$98 per barrel oil

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

There are methods for making oil from coal. Somewhere I read that the
process has been revived in China. If it's so uneconomical, why are
they doing it?

It's becoming ecomonically viable to do it in the west as well.



Exactly.... Especially when you build these plants so that
they use nuclear and/or solar to power the synthetic fuel
'refining' process. This is also true if you want a positive
payback in ethanol production.

Remember that oil is used in zillions of products, manufacturing
processes and machinery that we still use and will need to use,
probably forever. Yes, we can reduce our use of it but we are still
going to *need* it. Other countries seem to understand this and are
still exploring for and producing oil, if not for export but even
just for their own use. For us not to do the same thing is simply
foolish.

kontiki wrote in news:UQZYi.20375$ya1.2776
@news02.roc.ny:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

There are methods for making oil from coal. Somewhere I read that the
process has been revived in China. If it's so uneconomical, why are
they doing it?

It's becoming ecomonically viable to do it in the west as well.



Exactly.... Especially when you build these plants so that
they use nuclear and/or solar to power the synthetic fuel
'refining' process. This is also true if you want a positive
payback in ethanol production.

Remember that oil is used in zillions of products, manufacturing
processes and machinery that we still use and will need to use,
probably forever. Yes, we can reduce our use of it but we are still
going to *need* it. Other countries seem to understand this and are
still exploring for and producing oil, if not for export but even
just for their own use. For us not to do the same thing is simply
foolish.



I didn't say I thought it was a god idea, I just said it's economicaly
viable.

Persnoally, I think we should be looking into making airplanes fly on
Sparrow farts. Plenty of untaped methanol there.


Bertie

kontiki wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

There are methods for making oil from coal. Somewhere I read that the
process has been revived in China. If it's so uneconomical, why are
they doing it?

It's becoming ecomonically viable to do it in the west as well.



Exactly.... Especially when you build these plants so that
they use nuclear and/or solar to power the synthetic fuel
'refining' process. This is also true if you want a positive
payback in ethanol production.

Nuclear yes, solar no; solar is too expensive.

Just because sunlight is free doesn't mean the equipment to do the
conversion is.

Remember that oil is used in zillions of products, manufacturing
processes and machinery that we still use and will need to use,
probably forever. Yes, we can reduce our use of it but we are still
going to *need* it. Other countries seem to understand this and are
still exploring for and producing oil, if not for export but even
just for their own use. For us not to do the same thing is simply
foolish.

Exactly, the petrochemical industry uses lots of oil.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
wrote in :

There are no alternatives to oil.

The electric grid uses a vanishingly small amount of oil.

The transportation system uses a vanishingly small amount of
electricity.

Concerning ground transport, there's rail which nowadays is mostly
electric. The combustion engine is really only indispensable in air and
ship transport, as you say, and a fraction of ground transport which
for various reasons can't be transferred to rail.

Most rail is diesel electric; there is a diesel engine driving a
generator.

There are no electrified rails or overhead wires between LA and
Chicago.

Unless you run tracks from every distribution center to every local
retail outlet, rail can never be more than a small fraction of the
transportation system.

Rail is good for hauling bulk items, such as coal, over long distances
between major hubs.

It doesn't get lettuce from Fresno to grocery stores in San Diego.


Technically the problem is trivial; manufacture synthetic fuels. We've
known how to do that for half a century.

Practically the problem is enourmous; the estimated costs I've seen
for synthetic fuels would be many times the current cost of gasoline
and diesel.

There are methods for making oil from coal. Somewhere I read that the
process has been revived in China. If it's so uneconomical, why are
they doing it?

As I said before, such processes have been doable for about a half
century now.

No one is doing it commercially because it is too expensive.

Lots of people are tinkering to see if the cost can be reduced.

When the price of crude oil exceeds the cost of making artificial oil,
then it will happen commercially.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote: About the wonders of electic trains.

Yes it is the American persepctive but you need to realize a little more
American perspective.

The distances here are just plain longer than what you are dealing with in
Europe. The straight line distance between Paris and Berlin ~450 miles. In
the US that would get you from New York to Detroit. To get to Los Angles
you'd have to go another 1900 miles. Which is further than the distance from
either the Northern tip of Denmark to the Southern end of Italy or from
Gibralter to the Polish border.

Would it be nice to have electric rail serving the majority of the US, hell
yes, but after WWII we decided a huge highway system would be the way to go
and it served us well and help make the US the worlds largest economy. But
trying to install an electric rail system now would be next to impossible.
It has become alost impossible to add to the interstate system we already
have.

And there is one big plus to highways over rail. We don't grind to a halt
every time a single union goes out on strike.

Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Wolfgang Schwanke wrote: About the wonders of electic trains.

Yes it is the American persepctive but you need to realize a little more
American perspective.

The distances here are just plain longer than what you are dealing with in
Europe. The straight line distance between Paris and Berlin ~450 miles. In
the US that would get you from New York to Detroit. To get to Los Angles
you'd have to go another 1900 miles. Which is further than the distance from
either the Northern tip of Denmark to the Southern end of Italy or from
Gibralter to the Polish border.

Would it be nice to have electric rail serving the majority of the US, hell
yes, but after WWII we decided a huge highway system would be the way to go
and it served us well and help make the US the worlds largest economy. But
trying to install an electric rail system now would be next to impossible.
It has become alost impossible to add to the interstate system we already
have.

And there is one big plus to highways over rail. We don't grind to a halt
every time a single union goes out on strike.

And trucks can go over mountains that trains can't, which the US has
a lot of.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

... after WWII we decided a huge highway system would be the way to go
and it served us well and help make the US the worlds largest economy.

The highway system helped to do that? What leads you to that conclusion?

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote
Not really. Europe as a continent is a bit larger than the USA.

The straight line distance between Paris and Berlin
~450 miles. In the US that would get you from New York to Detroit.

Oh, so what all are you going to include; All of the old Soviet Union,
Siberia, the Middle East? Why don't you go for Asia, and North Africa, too.
--
Jim in NC

"Wolfgang Schwanke"

Is that you, MX? Another sock puppet, MX? Really!

Merrily we troll along, troll along, troll along.
--
Jim in NC

In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

But trying to install an electric rail system now
would be next to impossible.

It would take a huge effort comparable to the buildup of the highway
system, but why impossible?

Perhaps not impossible, but just the environmental impact analyses required
would result in decades of delays.

plus think about the carbon footprint from the actual process of
building an electricl rail system.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)