How to turn off foriegn oil
|
Posted By: markdane Posted on: Nov. 15, 2006 at 8:09 AM |
4.3 / 5
Based on 3 ratings.
|
In 1920s, in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Germany, Fischer and Tropsch developed a process of converting coal to liquid fuels. During the 1940s Germany used them almost exclusively. The process has been refined considerably since then, and a number of companies and the state of Montana (http://governor.mt.gov/hottopics/faqsynthetic.asp) have invested in the technology. Now substitutes for gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and heating oil can be made from coal. It is estimated that Montana alone has the ability to produce fuel equivalent to 1/4 of the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia... and of course, there is much more coal throughout the Eastern US. The US has enough coal to eliminate all dependency on foreign oil for most of the rest of the century, assuming no increase in use.
Of course, cost is a concern. The US presently consumes about 11 million barrels of crude oil a day. Less than 100% of crude oil is converted to liquid fuel, but it's the best equivalent I have. Since the cost of a plant that could produce 150,000 barrels a day of refined fuel is $7.5 billion, total cost of conversion would be $550 billion. This is not a trivial amount of money, but is achievable. Once the plants are built, the total cost of producing one barrel of refined fuel is $35 to $40. The US Government was investing in this technology in the 1940s and 50s, and again in the 70s, but each time, aggressive lobbying by the oil companies brought this development to a halt. Also, the cost of a barrel of oil temporarily dropped below $35. With oil varying between $50 and $70 a barrel, it would take seven to 10 years for the difference in the cost of fuel to equal the cost of conversion. This does not, of course, include the cost of using our military to defend our supply.
All of this money would be spent in the United States, so this conversion would not only greatly enhance national security and boost our economy, it would greatly alleviate our trade imbalance.
It would also decrease the profits of Exxon Mobil, and Chevron, and decrease the income of the Saudi Royal family. With record profits, the oil companies.... and Saudi Arabia... are able to pay lobbyists and make political contributions. The oil companies and Saudi Arabia are generous with both major parties, so no matter who is in office in DC, the statesmen who work to get this infrastructure built face formidable opposition. South Africa is working seriously on producing F-T fuels. China has started. Several third world countries are working on it. Eventually, the US may follow, if our people persuade our leadership to take this path.
Now, there are environmental and health and safety issues. There are some kinds of coal mines that are environmentally very destructive. Coal miners die from mine explosions and from black lung. (of course, it is possible to mine coal with remotely operated or semi-autonomous machines, and coal can be mined without destroying the land.) The other environmental problem is the fact that even though F-T fuels produce less particulates than their oil-based counterparts and no heavy metal vapors, they produce the same amount of CO and CO2. The accelerating global warming would continue- temporarily. Coal conversion refineries can also employ Americans at much less risk
than mining coal.
We should develop this resource: A country at war defending its oil supply and in a deep economic depression from $100+ oil can not develop a carbon neutral renewable energy infrastructure. Developing this vast energy resource under us, using some and selling the rest, we can fund creation of an infrastructure that uses renewable energy sources, as well as address such problems as our staggering national debt and our deteriorating health care system.
Comments:
|
Nov. 15, 2006 at 07:39:59 PM
|
||
| Good article markdane. We need to do something, anything RIGHT NOW to get us less dependent on foreign oil. It needs to be 2 pronged approach. Find something now while we as a country work on clean alternatives for the long term (as KZ said). America could lead the world in this new technology. It could be a huge boon to our economy. Alt Fuels is an area of much promise, and we don't lead, we are going to be following. That is not the American way. |
||
|
Nov. 15, 2006 at 09:23:13 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| Could it be? A subject on which Democrat and Republican, Liberal and Conservative agree? Well it could be. But there is another thing we could do inthe mean time to give us immediate relief from the control of the Saudi's, it's called off shore drilling, Anwar and building more refineries here in the U.S. There is also the idea of working with the Mexican's to develope the oil reserves they just found in the Gulf of Mexico. As promising as the new technology is, you r article indicates we are a decade or so off before it is fully in place. I say we move ful speed ahead with that idea, but in the meantime we get to the poil we have, refine in the way we do now, and force the price of oil down worldwide by releasing the North Slope oil onto the market. I know it is not that big of a percentage but it would effect the price and might just scare the Saudi's, Iranians and Kuwaiti's into rethinking the prices they charge. |
||
|
Nov. 15, 2006 at 09:41:58 PM
|
||
