Help support AmericanEnergyIndependence.com
Donate today!

Clean Hydrocarbons
By Ron Bengtson

Widespread availability of cheap mechanical power unleashed the industrial revolution, altering the course of human history. Modern civilization began with the industrial revolution and will continue its advance until all nations have the technology and standard of living that defines the modern world.

Global communication and modern transportation systems have changed the geo-economic relationships between nations. Modern technology has overcome the great distances and naturally isolated geographical locations that have historically separated the peoples of the world.

19th century industrialists and political reformers could not have imagined the consequences of the modern world. Globalization of the world economy will give billions of people an opportunity to become modern consumers. Thus, the potential for creating air pollution in the 21st century will be many times greater than what occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Cheap mechanical power requires cheap energy and the primary source of modern civilization’s cheap energy has been fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas. Fossil fuels produce heat energy when burned, and with the heat energy large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other waste gases are also produced. When these waste gases are allowed to escape into the atmosphere, the air we breathe becomes polluted.

The Earth's ecosystems are balanced within natural cycles. The plants and animals that live in the natural world cannot harm the natural balance, because they do not have the tools or ability to create more waste than the Earth's natural systems can recycle or safely dispose of.

A few centuries ago human societies were limited to the natural resources of the land without the benefit of advanced technology. Although ancient civilizations developed primitive technology and often indulged in wars and other savage behavior, their primary waste was human sewage and garbage, which, if left in the city streets, only effected the local populations by spreading infectious diseases.

With advances in modern technology and warfare human societies can no longer behave like animals in the natural world. Modern civilization must use its advanced technology to recycle or safely dispose of man-made waste, or suffer the consequences of poisoning the environment.

The advanced industrial chemicals and by-products created by Modern civilization have become toxic to the natural world. For this reason modern science must develop technology that mimics natural recycling or safe disposal of waste and toxins. Advanced technology must recycle or otherwise safely dispose of man-made pollution – and do it better than Nature by completing the recycling or disposal within human time frames of hours, days or months; not geological timeframe's of thousands or millions of years.

Clean Hydrocarbons are the product of technology that mimics, within human time frame's, the Earth's natural systems for recycling or disposal. Any product or process can be called clean if its manufacture and use does not poison or damage the natural environment.

Clean Vs. Green Energy

by Peter A. Jeschke

"To generate clean, nonpolluting energy from fossil fuels, we just have to capture all of the wastes from energy production and then store that waste back underground where fossil fuels come from in the first place. Intuitively, it seems a simple cycle, using the same equipment and facilities which produce, transport, refine and combust fossil fuels, to capture and return the waste from their combustion safely back into the earth. To date, the energy industries, which produce and refine fossil fuels and generate power, have been taught to be fairly conscientious about capturing the most noxious waste fluids and gases and keeping them out of the environment. But these industries still spew billions of tons of other waste gases into the atmosphere every year, and that has got to stop. When it does stop, and it will, we will be generating clean energy."

"However, no matter how clean we make this energy, it still won't be green energy because it is produced from fossil fuels. Green power generated from renewable resources like the sun and the wind are wonderful concepts which must be pursued and implemented on a global scale as quickly as possible, but that will take decades, and green power is not problem-free. All that new equipment, like solar panels and giant wind mills, must be manufactured and installed, which will result in a demand for new sources of raw materials and the creation of more waste from fuel combustion in the manufacturing processes. Also, wind farms can be quite unsightly and can be especially hard on the avian population, and it's not always windy and sunny. The reality is that fossil fuels will be with us for a very long time, and just because they are called fossil fuels doesn't mean they're obsolete, or that energy can't be produced from them efficiently and cleanly. Through technological advancement, the energy industry has shown there to be an abundance of fossil energy resources still to be found and produced from the earth, and abundant ways to be more efficient. Although they are not renewable resources, for the next several decades, while we become more efficient with them and search for an alternate source of cheap energy, fossil fuels will be sustainable resources."

"What is not sustainable is the rate at which we humans, especially our energy and power industries, are emitting waste gases into the atmosphere. Orders of magnitude more waste than we've already produced will be generated by our children and the world's developing economies in the coming decades. What we need right now are immediate, practical solutions to the problems of capture and storage of waste gases from energy production so that we can continue to enjoy cheap energy, the mainstay of a successful world economy, without destroying the atmosphere."

– Peter A. Jeschke, Geophysicist

Technological Invention

John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club and regarded by many as the Father of America's National Parks, had a love for technological invention. John Muir was a practical man; his work to protect and preserve the natural wilderness was not motivated by abstract idealism. He knew that the wilderness experience holds real intrinsic value worth preserving. When a person spends time in a pristine wilderness environment his, or her, mind and body experience a renewal that cannot be found in any other way. This, John Muir believed, has real value and is something that should be preserved for present and future generations.

"Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and soul alike." – John Muir, The Yosemite (1912).

John Muir was an inventor, he loved machines and technology, and he was a student of science. If John Muir were alive today he would be part of the effort to develop clean hydrocarbons in order to prevent air and water pollution, and preserve the economic progress made possible by cheap mechanical power.

American technology has put a man on the moon, built an orbiting space station, mapped the human genome, and successfully landed robotic exploration vehicles on Mars. It seems reasonable to believe that American scientists and engineers could also achieve a down-to-earth practical accomplishment like developing technology that can generate energy from America's vast fossil fuel reserves (coal, tar sands, and oil shale) without polluting the environment.

The U.S. has more energy in coal than the rest of the world has in oil. The United States has over 500 billion tons of coal reserves, having the energy equivalent of four times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and equal to all of the world's proven oil reserves. If the problem of air pollution caused by burning coal could be solved, America would be free to use its vast coal reserves and no longer be dependent on foreign oil.

Zero Emission Coal Technology

A Zero-Emission Coal Technology has been jointly invented by Dr. Hans Ziock of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Dr. Klaus Lackner of Columbia University, and Dr. Douglas Harrison of Louisiana State University. These talented Scientists have shown that coal does not need to be burned. Energy from coal can be generated via a closed-system chemical process that does not release waste gases into the atmosphere. The process involves anaerobic gasification of coal to produce hydrogen without release to the atmosphere. During the gasification process, pulverized coal reacts with hydrogen and water vapor (hydrogasification) leaving solid ash residue in the reactor vessel. Other contaminants including mercury, nitrogen oxides and ammonia are removed as solids or liquids in purge streams for appropriate treatment and disposal; without direct exposure to the atmosphere. Methane from the gasification process is then reformed to hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and the carbon dioxide is fixed as calcium carbonate (limestone) by reaction with lime. The heat of the carbonation reaction drives the reformation of methane to hydrogen.

The hydrogen generated from the coal (or other carbon based fuels) can be used to power hydrogen fuel cells to create electricity or used as chemical feedstock to produce synthetic fuels. The process is approximately 70% efficient, twice that of a conventional coal-fired electrical generating station - and with no emissions – zero air pollution.

The Zero Emission Coal Technology process begins with the simple fact that carbon (coal or other carbon based fuels) and hydrogen react to form methane or synthetic natural gas. This gas is then passed, with steam, over a bed of hot lime or calcium oxide (CaO) in the reformer to produce twice as much hydrogen as was present at the beginning (half of the hydrogen comes from the water, half from the gas).

The lime absorbs the carbon from the gas and the oxygen in the water to form calcium carbonate—limestone (CaCO3).

The calcium carbonate from the carbonation reaction is recycled in order to regenerate the calcium oxide (lime) which is then used to produce more hydrogen. The recycling process produces a pure CO2 stream ready for use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) or other forms of sequestration.  State-of-the-art enhanced oil recovery with carbon dioxide injection, now recognized as a potential way of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, could add 89-430 billion barrels to the recoverable oil resources of the United States, the Department of Energy has determined. Current U.S. proved reserves are 21.9 billion barrels.

The Zero-Emission Coal Technology will work with all carbon based fuels: coal, tar sands, oil shale, and renewable biomass. The technology can be used to create synthesis gas from coal for the production of synthetic gasoline.

Zero-Emission Coal Technology can be used to make synthetic natural gas (CH4 or SNG) directly by taking half of the product stream from the Hydrogasifier and cleaning it while the other half is used to make the hydrogen to keep the gasifier running. Another variation would be to feed some of the CO2 back to the gasifier to react with carbon to form carbon monoxide (CO). The Zero-Emission Coal Technology could then produce any ratio of H2/CO as Fisher-Tropsch feedstock (synthesis gas—From which synthetic gasoline and synthetic diesel are made.)

Coal gasification, in some form, is the technology that will solve the problem of air pollution caused by coal burning. The U.S. Government has joined with private companies to develop a near-zero emissions Coal gasification and electricity generation Power plant called “FutureGen”, see: www.futuregenalliance.org  However, Coal gasification is not new. The Great Plains Synfuels Plant, has been operated by Dakota Gasification Company since 1988. The FutureGen Power plant is intended to duplicate much of Dakota Gas’s process, but with greatly improved efficiency and the production of hydrogen.

Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) created from Coal gasification is chemically identical to natural gas, and therefore can be used anywhere that natural gas is used today. Methanol and other synthetic fuels can be made from natural gas.  Methanol is an alcohol fuel that can power cars and trucks.

American Energy Independence requires a national synthetic fuels program because the United States does not have enough natural petroleum to make all of the gasoline needed by American drivers. Some people want to believe there is enough oil in Alaska to provide the USA with all the oil it needs—they are wrong. The age of fossil oil is coming to an end. Experts disagree on when the world's oil supply will fail to meet world demand for oil—ten years or fifty years—but all agree that oil dependence is not sustainable. The United States needs a new source of hydrocarbons.

Synthetic Gasoline and Diesel from Coal

“It is a basic lesson of chemistry that the energy needs we meet today with petroleum can be met by other hydrocarbons, including coal, tar sands and oil shale, for which there are centuries' worth of supplies, and environmentally sound methods of production available today or within economic reach. Natural petroleum has a cost advantage as a liquid fuel but the cost of making synthetic petroleum from coal or tar sands is modest and likely to fall substantially if carried out on a large scale and with appropriate research and development.”

“The alleged cost advantages of natural petroleum over synthetic petroleum have probably already disappeared when we recognize the U.S. is paying a fortune in finances and blood for Middle East oil that is not counted in the price at the pump. The dollar costs of U.S. military operations in the Middle East attributable to policing the energy flows are tens of billions a year, if not $100 billion or more. This amounts to a hidden subsidy to oil use of ten dollars or more per barrel exported from the region.”
– America's disastrous energy plan
By Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute, Columbia University.

The United States has an estimated 275 billion tons of recoverable coal in existing mines, equivalent to three or four times as much energy in coal as Saudi Arabia has in oil. And, that's only the coal in existing mines. If you consider the total Demonstrated Reserve Base, the USA has over 500 billion tons of coal. If anyone fears that the USA may run out of coal, consider the North American oil shale deposits which are estimated to hold over 1 trillion barrels of oil.

