<DrumBeat: June 20, 2006The Oil DrumDrumBeat: June 21, 2006>

80 comments on Oh, Canada! -- Natural Gas and the Future of Tar Sands Production

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on June 21, 2006 - 3:42am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Why not build mobile nukes? There are compact reactor designs (see nuclear submarines) that can be easily transported, probably by dedicated rail.

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack on June 21, 2006 - 4:05am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Or if there is a chance that a significant portion of transportation becomes powered by electricity - which I think will happen in the timeframe being considered - they have to consider whether nuke to plug in hybrid is cheaper than nuke to tars sands to gas to car.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on June 21, 2006 - 9:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Conveyor belts are more capital expensive than trucks, but cheaper to operate and operate off of electricity.  I think that there may be some low temperature and "adhesion" issues with the tar.  I have not seen photos of conveyor belts in Alberta.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on June 21, 2006 - 11:48am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
IMO it will be nuke to tar sands to gasoline at least for the medium term. Absent significant breakthrough in battery technology, electric transportation would be doable only after a major government initiated, organised and funded effort to build the necessary infrastructure - be it electrified rail and/or something like the electric highways proposed here.

I don't see the political will and leadership for such enterprises, and I even doubt that we will have the resources for them.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
unplanner on June 22, 2006 - 3:04am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I've consistently argued that if we wish to maintain some semblence of mobility and not abandon most of what has been built over the past 50 years, dual mode electric is perhaps the only way to go.

It is the only option that:

  1. 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)
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.  
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on June 26, 2006 - 11:01am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
unplanner,

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on July 18, 2006 - 6:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Dual mode, unique technology is a bad idea.

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 !

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TechGuy on June 21, 2006 - 5:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
>Or if there is a chance that a significant portion of transportation becomes powered by electricity - which I think will happen in the timeframe being considered - they have to consider whether nuke to plug in hybrid is cheaper than nuke to tars sands to gas to car.

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on June 22, 2006 - 9:52am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Second Hybrid have all but been proven that they are less efficient than similar sized Internal-Combustion (IC) Engines only powered vehicles."

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

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TechGuy on June 22, 2006 - 3:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
>All but proven where, exactly?

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).

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on June 22, 2006 - 7:26pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
A search category is not information.  It is a "punt."
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on June 22, 2006 - 7:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I should have given you the full URL to the PDF report I quoted earlier.  If you'd like to support your argument, rather than just insist that evidence is false, please do the same:

http://www.iangv.org/jaytech/files/Pathways_Part_A.pdf

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on June 22, 2006 - 7:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
oops, it moved:

pathways

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TechGuy on June 23, 2006 - 2:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Sorry, But this article is just an executive summary. It provides no deals of the tests that were used to determine hybrid efficiency.

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on June 23, 2006 - 4:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'd give the theory more energy if there was a real-world car turning in better MPG (for capacity and payload) than the Prius in the US market:

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:

As promised, PSA Peugeot Citroën unveiled two prototypes featuring diesel-electric parallel hybrid powertrains, the Peugeot 307 and the Citroën C4 Hybride HDi.

The hybrids deliver average combined city and highway fuel consumption of 3.4 liters per 100 kilometers (69 mpg US), with 90 grams of CO2 emitted per kilometer--a tank-to-wheel record for compact cars, the most popular segment in Europe. This is about 25% better than a similar vehicle equipped with a gasoline hybrid system, or as much as a liter per 100 kilometers in combined city and highway driving.

So you know, when hybrids break the records ...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/psa_peugeot_cit.html

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TechGuy on June 24, 2006 - 11:14am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Whitehall on June 21, 2006 - 11:24am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
How big of a heat load would be needed for a nuclear steam generator for tar sands extraction?

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on June 21, 2006 - 12:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I think Total was considering 2 units 200 MWe each for a total production of 200 kbpd (but can not find the link). If they go for 4x100MWe compact designs they could get 4 mobile tar sands extraction factories. Of course without concrete calculations this is still a pipe dream... one problem I can think of would be extending the pipelines feeding water to the reactor, and also that the cogeneration idea goes away.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TechGuy on June 21, 2006 - 5:19pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
>Why not build mobile nukes? There are compact reactor designs (see nuclear submarines) that can be easily transported, probably by dedicated rail.

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.