evolution

Is it possible to use coal in order to reduce American dependence on foriegn oil?

I’ve said for some time that reducing this dependence should be (and currently isn’t) a long-term strategic and economic goal of the U.S., in terms of world politics, security and military strength, job creation, and scientific advancement.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) of Montana is advocating for the use of technology that has existed for some time to develop his state’s coal reserves into usable fuel. Montana is currently sitting on 115 billion tons of accessible coal reserves, and who knows how much more lies in other states as well.

Coal can be converted to liquid hydrocarbon by what is called the Fischer-Trobsch process (see the Wikipedia entry). This process was developed by German researchers Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in the 1920s, and used extensively by oil-barren, coal-rich Germany in World War II. It was also used by South Africa to produce fuel during its economic isolation due to Apartheid. South Africa still uses it today; 28% of its fuel needs are met by coal in this way.

To convert coal into liquid hydrocarbon using this process, coal is exposed to superheated steam forming water gas, a synthesized carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas. This water gas is reacted in the presence of a cobalt catalyst to produce liquid hydrocarbons which can then be refined into methane, gasoline, diesel fuel, airline fuel, and plastic. Carbon dioxide and water are other byproducts of the reaction. Gov. Schweitzer claims in the Billings Gazette article linked above that one ton of coal processed in this way can yield 1.5 barrels of diesel fuel (which, it should be noted, is not equivalent to 1.5 barrels of oil) for about $42 per barrel, or $1 per gallon. An equal amount of conventional diesel fuel would cost you about $100 right now.

This fuel has the added advantage of burning more cleanly than conventional fuels. Conventional fuels contain sulfur, mercury, and arsenic, and those materials are left over after the Fischer-Tropsch process is complete. These can be recovered and properly disposed of or used for other industrial purposes. As to the potential effects of mining this coal, Gov. Schweitzer told the Missoula Independent (MT) that he’s not worried:

According to Schweitzer, getting to the coal is also more environmentally friendly than the hard rock mining responsible for much of the environmental damage in the western part of the state.

“For 40 years we have been surface mining in eastern Montana. Basically you peel off the top forty feet of overburden and remove about 40 feet of coal. When you’re done mining you put the material back in,” Schweitzer says. “This process is basically deep farming. The overall environmental impacts are substantially less than hard rock mining.”

One drawback to this technology is the cost of building facilities. Gov. Schweitzer said that $7.5 billion would be required to build a 150,000bbl.-per-day facility, and about $1.5 billion for a 22,000bbl.-per-day facility. However, built into the new energy bill is an 80% loan guarantee toward the cost of these processing facilities, and several companies and agencies are interested (quoted from previously-linked article):

Significant public and private investments will be required before Montana can become a national energy powerhouse. Shell, BP and Exxon are all working on gas-to-liquids technology and Schweitzer recently met with Shell president John Hofmeister and General Electric’s CEO Jeff Immelt to discuss the future of coal-to-liquids in Montana. Schweitzer said representatives from Sasol [the South African company -- ed.] are coming to Montana later this month as well. Sasol is the only company in the world producing liquid fuels from coal on a commercial level, and they do it with patented technology that can’t be bought off the shelf. Syntroleum is also interested in the prospect of turning Montana coal into liquid fuels, but the company will need large investments to develop its own technology.

Syntroleum uses a patented process of turning natural gas into synthetic fuels, and Mel Scott says the company, with Sen. Conrad Burns’s support, is trying to secure federal research and development dollars set aside in the recent highway and energy bills to add coal gasification to the front end of the process.

Will it be a profitable venture? The estimates that I have seen for the break-even point — the point at which producing fuel this way is more economical than getting it the conventional way — is between $35 and $45 per bbl. for crude oil. As we all know, crude oil has not been as low as $45 per bbl. for some time and is now at about $67 per bbl. I don’t imagine that it will ever again dip that low.

