Quote:
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.
