80 comments on Oh, Canada! -- Natural Gas and the Future of Tar Sands Production
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of energy in America.”
—George W. Bush, May 2001
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae bailout: Guess Who Wins
- UK Energy Flow Chart 2007
- Brown pretends to be tough on Russia
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
As a rule of thumb, nuclear heat in the reactor costs $0.50/mmBTU compared to $7 to $15/mmBTU for wholesale gas at Henry Hub (Canadian prices might be lower.)
One problem is that turning nuclear heat into steam requires (so far) rather expensive water. One would have to have secondary heat exchangers but extensive water treatment of the feedwater would be needed since these schemes are one way trips for the steam. Figure maybe $1/gallon for water treatment.
Nuclear process heat has been attempted - Midlands plant in Michigan was to make electricity and supply process steam to an adjacent Dow Chemical plant. Bad building foundations killed that idea and lead to abandonment.
The proton sources (hydrogen) would still need to be methane for the next 20 years at least unless one used expensive electrolysis.
As to Canadian export gas, here in California we're major buyers. I've been telling any one who would listen that our current sources are peaked and depleting but the California Energy Commission seems in denial. Canadian gas also fuels Washington and Oregon and feeds a number of combined cycle plants in those states.
A nuclear plant lasts a long time and produces a LOT of steam (process lots of tar), steam can not travel far cost effectively (a few miles at most). Tar sands need to be brought to the reactor. A reactor will process major quantities of tar sands in 40 or so years.
IMHO, the nuke will consume the tar sands in the neighborhood in a decade or so and the cost of bringing the tar sands to the reactor will climb and eat into the economics.
The only economic reactor would be a electricity producer with "minimal" steam by-product.
It makes more sense to build reactors elsewhere, burn less NG to make electricity and use that NG in Alberta instead.
The real issue with nuclear as I see it is the long lead time and the significant R&D expenses needed to develop the technology. I feel that oil companies still don't have the confidence the prices will stay at such heights in the next couple of decades, needed to justify those investments. NG or coal/coke boilers will be the fuel of choice until their inadequate supply becomes apparent.
I don't see the political will and leadership for such enterprises, and I even doubt that we will have the resources for them.
It is the only option that:
- Is technologically possible. All you need is a uniform designed battery-electric vehicle capable of up to 20 miles of range. (yes) It can be driven short distances off of batteries but is best utilized when driven to an access point (think a monorail like on ramp) and then driven off of direct current. (also possible) While on the rail portion, all vehicles are controlled automatically via computers with programs directing each vehicles movement allowing following distances of maybe an inch or two (also possible)
- Not dependent on liquid fuels. No part of dual mode requires gasoline/ethanol or diesel/biodiesel. All energy arrives via electricity during charging or direct operation. You could attach a liquid-powered generator for extra range tho.
- Solves congestion issues. Even if we made H2 super duper easily, you still have the problem of congestion. By using computer controlled rail movements, you can dramatically increase capacity and speeds and instantaneously load balance without any human interference.
- Can be built today. The infrastructure is not beyond our capabilities. The steel can be procured. Ditto for the electronics and battery equip. No exotic materials are required. Since most tracking would be elevated, limited land acquisition costs are also a plus.
- Can be powered by anything. Electricity is the only source of energy the system uses. As it stands now, our best alternative fuel prospects produce just that. Why worry about biofuels and their pathetic efficencies or Hydrogen and its complex infrastructure needs when you can generate the electrons and use them directly. Plus as our electrical generation mix changes, more fossil fueled now, more renewable later we dont have to reinvent the system. Heck it would even give us several decades to really figure out fusion.
- Can serve private transportation AND public transportation needs simultaneously. A dual mode system would be used by privately owned cars and minibusses that would take advantage of the flexibility. Plus, attaching offline "stations" at strategic points, you could also run totally automated cars that never leave the rails as peoplemovers. This system also opens up new rental possiblities much like airport luggage cart rentals whereby you pick up a cart at any given rental station, use it and deposit it at any other station.
Those are just some of the things I can come up with. Unfortunately you will need governmental buy in and I just dont see that happening anywhere.Great summary. I have always thought that this could be the best solution available now, if only if we had the political will. The costs will probably be in the trillions, but when you look at the benefits, any price will not look that high.
I just want to add one other major advantage that again could allow the idea to be the way forward: compliance with existing infrastructure and scalability. It is not needed the whole thing to be builded at once. We can easily start with local government funded pilot projects in some cities, where existing highways are added rails, being utilised by plug-in hybrids (again startup subsidised by govt). Many competing designs will yield the best possible solution and with time the technology will evolve, pulling forward the battery technology as well. Thus the transition will not be that expensive and can be almost seemingless.
Streetcars serving as circulators and feeding Light or Rapid (subway type) Rail will work well without any technology developments issues. Add bicycles & shoe leather. Much of suburbia will likely be abandoned in any case. No great loss since it was not built to last, takes tyoo much to heat, cool and service (postal, police cannot walk or bicycle due to ultra low densities, plumbers & UPS deliveries take lots of fuel getting around).
