|
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"mark_digital" <xxx976@comcast.com> wrote in
news:IO-dnR-jvreIONvZnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@comcast.com: > > "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message > news:6e44b58d2c244460da06f2402dd9e1da@dizum.com... >> 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. > > You forget one little obstacle. The "Not in my backyard" crowd. > > 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 jyanik at kua.net |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:jason-1904061435490001@66-52-22-69.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > In article <6e44b58d2c244460da06f2402dd9e1da@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio ><nobody@dizum.com> wrote: > >> 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). > > 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 > 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 jyanik at kua.net |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:jason-1904061435490001@66-52-22-69.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > In article <6e44b58d2c244460da06f2402dd9e1da@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio ><nobody@dizum.com> wrote: > >> 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). > > 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 > 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 jyanik at kua.net |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:jason-1904061435490001@66-52-22-69.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > In article <6e44b58d2c244460da06f2402dd9e1da@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio ><nobody@dizum.com> wrote: > >> 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). > > 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 > 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 jyanik at kua.net |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
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 equation: 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. [edit] History 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 (http://www.fe.doe.gov/aboutus/histor...s_history.html). ((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. [edit] Utilization 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. "ron" <really good@serviceu.com> wrote in message news:feA1g.17692$tN3.1899@newssvr27.news.prodigy.n et... > 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 |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
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 equation: 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. [edit] History 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 (http://www.fe.doe.gov/aboutus/histor...s_history.html). ((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. [edit] Utilization 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. "ron" <really good@serviceu.com> wrote in message news:feA1g.17692$tN3.1899@newssvr27.news.prodigy.n et... > 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 |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
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 equation: 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. [edit] History 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 (http://www.fe.doe.gov/aboutus/histor...s_history.html). ((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. [edit] Utilization 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. "ron" <really good@serviceu.com> wrote in message news:feA1g.17692$tN3.1899@newssvr27.news.prodigy.n et... > 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 |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
Jeff wrote:
> 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 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? |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
Jeff wrote:
> 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 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? |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
Jeff wrote:
> 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 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? |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
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 |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
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 |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
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 |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
As long as drivers will go to the station that had the lowest price, evn if
it a penny a gallon, alternates will not sell without government incentives. Look at the hybrids, buyers prefer the conventionally powered twins, because they cost thousands less to drive home even with incentives. Smart buyers do not want to reduce the amount of oil we import by prepaying for three years fuel consumption in the purchase price. The ultimate consumer product is the one that suits your personal needs and costs less. When I was in retail the most important question a buyer asked before signing on the bottom line was 'How much is my monthly payment?' LOL mike hunt "ron" <really good@serviceu.com> wrote in message news:gdB1g.4249$Lm5.3094@newssvr12.news.prodigy.co m... > thanks for the info Mike. I am like you pretty convinced that until > gasoline is in the say 7-10 dollar/gallon range will we suddenly discover > that we need to explore alternatives. Then there will be a 10-20 year lag > to get anything on line. Long past my need for it. > > Ron |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
As long as drivers will go to the station that had the lowest price, evn if
it a penny a gallon, alternates will not sell without government incentives. Look at the hybrids, buyers prefer the conventionally powered twins, because they cost thousands less to drive home even with incentives. Smart buyers do not want to reduce the amount of oil we import by prepaying for three years fuel consumption in the purchase price. The ultimate consumer product is the one that suits your personal needs and costs less. When I was in retail the most important question a buyer asked before signing on the bottom line was 'How much is my monthly payment?' LOL mike hunt "ron" <really good@serviceu.com> wrote in message news:gdB1g.4249$Lm5.3094@newssvr12.news.prodigy.co m... > 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 |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:50 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands