Posted on 09/06/2005 10:54:38 PM PDT by RATkiller
Among the strange delusions and hallucinations gripping the body politic these days is the idea that the so-called global economy is a permanent fixture of the human condition. The seemingly unanimous embrace of this idea in the power circles of America is a marvelous illustration of the madness of crowds, for nothing could be farther from the truth.
The global economy is, in fact, nothing more than a transient set of trade and financial relations based on a particular set of transient, special sociopolitical conditions, namely a few decades of relative world peace between the great powers along with substantial, reliable supplies of predictably cheap fossil fuels. The result, as far as America is concerned, has been an extended fiesta based on suburban comfort, easy motoring, fried food in abundance, universal air conditioning, and bargain-priced imported merchandise acquired on promises to pay later—a way of life described by Vice President Cheney as “non-negotiable.”
Of particular concern ought to be the 12,000-mile-long merchandise supply lines from Asia that American retailers such as Wal-Mart depend on and from which American “consumers” (as opposed to citizens, i.e., people with duties, obligations, and responsibilities) get most of their household goods these days. Wal-Mart now gets 70 percent of its products from China.
(Excerpt) Read more at amconmag.com ...
Thanks for posting a very stimulating and provocative article.
No doubt peak oil will cause of manner of global seismic shocks - but the end of life as we know it? The end of the car? The end of shopping? I suspect not.
Still, the author is right that it is something we need to be more concerned about. Yes, the market will respond, there will be innovation - one of which is (here I'm putting my lunatic space-nut helmet on) is solar power collected by fields of solar panels on the surface of the moon and beamed to earth as microwave radiation. Here's where you stop reading, right?
Funnily enough, it's actually feasible. Read these fascinating articles:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/lunar_power_000712.html
http://www.space.com/news/wsc_power_1015.html
. Virtually all of the materials needed to assemble solar panels are available in mineral form on the moon's surface. With a great deal of investment - estimated at about $150 billion - it would be possible to manufacture them in situ in robotic factories. They could then be arrayed in vast fields across the moon's surface. The moon receives around 13,000 terawatts of solar energy - we only need about 20 terawatts to provide energy for 10 billion people - that's less than 0.2 per cent. The collected energy could be transmitted to and collected on the earth's surface in the form of microwaves. Eventually, we could have enormous areas of the moon covered with these solar arrays - generating enough power to satisfy humanity's energy needs for the foreseeable future and beyond.
We should really start testing the technologies for this before someone else does.
A conservative doomsdayer??? Read half and became bored. Too many inaccuracies.
The timing of this article could not have been worse for the author. This "hyper car-dependent living arrangement" was exactly what enabled so many folks in the path of Hurricane Katrina to get out of town. The ones who were left behind were either too arrogant or stupid to heed the warnings, or were unable to take care of themselves because they weren't living in "car-dependent living arrangement."
The most enduring legacy of Katrina will be the increased awareness that urban living in the U.S. is a losing proposition.
The next major advance in energy production will be the exploitation of what may be the largest untapped source of energy available on the planet -- the release of natural gases from melting permafrost in the northern hemisphere.
Remember -- you heard it here first.
"Energy from the moon sounds like an intriguing idea, but I think we're a long ways from needing that kind of innovation."
What a shame! I really wanted to go to the moon and help set up those factories.
"Remember -- you heard it here first."
I will, I will :)
Do you have any links for this topic, AC? Sounds absolutely fascinating.
Bump, a must terrifying read.
"...and oil shale (it isn’t really oil but a hydrocarbon precursor called kerogen). The main catch is that these unconventional sources will yield oil only at high prices, while the procedures for getting them impose additional severe environmental costs including massive water pollution. (In the case of the Rocky Mountain oil shales, the water necessary for processing them in marketable quantities isn’t even available.)"
I would reply from this report from Robert E. Snyder of World Oil.com:
A Utah-based, privately held corporation called Oil Tech, Inc., says it has developed and installed an improved surface retorting process that can produce shale oil for less than $10 a barrel. Located in eastern Utah, the company says that Unified Engineering witnessed a demonstration of the new technology, reportedly saying, "The retort installation was well planned and well built, and oil was produced on all occasions when we were on-site to observe the retort in operation."
The facility's components included about 1,000 tons of shale, plus a drier, crusher, retort, crushed shale bin and storage tank. Basically, when the shale rock is heated in a retort, it forms a smoke or vapor, which when cooled, forms a liquid called syncrude or shale oil. Syncrude contains 10% naphtha, 40% kerosene, 40% diesel fuel and a 10% nitrogen rich residual. The first three components are all refinery grade blend stock; the last is a "natural asphalt additive."
