I think most people are aware of these technologies.
The defining characteristic is cost per kilojoule or BTU. To properly calculate that, you must add all input costs: that includes discovery, transport, refining, handling, distribution, capital costs and so on. Also, output: NG, alcohol, and mixes just don't release as much energy as gasoline, diesel, kerosone, etc.
In different markets, energy sources compete. What's competitive in one market may not be, in another. Realities change, often in less than a decade. Most here will recall the outlook for NG in the 90's was completely different than it is now: high prices and depletion were forecast. That outlook has reversed.
There's also the energy sink, where the amount of energy you expend to get energy exceeds the amount you get back.
At a certain price point, it's true that different forms of energy become "cost effective." But here's the reality: at a certain price point, increasing numbers of consumers just can't afford it. Period. Then you get demand destruction, just as we saw when crude hit $147. Transit systems suddenly became overloaded. Food costs soared - agricultural shipments from California went up over 20% to end-users. The price of plastics soared. WHO issued desperate pleas for help as millions starved in Africa. Rush hours disappeared, as people just stopped using their cars. They turned down the heat everywhere: at home, in offices.
So you have to look very closely at claims. Yes, gas to liquid is an alternative. But when crude costs more than $200 per barrel, whole populations will be threatened by the cost of a kilojoule - no matter how they get it.
Jim |
