[BigBobber]

I highly recommend the author's book "The Bottomless Well" It has completely changed my understanding of the energy economy - and I work in the energy industry.

One of the key points in the book is mankind's eternal quest for higher concentrations and purer forms of energy. We do this becasue we can do more productive thngs with that energy.

For example, the energy path might lead from coal to electricity to more refined electricity to laser energy. Each step of the way there are losses in the form of heat, but since the laser energy is so valuable it makes economic sense to do so.

So to go back to your example, if that 100 BTUs of coal energy is used to make 50 BTUs of laser energy it does indeed make sense.

[GregoryFul]

Certainly there are lots of segments where one would consume larger amounts of energy to yield smaller (likely more useful) amounts of energy in a different form (and higher price than the input energy). That's what all consumers ultimately do. But the bulk users of energy want the lowest cost per delivered unit. Transportation: most miles per dollar. Heating, cooling: most btus per dollar. Bulk users will adjust their manner of consuming, if they can, to the lowest cost fuel.

You are right, if it takes 100 BTUs of coal to make 10 BTUs of gasoline, and as a bulk user, I want gas, I'll pay for the 100 BTUs of coal, and I will bid up the price eventually, to be equal to 10 BTUs of oil. However, the coal burning electric utility will outbid me, because the 100 btus of coal will be more useful to it than the 10 btus of gas. They would eventually bid the same amount for btus delivered in oil, natural gas, hydrogen, or coal, all other things being equal (pollution, capital investment, etc.)