Hi,

The study it appears you reference is here:

http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price...20Gasoline.pdf

They included the "cost" of lower taxes on petroleum based fuel, the cost of environmental protection, deicing of roadways and even the cost of national defense policy into their rationalization. They also include the cost of parking spaces, since if we were all fuel less pedestrians we'd only have need for a shoe rack in our closets.

Any time a group considers a lower tax a "subsidy" their motives are questionable. Gasoline might be tax preferred in some areas, but its value is set by the market.

The Pentagon would love to have $15 a gallon gas, they've been paying upwards of $400 a gallon for gasoline. Apparently job one should be to build an explosion proof Quik Trip in Afghanistan.

A number not often talked about by environmental policy advocates is the fact that US gas consumption peaked in 2006 and has been decreasing steadily with the increasing efficiency of cars and light trucks. That trend is expected to accelerate as lighter materials and increased use of technology come to market. For example Ford's new F150 is faster than it's competitors and out hauls their base and optional engines while getting 23 MPG in base form and 22 MPG in the model with 420 ft.lbs. or torque. These are replacing trucks which got 11 to 15 MPG for similar performance.

The distances traveled by car, per person, peaked in 2003 and has been decreasing.

I'm no fan of fuel consumption, or sending money to those who want us dead in the Middle East, but, when it comes to airplanes v/s trains, fill me up! Our 737 seems to average around 90 MPG, per passenger, while doing about 550 MPH. Try that in a Prius.

Thats not entirely true. The problem is that it isnt economically feasable yet.


Since the invention of the original process by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, working at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in the 1920s, many refinements and adjustments have been made. The term "Fischer-Tropsch" now applies to a wide variety of similar processes (Fischer-Tropsch synthesis or Fischer-Tropsch chemistry). Fischer and Tropsch filed a number of patents, e.g., US patent no. 1,746,464, applied 1926, published 1930.[8] It was commercialized in Germany in 1936. Being petroleum-poor but coal-rich, in Germany the FT-process was used by Nazi Germany and Japan during World War II to produce ersatz (German: substitute) fuels. F-T production accounted for an estimated 9% of German war production of fuels and 25% of the automobile fuel.[9]
The United States Bureau of Mines, in a program initiated by the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Act, employed seven Operation Paperclip synthetic fuel scientists in a Fischer-Tropsch plant in Louisiana, Missouri in 1946.[10][9]
In Britain, Alfred August Aicher obtained several patents for improvements to the process in the 1930s and 1940s.[11] Aicher's company was named Synthetic Oils Ltd. (Now based in Canada.)
[edit] Commercialization

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...zvergasung.jpg http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/...gnify-clip.png
Fluidized bed gasification with FT-pilot in Güssing, Burgenland, Austria


The F-T process has been applied on a large scale in some industrial sectors, although its popularity is hampered by high capital costs, high operation and maintenance costs, the uncertain and volatile price of crude oil, and environmental concerns. In particular, the use of natural gas as a feedstock only becomes practical when using "stranded gas", i.e. sources of natural gas far from major cities which are impractical to exploit with conventional gas pipelines and LNG technology; otherwise, the direct sale of natural gas to consumers would become much more profitable. Several companies are developing the process to enable practical exploitation of so-called stranded gas reserves.
[edit] Sasol

The largest scale implementation of F-T technology are in a series of plants operated by Sasol in South Africa, a country with large coal reserves but lacking in oil. Sasol uses coal and now natural gas as feedstocks and produces a variety of synthetic petroleum products, including most of the country's diesel fuel.[12]
[edit] Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis

One of the largest implementations of F-T technology is in Bintulu, Malaysia. This Shell facility converts natural gas into low-sulfur diesel fuels and food-grade wax. The scale is 12,000 barrels per day.
[edit] Ras Laffan, Qatar

The new LTFT facility scheduled to commission in 2010 at Ras Laffan, Qatar is based on the Sasol technology, using cobalt catalysts at 230 °C. It includes the "Dolphin Gas Project" plant, converting natural gas to petroleum liquids at a rate of 140,000 barrels/day, with additional production of 120,000 barrels of oil equivalent in natural gas liquids and ethane.
[edit] UPM (Finland)

In October 2006, Finnish paper and pulp manufacturer UPM announced its plans to produce biodiesel by Fischer–Tropsch process alongside the manufacturing processes at its European paper and pulp plants, using waste biomass resulted by paper and pulp manufacturing processes as source material.[13]
[edit] Rentech (Colorado, USA)

A demonstration scale F-T plant is owned and operated by Rentech Inc in partnership with ClearFuels, a company specializing in biomass gasification. Located in Commerce City, Colorado (U.S.), the facility produces about 10 barrels per day of fuels from natural gas. Commercial scale facilities are planned for Rialto, California and Natchez, Mississippi.[14]
[edit] Other

In the US, some coal-producing states have invested in F-T plants. In Pennsylvania, Waste Management and Processors Inc. was funded by the state to implement F-T technology licensed from Shell and Sasol to convert so-called waste coal (leftovers from the mining process) into low-sulfur diesel fuel.[15][16]
[edit] Research developments

