Coal-to-oil is a regression in energy development
Thread Content
In a recent research report from the United States, researchers warned that the use of certain alternative energy sources will generate more pollutants than fossil fuels, exacerbating the global greenhouse effect. Coal-to-oil has always been considered a fuel that could replace gasoline, with the hope that it will help reduce reliance on imported oil. However, the production process of coal-to-oil generates large amounts of carbon dioxide; in fact, the greenhouse gases released by using coal-to-oil are twice as much as those emitted from burning regular lead-free gasoline. From an environmental perspective, coal-to-oil is undoubtedly a step backward in energy development. The researchers made calculations based on the goals of America’s alternative energy programs; if, by 2030, one-fifth of the gasoline used in the United States is replaced by coal-derived oil, the environmental impact would be equivalent to the emissions from an additional 34 million cars. Other alternative energy sources may also pose a greater threat to the environment. Even ethanol fuel, hailed as a savior for energy, seems capable of reducing greenhouse gas emissions; however, scientists emphasize that whether ethanol fuel is truly \"green\" depends on its production process as well as the way corn is cultivated. The truth is that people are simply using a trick of covering up problems with paper, producing eco-friendly products in an environmentally unfriendly manner. However, finding clean alternative energy sources is not a dead end; researchers give high praise to second-generation biofuels, believing that these fuels, made from fibers in grasses or trees, can truly contribute to environmental protection – for example, cellulose ethanol can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 85%.
In fact, coal-to-oil is a method resorted to as a last resort. In my opinion, there is no need to worry too much about greenhouse gas emissions, as technology is advancing and the utilization and reduction of greenhouse gases are also areas of research; surely a technology that can consume greenhouse gases will be developed in the future.
In fact, coal-to-oil is a method resorted to as a last resort. In my opinion, there is no need to worry too much about greenhouse gas emissions, as technology is advancing and the utilization and reduction of greenhouse gases are also areas of research; surely a technology that can consume greenhouse gases will be developed in the future.
May I ask, isn’t the vast majority of coal resources used as energy, that is, for burning? ? Needless to say, any use as an energy source will inevitably produce greenhouse gases The key lies in the reserves of energy and the efficiency of its utilization. In the Middle East, natural gas chemistry can be developed on a large scale – is it possible to do the same in China? Next time I see similar expert comments, I’ll first think carefully about whether they apply to our situation. Don’t Americans advocate for spending in advance? Isn’t there also an economic crisis? This post was last edited by tiandawang on 2009-2-14 21:33]
Coal-to-oil conversion allows the large amount of CO2 produced to be utilized more effectively; in contrast, CO2 emissions from direct coal burning are scattered. Overall, coal-to-oil conversion represents an advancement
Coal-to-oil should not be regarded as an alternative energy source; it can only be considered a **strategic resource**
In China, the best way to utilize natural gas is by burning it as fuel (mainly for domestic use). At present, there is a large shortage of natural gas in the country, which necessitates extensive imports. A few years ago, projects related to the use of natural gas in chemical manufacturing were prohibited; instead, several projects for producing natural gas from coal are being developed domestically. The Datang Keshiketeng Coal-to-Natural Gas Project has already received approval for environmental impact assessment, and construction will begin on a full scale this year, with operations planned to start in December 2011.
It can be used as an energy reserve, but not as a direction for development
The biomass energy mentioned by the original poster is certainly excellent – for example, cultivating seaweed or plants to produce biodiesel, or using gasification processes; it results in zero overall carbon emissions. If used as biomass feed or for papermaking, it can also result in a net reduction of CO2 emissions ； If combined with water treatment, it can also handle eutrophic water. The problem is that biomass systems need to have sufficient energy density; otherwise, they require too much space. Moreover, technologies based on photosynthesis are inherently limited by sunlight conditions. Perhaps combining it with ecological wetland projects would be better. Actually, regarding what the original poster and the person in post 10 said, every technology has its advantages and disadvantages. Take solar energy for example; its high cost indicates that its production process involves considerable environmental costs. I think it’s always good to have one more technology to choose from; people can select the most suitable technology depending on the circumstances at hand.