Have you heard about liquid coal?

Question

Have you heard about liquid coal? It's a transportation fuel made from coal that is expensive, inefficient, dirty, and releases large quantities of heat-trapping carbon dioxide into our air.

Despite these drawbacks, however, Congress is getting ready to throw huge subsidies at the liquid coal industry instead of investing those taxpayer dollars in efficient, renewable energy that will help solve global warming and decrease our dependence on oil.

What do you think?

Answer 1

Liquid coal is absolutely terrible. It emits almost twice the amount of CO2 as burning gasoline, requires huge amounts of water, and increased demand for coal would increase the hazards that go along with coal mining. Even with CO2 capture, liquid coal would still emit more carbon dioxide than our current system.



Hopefully the Democrats in Congress will realize that liquid coal is a terribly dangerous alternative and put a stop to these subsidies.

Answer 2

First off, which "efficient renewable energy" can satisfy the demand for oil? The US surplus of relevant crops for Bio-diesel (which are exported) would only cover about 15%. Bio-diesel, while admirable, has its own drawbacks: different emissions, over fertilization, pesticides, and land use conversion. It's just not economical or feasible on a large scale yet.



Liquid Coal Technology has been around since the 1920s, but until recently not feasible on a large scale either. The Fischer-Tropsch process in combination with Biomass gasification, Carbon Capture, and CO2 Sequestration is a hopeful transition until we can find a truly green approach.



Fischer-Tropsch can use "waste coal" as well as newly mined coal, thus reducing dump sites. Many emissions are captured during the Fischer-Tropsch process. Carbon Capture and CO2 Sequestration can get almost all of the rest. The trick is to enact and enforce laws that encourage companies to reduce their emissions and punish those who don't.



The technology and resources are there; it just needs to be developed, refined, and supported. Not enough people are pushing for alternates to oil.



Also, since coal is pretty well spread out all over we wouldn't need to be transporting it in huge tankers risking another oil spill. Refineries could be scattered enough to reduce the transportation time, costs, and risks we currently have.



In another light, building these new refineries would create thousands of new jobs and employ all the industrial construction workers that Bush's policies have hurt. Contrary to popular opinion, certain crafts of industrial construction workers do depend on the EPA enforcing the Clean Air Act and other Environmental policies. They risk their lives and health installing components that reduce emissions and other pollutants.

Answer 3

First, you are wrong. Liquid coal can be less polluting, but is more expensive. Get the facts before you make statements about thing you know nothing about. Why do so many of you listem to some actor or some media outlet, and not check it out.



There are hundreds of thousands of good scientits and engineers working on all forms of alternate energy options. Many have worked their whole lives. The real information produced by these people is out there.



Check out the Electric Power Research Institute and the Coal Institute.

Answer 4

The United States has a huge supply of coal.. neglecting the carbon dioxide effect.. it makes sense for the US to try to break our dependence on foreign oil with liquid fuels derived from coal. This will especially be important as the worlds supply of petroleum becomes tighter . . . .



Coal Liquids are probably one of the fastest ways to bring additional fuels on-line for you and me to drive our cars -- although my understanding is that it is more like diesel that can be produced from coal. In WW II, kerosene from coal was used for airplane fuel in Germany, so it is a commercially viable process albeit a bit expensive...



Also, I doubt if there is a huge difference in the amount of CO2 released from a gallon coal liquid verses a gallon of oil .. so.. you are talking about a trade.. not necessarily a huge increase in CO2 emissions.. if it replaces Oil in the US.



This said, I would love us to go to "renewable" non polluting energy.



But until a truly renewable energy source that is economical, practical, and does not cause other difficulities, comes along I am afraid that we are stuck if we want to keep up our life style..



For instance the largest potential is "ethanol" which uses Corn as a feedstock.. Large Scale use will drive up the cost of our food which will cause harm economically to our poor (whose food bills are a larger % of their budget).. so . . .



There are a lot of different technologies out there..in the pipeline so . . . I do not think there is any easy solution.. at least I do not think any one has identified one at this time..

Answer 5

Par for the course- someone knew about the funding for second fuel sources and wrote a better proposal for that funding than the appropriate and intended market. The Government tries to provide funds for the research into alternative fuels and those who know haw to write proposals get the money to thwart the efforts of real development. The same thing happens with contracts and grants - the right group may apply but the better writer will get it. It stinks but the only way to change it is to provide better resources for inventors and small businesses to find and better apply for these funds.

Answer 6

Coal: Liquid Fuels









In October 2006, the World Coal Institute published a new report "Coal: Liquid Fuels" [PDF file] reviewing the potential of coal to liquids, or coal liquefaction, in meeting future demand for oil.



Global demand for oil is rising at a rapid rate. More oil is used today than at any other time in history– daily oil consumption has risen by over 20% in the last ten years.



Oil prices have also risen dramatically as concerns mount over security of oil supplies. Ongoing political instability in major oil producing regions is forcing governments worldwide to consider how they are going to meet future demand.



One option is to look at alternative ways of producing crude oil – such as coal to liquids (CTL) technology.



Coal liquefaction is not a new technology – it was developed and has been utilised since the early 20th century. In South Africa, for example, coal liquefaction already meets 30% of oil demand.



Elsewhere, high oil prices and energy security concerns have led to renewed interest in CTL technology. Using coal to produce an alternative to crude oil has many benefits:

There is a lot more coal than either oil or gas – around 155 years of coal reserves remain, compared to 40 years of oil and 65 years of gas.







Coal has a broad geographic distribution - there are coal reserves in more than 70 countries. There is also a well-established, well-supplied and historically reliable international market. In contrast, 80% of the world’s total oil reserves are found in just 11 countries (OPEC).







CTL utilises indigenous coal resources or the international coal market to reduce the risks associated with oil import dependence.







Coal prices are generally lower and more stable than oil prices. CTL can produce oil at $25 - $45 per barrel of oil equivalent – including the costs of carbon capture and storage. In 2006 oil prices reached highs of $78 per barrel and could exceed $90 per barrel by 2030.







CTL fuels are ultra clean to use - no sulphur, significantly reduced NOx, particulate matter and carbon monoxide emissions. CTL fuels offer higher efficiencies than conventional oil resulting in lower CO2 emissions when used.







Carbon dioxide capture and storage offers the potential for major reductions in CO2 emissions from coal. CCS may result in greenhouse gas emissions being some 20% lower over the full life cycle than fuels derived from crude oil.

Governments in Australia, China, the USA and India have all been taking serious steps towards CTL development.





A copy of the full report is available to download in PDF format, but please note it is around 1.5Mb and may take a little while to download, depending on your connection.



http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=428

Answer 7

I live in easetern Kentucky which is one of the most impoverished areas in the united states. The majority of jobs in this area are provided by coal. It is our livelyhood. I am one of those so fortunate to say that my husband acually landed a coal job. People who aren't this lucky are forced to work for minimum wage. Gas prices are through the roof, and for people around here they can't hardly afford there bills, let alone gas. I hope the liquid coal does happen because it will mean jobs for eastern Kentucky. Livelyhood for for my family and friends who have tried to get a coal job for years like hundreds of other Kentuckians trying to make a life for their families.

Answer 8

and how a lot "warmth trapping" CO2 does it produce? Water vapour became into in charge for ninety 5 in line with cent of the greenhouse consequence, an consequence which became into needed to maintain the international heat. "If we did no longer have the greenhouse consequence the planet could be at minus 18 deg C yet because of the fact we do have the greenhouse consequence that's plus 15 deg C, each and all the time." the different greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and distinctive others alongside with CFCs, contributed in basic terms 5 in line with cent of the consequence, carbon dioxide being via far the best contributor at 3.6 in line with cent. besides the shown fact that, carbon dioxide as a consequence of guy's activities became into in basic terms 3.2 in line with cent of that, hence in basic terms 0.12 in line with cent of the greenhouse gases in finished. Human-appropriate methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs and so forth made in addition minuscule contributions to the consequence: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 in line with cent respectively. "

Answer 9

Yeah, go to Yahoo! Finance and look up SSL.