The bottom line appears to be that development of 1 to 2 trillion barrels of world shale oil is under development by a few entrepreneurial companies, but at a cost of $10 a barrel? Well, let's hope they surprise everyone.
MY COMMENT:
1.2 TRILLION BARRELs of shale oil reserve is too big to ignore...and it just blows away the negative hysteria to my way of thinking. It is just time for the "small" companies to get ramped up and start taking on the majors...whose current sunk investments in old oil fields is apparently slowing their seriousness about pushing for new supplies. THis is not the first time an entrenched investment becomes the enemy of innovation. But the economics can't keep them down, if we can keep the majors from using their financial power to corrupt the politics of the states and feds so as to hinder this wonderful new development...
I'll look around and see what I can find, but I'm not sure if I've come across this in a major media outlet. I remember seeing a documentary on this subject a couple of years ago -- it may have been a CBC production up in Canada.
Dutch do not base their economy on "hyper car-dependent living arrangement" and have a large part of the country below the sea level. They just spend tax money on good and strong levee system.
Also New Orleans is only a very tiny part of US territory.
They're working on a similar process for electronic circuits, where you basically "paint" (ie. deposit) layers to form semiconductors on a flexible plastic substrate. Wouldn't be useful for high speed or high voltage/current stuff, but for typical consumer goods, especially toys, it'd be viable. With refinements you could probably do simple microcontrollers and/or FPGA-type devices with mask-programmed ROM firmware.
1. Are the areas of the Netherlands currently under sea level continuously sinking?
2. When was the last time the Dutch had to endure a Category 4 or 5 hurricane?
3. If you are using the Netherlands as an example of an orderly, functioning society, then I think you must be smoking something recently purchased from the streets of Amsterdam.
Also New Orleans is only a very tiny part of US territory.
You're right. But there aren't too many places in the U.S. where natural disasters (or even just mild inconveniences) don't occasionally call for some serious mobility for people in its path.
I'll never forget that day in New York City during the legendary Nor'Easter of December 1992. I was the only one in my company who got home in less than five hours -- and some folks from the suburbs spent the night in the city. I decided to drive into the city that morning instead of taking the train -- because I figured that a gasoline engine in a personal vehicle would be the best way out of New York City if power outages resulted in disruptions in train service.
Can't remember it--are you sure you don't mean March 1993? That's the blizzard that put 43 inches of snow in Watertown NY. A girl visiting Syracuse was involved in a dozen-car accident (no serious injuries), and I followed her all the way to her home in Pittsburgh to make sure she got there OK. She's now my lovely wife, and we have a five-year-old son.
North Sea has quite violent storms.
I suspect the major oil companies are in a go-slow mode on this, as they also have an entrenched investment that they are seeking to maximize before really thinking about the "next thing."
A possible exception might be Shell Oil:
The development of an economically viable way to extract oil from oil shale would put a ceiling on oil prices and would extend the oil era by decades. It would also increase the odds of significant global warming. Well, in light of all that a variety of media outlets are reporting that Shell Oil thinks it can produce oil from oil shale at $30 per barrel using an in situ process where the shale is cooked without first mining it onto the surface.
They don't need subsidies; the process should be commercially feasible with world oil prices at $30 a barrel. The energy balance is favorable; under a conservative life-cycle analysis, it should yield 3.5 units of energy for every 1 unit used in production. The process recovers about 10 times as much oil as mining the rock and crushing and cooking it at the surface, and it's a more desirable grade. Reclamation is easier because the only thing that comes to the surface is the oil you want.
And we've hardly gotten to the really ingenious part yet. While the rock is cooking, at about 650 or 750 degrees Fahrenheit, how do you keep the hydrocarbons from contaminating ground water? Why, you build an ice wall around the whole thing. As O'Connor said, it's counterintuitive.
Shell has received approval from Rio Blanco County, state and federal officials to conduct a $50 million, two- to four-year study of a groundwater freezing process, said Jill Davis.
“We’re still looking to decide if we’ll move on to commercial production by the end of the decade,” she said. “It’s been promising, so we want to take it to the next level with an environmental test of our ‘freeze wall’ process.”
Refrigerants, such as ammonia dioxide, are circulated through underground pipes to freeze the groundwater and earth to keep groundwater out of an oil-shale formation.
“We’ve tested the process in a circular pattern and this will be a football field-shaped rectangle in an area more like where commercial production could happen,” she said.
