I am so jaded, I can say this now and not blush at my oversight!
Coal to Oil seems to be a recent topic on talk radio. I don't want a long dissertation on pros/cons, or quotes from books or printed matter ....just an answer, please.
Can we literally move that much coal to provide for what we need now and add plants that will convert coal to oil to satisfy our needs? (we seem to have trouble just getting poor Amtrak across country without long delays!)
Mookie
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Mookie wrote: I am so jaded, I can say this now and not blush at my oversight! Coal to Oil seems to be a recent topic on talk radio. I don't want a long dissertation on pros/cons, or quotes from books or printed matter ....just an answer, please. Can we literally move that much coal to provide for what we need now and add plants that will convert coal to oil to satisfy our needs? (we seem to have trouble just getting poor Amtrak across country without long delays!) Mookie
Yes, it can be done. Will it be done? Only if turning coal into gas is cheaper than refining oil into gas
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
To the Amtrak example, Mookie, outside the certain corridors (like the NEC) Amtrak is running on tracks that don't belong to them. They are at the mercy of the owning railroad as far as scheduling and delays (accidents and maintenance work throw another monkey wrench in the machine). Some railroads take pride in running trains on schedule, even the tennants like Amtrak. Others don't. Still others resent the fact that back in 1971, when Amtrak was created, to get rid of the passenger trains, they had to sign an agreement to allow them to run on their tracks. Although this isn't an official stance or statement by these companies, it's obvious they're employing tactics similar to those used before Amtrak to get rid of passenger trains.
......Jen, if part of your question is whether we have the capacity to produce that much coal over and above what is being used now.....I believe we can add much more to the process of mining, loading and moving it where it is or would be needed.
WWII era found mines in many, many valleys in coal country producing coal as needed for the war effort and we don't see that being done to that extent now.
I know we're doing lots of coal production in open strip mining that wasn't done in those early years but believe the supply is there if it is decided it can economically be used to produce an oil product.
Sounds like something we should find out if we can and if so...do it. So if it brings down the price of Arab oil so be it....Produce our own to the point we come to a balance...Still making a profit and lowering the Arab oil in price by competition.
Quentin
There is also the possibility that superconducting wires will be developed that would carry electricity long distances with almost zero loss. If the technology does develop (before a different source of energy is developed) then power plants will be built near the mines, providing that a source of water could be found. Athough I would imagine that better sources of energy will be dev eloped before the country is restrung with superconducting wires.
And once this technology becomes cheaper http://teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1, then we will all be able to tell the Saudi's what they can do with their oil.
Isn't that just the coolest car? I know I want one. And Mook, with a car like that, everything can be a "quickie".
zardoz wrote: And once this technology becomes cheaper http://teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1, then we will all be able to tell the Saudi's what they can do with their oil. Isn't that just the coolest car?
Isn't that just the coolest car?
I suppose so, if you're in to that type of thing. It kind of reminds me of Minneapolis light rail.
As for burning coal to oil, I didn't know that was possible. How's it done? If the Saudis lower gas prices, who cares? Just being out of their hair would be enough. Running a pipeline sounds kind of tedious, and once installed, would it really be any better than taking the coal to where it's needed? We seem to do okay with electricity; there are plenty of trains for that. We just need more for oil as well. The railroads can do it!
Is it possible that some of the coal that could no longer be burned because of high sulfur content would make better oil?
Southern Illinois could rise again!
Assuming, of course, that it is possible to do this economically.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
It seems to me that the Germans in World War II were making synthetic oil out of coal. They needed the fuel to run their war machine. (I could be wrong. It has been known to happen on more than one occasion.)
I've read here that for biodiesel and biogas to become a viable replacement for regular fuel, we would have to plant corn over more land than we have for farming now. If we were to conserve by maybe cutting back on fuel by leveling, oh, Los Angeles, just think of all the corn we could plant! Think of all the fuel the railroads would save going over Tehachipi!
The big problem is that railroads are operating at or near capacity right now. For some reason not clear to me, biofuels can't be run through pipelines, so they have to be transported in bulk by someone. Trucks can't carry bulk items as efficiently as railroads, or in the quantities needed to supply the nation. To really make a big difference, the car builders would have to start turning out tankers... lots of them.
I do believe that oil prices are controlled to a certain extent by big oil companies. I also believe that large foreign governments can pretty much dictate who will drill in their country. OPEC has happily let production go on at status quo. I don't see any change in oil prices except for a steady trend... up.
Erik
Quickie answer: Yes.
