Running out of gas?
Thread Starter
|
Engineering first
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,613
From: Huntsville, AL
Running out of gas?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...471_oil24.html
The end of cheap oil is staring us in the face.
Bob Wilson
. . . a look at one of the world's largest petroleum reserves where there's not an oil well in sight. Instead, in a two-mile-wide pit below, trucks head to refineries with loads of sand weighing more than Boeing 747s. Yellow flames shoot skyward as 900-degree heat liquefies any embedded petroleum.
Floating scarecrows and propane-powered cannons do their best to chase migrating birds from lethal wastewater ponds. Eventually, nuclear reactors may surround the crater 270 miles northeast of Edmonton, Alberta, delivering the power required to wring oil from sand.
"This is what the end of the age of oil means," says Reinert, who plans the vehicles Toyota will make in a quarter century as national manager for advanced technology at the U.S. sales unit in Torrance, Calif. "The car-based culture, the business-as-usual of building cars and trucks, is going to change dramatically."
. . .
Floating scarecrows and propane-powered cannons do their best to chase migrating birds from lethal wastewater ponds. Eventually, nuclear reactors may surround the crater 270 miles northeast of Edmonton, Alberta, delivering the power required to wring oil from sand.
"This is what the end of the age of oil means," says Reinert, who plans the vehicles Toyota will make in a quarter century as national manager for advanced technology at the U.S. sales unit in Torrance, Calif. "The car-based culture, the business-as-usual of building cars and trucks, is going to change dramatically."
. . .
Bob Wilson
Active Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 108
From: SE PA
Re: Running out of gas?
Yup.
And the tar sands are not a sustainable option either. In addition to the 900 degree temps (lots'a energy use there) needed to heat the sand, the tar the sand yields must be mixed with naptha (a product of light oil production) to lower it's viscosity sufficiently to make it a liquid fuel.
An important aspect of energy literacy is understanding the concept of EROEI (energy return on energy invested). In other words, it takes energy to produce energy. Petroleum production from naturally pressurized oil fields is the cheapest and most energy efficient form of energy production ever known. NOTHING else comes close. The next best thing is coal and that is WAY behind petroleum (not to mention the additional problems with coal; such as pollution).
Probably the least efficient form of energy production is "oil shale". Almost as much energy goes into producing a usable fuel from oil shale as the shale yields. ("Oil shale" actually contains no oil at all, but an organic solid called kerogen.)
And the tar sands are not a sustainable option either. In addition to the 900 degree temps (lots'a energy use there) needed to heat the sand, the tar the sand yields must be mixed with naptha (a product of light oil production) to lower it's viscosity sufficiently to make it a liquid fuel.
An important aspect of energy literacy is understanding the concept of EROEI (energy return on energy invested). In other words, it takes energy to produce energy. Petroleum production from naturally pressurized oil fields is the cheapest and most energy efficient form of energy production ever known. NOTHING else comes close. The next best thing is coal and that is WAY behind petroleum (not to mention the additional problems with coal; such as pollution).
Probably the least efficient form of energy production is "oil shale". Almost as much energy goes into producing a usable fuel from oil shale as the shale yields. ("Oil shale" actually contains no oil at all, but an organic solid called kerogen.)
Thread Starter
|
Engineering first
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,613
From: Huntsville, AL
Re: Running out of gas?
. . .
An important aspect of energy literacy is understanding the concept of EROEI (energy return on energy invested). In other words, it takes energy to produce energy. Petroleum production from naturally pressurized oil fields is the cheapest and most energy efficient form of energy production ever known. NOTHING else comes close. The next best thing is coal and that is WAY behind petroleum (not to mention the additional problems with coal; such as pollution).
Probably the least efficient form of energy production is "oil shale". Almost as much energy goes into producing a usable fuel from oil shale as the shale yields. ("Oil shale" actually contains no oil at all, but an organic solid called kerogen.)
