SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: DMaA who wrote (221661)1/24/2002 10:42:57 AM
From: gao seng  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Yes, but you missed my use of the word strategic. That makes a difference. It is of strategic value, in terms of national defense, and national economy. This means we should not make haste.

Although, there is interesting article on maybe converting natural gas to some kind of gasoline?

--

There may be enough natural gas on earth to meet our energy needs for thousands of years. The trick is to ferry it across continents without blowing up.

Compared to oil, natural gas is so abundant it’s staggering. Proven petroleum reserves are good for another one trillion barrels or so. At today’s rate of consumption, they will last about 40 years. Add in oil reserves thought to exist but still undiscovered, and the timeline stretches out some 160 years.
Known reserves of natural gas, which is composed mainly of the simple hydrocarbon methane, will last for about 50 years at today’s consumption rate. Estimates of likely but as yet undiscovered gas resources extend that projection to about 200 years. But when the natural gas thought to lie buried deep under the ocean in methane hydrates is added in, the potential is mind-boggling. Hydrates, ice crystals that trap methane molecules, form below a depth of 300 meters as a result of methane-producing bacteria. Very little is known about how much gas is bottled up in these crystals or how to get it out, but best guesses are that the reserves could, even with natural-gas consumption rates doubling over the next several decades, last tens of thousands of years.

However you do the arithmetic, there’s a lot of natural gas out there. Adding to its attractiveness as the fuel of the future is that methane is far cleaner burning than oil. But there’s a big problem: natural gas is volatile and expensive to transport. One of the beauties of oil is that you can pour it down pipes, load it onto tankers or barges and safely ship it around the world. Natural gas, by contrast, is most often shipped as a liquid, which must be maintained at a temperature of -130 °C or at tens of atmospheres of pressure. It can also be transported as a gas in pipelines, but because the gas must be kept compressed, that is an expensive proposition: one estimate is that a pipeline to get gas out of Alaska and into the Lower 48 would cost around $15 to $20 billion to build.

Throw in the fact that many large reserves are in remote locations like Alaska’s North Slope or Siberia, and the result is that much of the world’s natural gas is now commercially worthless. “Of the [natural gas] that everyone agrees is there, over half has absolutely no market [value],” says Mark Agee, president of Syntroleum, a Tulsa, OK, energy firm. “None whatsoever. It’s in places like the northwest shelf of Australia, Papua New Guinea, the west coast of Africa, the North Slope of Alaska. Really remote places with no ready market close by.”

For a chemical engineer, the solution to this quandary, in theory at least, is relatively simple. If you could chemically transform this dangerous gas into a liquid hydrocarbon, like synthetic oil or even gasoline, it could be transported easily and cheaply at room temperature and normal pressure. These synthetic fuels could flow right into existing oil pipelines or be put aboard tanker ships bound for market. After further refinement, they could even be distributed through the existing network of service stations. As an added bargain, since the starting material is virtually-zero-sulfur natural gas, the resulting fuels would also be free of the sulfur and aromatic pollutants that taint other petroleum products. You would, in other words, have a readily available source of fuel that is potentially far cheaper and cleaner than oil.

Some of the world’s largest oil companies are now investing billions of dollars to build refineries that use “gas- to-liquid” technology to convert methane into ultraclean diesel and gasoline fuels. Using high-pressure, high-temperature refinery processes, these new plants, which are being constructed in places such as Bintulu, Malaysia, will turn natural gas into liquid products that are easily shipped to market and quite likely cost-competitive with petroleum products.

But some researchers believe they have a far better idea. The processes used at the new plants are based on chemistry that dates back to the early 1920s and are costly and inefficient. A small group of chemists and chemical engineers is working to discover catalysts—materials that speed up chemical reactions but are not themselves consumed in the process—for directly converting natural gas into liquid fuels at low temperatures and pressures. If these catalysts work—and that is still a giant if—they will make possible cheap, simple refinery processes that could unleash the vast untapped reserves of natural gas. Indeed, they would force experts to redo their calculations of the world’s energy supplies. Suddenly, the untapped methane resources in Siberia and northern Canada could be just as important to the world as the vast oil fields of Saudi Arabia.

techreview.com



To: DMaA who wrote (221661)2/14/2002 6:56:57 PM
From: gao seng  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Fate of hydrogen cars seen helped by Bush plan
NEW YORK, Feb 14 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's new plan to boost the use of hydrogen fuel cell cars is a small step toward investing billions and making the huge societal change from gasoline stations to hydrogen stations, a leading fuel cell developer said on Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT



The Bush plan announced last month, the Freedom CAR (Cooperative Automotive Research) program, has been criticized for not yet creating solid spending or performance goals, but proponents say it does include plans to start building an infrastructure of hydrogen filling stations, which many see as a big hurdle.

``Most importantly Freedom CAR includes the infrastructure system,'' said Robert Stempel, formerly the chief executive at General Motors (NYSE:GM - news) and now Chairman and Executive Director of Energy Conversion Devices (NasdaqNM:ENER - news), a fuel cell developer.

Freedom CAR, a joint venture between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Detroit's Big Three automakers, aims to bring hydrogen fuel cell cars into the mainstream by the end of the decade.

It replaces the Bill Clinton-era multibillion-dollar Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), which aimed to put 80 mile-per-gallon (mpg) cars on the road by the end of the decade.

While government and business have yet to hash out how much money will be devoted to Freedom CAR, the DOE announced earlier this month it has set aside $150 million for Freedom CAR in the 2003 budget.

But the changeover to so called hydrogen age will be a bit more costly. In fact, Argonne Laboratory, a U.S. Department of Energy research lab operated by the University of Chicago, recently estimated that a network of national hydrogen filling stations allowing fuel cell cars drivers convenient fuel access will cost between $100 billion to $600 billion, depending on hydrogen demand.

``If we're going to have hydrogen powered fuel cells, we need to buy hydrogen at convenient places,'' said Stempel, whose company is 20 percent owned by the oil company Chevron Texaco Corp(NYSE:CVX - news). ``One of the reasons the automobile works today is because we can get fuel for it at literally every corner,'' he said.

But not everyone think the plan goes far enough.

``There's something in our industry called the chicken and egg dilemma, and that is, you can't get the vehicles on the road without the infrastructure, but no one's going to build the infrastructure without the vehicles,'' said James Winebrake, Science and Technology professor at James Madison University in Virginia.

``The government hopes that Freedom Car will get the vehicles to the point that people will buy them and from there infrastructure will develop,'' said Winebrake.

``I saw the same logic fall apart with natural gas vehicles, and other alternative fuel vehicles. Without large government incentives for infrastructure development, hydrogen will not get off the ground,'' he added.
biz.yahoo.com