U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-24-2009, 04:32 AM
 
2 posts, read 5,021 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

With India and China seeking the same resources as the United States, costs for these commodities will rise. For instance, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects oil consumption to increase by 1/3 through 2030 while electricity demand will rise by 50 percent over the next decade. Some experts predict this will lead to oil that may cost as much as $100 a barrel while natural gas could run as high as $8+ per million BTUs, in the same time period.


As oil prices rise, it usually causes other commodities such as natural gas and coal to rise as well, generally at a lesser rate than oil. Coal typically rises at a rate of 40% of that of oil, making it the cheapest and most abundant alternative to oil, which would explain why the EIA projects its use to climb over the next two decades and does not expect nuclear or renewable energy to reduce coal's market share during this time.


lincenergy.us
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-03-2009, 07:23 AM
 
Location: OUTTA SIGHT!
3,023 posts, read 2,760,711 times
Reputation: 1899
Quote:
Originally Posted by alistaircolin View Post
Coal typically rises at a rate of 40% of that of oil, making it the cheapest and most abundant alternative to oil, ...
Thats debatable I'd say....


Plus, 'clean coal' still contributes to Global Warming (or global weirding, whatever you want to call it....).

At least thats what I'm told.

What do you think about the projections?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 08:18 AM
 
37,072 posts, read 38,527,994 times
Reputation: 14846
Quote:
Originally Posted by brubaker View Post
Thats debatable I'd say....
Coal is quite a bit cheaper. I'm using anthracite coal which is typically double the cost of bituminous coal used in power plants. Currently using the delivery rate for anthracite locally oil would have to be about $0.90 a gallon to compete so certainly the much cheaper bit. coal is going to be much less than the cost of oil.

As far as abundance the estimates for coal reserves within the U.S. borders is better than a century for current power needs in the U.S. The U.S. controls about 25% of the worlds reserves nearly equal to that of China and Russia combined who control the next biggest chunks. They do have a process for converting coal to fuel and I believe the magic number is around $40 a barrel for it to compete but don't quote me on that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top