Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (38035)	7/27/2004 4:49:09 PM
From: Wayners	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Seems to me existing laws protect the environment from unpermitted releases and emissions and that drilling and pipelines, building roads, buildings, and other infrastructure etc. do not have a significant affect on the environment.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (38035)	7/27/2004 5:04:27 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

If Kerry is one of those, it would seem to me that he is rather short sighted on the bigger picture. Reducing the dependence on Mid east oil is one thing we all agree on. Past Administrations have providing funding for research on alternative fuels. Drilling at ANWAR is a short sighted solution. There is only very limited supply at ANWAR. And then after ANWAR what? We need a solution that future generations can benefit from. It seems very strange to me that suddenly the Republicans under Bush do not care for things which benefit future generations such as budget surplus, funding the No Child Left Behind, Social Security (so that the future generation does not have to take care of us) and now ANWAR.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (38035)	7/27/2004 5:44:37 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 81568

COAL LIQUEFACTION--ALTERNATIVE TO OIL? What would happen if U.S. foreign oil imports were cut off tomorrow? While that's not likely, the war in the Middle East and our war of words with Venezuela makes us painfully aware of our Achilles Heel: we need far more oil than we can produce. After the 1970 peak in domestic oil production, the U.S. now imports 62% of what it consumes, with OPEC nations supplying over two-fifths of those imports. If for some reason that supply were cut off, the ramifications would be devastating. And we'd lose a lot more than our SUVs... oil plays a crucial role in providing electricity, food and pharmaceuticals. Though it is not an immediate threat, our day of reckoning may not be far off. Experts disagree on when the world will have used up its supply of cheap oil, but most expect global production to peak in the next six to sixteen years. A race is on to develop alternative energy sources. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) forecasts that wind, solar, biomass and hydroelectric energy will generate only 9% of our electricity by 2025. And hydrogen-based fuel cells, the auto industry's Holy Grail, are unlikely to be cost-effective for many years, and maybe never. One possible answer: coal liquefaction. Coal makes up 90% of the country's fossil fuel reserves, generating half the country's electricity. The U.S. is the world's second-largest coal producer after China. Coal liquefaction converts solid coal into a liquid fuel that can replace oil. It involves heating the coal to produce a synthesis gas of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Not a new technology, liquid coal has been around since the early 1900s and was used by Nazi Germany to fuel its war machine. But it was coal-rich South Africa that put the process on the map when its apartheid policies triggered global trade sanctions against it and it was forced to seek an alternative to imported oil in the 1950s. Today Johannesburg is home to the world's largest manufacturer of liquid coal, The Sasol Group, capable of producing 150,000 barrels per day. Now China, with its ever growing energy appetite, is aggressively pursuing the technology. State-owned coal company Shenhua Group is constructing a large coal liquefaction facility in Inner Mongolia that is expected to produce one million tons annually by 2007. By 2020, China expects to produce twenty times that amount. So far, the United States has lagged behind South Africa and China in bringing liquid coal to the market because it had access to relatively cheap oil. However, today's high oil prices are making liquid coal look better and better. John Winslow, Laboratories Technology Manager for Coal Fuels at the U.S. DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory, estimates that a plant producing 30,000 barrels of liquid coal per day can keep costs down to $35-$40 per barrel. "If oil prices stay in the $40 to $45 barrel range for a significant length of time, there will be much more interest in moving forward with this type of technology," he says. Waste Management & Processors Inc. (WMPI) plans to build a $612 million plant in Schuylkill County, PA that would produce about 5,000 barrels of liquid coal per day for transportation use and generate about 40 MW of electricity at the site. The project, expected to begin operation in 2007, has received a $100 million DOE grant. The company also has put plans for a second project in Logan County, West VA into motion. It's not just the high price of oil that is making liquid coal more attractive in the United States. As an energy source, it offers environmental advantages, particularly when it is mixed with diesel to fuel vehicles. While diesel is high in sulfur, liquid coal is not. Mixing the two reduces the fuel's overall sulfur content, bringing it in line with upcoming government standards. Despite the U.S. having more energy credits embedded in its coal reserves than the Middle East has in oil, it is unlikely that liquid coal alone will take care of the U.S. energy problem. Energy analysts say the best bet is to avoid overdependence on any one resource and instead develop a wide range of alternatives to oil, including renewable energy and fuel cell technologies. But if a crisis hit and the U.S. found other energy resources lacking, says Rod Judkins, director of the Fossil Energy Program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, we could turn to coal liquefaction. "If all oil imports ceased, we would be surprised how quickly we could ramp up and do this." As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention. But, when it comes to coal liquefaction, the good news is that we don't even need to invent it.