We have submitted a number of reports from credible sources documenting the fact that the Carbon Dioxide co-product of our coal use can be efficiently collected, through an array of optional processes, and then recycled into additional liquid hydrocarbon fuels or useful chemicals.
Our previous research seemed to indicate that the capture of atmospheric CO2, as opposed to extracting it from the flue gasses of coal-to-liquid conversion facilities and coal-fired power plants, might be the more practical and profitable option.
Herein, we submit additional information, this time from Germany, in support of that position. Comment follows the excerpt:
"Document title
Methanol from atmospheric carbon dioxide : A liquid zero emission fuel for the futureAuthor(s)
WEIMER T.; SCHABER K.; SPECHT M. ; BANDI A.Author(s) Affiliation(s)
Institut fuer Technische Thermodynamik und Thermische Verfahrenstechnik, University of Stuttgart, ALLEMAGNEAbstract
Methanol is a promising liquid energy carrier for the storage of renewable energy. The comparison with hydrogen shows a lower total energy efficiency for methanol. But methanol is easy to handle within the existing transport and storage capacities of the petrol industry. Therefore it causes low investment costs for the infrastructure of a global renewable energy network. For the storage of small amounts of energy like in individual traffic and for the distribution of energy in low populated regions methanol is even the most efficient alternative. Beside hydrogen, a basic component for the synthesis of methanol is CO2. The recovery of CO2 from atmosphere will avoid an infrastructure for CO2-transport to the place where methanol is generated. With solar energy as the energy source a lower energy demand for the recovery of CO2 from atmosphere than from combustion fluegases can be achieved. An integration of biomass as basic product for the synthesis of methanol improves the conversion efficiency from solar energy to methanol."As in earlier references we've cited, the co-conversion of Carbon Dioxide with Biomass seems to result in liquid fuel production efficiencies. Other reports suggest that similar efficiencies can be achieved by co-liquefying coal with some types of biomass. Such inclusion of biomass in liquid fuel conversion processes would increase the amount of CO2 that could be recycled into liquid fuels, above and beyond what direct-capture installations could provide.
Perhaps most interestingly, the report seems to indicate that atmospheric collection would allow "strategic" positioning of CO2 collection and conversion facilities. We are led to speculate, for instance, that a combined CO2 atmospheric collection and CO2-to-methanol conversion facility could be sited in Arizona to take advantage of abundant solar energy to drive the industrial processes.
And, an Arizona site, in addition to the solar-powered industrial extraction and liquid-fuel conversion of atmospheric CO2, would be well-positioned to supplement synthetic extraction processes with biomass, perhaps intensively-cultivated in algae "farms".
Moreover, such extraction of atmospheric CO2 in such a desert state should result in "Carbon Credits", which could, perhaps, be transferred to coal-to-liquid or coal-fired power facilities, the CO2 manufactures, in West Virginia.
In a way, the CO2 generated in WV would be transported, for free, by the wind, to Arizona where solar energy would convert it into liquid fuels.
Presumably, the CO2 conversion facility could then "sell" Carbon Credits back to the coal processing facilities - at some discount one would hope, given that the coal plants are providing raw materials, inadvertent as that provision might be.
Such an arrangement, might, in fact, serve as way to subsidize the construction of both coal-to-liquid and bio-to-liquid fuel conversion plants. An economical way to "dispose" of CO2, as opposed to costly geologic sequestration or misapplied, undirected and meaningless Cap-and-Trade taxation, would benefit both the coal power and the coal-to-liquid-conversion industries. The CO2 conversion facilities could benefit from subsidies in the form of discounted "Carbon Credits" they could sell to coal processors.
Just a thought about a situation far too complex for us to figure out, but:
We can convert our coal into liquid fuels. And, we can recycle the major by-product of our coal-use industries into liquid fuel. All the money exchanged in such enterprise would stay within the United States, as opposed to flowing overseas. We seem to desperately need liquid fuel, so why don't we just make it out of the stuff we have plenty of on hand, and stop buying so much of it from people who don't really seem to like us all that much? Why don't we keep as much of our own money in our own house, and put as many of our own people to work, as we can?.
That makes sense to us. And, coal can do that.