Economic warfare

[Jim Richards]

Go nuclear immediately.

[Mule]

The database must be going crazy. I'll try this again.

Last night I heard a guy saying that we can currently procuce a barrel of synthetic oil from coal for $55.00. We can supply our complete energy needs for over 200 yrs with the coal we have. Co2 is produced. We pump it into existing oil wells to force out more oil. This plant in S. Dakota was built after the oil embargo of the '70s. Once opec realized we were serious, they dropped the price of a bbl of oil to $8. We shud the program down. They raised the price. Is this economic warfare?

Consider this. Economic independence mean we can tell the whole moose limb world to get their affairs in order, 'cause if something happens here, we're coming for real. Eco-lefties will be giving the Team America secret distress signal. Al Gore will be giving the manbearpig speech 3X a day. It's time to ignore the fools, build the plants and secure our future.

[pwd72s]

$55 a barrel oil from coal? Sounds great...when will the first plant/refinery be built? Aye, there is the rub...the ALGORE bigade would never stand for it...they want alcohol distilleries instead.

[Mule]

The first one is pumping as we speak. NO CURRENT PLANS FOR MORE! It's in S. Dakota.

I almost forgot. I am super cereal!

[GothingNC]

Mule,

I saw the same thing on the news a few days ago.

They could produce enough oil from coal to supply the US for a few decades !

[GothingNC]

Here is the article

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/24/60minutes/main1343604.shtml

[Mule]

It's not a few decades. It's centuries, at least two of 'em!

[The Gaijin]

Nobody wants to invest in things like this as OPEC cuts the price to $30 a barrel and investors are left holding the bag..

Yes, time to go nuclear for 80% of electric power, buy oil from friends only and coal for the rest. We are transfering billions and billions a year to those that like us the least.

[Mule]

So does that qualify as economic warfare? Should we form a food cartel and link the price of food to the price of oil to equalize the game?

[HarryD]

Originally Posted by Mule

The database must be going crazy. I'll try this again.

Last night I heard a guy saying that we can currently procuce a barrel of synthetic oil from coal for $55.00. We can supply our complete energy needs for over 200 yrs with the coal we have. Co2 is produced. We pump it into existing oil wells to force out more oil. This plant in S. Dakota was built after the oil embargo of the '70s. Once opec realized we were serious, they dropped the price of a bbl of oil to $8. We shud the program down. They raised the price. Is this economic warfare?

Consider this. Economic independence mean we can tell the whole moose limb world to get their affairs in order, 'cause if something happens here, we're coming for real. Eco-lefties will be giving the Team America secret distress signal. Al Gore will be giving the manbearpig speech 3X a day. It's time to ignore the fools, build the plants and secure our future.

I hate to disillusion you (FWIW I was one of the workers on President Carter's MEOW (Moral Equivalent of War)). I must have looked at dozens of Caol to synthetic fuel plants. In 1977 when oil was expected to go to $50/bbl, none of the plants would make money. The cost of the technology was very high and to large degree, unproven.

One of the things that struck me in every design I looked at was that to raise the steam necessary to run the process, they always had a coal fired boiler with FGD and ESP to reduce emissions. When I asked the designers why they did not use the fuel produced by the plant to make process steam, they always responded that the cost of steam from the fuel product was higher than that made by a traditional coal fired boiler. In other words the fuel produced was too expensive.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by HarryD

I hate to disillusion you (FWIW I was one of the workers on President Carter's MEOW (Moral Equivalent of War)). I must have looked at dozens of Caol to synthetic fuel plants. In 1977 when oil was expected to go to $50/bbl, none of the plants would make money. The cost of the technology was very high and to large degree, unproven.

One of the things that struck me in every design I looked at was that to raise the steam necessary to run the process, they always had a coal fired boiler with FGD and ESP to reduce emissions. When I asked the designers why they did not use the fuel produced by the plant to make process steam, they always responded that the cost of steam from the fuel product was higher than that made by a traditional coal fired boiler. In other words the fuel produced was too expensive.