Because the most logical energy policy for the US would be to have most of our non-hydro electricity generated by nuclear power, leaving all that 200+ years worth of coal we have for conversion to liquid transporation fuels. Current coal fired electric generating plants then should be either converted to nuclear power for electricity demands, and/or be converted to coal-to-liquid-fuels plants for transportation fuel demands.
Thus, the railroad's share of coal haulage would not diminish as coal plants are converted to liquid fuels plants. There is less optimism that the railroads could handle a full scale conversion program which would be meant to reduce to near zero our imports of foreign oil from unfreindly sources.
There already exists in this country an extensive pipeline infrastructure for transporting liquid fuels. Probably converting coal to a liquid form could be a very economical way to transport coal, actually stealing traffic from the railroads.
Taking a larger view, What amount of Btu do we currently get from a pound of crude oil vs. Btu content of a pound of coal? How much energy does it take to convert coal to a liquid fuel? Subtracting this amount of energy from the energy content of coal, would coal still compete as an energy source?
I imagine the energy cost of transporting/distributing "liquified Coal" would have the same energy cost as distributing fuels derived from crude oil. What kind of losses are involved in transporting this energy as electricity?
Would burning coal derived fuels for transportation be any more or less polluting than current fuels?
Fuels more expensive than those currently available do not necessarily have to completely replace existing supply, but could be mixed at some level below a point of diminishing returns.
All of this is "carbon economy", I think the ultimate long term goal is to find sources of energy outside the "carbon loop".
Erik,
The company was in Italy, AGIP, still there, and has an American outlet.
When I was in the auto parts business, we sold a lot of their engine lubrication oil, excellent for exotic cars.
http://www.americanagip.com/
You might reconize the logo if your a race fan.
Ed
erikthered wrote: It seems to me that the Germans in World War II were making synthetic oil out of coal. They needed the fuel to run their war machine. (I could be wrong. It has been known to happen on more than one occasion.) Erik
23 17 46 11
Interesting dialog. I took some notes:
Already congested railways - cities are already screaming about too much train traffic, noise, traffic tie-ups and Amtrak won't get on the tracks even levitating!
Coal to oil - needs plants to be built close to the mines. This is a whole problem in and of itself. And they need water? We can't even get much rain, let alone water. And corn needs water to grow plus the space it already doesn't have.
Nuclear power - provides nuclear waste and where does all that go?
Coal to gas if it can be made cheaper. How many years is that going to take? We only have about 200 more before the coal runs out. Strip mining ditto.
Since this whole thing involves economics, politicians, lot of money and years to develop, I am not optimistic.
But.....yes it is a cool car. Now can we develop one in a short time that recycles its old tires into oil for the electricity? An electric, self-recycling car?
Very interesting to read!
jruppert wrote: I imagine the energy cost of transporting/distributing "liquified Coal" would have the same energy cost as distributing fuels derived from crude oil. What kind of losses are involved in transporting this energy as electricity?
Today's most fuel-efficient, coal-burning power plants are able to convert about 70% of the energy available from the fuel source into electricity. But factoring in line loses, only half that energy is available to the average consumer. The diesel locomotives being built today exceed 35% efficiency. Still, that's doing a whole lot better than the 5-to-8% thermal efficiency of the last generation of steam locomotives!
Better than 70% of the electricity produced in France comes from nuclear power, but because the French allow certain types of breeder reactors that recycle nuclear fuel, they have a nuclear waste problem that is a micro miniscule fraction of ours in the U.S. The question I have for our elected thugs in Washington is why have you clowns made it so difficult for us to adopt the French technology?
Nuclear fission reactors involving neutron chain reactions with isotopes of uranium and plutonium is what we have worldwide today. The other, cleaner nuclear process, nuclear fusion, is what powers the sun and hydrogen bombs. The process essentially requires hydrogen (obtained from splitting water molecules) as the input with oxygen and helium as the waste products. Within the last year I've read where a consortium of investors and governments plan to build, in France, a demonstration nuclear fusion reactor. Apparently the technology is tantalizingly close to where mankind may be able to achieve "the holy grail of energy" wherein a sustained, controlled nuclear fusion reaction will be able to produce more energy than it consumes to keep the reaction going.
When commercial nuclear fusion becomes reality, that will be the true millenial event. The price of electric power will be essentially frozen for all time. And what mode of transportation do you suppose could most easily exploit cheap electric power? Airplanes? Tow boats on our inland rivers? How about automobiles and trucks? I should think the readers of this thread would know the answers to these questions.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.