Today, the USA burns about one billion tons of coal per year in power plants. If the USA used one billion tons of coal each year to produce synthetic petroleum, at 3 barrels of oil per ton of coal, the USA could replace about 65% of its imported oil with domestic coal. (At 12 million imported barrels per day, 65% is 7,800,000 barrels per day.) Just over 20% of oil imported into the USA today comes from Persian Gulf nations, which are also members of OPEC. Less than 45% of oil imported into the USA today comes from OPEC.

Synthetic fuels are needed because Energy Independence cannot be achieved until all cars, trucks, and buses on American highways are powered by fuels made in the USA, from sustainable American natural resources.

However, if we turn to natural gas to replace oil, using natural gas to make synthetic gasoline, only to use up our own limited gas reserves within ten to twenty years, we would find ourselves right back where we started—dependent on the Middle East for our fuel.

Gas-To-Liquids (GTL) technology is a process that will produce synthetic petroleum from America's abundant coal and oil shale reserves. This technology is also called Coal-To-Liquids (CTL).

"Synthetic diesel" and "Synthetic gasoline" are refined from synthetic petroleum, in the same way diesel and gasoline are refined from natural fossil petroleum (oil). The GTL technology starts with syngas (synthesis gas), which can be produced from any hydrocarbon source, including coal, oil shale, tar sands, natural gas, biomass and even from recycled CO2 combined with hydrogen gas produced by electrolysis. In a reaction based on Fischer-Tropsch chemistry, the synthesis gas flows into a reactor containing a catalyst and is converted into synthetic hydrocarbons commonly referred to as synthetic petroleum.

Fischer-Tropsch technology is ready now:
Rentech, Inc.
Syntroleum Corporation
Syngas-to-Liquids Technology
Coal/Biomass Gasification with Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Production
size: 125 Kb - 6 pages

Study: Coal-to-liquids plant feasible

—New solution to foreign oil dependency employs Nobel Prize-winning chemistry
Clean Diesel from Coal
—A novel catalytic method could let you fill up your tank with coal-derived diesel, cutting U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
Breakthrough Turns Coal Into Clean Diesel
Rutgers coal-to-diesel breakthrough could drastically cut oil imports —New coal-to-diesel technology may be “key to energy independence”
Coal-to-diesel Breakthrough Could Drastically Cut Oil Imports

B-52 tests alternative GTL jet engine fuel
Pentagon Plans Major Alternative Fuel Buys
Air Force tests synthetic fuel in ground vehicles
B-52 flight uses synthetic fuel in all eight engines
Air Force Research Laboratory leads way to test, certify synthetic fuels
Air Force synthetic fuel team receives the Federal Aviation Administration's 2007 Excellence in Aviation Award

Department of Defense - Clean Fuels Initiative size: 1Mb - 22 pages

GTL (Fischer-Tropsch) technology can be used to convert America's vast coal and oil shale deposits into synthetic petroleum and synthetic diesel, gasoline and jet fuel, thus enabling the use of America's alternative hydrocarbon resources.

However, private investors are not going to rush into the construction of new synthetic fuel refineries because they do not want to be in a position like they found themselves in when President Reagan cut-off federal support for similar technology developed by the Carter Administration. When Ronald Reagan took office he ended the national synthetic fuels program and federal support for synfuels development, forcing private companies to abandon their investments in synthetic petroleum refineries here in the U.S.

Engineers who worked with the original Synthetic Fuels program admit that it had problems, but that was over 25 years ago. Considering the extraordinary advances in technology over the past 25 years, imagine where the synthetic fuels technology would be today if President Reagan had kept the program going.

Fortunately, private companies and the DOE have quietly continued the research and development of Gas-To-Liquids technology. The GTL technology, available now, can produce synthetic petroleum from coal for less than $40 per barrel.

See: Frequently asked questions about synthetic fuel

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer believes his state could produce oil and other petroleum products from the vast coal reserves in southeastern Montana.

The Defense Department is pushing the idea to develop a single American-manufactured fuel that it can buy, but wants it developed privately, Schweitzer said.

Fired up by the idea, Schweitzer intends to devote much of his time in the coming months exploring the possibility of having one and possibly more of these plants built in Montana by private industry.

The coal-conversion process produces no air pollution, uses no water and creates electricity as a byproduct. The petroleum fuels produced could be shipped out of state by pipeline.

At the heart of the plan is using an updated version of the Fischer-Tropsch technology, developed by two German scientists in 1923 to convert coal into petroleum products. Hitler used the process to power German tanks and other vehicles during World War II when the country was short of oil. More recently, when much of the world wouldn't trade with South Africa during apartheid, that country used the same technology to produce oil.

"What you do first is the coal gasification process," Schweitzer said. "You crush the coal up, heat it and get your gas. From there, it's a chemical reaction. You have a big tank and use either cobalt or iron as the catalyst. What you get out of that is the building blocks to make fuel. You get carbon monoxide and you get hydrogen. With those two, you can make any fuel you would like to make - diesel, gasoline, heating fuel, plastics, fertilizer or pure hydrogen."

So why hasn't anyone been using Fischer-Tropsch technology in the United States?

"It's kind of been left on the shelf because this process costs more than oil's been worth," the governor said.

The answer, Barna told Schweitzer, is that the break-even point with Fischer-Tropsch technology is when oil is $35 a barrel. When oil costs more than $35 a barrel, it's cheaper to make these fuels from coal through this technology.

Pentagon officials "are interested in this obviously for national defense, where they find that 50 percent of their fuel to run the military is coming from countries we're likely to be fighting, and that is not a very good position to be in," Schweitzer said.
Schweitzer pursues coal-to-oil conversion

By CHARLES S. JOHNSON
May 21, 2005
Gazette State Bureau
Billingsgazette.com
Billings, Montana

Montana's Coal Cowboy—America's dependence on foreign oil — President Bush called it "an addiction" in his State of the Union address — has become a threat to the country’s economy and security.   While the president spent much of last week promoting energy alternatives of the future, like hybrid cars and fuels made from wood chips, the governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, says there's something we can have up and running in the next five years.   What he has in mind is using the coal, billions of tons of it, under the high plains of his home state. The governor tells correspondent Lesley Stahl he wants to use an existing process to turn that coal into a synthetic liquid fuel, or synfuel...

Governor and Companies Announce Agreement to Build CTL Facility in Montana

West Virginia’s Governor Joe Manchin plans to harness West Virginia’s coal resources to address once and for all the vulnerability of America’s refining capacity and the nation’s dependency upon foreign sources of oil. ...These facilities will convert coal into liquid fuels ...the West Virginia Coal Conversion Initiative will focus on the development of state-of-the-art, multi-product facilities that would adapt to the changing needs of the marketplace and produce whatever product is most needed at a specific time – be it natural gas, diesel fuel, jet fuel, hydrogen, or chemicals. "We are committing today to a complete coal conversion plant package, comprised of property, a permitting plan, identified and ready fuel supplies, and a knowledgeable and trained work force," the governor added. "These efforts, along with those of other states, will ensure West Virginia's energy independence well into the future. With any estimated 50 billion tons of coal reserves in West Virginia that could make up to 3 barrels of liquid fuel per ton, it just makes common sense for our state to take the lead in advancing our efforts to the next level."
— Manchin unveils coal conversion mission
— American Energy Security Declaration of Energy Independence

Louisiana Governor announces coal gasification plant — Jun 15, 2006 Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco today announced that Synfuel, Inc. is proposing to build a major coal gasification plant in Ascension Parish. The proposed new facility will use lignite from north Louisiana as a primary raw material to produce gasoline, ethanol, synthetic gas, electricity, steam and methanol. Synfuel's total capital investment once the project is complete is expected to be more than $5 billion.

America has the technology and natural resources to end its oil dependence now by replacing all gasoline and diesel made from imported oil with synthetic fuels made from American coal and oil shale. But, fear of cheap foreign oil is holding investors back. Investor's want some certainty - or at least a long-term government policy that they know they can count on to protect their investments from OPEC price manipulations and the whims of partisan political ideology.

The up-front investment required for building a Coal-To-Liquids (CTL/GTL) refinery would be hundreds of millions of dollars, so private companies don't want their money tied up in a GTL investment if world oil starts flowing again at under $40 per barrel. Until the American people, as a nation, place a value on energy independence, synthetic fuels will not compete with the price of Saudi oil. (Saudi oil can be pumped out of the ground, loaded onto the tankers and shipped to the USA, or anywhere in the world, profitably, for less than $5 per barrel.)

A guarantee from the U.S. Government to purchase Synthetic petroleum made from American coal or oil shale for $40/barrel (if the supplier could not otherwise receive a higher price) would stimulate the largest capital investment in U.S. history.

No way out? The barriers to developing an alternative fuels industry are not technical, but social
—By Galen J. Suppes, Ph.D. and Truman S. Storvick, Ph.D.

Write your legislators in Congress today and ask them to support federal incentives for the development of Synthetic Liquid Fuels.

Why Are We Importing $800 Billion in Crude Oil A Year?

This has to be one of the most profound questions of the century, because we can produce less-costly and cleaner fuel right here at home—fuels that are fully compatible with our existing petroleum pipeline infrastructure and that can be used to run our vehicles on a days notice.

Part of the reason we are importing $800 billion in crude oil per year is because the people of our great country are not aware that we are capable of replacing the crude oil with fuels made right here in the USA.

Within the continental U.S., we have the capability and resources to replace all imported crude oil with synthetic fuels produced from coal, natural gas, and biomass. These fuels can be produced for less than $1.00 per gallon in the near future with prices less than $0.75 per gallon achievable in the 10-year timeframe. These fuels would be fully compatible with our liquid fuel pipeline infrastructure and have the potential to be considerably cleaner than current diesel fuels. Furthermore, production of these fuels could be incorporated with electrical power generation, ammonia production, and production of certain chemicals with improved efficiencies and lower costs for these products—this is achievable in the 10-year timeframe.

Fischer-Tropsh fuels can be produced in vast quantities for less than $1.00 per gallon. The following are a few facts about these fuels:

• Invented in 1930’s in Germany.
• The first commercial facilities converted coal to diesel and jet fuel during WWII in Germany. These were known as Germany’s synthetic fuel industry.
• After WWII, the technology was taken from Germany and pilot plants were built in the U.S.
• In the 1950’s, South Africa built commercial plants. South Africa continues use of this technology today producing liquid fuels from coal and natural gas.
• Shell Oil has a 1990’s vintage production plant in Indonesia and was selling product to the California market for $28 per barrel in 1997.
• Major oil companies are pursuing this technology more than any other to provide a replacement for crude oil when their reserves run out. The major oil companies know that Fischer-Tropsch technology is the technology that will replace drilling for crude oil.

You have not heard much about these fuels because they are not backed by the big lobbyist groups that back other alternative fuels. Also, these fuels are past the “exciting claims” research stage like fuel cell technology. These fuels have been produced for decades; they are being produced and used today.

The time is right for the leaders of our great country to take this technology forward. The American people and U.S. economy will be the benefactors of this technology.

Countries like Iran and Iraq will largely determine their own fate on this issue. Combined, they have $80-$200 trillion in oil reserves (at $100 per barrel). Depending upon the rigor with which the U.S. advances domestic production of Fischer-Tropsch technology, the reserves could retain their value or become obsolete and worthless. The ability of the U.S. to totally depreciate the value of the oil reserves of Iran and Iraq could be the greatest incentive for these and other countries to become better neighbors.

The best fit for U.S. interests is the production of Fischer-Tropsch liquid fuels from coal. This would cost a bit more in the short term than production from natural gas, but the long-term costs would be less. Also, production from coal will have the greatest economic impact on the U.S. economy. Also, production from coal could lead to the more-efficient production of electricity as well as the efficient production of other valuable chemicals like ammonia.

The activities of the major oil companies on this technology is best indirectly determined by a thorough scrutiny of the large number of patents they have filed.

Galen J. Suppes
Professor of Chemical Engineering
University of Missouri – Columbia

Recommended reading:

Energy Disclosed: Abundant Resources and Unused Technology By Galen J. Suppes, Ph.D., P.E.  and Truman S. Storvick, Ph.D., P.E.   Our purpose for writing this book is to help you, our reader, better understand energy sources and the ways they are made available for your use. While biology, chemistry, and science are commonly taught in secondary schools, colleges, and universities; energy science and technology are only sparingly covered outside college curriculum in engineering or geology. It is important that every citizen be well enough informed to ask candidates for elected office to explain proposed energy policy. Our objective is to provide energy information that can help this interested citizen.

Synthetic Diesel fuel made from U.S. coal and used as fuel for a new generation of highly efficient diesel cars could free America from dependence on foreign oil.

Coal in cars: great fuel or climate foe? —Turning coal into gasoline-like fuel has several advantages. It would use America's vast coal reserves. It would reduce the nation's thirst for foreign oil and help dampen spikes in energy prices. There's just one problem: It is not "climate friendly" – at least, not yet...

The technologies required to produce large-scale supplies of clean liquid fuels from coal are not on the drawing boards or in laboratories. They are in use around the world today, from countries such as South Africa — which has long relied on coal liquefaction to provide a substantial percentage of its transportation fuels — to China, India, Indonesia and the Philippines. All of these countries are making multi-billion dollar investments in coal liquefaction plants.
www.futurecoalfuels.org

Brighter, cleaner outlook for U.S. diesels —Today’s diesel engines provide 25 to 35 percent better fuel economy than typical gas engines. Jesse Toprak, executive director of industry analysis for Edmunds.com, an automotive Web site, reckons that over the next few years, diesel sales in the United States could rise to 5 or 10 percent of all auto sales. He said automakers need to get ahead of the trend, just as Toyota did with its popular gas-electric Prius hybrid. “Automakers can’t ignore diesel, or they will be asking themselves why in a few years if diesel takes off, just as they did when the Prius became so popular,” Toprak said. “It’s all about getting ahead of the curve. When you get into making cars that use alternative fuels you are taking a risk, but the risk is that gas prices will go down and you might find people are more interested in gas-powered cars again. Realistically, that’s not likely to happen.” An important ingredient in the adoption of diesel-powered cars is their ability to use bio-diesel made from biological sources such as vegetable oils, said Toprak. If carmakers give drivers the option of saving money on fuel and also the option of being “green,” they will tap into a growing niche market, he said. “For all these new fuel technologies, ease of access to fuel is key to adoption rates,” Toprak said. While diesel is widely available at the 170,000 gas stations across the United States, only about 1,000 of them carry E85. Toprak also notes that new federal rules mandating a shift to low-sulfur diesel, which reduces dirty soot, will allow diesels to be sold again in big markets like New York and California.

—Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) Clean Diesel Fuel Alliance: www.clean-diesel.org
Diesel Technology Could Cut Oil Imports — New regulations in the United States mandating ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel are igniting interest in efficient diesel vehicles. “The cleaner diesel fuel opens the door to diesel cars that can be as clean as gasoline cars, yet offer 20 to 40 percent better fuel economy,” says Richard Kassel, senior attorney at the National Resources Defense Council. Such efficiency gains approach those of gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles and, as with hybrids, the clean diesel vehicles would also cut carbon-dioxide emissions by reducing the total fuel consumed.

BMW Advanced Diesel with BluePerformance —BMW's BluePerformance technology filters and actually cleans the exhaust before it leaves the vehicle, making this generation of Diesel engines the cleanest BMW has ever produced. With reduced emissions comparable to gasoline vehicles, and near-elimination of both smoke and NOx emissions, BMW Advanced Diesels will be every bit as clean as CARB-legal gasoline engines when they are introduced in the US in 2008.

Volkswagen is betting that diesel engines will be more efficient than fuel cells:
VW BlueMotion 60 MPG diesel car
New VW BlueMotion Brand Introduced in Geneva

The Alliance for Synthetic Fuels in Europe (ASFE)  is a consortium of European Car Makers and fuel suppliers united to develop and promote synthetic fuels.

EPA Heavy-Duty Highway Diesel Program
www.clean-diesel.org —Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) Clean Diesel Fuel Alliance

China to build largest dimethyl ether project —China is to start construction of its largest dimethyl ether (DME) project with an annual output of three million tons to reduce rising oil consumption. Coal-based DME is a clean-burning alternative to diesel and gasoline.

Volvo to develop third-generation DME engines for heavy vehicles

Honda Develops next generation V-6 diesel:

Honda Motor Co., Ltd., announced it has developed a next-generation diesel engine that reduces exhaust gas emissions to a level equal to a gasoline engine. Honda’s next-generation diesel engine employs a revolutionary NOx catalytic converter that enables a great reduction in NOx emissions sufficient to meet stringent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier II Bin 5 emissions requirements. The catalytic converter features the world’s first innovative system using the reductive reaction of ammonia generated within the catalytic converter to “detoxify” nitrogen oxide (NOx) by turning it into harmless nitrogen (N2).
        Honda designed the catalytic converter for use with its 2.2 i-CTDi diesel engine, which has earned widespread praise for quiet, clean operation and dynamic performance since its introduction in 2003 on the European Accord model. By further advancing combustion control, the 2.2 i-CTDi delivers cleaner exhaust to the NOx catalytic converter. Honda achieved this by optimizing the combustion chamber configuration, reducing fuel injection time with a 2,000-bar common rail injection system and boosting the efficiency of the EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) system. Thanks to these improvements, Honda has reduced the amount of NOx and soot normally found in engine exhaust, while increasing power output.
        Along with developing superior technology for cleaning exhaust gas, Honda plans to address other technical challenges in developing clean diesel engines, such as handling diesel fuels with different cetane numbers and meeting U.S. On-Board Diagnostic System requirements. Honda plans to introduce its next-generation diesel engine in the U.S. within three years.
Honda Develops Next-Generation Clean Diesel Engine
Honda Diesel Sets New World Records

As energy demand continues to rise, so does concern over the future availability of conventional fuels. There is a growing need to find alternative fuel options, such as synthetic fuels. These fuels can be used in existing diesel engines and fuelling infrastructure and significantly reduce exhaust emissions, while diversifying energy sources and improving security of supply. While conventional transport fuels are products of crude oil refining, synthetic fuels can be produced from natural gas, biomass, or coal feedstock. Synthetic fuels derived from natural gas are already available and the supplies are due to increase over the next few years. Once commercially available, synthetic fuels made from biomass could substantially decrease global greenhouse gas emissions.

Synthetic fuels are compatible with hybrid engine technologies and, thanks to their unique properties, could enable advanced combustion engine technology such as homogeneous combustion.
www.synthetic-fuels.org

New engines promise
advanced fuel efficiency and performance

100% Alcohol Engine

“The Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) produced today, use fairly typical gasoline engines, which, because they must retain dual-fuel capability, are not able to take full advantage of the favorable combustion characteristics of alcohols.
“Engines optimized for alcohol fuel use, on the other hand, may yield efficiencies that exceed that of state-of-the-art diesel engines—or, about one third higher than that of FFV engines. In earlier engine research at EPA with neat [100%] methanol and ethanol, for example, over 40% brake thermal efficiency was achieved over a relatively broad range of loads and speeds, with peak levels reaching over 42%. Similar work has also been performed with E85, yielding up to 20% fuel economy improvement over baseline gasoline engines.”
Economical, High-Efficiency Engine Technologies for Alcohol Fuels   size: 134 Kb - 10 pages
— By Matthew Brusstar, U.S. EPA National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, and Marco Bakenhus, FEV Engine Technology, Inc.
Ethanol Engine efficiency exceeds gasoline engines, giving greater miles per gallon (MPG) with ethanol fuel:
High Efficiency and Low Emissions from a Port-Injected Engine with Alcohol Fuels    size: 70 Kb - 7 pages
— By Matthew Brusstar, Mark Stuhldreher, David Swain and William Pidgeon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

An Engine for the Future

Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) “The HCCI engine is promising the high efficiency of a diesel engine with virtually no NOx or particulate emissions. The engine can operate using a variety of fuels. Given this mix of attributes, it is not surprising that considerable research is going on around the world on the HCCI engine.” Reported by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
HCCI engine research links:
UC Berkeley
Combustion Research Facility
Radical Engine Redesign Would Reduce Pollution, Oil Consumption

Multi-Fuel ICE

FlexDI™ One Engine – Any Fuel  — Availability and variety of fuels in the future will mean that vehicles may need to use more than one fuel type. Vehicles may need to run on combinations of gaseous and liquid fuels or mixtures of liquid fuels. Some engines may need to use two separate fuels at the same time.  FlexDI can enable use of a variety of liquid fuels or mixtures of liquid fuels depending on what fuel is available. This is particularly important in remote regions where fuel supply is uncertain. One engine design can feasibly operate on all current liquid fuels with out any modification.

The StarRotor is another multi-fuel engine.

The NEVIS(New Exhaust Valve & Intake System) engine

An innovative Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) that within a single patented engine design is estimated to nearly double the fuel efficiency attained by conventional ICE technologies. Its modular cylinder construction (e.g. 2, 4, 6 or 8 cylinder engines from a one-cylinder block) offers opportunities to enhance manufacturing efficiency while allowing a single facility to produce a wide range of engine sizes for varying power needs suited for diverse applications (automotive, aeronautic and marine). Its versatile design means it can be configured to be fuelled not only by gasoline but also by diesel, hydrogen and bio-fuels.

NEVIS Engine Company Ltd.  www.nevisengine.com

The Incredible Shrinking Engine

A new engine design could significantly improve fuel efficiency for cars and SUVs, at a fraction of the cost of today's hybrid technology. Daniel Cohn, a senior research scientist at MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center says: "An 2.4-liter midsize gasoline engine would be a rocket with our technology."