It will take decades to get the technological & logistic issues out of some new gadgetbahn. Lets build what works, and workd well today !
Unfortunately this is very unlikely because of the contraints of battery technology. Virtually every battery (except Iron-Nickel) batteris have a short lifespan of about 5 to 7 years. Second Hybrid have all but been proven that they are less efficient than similar sized Internal-Combustion (IC) Engines only powered vehicles. The extra weight and power train conversion (mech-to-electricity-to-mech) outweights the gains of the hybrid (braking losses, idleing losses). Like using NG to extract oil from tar-sands, it would more efficient to build vehicles will less engine power, and make them burn fuel more efficiently (such as Direct Gas Injected IC Engines).
Finally the issue with electric distribute becomes an issue with plugin type vehicles. As the costs of NG and other fuels becomes more expensive (or if supply declines), more and more people and business will use electricity. Demand for electricity will likely rise putting even more stress on a national grid that is already near the breaking point.
All but proven where, exactly?
I've saved this table of well-to-wheel efficiencies for a wide variety of fuel types, with and without the hybrid option. According to the scientists, they all gain from the hybrid technology:
Image, well to wheels efficiencies
http://digg.com/technology/_Hybrid_Cars_Not_Always_More_Fuel_Efficient
What I hate doing is looking up information that is easily accessable via a search engine.
The bottom line is that sticker mileage isn't anywhere near typical results of consumers. Generally the hybrid get better mileage than traditional vehicles because the engines are much smaller. If traditional vehicles where equipped with the same size engines as hybrids, their milage would be better because of the lower vehicle weight (batteries) and without the conversion losses (mech-to-elect-to-mech).
http://www.iangv.org/jaytech/files/Pathways_Part_A.pdf
pathways
The fact that this article is in support of fuel cell and hydrogen and doesn't discuss any of the major issues, leads me to believe this simply a marketing paper, and has no scientific worth.
While I admire your effort to dispute my arguements against hybrids, you need also apply this same effort on questioning hybrids. I believe that if carefully research and understand the issues, you will reach the same conclusions that I have.
Thanks.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList
It's interesting actually. That previous table shows that a non-hybrid diesel does have higher engine efficiency than a gasoline engine (15.5% efficiency vs. 12.4%), and the gasoline hybrid only touches that non-hybrid diesel efficiency (15.4% vs. 15.5%).
The nice one is the one we can't check in the US market yet, the diesel hybrid (with 18.6% well to wheels efficiency). On the other hand, prototypes of that type do seem to confirm the stellar results:
So you know, when hybrids break the records ...
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/psa_peugeot_cit.html
I wouldn't recommend relying on a auto manufacturers numbers, as their main objective is to market these cars to groups of people either trying to save money or conviencing themself that they are better for the enviroment. In either case, I believe hybrids do neither.
As I've said many times before, better technology isn't the solution, it simply a path to denial about our future.
For one, people aren't going to simply trade in the SUV for a hybrid. The majority of US american drivers have SUVs and they aren't likely to let go. They'll keep on driving them, until they cant afford to, at which time they won't have money to buy an expensive hybrid. Even if everyone did abandon their gas guzzlers for more efficient cars, the amount of energy to construct them would exceed any savings.
Reduced oil consumption in the West won't lead to a decline in global consumption. The new industrialize nations like China and India will continue to expand their consumption until the system breaks. There are over 2 billion people living in India and China, and every single one of them wants to enjoy the american dream. For every Westerner that wants to conserve there are more than 100 in India and China that want to consume more.
Rather than focus on trying to figure out a way that we all can continue to live our fabulous livestyles on a world with declining energy reserves, you should be focusing on what you can do to prepare you and your family for a permenment energy crisis.
While commercial nuclear power reactors being sold today offer 4400 MW-thermal outputs, submarine reactors come in ~60 MW-th sizes.
Here's is a market for the Russians! They have scrapped their fleets of nuclear subs and I've often thought that they had a missed market opportunity for marine propulsion (high speed transPacific container ships) and in process heat.
One could package a mobile process heat reactor but it would need shielding for operation and defueling capability. Do-able - in fact, done. The US built packaged reactors for field outposts in the '50s. Our Antarctica base had a reactor for many years. More applicable, the Army designed and tested a reactor for powering DEW line radar installations - the infamous SL-1 that pinned an operator to the ceiling with a control rod from an overpower excursion event.
Too bad my employer is so focused on the electric markets - comes from having "Electric" in its name I guess.
Its unlikely that a rail based reactor would be large enough to supply the quantities of steam required. Small HO naval reactors use highly enriched uranium (or plutonium) which isn't permitted in commerical reactors.
Plus, NG is still required to upgrade bitimen to higher quality crude.
I suspect that in the future operations could switch to syngas (CO & H2) for production. A pipeline could be constructed to transport syngas from a gasifier located near coal fields to the tar-sands. However it might be more pratical to just convert the coal to liquid fuels instead of trying to extract oil from tar sands.