[hillsidedigger]

Can anyone imagine what the wolrd's landscape, atmosphere, surface waters and oceans would be like if all the coal was suddenly mined and burned (40 years is suddenly)? Is that what you want?

[graham]

Coal to oil would release much CO2 but it seems many do not realize that will lead us further down the road to major problems.

Even Robert Hirsch seems to either not realise this, or that he does but understands that the problem is insurmountable if tackling climate change in tandem.

[dorlomin]

It's probably not coincidence that coal liquefication failed the Nazi and the racist South Africans. It is a horrible process that pollutes, just in a different way.

I do not think that CTL was in any way responsible for the failing of the Nazi regime or the old South Africa.

Logistics stopped the German advance East, (this is actualy quite a common failing of Germany in both WWI and WWII). Poor roads and an inability to use rail stalled the advances in 41, Zhukov and the Siberian divisions then threw them back. 40-43 the Germans ran out of equipment (most esepcialy trucks) before they ran out of fuel (43 onwards).

The South Africans were able to operate an expiditionary force in Angola with no fuel outages for domestic consumers during the final years of Apartheid. It was largely the internal resistance of strikes and mass actions that brought the change in heart from the National party.

[dorlomin]

Sure but the SA were fighting a guerrilla war, not against a modern army equipped with heavy equipment.

There was a low intestity guerilla war on the SWA\ Angolan border but there was also mechanised and armoured battles inside Angola itself where Cubans and Angolans fought South Africans and Angolans. The largest tank battle in Africa since WWII was fought as part of that war at Cuito Cuanavale and the South Africans rarely had air superiority against Mig 21s and more advanced Soviet equipment.

I agree that CTL is a very poor substitute for high API crude, but I think it is wrong to attribute the collapse of the Apartheid regime or the Nazis on it. After all the Nazis were able to launch operations like Barbarossa and Citadel (the battle of Kursk) using CTL, but the Soviets were able to respond with operations like Bagration that resulted in the anihalation of army group center using crude from Baku.

As a total aside but an intersting point about tank designs, the Germans ended the war with mechanicaly unreliable massively armoured tanks like the Tiger and Tiger II, whereas the US and USSR ended with fast high endurance tanks with more limited armour such as the Sherman and the T-34. The US and Soviets had vast amounts of oil and man power while the Germans were short on both but they did have large amounts of steel and coal, so their tanks focused on preserving their manpower and oil by basicaly being steel pill boxes that were transported near to the front on coal powered trains where their massive bulk helped to keep the crew alive.

US and Soviet tanks were more numerous as they had far more people to drive them and were able to be more mobile and not rely on rail for movment between fronts. Everyone always praises German tanks but fails to note that they were the way they were because the Germans could not build and man large numbers of mobile armoured formations. After WWII the West Germans built lightly armoured but highly mobile tanks such as the Leopard. (OK that is sooooooo far off topic but hey ho, the topic is kinda quiet).

[rangerone314]

It's probably not coincidence that coal liquefication failed the Nazi and the racist South Africans. It is a horrible process that pollutes, just in a different way.

I do not think that CTL was in any way responsible for the failing of the Nazi regime or the old South Africa.

Logistics stopped the German advance East, (this is actualy quite a common failing of Germany in both WWI and WWII). Poor roads and an inability to use rail stalled the advances in 41, Zhukov and the Siberian divisions then threw them back. 40-43 the Germans ran out of equipment (most esepcialy trucks) before they ran out of fuel (43 onwards).

The South Africans were able to operate an expiditionary force in Angola with no fuel outages for domestic consumers during the final years of Apartheid. It was largely the internal resistance of strikes and mass actions that brought the change in heart from the National party.

True about logistics, although stuff like the Russians being able to mass produce the effective T-34 tank compared to the more complicated German Tiger did play a role in their loss. Also the fact the Hitler was sometimes an idiot, and didn't allow the Germans to retreat or have the proper winter equipment in one campaign.

Ooops dormolin beat me to it... LOL! Although I think the T-34 would smoke the Sherman if they were to fight... A Tiger might take out 12 Shermans but the Allies would always have that 13th Sherman... Shermans were more reliable than cigarette lighters at lighting up... T-34's had a bit more going for them.

[nobodypanic]

Sure but the SA were fighting a guerrilla war, not against a modern army equipped with heavy equipment.

There was a low intestity guerilla war on the SWA\ Angolan border but there was also mechanised and armoured battles inside Angola itself where Cubans and Angolans fought South Africans and Angolans. The largest tank battle in Africa since WWII was fought as part of that war at Cuito Cuanavale and the South Africans rarely had air superiority against Mig 21s and more advanced Soviet equipment.

I agree that CTL is a very poor substitute for high API crude, but I think it is wrong to attribute the collapse of the Apartheid regime or the Nazis on it. After all the Nazis were able to launch operations like Barbarossa and Citadel (the battle of Kursk) using CTL, but the Soviets were able to respond with operations like Bagration that resulted in the anihalation of army group center using crude from Baku.

As a total aside but an intersting point about tank designs, the Germans ended the war with mechanicaly unreliable massively armoured tanks like the Tiger and Tiger II, whereas the US and USSR ended with fast high endurance tanks with more limited armour such as the Sherman and the T-34. The US and Soviets had vast amounts of oil and man power while the Germans were short on both but they did have large amounts of steel and coal, so their tanks focused on preserving their manpower and oil by basicaly being steel pill boxes that were transported near to the front on coal powered trains where their massive bulk helped to keep the crew alive.

US and Soviet tanks were more numerous as they had far more people to drive them and were able to be more mobile and not rely on rail for movment between fronts. Everyone always praises German tanks but fails to note that they were the way they were because the Germans could not build and man large numbers of mobile armoured formations. After WWII the West Germans built lightly armoured but highly mobile tanks such as the Leopard. (OK that is sooooooo far off topic but hey ho, the topic is kinda quiet).

that's an interesting view!

however, i think you're forgetting the panther tank, which wouldn't really fit your criteria. what's your take on that?

[dorlomin]

that's an interesting view!

however, i think you're forgetting the panther tank, which wouldn't really fit your criteria. what's your take on that?

At abour 45 tonnes it was very heavy and expensive for a medium tank. About 50% heavier than the T34. The Germans also had an inreadible habit of making endless variations rather then going for a simple design with long production runs.

[Ferretlover]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/rmiller/stories/DN-miller_28bus.ART.State.Edition1.3cf764e.html

After a year of trying, University of Texas at Arlington researchers say they have succeeded in producing Texas intermediate-quality crude oil out of lignite.

In a few years, the researchers predict, their discovery could lead to oil that costs $35 a barrel instead of the current $65 to $70.

This could translate into a Lone Star bonanza. Texas sits on a 200-year supply of lignite that's easily accessible because it lies near the earth's surface. Lignite, one of the lowest and cheapest grades of coal, is now used to fuel steam-electric power generation.

[mos6507]

I fear even if we perfect this sort of technology we won't use it as a bridge. We'll just keep BAU going until peak coal and crash all the same. But the selfish part of me would prefer we have this in the quiver as a means to kick the can on die-off.

[AirlinePilot]

Two barrels of ol out of a ton of lignite. Hmmm. I wonder what the EROEI is on that?

Happy motoring here we come!

This is not new, its not any real breakthrough. Germans did it in WWII . Its called Fischer Tropsch and its a very dirty way to make oil. I suspect the cap and trade frenzy will cause huge costs to be associated with this form of oil production.

Dont call it a breakthrough though thats a complete mischaracterization of a very old process in concept.

[TheAntiDoomer]

This is not new, its not any real breakthrough. Germans did it in WWII . Its called Fischer Tropsch and its a very dirty way to make oil. I suspect the cap and trade frenzy will cause huge costs to be associated with this form of oil production

From the article AP:

In UTA's process, the lignite is converted to crude oil by chemical means rather than combustion, which is what Nazi Germany used to turn coal into oil during World War II.

AP, please read the article before commenting!

[dinopello]

This is not new, its not any real breakthrough. Germans did it in WWII . Its called Fischer Tropsch and its a very dirty way to make oil. I suspect the cap and trade frenzy will cause huge costs to be associated with this form of oil production

From the article AP:

In UTA's process, the lignite is converted to crude oil by chemical means rather than combustion, which is what Nazi Germany used to turn coal into oil during World War II.

AP, please read the article before commenting!

I don't understand. Fischer Tropsch is a chemical reactive process according to wiki

The Fischer-Tropsch process (or Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis) is a catalyzed chemical reaction in which synthesis gas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, is converted into liquid hydrocarbons of various forms. The most common catalysts are based on iron and cobalt, although nickel and ruthenium have also been used. The principal purpose of this process is to produce a synthetic petroleum substitute, typically from coal, natural gas or biomass, for use as synthetic lubrication oil or as synthetic fuel. This synthetic fuel runs trucks, cars, and some aircraft engines. (Refer to Sasol.) The use of diesel is increasing in recent years.

[TheAntiDoomer]

Fair enough dino, we should have someone in the biz explain the difference, but clearly UT is claiming something far more advance than FT process. AP claim that this process is the same thing the nazi's used is false, and simply his way of trying to discredit it.

[TheAntiDoomer]

From the UT Arlington website:

http://www.uta.edu/ucomm/researchmagazi ... energy.php

The Germans successfully converted coal to synthetic oil in World War II using the Fischer-Tropsch process, notes Krishnan Rajeshwar, associate dean of the College of Science and CREST co-director. But even with modern methods, Fischer-Tropsch is still expensive, which is why CREST continues to research an alternative fuel technology using microfluidics.

Drs. Rajeshwar and Billo are convinced that a microfluidic reactor can convert coal to synthetic oil at a fraction of the cost of the German technology. Billo says microrefineries built at a low cost can produce large amounts of synthetic oil in a fraction of the time of existing Fischer-Tropsch refining processes.

[Schmuto]

The people who pimp these false saviors are truly evil.

It's bad enough the sheeple are too ignorant to focus on the criticality of the oil situation for the necessary length of time. That's just corporate conditioning - "keep eating. Don't look up from the trough. Don't worry about that awful crying you hear. The recovery has begun. All will return to normal soon enough."

But when these vested interests pimp these false saviours to help ensure that the marginally curious don't think too hard, it's pure evil.

There is no hope in coal.

Coal will be the bookends of the fossil fuel age.

We came in dirty, and we're going to leave filthy.

[gnm]

Great news Auntie, now we can strip mine half the country to ensure that you have BAU for another 20 years. Gonna be tough to explain it to the grandkids though.

-G