OT: China converting coal to methane..
Robert Baer
OK:
1) How much energy input is needed to convert coal to (say a thousand
cubic feet of methanol?
2) What are the other byproducts, how are they disposed and what is the
effect on the environment?
3) Doesn't methanol contain carbon and the burning thereof create CO2 -
just like burning of the original coal?
4) After all of that expense of making methanol, is there more or is
there less CO2 made per ton of coal?
5) Isn't methanol bad for the environment and if so, let us ban cattle
farts.
Jasen Betts
> ..to use as a "renewable" energy source.
> OK:
> 1) How much energy input is needed to convert coal to (say a thousand
> cubic feet of methanol?
depends on lots.
> 2) What are the other byproducts, how are they disposed and what is the
> effect on the environment?
assuming by steam cracking. CO2 + (depends on impurities in the coal).
> 3) Doesn't methanol contain carbon and the burning thereof create CO2 -
> just like burning of the original coal?
yup.
> 4) After all of that expense of making methanol, is there more or is
> there less CO2 made per ton of coal?
dunno, but methanol is more useful than coal.
> 5) Isn't methanol bad for the environment and if so, let us ban cattle
> farts.
methanol is not usually released into the environment, but instaed used
to synthesise other products. Cattle farts are methane.
who where
>..to use as a "renewable" energy source.
> OK:
>1) How much energy input is needed to convert coal to (say a thousand
>cubic feet of methanol?
Your header said methane. Now the subject is methanol. Pick one, just one.
>2) What are the other byproducts, how are they disposed and what is the
>effect on the environment?
>3) Doesn't methanol contain carbon and the burning thereof create CO2 -
>just like burning of the original coal?
Yes, except is would be a "clean" burn and produce only H2O and CO2, not all the
other by-products of coal burning. The world is currently spending big dollars
on trying to create a "clean" coal burning process, or more precisely a
"cleanable" one.
>4) After all of that expense of making methanol, is there more or is
>there less CO2 made per ton of coal?
>5) Isn't methanol bad for the environment and if so, let us ban cattle
>farts.
Again confusing methane and methanol. Cattle don't produce any methanol.
There has also been extensive research on biological mechanisms to reduce the
production of methane from herbivore flatulence. The most promising suggestion
though has been banning of hamburgers.
Archimedes' Lever
>> 4) After all of that expense of making methanol, is there more or is
>> there less CO2 made per ton of coal?
>
>dunno, but methanol is more useful than coal.
>
Not if it takes up half the work product of one to make the other, and
you only get part of that back as well.
We'd be better off making technology that allows for the burning of
coal yet scrub the waste. MORE scrubbing than currently used.
Archimedes' Lever
>methanol is not usually released into the environment, but instaed used
>to synthesise other products. Cattle farts are methane.
Methane IS methanol. Methanol is the liquid, and Methane is the gas.
BOTH are alcohol molecules.
Jim Yanik
news:QtednWD65rbU8c3X...@posted.localnet:
I think you've mixed methane and methanol.
One is a gas and the other is an alcohol.
they both are hydrocarbons.
the whole "carbon" thing is a crock anyways;
it's just a way for Obama to increase the cost of energy and ruin our
economy.Note how they are handing out carbon credits to their friends.
One would be a fool if they thought that developing and poor nations aren't
going to burn their coal deposits.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Nobody
>>methanol is not usually released into the environment, but instaed used
>>to synthesise other products. Cattle farts are methane.
>
>
> Methane IS methanol. Methanol is the liquid, and Methane is the gas.
> BOTH are alcohol molecules.
No they aren't. Methane is an alkane, methanol is an alcohol.
This is methane:
H
|
H-C-H
|
H
This is methanol:
H
|
H-C-O-H
|
H
The "ol" at the end means that it's an alcohol, which means that one of
the "-H"s has been replaced with an "-O-H".
Richard Cranium
Sorry, but you MUST be incorrect. Didn't you take note of who said
methane and methanol are one and the same? It's Archie - and he is
ALWAYS right. It's time to rewrite the books and teach everyone over
again. Archie has spoken. That's why he's known as "Always Wrong"
and "Dimbulb". What else should one expect from an obese, celibate,
foul-mouthed braggart who professes to be the authority on everything.
Did you know he built an automobile engine at age 11? Did you know he
discovered gamma ray streaks in his diapers at age 2? Did you know he
sang Polish arias to his mom as he was exiting the birth canal?
Archie is always ready to offer THE expert opinion on any topic. His
only shortcomings (aside from his celibacy-enhanced genital
deformaties) are his neverending delusions of adequacy.
MooseFET
> ..to use as a "renewable" energy source.
> OK:
> 1) How much energy input is needed to convert coal to (say a thousand
> cubic feet of methanol?
With good design, the energy for converting could be coming from the
coal. You lose a little energy and make a little CO2 in the process
but the methanol is easier to deal with so it may be worth doing.
> 2) What are the other byproducts, how are they disposed and what is the
> effect on the environment?
All manner of poisonous things will be made. Mercury and other metals
could perhaps be sold to get back some of the cost of scrubbing.
> 3) Doesn't methanol contain carbon and the burning thereof create CO2 -
> just like burning of the original coal?
The total system efficiency may be better so less CO2 would be
produced. In china they have burned coal for everything. Houses are
heated and your dinner is cooked using it. The air is often so think
you could chew it. All that pollution is mostly material that is
incompletely burned.
> 4) After all of that expense of making methanol, is there more or is
> there less CO2 made per ton of coal?
That is the wrong question. You need to do it in CO2 per unit energy.
> 5) Isn't methanol bad for the environment and if so, let us ban cattle
> farts.
They now have a breed of cow that make far less farts. All the energy
that ends up in the farts is energy that didn't make meat.
bob.jo...@gmail.com
wrote:
You have no clue. Methane is CH4. Methanol is CH3-OH It has an
Hydroxyl molecule replacing a hydrogen atom. They are not the "same
thing". Both are not alcohol molecules and they have somewhat
different properties. They are related in a sense but the OH makes a
big difference.
alien8er
> On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 02:02:58 -0700, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
(snip)
> >5) Isn't methanol bad for the environment and if so, let us ban cattle
> >farts.
>
> Again confusing methane and methanol. Cattle don't produce any methanol.
I can't wait for someone to genetically engineer cattle that produce
high-ethanol milk. ;>)
> There has also been extensive research on biological mechanisms to reduce the
> production of methane from herbivore flatulence. The most promising suggestion
> though has been banning of hamburgers.
Oh, that's just silly Vegan propaganda. What was the atmospheric
contribution of farted methane from the pre-Columbian American
population of bison? You know, the vast, thundering herds that took
days to cross any given point?
Mark L. Fergerson
Archimedes' Lever
Methanol IS an alcohol.
krw
Methane is *not*, AlwaysWrong.
Damon Hill
news:s9q15510968i45u2i...@4ax.com:
Methane is not. Your point?
--Damon
Michael A. Terrell
Now we have vast herds of fat farting polticians who never pass a
given point.
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!
Jim Thompson
<Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 5, 5:02�am, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
[snip]
>
>> There has also been extensive research on biological mechanisms to reduce the
>> production of methane from herbivore flatulence. �The most promising suggestion
>> though has been banning of hamburgers.
>
> Oh, that's just silly Vegan propaganda. What was the atmospheric
>contribution of farted methane from the pre-Columbian American
>population of bison? You know, the vast, thundering herds that took
>days to cross any given point?
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
Lemme see if I can sort this all out... ban hamburgers (and I presume
all beef as well?), so we human creatures are all then vegans, right?
So we eat only veggies, beans in particular to keep the protein level
up where it needs be?
So now WE are the methane farters?
Sounds good to me... my farts are guaranteed to kill Democrats (and
Slowmans ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Why are Democrats so mean-spirited and ugly-level hateful?
I suspect it's self-flagellation to their own inadequacy.
Richard Cranium
<OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
You said "Methane IS methanol. �Methanol is the liquid, and Methane is
the gas. BOTH are alcohol molecules."
You just cannot admit that you're wrong, can you? Don't bother - all
of SED is having a hearty laugh at your expense - it's not the first
time and surely will not be the last. The names AlwaysWrong and
Dimbulb do fit you well.
krw
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 10:28:17 -0700 (PDT), alien8er
><Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 5, 5:02�am, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>>> There has also been extensive research on biological mechanisms to reduce the
>>> production of methane from herbivore flatulence. �The most promising suggestion
>>> though has been banning of hamburgers.
>>
>> Oh, that's just silly Vegan propaganda. What was the atmospheric
>>contribution of farted methane from the pre-Columbian American
>>population of bison? You know, the vast, thundering herds that took
>>days to cross any given point?
>>
>> Mark L. Fergerson
>
>Lemme see if I can sort this all out... ban hamburgers (and I presume
>all beef as well?), so we human creatures are all then vegans, right?
>
>So we eat only veggies, beans in particular to keep the protein level
>up where it needs be?
>
>So now WE are the methane farters?
Right, and AlBore will sell fart offsets. Beano, of course, will be
an illegal drug.
>Sounds good to me... my farts are guaranteed to kill Democrats (and
>Slowmans ;-)
Won't be hard. They're already dead from the neck up.
Bill Sloman
> Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote innews:QtednWD65rbU8c3X...@posted.localnet:
>
> > ..to use as a "renewable" energy source.
> > OK:
> > 1) How much energy input is needed to convert coal to (say a thousand
> > cubic feet of methanol?
> > 2) What are the other byproducts, how are they disposed and what is the
> > effect on the environment?
> > 3) Doesn't methanol contain carbon and the burning thereof create CO2 -
> > just like burning of the original coal?
> > 4) After all of that expense of making methanol, is there more or is
> > there less CO2 made per ton of coal?
> > 5) Isn't methanol bad for the environment and if so, let us ban cattle
> > farts.
>
> I think you've mixed methane and methanol.
> One is a gas and the other is an alcohol.
>
Not true. Hydrocarbons contain only hydrogen and carbon, and methanol
has this extra atom of oxygen.
> the whole "carbon" thing is a crock anyways;
Says Jim Yanik, who doesn't confine himself to having silly ideas
about politics, but aspries to be compleltely wrong over a whole
range of subjects.
> it's just a way for Obama to increase the cost of energy and ruin our
> economy.Note how they are handing out carbon credits to their friends.
Obama doesn't need to ruin your economy - your banking system has
already done that, with a lot of help from idiot
Republican politicians who believed that the unrestaraied free market
could do no wrong.
And it is Congress who are handing out cheap carbon credts to their
friends - in the long established American tradition of loading any
important bill with pork barrel amendments for favoured gorups of
voters. Your constitution is way past its sell-by date, and
desperately in need of modernisation and reform.
> One would be a fool if they thought that developing and poor nations aren't
> going to burn their coal deposits.
Poor nations are going to suffer sooner and more from the consequences
of run-away anthropogenic global warming than are richer countries.
Neither India nor China has a lot of spare agricultural capacity, and
it wouldn't take much climate change to make starvation a real and
immediate problem. China is well aware of the problem and is phasing
out its oldest and least efficient (6%) coal-fired power stations.
They will keep on burning what coal they have got (and buying millions
of tons of it from Australia) but they'll start separating out the CO2
from smoke stack and burying it as soon as they can buy or develop the
technology.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Robert Baer
banning humans...
Jim Thompson
<rober...@localnet.com> wrote:
Killing all Democrats would reduce it by more than 50%... that's a
good start.
Getting rid of Slowman and his ilk would practically reduce the
problem to zero.
Let's get on with it... a solution today is better than a Democrat
tomorrow ;-)
Robert Baer
Some of the "modern" methods of burning coal that increase combustion
and help reduce some of the unwanted byproducts include grinding the
coal to very fine particles (think flour) and air inject them into the
combustion chamber; another is to mix the coal with lime and use a
fluidized bed (grating) for combustion.
There may be other ways, and perhaps advantages from each method
might be combined?
Jim Yanik
news:8e2255dmuri3kl7to...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 10:28:17 -0700 (PDT), alien8er
><Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 5, 5:02�am, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>>> There has also been extensive research on biological mechanisms to
>>> reduce the production of methane from herbivore flatulence. �The
>>> most promising suggestion though has been banning of hamburgers.
>>
>> Oh, that's just silly Vegan propaganda. What was the atmospheric
>>contribution of farted methane from the pre-Columbian American
>>population of bison? You know, the vast, thundering herds that took
>>days to cross any given point?
>>
>> Mark L. Fergerson
>
> Lemme see if I can sort this all out... ban hamburgers (and I presume
> all beef as well?), so we human creatures are all then vegans, right?
>
> So we eat only veggies, beans in particular to keep the protein level
> up where it needs be?
>
> So now WE are the methane farters?
>
> Sounds good to me... my farts are guaranteed to kill Democrats (and
> Slowmans ;-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
what about India,where cows are sacred?
you gonna get THEM to get rid of their cows?
None of the developing or poor nations are going to pay any attention to
this carbon control nonsense.
and it's plain ridiculous to believe that US reductions in that area would
affect global climate in the least.
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
wrote:
>Archimedes' Lever wrote:
>> On 5 Jul 2009 10:40:57 GMT, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>> 4) After all of that expense of making methanol, is there more or is
>>>> there less CO2 made per ton of coal?
>>> dunno, but methanol is more useful than coal.
>>>
>> Not if it takes up half the work product of one to make the other, and
>> you only get part of that back as well.
>>
>> We'd be better off making technology that allows for the burning of
>> coal yet scrub the waste. MORE scrubbing than currently used.
> Agree.
> Some of the "modern" methods of burning coal that increase combustion
>and help reduce some of the unwanted byproducts include grinding the
>coal to very fine particles (think flour) and air inject them into the
>combustion chamber;
I am already aware of the methods.
> another is to mix the coal with lime and use a
>fluidized bed (grating) for combustion.
> There may be other ways, and perhaps advantages from each method
>might be combined?
I would use the fine particle method, because surface area maximization
has to lend toward complete combustion at an optimum temperature.
But since it is not a big forced exhaust like in a car where back
pressure results in a power loss, we could and should spend more on
filtering what goes up the flue. We should also incorporate heat
exchangers in the stack so that they can pre-heat the water so that the
steam temp is arrived at with less "new" work applied to it.
In other words, we need to start conserving what we have been wasting
all this time.
I'd bet that an entire development of underground homes in a tornado
zone would be big sellers. They also have the added benefit of lower
heating and cooling costs, and it would be a hell of a lot easier to
sustain one's privacy. Even against the gov boys, if that be the case.
The house I designed in the early seventies at 14 years old is the house
a lot of folks should be in right now. I have always had a very small
carbon footprint.
Jasen Betts
> On 5 Jul 2009 10:40:57 GMT, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>> 4) After all of that expense of making methanol, is there more or is
>>> there less CO2 made per ton of coal?
>>
>>dunno, but methanol is more useful than coal.
>>
> Not if it takes up half the work product of one to make the other, and
> you only get part of that back as well.
paper is made from wood and this takes energy. if you have any pieces
of paper from the reserve bank with pictures of dead presidents i'll
trade you for twice as much wood (by weight), because to me, the paper
is more useful.
> We'd be better off making technology that allows for the burning of
> coal yet scrub the waste. MORE scrubbing than currently used.
who says they want to burn the methanol. (although that is one use
- a car that runs on coal seems unlikely to be popular.)
GregS
When I went to the local power plant in the early 60's, they used powdered
coal for the flame. New??
They have developed air cleaning technology to increas the efficiency
greatly, but that was only on one test plant. My
local plant, same one I visited in the 60's, currently gets rid of 85% of the pollutants.
greg
Michael A. Terrell
krw wrote:
>
> Right, and AlBore will sell fart offsets. Beano, of course, will be
> an illegal drug.
Lemon juice does a good job when used when cooking beans and other
gas producing foods.
krw
>On 2009-07-05, Archimedes' Lever <OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>> On 5 Jul 2009 10:40:57 GMT, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>> 4) After all of that expense of making methanol, is there more or is
>>>> there less CO2 made per ton of coal?
>>>
>>>dunno, but methanol is more useful than coal.
>>>
>> Not if it takes up half the work product of one to make the other, and
>> you only get part of that back as well.
>
>paper is made from wood and this takes energy. if you have any pieces
>of paper from the reserve bank with pictures of dead presidents i'll
>trade you for twice as much wood (by weight), because to me, the paper
>is more useful.
If you have any pieces of paper from the reserve bank, you may be in
line for a vacation at Club Fed. Dead Presidents are not printed on
dead trees.
>> We'd be better off making technology that allows for the burning of
>> coal yet scrub the waste. MORE scrubbing than currently used.
>
>who says they want to burn the methanol. (although that is one use
>- a car that runs on coal seems unlikely to be popular.)
A steamer?
JosephKK
<rober...@localnet.com> wrote:
That is what some of the "Friends of the Earth" want. At least that
is what they said they wanted.
Bill Sloman
> On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:02:19 -0700, Robert Baer
>
>
>
> <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >who where wrote:
Even the "Friends of the Earth" have their own equivalents of Jim
Thompson. You have to learn to identify and ignore the occasional nit-
wit that infests even the best of organisations. Some of the signs
that used to work - like writing letters with green ink - don't work
as well as they used to, but nit-wits do make a habit of getting their
facts wrong (as Jim does) and that's the sort of signal that won't go
obsolete.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Site.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 10:28:17 -0700 (PDT), alien8er
>
>
>
> <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 5, 5:02 am, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >> There has also been extensive research on biological mechanisms to reduce the
> >> production of methane from herbivore flatulence. The most promising suggestion
> >> though has been banning of hamburgers.
>
> > Oh, that's just silly Vegan propaganda. What was the atmospheric
> >contribution of farted methane from the pre-Columbian American
> >population of bison? You know, the vast, thundering herds that took
> >days to cross any given point?
>
> > Mark L. Fergerson
>
> Lemme see if I can sort this all out... ban hamburgers (and I presume
> all beef as well?), so we human creatures are all then vegans, right?
>
> So we eat only veggies, beans in particular to keep the protein level
> up where it needs be?
>
> So now WE are the methane farters?
>
> Sounds good to me... my farts are guaranteed to kill Democrats (and
> Slowmans ;-)
Seems unlikely. Most people's farts are primarily methane with a bit
of hydrogen, which is an inflammabble mixture, but even a wind-bag
like Jim would be hard pressed to collect enough gas to blow the lid
off a saucepan.
The perceptible part of a fart is the 2-methyl-indole (skatole)
component
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skatole
which is easily detectable at low concentrations. Skatole has been
shown to cause pulmonary edema in goats, sheep, rats, and some strains
of mice, and it can cause the potentially lethal "fog fever" in cows,
but the human lung don't seem to be all that sensitive to it.
Jim, as a decrepit fat slob, has to resort to pretty far-fetched
fantasies when he wants to imagine some kind of triumph over his
perceived opponents, and this one is on a par with his claim to have
reported me to the FBI for dangerously anti-American opinions.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
RoyLFuchs
>paper is made from wood and this takes energy. if you have any pieces
>of paper from the reserve bank with pictures of dead presidents i'll
>trade you for twice as much wood (by weight), because to me, the paper
>is more useful.
jeez, what a pussified argument that is.
Sorry, but a reprocessed fuel will not be more valuable than the source
components if the product used more fuel to make than the resultant
provides.
Robert Baer
DarkSucker
The gasses from his rotting corpse would make the saucepan run away,
however.
>
>The perceptible part of a fart is the 2-methyl-indole (skatole)
>component
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skatole
>
>which is easily detectable at low concentrations. Skatole has been
>shown to cause pulmonary edema in goats, sheep, rats, and some strains
>of mice, and it can cause the potentially lethal "fog fever" in cows,
>but the human lung don't seem to be all that sensitive to it.
>
>Jim, as a decrepit fat slob, has to resort to pretty far-fetched
>fantasies when he wants to imagine some kind of triumph over his
>perceived opponents,
YOU CAN SAY THAT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!
> and this one is on a par with his claim to have
>reported me to the FBI for dangerously anti-American opinions.
Yes, the JimTard is about as loony as a broke dick dog can get.
Michael
> ..to use as a "renewable" energy source.
> OK:
> 1) How much energy input is needed to convert coal to (say a thousand
> cubic feet of methanol?
