Germany was able to keep going during WW2 because they made motor fuel out of coal. I’m sure we can dust off that formula and reproduce that effort, and with oil up so high it looks like something that may be worth doing, if not for any other reason to stabilize oil prices. So what is the cost /barrel of oil to make this a real possibility?
I wondered this as well. The U.S. has a ridiculous amount of coal. Some estimates say we have enough for several hundred years even with increasing demands like this with just the known reserves. Combine that with Alberta’s tar sands and my great grandkids wouldn’t have any trouble driving something like a gas powered Escalade even in the year 2100. I am always very skeptical about peak petroleum predictions because they always seem to forget about coal and the vast alternative sources of oil.
All of this would probably be an environmental disaster of course but it is there if we want it. I heard estimates years ago that the tar sands would become viable at $80 a barrel which we have already passed. I guess that explains all the development going on in Calgary right now. I also read (no cite) that coal to gasoline starts to become viable at about the same price.
Coal to Liquids technology is in active use in South Africa, $30-45 dolars per bbl seam to be the numbers being bandied around.
There are a few pressure groups active in the US to kick start coal to liquids and, I believe, some pressure from congress people in coal rich states to get funding to start up new plants in the US.
I worked at Sasol (S.Africa’s coal gas plant) several decades ago,which wasn’t too far from Iscor,the steel plant.
Sasol had the worst atmosphere of the two,nasty pong.American plants would be compelled to comply with pollution regs,or so one hopes.
Petrol wasn’t cheap,my memory and conversion is probably sloppy,but I’m thinking +$10.00 a gallon.
Imported gas is still cheap by comparison,IMO.
Here in Kentucky, our farsighted legislature just kissed Mr. Peabody’s ass once again, this time to subsidize the development of a plant to do just this. Now, as Shagnasty notes, the coal companies have even more incentive to chop the tops off of all the rest of our goddamned mountains. :mad:
After all, look at how well the people of Appalachia have been doing so far.
Please don’t consider this thread-shitting… it’s a great question. My point is that the nominal break-even cost of this process is unlikely to take into account the costs of all of the collateral, permanent damage.
A coal-to-liquids plant is on the drawing board in southeast Wyoming.
http://www.laramieboomerang.com/news/more.asp?StoryID=106841
I heard an interview with a governer or some western state several years ago, and he said $42.
The process, by the way, is known as the Fischer-Tropsch process and is well established. The Wiki article also notes that biomass can be used as a feedstock, and not just coal, but I’m not sure what the difference in cost is.