- Details
We believe we have previously alerted you to the work of Kubiak and Sathrum, at the University of California, San Diego.
In light of your most recent Editorial urging elected representatives to vote against "Cap and Trade", we wanted to make certain you, and perhaps they, knew that alternatives exist which could make the Cap and Trade argument irrelevant. There are better, far better, ways to resolve the CO2 issue:
Recycle it!
Some excerpts:
""The technology to convert carbon monoxide (Carbon Monoxide, in this case, obtained by "cracking" Carbon Dioxide with solar energy- JtM) into liquid fuel has been around a long time," said Kubiak. "It was invented in Germany (for converting coal into liquid fuels - JtM) in the 1920s. The U.S. was very interested in the technology during the 1970s energy crisis, but when the energy crisis ended people lost interest. Now things have come full circle because rising fuel prices make it economically competitive to convert CO into fuel.""
(Referencing the highlighted passages: Coal conversion technology can recycle Carbon Dioxide. - JtM)
"The device designed by Kubiak and Sathrum to split carbon dioxide utilizes a semiconductor and two thin layers of catalysts. It splits carbon dioxide to generate carbon monoxide and oxygen in a three-step process. The first step is the capture of solar energy photons by the semiconductor. The second step is the conversion of optical energy into electrical energy by the semiconductor. The third step is the deployment of electrical energy to the catalysts. The catalysts convert carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide on one side of the device and to oxygen on the other side."
As we noted in a previous dispatch, when explaining the electro-reduction of CO2, as practiced by Mantra, et. al., there are a number of effective, and efficient, ways to "crack" Carbon Dioxide into it's useful bits, just as there are a number of well-established, proven ways to "crack" coal - as there also long have been with petroleum.
- Details
Like most of our submissions on the actual cost of petroleum-based liquid fuel, this one is somewhat aged, it was published on August 13, 1987.
However, it is yet another disclosure of the hidden costs of gasoline derived from imported petroleum, and what the true price we pay for that gas is.
One brief excerpt:
"But the perspective of $5 gasoline makes almost any alternative look attractive."
Now, they're talking about the real cost in 1987.
The real cost now should make "any alternative look" downright beautiful.
Well, coal-to-liquid conversion isn't just "any alternative". It's a proven technology that generates demonstrably cheaper and cleaner liquid fuels, could create millions of domestic jobs and would enhance our national security.
Coal-to-Liquid technology is a real alternative, and even "Beautiful" doesn't seem adequate to describe it.
- Details
We have attempted to describe how all the costs associated with our profligate importation of petroleum contribute to an actual, per-gallon, "hidden" cost of gasoline of gasoline that is, in fact, higher, far higher, than the posted price at the pump.
In this submission, and in others to follow, we will, as we have earlier, document that fact.
Nearly all of the hidden costs of gasoline evolve, as we have reported, from that fact that we have to import most of our petroleum, and import it from and through unstable, unfriendly countries and regions.
Some excerpts:
"According to the National Defense Council Foundation, the economic penalties of America's oil dependence total $297.2 to $304.9 billion annually. If reflected at the gasoline pump, these “hidden costs” would raise the price of a gallon of gasoline to over $5.28. A fill-up would be over $105."
"Our dependency on oil from countries that are either politically unstable or at odds with the U.S. subjects the American economy to occasional supply disruptions, price hikes, and loss of wealth, which, according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy, have cost us more than $7 trillion present value dollars over the last 30 years. That is more than the cumulative cost of all of the wars fought by the U.S. since the Revolutionary War. The transfer of wealth to oil-producing countries - $1.16 trillion over the past thirty years - significantly increased our trade deficit. The Department of Energy estimates that each $1 billion of trade deficit costs America 27,000 jobs. Oil imports account for almost one-third of the total U.S. deficit and, hence, are a major contributor to unemployment."
And, an interesting note: You will find that this enclosed report, as do others we will send you, relies on well-aged data. Most of the analyses we have been able to access are ten to twenty years old.
- Details
Peabody eyes mining opportunity in northwest China - STLtoday.com
Herein more documentation of US coal mining giant Peabody Energy's involvement in China's ambitious coal-to-liquid fuel and chemicals industrialization plans.
Some excerpts:
"Peabody Energy Corp. said it is considering an investment in a large new surface mine in the coal-rich Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region of northwestern China."
"Last year, the company announced a $2.5 billion project to develop a mine in coal-rich Inner Mongolia and a plant to convert coal into methanol and chemicals. It also took a 50-percent stake in a venture that owns coal reserves in the South Gobi region."
We submit this because herein we have a St. Louis, MO-based, United States coal mining corporation putting at least 16 tons worth of money, and effort, into a project undertaken by our old adversaries to make themselves independent of foreign oil; and doing so through the use of a resource - coal - which is, or is on the way to being, named the "Official State Rock of West Virginia" (seriously - it is).
Note that, in our dispatches, we have detailed the participation of other, major US companies in the Coal-to-Liquid effort, "Over There".
Objections have been made in the US regarding the costs of coal conversion. The Chinese, apparently, don't see it that way, and, even though they are not nearly as affluent as we are, they can justify the expense of hiring our own mining and coal technology experts to "relocate" major operations to China, and to there lay the foundations for a fundamentally transformational coal-based energy revolution.
- Details
Updated: 2009-05-14
As noted above, this is a recent news release. The Chinese are proceeding, progressing, in their coal conversion industrialization.
Some excerpts:
"The parent company of Hong Kong-listed China Coal Energy Co., Shaanxi Yanchang Petroleum Group Co. and Thailand New Energy Chemical Investment Group signed an agreement on May 8 to build the coal-to-chemical plant in Jingbian of Shaanxi province, China National Coal said in a statement posted on its Web site yesterday... ."
"The project will initially have the capacity to turn coal into 1.8 million metric tons of methanol a year, which will then be processed into 600,000 tons of olefins, the South China Morning Post reported today, citing the Chinese coal company."
Methanol, Mike, is a pretty good liquid fuel in it's own right. Moreover, it's a versatile chemical processing raw material, and can even, such as via the Exxon-Mobil MTG process we've earlier documented, be converted on a commercial basis into gasoline.
Join Friends of Coal
Be part of West Virginia's coal industry future. Together, we can continue building a stronger, more prosperous Mountain State by supporting our miners and communities.
West Virginia Coal Association
The West Virginia Coal Association has been the voice of the coal industry for over 100 years, advocating for safe, responsible mining practices and supporting the communities that depend on coal.
Join the FOC
Become a Friend of Coal and download our app to stay connected and support the industry.
