Argus Posted March 20, 2010 Report Posted March 20, 2010 Canada has more energy in its "proven, recoverable" reserves of coal than it has in all of its oil, natural gas and oil sands combined: 10 billion tonnes. The world has 100 times more: one trillion tonnes. These reserves hold the energy equivalent of more than four trillion barrels of oil. They are scattered in 70 countries, mostly in relatively easy-to-mine locations and mostly in democratic countries. The United States alone has 30 per cent of the world's reserves, and scientists in Texas say they have found a way to convert coal into gasoline at a cost of less than $30 (U.S.) a barrel - with zero release of pollutants BTW, just about the only place in the world that doesn't have coal is - the middle east. Texas University has Eureka Moment Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted March 20, 2010 Report Posted March 20, 2010 BTW, just about the only place in the world that doesn't have coal is - the middle east. Don't worry I'm sure the military industrial complex will find a way to keep the shit disturbed there. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Wild Bill Posted March 21, 2010 Report Posted March 21, 2010 Canada has more energy in its "proven, recoverable" reserves of coal than it has in all of its oil, natural gas and oil sands combined: 10 billion tonnes. The world has 100 times more: one trillion tonnes. These reserves hold the energy equivalent of more than four trillion barrels of oil. They are scattered in 70 countries, mostly in relatively easy-to-mine locations and mostly in democratic countries. The United States alone has 30 per cent of the world's reserves, and scientists in Texas say they have found a way to convert coal into gasoline at a cost of less than $30 (U.S.) a barrel - with zero release of pollutants BTW, just about the only place in the world that doesn't have coal is - the middle east. Texas University has Eureka Moment This has been done for a very long time. The Nazis had huge plants to make fuel, since they were hampered by a lack of conventional oil sources. Granted, they were probably not that "green and clean". I would support a major effort to convert to using coal in such a manner, with one caveat. I would support a blanket ban on any member of the "green" movement from being allowed to buy any! After all, these people continually shoot down any and all alternatives as always being "too dirty", too "unworkable" or "not really as cheap as it appears". They always leave us with no alternative but simply to not have enough energy supply and to be forced to use less. Therefore, if someone comes up with an alternative that works I see no reason why the green movement should be allowed to share the benefits. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
msj Posted March 21, 2010 Report Posted March 21, 2010 This has been done for a very long time. The Nazis had huge plants to make fuel, since they were hampered by a lack of conventional oil sources. Granted, they were probably not that "green and clean". If the Nazis were doing it then it must be good! I would support a major effort to convert to using coal in such a manner, with one caveat. I would support a blanket ban on any member of the "green" movement from being allowed to buy any! After all, these people continually shoot down any and all alternatives as always being "too dirty", too "unworkable" or "not really as cheap as it appears". They always leave us with no alternative but simply to not have enough energy supply and to be forced to use less. Therefore, if someone comes up with an alternative that works I see no reason why the green movement should be allowed to share the benefits. I would support Wild Bill's idea with one caveat. I would support a blanket ban on anyone wanting to institute yet another government bureaucracy to identify "green" members from obtaining any government services. Talk about a waste of resources. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
msj Posted March 21, 2010 Report Posted March 21, 2010 I would support Wild Bill's idea with one caveat. I would support a blanket ban on anyone wanting to institute yet another government bureaucracy to identify "green" members from obtaining any government services. Talk about a waste of resources. I would support my idea with one caveat. I would support a blanket ban on myself for suggesting yet another government bureaucracy to identify those who want another bureaucracy to identify those who support a government bureaucracy to identify "green" members. I could go on ad infinitum but hopefully you get the point of just how stupid this idea is. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
msj Posted March 21, 2010 Report Posted March 21, 2010 I could go on ad infinitum but hopefully you get the point of just how stupid this idea is. You don't have to tell me! I understand the lunacy of such government waste. The question is: does Wild Bill? Yes, I'm being cheeky this morning. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Wild Bill Posted March 21, 2010 Report Posted March 21, 2010 If the Nazis were doing it then it must be good! I would support Wild Bill's idea with one caveat. I would support a blanket ban on anyone wanting to institute yet another government bureaucracy to identify "green" members from obtaining any government services. Talk about a waste of resources. I can see we both appreciate the humour of hyperbole, msj! It should be easy to identify such folks! They always toot their own horn anyway! All we do is tip off sensible people (like us, natch!) to take down their names whenever we catch them bragging about what great "eco-warriors" they are. We put all our lists together first and THEN we pass the law forbidding them to buy any "coal" gas! Sorta like the HitchHikers' Guide to the Galaxy's "B" Ark concept... Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Wilber Posted March 22, 2010 Report Posted March 22, 2010 Not exactly a new idea. Link Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Topaz Posted March 23, 2010 Report Posted March 23, 2010 There was a man on the Discovery Channel that I saw about 2-3 years ago, and he was from Mississippi and he was talking then about turning coal into a liquid that could be used a fuel but not have the pollution, looks like they have done it. Quote
