NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, the US military is researching it. Logically, since you're coming up with jet kerosene using this (and the M1 Abrams runs on the same fuel), when will we see a commercial version of the fuel?

As noted in the article, the US is the "Saudi Arabia of coal". If you can make 42 gallons of fuel from 10$ worth of coal, one wonders if we'll be able to shut off the reliance on outside sources of petroleum completely.

If the military moves ahead with using the synthetic fuels, the Syntroleum technology could be used by factories elsewhere to produce the same 42 gallons of fuel from just $10 worth of coal, Mr. Holmes said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/us/14fuel.html?ei=5065&en=55f3b2790c9df2c6&ex=1148270400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Still throws shit into the atmosphere, though, so the big problem still exists, and is perhaps exacerbated, since there's less of a rush to get off the fossil fuels.

Short term fixes in this area are only good as long as they're short term, and as long as they recognize the larger, more threatening problem of climate change.

Yes, the US military is researching it. Logically, since you're coming up with jet kerosene using this (and the M1 Abrams runs on the same fuel), when will we see a commercial version of the fuel?

As noted in the article, the US is the "Saudi Arabia of coal". If you can make 42 gallons of fuel from 10$ worth of coal, one wonders if we'll be able to shut off the reliance on outside sources of petroleum completely.



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/us/14fuel.html?ei=5065&en=55f3b2790c9df2c6&ex=1148270400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

The Germans already had the idea with Autarky. Didn't really work then.

Although reducing dependence on foreign oil is a good thing, this amounts to giving up imported Red Bull and getting hooked on home grown Mountain Dew instead.

Coal-based additives or even a coal-based straight gasoline would still be a fossil fuel- it is 1) non-renewable, and 2) a pollutant. Research should be geared toward clean burning, renewable power sources.

Although reducing dependence on foreign oil is a good thing, this amounts to giving up imported Red Bull and getting hooked on home grown Mountain Dew instead.

Coal-based additives or even a coal-based straight gasoline would still be a fossil fuel- it is 1) non-renewable, and 2) a pollutant. Research should be geared toward clean burning, renewable power sources.

Gives you time to make the transition. I don't think there's anything clean burning and renewable (other than solar power satellites and a hydrogen economy to provide portable power) that would be realistically replacing hydrocarbons in a short enough time.

I agree with the points that others made regarding this type of fuel still being insufficient because of the still-existing pollution and the fact that it doesn't solve the issue of renewability.

It also needs to be mentioned, however, that there's a chance that this fuel may require more energy to produce than what we get out of it, adding to the long-run unfeasability of the stuff.

Gives you time to make the transition. I don't think there's anything clean burning and renewable (other than solar power satellites and a hydrogen economy to provide portable power) that would be realistically replacing hydrocarbons in a short enough time.

Urmm cars with tiny little wind turbines on the sides and roof, and photovoltaic cells on the roof, too. And this car obviously runs on electricity.

Nazi Germany used this technology during WW2. It's also on development here in Poland. Everything is set - they just looking for funds to start production now...

Although reducing dependence on foreign oil is a good thing, this amounts to giving up imported Red Bull and getting hooked on home grown Mountain Dew instead.

Coal-based additives or even a coal-based straight gasoline would still be a fossil fuel- it is 1) non-renewable, and 2) a pollutant. Research should be geared toward clean burning, renewable power sources.

Ok, the Air Force will only use helium filled baloons from now on. :eek:

Like it or not, this is what will replace oil, in bulk that is.

This process is tried and tested technology, but it can't compete with simply pumping the stuff out of the ground. When oil begins to run out, coal is the only option that's even in the same scale as oil is today. Biodiesel comes far behind, the other options are basically PR stunts with no real substance.

Ok, the Air Force will only use helium filled baloons from now on. :eek:

Zeppelins are teh win. No question.

