So much for Peak Oil: Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming Equal to Entire World's Reserves

**Aman shah** · 07-06-12, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by spidergoat

As if we can just take our pick of energy sources. It's not quite like that. When our present source of energy is gone, our way of life ends, game over man!

As if you do not care about near future.The results due to pollution are nowadays allmost immediate and such danger will be in your quite early lifetime.
I don't think that the topic has something to aggressively do with science and technology.

**spidergoat** · 07-06-12, 01:46 PM

I do care about the future, but the problem is that few people are preparing for it. Most of the talk I hear is about how to run everything we have now on Something Else.

**Aman shah** · 07-06-12, 02:02 PM

Yes,so something else:I have discussed this on few of my threads.Research is going on by few scientists.

**spidergoat** · 07-06-12, 02:07 PM

No, that's the point, that's ALL the research is focused on, not preparing to live in an energy scarce future. No combination of alternative energy is going to allow us to continue on the path of growth, capitalism, and the freedom of the personal automobile.

**Aman shah** · 07-06-12, 02:14 PM

Why be negative in thinking.Technology will need some few years to get mature enough .We are not very far from practical Alternative energy systems,provided we support scientists.
Nobody thought that affordable TV,everyday aircraft travel,moon landing was possible.Today,they are part of our daily life.
Think positive,not negative.There is only one way:Hard work,and be supportive.

**spidergoat** · 07-06-12, 02:23 PM

That's the kind of blind faith in technology that I'm criticizing here.

**Grumpy** · 07-06-12, 07:18 PM

spidergoat

That's the kind of blind faith in technology that I'm criticizing here.

It isn't blind, nor is it faith. An example: Close to 30% of all the power used by a common family home is used in lighting. Incandescent bulbs use 100 watts and turn that into 10% light and 90% heat(which must be removed by the AC, but I digress). An equivalent high efficiency bulb uses 12-15 watts and turns 80% of that power into light with 20% as heat. You've already cut the power you use in an average house by 25%, requiring 25% less oil or coal or NG to produce. And then there are LEDs which have efficiencies in the 90s, with them you could power the current levels of light in a house with a rather small solar panel and burn no oil at all to light your house. With improved batteries we could have cars which would do 90%+ of what we use our oil burners to do now(work commute and grocery shopping)and burn absolutely no oil if the garage you park it in is covered in solar panels. And it could do the other 10%(long distance trips)with just a small trailer with a super efficient generator or standardized battery packs that can be quickly swapped at "filling stations" every 300 miles or so(like we fill up with gas now).

Nuclear power, despite it's problems, is infinitely better than coal and oil if "idiot proof" designs are used(they already exist). Solar power is even cleaner. Wind is fine if used offshore(kills too many birds). Almost all the known Anthracite coal was used up in WW1 and WW2, power stations have been burning "Brown Coal" for decades now and our easily produced crude oil is running out now so we can transition to other sources now or we can rebuild society after the last of the oil wars later. I vote for transition.

Grumpy

**Gravage** · 07-09-12, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by spidergoat

No, that's the point, that's ALL the research is focused on, not preparing to live in an energy scarce future. No combination of alternative energy is going to allow us to continue on the path of growth, capitalism, and the freedom of the personal automobile.

Exactly.

**Captain Kremmen** · 07-09-12, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by Syzygys

Oh, another dumbass Republican doesn't understand basic logic.

...is irrelevant if:

1. You can't get it out fast enough from the ground.(let's say, if it is just 3-5% of the US' usage, it doesn't make a dent in the demand)
2. It is too messy (aka enviromental disaster).
3. There is not enough water to do the mining. (read up on it)
4. The energy return is negative. (it takes more energy to produce the quantity)
It is not, yet, but as it gets more and more expensive, it is something to account for.
5. The locals don't want it. Take a look at the mess in Canada and decide if you want to live next to an oilshale mine.

Now stop listening to stupid Reps radio and start to educate yourself... Oh, too late....

