Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Who needs oil if you've got natural gas?

Unread postby Subjectivist » Tue 24 Nov 2015, 05:58:25

Iran has a lot of excess Natural Gas for sale and a lot of their cars are running on it. An early theory on the war in Afganisan was it has a route for pipelines selling natural gas into Pakistan, which would love to buy from Iran.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4120
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Who needs oil if you've got natural gas?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 24 Nov 2015, 07:54:29

Damn...got excited too soon. Didn't see the date at first and thought Graeme had returned. LOL. BTW to answer the question: a country, like the USA, needs to continue importing oil since it is also a net NG importer. IOW we don't produce enough oil or NG to satisfy our consumer demand.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10642
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 28 Jan 2016, 13:25:18

ROCKMAN wrote:"...Dineen acknowledged that his company faces a challenge in convincing the world of its results" Utter bullsh*t. It will be very easy to convince the world: just start selling gasoline et al at the then market price (or even less). Once he starts posting those profits the world will beat a path to his door step.

The trick is to figure out how to do it profitably. BTW I live 5 miles from La Port and will try to find the facility and chat them up. My billionaire boss owners a large chunk of land in La Port and was thinking about building an LNG export terminal on it. One does get peoples' attention when you work for a man with the really big bucks. LOL.


ROCKMAN you posted this a couple years ago, did you ever manage to find out anything solid? I am confident the current low oil price has been very bad for these alternative projects, but just like the frackers still pumping full steam ahead to keep cash flow going the Chevron GTL plant in Nigeria went into operation in 2014 and was working full out in May 2015.

What Chevron Is Doing

Chevron operates in some of the world's leading natural gas basins and is using technology, including GTL, to develop the full spectrum of natural gas resources.

Together with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, we built a GTL plant designed to convert 325 million cubic feet of natural gas per day into 33,000 barrels of liquids—principally synthetic diesel. The plant supplies clean-burning, low-sulfur diesel fuel for cars and trucks.

Updated: May 2015

http://www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/gastoliquids/

At least Chevron was kind enough to put some actual numbers into their news release, 325 MM/ft^3 input to get 33,000/bbl/d output. Not sure what that adds up to in raw material dollars in vs out minus construction and operating costs.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14060
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby hvacman » Fri 29 Jan 2016, 17:10:06

1/29/16 Henry Hub spot NG price = $2.26/1,000 ft3

325,000,000 ft3 @ $2.26/1,000 ft3 = $734,500 for 33,000 bbls. That's $22/bbl or $0.53/gallon for syn diesel, not including CAPEX and OPEX.

Good $ price but from an energy-efficiency standpoint, it's a disaster.

325,000,000 ft3 of NG is 3,250,000 therms of energy.

33,000 barrels of syn diesel is 1,396,000 gallons. Energy content per gallon is 1.4 therms, so the total syn fuel energy is 1,940,000 therms. You lose 40% of the energy just making the conversion. Yeah, liquid HC is way more energy-dense and portable than NG. But we as a world continue to pay a very high long-term price for that versatility. Way better to run the gas through a combined cycle power plant and charge my Volt with the electricity:)
hvacman
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun 01 Dec 2013, 12:19:53

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Fri 29 Jan 2016, 18:54:19

hvacman wrote:1/29/16 Henry Hub spot NG price = $2.26/1,000 ft3

325,000,000 ft3 @ $2.26/1,000 ft3 = $734,500 for 33,000 bbls. That's $22/bbl or $0.53/gallon for syn diesel, not including CAPEX and OPEX.

Good $ price but from an energy-efficiency standpoint, it's a disaster.

325,000,000 ft3 of NG is 3,250,000 therms of energy.

33,000 barrels of syn diesel is 1,396,000 gallons. Energy content per gallon is 1.4 therms, so the total syn fuel energy is 1,940,000 therms. You lose 40% of the energy just making the conversion. Yeah, liquid HC is way more energy-dense and portable than NG. But we as a world continue to pay a very high long-term price for that versatility. Way better to run the gas through a combined cycle power plant and charge my Volt with the electricity:)


Nice math! So if $2.26 per therm works out to $0.53/gallon syndiesel then in theory natural gas prices could go up to $5.00/therm or maybe a little higher depending on capex and opex for the whole system. Yeah you lose 40 percent of the energy in the conversion process so making syndiesel to run your oil furnace wouldn't make sense unless it is impossible to run a gas line in for your home. On the other hand a 200 gallon tank of syndiesel will fuel a locomotive for eight hours to haul a mile long train of cargo from one city to the next.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4120
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby pstarr » Fri 29 Jan 2016, 19:23:35

The Escravos GTL plant cost US$10 billion. (Its original cost started out at US$1.9 billion in 2005, rising to US$5.9 billion in 2009 but continued to escalate.) Does't feel like a good investment. The income from $40/barrel is $1.3 million per day, < $ .5 billion/year, the initial CAPEX would take 22 years to pay off. Plus OPEX
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26332
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Fri 29 Jan 2016, 20:26:26

pstarr wrote:The Escravos GTL plant cost US$10 billion. (Its original cost started out at US$1.9 billion in 2005, rising to US$5.9 billion in 2009 but continued to escalate.) Does't feel like a good investment. The income from $40/barrel is $1.3 million per day, < $ .5 billion/year, the initial CAPEX would take 22 years to pay off. Plus OPEX


That presumes diesel will remain at $40/bbl for the next 22 years, something I find foolishly optimistic.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4120
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby pstarr » Fri 29 Jan 2016, 20:47:59

Subjectivist wrote:
pstarr wrote:The Escravos GTL plant cost US$10 billion. (Its original cost started out at US$1.9 billion in 2005, rising to US$5.9 billion in 2009 but continued to escalate.) Does't feel like a good investment. The income from $40/barrel is $1.3 million per day, < $ .5 billion/year, the initial CAPEX would take 22 years to pay off. Plus OPEX


That presumes diesel will remain at $40/bbl for the next 22 years, something I find foolishly optimistic.

I thought I was giving the pessimistic scenario? With this oil glut and all that shale out there the price might reasonably stay at $20. The payback would then be 45 years.

So you are saying there is no glut?
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26332
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Fri 29 Jan 2016, 21:27:32

The EV-CONS shall have their gov subsidy-mining disruption: they'll kill off the already bankrupt old oil car manufacturers and the price of oil will keep miraculously going down, the EV coal car will get miraculously "cheap" thanks to subsidies, the price of endless shale based ng will miraculously skyrocket as the new tech toy gadget (EV) becomes all the rage amongst the illiterate masses, ... AND...AND...AND...voila

every legitimate business that hasn't already been outsourced to where the "dirty, useless, obsolete" coal plants actually reside is sent packing...

Behind the wheel of the EV coal car is an outsourcer...the wannabe design engineer/MBA fool with a pile of student loans that won't be paid back.

Its a script already written. There is no competition like the neoliberal fiddle players like to pretend...its a markit and all the chart morons get taken to the cleaners.

Of course, Ron "The Dunce" Patterson says Ize a konspiracy kook.
The 200 Year Scrap for Crap Oil will soon begin.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Fri 29 Jan 2016, 21:54:03

pstarr wrote:
Subjectivist wrote:
pstarr wrote:The Escravos GTL plant cost US$10 billion. (Its original cost started out at US$1.9 billion in 2005, rising to US$5.9 billion in 2009 but continued to escalate.) Does't feel like a good investment. The income from $40/barrel is $1.3 million per day, < $ .5 billion/year, the initial CAPEX would take 22 years to pay off. Plus OPEX


That presumes diesel will remain at $40/bbl for the next 22 years, something I find foolishly optimistic.

I thought I was giving the pessimistic scenario? With this oil glut and all that shale out there the price might reasonably stay at $20. The payback would then be 45 years.

So you are saying there is no glut?


Peak oil was 2015, it won't be very long before the surplus turns back into a shortage.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4120
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Fri 29 Jan 2016, 22:26:31

Subjectivist wrote:
pstarr wrote:
Subjectivist wrote:
pstarr wrote:The Escravos GTL plant cost US$10 billion. (Its original cost started out at US$1.9 billion in 2005, rising to US$5.9 billion in 2009 but continued to escalate.) Does't feel like a good investment. The income from $40/barrel is $1.3 million per day, < $ .5 billion/year, the initial CAPEX would take 22 years to pay off. Plus OPEX


That presumes diesel will remain at $40/bbl for the next 22 years, something I find foolishly optimistic.

I thought I was giving the pessimistic scenario? With this oil glut and all that shale out there the price might reasonably stay at $20. The payback would then be 45 years.

So you are saying there is no glut?


Peak oil was 2015, it won't be very long before the surplus turns back into a shortage.


Peak Oil in the USA was in the 70's.

Another massive wave of outsourcing along with the EV-SCAM rollout will kill demand.

Its the disruption(suicide) economy!

The ultimate suicide economy is Finland where they built a shit-load of universities (reminds me of Cuba and doctors) to produce a mass of pseudo-intellectuals. All they do there is talk about climate change and how much they hate coal. Now they already announced a bunch of uni-'s are going to be shuttered...aw gee.

The university pseudo hates the coal, can't fleece da man with "progress" talkin about lowly coal, can we?

The "progress" (Energy Technology section of peakoil.com) has hit the skids too except for the apparent need for 40 million electrical engineers to design EV's!!! even tho its a disposable consumer toy.

Yuze pseudo's all gonna be farmers soon...except there won't be any tractors...just a lot of shovels.
The 200 Year Scrap for Crap Oil will soon begin.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Fri 29 Jan 2016, 22:51:44

Who needs liquids when pseudos are going nuts with "renewables"!!!

"Renewable" energy is just the same old electricity.

That requires coal (carbon atom) for an actual industrial powerhouse. France, USA, UK, Germany aint it.

Therefore they can't secure coal even if it lies right underneath their feet.

Therefore, they've jumped on the last train to nowheresville...

PURE PONZI (unlike our regular fossil ponzi) ala Windmills and solar farms....its getting cheaper, cheaper, cheaper...LOL. The windmill pays for itself energetically in 33 minutes now!!! Next week 25 minutes!!! What a load of BS!

It aint and never will be cheaper than coal. Aint got carbon atom, you aint worth a dime!
The 200 Year Scrap for Crap Oil will soon begin.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby ennui2 » Fri 29 Jan 2016, 23:46:39

Subjectivist wrote:Peak oil was 2015, it won't be very long before the surplus turns back into a shortage.


Care to make that into a formal prediction? How long is "won't be long"?
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3921
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 09:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 29 Jan 2016, 23:56:56

pstarr wrote:The Escravos GTL plant cost US$10 billion. (Its original cost started out at US$1.9 billion in 2005, rising to US$5.9 billion in 2009 but continued to escalate.) Does't feel like a good investment. The income from $40/barrel is $1.3 million per day, < $ .5 billion/year, the initial CAPEX would take 22 years to pay off. Plus OPEX


This is one of those things I get all Socialist about. Major capital infrastructure like expressways and airports are built by taxpayers and then leased out as toll roads or air traffic hubs in many cases. But for some reason in the USA it is considered wrong to do the same with nuclear power stations or GTL facilities that would supply goods to the general public at a much lower cost if the construction were paid for by the government and the facilities were leased back to the operators who would be responsible for regular maintenance and operations costs.

Instead we have this insane notion that companies competing in price volatile markets should risk billions in the face of unrestricted world trade. I think France and Russia have a much more logical approach by treating these mega size projects as a common good for all the taxpayers, which they are in the sense of stabilizing the market. Nobody in any position of authority has an excuse to be ignorant of resource constraints, but the ones in the USA all act as if BAU 1995 style can just go on forever. Well hate to break it to you, it can't, and a big part of the reason is that petroleum to supply; what the population desires to burn, would have to grow by a percent or two every year forever. You can't have infinite growth on a finite planet. When you hit the hard finite limit that is it, game over. We should be doing everything we can to transition away from Petroleum, Natural Gas and Coal, but in the transition period GTL would make the transition much less difficult.

So Pstarr here is how I see it, Uncle Sugar should build a few dozen GTL processing centers to keep the trucks, trains and cargo ships moving and the farm and construction equipment working during the post peak oil declines without crashing the whole economy from physical shortages. At the same time they should be investing every dime they can tax or borrow into non fossil carbon based energy infrastructure to get us off the depleting but heavily polluting energy system we use now.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14060
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sat 30 Jan 2016, 00:07:33

ennui2 wrote:
Subjectivist wrote:Peak oil was 2015, it won't be very long before the surplus turns back into a shortage.


Care to make that into a formal prediction? How long is "won't be long"?



If you want to, but I got it from Rockman, the EIA and Edward Jones all showing supply and demand going back into balance around August or September 2016. Storage reductions will keep things tidy for several months after that but I expect prices to gradually rise most of this year and next. I based my prediction on the oil price challenge thread on that.
the-2016-po-com-oil-price-challenge-t72064.html
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4120
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 01 Feb 2016, 14:53:36

sub - I still go back to my basic premise. A shortage at some time in the past? OK then tell me when there was a single buyer that could afford the price of oil and couldn't buy any. That is the definition of a 'shortage' isn't it? Not enough to supply a whiling and capable buyer, right? And now tell me when any company is FORCED to shut their oil wells in today because no one will buy their oil. Yes, there were a few companies that might have VOLUNTARIALY reduced production a tad but not for a lack of buyers. After all more oil is being bought today than ever before in the history of the world.

And let’s not confuse supply/demand dynamics with shortages/surpluses. The market place sets the price of oil today at around $32/bbl. And every operator that wants to sell his oil has a ready buyer. And remember most of the oil going into storage is being BOUGHT from the operators...very few are storing oil themselves. And when oil was $95+/BBL the buyers (those who could afford the price) had all the oil they wanted so how can that be called a shortage?

Maybe folks should start defining what there has been a shortage/surplus of to avoid confusion. Today there is a huge surplus of $95/bbl oil…I know of no company selling any. But there is an adequate supply of $35/bbl oil and a very eager market full of buyers for that oil. Likewise at one time a couple of years ago there was a huge shortage of $40/bbl oil: no one could find a single bbl to buy. But there was an adequate supply of high priced oil: not one buyer who could afford the current price at that time lacked a single bbl available.

So once again the market place seems to be as balanced today as it was when oil was $95/bbl. No surpluses today and no shortages back them. It really isn’t rocket science. I suspect there will be some truly shocked folks wondering around in a daze when they actually experience a real shortage: when they stand in front of an empty shelf while they have a pocket full of money. Or observe a true excess surplus: watch a farmer let his field of corn rot in the sun because no food processor would even take it for free because it’s not worth burning the fuel to go pick it up.

IOW most Americans are truly spoiled and really don’t have much sense of just how cruel life can really be. Their Internet or cell phones go down for a day and they want to hang someone for causing such a shortage of communications.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10642
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby hvacman » Mon 01 Feb 2016, 16:11:14

Subjectivist wrote:
hvacman wrote:1/29/16 Henry Hub spot NG price = $2.26/1,000 ft3

325,000,000 ft3 @ $2.26/1,000 ft3 = $734,500 for 33,000 bbls. That's $22/bbl or $0.53/gallon for syn diesel, not including CAPEX and OPEX.

Good $ price but from an energy-efficiency standpoint, it's a disaster.

325,000,000 ft3 of NG is 3,250,000 therms of energy.

33,000 barrels of syn diesel is 1,396,000 gallons. Energy content per gallon is 1.4 therms, so the total syn fuel energy is 1,940,000 therms. You lose 40% of the energy just making the conversion. Yeah, liquid HC is way more energy-dense and portable than NG. But we as a world continue to pay a very high long-term price for that versatility. Way better to run the gas through a combined cycle power plant and charge my Volt with the electricity:)


Nice math! So if $2.26 per therm works out to $0.53/gallon syndiesel then in theory natural gas prices could go up to $5.00/therm or maybe a little higher depending on capex and opex for the whole system. Yeah you lose 40 percent of the energy in the conversion process so making syndiesel to run your oil furnace wouldn't make sense unless it is impossible to run a gas line in for your home. On the other hand a 200 gallon tank of syndiesel will fuel a locomotive for eight hours to haul a mile long train of cargo from one city to the next.


Sub - just a quick correction to your statement. Your are off by a factor of 10. The Henry Hub price was $2.26 per 1000 cubic feet of NGs. A "therm" is 100,000 BTU's of gas. There is 1,000 BTU's +/- in each cubic foot. Therefore, a therm is usually about 100 cubic feet. So the Henry Hub price for NG is about 22.6 cents per therm. If NG hit $5 per therm, syn diesel's raw NG cost would be $11/gallon, plus CAPEX and OPEX. Not such a good deal. Of course, the economics of a lot of things fall apart at $5/therm NG prices.
hvacman
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun 01 Dec 2013, 12:19:53

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Tue 02 Feb 2016, 02:51:50

"You can't have infinite growth on a finite planet."

Obviously you sure can.

But it can't happen with degenerates passing themselves off as leaders. And that is what we have with the neoliberal banking clan, the stupid petro engineers and geologists, and the utterly childish tech feudal lords with their useless toys (solar cell, batteries, etc...a small sample only).

So I have to do it all myself. I finally gave up on the nonsense of nuclear reactors and have found the total solution:

I have initiated a GLOBAL GEOTHERMAL ENERGY + SYNTHETIC FUELS EMPIRE.

Sure, laugh now...but you know the upcoming...

LIQUID FUELS CATASTROPHE

is looming. And its all because this natural gas crap can't scale. The laughable toys called solar and wind can't scale. The laughable batteries can't scale.

The truly staggering potential of Geothermal Energy is simply impossible with Ponzi Finance. The degenerate Neoliberal Banking Establishment will have to be wiped out first. Thats no problem because the upcoming Liquid Fuels Catastrophe will do that for me.

Well thats enough for this post. I am basically a Super Genius trying to save the world. The rest of you degenerates have already given up. Thanks for nothing, degenerates.

I now understand what Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius, had to endure.
The 200 Year Scrap for Crap Oil will soon begin.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby hvacman » Tue 02 Feb 2016, 11:45:43

StarvingLion wrote:"You can't have infinite growth on a finite planet."

Obviously you sure can.


SL - I KNEW I recognized your voice - you're Dr. Science!

Obviously, you sure know what you are talking about when it comes to science. I bet you even have a Masters Degree....in Science!:)

http://drscience.com/wordpress/
hvacman
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun 01 Dec 2013, 12:19:53

Re: Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 02 Feb 2016, 12:35:18

Tanada wrote:This is one of those things I get all Socialist about. Major capital infrastructure like expressways and airports are built by taxpayers and then leased out as toll roads or air traffic hubs in many cases. But for some reason in the USA it is considered wrong to do the same with nuclear power stations or GTL facilities that would supply goods to the general public at a much lower cost if the construction were paid for by the government and the facilities were leased back to the operators who would be responsible for regular maintenance and operations costs.
. . .
So Pstarr here is how I see it, Uncle Sugar should build a few dozen GTL processing centers to keep the trucks, trains and cargo ships moving and the farm and construction equipment working during the post peak oil declines without crashing the whole economy from physical shortages. At the same time they should be investing every dime they can tax or borrow into non fossil carbon based energy infrastructure to get us off the depleting but heavily polluting energy system we use now.

While I agree with your sentiment (Uncle Sugar should have built infrastructure to get us through the peak-oil choke point) I never considered GTL (or any other liquid-fuel replacement scheme) to be the preferred choice. They all require the consumption of huge amounts of coal energy and gigantic plant construction costs. A waste that would have been thrown away ultimately as personal automobile transport will never work again. Just use the coal for transport today.

I would have preferred the construction of electric rail including local trolleys, regional/national electric freight/passenger lines, bullet trains where appropriate. This would have employed more people and the result would have been the final transition to the the solar economy.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26332
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests