Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: granite
In the 1970's, Ashland Oil Company built a coal liquifaction demonstration plant in Ashland KY, just downriver from the Ashland (now Marathon-owned) refinery. They proved the commercial viability of converting coal to a liquid, not unlike gasoline, and to a gas not unlike natural gas. Unfortunately the cost per gallon to produce it at that time was well above the cost of gasoline.

Given that the cost of gasoline today is actually on par with the inflation-adjusted price from 1980, I have to assume that coal liquifaction still doesn't make economic sense.

11 posted on 05/21/2007 6:36:34 PM PDT by MinimizeGovernment (Where have all the conservatives gone? They're not in the Republican Party anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: MinimizeGovernment

Economics of Peak Oil

Talk of "peak oil" and "running out of oil" concerns only cheap, high quality oil. Cheap oil may peak by 2010, that's a big reason the price has now gone up to the price of expensive oil. We have already suffered much of the economic impact of running out of cheap oil—and survivied.
The world has not collapsed—billions of people are not dying. High oil prices hurt, but even at $100/barrel, the world economy would not collapse. But the current level of $70 per barrel is enough to bring lots of new resources into the market. At that price you can turn coal into gasoline.
 
 
 
 
Peak Oil per Person
 
 
  The oil-crisis folks predict catastrophe when we pass the peak of oil production. But what matters is not total production, but how much we have per person. People need oil, "the world" does not. So per-person production matters not "world production." Since we passed the per-person peak in 1979, the Peak-Oil Crisis happened 26 years ago, and it wasn't so bad.

Because OPEC and the Iraq-Iran war pushed price up too far and too fast, there was a world recession, but we came out of it and the world is richer now than it was then.

The oil-geologists, who are crying wolf, deliberately ignore economics--they dislike it and think pure geology is enough. But this is a human problem and money matters. In fact, what the graph below shows is that when the crisis hit, price went up and people conserved lots of energy. In fact it looks like world oil consumption would have been double what it is today without the price increases. That's one effective conservation program.
 
 
 
Use vs Price
 
 
  There are two reasons wht there will be no sudden oil crisis caused by running out of oil.
 
1. At higher prices, lots of oil can be made from tar sand, oil shale, coal, etc.
2. Even without this, the market would prevent a sudden smashup.
The supply side
 
First, the easy one; there's lots of fossil for gasoline. The Germans ran mostly on gasoline made from coal during WWII. We are better at converting coal to oil today. There is enough coal to last a couple of hundred years. Long before people give up cars, or starve to death, we will make gasoline from coal.
Why hasn't this happened? Because the price of oil has not stayed high for long enough, and because there is still enough cheap oil. Investment in alternative sources of gasoline started back in the late 1970's when the price spiked for a while.  But it soon came down and stayed down for 25 years and killed those projects. Investors will not invest again until they are quite sure the price will stay up. But once we run out of cheap oil it will definitely stay up, and investors will build plants to convert coal to oil.
Even now tar sands production in Alberta is going gang busters.  It's a bit cheaper than converting coal to oil and oil prices have been high enough long enough for that to take off. Alberta has enough recoverable oil from tar sands to equal Saudi Arabia in volume of oil. It just costs more and makes a much bigger mess.
How high will the price get? Demand for gasoline responds to price, but not very quickly. If there is a sudden shortage of supply, people get desperate, are willing to pay a lot, and the price spikes. Consequently the price will bounce around from say 60% too high to 20% too low. But since gasoline can be made from coal for the equivalent of about $40 per barrel, it is unlikely that we will see prices averaging $100/barrel (in 2000 dollars) for many years to come, perhaps not for over a century.
 
 
  The demand side
 
Even if there were no expensive source of gasoline, we would not run out. How is this possible? Say there were just enough oil to sustain the present level of oil consumption for 50 years, and once that was used up, there would be no more oil and no way to make any from coal, or distill it from tar sands. Wouldn't we just use it all up and run out, and the economy would collapse?
Nope. People are not that dumb. The oil traders think about how fast we are running out all the time, and how to profit from it. They are greedy. The geologists are not quite so greedy, which is a good thing, but they need to learn something from the traders.
Say the world was going to run out of oil in 2050. By 2049, the geologists would have this figured out. What would the traders do? They would buy all the oil they could and hold onto it until 2051. Because with the world totally out of oil except for their stash, it would be worth a fortune--probably $50,000 per barrel. People would pay just to see it, and the super rich would pay a fortune to show off driving their fancy cars when the world is out of oil.
This is all a bit silly, but it shows the basic reason we can't run out. The closer we get to running out, the more the traders will hoard oil and wait for the price to go higher. Their hoarding prevents us from running out. But their hoarding causes shortages ahead of time. These shortages won't stop all oil use, just slow it down and drive the price up.
When the world tries to run out of oil (remember, we're assuming no coal or tar sands), it can't run out, but the price goes up and up and up. That's really what stops our running out--the traders make it so expensive we can't afford to.
Oil literally costs too much for the world to use it up. Now here's the tricky part: how fast will the price go up? Will it go up slowly till it gets to $100 and then shoot up to $1000 the next year? No, because the traders would see this coming and buy lots of oil and drive the price up before it did that. The theory of price is very circular, but that doesn't mean there is no answer. It means you have to be good at math to find the answer.
The answer was found in the 1930s by Hottelling. Unfortunately, the math is calculus, but not first or second year calculus, it's third year--so I'm not going to explain it to you. But the answer is simple. All those greedy traders, who will forever watch for peak oil so they can buy the oil before the other traders do, will prevent any huge and sudden increase. There will be sudden ups and downs, but the average will increase forever at only about the rate of interest, only about 10% per year, and we will never completely run out.
 
 
  Supply and demand together
 
As the price goes up, two things happen. We use less gasoline and we produce more from tar and coal. Once coal becomes economical as a source of gasoline, it will hold the price of oil down to that level. The result will be that we will run out of cheap oil because its price will not go up as it would if it were the only source of gasoline. Then we will be left with only coal, tar sands and other expensive sources.
Unfortunately, both have a higher carbon content and both take more energy to produce. So we will keep using more and more energy as the population of the world grows and gets richer and CO2 will increase even faster than with good cheap oil.

12 posted on 05/21/2007 6:46:31 PM PDT by granite ("We dare not tempt them with weakness" - JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: MinimizeGovernment
Given that the cost of gasoline today is actually on par with the inflation-adjusted price from 1980, I have to assume that coal liquifaction still doesn't make economic sense.

I recall reading that one problem is that even if OPEC drives up the price of oil above the cost of oil shale, that wouldn't make oil shale economically viable as long as OPEC retains the ability to reduce prices.

Suppose, for example, that for one billion dollars a company could gain the ability to produce an unlimited quantity of oil for $40/barrel. It's been a long time since OPEC has sold oil that cheap, but if someone started selling oil for $40/barrel, OPEC would probably respond by selling its oil for $39/barrel. Almost everyone in the U.S. would be better off as a result of OPEC's being forced to cut its prices, except for the company that spent $1B which it may never recover.

24 posted on 05/21/2007 8:05:51 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: MinimizeGovernment

“They proved the commercial viability of converting coal to a liquid, not unlike gasoline, and to a gas not unlike natural gas. Unfortunately the cost per gallon to produce it at that time was well above the cost of gasoline.”

Then wouldn’t it be they proved technical potential but commercial non-viability.


26 posted on 05/21/2007 8:20:54 PM PDT by bricks4all2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: MinimizeGovernment

From what I recall, Ashland Oil was primarily if not strictly a refiner and had little, if any oil production themselves. It certainly would have been in their best interest to make coal liquefaction work if they could and diversify away from the oil markets.

Today, by far the biggest refiner in this country is Valero and they have little if any oil. It would be in their best interest to make this technology work. Must be a good reason.


38 posted on 05/22/2007 3:32:06 PM PDT by bricks4all2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson