Coal to Liquids (http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=423)

Coal can be readily converted into a variety of fuels, with a number of key advantages:
Coal-derived fuels are sulphur-free, low in particulates, and low in nitrogen oxides.
With carbon capture and storage, life cycle CO2 emissions can be reduced by as much as 20% compared to conventional oil products.
Coal is available worldwide enabling countries to access domestic coal reserves and decrease reliance on oil imports – improving energy security.
Coal liquids can be used for transport, cooking, stationary power generation, and in the chemicals industry.
South Africa has been producing coal-derived fuels since 1955 and has the only commercial coal to liquids (CTL) industry in operation today. Currently around 30% of the country’s gasoline and diesel needs are produced from indigenous coal. The total capacity of the South African CTL operations now stands in excess of 160,000bbl/d.

There are two different methods for converting coal into liquid fuels, direct and indirect liquefaction.
Direct liquefaction works by dissolving the coal in a solvent at high temperature and pressure. This process is highly efficient, but the liquid products require further refining to achieve high grade fuel characteristics.
Indirect liquefaction gasifies the coal to form a ‘syngas’ (a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide). The syngas is then condensed over a catalyst – the ‘Fischer-Tropsch’ process – to produce high quality, ultra-clean products.
An array of products can be made via these processes – ultra-clean petroleum and diesel, synthetic waxes, lubricants, chemical feedstocks as well as alternative liquid fuels such as methanol and dimethyl ether (DME).

Investment
The increase in oil price, growth in demand for liquid fuels, and energy security concerns is leading to rapid development of CTL industries in several countries around the world.

The low price of coal compared to other fuels is a major driver and has generated significant interest in CTL fuels worldwide. Studies suggest liquid fuels can be produced from coal at around $27 to $45/bbl; well bellow 2006 oil prices which reached almost $80/bbl in 2006.

CTL plant is cheaper to build than most other alternative fuel plants but more costly than a conventional oil refinery.

The capital cost of CTL plants is expected to decrease through the ongoing development of technology.

Market Potential
CTL is particularly suited to countries that rely heavily on oil imports and that have large domestic reserves of coal.

There are a number of CTL projects around the world at various stages of development. The most advanced project is in China where in 2005, Shenhua started construction of a 50,000bbl/d CTL plant which is expected to begin production in late 2007.

Projects are also under development in the US and Australia and there is strong interest from other countries including Indonesia, Germany and India.


what's the hold up here? Congress is moving at the speed of Government.

Just what we need. More fucking dinofuel. Haven't we realized that carbon-based fuel is not the solution? Liquefying coal won't get us anywhere.

AND there is no such thing as clean coal. its a myth. you can filter it, you can wash it, you can scrub it. it's still full of heavy metals. and look at what happens to the land, water, air, and the people who have to live under the rule of king coal politics.

As I keep saying, we need to move toward building more nuclear plants. It's the only thing that's clean and presently cheap enough.

Just what we need. More fucking dinofuel. Haven't we realized that carbon-based fuel is not the solution? Liquefying coal won't get us anywhere.
it's not a solution, it's a transition. and it's not more-we already have 200 years worth of it.

it's not a solution, it's a transition.
It's not even a transition. It's not transitioning to anything. Liquefying coal would be pretty much resigning ourselves to stagnation.

As I keep saying, we need to move toward building more nuclear plants. It's the only thing that's clean and presently cheap enough.
cheap? what will an electric car cost you? the only one i know of for sale is the Tesla Roadster and that's $92,000.

It's not even a transition. It's not transitioning to anything. Liquefying coal would be pretty much resigning ourselves to stagnation.
it's cleaner burning than petroleum, and it local, and unless oil drops to under $35 a barrel, it's cheaper.

who's pocket would you rather be putting your money in, publicly owned companies, or sleazy Middle-Eastern royal families that fund terrorism?

cheap? what will an electric car cost you? the only one i know of for sale is the Tesla Roadster and that's $92,000.
Hybrids are pretty goddamn cheap, and we could easily make diesel hybrids that run on biodiesel. Then we move to plug in hybrids, and later all-electric cars as battery technology progresses. Makes sense to me.

Of course, this makes the assumption that it's feasible to make batteries that can run cars at the range we're accustomed to, and that doesn't even take into consideration the recharge time. It may well be that electric cars don't solve all problems, and I do, in fact, foresee an automotive industry that offers vehicles with two or three different fuel options. Electric cars for the city-dwellers, and pick two of hydrogen, biodiesel, and ethanol for people who need longer distances.

cut out the subsidisation of the nuclear industry and THEN tell me how cheap it is.

i'm not for oil or nuclear, or coal. it's all crap.

Where are my fission reactors?

Where are my fission reactors?
you can't swing an irradiated cat without hitting a fission reactor...if you want fusion, you're going to have to wait awhile.

anyhow, you can't make fertilizers or plastics from electricity. oh, yeah! there's more to petrol chemicals than just making your Mazda go zoom-zoom.

Hybrids are pretty goddamn cheap, and we could easily make diesel hybrids that run on biodiesel. Then we move to plug in hybrids, and later all-electric cars as battery technology progresses. Makes sense to me.

Of course, this makes the assumption that it's feasible to make batteries that can run cars at the range we're accustomed to, and that doesn't even take into consideration the recharge time. It may well be that electric cars don't solve all problems, and I do, in fact, foresee an automotive industry that offers vehicles with two or three different fuel options. Electric cars for the city-dwellers, and pick two of hydrogen, biodiesel, and ethanol for people who need longer distances.
how soon can you have 100,000,000 of them on the road? oh yeah, there's a lot of cars to replace in America.

you can't swing an irradiated cat without hitting a fission reactor...if you want fusion, you're going to have to wait awhile.

anyhow, you can't make fertilizers or plastics from electricity. oh, yeah! there's more to petrol chemicals than just making your Mazda go zoom-zoom.
FWIW, I agree. I see your point, and IMHO, there's a lot of validity to it. Of course, that's not to say I don't see Borg's, but the transition could be pretty damn advantageous to us for the time being (operative words, of course).

cut out the subsidisation of the nuclear industry and THEN tell me how cheap it is.

.

This is very true... good call PM

cheap? what will an electric car cost you? the only one i know of for sale is the Tesla Roadster and that's $92,000.

Well that's just the first one. As demand builds and more companies jump into it, the price will go down and range will go up. Also, $ 92,000 at the first crack is not so bad. It shows that all electric has legs.

Well that's just the first one. As demand builds and more companies jump into it, the price will go down and range will go up. Also, $ 92,000 at the first crack is not so bad. It shows that all electric has legs.
that was the old quote, it's at $109,000, and a 15 month wait.

that was the old quote, it's at $109,000, and a 15 month wait.


Right, but still not bad for a new technology. I mean we do have cars running good old petrol that cost more than this.

I mean we do have cars running good old petrol that cost more than this.
Yeah, the vast majority of them, actually. :rolleyes:

Yeah, the vast majority of them, actually. :rolleyes:


That's not the point. Usually new technology is 10s or 100s times more than current technology. If Tesla pulls it off, I am saying that its not that high for the first try!! It can only go down from there.

That's not the point. Usually new technology is 10s or 100s times more than current technology. If Tesla pulls it off, I am saying that its not that high for the first try!! It can only go down from there.
:) I know, and I agree - I was just giving you shit.

Right, but still not bad for a new technology. I mean we do have cars running good old petrol that cost more than this.

or you could get a 40mpg Aveo for $6800, and use the change to pay for $5 gas for 817,600 miles.

:) I know, and I agree - I was just giving you shit.

oh good. I was just gonna give you the old "well typical republican to frown at new technologies". :D Maybe throw in that it is the work of the devil, etc. etc.:D