US Representatives Introduce Coal-to-Liquids Legislation; CO2 Restrictions Part of the Proposa

www.greencarcongress.com ^ | 05/12/2007 | Staff

[Red Badger]

Rest In Peace, old friend, your work is finished.......

If you want on or off the DIESEL "KnOcK" LIST just FReepmail me........

This is a fairly HIGH VOLUME ping list on some days......

[Red Badger]

KnOck!.....

[cpdiii]

This will bring out the so called environmentalist. Their true colors will be exposed. They will fight this with all their ability. They are not environmentalists but merely left wing socialist Marxists.

The agenda of the environmentalists is not the environment. Their purpose is to destroy capitalism and the United States. They are evil.

[Hydroshock]

Good. We need coal fuels. The best way to win the war on terror is shut off the money goiung to the middle east.

[Red Badger]

Time to Put up or ShutUp!........

[P-40]

thereby establishing a price floor for the facility’s product.

That is smart. Look for private investors to start pouring in the dollars now.

[mosaicwolf]

Same idea back in 1973-74. No political will existed back then even though this technology was demonstrated. I think the threshold then was $35.00. Just think where we would be today if the program moved forward.

[cpdiii]

They need a similar bill for shale oil! We could be essentially energy independent in 15 years.

The ideal solution that would increase yield and decrease CO2 emissions, would be to co-locate nuclear power plants.< Coal to liquids and shale oil to oil both consume a great deal of their product producing the energies for the processes. Nuclear power can produce the energy needed to drive the process and at the same time generate electricity to feed the grid.

The real beauty of this is using heat directly from a reactor eliminates the efficiency losses in conversion of steam pressure to electricity in the steam powered turbines. The steam drives the process in coal or shale oil to liquids and any excess capacity can generate electricity.]
This is a win win win. The environmentalists will hate it.

[2001convSVT]

What a great way to help America’s addiction to liquid hydrocarbons. If I knew enough I would build and operate my own coal to liquids plant.

[RightWhale]

Analysts consider $40 per barrel the threshold at which CTL becomes economic.

Oh, that could happen.

[Rodney King]

That is smart. Look for private investors to start pouring in the dollars now.

What is smart about a technology that won't go anywhere without the government propping it up? How about this: Let the plant go out and sell calls on the price of oil, and use the proceeds to buy $40 puts.

It's not hard. It's called hedging, and is done by businesses all over the world every day. Why can't these plants do it?

[P-40]

Why can't these plants do it?

Few of these plants exist right now...and they are certainly not going to blow a lot of capital on a long term hedging strategy when they won't see any profits for years.

There is nothing wrong with guaranteeing an artificial floor for a while. The chance that oil prices will fall low enough to trigger the guarantee is low but investors remember the eighties and want to make sure that the government is serious about these new fuels this time.

[bert]

Why bother rolling your own when you can buy one off the
shelf?

Here’s the place to buy.

http://www.eastman.com/Company/Gasification/Gasification_Intro.htm

Eastman chemical is in Kingsport TN and adjacent to the Rep Boucher coal producung district in southwest Virginia.

[Rodney King]

Few of these plants exist right now...and they are certainly not going to blow a lot of capital on a long term hedging strategy when they won't see any profits for years.

The hedging doesn't cost a lot of money when you are selling the calls to buy the puts.. its called a costless collar.

There is nothing wrong with guaranteeing an artificial floor for a while. The chance that oil prices will fall low enough to trigger the guarantee is low but investors remember the eighties and want to make sure that the government is serious about these new fuels this time.

There is something wrong with it if you believe that the government can't do a better job of investing or supporting investment than the private sector can.

[P-40]

The hedging doesn't cost a lot of money

It is also not free...and when you are asking investors to pour billions into facilities that might not see a dollar for years don't expect a lot of money for hedging.

And it is the government that is wanting these new technologies. Remember all those taxpayers griping about the cost of gas and other forms of energy? The government in this case is just offering a guarantee for the private sector to do the investing.

[Rodney King]

The government in this case is just offering a guarantee for the private sector to do the investing.

The guarantee has a cost. This is why buying a put option is not free. All you are saying is that the risks of this endeavor should be borne not by the investors, who stand to reap a lot of money, but by the taxpayers i.e. me.

This is corporate welfare. It is the transfer of money (in the form of the bearing or risk) strait from my pocket to the pockets of the corporations doing this.

Which is fine, if you believe in government-private "partnerships" and other forms of corporate socialism.

[P-40]

All you are saying is that the risks of this endeavor should be borne not by the investors

Most all of the risks are born by the investors. Only one risk, and one of the least likely to be a factor, is being born by the government. And yes, they will get paid for it.

If you want to see something done about America's dependence on foreign sources for energy, this is some of what you get. This is the taxpayer coming together with a problem that needs a solution and the taxpayer's government providing one.

[Rodney King]

Most all of the risks are born by the investors.

yup

Only one risk, and one of the least likely to be a factor, is being born by the government.

Right, but it doesn't need to be, there are others i.e. the financial markets willing to bear the risk on what oil does. In fact billions and billions of the risk is placed every day.

And yes, they will get paid for it.

Apparently not.

If you want to see something done about America's dependence on foreign sources for energy, this is some of what you get. This is the taxpayer coming together with a problem that needs a solution and the taxpayer's government providing one.

Right. So, the private markets know best which projects to fund, etc etc. EXCEPT (insert whatever favorite project someone has at any give time).

There is a fortune to be made in cheap new sources of energy. It doesn't need the government, just as the government wasn't needed to develop petroleum.

[P-40]

Right. So, the private markets know best which projects to fund

The private markets do know best which to fund if they know what the regulatory picture is going to look like. Problem is, the may not do it without additional incentives. That is just the way it is.

And you can bet the government stands to gain from this. Local resources mined using local labor and produced locally....yup, they will get paid.

[Rodney King]

The private markets do know best which to fund if they know what the regulatory picture is going to look like. Problem is, the may not do it without additional incentives. That is just the way it is.

Agreed... a transparent regulatory framework is crucial for capitalism.

And you can bet the government stands to gain from this. Local resources mined using local labor and produced locally....yup, they will get paid.

Yeah, but they would get that anyway if a private company bore the risk.