[jtmorgan61]

I've been trying to educate myself on coal liquefaction today. Does anyone have an answer to how much liquid fuel (barrels) can be produced from a ton of coal? Someone mentioned an efficiency of 70% and 7 barrels per ton.

Copied that from JohnDenver's calculations.

If you're finding 2-5 barrels/ton, then I believe you. Higher numbers might reflect extremely high quality coal.

[jtmorgan61]

Wind/solar combined account for 1/6 of one percent of our energy usage. So even if they grow by 600% relative to their current proportion, we're still talking 1%

I'm not too enthusastic that they become a major part of our energy portoflio. Still they are rapidly expanding. 30% a year, at a minimum, if I remember correctly.

And they are not transportation fuels.

Not until we have a plug-in hybrid.

Hybrids: even if every car in America was magically "hybridized" overnight, we'd be back using the same amount of gas in 7 years as we are now.

And then we introduce plug-in hybrids, and we would have another 10 or 20 years. And then we introduce electric cars. In the meantime people are making modest lifestyle changes to limit the amount of driving they have to do, so the overall usage level declines slightly.

A few big assumptions, don't you think? When oil supply dropped 5% per year back in the 70's, we got more like 400% price spikes by the time we got to around 15% reduction in supply. (those aren't exact numbers).

Don't forget that the base price was lower, we had less technological substitution capacity, and our GDP was far more dependent on oil. The SPR was developed afterwards and can be used to limit any severe price spike for at least a year. (Albeit not in the "market panic" scenario you favor.)

Times were bad during the last superspike, but this was not a doom-level event.

And what happens when there is some type of artificial disruption on top of the geologic 5% decline? Oil spikes from your (optimistic) $100 midpoint to $200, $300, $400. . . . ? See the "Oil Shockwave" war game played out in Washington recently for an example of what I'm talking about.

That's bad, but the question is how bad. See above.

Been to Texas lately?

Hope I never have to.

[MattSavinar]

The patriot act is an erosion of civil liberties, but I'll put it in such a major role only when it includes things like emergency martial law.

Already been done. See the draconian measures the President can institute via executive orders. A sampling:

• 10995: Right to seize all communications media in the United States.

• 10997: Right to seize all electric power, fuels and minerals, both public and private.

• 10999: Right to seize all means of transportation, including personal vehicles of any kind and total control of highways, seaports and waterways.

• 11000: Right to seize any and all American people and divide up families in order to create work forces to be transferred to any place the government sees fit.

• 11001: Right to seize all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private.

• 11002: Right to force registration of all men, women and children in the United States.

• 11003: Right to seize all air space, airports and aircraft.

• 11004: Right to seize all housing and finance authorities in order to establish “Relocation Designated Areas” and to force abandonment of areas classified as “unsafe.”

• 11005: Right to seize all railroads, inland waterways, and storage facilities, both public and private.

• 11921: Right to establish government control of wages and salaries, credit and the flow of money in US financial institutions.

The draconian potential of these executive orders is not to be underestimated. In 1973, Senators Frank Church (D-ID) and Charles McMathias released the following joint statement:

The President has the power to seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, call reserve forces amounting to two and one half million men to duty, institute martial law, seize and control all means of transportation, regulate all private enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all Americans . . . Most [of these laws] remain a potential source of virtually unlimited power for a President should he choose to activate them. It is possible that some future President could exercise this vast authority in an attempt to place the United States under authoritarian rule.

It should be strongly noted that the President can invoke these executive orders in a number of emergencies, including an economic crisis, which Peak Oil will produce in spades.

So the plan is to waste all this time and money invading Iraq to keep oil cheap-ish for 5 years, then go ahead get all big brother on us when we hit the peakquote]

Pretty much.

If you want proof, look at the personal investment of our leaders. Pretty much across the board they are personally invested in weapons makers, private prisons, surveillance technolgies, data mining, etc. . .

That should tell you something. They see where the country is going because they are driving the bus. And they're putting their money in the bus' destination.

