<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Ready to Barack]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by Gary Bridge</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/ready-to-barack/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:19:14 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/ready-to-barack/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Obama and Coal to Liquids / not all the same</strong></p><p>Poor ole' Obama is getting bombed. &nbsp;</p><p>
Enviros consider that all CTL or coal-to-liquids fuel products are the same. &nbsp;They are NOT !!!</p><p>
Fischer-Tropsch synfuel technology was developed by Hitler's chemists to produce alternative fuels for his WW II efforts. &nbsp;These very same FT elements are being touted by promoters right now rather big time in the USA. &nbsp;</p><p>
Their FT chemistry sets are very, very expensive and may take 5 years to construct. &nbsp;The CTL folks talk mostly about synthetic diesel and naptha as products produced from the coal. &nbsp;These CTL promoters never talk about leftover paraffin waxes which there is no market for. &nbsp;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 &amp; H2) as the building blocks to produce long-chained paraffin waxes.</p><p>
These waxy chains are 40 to 60 carbons long. &nbsp;It then takes hydrogen to break these carbon-carbon bonds of the wax into smaller molecules. &nbsp;And the discussion typically stops here with synthetic diesel being the principle "end product" from CTL. &nbsp;Syndiesel IS cleaner combusting than petroleum diesel is and sulfur free as well. &nbsp;However very little talk or education goes into what happens next to produce kerosene-based jet fuel or synthetic gasoline instead of syndiesel. &nbsp;And NO talk goes into patents on syndiesel/petroleum diesel formula usage blends owned by Exxon.</p><p>
Well, this CTL process needs 2x the hydrogen quantities for hydrocracking the paraffin waxes into jet fuel as when compared to synthetic diesel. &nbsp;The synfuel refiners need 3x to 4x the hydrogen atoms to convert paraffin wax into even shorter molecules resembling gasoline.</p><p>
How do they isolate Hydrogen from the coal? &nbsp;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. &nbsp;Hydrogen in quantity is pretty expensive to isolate for refinery processes which gobble so much of it up. &nbsp;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.</p><p>
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? &nbsp;Sir Richard?</p><p>
What IF someone figured out how to produce a new, stronger Btu (biodegradable) green biofuel from the coal instead of float-on-water syndiesel? &nbsp;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&#162; per gallon and be blended back into all flavors of refined petroleum products.</p><p>
Obama: &nbsp;Stay tuned Sir. &nbsp;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.</p><p>
Best Regards,</p><p>
Gary Bridge<br>
Energy Technologist</br></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Obama and Coal to Liquids / not all the same</strong></p><p>Poor ole' Obama is getting bombed. &nbsp;</p><p>
Enviros consider that all CTL or coal-to-liquids fuel products are the same. &nbsp;They are NOT !!!</p><p>
Fischer-Tropsch synfuel technology was developed by Hitler's chemists to produce alternative fuels for his WW II efforts. &nbsp;These very same FT elements are being touted by promoters right now rather big time in the USA. &nbsp;</p><p>
Their FT chemistry sets are very, very expensive and may take 5 years to construct. &nbsp;The CTL folks talk mostly about synthetic diesel and naptha as products produced from the coal. &nbsp;These CTL promoters never talk about leftover paraffin waxes which there is no market for. &nbsp;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 &amp; H2) as the building blocks to produce long-chained paraffin waxes.</p><p>
These waxy chains are 40 to 60 carbons long. &nbsp;It then takes hydrogen to break these carbon-carbon bonds of the wax into smaller molecules. &nbsp;And the discussion typically stops here with synthetic diesel being the principle "end product" from CTL. &nbsp;Syndiesel IS cleaner combusting than petroleum diesel is and sulfur free as well. &nbsp;However very little talk or education goes into what happens next to produce kerosene-based jet fuel or synthetic gasoline instead of syndiesel. &nbsp;And NO talk goes into patents on syndiesel/petroleum diesel formula usage blends owned by Exxon.</p><p>
Well, this CTL process needs 2x the hydrogen quantities for hydrocracking the paraffin waxes into jet fuel as when compared to synthetic diesel. &nbsp;The synfuel refiners need 3x to 4x the hydrogen atoms to convert paraffin wax into even shorter molecules resembling gasoline.</p><p>
How do they isolate Hydrogen from the coal? &nbsp;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. &nbsp;Hydrogen in quantity is pretty expensive to isolate for refinery processes which gobble so much of it up. &nbsp;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.</p><p>
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? &nbsp;Sir Richard?</p><p>
What IF someone figured out how to produce a new, stronger Btu (biodegradable) green biofuel from the coal instead of float-on-water syndiesel? &nbsp;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&#162; per gallon and be blended back into all flavors of refined petroleum products.</p><p>
