[Alberta's Child]

If in some proposed project it would take 100 btu's of energy to extract 50 btu's of usable energy, it does not make economic sense to capitalize such a project.

I think this is where the author of the article would suggest you are wrong. If it takes 100 BTUs of energy in one form to produce 50 BTUs of energy in another form, it might make a lot of sense to capitalize on such a project if the first form of energy is very cheap and the second form is worth a lot of money.

Heck -- just look at all of the energy it takes to dig a ton of coal out of the ground in Wyoming, move it more than a thousand miles to the Midwest on a diesel-powered train, and burn it in a plant that generates electricity. That can't possibly make sense from an "energy consumed vs. energy produced" standpoint, but it must make sense from an economic standpoint because it's done all the time.

[GregoryFul]

I would argue with you on that. Energy costs for usable energy equalize at least for high volume enterprise. If the costs for the fuel to mine and haul the coal across the country exceeded the selling price of the coal, it would not happen. Now, given time, an electric utility can shift from using coal to natural gas, to perhaps oil, or wood, or uranium, to fire its boilers. Simply BTUs (forgetting about pollution, etc.) If it can get its btus cheaper in burning the transport and mining fuel instead, eventually it will. So btus used in mining and shipping are less than delivered btus.

Of course, this analysis omits the cost of the existing infrastructure and labor, presumably also included in the costs of obtaining the coal. That is a hard nut, because it is not as friable as money - or energy for that matter. And owners will often operate a money loosing infrastructure (the airlines, LOL) for a long time before being extinguished.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

This proves my "high rank vs. low rank" argument. Try burning Wyoming coal in your car...