Obama qualifies his support for coal-to-liquid fuel
Illinois senator and presidential hopeful Barack Obama (D) has qualified his support for coal -- which is, you may recall, the enemy of the human race. In January, Obama cosponsored legislation to provide incentives for production of coal-to-liquid fuel. He was lambasted by enviros; influential advocacy group MoveOn.org waged a petition opposing the bill. And the public pressure seems to have worked: Yesterday, Obama sent an email to green groups that stated, "Senator Obama supports ... investing in technology that could make coal a clean-burning source of energy. However, unless and until this technology is perfected, Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20 percent less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels." Was it a flip-flop? A clarification, as Obama aides claimed? Or the result of an environmentalist "jihad" against the industry, in the words of a Big Coal spokesflack? Regardless, many greens are back on the Obandwagon.
source: Los Angeles Times, Peter Wallsten, 13 Jun 2007
new in Gristmill: Obama, CTL, and opportunity costs,
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Comments
View as Threaded
Gary Bridge Posted 10:19 am
13 Jun 2007
Enviros consider that all CTL or coal-to-liquids fuel products are the same. They are NOT !!!
Fischer-Tropsch synfuel technology was developed by Hitler's chemists to produce alternative fuels for his WW II efforts. These very same FT elements are being touted by promoters right now rather big time in the USA.
Their FT chemistry sets are very, very expensive and may take 5 years to construct. The CTL folks talk mostly about synthetic diesel and naptha as products produced from the coal. These CTL promoters never talk about leftover paraffin waxes which there is no market for. And they don't want to talk about all the CO2 which is offgassed as the ground coal feedstock is otherwise rather cleanly and efficiently gasified into synthesis gas (CO & H2) as the building blocks to produce long-chained paraffin waxes.
These waxy chains are 40 to 60 carbons long. It then takes hydrogen to break these carbon-carbon bonds of the wax into smaller molecules. And the discussion typically stops here with synthetic diesel being the principle "end product" from CTL. Syndiesel IS cleaner combusting than petroleum diesel is and sulfur free as well. However very little talk or education goes into what happens next to produce kerosene-based jet fuel or synthetic gasoline instead of syndiesel. And NO talk goes into patents on syndiesel/petroleum diesel formula usage blends owned by Exxon.
Well, this CTL process needs 2x the hydrogen quantities for hydrocracking the paraffin waxes into jet fuel as when compared to synthetic diesel. The synfuel refiners need 3x to 4x the hydrogen atoms to convert paraffin wax into even shorter molecules resembling gasoline.
How do they isolate Hydrogen from the coal? This is rather easy to accomplish however they offgas a pure slipstream of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere when isolating the Hydrogen from hydrocarbon coal. Hydrogen in quantity is pretty expensive to isolate for refinery processes which gobble so much of it up. Any oil refinery is always on the lookout for more, cheap hydrogen used to convert thicker, waxier hydrocarbon (oily) molecules into thinner, more profitable fuel molecules.
What IF someone figured out how to recycle all this CO2 and use it for carbon feedstock - just like the coal which was used for carbonaceous feedstock to produce the alternative fuel in the first place? Sir Richard?
What IF someone figured out how to produce a new, stronger Btu (biodegradable) green biofuel from the coal instead of float-on-water syndiesel? And accomplish this at 1/4 to 1/2 the construction costs of the Fischer-Tropsch synfuels plants resulting in brand new biofuel that could be synthesized for less than 50¢ per gallon and be blended back into all flavors of refined petroleum products.
Obama: Stay tuned Sir. There is a sleeping green giant waking up that you might like to ride a good ways down the block - whether in Illinois or in D.C.
Best Regards,
Gary Bridge
Energy Technologist
Permalink
SenorPescado Posted 3:11 am
14 Jun 2007
engineers should run the world, however they do not run the world, so blood sucking lawyers and politicians screw it up for everyone else
see http://www.fairtradefish.org or http://www.earthpeoplefoundation.org for links to HEMP info
the only solution for the american farmer and the planet. for a quick solution
and need violent revolution against the current status quo
wake up 'sheeples'
but i seriously doubt it here in arrogant,greedy, obese,ignorant,xenophobic; cell phone using vid gaming USA
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 4:56 am
14 Jun 2007
Anyway: Obama a flip-flopper? More like in the pocket of the coal industry. It'd be nice if real sustainable technology was successful enough to support politicians... But we're so focused on finding new energy rather than implementing energy-saving design that we'll just dig ourselves deeper... into the ground... for coal...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ1dECu5sSc
Permalink
kenshin Posted 4:31 am
19 Jan 2008
switchgrass is looking good, less nitrogen, up to twice more fuel per acre than corn.
types of sweet potatoes are being researched in the South, good for poor soil types...
did you see the sweet potato lady following edwards?
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/12/politics/fromther ...
Permalink