America's Energy Solution Is Right Under Us...Literally

[rodeodance]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20050928/cm_huffpost/008018;_ylt=AppHWE0hbNSa9cM7NLAE2R39wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

America's Energy Solution Is Right Under Us...Literally

David Sirota Wed Sep 28, 6:06 PM ET

Whenever there is an energy crisis and high gas prices, we get the same tired old prescriptions that haven't done anything to address the problem. We get calls to suspend gas taxes - with no explanation of how we're supposed to maintain roads without gas tax revenue. We get calls for more tax breaks to the oil/gas profiteers who are making record profits. We get demands to loosen environmental restrictions on drilling, as if there is simply an infinte supply of drillable domestic petroleum (there isn't). What we never get, however, is serious investment in new, well-known technologies that could start weaning America off foreign oil.

Case in point is the Bush administration's unwillingness to show some leadership on coal-to-oil technology. Right now, America has billions of tons of coal that could be quickly and cleanly converted into fuel - fuel that burns far more cleanly than any used today. The process used to convert the coal, called Fischer-Tropsch, has been around since the 1920s, and has been used by countries who (for various political/economic reasons) can't import oil.

The reason why Fischer-Tropsch hasn't been used more widely over the years is because it is only profitable when crude oil prices go above about $35 a barrel. But now, with oil above $60, few think it will ever go back down below the Fischer-Tropsch profit point. That means America has a golden (but as-yet-untapped) opportunity to use its own resources to both improve the environment with a cleaner fuel, and get us off foreign oil. Additionally, the process produces hydrogen that can be stored as fuel for a future hydrogen economy when that technology develops, and it creates electricity as a byproduct.


.....With no leadership from the White House on energy, and with both parties joining hands to pass the unproductive energy bill, it is going to be up to the states to pioneer new energy investments in not only coal-to-oil technology, but ethanol, wind power, wave power, and other alternative energies. But the bottom line is clear - unless political leaders stop proposing the same policies that got us to this energy crisis and start boldly pressing forward in new directions, America will be at a serious economic disadvantage in the years to come.
4.6 stars

[autorank]

1. This is how we need to think...instead of sitting there like chumps.

Thanks!

[rockymountaindem]

2. Here's just something I've heard about coal-to-oil

My friend who is a physics major and with whom I have had many discussions on energy topics (albeit from an amateur perspective) had this to say about coal-to-oil:

"The process was developped by the Germans, who historically have had a higher acceptance for using some very nasty chemicals that probably wouldn't be tolerated in other countries. Coal-to-oil would likely inspire too much NIMBY sentiment to be politically practical."

But if coal can be "quickly and cleanly" converted, then maybe my friend and I are wrong, which would be good news.

[populistdriven]

3. Shell just perfected their oil sand recovery process

Either way we are doomed to remain hooked on fossil fuels.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002981.html

http://www.eenews.net/specialreports/tarsands/sr_tarsands2.htm

[Extend a Hand]

4. I'm not so sure

The following oildrum post good discussion about the possibilities of coal-to-liquid fuel...

On Low Quality Hydrocarbons (Part I)
Posted by Stuart Staniford in Supply/Production
Thu Sep 22 at 12:49 AM EDT


Hirsch argues that coal-to-liquids will be the dominant mode of adaptation for vehicular transport post peak, but that we need to start work on it twenty years in advance of conventional oil peak to avoid a significant liquid fuels crisis. We probably didn't start twenty years in advance.

I have argued elsewhere that the main variable controlling our ability to adapt to peak oil is the post-peak depletion rate. Gentle depletion (a few percent a year) give us time to develop and deploy conservation technologies, better electric cars, more nuclear and renewable electricity generation, etc. On the other hand, rapid depletion means we will be running out of liquid fuels faster than we can develop these alternatives and will be in a world of hurt. I deliberately defined the depletion rate there to be inclusive of LQHCs, since you can't tell the difference when you pump it into your tank at the gas station.

Now clearly, the depletion rate of conventional oil is moderated by the ramp-up in production of LQHCs. If LQHCs could be ramped up fast enough they could fully offset depletion, and maybe even allow continued growth in liquid fuel use (with some non-trivial climatic consequences). If not, then we indeed have a bad problem.

more:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/9/21/1156/96411

[Dr.Phool]

5. I can see it now

West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky all flat as a pancake from mountaintop removal.

[FloridaPat]

6. I read a story recently that there is tons of frozen nitrogen that can

be used as fuel. Then there's hemp which has a very high if not the highest amount of oil per acre for any plant. There's still solar power. Cars can run on methane from cow shit (and how about the shit that comes out of Washington!) But all our government is interested in is fossil fuels and nuclear.

[greenman3610]

7. isn't there a carbon issue here?

just asking.

[HereSince1628]

8. This process does generate some nasty by products

including the production of sulfer gases, Ammonia, and Cyanide.