Comments on: Carl Mesters on gas-to-liquid fuel technology

By: hillary

hillary — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:45:47 +0000

what is a list of gas to liquid

By: Benjamin Napier

Benjamin Napier — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 22:39:39 +0000

There are no neat and easy solutions. If carbon is burned, the carbon dioxide spectre exists. Period. While not a pollutant and not causing global warming, it will be produced to irritate the global warming alarmists. If we switch to hydrogen, we will either break water molecules (an endothermic reaction)or go to breaking up natural gas. We will get carbon and hydrogen, and will use a tremendous amount of energy in the process. If we decide to go to electric cars, nuclear power is the only viable option, as using fossil fuels to generate the huge amounts of electricity necessary will produce more carbon dioxide than we now do. Wind, solar and hydro power will be but a drop in the bucket.

There are no free rides. Entropy is king. We must decide whether we wish to continue the Industrial Revolution or return to the Dark Ages. I, for one, vote for the Industrial Revolution.

By: erika

erika — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:37:48 +0000

I think the most important aspect of this story is that it clearly demosntrates that many of the solutions to our current energy crisis, emissions problems, gobal warming, food shortages, etc, will most probably come from corporations and their scientists, eventhough in today’s anticorporate environment most are seen as evil entities. After all, only the private sector has the resourses needed to undertake the kind of changes needed. I for one do not think the government is qualified nor can it be trusted with any additional resourses to really tackle the problems we face. It’s great to hear that corporate scientists are having success with these new technologies!

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:51:20 +0000

My question is, is this cheaper gas I can put in my car? And can it be used more efficiently?

By: Louise

Louise — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:01:47 +0000

I didn’t know you could ‘make’ natural gas…. are you sure about that, Warren? I don’t think that’s the same stuff as what comes off landfills…. I just don’t think it’s that easy.

By: Warren

Warren — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:39:29 +0000

I read about this some time ago. I really like this approach because I personally believe that Natural Gas is the key to all progress in sustainable fuels. Consider that all things decompose into NG (anerobically) and you start to see the potential. Consider this new system of economic development

1. produce products that are as biodegradeble as possible, packaging, Plastic from corn (PLA), boxes, paper with vegetable inks, disposeable coffee cups, plates , bowls, cutlery, etc, and get paid to produce these items.

2. take the waste back once people are done with its initial use, and get paid to take it away.

3. Produce bio-gas through anerobic digestion and sell the NG back to the NG grid, or use it for Combined Heat and Power, and get paid for both of those.

4. Collect the solids from the bio-gasification and sell them as a soil amendment for agriculture. Oh yeah and get paid for that.

This is what i cal eco-thug-enomics. Gettin paid to get paid, to save the planet.

By: Karolyn

Karolyn — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:57:12 +0000

THIS IS NOT A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY SOLUTION. THEY ARE SPENDING PILES OF MONEY ON A SHORT-TERM SOLUTION. NATURAL GAS IS A FOSSIL FUEL, RIGHT?

By: Josh Milton

Josh Milton — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:46:48 +0000

It’s all well and good that this fuel produces less pollution, but out big problem is carbon dioxide – greenhouse gases that are changing our climate. Interesting that that was not mentioned at all.

By: Rubylikeaflame

Rubylikeaflame — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:54:03 +0000

I am glad they are testing it.

By: James Dilport

James Dilport — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:54:30 +0000

What are we waiting on to bring this technology to market? Lets do it, now!