ScienceDirect - International Journal of Hydrogen Energy : Carbon dioxide reforming of methane at near room temperature in lo.

We've thoroughly documented China's aggressive pursuit of Coal-to-liquid conversion industry, including their cooperation with West Virginia University; and, their filing of international patent applications for a direct Coal-to-liquid conversion process that seems, to us, based on our limited knowledge, very similar to what we understand of WVU's "West Virginia Process" for direct coal liquefaction, which uses the Hydrogen donor solvent, Tetralin.
 
We have documented as well that Chinese scientists are at work with Swiss colleagues developing technologies for the recycling, into liquid fuels and organic chemicals, of Carbon Dioxide.

Combined shift and methanation reaction process for the gasification of carbonaceous materials - Patent 3904386

 
We have no idea what the affiliations of these inventors might be; nor, what "coal and other carbonaceous materials" there might be to gasify in the US Virgin Islands.
 
However, even a scientist in that little piece of US Paradise knows what all of us, in Almost Heaven, ought to know: Coal can be converted into other, more versatile, forms of fuel. Note, especially, that they were aware, in the Virgin Islands, of what we, in the US Coal Country heartland, were not aware, that there was: "A two-stage gasification process, developed at Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., at Pittsburgh, Pa.".
 

Fuel synthesis - US Patent 6375832 Description
 
We have previously cited for you the work of the Swiss firm, ABB Research, and their scientist, Baldur Eliasson, and his co-worker, Chang-Jun Liu, in the field of Carbon Dioxide recycling.
 
Herein, through US Patent 6375832, for "Fuel Synthesis", our own, United States Government validates the fact that Carbon Dioxide, as arises in a small way, relative to natural sources, such as volcanism and seasonal vegetative rot, from our varied and valuable uses of Coal, can be converted, recycled, into the liquid fuels we seem so desperately short of.
 
And, note: Just as China has applied for an International Patent, as we've documented, for a technology to convert Coal into liquid fuels that sounds, to us, like a pirated version of WVU's "West Virginia Process" for Direct Coal Liquefaction, this Swiss patent sounds, again to us, like a close copy of the "Tri-reforming Process" as developed and explained by Penn State University, again as we have documented.
 
Are we US coal-producing states, and coal people, bound and determined to let the international community continue to rip us off, just as OPEC has been doing for the past three or so decades?
 

Performance, Efficiency and Emissions Comparison of Diesel Fuel and a Fischer-Tropsch Synthetic Fuel in a CFR Single Cylinder.
 

They don't actually say "Coal", but, when they say "Fischer-Tropsch", we should all, by now, know that they are referring to liquid fuel synthesized from Coal.
 
The information herein confirms other credible documentation we've earlier submitted: Liquid fuels made from Coal, via the Fischer-Tropsch process, are cleaner-burning and better for engines than liquid fuels based on petroleum.
 
Brief comment follows:
"Performance, Efficiency and Emissions Comparison of Diesel Fuel and a Fischer-Tropsch Synthetic Fuel in a CFR Single Cylinder Diesel Engine
Document Number: 2008-01-2382; Date Published: October 2008
Author(s): Jim Cowart, Leonard Hamilton, Pat Caton - U.S. Naval Academy
Abstract:
Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthetic fuels have been shown to produce lower soot and oxides of nitrogen emissions than petroleum-based diesel #2 (D2) in previous studies. This performance is frequently attributed to the very low aromatic content as well as essentially zero sulfur content. The objective of this empirical study was to investigate the high engine load regime using a military FT and D2 fuel in a CFR diesel engine at fueling levels approaching stoichiometric. A testing matrix comprised of various injection advance set points, fueling amounts (e.g., load) above 6 bar gross indicated mean effective pressure (IMEPg), and three different compression ratios (CR) was pursued. The results show that oxides of nitrogen emissions are always equal to or lower running FT compared to diesel. This result is attributed to the higher cetane number of FT leading to lower peak in-cylinder pressures as compared to D2. FT fuel CO\d2 emissions are always lower than D2 as a result of the higher H/C ratio of the FT fuel. At CRs of 15 and 16.5 as well as for near maximum brake torque (MBT) injection advance timings, the FT cumulative particulate matter (PM) emission levels are lower than diesel approaching 8 bar IMEPg, but are similar at the highest loads attained (\mA8 bar IMEPg) with both fuels (at this load excessive sooting resulted). At intermediate-advanced injection timings and high CR, the FT fuel showed no PM advantage with possibly worse levels at some operating conditions. An accompanying heat release analysis showed that the pre-mix burn fraction of FT is always less than D2, and that this pre-mix fraction increases with decreasing CR and injection advance. PM was seen to always decrease with increasing pre-mix burn fraction. However, FT always yielded much less soot that D2 for similar pre-mix burn fractions indicating a more effective diffusion burning phase for FT."
----------
Simply put: Liquid fuels made from Coal are better. They're cleaner and more efficient.
And, recall a report we made more than a year ago, quoting a US Defense Department official, who knew about the genuine potentials for coal liquefaction, and, who, because of all that, suggested that West Virginia could be the "New Kuwait".