Sorry to clutter your emails with a "pre-CoalTL" report. But, we wanted to let you all know that we're still here, and still working - - even though our personal situation - no water, new baby, ongoing com difficulties, lack of support system and etc. - - limits the time we can currently spend on research and reportage, and our CoalTL reports have been sporadic of late.
We did want to alert you to one CO2-related, CO2-to-fuel, document we will soon be using, though, if we can find a way to finesse the wording found on page 6:
"The challenge of moving from laboratory prototype systems to commercial technologies is significant. However, if this new route to producing fuels is achieved on a large scale, it would transform our sustainable energy options by providing alternatives to oil, gas and coal as sources of fuel for transport, industry and electricity generation".
The document itself is:
"Solar Fuels and Artificial Photosynthesis: Science and innovation to change our future energy options;
January 2012; Royal Society of Chemists; About this publication: This report is intended for an audience of policy makers with interests in the UK’s future energy strategies, and in UK and EU research and innovation policy. It is a non-technical introduction to the potential of solar fuels to become a viable alternative in our future energy landscape. The RSC is committed to raising awareness of the role of chemistry in addressing global challenges and it is hoped that the report will be of interest to the wider public. The Royal Society of Chemistry is the leading society and professional body for chemical scientists. We are committed to ensuring that an enthusiastic, innovative and thriving scientific community is in place to face the future.
The RSC has a global membership of over 47,500 and is actively involved in the spheres of education, qualifications and professional conduct". - - -
We're not really interested, for the next century or so anyway, in finding "alternatives to ... coal ... for electricity generation".
But, the bulk of the document is given over to the use of CO2 as a raw material for making synthetic natural gas, synthetic petroleum fuels, and raw materials for chemical industry in processes driven one way or another by solar energy.
And, even though "solar energy" for use in recycling CO2 might sound improbable in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc., there are alternatives, since it isn't necessarily just the light energy, but, the photo electricity which can be used, and, thus, any source of electricity, including excess power plant electricity, can be utilized, and, China now has some interesting developments to suggest in that regard related to Coal-fired power plants, a potential we've touched on a few times previously, as we will be reporting in a coming "CoalTL" dispatch.
This document is, in essence, a review of current and developing technologies, and a statement of position, by a group, the RSC, that is rather prestigious and influential in scientific and academic circles, especially in Europe, but to an extent in the US, as well. And, the gist of that position is, that, we can and we should move forward assertively in the development of technology that enables, and an industry that utilizes, Carbon Dioxide, as we might recover from the flue gases of Coal-fired power plants, as a raw material in the making of synthetic replacements both for natural gas and for natural petroleum fuels/chemicals.
Our thoughts are that such potentials for creating a broader industry base in US Coal Country, with all of the jobs such industry would create for Coal Country citizens, and for increasing United States security, and overall prosperity, by directing such CO2-utilization technologies, which would be more palatable to the more reasonable among our environmental activists, to the replacement of OPEC oil, should not be hidden or ignored, even though there is an implied future threat of competition for Coal.
Again, sorry to clutter your emails, just wanted to let you know we're still working as circumstances allow. If, because of the wording on page 6, you prefer we don't devote time to this document in terms of a CoalTL report, please let us know. Our time and resources are tight, and we want to keep what we have focused on stuff that will at least be acceptable, and hopefully of genuine interest, to the Coal industry and to Coal advocates. And, we did think Coal industry leaders should be kept aware of genuine influences which could affect Coal that are taking shape.