Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Oil Shale: Energy Source, Or 2 For The Price Of 1 Global Warming Machine?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 05:45 PM
Original message
Oil Shale: Energy Source, Or 2 For The Price Of 1 Global Warming Machine?
As the article cites, we would use 3.0 Mbtu coal energy input for 5.8 Mbtu crude energy output for Shell’s in-situ method of extraction, or an EROEI of 2.0+/-. Factoring in the energy expended for site development, drilling heating shafts, manufacturing and placing heating elements, building and maintaining a perimeter ice dam, and site remediation, we probably are getting no net energy out of oil shale.

We will simply be burning coal in order to extract oil to burn. The more oil required, the more coal burned. And on and on . . .


Oil Shale May Be Fool's Gold
12/18/2005

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_3313756#

Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy published a new report on oil shale. It claimed that the nation could wring "200,000 barrels a day from oil shale by 2011, 2 million barrels a day by 2020, and ultimately 10 million barrels a day" from fields in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. These predictions - both the production targets and their timing - are preposterous, as some industry experts admit.

. . .

The primary explanation is that oil shale is a lousy fuel. Compared to the coal that launched the Industrial Revolution or the oil that sustains the world today, oil shale is the dregs. Coal seams a few feet thick are worth mining because coal contains lots of energy. If coal is good, oil is even better. And oil shale? Per pound, it contains one-tenth the energy of crude oil, one-sixth that of coal.

. . .

Although Shell's method avoids the need to mine shale, it requires a mind-boggling amount of electricity. To produce 100,000 barrels per day, the company would need to construct the largest power plant in Colorado history. Costing about $3 billion, it would consume 5 million tons of coal each year, producing 10 million tons of greenhouse gases. (The company's annual electric bill would be about $500 million.) To double production, you'd need two power plants. One million barrels a day would require 10 new power plants, five new coal mines. And 10 million barrels a day, as proposed by some, would necessitate 100 power plants.

. . .

What contribution can oil shale make to energy security? Producing 100,000 barrels per day of shale oil does not violate the laws of physics. But the nation currently consumes that much oil every seven minutes. Improving the efficiency of our automobiles by 2 miles per gallon would save 10 times as much fuel, saving consumers $100 billion at the pump. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that cars, trucks and SUVs that get 30, 40 or 50 miles per gallon are doable. An aggressive national commitment to fuel efficiency is not optional, it's inevitable. In time, a more efficient fleet could save 20 times as much petroleum as oil shale is likely to ever provide.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. Heard a presentation from Shell's lead guy on shale oil
To produce 1 mbd from Colorado's west slope shale formations would require building an on-site generating capacity equal to that of the entire generating capacity of the state of Colorado.

Sounds a bit expensive, don't you think? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. The Only Way Shell's In-Situ Method Makes Sense Is With Wind
That is, use wind power to generate the electricity for the cookers. It seems like this could be a way of converting intermittent wind energy into a transportation fuel or petrochemical feedstock in a region where the potential for wind generated electricity far exceeds demand.

Any way you cut it, though, it makes absolutely no sense to throw coal at a process with a best-case EROEI of 2 when you could just produce coal liquids with the F-T process at a proven EROEI of 5.

Looks like another case where energy efficiency and economics are not in agreement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 05:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC