[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '
')Populations do no longer grow exponentially. Population will peak at 7-8 billion in 2050 and decline to 6-7 billion in 2100, according to the latest UN statistics.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '
')Populations do no longer grow exponentially. Population will peak at 7-8 billion in 2050 and decline to 6-7 billion in 2100, according to the latest UN statistics.

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Windmills', ' ')All of these fancy plans will be swept away if populations and economies continue to grow exponentially.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ehv_nl', 'I') seem to have a little trouble finding numbers on how many barrels of oil can be produced from a ton of coal using the Fischer Tropsch process, and at what cost. Can someone give me an insight in these numbers?

I heard that the world has currently a 250 years worth of coal supply, and I read somewhere (I forgot where, will check) that a years supply is worth 10 million barrels of oil, which would mean if we would try to make all the current demand of oil from coal that the total reserves of coal would be worth 250/9 = 27.7777 years. I would like to see more specific numbers, though.

[FreakOil]

The more important issue isn't the total amount of coal left in the ground, it's when will we peak, when will demand no longer meet supply. Furthermore, the coal industry is also experiencing a fall in EROEI and EROI. The coal seams are harder to reach and the coal itself is of lower quality.

If we go full on with CTL, then we will reach Peak Coal much more quickly. We're already looking at Peak Coal, at current rates of consumption, probably sometime this century. It may be 240 years or more, theoretically, before we pull the last coal from the ground, but peak will come a lot sooner, along with the economic consequences. Peak Coal probably would be significantly delayed by Peak Oil and the economic consequences.

CTL is not a panacea, although I support endeavors in this field because it may lessen the gradient of the right side of the liquid-fuels depletion curve, which would make all of our lives a little easier and give us more time to prepare for the new social/economic paradigm, whatever that may be.

[FreakOil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es. Coal is a valuable source of concentrated and combustible carbon that would play a valuable role in a broad basket of energy alternatives if we were completely insane and out of our skulls.

Anyone here heard of GW? or land rape? or too many humans?

[matt21811]

I have heard that CTL is 2 to 3 barrels of liquids to a ton of coal.
It has been said here that CTL is cost competitive at $50 a barrel with coal at $50 a ton. This makes production costs about $50 to $100 a ton. When peak oil occurs I suspect that coal will move up to price parity with oil which could be in the 100 a barrel range. Which means Coal could move up to $100 to $200 a ton. Way before this point, nuclear, wind, and geothermal all look relatively cheap and will get some serious investment displacing coal in the electricity segment.

[Kylon]

What are the legal issues with converting coal to oil?

Could you do that privately as a start up mom and pop company(supposing you knew how to build the thing cheap).

What do you think?

[kadoomsoon]

You'd have to own a coal mine and be immune from the EPA. Usually big business is needed to make such a putrid mess so their lawyers will tie up the other lawyers.

I estimate it will be down in Mexico (coal hauled to mexico, converted, and hauled back.)

Coal reprocessing is a very inefficient, putrid, wasteful polluting, river destroying, land destroying process. To scale it up to save the US will destroy the US. It won't really work.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kadoomsoon', '
')Coal reprocessing is a very inefficient, putrid, wasteful polluting, river destroying, land destroying process. To scale it up to save the US will destroy the US. It won't really work.

[Kylon]

Why don't we just ramp up Coal-Liquid fuel production, for the short term, and use coal as our primary power source, while we construct 20,000 new breeder reactors.

If we mass produced them, I'm sure we could succeed in producing them. If an economic crunch is coming, then building Nuke plants would provide a good job for anyone who needed welfare.

What do you think?

[emersonbiggins]

Forget that; let's commandeer all the remaining oil reserves and focus on building space elevators to retrieve He-3 from the moon and beam clean-burning microwave power down from orbit. Carbon nanotubes are teh rawr and I read an article that said there's no physical limitations on structures built with them - from Popular Mechanics, or something. And they never lie about the future.

[Kylon]

What I'm proposing could work.

You can mock me, but what good does that do?

In the end you've gained nothing.

[Opies]

because what you're suggesting is ludicrous.
Building 20,000 breeder reactors wont put fuel in the gas tanks of the tractors.
your solution does not work.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kylon', 'W')hat I'm proposing could work.

You can mock me, but what good does that do?

In the end you've gained nothing.

[yull]

Do you have any idea what the cost of 20,000 new nuclear reactors would be? I don't know the exact figures, but it's probably way more than the whole world's GDP combined. Have a think of it through and you'll find it's fantasy.

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kylon', 'W')hy don't we just ramp up Coal-Liquid fuel production, for the short term, and use coal as our primary power source, while we construct 20,000 new breeder reactors.

If we mass produced them, I'm sure we could succeed in producing them. If an economic crunch is coming, then building Nuke plants would provide a good job for anyone who needed welfare.

What do you think?