Global Resource Corp (fka GBRC)

[kennypooh]

CTL needs the support of "the average American". Only when the public is convinced it will be "cleaner and cheaper", will they demand it and only then will State and Federal legislators act to help it along. Global Resources has one of the few technologies IMO right now that might be clean and cheap enough to get the job done without having to rely on public funding. http://www.futurecoalfuels.org/news.asp

While Silverado should be commended for their efforts to move forward on CTL, their CO2 sequestering plan might present problems for the "clean and cheap" crowd. Of the advancing technologies for Enhanced Oil Recovery, CO2 repressurizing may soon become the least attractive solution.

From the Silverado web site: http://www.silveradogreenfuel.com

"All the CO2 (carbon dioxide) produced while making hydrogen from coal, air, and steam will be sequestered in underground reservoirs where it enhances oil recovery from the declining production of present day oil fields".

"The carbon dioxide can be separated efficiently from the hydrogen fuel via commercial processes and sold for use in enhanced oil recovery processes. The carbon dioxide will be used to repressurize oil fields thereby increasing oil production from declining US oil fields. The carbon dioxide remains sequestered in the underground formation".

The GRC Energy Recovery Technology operates in a vacuum. THE RESULT - nothing is released into the environment.

Other technologies for inexpensive hydrogen other than from CTL:

Hydrogen from ammonia: http://www.ohio.edu/av/scholars/tech/botte.cfm

Radio frequency cracking of hydrogen from salt water (I don't know how to copy this amazing video into the IHUB so send your email address and I will forward it). [e-mail]

Several methods seem to be better alternatives than spending $100 billion in public funds to start CTL which may already be an obsolete idea. JMHO