Author Topic: Just a thought  (Read 644 times)

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Just a thought
« on: April 02, 2005, 07:46:02 PM »
The largest single element of the USA's trade deficit is the importation of oil. 27.996 million barrels a day as of last November. @$50 / barrel, 1399.8 million, $1.3998 Billion / day or 511.3 billion / yr goes out of the country to buy foreign oil.

The USA has ¼ of the world’s coal supply and known domestic reserves equal to that of 4 times the Saudi oil reserves or equivalent to the entire earth’s oil supply.

Quote
The total energy consumption in the United States for 1990 was 86 x 1015 kJ. Of this total, 41% came from oil, 24% from natural gas, and 23% from coal. Coal is unique as a source of energy in the United States; none of the 2118 billion pounds used in 1990 was imported. Furthermore, the proven reserves are so large we can continue using coal at this level of consumption for at least 2000 years.
Quote
China and South Africa have signed a deal that could affect the rest of the planet. The two will work to establish a couple of so-called coal liquefaction facilities that take coal and turn it into fuel oil. Not only is the technology one tool to fight the high cost of oil but it also helps purify the energy combustion process.

The major obstacle is economics. If the technology is to be financially feasible, the price of oil must remain at least above $32 a barrel. While the current price is $50 a barrel, debate is now fierce among analysts as to whether it will stay that high or fall back to traditional levels, oftentimes around $20 a barrel. The good news for those who are making investments in coal-to-liquid technologies is that the NYMEX futures index for oil is above the break-even point for 60 months into the future.

“Certainly, this is something that will have to happen,” says Randy Harris, an ex-official with the National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh. “If oil was not so unstable, it would have happened by now. We have not been able to make the economics work because oil prices are so often below $32 a barrel. So, we can't get the investment needed to build plants. It's not that the technology isn't there. It is. It's just been that the economics have not worked.”


$32 a barrel won’t be seen anytime soon.

The number of oil refineries is about 200 as of 1989 (the latest data I could come across.)

If we built coal liquefaction plants to augment oil-refining capacity in 10 years we could be largely weaned of foreign oil.  The world price for oil would drop to the production cost of liquid fuel from coal.  

Our trade deficit would plummet, jobs would be made in West Virginia, Wyoming, Pennsylvania and 35 other coal producing states.

Just thinking...
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline vorticon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7935
Just a thought
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2005, 07:52:35 PM »
"

If we built coal liquefaction plants to augment oil-refining capacity in 10 years we could be largely weaned of foreign oil. The world price for oil would drop to the production cost of liquid fuel from coal. "

with the enviromentalists fighting it every step of the way, you'd be lucky to have construction started on the first plant in 10 years, and be in production within 30...

of course, if someone somewhere grows a spine and tells em to **** off...

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Just a thought
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2005, 08:49:47 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by vorticon
"

If we built coal liquefaction plants to augment oil-refining capacity in 10 years we could be largely weaned of foreign oil. The world price for oil would drop to the production cost of liquid fuel from coal. "

with the enviromentalists fighting it every step of the way, you'd be lucky to have construction started on the first plant in 10 years, and be in production within 30...

of course, if someone somewhere grows a spine and tells em to **** off...


I wish we could just take ONE state and turn it into a socialist environmentalist utopia just so we have a great example that this kind of thinking DOESNT WORK!

People are even againts wind generators because of how bad it looks to have a thousand of them in your back yard.  Here we have clean energy (inefficient at that) that should have every endorsment from the sierra club but it might effect property values.

This coal thing sounds like a pretty good Idea.  I think Nuke plants are the way to go myself.

Offline oboe

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9805
Just a thought
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2005, 10:17:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I wish we could just take ONE state and turn it into a socialist environmentalist utopia just so we have a great example that this kind of thinking DOESNT WORK!

People are even againts wind generators because of how bad it looks to have a thousand of them in your back yard.  Here we have clean energy (inefficient at that) that should have every endorsment from the sierra club but it might effect property values.

This coal thing sounds like a pretty good Idea.  I think Nuke plants are the way to go myself.


I was in Palm Springs a couple of weeks ago.  They have a wind farm there with thousands of the generators.  I thought it was a beautiful sight, especially in the context of friggin crazy Muslims with what, 70% of the world's oil?

Offline XrightyX

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 277
Re: Just a thought
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2005, 01:00:14 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The largest single element of the USA's trade deficit is the importation of oil. 27.996 million barrels a day as of last November. @$50 / barrel, 1399.8 million, $1.3998 Billion / day or 511.3 billion / yr goes out of the country to buy foreign oil.

The USA has ¼ of the world’s coal supply and known domestic reserves equal to that of 4 times the Saudi oil reserves or equivalent to the entire earth’s oil supply.

$32 a barrel won’t be seen anytime soon.

The number of oil refineries is about 200 as of 1989 (the latest data I could come across.)

If we built coal liquefaction plants to augment oil-refining capacity in 10 years we could be largely weaned of foreign oil.  The world price for oil would drop to the production cost of liquid fuel from coal.  

Our trade deficit would plummet, jobs would be made in West Virginia, Wyoming, Pennsylvania and 35 other coal producing states.

Just thinking...


Don't want to sound "un-American" here, but I've always believed that we could just use less.  

Just my $2.35 worth.

Offline Rolex

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Just a thought
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2005, 04:34:05 AM »
Sounds reasonable except for a few fundamental ( :) )flaws:

One fundamental flaw is that light crude is used for gasoline, not fuel oil, and gasoline is the issue because it impacts the economy across the board.

China has substantial coal reserves, labor costs that are fractional of US labor costs for construction, operation and transportation, plus minimalistic pollution restrictions.

The investment required exceeds the money available or borrowable to do it and one last gigantic hurdle is that oil companies are in the oil business, not the coal business. They make money by leveraging almost the entire supply chain.

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Just a thought
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2005, 12:29:07 PM »
Rolex,

If you have a hydrocarbon molucule you can make just about any hydrocarbon chain you want to in a refinery craking tower.  Some chains are so long that a single molecule is the size of an orange.

Diesel can be made from Natural gas... CH4 is thansformed into C10H22...  Gasoline is made more easily from light sweet crude, but it can be made from coal as well.

Methanol is easily made from coal, and other hydrcarbons can be made from coal hydrocarbon reserves.

If there is a profit in it, oil companies can joint venture with coal companies.
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Just a thought
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2005, 01:07:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If there is a profit in it, oil companies can joint venture with coal companies.


If there is a profit in it, it probably would already be happening, no? Here in Alberta, there's the single largest deposit of oil anywhere in the world... to the tune of  2.5 trillion barrels. But it's on the surface... in sand and clay. It wasn't being extracted because it was unprofitable to do it. Once oil went over $25 a barrel (break even point), BOOM.... It's now huge.

Maybe it will get to a point where coal becomes profitable someday?

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Just a thought
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2005, 01:15:04 PM »
From what I gather, the break-even point for coal is at about $35 to $40 / barrel.

It's now over $50, closing in on $60, but if we were to fully develop coal and tar sands, the oil price / barrel would drop to the production costs of the coal and tar sand supply.

Increase the supply and the price drops.  The stability point must stay about $50 I would surmise.

I would think a incentive program would be needed if we were to do this immediately.
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline OIO

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
Just a thought
« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2005, 01:49:57 PM »
Well I dont know if this is possible but...


if the hydrogen fuel cell was comercially avaliable for vehicles and trucks (I know, they working on it), wouldnt it be a good 'investment' for the US gov to launch a program where they subsidize vehicle manufacturers so that anyone who owns a gasoline powered vehicle can trade it in for a brand new hydrogen vehicle?

Say, for 5 years.. and in those 5 years the US becomes largely free of gasoline powered cars and largely free of foreign oil dependency... plus it also gets to become the world's first 'large' producer of hydrogen fuel and hydrogen vehicled which can be sold to other nations as they switch over to the hydrogen tech.

Offline Ripper29

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 413
Just a thought
« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2005, 01:52:39 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
If there is a profit in it, it probably would already be happening, no? Here in Alberta, there's the single largest deposit of oil anywhere in the world... to the tune of  2.5 trillion barrels. But it's on the surface... in sand and clay. It wasn't being extracted because it was unprofitable to do it. Once oil went over $25 a barrel (break even point), BOOM.... It's now huge.

Maybe it will get to a point where coal becomes profitable someday?


Nash...for god's sake man keep it down will ya..;)

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Just a thought
« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2005, 02:04:54 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ripper29
Nash...for god's sake man keep it down will ya..;)


Oh, I didn't think about that. But not to worry...

If the Yanks start gettin' uppity, they're in for a real bruising. This aint Panama, Greneda, or some desert. Their guns will jam, and bombs will turn into the equivalent of falling blocks of ice.

But our hockey sticks will still work.

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Just a thought
« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2005, 02:07:11 PM »
Don't worry Ripper, developing Canada's tar sands would not free the USA from foreign oil.

Unless we could convince folks that Canucks had WMDs... hmmm...  there were some Canuckians at Los Alamos in the 40's, I would what their development program has been doing lately?
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Just a thought
« Reply #13 on: April 03, 2005, 02:11:45 PM »
unknown to most people , the US govt is funding 14 pilot plants working to reduce the cost of getting gasoline out of coal.

Offline Ripper29

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 413
Just a thought
« Reply #14 on: April 03, 2005, 02:14:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Don't worry Ripper, developing Canada's tar sands would not free the USA from foreign oil.

Unless we could convince folks that Canucks had WMDs... hmmm...  there were some Canuckians at Los Alamos in the 40's, I would what their development program has been doing lately?


Well the closest thing to WMD we have had lately is a couple cases of Mad Cow, really did more damage up here then down south.