Comments on: Some Thoughts on Coal to Diesel

By: Climate Progress » Blog Archive » New Congress may Slow Coal to Liquids

Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:51:25 +0000

[…] Converting coal to a liquid fuel like diesel is a bad idea for the climate, as previously noted. The good news is that the new Congress will be far more skeptical of the idea than the old one. […]

By: diesel performance

diesel performance — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 15:23:08 +0000

interesting concept for sure, but I think the biodiesel from veggie oil is a better idea

By: JR

JR — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 06:17:07 +0000

I can’t help but cringe every time I see someone calling CO2 a “greenhouse gas.” The claims that Montana’s temperature might be higher in 2100 may be true, but the source certainly isn’t carbon dioxide. The planet, Mercury, is heating up at the same rate as Earth. The sun is the sources of the excess engergy.

CO2 only blocks a very small spectum of the IR frequencies, and not the range of IR frequencies given off by the the surface temperature of our planet. The planet would have to be very hot before CO2 could be a factor. And let’s not forget, CO2 is the very life source of plants. More CO2 in the air means more plant life on earth, which means more O2 in the air, which means healthier animal life.

The known coal deposits have a greater carbon content that all the plant life on Earth combined. All that coal was once live plant matter. In other words, all the carbon in all that coal was once in circulation in the agronomical carbon cycle. Returning all that carbon (coal) to the atmosphere would simply be returning the earth to the lush vegetation state of the pre-historic era.

By: OBEWAN

OBEWAN — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:35:01 +0000

Carbon sequestration has been proven by Kinder-Morgan in Texas where over 1 billion cu ft of co2 is recaptured and pumped underground daily. We keep forgetting we only have a 30+ year oil supply left, and will need to exercise every option to ensure our continued survival. As for the water, that can be placed into holding ponds and recycled.

By: terry

terry — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:12:09 +0000

global warming is a good thing for life on this planet. a bad thing thing only for those with ocean front condo property. let the pine beetles finish off those forests to be replaced with lush deciduous forest courtesy of a warmer, less harsh environment. get rid of all that pesky ice and open up huge tracks of northern/southern land to agriculture, etc. the political problem seems to be a symptom of change-o-phobia suffered by the “green people”. as soon as on feels the green urge they should see a shrink and get themselves fixed up please before you cause anymore misdirected human effort better directed to any other cause.

By: humdinger

humdinger — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:44:31 +0000

after thinking about this situation, appears to me that the coal to diesel solution would be an excellent choice for a short time frame.
this technology would burst the bubble on the high oil prices by assuming that an excess would be on the market.
with the large coal reserves that the US has, we could put a larger number of workers to work mining this resource and delivering an american product to american people.
this approach would in turn balance the budget and restore america’s fiscal might.
of couse there might be a little melting of some snow and the bettles finding a few more trees to munch on, but let’s think outside of the bun on this one.
perhaps we might also do a little drilling off both coasts and into the artic wildlife area.
let’s not fall into the hand wring and worry about the next century, rather let’s live and enjoy each and every day and i’m sure that that crows will have new problems to consume them as well.
thank-you for your time

By: Charles Smith

Charles Smith — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:48:52 +0000

The ratio of 5 gallons of water per gallon of diesel fuel seems high, but isn’t the ratio higher for bio-diesel, or ethanol?

Global warming is not caused by man, but is a simple repeating cycle. If it wasn’t for global warming, we would be under a mile of ice in the Central US, and Montanna would be uninhabitable.

By: E.M.Smith

E.M.Smith — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:05:57 +0000

CO2 capture and sequestration is strongly desired by the oil industry. They need the CO2 to strip the older oil fields all over the nation. Any synfuels factory at all near an oil field will have a built in customer who will want to BUY the CO2. It will be done.

BTW, the present non-start of solar cycle 24 is looking like the proof that “The Sun Did It”. We will know in about 5 years one way or the other and we can start talking about the “AlGore Cool Period” IFF AGW is shown to be real, then we can cut the CTL factories over to switchgrass, trash, whatever…

By: E.M.Smith

E.M.Smith — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:55:19 +0000

A back of the spreadsheet calculation:

Using the numbers above, a total replacement of the U.S. oil supply via CTL would take $1 1/2 Trillion. I know, we don’t need to replace it all, but it’s a nice number to use for comparisons. Replacing 300 million cars with new ones at $20,000 each would cost $6 Trillion. Hmmm… And that ignores the fact that lots of those cars will cost much more than $20g’s and completely ignores all the airplanes, trains, busses, trucks, ships, ‘copters, et.al. Call it $12 Trillion for a full sweep.

So CTL runs out at about 1/8 th the cost of fleet replacement… Hmm… so much for all those $Billions… And Montana could use the CTL plants to turn switchgrass into Diesel and still be green…

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:54:00 +0000

E.M. Smith, you ignore the fact that the existing fleet of 238 million cars and light trucks need to be replaced over the next 15 years anyway. You are posting nonsense. Your CTL would destroy our atmosphere and cause trillions of dollars of damage.

By: Kim Williams

Kim Williams — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 03:42:58 +0000

JR has a point. CO2 is essential to plant life. I knew that in grade school, and the content of CO2 in the atmosphere is well under 1%. I would assume that someone, somewhere has attempted to enhance plant growth by introducing extra CO2 in a controlled environment. Would it work? Would this be a good way to use some of that EVIL stuff? Could any of the whiners who can’t seem to think past the end of their noses, maybe find a way to take advantage of the situation rather than just accept the “worst case scenario”, “doom and gloom” conclusion.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:40:37 +0000

JR, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 19th century physics showed that. I guess you are stuck in the 18th century? As for other planets warming, please see
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
#20 and #1

Kim, the natural level of CO2 over the last million years has been 180-280 ppm. That is the range that modern plants are adapted to. The level is now 385 ppm and rising at 2 ppm per year. Excess heat caused by CO2 is bad for many plants; for example higher nighttime temperatures decrease rice yields.

By: Kim Williams

Kim Williams — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 06:05:14 +0000

Earl, just looked up CO2 on wikipedia and found that many greenhouse operators do indeed introduce extra CO2 into that indoor environment and find growth enhanced by as much as 50%. They find that indoors, the levels fall below 200 ppm so they bring it up to about 1000 ppm. Also, though I realize that there are many other factors involved, I know that crop yields are significantly higher than they were 40 years ago in the area where I live.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:17:18 +0000

Kim, yes that works in a greenhouse because plants are given an abundance of everything else they need, such as water, sunlight, nutrients, and the temperature is controlled.

The effect I mentioned above is a longer term effect: CO2 causes temperature to rise, and the plants need to spend more energy reducing their moisture loss, and thus less energy growing.

Also, field experiments with increased CO2 have not had the same effects as in greenhouses because if you have more CO2, you also need more water and more nutrients in the soil to increase growth.

There is actually one variant of what you propose in active development for using CO2 from the exhaust of fossil plants to grow algae:
http://www.greenfuelonline.com/
Unfortunately this is not a sustainable model.