At 4:58 AM 3/1/5, Akira Kawasaki wrote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > The GTL process, as described by WSJ, is interesting. Whatever the >fuel source, natural gas in this instance, is first "combusted" to >produce Carbon Monoxide, then mixed with Water (H2O) and Oxygen. This is >then Cobalt catalyzed to produce a waxy petroleum product, put under high >pressure (and heat?) "to break it into diesel and a smaller amount of >other products, including motor oil." This reminds me of the hydrogenation >process that also came along from Germany in the same era to produce among >others, Margarine, the white solid, waxy, very cheap butter substitute >made from vegetable oils.This was colored butter yellow manually each time >with a food color "pill" in the U.S. due initially to the powerful dairy >industry. Crisco is another such product. You can thank this process for >all the"partially hydrogenated " oil products we consume today. I digress. > > I believe we can have a closed loop solution to the expanding fuel >combustion, exhaust gas problem here. Carbon monoxide is a fuel combustion >product, just as carbon dioxide is. And a GTL process can be used for >waste carbon dioxide (& monoxide) to produce gas or liquid fuel and >recycled. I realize there already exists that loop closing link in the >green plants but our consuming activities are exceeding their capacities. > Poking around reference texts into hydrogenation gave information as to >what the WSJ reporter was talking about in reference to Quatar. The GTL >process is basically the 1933 Fischer-Tropsch process (CO) and/or the >1912 Bergius process (coal). Catalysts used are not only Cobalt but also >Nickel. And the clear fuel produced (among many) is: Kerosene. Diesel >engines do burn kerosene I understand > Perhaps cold fusion or nuclear power could provide the needed recycling >heat energy needs. Of course the are other greenhouse gasses to worry >about but CO2 "remediation" is the major concern. Why only "remediate", >recycle. Nuclear power fits in here somewhere. Now with a cleaner >conscious, we may continue and expand to use a carbon based fuel economy. >: ) >Or is this far fetched? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - end quote of Akira Kawasaki.
The above approach may provide relief from the price of oil, but still ultimately is a process whereby mined carbon is burned and put into the atmosphere. One major problem is that recycling carbon from vehicles or even home heating units is probably impractical. Home heating might be converted to electricity however, and carbon based fuels only consumed at power plants where the carbon can be recycled. Another major problem is that carbon in the form of CO or CO2 must be cryogenically transported, and this makes recycling over long distances less desirable. The fundamental problem is a *source of energy* and if that source is hydrocarbon based then that carbon will ultimately end up in the atmosphere as CO2 unless the carbon is stripped from the hydrocarbon source and only the hydrogen used as fuel. Carbon in the form of coal can not be used in a CO2 emission free economy as far as I know. It appears to me that silicon based energy transport and storage is far more desirable because there is a practically unlimited supply of sand, SiO2 is a valuable end product, and recycling of SiO2 is much easier than recycling of CO or CO2 plus other products of carbon combustion. See: <http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000079095.pdf> Silicon based fuels might even be burned directly in vehicles or homes which can comparatively easily recycle the silicon byproducts, which are essentially inert and are solids. It seems to me that energy transport over medium range land based trades is easily and cheaply handled by hydrogen pipeline, but may also be handled by high voltage DC transmission lines, which are much more easily and cheaply placed underground than AC transmission lines. If hydrogen is locally available, then recycling CO2 or CO at a local level might be accomplished in an energetically favorable way by converting it to methanol for storage. It may be far more favorable to convert hydrogen to ammonia for short term storage or even transportation. Massive amounts of ammonia are already transported around the world and in the US. Compound Energy to produce 1 g hydrogen -------- ------------------------------ Water 143 kJ Methane 18.75 kJ Ammonia 15.4 kJ The ability to produce ammonia is also significant in that is serves as a feedstock for fertilizer production and many other things. Since ammonia is valuable in its own right as a feedstock, and energetically valuable as well, the idea of producing ammonia in wind farms and shipping, piping, and storing as a liquid may not be totally impracticable. Using nitrogen instead of carbon in the transport and storage medium is superior in that the nitrogen need not be return shipped for recycling. It seems reasonable that Si and/or NH3 can be produced using nuclear, wind, solar, or various kinds of renewable energy sources, and then used for long range trades, and bulk electrical energy production. It may be reasonable that LN2 or liquefied air be produced in a local fashion for vehicle propulsion, or that hydrogen can be locally produced for vehicle powering via fuel cells or hydrogen combustion. Direct electricity generation by wind or solar could be backed by energy storage involving Si or NH3 related storage and generation facilities. DC power generation for long range underground transport may be energetically and economically favorable for some distances. Nuclear can continue to be used for electrical generation and possibly for direct hydrogen or NH3 production for energy storage or transportation, and fertilizer production. For intermediate energy transportation by ground, hydrogen can be piped directly. A carbon emission free global energy supply is seeming to be a very real possibility through only the application of existing technology. The cost of solar and wind energy production is rapidly declining, and will soon be economically feasible as our principle energy sources. Nuclear energy is already cost feasible, though some safety and political problems remain. A carbon emission free *global* energy supply, using only existing technology, is an incredibly wonderful possibility. Carbon recycling may indeed play a role in this. The development of new technologies, like an effective hydrogen storage medium, room temperature superconductors, or cold fusion, only enhance these possibilities. The principle missing ingredient is the political will to make it happen, or even to get things moving in a timely and effective way. Regards, Horace Heffner
