And, folks, these measurements are just from the summit, not the rift zone, of just one of the volcanoes.
The excerpt:

"Résumé / Abstract

We report a CO2 emission rate of 8500 metric tons per day (t d-1) for the summit of Kīlauea Volcano, several times larger than previous estimates. It is based on three sets of measurements over 4 years of synchronous SO22/SO22/SO2 for the traverse is representative of the global ratio for summit emissions. The summit CO2 emission rate is nearly constant, despite large temporal variations in summit CO2/SO2 and SO2 emission rates. Summit CO22 output (∼9000 t d-1). The bulk CO2content of primary magma determined from CO2 emission and magma supply rate data is ∼0.70 wt %. Most of the CO2 is present as exsolved vapor at summit reservoir depths, making the primary magma strongly buoyant. Turbulent mixing with resident reservoir magma, however, prevents frequent eruptions of buoyant primary magma in the summit region. CO2 emissions confirm that the magma supply enters the edifice through the summit reservoir. A persistent several hundred parts per million CO222 emission rate is an effective proxy for the magma supply rate. Both scrubbing of SO2 and solubility controls on CO2 and S in basaltic melt cause high CO2/SO2 in summit emissions and spatially uncorrelated distributions of CO2 and SO2 in the summit plume." emission rates and volcanic CO emissions comprise most of Kīlauea's total CO anomaly arises from the entry of magma into the summit reservoir beneath a square kilometer area east of Halemaumau pit crater. Since most of the CO in primary magma is degassed in the summit, the summit CO concentration ratios for the summit correlation spectrometer (COSPEC) traverse. Volcanic CO
Folks, that's 8,500 tons per day of Carbon Dioxide. And, only at the summit - they didn't, couldn't, measure all the seepage over the entire rift zone - which is extensive. Oh, and this is just one volcano.
More will follow. Hopefully of some interest.

Another well-known rift zone.
And, some pertinent data:
"A preliminary estimate of the current rate of CO2 gas emission at Mammoth Mountain is 1,300 tons per day. Similar rates of CO2 emission have been measured from the craters of Mt. St. Helens (Washington) and Kilauea (Hawaii) volcanoes during periods of low-level eruptive activity. Past eruptions at Mammoth Mountain, such as the phreatic (steam-blast) eruptions that occurred about 600 years ago on the volcanoÕs north flank, may have been accompanied by CO2 emissions. Scientists think that the current episode of high CO2 emission is the first large-scale release of the gas on the mountain for at least 250 years, because the oldest trees in the active tree-kill areas are about that age."
And, please note: they refer to this as similar to other volcanoes during "periods of low-level eruptive activity".
The levels aren't always low.
Some bright lad or lass at the USGS has probably added all the worldwide volcanic emissions up. Hopefully, we'll find her/his work. Otherwise, we'll keep digging.


As we've been saying, relatively simple bio reactors could be employed to clean up the by-products of coal-to-liquid conversion plants, and produce algae which can be used, if the proper coal conversion process is employed in the first place, as additional feed for the CTL plant.
The algae scrubbers can also be used on coal-fired power plants.
Perhaps you should contact Prof. Sayre, or his colleagues at Ohio State.
An excerpt:

"Of his newest project -- to create an alternative to petroleum-based fuels for the Air Force -- Sayre said algae produces oil that contains twice the energy of ethanol made from other plants.

Researchers say that a pond the size of New Jersey could produce enough fuel to supply the transportation needs of the country. By contrast, an area larger than the United States would be needed to grow enough corn to meet the nation's energy needs.

Eric Jarvis, a senior scientist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., said algae can be grown in the ocean or a desert pond, grow and feed on wastewater or literally eat air pollutants produced by a power plant." (Emphasis - JtM)

Called SASOL, yet?


One thing that fascinates us is that, in the early 1940's, WV's US Senator Jennings Randolph flew from Morgantown to Washington, DC, in an airplane fueled with "liquid coal". We think the fuel was manufactured in WVU labs, but are continuing to look into it.  
A year after that, he sponsored the first Synthetic Fuels act, and a couple of coal-to-oil plants were actually constructed, or at least started.
Like the Synfuel plant south of Moundsville (fairly recent story about it in the Wheeling papers), suspicions were that "Big Oil" killed 'em.
I think a retrospective on Ole Jennings' efforts might be an appropriate topic for the WV Coal News.
Some info on his efforts is available in online encyclopedia articles.

We might have transmitted this previously. If so, our regrets for unnecessary clutter.
An excerpt:

"Ethanol from coal? If it works, it could solve three major problems for the energy industry.

Researchers at Louisiana State University, along with colleagues from Clemson University and Oak Ridge National Laboratories, are trying to develop catalysts and processes that would allow energy companies to convert coal into a mix of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, and then convert those gases into ethanol.

The ethanol could then be used as a liquid fuel additive or, alternatively, shipped as a liquid and then be converted into hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cells, said LSU's James Spivey, who is heading up the project.

Right now, ethanol is primarily made out of corn or sugarcane. It's expensive and time-consuming to make, a problem. A gallon of ethanol derived from plant matter also only has around two-thirds of the energy content of a gallon of gas. A gallon of ethanol derived from coal-created synthetic gases could provide more energy.

"You could avoid an energy penalty" with coal ethanol, Spivey said.

The U.S. is also sitting on massive reserves of coal that dwarf even the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Coal-fired power plants, however, are a major source of pollution. Using coal (in tightly controlled factory situations) to make ethanol would solve the issue of how to exploit the domestic coal supply in a way that doesn't harm the environment drastically, problem number two.

Problem number three, of course, is the hydrogen transportation problem. Hydrogen corrodes pipelines and the extremely small size of hydrogen molecules makes it tough to come up with pipelines that don't leak. Transporting it as a liquid helps solve that.

Now they just have to find the catalysts.

The Department of Energy and ConocoPhillips are underwriting the $2.9 million cost of the project.

Meanwhile, others such as Silverado Green Fuel, are looking at ways of making liquid fuels with coal particles..."

They are confusing some issues in this story, and some of the statements are incorrect, i.e:

-- You don't need to transport hydrogen if you're just making liquid fuels directly from syngas. And, you shouldn't get free hydrogen in syngas, in any case. It's far too reactive to exist in a free state in the hot organic fume of syngas.

-- There's no difference in the energy content of a gallon of pure ethanol derived from coal versus a gallon of ethanol derived from biomass. Ethanol is ethanol - though the H20 content might be higher in the bio-based product, and require some additional energy input for distillation.

-- They don't have to find the catalysts. The South Africans have already done that, and it looks as if good old Canadian nickel will turn the trick nicely.

In any case, now you have some additional universities you can call: Clemson, whom we've alerted you to previously, and Louisiana State, whom we might also have mentioned regarding their sugar cane-to- fuel research. And, we think we sent you some contacts at Oak Ridge pertaining to cellulose to liquids.

We did most definitely tell you about ConocoPhillips CTL technology, and alerted you to their overseas activity - i.e., in China's project to get 88 Coal TL plants online


West Virginia Coal Association - PO Box 3923 - Charleston, WV 25339 | 304-342-4153 | website developed by brickswithoutstraw