Some estimates for the amount of oil in shale range as high as 1 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels. Assume that 1 trillion barrels could be extracted. The United States currently uses about 20.5 million barrels per day which is about a quarter of current world oil demand. World oil demand is projected to rise to 119 million barrels per day by 2025 or about a 50% increase. Suppose we take that 119 million barrel figure and round it off to 120 million barrels. Also let us assume that oil shale could yield 1 trillion barrels of oil. That oil shale would satisfy total world oil demand by this equation: 1,000,000 million barrels/(365 days per year times 120 million barrels per day) which equals only 22 years at the projected year 2025 consumption rate. Even oil shale can delay the end of the oil era by a couple of decades. Still, we could use those decades to develop technologies to lower the cost of nuclear and photovoltaic solar power.
Since the future prospects for oil shale remain uncertain, the RAND report recommends that the federal government refrain from major investments in oil shale development until the private sector is prepared to commit its technical, management and financial resources. However, the report recommends a few low-cost efforts that can begin in the near future to move oil shale development forward.
The report by the RAND Environment, Energy and Economic Development program says that between 500 billion and 1.1 trillion barrels of oil are technically recoverable from high-grade oil shale deposits located in the Green River geological formation, covering parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.
The mid-point of the RAND estimate – 800 billion barrels – is three times the size of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves. This is enough oil to meet 25 percent of America's current oil demand for the next 400 years.
The benefits of a competitive oil shale industry are substantial. For an output of 3 million barrels per day, the study estimates direct economic benefits of about $20 billion per year. Federal, state and local governments would receive about half of this amount in the form of lease payments, royalties and taxes.
Production at 3 million barrels per day also could likely cause oil prices to fall by 3 to 5 percent, saving American oil consumers roughly $15 billion to $20 billion annually, according to the report. A multimillion-barrel per day oil shale industry could also create several hundred thousand jobs in the United States.
The in situ process may avoid many of the environmental problems that arise from oil shale mining.
Another technical development that has been taking place involves heating the oil shale while it is still in the ground – a process called in-situ conversion. Mining is not required. Instead, electric heating elements are placed in bore holes, slowly heating the shale oil deposit. The released liquids are gathered in wells specifically designed for that purpose.
In contrast to surface mining, in-situ conversion does not permanently modify land surface topography and may be significantly less damaging to the environment. Small field tests conducted by Shell Oil involving an in-situ approach appear promising. While larger scale tests are needed, Shell anticipates that this method may be competitive with crude oil priced below $30 per barrel. RAND has not developed an independent estimate of the price level needed to make in-situ conversion competitive.
On the environmental side, adverse land and ecological impacts will accompany oil shale development no matter which approach is used. Oil shale production will also result in airborne and greenhouse gas emissions that could severely limit oil production levels.
Colorado has the largest oil shale deposits and some deposits have more oil per ton of rock.
Steve Wiig, geologist for the Rock Springs BLM office, said Wyoming oil shale, on average, would produce 15 to 30 gallons of oil per ton of oil shale rock. He said the Colorado and Utah deposits could produce 30 to 40 gallons, with some sites capable of producing 60 gallons of oil per ton of oil shale.
For example, one of the star witnesses of Gibbons' hearings was Jack Savage, president of Utah-based Oil-Tech Inc. He said the company is ready to start cooking oil out of shale with a retort it has built near Vernal, Utah.
"We have been working on this for 15 years," Savage said. "Now we're ready to go."
Savage, once president of companies that manufactured golf bags and other sporting goods, said he can turn shale into oil for $10 to $22 a barrel, depending on market conditions. Savage pushed for an accelerated federal leasing program, but he's already leased 38,000 acres of state land in Utah and says he's working on a research-and-development bid to continue work on his project.
The biggest problem with mining oil shale comes as a result of heating oil shale rock. The rock expands in size and then can't just get put back where it was excavated. By Randall Parker at 2005 September 05 07:19 PM Energy Tech | TrackBack
Add to the Shale Oil, the already demonstrated possibility of using the coal liquification process the South African Apartheid regime had used in order to survive the international oil embargo against that government. It turns out that it is already economically feasible to convert regular coal into diesel fuel even below the current prices. And the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal: there is enough coal for several centuries in the US.
Here is a link:
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/08/02/build/state/25-coal-fuel.incPosted by: Invisible Scientist on September 5, 2005 07:37 PM
Remember that while the technology is perhaps technically feasable, its at least as far off as solar In terms of adoption. It will be another 5 years for shell to even decided if it is worth it. Also I am rather skeptical of the claim of oil being 50% recoverable considering that most liquid oil isn't that good. Furthermore, the stuff made from oil shale is going to be a low grade crude, which would need a considerable amount of refining to be used as anything other than heating oil. Posted by: me on September 5, 2005 08:19 PM
Remember that Oil Companies have so much clout in the society and government, that they will pull enough strings to make very clumsy and labor intensive (read profitable to them) and long term infrastructures happen. If shale oil is crude and hence requires refining, this will be great for them, since they will also build refineries. At this rate, the green house effect will become frimly established by 2020,, and by 225, the future hurricanes will probably have 400 mph winds, meaning that if you want to retire, Florida may not be a good place unless your retirement house is an underground bunker that is water-proof, with oxygen tanks and enough food for many years.Posted by: Insivisible Scientist on September 5, 2005 08:29 PM
If its gel point is low enough and it has a decent cetane rating, I'll take it! Even $60/bbl at the pump is half of what I'm paying.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet on September 5, 2005 08:29 PM
Won't substitute for oil but it might force down prices. SA, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, etc., can make money selling at $20 per barrel, so keep trying.Posted by: David Govett on September 6, 2005 12:15 AM
Presumably that "ammonia dioxide" coolant should really be "liquid ammonia or carbon dioxide" ?
That ratio of energy-out to energy-in worries me: presumably the "energy in" is actually fuel being burned in air; so the carbon dioxide loading on the atmosphere from this shale oil should include the CO2 emitted during its production.
So global CO2 disposal costs will add quite a bit to the end-price of this oil.Posted by: Philip Sargent on September 6, 2005 02:24 AM
Anyone notice estimates for how many barrels a month Shell could produce of shale oil? Watching Oilsands up north shows ramping up production to be a big problem. A similar bottleneck here?
bigelow Posted by: bigelow on September 6, 2005 12:14 PM
How many gallons of water per gallon of oil?
Solar is civil defensePosted by: gmoke on September 6, 2005 12:16 PM
If it becomes more widely discussed it should stiffle the oil speculations bandits a bit. I've been wondering when someone would mention the oil shale deposits again. I think the last time they hit the news was in 84' ? More buffer time. Few bother to consider that time is needed. Most Americans would accept an alternative mobility power source if prices were somewhat comparable. However you cut it though it will require time. You could have someone announce the developement of a "Mr. Fusion" tomorrow yet with all the developement time, reviews, plant designs, plant building etc. etc (and let's not forget the foredoomed obligatory enviromental challenge from one of the Gia worshipping sects) it would still be a decade before it could be in widespread use. Despite all the optimism fuel cells are still not quite there, neither is wind, solar, wave or any of the rest. I still remember when All Bore made his great announcement in 95' (?) that fuel cells were almost here. Okay I'm still waiting a decade later.
So yes, Use the oil shale resources. There's a lot of promising tech on the horizon and more time means hopefully wiser selection. I'm willing to bare up under the burden of the proable .0043 C increase in global temperature average over the next couple of decades due to expanding use of carbon based fuels.Posted by: Joseph on September 6, 2005 06:07 PM
Suggestion for solving the global warming problem. Since the global temperature is expected to increase 0.0043 degrees Celsius over the next couple of decades, simply use whole numbers. That is, round temperatures so any increase will be truncated. Problem solved. Fill 'er up.Posted by: PacRim Jim on September 6, 2005 09:20 PM
| Name: |
|
|
|
|
| Email Address: |
|
|
|
|
| URL: |
|
|
|
|
| Comments: |
|
|
North Sea has quite violent storms.
Even the weak New Orleans levees would be fine if properly maintained. They collapsed AFTER the hurricane passed.
What made the December storm so destructive was the unusual combination of circumstances. It was truly a once-in-a-century event. The storm itself would have been less destructive than the March 1993 storm, but in the New York City area the storm surge was devastating because it occurred at the worst time imaginable due to the following conditions:
1. The storm occurred during high tide, so the storm surge came in at a point in time when water levels were already at their highest.
2. The storm also occurred during a full moon, which meant that the moon and sun were on opposite sides of the earth and generated higher tides than usual.
3. In addition to all that, the storm occurred during a full moon that included a total lunar eclipse, which meant that the tides were at their highest historical points because the moon and sun were exactly on opposite sides of the earth.
In the aftermath of that storm I remember seeing water in places all over the New York region where I had never seen water before -- even during major hurricanes like Belle, David, Gloria, etc. The Staten Island ferry stopped running in the New York harbor, and the last boatload of passengers had to be rescued from the harbor because the water had risen so high that the ferry vessel couldn't even get into the terminal.
If my information is correct, major storms in the North Sea generate storm surges of no more than seven feet or so. That's almost like an ordinary day along the Gulf Coast during hurricane season.
Congratulations on the storm, wife, and child, BTW. LOL.
Which means that energy will be more expensive, which is the main point:
The end of cheap energy.
Check it out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.