Cohn and his colleagues have created a design that they believe could triple the power of their test engine, an advance that could allow automakers to convert small engines designed for economy cars into muscular engines with more than enough power for SUVs or sports cars. By extracting better performance from smaller, more efficient engines, the technology could lead to vehicles whose fuel economy rivals that of hybrids.
March/April 2007 issue of Technology Review

An engine for optimum efficiency and environmental benefit

A new automotive engine technology is being developed that promises to provide increased fuel efficiency while at the same time increasing engine performance and significantly reducing exhaust pollution. The engine is called a Quasiturbine. For more information visit QUASITURBINE ENGINE - USA. Or for a detailed discussion of the principles of Quasiturbine design and performance, download Quasiturbine: strategic potential as a photodetonation engine from the Quasiturbine web site.

A white paper describing the Quasiturbine in detail is available for download from eMotionReports: “Amidst myriad, and many times unsupportable, claims of technological breakthroughs – fuel cells being at the top of this contention – capable of inducing vehicular design and engineering paradigm shifts, we have concluded that the Saint-Hilaire Quasiturbine may very well provide impetus to retire the piston engine. eMotionReports.com is providing a comprehensive white paper that will perhaps allow you to reach the same conclusion.”

The Rand Cam™ is another new technology, similar to the Quasiturbine.

The StarRotor is another multi-fuel engine that uses the Brayton cycle, the same thermodynamic cycle employed by jet engines.

Coal Mining and the Environment

There is still the issue of coal mining abuse—mountain top removal and the burial of streams and rivers. These issues need to be addressed separately from the Zero emission coal technology. The crimes of the coal mining companies occur when they leave the land scarred and ruined. If the mining companies were required to restore the land and protect the lakes, rivers and streams, and the water table, then the environment and coal mining could co-exist in harmony.

Southern California is an example. Although no coal mining takes place in Southern California, mountain top removal does occur, not by mining companies, but by real estate developers. Many of the coastal mountains of Southern California have been leveled and covered with houses. The adjacent canyons and creeks have been filled up with earth taken from the tops of nearby mountains to create valuable flat or terraced suburban neighborhoods. Millions of acres of farm land and sagebrush covered hills have been bulldozed for housing.

Many California residents were saddened by the sight of the land being torn apart. But twenty — thirty years later, the hills, now covered with houses, are beautifully landscaped.

Perhaps the solution to the coal mining problem will come from landscape architects who will design the final look of the restored land.

The Zero Emissions Coal technology, because it uses water combined with coal or other carbon sources, lends itself to hydraulic mining:

Because the Zero Emissions Coal Technology process accepts coal and water, hydraulic cutting may be reintroduced into coal mining, hydraulic (pipeline) transportation will be preferred and storage of coal may be done, like oil, in covered tanks... coal dust could become a thing of the past.

The waste water from the hydraulic mining could be used in the process, extracting hydrogen from the water, thereby preventing the waste water from entering nearby streams or the water table. Perhaps the hydraulic cutting technology will replace the primitive mountain top removal.

Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage

The capture and safe disposal of waste CO2 is called Carbon Sequestration. Modern science has developed the technology that is needed to accomplish the task of CO2 capture and disposal. The Zero Emission Coal Technology, developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory, makes possible the construction of coal power plants that have no smokestacks—zero emissions.

However, the replacement of the old coal burning power plants will not be profitable – private companies cannot be expected to do this voluntarily. It will require federal legislation, enforcement and financial incentives.

Is it fair to ask the utility companies and energy distributors to make the up-front capital investment required to build zero emission power plants? The consumer will ultimately pay the bill in the form of higher energy prices, but should private energy companies be required to make the enormous investment before any energy is created or sold?

Should the expense of CO2 capture and disposal be a public responsibility or should the energy companies pay for it?

Asking energy companies to pay the up-front costs for the collection and safe disposal of all waste gases and hazardous by-products resulting from the public's energy consumption is like asking grocery stores to pay for the costs of building public landfills before any groceries are sold.

Can society politically and economically justify the cost of capturing and storing CO2 and other waste gases?

Compare modern civilization's dilemma of CO2, and other man-made toxins and greenhouse gases, with primitive civilization's dilemma of human sewage. Primitive societies allowed human sewage to flow alongside their city streets, which is believed to have contributed to the 14th century plague that spread across Asia, Europe and Great Britain with such virulence that the course of human history changed forever. Modern civilization is partly defined by its extensive sewage systems. We who benefit from modern, publicly mandated, sewage systems should be grateful to the city planners who had the foresight and political will to build them.

Modern civilization must stop using the atmosphere, rivers, lakes and oceans of the world for disposal of man-made waste, just as primitive societies had to stop using their city streets for sewage disposal.

Public planners need to be given the authority to plan for 50 years from now, not just for the next election. Politicians and Corporate CEO's invest in the next election or business cycle, rather than investing in the best course for future generations. The United States of America needs a public institution that is insulated from short-term cycles defined by elections and corporate profits. America needs a public representative that will act in the selfish interest of future generations.

The Zero Emission Research and Technology Center (ZERT) is a research collaborative focused on understanding the basic science of underground (geologic) carbon dioxide storage to mitigate greenhouse gasses from fossil fuel use and to develop technologies that can ensure the safety and reliability of that storage. ZERT is a partnership involving DOE laboratories (Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) as well as universities (Montana State University and West Virginia University).

