Quote:
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.