Perhaps we need an open thread?
Posted by Heading Out on February 28, 2006 - 12:18am
Topic: Miscellaneous
(Grin) For those not coal-inclined, (or perhaps now the MMS) you might want to note that the January figures from a different source are showing an OPEC drop of about 460,000 bd.
And for those interested in natural gas, drilling in the Barnett Shale continues, giving you a sense of how progress on a well occurs. As for the rest, herewith enjoy this open thread...
[editor's note, by Prof. Goose]Thanks to TF for bringing this piece to our attention, a prominent news source (Boston Globe) with a laissez-faire attitude (after playing he said/she said). Quality reporting there folks, way to help with the public debate, eh?



Quote:
The journalist's rule says: follow the money. This rule, however, is not really axiomatic but derivative, in that money, as even our vice president will tell you, is really a way of tracking energy. We'll follow the energy.
.
.
.
If you follow the energy, eventually you will end up in a field somewhere. Humans engage in a dizzying array of artifice and industry. Nonetheless, more than two thirds of humanity's cut of primary productivity results from agriculture, two thirds of which in turn consists of three plants: rice, wheat, and corn. In the 10,000 years since humans domesticated these grains, their status has remained undiminished, most likely because they are able to store solar energy in uniquely dense, transportable bundles of carbohydrates. They are to the plant world what a barrel of refined oil is to the hydrocarbon world. Indeed, aside from hydrocarbons they are the most concentrated form of true wealth--sun energy--to be found on the planet.
Ultimately the carrying capacity is determined by its weakest link; for many societies that is probably its winter / drought food availability.
I designed 2 adjacent pipelines in Venezuela. One from a marine terminal for light oil, delivered from the good quality Mesa fields, and take it 140 km inland to the heavy oil Zuata Field. The light was blended with the heavy (APIº9.6 bitumin) at the production facilities in Zuata. It was then heated to min 175ºF to decrease the blends viscosity to levels capable of being pumped via another pipeline back to the marine terminal. This process was changed later to use naphtha in place of the Mesa crude. An adjacent separating plant was started up to separate the naphtha and recycle it back to the Zuata field, where it is blended again.
But the background to this is greenhouse gases continuing and increasing at a high rate and 850 coal power plants (at least most will have cleaner coal technology) planned or coming on line combined in the USA, China, and India in the next few years.
I think it will take ski runs being closed down in Colorado and the Alps for people to get serious. Until then, business as usual will continue with some renewable energy getting a larger, but not massive, slice of the energy pie.
The Straight Dope has a short piece on Peak Oil this week. In response to a question asking if peak oil production is going to hit in the next 40-60 years:
Word is getting out indeed.
There is a "debate" in the forums associated with Cecil's columns:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=2b37a0add2a1835184872ef610c33f9f&t=360276
Not a very good debate - just lots of pointless arguing, really.
He neglects to mention that nuclear energy isn't going to affect the transportation issue, which is arguably where the most important breakdowns will occur. But maybe Adams was too reluctant to claim that hydrogen or electric cars are going to save us.
Of course, you don't want idiots to get any of the fissionables, as they can get a bang out of them. This is the biggest problem of nukes in general. Breeders mean that you can recycle waste most-way. Spent fuel is mostly U-238 with some Pu-239 added for flavour from normal reactors. The Pu-239 comes from neutron bombardment of U-238 during use. A "perfect" breeder would end up making waste made of fission byproduct elements about half the atomic weight of the fissionable.
As above, fission has its problems, but nothing is problem-free. I'd rather risk an occasional Chernobyl vs. the certainty of global warming with using up the coal. With fusion, all bets are off. It could take centuries to figure it out - assuming we keep civilisation up and running! (and that's a dangerous assumption!)
Of course, many would argue that many of the world's leading idiots already have fissionables.
From my Physics background (decades ago), U-233 is not an ideal bomb ingredient but can be made to work with an effort.
Bush has decided to push MOX recycling (do not seperate all of the relatively short lived and intensely radioactive elements above Pu). These elements have some fuel potential as well. The heat and radiation from these make fabrication from stolen fuel "problematic".
Estimates of fuel reserves are with current technology & prices. Uranium has been prospected for and mined for only a few decades; much less than most other minerals. No interest in new sources for two decades or so.
Fission reactors have considerable prospects for that "New Technology Silver Bullet", unlike oil.
BTW: Used fuel may become a good source of platinum group elements (when U atoms split, they do so in a variety of ways).
Lithium is fairly expensive. A lot of the cost is processing raw material to get it. Making sodium and aluminium has the same problem. Electrolisis is a major cost.
How nukes can serve transportation is to have electrified mass transit. Buses and trains, both passenger and freight. No fun, but a commute is possible. Battery cars (any battery) may be rich peoples' toys in the long run. One good thing about extensive mass transit is that drunk driving will no longer exist.
"Australian crude oil and condensate production
has been declining since the early 2000s,
mainly as a result of lower production from a
number of mature fields. For example, production
from the Gippsland Basin, which previously
accounted for a significant proportion of
total Australian production, has declined at an
annual average rate of around 17 per cent since
1999-2000."
http://www.abareconomics.com/AC_Mini_Site/pdf/AC_Dec05_Energy_[0323].pdf
This 17% decline in our main oil basin means we will only be about 50% self-sufficient in about 5 years (down from about 65% at the moment). Oil imports now make-up the second largest factor of very large monthly current account balances. ASPO Australia has helped set up a Senate Inquiry into this situation:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/submissions/sublist.htm
Here in australia we don't do anything without Uncle Sam's say-so.
(I'm only half kidding - it's partly a cultural inferiority complex that stops us from adopting ideas that have not been tested "overseas")
Even before Australia's oil peaked, when we produced what we consumed, we still exported most of our oil, as it was very valuable light fractions, and imported slightly heavier and cheaper oil for processing and because the local oil is no good for diesel.
Macarthur Coal, one of our local coal mining companies, just announced a 240% increase in profits, so we can afford $70 a barrel oil imports for now
I futher we may need a coal to oil plant but Australia has no need to do it at the moment.
Of course in there is war with Iran we may need one very quickly..
The West takes lead on climate change
Also:
Parched New Mexico gets a taste of climate change
possible rise of 8-12 degrees in New Mexico's
average temperature by the end of this century.'
Is that Celcius or Fahrenheit?
Either way it is probably a substantial under-
estimate, since anything that came out a month
ago would not have taken into account the
latest data and thoughts on positive feed-backs.
More likely, N M will be largely uninhabitable
within 50 years.
Anyway, it won't be the lack of snow on ski
fields that will bring the climate change debate
to a head, it will be the widespread fuel and
gas shortages that result from a series of GOM
hurricanes worse than experienced in '05.
Does it really matter? I think, under these circumstances, that it's simply the difference between "roasted" and "blackened."
http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/mayor/climate/default.htm#cities
This is a bottom-up initiative in the States, lacking federal leadership.
can somebody tell us how well coal gasification could be performed underground? I ask this because recently an enormous coal resevoir has been located underneath the sea in Norway. Obviously there are quite a number of problems if one were to mine those layers, but would it be commercially attractive to gasify those layers underneath and extract the resulting gas via drilling?
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/1/6/181130/4446
As far as the vast deposits of coal under the seabed off the coast of Norway, I think that in situ gasification is the only approach that has any chance at all of being halfway technically and economically feasible (mining the stuff appears to be out of the question). Still, there would be many daunting technical and possibly environmental challeges to doing in situ seabed gasification on a commercial scale. However, it's feasibility is certainly worth exploring.
(again, correct word?). Methane is then free to move.
I think you have to drill quite a few wells and fracture the coal layer. You can then get the methane to surface in the same way a conventional gas well would function.
Power generation using CBM is/was(?) common in some parts of the US. It was a hot topic in the UK during the 90's.
But it did not quite take off.
Wait drags on for foreign access to Kuwait's oil
Better living through chemistry:
DuPont Looking to Displace Fossil Fuels as Building Blocks of Chemicals
Hopeful.
But once again, the Devil is probably in those darn petrochemical inputs and net energy loss.
We shall see.