References:
Coal
Coal rush
Coal to Liquids
Our Energy Future
About Coal Liquefaction
CO2 Boosts Oil Recovery
www.DieselFromCoal.org
www.NextGenEnergy.org
www.FutureGenAlliance.org
Department of Defense - Clean Fuels Initiative size: 1Mb - 22 pages
Frequently asked questions about synthetic fuel
Before the oil runs out: the search for alternatives
Proposal to Western Governors From the Office of Secretary of Defense size: 21Kb - 2 pages
Unconventional Fuels —U.S. Naval Petroleum Reserve and Oil Shale Activities

Oil Shale:
    It is estimated that nearly 62% of the world’s potentially recoverable oil shale resources are concentrated in the USA. The largest of the deposits is found in the Green River formation in north-western Colorado, north-eastern Utah and south-western Wyoming. There are also the Devonian-Mississippian black shales in the eastern United States. The proved amount of shale in place is put at 3, 340 billion tons, with a shale oil content of 242 billion tons, of which about 89% is located in the Green River deposits and 11% in the Devonian black shales. Recoverable reserves of shale oil are estimated to be within the range of 60-80 billion tons, with additional resources put at 62 billion tons.
    Recoverable resources of shale oil from the black shales in the eastern United States were estimated in 1980 to exceed 400 billion barrels. These deposits differ significantly in chemical and mineralogical composition from Green River oil shale. Owing to its lower H:C ratio, the organic matter in eastern oil shale yields only about one-third as much oil as Green River oil shale, as determined by conventional Fischer assay analyses. However, when retorted in a hydrogen atmosphere, the oil yield of eastern oil shale increases by as such as 2.0-2.5 times the Fischer assay yield.
    Green River oil shale contains abundant carbonate minerals including dolomite, nahcolite, and dawsonite. The latter two minerals have potential by-product value for their soda ash and alumina content, respectively. The eastern oil shales are low in carbonate content but contain notable quantities of metals, including uranium, vanadium, molybdenum, and others which could add significant by-product value to these deposits. WEC: Survey of Energy Resources

About Oil Shale
Oil shale — Wikipedia
America’s Oil Shale Resource size: 2.7 MB - 31 pages
Oil shale may finally have its moment —In a dusty corner of northwestern Colorado, an energy of the future is beginning to look like the real thing... So many Americans have no idea that they're sitting on a resource several times the size of Saudi Arabia's. The fact is that it's entirely possible to produce this stuff. Our technology works. There's no doubt about it.
28th Oil Shale Symposium —October 13-17, 2008 Colorado School of Mines Campus.

Oil Shortage:
OIL and YOU
Hubbert peak theory
www.FactsOnFuel.org
American Petroleum Institute
The Hubbert Peak for World Oil Production
Why the World Is Not About to Run Out of Oil

Canadian tar sands:
Nuclear power makes sense now

Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC) :
A Practical Fuel-Cell Power Plant
Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA)
New On-Board Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Delivers 50% Efficiency

Direct Carbon Fuel Cells (DCFC):
Direct Carbon Fuel Cell (DCFC) Technology
SRI International Presents Novel Direct Carbon Fuel Cell Technology
Direct Carbon Conversion Holds Promise of Cleaner Fossil Fuel Combustion

Dimethyl Ether (DME):
Dimethyl ether (DME)
International DME Association
DME Production Technology (JFE Direct Synthesis Process)

Gasification, Microreactors and GTL technology:
Coal Gasification
Syntroleum Corporation
Gasification Technologies
www.Fischer-Tropsch.org
Synfuels International, Inc.
Clean Energy Systems, Inc.
International DME Association
Syngas-to-Liquids Technology
The Great Plains Synfuels Plant
Methanol to Gasoline Conversion
www.GreenDieselTechnology.com
Turning Dirty Coal into Clean Energy
How Gasification Power Plants Work
Hydrocarbon Technologies, Inc. (HTI)
Coal-to-Liquids Plant in Southern Illinois
Bulk chemicals by the drop - The Economist
The Alliance for Synthetic Fuels in Europe (ASFE)
Coal-to-Diesel Breakthrough Could Cut Oil Imports
Microreactors could redefine chemistry, nanodrip by drop
Luca Technologies Confirms Real-time Methane Generation
RTI International Synthetic Fuel Technology Earns R&D 100 Award
RADICALLY NEW GTL PROCESS DEVELOPED AT TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), Gasification Technologies
California eyeing coal-GTL technology to cut oil dependence with clean-diesel fuel
Companies Partner to Advance Metal-Bath Gasification Technique for Coal-to-Liquids
Rentech Awarded Patent on Co-Production of Fischer-Tropsch Fuels and Electricity with CO2 Capture

Recommended reading:
Our Energy Challenge by Nobel Laureate Dr. Richard E. Smalley
Zero Interest Financing —Investment Capital for American Energy Independence Projects

Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy This book discusses a new approach based on what we call the “Methanol Economy”. The production of methanol directly from still-available fossil fuel sources, and the recycling of carbon dioxide via hydrogenative reductions, are—we believe—feasible and convenient ways to store energy generated from all possible sources including, alternative energy sources (solar, hydro, wind, geothermal, etc.) and atomic energy. In the short term, new efficient production of methanol not only from still-available natural gas resources (without going through the syn-gas route) but also by the hydrogenative conversion of carbon dioxide from industrial exhausts, offer feasible new routes. In the long term, recycling of carbon dioxide captured from the air itself will be possible. Air, in contrast to oil and gas resources, is available to everybody on Earth, and its CO2 content represent an inexhaustible recyclable carbon resource. Methanol produced from this CO2 (using any energy source to produce the required hydrogen from water), is an excellent fuel on its own for internal combustion engines or fuel cells of the future. It can be also readily converted, via its dehydration to ethylene and propylene, into synthetic hydrocarbons and their products. Consequently, it can free mankind’s dependence on our diminishing oil and natural gas (even coal) resources.   — Nobel Laureate George Olah

Help support AmericanEnergyIndependence.com
Donate today!