pstarr wrote:Come on guys. The newbie might be sensitive. Give it a break okay?
energyhoggin wrote:According to some studies and sources there is over 300 years of coal reserves left just in the United States alone. So instead of economic hell and mass starvation why don't they turn coal into oil. The process of turning coal into oil does require a lot of energy, so why not use nuclear energy so our atmosphere doesn't get clogged up with carbon, it sure beats the other option of mass starvation and etc.
energyhoggin wrote: it sure beats the other option of mass starvation and etc.
mos6507 wrote:Come on you guys. You're slipping. Do I have to handle this every time?
There, done.
energyhoggin wrote:According to some studies and sources there is over 300 years of coal reserves left just in the United States alone. So instead of economic hell and mass starvation why don't they turn coal into oil. The process of turning coal into oil does require a lot of energy, so why not use nuclear energy so our atmosphere doesn't get clogged up with carbon, it sure beats the other option of mass starvation and etc.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote:Please be advised that no matter what statement you make or what data you present their are many people on here who will react nastily, especially if your statement is one of hope for a better future.
The problem with our future is mostly lack of leadership, yes we have the ability to build a fission based electric grid like the one used in France. Yes we have the ability to build cars that run on electricity for short trips. Yes we could convert coal into liquid fuels.
We lack the leadership and the will to do these things, therefore when we finally admit that oil has a limit and we have passed it the cost and difficulty we will run into in implementing those changes will be very large. The majority of posters on this website think they will be insurmountable and our civilization will collapse, so when you present hope they pounce like a pack of ravening wolves.
rangerone314 wrote:
If oil is now $67/bbl and we don't see a major push for that among corporations, perhaps we can infer that the cost of processing is greater than raw material cost. The question is, how much?
Arthur75 wrote:Just for the record, and using the data there :
http://www.newsmax.com/hostetter/Coal_L ... 19599.html
Coherent with wikipedia for US coal reserves, and using 20 millions barrel per day for today US oil consumption
it gives :
mbpd: 20000000
barrel per ton of coal: 1,25
coal reserves (tons) : 2,75E+11
barrel equivalent : 3,4375E+11
days in CTL : 17187,5
years in CTL : 47,0890411
So 47 years, not that much !
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Arthur75 wrote:A simple calculation leads to US coal reserves representing 40 years of today US petroleum consumption (so using coal for nothing else but liquid fuel production).
Coal liquefaction isn't a very efficient process at all energy wise.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 131 guests