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.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dennis Roth who wrote (94811)12/18/2007 5:22:59 AM
From: Bearcatbob  Respond to of 206110
 
I have seen resistance to every thing coal from GW advocates. The stoichiometry of any coal utilization process is that ultimately all of the C winds up as CO2. Therefore the energy inputs to a coal to liquids plant ultimately increases the total amount of CO2. I would look for opposition to this project from the GW police. Now, if the process utilizes O2 and not air then there is some chance to capture the CO2. But then the overall energy input goes up even more.

We need an open and honest discussion on the flow of C molecules through our economy.



To: Dennis Roth who wrote (94811)12/18/2007 5:36:53 AM
From: Maurice Winn  Respond to of 206110
 
I haven't done the arithmetic in recent decades, but I guess that the best use of coal is to burn it in thermal stations to produce electricity to power batteries in small city vehicles and heat pumps in buildings.

It seems too inefficient to turn coal into gas into methanol into gasoline then burning it in inefficient small Otto cycle vehicles.

Mqurice


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News