OT: Oil Shale

[mikeo80]

If I may, i would like to get back to the discussion on the oil shale in western USA. There was a proposal in 1965 that would use nuclear explosions to "crack" the dense shale to make extraction of oil easier.

http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreviewid=00001068

This is one experiment that I for one am glad they never tried.

My $0.02

Mike

[kato13]

In a mid frame science fiction scenario (out 15-100 years, but before room temperature super conductors) I could see a mix of fusion and oil shale being used to power the US.

In addition to powering the grid, the fusion energy could be used to process the shale in oil, which has tremendous advantages in long term storage and transportation.

The oil continues to be processed into gas which until Room temp super conductors will still probably out perform batteries as far as mobile energy storage goes.

[kalos72]

I understand oil will be around for a long time, but why not at least take steps to reduce consumption

I mean seriously, most average houses can be powered by the solar. Make it mandatory that every new home can produce at least 50% of the occupants consumption and see what happens to research in that technology.

All I want to see is some effort but the oil industry will stop at nothing to get that killed...

[kato13]

Solar has many limitations.

First is only being able to be use about 33% of the time when you take into account nighttime and cloudy/overcast days.

Second is the current technology requires to use rare earth elements. If you tried to put them on every home costs would skyrocket (With a ton of the money going to China).

Coal (which is going to be around even longer than oil) was about 50 times cheaper to create a Kw hour in 2007 IIRC

The average American home used 11,280 kWh per year in 2011. If you want to cover your usage during daylight hours you would need the following
$34,000 to $42,000 installed (2008 prices)
275 to 360 square feet
This would cover 30-45% of your energy depending on the weather conditions. (I expect in Seattle you would generate much less Phoenix a bit more.)

[Raellus]

You really think that a "Carbon Tax" in the US would be small potatoes The lowest estimates I have seen is 1000 dollars per household with some people saying it would need to be 5000 dollars per household to effect real change in peoples usage. That is some serious money running into someones hands and it would of course be dispensed to worthy green projects not horribly run businesses run by connected political donors (**cough** Solyndra **cough**). Maybe i am more of a cynic that most because i see this as an extension of Chicago Style politics, but it is clear as day to me.

And big oil isn't a connected political donor I'm a cynical as you when it comes to politics, but perhaps I'm a little more cynical when it comes to the political influence of multinational corporations. Look at the top earning corporations over the last decade or so and big oil dominates the top five nearly every year. I don't have any figures to back it up, but I'd be willing to wager all of my worldly possessions and life savings that fossil fuel and petrochem companies spend more on political donations and advertising than solar, wind, hydro, nuclear and every other conceivable sustainable energy company combined, each year, every year. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

If big oil can profit from a carbon tax, well then I'm right there with you in thinking that it will eventually happen because they have the financial muscle and political influence to get it done. Solyndra and Al Gore and the California State University System simply don't.

I just don't see scientists, the media, and liberal politicians conspiring to raise taxes by crafting what would be the biggest, most wide-reaching hoax of all time. To quote the late, great Bob Marley, "You can't fool all the people all the time."

I respect you Kato and I don't want this to get testy so this is the last I'm going to say on the matter. You've got the last word. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on this one.

[kato13]

I just don't see scientists, the media, and liberal politicians conspiring to raise taxes by crafting what would be the biggest, most wide-reaching hoax of all time. To quote the late, great Bob Marley, "You can't fool all the people all the time."

I respect you Kato and I don't want this to get testy so this is the last I'm going to say on the matter. You've got the last word. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on this one.

We can come back to this in ten or fifteen years to see who was right, but remember that in the 1970s global cooling was going to kill us all.

[Raellus]

We can come back to this in ten or fifteen years to see who was right, but remember that in the 1970s global cooling was going to kill us all.

Deal. Assuming, that is, that we haven't all melted by then.

[kalos72]

Global warming/cooling is one of the big hoaxes my friends. Not that they exist or not but it keeps us fighting/arguing about that rather then facing the FACT we cannot live on oil alone.

The FACT is big oil doesn't want a new tech because then they would lose out on the billions in profit per quarter they are making now.

Until our leaders make the decision we need to start looking past oil as our lifeblood resource, we will be stuck. Problem is our leaders dont lead unless someone donates.

[Cdnwolf]

Okay people way off topic now.

It would make a great way to rebuild the world after the war ends though. Nations coming together to make a brave new world...

[kato13]

Okay people way off topic now.

You are very right.

[kalos72]

Well, how do you extract the oil from shale Isn't the process harder then normal drilling for liquid petroleum products

[Targan]

Well, how do you extract the oil from shale Isn't the process harder then normal drilling for liquid petroleum products

Fracking (haydraulic fracturing) is how you do it. If you can, watch the documentary film Gasland. Then tell me how you feel about shale oil.

[RN7]

I'm not fully convinced that humans are a major contribution to climatic change. Pollution certainly, but I'm not convinced about climatic change. Why Because climatic change has continually occurred throughout history and mostly before human society was industrialised, and it will happen again.

I used to be an archaeologist and palaeoclimatology has confirmed that climatic events have affected human societies since the Stone Age. The Ancient Greeks, Egypt, Rome, China, Mesoamerican civilisations and Medieval Europe have all been effected by it.

New shale oil deposits in America will not make the world warmer or colder.

[kato13]

Well, how do you extract the oil from shale Isn't the process harder then normal drilling for liquid petroleum products

Yes it is energy/heat intensive. Most methods will also require volumes of water. Natural gas is often produced as a byproduct or is found in the formations so that can help with the heat source, but water has often been a limiting factor.

Extraction was nearly economically viable in the early 80s when oil prices were at historically high levels.

Opec's response to us potentially tapping our own reserves was to increase production to make it economically nonviable (in 1986 the price of oil dropped 46%). Lots of investors in the technology went bankrupt so the market has been very gun shy about approaching it again.

The thought now is that with emerging markets in China and India, OPEC can not meet demand enough to crater prices again. That combined with historical high prices has renewed interest.

Game wise I would have expected there to be little interest in US Shale until the war started and the desire to be self sufficient presented itself. Given there were very few people interested in it during the 90's building the infrastructure from scratch would have been difficult.

Maybe there would some small pilot programs similar to what the Air Force is doing now with converting coal to jet fuel.

[Targan]

I'm not fully convinced that humans are a major contribution to climatic change. Pollution certainly, but I'm not convinced about climatic change. Why Because climatic change has continually occurred throughout history and mostly before human society was industrialised, and it will happen again.

I used to be an archaeologist and palaeoclimatology has confirmed that climatic events have affected human societies since the Stone Age. The Ancient Greeks, Egypt, Rome, China, Mesoamerican civilisations and Medieval Europe have all been effected by it.

New shale oil deposits in America will not make the world warmer or colder.

I strongly disagree with some of what you said (although I completely agree that non-human influenced climate change has occurred countless times before) but the views being expressed here are obviously so entrenched I don't think any further OT discussion here will be helpful.