An important aspect of energy literacy is understanding the concept of EROEI (energy return on energy invested). In other words, it takes energy to produce energy. Petroleum production from naturally pressurized oil fields is the cheapest and most energy efficient form of energy production ever known. NOTHING else comes close. The next best thing is coal and that is WAY behind petroleum (not to mention the additional problems with coal; such as pollution).
Probably the least efficient form of energy production is "oil shale". Almost as much energy goes into producing a usable fuel from oil shale as the shale yields. ("Oil shale" actually contains no oil at all, but an organic solid called kerogen.)
I thought I'd once seen a well-to-tank figure of about 25% for current oil to gasoline. Does this seem about right for the oil industry?
Thanks,
Bob Wilson
Active Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 108
From: SE PA
Re: Running out of gas?
Well, conversion of tar sand to liquid fuel is different from conversion of oil shale to liquid fuel.
Converting the tar sands (Canadian) to liquid fuel involves the addition of naptha. The conversion of oil shale to liquid fuel involves the addition of hydrogen. Both require "kilning" to approx 900 degrees. All this requires the addition of energy in different amounts (not counting the energy used by giant mining/earth moving equipment).
Heinberg cites two different studies in his book. Both studies express EROEI as a proportion, with light crude having a value of 100 to 40 (to one unit of energy invested). Oil shale varies with the study cited from .7 (in other words, MORE energy goes into its production than is yielded!) to a high of (IIRC) 13. I forget the figures on the Canadian tar sands.
Converting the tar sands (Canadian) to liquid fuel involves the addition of naptha. The conversion of oil shale to liquid fuel involves the addition of hydrogen. Both require "kilning" to approx 900 degrees. All this requires the addition of energy in different amounts (not counting the energy used by giant mining/earth moving equipment).
Heinberg cites two different studies in his book. Both studies express EROEI as a proportion, with light crude having a value of 100 to 40 (to one unit of energy invested). Oil shale varies with the study cited from .7 (in other words, MORE energy goes into its production than is yielded!) to a high of (IIRC) 13. I forget the figures on the Canadian tar sands.
Thread Starter
|
Engineering first
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,613
From: Huntsville, AL
Re: Running out of gas?
Well, conversion of tar sand to liquid fuel is different from conversion of oil shale to liquid fuel.
Converting the tar sands (Canadian) to liquid fuel involves the addition of naptha. The conversion of oil shale to liquid fuel involves the addition of hydrogen. Both require "kilning" to approx 900 degrees. All this requires the addition of energy in different amounts (not counting the energy used by giant mining/earth moving equipment).
Heinberg cites two different studies in his book. Both studies express EROEI as a proportion, with light crude having a value of 100 to 40 (to one unit of energy invested). Oil shale varies with the study cited from .7 (in other words, MORE energy goes into its production than is yielded!) to a high of (IIRC) 13. I forget the figures on the Canadian tar sands.
Converting the tar sands (Canadian) to liquid fuel involves the addition of naptha. The conversion of oil shale to liquid fuel involves the addition of hydrogen. Both require "kilning" to approx 900 degrees. All this requires the addition of energy in different amounts (not counting the energy used by giant mining/earth moving equipment).
Heinberg cites two different studies in his book. Both studies express EROEI as a proportion, with light crude having a value of 100 to 40 (to one unit of energy invested). Oil shale varies with the study cited from .7 (in other words, MORE energy goes into its production than is yielded!) to a high of (IIRC) 13. I forget the figures on the Canadian tar sands.
I notice your identifier shows "SE Pa." I understand Pennsylvania has a state supported coal conversion plant in planning or operation. Any progress to report?
Thanks,
Bob Wilson
Active Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 108
From: SE PA
Re: Running out of gas?
You know? I had an electrician into my house last month to install two new service panels and two new electric company meter boxes. I asked him if he knew where our electricity came from and he said, "I don't know." I'm no better and must plead partial ignorance as well.
Now, here where I live I know that we have four nuclear power plants within a fifty mile radius of my house; Limerick, PA, Salem, NJ, Reedy Island, DE, and Peachbottom, PA. There is also a hydro plant at Connawingo Dam. I presume that all these plants feed into "the grid" that constitutes part of the overall power distribution for the Northeast. My assumption is that there are also coal fired plants in the mix, but I don't know where they are.
