alt.energy.renewable

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:28:24 -0500, Mishagam
wrote:

>Mauried wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:20:48 -0800 (PST), Fran
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 25, 9:12=A0am, maur...@tpg.com.au (Mauried) wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:04:20 -0800 (PST), Fran
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that you want to make me buy ethanol, whether I like to or
>>>>>>> not, means you want to impose your wishes on me.
>>>>>> I don't want to "make you buy ethanol". You can use mass transit, buy
>>>>>> a diesel electric hybrid or a biodiesel fuelled vehicle. At some point
>>>>>> butanol may be available.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's widely rumoured that, for a variety of reasons, the members of
>>>>> the OPEC crowd and the refiners have been exaggerating crude oil RARs
>>>>> for years -- perhaps by as much as 150%. This may be wrong of course
>>>>> but it does set the scene for a hypothetical ...
>>>>> I wonder what those who are pessimistic on the potential role of
>>>>> biofuels imagine would be rational policy if it were discovered
>>>>> tomorrow that on current asnd projected crude oil consumption,
>>>>> supplies after 2020 depended on new discoveries of crude. What would
>>>>> be the options?
>>>>> Let me say that I believe that biofuels can provide an excellent set
>>>>> of =A0transition options between our existing transport energy
>>>>> infrastructure and our needs perhaps 25 or 30 years from now. At the
>>>>> top of my list is the harvest of what is effectively waste biomass and
>>>>> the development of algae-sourced liquid fuels -- biodiesel, butanol
>>>>> and possibly ethanol in some settings, used in concert with hybrid
>>>>> technologies so as to cut the net amount of liquid fuel needed. We
>>>>> need to cut total demand for =A0liquid fuels in transport both by
>>>>> cutting the energy being used and sourcing as much of it as possible
>>>>> in stationary energy which is easier to source from low environmental
>>>>> footprint technologies.
>>>>> Whether the date is 2020 or some time later, this choice will at some
>>>>> point need to be made. The underpinning structures for transport
>>>>> fleets will need redesign and the more orderly this process is, the
>>>>> better. So what do the anti-biofuels people see as the options?
>>>>> Fran
>>>> Whats wrong with simply making oil out of coal.
>>> Yes, but coal mining is unsafe and unhealthy and the EROEI compares
>>> poorly with biofuels and of course it is much more carbon intensive
>>> and would contribute far more to atomospheric pollution, and would be
>>> a lot more expensive than waste or algae-derived biofuels.
>>>
>>> Fran
>>>
>>>> The world isnt running out of coal.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Coal mining is only unsafe if its underground.
>> Open cut mining using modern technology is perfectly safe.
>> Coal to Oil is also something that can be done now , no need to grow
>> any feedstock.
>>
>Or you can convert coal to methanol. I still don't have definite answer,
>however - is it easier to make methanol or oil from coal. I suspect that
>it is easier to make methanol - one point because there is less
>byproducts and you don't have to distillate or convert resulting oil.
>Methanol can be directly used in IC engines.
>I think it is only real and practical way out if we have severe oil
>shortages tomorrow. I am practically sure that methanol can be made from
>coal using existing technology and be cheaper than gas now.
>Opening ANWR and other possible oil regions would help also.
>Other possible way is to restrict cars (or make gas so expensive) that
>only rich people can use cars. Or dream about hydrogen, biofuel, algae
>oil, fuel from water, electric cars, public transport or raising efficiency.
>If somebody feels bad about GW we can always replace coal power plants
>with nuclear one.


You cant run existing diesel engines on methanol.
The Transportation industry including all the worlds trucks,
locomotives and farm machinery are still going to need diesel
from somewhere.