All of this makes me believe that using the Fischer-Tropsch process to convert our coal into usable fuel is worth looking into very seriously. China’s government is currently doing so, and China sits on one trillion tons of obtainable coal. Certainly it would be a better use of our tax money to spend it on research and development of these facilities than to spend it on the things you’ll find here, such as the Don Young “bridge to nowhere” or the Barack Obama Entrance to the Brookfield Zoo, just to name two.

This is not the end of the story. I have much more to read about and write on this topic. I truly believe that second only to the active promotion of representative democracy in places that don’t have it, fuel self-sufficience is of prime importance to America’s strategic, economic, environmental, and educational goals for the future.

UPDATE [10.04 11:12]: See the comments for a pair of New York Times articles on this topic and trends in oil prices, courtesy of Pigilito.

The preliminary hearing for Benjamin Appleby, the man charged in the murder of former K-State student Alexandra “Ali” Kemp, was this week, and his videotaped confession to Connecticut police was played in court. Johnson County District Judge Steve Leben ruled that Appleby will stand trial for capital murder.

Two Kansas City Star stories about the hearing and confession can be found here and here (use Bugmenot).

You can read everything I’ve written about this case here. I’ve always felt a sort of personal connection to this case, since I met Ali when I was a graduate teaching assistant at Kansas State. She came to talk to me about a permission slip to get into my section because she was having a hard time with her instructor, and then sat in on my section a couple of times.

So… we can’t buy condoms now, right? Women and black people can’t vote or have jobs any more? Cops can randomly conduct random unannounced searches of my car now, right? Rights are ROLLING BACK (!!!) pell-mell?

Wait… what? None of that is happening?

Since I have spent the day fighting numerous petty personal fires, I’ll leave you with this excellent post by Josh Rosenau, a second one related to a “study” correlating religiosity in society with numerous social ills that I told you about here.

I don’t have a problem with legislation like this at all.

Besides requiring the state to steadily increase its number of alternative fuel cars, the bill would authorize $10 million in state borrowing for a grant program to help local cities and towns and school districts add more alternative fuel vehicles to their fleets. The money would help build refueling stations.

The bill’s backers hopes to reward businesses by offering tax incentives both for the purchase of new alternative fuel cars, and the creation of alternative fuels and refueling facilities.

The proposed Alternative Fuel Institute would be charged with helping develop those new technologies by working with private businesses, state agencies and the university.

Drivers who purchase a hybrid or alternative fuel car would also receive bonuses, from a $2,000 income tax exemption to a free Fast Lane transponder for the Massachusetts Turnpike.

The story also notes that this bill has bipartisan support.

I have believed for some time now that some new movement must take place to drive research and development on alternative fuels. Someone (government, venture capitalists, somebody) must fund alternative-fuel research on a war footing; i.e., fund it as if winning a world-wide war depended on it (because it might). It worked for aviation in World War II, and it worked again during the space race. It ought to be done, if only so we don’t have to hand another red cent over to a Venezuelan Communist thug or a Saudi-backed madrassa.

If you were anywhere near a television last night, you know that the Chiefs lost on Monday Night Football to the Denver Broncos, 30-10.

The main problem seemed to be on the left side of the offensive line. OT Jordan Black, filling in for the injured Willie Roaf, performed well in the Raider game but was pushed around a lot last night. Also, the RB tandem of Priest Holmes and Larry Johnson was effectively bottled up by the Broncos’ defensive line.

Defensively, the Chiefs have still not solved Denver’s running attack, which incorporates the mobility of QB Jake “the Snake” Plummer. Under Gunther Cunningham, the Chiefs are aggressive on defense but seem to have trouble keeping plays contained. It is also clear that CB Dexter McLeon’s NFL days are behind him. He has been burned several times in the Chiefs’ three games this season, and we Chiefs fans are fortunate that we’ll only have to endure one more week with him in the defensive backfield.

It was, overall, a forgettable performance. The short week should help the team focus on the task at hand — this Sunday’s game in Kansas City with the reigning NFC champs, the Philadelphia Eagles. No one in the league has found away to stop WR Terrell Owens. KC’s one saving grace may lie in injuries to QB Donovan McNabb’s chest and K David Akers’s leg.

As for my playoff picks, I entered the week at 12-12. NFC winners: Atlanta, Philadelphia, Minnesota, and St. Louis; Detroit was idle, and Arizona lost in Seattle. AFC winners: Indianapolis, New England, and San Diego. Losers: New York Jets and Kansas City. Idle: Baltimore.

I should have gone with my gut and taken Cincinnati and Pittsburgh to make the playoffs rather than Baltimore and the Jets. The latter were fashionable picks, though, and I went with analysis over my gut feeling. Picking the NFC is hard no matter what since most of the teams are mediocre.

That makes me 7-3 for the week and 19-15 overall.

Lt. Smash visits an “anti-war” protest. RELATED: This Slate piece by Hitch is worth a read. Suggestion: Any time you see the name of a person or group you haven’t seen before, run it through the search engines at LGF, MEMRI, or Google. The probability that someone knows who they are is pretty close to one.

Rarely will I express admiration for any one related to the University of Kansas, but in this case it is well-deserved. KU Chancellor Robert Hemenway speaks up in defense of science education:

“The attack on evolution continues across America and compels me to again state the obvious: The University of Kansas is a major public research university, a scientific community,” Hemenway said in an e-mail. “We are committed to fact-based research and teaching. As an academic, scientific community, we must affirm scientific principles.” [...]

The clueless Board of Education weighs in:

[...] Steve Abrams, chairman of the state board, last week told an audience of social conservatives that evolution was incompatible with Christian beliefs.

“At some point in time, if you compare evolution and the Bible, you have to decide which one you believe,” Abrams said during the gathering in Independence, Kan. “That’s the bottom line.” [...]

So much for intelligent design “not being religion.” The following quote from Chancellor Hemenway is the one you should take away from all this.

[...] “On a personal level, I see no contradiction in being a person of faith who believes in God and evolution, and I’m sure many others at this university agree,” the chancellor wrote.

He added: “The university’s position is not an attack on anyone. We respect the right of the individual to his or her beliefs, including faith-based beliefs about creation. However, creationism and intelligent design are most appropriately taught in a religion, philosophy, or sociology class, rather than a science class.” [...]

These are points I’ve made time and again. I don’t believe that any one who tries to compare evolutionary science with religious belief on the same terms can truly understand either one.

Here’s an example of how not to argue that point, courtesy of hard-left bomb-thrower* PZ Myers (no links, see the Commissar for more) — being religious is “not good for a culture,” the U.S. “is afflicted with particularly malignant forms of religion,” and the problem “may not be religion itself, but irrationality and anti-intellectualism and ignorance, something our country has in volume.” You can read the rest if you can stomach it. He’s howling away in the comments section over at the Politburo Diktat, as many leftists do when you, uh, you know, repeat what they say.

I prefer not to focus on that. This is an issue which concerns most of us, I think, and we all have a stake in its solution. America’s prosperity and position in the world are due in no small part to the scientific progress it has made, and we can’t afford to water that down in a misdirected “search” for traditional values.

Here’s an argument coming from the Left, specifically from our old friend Josh Rosenau (who in his spare time away from blogging is a grad student in biology at KU), about the case in Dover, PA that is worth a read. You’ll notice (apart from the occasional reference to “intelligent-design” defenders as “IDolators”) that no one is called any names or belittled in any way. I quote the good part:

I’m divided in my desires. On one hand, I want this nonsense done with, and if the courts will do the job, the lazy man in me says fine. The scientist in me says that science class should only have science in them, and IDC isn’t science.

On the other hand, I think that legal rulings which simply cut off a controversial social argument are often counterproductive. It weakens the winning side, since there’s nothing to push for any more, and it strengthens the loser, since they have a permanent issue to run on. [Is that an argument in favor of a conservative judicial philosophy? Josh, we hardly knew ye. -ed] Think of Roe v. Wade, Epperson v. Arkansas or Engel v. Vitale. Have those rulings dulled the intensity of the debate over abortion, creationism or school prayer? I doubt it. They have created perpetual issues for partisans to campaign on, only to be powerless to effect any change, leaving them the issue to campaign on in perpetuity.

Maybe that’s what’s really going on here. Josh continues:

My ideal ruling in this case would be narrow. It would cite the religious statements made by school board members and IDolators in Dover and throughout that movement, and leave the issue there. The content of a science curriculum ought to be established in a dialog between the parents in the community and the scientific community, but the courts don’t deal in ought. The court should block the warnings as unjustifiably attacking one scientific theory over others, block the implementation of the IDC curriculum and the introduction of the IDC textbook, but not ban them. Just to reiterate existing case law:

[T]he essential characteristics of science are:

1. It is guided by natural law;
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
3. It is testable against the empirical world;
4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
5. Its is falsifiable.

The contents of science class must meet those standards. If evidence is presented in Board meetings that a secular purpose is served by presenting a theory that meets those criteria, fire away. IDC doesn’t do that, but the forum for that discussion is the community, not a court room.

I would further add that of those things, “intelligent design” might satisfy 1. or 2. but doesn’t come close to satisfying 3., 4., or 5.

He’s right about one thing, though — the proper place for this discussion is in individual communities and not courtrooms. Courts may be the last refuge for those seeking justice, but they are increasingly serving as the last refuge for those without a leg to stand on. Right now, “intelligent design” is in that category.

CORRECTION: Josh says in the comments that “IDolators” is not his coinage. Read his whole series on this topic; I think you’ll see sound points that you ought to keep in mind the next time an anti-religious diatribe foments in your mind (as has often happened in mine).

Seeing this Cox & Forkum caricature and post made me wonder: just where is Kim Jong-il anyway?

He’s referred to in this Taipei Times story as giving orders to his diplomats, but note the language:

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has ordered his officials to arrange a meeting with a high-ranking US official, possibly with President George W. Bush, a news report said yesterday.

Kim told his Foreign Ministry to make arrangements for a visit to the North by a prominent US figure, personally mentioning Bush, former President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as possible visitors, South Korea’s Yonhap news agency reported, citing an anonymous source familiar with North Korean affairs.

Officials at South Korea’s Unification Ministry and Foreign Ministry couldn’t confirm the report.

The cult of personality around Kim is such that if he wanted a policy shift (which is what I assume this would be), I’d think all he’d have to do is get on the state media and say so.

It’s also interesting to note that Kim picked out a successor, according to this story in the Chosun Ilbo.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has decided to pass the mantle of leadership of one of the world’s most repressive regimes to his second son Kim Jong-chul (23), according to AERA magazine, a sister publication of Japan’s Asahi Shimbun.

In its Sept. 26 edition, AERA quotes an informed official as saying Kim Jong-il’s mind was made up. Numerous sources said the last few months have seen a political education campaign on all levels of the Stalinist country including the workplace exalting Kim Jong-chul as the legitimate successor to his spiky-haired father’s personality cult. Such a campaign would be unimaginable without the direct blessing of the North Korean leadership. Leader-in-waiting Jong-chul is referred to as “the Commander” in these lectures.

According to the magazine, Kim, who was born on Sept. 25, 1981, studied at an international school in Switzerland. He is reportedly such a big fan of the U.S. NBA that his doting father built basketball courts at his villas throughout North Korea. Jong-chul ’s older brother Jong-nam (34) fell from grace after he was caught trying to enter Japan on a forged passport.

AERA said “the Commander” could make an appearance in the memorial ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the Workers Party of Korea on Oct. 10, likely to be a massive celebration provided North Korea’s relationship with the U.S. improves.

It’s conceivable that we’re playing nuclear hide-and-seek not with Kim at all but his generals, who are filling in for the 23-year-old Kim Jong-chul while he’s being groomed to take over. It’s also possible that the younger Kim is being propped up as a figure-head to provide cover for a power grab by the army.

I suppose, given North Korean secrecy, that Cylons have replaced the entire North Korean leadership and are doing their evil human experiments there. It’s all speculation at this point.

Iowahawk strikes again — twice.