Obama: &nbsp;Stay tuned Sir. &nbsp;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.</p><p>
Best Regards,</p><p>
Gary Bridge<br>
Energy Technologist</br></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by SenorPescado</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/ready-to-barack/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:11:48 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/ready-to-barack/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Coal is not the answer, only HEMP is the solution<p>common sense is not common, especially among legislators<br>
engineers should run the world, however they do not run the world, so blood sucking lawyers and politicians screw it up for everyone else<br>
see <a href="http://www.fairtradefish.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.fairtradefish.org or <a href="http://www.earthpeoplefoundation.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.earthpeoplefoundation.org for links to HEMP info<br>
the only solution for the american farmer and the planet. for a quick solution<br>
and need violent revolution against the current status quo<br>
wake up 'sheeples'<br>
but i seriously doubt it here in arrogant,greedy, obese,ignorant,xenophobic; cell phone using vid gaming &nbsp; USA<br>
</br></br></br></br></br></a></a></br></br></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Coal is not the answer, only HEMP is the solution<p>common sense is not common, especially among legislators<br>
engineers should run the world, however they do not run the world, so blood sucking lawyers and politicians screw it up for everyone else<br>
see <a href="http://www.fairtradefish.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.fairtradefish.org or <a href="http://www.earthpeoplefoundation.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.earthpeoplefoundation.org for links to HEMP info<br>
the only solution for the american farmer and the planet. for a quick solution<br>
and need violent revolution against the current status quo<br>
wake up 'sheeples'<br>
but i seriously doubt it here in arrogant,greedy, obese,ignorant,xenophobic; cell phone using vid gaming &nbsp; USA<br>
</br></br></br></br></br></a></a></br></br></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by zacaroni</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/ready-to-barack/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:56:50 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/ready-to-barack/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>wow<p>hard to follow up such a blindly left-wing bit of nonsense. &nbsp;and i even agree that hemp would make a better biofuel...<p>
Anyway: Obama a flip-flopper? &nbsp;More like in the pocket of the coal industry. &nbsp;It'd be nice if <strong>real sustainable technology was successful enough to support politicians... &nbsp;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...<p>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ1dECu5sSc" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ1dECu5sSc</a></p></strong></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>wow<p>hard to follow up such a blindly left-wing bit of nonsense. &nbsp;and i even agree that hemp would make a better biofuel...<p>
Anyway: Obama a flip-flopper? &nbsp;More like in the pocket of the coal industry. &nbsp;It'd be nice if <strong>real sustainable technology was successful enough to support politicians... &nbsp;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...<p>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ1dECu5sSc" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ1dECu5sSc</a></p></strong></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #4 by kenshin</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/ready-to-barack/</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jan 2008 04:31:41 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/ready-to-barack/4</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>needn't be hemp<p>but JOHN EDWARDS is the only one who's really on the top about looking at celluolsic biofuels!<p>
switchgrass is looking good, less nitrogen, up to twice more fuel per acre than corn.<p>
types of sweet potatoes are being researched in the South, good for poor soil types...<p>
did you see the sweet potato lady following edwards?<p>
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/12/politics/fromtheroad/entry3704632.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/12/politics/fromther ...</a></p></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>needn't be hemp<p>but JOHN EDWARDS is the only one who's really on the top about looking at celluolsic biofuels!<p>
switchgrass is looking good, less nitrogen, up to twice more fuel per acre than corn.<p>
types of sweet potatoes are being researched in the South, good for poor soil types...<p>
did you see the sweet potato lady following edwards?<p>
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/12/politics/fromtheroad/entry3704632.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/12/politics/fromther ...</a></p></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>