Grim News on the Oil Front!

[Sancho's Horse]

Not semantics. Seems like there is an awful lot of verification going on, on many different fronts (i.e. the very foundations for creating scientific truth). You do not need to dip very far into the scientific waters to see that there are masses of evidence pointing in the same directions.

When arguments resort to conspiracy theories, I usually am a little more suspect. Conspiracies happen, but on smaller scales. I doubt there is an international consortium of scientists trying to rig the results. The biggest source of my doubt in the existence of this consortium, other than walking out the door and looking at the weather, is that global warming scientists are coming from all parts of the world. Clearly, putting the brakes on the pace of energy use is less detrimental economically to the more developed nations. No single factor is a greater predictor of economic prosperity than the amount of energy used by a society, so why would scientists in developing nations go against their national interests en masse?

I spent years paving the way for fracking (via pipeline installation), and ironically, I see the best solution? for all of this is more energy use, not less, just from different sources.

 

[Lock]

Pics of earth from space are pretty...

...but to me this looks like huge amounts of energy waste... thinking maybe using energy more efficiently may be cheaper than making more...

Lock

 

[DrkAngel]

... My only problem with the whole argument, is that it can sometimes be difficult for me to see a way out. We are changing the climate, but can we really stop? If the changing climate doesn't get us, will the social disorder of battling it get us? I, however, am still an optomist (short term).

More the question - How much worse will it get?

Even with drastic measures, it might take decades to slow down.

Might take a century+ to begin reversing?

 

[Hillhater]

Pics of earth from space are pretty......but to me this looks like huge amounts of energy waste...
Lock

?Pretty ?.. especially when "enhanced" a little ! :wink:
When i have flown at night, its been hard to see any sign of life even from commercial altitudes over populated urban areas !

 

[Sancho's Horse]

I, personally, am all for efficiency. I pursue it doggedly throughout my life, and think of it in terms of survival (which will lead to far greater strides because survival is non-partisan). I am not worried about pursuing policies which promote efficiency, because massive increases in cost are coming, and will force everyones hand. Supporting system efficiencies where the costs are high - sure, but leading the discussion to efficiency at this point is a non-starter.

The reasons for this are simple. We must transition to different sources of energy. Economic costs and political will are the greatest factors in determining when and how this will happen. We, however, are all formed by experiences in which increased energy density equates directly with increased success, economic and otherwise. The enlightened may view efficiency as an increase in energy density in continuation with the march of history (which it is, only marginally so), but the vast majority will not see it this way. Perceptions of efficiency, and the fact that if we just do the same things we are doing now only less of it will never solve the problem...means efficiency arguments sap political will, and forces the argument into the economic costs category.

The economic cost category is dominated by the perceptions that the costs are too high. Pursuit of "green energy" will destroy our prosperity. At least that is what we are told. However, treating green energy as a simple commodity leads to flawed arguments. Not cheaper than coal? Oh, well, we are increasing energy costs and decreasing economic prosperity! This is like saying energy drinks should not exist because they cost more than water. No, water and energy drinks are just different, just like energy sources are fundamentally different. The problem with green energy is not how it competes against coal, the problem is that we don't allow it to compete against the things it beats (economically speaking).

We have a sytem rife with corruption and inefficiencies. I, personally, have spent the last several years examining how we raise additional streams of money for education, and I can tell you that the rate of returns are abyssmal. Some of the more popular programs have a 10% return. Every dollar you give, leads to a dime going to the school. Wow, hard to compete with that! I am joking, of course. Renewable energy destroys these rates of return, with even solar paying itself back 7-10 years easily. This is how we create green energy, we let it compete against our bloated institutions.

I have been working out how to do this for the last several years, and I am getting ready to move to the next level. Wish us luck!

 

[DrkAngel]

... My only problem with the whole argument, is that it can sometimes be difficult for me to see a way out. We are changing the climate, but can we really stop? If the changing climate doesn't get us, will the social disorder of battling it get us? I, however, am still an optomist (short term).

More the question - How much worse will it get?

Even with drastic measures, it might take decades to slow down.

Might take a century+ to begin reversing?

Arctic ice is melting at an accelerated rate, causing less heat reflection, causing more heat absorption, causing more ice melt.
Heat and drought are killing vegetation. Wildfires running rampant, pouring more CO2 into the atmosphere.
2011 drought killed an estimated 100 - 500 million trees in Texas alone. Maybe worse this year?

CO2 does not go away by itself!

Every bit of fossil fuel burned releases more and more CO2.
Reducing the rate of increase is the first step.
Then, possibly, we can hope to begin reducing atmospheric CO2.

2 possibilities for CO2 reduction.

1. Massive global reforestation, requiring irrigation ... from solar powered desalinization plants?
Turning desert areas into forests of atmospheric scrubbing CO2 collection and storage devices ... trees.

2. A process that releases the oxygen and precipitates pure carbon - diamonds. (Theoretically possible.) Might even be profitable!
Might only be feasible at fossil fuel burning plants, higher CO2 concentration would make process more effective, presumably.
Eventually, burning trees could be used for power generation, and then, we might be able to start CO2 reduction.
With the bonus of top quality fertilizer, as a by-product!

More!
U.S. Department Of Energy (DOE) sponsors research on CO2 conversion - 6 research trials funded

 

[Punx0r]

CO2 does disappear by itself That's why it fluctuates over time.

Regarding the graph a few posts ago, I assume the result correlate well with spreading global industrialisation. As people have been burning coal is large quantities for the last 200 years or so.

I also assume that ~400,000 years is a significant time period. It's long in terms of Human history, but very short on a geological timescale.

Regarding replacing fossil fuels with green alternatives, unfortunately it's just not possible. The figures I've heard quoted are quite astounding. To meet current energy demands would require probably the largest ever engineering project and last probably a century. The result wold be something like half the Earth's land surface covered in solar arrays, wind generators and algae tanks.

IMO the only viable alternative is nuclear, and that's fine by me. Fusion would be awesome, but even a slightly cleaner/more sustainable fission system would be fine. Unfortunately, many eco-types don't like nuclear, even though it's CO2 "footprint" is very low.

 

[DrkAngel]

CO2 does disappear by itself That's why it fluctuates over time.

"Fluctuations" seem to coincide with climactic changes, ice ages etc.
Periods of lush vegetation contrasting against global drought contrasting against ice ages.

 

[Punx0r]

Aside from carbon being locked up in plants, sea water, coal/oil/gas it's also laid down as carbonate rock.

I read an interesting article a while ago about a group of creative types who claimed they'd found a way to counter CO2-related global warming by pumping (IIRC) sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere. I think the idea was to have self-contained generating devices floating in the open ocean. The sums looked convincing, but who knows if it would actually work.

 

[DrkAngel]

U.S. Department Of Energy (DOE) sponsors research on CO2 conversion - Phase 1 - 6 research trials funded

DOE sponsors research on CO2 conversion
Projects / Policy, July 14 2010 (Carbon Capture Journal)

- Research to help find ways of converting into useful products CO2 captured from emissions of power plants and industrial facilities will be conducted by six projects announced by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

The projects are located in North Carolina, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Georgia, and Quebec, Canada (through collaboration with a company based in Lexington, Ky.) and have a total value of approximately $5.9 million over two-to-three years, with $4.4 million of DOE funding and $1.5 million of non-Federal cost sharing. The work will be managed by the Office of Fossil Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory.

Converting captured CO2 into products such as chemicals, fuels, building materials, and other commodities could form an important part of a solution for reducing CO2 emissions in an economical way, the DOe.

It is anticipated that large volumes of CO2 will be available as fossil fuel–based power plants and other CO2-emitting industries are equipped with CO2 emissions control technologies to comply with regulatory requirements. While DOE efforts are underway to demonstrate the permanent storage of captured CO2 through geologic sequestration, there is also a potential opportunity to use CO2 as an inexpensive raw material and convert it to beneficial use. The selected projects will develop or improve scalable processes with the potential to use significant amounts of CO2, the DOE said.　

The selected projects are:

- Research Triangle Institute (Durham, N.C.) - RTI will assess the feasibility of producing valuable chemicals, such as carbon monoxide, by reducing CO2 using abundant low-value carbon sources, such as petcoke, sub-bituminous coal, lignite, and biomass, as the reductant. The team will then evaluate whether additional processes can be added that use the carbon monoxide to produce other marketable chemicals, such as aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acids, anhydrides, esters, amides, imides, carbonates, and ureas. (DOE share: $800,000; recipient share: $200,000; duration: 24 months).

- CCS Materials, Inc. (Piscataway, N.J.) — Investigators will attempt to create an energy efficient, CO2-consuming inorganic binding phase to serve as a high-performing substitute for Portland cement (PC) in concrete. The project team will use a novel near-net-shape forming process that uses a binding phase based on carbonation chemistry instead of the hydration chemistry used in PC concrete. (DOE share: $794,000; recipient share: $545,100; duration: 36 months)

- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge, Mass.) — In this project, researchers will investigate a novel electrochemical technology that uses CO2 from dilute gas streams generated at industrial carbon emitters, including power plants, as a raw material to produce useful commodity chemicals. This integrated capture and conversion process will be used to produce a number of different chemicals that could replace petroleum-derived products. (DOE share: $1,000,000; recipient share: $250,067; duration: 24 months)

- Brown University (Providence, R.I.) — Researchers will demonstrate the viability of a bench-scale reaction using CO2 and ethylene as reactants to produce valuable acrylate compounds with low-valent molybdenum catalysts. Exploratory experiments will be conducted to identify the factors that control the current catalyst-limiting step in acrylic acid formation. (DOE share: $417,155; recipient share: $107,460; duration: 24 months).

- McGill University (Quebec, Canada) — In collaboration with 3H Company (Lexington, Ky.), researchers aim to develop a curing process for the precast concrete industry that uses CO2 as a reactant. To make the process economically feasible, a self-concentrating absorption technology will be studied to produce low-cost CO2 for concrete curing and to capture residual carbon after the process. (DOE share: $399,960; recipient share: $100,000; duration: 24 months)

- PhosphorTech Corporation (Lithia Springs, Ga.) — Investigators will develop and demonstrate an electrochemical process using a light-harvesting CO2 catalyst to reform CO2 into products such as methane gas. Researchers hope to achieve a commercially feasible CO2 reforming process that will produce useful commodities using the entire solar spectrum. (DOE share: $998,661; recipient share: $249,847; duration: 36 months)

U.S. Department of Energy

 

[Sancho's Horse]

No one rationally believes it is possible to replace fossil fuels with green energy. However, energy sources have benefits exclusive to their type. What are we going to do, create nuclear powered planes? Hardly. We have to use everything we have got, and the sooner we use these things with the end game in mind...the better.

There is a large segment who believes strongly in green energy. They aren't going away. They should, in fact, be used to further our society. However, everyone is largely disenfranchised. The large up front costs make involvement much greater of a commitment and risk, and has led to slow adoption, with utility scale developments being dominant.

I think this is a shame. While I applaud utility usage of green energy, there is a massive opportunity to turn green energy into something more than just a different energy source. The opportunity exists to use green energy to correct some of the social ills which we have developed within our society.

 

[DrkAngel]

U.S. Department Of Energy (DOE) sponsors research on CO2 capture-conversion -DOE selects eight oxy-combustion projects

DOE selects eight oxy-combustion projects
Projects / Policy, July 29 2012 (Carbon Capture Journal)

- The U.S. Department of Energy has selected eight projects to advance the development of oxy-combustion technologies for CO2 capture from coal-fired power plants.

The selections announced are part of a two-phase effort to evaluate and develop advanced oxy-combustion projects that yield cost-competitive options for CCUS. These projects will aim to achieve at least 90 percent carbon dioxide removal while delivering carbon dioxide at a capture cost of less than $25 per ton. The Phase 1 projects will focus on an engineering and economic analysis of the technologies while identifying the Phase 2 research and development needs to bring the technology closer to commercialization. The selection of Phase 2 projects will occur next year based upon Phase 1 results.　

The Energy Department’s $7 million investment - leveraged with recipient cost-share to support approximately $9.4 million in total projects - will support the development and deployment of Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) by focusing on further improving the efficiency and reducing the costs associated with carbon capture.

"Advancing the development of clean coal technologies is an important part of President Obama’s strategy to develop every source of American energy," said U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu. "These projects will build on the important progress made by this Administration in promoting innovative technologies that help make coal-fired energy cleaner and more cost-competitive. America’s leadership in developing new Carbon, Capture, Utilization and Storage technologies is helping to ensure the United States continues to lead the world in this growing global market."

These awards are part of a more than $5 billion investment strategy by the Obama Administration in clean coal technologies and R&D. This strategy, which has attracted over $10 billion in additional private capital investment, is designed to accelerate commercial deployment of clean coal technologies – particularly CCS – and to position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race.

The selected projects, each lasting one year, will be managed by the Office of Fossil Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory:

- Alstom Power (Windsor, Conn.) — Alstom Power, through prior U.S. DOE investments, has been developing a limestone-based chemical looping combustion technology. The selected project will continue this work by enabling the full analysis of the process through an engineering system and economic study along with the development of a screening tool for process improvements. Additional analyses include the evaluation of pressurizing the limestone chemical looping combustion process.

DOE Investment: $1,000,000

Recipient Cost-Share: $250,000

- Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group (Barberton, Ohio) — The project will focus on furthering the development of Ohio State University’s coal direct chemical looping process (CDCL). The CDCL process consists of a unique moving bed reactor where pulverized coal is fully converted using iron-based oxygen carriers. This reactor design and reaction pathway of CDCL process allows for retrofit, repowering or new installations with significant reduction in the cost of oxygen production.

DOE Investment: $988,000

Recipient Cost-Share: $828,000

- Gas Technology Institute (Des Plaines, Ill.) — This project will evaluate the potential of a novel pressurized oxy-combustion process based upon a molten bed combustor. The molten bed combustor offers higher efficiency than other known oxy-combustion processes by greatly reducing flue gas recirculation while operating at elevated pressure. The boiler concept should allow for a more compact combustor with reduced gas-phase heat exchanger surface area.

DOE Investment: $800,000

Recipient Cost-Share: $200,000

- Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (Canoga Park, Calif.) — This project will evaluate a novel process for pressurized oxy-combustion in a fluidized bed reactor. The pressurized combustion in oxygen and the recycle of carbon dioxide gas eliminates the presence of nitrogen and other constituents of air, minimizing the generation of pollutants and enabling a more economical capture of CO2 gas.

DOE Investment: $1,000,000

Recipient Cost-Share: $226,000

- Southwest Research Institute (San Antonio, Texas) — The applicant aims to investigate a novel supercritical CO2 power cycle utilizing pressurized oxy-combustion in conjunction with cryogenic compression. This power cycle leverages developments in pressurized oxy-combustion technology, a cryogenic CO2 compression system and recent developments in supercritical power cycles to achieve high net cycle efficiencies while producing a captive CO2 stream at pipeline pressures without requiring additional compression of the CO2.

DOE Investment: $700,000

Recipient Cost-Share: $175,000

- Unity Power Alliance (Worcester, Mass.) — This project aims to evaluate the flameless combustion technology developed by ITEA (Italy) under pressurized oxy-combustion conditions. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) will work with the technology developer to establish a modeling basis for the flameless reactor conditions in order to conduct a techno-economic assessment of a range of flameless pressurized oxy-combustion cycles and conditions. Laboratory data will be collected to assess the performance of the system.

DOE Investment: $1,000,000

Recipient Cost-Share: $391,000

- University of Kentucky Research Foundation (Lexington, Ky.) — The project will investigate a heat-integrated, coal-based combined cycle for power generation using a pressurized chemical looping combustor (PCLC). The PCLC system aims to produce high-temperature flue gas for electricity generation through a gas-turbine and a heat recovery unit combined with a conventional steam cycle. The cost effectiveness and efficiency of the process using iron-based oxygen carriers will be examined.

DOE Investment: $599,000

Recipient Cost-Share: $156,000

- Washington University (St. Louis, Mo.) — The applicant will evaluate the technical feasibility and improved economics of a unique pressurized system which incorporates a fuel-staged combustion approach. By staging the combustion, the temperature and heat transfer can be controlled. The potential benefits of the process are higher efficiency, reduced gas volumes, reduced oxygen demands, reduced capital costs, increased CO2 purity after combustion and reduced auxiliary power demands.

DOE Investment: $854,000

Recipient Cost-Share: $209,000

U.S. DOE

 

[DrkAngel]

California :
Gas nearing $6 per gallon!
Gas shortages and price spikes are expected to pump up gas prices ... higher than $6/gallon!
Prices are expected to climb, for several more days.
Multiple refinery problems causing shortages, combined with the holiday weekend, are expected to produce some horror stories of outrageous price gouging!

10/5/2012
$5.999 per gal was the highest price I spotted on the news item.

 

[The fingers]

One could see the 200 ft high flame and smoke trail for several miles at the El Segundo refinery during the power outage. With all that fuel wasted they could have powered enormous electric steam generators but no, just burn it off and waste it for hours and pollute the air. But we have to smog our cars and pay $6.00 a gallon for gas in Cali while the rest of the country pays under $4.00! Oh, I forgot; Obama's got this state in the bag.

 

[Dauntless]

Oh, I forgot; Obama's got this state in the bag.

Not so fast. Have you heard what so many longtime supporters are saying after his debate debacle and post failure petulance?

 

[DrkAngel]

October 5, 2012
Gas at $5.99 per Gallon ... and rising!

 

[The fingers]

Don't forget, we elected Gerry Brown, the cyclists friend.

 

[DrkAngel]

"A station in Long Beach had California's priciest gas at $6.65 for a gallon of regular, according to GasBuddy.com."

California Price Spike - Explained?

 

[Dauntless]

 

[megacycle]

No one rationally believes it is possible to replace fossil fuels with green energy. However, energy sources have benefits exclusive to their type. What are we going to do, create nuclear powered planes? Hardly. We have to use everything we have got, and the sooner we use these things with the end game in mind...the better.

What a nuclear powered plane, house etc never.
Look up LENR.

 

[IBScootn]

For those that are still pro-nuclear, please add http://enenews.com/ to your daily reading. Some good stuff there over the last month. Only place I'm hearing about the LA sinkhole.

Stuff happens. But since I started riding my e-moto two years ago, I don't pay much attention to gas prices anymore. This e-moto costs so little to operate, I just consider it free transportation.

 

[megacycle]

LENR is not that kind of tech, but yeh there would be risks associated with it, but different than full on fission size reactors.
Keep it for mid scale generation maybe megawatts scale.

 

[Kurt]

CO2 does disappear by itself That's why it fluctuates over time.

Regarding replacing fossil fuels with green alternatives, unfortunately it's just not possible. The figures I've heard quoted are quite astounding. To meet current energy demands would require probably the largest ever engineering project and last probably a century. The result wold be something like half the Earth's land surface covered in solar arrays, wind generators and algae tanks.

IMO the only viable alternative is nuclear, and that's fine by me. Fusion would be awesome, but even a slightly cleaner/more sustainable fission system would be fine. Unfortunately, many eco-types don't like nuclear, even though it's CO2 "footprint" is very low.

Not to sure about that. Yes its a huge area in each of the energy hungry country's . But 1/2 the earths land mass :? the earths a massive place and the sun is one crazy powerful free charger . I will say they are over optimistic on the real wold energy m2 available for PV. Though in there total world energy consumption there assuming that all fossil fuels are consumed with 100% efficacy by simply calculating total stored energy so that more than makes up for the assumed 1000wh m2 .

energy storage for overnight consumption is the very big thing I can see they have overlooked.Perhaps some kind of pumped hydro or even a global sun tracking shared network that shared output as the sun is always shining at some point on the earth at any given time . Distribution nightmare LOL

link to report.
http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127

Kurt

 

[deronmoped]

How can anyone in their right mind not be pro-nuclear?

What do you think makes all life possible on this planet. Nuclear radiation. And 10,000 in the USofA die every year from this nuclear radiation.

Why worry about some nuke plant, when it's a million times more likely to die from skin cancer, caused by overexposure to nuclear radiation burns from the SUN!

 

[megacycle]

LENR NASA