<DrumBeat: August 17, 2008 The Oil Drum DrumBeat: August 18, 2008>

41 comments on API Energy IQ Game and Blogger Call

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Robert Rapier on August 17, 2008 - 9:20am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Regarding my question, something seems to have been lost in the translation. I just checked the quiz, and that question no longer seems to be there. But the disconnect I referred to is that when the EIA testified on high oil prices in 2007, they said that they didn't foresee that cellulosic ethanol would scale to even a billion gallons by 2030. (I documented that here).

The public perception seems to be that we will be running primarily on alternative fuels by then, and I suggested that the current (and in my opinion, un-meetable) mandates are swaying the public into false perceptions on the issue. So there is a disconnect between the EIA and the Bush administration, but also between the EIA and the public.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jimvj on August 17, 2008 - 10:37am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Could you expand and clarify what the quiz meant by:

Between 2000-2005 US Oil&Gas Cos spent $75-100 BILLION
on alternative energy!!

What did they spend it on, and what do they have to show for it?

Thanks

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
reddy108 on August 17, 2008 - 10:44am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If you read the question carefully, it includes GTL and oil shale.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on August 17, 2008 - 11:38am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Between 2000-2005 US Oil&Gas Cos spent $75-100 BILLION
on alternative energy!!

As the poster above alluded to, a lot of money was spent (mostly in vain) on GTL. Oil companies have thrown lots of money at alternative energy, though. Shell and BP both have large solar divisions that absorbed a lot of that money. Shell has also spent a lot of money on shale. My former company, ConocoPhillips, has put a lot of money into various technologies - most notably green diesel.

What do they have to show for it? They are up against the same laws of chemistry, physics, and economics as everyone else. They, like many others, have confirmed that there is no silver bullet. It's hard to find any true silver BBs either. I just blogged on how over-blown the hype around Coskata has gotten; I will probably bring that over to TOD in a few days.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jimvj on August 17, 2008 - 6:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Thanks.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
memmel on August 18, 2008 - 3:13am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I've also noticed that commerical GTL installations are not moving that fast.

Whats interesting is GTL seems to me at least to be the easiest of the synthetic fuel methods.
http://www.chemlink.com.au/gtl.htm

Also you have excess hydrogen that could be coupled with Ammonia synthesis so selling Ammonia should help a lot with the cost aspect. Other synfuel sources don't have this excess hydrogen.

Given that GTL is in my opinion the best alternative to oil I find it interesting that its not growing like it seems like it could.

Do you have and opinion on whats causing GTL to stumble ?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on August 18, 2008 - 9:30am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Do you have and opinion on whats causing GTL to stumble ?

Having spent a few years on GTL, I know exactly what's causing it to stumble: Capital costs.

You are right, GTL is the easiest. That should put the rest of these gasification schemes into perspective. If GTL is the easiest (and cheapest), then what does that suggest about these CTL and BTL schemes? That they are a long ways off.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Aniya on August 18, 2008 - 9:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi Robert,

re: "The public perception seems to be that we will be running primarily on alternative fuels by then, and I suggested that the current (and in my opinion, un-meetable) mandates are swaying the public into false perceptions on the issue."

These are two critically important points.

My experience is that the public, even the highly educated public - (even scientists working in closely related fields) - have the "transition to alternatives" view. Meaning, "it" will happen and no particular action is needed.

Yes, this seems to be bolstered by mandates. (Do CAFE standards count as "mandates"? It's just that Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), and no doubt others, see CAFE standards as a reasonable response to the "peak oil" question. So, I'll include them.)

Do you see any way to bridge this gap? Who do you see as having the main responsibility?

And is it necessary to do so? (I assume so, but wonder what you think.)

Without a realistic (i.e., scary-yet-true) view of the "peak", then the whole topic just more or less evaporates as a concern, is what I've seen. This means that people lack information and so are not in a position to make what we might call "structural adjustments", looking at supply chains, re-localization, or anything else.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

41 comments on API Energy IQ Game and Blogger Call

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version