A critical look at the future (oil)

[mubs]

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

This guy claims coal can be converted into oil that burns cleaner than petroleum.

The process used to convert the coal, called Fischer-Tropsch, has been around since the 1920s...is only profitable when crude oil prices go above about $35 a barrel. But now, with oil above $60...

In Montana alone, the state and federal government own 115 billion tons of recoverable coal. That amount of coal could produce almost 200 billion barrels of fuel...

If this is all true, I'm stunned that nothing's been done about it. The author does point out that it is still a fossil fuel, but it can at least be a bridge to a better energy source in the future.

 

[Bozo]

Coal-to -diesel:


http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=AP&Date=20050929&ID=5154648

Bozo :mrgrn:

 

[Santilli]

Had this discussion tonight:

Oil heads are simple, idiots, that allowed Tar on the beach, at Manhatten Beach, from 1956 to 1965, because they made billions, and didn't want to minimize profits.

Typical quarter to quarter, US business practices, ending in Standard Oil not being able to drill for 30 years.

Gas was 25 cents a gallon.

Now, as gas hits 3.50, we look at their practices, and really wonder if they didn't follow the Chappelle business model: buy all of San Ramon, for 10 cents an acre, in the 60's, wait, and now, it's building and selling houses for 1 million each, on medium size lots, maybe a 1/8th acre, in what used to be cow pastures?

Maybe all that tar on the LA beaches was designed to stop us from using that oil when it was cheap, and, wait 40 years, when it's 400 or 500 times the value?

Much as I despise the oil companies, with my Toyota 88 Tercel, it's still only 25-30 bucks a week. My girlfriends Mercedes eats 100 dollars a week.

I love it.... :evil: :mrgrn:

GS

 

[Tannin]

Errr ... do you guys get it? It doesn't matter if it's easy and cheap to convert coal to oil, it's not the point.

The point is using less fossil fuel. Any fossil fuel. The fact that we are starting to run out of the easiest and most convenient one is all-but irrelevant. If you keep burning fossil fuels like there is no tommorow, there will not be a tommorow - not in the sense of having a decent world that is worth living in.

Use less fuel.

It is that simple. Have fewer babies (two is enough, more than two is an anti-social act), don't heat your buildings to those crazy high temperatures in winter, switch off the airconditoner, drive a more efficient car .... Hey, this isn't rocket science. In fact, there is very little science and engineering of any type can do to help: it is a simple social problem.

Use less fuel, or your children will suffer the consequences.

It's not a matter of science or technology, it's a matter of will. Do we have the gumption to face up to an obvious huge problem and actually do something about it? Or not?

 

[mubs]

Tony: what you said is a given. Absolutely, no doubt about it. But we've been asleep at the wheel when it comes to weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. I think this coal to oil is important simply because it will give us the time to transition to cleaner fuels. If there was nukillear conflict in the middle-east tomorrow, we'd go into survival mode and not have the proper means to make the transition happen. In a crisis, common sense goes out the window; witness the pedaling back of all safeguards for the rebuilding of New Orleans; oil companies allowed to pollute, environmental issues put on hold to allow builders to do what they want etc. I am no more keen to let SUVs guzzle fuel than you are. As of today we really, really don't have a viable alternative to fossil fuels. I'm hoping this will give us the time we need. Of course, if this coal-->oil thing takes off, it is entirely possible we'll continue with our bad habits and become more complacent. The only bright spot is that this is supposed to be cleaner than petroleum derived fuels.

Going by the incredible lack of vision, planning and leadership pretty much all over the world, I am very pessimistic about the future. We are screwing not only ourselves but our descendents too. We've FUBARed the only place we have to live.

 

[jtr1962]

As of today we really, really don't have a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

No, there isn't one single thing that can do what fossil fules do, but then we does there have to be? Diversity in energy supply is a good thing, not a bad thing. Right now we can put solar panels on every single family home which will supply most of their power needs. We can switch to electric cars which recharge off either solar panels or the grid. We can add extra electical capacity via new nuclear plants. We can do more telecommuting to save energy. We can have virtual classrooms so kids don't physically have to waste fuel in school buses going to school. We can live in denser areas where walking and public transit make sense. Some of these things we can do right now, others will take no more than ten years to implement.

I'm not sure I think coal-to-oil would be a good thing. Burning anything is still dirty, and still produces CO2. Large numbers of cars would still make for unhealthy air in cities. Internal combustion engines, regardless of fuel, still produce an horrific racket compared to electric cars. Doing anything which makes more oil will only slow our transition to something better.

 

[i]

I'd prefer to see that coal used to generate electricity or hydrogen, and then have cars run off that.

Sure it's less efficient, but it would get us to the point of finally having a universal energy adapter. That way, when coal runs out -- or a better energy source arrives -- you just switch the back end out (coal) and stick in the replacement (e.g. fusion). All the investments in electric or hydrogen powered transportation continue to operate without a hiccup.

That's unlike things now, where we seem hell bent on operating the transportation system off something as close to the energy source as possible. Yeah, yeah ... it's more efficient. But it's a killer when you have to transfer over to a new energy source, isn't it? If there were an extra layer wedged in there -- like electricity or hydrogen -- switching from a fossil fuel to another energy source would be a snap.

We've got to bite the bullet sooner or later, whether it's an electric bullet or a hydrogen bullet. Why not now?

 

[mubs]

jtr and i, you're both right. But speaking practically, jtr, what you're suggesting isn't going to happen in a hurry. i's suggestions have a better chance of coming to fruition in the shorter term, IMHO.

 

[jtr1962]

Actually, i, burning the coal at a power station and then using the energy to charge batteries in electric cars is more efficient than coal-to-oil in terms of how much of the energy in the coal actually comes out at the wheels of the car.

Let's start with the coal burning power plant. These usually have conversion efficiencies on the order of 50%, meaning that at least half the energy in the coal comes out as electricity in the grid. Transmission losses to the point where the battery is charged are roughly 10% (i.e. 90% transmission efficiency). Roughly 90% of the energy used in the charger ends up in the battery. When the battery is discharged to power the car, about 80% to 90% of the energy ends up at the wheels (I won't even count the energy savings from things like regenerative braking). So that's an overall efficiency of at least 0.5*0.9*0.9*0.8 = 32%.

Now take converting coal to oil. I'll go on the highly unrealistic assumptions that it takes zero energy to convert the coal to oil, and zero energy to transport it to where it goes into the car. Even so, in an average car the internal combustion engine converts anywhere from 15% to 20% of the gasoline's energy into motion. A diesel might be as high as 30% (large diesels in ships and locomotives can manage better than 40%). Therefore, even playing Devil's advocate and assuming small diesel engine efficiencies of 30% we are still doing worse than the other way. In a real world scenario probably half the energy in the coal would be used converting and transporting it, and a typical gasoline engine would about 20% efficient, so we end up with an overall efficiency of 10%. While on the subject of using energy to make liquid fuels, guess who the single biggest user of electricity is in the US? Yes, it's the oil refineries. Each gallon of gasoline uses a lot of electricity in its manufacture. We can use that same electricity more efficiently just charging a battery in an electric car.

Hydrogen does better but still poorly compared to battery-electric vehicles. Let's say we use electricity right at the power plant to make hydrogen, and that the process is 80% efficient. Therefore, 40% of the energy in the coal goes into energy in the hydrogen. Now we need to transport it and refrigerate it. Let's say this costs 10% of the hydrogen's energy so the process is now 36% efficient to the point where the car refuels. A hydrogen fuel cell is maybe 75% efficient at making electric, and we'll use the same 80% efficiency figure for the motor. Overall then the process is about 22% efficient. In reality those in the know say that making hydrogen to power fuel cells is only about one-third as efficient as just charging a battery via the grid so the overall efficiency might really be about a third of the 32% I calculated before for straight electric cars, or not much over 10%.

Conclusions? Battery-electric cars win hands down in terms of energy efficiency, lack of pollution, and noise. The range issues are moot now that we can get at least 200 miles out of a charge (eventually at least 500 with better batteries and more aerodynamic shapes). Even 200 miles covers 99% of the day-to-day uses of auto in the US. You can just rent a gas car for that other 1%. Also, ultra quick 5 minute recharge times promise to make the range issue all but moot. You'll be able to recharge at a former gas station on a long trip as quickly as you can refuel. Any place which is connected to the grid can easily add recharging stations. No need for new infrastructure as a change to the hydrogen economy would entail.

 

[Santilli]

I can't help but think there are a few million patents bought up by oil and car companies that could give us many more options then the ones discussed here.

GS

 

[Bozo]

The local TV station did a story on the coal-to-oil plant. According to them, the plant will uses the waste that's left over from the mining of coal.

Sounds like a win-win deal. We get rid of the coal waste (which mixes with rain water and produces sulfuric acid, which gets into the water supply) and we don't run diesels on foreign oil.

Bozo :mrgrn:

 

[Tannin]

Nope. Not win-win. Don't you get it? More fossil fuel use = global disaster. It's really, really simple. You dn't need to buggerise around the edges of the problem by using less foreign oil, you need to use less.

It's like being too fat. There is only one real and practical answer: eat less food.

 

[Tannin]

Should I try that post again? Nahhh ... mutilated as it was, I think the point is clear enough.

(Who? Me? Proofread?)