<Oil and the future - the commuter shift to public transportThe Oil DrumPeak Oil Media - 31 MAY 2008>
<DrumBeat: May 30, 2008DrumBeatDrumBeat: June 1, 2008>

169 comments on DrumBeat: May 31, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mbnewtrain on May 31, 2008 - 10:50am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I am not a chemical engineer, but as a mechanical engineer with some background in chemistry I do understand what they are doing with this "HTL" process. The main advantage is the elimination of using natural gas in the ugrading of Bitumen to heavy oil for shipment to a refinery. The energy for the upgrading comes from boiling off the lighter fractions produced by this process and using them for heat source and hydrogen source instead of natural gas.

I see economic advantages to HTL by omitting high priced natural gas from upgrade process. Also the use of sand as a heat transfer media/carbon collection in vacuum process distillation is also beneficial. Main problems I see with this is that EROEI may be no better than current Bitumen upgrade methods using nat. gas. The fact that the residual coke is burned in this HTL process to make heat and clean sand may produce a large amount of CO2. So, in a nutshell the HTL process makes the oil from tar sands cheaper, but not necessaily more energy efficient and likely worse for AGW.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
rainsong on June 1, 2008 - 5:48am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Most of the green house gas CO2 from oil comes from burning fuel in the gas/diesel tank, something most people have no problems with. Al Gore burned more gasoline and jet fuel in a year in his travels than over 90% of the world's population. Other people have justified their use of fuel also. Some have stated that if we were to stop using hydrocarbons at once we could not stop the effects of global warming as it might take decades or longer for the stuff to be removed from the air. Every time there is a flood, hurricane, or drought some blamed it on global warming. Are there any areas that might gain from global warming? A true expert might be able to quote any benefits warming might bring.

I have read of sea level rise of 1.8 mm per year. That means in 100 years the sea level might rise a foot and a half, unless as theorized sea level rise accelerates. Coastal erosion happened without sea level rise and is normal for some coastal areas. Wave erosion removed land mass on a regular basis while at the mouth of the Mississipi River new land mass was created. Other changes in coastal areas are due to the rising and falling of the earth's crust as the land masses and ocean floor are not static, but moving. The movements were not only horizontal but vertical.

People were currently demanding gasoline, not in pleased to be asked to give up its use to prevent global warming. One might not win an election by promising to ban the use of hydrocarbons.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.