The Oil Drum | More on oil shale

54 comments on More on oil shale

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Nagorak on July 2, 2006 - 7:44pm

Well, let me understand this correctly. There have been a handful of tests, and the results have been inconclusive (some which might be defined as successes and some which would more accurately described as failures). We have a plan which probably has the largest public stigma attached to it immaginable. On top of that we have significant security and safety concerns (we can't even build nuclear power plants and we're going to start using nukes for mining oil shale?).

I think the negative reaction you are receiving regarding this whole idea is precisely because you are focusing only on the technical aspects, which in this case overlooks a huge part of the picture. I don't want to say that what you are doing is unappreciated. It's certainly interesting from an academic perspective, I suppose.

But the reality is results have been mixed on a program that faces significant public resistance. I see no reason to sink research money into this which could be more usefully spent on alternative energy or to increase energy efficiency. I know ethanol is widely unpopular around here, but I would say funding ethanol research probably has more merit than spending it on this.

You can't just look at the technical merits of something, you have to look at other things like public opinion and morality to determine its overall feasibility. I mean, killing off 3/4s of the world's population would greatly reduce energy use and mean more resources for those of us who were left. From a purely technical standpoint it might even seem to be a great way to solve our problems, but no one even bothers to consider it for quite obvious reasons.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Ender on July 2, 2006 - 8:26pm

Nagorak - Hmmmmmm - morality - now there's an interesting concept - can't see it getting much traction in the continuing quest for energy though.

You see if you start applying the dangerous term "morality" to oil you might have to apply it to international relations, elections and all sorts of things that you really do not want "morality" to get a look in.

Extreme cynical mode disengaged.......

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Nagorak on July 3, 2006 - 12:36am

Yeah, you might be right, sadly.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

MicroHydro on July 2, 2006 - 8:32pm

"I mean, killing off 3/4s of the world's population would greatly reduce energy use and mean more resources for those of us who were left. From a purely technical standpoint it might even seem to be a great way to solve our problems, but no one even bothers to consider it for quite obvious reasons."

People have been considering it for a long time. I attended a seminar at Caltech in 1977 where we "considered it", with expected use in the early 21st century. Also see Kissinger:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200

Now ask yourself why all the media hoopla about the very non-contagious H5N1 which worldwide has killed fewer people OVER TEN YEARS than get killed in US car accidents EVERY DAY? You have been told again and again on TV that a "natural" flu pandemic with significant world depopulation is inevitable, and coming soon. Furthermore, it is expected to radiate from SE China. Why? There is no scientific justification for this scare mongering. Also see interesting facility report below:

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4377

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

sr on July 3, 2006 - 3:55pm

"No one even bothers to consider [killing off 3/4s of the world's population] for quite obvious reasons."

I would rephrase that as "no one publicly calls for mass genocide, for obvious reasons, and everyone pretends that that means that noone is thinking about it."

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Fernando on July 5, 2006 - 4:04pm

Sorry guys, but in less than 100 years 99.99% of every human who's alive today, is going to be dead because of natural causes (you know, the life cycle).

There is no need of any "killing". Maybe we can start asking the Vatican to allow for the use of preservatives, for instance.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on July 5, 2006 - 5:38pm

And you got your diploma in fortune telling exactly where?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Fernando on July 5, 2006 - 10:03pm

Sorry, I don't understand you.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on July 5, 2006 - 10:42pm

What makes you so confident and extreme in your predictions.

By definition, the future is unknown and (to some extent) unknowable.

Why do you think you are an exception to this rule?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on July 5, 2006 - 11:09pm

Note that often is is what we do NOT worry about that gets us. IMO life extension to rougly age 200 to 300 years will arrive well before the end of this century.

The rich die old.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

BrianT on July 5, 2006 - 11:29pm

Why 300?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on July 5, 2006 - 11:33pm

Based on the ten or so books and four dozen articles I've read on the topic, the problems of extending life expectancy to age 300 seem to be near solution with current techniques. Beyond 300, it gets tougher.

Heinlein postulated life spans of 5,000 years, with the main cause of death ultimately resulting from boredom. But he thought of a way around that too . . . (which I will not reveal)