Gives you time to make the transition. I don't think there's anything clean burning and renewable (other than solar power satellites and a hydrogen economy to provide portable power) that would be realistically replacing hydrocarbons in a short enough time.
Biodiesel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel) burns very cleanly, especially compared to fossil fuels. It's also apparently relatively easy to use if you care to take the time to do it. The only problem is the potential supply not meeting the current use of fossil-diesel, but it could still help significantly if more people would 'sign on' to it, so to speak.

I agree with the points that others made regarding this type of fuel still being insufficient because of the still-existing pollution and the fact that it doesn't solve the issue of renewability.

It also needs to be mentioned, however, that there's a chance that this fuel may require more energy to produce than what we get out of it, adding to the long-run unfeasability of the stuff.

Coal gasification is quite profitable already. North Dakota has a few plants doing this. For profit. As the price of crude oil goes up the feasability of changing the existing stream of gaseous hydrocarbon to liquid hydrocarbons also increases.

As far as renewable resources go Id recommend investing heavily in deep drilling research. Not drilling for oil, drilling for existing heat in the planet to force geothermal energy from whatever spot on the planet energy is wanted.

Coal gasification is quite profitable already. North Dakota has a few plants doing this. For profit. As the price of crude oil goes up the feasability of changing the existing stream of gaseous hydrocarbon to liquid hydrocarbons also increases.

As far as renewable resources go Id recommend investing heavily in deep drilling research. Not drilling for oil, drilling for existing heat in the planet to force geothermal energy from whatever spot on the planet energy is wanted.

"Like my volcano-powered car? It's got 30 Mauna Loas under the hood."

That's just what I think of when I hear geo-thermal. *shrug* :p

They want to build a coal-to-oil plant down the street.

Biodiesel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel) burns very cleanly, especially compared to fossil fuels. It's also apparently relatively easy to use if you care to take the time to do it. The only problem is the potential supply not meeting the current use of fossil-diesel, but it could still help significantly if more people would 'sign on' to it, so to speak.

Actually, a new reactor has been invented that processes vegetable oil in to biodiesel instantaneously; it's only on a small scale now but will be made much bigger in the near future. It's especially great for farmers, who can make fuel at the same time as they are processing vegetable crops for oil.

I also read an article that a New Zealand company has developed a method to efficiently produce biodiesel from algae on sewage ponds; once on a large scale, that's going to be able to produce a ton of fuel and help reduce algal blooms caused by sewage.

Even better, biodiesel is more fuel efficient than regular diesel and provides lubricity and is cleaner. Gasoline is so poor compared to biodiesel and regular clean diesel in terms of net energy, fuel economy, and cost that it's a mystery why our entire car fleet isn't diesel powered.

A clean diesel/biodiesel hybrid vehicle would be an incredible revolution in transportation. They're coming by the end of this decade, if not sooner. The alternative fuels and hybrid revolution is real, and we're going to benefit from it immensely. From there, it's just a stepping stone to hydrogen and beyond.

From there, it's just a stepping stone to hydrogen and beyond.

Well...Hydrogen could be troublesome...

Well...Hydrogen could be troublesome...

It's not that much more dangerous than gasoline; the severity of the Hindenberg disaster was more caused by the fact that the ship was built out of extremely flammable cloth more than the actual hydrogen.

Pretty much anything used for combustion is going to be explosive; however, the best thing about hydrogen is that there is little or no environmental damage caused by a spill or an accident/explosion, all of which can be disasterous to water, land, and air.

It's not that much more dangerous than gasoline; the severity of the Hindenberg disaster was more caused by the fact that the ship was built out of extremely flammable cloth more than the actual hydrogen.

Pretty much anything used for combustion is going to be explosive; however, the best thing about hydrogen is that there is little or no environmental damage caused by a spill or an accident/explosion, all of which can be disasterous to water, land, and air.

Not what I meant. Let's start with storing enough of it in a car.

Not what I meant. Let's start with storing enough of it in a car.

I doubt that burning hydrogen in an internal combustion engine will ever catch on. However I have to admit that my preference, electric powered car or plug in hybrids suffer from a lack of cheap reliable batteries. My guess is that at some point in the future a combination of improvments in power storage technology and environmental taxes will make them the car of choice for most people.