| I hope we can all agree on the need for a comprehensive program for energy independence. I don't object to ANWAR drilling as long as there is also a very aggressive program to promote conservation and alternative fuels. They MUST go hand in hand. We have kicked this can down the road for way too long. Someone has to take the lead. |
||
|
Nov. 15, 2006 at 10:01:50 PM
|
||
| Ethanol, biodiesel, solar, and wind are renewable, and the first 2 are carbon neutral. Solar and wind are carbon free. Coal replaces petrol with coal, and takes carbon that is trapped and releases it into the air. Ethanol and biodiesel would benefit American farmers, coal benefits big energy companies, and keeps Dick Cheney and George Dubya in bribes, scotch, and gay male military "reporters". We need to break our dependence on big energy, and develop renewable energy that sends the profits to American families, not to gay Republicans who live on scotch and teenage male pages fluids. |
||
|
Nov. 16, 2006 at 08:33:29 AM
|
||
| Two addendums: It would take up to a decade to fully recover the COST of completely replacing our use of foriegn oil with liquid fuel from coal. To implement the replacement, once the decision is made to do it, could take considerably less than two years- the time required to pass the laws, build the refineries and mines. Though we have enough to supply ourselves for 50 years while selling the other half abroad, it is far more desirable to use the profits for closer to 20 years to finance creation of an electricity/hydrogen-based renewable energy infrastructure. I agree that it would be ecologically very desirable to immediately stop using fossil fuels, but I think it would be impossible to persuade most Americans to immediately discard our transportation system and divert sufficient resources to develop and build a new infrastructure now. I don't think it is politically or economically possible. That is why I propose liquid fuel from coal as an intermediate step- We can build the wind/tide/aquathermal/geothermal/solar/ hydrolysis infrastructure- but not without wealth and popular support. |
||
|
Nov. 16, 2006 at 09:54:02 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| What happened to the electric car?
|
||
|
Nov. 16, 2006 at 07:36:58 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| First of all what happened to the electric car is what happens to all inventions that are not developed based on a need. We do not need an electric car. We have gas cars. This is the view of the American people. The idea of global warming if so far fetched (I am talking about to the ordinary everyday person walking around not my own stuggle with the idea that we can possibly have a major effect on this planet when a single volcano put out more chlorine in one eruption than man kind has ever created). People didn't take to the idea, that's why the hydrogen cars are coming, it is a better idea that uses an engine, something we (Americans) are used too. People don't like a car that goes 70 MPH tops and can only go 100-150 miles. We like to have power under us, and know that the power will be there on demand. Besides, the technology was old when it came out, EV1 isn't even used for industrial forklifts anymore, they have moved on to GE panels. Ford tried and lost their ass on the idea. They don't like not hearing what is going on under the hood. They like their SUV's and as long as they can afford them they will continue to have them. Sacrifices have to be made, this is true, but the electric car isn't one of them. We can do better. |
||
|
Nov. 16, 2006 at 07:48:02 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| I have the dvd "who killed the electric car" have not watched it yet. Will respond when I get that viewpoint also.
|
||
|
Nov. 17, 2006 at 09:54:13 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
O.k. a lot of A.A.s points are valid. But I suggest watching this dvd "who killed the electric car". A line from the movie . . . What would Jesus drive? Anyway they are attempting a come back! And Never having to go to a gas station again would solve our dependency on Iraqi oil problem. If they can only get to the mass production stage (oil corps and American car corps would not allow it). I personally don't want a big engine or need to speed. Electric would be perfect. Might also help the airlines because people would need to fly to go long distances! Anyway movie is 4 stars! And Not as convoluted as "The Da Vinci Code" |
||







del.icio.us
Digg It!


I don't know enough facts to agree or disagree with the science here, i.e., that it is cost-effective and a known process to create "oil" out of coal . . . but I would say it might help in the short run, but if we are going to commit a large amount of money and effort, government that is, I would rather emphasize a longer term solution. This especially in light of your statement that this would not reduce global warming. I read about hydrogen cells and like their potential, but I need some scientists with the right papers to convince me that this, or any other way, is the way to go.
I do think that most of us who blog on this site would agree that we need SOME other way to go, be it your coal idea, hydrogen, solar, electric, wind, something not yet invented, or a combination. . . rather than oil and the geopolitical problems it brings . . . Saudi Arabia has far too much influence in the U.S. than I am comfortable with, for example. Prince Bandar gets a preview of the Iraq War BEFORE our Secretary of State does? Incredible. Could go on with Bush family contacts with Saudi, but I'll leave that be (the Bushes are not original with this anyway) and hope to engender more scientific comment on fuel technology, perhaps.... science, anyone?
--KZ
Report Abuse