Is coal to fuel cars too good to be true?

[thewayne]

Interesting article. It currently takes 1,000 megawatts(!) of energy to produce 160 gallons of fuel. A process that's been refined for almost as long as we've been driving cars that converts coal into liquid fuel produces the same amount of gas but requires 350 megawatts.

Great savings, neh?

Neh.

It does nothing to reduce greenhouse gasses and doubles the amount of CO2 being released.

So, lower fuel prices for the cost of more CO2? Doesn't seem too good of a deal. But it could be a good bridging technology to keep cars on the road while other fuel/automobile technologies come to market. I wonder if they could make an improved catalytic converter-like device that could be a move effective CO2 scrubber, but then you get problems with the Sontarans (if you're a Doctor Who follower).

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/coaltoliquids.html

Comments

[silveradept]

Not a final solution, that's for sure. But it could be used as a stopgap if we run out of oil before an enterprising and marketable idea escapes instead of being bought and/or quashed by petrocompanies.

Also, Sontarans? I'm more worried about the shadows in the library, myself.

[thewayne.livejournal.com]

I think it's definitely valid to be concerned about shadows in the library, especially considering your profession!

I think the big problem is that if it's adopted as a "stop-gap" measure, when gas prices start going up, it will continue as a "well, just a few more years until we get the bugs ironed out" sort of thing and we'll never get rid of it.

[silveradept]

I agree. We'll switch from one to the other and decide that we really are just fine with the way things are now, because gas is cheap again. Which is the wrong way to be going about it.