Now, here where I live I know that we have four nuclear power plants within a fifty mile radius of my house; Limerick, PA, Salem, NJ, Reedy Island, DE, and Peachbottom, PA. There is also a hydro plant at Connawingo Dam. I presume that all these plants feed into "the grid" that constitutes part of the overall power distribution for the Northeast. My assumption is that there are also coal fired plants in the mix, but I don't know where they are.
Hybrid and Ethanol Expert
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,616
From: All over the Central U.S.
Re: Running out of gas?
So what about nuclear?
Isn't it pretty darn safe and clean save the improbable catastrophe?
Which would be better? Many may small plants in many locations with relatively small amounts of fuel? Or a few gigantic power plants with all the fuel concentrated in just a few area? Few instances for a catastrophic failure, but a larger one if/when it does happen.
I've not done a lot of research into it, but on the surface, it sounds like one of the better options. With more Nuclear power, we could probably sustain a large fleet of electric vehicles. Or hydrogen for that matter, as all we need is electricity to make H2 from water.
When you talk about vehicle fuel, the fact that you need something light and mobile complicates things.
I really see no major problem with a few huge nulcear stations... they could be heavily gaurded against human threats, if they were concentrated in just a few key areas. Of course you would need to engineer them to guard against natural disasters. ( Calif. earthquake zone is probably not the best area for one.... ) Thoughts?
I think our planet has plenty of power for everyone. It's just getting the power portable enough for cars and trucks that is the hard part. Ethanol tries to do that, either rather well, or rather poorly depending on how you ask... but at least some solar energy is captured by photosynthesis and put into a fuel tank. Of course, like others have said, it takes energy to make this energy. Ethanol ( I think ) is one of those cases where doing it slowly, in small batches may be more effiecient than doing it with large scale production.
If each person made a few gallons a week in a basement or garage, that would elimiate interstate transport of the raw ingredients, and can be done almost entirely without electricity input ( You don't need to stir a tank if the tank is small enough, or you could stir a 55 gallon drum by hand.... ) and you don't need electricity for large pumps, if you are not pumping it anywhere... and yes, on a small scale like a 55 gallon drum per week, you could distill the ethanol without any fossil fuel imput. ( use solar heat focused with a mirror for example )
The left over "spent" grains could become compost for your own yard.
Once you get a starter culture of yeast, you can grow your own yeast almost indefinately...
Indeed, ethanol only takes a lot of energy when you want 300 gallons per minute. (Industrial size) If 300 gallons a year would suffice for you... I could rig up something to make ethanol from grain, without any fossil fuel input. Sure, it may only be 180 to 190 proof, ( which runs fine in cars BTW... ) but it would have an energy output percentage that would be huge. Just in a small way. -John
Isn't it pretty darn safe and clean save the improbable catastrophe?
Which would be better? Many may small plants in many locations with relatively small amounts of fuel? Or a few gigantic power plants with all the fuel concentrated in just a few area? Few instances for a catastrophic failure, but a larger one if/when it does happen.
I've not done a lot of research into it, but on the surface, it sounds like one of the better options. With more Nuclear power, we could probably sustain a large fleet of electric vehicles. Or hydrogen for that matter, as all we need is electricity to make H2 from water.
When you talk about vehicle fuel, the fact that you need something light and mobile complicates things.
I really see no major problem with a few huge nulcear stations... they could be heavily gaurded against human threats, if they were concentrated in just a few key areas. Of course you would need to engineer them to guard against natural disasters. ( Calif. earthquake zone is probably not the best area for one.... ) Thoughts?
I think our planet has plenty of power for everyone. It's just getting the power portable enough for cars and trucks that is the hard part. Ethanol tries to do that, either rather well, or rather poorly depending on how you ask... but at least some solar energy is captured by photosynthesis and put into a fuel tank. Of course, like others have said, it takes energy to make this energy. Ethanol ( I think ) is one of those cases where doing it slowly, in small batches may be more effiecient than doing it with large scale production.
