Possibly coming to a pump near you: Coalahol

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Originally Posted by diamondlarry

Keystone Pipeline.

So, let me get this straight, the answer to American energy dependence is to import more petroleum that's produced using a process with an extremely low EROI? In any case, why do they need to pipe all the way across the country to the gulf? I believe the lake states have quite a few people they could supply if they refined it in the Northern USA.

Incidentally there is already a pipeline, they just want a more direct route.

They can veto a pipeline but they can't veto the CTG process (unless it's really filthy, of course) or shipping coal using the existing freight infrastructure.

[herm]

Originally Posted by diamondlarry

Bonus effect of above: 20,000 new jobs won't happen.

Those jobs would have been temporary.. but the refineries in the Gulf that can handle the tar sands bitumen will have more work.. those refineries can handle the heavy crudes from Venezuela and there is some danger they will close due to lack of the proper crude that they specialize in.. guess what other country can refine that stuff?

Yes, it is true those refineries may have exported the resulting gasoline.. but that gasoline is a manufactured product, made in the USA.

Canada and Venezuela have vast supplies of bitumen, I think the US has some also but undeveloped.

[herm]

Chuck you got me all excited for nothing with the thread title.. I was expecting coal methanol to replace ethanol..

I'm a big believer in the Methanol Economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-robert-zubrin

[FXSTi]

I don't know enough about this to have an opinion on whether it is good or bad, but one quote in the article struck me:

Although Kelly said the project can proceed without any investment from the state, he said he believes it's important that Wyoming, the nation's leading coal producing state, support the project.

I read this as, we can afford it but would rather make the citizens pay for it.

Kirk

[CPLTECH]

Originally Posted by herm

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-robert-zubrin

I see that Methanex methanol (on Google) is half the price of corn ethanol listed in the Business Section of the local paper, even before road taxes. So, is there a reason that it is not used in the gas blends? Or is it all political? Despite all that, has anyone added it to their tank? If so, where is it available?

[Chuck]

Coal is more efficient and cleaner firing large power plants than being processed into gasoline, then trucked in a manner like ethanol for automotive use. Even if it's distributed by pipeline, I'd rather see coal generated in power plants for EVs.

[herm]

Its all political..and Methanex is high purity, far higher that is needed for automotive fuels. There is a low cost process using NG that makes a mixed blend of methanol and ethanol at the same time that is very low cost, in the $0.80 a gallon range. If you dont mix it with gasoline it will even run well with 20% water added, but pure methanol is hard to start in winter.. low volatility, best to use M85.

That Zubrin article was pretty good, he actually converted a 2007 Cobalt to run on 100% methanol and got 24mpg on the hwy (he got 36 with gasoline).. thats about equivalent to 48mpg on gasoline since methanol has half the energy density of gasoline. He would have gotten better results with a modern turbo engine.

[herm]

Originally Posted by Chuck

Coal is more efficient and cleaner firing large power plants than being processed into gasoline, then trucked in a manner like ethanol for automotive use. Even if it's distributed by pipeline, I'd rather see coal generated in power plants for EVs.

Why do you say that?.. the average coal burning plant is old and nasty, with low efficiency. A coal gasifier plant is far far cleaner by definition.

[Chuck]

Economies of scale - a plant large enough to power 100,000 EVs will pollute less than 100,000 tailpipes.

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Originally Posted by FXSTi

I don't know enough about this to have an opinion on whether it is good or bad, but one quote in the article struck me:

Although Kelly said the project can proceed without any investment from the state, he said he believes it's important that Wyoming, the nation's leading coal producing state, support the project.

I read this as, we can afford it but would rather make the citizens pay for it.

Kirk

I believe it's called "the American way".