Lots. Assuming coal is pure carbon (it's not, it also has nasties
like arsenic inside):
C + H2O => CO + H2
CO + 2 H2 => CH3OH
other variations on the theme exist, but that's the general idea. Oh,
and forget about 100% efficiency. Did I mention high capital costs to
contain the high-temperature, high pressure gases?
> 2) What are the other byproducts, how are they disposed and what is the
> effect on the environment?
Arsenic, etc. Whatever impurities come with the coal ash.
> 3) Doesn't methanol contain carbon and the burning thereof create CO2 -
> just like burning of the original coal?
Uh-huh.
> 4) After all of that expense of making methanol, is there more or is
> there less CO2 made per ton of coal?
If you make methanol and don't burn it, no CO2 made. Otherwise, just
the same as burning the coal.
> 5) Isn't methanol bad for the environment and if so, let us ban cattle
> farts.
Go for it. Run for office!
Why the interest in methanol, by the way? It's not exactly friendly
towards car parts (corrosive). Check out patent 4,282,187 on
google.com/patents. Sasol produces gasoline and diesel from coal
using the Fischer-Tropsch process. Change the catalyst and operating
conditions (T, P) and you get diesel fuel instead of methanol. Yay.
Rentech and Syntroleum do the same in the US, using natural gas and
coal.
Michael
Robert Baer
"renewable resource" and is also wasteful (ie: adds to the thermal
loading of the atmosphere).
Michael
Not a renewable resource... but hey, if you need liquid fuel, you'll
go to any depths (literally) to get it... Hitler did it too when he
realized, even with his Fischer-Tropsch process, he still needed more
oil...
I forgot about the mercury content in coal. So that's arsenic and
mercury you have to deal with, among other nasties...
I still like the SEGS plants in California, and Solar One in Nevada.
We need more of these.
Michael
Nobody
> ..so you agree with my assessment that this method by China is *not* a
> "renewable resource"
Clearly.
> and is also wasteful (ie: adds to the thermal loading of the atmosphere).
That's less clear-cut. The conversion introduces inefficiency, but that
may be offset by improvements elsewhere. E.g. converting coal to methanol
and running a vehicle on methanol may be an improvement over burning coal
to generate electricity and running an electric vehicle.
AFAICT, you get the same amount of CO2 either way; the question is whether
you get more or less utility for it.
Glen Walpert
>On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:22:47 -0700, Robert Baer wrote:
>
>> ..so you agree with my assessment that this method by China is *not* a
>> "renewable resource"
>
>Clearly.
>
>> and is also wasteful (ie: adds to the thermal loading of the atmosphere).
>
>That's less clear-cut. The conversion introduces inefficiency, but that
>may be offset by improvements elsewhere. E.g. converting coal to methanol
>and running a vehicle on methanol may be an improvement over burning coal
>to generate electricity and running an electric vehicle.
The effieciency of the conversion to methanol is not good, around 50%,
then the efficiency of the methanol burning vehicle is terrible
(around 10 to 15%), so the 40% or so efficient coal plant powering a
70% or so electric vehicle is FAR better than the coal to methanol
conversion process as a source of automotive fuel - or will be when
batteries are adequate for the task.
The point is to replace scarce and expensive petroleum with cheap and
plentiful coal, with the economy of the process depending on a large
price difference between the two.
>AFAICT, you get the same amount of CO2 either way; the question is whether
>you get more or less utility for it.
You get much less CO2 from the electric vehicle powered by a coal
plant (way under half).
The question is whether methanol or diesel fuel from domestic coal is
cheaper than the current alternative - importing petroleum. Since we
will run out of petroleum much faster than coal this situation will
exist soon if not already. From a pollution point of view this is the
worst possible solution to the petroleum shortage, emitting around
twice as much CO2 as burning petroleum based fuels. From a technology
point of view it is the easiest solution, requiring no new development
- just build it. Not much more challenging than an ordinary petroleum
refinery. So it makes perfect sense for a country like China that is
much more concerned with economic growth than pollution.
