunter, Apr 20, 2006
  15. Nomen Nescio

    ron Guest

    The Germans in WW2 used coal for gasoline extensively - yet we can't
    seem to get it right after 60+ years.

    As long as we have the NIMBY syndrome all fuels are going to keep
    going up.

    Maybe, just maybe, someday the problem will be recognized. In the
    meantime open your wallets cause we haven't even started to feel the
    affects of our "green" policies.

    Hopefully a little reason will prevail when my Grandkids are
    grandparents. (I predict 40 more years of thrashing about like we're
    doing now)

    ron, Apr 20, 2006
  16. Nomen Nescio

    Jim Yanik Guest

    And what do you do with whatever's leftover from the conversion process?
    Or controlling pollution FROM the conversion process?

    Not to mention all the deaths and injuries from MINING coal.
    Jim Yanik, Apr 20, 2006
  17. Nomen Nescio

    Jim Yanik Guest

    (Jason) wrote in
    I'd welcome a new nuclear power plant in my "backyard"!
    It would be a great source of good jobs,too.
    Cleaner and safer than any coal-fired plant.(gotta count mining that coal)
    Jim Yanik, Apr 20, 2006
  18. Nomen Nescio

    Mike Hunter Guest

    Do you want to go into the business? Here is some of the information you
    will need along with several bullion dollars in start up finds ;)

    The original Fischer-Tropsch process is described by the following chemical

    Failed to parse (Can't write to or create math output directory): CH_4 +
    \begin{matrix} \frac{1}{2} \end{matrix}O_2 \rarr 2 H_2 + CO
    Failed to parse (Can't write to or create math output directory):
    (2n+1)H_2 + nCO \rarr C_nH_{2n+2} + nH_2O

    The mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen is called synthesis gas or
    syngas. The resulting hydrocarbon products are refined to produce the
    desired synthetic fuel.

    The carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide is generated by partial oxidation of
    coal and wood-based fuels. The utility of the process is primarily in its
    role in producing fluid hydrocarbons or hydrogen from a solid feedstock,
    such as coal or solid carbon-containing wastes of various types.
    Non-oxidative pyrolysis of the solid material produces syngas which can be
    used directly as a fuel without being taken through Fischer-Tropsch
    transformations. If liquid petroleum-like fuel, lubricant, or wax is
    required, the Fischer-Tropsch process can be applied. Finally, if hydrogen
    production is to be maximized, the water gas shift reaction can be
    performed, generating only carbon dioxide and hydrogen and leaving no
    hydrocarbons in the product stream. Fortunately shifts from liquid to
    gaseous fuels are relatively easy to make.

    Since the invention of the original process by the German researchers Franz
    Fischer and Hans Tropsch, working at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in the
    1920s, many refinements and adjustments have been made, and the term
    "Fischer-Tropsch" now applies to a wide variety of similar processes
    (Fischer-Tropsch synthesis or Fischer-Tropsch chemistry)

    The process was invented in petroleum-poor but coal-rich Germany in the
    1920s, to produce liquid fuels. It was used by Germany and Japan during
    World War II to produce alternative fuels. Germany's yearly synthetic fuel
    production reached more than 124,000 barrels per day from 25 plants ~ 6.5
    million tons in 1944

    ((NOTE, it takes four barrels of crude oil to produce one barrel of gasoline
    today (2005). Currently the US consumes 220,000,000 barrels of gasonle a
    day. I can not find the number of barrels of diesel fuel consumed daily.
    IF sombody knows, please post that information)) mike hunt

    After the war, captured German scientists recruited in Operation Paperclip
    continued to work on synthetic fuels in the United States in a United States
    Bureau of Mines program initiated by the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Act.

    Currently, two companies have commercialized their FT technology. Shell in
    Bintulu, Malaysia, uses natural gas as a feedstock, and produces primarily
    low-sulfur diesel fuels. Sasol in South Africa uses coal and natural gas as
    a feedstock, and produces a variety of synthetic petroleum products. The
    process is today used in South Africa to produce most of the country's
    diesel fuel from coal by the company Sasol. The process was used in South
    Africa to meet its energy needs during its isolation under Apartheid. This
    process has received renewed attention in the quest to produce low sulfur
    diesel fuel in order to minimize the environmental impact from the use of
    diesel engines. A small US-based company, Rentech, is currently focussing on
    converting nitrogen-fertiliser plants from using a natural gas feedstock to
    using coal or coke, and producing liquid hydrocarbons as a by-product.

    Also Choren in Germany and CWT (Changing World Technologies) have built FT
    plants or use similar processes.

    The FT process is an established technology and already applied on a large
    scale, although its popularity is hampered by high capital costs, high
    operation and maintenance costs, and the relatively low price of crude oil.
    Mike Hunter, Apr 20, 2006
  19. Nomen Nescio

    Sharx35 Guest

    What about YOU, Jeff?

    Do you live in a corner of your parents' basement, a block from school?

    Or, how much of YOUR transportation needs DON'T involve fossil fuels?
    Sharx35, Apr 20, 2006
  20. Nomen Nescio

    ron Guest

    thanks for the info Mike. I am like you pretty convinced that until
    gasoline is in the say 7-10 dollar/gallon range will we suddenly
    discover that we need to explore alternatives. Then there will be a
    10-20 year lag to get anything on line. Long past my need for it.

    ron, Apr 20, 2006
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.