[MattSavinar]

Wind/solar combined account for 1/6 of one percent of our energy usage. So even if they grow by 600% relative to their current proportion, we're still talking 1%

I'm not too enthusastic that they become a major part of our energy portoflio. Still they are rapidly expanding. 30% a year, at a minimum, if I remember correctly.

The absolute amount of installed capacity is actually growing as much as 70%, but as a percentage of our overall diet it has barely moved.

[jtmorgan61]

If you were a major investor, energy company, where are you going to put your money, especially when the external costs of the oil from Iraq are paid for by the taxpayers?

Say I'm an oil major. First, I pump as much cheap oil as I can. But, as the oil peak nears, I can't get access to more oil to develop, because we are out of new major finds to pump (i.e. the definition of a peak.) Am I just going to sit on the money because some of my competitors got in earlier and got a better deal on more of their oil? I could be making money too.

If TDP is going to play the role you think it is, and if the major players know about it and Peak Oil (as they most certainly do), then why did the company need a government handout to keep going?

We've been over this before. Mis-estimation about whether chicken parts would be banned as feedstock costs the company $20 a barrel.

Please point me to an article that says the plant would "have gone under" without the grant. I think they just took as much money as they could get from the government. They certainly have major backing from ConAgra.

And let me remind you that despite two years of constant hoopla amidst the doubling of oil prices, the company still has only one plant producing about 200 barels a day of heating oil with no plans for future plants in the states either.

5 new plants planned, 4 in the states, according to their website.

That doesn't sound like something that is going to play a major role in softening the decline.

Probably not as many TD plants will be built as coal to oil plants, because TD is more expensive.

[jtmorgan61]

Go to the city council of your nearest big city. Propose they put bike lanes in the major streets. Come back and make the same assumptions about "eco-friendly city reorganization" happnening. Maybe some small towns like Willits and Sebastopol out here in the 707 area code will make some attempts, but that's about as far as your going to get.

Hey, my friend is on the bike advocacy group of san diego, and they're adding bike lanes to many major streets (though some bicyclists actually dislike the lanes and feel they're less safe).

New York, Miami, Los Angeles? Their idea of "eco-friendly city reorganization" is to reorganize people's faces when they start protesting gas prices.

Hyperbole.

Look what is happening to Amtrak. BART in the Bay Area is in debt up to its eyeballs. . . The exact opposite of what you anticipate is what is really happening despite the fact that oil prices have tripled since 9/11 and we are in what should be an obvious "war for oil"!

I'm thinking more in terms of densification, moving closer to work, and riding a bike or motorcycle. That's what I see happening around me in my area.

And since when is a full-on electric car a "non-fossil fuel technology."? If your municipality uses coal, for instance, your plug in car is a coal-powered car/

Come on, you know better. Gradually phase out coal over 40 or 50 years. The point is that you're limiting your exposure to oil volume and prices.

[MattSavinar]

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/smallbus ... 47,00.html

exact quote:"CWT is staying afloat, thanks to a $10 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. But the company's next operation is likely to be in Europe . . ."

See also Kansas City Star article entitled, "Innovative Plant Eats Money, Spits Out Fowl Odor" archived at:

http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2005/Chang ... 2apr05.htm

[jtmorgan61]

You're right. I forgot to mention that it has been confirmed that the security staff of the Supermarket are laundering massive amounts of drug money and that the manager's staff is best friends with the apple companies that supplied the worst, most rottenest apples.

And the supermarket is on it's way to bankruptcy by 2011, is under attack by gang members,has a staff/work force on the verge of attacking each other, etc.

I also forgot to mention that the manager is a dry-drunk who ran several previous enterprises into the ground but was saved with the help of money from the family of one of one of the top gang leaders.

There's a lot of hyperbole in here. Look, I don't like Bush either.

I don't think we can see eye to eye on the corporate mind and intentions. I've been making a good return on my investments right through the stock market bubble burst, and you're burying your gold in the desert (if not literally, then something similar).

[MattSavinar]

If you were a major investor, energy company, where are you going to put your money, especially when the external costs of the oil from Iraq are paid for by the taxpayers?

Say I'm an oil major. First, I pump as much cheap oil as I can. But, as the oil peak nears, I can't get access to more oil to develop, because we are out of new major finds to pump (i.e. the definition of a peak.) Am I just going to sit on the money because some of my competitors got in earlier and got a better deal on more of their oil? I could be making money too.

You're an oil major. You see the writing on the wall. Here's what you do:

December 1998: BP and Amoco merge;

April 1999: BP-Amoco and Arco agree to merge;

December 1999: Exxon and Mobil merge;

October 2000: Chevron and Texaco agree to merge;

November 2001: Phillips and Conoco agree to merge;

September 2002: Shell acquires Penzoil-Quaker State;

February 2003: Frontier Oil and Holly agree to merge;

March 2004: Marathon acquires 40% of Ashland;

April 2004: Westport Resources acquires Kerr-McGee;

July 2004: Analysts suggest BP and Shell merge;

April 2005: Chevron-Texaco and Unocal merge;

June 2005: Royal Dutch and Shell merge;

July 2005: China begins trying to acquire Unocal

If you're the bigger/more powerful company, you eat the smaller company. If you're the smaller company, you get eaten.

It would also be interesting to compare how much money Chevron is puttin into their "Will You Join Us" campaign compared to how much, if any, they are putting into coal-to-oil or TD technologies.

[jtmorgan61]

China may be willing to pay exhorbitant prices for coal to gas.

$35/barrel is exorbitant?

Where in god's name do you have the gall to say with such satisfaction and assurance that nonsense. What makes you think that TDP will get down to $50.

Well, it's $60/barrel now if the feedstock were free, in a relatively small plant, the first one ever built on a modest scale. You're telling me they can't cut another $10 off with technological advance and economies of scale in larger factories, especially given the infant state of the industry? Ouch, I think I broke my credulity.

Hell I never agreed that $80/barrel is profit making.

Did you ever say anything about it on the oil alternatives thread at all? I proposed a scenario with a $20 spread per barrel, JD knocked me down by pointing out that it was profitable but only a good investment than other options at about a $30 spread.

TDP is the waste product of a highly entropic agricultural system that depends on petroleum for every process, every input, every so-called waste. Not to mention that turkey guts are currently feedstock for expensive animal feed right now and cost that Carthage plant $20-30 per equivlent barrel

And most feedstock is free. And that process will be more or less maintained in scale unless everything collapses.

When petroleum hits $80-$100/barrels then we have reached the 1970's oil embargo price range and a major stagflation/almost depression. Furthermore, if and when oil reaches $100 then we are in a peak or plateau and next it will hit $120. So if you expect a "mild recession" at $100 (I expect stagflation or depression) then what can we expect as $120? $140

Our GDP exposure has been cut by half since the '70's. I expect recession at $80, major recession over $100. Over $100, demand destruction will begin to act to rein in prices.

Of course, who can say for sure? Many predicted recession at $60/barrel.

[jtmorgan61]

The absolute amount of installed capacity is actually growing as much as 70%, but as a percentage of our overall diet it has barely moved.

I'll be interested to see if the rate continues to stay this high. Given 20 years...

If you're the bigger/more powerful company, you eat the smaller company. If you're the smaller company, you get eaten.

Sooner or later it's going to be cheaper to start building than to keep merging. Current stock valuations are based on future sub-$40 oil. That makes it cheaper to buy another company than to build coal to oil. When that is no longer the case, it will be cheaper to build than to buy.

It would also be interesting to compare how much money Chevron is puttin into their "Will You Join Us" campaign compared to how much, if any, they are putting into coal-to-oil or TD technologies.

I'm sure it isn't much. It's a marketing campaign.

Pretty much.

If you want proof, look at the personal investment of our leaders. Pretty much across the board they are personally invested in weapons makers, private prisons, surveillance technolgies, data mining, etc. . .

That should tell you something. They see where the country is going because they are driving the bus. And they're putting their money in the bus' destination.

Has that changed, though, since they've taken office. I have no doubt that their friends are making a killing on Iraq, yet I still doubt that they're plotting a takeover anytime soon. I'm not sure either of us is going to make any headway here.

[jtmorgan61]

exact quote:"CWT is staying afloat, thanks to a $10 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. But the company's next operation is likely to be in Europe . . ."

See also Kansas City Star article entitled, "Innovative Plant Eats Money, Spits Out Fowl Odor" archived at:

Interesting to see the rest of the US plants put on hold in these older articles. I had seen those, but more recently the US plants were back on according to the CWT website. Perhaps because of the ridiculously high biofuel tax credit in the new energy bill?

Let's see how the europe plant does. There are a lot of good, but fixable, reasons the Missouri plant is losing money. I think we need that piece of information before we can pass a final judgment on TD.

[eric_b]

jtmorgan61:

Your pathetically optimistic projections for coal, TD, biodiesel, roadkill and dung
taking the place of oil in our economy disregards the potentially catastrophic climate
changes we may be facing from our continued orgiastic hydrocarbon burning.

Can you say 'game over'?

I knew you could.

We need to get away from hydrocarbon burning, one way or another.

[oiless]

I've been trying to educate myself on coal liquefaction today. Does anyone have an answer to how much liquid fuel (barrels) can be produced from a ton of coal? Someone mentioned an efficiency of 70% and 7 barrels per ton.

Copied that from JohnDenver's calculations.

If you're finding 2-5 barrels/ton, then I believe you. Higher numbers might reflect extremely high quality coal.

I still don't have numbers I believe, but I have figured out that 7.4 barrels of crude= 1 tonne by weight. That's metric ton, approx. 2200 lb, so if anyone can get 7 barrels out of a short ton (2000lb) of coal, they're doing pretty good.

[jtmorgan61]

Your pathetically optimistic projections for coal, TD, biodiesel, roadkill and dung
taking the place of oil in our economy disregards the potentially catastrophic climate
changes we may be facing from our continued orgiastic hydrocarbon burning.

Should I bother re-running an argument from 10 pages ago? Your willingness to insult me without reading previous arguments makes *me* sad.

If you think my projections are "pathetically" optimistic, please tell me where and why, bearing in mind that I expect bottlenecks and global recession because production will get behind demand for a decade or more. There's an executive summary about a page back to pick through.

If you read farther back, you'll notice that I anticipate environmental degradation to be the main issue, not peak oil. And that my dream scenario is that we can bridge to non-fossil fuel technologies for transportation and electricity generation over the next 30 years, prompted by cultural awareness of resource limits sparked by the peak of conventional oil. And that it's not going to happen in a sudden catastrophe caused by peak oil because the dominant power structure will try to maintain business as usual if possible, and my projections suggest that they can.

[jtmorgan61]

I still don't have numbers I believe, but I have figured out that 7.4 barrels of crude= 1 tonne by weight. That's metric ton, approx. 2200 lb, so if anyone can get 7 barrels out of a short ton (2000lb) of coal, they're doing pretty good.

That's what I get for not checking the calcuations myself! I think JD calculated indirectly. That shouldn't change the picture for coal-to-oil plants, but it should change the picture for coal supply:

Say we get 3 barrels/ton. If we're going to do 9 mbd, or about 3Gb/yr

Now we need 1 Gton of coal from the entire world, or .25 Gton/US vs. 1 Gton in the entire world.

Wow, I made another calculation error in my original summary - failing to convert from mbd to Gby.

I've corrected it now.

[MattSavinar]

5 new plants planned, 4 in the states, according to their website

Here's what their site says (http://www.res-energy.com/faq/index.asp):

"What is the status of your Carthage, Missouri plant?"
"We are currently completing the normal startup and commissioning phase for a new plant, and have started manufacturing and selling products. We are now making modifications and adjustments in order to maximize throughput and optimize products produced. We expect to reach full capacity in the second half of 2004."

"Will you be building other plants? Where will the next plants be?"
"There are plans for additional RES plants in the U.S. and Europe. Possible locations for the next RES plants include Colorado, Alabama, Nevada, Ireland and Italy."


In other words, it looks like your information is dated prior to the second half of 2004. The articles I posted, indicating no new plants planned in the US, were current as of Spring 2005.

From their site's FAQ (http://www.res-energy.com/faq/index.asp):

Is it profitable?
The plant is still in the startup phase . . .

Is the plant economically viable?
The plant is still in the startup phase . . .

Doesn't sound like this this going to be the technology that will raise US oil production back to and above it's peak in 1970 as you have argued.

[MattSavinar]

China may be willing to pay exhorbitant prices for coal to gas.

Of course, who can say for sure? Many predicted recession at $60/barrel.

Market has fallen 30% in the last few years if measured in Euros. Only reason still around 10,000 is because the purchasing power of the dollar has fallen so much.

To illustrate, me gettting a raise from $50,000 to $100,000 doesn't mean we're not in a recession if the value of the dollars in my bank account have dropped by half.

Morever, according to the Economist no less, most of the economic growth, job creation, etc. of the last 4 years is either in home building or suburbian servicing.

That bubble pops, in due part to high energy costs, and kiss the economy as seen throught the eyes of the average person good bye.

[MattSavinar]

Wind/solar combined account for 1/6 of one percent of our energy usage. So even if they grow by 600% relative to their current proportion, we're still talking 1%

I'm not too enthusastic that they become a major part of our energy portoflio. Still they are rapidly expanding. 30% a year, at a minimum, if I remember correctly.

And they are not transportation fuels.

Not until we have a plug-in hybrid.

Then what? Solar and wind, accounting for a fraction of one percent of our energy diet are all of a sudden large scale replacements?

Hybrids: even if every car in America was magically "hybridized" overnight, we'd be back using the same amount of gas in 7 years as we are now.

And then we introduce plug-in hybrids, and we would have another 10 or 20 years. And then we introduce electric cars

.

I take it you have the "energy fairy" on speed dial? Call her up, and whazam, we've replaced a significant fraction of the hundred sof millions of ICE vehicls on the road with plug in hybrids, electrical cars, etc. . ?

If this was going to happen, say by 2025, you would need to be seeing a large scale switch happening NOW. It is not. Instead we are invading, raiding, crashing our economies, etc. . . .

In the meantime people are making modest lifestyle changes to limit the amount of driving they have to do, so the overall usage level declines slightly.

Like making that 60 mile round trip from home to work on a bike?

Don't forget that the base price was lower, we had less technological substitution capacity, and our GDP was far more dependent on oil. The SPR was developed afterwards and can be used to limit any severe price spike for at least a year. (Albeit not in the "market panic" scenario you favor.)

Don't forget that our consumption level is much higher, our debt level is out of control, our leaders couldn't be any worse, we are involved in a war "that will not end in our lifetimes" and our technological subsitution capacity has increased only in absolute terms. In terms relative to our overall energy consumption, it has moved from "zilch" to "next-to-zilch"

Times were bad during the last superspike, but this was not a doom-level event.

What would have happnened if Saudi Arabia hadn't upscaled their production around 83? And if we didn't have the UK and venezuela to turn to? And if we had the possibility/probablity of a world wide network of terrorists overthrowing the Saudis?[/quote]

Been to Texas lately?

Hope I never have to.

Well at least read up on it. We are rapidly moving from an industrial economy to a service economy to a prison economy.

And not just in Texas. Overall, the incarceration rate has jumped 700% (yes, you read that right) in the last 25 years. Doubled just during Clinton's reign alone. Shows no sign of slowing down.

Combine the profitability of private prisons along with a bit more of bankruptcy reform and you get some form of modern debtor's prison, which will be necessary to have a cheap and "rightless"source of physical labor when the cost of importing things from China triples or quadruples.

{edited by MQ to correct quotes}