Choren Industries has built an FT plant in Germany that converts biomass to syngas and fuels using the Shell F-T process.[17][18]
[edit] U.S. Air Force certification

Syntroleum, a publicly traded US company (Nasdaq: SYNM) has produced over 400,000 gallons of diesel and jet fuel from the Fischer–Tropsch process using natural gas and coal at its demonstration plant near Tulsa, Oklahoma. Syntroleum is working to commercialize its licensed Fischer-Tropsch technology via coal-to-liquid plants in the US, China, and Germany, as well as gas-to-liquid plants internationally. Using natural gas as a feedstock, the ultra-clean, low sulfur fuel has been tested extensively by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Most recently, Syntroleum has been working with the U.S. Air Force to develop a synthetic jet fuel blend that will help the Air Force to reduce its dependence on imported petroleum. The Air Force, which is the U.S. military's largest user of fuel, began exploring alternative fuel sources in 1999. On December 15, 2006, a B-52 took off from Edwards AFB, California for the first time powered solely by a 50-50 blend of JP-8 and Syntroleum's FT fuel. The seven-hour flight test was considered a success. The goal of the flight test program is to qualify the fuel blend for fleet use on the service's B-52s, and then flight test and qualification on other aircraft. The test program concluded in 2007. This program is part of the Department of Defense Assured Fuel Initiative, an effort to develop secure domestic sources for the military energy needs. The Pentagon hopes to reduce its use of crude oil from foreign producers and obtain about half of its aviation fuel from alternative sources by 2016.[19] With the B-52 now approved to use the FT blend, the C-17 Globemaster III, the B-1B, and eventually every airframe in its inventory to use the fuel by 2011.[19][20]

Thank you for the most sensible and objectively non politically motivated post on this thread. Too many people are too quick to condemn subsides when the very subsides supports infrastructure.......which is what government should do. From the reclusive and heavily armed Montana mountain man to a hoighty toighty New Yorker fashionista......EVERYONE benefits from infrastructure.

Coal synthetic fuel is still a hydrocarbon and has fewer hydrocarbons per molecule than diesel and gasoline. Notice they are using blends. They cant use 100% and get the energy needed. It's also being developed by the DoD as a hedge against a cutoff of supply from the OPEC nations, not because it is cheaper or more efficient.

BTW, synthetic fuel from coal is a good idea. We have lots of coal. It's a worthy goal to be able to convert that solid fuel used for electricity/industrial power generation to transportation fuel to supplement an unreliable supply. It is however, no substitute for developing our own domestic supplies of petroleum.

Bio fuels are just the opposite. Ethanol is an unmitigated disaster, except perhaps to ADM and other mega agri producers and corn belt politicians. Just ask a peasant from Mexico or South America what they think of ethanol as they pay three times more for corn meal as they did before. Whomever thought that burning food to make transportation was a good idea was either crazy or had an agenda.

When you talk about energy production you have two pillars. Power generation ie electricity, and transportation, both currently are produced for the most part by fossil fuels. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc are a very small part of the mix.

We could all drive electric cars and cut petroleum use radically if we built 1000 nuclear plants. Any chance of that happening?

Richard Anderson pointed out in his 4th Quarter report for DAL to investors that 28% of a ticket price is from a tax...when asked, "How can the gov't better help you do your job", he stated, "We can start with this tax burden".

With a Republican House of Representatives, this President will not get his agenda passed since all appropriations begin with the House. Remember Gingrich & Clinton's gridlock in 1995?

I can't seem to understand why the federal government tends to chastise the airlines in this country.

I guess it has something to do with AMTRAK being a government owned business, while airlines have to abide by the the fundamental rules of the marketplace independently.

The funny thing is, as bad as the airlines have done over the past 10 years, we are still doing better than AMTRAK and other government run companies.

Dead head's right. Liberal government big wigs don't think it is worth the carbon emissions for us commoners to move about the Earth. But, when Biden wants to go somewhere, gas up the jet(s).

Bar, can't tell if you are joking but you have hit the proverbial nail. The attack on private transportation choices is an attack on freedom. Stateists don't want the people to have the ability to move about the country of world freely. One's ability to pick up and move to escape tyranny or high taxes lessens the power of the state. The state that controls transportation can dictate where you go and can't go. TSA is not about security but control.

If the high tax states like NY and CA et al keep losing population, look for a huge tax on moving companies and Uhauls.

If you're referring to private automobile, than that is far from any type of privately funded mode of transportation. In fact its probably the opposite, when you consider that the last several years we've had to bail out the Highway Trust Fund with several billion dollars each year. In fact $63 billion over the last two years and that came from your income tax, not your gas tax.

Plus how exactly is giving more transportation choices stopping people from moving freely about the country? Is having more public transit options such as rail, buses, flying, driving, make us less mobile? I should think not.

If you're refering to the Chicago-St. Louis line, that is already under construction. Been so since last fall. Should be complete in 2012.

It's sole purpose is not just to reduce traffic. What are the alternatives? Build more lanes? Where is the room to put them? I'll agree that a big part of building that line is creating jobs, but it's also long term jobs, such as attracting permanent development, created thousands of more jobs while creating a higher tax base to reduce deficit.