Quote:
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.