Bonam Posted March 23, 2010 Report Posted March 23, 2010 Yup plenty of potential in gas from coal. However, it is far from being a clean energy source. Even if the process of getting gas from coal is itself made clean as they claim in the article, burning the gas is of course still a source of emissions. So it certainly does nothing about environmental concerns, though it could address issues of energy supply and security. Personally, I put greater stock in nuclear energy and advances in energy storage, and moving away from hydrocarbons all together, though this is a process that will take some time. Quote
Army Guy Posted March 23, 2010 Report Posted March 23, 2010 I think this tech break through is great, but what concerns me is what effect it is going to have around the world... The US will be able to produce all of it's own energy, meaning prices will be heading south and no longer controled by OPEC nations, on the other hand what does Canada do with it's surplus we currently sell to the US...Canada becomes self suffient as well, meaning our oil prices will drop as well... How does this change the balance of power in the middle east ? or for that matter other oil rich nations.... What does this mean for all the cleaner alt fuel tech being developed now...such as elec cars, etc etc...does this get shelved ? Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Bonam Posted March 23, 2010 Report Posted March 23, 2010 I think this tech break through is great, but what concerns me is what effect it is going to have around the world... The US will be able to produce all of it's own energy, meaning prices will be heading south and no longer controled by OPEC nations, on the other hand what does Canada do with it's surplus we currently sell to the US...Canada becomes self suffient as well, meaning our oil prices will drop as well... How does this change the balance of power in the middle east ? or for that matter other oil rich nations.... What does this mean for all the cleaner alt fuel tech being developed now...such as elec cars, etc etc...does this get shelved ? It is honestly nothing to worry about at this stage. A process that is shown to be functional in a lab takes a very long time before it reaches market. And after it reaches market it takes a long time before it grows and gains significant market share. It's not something that is gonna happen overnight and cause a sudden shift in balance of power. Quote
waldo Posted March 23, 2010 Report Posted March 23, 2010 Yup plenty of potential in gas from coal. However, it is far from being a clean energy source. Even if the process of getting gas from coal is itself made clean as they claim in the article, burning the gas is of course still a source of emissions. So it certainly does nothing about environmental concerns, though it could address issues of energy supply and security. Personally, I put greater stock in nuclear energy and advances in energy storage, and moving away from hydrocarbons all together, though this is a process that will take some time. theoretically, coal gasification (with or without sequestration) has the potential to address the 1/3 of overall CO2 emissions attributed to conventional coal processing... theoretically. The practical side presumes on moving out of the lab and into full-scale operations - will it prove economically feasible? The realistic side recognizes that even if economically feasible, will it apply to retrofit existing coal plants - will there be an incentive (political or economic) to makeover all existing plants, or will this be channeled towards new implementations only? Of course, what might be the overall timeline in relation to ever increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere? And, of course, this does nothing to address the continued dependency on and the continued use of fossil fuels! Quote
blueblood Posted March 23, 2010 Report Posted March 23, 2010 I think this tech break through is great, but what concerns me is what effect it is going to have around the world... The US will be able to produce all of it's own energy, meaning prices will be heading south and no longer controled by OPEC nations, on the other hand what does Canada do with it's surplus we currently sell to the US...Canada becomes self suffient as well, meaning our oil prices will drop as well... How does this change the balance of power in the middle east ? or for that matter other oil rich nations.... What does this mean for all the cleaner alt fuel tech being developed now...such as elec cars, etc etc...does this get shelved ? Depending on when this tech comes in, short term it could hurt us, long term we'd be fine. Energy projections for usage is expected to rise exponentially. Since Canada is an energy exporter, the higher the price, the better off we are in spite of what Easterners think about that. Given how much of the economy depends on energy production, I'd say "they" phase this process in sync as energy usage rises. Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.