Meanwhile the EU is proceeding with construction of the ITER fusion
reactor, which has the possibility of leading to a practical
low-pollution large-scale energy source, and the USA is pissing away
their energy research budget on the NIF inertial confinement "fusion"
research, which offers absolutely no hope of ever being useful for
anything other than directed energy weapons. The "Star Wars" weapons
program continues, now thinly disguised as fusion energy research
despite the fact that no one has yet come up with even a wildly
speculative means of making the dramatic improvements to laser
efficiency required to make it work.
JosephKK
It is a real bas case of maybe, maybe not in the pollution arena. It
offers promise in reducing pollution in large cities while less
intensely increasing it near the conversion plant (which will host a
small city real soon).
rebel
one plus, though, is that the "pollution" is localised at the conversion
facility, allowing better prospects for a cleaning process. The same applies to
the coal_plan_electric_car scenario for carbon capture.
Jim Yanik
news:ae0g55pi445a8c60i...@4ax.com:
What makes you think CHINA is going to clean up their emissions?
rebel
I never suggested they would. Having been there and seen first-hand the way
they give top priority to "development" over everything else - especially
environment and health standards - I'd venture they'll be one of the last.
But the comments stand.
JosephKK
Maybe, maybe not. In two decades or so the pollution driven diseases
will bite them hard. India will take a decade or more longer.
Joe Chisolm
> ..to use as a "renewable" energy source.
> OK:
> 1) How much energy input is needed to convert coal to (say a thousand
> cubic feet of methanol?
> 2) What are the other byproducts, how are they disposed and what is the
> effect on the environment?
> 3) Doesn't methanol contain carbon and the burning thereof create CO2 -
> just like burning of the original coal? 4) After all of that expense of
> making methanol, is there more or is there less CO2 made per ton of
> coal?
> 5) Isn't methanol bad for the environment and if so, let us ban cattle
> farts.
The cap and tax bill tried to do that with a $175 / head fee on cows
as a tax on cow farts. Cattle producers and dairy farms would have
to apply to the EPA for a permit for regulation of cow farts.
They pulled the provision out of the bill when they were buying the
votes of agricultural state Democrats.
--
Joe Chisolm
Marble Falls, Tx.
rebel
>On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:20:00 +0800, rebel <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On 11 Jul 2009 03:17:03 GMT, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>rebel <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
>>>news:ae0g55pi445a8c60i...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> one plus, though, is that the "pollution" is localised at the
>>>> conversion facility, allowing better prospects for a cleaning process.
>>>> The same applies to the coal_plan_electric_car scenario for carbon
>>>> capture.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What makes you think CHINA is going to clean up their emissions?
>>
>>I never suggested they would. Having been there and seen first-hand the way
>>they give top priority to "development" over everything else - especially
>>environment and health standards - I'd venture they'll be one of the last.
>>
>>But the comments stand.
>
>Maybe, maybe not. In two decades or so the pollution driven diseases
>will bite them hard. India will take a decade or more longer.
which doesn't relate in any way to my comments.
Jim Yanik
news:k01l55pthtga612fh...@4ax.com:
if anyone thinks that the US alone changing it's usage of coal and oil to
"capture carbon" is going to affect climate change in any way,they are
deluded.
BTW,China is becoming the industrial behemoth,surpassing the US.
MooseFET
> rebel <m...@privacy.net> wrote innews:ae0g55pi445a8c60i...@4ax.com:
The air quality in Beijing is much better today than it was when I was
there in the 1990's. They have taken steps to clean up pollution in
other place too. They are a 3rd world country so they really can't
afford to do a lot but they have done a little.
Nobody
>> What makes you think CHINA is going to clean up their emissions?
>
> The air quality in Beijing is much better today than it was when I was
> there in the 1990's. They have taken steps to clean up pollution in
> other place too. They are a 3rd world country so they really can't
> afford to do a lot but they have done a little.
They do seem to be getting genuinely concerned about NOx and SOx emissions
lately. In particular, the amount of effort that was required in the
run-up to the Beijing olympics seems to have scared them.
OTOH, whether or not they do anything about CO2 depends mostly upon
whether they're forced to. The biggest risk to China is a carbon trading
system which attributes CO2 emissions from manufacturing to the consumer.
If that happens, the quickest way for any country to reduce its CO2
figures will be to throttle Chinese imports.