Why aren't we exploring alternative energy sources like converting coal to oil. I've heard from the Govenor of Montana that if just the coal in Montana was converted to oil it would equal the oil in Saudia Arabia. I've heard if we converted all out coal to oil it would Dwarf the middle east oil.
2006-08-23 13:33:25 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Converting coal to liquid fuel is a proven process used by the German Air Force in WWII. They had 39 plants turning out 87 octane gasoline for their planes. South Africa gets half of their fuel from coal conversion. From 1945 to 1960 the US Government conducted coal to liquid fuel research building several pilot plants. The vast Saudi fields where oil is lifted today still at $2 per barrel killed our early research efforts. As long as that $2 per barrel oil overhangs the market there is little incentive to build expensive coal to liquid fuel plants. Finally there are the tar sands of Canada which can be converted to oil more cheaply than coal.
2006-08-23 14:00:51 · answer #1 · answered by wealthmaster 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Push for this in your state first. Perhaps when you and your family are covered in all the filth produced by coal technology and suffering from all the ill effects caused by mercury pollution to the water supply that this technology creates, you'll decide that fossil fuels only produce one thing: fossils, as this kind of technology will surely make all of us extinct sooner rather than later. Coal is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.
2006-08-24 01:59:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We are and also employing new energy sources.
At this point it is way cheaper to pump oil from the ground and refine it than to convert from shale, coal, even tar sands. Tar sands for example have only recently been economically feasible. It will take a while before things like ethanol etc. are as cheap.
We do need to drill in Alaska-- the caribou will deal with it.
Also, need more drilling in other areas of the US.
Nukes is also quite good but we need to deal with it better-- e.g. standard plant designs + deal with the waste.
2006-08-23 20:44:02 · answer #3 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We are! and we have been!
I have been investing in companies which are doing this research for years. The only concern and hurdle to be seen is cost effectiveness, and energy storage.
It takes a while, but you as an individual can choose to drive a hybrid, put solar panels on your house, etc. Instead of yelling at others you could set the example.
2006-08-23 20:37:22 · answer #4 · answered by Jon H 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It's cheaper to buy oil from the Saudis than it is to convert coal to oil. Nuclear power is the only economic option.
2006-08-23 20:35:16 · answer #5 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's part of the Illuminati plan to start world war 3 by making people believe we are running out of oil, and that there is no hope.
2006-08-23 20:40:26 · answer #6 · answered by oceansoflight777 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
there's more btu in crude than in coal per unit of energy, I think.
and coal is dirtier.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/science/energy_calculator.html
It is a slow process, to turn a whole nation toward something that is inevitable.
There is exploration on solar, wind, hydrogen and electomagnetism.
and may be more.
2006-08-23 20:39:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
We are going for nuclear energy in the form of fusion, a very long Extremely powerfull process that needs great precautions and even longer to make safe for industry.
2006-08-23 20:47:47 · answer #8 · answered by Giz 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The big oil companies have very high priced lobbyists in in DC. They like their profit margins.
2006-08-23 20:43:43 · answer #9 · answered by GRANNY12GR1 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
too expensive. but i think there are a lot of companies studying and researching about alternative energy.
2006-08-24 03:04:02 · answer #10 · answered by pol.b 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