<DrumBeat: February 5, 2007The Oil DrumDrumBeat: February 6, 2007>

96 comments on Coal in an Engine does not need Fischer Tropsch

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

dmathew1 on February 5, 2007 - 10:37am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Heading Out,

Don't you know that Coal is one of those four-letter curse words. Coal is a natural mineral which serves as Nature's human exterminator. We should leave this accursed mineral in the ground rather than sacrifice our existence for the sake of electricity, automobiles and consumerism.

But we humans are not willing to make any sacrifices. Consider this enlightened statement from the governor of Texas:

"Absolutely," Gov. Rick Perry replied when asked recently by the Star-Telegram whether there is scientific doubt that human activity causes global warming. "I am not going to put the state of Texas in a competitive economic disadvantage on some science that may or may not be correct."
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/legislature/16542147.htm

Governor Perry won't sacrifice texas' economy but he is going to sacrifice Texas' people. Is it any wonder that Homo sapiens is headed towards certain extinction?

We are going to burn up all of these fossil fuels and then Nature is going to burn us all up. Nature will survive, but humankind will not.

Problem solved. The sun will keep on rising and the Earth will recover and life will flourish and the Universe will forget that Homo sapiens ever existed and God will look down from Heaven upon the human-less Earth and say, "good".

Coal has already damaged the Earth too much. It is time for humankind to stop, otherwise Nature will stop humankind forever.

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
billp on February 5, 2007 - 10:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Lots of money to be made supplying coal for electricity.

http://www.prosefights.org/coal/northantelope/northantelope.htm

How long will all of this last? Senior citizen wonders?

www.prosefights.org/reigps/reigps.htm

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oregon7 on February 6, 2007 - 4:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

David, thanks for stating the (what should be but obviously isn't to some) obvious.

Coal contains the opportunity to end life on earth.

Is the Oil Drum indifferent to climate change? Is climate change any less an established fact than the coming of peak oil?

Proposals to make coal more usable are proposals to end human life on earth that much faster.

Is this article included because the Oil Drum is just interested in any scientific proposal that relates to our energy situation?

I'm genuinely curious about why such an apparently horrible idea (the more likely it is to work, the more horrible it is), is deemed worthy of an article.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
IntoTheBlack on February 6, 2007 - 7:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sigh...

DMathew1 and Oegon7, Heading Out isn't advocating the use of coal to deal with Peak Oil. He's discussing the science so that we are better informed.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dmathew1 on February 6, 2007 - 8:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hello IntoTheBlack,

DMathew1 and Oegon7, Heading Out isn't advocating the use of coal to deal with Peak Oil. He's discussing the science so that we are better informed.

If Heading Out doesn't speak about the negative consequences of using coal in this manner he is doing the readers a disservice. The fossil fuels industries prefers to not think about the consequences.

But the consequences are important to me. Coal is an obscenely dirty fuel source. The carbon in coal is best sequestered in the ground as coal.

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oregon7 on February 6, 2007 - 11:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sigh...

IntoTheBlack, I was afraid that what was going on. He is taking a "just the facts" approach, and it is being published because the facts are believed to be morally neutral.

So... a serious discussion of a new way to build an atomic bomb is just an exploration of physics and engineering... an informed public discussion of a new way to build a computer virus for Windows Vista is just an exploration of practical computer science issues... an IBM sale of computing technology to Nazi Germany in the 1940s was just a way of helping a foreign government keep track of details....and so on?

It is certainly possible to have a discussion about oil and its alternatives, but let's not imagine that such a discussion can be value neutral when the recent IPCC report suggests that we are on a sinking ship.

People on The Oil Drum like to take the big picture about the future of the global economy... shouldn't we consider how the choices made in the global economy affect the global ecology? Is it really possible to discuss technologies that could if successfully promulgated kill the planet and human life on it as value neutral alternatives?

I suppose you could say climate change is beyond the mandate of The Oil Drum... but isn't the word "future" in "discussions about energy and our future"?

Is there any more basic fact about our future than the fact that the earth is rapidly warming due to global carbon emissions.

So, sigh, no, I don't see how it is possible to have a value neutral discussion about potential ways to use our vast coal resources to enable the economy to keep chugging along and using the atomosphere as a carbon sink.

I just don't get an effort at value neutrality when coal is involved.

I'm not against a discussion of the science/engineering of using coal as a fuel... but I'd expect at least a few comments by the author to the effect that, "if scaled up to widespread use, and if the technological challenges are met, this technology has the potential to enable the increased use of coal, which could hasten the end of human life on earth."

Just a note. A little comment. Some indication of contextual awareness. Since he didn't provide it, I found it necessary to do it myself.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Checkerboard Strangler on February 8, 2007 - 6:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I'm going to assume that your view does not allow for ANY type of fuel infrastructure whatsoever. Am I correct? Not being snide, just getting the impression that you are opposed to ALL fuels.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.