If each person made a few gallons a week in a basement or garage, that would elimiate interstate transport of the raw ingredients, and can be done almost entirely without electricity input ( You don't need to stir a tank if the tank is small enough, or you could stir a 55 gallon drum by hand.... ) and you don't need electricity for large pumps, if you are not pumping it anywhere... and yes, on a small scale like a 55 gallon drum per week, you could distill the ethanol without any fossil fuel imput. ( use solar heat focused with a mirror for example )
The left over "spent" grains could become compost for your own yard.
Once you get a starter culture of yeast, you can grow your own yeast almost indefinately...
Indeed, ethanol only takes a lot of energy when you want 300 gallons per minute. (Industrial size) If 300 gallons a year would suffice for you... I could rig up something to make ethanol from grain, without any fossil fuel input. Sure, it may only be 180 to 190 proof, ( which runs fine in cars BTW... ) but it would have an energy output percentage that would be huge. Just in a small way. -John
Active Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 108
From: SE PA
Re: Running out of gas?
Nuclear?
For sure we will need to build more nukes and at some point they will get built and it will help, but it won't solve the problem.
We currently have a vehicle fleet of approx. 230 million vehicles. To charge up a fleet of vehicles that large would require far more than "a few more" nuclear power stations. Some estimates run as high as 500 new power stations. Even if that figure is too high by a whole order of magnitude you're still talking about 50 new nuclear power stations. These things are the most complicated way to generate power ever developed. That means that the lead time between inception/design/groundbreaking/completion of construction and then finally fuel up and start is around a decade. They are also extremely expensive.
The other main problem is that the uranium fuel is also a finite resource, same as petroleum.
We currently have enough enriched uranium to fuel the reactors now in service for another 40 years or so. Mining more of this stuff is dangerous and highly polluting, not to mention the fact that you have to find sources of ore to mine.
And that's not all. Nuke plants must be sited very carefully. Too near to urban centers is pretty much out due to evacuation issues in the event of an accident. Additionally, these plants consume huge quantities of water for cooling of the reactor. In France, they have already run into problems maintaining coolant to some nukes in the summer when cooling water is limited (drought) and also insufficiently cool due to normal seasonal fluctuations in water temp. This necessitates powering the reactor down. And this is a problem, too, because nukes are designed to be run at consistent power levels or be shut down entirely (for refueling). These things aren't like automobile engines; running at whatever speed you wish, changing speed as often as you wish.
For sure we will need to build more nukes and at some point they will get built and it will help, but it won't solve the problem.
We currently have a vehicle fleet of approx. 230 million vehicles. To charge up a fleet of vehicles that large would require far more than "a few more" nuclear power stations. Some estimates run as high as 500 new power stations. Even if that figure is too high by a whole order of magnitude you're still talking about 50 new nuclear power stations. These things are the most complicated way to generate power ever developed. That means that the lead time between inception/design/groundbreaking/completion of construction and then finally fuel up and start is around a decade. They are also extremely expensive.
The other main problem is that the uranium fuel is also a finite resource, same as petroleum.
We currently have enough enriched uranium to fuel the reactors now in service for another 40 years or so. Mining more of this stuff is dangerous and highly polluting, not to mention the fact that you have to find sources of ore to mine.
And that's not all. Nuke plants must be sited very carefully. Too near to urban centers is pretty much out due to evacuation issues in the event of an accident. Additionally, these plants consume huge quantities of water for cooling of the reactor. In France, they have already run into problems maintaining coolant to some nukes in the summer when cooling water is limited (drought) and also insufficiently cool due to normal seasonal fluctuations in water temp. This necessitates powering the reactor down. And this is a problem, too, because nukes are designed to be run at consistent power levels or be shut down entirely (for refueling). These things aren't like automobile engines; running at whatever speed you wish, changing speed as often as you wish.
Thread
Topic Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
coolshock1
Journalism & The Media
0
Jun 2, 2008 06:26 AM