You are aware that 1977 was 31 years ago right?

[GDSOB]

Originally Posted by Mule

So does that qualify as economic warfare? Should we form a food cartel and link the price of food to the price of oil to equalize the game?

It appears our fascination with "biofuels" has effectively done that. Been grocery shopping lately?

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

You are aware that 1977 was 31 years ago right?

you are aware that physics have not changed since 77?

converting one energy source into another one, costs energy, a net loss

and considering that combustion engines aren't exactly fuel efficient to begin with
the coal to be would be better off used in an electricity factory, which yields probably more then twice the use per kilo of coal compared to car engines
for the same, if not less carbon emissions...
l

[Mule]

Originally Posted by HarryD

I hate to disillusion you (FWIW I was one of the workers on President Carter's MEOW (Moral Equivalent of War)). I must have looked at dozens of Caol to synthetic fuel plants. In 1977 when oil was expected to go to $50/bbl, none of the plants would make money. The cost of the technology was very high and to large degree, unproven.

One of the things that struck me in every design I looked at was that to raise the steam necessary to run the process, they always had a coal fired boiler with FGD and ESP to reduce emissions. When I asked the designers why they did not use the fuel produced by the plant to make process steam, they always responded that the cost of steam from the fuel product was higher than that made by a traditional coal fired boiler. In other words the fuel produced was too expensive.

You haven't disillusioned me at all. Are you sure Carter wasn't using peanuts? Nazi Germany did this 60 yrs ago. South Africa is doing it today. South Dakota is doing it today at a cost of $55 a bbl. So I'm not sure what your point is. Maybe this link will explain it better.

http://www.moneyweek.com/file/13377/could-coal-replace-oil.html

[Mule]

Originally Posted by svandamme

you are aware that physics have not changed since 77?

converting one energy source into another one, costs energy, a net loss

and considering that combustion engines aren't exactly fuel efficient to begin with
the coal to be would be better off used in an electricity factory, which yields probably more then twice the use per kilo of coal compared to car engines
for the same, if not less carbon emissions...
l

Physics doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. It's called technology. Look into it. You might want to offer your advice on efficiency to the people who are doing this currently. I'm sure they'd be interested.

[sammyg2]

It has been done before, but only as a desperate last resort.

Coal gasification just isn't practical on a large scale, no matter what that attention whore from Montana says.
I wish it was real, but it's not.

[HarryD]

Originally Posted by Mule

You haven't disillusioned me at all. Are you sure Carter wasn't using peanuts? Nazi Germany did this 60 yrs ago. South Africa is doing it today. South Dakota is doing it today at a cost of $55 a bbl. So I'm not sure what your point is. Maybe this link will explain it better.

http://www.moneyweek.com/file/13377/could-coal-replace-oil.html

From this article:

"At capital costs of $700 million for capacity of 10,000 barrels/day and a 30-year life, operating costs of $15/barrel and current coal costs, breakeven for a coal-to-liquids plant in the US would be in the range $39-44 a barrel, assuming no tax incentives.

However, the new Highway Act provides a subsidy of $21 a barrel for commercial-scale CTL projects. Taking that into account, with oil at $50 a barrel (that is, well below current prices around $70), the internal rate of return on such a project would be in the mouth-watering range 22-25 per cent."

These costs are based on what? Who generated the cost estimates?

Further, why would the government give a $21/bbl incentive for something that makes economic sense on it's own (unlike ... say... EtOH)? It takes 2-5 years to get one of these guys built. The better incentive would be fast track siting and permitting.

The plant in Beulah NORTH DAKOTA (they need to get their facts straight) was built with Government Money and then turned over to private folks. Who can say what the real cost was? Do you think they really paid 100% of the actual cost of the plant? I think not.

Can we do this? Sure, but the costs are high. Are we as a nation willing to endure higher costs to reduce improted oil? History tells us no we are not.

[HarryD]

Originally Posted by Mule

Physics doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. It's called technology. Look into it. You might want to offer your advice on efficiency to the people who are doing this currently. I'm sure they'd be interested.

Actually, physics (in the form of chemistry) does have alot to do with this.

Coal contains (more of less) one carbon for each hydrogen. Liquid fuels contain 2 hydrogens for each carbon and gas contains 4 hydrogens for each carbon.

If you want to liquify coal, you need more hydrogen. where can you get hydrogen, why from water (H2O)! How do you convert water to hydrogen? easy! mix it with carbon and strip the oxygen off. Hmmmm.... where do you ge tthe carbon?, this is easy too, from the coal! but there is a catch, each carbon you use to make a hydrogen is less coal to make fuel.

So, lets put this together, you want to make liquid fuels, so you need to go from a carbon: hydrogen ration of 1:1 to 1:2. This means that approximately half of hte coal you use will be converted to hydrogen and then to liquid fuel. Plus, to generate the necessary hydrogen, you need to put energy in to drive the conversion (the separating the hydrogen from the water molecule requires a net input of energy).

Believe me this has been reviewed time and time again. FWIW, use of coal for "clean fuels" has been studied since the dawn of the industrial age (1800's), but physics/chemistry is a cruel mistress. You gotta pay to play.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by HarryD

From this article:

"At capital costs of $700 million for capacity of 10,000 barrels/day and a 30-year life, operating costs of $15/barrel and current coal costs, breakeven for a coal-to-liquids plant in the US would be in the range $39-44 a barrel, assuming no tax incentives.

However, the new Highway Act provides a subsidy of $21 a barrel for commercial-scale CTL projects. Taking that into account, with oil at $50 a barrel (that is, well below current prices around $70), the internal rate of return on such a project would be in the mouth-watering range 22-25 per cent."

These costs are based on what? Who generated the cost estimates?

Further, why would the government give a $21/bbl incentive for something that makes economic sense on it's own (unlike ... say... EtOH)? It takes 2-5 years to get one of these guys built. The better incentive would be fast track siting and permitting.

The plant in Beulah NORTH DAKOTA (they need to get their facts straight) was built with Government Money and then turned over to private folks. Who can say what the real cost was? Do you think they really paid 100% of the actual cost of the plant? I think not.

Can we do this? Sure, but the costs are high. Are we as a nation willing to endure higher costs to reduce improted oil? History tells us no we are not.

If you want to play children's games you picked the wrong person. Disagree with the numbers? Disprove them yourself. You appear to be quite the expert on this subject. If you have data to disprove what is being claimed from a number of sources, then post them. You will be elected pope before I take your bait & go do your research for you.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by HarryD

Actually, physics (in the form of chemistry) does have alot to do with this.

How many things do you want me to post that were "physically impossible" before technology found a solution?

Coal contains (more of less) one carbon for each hydrogen. Liquid fuels contain 2 hydrogens for each carbon and gas contains 4 hydrogens for each carbon.

If you want to liquify coal, you need more hydrogen. where can you get hydrogen, why from water (H2O)! How do you convert water to hydrogen? easy! mix it with carbon and strip the oxygen off. Hmmmm.... where do you ge tthe carbon?, this is easy too, from the coal! but there is a catch, each carbon you use to make a hydrogen is less coal to make fuel.

So, lets put this together, you want to make liquid fuels, so you need to go from a carbon: hydrogen ration of 1:1 to 1:2. This means that approximately half of hte coal you use will be converted to hydrogen and then to liquid fuel. Plus, to generate the necessary hydrogen, you need to put energy in to drive the conversion (the separating the hydrogen from the water molecule requires a net input of energy).

Then go tell these folks that you can prove what they are doing is impossible.

Believe me this has been reviewed time and time again. FWIW, use of coal for "clean fuels" has been studied since the dawn of the industrial age (1800's), but physics/chemistry is a cruel mistress. You gotta pay to play.

Are you a member of the flat earth society?