Good post, but spoiled a little by unnecessary ad homs, I think.

You have proposed the questions to be disputed very well.
No-one has tackled them yet.
Any pro shale-oil-extraction people like to have a go, point by point?

Is point 4 true for example?

**billvon** · 07-09-12, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Grumpy

It isn't blind, nor is it faith. An example: Close to 30% of all the power used by a common family home is used in lighting. Incandescent bulbs use 100 watts and turn that into 10% light and 90% heat

A typical incandescent is around 1-2% efficient.

An equivalent high efficiency bulb uses 12-15 watts and turns 80% of that power into light with 20% as heat.

And then there are LEDs which have efficiencies in the 90s.

Philip's most efficient LED light right now is around 10% efficient.

(Your underlying point about the importance of efficiency is valid, but I wanted to correct those numbers since they were pretty far off.)

**billvon** · 07-09-12, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Kremmen

Is point 4 true for example?

First keep in mind that there is a difference between oil shale (kerogen) and shale oil (tightly bound natural oil.) Kerogen is not oil and needs processing to be usable. Depending on the formation, EROEI is between .7 and 13. (Which means that in some cases it needs more energy to extract than you get from it, and in some cases it produces 13 times more energy than you need to extract it.) The EROEI on conventional oil is averaging about 20 now. So once oil gets significantly more expensive, kerogen will _start_ being economical (at least some deposits.)

**Syzygys** · 07-09-12, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Kremmen

Is point 4 true for example?

Of course, because as a mother, I am telling you.

Historically speaking, back in the good ol' Texas days, 1 barrel of (oil) energy invested (extraction, transportation,etc) gave you I think 7 barrels of oil. And it has been pretty much downhill since then.

With tar sand and oil shale, it can get as low as 1:1.1 and there is really no point going below that. A 1 barrel invested, 1.1 barrel gained means, that 91% or so of the energy in the ground is used up just to get it out and to the market... So if that particular reserve (with the low EROEI ratio) has gazillion barrels in it, you can only get out and to the market gazillion/10 of it...

**spidergoat** · 07-09-12, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Grumpy

spidergoat

It isn't blind, nor is it faith. An example: Close to 30% of all the power used by a common family home is used in lighting. Incandescent bulbs use 100 watts and turn that into 10% light and 90% heat(which must be removed by the AC, but I digress). An equivalent high efficiency bulb uses 12-15 watts and turns 80% of that power into light with 20% as heat. You've already cut the power you use in an average house by 25%, requiring 25% less oil or coal or NG to produce. And then there are LEDs which have efficiencies in the 90s, with them you could power the current levels of light in a house with a rather small solar panel and burn no oil at all to light your house. With improved batteries we could have cars which would do 90%+ of what we use our oil burners to do now(work commute and grocery shopping)and burn absolutely no oil if the garage you park it in is covered in solar panels. And it could do the other 10%(long distance trips)with just a small trailer with a super efficient generator or standardized battery packs that can be quickly swapped at "filling stations" every 300 miles or so(like we fill up with gas now).

Nuclear power, despite it's problems, is infinitely better than coal and oil if "idiot proof" designs are used(they already exist). Solar power is even cleaner. Wind is fine if used offshore(kills too many birds). Almost all the known Anthracite coal was used up in WW1 and WW2, power stations have been burning "Brown Coal" for decades now and our easily produced crude oil is running out now so we can transition to other sources now or we can rebuild society after the last of the oil wars later. I vote for transition.

Grumpy

**Captain Kremmen** · 07-10-12, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Syzygys

Of course, because as a mother, I am telling you.

Historically speaking, back in the good ol' Texas days, 1 barrel of (oil) energy invested (extraction, transportation,etc) gave you I think 7 barrels of oil. And it has been pretty much downhill since then.

With tar sand and oil shale, it can get as low as 1:1.1 and there is really no point going below that. A 1 barrel invested, 1.1 barrel gained means, that 91% or so of the energy in the ground is used up just to get it out and to the market... So if that particular reserve (with the low EROEI ratio) has gazillion barrels in it, you can only get out and to the market gazillion/10 of it...

Well, if that is right, then the extraction is not worth it.
It sounds hard to believe.
Surely solar power beats that?

**Syzygys** · 07-10-12, 11:41 AM

Solar power panels are made of (you guessed it right) oil products...

I still can't imagine a cargo plane flying on solar power or a tank, for the matter, but I probably just have a very low imagination...

**billvon** · 07-10-12, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Syzygys

Solar power panels are made of (you guessed it right) oil products...

No, they're not. 99% of them are inorganic materials. They are made of:

Crystalline silicon (from silica sand primarily)
Glass (again primarily from sand)
Aluminum (which is basically aluminum ore and electricity)
Conductors (tin, copper)
EVA sealant <- this uses oil products
Wire insulation <- this uses oil products
Dopants in trace amounts (phosphorous, boron etc)

I still can't imagine a cargo plane flying on solar power or a tank, for the matter, but I probably just have a very low imagination...

And you probably never will. Both require too much power to be achieved from the amount of sunlight that falls on them.

**spidergoat** · 07-10-12, 06:04 PM

Where do you think the power comes from to generate the electricity or melt sand or refine all kinds of ores?

**Syzygys** · 07-10-12, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by billvon

No, they're not. 99% of them are inorganic materials.

I stand corrected. I was probably thinking of sun tan lotion...

**billvon** · 07-11-12, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by spidergoat

Where do you think the power comes from to generate the electricity or melt sand or refine all kinds of ores?

The same place all our energy comes from - nuclear, hydro (and other renewables) coal and natural gas.

**CMontgomery** · 07-13-12, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by Syzygys

Oh, another dumbass Republican doesn't understand basic logic.

...is irrelevant if:

1. You can't get it out fast enough from the ground.(let's say, if it is just 3-5% of the US' usage, it doesn't make a dent in the demand)
2. It is too messy (aka enviromental disaster).
3. There is not enough water to do the mining. (read up on it)
4. The energy return is negative. (it takes more energy to produce the quantity)
It is not, yet, but as it gets more and more expensive, it is something to account for.
5. The locals don't want it. Take a look at the mess in Canada and decide if you want to live next to an oilshale mine.

Now stop listening to stupid Reps radio and start to educate yourself... Oh, too late....

I'll take a swing.

1) The Rand Corporation (Who published about this in 2005- http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf ) believes shale oil will be produced at a rate around 3 million barrels a year (pdf page 13). The US uses about 20 million barrels a day, and while all 3 million may not be from the Green River formation it will still be a majority (Though they do also throw 5 million barrels/day around, page 11, so 3 million barrels/day may be from the Green River). But let's say it's even half of that. So this could provide between 7.5-15% of the US oil per day (Or even up to 25%!). Not bad.

2 and 3) Alot of methods are messy, but the report talks about a new method of retorting the oil called 'Thermally Conductive In-Situ Conversion', page 39. This has had a small scale test, but if it works on a large scale it will be a very valuable tool. This method drills holes laterally along the reservoir every so often, then heats the entire thing with electric heaters. They also use a 'Freeze Wall' around the entire area to keep things in/out. This has been tested successfully, and Shell is currently researching it. It may sound far-fetched but the lack of water is a serious problem in that area, so a drastically different approach is necessary. And this seems like a promising avenue. A google search will bring up lots of research papers and patents still, so it seems research into this area is still being done.
Edit: What I mean is that the lack of water requires a new solution to getting the oil out. The solution to the lack of water is this Thermally Conductive In-Situ Conversion.

4) If the above process were to work, Shell estimates the energy expenditure to be 1/6 of what will be gained (pdf page 40).

5) Well, if drilling goes ahead the locals will soon be the people who work there. And I'm sure they won't mind.

This is all in the near-future though, probably 10-20 years. I imagine that will be the time when we will start needing it anyway.