Join the Debate!
All comments and users are subject to Townhall's new comments policy.
Login in to Post Your Comments
Joseph64 Wrote: Apr 03, 2012 8:12 PM
The problem with that is any attempt to convert coal into a different energy source is going to release carbon and the green weenies will never allow it.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
Reginald10 Wrote: Apr 02, 2012 5:22 PM
Yes, but it is highly inefficient. It's easier (and more efficient) to convert coal to "producer gas", a mixture of CO2, CO, H2, methane, and a few odds & ends. This producer gas is the feedstock for the petroleum synthysis chemistry.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All
GaryL1 Wrote: Apr 03, 2012 1:35 AM
The "Gas Light" era in Europe was lit by coal gas. They heated coal and distributed the gas that was driven off. A byproduct of the process was a nusence (coal tar) until they discovered that it was a treasure-trove of chemicals. It is how AGFA, Bayer and other companies got their start. In the 1930s, Dupont made a product from coal tar- Nylon! and what a huge impact it and the rest of the plastics made.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
Enviro-Whack jobs are celebrating the demise of America‘s most abundant energy resource, coal. Because coal has just been given the death sentence by Obama and the EPA just as Obama planned.
“So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can,” said candidate Obama “it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
The EPA has issued new proposed rules on carbon emissions that will help Obama keep one campaign promise: Builders of new coal fired power plants won’t be prevented...
Obama Expands War on Energy to Coal