Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Ups & Downs Hitting Coal

Demand is there, but W.Va. suffering from cuts in production

June 19, 2013

WHEELING — The coal industry’s troubles have been well documented over the past few years, but West Virginia Coal Association Vice President Chris Hamilton said he believes the worldwide need for......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(40)

TrollSlayer

Jun-19-13 10:35 PM

“If you are well educated, smart and offer advice and counsel to the mobs it is, 'like casting gold coins before cats'”

Why does every “well educated, smart” person who has a sure-fire way to make gold out of lead need my gold to do it?

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jun-19-13 9:58 PM

And if you are narcissistic enough to think that any of those BS Plant Food (CO2) patents will amount to diddly squat, you are just effing nutz@!!

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jun-19-13 9:02 PM

Actually, Troll, you're not far off the mark. But, again, it's not according to us, but, to folks like the US Navy, Princeton University, Oxford, Penn State University, the University of Southern California, NASA, the Nobel Committee, and even others. All of them say that CO2 can be reclaimed and then, through the application of environmental energies, be recycled into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons. A welcomed post from "rover 1958", as it appears in comments related to an article about the disbarred nutty attorney: "In my too many years spent in Tokyo I learned two truisms that come to mind. 1. If you are well educated, smart and offer advice and counsel to the mobs it is, 'like casting gold coins before cats'. 2. if you are smart, articulate and have views that are not in broad agreement with the majority .....well, 'the nail that stands out must be pounded down'." Thanks, rover.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jun-19-13 7:46 PM

mikeyd, running out of fuel is really no problem, at least according to WVUGEO, because we can make all the fuel we need from the CO2 in the air. Then when we run out of CO2 we just burn all that fuel to replenish the CO2. Repeat ad infinitum. And it’s less than $3 a gallon and produces no unpleasant byproducts - just nice, clean oxygen. So what are we waiting for?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikeyd

Jun-19-13 7:09 PM

and when we are out of gas we'll go back to coal,then to wood,etc.whatever we need for heat.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Jun-19-13 6:13 PM

geo wrote:< "Carbon Recycling International", using in part technology developed at the University of Southern California, is converting Carbon Dioxide into fuel alcohol which is being sold in service stations in Sweden and Denmark,>

Gasoline in Sweden: $8.27/gal., Denmark: $8.16/gal. Last time I checked gasoline was substantially cheaper here. However, with the imposition of a carbon-tax in the US anything is possible. Carbon taxes Sweden: $150/ton, Denmark around $30/ton (carbon tax+energy tax (2005))

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jun-19-13 5:20 PM

WVUEGO: "You continue to refer to the physical laws concerning conservation of energy, etc. So what?"

DUH! Well thanks for agreeing with us why you are terminally confused by these pie in sky patents.

99% of them are not cost effective because they are like Ethanol: it consumes $1.25 worth of conventional oil to produce $1 worth of ethanol.

Take away the government subsidy, ethanol sales would go to ZERO IMMEDIATELY.

Conversely, if $1 worth of ethanol could be produced with 50 cents worth of energy, EVERY GASOLINE COMPANY would be DOING IT WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY because it is COST EFFECTIVE. DUH!

It really IS that simple, NEOGEO! If it works BETTER than what is currently the standard, free market forces will USE IT to make money and we all benefit.

If it ONLY works because the government is subsidizing it (Solar, Wind, Ethanol, etc.) then it HAS NO MERIT of its own.

Just that simple.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LizardKing

Jun-19-13 5:13 PM

The timber bosses began the destruction of West Virginia, the coal barons continued it with a vengeance and now the shale kings are going to finish us off. And you folks preen, posture and argue as if there is still hope. There is not.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Jun-19-13 4:37 PM

"Control the food and you control the people: Henry Kissinger."

Corn to ethanol.....

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jun-19-13 1:30 PM

Wraith: You continue to refer to the physical laws concerning conservation of energy, etc. So what? Consider: The Sabatier process, which won the 1912 Nobel Prize, converts Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen into Methane. It is an exothermic reaction which throws off enough heat that has almost enough energy content to support the extraction of the needed Hydrogen from water. NASA is exploiting that potential. The deficit in energy, we submit, is far, far less than that expended to drill and frack, and pump and refine, shale gas. The indirect conversion of Coal into hydrocarbons involves partial oxidation, an exothermic process which also provides energy for use in other components of the process. The European CO2-recycling operations all rely, variously, on one form or another of environmental energy, or, on waste industrial process heat, to drive the processes. It takes some energy to make energy available for use. Again, so what?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jun-19-13 1:15 PM

Troll: Actually, Eastman Chemical, who should be well-known to just about everyone here, was, for a long time, converting Coal into Methanol on an industrial, commercial basis down in Kingsport, TN. Your points are valid, but, since Coal and CO2 are being productively, and, according to Chinese sources, very profitably converted into hydrocarbons in other parts of the world, you have to wonder, actually, why it all isn't even being openly reported and discussed in the public media here, where such issues, one would think, would be of at least some interest. The fact that the subject isn't even being publicly examined and discussed, totally aside from being practiced, in the US, leads to suspicions. Little known is the fact, that, after WWII, a Coal conversion industry sprang up all across the US, even on the west coast, with multiple Coal-to-Liquid plants built. TIME magazine even wrote articles touting the glories of Coal conversion. Then, it vanished. Why?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jun-19-13 1:14 PM

WVUEGO, don't display your ignorance, NOTHING MUCH has changed in physics other than that concerning very deep topics like particles physics, string theory, etc.

But the Basics like the laws of Thermodynamics, Maxwell's Equations, Newton's Laws, Bernoulli's principle, have NOT CHANGED.

Technology to make certain things POSSIBLE have changed immensely, but NOT the physics behind them.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jun-19-13 12:55 PM

I honestly hope you’re right, GEO, and I sincerely wish you luck in making your coal/CO2/sewage to fuel and nice, pure oxygen dreams come true. But if NOBODY in America is ALREADY doing these supposedly well-documented well-known processes commercially, un-subsidized, for a profit, I’m skeptical it can be done commercially and un-subsidized. And if you tell me that’s because there’s some sort of Government/industry/media coverup to keep Americans ignorant of these miraculous breakthroughs I’m going to LOL.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jun-19-13 12:32 PM

And, Troll/Wraith, our own US government continues to improve the technology for converting Coal and CO2-recycling biomass, and Carbon Dioxide itself, into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbon fuels. For instance, the US Government just awarded itself ownership of: "US Patent 8,366,902 - Methods and Systems for Producing Syngas; 2013; Idaho National Laboratory; U.S. Department of Energy"; wherein both Coal and CO2-recycling biomass are converted, along with Carbon Dioxide itself, into a hydrocarbon synthesis gas blend of Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide, which syngas can then be catalytically and chemically condensed into a variety of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbon fuels and chemicals, as via, for one instance, the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, which Germany used in WWII to make synthetic fuels out of Coal.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jun-19-13 12:11 PM

So they've figured a way around the Second Law of Thermo since ought six? Well bust my britches. Them new-fangled air to snake oil contraptions really are the bees knees. Maw, crank up the old Model T and ride me down to the General Store. I gotta pick me up some of that there $3 snake oil ol' GEO's sellin'.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jun-19-13 12:09 PM

Troll: None of the European CO2 recycling is being paid for with government money. And, when did we say anything about electric cars? We're just telling you that other people in the world are, quite profitably according to Chinese reports, converting both Coal and CO2 into liquid hydrocarbon vehicle fuels and plastics manufacturing raw materials.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jun-19-13 12:05 PM

Troll: Physics, and much else, has advanced considerably since you took high school science back in ought-six. Since we mentioned Bayer Corporation's CO2 recycling initiative in a post or two below, and since this rag won't allow us to post links, an AOL search of "Bayer's Dream Production" retrieves a nice selection of references. Aside from an admirable portfolio of CO2 recycling technologies, some of which involve reacting CO2 with hot Coal to make Carbon Monoxide, which is then used in the further synthesis of polyurethane plastics, and which technologies are well represented in the patent literature, Bayer has also published several attractive brochures for public consumption that describe their CO2-utilization processes. It is all quite real; you simply are not, for whatever unfathomable reason, being informed.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jun-19-13 11:54 AM

To my point,

I read today that Electric Vehicles (EV) have the WORST depreciation of any vehicle on the road.

The reasons are obvious: they really SUX as a vehicle, the ONLY reason people buy them is for the TAX Subsidy and to feel "good" about being a greenie!

When they are USED, the tax benefit is gone, so hypocrites are REALLY not into paying much money for feeling politically correct!!!!

Hence their resale value is S***t!

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jun-19-13 11:51 AM

WVUEGO can the crap, how much SUBSIDY are the companies in Iceland et al GETTING???

Take away the government support and the market goes to ZIP because it is NOT COST EFFECTIVE.

IF and WHEN it IS cost effective, the FREE MARKET will adopt any SH** that works and gives them MORE PROFIT than conventional fuel sources.

Don't forget, EVIL CORPORATIONS work purely on GREED, right??? So who would NOT want to make more PROFIT????

Until then, FAGHETTABOUTIT!

CO2= PLANT FOOD= uummmh ummm GOOD!

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jun-19-13 11:47 AM

GEO “hysterical rehash of your preconceptions”

We’d prefer you refer to it as “amused reminder of what we learned in high school physics class,” please.

If you want a process that “efficiently uses energy to convert CO2 directly into that darling of the environmental lobby, ethanol” try planting corn and setting up a still. Because no process you can think of, regardless of how much Government grant money you can con/bribe some politican out of, can produce more chemical energy than the solar or wind energy it consumes. You can’t break the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Sorry.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jun-19-13 11:20 AM

And, since we mentioned both Princeton University and the USDOE in some comments below, we'll note that they collaborated in the development of technology that efficiently uses energy to convert CO2 directly into that darling of the environmental lobby, ethanol. Look up: "US Patent 8,313,634 - Conversion of Carbon Dioxide to Organic Products; 2012; Princeton University; This invention was made with US government support ... . The United States Government has certain rights in this invention. The invention relates to various embodiments of an environmentally beneficial method for reducing carbon dioxide. The methods in accordance with the invention include electrochemically or photoelectrochemically reducing the carbon dioxide ... to provide at least ... ethanol".

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jun-19-13 11:10 AM

Troll: You're flailing aimlessly. Do you have anything of substance to submit, instead of hysterical rehash of your preconceptions?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jun-19-13 11:05 AM

Right, GEO. Those Big Energy companies know there’s no real money to be made from shale gas. The real money is in sewage to snake oil. All those BILLION$ they’re spending on leases and drilling and pipelines and refineries are just a ruse to keep the Canadians from figuring it out until we can corner the snake oil market...

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jun-19-13 10:59 AM

And, if you all really think that the oil companies really believe that shale gas is such a big resource, why does Big Oil continue, right now, as seen for one example in: "US Patent 8,461,216 - Process for the Co-Production of Superheated Steam and Methane; June 11, 2013; Shell Oil Company; A process for the co-production of superheated steam and methane includes reacting a gas containing carbon monoxide and hydrogen in a series of methanation regions to produce ... methane ... as a substitute for natural gas. The process ... wherein the gas containing carbon monoxide and hydrogen is synthesis gas obtained by reacting a carbonaceous feed and an oxidant in a gasification reaction (and) wherein the carbonaceous feed comprises coal"; continue to devote time and effort into developing better ways to make a "substitute for natural gas" from coal?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jun-19-13 10:58 AM

GEO, how can I argue with documentation like that? Maybe we could sell our sewage to WVU. Since they’re turning it into $3/gallon fuel they probably want all the sewage they can get...

Talk about "deliberately dense"... LOL

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 40 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: