# A scary strategic problem - no oil



## redleafjumper

A scary strategic problem to ponder.   


Recently I read a report on the status of oil reserves and consumption rates.   Like many, I have never been very concerned about gas and oil as there seems to be a lot available and it didn't really seem to me to be something to worry about.   I have regarded alarmist comments in the popular press about oil and energy sources as mere conspiracy theories.   I was wrong.   There is a problem with oil and it really is something to be concerned about.   Here's a synopsis of the situation:

The OPEC countries and especially Saudi Arabia have the largest reserves of oil.   Other nations, particularly Russia also have large reserves.   Canada doesn't have huge actual oil reserves, but our tar sands and oil put us in second place in the world after Saudi Arabia for being able to produce oil, even if the process is expensive.   

According to the unpublished report and my own supplementary investigation (do a google search for "world without oil" to get a taste) in the best case scenario, including maximum, not actual, reserve estimates at just current consumption rates, the world will be out of accessible oil in 50 years.   This time frame doesn't consider increasing consumption.   Mid-point of oil reserves will occur at around 2007!   From then on, oil demand will go up and the existing stocks will go down.   Oil is not a renewable resource; it doesn't grow back, so when it is gone it is gone.

So what's the strategic problem?   Well to spell it out, there will be considerably more pressure on existing oil in the short term.   There will be conflict over existing oil reserves.   The United States, China and Europe are huge consumers of oil and they do not have reserves that will support their needs.   Countries that have oil will be under tremendous pressure to provide it and there will not be enough to meet needs.   We have oil and others will want it.   Selling Canadian oil to China will not be popular with our southern neighbours.   The cars and trucks we drive are part of the problem, but the biggest consumer of oil isn't the automobile, it is the industrial and agricultural base for which we rely on everything we have.   We have more than just a military and strategic problem and the solutions are not apparent.

There is some discussion on alternative energy sources, such as solar power, hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear energy, wind and tide power, etc.   The problem is that all of these ideas rely heavily on, you guessed it - oil.   In ancient times sources of minerals to make metal were relatively accessible and surface mining was used to gather the resources.   Those non-renewable resources are gone and we now rely heavily on mining.   Mining cannot happen without oil.   Even the hydrogen fuel cells require platinum to work.   Platinum needs to be mined.   Powering resource extraction equipment from chainsaws to feller-bunchers and mining equipment all requires oil.   Solar power, batteries and wind power simply cannot power logging trucks or very much industrial equipment.   Even agriculture cannot produce enough oil to replace some of uses of the fossil fuels without dramatic changes that would seriously impact the food supply.   There will be no trains, no planes, no automobiles.   There will be extensive reworking of scrap metal.   

When the oil is gone, there will not be any means of supporting the infrastructure that currently exists.   That is, no transportation of food, no manufacturing of metal, or plastics, no mining, no ships, no air travel, etc.   This lack (not shortage) of oil will have a dramatic impact on how people live and interact.   It will affect all aspects of civilization as we know it.   It will dramatically affect world population.   It is a problem for us, not in 50 years when there is none left, but probably in the next 10 to 15 years as it becomes clear to people and governments that there won't be any more.

In a period shorter than the time since World 2 to now we will be out of oil.   Imagine what it will be like in 20 to 30 years as the situation deteriorates.   What will our country look like?   Will we have one?   We have some serious challenges to overcome, not the least of which is what our defence policy should be in the light of this situation.

But don't believe me.   Look into it yourself.   

(edited to correct sentence error)


----------



## Infanteer

Is this your writing or something you got emailed to you?


----------



## redleafjumper

No one e-mailed it to me, I wrote it.


----------



## Infanteer

Okay, it came off as an Internet spam-mail.  Given that you actually wrote it, I'll read it.


----------



## Bert

I can't say how factual this is but to support Redleafjumper's article, I found a
document on the 'net.  http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Even if the conclusions are subjective, it discusses a very real problem.  We've
also noticed alot of recent attention by China, Japan, the US, and the EU in landing
on and characterizing asteriods/comets.  

Eventually, resources on Earth wil be depleted to the point that other alternatives
in other places will be sought.  Between now and then it may be a scrounge for
who gets what in the world community.  We are seeing some of that now with
Chinese, Indian, EU, and US resource interests .


----------



## chrisf

Don't know, I'd say it's all quite alarmist, it's mostly based on the assumption that the bulk of power produced is produced by burning fossil fuels to generate electricity, but no where in the article that Bert provided at least, could I find an actual reference to how much electricity is generated from fossil fuels versus from alternatives (Hydroelectricity, Nuclear Power, etc). That being said, I'm guessing you'll find that most of the article was written around a theoretical where all electricity used in the production/manufacturing cycle is produced from fossil fuels.

Given that *all* uses for fossil fuels have alternatives (Admitedly, fossil fuels are the most viable for the time being), I can see a bump in the economy happening in the short term when oil shortages become a reality, but no long term catastrophic crash... just as long as it takes for resourceful people to build alternatives to fill the demand.


----------



## a_majoor

The article seems to be in the thrall of zero sum economics. In the past, our ancestors faced similar problems, such as the deforestation of Elizabethan England. The escalating price of wood led to conservation. then substitution. Coal became the heart of the industreal revolution.

Similarly, the ever increasing price of oil will drive us first to conservation (how much driving will you do with gas selling at $2+ litre), and eventually substitution. So called renewables are too variable and have too low of an energy density to be really viable solutions with today's state of the art (I have done the business plan for photovoltaic roof shingles; the payback time is astronomical), so the substitution will be some form of nuclear energy, either fission or fusion. Beyond that, well you will have to fill in the details.


----------



## couchcommander

I've heard the common response is that while this may be true of current existing and known (or even just currently used) reserves, we continue to find new resevers all the time. I can't really say how true this is though.


----------



## clasper

couchcommander said:
			
		

> I've heard the common response is that while this may be true of current existing and known (or even just currently used) reserves, we continue to find new reserves all the time. I can't really say how true this is though.


We continue to find new reserves all the time, but not at the same rate we used to.  There is a much debated theory called Hubbert's Peak.  Hubbert (in the 1950's) examined all of the new oilfield discoveries in the US, and came up with a predictive model.  Examining new discoveries is difficult because oil companies tend to lie about what, where, and when they found something in order to keep things quiet while they evaluate the discovery, then trumpet their success to impress the shareholders, then go quiet again if the results don't turn out as well as their predictions.  Hubbert's model attempted to correct the oil companies' misinformation, and posited that peak oil production in the US would peak 40 years after the peak was reached in discoveries.  Hubbert predicted that US production would peak in 1970, and decline after that- he was wrong by a year.  US production peaked in 1971.

The best guesses for the peak in worldwide discoveries say they happened roughly 40 years ago.  Some people have claimed that we have reached peak production (and Chevron is starting to discuss this publicly), whereas others contend we're not there yet.

Extrapolating Hubbert's theory from US domestic production to worldwide production poses some problems.  The most exacerbating one is that whereas US oil companies tend to lie a bit about their discoveries, major resource holders like Saudi Aramco lie a lot, and there isn't really any good data for discoveries made in Russia (which has a large amount of oil).  There are other reasons why Hubbert's theory may not be easily extrapolated (like the increase in technology in the industry, improved reservoir management, etc.)  

Overall it's a pretty muddy debate, but a few things are clear: oil is non-renewable, and will run out at some point.  Alternative energies will be required some day, and recent oil prices suggest alternatives are needed quite soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert%27s_peak


----------



## redleafjumper

The comparison of the depletion (not merely shortage) of a non-renewable resource to the shortage of a renewable resource such as trees does not hold.  As stated, oil is not renewable, it isn't possible to plant more.  Even thought there have been geat strides made with synthetic oils, they still cannot be used in the same ways that the fossil fuels can be and even the synthetics require real oil.  If one was an investing type, a strong portfolio might include research and development of alternative energy sources and at least for the next several year fossil fuels.


----------



## kincanucks

Don't worry because with climate change, brought on by the burning of fossil fuels, the Arctic Ice Cap is melting at an increased rate and will soon exposed access to more oil and gas reserves.  Of course we may have to go to war with Denmark over them.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-arcticviking1.htm


----------



## Big Foot

Don't forget that we also have the world's largest oil reserves in the oilsands in Alberta. Everybody seems to forget about those...


----------



## GO!!!

As the price of oil rises, other technologies will become more viable. The market will provide.

20 years ago, everyone would have laughed at you if you had stated that you would pay 50,000$ for a gasoline/electric Toyota SUV - but the price of gas rose, and such technology became not only viable, but desirable.

As majoor mentioned, we started with wood, moved to coal, now to oil, there is a next step, and it will become apparent once petroleum becomes too expensive.


----------



## WogCpl

the next step will only become apparent when the oil companies are no longer making money. Besides the move from wood to coal to oil was a technological one not economic.


----------



## a_majoor

WRT trees, although they are renewable, are you going to down tools for 80 years waiting for them to grow back? The deforestation in Elizabethen England was as critical to them in real terms as oil shortages are to us today.


----------



## WogCpl

I see your point, perhaps it was both. It's more efficient for locomotives, ships etc. to create steam with coal rather than wood and making an automoble that runs on coal would have just been impractical. the only next logical step was petrol. i guess you could say the the step beyond is nuclear, but we just have not down sized that enough to run my wifes SUV  ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens

Besides, how much would it cost to fill up at the plutonium station?


----------



## GO!!!

Although plutonium and uranium are finite resources as well, electric vehicles, powered by either nuclear or renewable sources would be my best guess.

As oil becomes more expensive, I think that harnessing waves, tides, wind and solar energy will become a better and better idea - and once it costs 400$ to fill my trucks - I'll be buying a vehicle that has an electric engine as opposed to the current 6.6L V8.


----------



## WogCpl

I still like the Bio-Diesel idea, there can't be anything wrong with a vehicle whose exhaust smells like french fries, It even reminds me of the Regimental Drink of 1 Svc Bn........Gravy!!


----------



## redleafjumper

Try doing heavy resource extraction without mining equipment that is dependant on oil.  A solar powered logging truck or scraper isn't going to work very well.  Plastic making and metal for turbines and wind towers depend on oil.  It is a nasty dependance that we have created.


----------



## GO!!!

The new electric motors that Toyota is putting in the Highlander Hybrid SUV is more powerful than the gasoline one. It's limitations are centered on Batteries (intolerance to cold, lifespan, price)

The technology is there, it is only a matter of the high price of hydrocarbons providing the impetus for development.

In addition to this, new extraction techniques (horizontal drilling, 02 injection, multi port extraction heads, deep extraction, etc) make the wells that were capped after 25% extraction 30 years ago becoming viable again for salvage production. 

I'm not arguing that we are going to run out of oil, and there is a school of thought that states that the peak of production has already been reached. I'm saying that it is not like we don't have a safety net of new technologies, it is there.

Also, our petroleum addiction in terms of lubricants and plastics is a non issue. Less than 5% of total extraction goes to producing lube, and that part of the oil is not usable for many other purposes anyhow. Plastics are made from fuel production by - products. We will be using hydrocarbons in small amounts for uses such as this for a very long time, even after the use of petroleum as a source of energy has largely disappeared.


----------



## a_majoor

FatwogCpl said:
			
		

> I see your point, perhaps it was both. It's more efficient for locomotives, ships etc. to create steam with coal rather than wood and making an automoble that runs on coal would have just been impractical. the only next logical step was petrol. i guess you could say the the step beyond is nuclear, but we just have not down sized that enough to run my wifes SUV  ;D



Actually, the cause and effect were reversed. Coal has a greater energy density than wood, when people had to substitute coal for wood heat they found many processes (like smelting) became easier and more efficient. Raising steam is also much easier with coal. Similarly petrolium has a greater energy density than coal, and is easier to handle since it is a liquid. Higher energy densities led to smaller engines and new technologies to harness the energy, which made cars and airplanes (among other things) practical. As a BTW, the first "car" was designed by Nicholas Joseph Cugnot and constructed by M. Brezin in 1769, and in 1857, Felix Du Temple and his brother Louis, France, flew a model monoplane whose propellers were driven by a small steam engine.

Nuclear power in its present form has a very high energy density, but the technology is not very mature, so we are living in the same sort of transition period as from wood to coal or coal to oil. As GO!!! says, the market will provide incentives to harness this technology.


----------



## chrisf

If only they could master fusion power... it's going to happen eventually, but it's just not an energy solution right now...

Reference the bio-diesel that somone mentioned, not really a viable solution, takes way to much land to produce sufficient quantities of natural oils to produce biodiesel for use as a fuel. It's an interesting concept, perhaps even a potential by-product of the fast-food chains that are making us ever fatter, but just not really viable.


----------



## KevinB

People are using BIO Deisel off old fast food oil...  As such it is not taking anything to make (the few additives excepted).

I recommend reading Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond - its kinda frightening -- especially for those like myself who drive a V-8 Gas Gussling Behemouth (so we can drive over and crush those pesky hybrids   )


----------



## TCBF

Why, just a few minutes ago, I had an experiment on cold fusion going on in a glass of water right here...

... but, I got thirsty and drank it.

 ;D

Homemade bio-diesel is easy enough to make, but is mostly a summer diesel.  a buddy of mine makes it and he says it freezes when it's cold out.

Tom


----------



## redleafjumper

I had a chemical engineer and his family over for dinner this evening and I asked him about this oil situation.  It turns out that he was quite knowledgeable about it.  He works for a refinery and is involved with research into alternative fuels.  We had a good chat about the problem and he stated that it is expected that in forty years we will be out of oil.  It will be increasingly important to conserve oil for functions that are not replaceable by other energy sources.

He was quite encouraging about bio-diesel, but not very encouraging about making synthetic jet fuel - he expects that process to be incredibly expensive. If I have this correct, he said something about using pulp-mill waste to make the diesel as the byproduct of glycerin is much more limited in that process rather than making it from other sources.  The glycerin by-product is produced in great quantities, well beyond what could be reasonably consumed.   Apparently his company has been in talks with scientist from other countries, notably Sweden.  One issue of discussion is the incredible amounts of energy required to harvest the oil from the tar sands and the fact that a lot of oil is used up to extract the oil from the tar sands.  Some see that as a terrible waste of  the resource and nuclear reactors are one thing that would save a great deal of energy and oil in the tar sands.  The problem is that nuclear power is not popular in Canada and not at all in Alberta.

He was enthusiastic about Geothermal systems for heating and cooling homes and business.  While set-up costs are expensive, the maintenance costs are low, and there is a possibility of powering the pumps and blowers with solar power.  One problem is that the 40 watt solar appliance items are presently incredibly expensive in such a system, however it is possible that as these systems become popular the price might come down, and thus shorten cost recovery time.  Quite an interesting chat, certainly more to look into.


----------



## TCBF

Interesting. Maybe those National Lampoon cartoons of coal powered Soviet WW2 aircraft  were ahead of their time! 

I think right now, nuclear is the only solution, especially here in Alberta.  We can talk about clean coal all we want, but that won't last forever either.   Geo-thermal heat pumps are expensive, but that price should come down as well with economies of scale.   A real challenge will be to get totally independent houses: no sewer, water, or electrical hook-ups.  

While we are at it - let's built better and warmer houses instead of copying what they build in SoCal and Florida.

Tom


----------



## George Wallace

Well Tom, there are always Windmills....Some thing to chase.   ;D


----------



## a_majoor

Here is a link to an article about bio diesel. The interesting thing to note is if the numbers pan out, the entire supply of fuel for transportation could be produced with a very small amount of surface area:

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html


----------



## GO!!!

There is another side to the strategic argument on the topic of oil though.

If we reduce our consumption of oil in a big way, the price of it will remain static relative to inflation, or even fall in price. This cheap oil will be able to stimulate the economies of our competitors, also giving them an edge in the area of military uses for oil. 

If we were so foolish as to trade in oil as a source of energy prior to it becoming prohibitively expensive, we would in fact be hurting ourselves, and helping our competitors. (just like the Kyoto accord)

We must continue to use oil at our present pace to ensure that any surplus does not fall into the wrong hands, and when it does run out, all of the players will be on a more level field, due to extremely high prices.


----------



## KevinB

Actually we are best off covertly cutting usage and creating larger strategic reserves - thus militarily we can maintain a higher level of readiness and remain operational for a longer period...

 Kyoto is a farce as it does not adress half the issues we face


----------



## xFusilier

Actually its:

3.3L V6 - 200kW

Front (123kW)+Rear(50kW)=173kW

So if you look in terms of horsepower, yes they are less powerful, but if you look in terms of force the electric motor develops higher torque (465 N.m vs. 287 N.m).  In addition given the faster response of an electric throttle, the whole 27kW difference is probably not really noticeable.  Posted in metric to confound your Yankee Imperialist Ways ;D


----------



## GO!!!

xFusilier said:
			
		

> Actually its:
> 
> 3.3L V6 - 200kW
> 
> Front (123kW)+Rear(50kW)=173kW
> 
> So if you look in terms of horsepower, yes they are less powerful, but if you look in terms of force the electric motor develops higher torque (465 N.m vs. 287 N.m).   In addition given the faster response of an electric throttle, the whole 27kW difference is probably not really noticeable.   Posted in metric to confound your Yankee Imperialist Ways ;D



Now that is some verifiable research! 

But I digress.

I was'nt advocating the purchase of the present technology, only indicating that it is there for us at a later date, once it is perfected. I could also point out that Toyota has entered the top 3 of US auto makers, and that GM is haemorraging billions every year, but I'm sure that would be "emotional BS" too.

Anyhoo, since you brought vehicles up, I will be purchasing a new vehicle soon. I will spend in the neighborhood of $45,000 (CAD), on a new or nearly new SUV. It will be a 4x4 and on the larger end of the spectrum. What (in your opinion) should I buy from an economic and strategic standpoint?


----------



## xFusilier

Well if you want the opinion of a Mo-ltia guy ;D

There is no doubt that one of the factors limiting freedom of action in terms of terrorism in the west it is our dependance on Middle Eastern Oil.  Even if Canada could be self supporting in oil, we do import to replace that which we export.  If you want to follow the old, addage of "think globaly...act locally", a hybrid does make sense, doing your little bit to reduce western reliance on fossil fuels does have its merits and does have the advantage of savings at the gas pump. But I would advise you to look at the reliability of the technology in the vehicle (as you would with any vehicle).  It seems however that most of the vehicles that are being manufactured as Hybrids are fake-4x4's like the Toyata Highlander (beefed up Camry) or the Ford Escape, definately something that would be unworthy of the mandatory AIRBORNE plate (maybe someone could lone you a Logistics Branch plate?).  Personally if it was me I would hold out until Hybrids are cheaper or Fuel Cell technology gets on line.


----------



## KevinB

:  yeah some of that was called for...


----------



## xFusilier

It was all tounge in cheek, not intended to give offence.

All in all said above it appear that GM does make a Chev Silverado 1500 Hybrid.  But like I said its all new technology there are very reasonable arguments both theoretical, see above, and practical (read the effects of gas prices, were all going to be telling our grandchildren about the good old days when the Liters moved faster than the Dollars).  But one has to be aware of the fact that you are buying rather new technology, so YMMV.


----------



## GO!!!

xFusilier said:
			
		

> Well if you want the opinion of a Mo-ltia guy ;D



I don't, I asked the guy who is convinced of the omnipotence of the US auto industry.


> There is no doubt that one of the factors limiting freedom of action in terms of terrorism in the west it is our dependance on Middle Eastern Oil.   Even if Canada could be self supporting in oil, we do import to replace that which we export.   If you want to follow the old, addage of "think globaly...act locally", a hybrid does make sense, doing your little bit to reduce western reliance on fossil fuels does have its merits and does have the advantage of savings at the gas pump. But I would advise you to look at the reliability of the technology in the vehicle (as you would with any vehicle).   It seems however that most of the vehicles that are being manufactured as Hybrids are fake-4x4's like the Toyata Highlander (beefed up Camry) or the Ford Escape, definately something that would be unworthy of the mandatory AIRBORNE plate (maybe someone could lone you a Logistics Branch plate?).   Personally if it was me I would hold out until Hybrids are cheaper or Fuel Cell technology gets on line.



I suppose I could always slap a mo - litia sticker on it, do my job 3 days a month, and dispense disparging, rambling, incorrect advice too, but that would be pretty dumb, now would'nt it?


----------



## GO!!!

Oh yes, and everything I just posted 10 seconds ago?

It was all tounge in cheek, not intended to give offence.  :


----------



## xFusilier

> I suppose I could always slap a mo - litia sticker on it, do my job 3 days a month, and dispense disparging, rambling, incorrect advice too, but that would be pretty dumb, now would'nt it?



But wait a minute, thats....what...oh hold on a sec...



> I don't, I asked the guy who is convinced of the omnipotence of the US auto industry.



My mistake, I'll just go back to my Lada Maintainer Correspondance Course.


----------



## a_majoor

Actually the Honda Ridgeline looks like a good compromise between fuel economy, practicality and LCF. That "trunk" in the load bed is a pretty interesting idea.

At this point in time, I would still be more concerned with what I "need" rather than the theoretical MPGs? Since I have a young family I need a minivan to get around, and the one with the most practicality (based on renting and using the offerings of the "Big Three") was the Caravan. If you need an SUV for real off road or heavy duty use then your choice should be different from someone who drives their SUV on the city streets all the time.


----------



## GO!!!

Baker,

While your information is enlightening, I am looking at a 2004/05 Tahoe as representing my requirements the best. For about the same amount of money though, (or less) I can buy a Toyota Sequoia, with approximately the same capabilities. The rub? 

The Toyota's fuel economy is far superior to the Chevy, and it retains value quite a bit better too. Considering I tow a boat, camper and carry building materials for my cottage quite regularly as well, the full size is a plus.

While I realise that Toyota parts are more expensive, as I only intend to own this vehicle for 5 years max, this is not really an issue for either vehicle. The shop rate in Edmonton for Chevy and Toyota is the same (100$/hr) for warranty required maintenance.

I would like to buy North American, keeping money and jobs here, but when it will cost me approximately 8,000$ (estimated difference in cost of ownership over 5 years) to do so, I really have a hard time justifying it. 

Why should I buy American? (I am trying to be convinced here !)


----------



## GO!!!

The paradiGM model looks good! 

I would not have believed that 30mpg from a Tahoe was possible.

1) How often will the batteries (the 42V one that powers the veh) fail, is their operation affected by the cold, and how much do they cost to replace?

2) Will the warranty on this new vehicle be sufficient to address concerns about it's unproven drivetrain, and;

3) Will this truck be priced similarly to the LS (V8 4WD) Tahoe?


----------



## a_majoor

Although you might not be in the market for a really big truck, Oshkosh also has a hybrid drive system sized for HLVW sized vehicles:

http://www.oshkoshtruckcorporation.com/about/tech_innovations%7Epropulse.cfm



> Oshkosh is a leader in the development of next-generation hybrid propulsion systems in heavy trucks. ProPulseÃ‚® is an unmatched hybrid electric drive system that dramatically improves fuel economy, reduces emissions, improves life cycle costs, and serves as an on-board AC generator with enough output to power an entire airfield or hospital.
> 
> "This leading-edge technology is the first significant step toward the development of an entirely new generation of highly mobile and incredibly efficient trucks. Our focus is on enhancing performance characteristics while making trucks environmentally friendly," said Robert G. Bohn, Oshkosh's chairman, president and CEO.
> 
> The ProPulse system uses a unique, modular series-hybrid arrangement to simplify the transmission of power to the wheels. The diesel engine powers an electric generator, which provides direct power to the wheels, eliminating the torque converter, automatic transmission, transfer case and drive shafts. The system has no batteries, using ultracapacitors for energy storage instead. A regenerative braking function stores engine energy and then uses it to assist in the next braking operation, reducing wear and tear on the brake system.
> 
> ProPulse has applications for Oshkosh's entire line of products, including defense, refuse hauling, fire and emergency, and other commercial markets. Oshkosh has applied for patents on various aspects of the ProPulse design.



No word on fuel economy or one to one comparisons between regular trucks and ones powered by the ProPulse system.


----------



## a_majoor

Hybrid Diesel Electric or Gas Electric systems are interesting enough, but BMW has a different take on the Hybrid idea: use the heat generated from the engine to raise steam! A small steam engine is incorporated into the drivetrain, offering a claimed 15% reduction in fuel consumption, as well as a boost in overall power and torque (designing the transmission would be very interesting).

Possible objections would be the steam engine and "boiler" are dead weight until the car warms up, and in urban commuting and short drives to the mall, this would be a serious objection, since there would be a lag between starting the engine and getting the working fluid up to the boiling point for the steam engine to kick in. Trucks, busses, delevery vehicles, trains and cars fitted out for extended use (taxis and police cars come to mind) would benefit, however. The steam engine could be declutched and run as an APU for a short time after the engine is shut down as well.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4936/


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Sherwood,

I might go over, because the wife wanted to. I'm more partial to the Hot Rod Show. I'll PM you if we're going over.


----------



## Revelations2005

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581824890/104-4759890-6395103?v=glance&n=283155
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46888

We have entered the age of the resource war. It is unfortunate that it has come to this. 

Ever since the creation of the Model T the Oil companies have known that there are alternative fuels other then Oil. Even Henry Ford wanted the Model T to run on Hemp Oil.

Unfortunatly history took it's course in the name of the all mighty USD. Greed.

Now the Oil companies have put our earth in a major jam.

* * * Canadian Soldiers; Do not allow yourselves to be used as a pawn in the future wars for Oil. * * *
Canada has not forgotten Pascendale and Dieppe. Canada does not want to see our brave men and women of the forces to be wasted in a terrible game of chess.

I sincerely hope that when it comes to fighting for the US in Iran, Syria, Venezuala etc or fighting here in Canada against American Imperialism I hope you make the correct decision. In the halls of Northern Command the US Military Industrial Complex is at the present time planning the Annexation of Canada.

www.globalresearch.ca


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Revelations2005,

You've got a thread already running with your chicken little conspiracy theory. I suggest you keep all your rhetoric there. Stop spamming the board with this stuff. This is the only warning your getting on this.


----------



## Cliff

clasper said:
			
		

> Overall it's a pretty muddy debate, but a few things are clear: oil is non-renewable, and will run out at some point.  Alternative energies will be required some day, and recent oil prices suggest alternatives are needed quite soon.



My focus is on China (since it's producing most of the worlds goods/junk) and it's huge demand on oil. I have no doubt that there will be a show- down in the not too distant future over the world oil supply. I don't think alternative energies will be sufficient to curtail that scenario = based on world population growth, and insatiable appetite for oil.


----------



## a_majoor

From Instapundit:



> GOOD NEWS THAT I HOPE IS TRUE: Roger Stern has an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences *arguing that oil is, in fact, plentiful, and that supply issues are politically driven*. PDF version is available here: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0503705102v1


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Interesting, if dense, read.

If I understand one of their conclusions correctly, taxes on petroleum products are actually beginning to artificially favour alternate sources of energy, without necessarily ensuring that these alternative energy sources are viable or economical.  Thoughts?


----------



## a_majoor

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Interesting, if dense, read.
> 
> If I understand one of their conclusions correctly, taxes on petroleum products are actually beginning to artificially favour alternate sources of energy, without necessarily ensuring that these alternative energy sources are viable or economical.  Thoughts?



Increasing taxes works on the demand side of the equation (higher prices reduce usage and drive consumers to seek lower cost alternatives), but since the price mechanism is taxation, the money is siphoned out of the productive economy, and energy producers see no incentive to move towards alternatives (and less money is availalbe for alternative energy investment anyway, since it is in the "General Revenue" pot of the government, not in the hands of individual investors).

It is an interesting conumdrum (and obviously more complex than a one line summary can give), since the United States spends something on the order of $100 billion per year on imported oil. With that amount of money flowing out of the country, you would imagine there would be every incentive to turn things around, but this isn't true, and hasn't since the 1973 oil embargo.


----------



## TCBF

So, after the Isrealis try to take out the Iranian nuclear capability and the Iraniansthen  close the gulf using their Sunburn anti-ship missles (thanks a bunch for that, Russia!), how much will oil cost per bbl?

Tom


----------



## a_majoor

TCBF said:
			
		

> So, after the Isrealis try to take out the Iranian nuclear capability and the Iraniansthen  close the gulf using their Sunburn anti-ship missles (thanks a bunch for that, Russia!), how much will oil cost per bbl?
> 
> Tom



I'll call Ralph Klien and ask how much he wants  ;D ;D ;D

Update: Some people are believers in the alcohol economy. My own personal take is that they are not adding the energy inputs of fertilizer and other petrochemicals needed for modern high intensity agriculture (we are talking about raising enough biomass to fuel the transportation economy of the United States), but nevertheless:

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18976/article_detail.asp


----------



## clasper

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I'll call Ralph Klien and ask how much he wants  ;D ;D ;D
> 
> Update: Some people are believers in the alcohol economy. My own personal take is that they are not adding the energy inputs of fertilizer and other petrochemicals needed for modern high intensity agriculture (we are talking about raising enough biomass to fuel the transportation economy of the United States), but nevertheless:
> 
> http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18976/article_detail.asp



Very interesting article from Robert Zubrin.  There were a few holes in the economics of his Case for Mars (which was 15 years ago), but he's learned quite a bit since then.  He's still politically naive, but you can bet the physics behind what he's saying is bang on- he's analyzed all of the inputs for modern agriculture (and realized that agriculture is incapable of providing all of the alcohol required for the economy).


----------



## a_majoor

Getting off the oil wagon or at least getting a new and secure supply away from the middle east is becoming more and more pressing:

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200602030807.asp



> *Three Pillars of Wisdom*
> Finding our footing where lunacy looms large.
> 
> Public relations between the so-called West and the Islamic Middle East have reached a level of abject absurdity. Hamas, whose charter pledges the very destruction of Israel, comes to power only through American-inspired pressures to hold Western-style free elections on the West Bank. No one expected the elders of a New England township, but they were nevertheless somewhat amused that the result was right out of a Quentin Tarantino movie.
> 
> Almost immediately, Hamas's newly elected, self-proclaimed officials issued a series of demands: Israel should change its flag; the Europeans and the Americans must continue to give its terrorists hundreds of millions of dollars in aid; there will be no retraction of its promises to destroy Israel.
> 
> Apparently, the West and Israel are not only to give to Hamas some breathing space ("a truce"), but also to subsidize it while it gets its second wind to renew the struggle to annihilate the Jewish state.
> 
> All this lunacy is understood only in a larger surreal landscape. Tibet is swallowed by China. Much of Greek Cyprus is gobbled up by Turkish forces. Germany is 10-percent smaller today than in 1945. Yet only in the Middle East is there even a term "occupied land," one that derived from the military defeat of an aggressive power.
> 
> Over a half-million Jews were forcibly cleansed from Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, and other Arab cities after the 1967 war; but only on the West Bank are there still refugees who lost their homes. Over a million people were butchered in Rwanda; thousands die each month in Darfur. The world snoozes. Yet less than 60 are killed in a running battle in Jenin, and suddenly the 1.5 million lost in Stalingrad and Leningrad are evoked as the moral objects of comparison, as the globe is lectured about "Jeningrad."
> 
> Now the Islamic world is organizing boycotts of Denmark because one of its newspapers chose to run a cartoon supposedly lampooning the prophet Mohammed. We are supposed to forget that it is de rigueur in raucous Scandinavian popular culture to attack Christianity with impunity. Much less are we to remember that Hamas terrorists occupied and desecrated the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in a globally televised charade.
> 
> Instead, Danish officials are threatened, boycotts organized, ambassadors recalled — and, yes, Bill Clinton steps forward to offer another lip-biting apology while garnering lecture fees in the oil-rich Gulf, in the manner of his mea culpa last year to the Iranian mullacracy. There is now a pattern to Clintonian apologies — they almost always occur overseas and on someone else's subsidy.
> 
> Ever since that seminal death sentence handed down to Salman Rushdie by the Iranian theocracy, the Western world has incrementally and insidiously accepted these laws of asymmetry. Perhaps due to what might legitimately be called the lunacy principle ("these people are capable of doing anything at anytime"), the Muslim Middle East can insist on one standard of behavior for itself and quite another for others. It asks nothing of its own people and everything of everyone else's, while expecting no serious repercussions in the age of political correctness, in which affluent and leisured Westerners are frantic to avoid any disruption in their rather sheltered lives.
> 
> Then there is "President" Ahmadinejad of Iran, who, a mere 60 years after the Holocaust, trumps Mein Kampf by not only promising, like Hitler, to wipe out the Jews, but, unlike the ascendant Fuhrer, going about the business of quite publicly obtaining the means to do it. And the rest of the Islamic world, nursed on the daily "apes and pigs" slurs, can just scarcely conceal its envy that the Persian Shiite outsider will bell the cat before they do.
> 
> The architects of September 11, by general consent, hide somewhere on the Pakistani border. A recent American missile strike that killed a few of them was roundly condemned by the Pakistani government. Although a recipient of billions of dollars in American aid and debt relief, and admittedly harboring those responsible for 9/11, it castigates the U.S. for violating borders in pursuit of our deadly enemies who, while on Pakistani soil, boast of planning yet another mass murder of Americans.
> 
> Pakistan demands that America will cease such incursions — or else. The "else" apparently entails the threat either to give even greater latitude to terrorists, or to allow them to return to Afghanistan to destroy the nascent democracy in Kabul. American diplomats understandably would shudder at the thought of threatening nuclear Pakistan should there be another 9/11, this time organized by the very al Qaedists they now harbor.
> 
> The list of hypocrisies could be expanded. The locus classicus, of course, is bin Laden's fanciful fatwas. Oil pumped for $5 a barrel and sold for $70 is called stealing resources. Tens of millions of Muslims emigrating to the United States and Europe, while very few Westerners reside in the Middle East, is deemed "occupying our lands." Israel, the biblical home of the Jews, and subsequently claimed for centuries by Persians, Greeks, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantines, Franks, Ottomans, and English is "occupied by crusader infidels" — as if the entire world is to accept that world history began only in the seventh century A.D.
> 
> The only mystery is not how bizarre the news will be from the Middle East, but why the autocratic Middle Easterners feel so confident that any would pay their lunacy such attention.
> 
> *The answer? Oil and nukes — and sometimes the two in combination*.
> 
> By any economic standard, most states in the Middle East — whether characterized by monarchy, Baathism, dictatorship, or theocracy — have floundered. There are no scientific discoveries emanating from a Cairo or Damascus. It is tragic and perhaps insensitive, but nevertheless honest, to confess that the contemporary Arab world has lately given the world only two new developments: the suicide-bomb belt and the improvised explosive device. Even here there is a twofold irony: The technology for both is imported from the West. And the very tactic arises out of a desperate admission that to fight a conventional battle against a Westernized military without the cover of civilian shields, whether in Israel or Baghdad, is tantamount to suicide.
> 
> Meanwhile, millions of Africans face famine and try to inaugurate democracies. Asia is in the midst of economic transformation. Latin America is undergoing fundamental political upheaval. Who cares? — our attention is glued instead on a few acres near Jericho, the mountains of the Hindu Kush, the succession patterns of Gulf Royals, and the latest ranting of an Iranian president who seems barely hinged, and without petroleum and a reactor would be accorded the global derision once reserved for Idi Amin.
> 
> *So take the dependency on oil away from Europe and the United States, and the billions of petrodollars the world sends yearly to medieval regimes like Iran or Saudi Arabia, and the other five billion of us could, to be frank, fret little whether such self-pitying tribal and patriarchal societies wished to remain, well, tribal. There would be no money for Hezbollah, Wahhabi madrassas, Syrian assassination teams, or bought Western apologists.*
> 
> The problem is not just a matter of the particular suppliers who happen to sell to the United States — after all, we get lots of our imported oil from Mexico, Canada, and Nigeria. *Rather, we should worry about the insatiable American demand that results in tight global supply for everyone, leading to high prices and petrobillions in the hands of otherwise-failed societies who use this largess for nefarious activities from buying nukes to buying off deserved censure from the West, India, and China.* If the Middle East gets a pass on its terrorist behavior from the rest of the world, ultimately that exemption can be traced back to the voracious American appetite for imported oil, and its effects on everything from global petroleum prices to the appeasement of Islamic fascism.
> 
> *Without nuclear acquisition, a Pakistan or Iran would warrant little worry. It is no accident that top al Qaeda figures are either in Pakistan or Iran, assured that their immunity is won by reason that both of their hosts have vast oil reserves or nukes or both.*
> 
> The lesson from all this is that in order to free the United States from such blackmail and dependency, we must at least try to achieve energy independence and drive down oil prices — and see that no Middle East autocracy gains nuclear weapons. Those principles, along with support for democratic reform, should be the three pillars of American foreign policy.
> 
> Encouraging democracy is still vital to offer a third choice other than dictatorship or theocracy — especially when we now recognize the general Middle East rule: The logical successor to a shah is a Khomeini; a Zarqawi wishes to follow a fallen Saddam; a propped-up Arafat ensures Hamas; and a subsidized Mubarak will lead to the Muslim Brotherhood. Puritanical zealotry always feeds off autocratic corruption — as if lopping hands and heads is the proper antidote to military courts and firing squads.
> 
> And we also know the political blame game at home: Past realist failures at propping up dictators are postfacto reinvented as sobriety, while the messy and belated democratic correction is derided as foolery. Even the election of Hamas and the honesty it brings are welcome news: Support the process, not always the result, while stopping the subsidy and dialogue if such terrorists come to power. Let them stew in their own juice, not ours.
> 
> In the meantime, until we arrive at liberal and consensual governments that prove stable, there will be no real peace. And if an Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria obtains nuclear weapons, there will be eventually war on an unimaginable scale, predicated on the principle that the West will tolerate almost any imaginable horror to ensure that one of its cities is not nuked or made uninhabitable.
> 
> Yet if billions of petrodollars continue to pour into such traditional societies, as a result they will never do the hard political and economic work of building real societies. Instead their elites will obtain real nuclear weapons to threaten neighbors for even more concessions, as they buy support at home with the national prestige of an "Islamic bomb." Saddam almost grasped that: Had he delayed his invasion of Kuwait five years until he resurrected his damaged nuclear program, Kuwait would now be an Iraqi province, and perhaps Saudi Arabia as well.
> 
> In the long-term, democratization in the framework of constitutional government has the best chance of bringing relief. But for the foreseeable future the United States and its allies must also ensure that Iran, and states like it, are not nuclear, and that we wean ourselves off a petroleum dependency — to save both ourselves, the addicts, and even our enemies, the dealers of the Middle East.
> 
> — Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. His latest book is A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200602030807.asp


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting observation: rising pump prices are not affecting consumer behaviour in the way expected by classical economists, but there are other factors.

http://www.forbes.com/home/columnists/2006/04/20/energy-costs-gasoline_cx_ns_0420schulz.html



> *Why The Pump Isn't More Painful*
> Nick Schulz 04.20.06, 11:30 AM ET
> 
> When it comes to gas prices, the media too often know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
> 
> Flip open a paper or turn on the TV and you'll learn that gas prices are rising again. "Stormy 6 Weeks Ahead," says CBSNews--and warns consumers to expect "pain at the pump." MSNBC says, "Further surge in gas prices expected." "Summer is approaching--and gas prices are already climbing," MSN Money tells us. And this week, crude oil hit $70 per barrel. The culprits include rising demand, pinched supplies, uncertainty over future crude prices and instability in the Middle East and Nigeria.
> 
> But what's more interesting about these stories is what they don't tell you. For example, the Associated Press reports that "surveys indicate drivers won't be easing off on their mileage, using even more gas than a year ago." Now why is that? If prices are rising, one would expect consumers would use less.
> 
> The answer might be in some of the long-term trends that the short-term media lens is too cramped to see.* Energy prices may be rising, but energy itself is much less important to consumers and to the overall economy than it once was.*
> 
> According to the Bureau of Economic Affairs (see chart here), American consumer spending on energy as a fraction of total personal consumption has declined considerably since 1980. Whereas 25 years ago, one in every ten consumer dollars was spent on energy, today it's one in every 16. In other words, what it takes to heat and cool our homes and drive to and from our jobs and vacation destinations is relatively less costly than it was then.
> 
> This goes a long way toward explaining why even when gas prices rise this summer--higher than they were throughout the 1990s--people will still be driving more; it's much more of a value than it was a generation ago.
> 
> *What's more, so-called energy intensity is declining rapidly. That means we produce more with less energy. According to Economy.com, "The U.S. economy has undergone major structural changes over the last two decades, becoming more energy efficient, thus reducing its overall dependence on energy. … The energy intensity of the U.S. economy has declined by roughly 40% since the first oil crisis (as of 2001)."*
> 
> These trends are healthy for the economy. They also put the lie to President George W. Bush's recent unwise rhetoric about America's oil "addiction." The nature of addiction typically is that it becomes all-consuming, eating up a greater share of one's life and livelihood. But the long-term trends of American consumer spending reflect something different: Energy is becoming less important to the overall economy over time.
> 
> Of course, no one likes to pay more at the pump. And with some analysts predicting oil per barrel going up to $75 or higher in the near future, we might see retail prices go up further still. But unlike a generation or two ago, these increases won't prompt the broader economic pain they once did.
> 
> Nick Schulz is editor of TCS Daily.


----------



## Old Guy

Here's a link to a well-reasoned article in Reason magazine (no pun intended).

http://www.reason.com/0605/fe.rb.peak.shtml

Jim


----------



## tomahawk6

The US and Canada could be self sufficient in oil within two years by doing the following :
1.US - coal liquification
2.Canada- liquificiation of tar sands

The cost of a liquification plant is $1.25b  per 22,000 barrel/day. These plants are modules so a 50,000 barrel/day plant is $2.5b. Cost is $25 to $30 a barrel to liquify coal/tar sands. Plant should be built on a site with large proven reserves to keep transportation costs at a minimum. Montana for example has 120 billion tons of proven coal reserves. This technology can be used to liquify oil shale as well. I think this is the best short term way to make our countries entirely independent of foreign oil.


----------



## a_majoor

Market incentives will help bring about many of the alternative ideas that are being touted here, increase production of existing resources and perhaps unleash a few ideas no one has thought of yet:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200604280845.asp 



> *The Greatest Story Never Told*
> Even the oil saga can’t disrupt this upbeat economic page-turner.
> 
> As all the pollsters are telling us, there’s an inverse relationship between rising gasoline prices and President’s Bush’s falling approval ratings — most especially his approval rating on the economy. Of course, these polls describe a certain national angst over energy that harkens back to the dreadful 1970s. But there’s a better reality out there: Namely, the upturn in gas prices simply is not stopping the economy the way it did three decades ago.
> 
> Today’s economy may be the greatest story never told. It’s an American boom, spurred by lower tax rates, huge profits, big productivity, plentiful jobs, and an ongoing free-market capitalist resiliency. It’s also a global boom, marked by a spread of free-market capitalism like we’ve never seen before.
> 
> The political resolution to the disconnect between fear (high energy prices) and reality (a great economy) remains to be seen. But as the data keep rolling in, the economy continues to surpass not only the pessimism of its critics, but even the optimism of its supporters.
> 
> Recent data on production, retail sales, and employment are stronger than expected. The latest durable-goods report shows huge gains in orders for big-ticket items like airplanes, transportation, metals, machinery, and computers — even cars and parts. These orders suggest that the economic boom will continue as far as the eye can see. And there’s more: The backlog of unfilled orders, the best leading-indicator of business activity, gained 12 percent at an annual rate in the first quarter. With this kind of real-world corporate activity in the pipeline, highly profitable businesses will be doing a lot of hiring in the months ahead in order to expand plant and equipment capacity. Just what the doctor ordered.
> 
> As for the energy angst, President Bush recently outlined a sensible pro-market mid-course policy correction. He is suspending the ethanol tax mandate that forced gasoline distributors to switch to the corn-based fuel from the MTBE oxygenate. This ethanol regulation was one of the great energy-policy bungles of all time. Neither refiners nor transporters were anywhere near ready to implement this misguided mandate, which drove up pump prices by 50 cents in just a few weeks. Energy secretary Sam Bodman was warned by industry leaders — like much-maligned former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond — that the ethanol-switch would be a disaster. But Bodman didn’t listen, although, according to the polls, it seems like America did.
> 
> But with Bush’s recent action, futures prices for unleaded gasoline are already retreating, and it wouldn’t surprise if the whole ethanol-price-hike effect was reversed. Crude oil is also declining in the aftermath of the Bush announcements, which included the decision to stop the crude-oil fill rate for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. At the margin, government deregulation is giving markets more latitude — always a good thing.
> 
> *The big point here is that free markets work. Rising prices from the global boom will lead to more conservation, less consumption, and more production*, but only so long as government stays out of the way. Instead of blaming ExxonMobil for high gas prices, irate motorists and voters should blame Congress for mandating, regulating, and taxing against energy.
> 
> Indeed, bashing big oil won’t create a drop of new energy. Nor will confiscating Lee Raymond’s bank account. Actually, over the past fifteen years, ExxonMobil’s total investment has exceeded the company’s earnings, according to Washington analyst James K. Glassman. Meanwhile, all the evidence from time immemorial shows that gas prices are set by market forces, not manipulation at the production level. So-called price gouging is nothing but a political red herring. Windfall profits taxes and special tax subsidies will only diminish energy investment, not increase it.
> 
> *Energy is best left in the hands of the free market. With this in mind, Congress should allow environmentally friendly drilling in ANWAR and the Outer Continental Shelf, more LNG terminals, and the creation of nuclear power facilities. Deregulation works: Just look at the boom in Canadian oil sands*.
> 
> President Bush can also build on his new energy policy with more pro-growth measures that will extend the economic boom: Get rid of the ethanol tax for good. Repeal the tariff on imported ethanol from Brazil and elsewhere. Repeal the multiple taxation of dividends and cap-gains, and abolish the death tax while you’re at it. Exercise the budget veto pen to stop bridges and railroads to nowhere. Go back to the Reagan economic model of a strong dollar to hold down inflation and lower-tax-rate incentives to promote economic growth. That model will work as well today as it did twenty-five years ago when it launched the long prosperity boom we continue to enjoy.
> 
> Most of all, let free markets work. This is the new worldwide message of freedom, prosperity, and optimism.
> 
> — Larry Kudlow, NRO’s Economics Editor, is host of CNBC’s Kudlow & Company and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.
> http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200604280845.asp


----------



## probum non poenitet

Here's a bit of optimism for you:

In the 1960s, there was a raging debate in the computer science field whether or not a computer would ever be able 'smart' enough to play chess. 
Many of the top computer scientists said it was far too complex for a machine, and always would be.
40 years later computers can beat the best human players in the world.

I think our technology is advancing so fast, that when it really becomes important and profitable, alternate energy will come to the fore. It will probably be something we haven't even considered yet. (If you had talked about electricity or photography or radio to someone 50 years before they were invented/discovered, they would have thought you were crackers).

Of course, in the future we will probably also have to deal with berserk terminator robots ...


----------



## Long in the tooth

I too am optomistic.  As prices rise the users at the margins who gain the least utility value from it will stop or lower their consumption.  Case in point, my car was just totalled, but we still have a van for three kids.  I now walk or ride the bike to work and save about $250 per month.

I'm constantly asked when I'm getting a new car.  I answer "why?"

Most oil companies are publicly traded entities striving to make a profit for their shareholders, so are obligated to sell to the highest bidder.  China can buy all the Canadian oil companies it wants, but if it attempts to sell cheaper oil to itself will go bankrupt.  It won't be north americans that go without because we are filthy rich (as a whole).  It will be the developing and third world that will suffer.


----------



## GAP

The next set of wars/conflicts has already and will continue to be about resources. Oil is a major factor, even if it is Politically Incorrect to mention it. All other arguemen ts aside, the Iraq war has an oil supply component, as does Afghanistan (via Tajikistan pipeline). 

I don't want to get into a big flap about all the good reasons...that's not the point here. Governments and companies are more than aware of the coming crisis, and are developing their inroads and areas of protection/development for the past 20 years, and will continue to do so. They just don't advertise it.

This whole scenario has an up side. As long as there was a "glut" of oil, alternative methods or fuels would not be considered seriously. Just look at the development of the hydrogen fuel cell and wind power within the last 5 years will tell you that something is changing.


----------



## tomahawk6

Good post Grunt. The China and India together are using as much oil as the US did 10 year's ago, which is causing pressure on oil prices, then throw in the jitters over Iran's nuclear program and you have +$75 oil.
It may be that the Iranian's are sounding crazy to keep oil prices and their profits high.


----------



## clasper

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> Most oil companies are publicly traded entities striving to make a profit for their shareholders, so are obligated to sell to the highest bidder.  China can buy all the Canadian oil companies it wants, but if it attempts to sell cheaper oil to itself will go bankrupt.


Unfortunately this isn't true.  The major oil companies (BP, Shell, ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, etc.) are all publicly traded, but they control fewer reserves than major resource holders controlled by national governments in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and elsewhere.  Many of these governments behave less rationally than free markets do, and will throw whatever wrenches they can into the works of alternative energies (whether it's actually in their interest or not).


----------



## a_majoor

True enough. Venezuela and Saudi Arabia (among others) sell heavily subsidized oil to their home markets, while "letting" us buy it at the market price. This isn't limited to oil or the third world, Ontario's policy of selling electricity to consumers for less than the market price is setting us up for the greatest financial disaster in Canadian history; all our tax money is going to American generating companies [who are using coal fired plants too, no less] to buy our peak power. 

One of the interesting common theams of the alternative energy movement is to "create" more resources that are under our control (either "home grown" resources like biodiesel or ways and means to unlock the tar sands or shale oil that exist here in North America).


----------



## tomahawk6

Engines capable of operating from multiple fuels is one component to energy independence. The quasiturbine engine is the future. It can burn diesel,gas,methanol and even hydrogen. The engine does not require oil, which is a huge plus. Burns fuel with far fewer emitions than current engines. Fewer moving parts. I really am excited about this engine.

http://www.quasiturbine.com/

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/quasiturbine4.htm


----------



## 54/102 CEF

A PDF File for you from this author http://www.oilendgame.com/

See notes on the 60 slide show here 
http://www.jhuapl.edu/POW/rethinking/SeminarArchive/022306/022306_LovinsNotes.pdf

Full presentation in PDF http://www.jhuapl.edu/POW/rethinking/SeminarArchive/022306/022306_LovinsPresentation.pdf

Extracts

۞ Symbols link to start of relevant video NOTE - this links to videos of the presentation here ---- look for Feb 23 Speaker: Amory Lovins 

See video archive http://www.jhuapl.edu/POW/rethinking/video.cfm
Rethinking the Future Nature of Competitions and Conflict
23 February 2006
Amory Lovins
Director, Rocky Mountain Institute
Winning the Oil Endgame
۞ 1
Mr. Lovins began by describing his work and that of his Rocky Mountain Institute
• Vision: abundance by design (http://www.natcap.org)
• Mission: foster the efficient and restorative use of resources to make the world
secure, just, prosperous, and life-sustaining
• Past security work
o Defense Science Board panel on platform efficiency (1999–2001)
o Studies for SECNAV and COMNAVSEA on ship power and
transformation issues
o Led “greening”-of-Pentagon
o Strategy lectures for NDU, AWC, NWC, NPS, OJCS
o Definitive unclass study of domestic energy vulnerability (1981)
o Extensive unclass nonproliferation syntheses 1970s–80s
o Redefined security in Security Without War (1993)
o Does not consider himself an expert on military affairs
Energy efficiency improvements from RMI work
• From RMI work involving $20B in redesign of over 80 companies
• Retro fits can bring free byproducts
• Redesigns can save capital so that new plants can be located in Texas, not China
• Tremendous savings can be had no matter what the company
o Retrofits usually have 2-3 year paybacks for investments
o New, specially designed facilities can save on capital investments
Major Thesis: The US can get completely off its oil dependency and revise its economy
• All to be lead by business profit motives and decisions
• Can/should be accelerated by DoD’s interest
Context: competition drives strategy and things do change
• Military strategic vectors used to be stealth, speed and precision
o Then network central warfare issues added
۞ 2
o Now need to consider Power as the 5th strategic vector
 Electrified warriors keep running out of batteries
 Systems also need huge amounts of fuel
o Threats can now be asymmetrical, demassified, elusive, remote, irregular,
techno-savvy
 Now need many small units covering large areas
• Power issues are about 50 years behind the other vectors
o So ripe for attacking the problem
• Currently need oil to move military’s heavy equipment
o Ultra light materials could change all that
• A reasonably conservative target would improve fuel use by 3-4 times
Current requirements and acquisition process hugely undervalues fuel efficiency
• Logistics are assumed to be free
• In war games, never deal with fuel issues
• In reality whole divisions tasked with hauling fuel around
o They are very vulnerable
o Cut backs in need for fuel would change tooth to tail ratio big-time
o Could save 10s of B$ per year
Biggest win would be more strategic – won’t need as much oil so won’t need to treat oilproducing
countries differently or fight for oil rights
• See Winning the Oil Endgame
• Partially paid for by Andy Marshal in Net Assessments
• Has been endorsed by a number of military officers and DoD policy-makers
• Push civilian world change so eliminate US oil needs by 2040s
Winning the Oil Endgame is not based on any political strategy but on business logic
• 1/3 of the way through a 3-year program
• Doing business acupuncture to help maintain the flow of business
o Involves tweaking small issues
۞ 3
Things can change quickly:
• In 1850 the biggest US industry was whaling to provide oil for lamps
• Within 6 years 5/6th of the market moved away to fossil fuels
• Whalers did not watch what their competition was doing at the time
 No one bothered to add up all the fuel alternatives coming on line
 Happening again
We know that major conservation and other efforts can work
• Did after the 1970s oil shocks
• Broke OPEC control for 10 years
• We can save oil faster than the Saudis can stop selling it
• Investment can be one time
• There could be 1 million new jobs available
o Mostly in rural areas that have been losing populations
Key to making changes – vehicles
• Need to make them light and slippery to cut wind resistance
• Includes cars, trucks, planes, etc
• Remarkable new materials will be very important
o Carbon fiber cars and other vehicles
• Use of more exotic (often more expensive) materials is compensated by simpler
manufacturing processes

Where does a car’s fuel energy go?
Only 6% goes into acceleration
Therefore less than 1% actually propels the drivers
Would save a great deal if vehicles were made much lighter

New materials can be highly impact absorbing
• Can be aluminum, light steels or carbon composites
• No longer have to be big and heavy to be safe
o Carbon composite structures can absorb 6-12 times as much energy per kg
as steel does
• Could be simpler and potentially cheaper to manufacture
۞ 4
Need to migrate innovative techniques and materials from military/aerospace industries
to high volume vehicles
• Example: In 1994–96 DARPA/ Integrated Technology for Affordability Skunk
Works® team designed an advanced tactical fighter airframe
o 95% of carbon-fiber composites
o 1/3 lighter than its 72%-metal predecessor
o but 2/3 cheaper because designed to be made from carbon
o Too radical for military customer
• Same players designed a halved-weight SUV

GM et al are obviously re-inventing themselves


----------



## clasper

Further to my last about national oil companies behaving less than rationally:

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=31765

Edit: just noticed that tomahawk6 posted the same article here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42915/post-0.html


----------



## a_majoor

One thing that isn't thought of often is the time it takes to work new changes in and replace the established capital base (i.e. the "sunk costs" of what is already out there). Here is a link to a somewhat pessemistic article suggesting the changeover could take 50 years. I think a more reasonable extimate would be around 20, splitting the differecen between Amory Lovens and MIT

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16777&ch=biztech



> *Hydrogen Reality Check*
> 
> Fuel cells won't significantly dent fuel consumption for 50 years -- we need to look elsewhere.
> 
> By Kevin Bullis
> 
> High oil prices and concerns about the long-term availability of oil have U.S. government officials singing the praises of hydrogen fuel cells as a solution to our nation's transportation energy problem. But fuel cells, while a promising technology, could take more than 50 years to have a significant impact on gasoline consumption, according to estimates by MIT researchers. On the other hand, improved internal combustion engines and lighter vehicles could offset energy consumption much sooner, especially if consumers have incentives to buy them and manufacturers to make them.
> 
> "The potential for hydrogen fuel cells having an impact that you'd notice is a long way away," says John Heywood, professor of mechanical engineering at MIT. The estimates assume that competitive fuel cell vehicles will be available within 15 years, an achievement that will require improvements, for example, in hydrogen storage and production and fuel-cell costs. But even if and when fuel-cell vehicles come with the price and performance that consumers want, it will still take decades more before such new vehicles work their way into widespread use.
> 
> One factor slowing the impact of any new vehicle technology -- whether advanced internal combustion engine, hybrid, or fuel cell -- is the average lifespan of a car, which is about 15 years, according to Heywood. Even as people buy cars with new technologies, old ones stay on the roads, continuing to burn fuel and emit carbon dioxide.



follow the link to read the rest


----------



## Bert

Heres a poster with convenient oil statistics and bright colors.

http://www.oilposter.org/posterlarge-x.html


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting post. Perhaps it should join the thread here as well? http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017.0.html


----------



## Enzo

So, not a solution to the issue of energy, but a technology to increase the efficiency of the existing fossils eh?



> John B. Holmes Jr., Syntroleum's president and chief executive officer, said his firm would sell the Air Force its synthetic fuel for testing "at our cost, and we may be losing a little bit."



The main question on my mind is, what's Syntroleum's stock going for these days?


----------



## tomahawk6

Soy biodiesel plants are in the process of being built as we speak. I think that coal liquification should be actively pursued, followed by oil from shale. In Canada the tar sands are already being aggressively developed. I can see a time in the next 5-10 years the US being self sufficient and no longer importing oil. This would help the trade deficit the US has.


----------



## Long in the tooth

Both Nazi Germany and South Africa in the 70s had huge coal gassification plants.  If ever there's a conspiracy, this 'secret' technology would take the cake.  We need to stop wasting Hydrocarbons to fuel our vehicles and power plants as they are far more important for plastics and pharmaceuticals.  Perhaps $100/bbl is not such a bad thing.


----------



## a_majoor

I don't think there is a single "magic wand" solution, so persuing all different options gives us the flexibility to meet all possible contingencies. Coal liquefaction as persued in the 1930's and 1970's was hugely energy intensive, so an improved process needs to be found (maybe even more efficient than the Syntroleum process). More efficient ways of using existing fuel also need to be persued in tandem; I once read that if every vehicle in North America had the tires inflated to the proper pressure, there would be a 10% reduction in transportation fuel usage! (Go get a tune-up and tire check people!)

Here are some links for "Plan B", promising to increase fuel economy by 50%:

http://www.me.berkeley.edu/cal/HCCI/

http://www.llnl.gov/str/Westbrook.html


----------



## a_majoor

Nice article on Wikipedia, and the links section at the bottom leads you to quite a few similar chemical process to convert coal and other solids into usable liquid fuels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karrick_process

Enjoy


----------



## a_majoor

The market will cause some strange and counterintuitive things to happen. If this article is correct, the conditions favourable for alternative resources (bio-diesel, liquified coal, tar sands, oil shale) will end with the bursting of the "oil bubble", removing the incentive of high prices. Since science is a step wise process, any potential gains made in this round mean investors will start from a more developed technological base when the next oil shock arrives, and perhaps some of these plans will finally reach fruition.

http://article.nationalreview.com/



> *The Oil Bubble Is Next to Burst*
> The free market is the ticket for this commodity round trip.
> 
> By Thomas E. Nugent
> 
> Tune in to any of those financial news networks and you’ll be sure to find a commodity guru still predicting $1,000 an ounce for gold and $100 a barrel for oil. Should the little guy jump on this bandwagon? Or is it too late? Well, the recent plunge in some commodity prices is giving speculators second thoughts about the durability of the commodity bull market.
> 
> The price volatility of another well-known commodity, natural gas, can be instructive here. As the world frets about energy shortages, natural gas is suffering from rising inventories and sluggish demand. Last year, the gurus were looking for $20 per million BTUs of natural gas. Recently, that price dropped below $6 per million BTUs. Natural-gas price fluctuations, as represented in the following chart (prepared by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis), indicate the forming of a price bubble, with natural gas prices rising from a low of approximately $6.50 in March 2005 to a peak of $14.50 in December 2005. But once the peak heating season reflected a warmer-than-normal winter, the price of natural gas plummeted back below the low levels of 2005. (Incidentally, many tech stocks charted much the same course between 1998 and 2002.)
> 
> One irony here is that little news about the recent natural-gas round trip makes it into the media. Why aren’t raucous politicians singling out gas-company executives — labeling them patriots for sacrificing profitability in the name of helping the country through an energy crisis? The reason for the silence is that energy-company executives do not determine energy prices and the politicians know it. In Washington, good news is no news — so you won’t hear any good news about the fall in natural gas prices.
> 
> On the other hand, when it comes to the bad-news rise in oil prices, Washington politicians are not only vocal, they are predictably nearsighted in their proposed solutions: Punish the auto companies by imposing higher CAFÉ requirements! Impose windfall profits taxes on oil-company profits! Prohibit drilling for oil off our coasts and Alaska! Pillory the oil-company execs!
> 
> But our experience from the energy-price run-up of the 1970s reminds us that free markets will resolve high energy prices, while politicians will only exacerbate them.
> 
> In particular, here are a few reasons why free-market factors will erode the current high price of oil: More windmills and solar power will pop up, the billions of dollars invested to get oil from tar sands will begin paying dividends, nuclear power will reincarnate, a rising number of drilling rigs will begin operating within the U.S., smaller cars with higher fuel mileage will proliferate, substitute fuels such as ethanol and hydrogen will take hold, and on and on.
> 
> Efforts to innovate, substitute, or even conserve at the same time the oil supply is expanding will create the perfect environment for an oil-price decline. Back in the early 1970s, and then again in the early 1980s, high oil prices led to lower oil prices. Oil bulls rely on rising global demand, but few of them fear a rise in supply through incremental oil as well as new energy sources that will displace oil as the primary fuel.
> 
> When Hertz begins to charge less for big car rentals than small car rentals, as pointed out in a recent Wall Street Journal article, the handwriting, as they say, is on the wall.
> 
> From a high price eclipsing $75 per barrel, oil has recently fallen below $68. If the fall in natural-gas prices is a good indicator, oil prices still have a long way to drop.
> 
> — Thomas E. Nugent is executive vice president and chief investment officer of PlanMember Advisors, Inc., and principal of Victoria Capital Management, Inc.


----------



## a_majoor

More counter intuative information. The free market in oil is self correcting, you just need to give it time to react:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGE4M2RlMDM1MmI0OGM1M2ViMGQ4MWUyYzc2YmEyZWU=



> *Surprise Drop in Oil?*
> Free markets could soon deliver a much different energy scenario.
> 
> By Larry Kudlow
> 
> Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the U.S., recently told the United States Energy Association that any U.S. conflict with Iran would threaten the Strait of Hormuz and triple the barrel price of oil. Of course, such language could be an attempt to get President Bush to rule out the military option as Iran pushes to weaponize its uranium-enrichment program. But the administration will not rule anything out as it grapples with this belligerent power.
> 
> That said, I’d like to challenge the prince’s assessment of the potential direction of oil prices, and the idea that the Middle East necessarily holds all the cards.
> 
> *The Energy Department just announced that crude oil supplies rose 1.4 million barrels to 347.1 million for the week ended June 16. Analysts had been expecting a drawdown, so this news caught them by surprise. More, crude oil supplies in the U.S. are now at their highest levels since May 1998, when oil was trading around $15 a barrel. Add in the fact that Canadian oil inventories are fully stocked, and the more imminent reality is of a sizable oil-price decrease — not a huge increase*.
> 
> Recently I interviewed four oil-tanker executives who control a combined 85 percent of the oil coming into the United States. They confirmed market rumors that the amount of oil being stored on large carriers on the high seas is abnormally high. One of the CEOs even predicted the possibility of $40 to $50 oil in the next 6 to 12 months. In another interview, Chevron CEO David O’Reilly suggested that gasoline and energy demands have flattened in the U.S., and may be showing signs of decline.
> 
> Prince Turki can threaten $200 oil all he wants, but we may instead be looking at a downward correction that will have oil prices dropping more than anyone imagines possible. Supplies are at their highest levels in eight years, while demand appears to be falling, or at least leveling off. Should a significant price correction be in the offing, stock markets and the economy will cheer.
> 
> The economic principles at work here are very simple: Markets work. *Supply and demand works. Higher prices are gradually slowing consumption. At the same time, those high prices continue to stimulate outsized profits and investment returns. So capital is pouring into all the energy sectors, providing a strong foundation for new energy production*. Chevron, for example, is reinvesting virtually all its profits in new oil-and-gas exploration and drilling. The drilling industry, meanwhile, has recovered from last year’s Hurricane Katrina shock and is once again producing near peak capacity.
> 
> There’s even good news from Washington on the energy front. The House Resources Committee, chaired by California Republican Richard Pombo, has just delivered the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act, which will give coastal states the authority to drill 100 miles or more offshore. This will allow for exploration and production in the deep seas and on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), where kajillions in oil-and-gas reserves are waiting to be siphoned. It also will provide the coastal states with significant oil and gas royalties. Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi opposes this, but the bill has strong bipartisan support.
> 
> Finally, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its first license for a major commercial nuclear facility in thirty years. Construction of the $1.5 billion National Enrichment Facility in New Mexico could begin in August, and according to Louisiana Energy Services CEO Jim Ferland, it could be ready to sell enriched uranium (for electricity) by early 2009. Senate Energy chair Pete Domenici calls this a “renaissance of nuclear energy in this country.”
> 
> A combination of market forces and government deregulation could be setting us up for a big crack in energy prices, including gas at the pump. And it may happen sooner rather than later. Many years ago, during the 1970s oil crisis, Milton Friedman argued that free markets are more powerful than OPEC, and Ronald Reagan proved the point when prices plunged after he deregulated energy in the early 1980s. Twenty years later, energy-market forces may be poised to assert themselves once more.
> 
> Iran and its allies will continue to rattle their sabers in an attempt to boost the value of their only cash crop. And of course, a gunboat battle in the Strait of Hormuz will temporarily boost prices again. *But pessimists keep making a one-way bet on sky-high oil prices that will doom the American economy, even though record low tax rates on capital have so far prevented anything like this from happening.*
> 
> Conventional forecasters understate the economic power of free markets, low marginal tax rates, and energy deregulation. As a supply-side contrarian, I’ll take the other side of that trade. Indeed, as future events unfold, we may be headed for a much different energy and economic scenario.
> 
> — Larry Kudlow, NRO’s Economics Editor, is host of CNBC’s Kudlow & Company and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.


----------



## Nemo888

a_majoor said:
			
		

> More counter intuative information. The free market in oil is self correcting, you just need to give it time to react:
> 
> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGE4M2RlMDM1MmI0OGM1M2ViMGQ4MWUyYzc2YmEyZWU=



Hilarious, obviously you've never heard of OPEC.


----------



## a_majoor

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Hilarious, obviously you've never heard of OPEC.



And just as obviously you did not read the article. OPEC is only one group of suppliers, perhaps you have heard of Canada, another, non OPEC supplier or the myriad other nations which make up the global market? Enough said.


----------



## Nemo888

Why would the global suppliers compete to sell a limited resource and make less money? The answer is simple, they wouldn’t. 

If you don’t believe that I have a bridge I’d like to sell you…

There are these things called diamonds. Geologically they are a semi-precious stone but they are very expensive nonetheless. There are a limited number of suppliers that control the market (like the oil cartels).  Without actually colluding (which OPEC does do) they have decided to artificially inflate the price to make more money. Did the light turn on yet?

And your respected source used "kajillions" in his article. That’s not even a word. (So I did read it)


----------



## Cpl.Banks

Your article although interesting is evidently flawed, in several ways. First of all this article claims that "Supplies are at their highest levels in eight years, *while demand appears to be falling, or at least leveling off*. Should a significant price correction be in the offing, stock markets and the economy will cheer." How could that be, with the emerging markets of China and India, the population of the United-States set to reach 300 million, more and more individuals driving bigger and bigger SUV's. Not to mention the need to reach our own energy consumption needs, how do we produce our energy? through the burning of Fossil fuels (Natural gas, Coal, Oil etc...) It is evident that oil is harder to come by than in the 1970's, less and less new oil fields are being found by prospectors and most of the new oil is far deeper than before, or in much more far away regions. The end of " Easy Oil " is upon us, for example:
- The Sand Island, Azerbaijan. Twenty years ago this oil field was producing a majority of the Soviet Unions oil in that area, now they are forced to drill 2 miles beneath the surface  to claw out a meagre 4,500 barrels a day!
-Ghawar, Saudi-Arabia. In 1953 held a seventh of the known oil reserves, almost 6 million barrels of Crude a day! Now 50 years later it is forced to inject 45% water to pump out the remaining amount of oil in the reservoir.
We may be finding more and more oil but that oil is in far away regions. The amount of consumption of Fossil fuels is set to jump up much higher in the near future: By 2025 the world will use twice as much energy as it uses today, the current oil consumption in the United-States is set to jump from 80 million barrels a day to over 120 million barrels a day. This is not to mention the "emerging" economies of India and China. The question though is there enough oil to continue this amazing growth and usage doubling every generation or so?


----------



## a_majoor

Boiling the article down to the fundamental point, increasing demand raises prices, which causes the supply side of the equation to change in order to match the two sides. OPEC's constant battle is not with the United States, it is with members cheating on their "quotas" in order to sell more oil and rake in more money. High prices also change consumer behavior, hence the observation that demand is flat or decreasing (these observations apply to the United States and are probably projections for up to one year out).

Also, if you follow the entire thread, you will see myriad examples of how increasing prices of fuel drive investors and inventors to look for new ways to cash in, such as coal liquefaction, oil sand production, bio diesel and so on. Increasing demand by China and India will simply result in more alternatives being researched and coming to market. The market is a dynamic system, so changing one factor (prices or available supply) will simply result in changes to other factors (consumer demand, product substitution).


----------



## GAP

Interesting poll being talked about on CBC. People in states were polled about where their oil came from...only 4% knew that most of their oil comes from Canada.    Public perception was the middle east.


----------



## Sub_Guy

We are not running out of oil, we will run out of drinkable water before we run out of oil.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1954572&page=1      Have a read, there are other good myths on the page too.


----------



## Nemo888

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Boiling the article down to the fundamental point, increasing demand raises prices, which causes the supply side of the equation to change in order to match the two sides. OPEC's constant battle is not with the United States, it is with members cheating on their "quotas" in order to sell more oil and rake in more money. High prices also change consumer behavior, hence the observation that demand is flat or decreasing (these observations apply to the United States and are probably projections for up to one year out).
> 
> Also, if you follow the entire thread, you will see myriad examples of how increasing prices of fuel drive investors and inventors to look for new ways to cash in, such as coal liquefaction, oil sand production, bio diesel and so on. Increasing demand by China and India will simply result in more alternatives being researched and coming to market. The market is a dynamic system, so changing one factor (prices or available supply) will simply result in changes to other factors (consumer demand, product substitution).



Notice how even though there are competing oil companies the price of gas is the same all over town? These companies have silently agreed not to compete. You know its true every time you go to the pump. The whole "market forces" thing is a joke right?


----------



## clasper

C/Sgt.Banks said:
			
		

> It is evident that oil is harder to come by than in the 1970's, less and less new oil fields are being found by prospectors and most of the new oil is far deeper than before, or in much more far away regions.


Actually the price of oil in current dollars is less now than it was during the 70's.  How does that imply that oil is harder to come by?


> The end of " Easy Oil " is upon us, for example:
> - The Sand Island, Azerbaijan. Twenty years ago this oil field was producing a majority of the Soviet Unions oil in that area, now they are forced to drill 2 miles beneath the surface  to claw out a meagre 4,500 barrels a day!


There is truth in this statement, but defining "easy oil" is problematic.  Drilling two miles beneath the surface has been common for decades.  The deepest offshore wells are currently in the range of 6 miles.  If you want to prove that easy oil is behind us with a simple depth analogy, you'll have to prove that it is harder to drill that 6 mile well now than it was to drill a 2 mile well back in the 30's.


> -Ghawar, Saudi-Arabia. In 1953 held a seventh of the known oil reserves, almost 6 million barrels of Crude a day! Now 50 years later it is forced to inject 45% water to pump out the remaining amount of oil in the reservoir.


Water injection is a sign of disaster?  Do you know anything about the oil industry?  (Here's a hint: look at production levels in Saudi Arabia since 1953, and you'll see that the end isn't quite nigh yet.)


> We may be finding more and more oil but that oil is in far away regions. The amount of consumption of Fossil fuels is set to jump up much higher in the near future: By 2025 the world will use twice as much energy as it uses today,


Worldwide oil production was half of its current levels in the late 60's.  Why will the next doubling take 20 years instead of the 35-40 which the last doubling took?





> the current oil consumption in the United-States is set to jump from 80 million barrels a day to over 120 million barrels a day. This is not to mention the "emerging" economies of India and China. The question though is there enough oil to continue this amazing growth and usage doubling every generation or so?


Worldwide oil consumption is currently in the 80 million bbl/day range, US consumption is only about 20 million bbl/day.  If you're going to spew alarmist drivel, at least get the easily-googled facts straight.


----------



## a_majoor

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Notice how even though there are competing oil companies the price of gas is the same all over town? These companies have silently agreed not to compete. You know its true every time you go to the pump. The whole "market forces" thing is a joke right?



I can drive around London and get a spread of about 4-6 cents a litre depending on when I do this (the biggest spread is usually near the end of the day). Since there are only four gasoline refineries in all of Ontario, this does restrict the amount of competition available (if we had more refineries, I would expect larger price spreads). The prices of most resources including oil have dropped in inflation adjusted dollars since the 1970's, mostly due to market forces increasing supplies or forcing substitutions of cheaper alternative resources. We are seeing the same things in the oil market, and indeed it is fairly easy to make analogies with previous "energy crisis" periods like the whale oil shortage of the late 1800's (which inaugurated the age of petroleum as an inexpensive substitute), or the wood shortage in Elizabethan England which kicked off the age of coal as Britan's inexpensive substitute.


Given your knowledge of basic economics, I would suggest the only joke was on the part of your educators, who have left you woefully unprepared for understanding how things work.


----------



## Nemo888

You mean the the 1970's price artificially inflated by OPEC? Maybe I should get you some crayons.


----------



## muskrat89

OK, enough of the personal jabs. Keep it on track, everyone.


----------



## Koenigsegg

I know not all gas stations do this of course, but Nemo is correct in some places.  In Barrie and such, the companies come to an agreement on what to charge, at least some of them do...
Petro Can, and Esso love doing this in Barrie.  However it is illegal...

If you look across the pond at western Europe, we aren't bad off...They are getting absolutely gouged, but they have several reasons behind the prices that they make public.  We tend not to get straight answers...Unless I am listening to the wrong news.

They have been saying we ony have 35 years of oil left for like 50 years.  I am not worried about running out of oil, as we have probably have a lot left.  I am worried about us killing the planet slowly with burning it.

**Typed this before Muskrat posted his statment...And I forget what track the conversation was on before we got off track, so I will post this, and if need be, you can skip it**


----------



## Sub_Guy

We own the oil though.  So we shouldn't compare ourselves to Europe where they have to import their oil...  We shouldn't be paying these high prices, we should take care of our own needs first (which isn't much) then sell surplus oil on the world market, at market prices.

We have more oil reserves than most OPEC nations, so why does the media feel the need to focus on OPEC all the time, when in Canada we don't need to import oil.

At point in time it was cheaper to import oil than it was to pump it out of the sands.  Now times have changed, we don't need to import at all, but yet we continue to do so.  Why?


----------



## George Wallace

Did you know that Irving imports most of its' crude from South America?  Venezuela is one of our major suppliers.


----------



## a_majoor

Re: petroleum imports and market prices:

Oil is a fungible commodity (i.e. oil from one place is more or less just like oil from somewhere else), so people will buy it from where they can get the best price, and producers will sell it where THEY get the best price. Sometimes the two don't quite match up, like the example of Irving buying from Venezuela, since it was somewhat cheaper to import oil by tanker than pipe it in from Western Canada. I expect the situation is changed a bit with the growth of East Coast oil drilling, but the principle remains the same.

As for why we pay world prices, let me put you in the place of the owner of a coffee shop. You are told you should sell your coffee to local residents for (say) .75 a cup, and can charge $1.25 to out of towners. On the other hand, the Timmies just down the road on the other side of the town line sells coffee to everyone for $1.25. What incentive do you have to keep selling coffee for .75  when you have to pay the same "input" costs for each cup you make, and don't make as much profit? There are several possible outcomes, such as you move your store out of town, you refuse to sell coffee to locals, you get city hall to subsidize you for each cup you sell locally and so on, most of which don't benefit the consumer in any way at all. Suggesting producers sell Canadian oil at sub world prices in Canada would either result in oil being sold outside Canada to the highest bidder, or producers closing shop and reducing production (until the suppressed price was bid up to world prices), or a black market developing which benefits the criminal elements but few others.

Short answer, the Invisible Hand will wrestle you to the ground every time you try to mess with market forces.


----------



## Sub_Guy

I agree with all of that.  Here is my question to you then.

Why is gasoline so much more cheaper in nations with vast oil reserves?  (its not our taxes)

In a few Latin America and Middle-East nations, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, oil is produced by a government-owned company and local gasoline prices are kept low as a benefit to the nation's citizens.

OPEC controls the oil the market, much like Debeers controls the Diamond market.


----------



## Nemo888

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> Why is gasoline so much more cheaper in nations with vast oil reserves?  (its not our taxes)



Because governments threaten them. Technically oil is a National Resource, like water, trees or air so they can't have total ownership of it
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060625/NEWS01/606250358/1001

But they are still making record profits.
"Oil industry awash in record levels of cash
But a smaller portion of profits is going to find new oil discoveries"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8646744/


----------



## clasper

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> In a few Latin America and Middle-East nations, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, oil is produced by a government-owned company and local gasoline prices are kept low as a benefit to the nation's citizens.


And since most of those companies are owned by the sultan's brother instead of shareholders, they are run inefficiently, and tend to waste their resources (ie oil reserves).  BP, Shell, and Chevron do a much better job of managing their reservoirs and getting the most out of their production compared to Saudi Aramco, Sonatrach, and PDVSA.  Citizens who are well fed generally don't ask for that extra percentile of efficiency, but shareholders are a pretty ruthless bunch- they'll pull their money out and put it behind someone who's doing the job better.

The fact that these national oil companies sell gas at a price that their impoverished citizens can afford isn't necessarily virtuous.  Take a look at Nigeria to see what happens when many people in an oil-rich country can't afford gasoline.


----------



## DBA

Read up on Trudeau's National Energy Program. Played out pretty much the way a_majoor suggests it would today. It pissed off oil producing provinces and they cut development and exports to the rest of Canada. When world prices lowered and Mulroney came to power it was axed. Wikipedia link (mindful that it's not allways accurate or complete) National Energy Program


----------



## 54/102 CEF

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> A scary strategic problem to ponder.
> But don't believe me.   Look into it yourself.
> 
> (edited to correct sentence error)



I did

Oil is coming down - here we are mid wya through summer and WOW! It`s hardly above the buck it ws last summer 

More here http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE0OA==


----------



## a_majoor

Another reality check for everyone. This .pdf document outlines the various alternative energy sources and quantifies them in easy to understand ways. The crack about photovoltaic being like converting dollars to pesos on a one to one basis is far too true: I worked on a business plan for quite some time and never came up with any viable solution. The Laws of Physics are rigorously enforced, and not even an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is going to allow you to evade them.......

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf


----------



## joaquim

For Canadians, this whole issue boils down to one question: when oil shortages become reality, will Alberta sell its oil to Americans or Canadians? 

Secondary questions: Could we win a military battle for Fort McMurray? If not, are we really a sovereign country?

The silence of Canadians on this issue is deafening. 

Joaquim, a concerned civilian.

PS: I highly recommend The Oil Drum, a wonderful blog by oil professionals. This post graphs the latest world production data (April 2006), proving that Hubbert's peak was indeed in December 2005. There is also a graph showing how the Saudis are desperately trying to keep up with demand in order to maintain the illusion of eternal oil:  http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/7/2/205758/5414 . 
Oh, by the way, yes, Hubbert's model does take into account Alberta in its calculation of world reserve. It does not account for coal reserves (100x larger than oil reserves) or gas reserves. Both can be converted to liquids to replace gasoline, for a price.


----------



## redleafjumper

From 54/102 CEF - Oil is coming down - here we are mid wya through summer and WOW! It`s hardly above the buck it ws last summer...

Actually, oil prices where I am are increasing.  The price at the pumps most place in central BC is around 117.9 per litre of regular gasoline.  The expectation here is that we will soon be seeing prices nearing $1.35/litre.


----------



## a_majoor

A counterproductive move. 

http://www.populardoctrine.com/2006/07/12/unifying-the-left-and-right-gas-price-regulation/



> If there’s one issue that should be unifying the Canadian Left and Right, it’s condemnation for the decision made by New Brunswick and Nova Scotia’s Conservative governments to regulate gas prices at the pumps. In an attempt to quell public anger over rising gas prices, both governments have caved in and enacted the worst kind of public policy: regulation.
> 
> In what has become a national news story, *many gas stations in New Brunswick have boycotted the governments decision by closing their gas stations, arguing that they cannot afford to sell gas at the government’s price, as there are no margins to make.*
> 
> A Saint John service station has stopped selling gasoline because, with the province now capping prices at the pump, the owner says he can’t make any money.
> 
> Stephen Tobias, who owns an Esso gas station and is under contract to buy fuel from Wilson Fuel, says the price he pays Wilson for his gas is essentially the same price he can charge.
> 
> Kevin McCann, Wilson’s New Brunswick manager, said he sympathizes with Tobias. He said he knows of other retailers that are thinking of shutting down for the same reason.
> 
> I understand where the government is coming from: Canadians are not used to paying high gas prices because we’ve had it so damn good for quite some time. Consider the prices around the world, as listed on CNN:
> 
> In London, the price averages out to $1.49/litre, and in Hong Kong, gas rings in at $1.48/litre. Sure it’s not the $0.04/litre Venezuelans enjoy, but the going Canadian rate (roughly $1.08/litre) isn’t such a big deal when we look at it in relative terms. Truth is, it hasn’t been enough to stop most people from filling up their SUV, pick-up trucks and Hummers for their drive to the office, the soccer game, or to the community BBQ. I say let the free market dictate prices, and we’ll be far better off in the long run. The government has no place to step-in with regulation.
> 
> As for the left, they should be cheering at the sight of high gas prices, *as it may be an impetus for change in the Canadian way of thinking*. Maybe (and this is just a maybe) when the prices get high enough, people will resort to greener means of transportation. Perhaps they’ll get off their fat cheeks and hop on their bike. Maybe they’ll realize that public transit has its advantages (it let’s you read the paper, catch up on sleep). Maybe they’ll force themselves to talk with their neighbor about the option of carpooling.
> 
> Hold on Joseph! Most places don’t have extensive bike paths like Vancouver, or an intricate public transport system like Toronto, or the sunny days of Victoria, you can’t assume everyone has access to everything you’ve mentioned above.
> 
> Yes, I realize that. But if the prices are high enough, and if enough people lobby for useful, efficient, user-friendly transportation options (think of the Eurorail, fast-speed trains, Le Metro à Paris…) than the government may stop with these short-sighted, knee-jerk reactions and come up with some sustainable, long-term solutions.
> 
> And that’s good public policy.
> 
> *I suppose this requires a vision — a hostile thing in a political environment too preoccupied with quick vote-gaining gimmicks*.


----------



## redleafjumper

Some more oil news today of interest from the CTV website.  The article is credited and reproduced below:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060713/oil_prices_060713/20060713?hub=TopStories

Oil prices hit new high amid Mideast tension
Updated Thu. Jul. 13 2006 2:05 PM ET

Associated Press

LONDON -- Oil prices hit a new high above $76 US a barrel Thursday in a market agitated by escalating violence in the Middle East.

The latest surge in oil shook stock-market investors' confidence, though economists said most U.S. consumers and businesses appear to be absorbing higher energy costs surprisingly well.

U.S. gasoline demand continues to rise in spite of near $3-a-gallon pump prices, core inflation remains relatively low and the U.S. economy is forecast to grow by roughly 3 percent in the second half of the year.

"Two years ago I might have said that $70 or $75 a barrel would be some kind of a tipping point. Now I'm not so sure anymore," said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at Global Insight, a private forecasting firm.

Still, Behravesh said lower-income Americans are suffering disproportionately from higher energy costs and "I could certainly make a policy case for helping them out on a temporary basis."

Light sweet crude for August delivery shot up as high as $76.55 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange as fighting between Israel and Lebanon intensified, explosions hit Nigerian oil installations and a diplomatic standoff dragged on between the West and Iran over its nuclear program. The previous Nymex high of $75.78 was set last Friday.

Adjusted for inflation, oil prices would need to rise to about $90 a barrel to exceed the highs set a quarter century ago when supplies tightened in the aftermath of a revolution in Iran and a war between Iraq and Iran.

Today oil prices are being pushed higher by rising global demand and worries that the world's limited supply cushion would not be adequate to offset a lengthy disruption to output in major producing countries, such as Iran or Nigeria. There are also concerns about the risks hurricanes pose to U.S. production.

The latest fear being priced into the market is that the conflict between Israel and Lebanon could spill over into other corners of the Middle East, the region that produces nearly a third the world's oil and contains almost two-thirds of its untapped reserves.

Israel intensified its attacks against Lebanon on Thursday, blasting Beirut's airport and two Lebanese army air bases near the Syrian border, and imposing a naval blockade. More than 50 people have died in violence following the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah militants.

In Nigeria, government officials said twin explosions hit oil installations belonging to an Italian oil company in the volatile southeastern delta region. Elsewhere, militants attacked a group of 11 boats carrying supplies to Chevron's offshore oil fields Wednesday, killing four navy sailors who were escorting the convoy, Brig. Gen. Alfred Ilogho said Thursday.

"The oil price has become a register of geopolitical tensions and fears," said Daniel Yergin, who heads Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

Yergin said petroleum supply-demand fundamentals are improving, with global oil inventories and spare oil-production capacity rising, but clearly not enough to offset the geopolitical unrest.

The surge in oil prices rattled stock market investors, sending the Dow Jones industrials sharply lower for the second straight day. Shares of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, slumped 2 percent on the New York Stock Exchange on concerns that high energy prices are cutting into consumers' discretionary income.

"The economy took $50 oil in stride," Yergin said. "It's clearly not taking $70 or $75 a barrel in stride. This is a rougher adjustment."

In other Nymex trading, gasoline futures climbed 3 cents to $2.29 a gallon, heating oil futures rose more than 3 cents to $2.05 a gallon and natural gas futures advanced 20 cents to $5.99 per 1,000 cubic feet.


----------



## GAP

It is about the Oil !!   

Once mocked, new Caspian oil pipeline looks smart now
ASSOCIATED PRESS   POSTED ON 13/07/06
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060713.RTICKERMAIN13/TPStory/TPBusiness/Asia/


Almost a decade ago, former U.S. president Bill Clinton threw his weight behind a multibillion-dollar pipeline designed to bring the oil riches of the Caspian Sea to the West, bypassing Russia and tapping a source of crude outside the unstable Middle East.

Critics derided the proposed 1,770-kilometre, $3.9-billion (U.S.) pipeline -- snaking through Azerbaijan, the mountains of Georgia and northern Turkey before hitting the Mediterranean coast -- as too expensive and too difficult to build.
More on link


----------



## 3rd Horseman

It is time for the Canadian Government to opt out of OPEC and set a domestic price and world price for oil. I would suggest that with many provinces now toying with gas control the time is right for the feds to step up to the plate and do it. Prices should be 21 to 30 per barrel sold domestic and let the world price go were it may.


----------



## Stirling N6123

The cheap, easy to get at oil is a thing of the past. It's the hard stuff we need to get at now. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/20/60minutes/main1225184.shtml

There is lots of oil to go around, but it's the cost due to consumption that's gonna do us in I think.


----------



## Stirling N6123

Horseman, very good point. I agree.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> It is time for the Canadian Government to opt out of OPEC and set a domestic price and world price for oil. I would suggest that with many provinces now toying with gas control the time is right for the feds to step up to the plate and do it. Prices should be 21 to 30 per barrel sold domestic and let the world price go were it may.



Jesus wept...why is economics SUCH a lost art nowadays?

3rd- let's say you are a farmer.  You produce grain.  Your costs are $1.00/bushel.  Ideally, you would like to make a profit so you try and sell when the price is at least $1.15/bushel. 

Now wait. Some guy in NB wants cheaper bread.  He manages to convince the government that there are votes in this.  They regulate the price of grain at $.80/bushel. You tell me farmerboy- how long are you going to be in business, selling at a loss?  How exactly would every farmer in the country downing tools make "more" grain available?

And tell me, since you, like me, you live in the Maritimes- how well is the retarded attempts by the local governments to regulate the retail price of gasoline going (something which is largely set every morning for the entire world in NY harbour)?  How come like 120 rural gas stations in NB are refusing to sell gas- could it be that they don't like selling a commodity at a loss?  Do you think for one second that Alberta (or the hundreds of oil companies in Alberta) will sell at gasoline to you at a loss?  They will leave it in the ground first.  BTW, the gasoline you burn in NB largely comes from South America.  We pay full world price per barrel here.  You going to convince the South Americans to give us a special "maritimes" rate of $40.00/barrel, because we are such good guys?

And all of this ignores the human nature.  Tell me- do you waste more or less gasoline when the price is $.50/litre or $1.50/litre?  Price affects demand, which in the long run affects price.  Trust me- it works.

Sorry to be a bit harsh- but regulating the price of anything never works in the long run.  Take it from me (who lived in Alberta during NEP) and my brother, who is in the oil business in Alberta, that the only cure for high prices, is high prices.


----------



## redleafjumper

SeaKing Taco +2.  The problem, which is the point of this thread, is that the stuff will be in shorter and shorter supply while demand increases.  Price fixing will not, and never has worked.  Supply and demand are going to drive what happens with oil.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Redleaf-

Agree absolutely.  The more expensive oil gets, the greater the incentive for an alternative (or many alternatives) to be developed.  This has happened everysingletime in human history.  When trees for fuel became in short supply in Europe, coal was exploited.  When whale oil for lighting became scarce in the 1860's, conventional oil came into common usage in, like, 6 years.

Let the market work- when Joe and Mary Lunchbox get tired of paying $100.00 to fill their SUV every week, things will change.  And my sense is that, in my part of Canada anyway, the tipping point is just about here.

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor

Instead of an SUV, you might consider buying one of these:

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/automotivetech/d7213bcc2eb84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html



> *Thin Car Travels Far*
> 
> John Matras
> 
> To listen to automakers snipe about tightening fuel economy standards, you'd think it impossible to squeeze more miles from a barrel of Extract of Arabia. This, of course, is not the case, particularly if you design a vehicle expressly to drive far and drink little.
> 
> Forget power, space, and speed: Volkswagen AG's latest idea-on-wheels does not address the requirements of the average American family driver. What it can do is travel more than 100 kilometers on a single liter of fuel. Translation: 235 miles per gallon.
> 
> The car's designers combined highly tuned aerodynamics, exotic materials, and a 0.3-liter diesel engine to achieve 0.99 liters per 100 kilometers. The project, the brainchild of engineer Thomas Gänsicke, is an engineering exercise and therefore has rather whimsical features. Most noticeable are the car's canoe-like proportions: It's 4 feet wide and 11 feet long. Occupants sit tandem, the passenger straddling the driver's seat, both wedged under a 4-foot-long gullwing canopy.
> 
> Three video cameras eliminate the mileage-reducing wind drag of rearview mirrors. Wheels are faired in, side-cooling air inlets open only when necessary, and even the keylocks have been replaced by a proximity unlocking system. The resulting coefficient of drag is 0.159, compared with 0.30 or so for most production cars.
> 
> The slinky carbon-fiber bodywork covering the magnesium frame is just the beginning of the unobtainium-based technology used throughout. The front suspension is a combination of titanium, aluminum, magnesium, and ceramics and weighs less than 18 pounds. The single-cylinder four-stroke engine has monoblock construction—there's no separate cylinder head—and is all aluminum. Fuel is atomized directly into the cylinder at 28,000 psi. Two overhead camshafts operate the one exhaust and two inlet valves. The fuel pump is magnesium, the exhaust system titanium.
> 
> The engine produces a thundering 8.5 horsepower and weighs only 57 pounds. It conspires with a 6-speed gearbox—magnesium housing, hollow shafts, titanium bolts—to pinch miles from the diesel fuel. The transmission shifts electronically, killing the engine when an onboard computer foresees an inkling of fuel savings. A starter-generator, with energy stored in nickel-metal batteries, rekindles the engine as necessary.
> 
> Because the electric motor only restarts the engine, the 1-liter car is not a hybrid. Gänsicke explains that if fuel economy wasn't paramount, the motor could be used to increase horsepower and torque by 30 percent. "But that's not the effect we wanted." In fact, he's not terribly specific about performance, other than to say that top speed exceeds 70 mph and that it's "not very quick in accelerating."
> 
> It can, he promises, "swim with the usual traffic." Who better to emphasize that point than Ferdinand Piëch, chairman of VW? For the most recent board meeting in April, Piëch drove the 1-liter car from Wolfsburg to Hamburg, 110 miles, averaging 264 miles per gallon on the way. That works out to an ultra-miserly 0.89 liters per 100 kilometers.
> 
> Of course, "0.89-liter car" doesn't quite have the same ring.
> 
> 
> SIZING UP THE SMALL FRIES
> How VW's 1-liter machine stacks up against the shortest-wheelbase vehicle on American roads today, the Mazda Miata.
> 
> VW 1-Liter Car
> 
> Length: 143.7 in.
> Width: 49.1 in.
> Height: 43.7 in.
> Weight: 588 pounds
> Peak Power: 8.5 hp
> Fuel Capacity: 1.7 gal.
> Mileage: 235 mpg
> 
> 
> Mazda Miata
> 
> Length: 155.3 in.
> Width: 66.0 in.
> Height: 48.4 in.
> Weight: 2,387 pounds
> Peak Power: 142 hp
> Fuel Capacity: 12.7 gal.
> Mileage: 29 mpg


----------



## redleafjumper

I wonder how it performs in snow with a moose on the roof?


----------



## a_majoor

The VW dealer was out of that model anyway  , but you can always try some of the tips in this article. Any Transport NCO's want to do an experiment with their fleets?

http://www.omninerd.com/2006/07/16/articles/57


----------



## 3rd Horseman

Holy Crap Tacco!

     The problem is that if the world price was reflective of the real price then you would have an argument. I don't think that controls work in a free market economy but that is not what we are in right now with oil. The feds need to step in to sort out a runaway of profits based on our foolish alliance with OPEC. The truth is that oil is artificially high and that is my point when we are being F&^%% up the a^& by the rest of the world we need a strong government to step in.  The bread thing does not work with oil. The basics are that our oil companies make good money at 14 to 21 per barrel and we have lots of oil. It is foolish for us to pay a world price for oil when we have enough oil to set a dom rate.
   As a small example:

Saudi has a dom rate and world price
Venezuela has a dom rate and world price
Nigeria has dom rate and world price
Kuwait has dom rate and world price
Iraq same
Iran same
Turkey same


----------



## a_majoor

Holy Crap Horseman!

Look very carefully at that list and pick out the common denominator of most of these governments on your list:

All but two are autocracies where the State (or the ruling class) owns the means of production and siphon off the wealth generated from the sale of oil. Iraq inherited this system form the former Ba'athist regime, and once the insurgency dies down should consider privatizing the oil fields and dumping the system, Turkey also uses this to quell or moderate domestic opposition and should also make the same calculation (short term pain for long term gain).

For a Saudi prince who is already swimming in money, or a Hugo Chavez who is busy buying off the mob, the loss of revenues from having a domestic price is either irrelevant or considered a lower cost than using the payoff to protect your own tender a**. In a functioning free market economy, the loss of revenue from setting a "domestic" price is a giant opportunity cost to doing business, and shareholders are not willing to pay that cost through forgone profits and dividend payments. You might be upset about that forgone revenue yourself (checked your mutual fund holdings lately?), and the loss of that wealth to the economy means less wealth to spend, save or invest, hurting everyone inside and outside the oil industry. As the examples of Canadian industry gradually shutting down during the time of the National Energy Program, or gas stations closing due to Government price controls show, in the end you won't be able to buy fuel and petrochemicals (except maybe through the black market) once controls are imposed.

As for the World price reflecting the "real" price, what are you getting at? The cost of production and refining is factored in, since oil is sold by auction to the highest bidder on the world market. If you don't match the bid price, you don't get any oil,  period.


----------



## a_majoor

More fun with numbers. Now you can see why "alternitive" energy isn't and the only "Green" in "Green" energy is the cash subsidies. There are plenty of niche and "botique" markets for alternative energy, just don't think they will power a high tech civilization like our own:



> Dear Folks:
> To really gain some perspective on the energy problem , and understand what a tough nut it is, read this reply by Uncle AL, from another Sci-forum:
> 
> "Do you have any idea how much energy the US uses/year? It has held reasonably steady at 60 bbl oil equiv/capita. 1 boe = 1700 kWhr-thermal. There are 290 million US folk or
> 
> 1.74x10^10 boe/year, or
> 2.96x10^13 kWhr-thermal/year, or
> 1.065x10^20 joules/year, or...
> 
> ...or the equivalent of 1.2 metric tonnes of matter 100% converted into energy each year, E=mc^2. Are ya gonna alternatively burn algae, git, or catch wind
> 
> The US consumes the equivalent of 1.2 metric tonnes of matter 100% converted into energy each year, E=mc^2.
> 
> You are all clueless. Sparrow farts run through a gas turbine won't get you 10^20 joules/year. Not now, not ever. Pulling 10^20 joules/year out of wind or waves would monstrously perturb the weather. Where do the energy and raw materials necessary to fabricate and install your New Age hind gut fermentations originate? Who pays for the environmental impact reports and litigations therefrom?
> 
> What are the unknown hazards? Can you guarantee absolute safety for 10,000 years? Let's have a uniform set of standards, eginineering and New Age bullshit both. *Area necessary to generate 1 GW electrical, theoretical minimum*
> 
> *mi^2
> Area, Modality
> ====================
> 1000 biomass
> 300 wind
> 60 solar
> 0.3 nuclear*
> 
> 3x10^7 GWhr-thermal/year would need 9 billion mi^2 of wind collection area.* The total surface area of the Earth is 197 million mi^2*. 24 hrs/day. Looks like yer gonna come up a little short if 100% of the Earth were wind generators powering only the US.
> 
> Are ya gonna alternatively burn algae to generate 10^20 joules/year? Now you are a factor of 3 even worse - before processing and not counting inputs. THEY LIED TO YOU. They lied to you so poorly it can be dismissed with arithmetic. Where are your minds?
> 
> --------------------
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf "



The smart money is probably on synthetic hydrocarbon fuels for the short to mid term future. Invest in coal......


----------



## a_majoor

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The smart money is probably on synthetic hydrocarbon fuels for the short to mid term future. Invest in coal......



Or maybe this:

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17236&ch=biztech



> *Abundant Power from Universal Geothermal Energy*
> An MIT chemical engineer explains why new technologies could finally make "heat mining" practical nearly anywhere on earth.
> By Kevin Bullis
> 
> A section of the geothermal plants north of San Francisco, known as The Geysers. These plants rely on relatively rare geologic formations. MIT professor Jefferson Tester believes geothermal can be much more widespread, by making artificial reservoirs for harvesting the earth’s heat. (Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
> The answer to the world's energy needs may have been under our feet all this time, according to Jefferson Tester, professor of chemical engineering at the MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment. Tester says heat generated deep within the earth by the decay of naturally occurring isotopes has the potential to supply a tremendous amount of power -- thousands of times more than we now consume each year.
> 
> So far, we've been able to harvest only a tiny fraction of geothermal energy resources, taking advantage of places where local geology brings hot water and steam near the surface, such as in Iceland or California, where such phenomena have long been used to produce electricity. But new oil-field stimulation technology, developed for extracting oil from sources such as shale, makes it possible to harvest much more of this energy by allowing engineers to create artificial geothermal reservoirs many kilometers underground.
> 
> Tester calls it "universal geothermal" energy because the reservoirs could be located wherever they're needed, such as near power-hungry cities worldwide.
> 
> Technology Review spoke with Tester about the potential of universal geothermal energy and what it will take to make it a reality.
> 
> Technology Review: How much geothermal energy could be harvested?
> 
> Jefferson Tester: The figure for the whole world is on the order of 100 million exojoules or quads [a quad is one quadrillion BTUs]. This is the part that would be useable. We now use worldwide just over 400 exojoules per year. So you do the math, and you know you've got a very big source of energy.
> 
> How much of that massive resource base could we usefully extract? Imagine that only a fraction of a percent comes out. It's still big. A tenth of a percent is 100,000 quads. You have access to a tremendous amount of stored energy. And assessment studies have shown that this is thousands of times in excess of the amount of energy we consume per-year in the country. The trick is to get it out of the ground economically and efficiently and to do it in an environmentally sustainable manner. That's what a lot of the field efforts have focused on.
> 
> TR: We do use some geothermal today, don't we?
> 
> JT: In some cases nature has provided a means for extracting stored thermal energy. We have many good examples. The Geysers field in California is the largest geothermal field in the world -- it's been in production for over 40 years and produces high-quality steam that can readily be converted into electric power, and it's one of the rarities nature-wise in terms of what we have worldwide. In the mineral vernacular they would be regarded as sort of high-grade gold mines.
> 
> TR: But haven't people been talking about greater use of geothermal energy for years now? What's changed?
> 
> JT: Like many energy technologies, it had a lot of support structure back in the 70s and in the 80s, but our national priorities shifted from energy to other things, and we didn't necessarily invest enough in it at that time to bring it to fruition.
> 
> Many [energy] technologies, whether they're renewables or nuclear power or coal or whatever it might be, need to be continually revisited and placed in context with the current state of technology. In this case, our interest in trying to go after hydrocarbons and extract hydrocarbons has developed a lot of technology in subsurface engineering that's useful and makes geothermal worth revisiting.
> 
> TR: How do you plan to harvest stored heat from more areas?
> 
> JT: What we're trying to do is emulate what nature has provided in these high-grade systems. When we go very deep, [rocks] are crystalline. They're very impermeable. They aren't heat exchangers like we really need. We'd like to create porosity and permeability. [The rock] actually is filled with small fractures, so what you're trying to do is find those weak zones and reopen them. We need to engineer good connectivity between an injection set of wells and a production set of wells, and sweep fluid, in this case, water, over that rock surface so that we extract the thermal energy and bring it up another well.
> 
> TR: What technology do you need to open up the rock and harvest the heat?
> 
> JT: All the technology that goes into drilling and completing oil and gas production systems, [such as] stimulation of wells, hydraulic fracturing, deep-well completion, and multiple horizontal laterals, could in principle be extended to deep heat mining. Hydraulic methods have been the ones that hold the most promise, where you go into the system and you pressurize the rock -- just water pressure. If you go higher than the confinement stress, you will reopen the small fractures. We're just talking about using a few thousand pounds per square inch pressure -- it's surprising how easy this is to do. This is a technique that's used almost every single day to stimulate oil and gas reservoirs.
> 
> TR: What still needs to be done to make artificial reservoirs for geothermal possible?
> 
> JT: Like any new technology, there are technical issues. But I don't see any show-stoppers. I think that the evolution of the technology, with 30-plus years of field testing, has been very positive. The basic concept has been demonstrated. We know how to make large reservoirs. We need to connect them better, to stimulate them better than we have in the past using some of these hydraulic methods and diagnostics that are now available to us.
> 
> So it's the scale-up to a commercial-sized system that has to be done, making a heat mine that is large enough and productive enough to sustain the economic investment. But we believe that's possible to do based on where we are now with the technology.
> 
> TR: You're working on new drilling technology. How does this fit in?
> 
> JT: We feel that as part of a long-term view of the possibility of universal heat mining, we should also be thinking about revolutionary methods for cutting through rock and completing wells. Most of the drilling that's done today is made by crushing and grinding our way using very, very hard materials to crush through and grind through minerals in the rock. And it's been very successful. It's evolved tremendously over the past century, and we can do it, certainly, routinely, to 10 kilometers. But it costs a lot. So we're looking for a fundamental way to change the technology that would change the cost-depth relationship, and allow us to drill deeper in a much more cost-effective manner. It would open up the accessibility tremendously.
> 
> TR: What are the advantages compared with other renewable sources of energy?
> 
> JT: *Geothermal has a couple of distinct differences. One, it is very scalable in baseload. Our coal-fired plants produce electricity 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The nuclear power plants are the same way. Geothermal can meet that, without any need for auxiliary storage or a backup system. Solar would require some sort of storage if you wanted to run it when the sun's not out. And wind can't provide it without any backup at 100 percent reliability, because the typical availability factor of a wind system is about 30 percent or so, whereas the typical availability factor of a geothermal system is about 90 percent or better.*
> 
> TR: What are some environmental concerns with "heat mining?"
> 
> JT: Obviously in any system where you're going underground, you need to think about are you disturbing the natural conditions in the earth that might cause bad things to happen. We have a pretty good history of knowing the effects of extraction. Nevertheless, it has to be monitored carefully and managed carefully.
> 
> In some natural systems you have to deal with the emissions -- control of hydrogen sulfide and other gases. Environmental regulations insist on full re-injection of the fluid.
> 
> This is not a free lunch, but there's virtually no carbon dioxide, so you're producing baseload electric power without generating any carbon dioxide.
> 
> TR: How fast do you think artificial geothermal systems can be developed?
> 
> JT: With sufficient financing and a well-characterized field, you can go into existing areas right now and build a plant, getting it operational within a few years. But to get universal heat mining is going to take an investment which won't be quite that quick. It might take 10 or 15 years of investment to get to the point where you have confidence that you can do this in virtually any site that you can go to. Once it gets in place, though, it can be replicated. I think it's very reproducible and expandable. That's the great hope at least.


----------



## DBA

Geothermal isn't a solution either. The earth just doesn't generate enough heat and it takes so long for it to propagate through most rock formations. You can extract heat faster than it's being replenished from below but that's not really sustainable unless the heat reservoir is very large. A few places have underground water in close proximity to lava flows which means the heat is replenished at a very high rate compared to most rock formations but that's the exception. 

I think for energy savings moving heat instead of directly generating it is one area for a lot of energy savings. The equipment costs more which has to be amortized against running costs for the life of the product. As energy prices increase it becomes more viable. Invent such a device and you stand a good chance of cashing in over the decades to come.


----------



## a_majoor

An interesting flow chart which lays out "what goes where". An interesting figure is the "Lost energy" (usually released in the form of waste heat). If anyone can find a way to reduce that figure, they will have made a huge dent in the problem, and become billionaires in the process.

(Anyone looking for me, I'll be in the basement lab.... )

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/images/2006/U.S.EnergyFlowTrends-2002-InExajoules-USEnFlow02-exaj.gif


----------



## LakeSup

The problem doesn't start when we run out of oil...it starts when we hit the PEAK after which supply starts to decline while demand continues to rise (mainly due to newer growth economies such as Asia).  The experts vary on when we hit peak fron now to within 6-8 years.   
I guess you either understand it or you don't, but don't expect to see cheap oil ever again.
Oh, and the economies (US, UK) who are anticipating this problem are making moves to secure their piece of ME and Mid Asian oil patch politically or militarily.


----------



## couchcommander

BAH! No need for messy hydrocarbons, or geothermal. 

ITER is coming online soon (http://www.iter.org/), along with a host of other recent (some very recent) advances, making fusion a reality within the next few decades.... clean and 4000 megawatts a pop.  I'm sure, however, the radical greenies will find something wrong with it. 

(Plus LCF is VERY HIGH! The JET reactor, offline, and in operation:







)

In the mean time, 1200 megawatt ACR's will do nicely, along with hydro, wind, and tidal power (excellent stuff, unlike wind it's predictable, and not to mention output can be far above even 10,000 megawatts). 

Unfortunately, ALL of these have a high capital cost (although they have very low operating costs). Thus, the various corporations that do power generation (at least out here in Alberta) will either have to actually start to looking at the long term and make these expenditures now to protect both themslves and our economy from massive spikes in the cost of a diminishing resource (HA! Why would they do that when we've made it so easy for them to make money off of our troubles?), or the government will have to develop a back bone and decide that a vital public utility is no place for a short sighted corporation to be playing, build them themselves, and then put them under the control of an arms length crown corporation where the people and the industry who rely on the services are adequately represented on the board (i.e. NOT Canada Post, or VIA, etc.). 

Or, a smart bunch of investors might just get the right idea..... nahhh 

My .02... ok well maybe .03


----------



## a_majoor

couchcommander said:
			
		

> or the government will have to develop a back bone and decide that a vital public utility is no place for a short sighted corporation to be playing, build them themselves, and then put them under the control of an arms length crown corporation where the people and the industry who rely on the services are adequately represented on the board (i.e. NOT Canada Post, or VIA, etc.).



Ontario Hydro (Now Hydro One) was and _is_ such a corporation, and because they didn't and don't have to face market dicipline we have over $30 billion dollars in "stranded" debt from the old utility. and we are facing a potential situation where Ontario may have to endure brownouts or rolling blackouts, while the government has set up Ontario for the greatest financial disaster in Canadian history by supressing the market price of electricity, but using tax dollars to pay market rates for imported American electricity (peak market rates, not "base" rates). While this means of fulfilling el;eectrical demand is certainly a short term triumph of market capitalism over psudo socialist pandering for votes, we can be rest assured that:

a. American utility companies will serve their home markets first in event of a demand spike, and
b. new generating capacity is being built to service the Ontario market.....in the United States.

Nuclear fusion energy is certainly the great white hope of the energy industry, but it has been stuck in "commercial fusion will be possible in 20 years" since at least the mid 1950's, so I won't be holding my breath. There should be a more concerted effort to experiment with many more fusion concepts such as "Migma", the Farnsworth fusor, Proton-Boron fusion, and so on since the current approach has been rather dissapointing, to say the least.


----------



## couchcommander

I don't condone subsidizing a service in the slightest, I am a firm believer that the true cost of something should be reflected in what we pay for it (including environmental costs), not to mention going heavily into debt with no repayment scheme.

However, I don't think I need to point out that neither the OEB nor HydroOne board's are such that "the people and the industry who rely on the services are adequately represented" (I see a bunch of laywers, career capitalists, and energy sector people).  

In the end, I think we could both agree that preferrably a mix of private/public investment in relatively low impact sources (tidal, gen 3 + nuclear, hydro, etc.) would be best (barring a dilithium chamber coming online anytime soon, of course )


----------



## tamouh

This is an interesting article on how to build 6,000 nuclear reactors by 2050:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/Nuclear2050.pdf

Interesting things (if proven true), China is planning to build 32 nuclear reactors.


----------



## dglad

DBA said:
			
		

> Geothermal isn't a solution either. The earth just doesn't generate enough heat and it takes so long for it to propagate through most rock formations. You can extract heat faster than it's being replenished from below but that's not really sustainable unless the heat reservoir is very large. A few places have underground water in close proximity to lava flows which means the heat is replenished at a very high rate compared to most rock formations but that's the exception.



Actually, the Earth has lots of internal heat, left over from its formation, plus given off by decaying radioactive elements like potassium, plus (a poorly understood amount) from tidal stretching of the planet by the Moon and Sun.  You could obtain ready access to this abundant geothermal energy, as long as you mined it in the ocean basins.  Oceanic crust is very thin and has high thermal conductivity compared to continental crust.  The abundance of hydrothermal vents and marine volcanic activity along spreading oceanic ridge zones shows the extent to which the earth's internal heat can and does vent, if given an opportunity.  Continental crust, which is relatively thick and rich in minerals that don't conduct heat as well, functions as a very effective blanket over the upper mantle--lots of heat trapped underneath, but far, far beyond our ability to access it in any reasonable way.

So if I was going to do this, I'd venture to set up something resembling an off-shore drilling platform and drop the infrastructure from it into the geothermally active zones of the ocean basins, use that heat to generate electricity, and then transmit it--probably by submarine cable--to where it was needed.  Of course, I'd also drive up the capital and operating costs by some ungodly factor as well, but there you go.


----------



## dglad

couchcommander said:
			
		

> I don't condone subsidizing a service in the slightest, I am a firm believer that the true cost of something should be reflected in what we pay for it (including environmental costs), not to mention going heavily into debt with no repayment scheme.



Does that mean you support a lower rate for northwestern Ontario, since the grid west of Wawa is effectively isolated from the rest of the province by a measly 300 MW bridge?  The northwest is currently in a state of oversupply, thanks to the closures of so many forest industry operations...but the Wawa "bridge" prevents the excess energy from being moved east and south towards the GTA.  In the meantime, most electricity in the northwest is produced at about 4 cents per kWh, which is much lower than the expensive power produced (mainly by nuclear reactors and coal) in the rest of the province.

Frankly, I'd like to see the residential user base subsidizing electricity more heavily, with lower rates for industrial and commerical users.    Cheaper electricity won't help a home-owner if they don't have a job....




			
				couchcommander said:
			
		

> In the end, I think we could both agree that preferrably a mix of private/public investment in relatively low impact sources (tidal, gen 3 + nuclear, hydro, etc.) would be best (barring a dilithium chamber coming online anytime soon, of course )



Agreed.  In fact, Ontario should be looking to buy more heavily from provinces like Manitoba, that can produce relatively cheap and clean hydroelectric power on a large scale.  The issue, again, is moving it to the south of Ontario, which would require a new tranmission infrastructure.

Finally, regarding the availability of oil globally...has anyone mentioned Thomas Gold, who theorized that hydrocarbons are not derived mainly from decayed biomass, as is generally held, but actually originate in the Earth's interior and "well-up" through time into the crust?  It's a, to say the least, controversial theory, that most petroleum geologists discount (it makes for interesting Google searches on "thomas gold oil", however).  It hasn't been disproven and, in fact, there is evidence from organic inclusions in igenous rocks and from results of deep experimental drilling to suggest that at least some hydrocarbons do occur in the upper mantle and lower crust.  Whether or not this can prove to be a significant source of oil and gas is highly problematic, but it does put an interesting spin on the issue of global oil supply i.e. maybe we should be looking for hydrocarbons somewhere other than the "traditional" territory of sedimentary basins such as the Middle East, west-central North America, North Sea, etc.


----------



## couchcommander

dglad said:
			
		

> Does that mean you support a lower rate for northwestern Ontario, since the grid west of Wawa is effectively isolated from the rest of the province by a measly 300 MW bridge?  The northwest is currently in a state of oversupply, thanks to the closures of so many forest industry operations...but the Wawa "bridge" prevents the excess energy from being moved east and south towards the GTA.  In the meantime, most electricity in the northwest is produced at about 4 cents per kWh, which is much lower than the expensive power produced (mainly by nuclear reactors and coal) in the rest of the province.
> 
> Frankly, I'd like to see the residential user base subsidizing electricity more heavily, with lower rates for industrial and commercial users.    Cheaper electricity won't help a home-owner if they don't have a job....



Ah no i don't think subsidizing is the way to go. Think of it this way, the higher rates being paid in the south compared to the north will encourage a few things a) reduced usage in the south, helping to deal with the shortage, and b) either i) encourage the relevant authorities to build new infrastructure, or if they are not willing to do that ii) encouraging industry to move to the west where electricity is more abundant/cheaper. Either way, it is helping deal with the issue (there is definitely a preferable option, but it will sort itself out in the end if nothing is done). 

The nice thing about capitalist markets, when they are not distorted, is that they are self balancing (and I'm no fan of capitalism, but I will definitely give it that). It's the same with home's subsidizing the cost of electricity for industry - all that does is bring down the cost of goods artificially, leading to more demand than the infrastructure can actually sustain. 

Once again, as we've both agreed, the solution to all of this is building new infrastructure, not just trying to artificially reduce costs.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

I came across this interesting link, apologies if it has already been posted.  

http://www.youtube.com/v/ry6w3mRm-FM

I especially liked the part where the guy says that the power from the car could run your home.


----------



## redleafjumper

I liked the part where he said you could put a new upper body on it to make it into a pick-up truck.  This looks like a good idea.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

I couldn't get a sense from the video how loud or quiet the thing was while it was running.  I would think it would be fairly quiet.  
At least until it got in an accident and blew up.   :


----------



## TCBF

"At least until it got in an accident and blew up. "

- What to spend my money on.... gas or "Blow-Up" insurance premiums...

Say, by your photo, it would appear you are promoting intemperance amongst the law enforcement community...


----------



## zipperhead_cop

TCBF said:
			
		

> Say, by your photo, it would appear you are promoting intemperance amongst the law enforcement community...



Maple syrup.  It's a Super Trooper thing.  You wouldn't understand.


----------



## GO!!!

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Maple syrup.  It's a Super Trooper thing.  You wouldn't understand.



I've heard that that movie is really more of a documentary disguised as a comedy - would you agree?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I've heard that that movie is really more of a documentary disguised as a comedy - would you agree?



Pretty much, but we haven't achieved that level of seriousness or professionalism yet.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

My first thought was how uncomfortable I would be sitting on top of that much Hydrogen.... then I realised that cars have even more Gas in them.... and they blow up all the time.  Why did that comfort me?

Well I know that we have a cheep way to make Hyrodgen,  http://www.zetatalk.com/energy/tengy14r.htm
I can see it now,  large coastal algae farms making hydrogen and every community center with a large hydrogen producing public park.  Just imagine complete independence from foreign sources of energy.   A dream... just a dream.  Now imagine we switch our farming base onto those engines... suddenly we have a stable food source. (Now to develop the technology top produce plastics/chemicals from renewable resources.... http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2003/EnergyandClimate/5.20.03%20Biomass/5.20.03%20Biomass.htm   and better http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040205/science.htm#1   Humm,  maybe when peak oil comes,  we'll be just fine.   (Although switching now would save tonnes of money and health problems)


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Save your kum-bay-ahs for now.  Do some looking and see who holds the pattents for the new tech.  
Ding.  Big oil.  
We won't see these things until all of the cheap, easy to process oil is out of the ground and the oil companies have found a way to ease out of the industry and diversify their money into other areas.  The tech has existed for something like 20 years, it has just been shelved by and large.
They have us by the short stubbies.  That's why when the hippies started crying about "No Blood For Oil" in Iraq, my response was always "why"?  Cheap oil helps all of us, and no (affordable) alternative is going to show up any time soon.  Waxing Sadam and his pack of arseholes was a bonus side trip.
Standing by for lefty salvo... :warstory:


----------



## rmacqueen

If you want to read an interesting book on the subject have a look at THE BOTTOMLESS WELL
The Twilight Of Fuel, The Virtue Of Waste, And Why We Will Never Run Out Of Energy by Peter Huber and Mark P. Mills.  In it they point out how historically shortages of one kind have always led to new inventions to overcome the problem and some of the new forms of energy scientists are working on.

One concern I have with the idea of hydrogen is the exhaust.  Sure, it is nothing more than water but what affect would billions of cars worldwide creating water have on the atmosphere?  Could we be creating a new kind of greenhouse "gas"?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> One concern I have with the idea of hydrogen is the exhaust.  Sure, it is nothing more than water but what affect would billions of cars worldwide creating water have on the atmosphere?  Could we be creating a new kind of greenhouse "gas"?



I have heard of that sort of gas.  I think it was called "vapour" and I have heard (probably just conspiracy theory, mind you) that it can lead to a thing called "clouds".  I read a paper in a science journal that said that "clouds" when subjected to the right atmospheric pressure can produce a by-product called "rain" that there is no known way to stop.  
Imagine the streets covered in auto fuel.  The potential for death is unimaginable.  
 :dontpanic: (I know, I'm being a dick.  But it is meant in fun )


----------



## rmacqueen

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I have heard of that sort of gas.  I think it was called "vapour" and I have heard (probably just conspiracy theory, mind you) that it can lead to a thing called "clouds".  I read a paper in a science journal that said that "clouds" when subjected to the right atmospheric pressure can produce a by-product called "rain" that there is no known way to stop.
> Imagine the streets covered in auto fuel.  The potential for death is unimaginable.
> :dontpanic: (I know, I'm being a dick.  But it is meant in fun )



Awe, you hurt my feelings  :crybaby:

Actually, though, an excess of vapour creating clouds could trap heat especially if global warming is, in fact, a natural phenomenon and the world continues to warm without the aid of pollution


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Well it is a valid point,  little water droplets from our current cars are responsible for lots of the ice on the road - especially where cars stop and then go again. (Intersections) Now, as for "Big Oil"  there is one group that can in the intrest of public good scrap existing patents,  change the laws/tax structures and directly invest into infrastructure... this group can force big oil to do anything if it has the will to do so.  Who is this group? That would be us.... or more accurately our elected officials.  If enough people demanded it we could do it... (for 5 minutes before America invades us for being commie pinkos) But the point is we could do exactly what Brazil did with its ethanol solution.  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/04/60minutes/main1588659.shtml

Remember 30 cent a liter gas?  Well.... we could do it.  Imagine the economic stability of having independent energy source?  Not to mention the environmental bonuses think of the price stability and national pride.  We'd only need to trade for what we want,  not what we need.    (I swear I'm not just a tree hugging hippy,  there are sound economic reasons to switch to alternative energy)


----------



## a_majoor

Zell, there are also sound economic reasons that Brazil no longer attempts to  be energy self sufficient with ethanol (something about using five units of energy for every four units of energy contained in the ethanol), and very sound economic reasons that a "made in Canada" price strategy would only benefit organized crime (since the rest of us would be on some sort of rationing plan).

The short answer is that no one will work for a loss unless there is a greater opportunity cost for NOT doing so (i.e. Hugo Chavez sells oil domestically below cost because he needs to keep the mob quiet in Venezuela), so oil companies will slowly or quickly pack up and leave, resulting in the odd situation of Canadians having an oil shortage despite sitting on trillions of barrels of bitumen in Alberta. Not only would companies be hurt, but check your mutual funds; or don't you want to see the maximum rate of return for your own investments?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Zell, there are also sound economic reasons that Brazil no longer attempts to  be energy self sufficient with ethanol (something about using five units of energy for every four units of energy contained in the ethanol), and very sound economic reasons that a "made in Canada" price strategy would only benefit organized crime (since the rest of us would be on some sort of rationing plan).
> 
> The short answer is that no one will work for a loss unless there is a greater opportunity cost for NOT doing so (i.e. Hugo Chavez sells oil domestically below cost because he needs to keep the mob quiet in Venezuela), so oil companies will slowly or quickly pack up and leave, resulting in the odd situation of Canadians having an oil shortage despite sitting on trillions of barrels of bitumen in Alberta. Not only would companies be hurt, but check your mutual funds; or don't you want to see the maximum rate of return for your own investments?



I had no idea that Brazil was moving away from the ethanol plan.  I thought that it was an realistic energy source. (Basically solar energy in chemical form thanks to our little friends the plants) The next time this topic comes up I would like to be better informed.  Where did you read that "  Brazil no longer attempts to  be energy self sufficient with ethanol (something about using five units of energy for every four units of energy contained in the ethanol)"  I ask because I get conflicting data whenever I read up on this, almost as though anyone with a tendentious agenda could come to any conclusion that they want.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/energy/ethanol.html has near the bottom of the article an example of this.
"A Cornell University study that appeared in the journal Natural Resources Research in July 2005 found that producing ethanol from plants such as corn, sunflowers and soybeans uses more energy than the fuel generates. 

In terms of energy output compared with the amount of energy required to produce ethanol, the study found: 

Corn requires 29 per cent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. 
Switch grass requires 45 per cent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. 
Wood biomass requires 57 per cent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. 

Critics of the Cornell study argue that the researchers used outdated data to come to their conclusions. One of the researchers — Prof. David Piementel — had looked at ethanol's energy efficiency in the past and concluded it wasn't worth the effort. However, there's also a long list of studies that have found that the production of ethanol results in a net gain in energy — between 34 and 75 per cent. "


http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817    <-- The Wall Street Journal, 16 January 2006 Has the best overview I've seen

And I have to agree with you 100%.  If we choke off free market forces and remove the incentives it would destroy the economic infrastructure that delivers goods at a somewhat reasonable price and somewhat efficiently. It would lead to an increase in the underground economy and of course an increase in organised crime.  I'm not someone who advocates central planning,  however I do see a role for a little long term thinking.  CEOs are only looking at the next dividend they can declare for their bosses,  the shareholders.  Government can take the lead and help to encourage the economy to develop along certain lines.  Tax breaks,  business grants, land grants and so forth to encourage desirable  progress.

I still say Canada could become energy independent.  If we were to simply build a few more refineries up here, (a few land grants, secured business loans and a road or two and we could) it would create jobs and increase our market stability. Insted up pumping it down south to get refined then shipped back up here.  But I think we should focus on long term solutions,  things that can sustain us not for 100 years, but for the next 10,000.  I'm sure we'll develop newer better technology that will create new energy sources,  but when dealing with the wealth and prosparity of my country... I'd perfer to ensure food will be there insted of hoping some wonder technology will suddenly replace the depleating resource.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> CEOs are only looking at the next dividend they can declare for their bosses,  the shareholders.  Government can take the lead and help to encourage the economy to develop along certain lines.  Tax breaks,  business grants, land grants and so forth to encourage desirable  progress.



I am no economics guy, but it strikes me that most companies have been better at planning and implementing than the government is.  Companies come up with plans, and actually stick to them.


----------



## rmacqueen

The various levels of government in this country also seem to work against each other.  Case in point, Dolton McGuinty's push to conserve electricity in Ontario.  

While he is trying to convince everyone to use less electricity the reality is that it is the cleanest form of energy we currently have.  So, that being the case, to be environmentally friendly we should be heating our homes with electricity yet the provincial government is telling us not to.

At the same time, the alternative is usually natural gas which emits greenhouse gases and has rapidly dwindling reserves.  Some estimates say that we will run out of natural gas in 20 years.  And the Federal government wants us to cut down on it's use.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/business/05cnd-oil.html?ex=1157601600&en=e30fa890ddd4fe84&ei=5087%0A

By JOHN HOLUSHA
Published: September 5, 2006
What could be a major discovery of domestic oil in the Gulf of Mexico was announced today by a trio of companies led by Chevron Corporation.

 The discovery, in the deepest water yet explored in the Gulf, could be the biggest domestic oil field since the northern Alaska field opened a generation ago. 

The news pushed the price of crude oil to a five-month low of $68.38 a barrel in midday trading, although tensions in the Middle East and the threat from hurricanes remained as concerns for traders. 

The new field’s location near the coast of the United States makes it particularly attractive, said J. Larry Nichols, the chairman of Devon Energy Corporation of Oklahoma City, which holds a 25 percent interest in the find. The discovery “could not have happened in a better place,” he said in a news conference.

The prospective yield of the area, called the lower Tertiary, could approach six billion barrels of oil, Devon said. The other owner, with a 25 percent interest, is Statoil of Norway. Chevron owns 50 percent.

Statoil said the test results were “very encouraging and may indicate a significant discovery.” It said the company and its partners plan to drill another well in the area next year to try to determine the extent of the field.

Chevron said the well, known as Jack #2, and located 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, produced a “sustained flow rate of more than 6,000 barrels of crude oil per day” in a production test. The company said it found the oil producing formation about 20,000 feet below the bottom of the Gulf, with the well drilled to a total depth of 28,175 feet.

“More than half a dozen world records for test equipment pressure, depth and duration in deep water were set during the Jack well test,” Chevron said.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Chevron said the well, known as Jack #2, and located 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, produced a “sustained flow rate of more than 6,000 barrels of crude oil per day” in a production test. The company said it found the oil producing formation about 20,000 feet below the bottom of the Gulf, with the well drilled to a total depth of 28,175 feet.



That is freakin amazing.  When I read stuff like that, it really makes me wonder how oil is actually formed.  I mean- 5 miles deep to sounds a bit deep, even for hundreds of millions of years of plankton, algae and plants building up.  Stories like this are making me question a "biological" only origin for petroleum products.  Does this mean that hydrocarbons may be way more plentiful than we ever suspected?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

...or does the earth start to crumble beneath us as we suck out its core?


----------



## TCBF

"Stories like this are making me question a "biological" only origin for petroleum products.  Does this mean that hydrocarbons may be way more plentiful than we ever suspected?"

- Could the earth be producing 'deep oil' as fast as we use up the surface stuff, you mean?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Chevron said the well, known as Jack #2, and located 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, produced a “sustained flow rate of more than 6,000 barrels of crude oil per day” in a production test. The company said it found the oil producing formation about 20,000 feet below the bottom of the Gulf, with the well drilled to a total depth of 28,175 feet.



Clearly, it is located on a native sacred burial ground, and should be immediately surrendered to the people from whom it was stolen from.   :

In other oil news, has anyone heard much about this Iranian oil bourse?  Got a hold of these two articles:

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_16543.shtml

http://www.321gold.com/editorials/petrov/petrov011706.html

I have no idea as to the veracity of the sources, and I also know diddly about economics, so hopefully one of the bigger brains will be able to ferret out what the implications of Iran being a major oil player will be.  Any chance all the sabre rattling bullshit the last few months out of Iran was a strange sort of advertising gimmick?  "We can destroy you all, or you can buy our oil at favourable rates.  Your choice..."   ???


----------



## TCBF

Who is funding their nuke program?  China?


----------



## a_majoor

I recall there was a big thing about the abiological origin of oil and natural gas a few years ago, but until I read that post, Bruce, test wells attempting to prove the theory have always come up dry. This dosn't mean there are not true believers: http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

Zell, the data for ethanol is ferociously manipulated by both sides in order to score points. Since the recent ethanol plant opened in Ontario cast about $100 million to build, has a garunteed market due to government fiat (regulatory requirments to blend all gasoline sold in Ontario with ethanol) and of course never ending subsidies, you can see what the stakes actually are for the winners. 

Being a big fan of CSI, I will provide proof by inference: if ethanol was "all that", then it would have been on the market a long time ago, and without any government subsidies. Since we know this is not true, we can infer that the figures demonstrating ethanol consumes more energy to produce than the end user gets by burning it, thus confirming the Cornell University study.


----------



## clasper

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That is freakin amazing.  When I read stuff like that, it really makes me wonder how oil is actually formed.  I mean- 5 miles deep to sounds a bit deep, even for hundreds of millions of years of plankton, algae and plants building up.  Stories like this are making me question a "biological" only origin for petroleum products.  Does this mean that hydrocarbons may be way more plentiful than we ever suspected?


Actually the "Lower Tertiary" as the article calls it is only about 60 million years old.  If you divide 20,000ft of sedimentary rock by 60,000,000 years, you end up with about 0.1mm accumulation per year.  If you think about how long it takes to accumulate 0.1mm of dust on your shelves, it suddenly doesn't seem very odd for several miles of sedimentary rock to accumulate over geological time (which is _very very_ long).

If this discovery is as large as Prudhoe Bay, it's going to be very interesting to see how they develop the field.  When I was working in Prudhoe (about 20 years after development started), there were about 5000 people working there at any one time, and thousands of wells.  The challenges of conducting a similar operation in  deep water offshore are tremendous.


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting look at another alternative technology for converting coal to liquid fuel. The comments section is good as well, and I include one which pretty much sums up why we are not seeing liquid coal, ethanol, bio-diesel or other magic solutions just yet:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2006/09/proven-way-to-lessen-dependence-on.html



> A Proven Way to Lessen Dependence on Foreign Oil
> This Article was originally published by the American Thinker
> 
> Until recently, the plan (such as it is) for reducing America (and the world’s) dependence on oil from foreign sources, mainly in the Middle East, has been to find more sources of domestic oil and oil from friendlier, non-OPEC countries. This hasn’t been a terrible strategy in theory, but the political left has hampered this effort by refusing to allow drilling in such places as ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico. But the number of undiscovered or untapped oil resources close to home does not appear to be not as abundant as we would hope.
> 
> America still remains the third largest producer of oil in the world behind Saudi Arabia and Russia, but its thirst for oil cannot be quenched by domestic supplies alone. America now imports more oil from Canada than from any other country, but that still is not enough.
> But all is not gloomy. In fact, a technology was developed in the 1930’s – by the Nazis – to produce oil from coal. Coal is one of the most abundant fossil fuels in the world and can be mined relatively easily. Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Montana have huge reserves of coal.
> 
> And now, the governor of Montana wants to take that old technology and use it in America to produce oil for less cost and from domestic sources. “Gov. Brian Schweitzer believes Montana could produce oil and other petroleum products from the millions of tons of coal reserves it owns in southeastern Montana.”
> 
> Montana has 2.4 billion tons of coal, which could produce mass quantities of oil for years to come. The cost is relatively reasonable too, about $30-$35 per barrel of oil from coal. That’s a lot more reasonable than $70 from Saudi Arabia, especially when it probably only costs them $5 to produce, leaving a healthy profit to donate to extremists around the world.
> 
> But get this, ”[t]he coal-conversion process produces no air pollution, uses no water and creates electricity as a byproduct. The petroleum fuels produced could be shipped out of state by pipeline.” (_interpolation: the F-T process, or some variation of it requires coal to be converted to gas, then reacted over catalysts to produce liquid fuel. A "water shift" reaction is often needed to convert the methane from coal gas into Carbon Monoxide and Hydrogen. This is energy intensive, and does require water, especially if you are making oil in industrial quantities_)
> What are we waiting for? I’m not one for conspiracy theories, by any means, but if governments in Canada, the US, and Europe don’t jump all over this then I’ll start believing in a huge conspiracy with Exxon Mobile, BP, Shell, and every other company that’s been milking us on high gas prices for the last few years.
> 
> Of course, there will be detractors and opposition to this new source of energy. Global Warming Theorists will tell us that the coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels and that we need other cleaner options, or that coal mining will destroy environmentally sensitive areas, yadda yadda yadda. But the fact remains that alternatives to oil are not available at this point in history. While it would be great if we could all use fuel cells, wind and solar power, and bio-diesel, the feasibility of using such energy sources is not great in quantities sufficient to make a big difference. An option now exists that is comparable or cleaner to traditional oil refining that can free us from foreign sources, and that’s a start.
> 
> So how does coal liquefaction work? “What you do first is the coal gasification process,” Gov. Schweitzer said. “You crush the coal up, heat it and get your gas. From there, it’s a chemical reaction. You have a big tank and use either cobalt or iron as the catalyst. What you get out of that is the building blocks to make fuel. You get carbon monoxide and you get hydrogen. With those two, you can make any fuel you would like to make – diesel, gasoline, heating fuel, plastics, fertilizer or pure hydrogen.”
> 
> Its not just Schewitzer who finds this interesting, the Chinese do as well. China plans to launch a coal-liquefaction program in the next 5 years. “Generally speaking, 2 tons of coal can turn out 1 ton of oil,” explained Shu Geping, a senior engineer of the China Coal Research Institute.
> 
> In South Africa, they’re already making it work: “South Africa, whose structure of energy reserves is similar to China’s, has established three coal liquefaction manufacturers with total investment of US $7 billion in 1950. In 1999, these manufacturers registered a profit before tax of US $610 million."
> 
> So we have a proven technology that works and will save us money. The refining process does not pollute, and we can eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern energy. What are we waiting for? Such possibilities should result in a national effort to change the way we produce energy. This is essential for our future security and the well being of future generations. Not only that, but not having to buy oil from corrupt regimes in the Middle East would eliminate huge amounts of money that are funneled to terrorists each year.
> 
> The benefits would extend to South America as well, the Chavez government would have less money to sustain its corrupt political machine and might be replaced by a pro-American government which believes in free trade and integrity in government. Russia and China would have less need to appease the tyrannical regimes in the Persian Gulf for the sake of their own energy security; they could start their own coal liquefaction programs since both nations have huge reserves of coal. Germany, Britain, France, and other European nations would no longer be tied to Arab oil either, and the Japanese could buy from Russia, America, Canada, Britain, Germany, or other coal-rich country.
> 
> The potential for a new world exists with this old technology. Whether that world would ultimately be safer than our current reality is unforeseeable, but I think it’s worth a try. The status quo of energy dependence on OPEC and corrupt Gulf States does not have to continue. There is a way out, with old but proven technology.
> 
> Ronald Reagan once said, “I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”
> 
> Coal liquefaction might help make terrorism and Islamic-fascism obsolete by choking the manner in which they are fed. What better way to promote a new Middle East?
> posted by The Strong Conservative @ Monday, September 04, 2006



10 Comments:


> At 10:54 PM, Otodo said…
> 
> My Understanding is that the dilemma faced by corporations is that - sure its profitable at $30-$35 a barrel but then the Saudis can pump oil at $10 a barrels for years, and thus bankrupt competition.
> 
> The Saudis were pumping at prices in the $10-$20 range through much of the nineties - though it was beginning to bankrupt them - not the Saudi oil production company but the corrupt, inefficient govt. They have a large, useless govt teat dependent population and are otherwise largely revenueless (not as well invested relatively as the Kuwaitis).
> 
> These structural problems tend to point towards a $20-$25 long range target as comfortable and most other oil producers would probably fall in that range.
> 
> Montana coal gassification producer would be s$%& out of luck - no way they could compete.
> 
> The South Africans (and Nazis before them) made it work as they were disconnected from the world market and subsidized the endeavor - not allowed to fail economically.
> 
> Would the US Govt be ready to subsidize the cost differential once a massive coal gassification supply caused a price collapse? Out of what taxes? Would Americans swallow this?
> 
> I think the only hope is to get production costs down to $10 a barrel then the US Govt could feasibly say - yes, we will subsidize the production cost for the next 30 years if prices sag below, say, $12 a barrel. The US could afford that.
> 
> New oil shale and tar sand technology, and polymerization technology (only a partial solution but significant - 20% of current US consumption)) could reach the above production cost goal. Coal gasification looks a stretch currently.
> 
> A Conspiracy? I'll be glad to build a plant producing oil for $35 a barrel - will you promise to buy the oil for $38 a barrel for 30 years even if the global price lowers to $15?


----------



## a_majoor

Some more about ethanol

http://www.damianpenny.com/



> *The ethanol scam*
> Once again an important piece is buried in the Globe and Mail's business section (full text not officially online).
> 
> How do you convince consumers that what's bad for you is good for you? You feed them a load of bull, and hope they don't catch on. So it is with the Ontario and federal governments, which are spinning their pro-ethanol campaigns as consumer-friendly solutions to our energy and environmental problems.
> Ontario's new ethanol pamphlet is a masterpiece of creative propaganda. The pamphlet is to be distributed at gas stations between now and January, when gas containing 5-per-cent ethanol -- that's the law -- arrives at a pump near you...
> 
> ...Nowhere does it say your car's fuel economy will suffer because of the ethanol content. And guess what? Ethanol is generally not cheaper than gas  -- sometimes it's far more expensive, as it was in the summer -- so the drop in fuel economy won't be offset by lower prices at the pump...
> 
> In a cover story called The Ethanol Myth, the October issue of Consumer Reports magazine provides a clue. Its editors tested two Chevy Tahoe SUVS, one which ran on gas, the other with a blend of 85-per-cent ethanol and 15-per-cent gas (known as E85). The average fuel economy of the E85 Tahoe was 27 per cent less than that of the gas-powered version. The driving range fell from 440 miles to about 300 miles. Acceleration also suffered. Science provides the answer. The energy content of ethanol is far less than that of gas, so you have to burn more ethanol to go the same distance...
> 
> ...While there is no doubt that burning ethanol emits less smog-causing pollutants and greenhouse gases than burning gasoline, several respected scientists have shown that making ethanol is an energy-intensive process that may actually increase emissions if you measure the energy inputs from the corn field (fertilizer, diesel fuel to power tractors and the like) to the retailer...
> 
> Thanks to Consumer Reports and other publications, Americans are starting to get the message that ethanol is a dead loss for consumers, a disaster for taxpayers because of the endless billions in subsidies and, at best, of marginal benefit to the environment. Yet in Canada, you will not find a politician who will even discuss ethanol's shortcomings...


----------



## zipperhead_cop

> Yet in Canada, you will not find a politician who will even discuss ethanol's shortcomings...



Because if they speak it out loud, they will lose their subscription to The Kyoto Herald and have to give back the free sweater vest.   :


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

All of these guys stand to benefit financially from _creating the perception_ that there's an increasing scarcity of oil ... 



> Australian Broadcasting Corporation
> TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
> 
> LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1741419.htm
> 
> Broadcast: 14/09/2006
> 
> *Oil supply conjecture grips industry*
> Reporter: Mike Sexton
> 
> 
> KERRY O'BRIEN: Motorists around the country are enjoying welcome relief from high petrol prices with the cost of fuel easing in the past week - still high, though. The price fall follows a drop in world prices of almost $10 a barrel after the announcement of a massive oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico. While it is a welcome impact on the hip pocket, the great fear, of course, is that in the end it just postpones the inevitable for a finite resource. *The theory of peak oil suggests that the planet already has used more than half the reserves and so in the near future demand for oil will inevitably outstrip supply. That Doomsday view was challenged this week by the Australian boss of Exxonmobil who believes there's been an over reaction to high oil prices and that there are still enormous reserves of oil and gas.* But the record high prices paid for oil this year have created an urgency within the industry, as companies big and small look to cash in. Mike Sexton reports.
> 
> MIKE SEXTON: Each day more than 80 million barrels of oil goes up in smoke. It's estimated 1 trillion barrels of oil have been burnt since the first cars hit the road, leaving many to ask just how much is left.
> 
> DON HENRY, AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: There's very good science out there that says particularly for oil we may be at peak or we may be coming up to it.
> 
> MIKE SEXTON: The peak oil theory suggests at one point the world will have used more than half the oil and future demand will outstrip supply, leading to dramatic changes to our society. But big oil isn't buying it.
> 
> MARK NOLAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, EXXONMOBIL AUSTRALIA: *These peak oil theories have been around since the 1920s, particularly in times of high oil prices. Our view is that the world has abundant energy resources and that there is no peak oil theory of value.*
> 
> MIKE SEXTON: Exxonmobil Australian's CEO Mark Nolan is one of those who dismisses the theory. Speaking at the Asia Pacific oil and gas conference in Adelaide this week, he argued when it comes to energy needs, oil will be the main game for a long time to come.
> 
> MARK NOLAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, EXXONMOBIL AUSTRALIA: *According to the US geological survey, the Earth currently has more than 3 trillion barrels of conventional recoverable resources and so far we've produced 1 trillion of that. Conservative estimates of heavy oil and shale oil push the total recoverable resource to over 4 trillion barrels.*
> 
> MIKE SEXTON: But Don Henry from the Australian Conservation Foundation is deeply cynical about the comments. He believes running out of oil is a secondary issue when compared to the damage greenhouse gas emissions are doing to the environment.
> 
> DON HENRY, AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: Exxonmobil is a global vandal. They've invested millions of dollars in to trying to confuse the public and muddy the science on climate change. They're a big global greenhouse polluter and they have ruthlessly pursued short-term profits at the expense of the planet.
> 
> MIKE SEXTON: But the world's addiction to oil shows no sign of waning. US Government energy statistics forecast consumption will increase by almost 50 per cent in the next 25 years. That, combined with recent record high prices, means the rush for black gold has never been stronger, including Australia where 40 per cent of oil is imported.
> 
> TINO GUGLIELMO, STUART PETROLEUM: The industry is awash with a lot of money, a lot of cash flow.
> 
> MIKE SEXTON: Tino Guglielmo runs Stuart Petroleum, a tiny company with holdings in the Cooper Basin that straddles the South Australia/Queensland border. It on sells most of the 750,000 barrels of oil it produces to the multinational Santos. When Stuart Petroleum began in 1999, oil was under US$20 a barrel. At its height this year it was selling for almost 80.
> 
> TINO GUGLIELMO: This is a great time to be a producer, particularly a pure producer of crude oil, which is ourselves. It has actually had a bit of a down side so there is a lot of competition for materials and equipment and, of course, people.
> 
> MIKE SEXTON: Like everyone else in this industry, Stuart Petroleum is desperately looking for the next barrel.
> 
> TINO GUGLIELNMO: There's been a lot of competition for those deals on acreage that has been thought to be prospective and some of the prices that have been paid for some of that acreage is frankly astounding.
> 
> MIKE SEXTON: But making money in oil and gas means more than just fining a reserve and drilling. For two decades the oil industry had stable prices and so to lift profit margins, an estimated 2 million people worldwide were retrenched. Now staff are in demand. How competitive is it to get the right people at the moment?
> 
> EVE SPRUNT, SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS: It's very much a technical experts market at this time. You hear some rather amazing stories about the types of job offers people are getting around the world.
> 
> MIKE SEXTON: Many areas being pursued in Australia are not new, but rather reserves that were previously unexploited because they were too small or too hard to reach. New technology means in many cases the oil and gas can now be accessed. While in others, the oil was always there and it is now worth spending the money to get it out.
> 
> JOHN DORAN, ROC OIL: We've just brought a field down in Western Australia, which I can guarantee would never have been brought on if the oil price hadn't risen.
> 
> MIKE SEXTON: John Doran is CEO of the Sydney based Roc Oil company, which has holdings on four continents worth almost $1 billion. He believes that Australia remains under explored because it only has 1 per cent of the world's known reserves.
> 
> JOHN DORAN, ROC OIL: With all of this high-cost oil, there is more impetus to explore. The trouble is the world is available now, so you don't have to just explore in Australia.
> 
> MIKE SEXTON: Last month the Federal Government injected $135 million into data collection to assist companies find oil fields. This money will probably help with so called frontier projects, mostly under sea beds that are too expensive for the small players.
> 
> TINO GUGLIELMO, STUART PETROLEUM: The government is promoting access and information in frontier areas and offshore, either in unexplored or under explored basins and potentially in deep water. These are areas that are not really - because
> of our size, they can't really be explored by a company, such as Stuart.
> 
> MIKE SEXTON: At the moment, there is relief at the bowser as oil prices drop on the back of a discovery this month in the Gulf of Mexico. There, US company Chevron claims to have a new field capable of producing 15 billion barrels of oil. While the price has eased, no-one can forecast the future in these volatile times.
> 
> JOHN DORAN, ROC OIL: Next week I don't know what the oil price is so when you make planning decisions three years out, you have to have a lot of testosterone or whatever to say, "OK, I'm going to go for the high oil price." Most of us would be more conservative view with the oil price.
> 
> KERRY O'BRIEN: It is getting increasingly unpredictable in the Gulf of Mexico, too. Mike Sexton with that report.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Hummm Fuel Cells eh?  

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/09/22/army-takes-delivery-of-equinox-fcv-as-project-driveway-kicks-off/

PRESS RELEASE:
U.S. Army Takes Delivery of GM's Latest Fuel Cell Vehicle Army First Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell Vehicle Customer

Washington, D. C. - The U.S. Army became the first customer of General Motors Corp.'s latest fuel cell technology today as the automaker deployed the first vehicle of its next generation Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell vehicle fleet.

U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a champion of fuel cell technology, and Larry Burns, GM vice president of research and development and strategic planning, gave the Equinox Fuel Cell keys to Army Maj. Gen. Roger A. Nadeau, commander of the U.S. Army's Research, Development and Engineering Command.

On Sunday, GM announced "Project Driveway", a comprehensive market test to place 100 Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell vehicles with consumers in three key U.S. regions: California, Washington, D.C. and the New York City metropolitan area. A variety of drivers, including individual consumers, will begin driving the vehicles in the fall of 2007. The fuel cell vehicle the Army received today is a vehicle which will enable a direct performance assessment of GM's latest generation of fuel cell technology.

"The delivery of this vehicle today illustrates what is possible with the powerful collaboration of industry and government," said Sen. Levin. "The Army's involvement with this important program demonstrates the military's commitment to develop and test alternatives that will offer tremendous potential to reduce our dependence on oil on the battlefield. This vehicle also highlights the important work occurring in our domestic auto industry to move toward fuel cell vehicles, and the Army provides an important test bed for this technology."

The Army's fuel cell vehicle will be used for non-tactical transportation purposes, primarily on military bases in Virginia and California. It is powered by GM's fourth generation fuel cell propulsion system, offering significantly improved performance, refinement and range as compared with earlier generation vehicles. The Army's vehicle is a four-passenger crossover vehicle, with 186 miles of petroleum-free operating range. Safety features include driver and passenger airbags, anti-lock braking system (ABS) and OnStar.

"GM is demonstrating its commitment to hydrogen fuel cells as the answer for taking the automobile out of the environmental debate and reducing our dependence on petroleum," Burns said. "The U.S. Army is an important partner in validating GM's fuel cell technology in real use operation. Delivery of this vehicle is an important milestone in the Equinox Fuel Cell vehicle program announced last week, and in our ongoing relationship with the U.S. Army."

GM has a history of working with the Army on demonstrating and evaluating fuel cell vehicles. In April 2005, the U.S. Army took delivery of the Chevrolet Silverado Fuel Cell truck, the world's first compressed-hydrogen fuel cell pickup, for demonstration and evaluation in different climates and locations around the U.S. In addition to using the Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell vehicle to evaluate the performance of GM's latest fuel cell technology, the military will continue to obtain first-hand experience with the operation, maintenance and logistics of fuel cell vehicles. This vehicle is an engineered prototype of the 100 vehicle Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell market test fleet that GM will deploy to various customers beginning in the fall of 2007.

The U.S. Army has one of the largest fleets of vehicles in the world and GM produces more than half of the non-tactical U.S. military vehicles purchased each year. Improving fuel economy and reducing the logistics of the fuel supply chain could save millions of dollars.

General Motors Corporation

General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM), the world's largest automaker, has been the global industry sales leader for 75 years. Founded in 1908, GM today employs about 327,000 people around the world. With global headquarters in Detroit , GM manufactures its cars and trucks in 33 countries. In 2005, 9.17 million GM cars and trucks were sold globally under the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, HUMMER, Opel, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn and Vauxhall. GM operates one of the world's leading finance companies, GMAC Financial Services, which offers automotive, residential and commercial financing and insurance. GM's OnStar subsidiary is the industry leader in vehicle safety, security and information services. More information on GM can be found at www.gm.com.

U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM)

The U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command gets technology out of the laboratories and puts it into the hands of warfighters as quickly as possible. RDECOM manages eight laboratories and research, development and engineering centers, plus the U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity, System of Systems Integration, international technology centers, and capability and technology integrated process teams. RDECOM maintains liaisons to the field, hundreds of international agreements, and engineer and scientist exchange programs. RDECOM has more than 17,000 military, civilian and direct contractor personnel, a multi-billion dollar annual budget and is responsible for 75 percent of the Army's science and technology objectives. RDECOM provides direct support of the technical base to Future Combat Systems and Future Force, ensuring the nation has the protection it needs for the 21st century and beyond. More information on the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command can be found at www.rdecom.army.mil.


----------



## regulator12

Oil is not the problem...major corporations make big coin off of oil and they are not stupid. I am sure that they have plans to release new energy's. such as using ethanol, or using hydrogen....but we wont see those in mass production until oil really starts to run out because these big companies will still make money....did you know that Brazil is the only country to be 100% self reliant. They do not need imported oil because over 90% of the country uses ethanol........Canada and the USA could do that easily, why don't we???Because the oil companies want to make there money....


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Well ethanol has good points for sure.   (It came up a while ago in this thread)  And Canada is already self-reliant.  We pull out of the ground around 4 times more oil than we consume.


----------



## DBA

regulator12 said:
			
		

> Oil is not the problem...major corporations make big coin off of oil and they are not stupid. I am sure that they have plans to release new energy's. such as using ethanol, or using hydrogen....but we wont see those in mass production until oil really starts to run out because these big companies will still make money....did you know that Brazil is the only country to be 100% self reliant. They do not need imported oil because over 90% of the country uses ethanol........Canada and the USA could do that easily, why don't we???Because the oil companies want to make there money....



From wikipedia on Ethanol fuel in Brazil, spot checked with other sources and it's fairly accurate. The last bit is a bit of a stretch tho. 

The ethanol program also led to widespread replacement of small farms and varied agriculture by vast seas of sugarcane monoculture. This led to a decrease in biodiversity and further shrinkage of the residual native forests (not only from deforestation but also through fires caused by the burning of adjoining fields). The replacement of food crops by the more lucrative sugarcane has also led to a sharp increase in food prices over the last decade.

Since sugarcane only requires hand labor at harvest time, this shift also created a large population of destitute migrant workers who can only find temporary employment as cane cutters (at about US$3 to 5 per day) for one or two months every year. This huge social problem has contributed to political unrest and violence in rural areas, which are now plagued by recurrent farm invasions, vandalism, armed confrontations, and assassinations.
----------------------------

Look at the wages and method of harvesting. That's not possible in the US and Canada even with migrant labor from Mexico and other Central and South American countires. It's just like China where cheap labor allows them to produce things for far below what we can. Where labor is cheap enough it's possible to produce ethanol price competitively to oil/gas and that's what they are doing, they also removed subsidies for ethanol production a long time ago. Up north even with major subsidies and forced usage it's still not price competitive with gas produced from oil.


----------



## 3rd Horseman

Ethanol still requires production energy to create itself, the reality is that for ever litre of ethanol produced it costs 3/4 s of a liter of fossil fuels. A 25% net gain is not worth it especially when you are using food to create a fuel. With the latest discovery off Mexico the US inventory of OIL rises to 50% more, that coupled with our tar sands we in North America have no scary oil issue for some 200 years to come. On another note on Ethanol when a civilization uses its food for fuel production we are on a slippery slope to doom.


----------



## a_majoor

This article suggests that a 100 mpg vehicle is within the current state of the art, but for the estimated $50-60,000 USD, you get a small vehicle, modest performance and little space. Picture on page two.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/3374271.html


----------



## a_majoor

Some more on alternative fuels, and why they are "alternative"

http://greentories.blogspot.com/2006/11/are-we-there-yet.html



> Monday, November 13, 2006
> *Are we there yet?*
> 
> Canada is getting on the ethanol and biodiesel bandwagon. But it's moving slowly, DENISE DEVEAU reports
> 
> Ian Cameron and Steve Gray, co-founders of Cameron's Coffee, started out with the best of intentions when they vowed to use only biodiesel fuel blends in their small fleet of company cars. But three years later, ask Mr. Cameron how it turned out and he says with regret, "We're not [using biodiesel] any more. We simply couldn't find enough places to get it."
> 
> Even when they tried to get a fuel tank installed at the company's plant in Port Perry, Ont., "we couldn't negotiate the distribution costs," he recalls. "What else could we do?"
> 
> Such supply problems are gradually being resolved as governments and advocacy groups push to add renewable fuels to gasoline.
> 
> One such group, E3 Fleet, is a consortium of fleet managers that works to promote greener alternatives in the transportation industry. The group's website (found at http://www.e3fleet.com) provides an interactive map to help members find nearby alternative fuel stations. Users simply type in their address and the kind of green fuel they're looking for, and the system shows where to find supply stations in their area.
> 
> What the map underscores, however, is the fact that in many parts of the country the supply of green fuels is spotty at best. Product distribution has been inconsistent, and incentives to support the infrastructure have been lacking. Driving market adoption while ensuring supply requires many players, from government and refineries to retailers and auto manufacturers.
> 
> The Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, among others, is laying the groundwork to raise awareness and lobby government to build a better infrastructure.
> 
> The federal government's Renewable Fuels Strategy also promises to kick-start the supply network. It targets an average of 5-per-cent renewable content (either ethanol or biodiesel) in Canadian gasoline and diesel fuel by 2010.
> 
> Flexible-fuel vehicles can run on gas that has up to 85-per-cent ethanol content, while a standard combustion engine cannot take any more than 10-per-cent ethanol.
> 
> Other countries offer incentives to boost the biofuels industry. Sweden, for example, reduced the registration costs and eliminated parking fees for flex fuel vehicles, reduced excise taxes on green fuels, and set mandates for green fuel requirements at pumping stations.
> 
> The demand for the flex-fuel option in cars is growing considerably in Canada, says Phil Petsinis, manager of corporate affairs at General Motors of Canada Ltd.
> 
> At least five manufacturers are offering it as an option, he says, and GM has 15 models in which the feature is either optional or standard. "It's seamless to the consumer because it's the internal electronics that make the adjustments. In the future I expect it will be standard on vehicles," he says.
> 
> Mr. Petsinis notes that Brazil has had a long-standing policy on ethanol use since the 1970s oil crisis, and the U.S. government is becoming equally supportive. "Half the entire fuel pool in Brazil is provided by ethanol. In the U.S., the government has implemented measures to provide funding support for the infrastructure changes needed to deliver E85 [a fuel blend with 85-per-cent ethanol]," he says.
> 
> Mr. Petsinis calls Canada's supply of E85 "quite dismal" but expects to see improvements as more consumers adopt the flex-fuel technology.
> 
> "It's all a question of economics and market access," agrees Kory Teneycke, executive director of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association. "The programs that are in place in other countries that have been very successful aren't in place here right now. Success involves government using a combination of carrots and sticks to encourage early adoption."
> 
> He doesn't think supply will be the problem. "The market will supply that which is necessary.  The question is will it be Canadian supply?" That depends on the return on investment for producing fuels here, he says.
> 
> The demand for biodiesel will not be driven by the consumer market; diesel cars represent less than one per cent of vehicles on Canadian roads. But diesel engines are common in the transportation and commercial sectors, and that's where biodiesel is gaining ground.
> 
> "Corporations using biodiesel tend to be stationary fleets such as public authorities like the [Toronto Transit Commission], where the vehicles can all fill up at the same place and stay within the same routes," Mr. Teneycke explains. "Long-haul fleets won't use it until supply is everywhere."
> 
> That's not to say industry is sitting back and waiting. One of the largest users of biodiesel fuels in the country is Terminal Systems Inc., a container terminal operator in Vancouver. It uses close to 6 million litres of diesel a year to run 300 engines in its vehicles and machinery. In the past year, TSI converted to a 20-per-cent biodiesel blend, says Ken Kristensen, assistant manager at TSI's Deltaport facility.
> 
> "We buy our own raw diesel and blend it ourselves with a soy-based biodiesel," Mr. Kristensen says. To encourage usage, TSI is also considering an on-site fuelling facility for trucks arriving at the terminals.
> 
> Unless a company has the volumes and buying power of a TSI, generalized availability of renewable fuel sources could take some time, says Dennis Rogoza of Rogoza Consulting Group, an environmental consultancy in Victoria. "Widespread distribution is a problem. It doesn't make economic sense to transport product thousands of kilometres. It's going to be tough unless all the oil companies do it."
> 
> So a strategic approach is needed to create economies of scale. "Companies need to generate the volumes to make it affordable," explains Mr. Rogoza. "The municipal governments in the Greater Vancouver Area, for example, were able to form a buying group to create the economies of scale needed to lower the overall price."
> 
> Such efforts will need government support, Mr. Rogoza adds. "[Mandates] could transform the market and turn modest usage levels to massive. Look at California. It just signed a law requiring 50-per-cent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. [They said] they could do it, so they made it law."
> 
> posted by Mike Shenher @ 10:20 AM



Ah yes, attempting to manipulate the market for endless showers of subsidies and grants for Biodiesel and ethanol.

Sorry people, but the *real* reason we don't use alternative fuels or electric cars is there is no current economic justification for them. Even if sensible alternative fuels can be produced (questionable in the case of ethanol, since it costs more in terms of energy to produce than you ever get out of it), Saudi Arabia can continue to pump oil for as low a $20/bbl; undercutting any possible competition.

Trying to wrestle with the market is futile, the invisible hand will get you every time.


----------



## rmacqueen

There is also the problem that taxpayer money is paying for a number ethanol plants but they are using US corn because it is subsidised.


----------



## a_majoor

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> There is also the problem that taxpayer money is paying for a number ethanol plants but they are using US corn because it is subsidised.



*BONUS!* Tax subsidies from *two different nations*. How cool is that for the ethanol promoters?  >

How cool is that for you and me?  :rage:


----------



## RoperAB

There is no shortage of oil except a man made myth. Then if you factor in coal to oil tech the world has more oil than what it knows what to do with.
The problem is most oil cost $15 a barrel to produce. Gulf region oil cost $5 a barrel. Its very risky to invest billions of dollars in non gulf region oil recovery because if you ever started to cut the dependence on gulf oil the OPEC producers could simple open its taps and flood the world markets with $5 a barrel oil until your bankrupt.


----------



## a_majoor

More demonstrations of why alternative energy is "alternative". If there was some sort of practical means of storing electrical energy generated in off peak periods and releasing it when needed, then this migh not be such a problem. Looking at the chart here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017/post-422007.html#msg422007 suggests a lot more bang for the buck comes from finding ways to reduce thermodynamic losses rather than finding new energy sources.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=7235a029-e0cb-479d-aeb6-ef19c4fc32f5



> *Windmills aren't the answer*
> 
> Colby Cosh
> National Post
> 
> Tuesday, November 21, 2006
> 
> EDMONTON - It's official: The glorious future of abundant free energy has been put on hold. In May, the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) announced that the province's grid could not safely accommodate more than 900 megawatts of wind-power generation, a target that will be met late next year. Proposals for 3,000 more MW of production have been thrown into indefinite limbo at an estimated cost to producers of $6-billion; meanwhile, the province is already spending $1-billion to strengthen the transmission system so that even the 900-MW cap can be reached. In Ontario, meanwhile, the grid operator warned late last month that 5,000 MW -- about one-fifth of the province's current peak consumption -- is probably the absolute technological limit. (A total of 1,280 MW of wind capacity is already in operation or being built.)
> 
> It is starting to look as though wind cannot meet more than a fraction of our energy demand even if other issues with the technology, like esthetics and wildlife impacts, are ignored. *The problem, as engineers skeptical of wind power have been yelping for decades, is that power usage and production constantly have to be balanced in an electrical grid. Adding too much unstable, unpredictable power to the system creates a risk of failure and cascading blackouts.* In fact, the EU is investigating the possible role of Germany's heavy wind-dependence in causing a Nov. 6 blackout that hit 10 million Europeans.
> 
> The depressing corollary is that even in reaching the modest limits now being laid down by the grid police, Alberta and Ontario are relying implicitly on the relative sluggishness of their neighbours in adopting wind technology, using interconnections with other provinces and states to off-load excess power and cover shortfalls. So the system operators' warnings aren't just a sign that wind has reached a dead end in their home provinces. They also mean that B.C., Saskatchewan and parts of the U.S. Northeast will never be able to get major wind projects off the ground if they are to continue to serve as an energy release-valve for their wind-harnessing neighbours.
> 
> The windustry has met the announcements with its usual optimism, pointing out that existing wind installations could be made to co-operate better with the grid if improved region-specific wind forecasting existed. But even assuming such a thing can be wished into existence, predictability is not the same thing as stability. *During low-wind, high-demand periods, a drop in output still must be made good by other power sources. Since a nuclear pile can't be switched on and off like a light bulb, Ontario's hydroelectric output is already taxed to the limit and Alberta doesn't have much hydro, guess what technology steps in to fill the void? That's right -- good old Stone Age hydrocarbon burning.*
> 
> This wouldn't be such a big deal if wind output were naturally synchronized with patterns of maximum power usage. But a report released last Wednesday by Energy Probe, Ontario's independent power think tank, confirms another longstanding taunt of the wind skeptics: Wind is often utterly out of sync with human activity.
> 
> Energy Probe's analysis of hour-to-hour capacity factors at Ontario wind farms shows output declining disconcertingly in the morning, just when we greedy energy hogs are getting out of bed, turning on appliances and lights, and going to work. On a month-to-month basis, data from this summer show wind output remaining flattest during the hottest periods. And the AESO has found that in Alberta's southern wind corridor, the turbines spin like crazy when the chinook is blowing and little electricity is needed; in the still air of serious cold snaps, when loads are high, the turbines grind stubbornly to a stop.
> 
> The overall result is that much of the theoretical environmental benefit from wind power cannot be realized, especially since the generators that must remain on standby to provide emergency "ramping" tend to produce more pollution per watt than round-the-clock coal and gas facilities.
> 
> But at least it's still economically free energy, right? Well, maybe. As an internationally observed rule of thumb, wind farms are expected to deliver, on average, 30% of their theoretical maximum power output. On the basis of partial data, Energy Probe expects the three major farms in its study to come in at 24%-27% over a full 12 months. And that's not even including the showpiece Windshare turbine at Toronto's CNE, which delivered a mean capacity factor of just 14.7% in its first 42 months of operation.
> 
> It must be a harrowing time for those who once thought the cool breeze could save us all from the coming ecocide. The expectations of wind advocates have already had to be minimized as they realize there is nothing inherently virtuous about their pet piece of tech. *Alas, like recycling fanatics, they are likely to end up praising wind power as a moral enterprise that "instills good habits" and signals "green consciousness," even if the honest cost-benefit analysis goes against them in the long run.*
> 
> colbycosh@gmail.com
> 
> © National Post 2006


----------



## dglad

It's unrealistic to think that wind power will ever provide more than a relatively small portion of production.  The Hydro One limit of 5000 MW in Ontario represents about 20% of current provincial demand and about 15% of near-term future demand, based on a recent forecast report from the Ontario Power Authority...I'd be very surprised if wind power EVER reached numbers that high.  Part of the reason is that about half of Ontario's major wind potential (according to the MNR Wind Atlas) is along the James and Hudson Bay coasts...a LONG way away from any transmission infrastructure whatsoever.  So the roughly 4-5000 MW available along those northern coasts won't be going into the grid any time soon, and may be better suited in providing electrical power to remote northern communities, who currently rely on expensive, unreliable and dirty diesel generation.  Most of the rest of the signficant wind potential is along the Great Lakes; however, large sections of Superior are tied up in parks (especially Pukaskwa National and Lake Superior Provincial), while much of Huron's shore is heavily invested with private lands.

More, it's undesirable to have too much reliance on a single type of generation.  It's best to have a diverse mix, that preferably represents an oversupply.  That way, if a nuclear plant, gas-fired plant or hydro-plant has to come off line, there are other sources to take up the slack.  If we develop, say, 2000 MW of wind generation capacity in Ontario, and then rely on 1000 MW of production at any given time, we have both enough of a buffer to smooth out instabilities and a source of short-term emergency supply.  However, we will still need substantial generation from nuclear (which can form your base supply, since it can't be "throttled"), as well as hydro and some fossil (probably natural gas, but relatively clean coal technologies are available as well).  Another interesting possiblity is biomass, including municipal, forest and agricultural waste, and peat.  There are enormous peat bogs in northern Ontario and, interestingly enough, early research suggests that harvesting a peat bog and burning it to generate electricity may actually cause a net reduction of "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere, as the CO2 produced by burning peat has less "greenhouse" effect than the methane given off by the bogs themselves.  And, a harvested bog basically becomes a lake.  Co-firing coal with biomass may allow for much cleaner operations; this is being studied in northern Ontario now.


----------



## a_majoor

Reducing thermodynamic losses and reducing the use of oil derived fuels is possible using a Stirling engine. A modern Stirling engine can operate at close to the theoretical efficiency of a heat engine, and can be designed use almost any source of heat, including solar and nuclear. Hobby minded people can find plans for Stirling engines, including Low Temperature Differential (LTD) engines which can use the heat of a candle or your hand (or alternatively a cup of ice water as a heat sink) to run.

Stirlings work best at constant speed/constant output, which makes them ideal for generators, as well as prime movers where they can run at a constant speed for most of the time. Railway locomotoves, ships, transport trucks and even aircraft are possible users of Stirling engines. For cars, utility trucks and other applications requiring more variable outputs, a Stirling can run as a constant speed generator in a hybrid vehicle, and also supply the "base" power, while electric engines provide acceleration and braking power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine for an introduction
http://www.qrmc.com/ proposes a very compact and powerful version of the Striling for aircraft use.


----------



## a_majoor

The true scale and scope of the problem:

http://www.reason.com/news/printer/116887.html



> *Brother, Can You Spare 22 Terawatts?*
> Big ideas for the future of energy
> 
> Ronald Bailey | November 24, 2006
> 
> The flip side of the climate change conundrum is energy. Burning fossil fuels—coal, oil, gas—produces 80 percent of the world's commercial energy. They also produce 61 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions that are thought to be increasing the earth's average temperature. In the past, energy production scaled directly with a country's gross domestic product (GDP). More energy produced more GDP.  But some analysts believe the connection between GDP growth and energy is loosening, which, if true, is good news because it means that fueling future economic growth will be easier to achieve.
> 
> However, Daniel Nocera, a professor of chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, writes a sobering analysis of the challenge of supplying adequate energy to the world in 2050. In his article, "On the Future of Global Energy" in the current issue of Daedalus (unfortunately not online), Nocera begins with the amount of energy currently being used on a per capita basis in various countries and then extrapolates what that usage implies for a world of 9 billion people in 2050. For example, in 2002 the United States used 3.3 terawatts (TW), China 1.5 TW, India 0.46 TW, Africa 0.45 TW and so forth. Totaling it all up, Nocera finds, "the global population burned energy at a rate of 13.5 TW." A terawatt equals one trillion watt-hours.
> 
> Nocera calculates that *if 9 billion people in 2050 used energy at the rate that Americans do today that the world would have to generate 102.2 TW of power—more than seven times current production. If people adopted the energy lifestyle of Western Europe, power production would need to rise to 45.5 terawatts. On the other hand if the world's 9 billion in 2050 adopted India's current living standards, the world would need to produce only 4 TW of power. * Nocera suggests, assuming heroic conservation measures that would enable affluent American lifestyles, that "conservative estimates of energy use place our global energy need at 28-35 TW in 2050."  This means that the world will need an additional 15-22 TW of energy over the current base of 13.5 TW.
> 
> So where will the extra energy come from? Relying on figures from the World Energy Assessment by the United Nations Development Program, *Nocera looks at the maximum amounts of power that various non-fossil fuel sources might supply*. Biomass could supply 7-10 TW of energy, but that is the equivalent of harvesting all current crops solely for energy. Nuclear could produce 8 TW which implies building 8000 new reactors over the 45 years at a rate of one new plant every two days. Wind would generate 2.1 TW if every site on the globe with class 3 winds or greater were occupied with windmills. Winds at a class 3 site blow at 11.5 miles per hour at 33 feet above the ground. And hydro-power could produce 0.7-2 TW if dams were placed on every untapped river on the earth. Nocera concludes, "The message is clear. *The additional energy we need in 2050 over the current 13.5 TW base, is simply not attainable from long discussed sources—the global appetite for energy is simply too great." *
> 
> Burning coal, gas, and oil could fuel the world in 2050, but the carbon dioxide produced by these fossil fuels would have somehow to be captured and sequestered (CCS) underground in order to prevent it from being vented into the atmosphere where it contributes to global warming. Some CCS pilot projects have been launched but they are not cheap and they are far from proven.
> 
> Given the magnitude of the problem of fueling the future with carbon-neutral energy, Nocera argues that the only real alternative for carbon-neutral energy production is some form of solar power. More energy from sunlight strikes the Earth in one hour than humanity uses in a year. But converting sunlight into energy useful to people is a huge unsolved technological problem. In 2000, author Richard Rhodes and nuclear engineer Denis Beller calculated that using current solar power technologies to construct a global solar-energy system would consume at least 20 percent of the world's known iron resources, take a century to build and cover a half-million square miles. Clearly a lot of technological innovation needs to take place before solar becomes an option for fueling the world.
> 
> The challenge of supplying the world with carbon neutral energy has a lot of people calling for the launching of a "Manhattan Project" or "Apollo Project." What they mean is that the Federal government should dramatically boost research and development spending for novel energy technologies. Let's recall that the Apollo Project absorbed 5.3 percent of the Federal government's budget in 1965. A comparable expenditure would be $136 billion in 2006—that's almost 5 times higher than the Energy Department's 2006 budget. It is also more than the Federal government currently spends on the agriculture, commerce, energy, homeland security, interior, justice and labor departments. Let's also recall that the Apollo program turned out to be a technological dead end that managed to get just 12 astronauts to walk on the moon. Another telling example of Federal bungling in the energy field was the $20 billion wasted on President Jimmy Carter's Synfuels Corporation which was a pilot project that aimed to make oil production from coal commercially viable. It died in 1985.
> 
> Maybe Nocera is right that solar power is the way to go, but history teaches us to scrap the Apollo Project model for technology R&D. Federal bureaucrats are simply not smart enough to pick winning energy technologies. Instead,*eliminate all energy subsidies, set a price for carbon, and then let tens of thousands of energy researchers and entrepreneurs develop and test various new technologies in the market.* No one knows now how humanity will fuel the 21st century, but Apollo and Manhattan Project-style Federal energy research projects will prove to be a huge waste of time, money and talent.
> 
> Disclosure: I own 50 shares of ExxonMobil stock. So what!
> 
> Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.



The lifestyle of modern day India isn't something we would want to aspire to (the 4 TW solution), but it isn't clear what "heroic conservation measures" are being proposed. Since a great deal of current energy consumption is released as waste heat or otherwise unrecoverable energy, programs to reduce energy losses would seem to be what is being advocated here, and certainly well worth the investment.

Part of the problem is the existing capital stock is so vast that it would take decades to economically replace inefficient power plants, old cars, light bulbs, CRT computer monitors and other energy hogs (look around, they're everywhere). Even then, if a vast quantity of electrical energy is consumed in transmission losses, then reducing demand only solves part of the problem. Similarly with cars and trucks, a 100 mpg car still only uses a fraction of the chemical energy in the gasoline or diesel fuel if the power source is a four stroke engine.


----------



## dglad

There's simply no way that 9 billion people (using Nocera's figure) are going to have a uniform standard of living.  It's never been the case in human history; there has always been an affluent few at the top, who conspicuously consume most of the resources.  The far more likely scenario (unfortunately) is that we will, in 2050, produce what we produce, a small proportion of the population will use a disproportionate share of it, and the rest will make do with what's left.  This will be in spite of the efforts of governments and business alike.  The result will be further poverty, famine and otherwise depressed standards of living for a majority of people on the planet, and resulting strife, tension and unrest as humanity muddles along into the future.  Gloomy, perhaps, but the past seems to be all too good an indicator of the future in this department.

The only thing I could possibly see changing this is the development of some truly remarkable, simple, reliable and cheap energy source (cold fusion turns out to be real after all...someone figures out how to fuse hydrogen in something the size of a refrigerator at a cost of a few cents per kWh...a truly fool-proof and inexpensive solution for sequestering CO2 is developed so we can burn coal, oil, gas, peat and whatever else til the cows come home...something like that).  It could happen, I suppose....


----------



## rmacqueen

Read "THE BOTTOMLESS WELL, The Twilight Of Fuel, The Virtue Of Waste, And Why We Will Never Run Out Of Energy" By Peter Huber and Mark P. Mills.  It is an interesting read


----------



## a_majoor

Ontario shoots itself in the foot yet again! Even though wind power can only make a small dent in the overall supply picture, there is no reason to deep six proposals like this so long as technical issues like ensuring it does not destabilize the grid through voltage fluctuations can be addressed.

http://www.intelligencer.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=307383&catname=Local%20News&classif=



> *County wind project has new owner *
> 
> Bruce Bell  /  The Intelligencer
> Local News - Thursday, December 07, 2006 @ 10:00
> 
> The wind turbine project slated for Royal Road at Point Petre in the southern reaches of Prince Edward County is about to be taken over by another Alberta firm.
> 
> Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. is set to formally complete the acquisition of Vector Wind Energy Inc. of Ottawa later this month. Vector purchased the Royal Road project from TransAlta Corp., (Vision Quest Windelectric) in February.
> 
> "We certainly like the prospects of the Royal Road project and although I'm not completely familiar with all the details myself, we feel it is in a very appropriate area and are ready to move ahead once everything is finalized with Vector," said Hydro Canada CEO John Keating.
> 
> Hydro Canada has built and operates a number of sustainable energy facilities across Canada. Publicly listed since 1990, the company owns and operates 18 green-power facilities. Wind-generated electricity accounts for five sites and hydroelectric power for 12 sites. Canadian Hydro's first biomass plant is located in Grande Prairie.
> 
> The company owns and operates 45 turbines at Melancthon 1 Wind Plant near Shelburne which produces almost 200,000 MW/h of electricity.
> They expect to complete construction of the second phase of the project in 2007, adding another 88 turbines producing a further 350 MW/h of renewable energy annually.
> 
> Closer to Prince Edward County, Canadian Hydro is scheduled to begin construction on its Wolfe Island site in 2007 and Keating said he expects that project to be up and running by the end of 2008.
> 
> Plans call for 86, 2.3 MW turbines to be erected which will generate an estimated 537,000 KW/h of energy or enough to power 75,000 homes. Keating said the Royal Road project is a natural fit for the company with Wolfe Island close by.
> 
> "Once the acquisition is completed we will have to become more familiar with the Royal Road project in order to advance all the work TransAlta had begun prior to selling to Vector," he said.
> 
> "We wouldn't anticipate a lot of changes but things like the turbines might be different and we will need some changes for that. Being so close to Wolfe Island, there will be operating synergies between the two sites."
> 
> The Prince Edward County project is still before the Ontario Municipal Board. After the municipality approved the project a number of appeals were filed.
> 
> A number of wind-turbine projects have received approval recently and Keating said he believes the government fully endorses the production of green renewable energy.
> 
> "I don't see any evidence they are trying to slow this process down at all," he said from his Calgary office. "Each project has its own obstacles that have to be dealt with, that's just part of the process, but I think the government is as committed to this as we are."
> 
> Rob Miller, a project engineer originally with Vector and now with Canadian Hydro agreed with Keating, saying he had only heard about off-shore projects being slowed down.
> 
> "I think the Ministry of Natural Resources basically put a moratorium on off-shore turbines on the grounds they didn't have enough criteria to assess it yet, but that differs completely from turbines going up along the shores of the Great Lakes in remote areas."
> 
> *Meanwhile, the province has put the brakes on a wind power mega-project proposed for Lake Ontario off the shores of Prince Edward County*.
> 
> The Ontario government has deferred Trillium Power Energy Corp.'s plans to build a 710-megawatt wind farm - the largest of its kind in North America - until the province can further study the environmental impacts of offshore wind projects.
> 
> The Toronto-based private company had proposed building as many as 140 wind turbines in a shallow area of Lake Ontario 17 to 25 kilometres offshore near the Canada/United States water border.
> 
> *Construction on the $1-billion project was supposed to start in 2008*.
> 
> But Steve Irwin, spokesman for the Ministry of Energy, said offshore wind energy is still in the early stages in Ontario and more study is needed. He also said the delays are specific to offshore wind projects only and aren't an indication of any provincewide suspension of wind power proposals in general.
> 
> "I wouldn't call it a moratorium," he said. "[The review] involves looking at how it affects lake water conditions, what it does to wildlife in the area, how it affects everything from birds to bats." - with files from the Kingston Whig-Standard


----------



## Kirkhill

Arthur, did you see this from Edward yesterday?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/46854/post-491398.html#msg491398



> Here is a letter to the editor, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, from today’s Globe and Mail from Tom Adams of Energy Probe (see:  http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=486 ):
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061206.LETTERS06-9/TPStory/Opinion/letters
> 
> Quote
> Wind power disappoints
> 
> TOM ADAMS
> Energy Probe
> 
> Toronto -- Re Answer Blowing In Wind (letter -- Dec. 2): The David Suzuki Foundation complains that Energy Probe's recent wind-power study, which identifies disappointing production results from wind in and around Ontario, is based on only a "few months of data" and that the experience in Germany provides "concrete evidence about the reliability of wind power."
> 
> In fact, our study shows disappointing production from Ontario and Quebec-based wind-power installations since the 1990s. Germany's actual wind-production results since the industry became established four years ago are also about a third less than expected.
> 
> Leading German environmentalists and energy experts, including world-renowned expert Richard Tol, whose work on greenhouse gases the Suzuki Foundation cites, recognize that the German wind system has been a political boondoggle. Mr. Tol notes that the real beneficiaries of Germany's overblown wind system are the corporate interests aligned with Germany's powerful Green Party.
> 
> Maybe someone needs to take a closer than usual look at the $430,000 in loans M. Dion used to finance his leadership campaign (see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/54201.0.html ) to see how much came from those destined to benefit from Canadian environmental billion-dollar-boondoggles.



By the way the 710 MW plant would require 355 Turbines to be installed, wired and maintained off-shore if that were the installed capacity.  In which case the plant will produce 180 to 240 MW a year on an intermittent basis.

If the intent is to GENERATE that amount of power on an AVERAGE basis would require at least 3 times that number of Turbines.  In practice, and in conformity with the German experience, you would likely need to install 4 times that number or about 1500 turbines.

Combined the 8 reactors at Pickering produce 4120 MW.    

This Turbine Farm will produce less than a single new reactor at Pickering or Darlington and be much less reliable.


----------



## a_majoor

I well understand the limitations of wind power (unless the turbines are situated near the House of Commons, there will never be enough steady supply of wind); however since the McGuinty government seems determined to take electrical generating capacity off line, some sort of replacement capacity (however limited) is needed.

The current slack in Ontario's system is being met by coal fired plants in the United States, and of course Hydro One must pay premium rates to buy it. Since the consumer pays subsidized rates for electricity, the taxpayer must make up the difference (  hey, wait a minute.....!)

In the free market consumers would pay some entity for electrical power, and the entity (person, local corporation, multi national corporation) would attempt to meet the demand.  Successful entities will thrive, and P/O'd consumers will see to it that unsuccessful entities fail. Given the vast requirements, someone, somewhere would be building nuclear power stations to generate the baseline, and distributed power systems would be popping up to cover peak needs and local outages from the grid. Consumers also react to market signals; if the price rises, consumer behaviour changes, lights get turned off and so on.

So long as economic illiterates can distort the market with subsidies and ill conceived "Green energy" plans, Ontario will be  on the edge of disaster. Given the huge capital base which is needed to supply the needs of a province, it may take a decade for a new government to set things right.


----------



## Kirkhill

In the meantime Art -  have you bought your generator yet?


----------



## a_majoor

I was thinking of yoking some of the more obnoxious trolls on these threads to a treadmill....... >


----------



## Kirkhill

An inspired use of under-utilised recyclable resources.  You should patent it.


----------



## childs56

Put up all the windmills you want. What happens when we disrupt the wind patterens? 

The experts say it cannot happen. But to me if you put up these wind mills that are 200 feet in the air and have blades that are harnessing the energy, meaning they are putting resistance in the air, Eventually the wind will take the path of least resistance. 

Mind you this will occur over a long period of time, that is unless we build these things all over the place. Then be prepared for differant weather patterens and so on. 

A good balance between all of the present and future power sources is what is needed. 
Not a one component for all.


----------



## rmacqueen

We could also help offset some of the generation problems by having homes start to generate some of their own power.  Every roof is a potential solar collector and there are a number of small wind generators that could be used in urban areas.  The houses do not have to be "off grid" but even a partial generation of power is less that needs to be produced from a large facility.  As well, when excess is produced it can be put into the system to be used elsewhere.

The problem is the cost of retrofitting such a system into existing housing.  I researched installing a hybrid system (combo wind/solar) in my home and it would cost over $40,000.  This is not an amount your average home owner can afford to sink into something like this.  Rather than spending huge amounts on building all kinds of large generators the government should take a look at subsidizing the installation of these systems with the money it would save.

Another option would be to support small generation for rural communities.  There are many towns that have rivers that could be used for hydroelectric generation and large open areas for wind and solar.  The cost benefits would be quite substantial as it would alleviate the need for increased transmission lines, and the maintenance of them, and have the side benefit of being able to keep the lights on during storms. In my small neck of the woods there are a number of small towns with populations of less than 5,000 people but they add up when put together.  Within a half hour drive I estimate there are over 30,000 people living in small communities.  Extrapolate that across the entire province and that is a large amount of power no longer coming from the large generators.



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> In the free market consumers would pay some entity for electrical power, and the entity (person, local corporation, multi national corporation) would attempt to meet the demand.  Successful entities will thrive, and P/O'd consumers will see to it that unsuccessful entities fail. Given the vast requirements, someone, somewhere would be building nuclear power stations to generate the baseline, and distributed power systems would be popping up to cover peak needs and local outages from the grid. Consumers also react to market signals; if the price rises, consumer behaviour changes, lights get turned off and so on.



Given the way Enron screwed California, by creating artificial shortages to inflate prices, I not sure how comfortable I am anymore with privatization.  In a perfect world that would be great but given the nature of the grid I am not sure I would trust best practices to overcome corporate greed.  The government is already favouring large corporations over smaller producers to the detriment of the consumer by creating centralized control rather than serious competition in the market.


----------



## a_majoor

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Given the way Enron screwed California, by creating artificial shortages to inflate prices, I not sure how comfortable I am anymore with privatization.  In a perfect world that would be great but given the nature of the grid I am not sure I would trust best practices to overcome corporate greed.  The government is already favouring large corporations over smaller producers to the detriment of the consumer by creating centralized control rather than serious competition in the market.



Enron was reacting to a very screwed up "privatization" that had been passed by the California legislature. Essentially, the government there had made it virtually impossible for any competitors to enter the market (although it was now a private market) through regulatory burdens. Interestingly enough, that is the same model used in Ontario, only in this case "Hydro One" was giventhe assets of Ontario Hydro, while the taxpayer assumed the debts. Compounding the error, the government set the retail rates for electrical energy (not the market), so anyone who wants to compete needs to be able to finance multi billion dollar baseline generators with extremely low ROI. The Americans are now in the role of ENRON, since their utilities across the border supply much of the peak power, and of course supply it at peak rates.

It annoys me to no end when Government failure is passed off as market failure.


----------



## rmacqueen

Enron also created artificial shortages in California to inflate the prices.  It is no coincidence that when Enron collapsed the blackouts in California ended.


----------



## Kirkhill

> The problem is the cost of retrofitting such a system into existing housing.  I researched installing a hybrid system (combo wind/solar) in my home and it would cost over $40,000.  This is not an amount your average home owner can afford to sink into something like this.  Rather than spending huge amounts on building all kinds of large generators the government should take a look at subsidizing the installation of these systems with the money it would save.



Respectfully Mac, why would I pay 40,000 dollars for you to produce 1 kW of power for your own personal consumption when I can't pay for it for my own use? Am I supposed to pony up 80,000 so that we can both have one?

By contrast, even a 2 MW public utility windmill, costing 1,000,000 dollars installed and operating inefficiently at 25% will produce power at an installed cost of 2 dollars per kW.  And those numbers are still cost ineffective compared to both nuclear and carbon fuelled plants, not to mention large scale hydro.

And we haven't touched on the cost of keeping our two domestic power plants operating or how we deal with those days when the air is still and the roof is covered in snow.


----------



## childs56

Why not dig holes in the gound and harness the steam produced by the earth, or how about using ocean currents and wave action the list goes on. 
the problem with all of these other better alternatives is they have draw backs. Some are worse then what we have now. 

Lets dam every river we have, and install a water wheel to harness the energy, where do the fish go, what about the other wild life in the river?

Lets install solar panels on every house. The cost to make the glass, the pipeing needed to circulate the water or the wire needed to transfer the electricity. The excess heat absorbtion generated by millions of homes with huge arrays of solar panels with cause more problems. 

Use wind mills, so much renewable wind it's unblievable. Set them up all over. 

Huge ocean wave generators. We can line the coast with them, then wait and see what happens. 

All these alternatives have a long term effect. The effects we want to see may not be what actually happens. Wind, water both take the path of least resistance.


----------



## a_majoor

In the March 2007 edition of Car and Driver, there is an interesting article about the Chevy Volt concept car. It utilizes a 16 Kw/Hr Lithium Ion battery pack (a very scaled up version of what runs your laptop, and about eigh times more powerful than the battery pack in a Toyota Prius), and is a "series" hybrid, in that the internal combustion engine does not directly drive the wheels, but rather a generator to keep the batteries charged. The car can also charge up from normal house current (just plug in at night). The sticking point is the battery pack is very expensive (est $40,000), and needs special care to prevent overheating or it could catch fire. Some heavy duty R&D is required in this area.

From a military perspective, the series hybrid allows the generator set to be placed anywhere, allowing for better space utilisation and balance, and the generator does not have to be any particular form of engine, it only has to deliver the proper current to the batteries. A fuel cell could substitute for an engine when the state of the art matures. In tactical terms, the vehicle has enough electrical energy to run for some distance on pure electric power, allowing for silent run ups. (The Volt is designed to run for 40 miles on batteries alone before the engine kicks in).

An interesting mid term development.


----------



## Kirkhill

Arthur, back in 1999 I read "Powering the Future" by Tom Koppel.  It was about "The Ballard Fuel Cell and the Race to Change the World".  Geoffrey Ballard got his start in Fuel Cells in 1983.  Before that he was working on other concepts. He switched because the other concepts needed R&D and he had been working on them since 1975.

The earlier concept? Lithium batteries........Just a little more R&D needed. >


----------



## rmacqueen

Malcolm Bricklin, the man who brought the Yugo to North America, and started General Vehicle Corp which built the ill-fated Bricklin car (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricklin_SV-1#Commemorating_the_Bricklin) is currently trying to raise financing to set up a company to build "series" hybrids in China.  He claims it will have the look of Mercedes, the interior of a Lexus and the price tag of a domestic car


----------



## a_majoor

Some people turn solutions into problems: 

http://www.herald-review.com/articles/2007/03/01/news/local_news/1021491.txt



> *State makes big fuss over local couple's vegetable oil car fuel*
> By HUEY FREEMAN - H&R Staff Writer
> DECATUR - David and Eileen Wetzel don't get going in the morning quite as early as they used to.
> 
> So David Wetzel, 79, was surprised to hear a knock on the door at their eastside home while he was still getting dressed.
> 
> Two men in suits were standing on his porch.
> 
> "They showed me their badges and said they were from the Illinois Department of Revenue," Wetzel said. "I said, 'Come in.' Maybe I shouldn't have."
> 
> Gary May introduced himself as a special agent. The other man, John Egan, was introduced as his colleague. May gave the Wetzels his card, stating that he is the senior agent in the bureau of criminal investigations.
> 
> "I was afraid," Eileen Wetzel said. "I came out of the bathroom. I thought: Good God, we paid our taxes. The check didn't bounce."
> 
> The agents informed the Wetzels that they were interested in their car, a 1986 Volkswagen Golf, that David Wetzel converted to run primarily from vegetable oil but also partly on diesel.
> 
> Wetzel uses recycled vegetable oil, which he picks up weekly from an organization that uses it for frying food at its dining facility.
> 
> "They told me I am required to have a license and am obligated to pay a motor fuel tax," David Wetzel recalled. "Mr. May also told me the tax would be retroactive."
> 
> Since the initial visit by the agents on Jan. 4, the Wetzels have been involved in a struggle with the Illinois Department of Revenue. The couple, who live on a fixed budget, have been asked to post a $2,500 bond and threatened with felony charges.
> 
> State legislators have rallied to help the Wetzels.
> 
> State Sen. Frank Watson, R-Greenville, introduced Senate Bill 267, which would curtail government interference regarding alternative fuels, such as vegetable oil. A public hearing on the bill will be at 1 p.m. today in Room 400 of the state Capitol.
> 
> "I would agree that the bond is not acceptable, $2,500 bond," Watson said, adding that David Wetzel should be commended for his innovative efforts. "(His car) gets 46 miles per gallon running on vegetable oil. We all should be thinking about doing without gasoline if we're trying to end foreign dependency.
> 
> "I think it's inappropriate of state dollars to send two people to Mr. Wetzel's home to do this. They could have done with a more friendly approach. It could have been done on the phone. To use an intimidation factor on this - who is he harming? Two revenue agents. You'd think there's a better use of their time," Watson said.
> 
> The Wetzels, who plan to speak at a Senate hearing in Springfield today, recalled how their struggle with the revenue department unfolded.
> 
> According to the Wetzels, May told them during his Jan. 4 visit that they would have to pay taxes at either the gasoline rate of 19Â½ cents per gallon or the diesel rate of 21Â½ cents per gallon.
> 
> A retired research chemist and food plant manager, Wetzel produced records showing he has used 1,134.6 gallons of vegetable oil from 2002 to 2006. At the higher rate, the tax bill would come to $244.24.
> 
> "That averages out to $4.07 a month," Wetzel noted, adding he is willing to pay that bill.
> 
> But the Wetzels would discover that the state had more complicated and costly requirements for them to continue to use their "veggie mobile."
> 
> David Wetzel was told to contact a revenue official and apply for a license as a "special fuel supplier" and "receiver." After completing a complicated application form designed for businesses, David Wetzel was sent a letter directing him to send in a $2,500 bond.
> 
> Eileen Wetzel, a former teaching assistant, calculated that the bond, designed to ensure that their "business" pays its taxes, would cover the next 51 years at their present usage rate.
> 
> A couple of weeks later, David Wetzel received another letter from the revenue department, stating that he "must immediately stop operating as a special fuel supplier and receiver until you receive special fuel supplier and receiver licenses."
> 
> This threatening letter stated that acting as a supplier and receiver without a license is a Class 3 felony. This class of felonies carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.
> 
> On the department of revenue's Web site, David Wetzel discovered that the definition of special fuel supplier includes someone who operates a plant with an "active bulk storage capacity of not less than 30,000 gallons." Wetzel also did not fit the definition of a receiver, described as a person who produces, distributes or transports fuel into the state. So Wetzel withdrew his application to become a supplier and receiver.
> 
> Mike Klemens, spokesman for the department of revenue, explained that Wetzel has to register as a supplier because the law states that is the only way he can pay motor fuel tax.
> 
> But what if he is not, in fact, a supplier? Then would he instead be exempt from paying the tax?
> 
> "We are in the process of creating a way to simplify the registration process and self-assess the tax," Klemens said, adding that a rule change may be in place by spring.
> 
> David Wetzel wonders why hybrid cars, which rely on electricity and gasoline, are not taxed for the portion of travel when they are running on electrical power. He said he wants to be treated equally by the law.
> 
> David Wetzel, who has been exhibiting his car at energy fairs and universities, views state policies as contradicting stated government aims.
> 
> "You hear the president saying we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," Wetzel said. "You hear the governor saying that."
> 
> State Rep. Bob Flider, D-Mount Zion, also plans to support legislation favoring alternative fuels.
> 
> "I'm disappointed that the Illinois Department of Revenue would go after Mr. Wetzel," Flider said. "I don't think it is a situation that merits him being licensed and paying fees.
> 
> "The people at the department of revenue apparently feel they need to regulate him in some way. We want to make sure that he is as free as he can be to use vegetable oil. He's an example of ingenuity. Instead of being whacked on the head, he should be encouraged."
> 
> Huey Freeman can be reached at hfreeman@herald-review.com or 421-6985.


----------



## a_majoor

Don't be surprised if strange things happen with your Lithium Ion batteries:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/battery_pr.html



> *Building a Better Battery *
> They run out of juice – or burst into flames – at exactly the wrong time. Can't anyone make a battery that doesn't suck?
> By John Hockenberry
> 
> ON A HOT JULY DAY AT A FOOD PACKAGING COMPANY in Vernon Hills, Illinois, Henrik Gustavsson sat at his workstation tweaking electrical drawings for an industrial juice-making machine. He looked up and noticed an odd haze at the far end of the office. A coworker shouted, "Hey, there's a fire!" Gustavsson rushed over to join the crowd gathering around a Dell Latitude laptop sitting on a desk in its docking station. "There was smoke coming out of the sides," the 26-year-old engineer recalls. "As I got close it actually started popping, and a flame shot straight up into the air." To Gustavsson, the closed, burning laptop looked like an overheated George Foreman grill. It smelled horrible – not surprising, since it was cooking up an LCD-keyboard-melt sandwich.
> 
> Gustavsson snapped some photos as colleagues sprayed the burning Dell with foam from a fire extinguisher. "That thing did not want to go out," he says. "We had to zap it three or four times." They then carefully carried the laptop out to the front sidewalk and waited for the fire department to arrive. When nobody was looking, Gustavsson pried the smoldering, melted carcass open to find a 5‑inch hole where the lithium-ion battery had been. "It was pretty awesome," he says. That night, he posted his pictures to the nerdy Web site Tom's Hardware. The images received more than 80,000 hits over the next week.
> 
> It was a long, hot summer for lithium-ion batteries this year. Stories of Dell laptops spontaneously combusting dominated tech news. One computer set fire to a Ford pickup in Nevada; another ignited in the overhead compartment of a Lufthansa flight as it sat on the tarmac at Chicago's O'Hare airport. A video of a Dell that exploded spectacularly during a business meeting in Osaka began making the rounds on the Internet. In mid-August, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission announced that Dell had agreed to recall 4.1 million Li-ion batteries – the largest battery recall in history. Nine days later, Apple asked its users to return 1.8 million more Li-ion packs. Then, in September, Toshiba recalled 340,000 batteries. Sony, which manufactured the batteries for all three companies, will spend an estimated $250 million replacing them.
> 
> The technical term for these bizarre incidents is thermal runaway. It occurs when the touchy elements inside a Li-ion battery heat up to the point where the internal reaction accelerates, creating even more heat. A sort of mini China Syndrome of increasing temperature builds until something must give. In the case of a laptop flameout, the chemicals break out of their metal casing. Because lithium ignites when it makes contact with the moisture in the air, the battery bursts into flame.
> 
> Exploding notebook computers are, of course, extremely rare. There are just a handful of documented cases, even though an estimated 1.8 billion Li-ion cells are in circulation. Sony claims the latest conflagrations were caused in part by trace amounts of metal accidentally left inside the batteries during the manufacturing process. The company adds that problems are also caused by laptop makers placing batteries too close to internal heat sources like CPU chips.
> 
> But such technical excuses sidestep the fact that flammability and heat intolerance are long-standing problems that have plagued Li-ion batteries since they were invented almost 30 years ago. And as devices have gotten smaller in size but richer in features, things have only worsened. Forced to produce more energy in less space, Li-ions die faster (as early iPod owners found when their batteries wore out long before their players did), and their propensity for thermal runaway greatly increases.
> 
> Lithium-ion technology may be approaching its limits. Batteries conform to technical restrictions set by nature and don't obey Moore's law like most of the digital world. In the last 150 years, battery performance has improved only about eightfold (or less, depending how it's measured). The speed and capacity of silicon chips, of course, improves that much every six years. "Li-ion is an extremely mature technology, and all of the problems are known by everybody," says Art Ramirez, the chief of device physics at Bell Labs. "They aren't going to change."
> 
> If Li-ion technology is at, or even near, its maximum potential, gadget makers (and users) are in trouble. Li-ion – with its high power, fast recharge times, and steady voltage – is the best battery the consumer electronics industry has. It powered the 50 million laptops, 800 million cell phones, and 80 million digital cameras sold in 2005. If the technology stagnates without a viable replacement, so will every kind of portable device, from ThinkPads to Game Boys.
> 
> So the hunt is on for a better battery. And it's just not the usual Asian giants – Sanyo, Sony, Toshiba – on the prowl. Tyco, Lucent, Intel, and venture capital firms like Draper Fisher Jurvetson are among those pumping millions of R&D dollars into battery startups and research labs. Of course, kicking the lithium habit won't be easy. Possible successors like fuel cells have been heralded for decades, but design, implementation, and cost issues have prevented them from reaching our Nokias and MacBooks. Yet, to get the juice they need, gadgets will almost certainly require something totally new. We'll need more than just better batteries; we'll need to rethink the way all portable electronics are designed and made.
> 
> IN THE MID-1800S, French inventor Raymond Gaston Planté created the first rechargeable battery, a combination of sulfuric acid and strips of lead foil.
> 
> People thought of Planté's creation as a "box of electricity" or an electric fuel tank. It's an analogy we make to this day: The scientific symbol for a battery is still a fuel-tank-like box. But the metaphor is not apt. You don't fill a battery with electrons that are sucked out later, only to be replaced ("Fill 'er up.") with more electrons. A battery is more like a complicated and finicky chemical pump that exploits what happens when certain materials (mostly metals) are placed together in an electrolyte solution. All batteries – watch, flashlight, cell phone, car – work basically the same way. Negatively charged electrons are chemically stolen from a metal anode and flow rather desperately toward a positively charged metal cathode at the other end of the circuit. Voltage is a measure of the force pushing the electrons from pole to pole, while current is the number of electrons speeding by a given point. Together these attributes establish the power of a battery. Current can be altered by changing a battery's size, but voltage is determined (and fixed) by the atomic makeup of the materials used. Those attributes, recorded in the good old periodic table of elements, were configured shortly after the big bang and are not subject to clever human modifications.
> 
> The first widely produced batteries were lead acid. Used in early cars, they got the automobile to start as reliably as the horse. By the 1960s, engineers had developed lighter, single-use alkaline and mercury batteries, making portable transistor radios and two-way communication devices possible. In the 1980s, compact rechargeable batteries were developed using nickel and cadmium. Originally used by the military and NASA, NiCads eventually reached the consumer market, giving us video cameras, the first laptops, and cordless power tools. The power cells were reliable but suffered from an annoying glitch dubbed the memory effect: If users didn't fully charge the batteries on initial use, the cells could "remember" only their original partial charge. This was fixed by the development of nickel metal hydride. NiMH packed more power, had less memory effect than NiCads, and recharged faster.
> 
> Scientists long knew that lithium would make an excellent anode. Most battery chemical combinations deliver 1.2 to 2 volts. But when paired with the right cathode, lithium atoms practically spew electrons, delivering the highest nominal voltage of any element in the periodic table: 3.6 volts per cell. (Multiple low-voltage cells can be strung together to achieve the same punch – that's how you get 9-volt batteries – but this adds weight and bulk.) Lithium tends to explode on contact with air, however, which made research difficult. In the 1970s, a US scientist with the ironic name John Goodenough (batteries never are) finally figured out how to tap the electron potential of lithium: Combine it with cobalt. Then all it took was a manufacturer willing to spend the money required to safely mass-produce the new batteries. Sony grabbed the opportunity in the '80s, producing a rechargeable lithium-ion pack for a video camera. These batteries were the first rechargeable cells to exceed the energy of single-use alkalines. They had no memory effect, four times the energy of NiCads, and twice the energy of nickel-metal-hydride cells. A new era had begun.
> 
> Throughout the '90s, Li-ions enabled a host of advances. Laptops could be made lighter and were able to power backlit screens and bigger hard drives. Cell phones could be smaller. The MP3 player was born. But these new devices hungered for more and more power. While a flashlight or a car starter places simple demands on a battery, powering a computer or camcorder is much more complicated. These devices contain dozens or even hundreds of individual components, and LCD screens have different voltage and current needs than, say, hard drives or Wi-Fi chips. So voltages are stepped up or down using transformers and other circuits, resulting in enormous losses in efficiency. The more complex a device, the harder the battery has to work.
> 
> Furthermore, because digital calculations require steady voltages to maintain memory, power fluctuations can be disastrous. So modern batteries are designed to operate in a narrow range where they can deliver constant output. To keep voltage steady and at effective levels, a battery must be packed with lots of extra power. There's really no such thing as a dead battery anymore; even when a cell registers empty, it still has plenty of juice in it – just none in the usable range. Battery-industry veteran Mike Mahan puts it this way: "It's like you have a 20-gallon tank and you can use only 5 gallons, but you still have to drive around with 15 gallons anyway."
> 
> Squeezing enough power into compact Li-ion cells to deal with these issues requires serious safety equipment. Today, most Li-ion cells contain at least two – and sometimes three – separate countermeasures to keep the reaction from getting out of control. According to Glen Wensley, chief polymer chemist at batterymaker Solicore, these safeguards can represent as much as 30 percent of the engineering and perhaps half the cost of a standard lithium-ion battery. "It's an extremely unstable system, and so you need a voltage limiter, a current fuse, and a third safety system, which is actually internal to the battery. It's called a separator, which physically separates the battery to prevent thermal runaway." The first two systems keep the battery from overcharging or over-discharging. The third is a kill switch: All batteries have a porous separator between the anode and cathode to keep the reaction from happening too quickly. In most Li-ion cells this component completely solidifies if it gets too hot. It's a kind of electrical suicide that destroys the battery to cool it down. These defenses are one reason that thermal runaway is extremely rare.
> 
> FLAMING LAPTOPS may be dramatic, but to Sony they are mostly a PR headache. The company's main concern is still squeezing more power out of smaller Li-ion battery packs. Case in point: the company's ultraslim family of digital cameras. Product designers managed to cram an advanced imaging sensor, processor, and LCD into a 0.9-inch-thick shell. And the battery? "One of the most difficult things about that camera was the damn battery," says Mike Kahn, a senior product manager at Sony. "It had to be thin, and it had to be powerful." Eventually, Sony solved the problem by giving the battery its own chip. "The battery constantly talks with the processor to minimize power use and avoid waste," Kahn says.
> 
> Sony sees its success with cameras as a sign that lithium-ion technology still has more than a little life left in it. Last year, Sony unveiled the Nexelion, a so-called lithium hybrid that pairs lithium with tin for the first time and claims a 30 percent capacity increase over previous lithium-ion cells. The batteries were first offered in new Sony Handycams last summer. Keeping pace, Toshiba also announced a higher-powered Li-ion battery last year.
> 
> These improvements, however, won't really keep up with consumer demand for more power. Nowhere is this more apparent than in laptops. "The industry wants dual-core processors and an eight-hour run time with no increase in size and weight," says Valence Technology's Jim Akridge. "It doesn't look like that's going to happen."
> 
> One way to keep up with power demands is to go back to the periodic table. Lithium offers the highest voltage of any element, but lower-voltage metals don't explode and may ultimately be able to hold more power. Among the companies betting on tamer elements is Zinc Matrix, a startup run by Ross Dueber – a former Air Force major who used to design advanced nickel-cadmium batteries for the military's Strategic Defense Initiative.
> 
> Dueber and his team have come up with a power cell that runs on silver and zinc and uses stable, nontoxic water as an electrolyte. The company claims it has solved manufacturing difficulties associated with previous silver-zinc efforts and boasts that its cell offers a 50 percent increase in run time over lithium ion, with none of the safety issues. But because silver-zinc has a lower voltage, these batteries must pack lots of cells together to achieve the industry standard of 3.6 volts. This makes the batteries heavy – a serious drawback. Dueber's plan for overcoming this is to convince devicemakers to retool their products to run at lower voltages. "Our first battery will simulate lithium ion, but eventually we hope to be designed into the future," he says.
> 
> In September, Zinc Matrix demonstrated a six-hour prototype for an Intel-based laptop. If all goes well, Dueber says, that battery could be on the market by the end of next year. Among those funding the effort are Tyco Electronics and Intel. Dueber says he has received about $36 million to date.
> 
> At best, though, Dueber's battery is only a sort of electrochemical methadone – same addiction, just slightly longer-lasting, with no flameout. No matter how much the industry toys with a single box of electrons, it will eventually encounter the same predictable roadblocks: too many components demanding too much power for any one battery. That's why Solicore decided to think small.
> 
> Based in Lakeland, Florida, Solicore is developing Li-ion batteries in ultracompact forms that can sneak into places batteries have never gone before. This might allow Solicore's cells to act as secondary batteries in a device. For example, one could be slipped behind a laptop's screen, where it would power just the backlight, taking some of the load off the main battery. To make such versatile Li-ion cells, Solicore has developed a new type of lithium polymer.
> 
> Lithium-polymer batteries use an advanced gel rather than a liquid to separate the cell's positive and negative poles. Solicore's proprietary polymer restricts electron flow so it can't be disrupted by heat or even a violent blow from a hammer, which means the batteries won't get caught in a thermal runaway cycle. This lets engineers make batteries without standard safety features, which means they can be made in virtually any shape or thickness. Some of the early models are as thin as sheets of paper, essentially printed and cut like credit cards. In fact, they are already being used to power a new breed of smartcards, which come with their own onboard display and may someday even have wireless capability. Solicore is working with Visa and others to bring the cards to market next year.
> 
> STANDING AMONG THE VOLT meters, electrical wiring, and beakers full of various electrolytes in his Bell Labs research facility, physicist Tom Krupenkin holds a partially etched disc of silicon. Nearly all of its surface is empty. In one corner, there's a micron-scale pattern of posts that, under a microscope, looks like a hyper-orderly lawn. It's called nanograss.
> 
> Krupenkin, a Russian-born scientist with PhDs in materials science and in physics, is one of a growing number of researchers who think consumers and gadgetmakers need to take a more radical approach to battery design. In his eyes, playing around with new chemistry or mysterious polymer goop won't deliver the kind of exponential growth the industry needs. "In the traditional battery world, there is nothing new anymore," Krupenkin says. "There has to be a different way to think about these devices, different processes brought to bear."
> 
> Krupenkin thinks he has found such a process – something that will be more than just a quick fix. Instead of sealing an unstable reaction in a big box, he and his team – a combination of Bell Labs scientists and researchers at a startup called mPhase Technologies – are designing tiny batteries out of nanograss that can be turned on and off chemically. Such precise control, they argue, would let them take the idea of multiple batteries a step further. Krupenkin's vision is that future gadgets would behave like biological systems, in which cells carry their own power instead of relying on a single primary energy source for the whole organism.
> 
> Nanograss, Krupenkin explains, is superhydrophobic, or massively water resistant. Fluids deposited on the tiny silicon posts are practically frictionless. A droplet of water remains spherical on the nanograss. But when Krupenkin applies an electric charge between the droplet and the silicon, the droplet disappears. The current has disrupted the water's surface tension, causing it to fall into the nanograss, where it's held firm by the tiny posts. Krupenkin calls this "electrowetting." Apply another tiny current across the conductor and the water molecules heat up, causing the droplet to rise back to the top of the nanograss, where surface tension once again keeps it in a nearly perfect sphere.
> 
> The idea is to marshal this electrowetting to fine-tune a battery's internal reaction – regardless of what the battery is made of. The nanograss would hold a battery's electrolyte away from the reactive metal when no power is needed, then release it when it's time to turn on. This type of structure would free device manufacturers to distribute fields of tiny batteries deep into their products. Components could pop on and go to sleep as needed. Rechargeable nanograss would be controlled by the microprocessor, which would manage exactly how much power each system needs. And because each component would have its own power bank, the built-in inefficiencies of the single-voltage, single-power design would vanish, driving down costs and potentially increasing battery life by an order of magnitude for the first time in 100 years.
> 
> The problem is that product makers would have to retool and redesign almost all their devices to take advantage of these minute, chip-controlled batteries. It's a hurdle that Krupenkin and his team know could take years to get over. But they also know that sooner or later, gadgetmakers will want more than lithium-ion batterymakers can provide. As Bell Labs' Ramirez puts it, current battery problems point to the end of the "silicon road map." As computers shrink to the molecular level, the whole architecture of portable devices needs to change. "The end of the silicon road map will show that there have to be other ways of doing things. At some point, it will become economically viable to invest in radical new strategies," he says. Sooner or later, solutions like nanograss are going to look awfully good.
> 
> A hundred years ago, just down the road from Krupenkin's lab in northern New Jersey, Thomas Edison struggled to mass-produce batteries that would be safe and reliable. Reportedly, he was so stymied by uncooperative chemistry that he once asked a psychic to tell him the best chemistry for a storage battery. In a prickly comment to a colleague at General Electric in 1900, he said, "I don't think nature would be so unkind as to withhold the secret of a good storage battery if a real earnest hunt for it is made. I'm going to hunt."
> 
> The hunt is still on.


----------



## Port Hope

Peak oil=intervention in Iraq & Iran


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Didn't really bother to read the last 14 pages, did you?


----------



## Port Hope

Guilty as charged!


----------



## a_majoor

Here is an idea for extracting some of the heat energy which is mostly wasted in internal combustion engines. There is a lot of R&D to do to make this idea work (or we could build cheap "throw away" engines for this purpose); interesting thinking:

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/c1609351d9092110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html



> INVENTION AWARDS
> *Six Strokes of Genius*
> 
> Dan Carney
> 
> Name: Steam-o-Lene Engine
> Inventor: Bruce Crower
> Cost to Develop: $1,000
> Time: 1.5 years
> Prototype | | | | | Product
> 
> Bruce Crower's Southern California auto-racing parts shop is a temple for racecar mechanics. Here's the flat eight-cylinder Indycar engine that won him the 1977 Louis Schwitzer Award for racecar design. There's the Mercedes five-cylinder engine he converted into a squealing supercharged two-stroke, just "to see what it would sound like," says the now half-deaf 77-year-old self-taught engineer.
> 
> Crower has spent a lifetime eking more power out of every drop of fuel to make cars go faster. Now he's using the same approach to make them go farther, with a radical six-stroke engine that tops off the familiar four-stroke internal-combustion process with two extra strokes of old-fashioned steam power.
> 
> A typical engine wastes three quarters of its energy as heat. Crower's prototype, the single-cylinder diesel eight-horsepower Steam-o-Lene engine, uses that heat to make steam and recapture some of the lost energy. It runs like a conventional four-stroke combustion engine through each of the typical up-and-down movements of the piston (intake, compression, power or combustion, exhaust). But just as the engine finishes its fourth stroke, water squirts into the cylinder, hitting surfaces as hot as 1,500°F. The water immediately evaporates into steam, generating a 1,600-fold expansion in volume and driving the piston down to create an additional power stroke. The upward sixth stroke exhausts the steam to a condenser, where it is recycled into injection water.
> 
> Crower calculates that the Steam-o-Lene boosts the work it gets from a gallon of gas by 40 percent over conventional engines. Diesels, which are already more efficient, might get another 5 percent. And his engine does it with hardware that already exists, so there's no waiting for technologies to mature, as with electric cars or fuel cells.
> 
> "Crower is an innovator who tries new ideas based on his experience and gut instincts," says John Coletti, the retired head of Ford's SVT high-performance group. "Most people won't try something new for fear of failure, but he is driven by a need to succeed." And he just might. Crower has been keeping the details of his system quiet, waiting for a response to his patent application. When he gets it, he'll pass off the development process to a larger company that can run with it, full-steam.
> 
> Copyright © 2005 Popular Science


----------



## Kirkhill

My first concern with that one would be the effect of the repeated rapid cooling on the structural integrity of the piston, block and head.  Life expectancy of those would seem to be likely to be shorter and the prospect of catastrophic failure that much more interesting.

PS - on a side note - have already run some numbers on a Double Double fuelled idea.  Still running numbers.  Enjoy the rides.


----------



## a_majoor

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> My first concern with that one would be the effect of the repeated rapid cooling on the structural integrity of the piston, block and head.  Life expectancy of those would seem to be likely to be shorter and the prospect of catastrophic failure that much more interesting.



I can think of all kinds of other things which would go wrong as well (there are very sound reasons that cooling water is firmly excluded from the inside of the engine), but I can also think of some situations where a cheap engine with a limited life would serve a purpose, for example in a UAV or a race car. Most cars are owned for five years or less by one owner, and except for cars that are constantly cared for, most cars don't make it past their 10th birthday, while their engines can last for many decades. An engine which only lasts 5-10 years makes a certain amount of sense for the civi car market, as much as collecters might hate it.

Like I said, a very interesting idea and worth putting R&D money into.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6840290.html

Here's a reference to another system for burning water in an internal combustion engine.  Mix the water and the fuel and add an emulsifier.   It would take away the thermal shock.

I saw something about this on the telly some months previous when the price of gas first went up over the $1.00/l.  Apparently the "inventor" (I don't know if it was the holder of this patent) was getting a lot of legitimate interest.

I guess the idea is similar - the entrained water will expand when the fuel ignites adding pressure?


----------



## a_majoor

It does seem similar, the only difference being the steam generation takes place at the same time as combustion. On the other hand, it dosn't really extract the "waste" energy from the engine the way the "six cycle" idea does.

Thinking back, BMW proposed a steam system as well, but it used engine heat to drive a separate steam engine, which results in dead weight, time lag while the water is heating up and would probably be more of a hinderance in stop and go city driving: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017/post-312914.html#msg312914

I will observe this development with interest. It may fall victim to other forces (there was a buzz in the early to mid 1990's that 2 cycle engines might become prime movers since they have a much higher theoretical efficiency, but nothing ever came of that either....), or we might see it crop up in unexpected places.


----------



## a_majoor

It seems that there are some "back to the future" ideas that could be adapted to transportation. In the 1940's turbochargers were introduced to increase power output in aircraft by drawing on the waste energy in the exhaust to power a compressor. It occured to some designers that there was a _lot_ of energy in the exhaust, and the energy spinning the turbine could be sent to the drive shaft and used to directly power the propeller as well.

While it wasn't quite that simple, "turbo-compound" engines did get developed and entered service after WW II (most notably in the "Super Constellation" aircraft) until superceded by jet engines. Now that there is a long development of turbochargers for car and truck engines, it seems possible to extend the concept of turbo compounding by using the turbine to extract exhaust energy and feed it back to the transmission. This uses well known existing technology in a somewhat new way, is available to the driver at almost all speeds and minimizes dead weight in the vehicle.


----------



## a_majoor

More long term difficulties ahead. You can do withut an SUV, but going without food is much more difficult. China, with far less arible land and far more people than North America will be hard hit indeed.

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson070207.html



> July 2, 2007
> *The Impending Food Fight*
> by Victor Davis Hanson
> Tribune Media Services
> 
> While we worry about gas prices, the costs of milk, meat and fresh produce silently skyrockets. So like the end of cheap energy, is the era of cheap food also finally over?
> 
> Since the farm depression of the early 1980s — remember the first Farm Aid concert in 1985 — farmers have gone broke in droves from cheap commodity prices. The public shrugged, happy enough to get inexpensive food. Globalization saw increased world acreage planted and farmed under Western methods of efficient production. And that brought into the United States even more plentiful imported food.
> 
> Continued leaps in agricultural technology ensured more production per acre. The result was likewise predictable: the same old food surpluses and low prices. My late parents, who owned the farm I now live on in central California, used to sigh that the planet was reaching 6 billion mouths and so things someday "would have to turn around for farmers."
> 
> Now they apparently have. Food prices are climbing at rates approaching 10 percent per year. But why the sudden change?
> 
> There have been a number of relatively recent radical changes in the United States and the world that, taken together, provide the answer:
> 
> Modern high-tech farming is energy intensive. So recent huge price increases in diesel fuel and petroleum-based fertilizers and chemicals have been passed on to the consumer.
> 
> The public furor over illegal immigration has, despite all the government inaction, still translated into some increased border security. And with more vigilance, fewer illegal aliens are crossing the border to work in labor-intensive crops like fresh fruits and vegetables.
> 
> The U.S. population still increases while suburbanization continues. The sprawl of housing tracts, edge cities and shopping centers insidiously gobbles up prime farmland at the rate of hundreds of thousands of acres per year.
> 
> In turn, in the West periodic droughts and competition from growing suburbs have made water for farming scarcer, more expensive — and sometimes unavailable.
> 
> On the world scene, 2 billion Indians and Chinese are enjoying the greatest material improvement in their nations' histories — and their improved diets mean more food consumed than ever before.
> 
> The result is that global food supplies are also tightening up, both at home and abroad. America has become a net food importer. We seem to have developed a new refined taste for foreign wines, cheeses and fresh winter fruits even as we are consuming more of our corn, wheat, soybeans and dairy products at home.
> 
> Now comes the biofuels movement. For a variety of reasons, ranging from an attempt to become less dependent on foreign oil to a desire for cleaner fuels, millions of acres of farmland are being redirected to corn-based ethanol.
> 
> If hundreds of planned new ethanol refineries are built, the U.S. could very shortly be producing around 30 billion gallons of corn-based fuel per year, using one of every four acres planted to corn for fuel. This dilemma of food or fuel is also appearing elsewhere in the world as Europeans and South Americans begin redirecting food acreages to corn-, soy-, or sugar- based biofuels.
> 
> Corn prices in America have spiked. And since corn is also a prime ingredient for animal feeds and sweeteners, prices likewise are rising for poultry, beef and everything from soft drinks to candy.
> 
> There is currently more corn acreage - about 90 million acres are predicted this year — than at any time in the nation's last half-century. But today's total farm acreage is either static or shrinking; land for biofuels is usually taken from wheat, soybeans or cotton, ensuring those supplies grow tight as well.
> 
> In the past, the genius of our farmers and the mind-boggling innovation of American agribusiness meant that farm production periodically doubled. Indeed, today we are producing far more food on far fewer acres than ever before.
> 
> But we are nearing the limits of further efficiency — especially when such past amazing leaps in production relied on once-cheap petro-chemicals, fuels and fertilizers.
> 
> As in the case of oil, we've gone through these sudden farm price spikes before. My grandfather once told me that in some 70 years of boom-and-bust farming he only made money during World Wars I and II, and the late 1960s.
> 
> But this latest round of high food prices seems coupled to energy shortages, and so won't go away anytime soon. That raises questions critical to the very security of this nation, which may have to import as many agricultural commodities as it does energy — and find a way to pay for both.
> 
> The American consumer lifestyle took off thanks to low-cost fuel and food. Once families could drive and eat cheaply, they had plenty of disposable income for housing and consumer goods.
> 
> But if they can't do either anymore, how angry will they get as they buy less and pay more for the very staples of life?
> 
> ©2007 Tribune Media Services


----------



## Kirkhill

An artificial creation this shortage.

People need food before fuel.  Trading acreage to create fuel rather than food is jus' plain dumb.  
Likewise it is dumb to divert liquid fuels like diesel to stationary uses.  Liquid fuels are still the best option for mobile gear like tractors and trucks.

For all other applications - electricity from large plants like that one that Dalton McGuinty just demolished at Lakeshore or those other ones at Pickering and Darlington.  He could have created a nice greenhouse complex and district heating system with that plant at Lakeshore - producing food in Toronto - close to the market - with all that useful CO2 that plant produced. 

Bransom, Harper, Suzuki, Bush and Gore along with the UN will be creating a 3rd World Famine long before they CURE Global Warming or make the Mid-East stable.

The cure to the worlds ills.  Ship carbon from where it exists to where it is needed.  Make CO2 where it is needed to grow food.  CO2 sequestered when the food is eaten.


----------



## a_majoor

An interesting introduction to various reformulation schemes. Biofuels usually require work to be burned or otherwise used in everyday industrial processes, and the more work that gets put into transforming fuel, the less energy that is ultimatly available. The reformulation of natural gas to hydrogen is particularly horrible, it not only takes a vast amount of energy, but the resulting hydrogen gas has only a fraction of the energy of the natural gas used in the process.

http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/cho.html


----------



## a_majoor

Solar energy seems attractive since the solar constant is 1400W/m2, but since it dosn't work at night, and has issues when there is weather, dust in the atmosphere, shading from trees, buildings etc. a realistic planning figure would be solar energy can suppliment about 1/3 of your energy needs without getting into things like solar power satellites beaming power from space.

Here is a place made in Canada solutions might be found:

http://www.capds.uwaterloo.ca/



> The Center for Advanced Photovoltaic Devices and Systems (CAPDS) is a world-class R&D facility dedicated to all aspects of photovoltaic (PV) energy conversion. Located at the University of Waterloo, right at the heart of Canada's Technology Triangle Area, the CAPDS is a 14000 sq.ft. research facility with dedicated infrastructure for PV research supporting synthesis of electronic base materials, design and fabrication of advanced PV devices & modules, and testing & characterization of PV materials, devices & systems.  Backed by state-of-the-art infrastructure and expertise, the multi-faceted R&D at the CAPDS spans the entire spectrum of PV research, from base materials to modules, making it a unique facility that is capable of making a true impact on the quest for making PV an affordable energy alternative. This initiative is funded by the Canadian Federal Government, the Ontario Provincial Government, Industry, and by the University of Waterloo. The facility is expected to be fully operational by year 2007.


----------



## Benny

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Solar energy seems attractive since the solar constant is 1400W/m2, but since it dosn't work at night, and has issues when there is weather, dust in the atmosphere, shading from trees, buildings etc. a realistic planning figure would be solar energy can suppliment about 1/3 of your energy needs without getting into things like solar power satellites beaming power from space.


Which is why you have an interconnecting grid over a few thousand km. Local areas get shrouded in cloud, but whole continents don't. Same for wind power. Transmission losses at 330kV+ are tiny (most losses occur at local level), so moving power great distances isn't a problem. Solar power for Canada needn't be installed there, far better to have it in the desert areas of the US, sited near existing transmission lines.


----------



## Benny

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Enron also created artificial shortages in California to inflate the prices.  It is no coincidence that when Enron collapsed the blackouts in California ended.


Generators still do this here. Turbines are often rather conveniently out for maintenance during high demand periods to ensure the price goes up nicely. It isn't illegal either, and not much can be done about it besides limiting the amount of generation any one company can own, and stringent testing for collusion.


----------



## a_majoor

Benny said:
			
		

> Which is why you have an interconnecting grid over a few thousand km. Local areas get shrouded in cloud, but whole continents don't. Same for wind power. Transmission losses at 330kV+ are tiny (most losses occur at local level), so moving power great distances isn't a problem. Solar power for Canada needn't be installed there, far better to have it in the desert areas of the US, sited near existing transmission lines.



Variable and intermittent power would cause severe voltage fluctuations on the grid. This sort of thing is thought to have led to a grid collapse and blackout in Germany (which is trying to get a large fraction of their energy from wind power), and will be a limiting factor everywhere else. You simply cannot dial a mutli megawatt base station up and dowm like a dimmer switch to account for voltage fluctuations elsewhere on the grid (and especially not with nuclear generators).

Long distance transmission is also inefficient since @ 33% of the generated power goes to waste heat generated in the wires and transformers.

You can't evade the Laws of Physics. Remember, _they_ are watching!


----------



## Benny

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Variable and intermittent power would cause severe voltage fluctuations on the grid. This sort of thing is thought to have led to a grid collapse and blackout in Germany (which is trying to get a large fraction of their energy from wind power), and will be a limiting factor everywhere else. You simply cannot dial a mutli megawatt base station up and dowm like a dimmer switch to account for voltage fluctuations elsewhere on the grid (and especially not with nuclear generators).
> 
> Long distance transmission is also inefficient since @ 33% of the generated power goes to waste heat generated in the wires and transformers.


No it won't. The fluctuations due to wind power, though large, are slow, and can be forecast. Generators other than base load, will turn on and off in a matter of minutes. There should always be at least one turbine on any grid spinning synchronously, without actually generating. This can be quickly brought into generation if needed. Voltage fluctuations are also compensated for by ohmic load. Those evil incandescent bulbs are great for this. If the voltage dips, they use less power.
33% is a huge figure for transmission losses. Where did you get it from? A normal transmission loss figure is 3-5% The highest losses I've ever heard of is 50%, which is on sub-transmission at peak load, on an overloaded line, but that's an extreme case where it was either take the losses, or load shed. And the 3-5% figure includes transformer losses, which are going to be there regardless of where your generation is. So sending it from a different source far away just isn't a problem as long as the transmission lines are there. Having various sources also protects from a spike in resource prices. There is an oil based generator near my work which has never operated because of the price spike shortly after construction, it now runs on natural gas. Wind always stays free.


----------



## a_majoor

Re: voltage fluctuations taking out the grid: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017/post-483867.html#msg483867
Full story: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=7235a029-e0cb-479d-aeb6-ef19c4fc32f5

WRT energy losses through the electrical system, see the chart: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017/post-422007.html#msg422007, from
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/images/2006/U.S.EnergyFlowTrends-2002-InExajoules-USEnFlow02-exaj.gif

Electrical system energy losses are given at 68%, (27.8 Exojoules of system losses divided by 40.3 Exojoules of input)

Overall, thermodynamic losses consumes 57% of the input, so it will be very important to find ways and means of reducing these losses. Since you can't evade the laws of physics, this needs to be done carefully. It is no good switching to some system to gain downstream efficiencies if you are using more energy and resources in manufacturing upstream. This is the real secret of hybrid cars as they are produced today, they are energy hogs when it comes to production. I suspect a Prius without its heavy and expensive battery pack, electric motor and complex transmission would be faster, cheaper and _just as_ fuel efficient since there would be huge weight savings. Current PV cells have the same drawbacks of upstream expense to downstream savings.

_edit to fix math_


----------



## Benny

For the purpose of debating long distance transmission, that diagram is not exactly useful. It counts losses after customer delivery, during low voltage distribution, during generation, all of which are common losses regardless of which technology you use. Worst of all, a third of the 'losses' have nothing to do with electricity at all. The only valid figure for long distance transmission comparison would be losses at 132kV+, which is not included in that diagram. As long as you don't overload the lines, at 500kV you can push energy about 2000km at under 10% loss.
And 500kV lines are rarely overloaded as the conductor area is necessarily large due to corona effect.


----------



## Trooper Hale

Just for a tiny bit of background, Benny there works with all these power currents and electricity stuff. He doesnt wear glasses three inches thick, nor does he fill his pockets with colour coded pens, so i cant vouch for his overall nerdiness, but he does know what he's on about.
And its really quite interesting. I heard the same thing about wind farms losing heaps of the electrify that they create, your saying that its not as much as Coal plant owners and people who believe in Nuclear power would like us to think?


----------



## Benny

Hale said:
			
		

> Just for a tiny bit of background, Benny there works with all these power currents and electricity stuff.


Aaarrggghh, I've been outed!  (runs and hides in shadow)



			
				Hale said:
			
		

> nor does he fill his pockets with colour coded pens,


Fine, you won the pen stealing contest on saturday. Stop rubbing it in.



			
				Hale said:
			
		

> And its really quite interesting. I heard the same thing about wind farms losing heaps of the electrify that they create, your saying that its not as much as Coal plant owners and people who believe in Nuclear power would like us to think?


It's just not true. They 'lose' some by not generating it in the first place due to not harnessing all of the power that the wind has to offer, but as far as actual transformation and transmission losses they are exactly the same as everything else.


----------



## a_majoor

I must bow to your superior knowledge (and many pens!); but I must admit some of what you say does seem to be at varience to the other things I have read; and I am not a frequent follower of green or anti-technology writers either. Experience trumps second hand knowledge


----------



## Benny

It is all too common to see more than a little political input masqerading as environmental/engineering concerns. It can lead to some pretty stupid outcomes when the facts behind a project become distorted. This happens to some extent here, though there has only been one real example of political interference causing a stuff up. This was where a wind farm was stopped because someone calculated that every 20 years an endangered parrot might be killed by the thing. Mostly our engineers here are just left to do engineering, and the politicians stay out of it. Sounds like this is not the case where you are.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

The bottom line is this. Most of us here will probably all be dead and buried before the oil is supposed to run out. If that's the case at all. Large oil companies keep a very tight leash on their geologists and their findings, so no one except for the few privy in the oil companies really knows how much oil is actually out there. 

Speculation make a few very wealthy people even wealthier everyday and the rest of us are just along for the ride, happily handing our money to them at the pumps at the prices they dictate.

Like sheep to a wolves den. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

On a more serious note, the internal combustion engine as we know it today, has been around in some form or other since 1885 by Gottlieb Daimler, what is often recognized as the prototype of the modern gas engine. I think it has been perfected as far as it can possibly go. Even with newer and better electronic engine management systems being the only way to make and already obsolete piece of engineering any more efficient is likened to placing a Cray supercomputer into a 1960 Chevrolet and expecting it to run more efficiently. Never going to happen. The principal remains the same, the engine. The electronics's may be cutting edge, but can only do so much to take it past that 30% threshold that the most efficient I/C engine already runs at.  It's like squeezing a stone and expecting water. 

It's time we moved on to another much more efficient form of propulsion and put the grossly inefficient internal combustion engine were it belongs, in a museum. Problem is we have been so busy trying to get more out of this engine that better systems have been placed on the backburner for years, most likely, because of a lack of economic incentive to do anything that involved taking money away from big oil producers. We all seen what happended to other "new ideas" that came along in the past, gobbled up and shelved.


----------



## Trooper Hale

+1 Retired Grunt, really well said and very true in my head.


----------



## adaminc

The future is going to be electric with battery or ultra-capacitor storage systems. I would prefer ultra-capacitors because of all the advantages over batteries, faster charge/discharge rates, better thermal stability, less weight. 

I think there needs to be even more money dumped into both areas of storage research (batteries and capacitors), this is really the only big stigma in electronics, storage, its easy to generate large amounts of energy, but storing large amounts, and especially making it portable or mobile, is quite difficult, even large power generating facilities have troubles, usually they pump large amounts of water uphill for a later release to turn turbines, or more recently they are delving into the idea of pumping compressed air into underground caverns for later release to turn turbines.

I have heard of a very theoretical power system that uses a principle called the Beta Voltaic Effect to generate electricity using radioactive materials, no fusion or fission, the material is housed inside the "device", and using the natural breakdown of the radioactive material it captures the energy from the alpha and beta particles (and possibly gamma rays), that are shooting out from the radioactive material, in theory it would work very well, but it could just be another cold fusion kind of pipe dream, I'm no nuclear physicist so I couldn't really understand the technicalities of it, but this could be another area to look into.

As for electric motors, the future will probably be wheel hub motors for most vehicles, like PML's Hi-PA Drives, unless you get into very heavy vehicles like tanks, then well, I dont know what they would use.


----------



## a_majoor

There is actually a very easy to use, high density means of storing and transporting energy. The energy is available at all temperature ranges, is reasonably easy to access with many technologies, relatively non toxic and can be used by literally everyone (as daily experience has shown world wide for more than a century).

The secret: the chemical energy stored in the bonds between hydrogen and carbon, particularly long chains like C18 and above........the generic trade name for such magical substances is "hydrocarbons", but a related substance has almost the same material and energetic properties: coal.

Face it, the laws of physics has us in a pretty tight corner, and in order to be practical, usable and widely accepted, any competing development must at least match the conveinience and energy density of hydrocarbon fuels in thermal (internal combustion) engines. Ultracapacitors sound promising, although a car with electric engines in the wheels would have a very harsh ride (look up "unsprung weight" and see why engineers try to reduce it as much as possible). Trucks and utility vehicles coud benefit from the increased room, though.

The best way that I know of to combine the energy density of hydrocarbons with the "conveinience" of an electric vehicle would be using hydrocarbon fuels in a "Solid Oxide Fuel Cell", which can convert a much higher portion of the chemical energy into electricity. Mind you, waiting for the SOFC to warm up to 10000 C to achieve operating temperatures might not make it perform the way you are used to......

Sorry folks, no easy answers yet.


----------



## adaminc

There is already a BMW Mini with these wheel hub motors, its a P.O.C. (proof of concept), and I supposedly it rides almost the same, this is by the same company PML, and uses their Hi-PA drives, the highend ones which put out 550lb-ft of torque only weigh 25kg, not that heavy, although inorder to use them now the vehicle would probably get heavy from all the batteries you would need, i think the stigma is still in storage and not in drive systems.


----------



## a_majoor

Some more background on electricity generation in Canada. Note the high proportion of nuclear and thermal energy used:

http://greycanada.blogspot.com/2007/08/great-canadian-debate-nuclear-power



> *Great Canadian Debate: Nuclear Power*
> 
> Instead of figuring out yet another forum right now, I am putting my reply here.
> 
> Sorry Frank, but you missed a lot. Nuclear power supplied 50% of Ontario's electricity needs in 2006. In Ontario, when the power went out on August 14, 2003, it was days until the nuclear plants could be slowly taken out of "safe mode." Increasing the number of reactors to 78% like France would make the recovery from another large blackout even worse.
> 
> Your assumption on the use of oil and gas is wrong. Over a quarter of all electricity generation in Canada comes from thermal power plants. Of that quarter, natural gas, diesel, Light Fuel Oil, and Heavy Fuel Oil amount to (20+0.5+8.2)=28.7%. So oil products are used to generate around 7 % of Canada's electricity. The other categories like Wood and Coal make up around 18% of the total both of which are plentiful outside of the middle east. In fact they have very little coal reserves.
> 
> The only argument you have left is green house gases and micro stations are being tested now that have zero emissions.



I am assuming "micro" in this context means micro hydro, which is OK for small scale and local needs.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Now here is this crazy machine, sent to me via email:












March 19, 2007 Many respected engineers have been trying for years to bring a compressed air car to market, believing strongly that compressed air can power a viable "zero pollution" car. Now the first commercial compressed air car is on the verge of production and beginning to attract a lot of attention, and with a recently signed partnership with Tata, India’s largest automotive manufacturer, the prospects of very cost-effective mass production are now a distinct possibility. The MiniC.A.T is a simple, light urban car, with a tubular chassis that is glued not welded and a body of fiberglass. The heart of the electronic and communication system on the car is a computer offering an array of information reports that extends well beyond the speed of the vehicle, and is built to integrate with external systems and almost anything you could dream of, starting with voice recognition, Internet connectivity, GSM telephone connectivity, a GPS guidance system, fleet management systems, emergency systems, and of course every form of digital entertainment. The engine is fascinating, as is and the revolutionary electrical system that uses just one cable and so is the vehicle’s wireless control system. Microcontrollers are used in every device in the car, so one tiny radio transmitter sends instructions to the lights, indicators etc

There are no keys, just an access card which can be read by the car from your pocket.

Most importantly, it is incredibly cost-efficient to run according to the designers, it costs less than one Euro per 100Km (about a tenth that of a petrol car). Its mileage is about double that of the most advanced electric car (200 to 300 km or 10 hours of driving), a factor which makes a perfect choice in cities where the 80% of motorists drive at less than 60Km. The car has a top speed of 68 mph.

Refilling the car will, once the market develops, take place at adapted petrol stations to administer compressed air. In two or three minutes, and at a cost of approximately 1.5 Euros, the car will be ready to go another 200-300 kilometres.

As a viable alternative, the car carries a small compressor which can be connected to the mains (220V or 380V) and refill the tank in 3-4 hours.

Due to the absence of combustion and, consequently, of residues, changing the oil (1 litre of vegetable oil) is necessary only every 50,000 Km.

The temperature of the clean air expelled by the exhaust pipe is between 0 - 15 degrees below zero, which makes it suitable for use by the internal air conditioning system with no need for gases or loss of power.

How does it work?

90m3 of compressed air is stored in fibre tanks. The expansion of this air pushes the pistons and creates movement. The atmospheric temperature is used to re-heat the engine and increase the road coverage. The air conditioning system makes use of the expelled cold air. Due to the absence of combustion and the fact there is no pollution, the oil change is only necessary every 31.000 miles.

At the moment, four models have been made: a car, a taxi (5 passengers), a Pick-Up truck and a van. The final selling price will be approximately 5.500 pounds.

The Company

"Moteur Development International" (MDI) is a company founded in Luxembourg, based in the south of France and with its Commercial Office in Barcelona. MDI has researched and developed the Air Car over 10 years and the technology is protected by more than 30 International patents and MDI is actively seeking licensees, with according to the company, 50 factories in Europe, America and Asiasigned already.

The Factory

It is predicted that the factory will produce 3.000 cars each year, with 70 staff working only one 8-hour shift a day. If there were 3 shifts some 9.000 cars could be produced a year.

The Tata Agreement

Tata Motors is India's largest automobile company, with revenues of US$ 5.5 billion in 2005-06. With over 4 million Tata vehicles on Indian roads, it is the leader in commercial vehicles and the second largest in passenger vehicles. It is also the world's fifth largest medium and heavy truck manufacturer and the second largest heavy bus manufacturer.

Tata has signed an agreement with MDI for application in India of MDI’s engine technology, and believes the engine is viable; its press statement described it as an efficient, cost-effective, scalable, and capable of other applications such as power generation.

The agreement between Tata Motors and MDI envisages Tata supporting further development and refinement of the technology, and its application and licensing for India.

MDI is a small, family-controlled company located at Carros, near Nice (Southern France) where Guy and Cyril Negre and their technical team have developed the engine technology and the technologically advanced car it powers.

Pretty hard to say an air powered car could hurt the enviroment.


----------



## adaminc

Thats amazing, I wonder if you could make a sportier version that went faster.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Here ya go  ;D


----------



## Roy Harding

I build furniture.  And in doing so, I use a lot of tools.  Whenever possible, I opt for air powered tools.

I do so because there is only ONE machine doing all the work (the compressor).  Air tools need very little maintenance (clean 'em up and throw a drop of oil in once in a while), have fewer moving parts than their electric counterparts, and have a failure rate to die for.

I don't see why the concept couldn't be successfully morphed over to vehicles.  As far as hurting the environment goes - I suppose that depends upon the power source used to run the air compressor.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> As far as hurting the environment goes - I suppose that depends upon the power source used to run the air compressor.


 Exactly!  _Out of sight, out of mind_ doesn't mean that the air is compressing itself (same deal with hydrogen, electricity or any other "zero pollution" solution).  There's no free lunch.


----------



## a_majoor

Reality check for advocates of alternative energy: these are the figures of merit to meet or exceed:



> The makeup of both gasoline and diesel is different as well. Gasoline is typically C9H20, while diesel fuel is typically C14H30. The increase in carbon and hydrogen atoms is the reason the energy density of diesel is greater as well. On average, 1 gallon (3.8 L) of diesel fuel contains approximately 155x106 joules (147,000 BTU), while 1 gallon of gasoline contains 132x106 joules (125,000 BTU).



You need to compress a lot of air to match that!


----------



## a_majoor

Alternative energy advocates need to be aware of the facts:

http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/stat2003en.pdf



> The bulk of electric power cannot currently be stored in an economically feasible way. It has to be generated at the same time it is used, and electricity grids require power to be supplied at the rated frequency and voltage, free from harmonics, voltage surges and interruptions. A modern industrialised society depends heavily on stable and high quality power supplies to run industrial processes and information technology. There are, therefore, a number of operational aspects which have to be taken into account when specific energy targets are considered. For the deployment of renewables on a large scale, these include the intermittent nature of leading sources, the related problems of full integration with grids, low capacity factors and the need for back-up power.
> 
> When renewable energy targets are aimed at the reduction of GHG emissions, broad technical issues should be taken into consideration. For example, emissions per kilowatt-hour from conventional power stations are reduced by maximising their base-load operation; however, integration of some renewable generating capacities into the grid can increase frequency fluctuations, thus raising the overall emissions levels. Another issue, which in many cases is not fully taken into account, is back-up capacity to provide electricity at short notice, which most often relies on diesel or coal-fired generating units.



The big problem is many people _want_ to do the right thing, but are not aware of the science. Politicians are particularly susceptible, since these schemes sound good, and offer a way to feed friends at the public trough without too much opposition. Saying ethanol and wind turbines are "Green" (to use two examples) makes for a good sound bite, demonstrating ethanol uses more energy to make than you ever get back or the pitfalls or wind turbines takes lots of time and effort.


----------



## Cheshire

a_majoor...



> You need to compress a lot of air to match that



If I was driving a Hummer maybe. But with these compact, fiberglass cars, the amount of energy needed to propell, you, your luggage, the car, and the compressed air are greatly reduced.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Cheshire said:
			
		

> a_majoor...
> 
> If I was driving a Hummer maybe. But with these compact, fiberglass cars, the amount of energy needed to propell, you, your luggage, the car, and the compressed air are greatly reduced.



But that same vehicle would consume far less fuel!


----------



## a_majoor

A novel non thermal means of generating electricity. As far as I can understand this, it is similar to a fuel cell and would be ideal for laptops and other small scale applications (for now). Assuming there are no scaling issues (big if), these devices could be ganged together to produce electric power for larger scale applications as well.

http://www.neofuel.com/nanotech/index.html


----------



## MechEng

I think the next 50 years will see us moving to depend more on Nuclear.  But Nuclear Energy cannot make up 100% of our energy.  Our Energy demands fluctuate throught the day and Nuclear powerplants are not very good at varing their output.  And it can take days to stop and restart a reactor.  Nuclear is good for base load electricity ~70% of our power.  Ontario already uses 50+% nuclear power. The rest will have to come from more variable sources of power (hydro electric, wind, solar, biomass).

In the future we I think we will see more solar and wind generation at our own homes.  This has two bennifits. 1. Green electricity 2. Less electrical transmission issues (i.e. 2003 Blackout).  Especailly since the components to do this are starting to come down in cost and are becoming more efficent.

For portable devices such as laptops, cars, power tools you will see a vast improvement in battery technology.
A123 Systems has developed a nanophosphate Li-Ion battery.  
http://www.a123systems.com/newsite/index.php#/technology/
It's safe (unlike the panasonic laptop batteries).  Dewalt is already using them in their cordless power tools. GM will be using this battery in the Chevy Volt Electric Car and in future hybrid vehicles.
These batteries are designed to last 10 years and work fine in hot and cold climates.

Electric motors are far more powerfull than Internal Combustion Engines and far more effecient.

If people think an electric car is slow.  Boy are you in for a suprise.
http://www.killacycle.com/
The motorcycle even got into an accedent and the battery was damaged but there was no fire and everything stayed safe.

Also for alternative fuels you have Ethanol and Biodiesel.  This would be a good intrm measure. There are now ways to produce these fuels without using crops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture (process that can make biodiesel and hydrogen)


----------



## Kirkhill

MechEng:

I agree with much of your posting but I am still not sold on "organic" energy sources.  The conversion processes are way to inefficient and slow and you always have to deal with the problem of expending energy to separate your "power source" from water which can make up more than 90% of your raw material (80% if it is an animal, 90% if it is an oil bearing plant, 95% if it is a leafy green or an algae).

We are much further ahead digging the carbon out of the ground from rich sources and recapturing it all for reuse later, than we are trying to capture carbon from air and trying to turn it into energy.  

You have gold in nuggets in the stream bed. You have gold in seams in the rock. You have gold in flecks in the mountain.

Which are you going to go after first.  Personally I would go after the placer gold in the river before I started to worry about demolishing and sieving mountains.  

Coal fired plants and greenhouses - there is a successful combination.


----------



## MechEng

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> MechEng:
> 
> I agree with much of your posting but I am still not sold on "organic" energy sources.  The conversion processes are way to inefficient and slow and you always have to deal with the problem of expending energy to separate your "power source" from water which can make up more than 90% of your raw material (80% if it is an animal, 90% if it is an oil bearing plant, 95% if it is a leafy green or an algae).
> 
> We are much further ahead digging the carbon out of the ground from rich sources and recapturing it all for reuse later, than we are trying to capture carbon from air and trying to turn it into energy.
> 
> You have gold in nuggets in the stream bed. You have gold in seams in the rock. You have gold in flecks in the mountain.
> 
> Which are you going to go after first.  Personally I would go after the placer gold in the river before I started to worry about demolishing and sieving mountains.
> 
> Coal fired plants and greenhouses - there is a successful combination.



I will agree that biofuels are not a long term solution but not for the reasons you listed.

There are already cellulostic ethanol plants up and running in the US producing ethanol cheaper and more efficient than crop based ethanol (cheaper than gasoline too).  And their are plans to build dozens of these plants in the near future.

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070927005865&newsLang=en

Biofuels should only be temporary to ween us off gasoline.

The problem is if you burn anything at high temperatures you don't just get CO2.  You get many other pollutants like Nitrous Oxides which are far worse than CO2.

And this is why burning coal is a bad idea.  Carbon recapturing is actually further away than most people think and is far from perfect.

Solar panels have made huge gains in becoming more efficient (but still have a ways to go).  But their are many other promising technologies on the horizon.

I personally can't wait to get my Chevy Volt in 2010.  GM has already signed the supplier contracts, selected the assembly factory and it has been officially on the production schedule for a year now.


----------



## a_majoor

WRT Nuclear energy, we need to look at more advanced systems. Very high energy density and high conversion efficiency will make nuclear energy more economical: http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/non-classical_reactor_systems.pdf

Of course, people need to realize nuclear is green..........


----------



## Kirkhill

MechEng said:
			
		

> I will agree that biofuels are not a long term solution but not for the reasons you listed.
> 
> There are already cellulostic ethanol plants up and running in the US producing ethanol cheaper and more efficient than crop based ethanol (cheaper than gasoline too).  And their are plans to build dozens of these plants in the near future........
> 
> ..... Carbon recapturing is actually further away than most people think and is far from perfect.



Not much of anything is perfect - everything has a cost, and a risk.

As to the plans to build dozens of ethanol plants - those dozens of plant need either straw (which is currently left lying on the fields in order to stop the dirt blowing away), fresh green stuff (which is wet and needs space to grow - space that could be used for food crops or just to supply habitat for spotted and burrowing owls and Kemodi bears) or waste bark (which could be better employed being mulched and shipped to Afghanistan so that they can put a bit of carbon back into their environment and grow things).  

TANSTAAFL - everything has a price including your Chevy Volt - Even if you are operating it from a pedal-driven dynamo while watching reruns of the Nature of Things - You're going to get awfully hungry and won't some productive Green Space - 

Of course, ethanol and pedalling would make an interesting mix.


----------



## MechEng

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Not much of anything is perfect - everything has a cost, and a risk.
> 
> As to the plans to build dozens of ethanol plants - those dozens of plant need either straw (which is currently left lying on the fields in order to stop the dirt blowing away), fresh green stuff (which is wet and needs space to grow - space that could be used for food crops or just to supply habitat for spotted and burrowing owls and Kemodi bears) or waste bark (which could be better employed being mulched and shipped to Afghanistan so that they can put a bit of carbon back into their environment and grow things).
> 
> TANSTAAFL - everything has a price including your Chevy Volt - Even if you are operating it from a pedal-driven dynamo while watching reruns of the Nature of Things - You're going to get awfully hungry and won't some productive Green Space -
> 
> Of course, ethanol and pedalling would make an interesting mix.



The volt has an electric only range of 62kms and would only use the ICE if I go further than that (very efficiently I might add).  My daily commute to and from work is only 40kms. And to recharge the Volt That is where far cleaner electricity comes in.  Currently Ontario only gets 18% of it's power from burning fossil fuels.  And in the future under current plans in 20 years it will be less than 5% (which will only be Natural Gas). http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=6222
http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=english.news&body=yes&news_id=162

Now I don't think that ethanol is a long term solution.  But cars with an ICE will be with us for at least another 20 years. And Biofuels look like a good fuel to use in the transition.

There is no such thing as perfection.  Everything we do will have some impact on the environment around us.  But what people don't understand is we don't need perfection.  The environment has a certain capacity to clean up after us.  The problem is we are currently living beyond that capacity.  This is not about saving the environment.  Us humans do not have the power to completely destroy the environment.  But we do have the power to destroy ourselves. What we need to do Is find a way to live sustainably.


----------



## Kirkhill

MechEng - I sense rapprochement here. 

I think the only thing we are now really discussing is the scenario for dealing with the next 20 to 50 years.  I DON'T happen to think that we as a species, or the planet, is at risk.  I DO believe that there are always better ways to do things.  

Amongst my many lives I remember one of them lived as a 6 year old kid in London, being walked to school in the smog, not knowing if we were on the road or the pavement (street or sidewalk to you) and be very surprised to find a Big Red Double Decker bus approaching us.  I know what pollution looks like and I am glad we cleaned it up (perversely however I have an ongoing love of the smell of coal fires and diesel fumes while I find pine forests overpowering - go figure). Back to point.....

As you rightly state, the planet can handle a lot.  It is constantly experimenting on itself and leaving uninhabitable areas - deserts, oilsands, arsenical creeks, pitchblende and radon contaminated ground.....  So if we want to do something we can take our time and play a bit.

I would start off by saying that the fastest way anywhere is to start from the existing position and improve what we have - hence my preference for coal and scrubbers and biofilters (containerized or artificial peat bogs) and green houses and ponds and CaCO3 etc.  It is all known technology that has a track record and is relatively easy to implement.  If you are prepared to spend 100s of Billions on a completely new industry with unproven suppliers and a poorly developed infrastructure, why not consider 10s of Billions to get 80% of the way there faster.  (Aside from the novelty aspect).

The resulting plants will be at least as environmentally friendly as your new ethanol plants (just consider all that energy you are going to spend manufacturing all that lovely high-priced stainless steel equipment for the plants - how does that figure into your cost/benefit analysis?).

Actually I like the idea of electric cars.  Heck I am looking forward to the day I can whistle up my publicly funded pod and have it deliver me to my destination in one, direct, trip.  If they can run autopilots and GPS trackers and parallel my car for me then they can manage that.  A few buried magnets and a battery would do the trick for power management.   Then I can keep my gas-guzzling SUV for heading out to the flatlands (hills induce claustrophobia - and trees? ugh - nasty things that block the view).

But by all means - envisage an electrical future.  But hydrocarbons will continue to be the most stable method of storing usable energy for a long while.  And the Germans were making Diesel from Coal years ago.

Now figure out how to run a closed-cycle engine and rapidly pump out my "waste" carbon at the same time as you are pumping in my "fresh" hydrocarbons.  You can have my waste for regeneration to hydrocarbons, plant food or people. 


Cheers.


----------



## MechEng

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> MechEng - I sense rapprochement here.
> 
> I think the only thing we are now really discussing is the scenario for dealing with the next 20 to 50 years.  I DON'T happen to think that we as a species, or the planet, is at risk.  I DO believe that there are always better ways to do things.



We are not at risk in the next 20-50 years I agree.  But the more steps we make now the less we have to deal with in the future. 

I agree we have to use what we have now to our benefit.

According to the Coal industry in the US the fastest they could get a commercially viable power plant to use clean coal technology is 2020.  Why should we wait that long when there are plenty of other commercially viable and cleaner sources of energy at our disposal now?

Now we are running out of oil.  Coal can be used to substitute (It's already used in South Africa).  But it too is far from clean.  Cellulosic Ethanol does not use crops for production.  It uses biomass waste products. And does not use much energy to produce compared to coal based fuels.

Algaculture uses Algae on wastewater treatment ponds to produce biodiesel and hydrogen.  Now this technology only recently became viable thanks to a huge breakthrough only a few months ago.  So it's a little ways off.  But there are now plans to implement this in 15 locations.

Now saying all this I don't see Coal as a clean alternative.  And I think electric cars are the future (for reasons previously stated).  But even if all the automakers stop selling ICE cars and started selling electric cars today it would take a while for ICE's to make their way out of society.  And I fell that non crop based biofuels would be the best alternative for this problem.


----------



## Kirkhill

MechEng said:
			
		

> According to the Coal industry in the US the fastest they could get a commercially viable power plant to use clean coal technology is 2020.


 Are we talking about high efficiency burners here - which I believe they are - or putting the types of scrubbers common at incinerator plants in Europe, being currently applied to western Canadian plants or intended for those that were destroyed for McGuinty's photo-op.



> Why should we wait that long when there are plenty of other commercially viable and cleaner sources of energy at our disposal now?



How long do you think it is going take to get all those dozens of ethanol plants on line when China is sucking up all the available supply of industrial metals for the dozens of coal and hydro plants it is building.  You can't get a titanium heat exchanger without a two year delay.  And bundles of them - forget it.  Not to mention all the harvesting and transportation.  It will take you at least until 2020 to get your ethanol plants up to anything like a useful capacity.



> Now we are running out of oil.


  

Yes we are depleting the known resource.  No we are not running out.  Lots of time left yet before we get through current gas, current oil, heavy oil, tarsands and shale oil.  Then we can start working on oil from coal ( Which is actually hydrogenation of the coal, IIRC).



> Coal can be used to substitute (It's already used in South Africa).  But it too is far from clean.



Stipulated. 



> Cellulosic Ethanol does not use crops for production.  It uses biomass waste products. And does not use much energy to produce compared to coal based fuels.



There are no biomass waste products.  That material is far too valuable where it is.  And if there is a surplus it would be better being transported to places like Afghanistan and Darfur where there is a deficit.  They need it to stabilize soils, hold water, provide humus and to degrade and create a local CO2 rich atmosphere that will support plant growth.  If you have surplus biomass give it to me and I will blow lovely warm CO2 rich coal stack air through it and feed lots of lovely bacteria until the bed is saturated then pack it up and ship it to Afghanistan to grow trees.



> Algaculture uses Algae on wastewater treatment ponds to produce biodiesel and hydrogen.  Now this technology only recently became viable thanks to a huge breakthrough only a few months ago.  So it's a little ways off.  But there are now plans to implement this in 15 locations.



Algae are up to 95% water.  A ton of algae (2000 lbs - forgive me I am old and worked with Americans) contains 1900 lbs of water. It requires 1000 BTU to evaporate each lb. Therefore it requires 1,900,000 BTUs of energy to drive off the water.  One lb of Diesel contain 19,000 BTUs of heat.  Therefore to extract the combustible portion of the algae and generate something dry enough to throw into a burner you need to invest 1,900,000 /19,000 or 100 lbs of oil (10 imperial gallons or 12 US gallons or about 40 liters) to get the algae to a useable form.  And that assumes 100% energy conversions.  Reality is more like 70% all told.  But lets stick with the 10/12/40 numbers.

The 1 ton of algae will yield 100 lbs of matter roughly equivalent to wood or grass.  Dry wood has a calorific value of about 8,000 BTU.  Your ton of Algae with consequently yield 800,000 BTUs of heat.

So after you have invested surface, water, energy, capital, material and manpower in the growth of Algae you then have to invest 1,900,000 BTUs of heat in order to get 800,000 BTUs of heat.  You are in deficit.  And the more you do to the algae, to ferment it to produce a liquid fuel like ethanol, for example, the more you have to invest and the lower the return. Your deficit increases.

Biofuels are a way to use a surplus that has no other value, a waste.  They are a lousy method of fueling an economy and can be put to much better use feeding plants and animals which will ultimately feed humans.



> Now saying all this I don't see Coal as a clean alternative.  And I think electric cars are the future (for reasons previously stated).  But even if all the automakers stop selling ICE cars and started selling electric cars today it would take a while for ICE's to make their way out of society.  And I fell that non crop based biofuels would be the best alternative for this problem.



Coal is NOT clean. It IS an alternative, and a good one.  Its waste stream is manageable with current technologies if society wishes to invest as much in coal as it is in the hare-brained notions of windfarms, tidal turbines and photocells.  All it would require is jacking the rates to the consumer - and there is already a lot of room between the 8 cents per kWh that I believe Ontario pays and the 25 cents per kWh that you will find in MANY adjacent American locations.

Electric cars are indeed a viable alternative for short hops by urbanites to the nearest Starbucks.  A golf cart would do as well.  They are absolute non-starters in most of Canada, including much of Suburbia.

There are, however, better ways to use the hydrocarbons than in the current generation of ICEs. But that is a whole other story.

Cheers sir.


----------



## tamouh

Speaking of electric motors, this is an interesting innovation taking advantage of electromagnetic motors to achieve better efficiency:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Axle_Corporation

The bike can travel around 180km on a single charge and reach speeds of 150km/hr , price wise it is the same as a scooter. The company is planning for a passenger vehicle as well. This is their YouTube demonstration http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trws3k9vq6M&mode=related&search


----------



## a_majoor

The problem with implementing these schemes is best summed up by Steven Den Beste (who is unfortunately no longer blogging). The first issue is the capital cost to replace various systems. The turnover rate for capital intensive systems is measured in _decades_, even relatively low capital intensive items like cars or refrigerators (to name two fairly common energy hogs) can last decades. Even if you wanted to, you simply can't replace every unit with the new model right away. Aside from issues like production bottlenecks, most utilities or users are still paying for the old unit, and can't afford a new one. Saying "make the government pay" can only lead to massive economic distortions or inflation (or both), since you still can't afford to replace the old unit, but now you must fork over the cost anyway in taxes, or the State imposes economic controls to get the new item, or they print more money.

This makes the issue of economic payback important. If you are going to spend a thousand dollars on a high efficiency fridge, you expect to save lots of money. If electricity costs you, the consumer $.08/Kw/hr, then you will not see significant impact on your utility bills. I did some calculations based on the idea that a solar shingle array would be able to provide @ 1/3 of my energy requirements; the saving was in the neighbourhood of $500/year. The cost of the array and associated power conditioning equipment was @ $70,000, payoff would take decades.

This brings up the next issue, which is weighted averages. As you can see, even a 33% reduction in energy use was not much in my case, and even massive gains in one area (like light bulbs) does not translate into killer gains elsewhere.

These posts explains these concepts far better (and there are lots of other exciting tidbits throughout his archive as well): http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/06/NomeansNo.shtml 
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/09/Obscureenergysources.shtml


----------



## eerickso

I have never understood the batteries vs. fuel cells debate. What is the major difference? Don't both of them use chemistry to store and release energy? Since fuel cells appear to be technically challenging, why don't we use batteries now?

A Theory: 
Oil owns the transportation sector of our economy. It doesn't want to compete with cheap power and that's exactly what battery powered cars would do. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that oil subsidizes the auto industry.


----------



## MechEng

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Are we talking about high efficiency burners here - which I believe they are - or putting the types of scrubbers common at incinerator plants in Europe, being currently applied to western Canadian plants or intended for those that were destroyed for McGuinty's photo-op.
> 
> How long do you think it is going take to get all those dozens of ethanol plants on line when China is sucking up all the available supply of industrial metals for the dozens of coal and hydro plants it is building.  You can't get a titanium heat exchanger without a two year delay.  And bundles of them - forget it.  Not to mention all the harvesting and transportation.  It will take you at least until 2020 to get your ethanol plants up to anything like a useful capacity.
> 
> Electric cars are indeed a viable alternative for short hops by urbanites to the nearest Starbucks.  A golf cart would do as well.  They are absolute non-starters in most of Canada, including much of Suburbia.
> 
> There are, however, better ways to use the hydrocarbons than in the current generation of ICEs. But that is a whole other story.
> 
> Cheers sir.



As for coal plants I'm talking about carbon and sulfur recapturing. And making them "so called clean" even though they still really won't be clean.

For ethanol it will take about 5 years to get these plants up and running.  And Cellulosic ethanol can use a variety of  waste products in general not just biomass.  In fact there is currently more ethanol being produced than being consumed right now and many of the crop based ethanol producers are at risk of going under.  Ethanol distribution has not kept up with ethanol production.  And the price of things like corn are putting pressure on crop based ethanol producers.

As for Algae based biofuels there are other ways to extract the water from algae other than expending energy for evaporation.  This is where many of the recent breakthrough's have been.

I don't see why there would be a big push to keep coal power in Canada.  Coal represents a small percentage of the power produced in most parts of Canada.  In Ontario Coal only represents about 15% of the power in the province.  And this could be easily be replaced with nuclear power which is just as economical if not more economical.

Wind power is not as expensive as you think.  On a small home scale it's about 11 cents/KWh on a large scale its about 7 cents/KWh.  And these numbers have been falling fast and show no signs of stopping.

Solar 5 years ago was 30 cents/KWh.  Today its 15 cents/KWh and also falling very fast.  Canadian tire is now selling solar powered home generators.

As for electric cars.  The Chevy Volt is expected to have a range of over 1000km's on 40L of gasoline when using the engine to regenerate the battery and an electric only range of 62kms.  I don't call that short range.

ICE's have an efficiency of ~25%.  Electric motors ~95+%.
Electric motors can go as high as 15000 RPM and have a virtually flat torque curve.  And don't require a transmission (Which gives ~20% efficiency loss).

The only issue to date with electric motors is not size or power.  But it is energy storage.  The next generation of batteries will solve this problem.  The Tesla Roadster electric car with rather primitive Li-Ion batteries has a range of 300kms. http://www.teslamotors.com/

The Chevy Volt and GM's e-flex system will use a small advanced Li-Ion battery that the car can use to go 62kms on electric only range.  And can be recharged by plugging into the wall at home.  It also has a small gas engine.  The gas engine does not power the wheels.  It is only used to recharge the battery and this is a big advantage.  ICE's are most efficient in a very narrow RPM range.  With the engine only used to recharge the battery it can be optimized to run at only one RPM.  It will be like getting highway mileage all the time except better.

Trains made by GM already use the E-flex concept.  Trains today use electric motors for their main source of propulsion and a diesel engine to recharge the battery.

City buses already use hybrid systems with a combination of electric motors and a diesel engine.

Sorry about the long blurb about electric motors but there is a lot of misconceptions about electric motors. I'm a mechanical engineer (hence my name) and my background is in the automotive industry.


----------



## MechEng

leftcoaster said:
			
		

> I have never understood the batteries vs. fuel cells debate. What is the major difference? Don't both of them use chemistry to store and release energy? Since fuel cells appear to be technically challenging, why don't we use batteries now?
> 
> A Theory:
> Oil owns the transportation sector of our economy. It doesn't want to compete with cheap power and that's exactly what battery powered cars would do. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that oil subsidizes the auto industry.



Well there is big research into both or a combination of both right now.  Currently both have issues.  But both are also very close to production ready.

Batteries:
Cost - They are current very expensive the Tesla Roadster retails for ~100K most of that cost is batteries.  The next generation of batteries will be cheaper.  The Li-Ion battery on the volt is expected to cost around 8000 dollars.  That might sound a lot.  But powering a car with electricity is far cheaper than using gasoline.  On a vehicle like the volt I would stand to save ~$90 a month on energy costs and I drive about 2000Kms a month.

Safety - Many older battery designs are not that safe.  I think everybody knows about the Exploding laptops with Li-Ion batteries.  Newer Li-Ion batteries are far safer.  New cathode and electrode chemistries have made them far safer.

Operating environment- many batteries performance degrade when operating at either very low or high temperatures.  Again new Li-Ion batteries actually work better a low temperatures and can function at temperatures as high as 200oC

Weight - Older batteries are heavy.  New Li-Ion batteries are light.

Durability and longevity - Older NiMH batteries only lasted about 5 years.  New advanced Li-Ion are good for about 10 years.

Fuel Cells:
Use hydrogen with oxygen (from air) to produce electricity (reverse electrolysis).

Cost -  Currently fuel cells are expensive.  They use a lot of rare earth metals to produce

Durability - Current generation fuel cells will only last about 80000 kms.

Hydrogen - Fuel cells need large bulky heavy hydrogen tanks on board.  Also hydrogen production is not very wide spread and most hydrogen today is very expensive and produced from fossil fuels.


I personally think battery technology will win out in the end.  But fuel cells are close.  The next generation of fuel cells are supposed to last ~160000 Km's and are becoming cheaper and more efficient.  And there are new and cheaper ways to produce hydrogen.

But batteries have the advantage of not needing new infrastructure to use (just plug in at home).  And battery technology in my opinion already exists to make a viable electric car.


----------



## TCBF

How do you keep the batteries from freezing in the winter?


----------



## MechEng

TCBF said:
			
		

> How do you keep the batteries from freezing in the winter?



A Li-Ion battery is made of a variety of metals and polymers so there is nothing to freeze.  It's already solid.  Older Li-Ion batteries did have liquid cathode and electrodes but new designs have eliminated this.


----------



## a_majoor

Batteries are not very high density energy storage media; consider the very limited range of the GM EV-1 with almost a ton of batteries, compared the the range of a car running on a tank of liquid hydrocarbons. (The short range of the GM "Volt" on battery power also requires a pretty hefty battery pack compared to the 1000km on a small fuel tank). Fuel cells run so long as there is fuel and oxygen, and SOFC (Solid Oxide Fuel Cells) run directly from hydrocarbons without reformulation. The downside of current SOFC's is they need to be heated to 10000C to start, which raises a lot of material science issues.

Fuel cells also do not deal with transients very well, so "blipping" the throttle or getting rapid bursts of power to accelerate will require some sort of auxiliary systems. Serial Electric vehicles like the "Volt"are simply a means of taking advantage of the high energy density of hydrocarbon fuels with an electric drive (and Ferdinand Porsche designed serial electric vehicles prior to WW II).


----------



## MechEng

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Batteries are not very high density energy storage media; consider the very limited range of the GM EV-1 with almost a ton of batteries, compared the the range of a car running on a tank of liquid hydrocarbons. (The short range of the GM "Volt" on battery power also requires a pretty hefty battery pack compared to the 1000km on a small fuel tank). Fuel cells run so long as there is fuel and oxygen, and SOFC (Solid Oxide Fuel Cells) run directly from hydrocarbons without reformulation. The downside of current SOFC's is they need to be heated to 10000C to start, which raises a lot of material science issues.
> 
> Fuel cells also do not deal with transients very well, so "blipping" the throttle or getting rapid bursts of power to accelerate will require some sort of auxiliary systems. Serial Electric vehicles like the "Volt"are simply a means of taking advantage of the high energy density of hydrocarbon fuels with an electric drive (and Ferdinand Porsche designed serial electric vehicles prior to WW II).



While I agree that battery technology has not reached the energy density of other fuels.  But it doesn't have too.  Because battery to electric motor operation is 3 times more efficient therefore the energy density of batteries needs to only be 1/3 of that of other fuels to become viable.  GM's EV-1 used battery technology that is 20 years old.

The battery in the volt though a fair size is not huge and it weighs less than 200lbs.  Newer polymer Li-Ion batteries are lighter and have far more energy density than previous generation batteries. 
http://bioage.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/volt1.png

Now I'm not saying that fuel cells don't have a chance.  I personally think battery technology will win out.  There are some very promising battery technologies on the horizon.  And latest generation nanophosphate Li-Ion batteries are already a viable alternative.  But fuel cells are also very close.  GM's Gen 5 fuel cell that will be in the prototype phase next year is supposed to have a durability of 160000Kms and be significantly cheaper then their Gen 4 fuel cell system.

The Chevy Volt is built off of GM's E-Flex system which has the ability to adapt to different technologies.  So what ever is best in terms of cost benefit will win out.

This article is almost a year old.  But will at least give you an Idea what GM has planed for E-Flex.  And I think this is the future in the automotive industry.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/01/the_volt_may_be.html


----------



## a_majoor

Mechanical (i.e. flywheels and compressed gasses) and electrochemical reactions (batteries) have severe limitations in energy density (hence storage/range issues). Chemical energy is well known and hydrocarbons have the most advantages for day to day use.

Using some sort of nuclear reaction is the next step up; energy density is orders of magnitude beyond chemical energy, but there are several obvious disadvantages, particularly for mobile applications. If this idea is real and workable, then there may be nuclear jets and small scale distributed nuclear power in our future:

http://www.matus1976.com/features/isomer.htm



> *Nuclear Isomer energy storage and Quantum Nucleaonic Reactors*
> 
> Nuclear Isomers are an exciting new development in the field of Nuclear physics. They are, essentially, a nuclear storage battery. Just as atoms can have electrons in excited states, atomic nuclei can have nucleons (protons and nuetrons) in excited states as well, but unlike atoms with electrons in excited states, the nucleons can remain in their excited states for extended lengths of time. The excited nucleons can randomly decay on their own, and have representative half-lifes as well. Not all atoms can have stable excited nucleons, and typically larger atoms are more likely to have longer half-lifes of the excited nucleons. But, the theory goes, the nucleons of an atom can be excited to higher energy levels by bombarding them with gamma rays, and then triggered to release their energy on demand by hitting them with lower energy photons, Ultra Violet or X-Rays. These would amount immensely dense energy storage devices, with power densities per unit wieght reaching a theorhetical limit near that of low end fusion reactions!
> 
> Best Batteries - 300 Wh/Kg
> Fuel Cells (aluminum) - 4,000 Wh/kg
> Isomer Nucleonic - 800,000,000 Wh/Kg
> Fusion - 90,000,000,000 Wh/Kg
> 
> Developments in Isomers
> 
> 021903 - 'Nuclear-powered' drone aircraft on drawing boards
> The 'Nuclear-powered' could be considered a misnomer, as this effect is not necessarily nuclear but is also not chemical. The US Military is performing Feasibility studies on Quantum Necleonic Reactor powered Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. A nuclear UAV would generate thrust by using the energy of these gamma rays to produce a jet of heated air, using this power source, they conclude, could extend the UAV's flight time from hours to months.
> from - http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993406
> 
> 
> 081301 - Physicists Challenge Reports of Accelerated Decay of Nuclear Excited State
> Physicists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in collaboration with scientists at Los Alamos and Argonne national laboratories, have new results that strongly contradict recent reports claiming an accelerated emission of gamma rays from the nuclear isomer 31-yr. hafnium-178, and the opportunity for a controlled release of energy. They said "In other words, the X-ray irradiation did not decrease the time it takes for hafnium to decay; a result that Becker and the team claim is consistent with nuclear physics" The nucleonic excitation has nothing to do with the weak nuclear radioactive decay of the host atom. So I am not sure why it matters that the LLNL found that the X-Ray irradiation did not 'decrease the time it takes for hafnium to decay' It shouldn’t after all, it should, however, decrease the time it takes for the excited nucleons to decay to a non-excited state.
> from - http://www.llnl.gov/llnl/06news/NewsReleases/2001/NR-01-08-05.html
> 
> 
> May 1999 - Physics Web - Light plays tricks with nuclei
> A good description of the expirement and of note - "...A single nucleus can hold up to several mega-electron-volts. This means that one gram of material could store several giga-joules of energy"
> from - http://physicsweb.org/article/world/12/5/3
> 
> Links -
> 
> University of Texas at Dallas - ESSENTIAL FUNDAMENTALS OF QUANTUM NUCLEONICS
> http://www.utdallas.edu/research/quantum/Tutorial.htm


----------



## Kirkhill

My response. And it is a long one. With no apologies for length or content.




			
				MechEng said:
			
		

> As for coal plants I'm talking about carbon and sulfur recapturing. And making them "so called clean" even though they still really won't be clean.



Good.  We're talking about the same thing.



> For ethanol it will take about 5 years to get these plants up and running.



It may take 5 years to get A Plant up and running.  You won't get "dozens" of plants up and running in 5 years. Just try organizing the fleets of cement trucks you will need. 



> And Cellulosic ethanol can use a variety of  waste products in general not just biomass.



Biomass is any material which originated from a living organism.  Essentially it is any carbonaceous material from any plant or animal.  Cellulose is a carbonaceous material from a plant - any plant - all plants.  All cellulose is by definition "biomass".  There are other "biomass" sources - like living bugs or like dead fish, dead cows, dead people and excreta from all of the above  -  but none of them qualify as "cellulosic".  It is possible to use them with other foods to grow plants containing cellulose but the carbon in the cellulose comes from carbon sources like molasses and sugar.

Cellulose is Biomass. Ethanol from Cellulose, cellulosic ethanol, is ethanol from biomass.  

And the conversion process takes energy and the more you have to do, the more energy you have to put in, the less energy is available.



> In fact there is currently more ethanol being produced than being consumed right now and many of the crop based ethanol producers are at risk of going under.  Ethanol distribution has not kept up with ethanol production.  And the price of things like corn are putting pressure on crop based ethanol producers.



Welcome to the world of economic subsidies and the law of unintended consequences.  Refer to a chap name of Adam Smith with respect to being able to plan an economy.



> As for Algae based biofuels there are other ways to extract the water from algae other than expending energy for evaporation.  This is where many of the recent breakthrough's have been.



Perhaps you are thinking of filtering? The water won't free drain.

Ultra-filtration and reverse osmosis? First you have to chop things up really small then apply lots of pressure, lots of surface area and lots of time - and it still leaves you with water trapped in wet fibre and sugar trapped in water.  The wet fiber will not burn and the sugar needs to be separated from the water before it can be burnt.

Pressing? Energy intensive and achieves the same results.

Centrifugation? Marginally less energy intensive than pressing but achieves similar results.

Usually these processes are utilized in combination with each other, along with heating to disrupt cell structure or to provide the growing conditions for digestion, and multi-effect evaporators and dryers to achieve economical outcomes.  And the more the processes that are involved the more that has to be done, the more by-products produced that have to be sold or treated and the less product available for the primary stream.

Exotics like Supercritical Fluid Extraction or Molecular Distillation - don't get me started.  Those are still evaporative processes but really expensive ones that still require chopping big bits into little bits befor they can be processed.  More processing, more money, less product.  I had one plant many years ago that was designed to take half of the entire supply of cowhides from the Alberta kill and convert it in a pharmaceutical.  It required a massive building, three or four highly secretive and compartmentalized process rooms, one of which required my centrifuges (over 2 million just for the centrifuges) to produce a "product" measured in grams.  Think of that: Millions in investmet supported by grams of product from hundreds of tonnes of raw materials - which happened to be a form of biomass - which were mainly turned into unusable wastes.
But the value of the product was the only way to support the extremely expensive process. 

I had a couple of prospective projects where the investor was being asked to convert their dead fish or dead chickens (and money) into ethanol using bugs.  The advantage was that much of the size reduction and cell denaturation had already been accomplished making meals and oils for feed.  The problem was that the conversion process was a sideline for the bugs in question. They still had to eat.  To make the process work the bugs had to be fed a steady diet of molasses or sugar.



> I don't see why there would be a big push to keep coal power in Canada.



Because coal is the purest grade of carbon we have available on the planet.

Gasoline is Coal plus Hydrogen in the form of Benzene Rings

Sugars are Coal in the form of rings of 6 carbons, just like Benzene and Coal, with water stuck to it as Hydrogens and OHs.

Starch is Coal plus Water in the form of chains of the same sugars cellulose is made from but untwisted so that they become accessible for digestion 

Cellulose is Coal plus Water in the form of chains of sugars strung together so that they are unavailable for animals to digest with the bugs and enzymes they have available to them.  Cow hire out the task.

Ethanol is nothing more than finely divide Coal plus water.  The 6 Carbon ring is busted into 3x 2 Carbon chunks and more water is added.

Methane/Natural Gas is just the most finely divide Coal available but with Hydrogen added.

So, to sum up, to achieve the energy available in coal from any other source one must first either remove Water or Hydrogen.  

Bound Hydrogen has the advantage that it at least  Releases energy when removed from Carbon thus helping  and greatly improves your energy balance. But it It also reduces the density of the fuel.  A little density reduction to convert the solid coal to the liquid benzene is a good thing because you actually gain a little on bulk density and a lot on convenience.  A large density reduction from solid to coal to a gas creates more problems as storage densities decrease and handling becomes more difficult.  You don’t have to worry about coal leaking past gaskets.

Ethanol requires the removal of water to generate energy:  CH3CH2OH or 2C+2H2+ H2O. 

Breaking the two Carbons apart releases energy.
Busting off the Hydrogen releases more energy.
Removing the water REQUIRES energy.
(Of course this all assumes an Oxygen rich environment)

On balance the burning of Ethanol in an oxygen rich environment releases enough energy to get rid of its internal water and leaves a significant surplus.

But in order to get there you had to get rid of the water in the Glucose to make Ethanol.

Glucose equals C6H12O6 or 6C+0H2+ 6H2O versus 3x(2C+2H2+ H2O) or 6C+6H2+3H2O

Glucose has fewer energy rich Hydrogen bonds and more energy intensive OH bonds for an equivalent number of those high energy Carbon-Carbon bonds.

Starch and Cellulose contain still more water for each Carbon-Carbon bond and less Hydrogen.

Both of them are equally bio-available commercially be selecting the right bugs.

On the market starches and sugars are harder to come by than cellulose because plants create less and humans eat them.  Most animals can fend for themselves with cellulose.  Lions and tigers are another matter.

That makes cellulose the cheaper source of water-drenched carbon-bonds.

Cellulose and starch both bind water to those structural H and OH bonds.  That makes the Carbon still more water-logged and unavailable.  And the only way to remove that bound water is by heat.  Mechanical means like pressing and centrifugation will not get the job done. Period.

That bound water then binds to more water and somewhere  along the way the bonds become loose enough that some of the water becomes free draining ie when the force of gravity supplies enough energy to break those weak water to water bonds.

But sugar is very efficient at spreading itself around so as to associate itself with lots of water and dissolving  while cellulose is very efficient at creating structures that wrap around water and trap it.

All of which makes those Carbon-Carbon bonds harder to reach.

And all of which begs the question of where the Carbon comes from in the first place ---- Lessee, at 150 ppm how much air do I have to pass over a field or through a greenhouse to capture a tonne of Carbon from the air and convert it into plants which I can chop up, mechanically extract water, digest the cellulose to dextrose, ferment the dextrose to ethanol, distil the ethanol to thermally extract water and generate enough ethanol to give me the same energy equivalency as digging up a tonne of Coal? 

Coal is carbon.  Wood is carbon.  Corn is carbon.  Sugarcane is carbon.  Bark, hay and straw are carbon. Algae are carbon. Cellulose, starch and sugars are carbon. Gasoline, diesel, natural gas, shale oil and tar sands are carbon. Heck, even proteins are carbon.  Bullsh*t is carbon.

Why is carbon such a valuable energy source? Because, if it is dry enough, it lights when you put a match to it.  It can be stored for an eternity until you need it and then it is immediately available to provide instant heat.

The same cannot be said for nuclear power, hydro power, wind, tidal or solar power.  Nor can it be said for energy stored in batteries or capacitors.

Coal stores for millennia and lights in seconds with no processing.



> Coal represents a small percentage of the power produced in most parts of Canada.



Not true in Alberta or Saskatchewan and questionable in Manitoba and BC where despite their Hydro capabilities they buy energy from the Coal Fired plants of Alberta and Saskatchewan. (BC buys cheap “dirty” electricity from Alberta and then sells its “clean” hydro-electricity to California at a premium to help Governor Ahnuld meet his green commitments).



> In Ontario Coal only represents about 15% of the power in the province.



And you are having trouble dealing with power surges resulting in more brown-outs and black-outs  



> And this could be easily be replaced with nuclear power which is just as economical if not more economical.



It couldn’t be easily replaced with  nuclear power and it shouldn’t be “replaced” with nuclear.  Nuclear plants should be built.  But they should be built to meet the baseline power requirements.  The 80% of the market demand that doesn’t change or is predictable. The coal fired generators should be retained for the same reason that more people are keeping gasoline generators at home: to meet the unexpected (and the uneconomical peaks).



> Wind power is not as expensive as you think.  On a small home scale it's about 11 cents/KWh on a large scale its about 7 cents/KWh.  And these numbers have been falling fast and show no signs of stopping.



See previous comments about Adam Smith and unintended consequences of subsidization.

One reactor at Darlington produces 850 MW of steam 24/7 for 365 days a year.  That is piped, along with the steam from the rest of the reactors to a group of turbines which also run 24/7.  When a turbine needs to be serviced it is enclosed. It is at ground level. It is accessible.

A Wind Turbine is nominally about 2 MW these days.  That means that you need 425 wind turbines to produce the power that one Darlington reactor does – if the wind is blowing.  Most wind farms anticipate that the right winds will only blow around 25 to 30% of the time – with no known schedule for availability.
That means that you have to build 3 to 4 windfarms of 425 turbines and site them in different areas and hope that at least one of the farms will be in a local weather system that provides usable wind while the other farms are idle.  That means anything from 1275 to 1700 turbines.  Scattered across the countryside. Stuck on the top of 100 meter poles.  Accessed by helicopters. With servicemen deployed by safety lines to elevated platforms then required to work in cramped quarters with the tools and parts that they bring with them.

Ever forgotten a tool or discovered that you needed an unanticipated part?

1700 turbines to service versus 1-3 turbines – and then there is life expectancy.



> Solar 5 years ago was 30 cents/KWh.  Today its 15 cents/KWh and also falling very fast.  Canadian tire is now selling solar powered home generators.



Canadian Tire also sells Solar Showers for camping (a 5 Gallon plastic bag you hang in a tree). I don’t plan on using them at home either.



> As for electric cars.  The Chevy Volt is expected to have a range of over 1000km's on 40L of gasoline when using the engine to regenerate the battery and an electric only range of 62kms.  I don't call that short range.



4 litres per 100 km is pretty good.  I like hybrids.  
62 km is impressive for a battery operated vehicle.  But it still qualifies as an urban runaround.



> ICE's have an efficiency of ~25%.  Electric motors ~95+%.



Absolutely.  Hybrids good.



> Electric motors can go as high as 15000 RPM and have a virtually flat torque curve.  And don't require a transmission (Which gives ~20% efficiency loss).



Absolutely again. Hybrids good.  Fewer moving parts, less service and maintenance.



> The only issue to date with electric motors is not size or power.  But it is energy storage.  The next generation of batteries will solve this problem.  The Tesla Roadster electric car with rather primitive Li-Ion batteries has a range of 300kms. http://www.teslamotors.com/



And there you have it.   And back to the advantages of Coal.  Energy storage.  Diesel is a really good compromise. Lots of carbon and just enough  lots of hydrogen to make storing and transporting  the coal  Edit: and storing and transporting is easier in confined spaces.  It doesn't have the shelf-life of coal but it is sufficiently long to make it a marketable commodity.




> The Chevy Volt and GM's e-flex system will use a small advanced Li-Ion battery that the car can use to go 62kms on electric only range.  And can be recharged by plugging into the wall at home.  It also has a small gas engine.  The gas engine does not power the wheels.  It is only used to recharge the battery and this is a big advantage.  ICE's are most efficient in a very narrow RPM range.  With the engine only used to recharge the battery it can be optimized to run at only one RPM.  It will be like getting highway mileage all the time except better.



Have I said I like Hybrids?



> Trains made by GM already use the E-flex concept.  Trains today use electric motors for their main source of propulsion and a diesel engine to recharge the battery.



Becoming monotonous. Hybrids.



> City buses already use hybrid systems with a combination of electric motors and a diesel engine.



Agreed.



> Sorry about the long blurb about electric motors but there is a lot of misconceptions about electric motors. I'm a mechanical engineer (hence my name) and my background is in the automotive industry.



I am a Food Scientist with a background in thermo-coagulation, fermentations, digestions, separations, evaporation and drying as well as designing, installing and commissioning plants in diverse locations where you have to carry your own fuel, generate your own energy, provide for your own service (unless volcanoes, tidal waves, snowstorms or the runway not washing out permit the service man to land)  and, on occasion, make your own process water.  You might consider me as a chemical engineer that happened to specialize in food - the world's most complex mix of chemicals.

I have had just about every “alternative” solution in the book thrown at me over the years.  And none of them made economic sense…… And then there were Carbon Credits. :

Edited to tidy up some erroneous/confusing statements.


----------



## Kirkhill

Actually if there is a "crime" associated with the burning of coal it is in letting that concentrated CO2 be released to become dilute and diffuse.  It should be contained and applied to suitable environments to generate biomass - certain types of which we lack, notably farmaceuticals, foods, feeds and fertilizers.  CO2 at 2000 ppm contained in a temperature controlled greenhouse (maybe just a big cellophane bag) with water, will be much more effectively converted to trees and food and stuff that it will be drifting over a desert at 150 ppm.

There's the third part of my three part solution for stationary energy requirements: Nukes, Coal and Greenhouses.

For mobile uses: Diesel Hybrids (and electric runabouts for urban commutes and local deliveries and electric trains for short-range inter-city transport like Edmonton-Calgary or on the Windsor Montreal Corridor)


----------



## a_majoor

Some more on ethanol derived from cellulose:

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/15-10/ff_plant



> On a blackboard, it looks so simple: Take a plant and extract the cellulose. Add some enzymes and convert the cellulose molecules into sugars. Ferment the sugar into alcohol. Then distill the alcohol into fuel. One, two, three, four — and we're powering our cars with lawn cuttings, wood chips, and prairie grasses instead of Middle East oil.
> 
> Unfortunately, passing chemistry class doesn't mean acing economics. Scientists have long known how to turn trees into ethanol, but doing it profitably is another matter. We can run our cars on lawn cuttings today; we just can't do it at a price people are willing to pay.



Despite the line that cellulosic ethanol yeilds 80% more energy than required to grow and convert it, there is nothing in this article (or anywhere else) that suggests there is an effective and economical means of breaking down the cellulose into sugars for fermentation. Lets face it, if there was such a natural enzyme like the researchers are looking for, trees and shrubs made out of wood would not exist, and the plants that did fill those ecological niches would have trunks and branches made out of silicon or diamond.....

In the mean time, there is a golden opportunity for people to cash in on R&D dollars in attempts to make this happen. But, there is another:

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/15-10/ff_plant_4tech



> Jay Keasling's mantra: "Ethanol is for drinking, not driving." Dismissing the current craze for the biofuel, he points out that it produces only 85 percent of the energy of gasoline, requires retrofitting car engines, and is incompatible with existing oil pipelines. That's why Keasling, a chemical engineer at UC Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, is trying to create a better alternative — his 50-person team is building microbes that can turn cellulosic biomass, not into ethanol but into a fuel molecularly similar to gasoline. The results, he says, will have higher energy content than ethanol and will be easier to extract and distribute.  The approach is being explored by several other groups, including companies like Amyris Biotechnologies (which Keasling cofounded) and LS9 of nearby San Carlos; both have claimed success in the lab. The next challenge: producing the fuels in commercial-scale quantities.


----------



## a_majoor

Load leveling using UPS batteries the size of a bus. Before you run out to get some; sodium sulfur batteries run at the temperature of molten sulfur and any breach of the battery case would be an environmental disaster and health hazard:

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19584/?nlid=607



> *Fixing the Power Grid*
> 
> Big batteries will fight blackouts and could make renewable power economically viable.
> By Peter Fairley
> 
> Large-scale power storage is crucial to our energy future: the Electric Power Research Institute, the U.S. utility industry's leading R&D consortium, says that storage would enable the widespread use of renewable power and make the grid more reliable and efficient. Recent announcements by utility giant American Electric Power (AEP), based in Columbus, OH, suggest that grid storage technologies are finally ready for commercial deployment in the United States. Last month, AEP ordered three multi-megawatt battery systems and set goals of having 25 megawatts of storage in place by 2010, and 40 times that by 2020.
> 
> "That was a dream four or five years ago; now it is happening," says AEP energy-storage expert Ali Nourai.
> 
> The AEP system uses a sodium-sulfur battery about the size of a double-decker bus (see below), plus power electronics to manage the flow of AC power in and out of the DC battery. Though new to the United States, the system has been used at the megawatt scale in Japan since the early 1990s; the battery was produced by NGK Insulators of Nagoya, Japan.
> 
> Charging Charleston: The utility American Electric Power (AEP) deployed this huge sodium-sulfur battery as part of a demonstration project in Charleston, WV. The battery provides 1.2 megawatts of power for up to seven hours, easing the strain on an overloaded substation. Trouble-free operation since installation last year convinced AEP that such energy-storage technology is ready for active duty.
> Credit: AEP
> 
> Nourai says that AEP and other U.S. utilities gained confidence in the economics and reliability of storage thanks to a demonstration project in Charleston, WV, where AEP installed a large battery system in June 2006. In Charleston, peak demand in both summer and winter had overloaded transformers at local substations, causing blackouts. Rebuilding the substations to accommodate more power could have taken as much as three years. Instead, AEP spent just nine months installing a battery system that charges when demand for electricity is low and can deliver up to 1.2 megawatts for seven hours when demand peaks.
> 
> Two of AEP's new projects are slightly larger two-megawatt, seven-hour battery systems designed to provide similar quick fixes in areas with power-reliability problems. A battery in Milton, WV, for example, will provide backup electricity for customers in areas prone to blackouts from a weak power line. "When there is a blackout, the battery will pick up as many people as it can and continue to feed them," says Nourai. "They will not even know there was a blackout." The battery will postpone Milton's addition of a new substation and a high-voltage transmission line by five to six years.
> 
> When AEP decides to make more permanent upgrades to substations or completes construction of a new power line--a process that can take five or six years--it will simply move the nearest backup battery to another choke point. "It can be lifted with a forklift and loaded onto a flatbed truck," says Nourai. "Within a week we can have it up and operational at another site in our system."
> 
> Richard Baxter, author of Energy Storage: A Nontechnical Guide and chair of a conference held last week in New York City on investing in storage, says that AEP's new projects are a "good litmus test" for the industry. "Storage technologies are emerging as a viable, commercial-level product," Baxter says.
> 
> The emergence of a grid storage market is drawing in new battery developers. These include Firefly Energy of Peoria, IL, which is using high-surface-area nanostructured electrodes to revive lead-acid technology, and lithium battery developer Altair Nanotechnologies, based in Reno, NV. In June, multinational utility AES agreed to buy an unspecified number of Altair's batteries; CEO Alan Gotcher says that Altair will deliver a one-megawatt, 15-minute prototype by the end of this year.
> 
> AEP, meanwhile, is exploring a potentially more transformative role for storage: turning the ever-shifting power output of renewable resources such as wind and solar power into steady, dependable energy. The company plans to connect its third two-megawatt battery system to a group of wind turbines at an as-yet undetermined site. Nourai says that the goal is to learn whether batteries can smooth out short-term fluctuations in power flow from the turbines. If they can, utilities should be able to absorb larger levels of wind power on their grids.
> 
> But Nourai says that AEP also wants to determine whether storing wind energy can boost its value. There are at least two ways that this could happen. Wind energy produced at night could be stored for delivery during peak hours of the day, when the price of electricity spikes. And if the power delivered by wind farms were more predictable, it would be more profitable. When an independent generator such as a wind-farm operator sells to power distributors, it must promise to deliver a certain amount of power at a certain hour. While the details vary greatly in different regional and national power markets, wind-farm operators can be penalized if they fail to meet their commitments because the wind didn't blow as hard as expected. Systems that store a fraction of a wind farm's output when the wind is blowing can eliminate most of this risk.
> 
> Nourai notes that Japanese utilities are already installing energy-storage technologies to make wind power more reliable and profitable, thanks to government incentives that cover one-third of the cost of the storage system, and to the wider spread between Japan's day and night electricity prices. Nourai believes that NGK, which can currently produce 90 megawatts' worth of sodium-sulfur battery systems per year, is considering constructing a second factory to meet the resulting demand. Meanwhile, a study completed this year by Sustainable Energy Ireland, Ireland's energy-policy agency, concluded that time-shifting storage projects might already be profitable in Europe.
> 
> However, an expert panel assembled by the Electric Power Research Institute last year judged that storage costs needed to drop below $150 per kilowatt-hour to make such time shifting economically attractive in the United States; a report issued by the institute this spring estimates that systems employing NGK's sodium-sulfur batteries cost $300 to $500 per kilowatt-hour. That cost differential has fueled recent interest in solar-thermal-power plants that capture renewable energy in the form of heat, which is easier to store than electricity. (See "Storing Solar Power Efficiently.")
> 
> Copyright Technology Review 2007.


----------



## Cheshire

Compressed air.....nuclear......batteries???????

Come on guys. We are addicts. Oil addicts. We will do anything to get that fix. Pay any price to tap that reserve. We will go to the ends of the earth and back again to get that....high!

Maybe Oil Shale the solution??? It's like cocain....but more crack like in texture. 

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/30/magazines/fortune/Oil_from_stone.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007103105


----------



## a_majoor

Actually, oil shale is an order of magnitude more difficult to extract than oil sands (it is trapped in the pores of rock, after all)

For short term usage, Methane clathrate may be the answer. Methane (natural gas) is trapped in a matrix of ice under certain conditions, and it seems there are vast quantities available (see map). 

Of course, eventually nuclear energy will become dominant, simply due to the high energy density and relatively simple technology involved. Nuclear Fusion is the next step, and finally Solar energy when we can do large scale work in space to access the Sun's energy 24/7 (sorry alternative energy fans). Not enough energy? Try this


----------



## tamouh

Now that oil prices are approaching $100 a barrell, and knowing that extaction cost for Oil in Alberta is hovering around $15-$30 at worst, I think it is becoming more economical to pursue the smaller oil wells that were never an option before.

I believe we have at least 50-100 years of sufficient oil supplies until we hit the half point of having consumed half the oil available on earth. Until that time, you never know what kind of alternative energy-efficient supply we may discover.


----------



## a_majoor

If this story is accurate, it will pull the rug out of oil prices for some time to come (although with negative effects on Alberta and the Canadian dollar)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aDUvf7YVd8y8&refer=latin_america



> *Petrobras' Tupi Oil Field May Hold 8 Billion Barrels (Update6)*
> 
> By Carlos Caminada and Jeb Blount
> Enlarge Image/Details
> 
> Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Petroleo Brasileiro SA, Brazil's state-controlled oil company, said its Tupi field may contain as much as 8 billion barrels of oil and natural gas, an amount that could boost the country's reserves by 62 percent. The company's shares rose the most in more than nine years.
> 
> The announcement led a gain in the Brazilian stock market and boosted BG Group Plc and Galp Energia SGPS SA, partners in the field. The estimate for Tupi was made after a test well confirmed expectations, Petrobras, as the company is known, said today in a statement on its Web site. Tupi's total estimate would almost match that of Norway's 8.5 billion barrels of proved oil reserves, according to an estimate by BP Plc.
> 
> Brazil has proved reserves of oil and natural-gas equivalent to 14.4 billion barrels, Petrobras Chief Executive Officer Jose Sergio Gabrielli told reporters in Rio de Janeiro today. The oil at Tupi, located in the offshore Santos Basin, is a light grade, more valuable and cheaper to refine than the heavy crude that dominates Brazilian output.
> 
> ``Tupi changes everything for Brazil and Petrobras,'' said Carlos Renato Nunes, an oil analyst with Sao Paulo-based brokerage Coinvalores CCVM who has a buy recommendation on Petrobras shares and doesn't own any. ``Tupi is not only huge, its light oil offers huge cost advantages.''
> 
> Nunes plans to increase his share-price estimates for Petrobras as a result of the find.
> 
> Petrobras' reserves of 13 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent at the end of 2006 ranked fourth behind Exxon Mobil Corp., PetroChina Co. and BP, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
> 
> `Tiny Part'
> 
> The Tupi finding, which Petrobras estimates contains at least 5 billion barrels of oil and gas, is just a ``tiny'' part of a new oil province that the company believes is beneath existing fields, Gabrielli said. The potential new reserves may boost Brazil's oil reserves from the 17th biggest in the world to among the top 10, he said.
> 
> The Tupi field is in a region that lies about 250 kilometers (402 kilometers) off the coast of Rio de Janeiro in water as much as 3 kilometers deep. The oil rests a further 5 to 7 kilometers below the ocean floor.
> 
> Petrobras will be able to start producing from the field in five to six years, Gabrielli said. They may be able to start producing about 100,000 barrels a day from the field as early as 2010 or 2011, said Guilherme Estrella, Petrobras' exploration and production chief.
> 
> ``That would only be a very small amount of the field's potential,'' Estrella said.
> 
> LNG, Power Generation
> 
> Petrobras is also studying plans to either liquefy or compress natural gas in the Tupi field aboard ships for transport to Brazil or use the gas to generate electricity on floating generating stations, Estrella said.
> 
> ``This could make Brazil jump from an intermediate producer to among the world's largest producers,'' Dilma Rousseff, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's cabinet chief, said at a news conference in Rio de Janeiro.
> 
> As a result of the discovery, the government has removed 41 oil exploration blocks out of 312 up for sale later this month to reevaluate their potential, Rousseff said. All of the blocks in Brazil's Campos, Santos and Espirito Santo basins, the three most important in the country, have been pulled from the auction, she said.
> 
> ``This allows us to reevaluate our resources without breaking any existing contracts,'' she said. ``When we are better aware of the potential, we will consider offering them at auction again.''
> 
> Shares Rise
> 
> Petrobras preferred shares, its most-traded class, rose 9.95 reais, or 14.2 percent, to 80.2 on the Sao Paulo stock exchange. That's the biggest gain since the stock climbed 18.2 percent on Sep. 15, 1998. The shares gained as much as 20 percent earlier today.
> 
> BG Group, with a 25 percent stake, gained 9.8 percent to 989 pence in London. Galp Energia, which holds 10 percent, posted its biggest one-day gain in Lisbon, rising 14 percent to a record close of 12.35 euros. The Bovespa Index climbed as much as 2.8 percent.
> 
> The Tupi oil is near Petrobras' main operations, so no major new installations will have to be built, Nunes said.
> 
> While it's possible to drill off some existing platforms, other big fields have experienced setbacks, said John Parry, an analyst at John S. Herold Inc. in Norwalk, Connecticut. BP Plc's Thunder Horse in the Gulf of Mexico has been delayed since 2005 because of storm damage and equipment failures.
> 
> By providing more light crude to Brazilian refineries, Tupi will free up more heavy crude, similar to Venezuelan oil, for Petrobras' refinery in Pasadena, Texas, Nunes said. Tupi may have enough oil to supply all U.S. needs for more than 14 months.
> 
> `Self-Sufficient Company'
> 
> Petrobras will have less need to export cheaper heavy crude and buy more expensive light crude to feed its refineries, which can't handle all the heavy oil the company produces.
> 
> ``All that light crude has the potential of turning Petrobras from a net exporter of oil into a truly self-sufficient company,'' Nunes said. ``Their refineries can handle the oil and they'll be saved the losses on trading and costs of shipping to make fuel for Brazil.''
> 
> The field is three quarters the size of Kazakhstan's Kashagan field, which holds 12 billion barrels of recoverable crude and was the biggest find in the last 30 years.
> 
> ``Even a 5 billion-barrel find number is the biggest find since Kashagan,'' said Andy Latham, vice president of exploration services at Wood Mackenzie Consultants Ltd. in London. ``This would be the number two for the past two decades for oil.''
> 
> Russia's Shtokman
> 
> There have only been a few gas discoveries in the past 20 years that would rival it, including the Shtokman field in Russia at 23 billion barrels of oil equivalent, and two other Russian finds in the 5 billion to 10 billion range, Latham said.
> 
> Tupi may also help reduce U.S. dependence on Venezuela, one of the U.S.'s main sources of imported oil.
> 
> ``It punches a bit of a hole in Venezuela's bubble,'' Parry said. ``This certainly becomes a challenge to Venezuela, which is looking to get a Latin American coalition of countries together because Venezuela saw itself as the head honcho with the most reserves.''
> 
> To contact the reporter on this story: Carlos Caminada in Sao Paulo at at ccaminada1@bloomberg.net ; Jeb Blount in Rio de Janeiro at jblount@bloomberg.net
> Last Updated: November 8, 2007 17:30 EST


----------



## Kirkhill

I think it might soften the Canadian Dollar and also, more importantly, strengthen the US dollar, but the Canadian Dollar is not flying unsupported against the US.  It is the US Dollar that has lost ground against all other holding currencies.  I am less concerned about the collapse of the Canadian Dollar directly than about the collapse of the US currency.  

As we, the West, continue to struggle to secure Eurasia it seems to me to become more imperative to make the effort to secure the Americas - we need the labour force, internal market and resources of that free trade area to be able to afford the anchoring Navy of the OECD Navy.  The OECD is the organization with the most to lose IF the sea lanes are ever lost to the Centralizers.  It is their navies that will secure them and the US Navy is the Keystone.  Arthur Herman, Mahan, the Colomb brothers and Hakluyt have convinced me.  With the hemisphere and the US Navy as the key element of the 1000 ship navy then we can continue to support Scandinavia, Britain, Australia, all the island states - and have a shot at supporting coastal city states, like Hong Kong against the centralizers.

As well, as this article demonstrates - there are still riches to be found at sea.


----------



## c_canuk

if we want to get serious about kicking the fossil fuel habit we need to go all nuclear...

1) establish enough nuclear plants to take up the baseload. As new plants come online start taking fossil fuel plants offline but keep enough on standby for peak load and sudden demand events.

2a) start establishing additional nuclear plants to provide hyrdrogen to phase out transportation fuels by providing ICE gasoline to hydrogen conversion kits and hydrogen ICE engines in new vehicles eventually phasing in fuel cells 

2b) establish an electric car support system... less likely as it would collapse the current fossil fuel transportation industry and dealing with spent batteries is an ecological nightmare. However this too could be fueled by hydrogen as remote refuelling stations could use a large bank of fuel cells connected to a hydrogen gas line for power to recharge electric vehicles.

3) continue to establish nuclear plants until there is enough to supply peak demand for power, and the non peak load is used to supplement the transportation hydrogen economy. Nuclear energy on this scale would be very cheap and surplus could be bled off in creating reserves of hydrogen or just burnt off until the plants could be throttled back.

this all depends on the development of a practical storage system for hydrogen... there are some nanotube and powder absorbtion systems that show promise but lack the funding and research to be viable at this time. if we dumped all the unfeasable non solutions the greenies are pushing like wind/solar/good feelings I'm sure the problem would be licked.


----------



## a_majoor

This kinetic energy recovery system sounds far more practical than hybrid electric systems in ordinary automobiles, since it seems smaller,lighter and less complex (being essentially an add-on to existing transmissions)

http://www.flybridsystems.com/index.html



> Flybrid Systems LLP is an innovative engineering company taking a fresh look at hybrid vehicle technology.
> 
> The company has developed an entirely mechanical high-speed flywheel based energy storage and recovery system which meets the proposed 2009 Formula One regulations but which is also suitable for other racing formulae and for road vehicles.
> 
> The Flybrid device is powerful, small and light giving a better power to weight ratio than any existing automotive hybrid technology. This higher power makes it possible to store more energy during short braking periods dramatically increasing system effectiveness. The system is also very efficient with up to 70% of braking energy being returned to the wheels to drive the vehicle back up to speed. The device is readily recycled and relatively inexpensive to make as it can be made entirely from conventional materials.
> 
> From their Silverstone offices Flybrid Systems are pursuing the onward development of this technology for road vehicles. Computer simulations suggest that fuel consumption savings of up to 65% are possible for certain vehicle types and the promise of big reductions in CO2 emissions have already attracted strong interest from major car makers.


----------



## a_majoor

A different approach. I'm not sure how it will work (the time scale of moving mechanical parts i.e. the steam pistons mentioned is millions of times slower than the time scale of nuclear reactions.), but good on them for trying:

http://www.generalfusion.com/t5_general_fusion.php



> General Fusion's Approach
> 
> General Fusion is using the MTF approach but with a new, patented and cost effective compression system to collapse the plasma.
> 
> GF will build a ~3 meter diameter spherical tank filled with liquid metal (lead-lithium mixture). The liquid is spun to open up a vertical cylindrical cavity in the center of the sphere (vortex). Two spheromaks (magnetized plasma “smoke ring”) are injected from each end of the cavity. They merge in the center to form a single magnetized plasma target. The outside of the sphere is covered with pneumatic rams. The rams use compressed steam to accelerate pistons to ~50 m/s. These pistons simultaneously impact the outside of the sphere and launch a spherical compression wave in the liquid metal. As the wave travels and focuses towards the center, it becomes stronger and evolves into a strong shock wave. When the shock arrives in the center, it rapidly collapses the cavity with the plasma in it. At maximum compression the conditions for fusion are briefly met and a fusion burst occurs releasing its energy in fast neutrons. The neutrons are slowed down by the liquid metal causing it to heat up. A heat exchanger transfers that heat to a standard steam cycle turbo-alternator to produce electricity for the grid. Some of the steam is used to run the rams. The lithium in the liquid metal finally absorbs the neutrons and produces tritium that is extracted and used as fuel for subsequent shots. This cycle is repeated about one time per second.
> 
> The use of low-tech pneumatic rams in place of sophisticated high power electrical systems reduces the cost of the energy delivered to the plasma by a factor of 10 making such a power plant commercially competitive. Because the fusion plasma is totally enclosed in the liquid metal, the neutron flux at the reactor wall is very low. Other fusion schemes struggle with a high neutron flux at the wall that rapidly damages the machine and also produces some radio-active material. Frequent robotic replacement of the then radio-active plasma facing components is a costly problem for many fusion machines.
> 
> General Fusion has patented this technology and believes that a reactor working on this principle could be built at a much lower cost than using the old magnetic and laser fusion approaches. Such a power plant would make fusion a commercially viable clean power source.


----------



## tomahawk6

I dont think that fossil fuels are going to be depleted anytime soon. Certainly not in our lifetime. Thirty years ago we saw predictions of oil reserves being depleted by 2007, reserve estimates have actually increased. The bottom line is that no one knows how much oil is left and some experts think oil may be created by the planet itself. While reserves havent declined demand has increased and will continue to increase due to China and India.

In a world without oil Canada and the US are well placed to replace the middle east. Canada with its oil sands/coal/oil shale and the US with huge coal/oil shale reserves. The future looks very bright for north america. ;D


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting how the facts contradict the conventional wisdom:





> Wednesday, February 13, 2008
> *Gas And Asses*
> If you would like, you could consider the "Asses" in the title of this post to refer to an alternate method of transportation.
> 
> In a prior post I reviewed the trend for US crude supplied as it relates to recessions. This graph shows crude trends, and under normal circumstances, supply doesn't fall unless we enter a recession:
> 
> But gas is a different story, although consumption does drop for recessions. Here are some recession periods: (go to link to see all the graphs)
> 
> 
> and:
> 
> and now:
> 
> 
> There's an overall trend here it's easy to miss, so take a look at this:
> 
> Gasoline consumption in the US has been falling for years. All those who scream about Hummers and wasteful consumers may be discussing their neighbors, but they aren't discussing the US as a whole. For about 9 years gasoline consumption has been dropping, and in 2007 consumption was the lowest for ten years.
> 
> Gas consumption in the US is not price invariant at all. Sales of gas-efficient cars have been steadily increasing, and those fuel-efficient cars will stay on the road for years to come. It's likely that this trend has multiple causes, among which are real declining incomes for a large section of the population, a growing number of retirees who are not forced to drive to work, home workers, and sincere efforts to conserve by a portion of the population. It may also reflect a shift in jobs toward major urban areas in which mass transport is a viable option for more workers.
> 
> Regardless, the idea that gas taxes need to be raised to force conservation is a stunningly stupid one. It appears that current gas prices are causing conservation, and that wasteful consumption is restricted to portions of the population that can frankly afford to pay higher taxes without changing their habits. It also appears that US efforts to conserve are not going to affect world trends much - the growth is coming from other areas.
> 
> Keeping the overall trend in mind, it is even more remarkable that retail sales show such a growth of retail spending on groceries, gas and pharmaceuticals. The bottom line is that other types of consumption are being suppressed by high spending on necessities. The high spending on necessities is the product of declining real incomes in a large portion of the population, and high inflation for food and fuel.
> 
> So is it likely that the stimulus plan will generate much actual economic stimulus? I would say not. The bulk of the individual checks won't hit until May or so, and far more than half of that money will likely be used to pay down other debt or outstanding bills. If people are now using gift cards to buy groceries and gas, they are pushed hard enough to do the same with those checks. Probably it will be a windfall for credit card companies and utilities, but I doubt we'll see much of it in the stores. As the tax refund checks start to come back, we should see some discretionary spending this spring.
> 
> A large portion of inflation is coming from the high price of diesel fuel. I expect inflation to keep rising through at least the next few months.
> 
> Can government monetary policy do much to restrain inflation of the type we are seeing? I would argue not. There is increased world consumption of necessities, and those are the goods with rising costs. It's rather clear that if anything, US conditions are tight enough to restrain inflation by restraining reseller margins, but of course that has a natural limit.
> 
> // posted by MaxedOutMama @ 2/13/2008 10:49:00 AM


----------



## CBH99

I apologize if this was posted before, I didn't read through all 18 pages before hitting the 'reply' button.

There is a documentary out there called 'A Crude Awakening' - essentially a movie about oil & fossil fuels.  Its definately a good rental from your local Blockbuster, as it contains a ton of information & relays it in a very easy to understand method.  Some of the key commentators are past CEO's of oil companies & current CEO's of oil companies.

It really puts the whole issue of the world running out of oil in perspective, as well as the pro's & cons of the various alternative energy sources out there.


----------



## a_majoor

From the Economist:

http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10715508



> *Ending a dammed nuisance*
> 
> Feb 19th 2008
> From Economist.com
> A new generation of free-standing turbines will liberate hydroelectricity from its dependence on dams
> 
> IN TODAY’S green world, hydroelectric dams are often unwelcome. Though their power is renewable and, on the face of it, carbon-free, there are lots of bad things about them, too. Blocking a river with a dam also blocks the movement of fish upstream to spawn and the movement of silt downstream to fertilise fields. The vegetation overwhelmed by the rising waters decays to form methane—a far worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The capital cost is huge. And, not least, people are often displaced to make way for the new lake. The question, therefore, is whether there is a way to get the advantages without suffering the disadvantages. And the answer is that there may be.
> 
> The purpose of a dam is twofold. To house the turbines that create the electricity and to provide a sufficient head of water pressure to drive them efficiently. If it were possible to develop a turbine that did not need such a water-head to operate, and that could sit in the riverbed, then a dam would be unnecessary. Such turbines could also be put in places that could not be dammed—the bottom of the sea, for example. And that is just what is starting to happen, with the deployment of free-standing underwater turbines.
> 
> The big disadvantage of free-standing turbines is that they are less efficient in transforming the mechanical energy of water into electrical energy than turbines in dams are. They are also subject to more wear and tear than turbines protected by huge amounts of concrete. They can be hard to get at to repair and maintain. And the generators they run, being electrical machines, need to be protected from the water that surrounds the rest of the turbine.
> 
> A discouraging list. But in the past three decades computing power has become cheaper, helping developers to simulate the behaviour of water and turbine blades—something that is hard to do with paper, pen and formulas. Moreover, prototypes can be built directly from the computer model. All this has helped scientists and industry to solve the weaknesses inherent in free-standing turbines.
> 
> The first new design was by Alexander Gorlov, a Russian civil engineer who worked on the Aswan High Dam in Egypt. He later moved to America where, with the financial assistance of the Department of Energy, he produced the first prototype of a turbine that could extract power from free-flowing currents “without building any dam”. The Gorlov Helical Turbine as it is known, allows you to use any stream, whatever the direction of its flow. The vertical helical structure, which gives the device its name, provides a stability that previous designs lacked. It increases the amount of energy extracted from a stream from 20% to 35%. In addition, as the shaft is vertical the electric generator can be installed on one end above the water—without any need of waterproof boxes.
> 
> In 2001 Mr Gorlov won the Edison patent award for his invention, and the turbines have now been commercialised by Lucid Energy Technologies, an American company, and are being tested in pilot projects in South Korea and North America.
> 
> A second design is by Philippe Vauthier, another immigrant to America (he was originally a Swiss jeweller). The turbines made by his company, UEK, are anchored to a submerged platform. They are able to align themselves in the current like windsocks at an aerodrome so that they find the best position for power generation. As they are easy to install and maintain, they are being used in remote areas of developing countries, as well.
> 
> Finally, a design by OpenHydro, an Irish company, is not just a new kind of turbine but also a new design of underwater electric generator. Generators (roughly speaking) consist of magnets moving relative to coils. Why not have the magnets encapsulated in the external, fast moving part of a turbine? The turbine is then installed in an external housing, containing the coils. The result looks like an open-centre turbine contained within a tube. OpenHydro’s generators do not need lubricant, which considerably reduces the need for maintenance, and are said to be safer for marine life.
> 
> These new designs, combined with the fashion for extracting energy from the environment by windmills and solar cells, means money that previously shied away from the field is now becoming available. According to New Energy Finance, a specialist consultancy, investments in companies proposing to make or deploy free-standing turbines have risen from $13m in 2004 to $156m in 2007. Projects already underway include the installation by American Verdant Power of a tidal-turbine in New York's East River and pilot projects in Nova Scotia with UEK, OpenHydro and Canadian Clean Current.
> 
> And that, optimists hope, is just the beginning. Soon, many more investors will be searching for treasures buried in the ocean sea beds—or, rather, flowing above them.


----------



## a_majoor

An old idea gets recycled. While these plans will make only the smallest dent in the overall energy consumption figures, I still think these are good ideas because they provide an economic incentive to deal with difficult waste problems:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3492378.ece



> *The power of cow dung can be electric*
> Chris Ayres in Los Angeles
> 
> It's not so much green energy as brown power: a dairy farm in California said yesterday that it had found a new way to generate electricity for households — using a vat of liquid cow manure, 33ft deep and big enough to cover five football fields.
> 
> “When most people see a pile of manure, they see a pile of manure. We saw it as an opportunity for farmers, for utilities, and for California,” said David Albers, a partner in the Vintage Dairy, near Fresno, which has 5,000 cows and calls its new facility the Vintage Dairy Biogas project.
> 
> As cow manure decomposes it produces methane, a greenhouse gas more damaging than carbon dioxide. Scientists say that controlling methane emissions from animals such as cows will be hugely important in preventing climate change.
> 
> Methane can also be captured and treated to produce renewable gas, which can be used instead of coal to run electricity-generating plants — the excretion of a single cow can produce about 100 watts of power.
> 
> Although other farms in California already generate natural gas from cow dung, this marks the first time that it has actually been supplied via a pipeline to a utility company, PG&E Corp.
> 
> The pipeline will allow PG&E to generate power for about 1,200 homes a day in California's agricultural heartland.
> 
> The energy is certainly renewable — as long as no count is made of the energy consumed during the farming of the grain that is fed to the cows — but no one could call it clean.
> 
> In addition to being a partner in the Vintage Dairy, Mr Albers is also president of BioEnergy Solutions, the company that funded and built the so-called digester, which turns the cow faeces into gas and saves farmers the cost of disposing of the waste.
> 
> BioEnergy Solutions now intends to build digesters at other farms, ultimately generating enough gas to supply 50,000 homes.
> 
> The digester works by mixing the manure with microbes. This breaks down the faeces and the resulting gases are then captured.
> 
> At the Vintage farm, the digester prevents about 1,500 tons of methane gas from escaping into the atmosphere every year. It also helps to prevent groundwater pollution, a common side-effect of manure storage.
> 
> Mr Albers described PG&E as a customer and declined to give details of their agreement.
> 
> California's regulators — encouraged by the Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a recent green convert — have ordered PG&E and other utilities to make renewable energy at least 20 per cent of their electricity supplies by 2010.
> 
> PG&E expects to reach 14 per cent this year, thanks in small part to Mr Albers's vat of dung.


----------



## ballz

I can't say I read all 18 pages of this thread, I can't say I read all of the first page. I pretty much only read the initial post. But, I thought I would point out something about this paragraph:



			
				redleafjumper said:
			
		

> The OPEC countries and especially Saudi Arabia have the largest reserves of oil.   Other nations, particularly Russia also have large reserves.   Canada doesn't have huge actual oil reserves, but our tar sands and oil put us in second place in the world after Saudi Arabia for being able to produce oil, even if the process is expensive.



True: Canada is the 2nd largest oil producer, next to Saudi Arabia
False: Canada doesn't have huge actual oil reserves

"It is estimated that there are 2.5 _trillion_ barrels of oil trapped in the tar sands around Fort McMurray, Alberta. That far exceeds the reserves of even Saudi Arabia."
"Over the next 10 years another $87 billion is likely to be spent. By then, production will reach about 2 million barrels of oil each day. This is comparable to the major oil producers in the Middle East."

- Griffin, Ricky W., Ronald J. Ebert, and Frederick A. Starke. Business, Sixth Canadian Edition. Toronto, 2008.

So, if it were 10 years later from today, and these figures are anywhere near realistic, Canada would be staring 3422 years of producing oil from the largest oil reserve in the world. That's just one oil reserve in Alberta, up in Fort Mac. I don't know how big of a percentage of Canada's oil is estimated to be in Fort Mac, but regardless.... I think we're gonna be OK. This whole "the world is gonna run out of oil in 50 years" thing, I think thats a bit...well... wrong.

Someone may want to check my calculations though....2.5 trillion is a big number, could have easily messed up somewhere.
2.5 x 10(exponent 12) / 2 million = 1,250,000 days
1,250,000 days / 365.25 days per year = 3422.31 years

seems to work though.


----------



## redleafjumper

Ballz,

I don't disagree with your post except that my paragraph differentiates between actual oil reserves and the type of reserves as found in the tar sands - reading that whole sentence clearly shows that point.  Canada does have huge oil deposits; most are just trapped in the tar sands.  That situation requires a considerably different extraction process than merely pumping oil out of the ground.  Also while it has become a long thread, it is useful to read at least some of the subsequent posts.

Cheers,


----------



## ballz

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> Ballz,
> 
> I don't disagree with your post except that my paragraph differentiates between actual oil reserves and the type of reserves as found in the tar sands - reading that whole sentence clearly shows that point.  Canada does have huge oil deposits; most are just trapped in the tar sands.  That situation requires a considerably different extraction process than merely pumping oil out of the ground.  Also while it has become a long thread, it is useful to read at least some of the subsequent posts.
> 
> Cheers,



I jumped the gun there, I thought you were speaking as if it was a disadvantage to have it in tar sands, or that it wasn't worth as much... The major point I was leading into was not about Canada's oil, or Saudi's oil, etc... My point is that we're not going to run out of oil in 50 years.


----------



## a_majoor

Trying to _mandate_ a market will create all kinds of downstream problems

http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/20226/?nlid=921



> *The Mess of Mandated Markets*
> New federal biofuel standards passed last year will distort the development of innovative technologies.
> By David Rotman
> 
> Few things prompt Washington policymakers to forget their professed belief in the efficiency of free markets faster than $100-a-barrel oil prices--or even the threat of them. In one of the most notable recent examples, as the price of crude oil edged toward the $100 mark late last year, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Bush quickly signed, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
> 
> Among its various provisions, the energy bill prescribes a minimum amount of biofuel that gasoline suppliers must use in their products each year through 2022. The new mandates, which significantly expand the Renewable Fuels Standard of 2005, would more than double the 2007 market for corn-derived ethanol, to 15 billion gallons, by 2015. At the same time, the bill ensures the creation of a new market for cellulosic biofuels made from such sources as prairie grass, wood chips, and agricultural waste. The standards call for the production of 500 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel by 2012, one billion gallons by 2013, and 16 billion gallons by 2022.
> 
> Not surprisingly, the ethanol industry is very happy. The Biotechnology Industry Organization, a Washington-based trade association whose members include both large manufacturers and startup companies developing new cellulosic technologies, suggests that "this moment in the history of transportation fuels development can be compared to the transition from whale oil to kerosene to light American homes in the 1850s." The new push for biofuels, the trade association continues, is "larger than the Apollo project or the Manhattan project" and will require the construction of 300 biofuel plants, each with a capacity of 100 million gallons, at a cost of up to $100 billion.
> 
> In short, the federal government has legislated the growth of a sizable industry. The often stated aim of the biofuel standards is to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and dependence on foreign oil. And biofuels, particularly cellulosic ones, could arguably play a significant role in achieving both those goals (see "The Price of Biofuels," January/­February 2008). But quite apart from the value of ethanol and other biofuels, the creation of markets by federal law raises fundamental questions about the best way to implement a national energy policy. Can legislated markets survive economic conditions and policy priori­ties that change over the long term? And what role should the government play in promoting specific technologies?
> 
> Mandated consumption levels break the "one-to-one link" between market demand and the adoption of a technology, says Harry de Gorter, an associate professor of applied economics and management at Cornell University: "As an economist, I don't like it. Economists like to let the markets determine what [technology] has the best chances." The new biofuel mandates are "betting on a particular technology," he says. "It is almost impossible to predict the best technology. It is almost inevitable that [mandates] will generate inefficiencies." While de Gorter acknowledges that some economists might justify mandated markets as a way to promote a desired social policy, he questions the strategy's effectiveness. "Historically, there are no good examples of it working in alternative energy," he says.
> 
> One reason economists tend to be wary of mandated consumption levels is that they can have unintended consequences for related markets. Producing 15 billion gallons of conventional ethanol will require farmers to grow far more corn than they now do. And even with the increased harvest, biofuel production will consume around 45 percent of the U.S. corn crop, compared with 22 percent in 2007. The effects on the agricultural sector will be various and complex.
> 
> Perhaps most obvious will be the impact on the price of corn--and, indirectly, of food in general. Since it became apparent that the biofuel standards would become law, the price of corn has risen 20 percent, to around $5.00 a bushel, says Bruce Babcock, director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University. He expects that prices will probably stay around that level for at least the next three years. Because corn is the primary feed for livestock in this country, that means higher prices for everything from beef to milk and eggs. (Less than 2 percent of the nation's corn crop is eaten directly by humans; more than 50 percent feeds animals.) High corn prices could also make it harder to switch to cellulosic biofuels, because farmers will be reluctant to grow alternative crops. With the price of corn so high, says Babcock, "who is going to replace corn with prairie grass?"
> 
> At Purdue University, Wallace Tyner, a professor of agricultural economics, has calculated how different types of government policies, including the new mandated consumption levels, will affect the economics of corn ethanol. One of his most striking findings (though one that would surprise few agricultural experts) is that the fuel struggles to compete with oil on cost, in part because of extreme sensitivity to the commodity price of corn.
> 
> Because ethanol is generally blended with gasoline at a concentration of 10 percent, its market value is directly tied to the price of oil. But Tyner's analysis illustrates the complexity of the interplay between the markets for oil, corn, and ethanol. *In the absence of government subsidies or mandates, according to his model, no ethanol is produced until oil reaches $60 a barrel. But with oil at that price, ethanol is profitable only as long as corn stays around $2.00 a bushel, which limits production of the biofuel to around a half-billion gallons a year. As oil prices increase, so does ethanol production. But production levels continue to be limited by the price of corn, which rises along with both the demand for ethanol and the price of oil (farmers use a lot of gasoline). Even when oil reaches $100 a barrel, ethanol production will reach only about 10 billion gallons a year if there are no subsidies; and even then, ethanol is profitable only if corn prices stay below $4.15 a bushel. If oil hits $120 a barrel, ethanol production will, left to market forces, reach 12.7 billion gallons--still more than two billion short of the federal mandate.*
> 
> In other words, the federally mandated consumption levels mean ethanol will not, for the foreseeable future, be truly cost-­competitive with gasoline. Indeed, says Tyner, setting the ethanol market at 15 billion gallons will mean an "implicit tax" on gasoline consumers, who will have to pay to sustain the high level of biofuel production. When oil costs $100 a barrel, the consumer will pay a relatively innocuous "tax" of 42 cents per gallon of ethanol used (the additional price at the pump will usually be only a few pennies for blends that are 10 percent ethanol). But at lower oil prices, the additional cost of ethanol will be far more noticeable. If oil falls to $40 a barrel, the implicit tax for ethanol will be $1.05 a gallon--or $15.77 billion for all the nation's gasoline users. "If the price of oil drops substantially, is Congress going to say, 'We didn't really mean it'?" asks Tyner. "It gets really messy."
> 
> History provides a lesson about the messi­ness of predicting the market for an energy technology. Almost three decades ago, as the price of oil reached $40 a barrel and many experts worried that it was headed for $80 or even $100, President Jimmy Carter signed the Energy Security Act of 1980. As is the case today, the high price of oil was straining the U.S. economy, and the Middle East was unstable. *One key provision of the 1980 legislation created the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation, which was meant to establish a domestic industry that produced liquid fuel from tar sands, shale, and coal. Despite the unknowns surrounding the economics of producing synthetic fuels on a large scale, engineers estimated that they could be produced for $60 a barrel. An initial production target was set at 500,000 barrels a day. But in the early 1980s, the price of oil fell to $20 a barrel. With no prospect of producing synthetic fuels at a price competitive with that of oil, the Synthetic Fuels Corporation was finally shuttered in 1986.*
> 
> The corporation "didn't fail because of the technology," says John Deutch, who was undersecretary of energy in 1980 and is now an Institute Professor of chemistry at MIT. Rather, he says, it failed because "it focused on production goals, and that turned out to be a bad thing because the market prices went down." Deutch believes that instead of targeting specific production levels, government should participate in the development of alternative fuel technologies by helping to assess their economics and determine whether they meet environmental expectations.
> 
> The Synthetic Fuels Corporation and today's Renewable Fuels Standard differ in many ways. But the efforts behind them do reflect a common theme: the federal government's attempt to select a particular tech­nology and create a market for it. The "harsh reality" is that such measures "are unlikely to be effective over the long term," Deutch says. "And nowhere is this more obvious than in ethanol." He and other experts, such as de Gorter and Iowa State's Babcock, would prefer to see technology-neutral policies, such as a carbon or greenhouse-gas tax, that would allow the markets to choose the most cost-effective way of meeting political and environmental goals.
> 
> Besides creating the synthetic-fuels program, the 1980 energy bill also included a Biomass Energy and Alcohol Fuels Act, which provided $600 million to the Departments of Energy and Agriculture for research into biofuels made from cellulose or biomass. But that funding was slashed in subsequent years. And while the Energy Department is again aggressively funding research on biofuels, and the 2007 energy bill includes several measures supporting such work, overall federal funding for energy research and development has never fully rebounded from the cuts made during President Reagan's administration. It's one reason that, almost three decades after Jimmy Carter's energy bill, the United States still has no effective answer to high-priced imported oil. (_Interpolation. The other reason is that in terms of physics and chemistry, there *is* no alternative to oil._)
> 
> Distorting the markets through federal mandates for biofuels won't help. What might: a well-considered federal policy that financially supports the development of promising new energy technologies and offers technology-neutral incentives for replacing petroleum.
> 
> David Rotman is Technology Review's editor.
> Copyright Technology Review 2008.


----------



## a_majoor

Something like this (if it works as advertised) can provide a nice economic incentive to do something with garbage rather than landfilling. Ethanol is not an ideal biofuel, but if there is an inexpensive way to make it without burning food, then I'll buy that.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20199/?nlid=925



> *Ethanol from Garbage and Old Tires*
> A versatile new process for making biofuels could slash their cost.
> By Kevin Bullis
> 
> As he leads a tour of the labs at Coskata, a startup based in Warrenville, IL, Richard Tobey, the company's vice president of research and development, pauses in front of a pair of clear plastic tubes packed with bundles of white fibers. The tubes are the core of a bioreactor, which is itself the heart of a new tech¬nology that Coskata claims can make ethanol out of wood chips, household garbage, grass, and old tires--indeed, just about any organic material. The bioreactor, Tobey explains, allows the company to combine thermochemical and biological approaches to synthesizing ethanol. Taking advantage of both, he says, makes Coskata's process cheaper and more versatile than either the technologies widely used today to make ethanol from corn or the experimental processes designed to work with sources other than corn.
> 
> Tobey's tour begins at the far end of the laboratory in two small rooms full of pipes, throbbing pumps, and pressurized tanks--all used to process synthesis gas (also known as syngas), a mixture of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen. This is the thermo¬chemical part of Coskata's process: in a well-known technique called gasi¬¬fication, a series of chemical reactions carried out at high temperatures can produce syngas from almost any organic material. Ordi¬narily, chemical catalysts are then used to convert the syngas into a mixture of alcohols that includes ethanol. But making such a mixture is intrinsically inefficient: the carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen that go into the other alcohols could, in principle, have gone into ethanol instead. So this is where Coskata turns from chemistry to biology, using microbes to convert the syngas to ethanol more efficiently.
> 
> Down the hall from the syngas-¬processing equipment, Tobey shows off the petri dishes, flasks, and sealed hoods used to develop species of bacteria that eat syngas. The bioreactors sit at the far end of the room. Inside the bioreactors' tubes, syngas is fed directly to the bacteria, which produce a steady stream of ethanol.
> 
> Coskata's technology could be a big deal. Today, almost all ethanol made in the United States comes from corn grain; because cultivating corn requires a lot of land, water, and energy, corn-derived ethanol does little to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and can actually cause other environmental damage, such as water pollution. Alternative etha¬nol sources, such as switchgrass, wood chips, and municipal waste, would require far fewer resources. But so far, technology for processing such materials has proved very expensive. That's why Coskata's low-cost technique has caught the attention of major investors, including General Motors, which earlier this year announced a partnership with the startup to help deploy its technology on the commercial scale worldwide.
> 
> *Sipping Ethanol*
> 
> Combining thermochemical and biological approaches in a hybrid system can make ethanol processing cheaper by increasing yields and allowing the use of inexpensive feedstocks. But Coskata's process has another advantage, too: it's fast. Though others have also developed syngas-fed bioreactors, Tobey says, they have been too slow. That's because the bacteria are suspended in an aqueous culture, and syngas doesn't dissolve easily in water. Coskata's new bioreactor, however, delivers the syngas to the bacteria directly.
> The thin fibers packed into the bioreactor serve two functions. First, they act as scaffolding: the bacteria grow in biofilms on the outside of the fibers. Second, they serve as a delivery mechanism for the syngas. Even though each fiber is not much bigger than a human hair, Tobey says, it acts like a tiny plastic straw. The researchers pump syngas down the bores of the hollow fibers, and it diffuses through the fiber walls to reach the bacteria. Water flows around the outside of the fibers, delivering vitamins and amino acids to the bacteria and carrying away the ethanol the bacteria produce. But the water and the syngas, Tobey says, never meet.
> Coskata has also improved the last steps of the process, in which the ethanol is sepa¬rated from the water. Ordinarily, this is done using distillation, which is expensive and consumes 30 percent as much energy as burning the ethanol will release. Coskata instead uses a modified version of an existing technology called vapor permeation. Vapor permeation uses hydrophilic membranes to draw off the water, leaving pure ethanol behind. It also consumes half as much energy as distillation per gallon of fuel. Vapor permeation is difficult to use with most biological manufacturing processes, Tobey says, because biomass fed to the microörganisms washes out with the water and can clog up the system. But in Coskata's process, the bacteria feed only on syngas, not on biomass. So no extra filtration is required to make vapor permea¬tion work.
> 
> *Better Bugs*
> 
> Coskata continues working on its bacteria, trying to increase the amount of etha¬nol they can produce. The company now uses varieties of Clostridium, a genus that includes a species that make botulism toxin and another that processes manure on farms. Coskata has started building an automated system for screening new strains of Clostridium according to their ability to make ethanol. Along the way, it has had to develop techniques for protecting its bacteria from being exposed to oxygen; the bacteria are anaerobic, and oxygen kills them at about the same concentrations at which carbon monoxide kills humans. The automated system should allow the company to sort through 150,000 new strains a year, up from a few thousand now.
> 
> The researchers can go only so far by sorting through random variations, however. Eventually, Tobey hopes to begin manipu¬lating the microbes' genes directly, activating only those that improve ethanol production. Such engineering is fairly common now, but the Clostridium bacteria that Coskata uses haven't been studied much. So although Tobey knows what chemical steps the bacteria use to transform syngas into ethanol, he doesn't yet know the details of how genes regulate this process, and what role these genes play in the general processes that keep the bacteria alive. What's more, effective ways of manipulating the genes in these particular bacteria haven't yet been developed.
> 
> Even as Coskata continues to improve its microbes, it is planning to move the fuel production process out of the lab and scale it up to the commercial level. With the help of GM and other partners, the company will build a facility that's able to produce 40,000 gallons of ethanol per year. Coskata representatives say construction will begin within the year. The company's bioreactors should make it easy to adapt the technology to a larger scale, Tobey says; they can simply be lined up in parallel to achieve the needed output volumes. The next two or three years will reveal whether Coskata's process can start to replace significant amounts of gasoline with cheap ethanol.
> 
> Copyright Technology Review 2008.


----------



## fraserdw

All the oil there ever was, was created in a brief moment in time 7 million years ago when massive global warming hit the planet (via a "killer" asteriod).  Massive amounts of animal and plant matter were laid low and pressed under tons of ash and dust.  In order for new oil to be created guess what has to happen?  Most oil alternates right now cost 1.2 barrels of oil to make for each barrel they save!


----------



## George Wallace

fraserdw said:
			
		

> All the oil there ever was, was created in a brief moment in time 7 million years ago when massive global warming hit the planet (via a "killer" asteriod).  Massive amounts of animal and plant matter were laid low and pressed under tons of ash and dust.  In order for new oil to be created guess what has to happen?  Most oil alternates right down cost 1.2 barrels of oil to make for each barrel they save!



This is Gospel?


----------



## a_majoor

Simple geology will tell you this theory is crock: most oil and natural gas deposits are found in sedimentary layers dating over wide ranges of time (although generally speaking the deeper the deposit the older the deposit was formed). Coal was formed as far back as  400 million years ago (fossils preserved in the coal deposits are proof of this), and most oil is thought to have been formed between 10 and 160 million years ago.

Since the stuff in the oil sands is considered to be the remnants of a deposit up to 18 trillion barrels of hydrocarbons, I don't think asteroid strikes had a lot to do with it.


----------



## a_majoor

More metrics for the "Green" crowd to ponder:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/opinion/2008/03/23/do2303.xml



> *Wind power costs inflate*
> 
> A further huge question mark has been raised over the Government's plan to build 7,000 offshore wind turbines round Britain's coasts, to help meet its EU target of 15 percent of our electricity from â renewables' by 2020.
> 
> The director of renewable generation for Centrica, our largest windfarm developer, last week revealed *that the cost of this plan to create 33,000 megawatts (MW) of capacity has doubled in three years, from £40 billion to £80 billion.*
> 
> But since, thanks to fluctuations in the wind, offshore turbines generate on average only 27.5 per cent of capacity, the actual power produced by these turbines would be only 9,000MW, putting its price at £8.8 million per MW.
> 
> The latest nuclear power station being built in Finland at a cost of £2.7 billion will produce 1600MW, 24 hours a day, representing *£1.7 million per MW.* In other words, six nuclear power stations could produce more electricity than all those windfarms for only a fifth of the price.
> 
> If Centrica really wants to help Britain keep its lights on, it could, *for £80 billion, build 30 "carbon-free" nuclear power stations to generate 48,000MW of electricity,* more than the average 47,000MW now produced by all Britain's power plants.
> 
> But since this would not count towards meeting our EU renewables target, to do anything so sensible would put us in serious breach of EU law.
> 
> Stand by for those lights to go out.


----------



## a_majoor

New engine design. The announced 27% improvement in fuel economy is very exciting, if it can be verified in independent testing. Some buses, m113's and the old AVGP series of vehicles used a two stroke engine (6V53 and 53T series if I recall) so the idea of powering large vehicles this way isn't fantastic at all:

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20494/?nlid=976



> *Nonelectric Hybrid Engines*
> A novel hybrid engine could slash fuel consumption.
> By Duncan Graham-Rowe
> 
> A new kind of hybrid vehicle could offer reduced fuel consumption to consumers concerned about gas prices. Mechanical engineers in the United Kingdom have developed a novel kind of combustion engine that is able to switch between being a two-stroke and a four-stroke engine. The system, they say, can reduce fuel consumption by 27 percent.
> 
> The improved fuel consumption essentially comes from downsizing the engine, says Neville Jackson, technology director of Ricardo UK, an engineering firm in Shoreham-on-Sea that developed the new engine. "A smaller engine has less internal friction and delivers better fuel consumption," he says.
> 
> But small car engines, which are usually based on a four-stroke design, don't offer a lot of power. They can be particularly problematic when operated at low speeds with a high load, such as when accelerating uphill. Such conditions can even make a small engine stall if the driver doesn't downshift.
> 
> "Four strokes are most efficient at full throttle; with two strokes, it's the opposite," says Robert Kee, a mechanical engineer who specializes in combustion engines at Queen's University, in Belfast, Northern Ireland.
> 
> The difference between two- and four-stroke engines is that the latter carry out the four stages of air intake, compression, combustion, and exhaust in four strokes of a piston. A two-stroke engine, in contrast, does this in just two piston strokes.
> 
> Two-stroke engines are intrinsically simpler by design and have higher power-to-weight ratios at high loads and low speeds because they get twice as many power strokes per revolution. But traditional two-stroke engines require oil to be mixed in with the fuel, and therefore produce higher emissions. Because of this, they aren't typically used in cars. Instead, they're used for lightweight applications such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, and some motorbikes.
> 
> But now, researchers at Ricardo have developed a piston head that operates in both two- and four-stroke mode, and it can switch automatically between the two modes, depending on the needs of the engine. This allows a smaller engine to handle the low-speed, high-load conditions without stalling.
> 
> "This is an interesting concept," says Martti Larmi, head of the Internal Combustion Engine Laboratory at Helsinki University of Technology, in Finland.
> 
> The main challenge in building such an engine is perfecting the scavenging process, he says, when the residual gases from the previous combustion cycle are replaced with fresh air and fuel.
> 
> "You need some kind of pressure on the intake side to push out the gases that have already burned," says Larmi.
> 
> In a traditional two-stroke engine, the force of the fuel and air intake drives out the exhaust. Unfortunately, this process causes some unburned fuel to be lost as exhaust, resulting in higher emissions. Four-stroke engines force the spent fumes out of the cylinder through a cam-controlled valve using an upward stroke of the piston. During the following downstroke, fresh air and fuel are injected into the cylinder while the exhaust valve is closed.
> 
> Ricardo's engine, called 2/4SIGHT, uses valves like a four-stroke engine, but in two-stroke mode, the engine keeps both the intake and exhaust valves open at the same time so that the fuel and air in the cylinder are replenished each cycle, rather than every other cycle.
> 
> There has been a lot of interest in developing a low-emission two-stroke engine. But it's a difficult configuration to perfect because there is little time to get the fuel-air mix in and the exhaust out, says Larmi. "The danger here is that the fresh air intake can go directly out through the exhaust outlet," he says.
> 
> Ricardo is using a couple of tricks to get around this problem. First, the design of Ricardo's piston head uses reverse tumbling, a process in which the air intake is directed away from the exhaust valve, to reduce the chances of it flowing straight out of the cylinder. Ricardo has also swapped the cam-controlled valves for electro-hydraulic valves, which, along with the fuel injector, can be controlled by software.
> 
> Car manufacturers have showed an interest in building this sort of hybrid engine in the past, says Kee. "But there are a lot of challenges," he says. Indeed, both Toyota and Ricardo looked at this issue in the late 1980s and early '90s.
> 
> But in the past, the technology simply wasn't there. According to Ricardo, the only reason the company is able to make a viable system now is because of the software that controls the gas exchange and engine modes. "The engine's control system monitors driver demand," says Jackson. When more torque is required than would be possible in four-stroke mode, it switches, he says. However, the company will not reveal details about when, in the engine cycle, the mode is switched.
> 
> Ricardo's prototype, an adapted 2.1-liter V6 engine, has been tested by researchers at the University of Brighton and has been found to be able to produce the kind of performance one would normally expect from a three-to-four-liter engine. Based on the New European Driving Cycle, which is a standard performance test designed to gauge engine efficiency and emissions under typical car usage, the prototype has demonstrated fuel savings of 27 percent, and it reduces emissions by a similar amount. The next phase is to try to incorporate a prototype engine into a working vehicle, says Jackson.
> 
> Copyright Technology Review 2008.


----------



## a_majoor

The reason most plants are not configured this way is the cost/benefit ratio is very low individually. The capital costs to convert systems is probably too high (except in special cases), but new plants could be configured this way:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/recycled-steam.



> by Lisa Margonelli
> *Waste Not*
> 
> Forty years ago, the steel mills and factories south of Chicago were known for their sooty smokestacks, plumes of steam, and throngs of workers. Clean-air laws have since gotten rid of the smoke, and labor-productivity initiatives have eliminated most of the workers. What remains is the steam, billowing up into the sky day after day, just as it did a generation ago.
> 
> The U.S. economy wastes 55 percent of the energy it consumes, and while American companies have ruthlessly wrung out other forms of inefficiency, that figure hasn’t changed much in recent decades. The amount lost by electric utilities alone could power all of Japan.
> 
> *A 2005 report by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that U.S. industry could profitably recycle enough waste energy—including steam, furnace gases, heat, and pressure—to reduce the country’s fossil-fuel use (and greenhouse-gas emissions) by nearly a fifth. A 2007 study by the Mc­Kinsey Global Institute sounded largely the same note; it concluded that domestic industry could use 19 percent less energy than it does today—and make more money as a result.
> *
> Economists like to say that rational markets don’t “leave $100 bills on the ground,” but according to McKinsey’s figures, more than $50 billion floats into the air each year, unclaimed by American businesses. What’s more, the technologies required to save that money are, for the most part, not new or unproven or even particularly expensive. By and large, they’ve been around since the 19th century. The question is: Why aren’t we using them?
> 
> One of the few people who’s been making money from recycled steam is Tom Casten, the chairman of Recycled Energy Development. Casten, a former Eagle Scout and marine, has railed against the waste of energy for 30 years; he says the mere sight of steam makes him sick. When Casten walks into an industrial plant, he told me, he immediately begins to reconfigure the pipes in his head, totting up potential energy savings. Steam, of course, can be cycled through a turbine to generate electricity. Heat, which in some industrial kilns reaches 7,000F, can be used to produce more steam. Furnace exhaust, commonly disposed of in flares, can be mixed with oxygen to create the practical equivalent of natural gas. Even differences in steam pressure between one industrial process and another can be exploited, through clever placement of turbines, to produce extra watts of electricity.
> 
> By making use of its “junk energy,” an industrial plant can generate its own power and buy less from the grid. A case in point is the ArcelorMittal steel mill in East Chicago, Indiana, where a company called Primary Energy/EPCOR USA has been building on-site energy plants to capture heat and gases *since 1996*. Casten, Primary Energy’s CEO from 2003 to 2006, was involved in several proj­ects that now sell cheap, clean power back to the mill. (_interpolation: you can see this isn't quite as easy as made out_)
> 
> As a result of Primary Energy’s proj­ects, the mill has cut its purchases of coal-fired power by half, reduced carbon emissions by 1.3 million tons a year, and saved more than $100 million. In March, the plant won an EPA Energy Star award. Its utilities manager, Tom Riley, says he doesn’t foresee running out of profitable proj­ects anytime soon. “You’d think you might,” he says, “but you can always find more … Energy efficiency is a big multiplier.”
> 
> Casten wants to help everyone see such possibilities, so he’s been combining EPA emissions figures with Google Earth images to let investors “peer” into smokestacks and visualize the wasted energy. Recycled Energy Development recently received $1.5 billion in venture funding, which should enable it to expand its reach greatly. Casten gives a whirlwind tour of the targets: natural-gas pipelines, he says, use nearly a tenth of the gas they carry to keep the fuel flowing. Capture some of the heat and pressure they lose, and the U.S. could take four coal-fired power plants offline (out of roughly 300). Another power plant could be switched off if energy were collected at the country’s 27 carbon-black plants, which make particles used in the manufacture of tires. And so on through facilities that make silicon, glass, ethanol, and orange juice, until, Casten hopes, he has throngs of competitors. “I always thought that if we were successful, people would emulate us and I’d be happy at the end of the day. I just didn’t think it would take 30 years.”
> 
> Yet in fact, Casten still has few competitors, and the improvements he’s made remain rare in American industry. With pressure growing to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the age of recycled steam may seem closer now than it has in the past, but because of a variety of cultural, financial, and—especially—regula­tory barriers, its arrival is no sure thing.
> 
> The first barrier is obvious from a trip through ArcelorMittal’s four miles of interconnected pipes, wires, and buildings. Steel mills are noisy, hot, and smelly—all signs of enormous inter­dependent energy systems at work. *In many cases, putting waste energy to use requires mixing the exhaust of one process with the intake of another, demanding coordination.* But engineers have largely been trained to focus only on their own processes; many tend to resist changes that make those processes more complex. Whereas European and Japanese corporate cultures emphasize energy-saving as a strategy that enhances their competitiveness, U.S. companies generally do not. (DuPont and Dow, which have saved billions on energy costs in the past decade, are notable exceptions. Arcelor­Mittal’s ownership is European.)
> 
> In some industries, investments in energy efficiency also suffer because of the nature of the business cycle. When demand is strong, managers tend to invest first in new capacity; but when demand is weak, they withhold investment for fear that plants will be closed. The timing just never seems to work out. McKinsey found that three-quarters of American companies will not invest in efficiency upgrades that take just two years to pay for themselves. “You have to be humbled,” Matt Rogers, a director at McKinsey, told me, “that with a creative market economy, we aren’t getting there,” even with high oil prices.
> 
> Some of these problems may fade if energy costs remain high. But industry’s inertia is reinforced by regulation. The Clean Air Act has succeeded spectacularly in reducing some forms of air pollution, but perversely, it has chilled efforts to reuse energy: because many of these efforts involve tinkering with industrial exhaust systems, they can trigger a federal or local review of the plant, opening a can of worms some plant managers would rather keep closed.
> 
> Much more problematic are the regu­lations surrounding utilities. Several waves of deregulation have resulted in a hodgepodge of rules without providing full competition among power generators. Though it’s cheaper and cleaner to produce power at Casten’s proj­ects than to build new coal-fired capacity, *many industrial plants cannot themselves use all the electricity they could produce: they can’t profit from aggressive energy recycling unless they can sell the electricity to other consumers. Yet by­zan­tine regulations make that difficult, stifling many independent energy recyclers.* Some of these competitive disadvantages have been addressed in the latest energy bill, but many remain.
> 
> Ultimately, making better use of energy will require revamping our operation of the electrical grid itself, an undertaking considerably more complicated than, say, creating a carbon tax. For the better part of a century, we’ve gotten electricity from large, central generators, which waste nearly 70 percent of the energy they burn. They face little competition and are allowed to simply pass energy costs on to their customers. Distributing generators across the grid would reduce waste, improve reliability, and provide at least some competition.
> 
> Opening the grid to competition is one of the more important steps to take if we’re serious about reducing fossil-­fuel use and carbon emissions, yet no one’s talking about doing that. Democratic legislators are nervous about creating incentives for cleaner, cheaper generation that may also benefit nuclear power. Neither party wants to do the dirty work of shutting down old, wasteful generators. And of course the Enron debacle looms over everything.
> 
> Technocratic changes to the grid and to industrial plants don’t easily capture the imagination. Recycling industrial energy is a solution that looks, well, gray, not green. Steel plants, coated with rust, grime, and a century’s worth of effluvia, do not make for inspiring photos. Yet Casten, pointing to the 16 heat-recycling contraptions that sit on top of the coke ovens at the East Chicago steel plant, notes that in 2004 they produced as much clean energy as all the grid-connected solar panels in the world. Green power may pay great dividends years from now. Gray power, if we would embrace it, is a realistic goal for today.


----------



## tomahawk6

New oil find in Brazil.

From Stratfor.

The Geopolitical Diary:  Blue-Skying Brazil

Brazil is a rising power politically, economically and militarily. Not only is it South America’s largest country in terms of population, economic heft, military strength and land area, its geopolitical power is expanding while most of its traditional competitors — namely Argentina and Venezuela — are contracting. 

But while Brazil is almost certain in the next few years to evolve into a regional hegemon — a step up from the region’s most powerful state — it is still difficult to see Brazil playing a leading role on the world stage. South America’s geography is too fractured for any power to control the whole space, and the continent is too remote from the world’s power centers — 7,000 miles from Buenos Aires to Brussels, more than 10,000 miles from Santiago to Singapore — for any of its powers ever to be a major global player. 

Unless, that is, something changes. And for a few hours on Monday, it appeared that that something had indeed changed. 

Initial reports from the Brazilian government asserted that a new oil find in the Carioca offshore block contains 33 billion barrels of crude. Within a few hours, however, an announcement that seemed to have global implications fizzled. By nightfall Petroleo Brasileiro, the state-influenced (and quite competent) national oil firm, had formally denied that test drilling had even reached the depth necessary to confirm or deny the presence of oil — much less a mammoth find. 

Offshore region rich in oil
Brazil only began exploring the region in question in 2007, and it already has generated probable finds of at least 13 billion barrels of oil equivalent. Many, many more discoveries not only are possible, they are likely. What has been found to date already has doubled Brazil’s reserves. 

This crude will not come online cheaply or quickly, however, and much uncertainty remains in these heady early days of exploration in Brazil’s ultradeep. But with potential discoveries of this size it is worth exploring a possible future. 

Brazil has recently become self-sufficient in oil production — not counting the recent (and likely future) finds. And that got our analytical team thinking. 

‘What if’ exercise
What would a world look like with a Latin American Saudi Arabia? How would things change on the global scene? At Stratfor we undertake what we term “blue sky” exercises from time to time, albeit typically in a much more compact geography and on a much shorter time line. These exercises help us think outside the tactical minutiae of day-to-day events, and prevent us from becoming too wed to our own predictions. It is not every day that something happens that can change global economic and political interactions on such a grand scale. 

So rather than tightly edit our analysts’ responses to this question, here are some of their responses in the raw: 

Should Brazil become a significant oil producer, global interest in Latin America will increase in proportion — not only from the United States, but also China, Russia, Europe and others. Competition for access to — and potentially control of — the resources, for security of the shipping routes, and for influence over the Brazilian government and energy companies also would rise. A resource-powerful Brazil, coupled with China’s labor, India’s tech and labor pool, and Russia’s energy and arms could also revive the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) concept, perhaps making it a more viable bloc of formerly second-tier players, and bringing some counterbalance to U.S. global hegemony. 

Brazil is too far away from energy consumers like India and China to tap without great cost. The United States is a much closer consumer. In time this would lessen U.S. energy dependence on the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia — leaving that region for other energy consumers, like the aforementioned India and China. Such a shift largely would regionalize energy routes, leaving the United States looking at its own hemisphere for energy supplies, Europe to the former Soviet Union, and Asia to the Middle East (leaving Africa as a swing player). Though this may look like a more peaceable reality, it would be far from it, and could actually lead to more instability as no power would have much of an interest in stabilizing energy supplies going to other regions. 

Canada’s tar sands hold anywhere from 800 billion to 1.2 trillion barrels of oil. Oil shale deposits in the U.S. Rocky Mountains are estimated at around 800 billion barrels. The success of tapping these deposits is uncertain, and technological and economic factors must play out, but in 15 to 20 years, substantial oil flows from Brazil, coupled with these potential new sources of North American oil (though more difficult to extract and expensive), and only moderate efficiency gains could guarantee almost complete energy independence for the entire Western Hemisphere. 

A legitimate and proximate alternative oil source means the primary geopolitical motivation for immense U.S. investment in military operations in the Middle East begins to slowly evaporate. Though mastery of the world’s oceans remains a core geopolitical imperative for Washington, the disproportionate focus of the U.S. Navy on the Persian Gulf and the maintenance of the Strait of Hormuz becomes far less critical. Suddenly freeing the energy and capability the Pentagon would lead to a very robust and flexible — but far more evenly distributed — global U.S. naval presence. This could also be just the opening for the Navy, which in many ways has failed to re-evaluate its post-Cold War stance, to fundamentally remake itself for the 21st century. 

The region with most to worry about from this development is the Middle East. From Washington’s view, getting oil from a relatively friendly and stable country to its south is far, far preferable than dealing with the chaos of the distant Middle East. Saudi Arabia and the other major Gulf powers will become distant not only from their biggest energy customer, but also from their biggest security guarantor. With a diminished U.S. interest in the Middle East, regional fault lines are more likely to erupt, spelling more instability for this already largely volatile region. Israel in particular has much to lose as it sees its regional security framework — which is built around having the United States deeply involved in the Middle East — weaken, and its alliance with the United States strained as a result


----------



## a_majoor

Fuel cell technology advances some more. Liquid hydrocarbon fuels have high energy density and are reletively stable and easy to handle underr normal conditions (what do you think you are doing at the self serve gas station?), and alcohol based fuels have similar advantages. The energy density of a high energy battery isn't that great, but so long as fuel is flowing through the fuel cell, you have a current (and the energy density of the fuel is what counts).

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20813/page1/



> *More-Powerful Fuel Cells*
> A cheap polymer material increases the power output of methanol fuel cells by 50 percent.
> By Katherine Bourzac
> 
> Methanol fuel cells have the potential to replace batteries as a lightweight power source for portable electronic devices. But fuel-cell materials are expensive, and fuel cells that consume methanol are inefficient. In particular, the membranes used in methanol fuel cells are expensive and waste fuel. Now researchers at MIT have developed a cheap membrane material that increases the power output of methanol fuel cells by 50 percent.
> 
> The energy density of a methanol fuel cell "compares to the best high-energy-density batteries," says Robert Savinell, a chemical engineer at Case Western Reserve University, in Cleveland, who was not involved in the research. And because they weigh less than batteries, methanol fuel cells are a promising power source for portable electronics. For the military, tanks of methanol for refilling fuel cells would be lighter than extra batteries that would have to be carried on long missions. The energy density of methanol fuel cells could also be an advantage in portable consumer electronic devices such as laptops and iPods. But commercialization of methanol fuel cells has been limited because of their price: they require a thick internal membrane made of an expensive polymer. And even with this expensive material, they use fuel inefficiently.
> 
> To overcome these limitations, Paula Hammond, a chemical engineer at MIT, has made a fuel-cell membrane out of layers of polymers whose electrochemical properties can be precisely tuned to prevent fuel waste. Indeed, says Savinell, Hammond has solved a problem that chemists have been trying to overcome for years.
> 
> Methanol fuel cells have two compartments separated by a membrane. On one side, methanol is stripped of protons and electrons. The protons are carried through the membrane to the other compartment, where they are combined with oxygen to form water. The electrons, which can't cross the membrane, are forced into an external current that can be used to power electronic devices.
> 
> Because water is being created inside the fuel cell, the membrane is wet. Methanol, which is very soluble in water, is absorbed by conventional fuel-cell membranes and can cross over to the other side. This wastes fuel and makes the cathode, the oxidizing end of the cell, work harder. "Everyone's concerned about methanol crossover," says Merlin Bruening, a chemist at Michigan State University. Researchers have tried many different approaches to improving methanol fuel-cell membranes, but all have entailed trade-offs. "The challenge is to maintain stability and conductivity [to protons]," while decreasing methanol crossover, says Bruening.
> 
> Hammond synthesizes fuel-cell membranes using a technique called layer-by-layer assembly. She starts with a very thin membrane of the polymer used in conventional fuel cells. She dips it into a water solution of a positively charged polymer, then into one of a negatively charged polymer; the process is repeated until many layers are built up. The result, explains Hammond, is "a polymer backbone that resists the permeation of methanol" while still conducting protons.
> 
> The resulting 100-nanometer-thick membrane conducts two orders of magnitude less methanol than conventional, 50-micrometer-thick membranes do. And fuel cells incorporating it have a greater power output.
> 
> Hammond says that methanol is a better candidate to power portable fuel cells than hydrogen because it's a liquid and not nearly as flammable. "It's a dense power source that's safe to carry around," she says.
> 
> Savinell says that Hammond's work could have applications beyond methanol fuel cells. By picking the right polymers and varying assembly conditions including pH, says Savinell, "you can customize and optimize [the films] for any application." Layer-by-layer films might be used to improve the conductivity of hydrogen fuel-cell membranes and to increase the efficiency of ethanol fuel cells. Ethanol is safer than methanol but has similar drawbacks as a feedstock for fuel cells: ethanol seeps across the polymer membranes.
> 
> "The real promise is the power of the technology to make new materials," says Savinell. Hammond is now working on new fuel-cell membranes that contain none of the expensive conventional polymer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Copyright Technology Review 2008.


----------



## tomahawk6

The current energy crisis in the uS is the sole fault of the democrat led Congress.Gas prices have increased dramatically from 2006.Congress refuses to allow offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska.Finally just last week the Senate blocked development of Colorado's immense oil shale reserves thought to be 2-3 trillion barrels.They want to sue OPEC.They want alternative energy that isnt currently available.They have blocked nuclear power which is safe and clean energy.If we simply built more nuclear plants for power existing oil supplies would force a dramatic decline in oil prices.Until the politicians show some backbone towards the green lobby things will only get worse in the US at least.


----------



## tomahawk6

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020589.php



> With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, Exxon Mobil, a small oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e, mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge Exxon Mobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up.
> 
> This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States--unlike, say, France--actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela.


----------



## a_majoor

You blend gasoline with a low energy fuel like ethanol and then wonder why fuel milage goes down?

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2008/Q2/mail519.html



> *Postal Services Flex Fuel Vehicles Uses More Gasoline than normal vehicles*.
> 
> Jerry I saw this on a blog. I think it casts doubt on the flex fuel vehicle mandate you've been talking about. I don't think the future is in flexfuel vehicles. From what I understand a gasoline and an alcohol vehicle need to be designed differently (compression rations) in order to get the most out of their respective fuels.
> 
> While our Washington-based Pooh-Bahs of Pork
> <http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/
> democrat_senators_screw_upblame
> _oil_company_executives/>  were witlessly pummeling oil company executives for the fact that there has been no increase in domestic oil available while international demand continues rising, Bloomberg reports that the US Postal Service has effectively demonstrated that the government’s ethanol mandates are not just a total bust, but actually counterproductive to the stated goal of less dependence on high-priced foreign oil.
> 
> May 21 (Bloomberg <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aj.h0coJSkpw>  )—*The U.S. Postal Service purchased more than 30,000 ethanol-capable trucks and minivans from 1999 to 2005, making it the biggest American buyer of alternative-fuel vehicles. Gasoline consumption jumped by more than 1.5 million gallons as a result.
> 
> …A Postal Service study found the new vehicles got as much as 29 percent fewer miles to the gallon. Mail carriers used the corn-based fuel in just 1,000 of them because there weren’t enough places to buy it.
> 
> ``You’re getting fewer miles per gallon, and it’s costing us more,’’ Walt O’Tormey, the Postal Service’s Washington-based vice president of engineering, said in an interview. The agency may buy electric vehicles instead, he said. *
> 
> The experience shows how the U.S. push for crop-based fuels, already contributing to the highest rate of food inflation in 17 years, may not be achieving its goal of reducing gasoline consumption…
> 
> Lost in the debate over the fuel’s contribution to food scarcity is the possibility that the ethanol policy itself isn’t working, said David Just, an associate professor of economics at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. It may stimulate demand by making gas cheaper, he said, an argument supported by at least two U.S. government studies.
> 
> The Postal Service bought the ethanol vehicles to meet alternative-fuel requirements. The vehicles’ size and ethanol’s lower energy content lowered mileage, the agency said. It takes 1.33 gallons of E85 (85 percent ethanol) and 1.03 gallons of E10 (10 percent ethanol) to travel the same distance as with one gallon of pure gasoline, the Department of Energy says.
> 
> So, because of the high-cost government mandate to produce and use ethanol to reduce our use of oil, we wind up using more gasoline than before, and at a higher cost than before, too. Why am I not surprised?
> 
> It will be pitifully interesting to see just how much it will cost us, the taxpayers, to correct the problem created by our government trying to fix a problem created by the government in the first place. I wonder how much we spent to buy all those ethanol Postal Service vehicles that were supposed to save us gas and money?


----------



## daftandbarmy

"The big losers are countries that not only have to import oil but also are heavily industrialized relative to their economy." Hmmmm.... who would that be I wonder?

THE GEOPOLITICS OF $130 OIL

By George Friedman

Oil prices have risen dramatically over the past year. When they passed $100 a barrel, they hit new heights, expressed in dollars adjusted for inflation. As they passed $120 a barrel, they clearly began to have global impact. Recently, we have seen startling rises in the price of food, particularly grains. Apart from higher prices, there have been disruptions in the availability of food as governments limit food exports and as hoarding increases in anticipation of even higher prices.

Oil and food differ from other commodities in that they are indispensable for the functioning of society. Food obviously is the more immediately essential. Food shortages can trigger social and political instability with startling swiftness. It does not take long to starve to death. Oil has a less-immediate -- but perhaps broader -- impact. Everything, including growing and marketing food, depends on energy; and oil is the world's primary source of energy, particularly in transportation. Oil and grains -- where the shortages hit hardest -- are not merely strategic commodities. They are geopolitical commodities. All nations require them, and a shift in the price or availability of either triggers shifts in relationships within and among nations.

It is not altogether clear to us why oil and grains have behaved as they have. The question for us is what impact this generalized rise in commodity prices -- particularly energy and food -- will have on the international system. We understand that it is possible that the price of both will plunge. There is certainly a speculative element in both. Nevertheless, based on the realities of supply conditions, we do not expect the price of either to fall to levels that existed in 2003. We will proceed in this analysis on the assumption that these prices will fluctuate, but that they will remain dramatically higher than prices were from the 1980s to the mid-2000s.

If that assumption is true and we continue to see elevated commodity prices, perhaps rising substantially higher than they are now, then it seems to us that we have entered a new geopolitical era. Since the end of World War II, we have lived in three geopolitical regimes, broadly understood:

·                     The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, in which the focus was on the military balance between those two countries, particularly on the nuclear balance. During this period, all countries, in some way or another, defined their behavior in terms of the U.S.-Soviet competition. 

·                     The period from the fall of the Berlin Wall until 9/11, when the primary focus of the world was on economic development. This was the period in which former communist countries redefined themselves, East and Southeast Asian economies surged and collapsed, and China grew dramatically. It was a period in which politico-military power was secondary and economic power primary. 

·                     The period from 9/11 until today that has been defined in terms of the increasing complexity of the U.S.-jihadist war -- a reality that supplanted the second phase and redefined the international system dramatically. 

With the U.S.-jihadist war in either a stalemate or a long-term evolution, its impact on the international system is diminishing. First, it has lost its dynamism. The conflict is no longer drawing other countries into it. Second, it is becoming an endemic reality rather than an urgent crisis. The international system has accommodated itself to the conflict, and its claims on that system are lessening.

The surge in commodity prices -- particularly oil -- has superseded the U.S.-jihadist war, much as the war superseded the period in which economic issues dominated the global system. This does not mean that the U.S.-jihadist war will not continue to rage, any more than 9/11 abolished economic issues. Rather, it means that a new dynamic has inserted itself into the international system and is in the process of transforming it.

It is a cliche that money and power are linked. It is nevertheless true. Economic power creates political and military power, just as political and military power can create economic power. The rise in the price of oil is triggering shifts in economic power that are in turn creating changes in the international order. This was not apparent until now because of three reasons. First, oil prices had not risen to the level where they had geopolitical impact. The system was ignoring higher prices. Second, they had not been joined in crisis condition by grain prices. Third, the permanence of higher prices had not been clear. When $70-a-barrel oil seemed impermanent, and likely to fall below $50, oil was viewed very differently than it was at $130, where a decline to $100 would be dramatic and a fall to $70 beyond the calculation of most. As oil passed $120 a barrel, the international system, in our view, started to reshape itself in what will be a long-term process.

Obviously, the winners in this game are those who export oil, and the losers are those who import it. The victory is not only economic but political as well. The ability to control where exports go and where they don't go transforms into political power. The ability to export in a seller's market not only increases wealth but also increases the ability to coerce, if that is desired.

The game is somewhat more complex than this. The real winners are countries that can export and generate cash in excess of what they need domestically. So countries such as Venezuela, Indonesia and Nigeria might benefit from higher prices, but they absorb all the wealth that is transferred to them. Countries such as Saudi Arabia do not need to use so much of their wealth for domestic needs. They control huge and increasing pools of cash that they can use for everything from achieving domestic political stability to influencing regional governments and the global economic system. Indeed, the entire Arabian Peninsula is in this position.

The big losers are countries that not only have to import oil but also are heavily industrialized relative to their economy. Countries in which service makes up a larger sector than manufacturing obviously use less oil for critical economic functions than do countries that are heavily manufacturing-oriented. Certainly, consumers in countries such as the United States are hurt by rising prices. And these countries' economies might slow. But higher oil prices simply do not have the same impact that they do on countries that both are primarily manufacturing-oriented and have a consumer base driving cars.

East Asia has been most affected by the combination of sustained high oil prices and disruptions in the food supply. Japan, which imports all of its oil and remains heavily industrialized (along with South Korea), is obviously affected. But the most immediately affected is China, where shortages of diesel fuel have been reported. China's miracle -- rapid industrialization -- has now met its Achilles' heel: high energy prices.

China is facing higher energy prices at a time when the U.S. economy is weak and the ability to raise prices is limited. As oil prices increase costs, the Chinese continue to export and, with some exceptions, are holding prices. The reason is simple. The Chinese are aware that slowing exports could cause some businesses to fail. That would lead to unemployment, which in turn will lead to instability. The Chinese have their hands full between natural disasters, Tibet, terrorism and the Olympics. They do not need a wave of business failures.

Therefore, they are continuing to cap the domestic price of gasoline. This has caused tension between the government and Chinese oil companies, which have refused to distribute at capped prices. Behind this power struggle is this reality: The Chinese government can afford to subsidize oil prices to maintain social stability, but given the need to export, they are effectively squeezing profits out of exports. Between subsidies and no-profit exports, China's reserves could shrink with remarkable speed, leaving their financial system -- already overloaded with nonperforming loans -- vulnerable. If they take the cap off, they face potential domestic unrest.

The Chinese dilemma is present throughout Asia. But just as Asia is the big loser because of long-term high oil prices coupled with food disruptions, Russia is the big winner. Russia is an exporter of natural gas and oil. It also could be a massive exporter of grains if prices were attractive enough and if it had the infrastructure (crop failures in Russia are a thing of the past). Russia has been very careful, under Vladimir Putin, not to assume that energy prices will remain high and has taken advantage of high prices to accumulate substantial foreign currency reserves. That puts them in a doubly-strong position. Economically, they are becoming major players in global acquisitions. Politically, countries that have become dependent on Russian energy exports -- and this includes a good part of Europe -- are vulnerable, precisely because the Russians are in a surplus-cash position. They could tweak energy availability, hurting the Europeans badly, if they chose. They will not  need to. The Europeans, aware of what could happen, will tread lightly in order to ensure that it doesn't happen.

As we have already said, the biggest winners are the countries of the Arabian Peninsula. Although somewhat strained, these countries never really suffered during the period of low oil prices. They have now more than rebalanced their financial system and are making the most of it. This is a time when they absolutely do not want anything disrupting the flow of oil from their region. Closing the Strait of Hormuz, for example, would be disastrous to them. We therefore see the Saudis, in particular, taking steps to stabilize the region. This includes supporting Israeli-Syrian peace talks, using influence with Sunnis in Iraq to confront al Qaeda, making certain that Shiites in Saudi Arabia profit from the boom. (Other Gulf countries are doing the same with their Shiites. This is designed to remove one of Iran's levers in the region: a rising of Shiites in the Arabian Peninsula.) In addition, the Saudis are using their economic power to re-establish the relationship they had with the United States before 9/11. With the financial institutions in the United States in disarray, the Arabian Peninsula can be very helpful.

China is in an increasingly insular and defensive position. The tension is palpable, particularly in Central Asia, which Russia has traditionally dominated and where China is becoming increasingly active in making energy investments. The Russians are becoming more assertive, using their economic position to improve their geopolitical position in the region. The Saudis are using their money to try to stabilize the region. With oil above $120 a barrel, the last thing they need is a war disrupting their ability to sell. They do not want to see the Iranians mining the Strait of Hormuz or the Americans trying to blockade Iran.

The Iranians themselves are facing problems. Despite being the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, Iran also is the world's second-largest gasoline importer, taking in roughly 40 percent of its annual demand. Because of the type of oil they have, and because they have neglected their oil industry over the last 30 years, their ability to participate in the bonanza is severely limited. It is obvious that there is now internal political tension between the president and the religious leadership over the status of the economy. Put differently, Iranians are asking how they got into this situation.

Suddenly, the regional dynamics have changed. The Saudi royal family is secure against any threats. They can buy peace on the Peninsula. The high price of oil makes even Iraqis think that it might be time to pump more oil rather than fight. Certainly the Iranians, Saudis and Kuwaitis are thinking of ways of getting into the action, and all have the means and geography to benefit from an Iraqi oil renaissance. The war in Iraq did not begin over oil -- a point we have made many times -- but it might well be brought under control because of oil.

For the United States, the situation is largely a push. The United States is an oil importer, but its relative vulnerability to high energy prices is nothing like it was in 1973, during the Arab oil embargo. De-industrialization has clearly had its upside. At the same time, the United States is a food exporter, along with Canada, Australia, Argentina and others. Higher grain prices help the United States. The shifts will not change the status of the United States, but they might create a new dynamic in the Gulf region that could change the framework of the Iraqi war.

This is far from an exhaustive examination of the global shifts caused by rising oil and grain prices. Our point is this: High oil prices can increase as well as decrease stability. In Iraq -- but not in Afghanistan -- the war has already been regionally overshadowed by high oil prices. Oil-exporting countries are in a moneymaking mode, and even the Iranians are trying to figure out how to get into the action; it's hard to see how they can without the participation of the Western oil majors -- and this requires burying the hatchet with the United States. Groups such as al Qaeda and Hezbollah are decidedly secondary to these considerations.

We are very early in this process, and these are just our opening thoughts. But in our view, a wire has been tripped, and the world is refocusing on high commodity prices. As always in geopolitics, issues from the last generation linger, but they are no longer the focus. Last week there was talk of Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) talks between the United States and Russia -- a fossil from the Cold War. These things never go away. But history moves on. It seems to us that history is moving.

This article can be forwarded or reposted but must be attributed to Stratfor.



Copyright 2008 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.


----------



## a_majoor

The long awaited commercial use of waste cellulose to make ethanol comes closer to reality. Using things like corn stalks, sawdust and other "leftovers" makes sense, it does not impact on food supplies, and most of this stuff gets dumped in the landfill otherwise. The key is how much energy is needed to break down the cellulose so fermentation can begin, ethanol from waste might _still_ be a boondoggle in terms of energy inputs/energy output.

If the ethanol can be used to power the farm economy (particularly as raw material for fertilizer and pesticides that are currently petrolium based), then this would probably have a bigger payoff than simply using it as fuel (since ethenol is actually a low energy fuel to begin with).

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20828/?nlid=1099



> *Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Opens*
> 
> A 1.4 million gallon demonstration-scale plant will use waste biomass to make biofuel.
> By Kevin Bullis
> A biorefinery built to produce 1.4 million gallons of ethanol a year from cellulosic biomass will open tomorrow in Jennings, LA. Built by Verenium, based in Cambridge, MA, the plant will make ethanol from agricultural waste left over from processing sugarcane.
> 
> The new Verenium plant is the first demonstration-scale cellulosic ethanol plant in the United States. It will be used to try out variations on the company's technology and is designed to run continuously. Verenium wants to demonstrate that it can create ethanol for $2 a gallon, which it hopes will make the fuel competitive with other types of ethanol and gasoline. Next year, the company plans to begin construction on commercial plants that will each produce about 20 to 30 million gallons of ethanol a year.
> 
> Until now, technology for converting nonfood feedstocks into ethanol has been limited to the lab and to small-scale pilot plants that can produce thousands of gallons of ethanol a year. Since these don't operate continuously, they don't give an accurate idea of how much it will ultimately cost to produce cellulosic ethanol in a commercial-scale facility.
> 
> Almost all ethanol biofuel in the United States is currently made from corn kernels. But the need for cellulosic feedstocks of ethanol has been underscored recently as food prices worldwide have risen sharply, in part because of the use of corn as a source of biofuels. At the same time, the rising cost of corn and gas have begun to make cellulosic ethanol more commercially attractive, says Wallace Tyner, a professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University. A new Renewable Fuels Standard, part of an energy bill that became law late last year, mandates the use of 100 million gallons of cellulosic biofuels by 2010, and 16 billion by 2022.
> 
> So far, however, there are no commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants in operation in the United States, although a number of facilities are scheduled to start production in the next few years. The Department of Energy is currently funding more than a dozen companies that will be building demonstration- and commercial-scale plants. One of these, Range Fuels, based in Broomfield, CO, plans to open a commercial-scale plant next year. It will have the capacity to produce 20 million gallons of ethanol and methanol a year.
> 
> Verenium will use a combination of acid pretreatments, enzymes, and two types of bacteria to make ethanol from the plant matter--called bagasse--that's left over from processing sugarcane to make sugar. It will also process what's called energy cane, a relative of sugarcane that's lower in sugar and higher in fiber. The high fiber content allows the plants to grow taller, increasing yield from a given plot of land.
> 
> Cane bagasse largely consists of bundles of cellulose that are surrounded by hemicellulose. Cellulose is made of long chains of glucose, a six-carbon sugar of the type usually fermented to make ethanol from sources such as corn. Hemicellulose, however, is made of five-carbon sugars, which typically can't be fermented using the same organisms as glucose. One of the things that makes Verenium's process novel, says John Malloy, the company's executive vice president, is its ability to ferment sugars from both cellulose and hemicellulose.
> 
> The process begins when the cane is ground up and cooked under high pressure with a mild acid to hydrolyze the hemicellulose and separate it from the cellulose. The five-carbon sugars in hemicellulose are then fermented using genetically modified E. coli. The cellulose is broken down with enzymes and fermented with another type of bacteria called Klebsiella oxytoca. This bacteria does double duty, since it also produces enzymes that break down cellulose, reducing the amount of enzymes from outside sources by 50 percent. The dilute ethanol produced from fermentation of both types of sugar is then distilled to make fuel.
> 
> In addition to opening the demonstration plant, Verenium is also starting to grow energy cane and to work with local farmers to ensure a steady stream of material for its planned commercial plants. Short term, the company says that it can rely on leftover bagasse from sugar production, but eventually it will draw on energy cane grown specifically to make ethanol. Provisions in the Farm Bill, which was recently passed by the United States Congress, will help by providing farmers with incentives to plant energy crops, says Carlos Riva, Verenium's CEO. The incentives are important because it takes two to three years for energy cane, a perennial plant, to become established and reach ideal production levels. As a result, farmers will need to start planting the crops next year, before commercial plants are built and there is a market for these crops.
> 
> The opening of the demonstration plant, and the current construction of a number of other demonstration- and commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants, marks a turning point for the industry, Riva says. The development of improved enzymes and fermentation organisms means that no further scientific breakthroughs are needed to make cellulosic ethanol commercially successful, he says. "There's been a tremendous amount of background work in science and technology development," he says. "We've learned so much about the process that the really important thing now is to start to deploy the technology at a commercial scale."
> 
> Copyright Technology Review 2008.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thucydides - I am still no fan.  

It is going to take a lot to convince me that we can find a hyper-efficient process to convert low grade energy supplies into higher grade energy supplies that are still of less energy carrying content than supplies that currently exist in the ground (natural gas, oil, coal, nuclear).  Those materials are the result of processes that may or may not be efficient but have the advantage of incredible lengths of time, operating under conditions of temperature and pressure that are highly energetic themselves and hard to reproduce ...... and that were not subject to environmental controls.  Whoever put them where he or she did, did a lousy job of containment.  

As to the Stratfor article:

I think he has got the underlying premise wrong.

The Cold War was a period of balance between two competing powers.  Prices went up and down.  Wars and oil crises came and went.  Military conflict was more common than economic conflict but that was probably because the "Communists" fundamentally failed to understand economics - or at best chose to ignore economics as an aberration.

Since the Fall of the Wall in 1989 even the Russians, or at least Vladimir Putin, has discovered that there is more clout in the Market Place than the Battle Field.  America's strength through World War 1 and 2 as well as the Cold War, was based on its economic strength.  It outproduced its competitors in both war and peace and established the Dollar as the world's currency.  However, in doing so it lost control of that currency.  It could now be played by speculators - as George Soros did with the UK Pound.  And if a private individual can make the Pound vulnerable how likely is it that a foreign government could make the Dollar vulnerable.

Commodity prices aren't going up, any more than oil went up in 1973.  The dollar is going down, as it did in 1973.  The world used to work on the gold standard, which was abolished by governments, and the Dollar became the defacto trading standard for governments.  In the "real world" though there is still a gold standard operating.  The ratio between gold and oil doesn't change nearly as much as the ratios of Dollar vs Oil or Gold.

My sense is that since the end of the Cold War Governments have eschewed military conflict and decided, along with many private players, to take on the US hegemony where it hurts.... in the pocketbook.  And because that is not seen as being as threatening as military conflict many "Allies" and citizens of friendly countries feel quite free to take on the Mighty and Evil Dollar, especially since it represents the interests of those Robber Barons at Exxon, Conoco......

Meanwhile, low level military/police actions continue as they always have, and continue as a drain on those countries engaged in them..... thus exacerbating their problems and leaving those on the sidelines in a continually strengthening position while the others drain their treasuries.

The current war is not being fought over the Treaty of Westphalia.  It is being fought over Bretton Woods.  The internationalists have found a vehicle that permeates physical boundaries and that armies are valueless against.


----------



## a_majoor

Kirkhill, I agree that ethanol is _not_ the answer, but if there is a process that can eliminate waste (sawdust, agricultural wastes etc.) and produce a useful product at the same time, then it is worth looking into. Ethanol can be used for lots of other purposes besides burning it in engines and boilers (I am thinking of a use right now!  ;D).

WRT your point about the premise of the war, I am in agreement up to a point, but what is the cause and what is the effect? Is the disruption of the international order a deliberate attempt to target the West in an asymmetric manner or is a result of the dysfunctional nature of socialist economics *we* have adopted causing the disruption? (I would say a bit of "a" and a bit of "b".....). Given the rather primitive economic levers that many of the supposed enemies have, it is easy to see the effect is more of Lilliputians trying to tie down Gulliver with thousands of threads than a coordinated attack, although it is dangerous if it gets out of hand.

Our cultural strength is that "we" still have the entrepreneurial energy to go in all kinds of unexpected directions, frustrating dictators, mad mullahs and "progressives"; our non-military line of defense.


----------



## Kirkhill

Ethanol is always a welcome addition to my internal economy.  

I agree with you on cause and effect.  I don't think there is a direct causality but I do think that there are those who choose to use the economy to their own strategic advantage.  Much in the same manner that you might choose to anchor a position's flank on a swamp.  You didn't create the swamp.  You can't control the swamp.  But you can use the swamp to your tactical advantage and you can modify the swamp by channelling water and building causeways and you can enhance the effect of the swamp with barbed wire, mines and fire positions.

There is, in my opinion, a strong body of people that yearn for order and that believe if only one person or group, with whom they agree, were in charge then they could live a peaceful life and never have to struggle again. (Perversely they seem to live for struggle).  These people are generally of the socialist religion, which is authoritarian in nature and internationalist by proclivity - believing that religion and nationalism are the causes of conflict. (But this is old ground for us).

The point is, as George was driven to wonder about Fifth Columnists, that there are in fact ideological Fifth Columnists in all societies.  They work with like-minded individuals across and through borders to bring about the change that they desire.

Many of them believe the US must be restrained, that individuality is a disease, that the US dollar must be destroyed and that no war can be allowed to be seen as being successful.  The latter is particularly true of the stooges that invested so much of themselves in creating the political defeat of the US in Vietnam.

Imagine the internal conflicts they would have if, as earnest American youngsters they had struggled to decide to defeat the US in Vietnam because they had been conditioned to believe they were doing good by preventing they evil of war, only to discover that there are greater evils and that their efforts had made the world they hoped to improve a worse place......And now, no longer young with the opportunity to "fix" things they are like John Knox who signed all his letters "With one foot in the grave" and have to face the fact that their opportunity is behind them.  That must be a disconcerting, if not frightening thought.  

Hard to admit a lifetime of being wrong.

Those people cannot allow the US to be seen to win a counter-insurgency war in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as they couldn't allow it to be seen that dominoes did indeed fall in South East Asia.  To allow those realities to be perceived would be to admit that they were wrong and that they created misery for untold millions.


----------



## muskrat89

Good piece from Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060503434.html



> At $4, Everybody Gets Rational
> 
> 
> By Charles Krauthammer
> Friday, June 6, 2008; Page A19
> 
> So now we know: The price point is $4.
> 
> At $3 a gallon, Americans just grin and bear it, suck it up and, while complaining profusely, keep driving like crazy. At $4, it is a world transformed. Americans become rational creatures. Mass transit ridership is at a 50-year high. Driving is down 4 percent. (Any U.S. decline is something close to a miracle.) Hybrids and compacts are flying off the lots. SUV sales are in free fall.
> 
> The wholesale flight from gas guzzlers is stunning in its swiftness, but utterly predictable. Everything has a price point. Remember that "love affair" with SUVs? Love, it seems, has its price too.
> 
> America's sudden change in car-buying habits makes suitable mockery of that absurd debate Congress put on last December on fuel efficiency standards. At stake was precisely what miles-per-gallon average would every car company's fleet have to meet by precisely what date.
> 
> It was one out-of-a-hat number (35 mpg) compounded by another (by 2020). It involved, as always, dozens of regulations, loopholes and throws at a dartboard. And we already knew from past history what the fleet average number does. When oil is cheap and everybody wants a gas guzzler, fuel efficiency standards force manufacturers to make cars that nobody wants to buy. When gas prices go through the roof, this agent of inefficiency becomes an utter redundancy.
> ad_icon
> 
> At $4 a gallon, the fleet composition is changing spontaneously and overnight, not over the 13 years mandated by Congress. (Even Stalin had the modesty to restrict himself to five-year plans.) Just Tuesday, GM announced that it would shutter four SUV and truck plants, add a third shift to its compact and midsize sedan plants in Ohio and Michigan, and green-light for 2010 the Chevy Volt, an electric hybrid.
> 
> Some things, like renal physiology, are difficult. Some things, like Arab-Israeli peace, are impossible. And some things are preternaturally simple. You want more fuel-efficient cars? Don't regulate. Don't mandate. Don't scold. Don't appeal to the better angels of our nature. Do one thing: Hike the cost of gas until you find the price point.
> 
> Unfortunately, instead of hiking the price ourselves by means of a gasoline tax that could be instantly refunded to the American people in the form of lower payroll taxes, we let the Saudis, Venezuelans, Russians and Iranians do the taxing for us -- and pocket the money that the tax would have recycled back to the American worker.
> 
> This is insanity. For 25 years and with utter futility (starting with "The Oil-Bust Panic," the New Republic, February 1983), I have been advocating the cure: a U.S. energy tax as a way to curtail consumption and keep the money at home. On this page in May 2004 (and again in November 2005), I called for "the government -- through a tax -- to establish a new floor for gasoline," by fully taxing any drop in price below a certain benchmark. The point was to suppress demand and to keep the savings (from any subsequent world price drop) at home in the U.S. Treasury rather than going abroad. At the time, oil was $41 a barrel. It is now $123.
> 
> But instead of doing the obvious -- tax the damn thing -- we go through spasms of destructive alternatives, such as efficiency standards, ethanol mandates and now a crazy carbon cap-and-trade system the Senate is debating this week. These are infinitely complex mandates for inefficiency and invitations to corruption. But they have a singular virtue: They hide the cost to the American consumer.
> 
> Want to wean us off oil? Be open and honest. The British are paying $8 a gallon for petrol. Goldman Sachs is predicting we will be paying $6 by next year. Why have the extra $2 (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gasoline tax and be recycled back into lower payroll taxes.
> 
> Announce a schedule of gas tax hikes of 50 cents every six months for the next two years. And put a tax floor under $4 gasoline, so that as high gas prices transform the U.S. auto fleet, change driving habits and thus hugely reduce U.S. demand -- and bring down world crude oil prices -- the American consumer and the American economy reap all of the benefit.
> 
> Herewith concludes my annual exercise in futility. By the time I write next year's edition, you'll be paying for gas in bullion.


----------



## CBH99

If I had more time, I'd find the article that relates to this.....will find it later on.

HOWEVER.....anybody heard of a concept called "overunity" engines??  "overunity generators"??  Basically, the concept of "overunity" is an engine/generator that produces more power than it consumes, in theory providing an unlimited source of power.

An Australian inventor (who's name I will find later, when I find some related articles) -- invented an Electromagnetic Overunity Engine, that could generate power indefinately.

It had no moving parts that caused friction.  Essentially, it was powered by 2 oppositely charged magnets, that could keep the engine running indefinately.  Quite a genius design, I'll post more when I'm not at work.


----------



## Bert

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Good piece from Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060503434.html
> 
> But instead of doing the obvious -- tax the damn thing...
> 
> Want to wean us off oil? Be open and honest. The British are paying $8 a gallon for petrol. Goldman Sachs is predicting we will be paying $6 by next year. Why have the extra $2 (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gasoline tax and be recycled back into lower payroll taxes.



I remember decades ago a geography teacher of mine discussing oil as a finite resource.  
Easy to get to oil would be gone by 2030-ish so he said.  In the early 1990s, I read
something by Gwynne Dyer speculating the impact of if and when each Chinese or East 
Indian family are able to buy a car.  The impacts of pollution and supply/demand of oil 
all had consequences in a growing global economy.  

These issues may not have been something the average Canadian would think about over the 
years but the consequences and even the timing of things would have been known
by various means.  

"Taxing the damn thing" to me is just the thing a government would do if it were 
dealing with the price of oil and the consequences of pollution as a crisis.  
Completely side-swiped by global demand and peak oil.  You'd think the government 
would have some foresight, investigate the alternatives, and shown a bit of 
leadership.  Or is market place driven solutions and taxes better?

I applaud the initiatives of the Californian government and the "hydrogen highway" 
concept as an example.  At least that government is providing a direction of
sorts and involved in possible solutions.


----------



## a_majoor

Like famine, energy crisis can also be self induced by uncaring or incompetent governments. Ontario will be heading down the same road soon:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025586/FUEL-CRISIS-Forget-warnings-panic-pumps-Thanks-decades-government-neglect-Britain-set-lose-nearly-half-electricity-years.html#



> Mail Online
> 
> *FUEL CRISIS: Forget warnings of panic at the pumps. Britain is set to lose nearly half its electricity in six years*
> 
> By Christopher Booker
> Last updated at 11:39 PM on 10th June 2008
> 
> Time running out for our power network? Our capacity will almost be halved in six years
> 
> Every day we hear that Britain is facing a 'fuel crisis'. The world oil price breaks records every week. The cost of petrol and gas soars. Foreign suppliers of gas and oil are holding Britain to ransom and charging exorbitant prices. The average family, we are told, faces fuel bills of £1,500 a year.
> 
> Yet all this pales into insignificance compared with the real energy crisis roaring down on Britain with the speed of a bullet train as, within six or seven years, we stand to lose 40 per cent of all our existing electricity-generating capacity.
> 
> Thanks to decades of neglect and wishful thinking by successive governments - and now the devastating impact of a directive from Brussels - we are about to see 17 of our major power stations forced to close, leaving us with a massive shortfall.
> 
> Even after 2010, the experts say our power stations cannot be guaranteed to provide us with a continuous supply, meaning that we face the possibility of power cuts far worse than those which recently - largely unreported - blacked out half-a-million homes.
> 
> By 2015, when the power stations which meet two-fifths of our current electricity needs have gone out of business, we could be facing the most serious disruption to our power supplies since the 'three-day week' of the 1970s.
> 
> But the impact of such power cuts on the Britain of today would be far more damaging than they were in the time of Edward Heath 35 years ago.
> 
> Compared with then, our dependence on continuous electricity supplies is infinitely greater - thanks, above all, to our reliance on computers.
> 
> We are no longer talking just about factories shutting down or lighting our homes with candles. Without computers, our entire economy would grind to a halt.
> 
> Scarcely an office, shop, bank or hospital in the land would be able to function. Our railway system would be immobilised. Road traffic would be in chaos as traffic lights ceased to operate and petrol stations closed down.
> 
> Yet this is the scale of the catastrophe which may be facing us, thanks to the failure of government to give Britain a proper energy policy.
> 
> Scaremongering? Just look at the hard facts. At the moment, to meet Britain's peak electricity demand, our power stations need to provide a minimum 56 gigawatts (GW) of capacity.
> 
> Ten gigawatts, nearly a fifth, comes from our ageing nuclear power stations, all but one of which are so old that over the next few years they will have reached the end of their useful working life.
> 
> On top of that, however, we shall also have to shut down nine more major power stations - six coal-fired, three oil-fired - forced to close by the crippling cost of complying with an EU anti-pollution law, the so- called Large Combustion Plants directive.
> 
> This will take out another 13GW of capacity, bringing the total shortfall to 22GW - a staggering 40 per cent of the 56GW we have today.
> 
> Waking up at last to the scale of the abyss that is yawning before us, our Government - not least Prime Minister Gordon Brown - has realised the only way to avert this disaster must be to build as fast as possible at least 20 new power stations, gasfired, coal-fired or nuclear.
> 
> Part of the cause of this crisis was that, for more than two decades, we went for gas-fired power stations, in the days when we still had abundant supplies of cheap gas from the North Sea.
> 
> But that is fast running out. Within 12 years, we shall have to import 80 per cent of our gas, at a time when world prices are soaring - and it would be folly to become over-dependent for our energy on countries as politically unreliable as Mr Putin's Russia, where gas is produced.
> 
> Building new coal-fired stations might have made more sense if we hadn't closed down most of our own coal industry, and if this didn't now involve the colossal extra costs imposed by the new EU rules.
> 
> As we saw from the recent response to a proposed new coal-fired plant in Kent, any mention of coal-burning has the green lobby screaming up the wall.
> 
> As the Government itself has belatedly recognised, by far the most sensible way to try to fill the gap would be to build a new generation of nuclear power stations. But how on earth is this to be done?
> 
> There are only a handful of companies equipped to build these nuclear power plants, and countries all over the world are queuing up to place their own orders.
> 
> Until October 2006, the British Government itself owned one such firm, Westinghouse, but in an act of supreme folly we sold it to Toshiba in Japan for a knockdown &pound;2.8 billion - and it has 19 new orders on its books already.
> 
> Our best hope, it seems, is the state-owned French company EDF (Electricit&Egrave; de France), which has recently been bidding to buy British Energy, owner of almost all our existing nuclear power stations.
> 
> These would provide the most obvious sites on which to build new ones.
> 
> France, of course, went for nuclear energy in a big way just when we were retreating from it - having been world leader for 20 years - and currently derives 80 per cent of its electricity from 58 nuclear power stations.
> 
> But with such a worldwide demand for new nuclear power, what chance is there that even EDF could provide enough reactors to meet our needs, when building each new one might take ten years or more?
> 
> Yet another reason why we have allowed this mindbogglingly serious crisis to creep up on us has been the obsession of those who rule us - both in London and in Brussels - with 'renewable' energy.
> 
> *Incredibly, we are 'obliged' by the EU, within 12 years, to generate no less than 38 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources - such as tens of thousands of wind turbines - when currently only 4 per cent comes from renewables, with wind farms providing barely 1 per cent.*
> 
> As our Government privately recognises, we have no hope of achieving even a fraction of that target (we would anyway need to build a mass of new conventional power stations simply to supply back-up when the wind is not blowing).
> 
> Whichever way it is looked at, Britain is threatened by what, thanks to years of dereliction and misjudgment, has become arguably our most serious potential crisis of modern times.
> 
> Politically, the blame for this astounding mess lies in all directions - with the Tories, with Labour, with Brussels, with those smugly shortsighted 'environmentalists'.
> 
> But all that matters now is that we put the need to avert this disaster right at the top of our national political agenda.
> 
> We need to get on with solving as terrifying a problem as our politicians have ever faced.


----------



## a_majoor

Oil seems to be everywhere you look........

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/06/north-dakota-bakken-oil-increasing-5000.html



> *North Dakota Bakken oil increasing 5000-7000 barrels per day each month, Saskatchewan's Bakken oil increasing too*
> 
> The state (North Dakota's) Industrial Commission reports that North Dakota oil wells pumped an average of 150,578 barrels a day in April. The previous high of 147,774 barrels a day was set in August 1984. North Dakota reported 5700 more barrels of oil per day in March, 2008 March production was 143738 bopd versus February 138013 bopd.
> 
> Crescent Point Energy Trust (TSX:CPG.UN) is increasing its Bakken oil in Saskatchewan, Canada spending by $200-425 million. Crescent Point is raising its production guidance by five per cent and its distributions to investors by 15 per cent.
> 
> 
> The Calgary-based trust said Monday the increases were due to "significant growth" in its southeast Saskatchewan Bakken resource play, better-than-expected drilling and production results in its core areas, and higher than anticipated commodity prices.
> 
> The capital budget is being increased by 89 per cent to advance development at Bakken and add production at a rate of about $25,000 per barrel of oil equivalent.
> 
> Crescent Point now expects to exit 2008 with production greater than 37,500 boe per day, and is upwardly revising its 2008 average production forecast by five per cent to 36,250 boe daily.
> 
> From the Business Week article:
> 
> North Dakota surpassed Kansas in 2006 to become the eighth-largest oil-producing state in the nation, and soon will surpass Wyoming to become seventh among oil-producing states, said Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council.
> 
> North Dakota produced 45 million barrels of oil last year, up about 5 million barrels from 2006, Ness said.
> 
> Production this year likely will exceed the record of 52.6 million barrels set in 1984, said Lynn Helms, the director of the state Department of Mineral Resources.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

It is everywhere- it is just oil companies have been forbidden to look for it in places like most of the North American continental shelf (Around the Queen Charlottes is supposed to be especially juicy- it apparently seeps from the ground naturally in Haida Gwaii- wouldn't drilling for it sort being like cleaning it up  >)


----------



## George Wallace

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It is everywhere- it is just oil companies have been forbidden to look for it in places like most of the North American continental shelf (Around the Queen Charlottes is supposed to be especially juicy- it apparently seeps from the ground naturally in Haida Gwaii- wouldn't drilling for it sort being like cleaning it up  >)



Of course, that would relieve pressure on the Continental Plates and Vancouver Island and California would slide under the ocean.   >


----------



## TCBF

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Of course, that would relieve pressure on the Continental Plates and Vancouver Island and California would slide under the ocean.   >



- So, what's the downside?


----------



## George Wallace

TCBF said:
			
		

> - So, what's the downside?



None.  It would make your trip to that sandy ocean beach a much shorter drive.    ;D


----------



## GAP

TCBF said:
			
		

> - So, what's the downside?



A few less Beach Bunnies.....having to hang your legs over the rockies to dip your toes in the Pacific.....minor things....


----------



## a_majoor

Looking at alternative energy, with *real* numbers:

Sustainable Energy– without the hot air

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/cft.pdf


----------



## Duke_The_Patriot

I was just thinking if countries might declare war on us for our tar sands. I highly suggest civilians of today to join the reserves to get training and be prepared for what may be an inevitable event.


----------



## aesop081

Duke_The_Patriot said:
			
		

> I was just thinking if countries might declare war on us for our tar sands.



We're doing a good job as it is selling the stuff at a discounted rate.......no need to invade us for it.



> I highly suggest civilians of today to join the reserves to get training and be prepared for what may be an inevitable event.



Hum, yeah........ok


----------



## a_majoor

Ottawa kills two birds with one stone. This system was proposed by a number of candidates during the last municipal election here in *London; alas they were not elected and our "progressive" city council seems to believe that clear plastic garbage bags and intrusive inspections of the contents (plus the blue and green boxes) is the way to go... :

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/21029/?nlid=1184




Garbage In, Megawatts Out

Ottawa will build the first gasification facility in North America to make energy from waste.
By Peter Fairley

This week, city counselors in Ottawa, Ontario, unanimously approved a new waste-to-energy facility that will turn 400 metric tons of garbage per day into 21 megawatts of net electricity--enough to power about 19,000 homes. Rather than burning trash to generate heat, as with an incinerator, the facility proposed by Ottawa-based PlascoEnergy Group employs electric-plasma torches to gasify the municipal waste and enlist the gas to generate electricity.

A few waste-to-energy gasification plants have been built in Europe and Asia, where landfilling is more difficult and energy has historically been more costly. But PlascoEnergy's plant would be the first large facility of its kind in North America. The company's profitability hinges on its ability to use a cooler gasification process to lower costs, as well as on rising energy and tipping fees to ensure strong revenues.

PlascoEnergy's approval marked the latest in a string of positive developments for waste gasification projects in recent weeks. Last month, Hawaii okayed $100 million in bonds to finance a waste-to-energy plant using plasma-torch technology from Westinghouse Plasma, based in Madison, PA, that is already employed in two large Japanese waste processing plants. Meanwhile, Boston-based competitor Ze-gen reported the successful ramp-up of a 10-metric-ton-per-day pilot plant in New Bedford, MA, that uses molten iron to break down waste.

Most gasification plants work by subjecting waste to extreme heat in the absence of oxygen. Under these conditions, the waste breaks down to yield a blend of hydrogen and carbon monoxide called syngas that can be burned in turbines and engines. What has held back the technology in North America is high operating costs. Plasma plants, using powerful electrical currents to produce a superhot plasma that catalyzes waste breakdown, tend to consume most of the energy they generate. As a result, the focus of plasma gasification plants has been to simply destroy hazardous wastes. "There was really no thought of being able to produce net power," says PlascoEnergy CEO Rod Bryden.

PlascoEnergy started looking at gasification for municipal solid waste five years ago, when it determined through simulation that cooler plasma torches could do the job. "The amount of heat required to separate gases from solids was much less than the amount being delivered when the purpose was simply to destroy the material," says Bryden. PlascoEnergy tested the models on its five-metric-ton-per-day pilot plant in Castellgali, Spain (jointly operated with Hera Holdings, Spain's second largest waste handler). In January, the company began large-scale trials in a 100-metric-ton-per-day demonstration plant built in partnership with the city of Ottawa.

Here's how it works. First, bulk metals are removed, and the rest of the shredded waste is conveyed to a 700 ºC gasification chamber. Most of it volatilizes to a complex blend of gases and rises toward a plasma torch operating at 1200 ºC--well below the 3000 to 5000 ºC used with hazardous wastes. The plasma reduces the complex blend to a few simple gases, such as steam, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen, plus assorted contaminants such as mercury and sulfur; subsequent cleanup systems remove the steam and mercury and scrub out the soot before the syngas is sent to an internal combustion engine generator.

The waste that doesn't volatilize forms a solid slag and drops to the bottom of the gasification chamber. The slag is then pushed to another plasma torch, which drives off remaining carbon in the slag before the slag is cooled and vitrifies. The resulting glass can be blended into asphalt road surfacing or cement.
		
Click to expand...

*


> Under its deal with Ottawa, PlascoEnergy will cover the estimated $125 million that it takes to build the plant, which could be operating within three years, while the city will pay only standard tipping fees--on the order of $60 per metric ton.
> 
> Ze-gen plans to avoid the challenge of handling complex municipal wastes by focusing first on an easier-to-handle feedstock: construction and demolition wood wastes. The company has filed seven patents on its molten metal gasification technology and waste-to-syngas process, but the equipment itself is standard for the steel industry, which uses molten iron to catalytically drive off impurities from ore. Ze-gen's pilot plant processes wood waste using a standard electrically heated steel-industry crucible full of molten iron.
> 
> Ze-gen CEO Bill Davis estimates that a full-size plant just slightly bigger than PlascoEnergy's commercial plant will produce enough syngas to create 30 megawatts of electricity, but he says that the syngas is also of sufficient quality to be used in other applications. As examples, he cites synthetic gasoline, diesel production, and refinery applications.
> 
> 
> Copyright Technology Review 2008.


----------



## hauger

CBH99 said:
			
		

> HOWEVER.....anybody heard of a concept called "overunity" engines??  "overunity generators"??  Basically, the concept of "overunity" is an engine/generator that produces more power than it consumes, in theory providing an unlimited source of power.
> 
> An Australian inventor (who's name I will find later, when I find some related articles) -- invented an Electromagnetic Overunity Engine, that could generate power indefinately.
> 
> It had no moving parts that caused friction.  Essentially, it was powered by 2 oppositely charged magnets, that could keep the engine running indefinately.  Quite a genius design, I'll post more when I'm not at work.



What?  I'm guessing you're pulling legs here.  If not, maybe take a peek at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy.  I'm hoping you didn't mail the guy a cheque for #$29.95 for a copy of plans to build your own "overunity" engine.

********************
On another note, I see three possible solutions to the current $145/bbl oil problem.

Solution # 1: Put the "speculators" up against the wall.  Most people I run into that try not to believe in peak oil tend to blame the "speculators" and ignore declining US inventories and the fact that eventually the "speculators" have to actually SELL the oil to someone for $145/bbl (hence supply & demand).  Anyways, buying the logic, the solution is to put the "speculators" against the wall and then instantly begin enjoying $40 oil all over again!

Solution # 2: Lots and lots of little technological/societal changes.  For example, how's about electric runabouts for city dwellers with maybe Butanol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel) for rural dwellers.  Algae Diesel for the 18 wheel truckers and train turbines (and maybe even for aviation).  Hydrogen plans for sucking money from suckers who believe it's the future.  Light rail for commuters and heavy rail fro long distance shipping (vise the current 18 wheelers travelling cross country).  Nuke powered really, really big super-duper tankers for ocean shipping, and the general acceptance that cheap, plentiful energy is gone and the best you can hope for is price stable and supply stable sources.  ***side note:  I've read a bunch of posts spewing about nuclear fusion as potentially cheap and clean.  The cheap is REALLY up for debate, and the clean, well, maybe look it up.  The thing with fusion is every now and again you have to abandon the plant thanks to heavy neutron bombardment making the thing nasty-radioactive).

Solution # 3:  Okay, sit up and pay attention here.  The oil problem might SEEM like a tough nut to crack, but the reality is it's so easy to crack it's almost silly.  About 1,321,416,800 km away is the planet Saturn and the moon Titan, and like a gift from god it holds more easily accessable hydrocarbons than the entire Earth (http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/13/titan-has-hundreds-of-times-more-liquid-hydrocarbons-than-earth/.  The gameplan here is to simply bomb up on the shuttle and pick up a load for shipping back to Earth.  The tech exists today, look at the probes we've already sent.  Eventually (in the near future), you pile a bunch of engineers into a locked room with unlimited coffee and snack food and don't let them out till they come up with a way to sink a fat pipe on Titan that'll maintain geosynchronous orbit and sucks the good from Titan to us users here on Earth.  Try not to think of the global warming problem that **might** come from burning vast amounts of extra-planetary carbon here on Earth.


----------



## a_majoor

I like the way you think, but don't forget you need to include the energy costs to get to and from Saturn in your calculations. I don't think extra terrestrial hydrocarbons will be a bargin at $1,000,000/bbl  . If you are going to harvest Helium3 then I'm in.

Personally, I think the real answer will be lots of little changes (Solution #2).


----------



## a_majoor

The market provides its own solutions:

http://www.joesherlock.com/blog.html



> *Doomed Unionists: Be glad you're not a United Auto Worker.*
> 
> Douglas A. McIntyre of 24/7 Wall St. reports, "The UAW's members have become prisoners of the economic war, used now as galley slaves rowing a fleet of doomed ships of into the hellish center of an oil-crazed war between OPEC and the US dollar. All of them will drown shackled to their ships.
> 
> It was supposed to be different. The union cut a deal to save some jobs and take control of its own pension and retirement packages. A part of the consideration meant to fund those pools was to come in the form of car company stock.
> 
> Now, the industry is falling apart, and the UAW has no chance to get out."
> 
> Doug concludes: "The UAW cannot escape responsibility ... they were a sea lamprey attached to the big car companies, living off the success of their hosts. They showed no alarm when Detroit moved almost its entire production cycle to SUVs and pick-ups. The top auto executives will not lose their jobs, but the workers on the assembly line will."
> 
> The top guys always wear parachutes. Golden ones.
> 
> Summer Sag: Car sales were generally dismal for June. According to Autodata, the overall market fell 18.3 percent. It was the worst June for the industry in 17 years.
> 
> Chrysler was the worst - down 36%. The Dodge Durango was off 67 percent, Chrysler Aspen down 49% and Jeep Commander dropped 68%. And Chrysler's cars led the slump, falling 49%, while trucks slid "only" 30%. Poor car sales relative to gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks indicate just how dismal Chrysler's non-truck offerings really are. These data forecast a Chrysler Death Spiral. Chapter 11 may be just around the next turn. Dead man's curve, maybe?
> 
> FoMoCo's sales dropped 28.1% overall. Truck sales were down 36%. Big SUVs are dead - the Expedition was off 59.8 percent, the Explorer was down 52.0%. The Taurus dropped 54% - a no-confidence indicator for the dull-as-ditchwater model formerly known as the 500. But Fusion sales were up 18.4%. Ford is hurting because it still has too many trucks and SUVs in its portfolio, representing almost 65% of sales.
> 
> On a happier note, Honda sales were up 13.8 percent. The Fit was up 101%, Accord up 55%, and Civic up 23%. Honda had two of the top five selling cars in the US during June, the Civic and Accord. Car sales make up 69% of Honda's offerings; truck and SUV represent only 31% of sales.
> 
> Toyota sales were down a surprising 21.5%; big sedans like the Avalon and Lexus LS460 were off over 42%. Even the Camry was down 10.8%. Corolla sales up 15.5% but the Yaris was down 7.5%. Sales of the budget Scion brand were up only 5.6%. Lexus sales were off by 30% - much worse than competitors BMW (down 17%) or Mercedes (no change). Toyota's mix is similar to Honda - car sales 65.6%; truck, van and SUV sales 34.4% - and, therefore, should be a winner. But the June sales numbers indicate otherwise. Toyota claimed it didn't have enough of its fuel-efficient Prius, Corolla or Yaris cars at dealerships to keep up with demand.
> 
> GM's sales dropped only 18.2 percent for the month, helped by a big month-end blowout sale. All brands were down but Hummer took the cake with a whopping 59+% drop. Saab was down by 57%; Buick was off by almost 42%. Looking at specific models, Caddy CTS sales were up 16%, Chevy Cobalt sales were up almost 22% (although the little Aveo was down by almost 20%), Malibu sales were up 73+% (mostly at the expense of Impala sales), Pontiac G6 was up 34.2% and the Saturn Aura sedan was up 25.6%. In the SUV world, Cadillac SXR sales were up by 12%, Saturn Vue was up 24.8% and Chevy Equinox sales increased by an inexplicable 45.9%.
> 
> Nissan sales declined 17.7 percent overall, with trucks off 37.9%. The gas-hungry Titan pickup and Pathfinder SUV models were down by over 71% each.
> 
> All of the above numbers are not adjusted for 'selling days' - an antiquated concept, since so many dealers are now open for business seven days a week and consumers gather decision-making information 24/7 on the net.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Hah.  Looks good on them.



> Now, the industry is falling apart, and the UAW has no chance to get out."
> Doug concludes: "The UAW cannot escape responsibility ... they were a sea lamprey attached to the big car companies, living off the success of their hosts.



That is a great statement.  But I doubt people will clue in to how useless and counter productive the CAW/UAW are until they successfully drive all the auto jobs out of North America.


----------



## a_majoor

T. Boone Pickens steps up with his plan:

http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
http://www.pickensplan.com/share/
http://push.pickensplan.com/

In a nutshell, he claims that a giant investment in windpower can generate up to 20% of US electrical energy demand, and free up natural gas that is currently burned in electrical generators (usually peak load generators) for use as a transportation fuel.

You have to give the guy credit; he certainly thinks big (and seems to have the chops to push this in a big way). On the other hand, large scale supply by irregular sources like wind has the potential to destabilize the grid unless an equally massive system of load leveling devices is attached to the grid. (Come to think of it, using batteries, giant flywheels or even more exotic devices to store power generated in off peak times and release it to the grid at peak demand might actually be more sensible and technically feasible).

Converting cars to natural gas is feasible (although a bit of a chore), I would suggest municipal and government fleets are probably a better first step WRT converting to natural gas power from an infrastructure perspective.

Best of luck to Mr. Pickens!


----------



## a_majoor

Brazillian ethanol, by the numbers:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2008/Q3/mail528.html#Wednesday



> *Brazilian ethanol *
> 
> Dear Jerry,
> 
> RE: Ethanol and Brazil, there seems to have been a little confusion in the discussion with your correspondent "Charlie" in Mail for July 19, 2008. "Charlie" wrote:
> 
> "Re Venezuela: they have a population of about 26 million, in an area roughly twice the size of California. According to the US Census bureau, California has a population of roughly 36 million people; so, very roughly, Venezuela has about 1/3rd the population density of California."
> 
> Your reply correctly identified Brazil as the country that has switched most of it's automobile and truck transportation to ethanol fuel. "Charlie's" numbers may be correct of Venezuela, but they are not the numbers for Brazil.The actual numbers for Brazil, from the CIA World Factbook:
> 
> (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/
> the-world-factbook/geos/br.html)
> 
> gives Brazil's population as about 192 million. The land area of Brazil is roughly equal to that of the USA. Their economy is about 2 trillion dollars, and their "motorization" rate is about 200 cars per thousand population. Their labor force is 99 million, or about half of the total population. Unemployment is about 9 per cent. The United States numbers respectively are about 14 Trillion dollars and 800 cars per thousand population. USA employment is roughly proportionally equal to that of Brazil, though with about half the rate of unemployment in the USA as compared to Brazil.
> 
> Based on a population of 192 million. these numbers give Brazil about 40 million automobiles and trucks. America, population about 300 million, has about 240 million cars and trucks; six times as many as Brazil.
> 
> Three-quarters of the fuel used by those Brazilian vehicles is ethanol, produced almost exclusively by fermentation of sugar produced in Brazil from Brazilian sugar cane.
> 
> With a thriving domestic oil industry, Brazil is a net exporter of petroleum.
> 
> So Brazil, with an economy about one-sixth of the USA. and also one-sixth the number of cars and trucks in the USA, runs those cars and trucks without imported oil. One-sixth as large of an economy for Brazil as the USA, and one-sixth as many cars as the USA. So it seems that if the USA scales up the Brazilian effort by a factor of six, and "Voila!" the USA is free of OPEC. No?
> 
> *No.*
> 
> You need a semi-tropical to tropical climate to grow sugar cane effectively. This rules out all but the southernmost states and Hawaii as candidates for sugar cane production.. Most USA cane is groan in Hawaii, Louisiana and Floria, about 3.7 million aces. Brazil uses about 35 million acres for cane production. To match their effort, you'd need about 220 million acres in cane. There's probably not enough good land with proper climate for sugar cane in the USA.
> 
> So we can use corn? You need to use twice as many acres in corn to get the same amount of ethanol as sugar cane gets you per acre.(You get about300 gallons of Ethanol per corn acre, about 600 gallons per acre of sugar cane.) So you'll need twelve times the Brazilian acreage devoted to sugar cane production to equal their effort by using corn. That works out to about 440 million acres. Thats roughly 670,000 square miles. Imagine a million farms, each of 500 acres (that's a fair piece of land for a family to farm), and each one covered with corn (leaving 60 or so acres for a house, outbuildings and roads). A million such farms, just for ethanol.
> 
> By the way, growing corn is hard, dirty work, even with air-conditioned tractors and combines. My family did it for generations, and I have personal experience. It's tough. If you own 500 acres of good corn land, you can sell it for about half a million dollars, move to town, buy a house for a hundred thousand, and retire. So you really need to make a good living or really love hot, hard and dirty work if you decide to grow corn.
> 
> In Brazil they pay workers 200 dollars a month to harvest sugar cane by hand. Each worker must manually cut with a machete seven to eight TONS per workday to earn that 200 dollars.
> 
> Try finding ANYone in the USA to do that sort of work at even ten times that pay. I would not grow corn for $2000.00 a month, much less harvest sugar cane.
> 
> You can read about all this at:
> 
> http://www.gronabilister.se/file.php?
> REF=39461a19e9eddfb385ea76b26
> 521ea48&art=376&FILE_ID=20060511084611.pdf
> 
> Also, before you harvest sugar cane by hand, you first burn the cane to soften the plants for cutting. This releases so much smoke and flying cinders that the workers must wear special wire mesh goggles to protect their eyes. I can imagine what OSHA and EPA would make of that practice.. The process at American cane plantations is likely mechanized and thus avoids all this, but of course THAT costs money and fuel.
> 
> Oh, and when you burn the cane fields, you release Carbon Dioxide. A lot. How's that gonna fly with the Greens?
> 
> It gets worse. it was a military dictatorship in the seventies and eighties that decreed Brazil's switch to ethanol from gasoline. That's decree as in "Do this or you go to jail without trial, and ho Habeas Corpus."
> 
> Then again, increasingly, our Congress acts much like a junta, only with less efficiency and accountability. Who knows?
> 
> Bottom line: Brazil is indeed a special case. In spades. The USA could throw out environmental regulations, worker safety, import cheap labor from countries to the south (well, at least we have that part of the infrastructure set up and "working"!) and then scale up what Brazil has done by a factor of six. I's technically feasible. It's not gonna happen.
> 
> As you pointed out, given enough energy, we can do anything the laws of physics don't forbid. Give me enough electricity, and I can make ethanol or anything else that is physically possible. It's all just physics. (Do remember that Chemistry is a special case of Physics, and Biology in turn a special case of chemistry. EVERYthing is Physics.) This means nuclear power plants CAN indeed provide fuel for nonautomotive, trucks, ships and aircraft. With enough energy you can sling molecules of every variety into any combination possible.
> 
> With enough "cheap" energy you can use "inefficient" reactions to produce fuel or anything else you need. Wealth is energy, energy is wealth,:they're one and the same thing.
> 
> Sorry to go on at such length about this, but you know how important all of this is, and clarity is vital to rational discussion.
> 
> Many thanks, and thrive!
> 
> Petronius


----------



## a_majoor

From the Economist:

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11565685



> *The power and the glory*
> Jun 19th 2008
> From The Economist print edition
> 
> The next technology boom may well be based on alternative energy, says Geoffrey Carr (interviewed here). But which sort to back?
> Illustration by Ian Whadcock
> EVERYONE loves a booming market, and most booms happen on the back of technological change. The world’s venture capitalists, having fed on the computing boom of the 1980s, the internet boom of the 1990s and the biotech and nanotech boomlets of the early 2000s, are now looking around for the next one. They think they have found it: energy.
> 
> Many past booms have been energy-fed: coal-fired steam power, oil-fired internal-combustion engines, the rise of electricity, even the mass tourism of the jet era. But the past few decades have been quiet on that front. Coal has been cheap. Natural gas has been cheap. The 1970s aside, oil has been cheap. The one real novelty, nuclear power, went spectacularly off the rails. The pressure to innovate has been minimal.
> 
> In the space of a couple of years, all that has changed. Oil is no longer cheap; indeed, it has never been more expensive. Moreover, there is growing concern that the supply of oil may soon peak as consumption continues to grow, known supplies run out and new reserves become harder to find.
> 
> The idea of growing what you put in the tank of your car, rather than sucking it out of a hole in the ground, no longer looks like economic madness. Nor does the idea of throwing away the tank and plugging your car into an electric socket instead. Much of the world’s oil is in the hands of governments who have little sympathy with the rich West. When a former head of America’s Central Intelligence Agency allies himself with tree-hugging greens that his outfit would once have suspected of subversion, you know something is up. Yet that is one tack James Woolsey is trying in order to reduce his country’s dependence on imported oil.
> 
> The price of natural gas, too, has risen in sympathy with oil. That is putting up the cost of electricity. Wind- and solar-powered alternatives no longer look so costly by comparison. It is true that coal remains cheap, and is the favoured fuel for power stations in industrialising Asia. But the rich world sees things differently.
> 
> In theory, there is a long queue of coal-fired power stations waiting to be built in America. But few have been completed in the past 15 years and many in that queue have been put on hold or withdrawn, for two reasons. First, Americans have become intolerant of large, polluting industrial plants on their doorsteps. Second, American power companies are fearful that they will soon have to pay for one particular pollutant, carbon dioxide, as is starting to happen in other parts of the rich world. Having invested heavily in gas-fired stations, only to find themselves locked into an increasingly expensive fuel, they do not want to make another mistake.
> 
> That has opened up a capacity gap and an opportunity for wind and sunlight. The future price of these resources—zero—is known. That certainty has economic value as a hedge, even if the capital cost of wind and solar power stations is, at the moment, higher than that of coal-fired ones.
> 
> The reasons for the boom, then, are tangled, and the way they are perceived may change. Global warming, a long-range phenomenon, may not be uppermost in people’s minds during an economic downturn. High fuel prices may fall as new sources of supply are exploited to fill rising demand from Asia. Security of supply may improve if hostile governments are replaced by friendly ones and sources become more diversified. But none of the reasons is likely to go away entirely.
> 
> Global warming certainly will not. “Peak oil”, if oil means the traditional sort that comes cheaply out of holes in the ground, probably will arrive soon. There is oil aplenty of other sorts (tar sands, liquefied coal and so on), so the stuff is unlikely to run out for a long time yet. But it will get more expensive to produce, putting a floor on the price that is way above today’s. And political risk will always be there—particularly for oil, which is so often associated with bad government for the simple reason that its very presence causes bad government in states that do not have strong institutions to curb their politicians.
> 
> A prize beyond the dreams of avarice
> The market for energy is huge. At present, the world’s population consumes about 15 terawatts of power. (A terawatt is 1,000 gigawatts, and a gigawatt is the capacity of the largest sort of coal-fired power station.) That translates into a business worth $6 trillion a year—about a tenth of the world’s economic output—according to John Doerr, a venture capitalist who is heavily involved in the industry. And by 2050, power consumption is likely to have risen to 30 terawatts.
> 
> Scale is one of the important differences between the coming energy boom, if it materialises, and its recent predecessors—particularly those that relied on information technology, a market measured in mere hundreds of billions. Another difference is that new information technologies tend to be disruptive, forcing the replacement of existing equipment, whereas, say, building wind farms does not force the closure of coal-fired power stations.
> 
> For both of these reasons, any transition from an economy based on fossil fuels to one based on renewable, alternative, green energy—call it what you will—is likely to be slow, as similar changes have been in the past (see chart 1). On the other hand, the scale of the market provides opportunities for alternatives to prove themselves at the margin and then move into the mainstream, as is happening with wind power at the moment. And some energy technologies do have the potential to be disruptive. Plug-in cars, for example, could be fuelled with electricity at a price equivalent to 25 cents a litre of petrol. That could shake up the oil, carmaking and electricity industries all in one go.
> 
> The innovation lull of the past few decades also provides opportunities for technological leapfrogging. Indeed, it may be that the field of energy gives the not-quite-booms in biotechnology and nanotechnology the industrial applications they need to grow really big, and that the three aspiring booms will thus merge into one.
> 
> The possibility of thus recapturing the good times of their youth has brought many well-known members of the “technorati” out of their homes in places like Woodside, California. Energy has become supercool. Elon Musk, who co-founded PayPal, has developed a battery-powered sports car. Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google, have started an outfit called Google.org that is searching for a way to make renewable energy truly cheaper than coal (or RE<C, as they describe it to their fellow geeks).
> 
> Vinod Khosla, one of the founders of Sun Microsystems, is turning his considerable skills as a venture capitalist towards renewable energy, as are Robert Metcalfe, who invented the ethernet system used to connect computers together in local networks, and Mr Doerr, who works at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Silicon Valley’s best-known venture-capital firms. Sir Richard Branson, too, is getting in on the act with his Virgin Green Fund.
> 
> This renewed interest in energy is bringing forth a raft of ideas, some bright, some batty, that is indeed reminiscent of the dotcom boom. As happened in that boom, most of these ideas will come to naught. But there could just be a PayPal or a Google or a Sun among them.
> 
> More traditional companies are also taking an interest. General Electric (GE), a large American engineering firm, already has a thriving wind-turbine business and is gearing up its solar-energy business. The energy researchers at its laboratories in Schenectady, New York, enjoy much of the intellectual freedom associated with start-up firms, combined with a secure supply of money.
> 
> Meanwhile, BP and Shell, two of the world’s biggest oil companies, are sponsoring both academic researchers and new, small firms with bright ideas, as is DuPont, one of the biggest chemical companies. Not everyone has joined in. Exxon Mobil, the world’s largest oil company not in government hands, is conspicuously absent. But in many boardrooms renewables are no longer seen as just a way of keeping environmentalists off companies’ backs.
> 
> Some people complain that many existing forms of renewable energy rely on subsidies or other forms of special treatment for their viability. On the surface, that is true. Look beneath, though, and the whole energy sector is riddled with subsidies, both explicit and hidden, and costs that are not properly accounted for. Drawing on the work of people like Boyden Gray, a former White House counsel, Mr Woolsey estimates that American oil companies receive preferential treatment from their government worth more than $250 billion a year. And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations-appointed group of scientific experts, reckons that fossil fuels should carry a tax of $20-50 for every tonne of carbon dioxide they generate in order to pay for the environmental effects of burning them (hence the fears of the power-generators).
> 
> So the subsidies and mandates offered to renewable sources of power such as wind turbines often just level the playing field. It is true that some subsidies amount to unwarranted market-rigging: examples include those handed by cloudy Germany to its solar-power industry and by America to its maize-based ethanol farmers when Brazilian sugar-based ethanol is far cheaper. Others, though, such as a requirement that a certain proportion of electricity be derived from non-fossil-fuel sources, make no attempt to pick particular technological winners. They merely act to stimulate innovation by guaranteeing a market to things that actually work.
> 
> If the world were rational, all of these measures would be swept away and replaced by a proper tax on carbon—as is starting to happen in Europe, where the price arrived at by the cap-and-trade system being introduced is close to the IPCC’s recommendation. If that occurred, wind-based electricity would already be competitive with fossil fuels and others would be coming close. Failing that, special treatment for alternatives is probably the least bad option—though such measures need to be crafted in ways that favour neither incumbents nor particular ways of doing things, and need to be withdrawn when they are no longer necessary.
> 
> The poor world turns greener too
> That, at least, is the view from the rich world. But poorer, rapidly developing countries are also taking more of an interest in renewable energy sources, despite assertions to the contrary by some Western politicians and businessmen. It is true that China is building coal-fired power stations at a blazing rate. But it also has a large wind-generation capacity, which is expected to grow by two-thirds this year, and is the world’s second-largest manufacturer of solar panels—not to mention having the largest number of solar-heated rooftop hot-water systems in its buildings.
> 
> Brazil, meanwhile, has the world’s second-largest (just behind America) and most economically honest biofuel industry, which already provides 40% of the fuel consumed by its cars and should soon supply 15% of its electricity, too (through the burning of sugarcane waste). South Africa is leading the effort to develop a new class of safe and simple nuclear reactor—not renewable energy in the strict sense, but carbon-free and thus increasingly welcome. These countries, and others like them, are prepared to look beyond fossil fuels. They will get their energy where they can. So if renewables and other alternatives can compete on cost, the poor and the rich world alike will adopt them.
> 
> That, however, requires innovation. Such innovation is most likely to come out of the laboratories of rich countries. At a recent debate at Columbia University, which The Economist helped to organise, Mr Khosla defended the proposition, “The United States will solve the climate-change problem”. The Californian venture capitalist argued that if cheaper alternatives to fossil fuels are developed, simple economics will ensure their adoption throughout the world. He also insisted that the innovation which will create those alternatives will come almost entirely out of America.
> 
> As it happens, he lost. But that does not mean he is wrong. There are lots of terawatts to play for and lots of money to be made. And if the planet happens to be saved on the way, that is all to the good.


----------



## GAP

Really good article...thanks..


----------



## Kirkhill

> The great oil bubble has burst
> By Martin Vander Weyer
> Last Updated: 12:01am BST 08/08/2008
> 
> Bad news from the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline - an installation that may not normally draw much of your attention, but which is a throbbing artery of global energy supply, carrying vital oil supplies from Central Asia towards a tanker terminal on the Turkish coast. On some remote, sun-baked plain of Anatolia, an explosion sparked a fire earlier this week, temporarily cutting the flow through the pipeline.
> 
> But guess what? Here's the good news: the oil price did not zoom upwards in response, not a blip, barely a flicker. Actually the price of a barrel of crude has been falling: from a peak of $145 in early July, it came down to $117 and was trading yesterday at $120. That's almost a 20 per cent drop in little more than three weeks.
> 
> 
> A return to relatively normal oil prices would take the sting out of inflation
> If the trend continues into September at anything like the same rate of descent, most of the inflationary spike of the past 12 months will miraculously have been sliced away. This is a dramatic reversal, and it is worth trying to work out why it is happening and what it means.
> 
> Just possibly, it means that what investors refer to in shorthand as the great "oil up" story has finally revealed itself not as the fundamental reflection of scarce supply that its adherents liked to claim, but as a simple, speculative bubble that was always going to burst.
> 
> The market's conviction that oil prices were set on an unstoppable upswing was underpinned by a set of mantras to be chanted daily before breakfast by anyone hoping to make money by following the crowd: insatiable demand from China; indolent Opec sheikhs unwilling to open the supply taps; that nasty Vladimir Putin playing political hardball with Russia's oil and gas resources; those mad Iranian mullahs hell-bent on nuclear conflict; and beyond all these, the looming threat of "peak oil", the inevitable moment when Mother Earth's carbon-fuel gauge starts pointing towards empty.
> 
> One way or another, said the fundamentalists, the only destination for oil prices in the medium term was somewhere north of $200 a barrel. And hooray to that, chorused the green lobby, because it may be the only thing that will ever make us wake up to the need to stop cooking the planet with carbon emissions.
> ...




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/08/08/do0801.xml

Impact story - reduction of tax revenues to Canadian governments (and reduction of McGuinty's envy)

On the other hand I believe that the author is missing a bigger impact on the price of oil - the rising popular perception that Iraq is stabilizing.  In an earlier post on Iraq I suggested that one of the reasons for the continuing effort to destabilize the Islamic Crescent was to make the southern supply of oil to Europe more problematic and thus boost both the value and attraction of Putin's Northern Hydrocarbons.

I believe that both Putin and the Market are starting to see Southern Hydrocarbons as a viable alternative.  I expect to see the Turkish pipeline completion to be announced shortly and the Kazakhs announce new negotiations on supplying oil to Europe via a Caspian pipeline.


----------



## a_majoor

Speculators are to blame for the recent swings in oil prices. How do we protect ourselves against the influx or outflow of mad monies?

http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080910/ap_on_go_co/oil_speculation



> *Study links oil prices to investor speculation*
> 
> By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 10 mins ago
> 
> WASHINGTON – Speculation by large investors — and not supply and demand for oil — were a primary reason for the surge in oil prices during the first half of the year and the more recent price declines, an independent study concluded Wednesday.
> 
> The report by Masters Capital Management said investors poured $60 billion into oil futures markets during the first five months of the year as oil prices soared from $95 a barrel in January to $145 a barrel by July.
> 
> Since then, these investors have withdrawn $39 billion from those markets as prices have retreated dramatically, the report said. Oil traded at about $102 a barrel Wednesday on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
> 
> "We have clear evidence the fund flow pushed prices up and the fund flow pushed prices down," said Michael Masters of Masters Capital Management, calling the amount of money moving into oil futures markets by large institutional investors in the early part of the year "way off the scale."
> 
> Masters said its analysis shows investors "began a massive stampede for the exits" on July 15 and that this caused the price decline.
> 
> "These large financial players have become the primary source of the dramatic and damaging volatility seen in oil prices," concluded the report.
> 
> The report was released Wednesday by House and Senate sponsors of bills to put additional curbs on oil market speculation and comes in advance of a report on oil market speculation expected possibly this week by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. The commission regulates commodity markets.
> 
> Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., a sponsor of an anti-speculation bill, said the Masters report challenges CFTC claims to date that supply and demand forces — and not excessive speculation — has driven up oil prices.
> 
> "This analysis illustrates that when oil speculators poured large amounts of speculative money into oil markets, prices skyrocketed just as they were hoping ... And when the speculative money got pulled out, prices tumbled," she said.
> 
> Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said he wants to know "how oil speculators were able to drive prices up and down while the CFTC was asleep at the switch."
> 
> An interagency task force, led by the CFTC, concluded in an interim report last July that "fundamental supply and demand factors" influence the oil markets and that the data "does not support the proposition that speculative activity has systematically driven changes in oil prices."
> 
> Senate critics of the regulatory agency charged that report was based in flawed evidence.
> 
> "The CFTC has its head in the sand," said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce investigations subcommittee.
> 
> Stupak said the Masters report shows that that oil prices soared when speculators poured money into future markets even as the federal Energy Information Administration was forecasting supply would exceed demand.
> 
> Congress for months has been considering various measures aimed at curbing oil market speculation, but those efforts have been thwarted amid disputes over other energy issues from taxing oil companies to new offshore drilling.
> 
> Legislation before the Senate would put limits on the amount of oil certain traders, interested only in speculation, would be allowed to purchase in futures markets and give new authorities and staff to the CFTC to regulate oil markets.
> 
> (This version CORRECTS SUBS 3rd graf to correct price, $102 sted $1.02. Moving on general news and financial services.)


----------



## a_majoor

More numbers:

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/suncor_energy_and_canadian_oil_sands/message/3609



> The magnitude of the energy problem becomes apparent when you compare the energy that you can get per $1 of gasoline vs. the energy you can get per $1 for solar. We'll first run the numbers for gasoline and then do the same for solar. The numbers below are
> rounded/approximations, but they should convey the magnitude of the differences.
> 
> If you fill up your car with gasoline, the pump delivers about 4 gallons per minute. Thus it takes about 15 seconds per gallon. If you
> use $3 per gallon for the cost of gasoline, then it takes 5 seconds to pump 1/3 of a gallon of gasoline which costs you $1. One gallon of
> gasoline has the energy content of about 120,000 BTUs (BTU = British Thermal Unit. Also the energy content per gallon varies slightly.)
> Thus, using gasoline, it takes about 5 seconds and $1 to pump 40,000 BTUs into your car.
> 
> Next we calculate how long you would have to have a solar panel in place in order to get a similar amount of energy per 1$ spent. We
> will only consider the initial capital cost of the solar panel and ignore installation costs, repair costs, cost of land for placement
> of the panel, opportunity costs for the up front capital that has been used (cost of money), dust/dirt that accumulates on the panels
> and has to be washed off, etc.
> 
> A 200 watt solar panel costs about $1,000. (For example, see http://www.solarhome.org/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=1181 ). This of course does not include installation costs, auxiliary equipment, etc. to tie the panel into existing electrical systems.
> 
> The panel will only generate 200 watts when it directly faces the sun. In early morning or late afternoon hours you get very little
> useful power. (A tracking system will increase this somewhat, but this adds to the cost and will require more land area for your solar
> panels.) Also, if it is cloudy, your solar panel will not help a whole lot. For calculation purposes, we will assume that you average
> the equivalent of 4 hours of direct sunlight per day. Thus your daily energy generation per panel is 200 x 4 = 800 watt-hours per day.
> 
> 1000 watt-hours equals 1 kWh (kilowatt-hour). Your solar panel will generate 0.8 kWh per day. (If your electric rate is $0.10 per kWh,
> then your $1,000 solar panel will deliver $0.08 worth of electricity per day.) 1 kWh is the equivalent of 3413 BTUs. Your solar panel will
> deliver about 0.8 x 3413 = 2,730 BTUs per day. You spent $1,000 for your panel. Thus your energy return per $1 spent is just 2.73 BTUs
> per day.
> 
> Finally, we can calculate how long your solar panel has to be in place so that the energy return per $1 from your solar panel adds up
> to the 40,000 BTUs that you got in 5 seconds from gasoline. We just divide 40,000 by 2.73 to find out that it will take 14,652 days which
> is a tad over 40 years. It takes only 5 seconds to get the same amount of energy per $1 spent for gasoline.
> 
> We ignore the length of time it takes to "fill-er-up" with gasoline when we make a typical trip to the grocery store to buy food. What
> happens if it takes 40 years to fill up your electric vehicle with enough energy for one round trip to the grocery store? How about the
> trucks that deliver food to the grocery store? We assume that there will be some magic solution that will allow us to continue life as
> per usual. If you run the numbers, it looks like we are not even close to "a solution".
> 
> If/when the price of gasoline goes up by a factor of 10 (to $30 per gallon), does that make any difference in the viability of solar?
> 
> Now what?


----------



## muskrat89

I received this in an e-mail today:


> Subject: Fwd: OIL IN USA
> > GOOGLE it or follow this link. It will blow your mind.
> > http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
> >
> > The U.S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only
> > scientists and oilmen knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a
> > revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in
> > this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota; western South Dakota; and
> > extreme eastern Montana ... check THIS out:
> >
> > The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's
> > Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence
> > on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it
> > at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at
> > $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3
> > trillion.
> >
> > 'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see
> > their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.' says Terry Johnson, the
> > Montana Legislature's financial analyst.
> >
> > 'This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found
> > in the past 56 years,' reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a
> > formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred
> > to as the 'Bakken.' And it stretches from Northern Montana, through
> > North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U.S.oil exploration has been
> > considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching
> > for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological
> > breakthrough ha s opened up the Bakken's massive reserves... and we now
> > have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light,
> > sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER
> > BARREL!
> >
> > That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 41 years
> > straight.
> >
> > 2. [And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should
> > - because it's from TWO YEARS AGO, people!]
> >
> > U.S.Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!
> > Stansberry Report Onli ne - 4/20/2006 Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the
> > surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in
> > the world is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President
> > Bush mandated its extraction.
> >
> > They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders,
> > than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official
> > estimates:
> >
> > -8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
> > -18-times as much oil a s Iraq
> > -21-times as much oil as Kuwait
> > -22-times as much oil as Iran
> > -500-times as much oil as Yemen- and it's all right here in the
> > Western United States .
> >
> > HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this!? Because the
> > democrats,environmentalists and left wing republicans have blocked all
> > efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil.
> >
> > James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in
> > this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION
> > barrels. Untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude
> > oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.



Sorry for not editing out the carrots  :-[  Anyway, I checked out the link, and sure enough...
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911



> Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.
> 
> A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.
> 
> Related Podcasts
> 
> 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Oil in North Dakota and Montana
> 
> Download directly | Details
> 
> 
> or subscribe by e-mail.
> 
> Technically recoverable oil resources are those producible using currently available technology and industry practices. USGS is the only provider of publicly available estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources.
> 
> New geologic models applied to the Bakken Formation, advances in drilling and production technologies, and recent oil discoveries have resulted in these substantially larger technically recoverable oil volumes. About 105 million barrels of oil were produced from the Bakken Formation by the end of 2007.
> 
> The USGS Bakken study was undertaken as part of a nationwide project assessing domestic petroleum basins using standardized methodology and protocol as required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000.
> 
> The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest "continuous" oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS. A "continuous" oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences. The next largest "continuous" oil accumulation in the U.S. is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an undiscovered estimate of 1.0 billions of barrels of technically recoverable oil.
> 
> "It is clear that the Bakken formation contains a significant amount of oil - the question is how much of that oil is recoverable using today's technology?" said Senator Byron Dorgan, of North Dakota. "To get an answer to this important question, I requested that the U.S. Geological Survey complete this study, which will provide an up-to-date estimate on the amount of technically recoverable oil resources in the Bakken Shale formation."
> 
> The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. Scientists conducted detailed studies in stratigraphy and structural geology and the modeling of petroleum geochemistry. They also combined their findings with historical exploration and production analyses to determine the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil estimates.
> 
> USGS worked with the North Dakota Geological Survey, a number of petroleum industry companies and independents, universities and other experts to develop a geological understanding of the Bakken Formation. These groups provided critical information and feedback on geological and engineering concepts important to building the geologic and production models used in the assessment.
> 
> Five continuous assessment units (AU) were identified and assessed in the Bakken Formation of North Dakota and Montana - the Elm Coulee-Billings Nose AU, the Central Basin-Poplar Dome AU, the Nesson-Little Knife Structural AU, the Eastern Expulsion Threshold AU, and the Northwest Expulsion Threshold AU.
> 
> At the time of the assessment, a limited number of wells have produced oil from three of the assessments units in Central Basin-Poplar Dome, Eastern Expulsion Threshold, and Northwest Expulsion Threshold.
> The Elm Coulee oil field in Montana, discovered in 2000, has produced about 65 million barrels of the 105 million barrels of oil recovered from the Bakken Formation.
> 
> Results of the assessment can be found at http://energy.usgs.gov


----------



## a_majoor

If the size of the oil find is true, then there are many potential effects, not all of them nice:

1. The global price of oil will nose dive as the US no longer imports oil. This is good news where it cuts the financial arteries of places like Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, it also cuts the financial arteries of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, with terrible consequences for Canada.

2. The sudden influx of wealth and royalties could potentially be used to eliminate a large portion of the US debt. *Pigs might fly as well*. Look for vast inflationary bubbles as governments pour the royalties into their own pet projects and vote buying. And you thought the sub prime bubble was bad when the government blew about half a billion into the housing market? Now imagine what sort of damage they can do with _trillions_ of dollars!

3. Strategically, the US can undermine Russia by offering oil at better prices and conditions to the EU. Combined with the overall reduction of oil revenues, this could hasten the collapse of Russia as their financial arteries are cut, then tied off as the EU market is closed off to them.

4. Cheap energy is the foundation of modern economies, so the underlying US economy can still hum along so long as the politicians don't induce too many shocks to the system.


----------



## a_majoor

Technology gives new life to internal combustion:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21620/?nlid=1479&a=f



> *A Fuel-Sipping Engine*
> An engine from Lotus and Continental Powertrain consumes 15 percent less fuel.
> By Rob Edwards
> A research project in the UK has developed a gasoline engine that it claims can reduce fuel consumption by 15 percent without losing power.
> 
> The key to the new design is the way in which fuel and air are separately introduced into the engine cylinders. By experimenting with different regimes for directly injecting fuel while varying the opening and shutting the air inlet valves, the researchers say they have achieved the major breakthrough in performance--and developed a "concept-car engine" that is gaining interest from big auto makers.
> 
> The aim of the project, a collaboration between two leading car engine development companies, Lotus Engineering and Continental Powertrain, and two universities, Loughborough and University College London, is to reduce losses caused by the engine throttle. In conventional engines, the throttle is kept partially closed except during full acceleration, obstructing the flow of air and reducing the pressure and density of the air that enters the cylinder. This forces the engine to work harder to pull air into the cylinder. That wasted energy can be saved by controlling the mass of air that enters the cylinder not with the throttle, but by varying the timing of valve openings at each cylinder. This also enables engines to be made smaller and more efficient.
> 
> Such adjustments aren't possible with conventional variable-valve engines, which use mechanical controls that restrict their operation. But Lotus Engineering has developed a hydraulic system that it says enables "complete control" of the timing, duration, and lift of the valves. The researchers concluded that the best configuration of valves was four for each cylinder, two for air intake and two for exhaust. According to the company's principal engineer, Graham Pitcher, engine output could be controlled by closing one intake valve and slightly opening the other.
> 
> Another important difference from previous designs is that the fuel injector is positioned centrally in the head of the cylinder, rather than in the side. This enables fuel and air to mix better, though it means that the injector is located at the hottest part of the engine and so requires improved water flow to keep it cool. An added benefit of better combustion is lower amounts of unburnt fuel in the exhaust, resulting in fewer hydrocarbon emissions.
> 
> Lotus Engineering and Continental Powertrain have already adopted the technology in a low-carbon concept car. A three-cylinder, 1.5-liter engine based on the combustion concept has been fitted to the Opel Astra and shown to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 15 percent compared to the Astra's standard, 1.8-liter, four-cylinder engine. At the same time, the concept car produces a 36-percent increase in torque and a 14-percent increase in power output.
> 
> According to Geraint Castleton-White, power-train leader at Lotus Engineering, the outcome is a car that emits 140 grams or less of carbon dioxide per kilometer. In 2007, cars sold in Europe averaged 158 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer; proposed legislation in the European Parliament would require cars to meet standards of 130 grams per kilometer by 2012.
> 
> "We have had tremendous interest from manufacturers around the world and the concept will be in production in the future," says Castleton.
> 
> The prototype engine is more cost effective than other direct-injection, "lean burn" engines, because it avoids the need for expensive equipment to trap nitrogen oxides, he says.
> 
> John Heywood, professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, isn't surprised by the improvements. "There has been a nearly linear improvement in performance of internal combustion engines over the last couple of decades or so," he points out. "We need to pursue all possibilities that look promising." But he suggests there are other potential ways of increasing engine efficiency, such as reducing friction, which might end up being more cost effective. "There are questions over the long-term market attractiveness of variable-valve technology," he says.
> 
> Copyright Technology Review 2008.


----------



## a_majoor

Just because tree huggers don't like coal doesn't mean everyone is against it....

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4AB2QB20081112?sp=true



> *Dirty coal to remain world's top power source: IEA
> *
> By Nao Nakanishi
> 
> LONDON (Reuters) - Coal, the dirtiest source of fuel, will remain the world's main source of power until 2030 and nuclear will lose market share, the International Energy Agency said on Wednesday.
> 
> Expectations of slower economic growth have led the IEA to downgrade its 2030 world electricity demand forecast to 23,141 terawatt hours (TWh), but the share of coal generated power would rise to 44 percent by 2015 from 41 percent in 2006.
> 
> It would stay at that level to 2030.
> 
> "Globally, coal-based electricity is projected to rise ... to almost 14,600 TWh by 2030, giving rise to significant increases in associated CO2 emissions," the Paris-based agency said in its World Energy Outlook.
> 
> Most of the growth was expected in non-OECD countries, such as China, which the IEA expected soon to become the world's biggest electricity consumer. Its demand for power doubled between 2000 and 2006.
> 
> The IEA urged stronger policies for carbon capture and storage (CCS), saying the world was likely to make only a minor contribution in the period.
> 
> "Market mechanisms alone will not be sufficient to achieve the demonstration program on the scale required. Another challenge is financing the necessary CO2 transport infrastructure," it said.
> 
> Despite a global nuclear renaissance sparked by efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change, the IEA expected nuclear's share in power generation to drop to 10 percent by 2030 from 15 percent in 2006.
> 
> "Over the past few years, a large number of countries have expressed renewed interest in building nuclear power plants," it said. "Few governments, however, have taken concrete steps to build new reactors."
> 
> CHINA IN THE LEAD
> 
> As of the end of August, China topped the list of countries with nuclear power plants under construction, with 5,220 megawatts (MW), followed by India at 2,910 MW and Korea at 2,880 MW.
> 
> On a brighter note, the IEA predicted the share of renewable energy to rise to 23 percent by 2030 from 18 percent in 2006.
> 
> "Higher fossil fuel prices, increasing concerns over energy security and climate change are expected to encourage the development of renewable energy for electricity," the IEA said.
> 
> The agency said high prices would constrain growth in gas-fired generation, although it remained attractive due to lower capital costs and shorter construction time. Its market share was likely to fall slightly from 20 percent.
> 
> Looking into per capita electricity demand around the world, the IEA saw a gloomy outlook for some non-OECD countries, despite overall anticipated strong growth.
> 
> "A large number of people living there are not expected to have access to electricity even in 2030. India and Africa have the highest number of people in this category," it said.
> 
> *Per capita electricity consumption in non-OECD countries was likely to rise to almost 2,400 kilowatt hours (kWh) by 2030, but the IEA saw it rising only to 671 kWh in Africa from 518. It would rise to 4,776 kWh in China from 1,788 in 2006.
> *
> (Editing by Peg Mackey and Barbara Lewis)
> [/quuote]


----------



## a_majoor

For people who like home grown solutions:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hNwf_8JU416aSA2gSNppRRwGqwYwD94GT39OC



> *'Rules of the road' set for oil shale drilling*
> By DINA CAPPIELLO – 2 days ago
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — Companies looking to tap the U.S.'s vast oil shale resources now have rules to live by.
> 
> The Bush administration on Monday issued final rules setting parameters for oil shale development on public land. The regulations give companies a steep discount in royalties they pay to the federal government in the first five years of production.
> 
> The announcement by the Interior Department comes months after Congress — pressured by the White House and Republicans to increase domestic energy — failed to renew a ban on issuing final oil shale regulations. Officials said leasing was five to 10 years away.
> 
> Up to 800 billion barrels of oil — enough to displace oil imports for 100 years — is locked within fine-grained rock known as oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming


----------



## a_majoor

Converting waste heat into energy:

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/21701/?nlid=1527&a=f



> Friday, November 21, 2008
> *Electricity from Waste Heat*
> Ener-G-Rotors' system harvests energy at lower temperatures.
> By Jennifer Kho
> 
> Factories, data centers, power plants--even your clothes dryer--throw off waste heat that could be a useful source of energy. But most existing heat-harvesting technologies are efficient only at temperatures above 150 °C, and much waste heat just isn't that hot. Now Ener-G-Rotors, based in Schenectady, NY, is developing technology that can use heat between 65 and 150 °C.
> 
> The company replaces the turbine in a typical electrical generator with a device called a gerotor, which it claims to have made "near frictionless." "If this works, it's so huge," says Bob Bechtold, president of Harbec Plastics, one of Ener-G-Rotors' potential customers. "I've been dreaming about the concept of using [low-temperature waste heat] ever since I first knew what it was about . . . It's all about using what we have more completely."
> 
> Ener-G-Rotors' technology is based on the Rankine cycle, in which heated fluid flowing through a tube heats a pressurized fluid in a second tube via a heat exchanger. The second tube is a closed loop; the so-called working fluid flowing through it (a refrigerant with a low boiling point, in the case of Ener-G-Rotors) vaporizes and travels into a larger space called an expander. There, as the name would imply, it expands, exerting a mechanical force that can be converted into electricity.
> 
> Instead of turning a turbine, the expanding vapor in Ener-G-Rotors' system turns the gerotor, which is really two concentric rotors. The inner rotor attaches to an axle, and the outer rotor is a kind of collar around it. The rotors have mismatched gear teeth, and when vapor passing between them forces them apart, the gears mesh, turning the rotor.
> 
> 
> 
> The company claims that the rotor design is far simpler than that of a turbine, making it potentially easier and cheaper to manufacture, as well as more durable. And the company says that it has invented a proprietary way of mounting the rotor on rolling bearings that makes its movement nearly frictionless.
> 
> Reducing the friction means that the rotor turns more easily, so the gas doesn't need to exert as much force to generate electricity. That's why the system can work at lower temperatures, which impart less energy to the gas.
> 
> The company expects to convert 10 to 15 percent of low-temperature waste heat into electricity, delivering a payback in two years or less in most cases, says CEO Michael Newell. Ener-G-Rotors plans to both sell systems to customers outright and operate its own systems and sell power.
> 
> 
> Ener-G-Rotors initially plans to target industries, such as chemicals, paper, oil, and food, that use plenty of energy and also release a tremendous amount of waste heat, Newell says. Later, the company also hopes to participate in solar-thermal and geothermal projects, and to target consumers with a one-kilowatt system.
> 
> The company is installing its first beta unit, a five-kilowatt system, in a combined heat-and-power plant at Harbec Plastics. It is also installing betas at a steam plant for New York utility Consolidated Edison and at a landfill-gas-burning plant for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
> 
> Edward Ecock, manager of research and development for gas and steam at ConEd, says that Ener-G-Rotors' system is more efficient than others that he's seen. In a power plant that uses steam generators, it could have the added benefit of reducing the amount of water needed to cool the steam condensation and cutting additional sewage costs for getting rid of the extra water, he says.
> 
> Low-temperature waste-heat technologies "really are where the industry is going," says Mark Taylor, an analyst at research firm New Energy Finance. "This potentially could be applied to every coal plant, every nuclear-power, every natural-gas plant. Steel, anything that makes heat--anything."
> 
> If the betas pan out, Ener-G-Rotors plans to expand to a 50-kilowatt demonstration, which is much smaller than the scale that most of its competitors are targeting. Newell says that the company is hoping the smaller size will open up a market for smaller industrial waste-heat streams.
> 
> But first, the betas need to pan out. "If it's not economical, we won't want to go to the 50 kilowatts," Ecock says.
> 
> Ener-G-Rotors also needs money. It has raised "a few hundred thousand" in grants and angel funding and is now seeking $5 million for the first tranche of a $20 million venture-capital round.
> 
> And it will face plenty of competition as the market heats up, Taylor warns. A crop of companies, including larger players such as United Technologies, which makes aircraft, aerospace systems, and air conditioning, and smaller companies such as ElectraTherm, are also pursuing low-temperature technologies--and they already have systems installed.
> 
> Still, Newell is confident that his company can stand out.
> 
> "Our technology is more efficient and simpler than anything else out there right now," he says. "There aren't many technologies that are going to work here. And we think we have the lowest cost of any of the technologies out there."
> 
> Copyright Technology Review 2008.


----------



## a_majoor

The ultimate energy source (for now) may be a lot closer than generally thought, one nuclear fusion project is moving very close to breakthrough. Of course there may still be some unresolved issues in the physics that prevent it from working, but an exciting prospect none the less:





> *Fusion we can believe in?*
> Posted: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 6:30 PM by Alan Boyle
> 
> Working on a shoestring budget, researchers have found no reason why a low-cost approach to nuclear fusion won't work.
> 
> President-elect Barack Obama's pick for energy secretary has said he's aware of the approach, known as inertial electrostatic confinement fusion or Polywell fusion - and although it's probably not on his radar screen right now, it just might show up in the future.
> 
> For decades, scientists have been trying to figure out how to harness the power of the nuclear reaction that sets the sun ablaze. Fusion involves smashing the nuclei of lighter elements together to produce heavier elements, plus an excess burst of energy. The sun turns hydrogen into helium. Thermonuclear bombs do something similar with different isotopes of hydrogen.
> 
> The mainstream approaches to commercial fusion would involve heating up plasma inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic bottle known as a tokamak, or using lasers to blast tiny bits of deuterium and tritium. The former approach is being followed for the $13 billion international ITER project, and the latter would be used by multibillion-dollar experiments such as the National Ignition Facility in the U.S. or HiPER in Britain.
> 
> Then there's the $1.8 million (yes, million) project that's just been wrapped up at EMC2 Fusion Development Corp. in Santa Fe, N.M. The experiment, funded by the U.S. Navy, was aimed at verifying some interesting results that the late physicist Robert Bussard coaxed out of a high-voltage inertial electrostatic contraption known as WB-6. (The "WB" stands for Wiffle Ball, which describes the shape of the device and its magnetic field.)
> 
> An EMC2 team headed by Los Alamos researcher Richard Nebel (who's on leave from his federal lab job) picked up the baton from Bussard and tried to duplicate the results. The team has turned in its final report, and it's been double-checked by a peer-review panel, Nebel told me today. Although he couldn't go into the details, he said the verdict was positive.
> 
> "There's nothing in there that suggests this will not work," Nebel said. "That's a very different statement from saying that it will work."
> 
> By and large, the EMC2 results fit Bussard's theoretical predictions, Nebel said. That could mean Polywell fusion would actually lead to a power-generating reaction. But based on the 10-month, shoestring-budget experiment, the team can't rule out the possibility that a different phenomenon is causing the observed effects.
> 
> "If you want to say something absolutely, you have to say there's no other explanation," Nebel said. The review board agreed with that conservative assessment, he said.
> 
> The good news, from Nebel's standpoint, is that the WB-7 experiment hasn't ruled out the possibility that Polywell fusion could actually serve as a low-cost, long-term energy solution. "If this thing was absolutely dead in the water, we would have found out," he said.
> 
> If Polywell pans out, nuclear fusion could be done more cheaply and more safely than it could ever be done in a tokamak or a laser blaster. The process might be able to produce power without throwing off loads of radioactive byproducts. It might even use helium-3 mined from the moon. "We don't want to oversell this," Nebel said, "but this is pretty interesting stuff, and if it works, it's huge."
> 
> The idea is still way out of the mainstream, however. In his new book about the frustrating fusion quest, "Sun in a Bottle," Charles Seife says that WB-7 and similar contraptions, known generically as fusors, aren't good candidates for power-generating fusion - even though they've attracted "something of a cult following."
> 
> "The equations of plasma physics strongly imply that fusorlike devices are very unlikely ever to produce more energy than they consume," Seife writes. "Nature's inexorable energy-draining powers are too hard to overcome."
> 
> Nebel is well aware of the naysayers. In fact, that's one reason why he's being so circumspect about the results of the WB-7 experiment. When I mentioned that he'd probably like to avoid the kind of controversy and embarrassment that came in the wake of 1989's notorious cold-fusion claims, Nebel laughed and added, "That's well-put."
> 
> Despite the skepticism, Nebel and his colleagues have already drawn up a plan for the next step: an 18-month program to build and test a larger fusor prototype. "We're shopping that around inside the DOD [Department of Defense], and we'll see what happens," he said.
> 
> Nebel said some private-sector ventures are also interested in what EMC2 is up to, and that may suggest a backup plan in case the Pentagon isn't interesting in following up on WB-7.
> 
> For the time being, Nebel said his five-person team is getting by on some small-scale contracts from the Defense Department (including these three). "I've got enough to cover the people we've got, and that's about it," he said. "What we're doing with these contracts is trying to get prepared for the next step."
> 
> He's also waiting to see what the Obama administration will bring. Will the White House support EMC2's low-cost, under-the-radar fusion research program alongside ITER and the National Ignition Facility? "We just don't know," Nebel said.
> 
> Obama's team has at least one person who knows about Polywell fusion: Nobel-winning physicist Steven Chu, who will be taking over the Energy Department. A year and a half ago, Chu gave a talk at Google about future power sources and was asked about the technology (about 61 minutes into the YouTube video).
> 
> Chu responded that he had been discussing the concept with the folks at Google. "So far, there's not enough information so [that] I can give an evaluation of the probability that it might work or not," he said. "But I'm trying to get more information."
> 
> If Chu is still interested in more information, Nebel is in a position to tell him about it.


----------



## a_majoor

A Canadian project moves much closer as well. All the mechanical gadgetry makes this a little dubious to me, but then again, I am not an engineer.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2008/12/steampunk-fusion.html



> *Steam Punk Fusion*
> 
> The picture you see above is a steam driven fusion reactor. I know what you are thinking. This is some kind of joke. It is no joke. General Fusion has a design that I think has an outside chance of working.
> 
> I was discussing it with some of the boys at Talk Polywell and I'd say it has no fundamental flaws.
> 
> Popular Science also gives some of the details of the machine and its inventors. The drawing at the top of the page shows a schematic of the machine that has 200 pistons. Now to give you some idea of the scale here is a picture of one of the pistons.
> Steam Punk Fusion Piston
> 
> Huge sucker huh? Now imagine 200 of them all firing away at the rate of once a second. When the piston hits (and yes it will hit) the end of the cylinder it will be going about 250 mph and it will induce a shock wave into a sort of ball of liquid lithium and lead. But first two rings of counter rotating plasma will be shot into the middle of the rotating metal and then all the steam (yeah steam) driven pistons will fire and hit the molten metal with a timing of better than one microsecond.
> 
> Can it be done? My rough calculations at the above Talk Polywell link say yes. Not easy, but possible. So would I put money on it? Not me. But I'm an IEC Plasma Fusion type of guy. However, if the idea excites you (a steam driven fusion reactor) I'd say it has as much a chance of working as anything being done now. Definitely worth a shot. And besides how many of your friends can say they are investing in a steam driven fusion reactor? It has got to be worth some bucks just for the conversation starter value alone.


----------



## a_majoor

And going low tech:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/europe/27house.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=all



> *No Furnaces but Heat Aplenty in ‘Passive Houses’*
> Rolf Oeser for The New York Times
> 
> By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
> Published: December 26, 2008
> 
> DARMSTADT, Germany — From the outside, there is nothing unusual about the stylish new gray and orange row houses in the Kranichstein District, with wreaths on the doors and Christmas lights twinkling through a freezing drizzle. But these houses are part of a revolution in building design: There are no drafts, no cold tile floors, no snuggling under blankets until the furnace kicks in. There is, in fact, no furnace.
> 
> In Berthold Kaufmann’s home, there is, to be fair, one radiator for emergency backup in the living room — but it is not in use. Even on the coldest nights in central Germany, Mr. Kaufmann’s new “passive house” and others of this design get all the heat and hot water they need from the amount of energy that would be needed to run a hair dryer.
> 
> “You don’t think about temperature — the house just adjusts,” said Mr. Kaufmann, watching his 2-year-old daughter, dressed in a T-shirt, tuck into her sausage in the spacious living room, whose glass doors open to a patio. His new home uses about one-twentieth the heating energy of his parents’ home of roughly the same size, he said.
> 
> Architects in many countries, in attempts to meet new energy efficiency standards like the Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design standard in the United States, are designing homes with better insulation and high-efficiency appliances, as well as tapping into alternative sources of power, like solar panels and wind turbines.
> 
> The concept of the passive house, pioneered in this city of 140,000 outside Frankfurt, approaches the challenge from a different angle. Using ultrathick insulation and complex doors and windows, the architect engineers a home encased in an airtight shell, so that barely any heat escapes and barely any cold seeps in. That means a passive house can be warmed not only by the sun, but also by the heat from appliances and even from occupants’ bodies.
> 
> And in Germany, passive houses cost only about 5 to 7 percent more to build than conventional houses.
> 
> Decades ago, attempts at creating sealed solar-heated homes failed, because of stagnant air and mold. But new passive houses use an ingenious central ventilation system. *The warm air going out passes side by side with clean, cold air coming in, exchanging heat with 90 percent efficiency.*
> 
> “The myth before was that to be warm you had to have heating. Our goal is to create a warm house without energy demand,” said Wolfgang Hasper, an engineer at the Passivhaus Institut in Darmstadt. “This is not about wearing thick pullovers, turning the thermostat down and putting up with drafts. It’s about being comfortable with less energy input, and we do this by recycling heating.”
> 
> There are now an estimated 15,000 passive houses around the world, the vast majority built in the past few years in German-speaking countries or Scandinavia.
> 
> The first passive home was built here in 1991 by Wolfgang Feist, a local physicist, but diffusion of the idea was slowed by language. The courses and literature were mostly in German, and even now the components are mass-produced only in this part of the world.
> 
> The industry is thriving in Germany, however — for example, schools in Frankfurt are built with the technique.
> 
> Moreover, its popularity is spreading. The European Commission is promoting passive-house building, and the European Parliament has proposed that new buildings meet passive-house standards by 2011.
> 
> The United States Army, long a presence in this part of Germany, is considering passive-house barracks.
> 
> “Awareness is skyrocketing; it’s hard for us to keep up with requests,” Mr. Hasper said.
> 
> Nabih Tahan, a California architect who worked in Austria for 11 years, is completing one of the first passive houses in the United States for his family in Berkeley. He heads a group of 70 Bay Area architects and engineers working to encourage wider acceptance of the standards. “This is a recipe for energy that makes sense to people,” Mr. Tahan said. “Why not reuse this heat you get for free?”
> 
> Ironically, however, when California inspectors were examining the Berkeley home to determine whether it met “green” building codes (it did), he could not get credit for the heat exchanger, a device that is still uncommon in the United States. “When you think about passive-house standards, you start looking at buildings in a different way,” he said.
> 
> Buildings that are certified hermetically sealed may sound suffocating. (To meet the standard, a building must pass a “blow test” showing that it loses minimal air under pressure.) In fact, passive houses have plenty of windows — though far more face south than north — and all can be opened.
> 
> Inside, a passive home does have a slightly different gestalt from conventional houses, just as an electric car drives differently from its gas-using cousin. There is a kind of spaceship-like uniformity of air and temperature. The air from outside all goes through HEPA filters before entering the rooms. The cement floor of the basement isn’t cold. The walls and the air are basically the same temperature.
> 
> Look closer and there are technical differences: When the windows are swung open, you see their layers of glass and gas, as well as the elaborate seals around the edges. A small, grated duct near the ceiling in the living room brings in clean air. In the basement there is no furnace, but instead what looks like a giant Styrofoam cooler, containing the heat exchanger.
> 
> Passive houses need no human tinkering, but most architects put in a switch with three settings, which can be turned down for vacations, or up to circulate air for a party (though you can also just open the windows). “We’ve found it’s very important to people that they feel they can influence the system,” Mr. Hasper said.
> 
> The houses may be too radical for those who treasure an experience like drinking hot chocolate in a cold kitchen. But not for others. “I grew up in a great old house that was always 10 degrees too cold, so I knew I wanted to make something different,” said Georg W. Zielke, who built his first passive house here, for his family, in 2003 and now designs no other kinds of buildings.
> 
> In Germany the added construction costs of passive houses are modest and, because of their growing popularity and an ever larger array of attractive off-the-shelf components, are shrinking.
> 
> But the sophisticated windows and heat-exchange ventilation systems needed to make passive houses work properly are not readily available in the United States. So the construction of passive houses in the United States, at least initially, is likely to entail a higher price differential.
> 
> Moreover, the kinds of home construction popular in the United States are more difficult to adapt to the standard: residential buildings tend not to have built-in ventilation systems of any kind, and sliding windows are hard to seal.
> 
> Dr. Feist’s original passive house — a boxy white building with four apartments — looks like the science project that it was intended to be. But new passive houses come in many shapes and styles. The Passivhaus Institut, which he founded a decade ago, continues to conduct research, teaches architects, and tests homes to make sure they meet standards. It now has affiliates in Britain and the United States.
> 
> Still, there are challenges to broader adoption even in Europe.
> 
> Because a successful passive house requires the interplay of the building, the sun and the climate, architects need to be careful about site selection. Passive-house heating might not work in a shady valley in Switzerland, or on an urban street with no south-facing wall. Researchers are looking into whether the concept will work in warmer climates — where a heat exchanger could be used in reverse, to keep cool air in and warm air out.
> 
> And those who want passive-house mansions may be disappointed. Compact shapes are simpler to seal, while sprawling homes are difficult to insulate and heat.
> 
> *Most passive houses allow about 500 square feet per person, a comfortable though not expansive living space.* Mr. Hasper said people who wanted thousands of square feet per person should look for another design.
> 
> “Anyone who feels they need that much space to live,” he said, “well, that’s a different discussion.”
> 
> A version of this article appeared in print on December 27, 2008, on page A1 of the New York edition.


----------



## a_majoor

Since we need to get rid of garbage anyway, this offers a chance to get some "value added" benefits out of garbage disposal. The end of ineffective "Blue Box" programs is a financial benefit for hard pressed civic budgets as well. I am somewhat dubious of the numbers, but even if it is close it is worth looking at:

http://www.erwingerrits.com/?p=637



> Ottawa company Plasco Energy Group has a patent-pending WTE (Waste to Energy) system called Plasma Gasification (I’ve written about them before here and my subsequent brush with fame). From the Plasco site:
> 
> The MSW stream enters the conversion chamber where the waste is converted into a crude syngas using recycled heat. The crude syngas that is produced flows to the refinement chamber where plasma torches are used to refine the gas into a cleaner syngas, known as PlascoSyngas. This is sent through a Gas Quality Control Suite to recover sulphur, remove acid gases and segregate heavy metals found in the waste stream. The result is a clean, energetic PlascoSyngas created from the conversion of waste with no air emissions.
> 
> PlascoSyngas is used to fuel internal combustion engines that efficiently generate electricity. Waste heat recovered from the engines is combined with waste heat recovered from cooling the PlascoSyngas in a Heat Recovery Steam Generation (HRSG) unit to produce steam. The steam can either be used to generate additional electricity using a turbine (combined cycle generation), or it can be used for industrial processes or district heating (cogeneration).
> 
> The solid residue from the conversion chamber is sent to a separate high temperature Carbon Recovery Vessel (CRV) equipped with a plasma torch where the solids are melted. Plasma heat is used to stabilize the solids and convert any remaining volatile compounds and fixed carbon into crude syngas. This additional crude syngas is fed back into the conversion chamber. Any remaining solids are then melted into a liquid slag and cooled into small slag pellets. The slag pellets are an inert vitrified residue sold as construction aggregate.
> 
> So what?
> 
> In my view, we can use this process across Canada to:
> 
> 1. Stimulate the economy
> 2. Reduce polluting landfill sites
> 3. Cancel all costly and non-working recycling programs
> 4. Reduce our dependency on oil and coal
> 5. Reduce CO2 and methane emissions (if that’s important to you)
> 6. Create new jobs
> 7. Generate more power cleanly
> 
> Show me some numbers!
> 
> Canada uses about 530B KWh a year (2006 est.) of electricity, generated by the following:
> 
> fossil fuel: 28%
> hydro: 57.9%
> nuclear: 12.9%
> other: 1.3% (2001)
> 
> Lets take out the hydro and nuclear/other portion of this number, since they are clean, renewable and profitable energy sources. Let’s focus on fossil fuel energy alone:
> 
> 28% of 530B KWh = about 150B KWh.
> 
> Plasco can generate 1.2 MWh = 1200 KWh from every tonne of waste converted:
> 
> 150B KWh / 1200 = 125 MT of waste required to generate 150B KWh.
> 
> 125 MT per year, that’s 342,000 tonnes per day. To process that amount of garbage, Plasco needs to build 342,000 / 400 tonnes/day plants (average size) = 855 average sized plants across Canada.
> 
> In other words, in order to retain the status quo in energy production, and to completely eliminate fossil fuel burning to generate energy, we need to build 855 Plasco plants across this nation to process 342,000 tonnes of garbage a day.
> 
> Fine, but do we have enough garbage?
> 
> Total solid waste production in Canada was 30.4 MT  in 2005 (latest figures available), so not only will we process ALL available garbage generated in Canada today (including all recyclables), we will also start digging into our existing landfill sites at a tune of about 100 MT a year.
> 
> The Ottawa Carp Road Landfill site currently holds about 10,000,000 cubic metres of garbage @ 150Kg a cubic meter, makes 15MT of garbage. There are about 800 -10000 (the number varies and is hard to track down) of these landfill sites across Canada, making for (minimum) 800 x 15MT = 12,000 MT or (maximum) 10,000 x 15MT = 150,000 MT available garbage for plasma gasification.
> 
> At a required usage of 100 MT/yr, the existing landfills will be emptied in 12,000 MT / 100 MT= 120 years (for 800 sites), or 150,000 MT / 100 MT = 1500 years (for 10000 sites), and that is not counting the new garbage that will be generated in that amount of time, so suffice to say, there’s fuel enough.
> 
> So how much is all of this going to cost?
> 
> A Plasco plant operates at zero cost to the tax payers. In addition, we will save money by cancelling all current money-losing recycling programs across the country. Plasco is completely funded by private donations and operational revenues. The tipping fee is $40/tonne, about the same as a landfill would charge. Revenues are generated by selling electricity to the power company, and selling the other by-products of the process: potable water, commercial salt, construction aggregate and sulfur agricultural fertilizer . They need, however, a significant investment for each plant to be built.
> 
> Is this where the stimulus package comes in?
> 
> Yes, a $30B Economic Stimulus package (as currently proposed in the upcoming budget) would provide the needed 855 plants with a start-up capital of over $35M each, more than half of what is needed for initial start up, or we can build 400 plants with full financing. Rather than giving (or “loaning” money to companies who will not be able to pay it back) money to GM/Chrysler/Banks/Credit Cards(!) we can invest the money in a nation-wide garbage to energy strategy, and come out with the following results:
> 
> * create new jobs
> * cancel costly and money-losing (and polluting) recycling programs that don’t work
> * reduce and eliminate costly and polluting landfill sites
> * reduce CO2  & methane (24 MT/yr) from elimination of coal burning plants & landfill sites
> * alternative energy source - less reliance on oil & coal
> * generate power in a energy hungry world
> 
> You’re beating a dead horse: we already know all this!
> 
> Yes, we do, but governments don’t. And that is where the sad part comes in: governments don’t seem to be on board. In Ontario, environmental laws prohibit permanent installations of this sort: simply because current environmental laws are based on tests done in the early eighties. Back then, testing was done on garbage incinerators (and they would literally burn garbage with no effort to clean up the process) and the emissions were deemed to be too high (no kidding). There have not been any testing done since. Plasco’s unique Plasma Gasification process WITH NO EMISSIONS still falls under “Garbage Incineration” and as such is deemed to be too polluting. Plasco can only get a “testing facility” license from the Government of Ontario and as such will not be able to run on full capacity any time soon. I am sure similar practises are going on across this country.
> 
> Governments need to get on board and realise these new technologies not only “help reduce garbage” but also create jobs, clean up the air, generate more power, stop ground pollution, and lessens our reliance on fossil fuels.
> 
> Time has come to fast track these technologies, make the laws compatible, pour some ’stimulus’ money into it, and get goin’!


----------



## a_majoor

So where is this oil coming from anyway? n interactive map from Technology Review:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/22474/



> Map Reveals a Web of Oil Imports
> A new interactive map unveils the details of an oil addiction.
> Wednesday, January 07, 2009
> By Kevin Bullis
> Credit: Rocky Mountain Institute
> 
> For an illuminating look at the web of oil imports that we depend on, check out this interactive Google Maps-based infographic at the Rocky Mountain Institute, an organization that promotes technology for energy efficiency.
> 
> The map features a timeline starting in 1973. As a cursor moves along the timeline (click the "play" button to automate the cursor's movement, or control the movement yourself by clicking and dragging the cursor), the world map above it changes, showing how much oil is flowing to the United States, and from which countries. Changing a setting (under "Map Units" in the left column, select "Dollars") shows how much money is flowing out of the United States, and to where. You can select a specific oil crisis (buttons below the timeline) to see the segment of the timeline related to that crisis.
> 
> You can also click a button (left column, "ANWR") to see the size of the potential oil flow from the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. When oil consumption was low in the late 1980s, after the oil crisis of that era triggered a massive drop in consumption, it looks substantial. But in 2008, it looks vanishingly small.
> 
> One of the most salient things illustrated by the map is just how long oil prices stayed low after the oil crisis of the late 1970s: long enough for people to forget the lessons of that crisis and start buying big, heavy cars again, and get truly addicted to oil.


 
(tech trouble today: fo to link to see map)


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here is the map.


----------



## a_majoor

This seems to be about the ultimate DIY solution:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/22496/?nlid=1690



> *A Dirt-Bag Fuel Cell*
> A simple microbial fuel cell could offer reliable power in the developing world.
> Wednesday, January 14, 2009
> By Kristina Grifantini
> 
> A startup that is striving to bring energy to countries that lack reliable power has developed a remarkably simple new microbial fuel-cell design: *grain bags, stuffed with metal and dirt*. Lebônê, a startup based at Harvard University, has already shown how to make fuel cells from buckets full of wastewater, with a graphite cloth as the anode and chicken wire as the cathode. In this setup, bacteria extract electrons from organic waste at the anode to generate small amounts of power--enough to charge, say, a flashlight or cell phone.
> 
> A contact at the company tells me that the bags work pretty much the same way, but they should be even easier to make and more portable than the bucket design. What's more, owners can bury the bags in the yard, so that they are undisturbed and out of the way. They can even link several of the bags together--in series or in parallel--to increase the voltage or the electrode area, respectively.
> 
> The bags are fairly ubiquitous across Africa, according to the startup. "They're very familiar to the people there, so it's a natural material to use for something that we want to get widespread acceptance for," says CTO Aviva Pressner. The team is still testing the best materials to use, and it reports that a graphite anode and aluminum cathode combination works well. With funding from a World Bank grant, Lebônê plans to deploy several hundred bags in Namibia this summer and thousands more in 2010.
> 
> Tags: fuel cells, microbial fuel cell


----------



## a_majoor

A look at wind farms:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU9MHNL9AQk

And Premier McGuinty wants to force these things on Ontario regardless of their efficiency or what the local people think


----------



## a_majoor

The Obama administration plays political theater instead of energy independence:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/23033/?nlid=1815



> *Energy Plans Revealed in Obama's Budget Outline*
> 
> Renewable energy and high-speed rail win; Yucca Mountain project loses.
> Thursday, February 26, 2009
> By Kevin Bullis
> 
> President Obama's budget outline offers some glimpses into what the future holds for energy.
> 
> Department of Energy
> 
> The stimulus bill allocated $39 billion to the Department of Energy--nearly double last year's budget for the DOE. But that's not all the DOE is getting: the budget outline provides for an additional $34 billion, which will include money for renewable energy, smart-grid projects, and demonstrating technology for capturing and trapping carbon-dioxide emissions.
> 
> Nuclear Energy
> 
> Of particular note for the nuclear industry is that money for the Yucca Mountain waste program is being scaled back "while the Administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal." The controversial program is the result of a promise from the federal government to provide storage for nuclear waste. It's not surprising that the program is getting the ax: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is from Nevada, where Yucca Mountain is located.
> 
> Here's what Reid had to say today: "I have worked for more than two decades with help from our state's leaders and thousands of Nevadans to stop Yucca Mountain. President Obama recognizes that the proposed dump threatens the health and safety of Nevadans, and millions of Americans. His commitment to stop this terrible project could not be clearer."
> 
> Transportation
> 
> The budget will provide additional support for high-speed rail: "To provide Americans a 21st Century transportation system, the Administration proposes a $1 billion-a-year high-speed rail State grant program, in addition to the $8 billion provided in the recovery Act."
> 
> Climate Change
> 
> One of the biggest potential incentives for increased renewable energy would be a price on carbon-dioxide emissions. The budget outline provides some details about Obama's plans for a cap-and-trade system for reducing such emissions "14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and approximately 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050." Emissions allotments will be auctioned off, with the proceeds going to fund alternative energy and help poor people who will be affected by the higher energy prices that such a program would cause. The cap-and-trade plan is not part of the budget, but it will be next on Obama's agenda after the budget is passed.


----------



## a_majoor

Back to technology. If this sort of battery proves to be practical, the more practical use is to even out power production and consumption. Baseload systems can be run at max power and efficiency, storing electrical energy in these batteries during off peak hours and discharging them during peak demand. Alternatively, customers can charge up during off hours and avoid paying peak hour rates...

Not to sure I would want to use this in a mobile application though

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22116/



> *TR10: Liquid Battery*
> Donald Sadoway conceived of a novel battery that could allow cities to run on solar power at night.
> By Kevin Bullis
> 
> Without a good way to store electricity on a large scale, solar power is useless at night. One promising storage option is a new kind of battery made with all-liquid active materials. Prototypes suggest that these liquid batteries will cost less than a third as much as today's best batteries and could last significantly longer.
> 
> The battery is unlike any other. The electrodes are molten metals, and the electrolyte that conducts current between them is a molten salt. This results in an unusually resilient device that can quickly absorb large amounts of electricity. The electrodes can operate at electrical currents "tens of times higher than any [battery] that's ever been measured," says Donald Sadow­ay, a materials chemistry professor at MIT and one of the battery's inventors. What's more, the materials are cheap, and the design allows for simple manufacturing.
> 
> The first prototype consists of a container surrounded by insulating material. The researchers add molten raw materials: antimony on the bottom, an electrolyte such as sodium sulfide in the middle, and magnesium at the top. Since each material has a different density, they naturally remain in distinct layers, which simplifies manufacturing. The container doubles as a current collector, delivering electrons from a power supply, such as solar panels, or carrying them away to the electrical grid to supply electricity to homes and businesses.
> 
> As power flows into the battery, magnesium and antimony metal are generated from magnesium antimonide dissolved in the electrolyte. When the cell discharges, the metals of the two electrodes dissolve to again form magnesium antimonide, which dissolves in the electrolyte, causing the electrolyte to grow larger and the electrodes to shrink (see above).
> 
> Sadoway envisions wiring together large cells to form enormous battery packs. One big enough to meet the peak electricity demand in New York City--about 13,000 megawatts--would fill nearly 60,000 square meters. Charging it would require solar farms of unprecedented size, generating not only enough electricity to meet daytime power needs but enough excess power to charge the batteries for nighttime demand. The first systems will probably store energy produced during periods of low electricity demand for use during peak demand, thus reducing the need for new power plants and transmission lines.
> 
> Many other ways of storing energy from intermittent power sources have been proposed, and some have been put to limited use. These range from stacks of lead-acid batteries to systems that pump water uphill during the day and let it flow back to spin generators at night. The liquid battery has the advantage of being cheap, long-lasting, and (unlike options such as pumping water) useful in a wide range of places. "No one had been able to get their arms around the problem of energy storage on a massive scale for the power grid," says Sadoway. "We're literally looking at a battery capable of storing the grid."
> 
> Since creating the initial prototypes, the researchers have switched the metals and salts used; it wasn't possible to dissolve magnesium antimonide in the electrolyte at high concentrations, so the first prototypes were too big to be practical. (Sadowa­y won't identify the new materials but says they work along the same principles.) The team hopes that a commercial version of the battery will be available in five years.


----------



## a_majoor

Canada will be sitting pretty:

http://www.dobmagazine.nickles.com/printer.asp?article=profiler%2F090112%2FPRO2009_JC0002.html



> *The Saskatchewan Advantage*
> Technology Unlocks Bakken Potential In Saskatchewan
> By Elsie Ross
> 
> For more than 100 years, the endless prairie of southeastern Saskatchewan was identified with agriculture: the vast wheat fields which helped to feed a hungry world.
> 
> Today, thanks to new technologies, that once-quiet corner of the province is helping to meet the insatiable global demand for a different commodity: sweet light crude oil, which at 41 degrees api is about as good as it gets.
> 
> In the past four years, the Bakken formation has become synonymous with Canada's hottest new oil play and has rejuvenated service centres such as Estevan and Weyburn. And while the Saskatchewan government acknowledges it could see a reduction in activity with the recent collapse in the price of oil, it is still optimistic about the prospects for next year.
> 
> "It clearly is an exceptional find and there is definitely opportunity yet," said Bill Boyd, Saskatchewan's energy and resources minister. The high-quality oil combined with high oil prices and success with new technology set off a land sale buying binge in the southeast over the past two years. Bonus payments to the province soared over the first 10 months of 2008 to $876 million on 443,023 hectares of rights sold in the southeast, up from $180 million over the same period in 2007 and only $73 million in 2006.
> 
> Another 172 parcels in southeastern Saskatchewan were on offer in the December 8 Crown land sale and it was likely many of those were prospective for the Bakken, he suggested.
> 
> The Saskatchewan government also has been noticing that the reach of the play has been expanding, primarily to the west and south. That isn't surprising as the earliest Bakken development was in the Montana and North Dakota portions of the Williston Basin, which extends north into southeastern Saskatchewan and southwestern Manitoba.
> 
> Considered an extensive regional resource play, the Bakken is a "tight" oil play with the oil contained mostly in siltstone and thin sandstone reservoirs with low porosity and permeability that require extensive fracture stimulation before yielding their treasure.
> 
> *A recent (April 2008) United States Geological Survey assessment estimated that the Bakken formation in Montana and North Dakota holds between three and 4.3 billion bbls of undiscovered, technically-recoverable oil - up from the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million bbls.* How much of that is economical to recover will be known over time.
> 
> With an estimated 25% of the 500,000- square-kilometre Williston Basin in Saskatchewan, there could be an estimated 25 billion to 100 billion bbls of Bakken oil in place in the province, according to Ed Dancsok, director of the geology and petroleum lands branch for the Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources. The big question mark, though, is whether the Bakken is evenly distributed throughout the basin, he acknowledged.
> 
> The first commercially successful Bakken wells were established in 2000 at the Elm Coulee oilfield in Richland County, Montana, and within three years the state's oil production had doubled. The story is similar in North Dakota where the Bakken continues to attract strong interest from operators. By the end of 2007, about 105 million bbls of oil had been produced from the Mississippian-aged Bakken.
> 
> In Saskatchewan, Bakken wells at Viewfield were drilled in 2004 by Bison Resources Ltd. The company was acquired by Mission Oil & Gas Inc., which was in turn acquired by Crescent Point Energy Trust, currently one of the three major players in the Bakken (along with TriStar Oil & Gas Ltd. and Petrobank Energy and Resources Ltd.).
> 
> Advances in horizontal well techniques that offer maximum exposure to the reservoir, coupled with the application of new fracturing and completion technologies, have been the key to unlocking the economics of the Bakken. Petrobank pioneered the use of the Packers Plus StackFrac system, which has become the industry standard in the Canadian Bakken.
> 
> "I'd say the single biggest thing has been the whole StackFrac concept, which is the driving force behind placing the proppant and the frac fluid in exactly the right spot and in exactly the right proportions in the exact right pressure that maximizes the hole you have open," John Wright, Petrobank's chief executive officer, said in a recent interview with Nickle's New Technology Magazine. "The impact on the economics is suddenly we could drill wells and complete them essentially for the same capital investment that we used to be making but they came out at much better initial flow rates and, in particular, much lower initial water cuts."
> 
> As of mid-October, Saskatchewan had 1,050 wells capable of producing in the Bakken. Of these, the vast majority (979) have been drilled since October 2004. Over the first eight months of 2008, the Bakken accounted for about 8.6 million bbls (an average of 35,250 bbls a day) of Saskatchewan's oil production of 105.7 million bbls (approximately 434,000 bbls a day).
> 
> In 2007, operators drilled 292 Bakken wells (269 horizontal and 23 vertical). To mid- November of this year, about 600 wells targeting the Bakken had been drilled. Although a breakdown isn't yet available, the vast majority would have been horizontal wells, according to a government spokesman.
> 
> Operators such as TriStar, with current production from the Bakken of more than 4,700 BOE per day, are continuing to focus on improving potential primary recovery factors in the play. In the second and third quarters of this year, the company drilled several shorter horizontal wells (approximately 600 metres compared to 1,400 metres for full-length horizontals), while continuing to fracture stimulate the wells using the same number of fracs as full-length wells. This technique reduces the inter-fracture distance and increases effective reservoir contact per metre of horizontal wellbore. Early production results from these shorter length wells are very encouraging with initial production very similar to what would be expected from longer-length horizontal wells, according to the company.
> 
> TriStar has drilled 10 (6.5 net) of the shorterlength wells with the oldest on production for more than eight months.
> 
> TriStar's current oil reserve booking is based on a recovery factor of 1.1% of the estimated net total original oil in place. Achieving a primary recovery factor of 12.5% consisting of four wells per section at current average reserve engineer bookings would yield up to 70.5 million bbls of additional recoverable oil to its current booked reserves, the company has calculated.
> 
> TriStar has set a $285-million budget for 2009, of which two-thirds will be spent in southeast Saskatchewan including $165 million for the Bakken. Spending will include construction of key infrastructure to support the company's significant development plans for the area. TriStar has more than 235 (155 net) sections of development and exploration lands on which it has identified more than 813 (549 net) Bakken drilling locations.
> 
> Crescent Point's Bakken technical team conservatively expects over time it could achieve a 15% recovery factor on primary production, based on detailed simulation work that suggests up to 19% recovery with infill drilling at eight wells per section. Crescent Point, with its privatelyheld offshoot Shelter Bay Energy, holds about 600 sections of land in the play, making it the largest landholder in the Bakken.
> 
> Another option is enhanced recovery with water or carbon dioxide (CO2) floods. Crescent Point is in the early stages of determining how best to apply water and/or CO2 flooding to the formation with the objective of increasing its recovery rate to as much as 25-30%.
> 
> While the major players staked out their claims fairly early, the Bakken also is seeing a growing number of smaller companies eager to get in the game. Medicine Hat-based Reece Exploration Corp. is exploring the edges of the play, to the west and north of the heart of the play at Viewfield.
> 
> In the third quarter, it drilled two (one net) wells with the final exploratory well drilled in its Montmartre play currently undergoing testing. Reece's first delineation well was drilled in the Bemersyde area (near its first successful Bakken exploratory well), and initial test results are positive.
> 
> The company acquired an additional 1,920 (960 net) acres of land in the October land sale, increasing its land position in the Bemersyde play to 7,680 (3,840 net) acres. Additional delineation wells are planned to establish the pool extent after all testing and fracturing is complete and production has been established for the existing wells.
> 
> Reece has also participated in Bakken wells in the Forget field and is part of a four-well project in the Stoughton area. Another new entrant, privately-held Wild River Resources with partner TriAxon Resources Ltd., is working on the new Greater Flat Lake play, just north of the United States border at 15-14-01-16 W2M. "We think we've got a relatively significant discovery that will extend a new Bakken play over a township and a half to two townships," said Neil Roszell, Wild River's president and chief executive officer. "We're quite encouraged by this one."
> 
> Vancouver-based Ryland Oil Corporation has recently begun the transition from Bakken exploration to development following a multi-well drilling program in the Roncott area. Its first Bakken well has come on production at rates of 90 bbls of oil per day to 120 bbls a day with a current oil cut of 45%. The company has also conducted an evaluation program of the Bakken to the southeast and has identified a number of areas in which it will continue to focus its drilling.
> 
> TriAxon has farmed in on Ryland's land and is to begin drilling the first of three earning wells, the Hoffer 13-33-1-14 W2M horizontal well in the southeast corner of Ryland's acreage, by mid-December.
> 
> And while the Bakken still accounts for only about eight per cent of Saskatchewan's oil production, Boyd is confident it has nowhere to go but up as operators continue to find new ways to increase recovery rates and newcomers continue to push the boundaries of the play. "Absolutely, it's great for the province," he says.


----------



## a_majoor

Synthetic photosynthesis, the ultimate solution. No word on the efficiency (and remember plants have a very low conversion efficiency):

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/006019.html



> *Nanotubes For Photocatalysis Produce Methane*
> 
> A cheap synthetic system that works better than plant photosynthesis for producing hydrocarbons from carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight might some day provide a great source of energy. Toward that end some Penn State researchers have advanced the state of the art for light-driven methane generation using titania nanotubes. I love to see this kind of advance.
> 
> Dual catalysts may be the key to efficiently turning carbon dioxide and water vapor into methane and other hydrocarbons using titania nanotubes and solar power, according to Penn State researchers.
> 
> Burning fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal release large amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. Rather than contribute to global climate change, producers could convert carbon dioxide to a wide variety of hydrocarbons, but this makes sense to do only when using solar energy.
> 
> "Recycling of carbon dioxide via conversion into a high energy-content fuel, suitable for use in the existing hydrocarbon-based energy infrastructure, is an attractive option, however the process is energy intense and useful only if a renewable energy source can be used for the purpose," the researchers note in a recent issue of Nano Letters.
> 
> Craig A. Grimes, professor of electrical engineering and his team used titanium dioxide nanotubes doped with nitrogen and coated with a thin layer of both copper and platinum to convert a mixture of carbon dioxide and water vapor to methane. Using outdoor, visible light, they reported a 20-times higher yield of methane than previously published attempts conducted in laboratory conditions using intense ultraviolet exposures.
> 
> This is still a laboratory-level advance. Industrial field use is still years away. But it is the sort of advance that could eventually provide a way to suck large amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Further enhancements to make longer chain hydrocarbons could yield synthetic hydrocarbon liquids for transportation.
> 
> One of the advantages of a synthetic replacement for photosynthesis is the ability to operate for a larger fraction of the year. March 21 and September 21 are halfway points between the shortest and longest days of the year. In the northern hemisphere March 21's photons drive far less photosynthesis than September 21's photons because plants are still in frozen state in the more northern areas (with a similar pattern in the southern hemisphere with swapped dates for spring and fall starts). The late winter and early spring photons could be harnessed sooner in a synthetic system that didn't require plant growth to create areas for capturing the photons. Also, a synthetic system could cover ground which currently can't support much plant life.
> 
> A synthetic system built to float far out to sea could absorb photons and do synthesis over area of the ocean that are too nutrient poor to support much microbial life. While such installations are too expensive today in the future nanoassemblers will drastically reduce the cost of construction of massive floating solar collecting synthetic hydrocarbon production ships.
> 
> Update: To clarify: Methane is a far more potent atmospheric warmer than carbon dioxide. So a synthetic methane synthesizer with a big leak in it would warm the planet. In fact, if one wanted to, say, prevent an ice age then synthetic methane producers with their output vented to the atmosphere would be one way to do it. On the other hand, if one's photochemical hydrocarbon synthesizer produced longer chain liquid hydrocarbons (gotta be longer than Hank Hill's propane in order to remain liquid) then the atmospheric warming risk would be eliminated. Since the longer chain hydrocarbons are far more desirable for transportation a method for generating them would be ideal.


----------



## KingKikapu

*Fusion still has a long way to go.  *

There are generally two types of reactors: 
*Tokamak* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokomak
*Inertial Confinement Laser Systems* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_inertial_confinement.
Both of these methods have problems with energy collection and Tritium recycling.  Neutron flux turns the reactor cores brittle and useless (not to mention the entire area is then highly radioactive), so Tokamaks must also get around the issue of interchangeable cores and housings, or find a material that can handle heavy neutron bombardment (easier said than done).  

Lasers must also be hardy enough to withstand the intense thermal and neutron fluxes associated with fusion.  A bigger issue with laser systems is problems with timing all of the lasers to pulse at the same instant with the same intensity for maximum collapse.  If they are not coordinated, you will get non symmetrical implosions which will botch the ignition. The system has to run at ultrafast speeds- so fast that it is impossible to measure the pulse through traditional methods, and must be coordinated through an elaborate system of interferometric autocorrelators (tricky given the harsh environment).    The fuel pellets must also be incredibly spherical: any deviation and the trial is toast.  

As you can see, this isn't exactly a walk in the park.  By comparison, fission is a breeze.  Even dancing angels on the head of a pin doesn't even come close to the accuracy/timing necessary to pull this off.  Fortunately, optics and magnetic field manipulation have come a long way, but I can't really say which system will even be commercially viable; there's a lot of problems left to address. 

*Expect to wait several decades before seeing commercial fusion reactors.*  Anybody who tells you otherwise is cookoo.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

If ten years ago someone told me that I would be able to fit a thousand full length movies into a doodad the size of my wallet, I would have thought them cuckoo.  Technology is advancing on a logarithmic curve it would seem.


----------



## KingKikapu

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> If ten years ago someone told me that I would be able to fit a thousand full length movies into a doodad the size of my wallet, I would have thought them cuckoo.  Technology is advancing on a logarithmic curve it would seem.



Ten years ago you could do that.  Granted, it would cost you, but magnetic storage devices (Even large platter drives) are nothing new.  This isn't about miniaturizing current tech either.  This is far, far, far more complicated.

P.S.: Logarithmic advancement would probably be a bad thing.


----------



## a_majoor

Many types of fusion reactors are possible in theory besides Tokamacs and laser Inertial Confinement. A company called EMC2 seems furthest along with a process called Inertial Electrostatic Confinement, but others exist as well, such as Canada's own General Fusion. I suspect there will be a real surprise that does not come from a government lab.

As for technological advancements, we are advancing exponentially in many areas. There are lots of possibilities, good, bad and in between (and even good and bad might be situational). Technology is a tool, the intention is with the user.


----------



## KingKikapu

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Many types of fusion reactors are possible in theory besides Tokamacs and laser Inertial Confinement. A company called EMC2 seems furthest along with a process called Inertial Electrostatic Confinement,



You are right; there is more than the two ways I mentioned to yield fusion.  To be fair, I said they were the most common ways.  I also didn't mention Magnetized Fusion Targetting which probably has an even larger following than IEC.  Unfortunately IEC has a truly spotted history.  To say that it has definitively produced net power (experimentally or theoretically) yet would be generous.  The polywell also lacks any peer-reviewed scientific literature to support its claims. Until it can do so (experimentally or theoretically), I will remain highly guarded.

With regards to EmC^2 specifically: they have a very suspect history.  And when I say "they", I really mean "that one dead guy" because it was just one dude and he died last year.  To be fair, the work was picked up in late 2007 by someone who seems to be playing the game straight.  I can't say the same for his predecessor: almost all of the man's research is self-citing, he ignores peer review criticisms in respectable journals (even though he wasn't completely gagged by NDA's), and he failed to secure funding by 2006, which made his research dead in the water.  Here's where I get a little miffed though: he took to promoting that he was the recipient of the International Academy of Science Outstanding Technology of the Year award (2006).  The problem I have with that is* it was from a fake International Academy of Science*.  So he loses funding at the end of FY05 and then in 2006 he suddenly happens to win a bogus award from a bogus institution that he happens to be a paid member of and then goes on an press spree to promote it?  ???  At first glance, that can look pretty bad.  

For the record, the real IAS is a *fellowship*; you have to be invited in and they don't do tech awards either.  If there's one thing I can't stand, it's scientists with questionable integrity.  Time will tell if the new guy can play by the rules a bit better.  He is working under some seriously strapped financials though.  You may think I'm being Mr. negative, but if it works, I will be just as ecstatic as the next dude.  Probably more actually.  I'm not gonna deny though that I have some lingering doubts.





> ...others exist as well, such as Canada's own General Fusion.
> I suspect there will be a real surprise that does not come from a government lab.



I have a few friends that work with D-wave and they let me on to this company a while ago.  I am really interested in how their next reactor will fare.  If that one succeeds in breaking even, then we'll have something to write about.  Los Alamos is doing a ton of research on these smaller MFT reactors as it is relatively cheap to fund. Fortunately for General Fusion they have lots of friends in high places, so they should have a lot more money than the 1.3 million that EMC^2 was given.  Still, this is new tech and the nuclear regulatory bodies are pretty strict with the whole experimental reactor thing.  

I'm expecting slow progress.  Funding, theoretical hurdles and strict regulatory requirements make me think two decades *minimum *before anything remotely resembling a serviceable reactor rears its head.


----------



## a_majoor

I remain sceptical (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof), but it is always worth keeping an open eye:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090323/sc_livescience/newhopeforcontroversialcoldfusionpowersource



> *New Hope for Controversial 'Cold Fusion' Power Source*
> 
> LiveScience.com Livescience Staff
> 
> livescience.com – Mon Mar 23, 2:56 pm ETIf cold fusion can be made to work, it could power the world cheaply on a virtually limitless supply of seawater. But scientists don't even know if it's possible.
> 
> Now a new study has produced evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), the new name for the controversial process labeled "cold fusion" two decades ago.
> 
> Fusion is the energy source of the sun and other stars. It occurs when atomic nuclei are combined. Today's nuclear plants employ fission, the splitting of nuclei. Scientists have been striving for decades to tap fusion to produce electricity from an abundant fuel called deuterium that can be extracted from seawater. Fusion would not come with the radioactive byproducts of fission.
> 
> At a meeting of the American Chemical Society, the scientists described today what they claim is the first clear visual evidence that LENR devices can produce neutrons, subatomic particles that scientists view as tell-tale signs that nuclear reactions are occurring.
> 
> In all, 30 papers on the topic will be presented at the meeting this week as part of a 20th anniversary nod to the first description of cold fusion.
> 
> Today's announcement was not just a birthday wish, however.
> 
> "Our finding is very significant," said chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss of the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego, Calif. "To our knowledge, this is the first scientific report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from an LENR device."
> 
> The consensus 20 years ago was that fusion would require sophisticated new nuclear reactors able to withstand temperatures of tens of millions of degrees.
> 
> Then came first report on cold fusion, presented in 1989 by Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons. They claimed to achieve nuclear fusion at comparatively "cold" room temperatures - in a simple tabletop laboratory device termed an electrolytic cell. But other scientists could not reproduce their results, and the whole field of research declined.
> 
> Some scientists persisted, however, seeking solid evidence that nuclear reactions can occur at low temperatures, as explained in a statement today from the American Chemical Society. One of their problems involved extreme difficulty in using conventional electronic instruments to detect the small number of neutrons produced in the process.
> 
> In the new study, Mosier-Boss and colleagues inserted an electrode composed of nickel or gold wire into a solution of palladium chloride mixed with deuterium or "heavy water" in a process called co-deposition. A single atom of deuterium contains one neutron and one proton in its nucleus.
> 
> Researchers passed electric current through the solution, causing a reaction within seconds, according to the statement. The scientists then used a special plastic, CR-39, to capture and track any high-energy particles that may have been emitted during reactions, including any neutrons emitted during the fusion of deuterium atoms.
> 
> At the end of the experiment, they examined the plastic with a microscope and discovered patterns of "triple tracks," tiny-clusters of three adjacent pits that appear to split apart from a single point. The researchers say that the track marks were made by subatomic particles released when neutrons smashed into the plastic.
> 
> Importantly, Mosier-Boss and colleagues believe that the neutrons originated in nuclear reactions, perhaps from the combining or fusing deuterium nuclei.
> 
> "People have always asked 'Where's the neutrons?'" Mosier-Boss said. "If you have fusion going on, then you have to have neutrons. We now have evidence that there are neutrons present in these LENR reactions."
> 
> They cited other evidence for nuclear reactions including X-rays, tritium (another form of hydrogen), and excess heat. Meanwhile, Mosier-Boss and colleagues are continuing to explore the phenomenon to get a better understanding of exactly how LENR works, which is key to being able to control it for practical purposes.
> 
> Mosier-Boss points out that the field currently gets very little funding and, despite its promise, researchers can't predict when, or if, LENR may emerge from the lab with practical applications. The U.S. Department of the Navy and JWK International Corporation in Annandale, Va., funded the study.
> 
> Video - Powerful New Solar Energy Collector
> Power of the Future: 10 Ways to Run the 21st Century
> The Energy Debates: Nuclear Power
> Original Story: New Hope for Controversial 'Cold Fusion' Power Source
> 
> LiveScience.com chronicles the daily advances and innovations made in science and technology. We take on the misconceptions that often pop up around scientific discoveries and deliver short, provocative explanations with a certain wit and style. Check out our science videos, Trivia & Quizzes and Top 10s. Join our community to debate hot-button issues like stem cells, climate change and evolution. You can also sign up for free newsletters, register for RSS feeds and get cool gadgets at the LiveScience Store


----------



## a_majoor

Green jobs are going to save us all right......

http://brainwaveweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=108675&#post108675



> It has been a while since there has been a discussion of energy policy so I thought I would throw this out in hopes of getting Bob to focus a Diavlog along this line.
> 
> It seems that Spain, President Obama's favorite example of countries doing energy po0licy correctly, has just come out with a study looking at how well their policy is working. It has some really interesting data. To highlight just a couple of the salient points.
> 
> Quote:
> 2. Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data1, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.
> 
> Quote:
> 7. The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million per wind industry job. (_Interpolation, the generally accepted figure for creating a full time job through priovate investment is @ $50,000, lov\wer by a factor of 10_)
> 
> Quote:
> 8. The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 113,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created
> 
> Quote:
> 14 The price of a comprehensive energy rate (paid by the end consumer) in Spain would have to be increased 31% to being to repay the historic debt generated by this rate deficit mainly produced by the subsidies to renewables, according to Spain’s energy regulator.
> 
> I haven't gotten past the executive study yet but it looks to be interesting reading.


----------



## a_majoor

After the oil sands are gone, we can go for the oil shale:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22403/?nlid=1931



> *A Cheaper Way to Draw Oil from Shale*
> A new heater cable lowers the cost of separating oil-like fluid from rock.
> By Tyler Hamilton
> 
> A new ceramic-composite material that can withstand high temperatures and constant exposure to moisture could provide an economical way to unlock America's vast oil-shale deposits.
> 
> U.S. oil-shale resources hold three times as much crude oil as the whole of Saudi Arabia. But unlike with the gushing fields of the Middle East, extracting oil from shale is like trying to squeeze juice out of frozen lemons. Traditionally, the shale has been surface mined like coal and heated until an oil-like substance called kerogen turns to liquid and oozes out. But this is an expensive, energy-hungry, and carbon-intensive approach that, like much of the extraction happening in Canada's controversial oil sands, is also devastating to the local environment.
> 
> More recently, companies such as Royal Dutch Shell have developed ways to tap the oil in situ, by drilling boreholes that are thousands of feet deep and feeding into them inch-thick cables that are heated using electrical resistance and that literally cook the surrounding rock. The kerogen liquefies and gradually pools around an extraction well, where the oil-like fluid can easily be pumped to the surface.
> 
> The process involves no mining, uses less water than other approaches, and doesn't leave behind man-made mountains of kerogen-sapped shale. And according to a Rand Corporation study, it can also be done at a third of the cost of mining and surface processing. One technical hitch, however, lies with the heater cable employed. The most common cables used today are insulated with a layer of magnesium oxide, which can deform, degrade, and ultimately short out over time under intense heat, constant exposure to moisture, and the occasional shifting of rock at great depths. Replacement and maintenance can be costly.
> 
> Handling such extremes requires "a combination of properties not currently available on the market," says Joe Culver, an official with the Department of Energy (DOE), which considers oil shale vital to America's energy security. In Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah alone, deposits equate to more than 800 billion barrels of recoverable crude.
> 
> Composite Technology Development of Lafayette, CO, set out to tackle the cable insulation challenge using a woven ceramic-fiber tape that gets wrapped around copper wiring. The ceramic insulation is a composite material that consists of ceramic fibers and an inorganic ceramic matrix that binds the fibers together. "It's our secret sauce," says executive vice president Mike Tupper, explaining that the fibers can also come braided or in the form of cloth, depending on the application.
> 
> The wrapped wire is heated to 150 °C until a resin in the tape hardens the insulation, but the insulation remains flexible for shipping and installation. It's then heated on site to 500 °C, turning it into a solid, durable ceramic coating.
> 
> As part of a recent demonstration project under a DOE program, Composite Technology successfully tested its insulated cables for more than 5,000 hours at temperatures ranging from 760 to 850 °C. At these high temperatures, "it has stable electrical properties," says Tupper. "It's not affected by the environment, and it doesn't degrade."
> 
> Tupper adds that the cables can also operate under a wide range of voltages and temperatures, and can be manufactured in virtually any length. "There are similar types of materials out there, but we've developed a way to make something that would perform the same way but at a fraction of the cost," Tupper says. "That makes the economics work for the oil and gas industry." He adds that Shell has already evaluated the technology and is showing strong interest.
> 
> But even with this breakthrough, some question the wisdom of using electricity to heat up rock just to squeeze more oil out of the planet. Shell claims that its process produces three to seven units of energy for every one unit that's needed for the process.
> 
> "Assuming this cable worked, what does that give you?" asks Clement Bowman, a former top scientist at Imperial Oil, who helped lead the development of Canada's oil sands. "Electricity is a high-end electrical product, and using it to recover low-end energy products like kerogen or bitumen will always carry an economic penalty."
> 
> Copyright Technology Review 2009.


----------



## a_majoor

General Fusion update:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/03/general-fusion-research-update.html

Weird as steam driven fusion reactors sound in concept, they have raised @ $7 million in investment funding, so there is the possibility of real progress.


----------



## a_majoor

More formerly SF concepts coming to the fore:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/23381/?nlid=1955



> *Startup to Beam Power from Space*
> One California utility is taking Solaren Corporation's space-based solar-farm proposal seriously.
> Wednesday, April 15, 2009
> By Kevin Bullis
> 
> A startup is trying to generate power in space for use on Earth--an old idea that's never been tried, mostly because it's too expensive, but also because people are concerned that it will fry birds in flight.
> 
> One of the biggest long-term challenges with solar power is that it doesn't work well when it's cloudy, and it stops working altogether at night. Most proposed solutions have to do with storing energy from the sun, but a more exotic way around this problem, first proposed in the late 1960s, involves putting the solar panels in space where the sun is always shining. The power would then be beamed to Earth in the form of some sort of electromagnetic waves, likely lasers or microwaves, to a ground-based station that could then deliver power to customers over existing transmission lines. The government has spent $80 million over decades to investigate this approach, but so far no pilot plants have been built.
> 
> Now Solaren Corporation, a startup based in Manhattan Beach, CA, is trying to get the idea off the ground. It's working with the California utility Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), which intends to enter into a power-purchase agreement with the company. If the agreement is approved by regulators, starting in 2016, the utility will purchase 200 megawatts of power from Solaren at an undisclosed price--that is, if the startup can get a system into space and working by then. The company has already selected a site in California for the receiving station; it hasn't said exactly where, but it will be close to a PG&E substation and won't require long-distance transmission lines.
> 
> Solaren hasn't released many details about the system. CEO Gary Spirnak says that it's conceptually the same as communications satellite technology: it uses solar panels to generate electricity, which gets sent to Earth in the form of radio waves, which are received by antennas on Earth. In a Q & A published by PG&E, he said that the design is "a significant departure from past efforts," so it will be economically feasible. The first system will reportedly be able to generate 1,000 megawatts--about the size of many conventional power plants. The company will need to raise billions of dollars to construct the plant. Right now, it only has 10 employees.
> 
> According to a 2007 report (PDF) from the federal government's National Security Space Office, space-based solar is now technically feasible as a result of advances in solar cells and robotics for construction, among other things. But the designs that it considered would be far too expensive for providing the sort of general-purpose, base-load power that Solaren intends to sell. Instead, the government office recommended that the first systems be developed to beam power to troops at forward military bases, since the military can afford to pay a premium. Right now, such bases have to pay an order of magnitude more for their electricity than most customers do. The power could also be used to make synthetic fuels to offset diesel and jet fuel that can cost $20 a gallon in a war zone.
> 
> Even then, the report was skeptical about the economic success of the first space-based power plants. The rocket launches alone could be a big problem: the report estimated that building just one power plant would require 120 launches, while the United States only launches about 15 a year (as of 2007). "Even with the [Department of Defense] as an anchor tenant customer at a price of $1-2 per kilowatt hour . . . when considering the risks of implementing a new unproven space technology and other major business risks, the business case for [space-based solar power] still does not appear to be close in 2007 with current capabilities (primarily launch costs)," the report said. (_Interpolation: building and launching rockets on an assembly line basis will drive down costs a lot, even with existing technology_)
> 
> Solaren claims to have addressed these launch costs with its new design. It reportedly can build its first power plant with only four or five launches.
> 
> Another common concern is safety. Will beaming down massive amounts of power harm birds or airplanes that cross the path of a beam? Or what if the beam isn't aimed properly and sends its power into the middle of a city? According to the government report, these concerns are unfounded. In the system that it analyzed, the intensity of the beam would be "approximately [one-sixth] of noon sunlight," with the power absorbed over a wide array of antennas. "Because the microwave beams are constant and conversion efficiencies are high, they can be beamed at densities substantially lower than that of sunlight and still deliver more energy per area of land usage than terrestrial solar energy," which by comparison only generates electricity about a quarter of the time, the report said. The intensity would be less than the intensity of microwaves allowed by appliance standards to leak out of microwave ovens. If the beam were to wander over a city, the results would be "anticlimactic," the report said.
> 
> But even if Solaren can raise the money it needs and convince people that the system is safe, it could still face opposition from other governments around the world--for example, many governments will be concerned that it could be used as a weapon. "The complexity of negotiating any type of international legal and policy agreements necessary for the development of [space-based solar power] will require significant amounts of time (5-10 years)," the report said.
> 
> In the end, because of the many obstacles to the technology, the report recommends that the government build a pilot plant to demonstrate the technology, suggesting that only the government has the resources to make it happen. Later, once the technology is proven and costs for launches come down, it could be economically viable. Solaren seems to think that it's found ways around these problems. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. For now, it's hard to see the agreement with PG&E as more than clever marketing for the company and the utility.


----------



## a_majoor

More solutions are coming as market forces inspire natural ingenuity. Now we will see if the forces of market demand and economic imperatives can be trumped by political posturing. (Prediction; this administration will throw up roadblocks while India and China commercialize it):

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=914



> *Human ingenuity beats the neo-Malthusians yet again*
> 
> OK, this is big news. *A research team has worked out a way to nearly triple the efficiency of the Fischer-Tropsch process.
> *
> This means cheap synthetic hydrocarbons from coal are on the horizon. It probably sinks shale oil and biofuels for good - which is a good thing, as biofuel demand has been driving food prices higher. Potentially, it could make the U.S. - which has huge coal reserves - independent of foreign oil sources for the forseeable future.
> 
> Now watch for it: I [predict that the so-called “environmental movement” will scream in horror at this prospect, and we will learn yet again that they are mostly about enforcing eco-puritan poverty on us all rather than doing anything actually useful about actual ecological problems.


----------



## a_majoor

New news on Polywell fusion devices:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/04/inertial-electrostatic-bussard-fusion.html



> Inertial Electrostatic (Bussard) Fusion Gets $2 million in Funding
> 
> 
> 
> Department of Defense (DoD) released its EXPENDITURE PLAN for the projects to be funded with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ($7.4 billion) and $2 million of it is going to fund Inertial Electrostatic Fusion. [H/T IECfusiontech.blogspot.com
> 
> There is a pdf of the plan. On pdf page 166 there is a small item under the heading Domestic Energy Supply/Distribution. It is as follows:
> 
> Plasma Fusion (Polywell) Demonstrate fusion plasma confinement system for shore and shipboard applications; Joint OSD/USN project. 2.0 [million]
> 
> Introduction to Bussard Fusion
> 
> This site has covered IEC (Bussard) Fusion many times. Bottom line is that it is one of the most promising technologies for achieving cheap, clean and non-controversial energy within ten years. Success would alter energy production, the world economy, propulsion of ships and other vehicles and enable inexpensive access to space.
> 
> IEC fusion uses magnets to contain an electron cloud in the center. It is a variation on the electron gun and vacuum tube in television technology. Then they inject the fuel (deuterium or lithium, boron) as positive ions. The positive ions get attracted to the high negative charge at a speed sufficient for fusion. Speed and electron volt charge can be converted over to temperature. The electrons hitting the TV screen can be converted from electron volts to 200 million degrees.
> 
> The old problem was that if you had a physical grid in the center then you could not get higher than 98% efficiency because ions would collide with the grid. The problem with grids is that the very best you can do is 2% electron losses (the 98% limit). With those kinds of losses net power is impossible. Losses have to get below 1 part in 100,000 or less to get net power. (99.999% efficiency)
> 
> Bussard system uses magnets on the outside to contain the electrons and have the electrons go around and around 100,000 times before being lost outside the magnetic field.
> 
> The fuel either comes in as ions from an ion gun or it comes in without a charge and some of it is ionized by collisions with the madly spinning electrons. The fuel is affected by the same forces as the electrons but a little differently because it is going much slower. About 64 times slower in the case of Deuterium fuel (a hydrogen with one neutron). Now these positively charged Deuterium ions are attracted to the virtual electrode (the electron cloud) in the center of the machine. So they come rushing in. If they come rushing in fast enough and hit each other just about dead on they join together and make a He3 nucleus (two protons and a neutron) and give off a high energy neutron.
> 
> Ions that miss will go rushing through the center and then head for one of the grids. When the voltage field they traveled through equals the energy they had at the center of the machine the ions have given up their energy to the grids (which repel the ions), they then go heading back to the center of the machine where they have another chance at hitting another ion at high enough speed and close enough to cause a fusion.


----------



## KingKikapu

I hope they can build their full scale polywell for 2 million.


----------



## a_majoor

Methane Hydrates, another potential source of hydrocarbon energy:


----------



## a_majoor

Roll out the barrel.......

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/04/electro-thermal-dynamic-stripping-oil.html



> *Electro Thermal Dynamic Stripping Oil Recovery Could Unlock 400 Billion More Barrels of Oil in Alberta at $26/Barrel
> *
> 
> A field test was performed from Sept 2006 to August 2007 and the recovery and performance exceeded expectations. The recovery factor was over 75%, energy used per barrel was 23% less than anticipated and peak production rates were better than expected.
> 
> ET Energy's Electro Thermal technology could be used to pump out 600 billion barrels of Alberta's oil sands bitumen. That's more than triple the Alberta government's best guess at what's currently recoverable from the oil sands, and enough to satisfy total global demand for twenty years.
> 
> Saudi Arabia has 260 billion barrels of oil reserves, so the additional 421 billion barrels would be close to double the oil in Saudi Arabia.
> 
> In coming weeks, the company will hit the road to raise $150-million to commercialize its technology.
> 
> That technology isn't much to look at — just a few well heads and large tanks sitting on a windswept field south of Fort McMurray. A series of electrodes dangle in each well. When they are turned on, they pass a current through the earth — like electricity through a stove element — and heat it up. The result: The bitumen, which is normally locked in sand as hard as rock, begins to flow — like molasses in a microwave. No huge mines needed, no greenhouse gas-spewing steam projects required.
> 
> In a place accustomed to prying bitumen from the earth using monstrous shovels and vast quantities of steam, this pilot project is a bold attempt to reshape the environmental and financial costs of the oil sands.
> 
> In other parts of Alberta, companies are using radically different techniques: Petrobank Energy and Resources Ltd. is studying how to free bitumen using underground combustion, while Laricina Energy Ltd. is mixing steam with solvents, which dramatically cuts the amount of natural gas used to extract bitumen from deeper oil sands. At universities and provincial research bodies, scientists are studying how microbes could be used in bitumen upgrading, and examining the effectiveness of new techniques inside specially modified medical CT scanners.
> 
> E-T has stumbled in its attempts to apply the technology to the oil sands (it has worked dozens of times in environmental remediation applications). In its second major test, it managed to produce oil from only one of four wells. Its problems ranged from electrical cables that were accidentally severed by surface equipment, to the design of its electrodes. In total, E-T has produced less than 3,000 barrels of oil.
> 
> *Yet the potential prize for success is huge. E-T's technology, for example, could help open up carbonate oil, a huge hydrocarbon resource that is so tricky to produce that virtually no one has tried. And Petrobank believes its process, which uses a controlled underground burn to intensely heat oil sands and make them flow, can be used in a huge variety of heavy oil fields around the world. Like E-T's process, it requires virtually no water and uses dramatically less energy.*



Even repressive "Cap and Trade" regimes will not be able to cripple the economy if the underlying energy source is cheap enough and abundent enough.


----------



## PanaEng

I like Petrobank's technology better - and has been producing for a while now. For ET technology you need a source of electricity (lots of it presumably) which will probably require the use of some of the oil and makes it a more complex process. Interesting to see how they work it out.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## SeaKingTacco

This is where a Nuclear reactor or five in Northern Alberta/Saskatchewan suddenly begin to make sense.


----------



## KingKikapu

The only problem there is power transmission becomes an issue.


----------



## a_majoor

Look at the end of the article, we have the potential to be sitting pretty and pay off a large fraction of the national debt through increasing oil sales (and neither India or China are interested in Kyoto or "cap and trade" if the US isn't interested):

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/05/bakken-and-oilsands-update.html

*Bakken and Oilsands Update*

Petrobank's canadian oil production averaged 22,085 barrels per day (bpd), up 59 per cent from 13,889 bpd in the first quarter of 2008. Petrobank credited the gains to its Bakken properties in southeast Saskatchewan that account for more than 85 per cent of its production and reserves. The Bakken remains profitable for Petronbank at today's prices--bench-mark oil prices briefly hit a six-month high of $60 US a barrel in New York before settling at $58.85, up 35 cents on the day.

Petrobank's oilsands vice-president Chris Bloomer said the company is ready to proceed with a 100,000-barrel-a-day commercial project at May River, immediately south of Whitesands.

Bloomer predicted the fireflooding technique could unlock 70 to 80 per cent of the existing oil in place in Saskatchewan -- some 20 billion barrels -- compared with seven per cent using existing heavy oil techniques.

Petrobank has four projects currently underway to develop and commercialize the THAI and Capri oil recovery processes.

-The Dawson project will be Petrobank's first application of THAI™ in a more conventional heavy oil reservoir and will be an important step in the expansion of THAI™ as a heavy oil application that can be broadly applied in Canada and internationally.
- White sands project
- May River project
- Sutton (in Saskatechewan)


Output from Canada’s oilsands could rise to as much as 6.3-million barrels a day by 2035, a nearly fivefold increase above current levels, according to energy consultancy IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) in a study called Growth in the Canadian Oil Sands: Finding a New Balance.



To reach the theoretical level of 6.3 million barrels a day, the study assumes strong economic growth and robust oil prices over the long-term. If the global economy stagnates and oil prices remain weak, it is projecting daily production of 2.3 million barrels a day by 2035. That is still about one million barrels a day above current levels.

The numbers show just how important Canada’s oil will become to the United States, as the study predicts that Canada would account for 37 per cent of U.S. oil imports if production is ramped up to 6.3 million barrels a day. It was just 19 per cent in 2008.[/yellow]
[/quote]


----------



## GAP

What I don't understand is why they don't consider Hydro power, especially with the North Sask River reasonably close....the capital costs are about the same, there's already a precedent regarding native rights/partial ownership (manitoba), transmission lines need to be install whichever is developed.....etc., etc......


----------



## a_majoor

GAP said:
			
		

> What I don't understand is why they don't consider Hydro power, especially with the North Sask River reasonably close....the capital costs are about the same, there's already a precedent regarding native rights/partial ownership (manitoba), transmission lines need to be install whichever is developed.....etc., etc......



 >Hey there, no using logic and fiduciary duties when proposing government projects! >


----------



## KingKikapu

Canada is a power transmission nightmare.  Our situation is far more difficult than Europe or the US.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

KingKikapu said:
			
		

> Canada is a power transmission nightmare.  Our situation is far more difficult than Europe or the US.


And why would that be?


----------



## KingKikapu

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> And why would that be?


Widely separated population centres create a myriad of resistive losses in DC power transmission, and there are physical limits to the voltages that you can transmit at before all sorts of corona effects rear their ugly heads.  Everything becomes a trade off.

Snap, crackle, pop.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Gotcha.  Thanks for the explanation.
(dare I ask what a "corona effect" is?)


----------



## GAP

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Gotcha.  Thanks for the explanation.
> (dare I ask what a "corona effect" is?)



Occurs when the shipments from Mexico get stopped at the US border for security reasons......


----------



## KingKikapu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_discharge

In particular, check out the Problems Caused by Coronal Discharge section.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

KingKikapu said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_discharge
> 
> In particular, check out the Problems Caused by Coronal Discharge section.



Thanks for the info brother!


----------



## a_majoor

The greatest issues for electric cars or generating electrical energy through intermittent low density power sources (AKA Green energy) is the storage of electrical energy. Nothing comes close to the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels in any practical form (imagine a self serve station dealing in super compressed hydrogen gas or cyrogenic liquid hydrogen at -200 C....), but the energy density of batteries is so low as to be laughable. Even the GM Volt only proves the point, having a battery pack weighting almost a ton to go 40 miles, and a miniscule fuel tank that can take it 300 miles.....

Help may be on the way:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/06/ultimate-specific-energy-for-batteries.html



> *Ultimate Specific Energy for Batteries, Ultracapacitors*
> 
> A comparison of practical and theoretical specific energy limits for various battery technology. Others predict higher practical and theoretical levels.
> 
> The determination of the theoretical maximum capacity of a Lithium-air battery is complex, and there isn’t a flat statement of fact in the Handbook of Batteries , Third Edition as are many more well developed chemistries. To provide the most accurate value for the maximum capacity, BD asked Dr. Arthur Dobley to provide an expert opinion, which we quote as follows:
> “Specific capacity:
> * For lithium metal alone 13 kWh/kg.
> * For the lithium and air, theoretical, 11,100 Wh/kg, not including the weight of oxygen, and 5,200 Wh/kg including the weight of oxygen. This was checked by calculation and agrees with K.M. Abrahams publication ,JECS 1996.
> * For the Lithium air cell, practical, 3,700 Wh/kg, not including the weight of oxygen, and 1,700 Wh/kg with the weight of oxygen. These numbers are predictions and are made with the presumption that 33% of the theoretical energy will be obtained. The battery industry typically obtains 25% to 50% of the theoretical energy (Handbook of Batteries). Metal air batteries are higher in the range. Zinc-air is about 44% (Handbook of Batteries, 3rd Ed. pg 1.12 and 1.16 table and fig).
> 
> We selected a conservative 33%. You may quote these numbers above and make any comments with them. The theoretical numbers are similar to the numbers in the ECS 2004 abstract. ( The difference is due to mathematical rounding.)
> 
> PolyPlus Battery Company is developing novel lithium/air batteries with unprecedented energy density, rivaling that possible for hydrocarbon fuel cells. The technology is based on proprietary encapsulated water stable lithium metal enabling the practical realization of unique galvanic couples such as Li/Air and Li/Water batteries. The theoretical specific energy of lithium metal/aqueous couples is greater than 10,000 Wh/kg and commercial batteries are expected to exceed 1000 Wh/l and Wh/kg.
> 
> IBM is starting research on lithium air batteries as well.
> 
> Only a handful of labs around the world, including those at PolyPlus Battery, in Berkeley, CA, Japan's AIST, and St. Andrews University, in Scotland, are currently working on lithium-air batteries. Lithium metal-air batteries can store a tremendous amount of energy--in theory, more than 5,000 watt-hours per kilogram. That's more than ten-times as much as today's high-performance lithium-ion batteries, and more than another class of energy-storage devices: fuel cells. Instead of containing a second reactant inside the cell, these batteries react with oxygen in the air that's pulled in as needed, making them lightweight and compact.
> 
> Metal Air Batteries estimated specific energy:
> 
> Polyplus has approached the challenge of the Lithium metal electrode with a coating of a glass-ceramic membrane, sealing the Lithium from an aqueous catholyte. The resultant structure exhibits very small self discharge, ordinarily a large contributor to cell failure. Test cells have produced 0.5 mAh/cm2 for 230 hours exhibiting approximately 100% Coulombic efficiency.
> 
> A production oriented cell construction with double sided lithium anode, solid electrolyte and double sided air/cathode is anticipated to have 600 to 1000 Wh/kg energy density.


----------



## KingKikapu

The energy density in hydrocarbons may be relatively high, but the vast majority of it goes to waste.

Break even fusion will be the holy grail of power generation.


----------



## a_majoor

Waste heat is a result of the laws of thermodynamics, and thus there is nothing we can do about it in this universe. Obviously if you can perfect a means of extracting the energy from hydrocarbons without going through a thermodynamic cycle like the Carnot cycle, then efficiency will increase. SOFC fuel cells are probably the closest technology to date, now we are talking practical extraction of 40-50% of the energy avalable in hydrocarbon fuels.

High energy density allows you to extract a lot of usable energy even when (as in a car) up to 66% of the energy is flowing out the tailpipe and radiator. Low energy density means you need a ton of batteries to go 40 miles.

Even with nuclear fusion, much of the energy will go to "waste heat" turning water to steam, *any* thermal energy plant can only get a maximum of @ 40% of the available energy regardless of the heat source (cow dung or nuclear fusion). There are some direct conversion schemes that are theoretically possible with nuclear fusion, but depend on using exotic reactions like 3He+3He or p+11B, which are far more difficult to initiate than D+D, and may not be technically possible for years to come.


----------



## Brasidas

Thucydides said:
			
		

> There are some direct conversion schemes that are theoretically possible with nuclear fusion, but depend on using exotic reactions like 3He+3He or p+11B, which are far more difficult to initiate than D+D, and may not be technically possible for years to come.



Let alone the fact that helium-3's rare enough that the only schemes I've seen in fifteen years of reading about it involve mining it in outer space. It's cool, but...


----------



## KingKikapu

Thucydides said:
			
		

> High energy density allows you to extract a lot of usable energy even when (as in a car) up to 66% of the energy is flowing out the tailpipe and radiator. Low energy density means you need a ton of batteries to go 40 miles.
> 
> Even with nuclear fusion, much of the energy will go to "waste heat" turning water to steam, *any* thermal energy plant can only get a maximum of @ 40% of the available energy regardless of the heat source (cow dung or nuclear fusion). There are some direct conversion schemes that are theoretically possible with nuclear fusion, but depend on using exotic reactions like 3He+3He or p+11B, which are far more difficult to initiate than D+D, and may not be technically possible for years to come.



I think we can both agree that hydocarbon energy density is ludicrously low compared to nuclear fusion.  Even if you had to distribute that energy via some sort of cell system, it would still prove to be a more sustainable approach.  That said, it's gonna be a bitch to find a cycle of reactions that simultaneously have low Z, high reaction cross sections, and probably use multiple chains.  Not an easy combo.

What will be interesting to see is if those high efficiency nanomaterials that directly convert radiation into electricity ever live up to their hype.  Couple that with a clean gamma source and we're sitting pretty.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Here's something that would make gas stations look a bit more seedy:

*Forget gas, batteries — pee is new power source*
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31805166/

Scientists can create cheap hydrogen from urine for use in fuel cells
By Eric Bland

updated 5:34 p.m. ET, Wed., July 8, 2009
Urine-powered cars, homes and personal electronic devices could be available in six months with new technology developed by scientists from Ohio University. 

Using a nickel-based electrode, the scientists can create large amounts of cheap hydrogen from urine that could be burned or used in fuel cells. "One cow can provide enough energy to supply hot water for 19 houses," said Gerardine Botte, a professor at Ohio University developing the technology. "Soldiers in the field could carry their own fuel." 

Pee power is based on hydrogen, the most common element in the universe but one that has resisted efforts to produce, store, transport and use economically. 

Storing pure hydrogen gas requires high pressure and low temperature. New nanomaterials with high surface areas can adsorb hydrogen, but have yet to be produced on a commercial scale. 

Chemically binding hydrogen to other elements, like oxygen to create water, makes it easier to store and transport, but releasing the hydrogen when it's needed usually requires financially prohibitive amounts of electricity. 

By attaching hydrogen to another element, nitrogen, Botte and her colleagues realized that they can store hydrogen without the exotic environmental conditions, and then release it with less electricity, 0.037 Volts instead of the 1.23 Volts needed for water. 

One molecule of urea, a major component of urine, contains four atoms of hydrogen bonded to two atoms of nitrogen. Stick a special nickel electrode into a pool of urine, apply an electrical current, and hydrogen gas is released. 

Botte's current prototype measures 3x3x1 inch and can produce up to 500 milliwatts of power. However, Botte and her colleagues are actively trying to commercialize several larger versions of the technology. 

A fuel cell, urine-powered vehicle could theoretically travel 90 miles per gallon. A refrigerator-sized unit could produce one kilowatt of energy for about $5,000, although this price is a rough estimate, says Botte. 

"The waste products from say a chicken farm could be used to produce the energy needed to run the farm," said John Stickney, a chemist and professor at the University of Georgia.


----------



## TCBF

-... and what produces urine? BEER!!

- Whoever in the past said that we coudn't drink our way out of a problem...

- Full Disclosure: I no longer drink.


----------



## George Wallace

TCBF said:
			
		

> -... and what produces urine? BEER!!
> 
> - Whoever in the past said that we coudn't drink our way out of a problem...
> 
> - Full Disclosure: I no longer drink.



Yer in a world of hurt then.  It'll take you longer to produce a tank of ______________












Then again, you could be a real good buddy and be the Designated Driver on Friday to your friends in the Mess and ask for payment in _______________ in lieu of cash....  >


----------



## a_majoor

Working the ultimate energy source for the biosphere, photosynthesis:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/07/project-to-re-engineer-photosynthesis.html



> *Project to Re-engineer Photosynthesis in Rice*
> 
> An ambitiuos project to re-engineer photosynthesis in rice, led by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) through a global consortium of scientists, has received a grant of US$11 million over 3 years from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. As a result o research being conducted by this group, rice plants that can produce 50% more grain using less, fertilizer and less water are a step closer to reality.
> 
> Currently, more than a billion people worldwide live on less than a dollar a day and nearly one billion live in hunger. Over the next 50 years, the population of the world will increase by about 50% and water scarcity will grow. About half of the world’s population consumes rice as a staple cereal, so boosting its productivity is crucial to achieving long-term food security.
> 
> Photosynthesis, the process by which plants use solar energy to capture carbon dioxide and convert it into the carbohydrates required for growth, is not the same for all plants. Some species, including rice, have a mode of photo-synthesis (known as C3), in which the capture of carbon dioxide is relatively I inefficient. Other plants, such as maize and sorghum, have evolved a much more efficient form of photosynthesis known as C4.
> 
> According to IRRI scientist and project leader Dr. John Sheehy, in tropical climates the efficiency of solar energy conversion of crops using the so-called C4 photosynthesis is about 50% higher than that of C3 crops. Given the demands from an increasing population, combined with less available land and water, adequate future supplies of rice will need to come in large part through substantial yield boosts and more efficient use of crop inputs.
> 
> “Converting the photosynthesis of rice from the less-efficient C3 form to the C4 form would increase yields by 50%,” ; said Dr. Sheehy, adding that C4 rice would also use water twice as efficiently. In developing tropical countries, where billions of poor people rely on rice as their staple food, “The benefits of such an improvement in the face of increasing world population, increasing food prices, and decreasing natural resources would, be immense,” he added.


----------



## a_majoor

Improving the efficiency of the refining process will increase the amount of usable product out of the same amount of input:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/07/rive-technology-working-to-increase-oil.html



> *Rive Technology Working to Increase Oil Refining Efficiency 7-9% by 2011*
> 
> Holey catalyst: Rive Technology is designing a zeolite catalyst with pores larger than those found in conventional zeolites, which are widely used in petroleum and petrochemical production. The larger pores allow the catalysts to handle a wide range of compounds. Credit: Rive Technology
> 
> Rive Technology will help refiners increase production of transportation fuels and process less desirable crudes with its innovative catalyst technology. Mesopores (>4 nanometers) in zeolite enable larger molecules to be cracked. Petroleum refiners would obtain a higher yield of desirable products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, and propylene, and less of undesirable products like heavy cycle oil and coke.
> 
> "By the end of the year, we hope to have hit upon the optimum mix of these things," says Dougherty. "We hope to be in commercial refineries in the second half of 2011." The plan is to license the recipe to commercial manufacturers of petroleum catalysts, such as BASF or W.R. Grace.
> 
> Rive’s proprietary catalyst – RiveCat – is focused on the most important conversion process in the refinery – fluid catalytic cracking (FCC). The FCC process converts or “cracks” the long-chain hydrocarbons found in crude oil into smaller, more valuable molecules such as those that comprise transportation fuels.
> 
> RiveCat is more accessible to the bulky hydrocarbon molecules found in FCC feedstock, allowing more of the feedstock to get “cracked”, especially when processing low quality crudes. As result, refiners produce a more valuable slate of products from a barrel of crude and increase throughput in the refinery, leading to higher profit margins. Refiners are also able to purchase cheaper, lower quality crudes and process them economically.
> 
> Refiners can utilize RiveCat without significant capital investment or changes in operating conditions, allowing them to immediately improve refining yields and profits.
> 
> 
> MIT Technology review has details.
> 
> Andrew Dougherty, vice president of operations at Rive, says that the catalyst could increase the proportion of petroleum processed by as much as 7 to 9 percent.
> 
> The company's technology is based on zeolites--tiny pore-studded particles made of a mix of aluminum, oxygen, and silicon that are a mainstay of the petroleum and petrochemical industries. Heated and mixed in with crude petroleum, zeolites act as a catalyst, breaking apart the complex hydrocarbon molecules of crude into simpler hydrocarbons that make gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and other desirable products in the process known as fluid catalytic cracking. By making zeolites with pores larger than those in conventional ones, Rive hopes to create catalysts that handle a higher proportion of hydrocarbons.
> 
> Typically, the openings of pores in zeolites are less than a nanometer wide, which limits the range of hydrocarbon that can get into the porous catalysts. But Javier Garcia Martinez, a cofounder of Rive and now a professor at the University of Alicante, in Spain, came up with a way to control the size of the openings while working as a postdoctoral fellow at MIT's Nanostructured Materials Research Laboratory. He mixes the constituents of the zeolites in an alkaline solution, then adds a surfactant--a soaplike liquid. The surfactant makes bubbles, and the zeolites form around the bubbles. Then he burns away the surfactant, leaving behind zeolites with openings two to five nanometers wide--big enough to let in larger hydrocarbon molecules. By varying the chemistry of the surfactant, Garcia Martinez can control the size of the pore openings.
> 
> Dougherty also sees Rive's zeolites being used in hydrocracking, a refining technique that employs high-pressure hydrogen to create a low-sulfur diesel. Hydrocracking is a small market, but with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency trying to reduce sulfur emissions, it's a growing one, he says. With its ability to choose pore size, the company might also make catalysts for processing tar sands, which contain extremely dense petroleum. Further down the road, the material might also be used to process biofuels, according to the company.


----------



## a_majoor

Another biofuel scheme. Once again, we need to see how this actually scales up:

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/23073/A Biofuel Process to Replace All Fossil Fuels



> *A startup unveils a high-yield process for making fuel from carbon dioxide and sunlight.*
> By Kevin Bullis
> 
> A startup based in Cambridge, MA--Joule Biotechnologies--today revealed details of a process that it says can make 20,000 gallons of biofuel per acre per year. If this yield proves realistic, it could make it practical to replace all fossil fuels used for transportation with biofuels. The company also claims that the fuel can be sold for prices competitive with fossil fuels.
> 
> Joule Biotechnologies grows genetically engineered microorganisms in specially designed photobioreactors. The microorganisms use energy from the sun to convert carbon dioxide and water into ethanol or hydrocarbon fuels (such as diesel or components of gasoline). The organisms excrete the fuel, which can then be collected using conventional chemical-separation technologies.
> 
> If the new process, which has been demonstrated in the laboratory, works as well on a large scale as Joule Biotechnologies expects, it would be a marked change for the biofuel industry. Conventional, corn-grain-based biofuels can supply only a small fraction of the United States' fuel because of the amount of land, water, and energy needed to grow the grain. But the new process, because of its high yields, could supply all of the country's transportation fuel from an area the size of the Texas panhandle. "We think this is the first company that's had a real solution to the concept of energy independence," says Bill Sims, CEO and president of Joule Biotechnologies. "And it's ready comparatively soon."
> 
> The company plans to build a pilot-scale plant in the southwestern U.S. early next year, and it expects to produce ethanol on a commercial scale by the end of 2010. Large-scale demonstration of hydrocarbon-fuels production would follow in 2011.
> 
> So far, the company has raised "substantially less than $50 million," Sims says, from Flagship Ventures and other investors, including company employees. The firm is about to start a new round of financing to scale up the technology.
> 
> The new approach would also be a big improvement over cellulose-based biofuels. Cellulosic materials, such as grass and wood chips, could yield far more fuel per acre than corn, and recent studies suggest these fuel sources could replace about one-third of the fossil fuels currently used for transportation in the United States. But replacing all fossil fuels with cellulose-based biofuels could be a stretch, requiring improved growing practices and a vast improvement in fuel economy.
> 
> Algae-based biofuels come closest to Joule's technology, with potential yields of 2,000 to 6,000 gallons per acre; yet even so, the new process would represent an order of magnitude improvement. What's more, for the best current algae fuels technologies to be competitive with fossil fuels, crude oil would have to cost over $800 a barrel says Philip Pienkos, a researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO. Joule claims that its process will be competitive with crude oil at $50 a barrel. In recent weeks, oil has sold for $60 to $70 a barrel.
> 
> Joule's process seems very similar to approaches that make biofuels using algae, although the company says it is not using algae. The company's microorganisms can be grown inside transparent reactors, where they're circulated to ensure that they all get exposed to sunlight, and they are fed concentrated carbon dioxide--which can come from a power plant, for example--and other nutrients. (The company's bioreactor is a flat panel with an area about the size of a sheet of plywood.) While algae typically produce oils that have to be refined into fuels, Joule's microorganisms produce fuel directly--either ethanol or hydrocarbons. And while oil is harvested from algae by collecting and processing the organisms, Joule's organisms excrete the fuel continuously, which could make harvesting the fuel cheaper.
> 
> David Berry, one of the company's founders and a board member, says the organism they use was selected and modified to work well in a bioreactor, and the bioreactor was designed with the specific organism in mind. He adds that the company carefully considered issues such as the organism's response to heat, and the reactor was built to keep the heat within bearable limits. Overheating has been a problem with bioreactors in the past.
> 
> The company will likely face many challenges as it attempts to scale up its process. Other companies, such as Green Fuels, have failed to produce biofuels economically in bioreactors because of the high cost of the reactors compared to the amount of fuel produced. Another challenge is keeping the microorganisms producing fuel at a steady rate. Algae populations can bloom and grow so quickly that they outrun the supply of nutrients or sunlight, leading to a collapse of the population, says Jim Barber of Barber Associates, who was formerly CEO of Metabolix, which produces chemicals from renewable resources. "You get a burst and then they all die off," he says.
> 
> Joule Biotechnologies will also face stiff competition. It is not the only company developing photosynthetic organisms that excrete fuel. Synthetic Genomics, which recently announced a research partnership with ExxonMobil, has developed organisms that excrete fuel, as has Algenol, which recently announced a partnership with Dow.


----------



## a_majoor

Like I said near the beginning of this thread, the end of oil does not mean the end of energy, simply that economic pressures will result in a changeover to something new. In the 1500's, for example, England was rapidly approaching "Peak Forest" as demand for wood rapidly outstripped the supply of forests. (For Elizabethan Englishmen, the regeneration time of a forest was equal to about two or three generations, so forests were effectively non renewable). England turned to coal to replace charcoal and wood as heating fuels.

In the mid 1800's, the United States was experiencing "Peak Whale", as demand for whale oil outstripped the supply of whales, but Americans turned to fossil fuels to replace whale oil.

Looking over the thread, I notice that new process and devices that use current energy sources more efficiently are being spurred by market forces, new supplies of traditional oil are coming on stream in response to higher prices and alternatives are also becoming viable as demand increases (new processes for oil sands, shale oil, bio oils and methane hydrates will provide hydrocarbon energy for centuries to come), and of course, new technologies make nuclear fission power more affordable and nuclear fusion  energy rapidly approaching feasibility at long last. Almost none of these factors are driven by governments or bureaucracies (the market for SUV's was effectively killed in one month last sumer when oil rose past $170/bbl, not due to government regulations or CAFE standards, which take a decade or more to flow through the economy due to capital turnover [i.e. old cars still stay on the road despite new standards])

Maybe what we really need to ask is "what will life be like with vast amounts of cheap energy?"

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/08/mr-fusion-scenario-what-if-there-is.html



> *Mr Fusion Scenario : What if there is cheap and abundant Nuclear Fusion Power ?*
> What if Nuclear Fusion Power became cheap and abundant ?
> 
> Note: several technologies that could work out for providing commercial nuclear fusion would not lead to cheap and abundant nuclear fusion. They would have power that is about the same price as current 3rd generation nuclear fission. The regular ITER project is such a system. For low cost and more availability, there needs to be factory mass produced nuclear fusion generators. There are designs for factory mass produced deep burn (burn most of the fuel) nuclear fission which could be cheaper than many forms of nuclear fusion. Cheap nuclear power needs to be as common as small planes. Production volumes need to be a few thousand per year or more.
> 
> How it could happen and how cheap could the energy be?
> 
> 1. Lawrenceville Plasma Physics succeeds as they have described A Focus Fusion reactor would produce electricity very differently. The energy from fusion reactions is released mainly in the form of a high-energy, pulsed beam of helium nuclei. Since the nuclei are electrically charged, this beam is already an electric current. All that is needed is to capture this electric energy into an electric circuit. This can be done by allowing the pulsed beam to generate electric currents in a series of coils as it passes through them. This is much the same way that a transformer works, stepping electric power down from the high voltage of a transmission line to the low voltage used in homes and factories. It is also like a particle accelerator run in reverse. Such an electrical transformation can be highly efficient, probably around 70%. What is most important is that it is exceedingly cheap and compact. The steam turbines and electrical generators are eliminated. *A 5 MW Focus Fusion reactor may cost around $300,000 and produce electricity for 1/10th of a cent per kWh.* This is fifty times less than current electric costs. Fuel costs will be negligible because a 5 MW plant will require only five pounds of fuel per year. [About 40 million kWh per year from a 5 MWe plant and 5 MWe is equal to 6705 horsepower]
> 
> 2. *Inertial electrostatic confinement (bussard/IEC) fusion is targeting commercialization at 2-5 cents per kWh.*
> 
> However, *many people can make the simple fusor technology which is being scaled up*. Material and components costs go up, but future manufacturing capability (nanofactories) and superconductor technology could make the full commercial scale IEC fusion reactors cheap. A 100 MWe reactor for $6 million would be comparable to the Focus Fusion reactor scenario. *The hobbyist nature of the simple fusor suggests that even though the high power systems would involve a lot more safety issues and costs, reasonably skilled and dedicated teams of engineers would be able to replicate any IEC fusor success.*
> 
> 3. DARPA had a funded project for Chip-Scale High Energy Atomic Beams.
> 
> Develop 0.5 MeV [mega electron-volt] proton beams and collide onto microscale B-11 target with a fusion Q (energy ratio) > 20, possibly leading to self-sustained fusion. (_Interpolation; this means a fully functional fusion powerplant capable of powering a car or light truck would be about the size of a deck of cards or pack of cigarettes including associated systems_.)
> 
> There is progress towards a 1 meter long 10 GeV particle accelerator using plasma wakefield technology
> 
> If the distance and power were linear, then a 1 millimeter long system would generate 10 MeV particles. You would then need to work out miniturizing the Laser system and the targets. Laser technology is advancing quickly and better targets could be made from advancing nanotechnology.
> 
> Cheap and Abundant Access to Space
> 
> IEC fusion at the 2 cents per kWh level would be providing $27/kg access single stage access to orbit.
> 
> This kind of single stage to orbit ship would still cost $2-5 billion. High availability of cheap graphene, carbon nanotube or diamondoid or nanofactory capability would greatly reduce the costs and simplify the production of the spaceship because of superior materials and manufacturing.
> 
> Easy access to space with a lot of high powered ships and equipment means easy space mining.
> 
> One NASA report estimates that the mineral wealth of the asteroids in the asteroid belt might exceed $100 billion for each of the six billion people on Earth.
> 
> Fully developing the capabilities of nuclear fusion and nanofactories and accessing these resources in the solar system is the end of scarcity scenario.
> 
> Also, use the mundane singularity technology like cement jet printing buildings.
> 
> Nuclear Bombs and Weapons would be Easy
> 
> If you have a nuclear fusion generator then you can generate a lot of neutrons. With a lot of neutrons you can transmute uranium isotopes.
> 
> Non-electric uses for nuclear fusion.
> 
> If you have fusion powered transportation around the solar system, then you can make all kinds of kinetic energy weapons. ie bombarding things with accelerated asteroids.
> 
> So What Would Be Safe ?
> 
> Live in the cheap mobile fusion spaceships.
> 
> Have ones big enough for a few tens of thousands of people or move around in fleets.
> 
> Use metamaterials (invisibility) or at least alter the albedo (space camoflage) to make them harder to spot. (The solar system is a big place, we are still spotting objects bigger than Pluto at about the distance of Pluto.)
> 
> Initially the hard to spot spaceships would be like nuclear missile submarines now, your deterrent force, but eventually a large fraction of the population would be mobile in the solar system for commerce and for safety. There would also be less strategic purpose in going after those people who were still on Earth.
> 
> In the long range scenario with nanofactories and cheap fusion, then you could not just manufacture big ships with rotating sections for gravity and carrying plenty of supplies but you would have manufacturing capability and resources to make decoy/redundant ships/colonies. The fully capable redundant ships would also be places to move to if for some reason some of the primary ships were damaged.


----------



## a_majoor

Using ultracapacitors to replace or supplement batteries:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23289/



> *Ultracaps Could Boost Hybrid Efficiency*
> Recent studies point to the potential of ultracapacitors to augment conventional batteries.
> By Kevin Bullis
> 
> Energy storage devices called ultracapacitors could lower the cost of the battery packs in plug-in hybrid vehicles by hundreds or even thousands of dollars by cutting the size of the packs in half, according to estimates by researchers at Argonne National Laboratory in Argonne, IL. Ultracapacitors could also dramatically improve the efficiency of another class of hybrid vehicle that uses small electric motors, called microhybrids, according to a recent study from the University of California, Davis.
> 
> The use of ultracapacitors in hybrids isn't a new idea. But the falling cost of making these devices and improvements to the electronics needed to regulate their power output and coordinate their interaction with batteries could soon make them more practical, says Theodore Bohn, a researcher at Argonne's Advanced Powertrain Research Facility.
> 
> Although batteries have improved significantly in recent years, the cost of making them is the main the reason why hybrids cost thousands of dollars more than conventional vehicles. This is especially true of plug-in hybrids, which rely on large battery packs to supply all or most of the power during short trips. Battery packs are expensive in part because they degrade over time and, to compensate for this, automakers oversize them to ensure that they can provide enough power even after 10 years of use in a vehicle.
> 
> Ultracapacitors offer a way to extend the life of a hybrid vehicle's power source, reducing the need to oversize its battery packs. Unlike batteries, ultracapacitors don't rely on chemical reactions to store energy, and they don't degrade significantly over the life of a car, even when they are charged and discharged in very intense bursts that can damage batteries. The drawback is that they store much less energy than batteries--typically, an order of magnitude less. If, however, ultracapacitors were paired with batteries, they could protect batteries from intense bursts of power, Bohn says, such as those needed for acceleration, thereby extending the life of the batteries. Ultracapacitors could also ensure that the car can accelerate just as well at the end of its life as at the beginning.
> 
> Reducing the size of a vehicle's battery pack by 25 percent could save about $2,500, Bohn estimates. The ultracapacitors and electronics needed to coordinate them with the batteries could cost between $500 and $1,000, resulting in hundreds of dollars of net savings.
> 
> Ultracapacitors would also make it possible to redesign batteries to hold more energy. There is typically a tradeoff between how fast batteries can be charged and discharged and how much total energy they can store. That's true in part because designing a battery to discharge quickly requires using very thin electrodes stacked in many layers. Each layer must be separated by supporting materials that take up space in the battery but don't store any energy. The more layers used, the more supporting materials are needed and the less energy can be stored in the battery. Paired with ultracapacitors, batteries wouldn't need to deliver bursts of power and so could be made with just a few layers of very thick electrodes, reducing the amount of supporting material needed. That could make it possible to store twice as much energy in the same space, Bohn says.
> 
> Ultracapacitors could also be useful in a very different type of hybrid vehicle called a microhybrid, says Andrew Burke, a research engineer at the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis. As designed today, these vehicles use small electric motors and batteries to augment a gasoline engine, allowing the engine to switch off every time the car comes to a stop and restart when the driver hits the accelerator. A microhybrid's batteries can also capture a small part of the energy that is typically wasted as heat during braking. Because ultracapacitors can quickly charge and discharge without being damaged, it would be possible to design microhybrids to make much greater use of an electric motor, providing short bursts of power whenever needed for acceleration. They could also collect more energy from braking. According to computer simulations performed by Burke, such a system would improve the efficiency of a conventional engine by 40 percent during city driving. Conventional microhybrids only improve efficiency by 10 to 20 percent.
> 
> In both plug-in hybrids and microhybrids, ultracapacitors would offer improved cold weather performance, since they do not rely on chemical reactions that slow down in the cold. "In very cold weather, you have to heat the battery, or you can't drive very fast--you'd have very low acceleration," Bohn says. In contrast, ultracapacitors could provide fast acceleration even in cold temperatures.
> 
> Mark Verbrugge, director of the materials and processes lab at GM, says that of the two uses for ultracapacitors, it will be easier to use them in microhybrids. In this case, he says, ultracapacitors would simply replace batteries, since they store enough energy to augment the gasoline engine without the help of batteries. In plug-in hybrids, which require much more energy, ultracapacitors would need to be paired with batteries, and this would require complex electronics to coordinate between the two energy storage devices. "By and large, you never want to add parts to a car," he says. "You want the simplest system possible" so that there are fewer things to go wrong.
> 
> For ultracapacitors to be practical in microhybrids, Verbrugge says, the cost of making them has to decrease by about half, which may be possible because many parts of the manufacturing process for large ultracapacitors aren't yet automated. But to justify the added complexity in plug-in hybrids, he says, the entire system would have to cost significantly less than using batteries alone.
> 
> The researchers at Argonne have already taken steps toward proving that ultracapacitors can provide these savings, having shown that they reduce the heat stress placed on batteries by a third. They are continuing to test ultracapacitors to demonstrate that they can make batteries last longer, which would allow automakers to use smaller batteries and save money.
> 
> Copyright Technology Review 2009.


----------



## a_majoor

Alberta's heavy oil and oil sands are about to get lots of competition from new light oil production:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/iraqs-rumaila-oil-field-could-double.html



> *Iraq's Rumaila Oil Field Could Double Iraq Oil Production and a Big Oil Find in the Gulf of Mexico
> *
> Business Week reports on the BP (British Petroleum) project to modernize the Rumaila oil field to nearly double its production and restore Iraq's power in OPEC.
> 
> A lot of the underproduction of "easy oil reserves" is in Iraq and Nigeria. Brazil, Russia, China, United States, Kazakhstan and Canada have key oil megaprojects that are non-OPEC over the next 5 years. Saudi Arabia continues to develop large fields, but OPEC production is held back as part the control of oil prices. New Oil production technology (like THAI/Capri and electrothermal stimulation) are key to unlocking vast oilsand reserves and further improvement of multistage wells are needed for the economic development of Bakken oilfields.
> 
> Rumaila, is a monster, producing 960,000 barrels per day now—nearly half of Iraq's current output. The winners, BP (BP) and China's CNPC, plan to bring the field to plateau production of 2.85 million barrels per day within six years. That would make it one of the most prolific fields in the world. However, the companies may have deliberately made high estimates so as to try to win the contracts.
> 
> BP also thinks it understands Rumaila well, having originally discovered the field in the 1950s and having worked on it with the Iraqis during the past five years. BP also thinks Rumaila closely resembles the giant Samatlor field in western Siberia, which it has successfully managed through its TNK-BP Russia subsidiary. Finally, through CNPC the partners will have access to a Chinese supply chain to bring in the low-cost equipment needed, including onshore drilling rigs. An Iraqi state company will have a 25% stake, while BP and CNPC will share a 75-25 split of the rest.
> 
> The top production targets bid by the international oil community on the six Iraqi oil fields on offer add up to 8.2 million barrels per day. If achieved, that level of output would put Iraq in a rarefied league with Saudi Arabia as a major oil exporter. Potential is one thing, of course, and actual production is another.
> 
> 2. BP announced today a giant oil discovery at its Tiber Prospect in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> The well, located in Keathley Canyon block 102, approximately 250 miles (400 kilometres) south east of Houston, is in 4,132 feet (1,259 metres) of water. The Tiber well was drilled to a total depth of approximately 35,055 feet (10,685 metres) making it one of the deepest wells ever drilled by the oil and gas industry.
> 
> BP Plc, Europe’s second-largest oil company, “giant” discovery at the Tiber Prospect in the Gulf of Mexico that may contain more than 3 billion barrels, after drilling the world’s deepest exploration well.
> 
> The latest discovery will help BP, already the biggest producer in the Gulf of Mexico, boost output in the region by 50 percent to 600,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day after 2020.
> 
> FURTHER READING
> Oil megaprojects list at wikipedia.
> 
> The Rumaila project is not included on the oil megaprojects list at this time.
> 
> Vankor Field in Russia came online August, 2009 and is to produce 60 thousand barrels per day in 2009 and 220 thousand barrels per day in 2010 and 315 thousand barrels per day in 2011.
> 
> Brazil, Russia, China, United States, Kazakhstan and Canada have key oil megaprojects that are non-OPEC over the next 5 years.


----------



## a_majoor

And even more oil. At this rate we should be seeing oil priced around .50/litre

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/evidence-three-forks-formation-is.html



> *Evidence Three Forks formation is Separate from Bakken Which Would Mean a Lot more Oil*
> 
> Testing done in the Bakken shale area found a "stacked play," meaning one oil formation is on top of another, which could allow more oil to be recovered at a lower cost in a smaller area with less environmental damage, said Continental Resources Hamm said the testing showed two distinct formations. He said the Three Forks well initially fetched 140 barrels daily. The Bakken well fetched about 1,200. State officials said in July that production results from 103 wells in the Three Forks-Sanish formation show some wells recovering more than 800 barrels a day, considered "as good or better" than some in the Bakken, where the record is thought to be more than 4,000 barrels a day.
> 
> State geologist Ed Murphy called Continental's findings interesting but said more wells are needed before researchers know for sure the characteristics and potential of the Three Forks formation.
> 
> The company's tests and other promising results from Three Forks wells have fueled speculation that the formation could add billions of barrels to government reserve estimates.
> 
> Continental, which is marking 20 years in North Dakota, also trademarked the process of drilling multiple wells from one pad, the area cleared for drilling machinery. It plans to drill two wells into the Bakken and another two into the Three Forks from one pad, which means the well site's footprint will be cut from 20 acres to six acres, Hamm said.
> 
> The company estimates its ECO-Pad process will cut drilling and well completion costs, which run as high as $7 million in the Bakken, by about 10 percent. The process could be in place by the end of the year.
> 
> The company also plans to use a single drill rig that can be moved to different sites on a pad, which will require only one road and fewer power lines, pipelines and other infrastructure, he said.
> 
> Seeking Alpha has the transcript of the August 2009 conference call for continental resources.
> 
> This test was very important to us and I believe we did (inaudible) is stacking two laterals and established not even with unrealistically tight spacing the Middle Bakken and Three Forks/Sanish reservoirs are separate and need be developed individually. Consequently in terms of testing we have seen what we effectively need to see. So given the extensive number of wells that we and others have completed across playing both zones, as I said earlier, Continental is now transitioning into the developmental mode with a staggered drilling pattern that we will use to harvest the two reservoirs.
> 
> The most effective way to drain these two tanks so to speak is to drill north south oriented Middle Bakken well and then step over to about 660 feet east or west and drill Three Forks/Sanish well in the same orientation and then step over another 660 feet and drill the next Middle Bakken well working your way out across play. We think this development plan dovetails very well with the ECO-pad concept that the NDIC approved this last week. Continental has developed an innovative new approach for drilling multiple wells around the same old drilling pad specifically the two Middle Bakken and two Three Forks/Sanish wells per ECO-pad.
> 
> The key advantages we think are very apparent. We drilled four wells from one ECO-pad minimizing the environmental impact. One ECO-pad will have about 70% less space as the surface footprint area than four conventional drilling pads. Instead of four pads, basically we use about 5 acres each up there for (inaudible) drilling platform and therefore we will be drilling four wells sequentially from a single 6-acre ECO-pad.
> 
> The NDIC granted ECO-pads an exemption from setback requirements on section [ph] property lines. We'll be drilling fence to fence from 1280 acreage spacing unit to the next, instead of leaving about 1100 feet or more untouched rock between these two 1200 acre space units. So we will be utilizing all the reservoirs within our space unit.


----------



## a_majoor

Attempting to take energy from literally "nothing". Of course tampering with the fundimental structure of the Universe and Space/Time might not be such a good idea in the long run.....

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=darpa-casimir-effect-research



> *Research in a Vacuum: DARPA Tries to Tap Elusive Casimir Effect for Breakthrough Technology
> DARPA mainly hopes that research on this quantum quirk can produce futuristic microdevices*
> By Adam Marcus
> 
> 
> Named for a Dutch physicist, the Casimir effect governs interactions of matter with the energy that is present in a vacuum. Success in harnessing this force could someday help researchers develop low-friction ballistics and even levitating objects that defy gravity. For now, the U.S. Defense Department's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has launched a two-year, $10-million project encouraging scientists to work on ways to manipulate this quirk of quantum electrodynamics.
> 
> Vacuums generally are thought to be voids, but Hendrik Casimir believed these pockets of nothing do indeed contain fluctuations of electromagnetic waves. He suggested, in work done in the 1940s with fellow Dutch physicist Dirk Polder, that two metal plates held apart in a vacuum could trap the waves, creating vacuum energy that, depending on the situation, could attract or repel the plates. As the boundaries of a region of vacuum move, the variation in vacuum energy (also called zero-point energy) leads to the Casimir effect. Recent research done at Harvard University, Vrije University Amsterdam and elsewhere has proved Casimir correct—and given some experimental underpinning to DARPA's request for research proposals.
> 
> Investigators from five institutions—Harvard, Yale University, the University of California, Riverside, and two national labs, Argonne and Los Alamos—received funding. DARPA will assess the groups' progress in early 2011 to see if any practical applications might emerge from the research. "If the program delivers, there's a good chance for a follow-on program to apply" the research, says Thomas Kenny, the DARPA physicist in charge of the initiative.
> 
> Program documents on the DARPA Web site state the goal of the Casimir Effect Enhancement program "is to develop new methods to control and manipulate attractive and repulsive forces at surfaces based on engineering of the Casimir force. One could leverage this ability to control phenomena such as adhesion in nanodevices, drag on vehicles, and many other interactions of interest to the [Defense Department]."
> 
> Nanoscale design is the most likely place to start and is also the arena where levitation could emerge. Materials scientists working to build tiny machines called microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) struggle with surface interactions, called van der Waals forces, that can make nanomaterials sticky to the point of permanent adhesion, a phenomenon known as "stiction". To defeat stiction, many MEMS devices are coated with Teflon or similar low-friction substances or are studded with tiny springs that keep the surfaces apart. Materials that did not require such fixes could make nanotechnology more reliable. Such materials could skirt another problem posed by adhesion: Because surface stickiness at the nanoscale is much greater than it is for larger objects, MEMS designers resort to making their devices relatively stiff. That reduces adhesion (stiff structures do not readily bend against each other), but it reduces flexibility and increases power demands.
> 
> Under certain conditions, manipulating the Casimir effect could create repellant forces between nanoscale surfaces. Hong Tang and his colleagues at Yale School of Engineering & Applied Science sold DARPA on their proposal to assess Casimir forces between miniscule silicon crystals, like those that make up computer chips. "Then we're going to engineer the structure of the surface of the silicon device to get some unusual Casimir forces to produce repulsion," he says. In theory, he adds, that could mean building a device capable of levitation.
> 
> Such claims emit a strong scent of fantasy, but researchers say incremental successes could open the door to significant breakthroughs in key areas of nanotechnology, and perhaps larger structures. "What I can contribute is to understand the role of the Casimir force in real working devices, such as microwave switches, MEMS oscillators and gyroscopes, that normally are made of silicon crystals, not perfect metals," Tang says.
> 
> The request for proposals closed in September. The project received "a lot of interest," Kenny says. "I was surprised at the creativity of the proposals, and at the practicality," he adds, although he declined to reveal how many teams submitted proposals. "It wasn't pure theory. There were real designs that looked buildable, and the physics looked well understood."
> 
> Still, the Casimir project was a "hard sell" for DARPA administrators, Kenny acknowledges. "It's very fundamental, very risky, and even speculative on the physics side," he says. "Convincing the agency management that the timing was right was difficult, especially given the number of programs that must compete for money within the agency."
> 
> DARPA managers certainly would be satisfied if the Casimir project produced anything tangible, because earlier attempts had failed. Between 1996 and 2003, for example, NASA had a program to explore what it calls Breakthrough Propulsion Physics to build spacecraft capable of traveling at speeds faster than light (299,790 kilometers per second). One way to do that is by harnessing the Casimir force in a vacuum and using the energy to power a propulsion system. The program closed with this epitaph on its Web site: "No breakthroughs appear imminent."
> 
> One of many problems with breakthrough propulsion based on the Casimir force is that whereas zero-point energy may be theoretically infinite, it is not necessarily limitless in practice—or even minutely accessible. "It's not so much that these look like really good energy schemes so much as they are clever ways of broaching some really hard questions and testing them," says Marc Millis, the NASA physicist who oversaw the propulsion program.
> 
> The DARPA program faces several formidable obstacles, as well, cautions Jeremy Munday, a physicist at California Institute of Technology who studies the Casimir effect. For starters, simply measuring the Casimir force is difficult enough. These experiments take many years to complete, adds Munday, who recently published a paper in Nature (Scientific American is part of the Nature Publishing Group) describing his own research. What's more, he says, although several groups have measured the Casimir force, only a few have been able to modify it significantly. Still, Munday adds, the exploratory nature of the program means its goals and expectations are "quite reasonable."
> 
> Tang is pragmatic about his efforts, given the unlikelihood that Casimir force will ever provide much energy to harness. "The force is really small," he says. "After all, a vacuum is a vacuum."
> 
> Yet sometimes the best science can hope for is baby steps. "To come up with anything that can lead to a viable energy conversion or a viable force producing effect, we're not anywhere close," Millis says. "But then, of course, you don't make progress unless you try.


----------



## krustyrl

"But what does it all mean, Basil.?"   (Austin Powers)    ???


----------



## a_majoor

More oil from Sask and North Dakota:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/11/north-dakota-oil-production-projected.html



> *North Dakota Oil Production Projected to be 350,000 Barrels of Oil Per Day in 2010*
> 
> Forbes reports that North Dakota's oil production is expected to approach 350,000 barrels next year, an increase of more than 50 percent, because of a major pipeline expansion and the anticipated startup of a shipping terminal near Stanley (SXE) that will be able to haul 60,000 barrels a day by rail to refineries near Cushing, Okla.
> 
> The latest statistics for North Dakota oil production are for Sept, 2009. They report 238,003 barrels of oil per day. Production has been increasing by 5,000 to 10,000 barrels of oil per day each month. If this trend is continuing then November, 2009 production would be 248,000-258,000 barrels of oil per day and would be in the range of 255,000-265,000 barrels of oil per day at the end of 2009.
> 
> Bakken oil production (Sask, ND, Montana) would be in the 500,000 barrel of oil per day range in 2011-2012 and onwards.
> 
> The 500,000 bpd is over 3 times what was coming from the Bakken two years ago and double the estimate of whether Bakken could move the needle for US production.
> 
> 465,000 bpd from Montana and ND would be 14 million barrels of oil per month.
> 
> US production of oil is 162 million barrels per month.
> 
> So over 8% of US oil production.
> 
> The oil production technology for the Bakken is still improving and they are talking about possibly getting to 30% of the oil in place. 400 billion barrels of oil in place. That would be 120 billion barrels. So the 6-8 billion barrels of reserves talk is a snapshot.
> 
> 167 billion barrels of oil in-place in the North Dakota portion of the Bakken and not including Three Forks Sanish oil.
> 
> It also combines with Gulf of Mexico oil for the USA.
> 
> Eventually offshore drilling in California would be allowed (if oil problems became more serious) and currently off limits Alaska oil.
> 
> Saskatchewan is producing 65,000 barrels of oil per day from its part of the Bakken
> 
> Analysts have calculated that Bakken plays will break even with oil at about $30 (U.S.) a barrel. That calculation is part of the reason why valuations in the area have been high. Crescent Point, for example, paid $142,643 (Canadian) per producing barrel of oil equivalent for TriAxon – double the average for Canadian energy transactions this year.
> 
> Saskatchwan oil companies have yet to find a way to wring more than about 20 per cent of the oil from the ground. New techniques are promising – underground water injections, for example, could boost recovery rates to over 30 per cent – but the Saskatchewan plays retain technological risk. Crescent Point, for example, has told investors it has the potential to more than double its reserves – and risk that new ground won't be as productive.
> 
> North Dakota's current production now exceeds 238,000 barrels a day, which ranks the state behind only Texas, Alaska and California. The state's output supplies about 2 percent of the nation's domestic crude oil output.
> 
> If oil prices stay above $60 a barrel and contemplated oil transportation projects become reality, the state could be producing 400,000 barrels of oil daily within five years, said Lynn Helms, director of the state Department of Mineral Resources.
> 
> Canadian Business reports: Billionaire oilman Harold Hamm believes North Dakota's oil reserves are double the federal government's estimates.
> 
> He said the U.S. Geological Survey's estimate of 4.2 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken shale formation could be "100 percent off."
> 
> Hamm is the chairman and chief executive officer of Continental Resources Inc., an independent oil and gas company based in Enid, Okla. His company was one of the first to tap the Bakken formation in North Dakota's oil patch 20 years ago.
> 
> The Bakken formation encompasses some 25,000 square miles in North Dakota, Montana, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. About two-thirds of the acreage is in western North Dakota.
> 
> Hamm also said he believes domestic reserves are growing, and not just in North Dakota.
> 
> More expansion being planned by the pipeline companies Enbridge Inc. ( ENB ) and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners (EPL ) LP would allow another boost that could put the state's daily production at 400,000 barrels, Helms said.
> 
> Recovery Rate and Well Differences Between Saskatchewan and North Dakota Bakken
> 
> From Bakken Discussion Group
> 
> A typical Bakken section is generally recognized by third party reserve evaluators as containing approximately 4.0 mmbbls of original- oil-in-place with proved plus probable reserve recovery estimated at 12.5%. PetroBakken's internal assessments, based on ongoing strong production performance combined with increased well density and frac intensity is ultimately expected to increase reserve recovery to up to 22.5%. PetroBakken will control 440 net sections of land, with an estimated ultimate recovery factor of 22.5%, the potential recoverable resource could approach 400 mmbbls.
> 
> Recovery rate estimates in North Dakota have been about 1-2%.
> 
> The increased recovery rate seems to be based upon "using multi-leg horizontal drilling technology that reduces inter-well distance between horizontal legs from 400 metres to 200 metres". Currently in North Dakota the smallest horizontal drilling unit is 640 acres. If the ND oil companies downsize to the point where there is a horizontal leg every 200 meters, then that would result in something like 7 wells per 640 acres. Reducing interwell distance could allow recovery rates of 22.5% vs the something like 10% currently being advertised. The economics of one well that costs $5 million and recovers 10% is a lot different than the economics of 7 wells costing $35 million and recovering 22.5%.
> 
> The bakken is much closer to the surface in Canada such that it is cheaper to drill each one of those wells.
> 
> The Canadian bakken is a different animal, with decent intergranular porosity and permeability, more like a conventional reservoir and much shallower.


----------



## a_majoor

Destroying energy rather than creating it:

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/corn-ethanol-biofuels/index/a/24400



> *Overhyped Products: Corn Ethanol *
> Scott Reeves  Sep 28, 2009 8:40 am
> 
> *There’s just one problem with corn-based ethanol: It takes 29% more fossil energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the ethanol release when burned as fuel.*
> 
> The disparity between energy input and output makes ethanol the triumph of politics over logic.
> 
> Uncle Sam mandates the use of ethanol as a fuel additive and pushes it as an alternative of imported oil. Politicians of both parties have long promoted ethanol as a way to reduce the nation’s dependence on imported oil.
> 
> At a public forum in 2007, President Bush made the standard case for ethanol:
> 
> “First of all, I'm guilty on promoting ethanol. And the reason is, is because I think it's in our interests to diversify away from oil. And the reason why it's -- I know that's hard for a Texan to say. But the reason why we've got to diversify away from oil is that we end up with dependency on oil from certain parts of the world where people don't particularly like us...
> And so, I promoted ethanol, and still believe it's important for the future.”
> 
> Last March, California Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she supported increasing the ethanol-to-gasoline blend rate to 15% from 10% in an effort to reduce dependence on oil imports. “It seems to me we should be able to do that,” Pelosi told reporters after addressing the National Farmers Union in Washington.
> 
> What seemed like a foolproof business plan fell flat with investors, who did the math and concluded that corn-based ethanol makes no long-term sense.
> 
> VeraSun and Pacific Ethanol (PEIX) have been pounded. Cascade Investment, a firm owned by Microsoft (MSFT) chairman Bill Gates, sold its 21% stake in Pacific Ethanol in 2007.
> 
> Ethanol isn’t fancy or magical. It’s an alcohol produced by a distilling process similar to that used to make hard liquor. Blending ethanol with gasoline allows oil companies to boost octane more cheaply than additional refining.
> 
> *Despite the hype, ethanol doesn’t produce a net energy gain because corn production requires large amounts of fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides. The manufacture and application of these chemicals consumes large amounts of energy. The corn must be harvested and hauled to production plants to be distilled into alcohol, which requires more energy. Then the ethanol must be distributed to users by rail and truck. After all that, it’s time to think about the air pollution and wastewater created by ethanol production plus the potential problem of chemical-laden runoff from the cornfields.*
> 
> Increasing acreage devoted to corn won’t tip the balance in ethanol’s favor because the new land is likely to be less productive than land already cultivated, increasing the cost of production -- especially fertilization. The use of additional energy needed to make marginal land productive would be so great that a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concludes that ethanol production expansion would boost greenhouse gas emissions above current levels.
> 
> Using alcohol as a fuel isn’t new. Nicholas Otto, the German inventor best known for developing the internal combustion engine, used ethanol as the fuel for one of his engines in 1876.
> 
> What’s new is the unintended consequence of a federal energy program. The Clean Air Act of 1990, designed to reduce air pollution by replacing MTBE with ethanol, instead shovels money to favored companies such as Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), a diversified agricultural company.
> 
> “The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent US history,” James Bovard wrote in a report for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington, DC. “ADM [has] lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return [has] reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers.”
> 
> Ethanol made from cellulose, the fibrous material found in plants, contains less energy than fuel derived from corn. If forest or grassland is cleared to plant crops used to make ethanol, it’s usually done by burning off existing vegetation. This releases large amounts of carbon dioxide.
> 
> Some say the problem could be resolved, at least in part, by using agricultural waste as the feedstock for ethanol or by growing grass on marginal land that won’t support commercial crops. But that will require new technology because only sugars and seeds can now be distilled efficiently into alcohol. Chevron (CVX) is working with major universities in an effort to develop plants that make better feedstock for cellulosic ethanol and to improve processing methods.
> 
> Oil now provides about 40% of the world’s total energy and from 2000 to 2007, the developing world accounted for 85% of the growth in world demand, the Wall Street Journal reports. Oil will be increasingly important in China and India. This means money will continue to flow to some unsavory characters and manic price swings will persist. Last year, the price of a barrel of oil ranged from $147.27 in July to $32.40 in December. Such fluctuations make it difficult to plan and invest in alternative fuels.
> 
> Ethanol supporters say subsidies are needed to level the playing field. But US oil subsidies total about $1 billion a year, or six to eight times less than ethanol subsidies.
> 
> For now, politics trumps the market. In March 2008, the US Energy Information Administration estimated that US ethanol production capacity was 7.2 billion gallons per year with an additional 6.2 billion gallons of capacity under construction.
> 
> In 2007, the US consumed 6.8 billion gallons of ethanol and 500 million gallons of biodiesel. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 expanded the Renewable Fuels Standard to require that 36 billion gallons of ethanol and other biofuels be blended into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel by 2022.
> 
> So, don’t expect an outbreak of rationality in Washington anytime soon -- especially as long as the Iowa caucus comes first in the presidential nomination process and farm states can swing the election or determine which party holds the majority in Congress.


----------



## a_majoor

The ultimate in personal empowerment: www.nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/compact-proton-beam-accelerators-and.html

The article on today's page talks about compact fusion generators. Given the nature of what they are proposing (microscopic fusion reactors engraved on a chip) I could see a realized device with thousands of parallel units, control systems and so on being about the size of a laptop, and evolving to iPhone size from there (remember, I'm talking about the complete device with all the associated systems. Tha actual fusion reactions would take place in an area the size of a laptop CPU or cell phone sim card).

Mr Fusion would not work on old banana peels, but other than having to find a supply of Boron fuel and a compact ion source to get started, something like this would keep you pretty self sufficient in energy regardless of what you do. Seeing that energy use is a key indicator of national and personal wealth, being able to access huge amounts of electrical energy in cheap, portable and compact form would boost GDP and personal income by an order of magnitude.


----------



## a_majoor

More Canadian oil plays in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Smart investors might look at these plays, especially if "green" fanatics are trying to shut down the Alberta tar sands:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/cardium-and-viking-oil-plays.html



> *Cardium and Viking Oil Plays*
> 
> Multistage horizontal drilling is opening previously ignored section of the Cardium Pembina oil reserve
> 
> Pembina, with an estimated 7.8 billion barrels of original oil in place, is Canada's largest conventional onshore oilfield. Despite extensive secondary recovery through waterfloods, less than 1.4 billion barrels has been produced. The scale of the remaining prize continues to draw plenty of interest
> 
> The new Cardium oil play in Alberta is rapidly approaching the stature of Saskatchewan’s famous Bakken play.
> 
> Both the Bakken and the Cardium are “tight” or “unconventional” plays, where the oil is hosted in a rock, as opposed to a more porous, and usual sand formation.
> 
> They were well known but uneconomic zones until a few years ago, when advancements in horizontal drilling and fracing technologies allowed them to be exploited. The Bakken is ranked by most Canadian analysts as the most profitable oil play in the country now, with Cardium as #2.
> 
> With the Cardium in particular, there is very little geological risk. It has been drilled through thousands of times to get to the oil in the more porous, productive zone below it. The market loves these low risk plays that are very “repeatable” – each new well is likely to produce just as the one before it.
> 
> Thirdly, these new technologies are continually improving the economics in these formations. Four years later, companies are still increasing production from Bakken wells, and increasing the overall amount of oil recovered from the formations. The Cardium is a younger play, only a year old, and as management teams tweak the way they drill and frac these wells, it may one day get even closer to Bakken economics.
> 
> The Viking oil play in Southwest Saskatchewan stands at approximately 6 billion barrels, implying that the play is second only to the Cardium in OOIP among non-oil sands resources. Similar to the Cardium, the Viking is a legacy oil pool that has been developed since the 1950s with older technology, and that now stands to be rejuvenated by virtue of advancements in horizontal multi-stage fraccing techniques.
> 
> Mid-Continent shale may have as much as 500 billion barrels of oil. Bakken Shale oil production alone may reach 500,000 barrels per day in 2011. The Three Forks is rumored to contain just as much oil as the Bakken.


----------



## a_majoor

More alternatives:

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1



> *Uranium Is So Last Century — Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke*
> 
> The thick hardbound volume was sitting on a shelf in a colleague’s office when Kirk Sorensen spotted it. A rookie NASA engineer at the Marshall Space Flight Center, Sorensen was researching nuclear-powered propulsion, and the book’s title — Fluid Fuel Reactors — jumped out at him. He picked it up and thumbed through it. Hours later, he was still reading, enchanted by the ideas but struggling with the arcane writing. “I took it home that night, but I didn’t understand all the nuclear terminology,” Sorensen says. He pored over it in the coming months, ultimately deciding that he held in his hands the key to the world’s energy future.
> 
> Published in 1958 under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission as part of its Atoms for Peace program, Fluid Fuel Reactors is a book only an engineer could love: a dense, 978-page account of research conducted at Oak Ridge National Lab, most of it under former director Alvin Weinberg. What caught Sorensen’s eye was the description of Weinberg’s experiments producing nuclear power with an element called thorium.
> 
> At the time, in 2000, Sorensen was just 25, engaged to be married and thrilled to be employed at his first serious job as a real aerospace engineer. A devout Mormon with a linebacker’s build and a marine’s crew cut, Sorensen made an unlikely iconoclast. But the book inspired him to pursue an intense study of nuclear energy over the next few years, during which he became convinced that thorium could solve the nuclear power industry’s most intractable problems. After it has been used as fuel for power plants, the element leaves behind minuscule amounts of waste. And that waste needs to be stored for only a few hundred years, not a few hundred thousand like other nuclear byproducts. Because it’s so plentiful in nature, it’s virtually inexhaustible. It’s also one of only a few substances that acts as a thermal breeder, in theory creating enough new fuel as it breaks down to sustain a high-temperature chain reaction indefinitely. And it would be virtually impossible for the byproducts of a thorium reactor to be used by terrorists or anyone else to make nuclear weapons.
> 
> Weinberg and his men proved the efficacy of thorium reactors in hundreds of tests at Oak Ridge from the ’50s through the early ’70s. But thorium hit a dead end. Locked in a struggle with a nuclear- armed Soviet Union, the US government in the ’60s chose to build uranium-fueled reactors — in part because they produce plutonium that can be refined into weapons-grade material. The course of the nuclear industry was set for the next four decades, and thorium power became one of the great what-if technologies of the 20th century.
> 
> Today, however, Sorensen spearheads a cadre of outsiders dedicated to sparking a thorium revival. When he’s not at his day job as an aerospace engineer at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama — or wrapping up the master’s in nuclear engineering he is soon to earn from the University of Tennessee — he runs a popular blog called Energy From Thorium. A community of engineers, amateur nuclear power geeks, and researchers has gathered around the site’s forum, ardently discussing the future of thorium. The site even links to PDFs of the Oak Ridge archives, which Sorensen helped get scanned. Energy From Thorium has become a sort of open source project aimed at resurrecting long-lost energy technology using modern techniques.
> 
> And the online upstarts aren’t alone. Industry players are looking into thorium, and governments from Dubai to Beijing are funding research. India is betting heavily on the element.
> 
> The concept of nuclear power without waste or proliferation has obvious political appeal in the US, as well. The threat of climate change has created an urgent demand for carbon-free electricity, and the 52,000 tons of spent, toxic material that has piled up around the country makes traditional nuclear power less attractive. President Obama and his energy secretary, Steven Chu, have expressed general support for a nuclear renaissance. Utilities are investigating several next-gen alternatives, including scaled-down conventional plants and “pebble bed” reactors, in which the nuclear fuel is inserted into small graphite balls in a way that reduces the risk of meltdown.
> 
> Those technologies are still based on uranium, however, and will be beset by the same problems that have dogged the nuclear industry since the 1960s. It is only thorium, Sorensen and his band of revolutionaries argue, that can move the country toward a new era of safe, clean, affordable energy.
> 
> Named for the Norse god of thunder, thorium is a lustrous silvery-white metal. It’s only slightly radioactive; you could carry a lump of it in your pocket without harm. On the periodic table of elements, it’s found in the bottom row, along with other dense, radioactive substances — including uranium and plutonium — known as actinides.
> 
> Actinides are dense because their nuclei contain large numbers of neutrons and protons. But it’s the strange behavior of those nuclei that has long made actinides the stuff of wonder. At intervals that can vary from every millisecond to every hundred thousand years, actinides spin off particles and decay into more stable elements. And if you pack together enough of certain actinide atoms, their nuclei will erupt in a powerful release of energy.
> 
> To understand the magic and terror of those two processes working in concert, think of a game of pool played in 3-D. The nucleus of the atom is a group of balls, or particles, racked at the center. Shoot the cue ball — a stray neutron — and the cluster breaks apart, or fissions. Now imagine the same game played with trillions of racked nuclei. Balls propelled by the first collision crash into nearby clusters, which fly apart, their stray neutrons colliding with yet more clusters. Voilè0: a nuclear chain reaction.
> 
> Actinides are the only materials that split apart this way, and if the collisions are uncontrolled, you unleash hell: a nuclear explosion. But if you can control the conditions in which these reactions happen — by both controlling the number of stray neutrons and regulating the temperature, as is done in the core of a nuclear reactor — you get useful energy. Racks of these nuclei crash together, creating a hot glowing pile of radioactive material. If you pump water past the material, the water turns to steam, which can spin a turbine to make electricity.
> 
> Uranium is currently the actinide of choice for the industry, used (sometimes with a little plutonium) in 100 percent of the world’s commercial reactors. But it’s a problematic fuel. In most reactors, sustaining a chain reaction requires extremely rare uranium-235, which must be purified, or enriched, from far more common U-238. The reactors also leave behind plutonium-239, itself radioactive (and useful to technologically sophisticated organizations bent on making bombs). And conventional uranium-fueled reactors require lots of engineering, including neutron-absorbing control rods to damp the reaction and gargantuan pressurized vessels to move water through the reactor core. If something goes kerflooey, the surrounding countryside gets blanketed with radioactivity (think Chernobyl). Even if things go well, toxic waste is left over.
> 
> When he took over as head of Oak Ridge in 1955, Alvin Weinberg realized that thorium by itself could start to solve these problems. It’s abundant — the US has at least 175,000 tons of the stuff — and doesn’t require costly processing. It is also extraordinarily efficient as a nuclear fuel. As it decays in a reactor core, its byproducts produce more neutrons per collision than conventional fuel. The more neutrons per collision, the more energy generated, the less total fuel consumed, and the less radioactive nastiness left behind.
> 
> Even better, Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. The design is based on the lab’s finding that thorium dissolves in hot liquid fluoride salts. This fission soup is poured into tubes in the core of the reactor, where the nuclear chain reaction — the billiard balls colliding — happens. The system makes the reactor self-regulating: When the soup gets too hot it expands and flows out of the tubes — slowing fission and eliminating the possibility of another Chernobyl. Any actinide can work in this method, but thorium is particularly well suited because it is so efficient at the high temperatures at which fission occurs in the soup.
> 
> In 1965, Weinberg and his team built a working reactor, one that suspended the byproducts of thorium in a molten salt bath, and he spent the rest of his 18-year tenure trying to make thorium the heart of the nation’s atomic power effort. He failed. Uranium reactors had already been established, and Hyman Rickover, de facto head of the US nuclear program, wanted the plutonium from uranium-powered nuclear plants to make bombs. Increasingly shunted aside, Weinberg was finally forced out in 1973.
> 
> That proved to be “the most pivotal year in energy history,” according to the US Energy Information Administration. It was the year the Arab states cut off oil supplies to the West, setting in motion the petroleum-fueled conflicts that roil the world to this day. The same year, the US nuclear industry signed contracts to build a record 41 nuke plants, all of which used uranium. And 1973 was the year that thorium R&D faded away — and with it the realistic prospect for a golden nuclear age when electricity would be too cheap to meter and clean, safe nuclear plants would dot the green countryside.
> 
> The core of this hypothetical nuclear reactor is a cluster of tubes filled with a fluoride thorium solution. 1// compressor, 2// turbine, 3// 1,000 megawatt generator, 4// heat exchanger, 5// containment vessel, 6// reactor core.
> Illustration: Martin Woodtli
> 
> When Sorensen and his pals began delving into this history, they discovered not only an alternative fuel but also the design for the alternative reactor. Using that template, the Energy From Thorium team helped produce a design for a new liquid fluoride thorium reactor, or LFTR (pronounced “lifter”), which, according to estimates by Sorensen and others, would be some 50 percent more efficient than today’s light-water uranium reactors. If the US reactor fleet could be converted to LFTRs overnight, existing thorium reserves would power the US for a thousand years.
> 
> Overseas, the nuclear power establishment is getting the message. In France, which already generates more than 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, the Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie has been building models of variations of Weinberg’s design for molten salt reactors to see if they can be made to work efficiently. The real action, though, is in India and China, both of which need to satisfy an immense and growing demand for electricity. The world’s largest source of thorium, India, doesn’t have any commercial thorium reactors yet. But it has announced plans to increase its nuclear power capacity: Nuclear energy now accounts for 9 percent of India’s total energy; the government expects that by 2050 it will be 25 percent, with thorium generating a large part of that. China plans to build dozens of nuclear reactors in the coming decade, and it hosted a major thorium conference last October. The People’s Republic recently ordered mineral refiners to reserve the thorium they produce so it can be used to generate nuclear power.
> 
> In the United States, the LFTR concept is gaining momentum, if more slowly. Sorensen and others promote it regularly at energy conferences. Renowned climatologist James Hansen specifically cited thorium as a potential fuel source in an “Open Letter to Obama” after the election. And legislators are acting, too. At least three thorium-related bills are making their way through the Capitol, including the Senate’s Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act, cosponsored by Orrin Hatch of Utah and Harry Reid of Nevada, which would provide $250 million for research at the Department of Energy. “I don’t know of anything more beneficial to the country, as far as environmentally sound power, than nuclear energy powered by thorium,” Hatch says. (Both senators have long opposed nuclear waste dumps in their home states.)
> 
> Unfortunately, $250 million won’t solve the problem. The best available estimates for building even one molten salt reactor run much higher than that. And there will need to be lots of startup capital if thorium is to become financially efficient enough to persuade nuclear power executives to scrap an installed base of conventional reactors. “What we have now works pretty well,” says John Rowe, CEO of Exelon, a power company that owns the country’s largest portfolio of nuclear reactors, “and it will for the foreseeable future.”
> 
> Critics point out that thorium’s biggest advantage — its high efficiency — actually presents challenges. Since the reaction is sustained for a very long time, the fuel needs special containers that are extremely durable and can stand up to corrosive salts. The combination of certain kinds of corrosion-resistant alloys and graphite could meet these requirements. But such a system has yet to be proven over decades.
> 
> And LFTRs face more than engineering problems; they’ve also got serious perception problems. To some nuclear engineers, a LFTR is a little … unsettling. It’s a chaotic system without any of the closely monitored control rods and cooling towers on which the nuclear industry stakes its claim to safety. A conventional reactor, on the other hand, is as tightly engineered as a jet fighter. And more important, Americans have come to regard anything that’s in any way nuclear with profound skepticism.
> 
> So, if US utilities are unlikely to embrace a new generation of thorium reactors, a more viable strategy would be to put thorium into existing nuclear plants. In fact, work in that direction is starting to happen — thanks to a US company operating in Russia.
> 
> Located outside Moscow, the Kurchatov Institute is known as the Los Alamos of Russia. Much of the work on the Soviet nuclear arsenal took place here. In the late ’80s, as the Soviet economy buckled, Kurchatov scientists found themselves wearing mittens to work in unheated laboratories. Then, in the mid-’90s, a savior appeared: a Virginia company called Thorium Power.
> 
> # Uranium-Fueled Light-Water Reactor
> # Fuel Uranium fuel rods
> # Fuel input per gigawatt output 250 tons raw uranium
> # Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $50-60 million
> # Coolant Water
> # Proliferation potential Medium
> # Footprint 200,000-300,000 square feet, surrounded by a low-density population zone
> # Seed-and-Blanket Reactor
> # Fuel Thorium oxide and uranium oxide rods
> # Fuel input per gigawatt output 4.6 tons raw thorium, 177 tons raw uranium
> # Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $50-60 million
> # Coolant Water
> # Proliferation potential None
> # Footprint 200,000-300,000 square feet, surrounded by a low-density population zone
> # Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor
> # Fuel Thorium and uranium fluoride solution
> # Fuel input per gigawatt output 1 ton raw thorium
> # Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $10,000 (estimated)
> # Coolant Self-regulating
> # Proliferation potential None
> # Footprint 2,000-3,000 square feet, with no need for a buffer zone
> 
> Founded by another Alvin — American nuclear physicist Alvin Radkowsky — Thorium Power, since renamed Lightbridge, is attempting to commercialize technology that will replace uranium with thorium in conventional reactors. From 1950 to 1972, Radkowsky headed the team that designed reactors to power Navy ships and submarines, and in 1977 Westinghouse opened a reactor he had drawn up — with a uranium thorium core. The reactor ran efficiently for five years until the experiment was ended. Radkowsky formed his company in 1992 with millions of dollars from the Initiative for Proliferation Prevention Program, essentially a federal make-work effort to keep those chilly former Soviet weapons scientists from joining another team.
> 
> The reactor design that Lightbridge created is known as seed-and-blanket. Its core consists of a seed of enriched uranium rods surrounded by a blanket of rods made of thorium oxide mixed with uranium oxide. This yields a safer, longer-lived reaction than uranium rods alone. It also produces less waste, and the little bit it does leave behind is unsuitable for use in weapons.
> 
> CEO Seth Grae thinks it’s better business to convert existing reactors than it is to build new ones. “We’re just trying to replace leaded fuel with unleaded,” he says. “You don’t have to replace engines or build new gas stations.” Grae is speaking from Abu Dhabi, where he has multimillion-dollar contracts to advise the United Arab Emirates on its plans for nuclear power. In August 2009, Lightbridge signed a deal with the French firm Areva, the world’s largest nuclear power producer, to investigate alternative nuclear fuel assemblies.
> 
> Until developing the consulting side of its business, Lightbridge struggled to build a convincing business model. Now, Grae says, the company has enough revenue to commercialize its seed-and-blanket system. It needs approval from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission — which could be difficult given that the design was originally developed and tested in Russian reactors. Then there’s the nontrivial matter of winning over American nuclear utilities. Seed-and-blanket doesn’t just have to work — it has to deliver a significant economic edge.
> 
> For Sorensen, putting thorium into a conventional reactor is a half measure, like putting biofuel in a Hummer. But he acknowledges that the seed-and-blanket design has potential to get the country on its way to a greener, safer nuclear future. “The real enemy is coal,” he says. “I want to fight it with LFTRs — which are like machine guns — instead of with light-water reactors, which are like bayonets. But when the enemy is spilling into the trench, you affix bayonets and go to work.” The thorium battalion is small, but — as nuclear physics demonstrates — tiny forces can yield powerful effects.
> 
> Richard Martin (rmartin@newwest.net), editor of VON, wrote about the Large Hadron Collider in issue 12.04.


----------



## a_majoor

Wearable solar cells! Just the thing to have on when cought in a sudden shower!:

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/006816.html



> *Microphotovoltaic Cells Could Embed In Clothing
> *
> Very small solar cells open up the possibility of many applications.
> 
> Sandia National Laboratories scientists have developed tiny glitter-sized photovoltaic cells that could revolutionize the way solar energy is collected and used.
> 
> The tiny cells could turn a person into a walking solar battery charger if they were fastened to flexible substrates molded around unusual shapes, such as clothing.
> 
> Such cells could be placed on irregular building shapes, vehicle surfaces, and surfaces where conventional PV can't attach.
> 
> Sandia lead investigator Greg Nielson said the research team has identified more than 20 benefits of scale for its microphotovoltaic cells. These include new applications, improved performance, potential for reduced costs and higher efficiencies.
> 
> “Eventually units could be mass-produced and wrapped around unusual shapes for building-integrated solar, tents and maybe even clothing,” he said. This would make it possible for hunters, hikers or military personnel in the field to recharge batteries for phones, cameras and other electronic devices as they walk or rest.
> 
> The much lower use of silicon should cut costs since silicon is a major portion of the cost of silicon-based PV. This suggests these cells might be able to compete on cost versus the cheaper CdTe and CIGS thin film PV that is currently underselling silicon PV on price.
> 
> “So they use 100 times less silicon to generate the same amount of electricity,” said Okandan. “Since they are much smaller and have fewer mechanical deformations for a given environment than the conventional cells, they may also be more reliable over the long term.”
> 
> The conversion efficiency is pretty high - higher than the cheap thin films.
> 
> Offering a run for their money to conventional large wafers of crystalline silicon, electricity presently can be harvested from the Sandia-created cells with 14.9 percent efficiency. Off-the-shelf commercial modules range from 13 to 20 percent efficient.
> 
> New discoveries for making better solar cells keep getting announced by research labs while a growing assortment of PV makers compete with new approaches for cutting manufacturing and installation costs. Some day PV is going to become a cheap way to generate electricity.
> 
> By Randall Parker at 2009 December 26 08:08 PM  Energy Solar



The true down side of such applications is a large fraction of the PV cells will be shaded by the wearer, so a fairly compled control softwear will be required to regulate the variable energy output of your T shirt (e-shirt?).


----------



## a_majoor

No oil indeed:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/the-mythical-assertion-of-fossil-fuel-scarcity/article1431898/#



> Neil Reynolds
> *The mythical assertion of fossil fuel scarcity *
> We have at least enough to run till 2050 at a minimum, more probably through 2080 and perhaps through 2100
> 
> Neil Reynolds
> 
> Published on Friday, Jan. 15, 2010 12:00AM EST
> 
> Last updated on Saturday, Jan. 16, 2010 3:49AM EST
> 
> Born to an English coal miner's family in 1930, energy economist Peter Odell came by his lifelong interest in carbon fuels naturally. At 80, as professor emeritus of international energy studies at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, he's still interested.
> 
> Writing this month in the European Energy Review, a Netherlands-based trade magazine, Prof. Odell uses his first post-Copenhagen podium to assure people that the world will never use up its global endowment of crude oil - and that we'll consume at least twice as much of it in the 21st century as we did in the 20th.
> 
> As befits an academic who has studied oil economics for decades, Prof. Odell is an acknowledged (though often controversial and occasionally eccentric) global authority on the industry. He calculates that 1.5 trillion barrels of oil have been added to the world's proven reserves since 1971 - the year in which the U.S. hit "Hubbert's Peak" - but only 800 billion barrels have been consumed. He insists that carbon emissions have caused no significant harm so far and are very unlikely, given technological advances, to do so in the future.
> 
> He calculates that China's increase in emissions every day exceed Denmark's celebrated reductions for an entire year. He remains sympathetic (but not committed) to the notion of Russian and Ukrainian theorists that oil is a renewable, self-perpetuating resource. He thinks China will one day buy Exxon, and Russia will one day buy Shell. He predicts that the best days for North Sea oil are still ahead (with 30 billion barrels left to go).
> 
> In his most recent comments, he sets out to de-mythologize the popular but dubious belief that there is an inherent scarcity in the world's carbon fuel resources. In fact, Prof. Odell says, there is no need to foreswear carbon fuels any time in the foreseeable future - which, by his reckoning, takes us safely through 2050 at a minimum, more probably through 2080 and perhaps through 2100.
> 
> He concedes that production of conventional oil will peak around 2050 but insists that the cause will be a global preference for natural gas, not a scarcity of oil. Even in 2100, he says, oil will supply 20 per cent of the world's energy, natural gas another 20 per cent.
> 
> "The oft-heard notion that we are 'about to run out of fossil fuels' is quite simply a myth," he writes. "Nor is it true to say that hydrocarbon production is about to 'peak' any time soon. At least for the first half of the 21st century carbon energy demand limitations will bring no more than modest pressure to bear on the eminently plentiful and generally profitable-to-produce flows of coal, oil and natural gas that are available."
> 
> His argument continues: "To begin with, the world's presently known coal reserves of some 6,300 gigatons are equal to a nominal close-to-1,000 years' supply. ... Total [coal] use over the [next] 100 years will be of the order of about 700 gigatons ... constituting about 11 per cent of the commodity's resource base." (One gigaton is the measure of an explosive force equal to one billion tons of TNT.) (Interpolation: a Gigaton is equal to one billion tons mass in this context, not explosive yeild)
> 
> As for conventional oil, he says, annual production will rise slowly in the next generation - to about 4.5 gigatons in 2030. Current known reserves of recoverable oil now exceed 200 gigatons.
> 
> By conservative calculations, Prof. Odell says, non-conventional oil production (oil sands, shale) will increase rapidly throughout the century, reaching five gigatons a year by 2080. Total production in the entire century will reach 265 gigatons, he writes.
> 
> Over the 21st century as a whole, he says, 1,660 gigatons (of oil-equivalent energy) will be produced and used - compared with a cumulative total in the 20th century of 500 gigatons. In other words, the world will use three times as much energy in the 21st century as it did in the 20th. This threefold increase will primarily reflect "the bountiful nature of the world's endowment of carbon fuels."
> 
> Any significant reduction of carbon emissions in this century, Prof. Odell says, is highly improbable, a conclusion anticipated (he argues) by the Kyoto Protocol. Kyoto required reductions in carbon emissions from a 1990 base - when 3.5 gigatons of oil-equivalent carbon energy was consumed. Instead, by 2005, 4.7 gigatons was consumed. "In marked contrast to this 1.2 gigaton ... rise in carbon energy use," he says, "use of renewables increased by less than 0.2 gigatons oil equivalent. Of this ... 83 per cent was accounted for by nuclear power - a pseudo-renewable energy source."
> 
> As for emissions, Prof. Odell warns that the biggest risk ahead arises from the abrupt closing down of oil production or gas production infrastructure. Without prudent management of drill sites and pipelines, a kind of wildfire release of CO{-2} could occur, releasing vast quantities of carbon into the atmosphere. He rates this risk at a tick above zero.
> 
> Oh yes. Prof. Odell believes production costs for oil will run between $10 (U.S.) and $40 a barrel (inflation adjusted) through the next 25 years - meaning that the quoted price in the years ahead should "remain modest" at roughly $50 a barrel. He could be wrong, of course. But he could be right. In retrospect, optimists often are.


----------



## a_majoor

And to think the McGuinty government in Ontario considers wind turbines the great whitle hope:

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/wind-turbines-leave-clouds-and-energy-inefficiency-their-wake



> *Wind Turbines Leave Clouds and Energy Inefficiency in Their Wake Downstream wind * turbines can lose up to 30 percent of their power
> By Jeremy Hsu
> Posted 01.22.2010 at 4:13 pm 9 Comments
> 
> Turbine Contrails: Clouds form in the wake of the front row of wind turbines at the Horns Rev offshore wind farm near Denmark.  Aeolus
> 
> Clouds stream in the wake of wind turbines arrayed at the Horns Rev offshore wind farm in this stunning photo. But David MacKay, a physicist at the University of Cambridge in the UK, sees the image as illustrating the common problem of back-row wind turbines losing power relative to the front row.
> 
> Downstream wind turbines may lose 20 percent or even 30 percent of their power compared to their fellows in front, according to a study on wake effects at Horns Rev that MacKay highlights on his blog. The paper also emphasizes that different wind directions make it practically impossible to gauge an overall "steady state" for large wind farms, unless researchers can sample wind speeds and directions at multiple points throughout the array.
> 
> This shows that wind energy may represent a highly visible form of alternative energy, but certainly not one without its quirks and controversies. Still, better technology can squeeze more juice out of each gust, and cooperative energy-sharing efforts can help offset the fickle nature of wind power,
> 
> Readers seeking more info on the energy revolution might also look at MacKay's book, Sustainable Energy -- Without the Hot Air. The work has received rave reviews from the likes of Science magazine and The Economist, and it's available for free digital reading here.
> 
> [via David MacKay and Dong Energy]


----------



## a_majoor

If oil is unavailable for import, then the United States can turn to it's massive caol deposits for liquid fuel. This new technique promises to be more cost effective than previous attempts to turn coal to liquid fuel (The writer belongs to the Church of Man Made Global Warmingtm, which explains the constant references to Carbon Dioxide).:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24405/?nlid=2689



> *Cleaner Jet Fuel from Coal*
> 
> A new process could allow Air Force jets to run exclusively on domestically produced biomass and coal.
> By Kevin Bullis
> 
> The Air Force is testing a jet fuel made from coal and plant biomass that could replace petroleum-based fuel and emit less carbon-dioxide compared to using conventional jet fuels. The fuel is made with a process developed by Accelergy, based in Houston, using technology licensed from ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company and the Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota.
> 
> Other recently tested experimental biofuels for jets have required that the aircraft still use at least 50 percent petroleum-based product to meet performance requirements, particularly for the most advanced military jets. But the Accelergy process produces fuels that closely resemble petroleum-based fuels, making it possible to do away with petroleum altogether. Because of this, the new process could help the Air Force meet its goal of using domestic, lower-carbon fuels for half of its fuel needs by 2016. Although the first products will be jet fuels, the process can also be adapted to produce gasoline and diesel.
> 
> The fuel has passed through an initial round of testing, including lab-scale engine tests, and is on track to be flight-tested in 18 months, says Rocco Fiato, vice president of business development at Accelergy.
> 
> Turning coal into liquid fuels is nothing new, but such processes have been inefficient and produced large amounts of CO2 emissions. Accelergy's approach is different because it uses "direct liquefaction," which is similar to the process used to refine petroleum. It involves treating the coal with hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst. Conventional technology for converting coal to liquid fuels breaks the coal down into synthesis gas, which is mostly carbon monoxide with a little bit of hydrogen; the hydrogen and carbon are then recombined to produce liquid hydrocarbons, a process that releases carbon dioxide. Because the Accelergy process skips the need to gasify all of the coal--which consumes a lot of energy--before recombining the hydrogen and carbon, it's more efficient and produces less carbon dioxide. "We don't destroy the molecule in coal. Instead we massage it, inject hydrogen into it, and rearrange it to form the desired hydrocarbons," says Timothy Vail, Accelergy's president and CEO.
> 
> The hydrogen for Accelergy's process comes from two sources--coal and biomass. Accelergy gasifies a portion of the coal they use--about 25 percent of it--as well as cellulosic biomass, from sources such as plant stems and seed husks, to produce syngas. The company then treats the syngas with steam. In this reaction, carbon monoxide reacts with water to form hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Using biomass reduces the net carbon-dioxide emissions, since the biomass absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere as the original plants grew.
> 
> The technology also uses biomass in another way. The company processes seed crops, such as soybeans or camelina, which contain large amounts of oil. After extracting that oil (which leaves behind cellulosic materials that are gasified), the oil is processed to remove oxygen atoms, forming long chains of straight hydrocarbon molecules. These are then treated to make the straight molecules into branch-like molecules that remain liquid at lower temperatures, making them useful in jet fuel.
> 
> The use of biomass reduces net carbon dioxide emissions, but so does the fact that direct liquefaction is more efficient than conventional gasification, says Daniel Cicero, the technology manager for hydrogen and syngas at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), in Morgantown, WV. In gasification, only about 45 percent of the energy in the coal is transferred to the fuel produced. Accelergy claims efficiencies as high as 65 percent using direct liquefaction. Yields of fuel are also higher. Gasification methods produce about two to 2.5 barrels of fuel per ton of coal. Direct liquefaction produces over three barrels per ton of coal, and adding the biomass brings the total to four barrels per ton of coal.
> 
> All told, Fiato says, gasifying coal to produce liquid fuel produces 0.8 tons of carbon dioxide per barrel of fuel, while Accelergy's process produces only 0.125 tons of CO2 per barrel. That makes it competitive with petroleum refining, especially the refining of heavier forms of petroleum. (The fuels produce about the same amount of carbon dioxide when they're burned.)
> 
> In addition to reducing carbon emissions compared to conventional coal to liquids technology, a key advantage of the process is the ability to make high-quality jet fuels. The direct liquefaction of coal produces cycloalkanes, looped molecules that have high energy density, giving airplanes greater range. They are also stable at high temperatures, allowing them to be used in advanced aircraft.
> 
> One drawback to the process is that it costs more than refining petroleum. Indeed, Cicero says that an NETL study of coal and biomass to liquid fuels technology suggests it would not be competitive until petroleum prices stay above $86 to $93 a barrel. (The study was based on conventional gasification processes.) He says that supplying fuel to the Air Force could sustain one or two small Accelergy plants, but to move beyond this would require a price on carbon-dioxide emissions of about $35 a ton.
> 
> Copyright Technology Review 2010.


----------



## a_majoor

Distributed small scale nuclear power, faster, cheaper and more reliable:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/when-it-comes-to-nuclear-power-companies-should-think-small/



> *When It Comes to Nuclear Power, Companies Should Think Small*
> 
> Posted By Will Collier On January 30, 2010 @ 12:00 am In . Column2 01, Environment, Money, Science, Science & Technology, US News, Uncategorized | 23 Comments
> 
> A few months ago, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted permission [1] for initial site work to begin on new nuclear reactors in the United States for the first time since the 1970s. Georgia Power, a subsidiary of the gigantic Southern Company, plans to build the two new reactors at its Vogtle nuclear plant, near Augusta.
> 
> At first glance, I was all in favor of new nuclear construction. Among other reasons, it’s high time we stopped determining energy policy on the basis of a bad Jane Fonda movie. But as a Georgia Power customer — who’s already on the hook [2] for part of the bill for the new facilities — I’m scratching my head a bit over both that price tag, and over the rationale for going back to the old model of massive, complex, and hugely expensive power plants.
> 
> The planned Votgle upgrade is estimated to cost around $14 billion, and each reactor will produce around 1250 megawatts of electricity (MWe). The new reactors will be added to two existing units which were completed during the 1980s.
> 
> The cost of those two original units, estimated at the time to be around $660 million, skyrocketed to nearly $9 billion in the wake of the post-Three Mile Island regulatory blizzard. That jump in costs, which was typical for the industry, effectively ended new nuclear plant construction for a generation.
> 
> As time passed and 70’s anti-nuclear hysteria ebbed, power companies around the country have petitioned the NRC for permission to build new reactors. Some 16 applications have been filed [3] since 2007, with more anticipated.
> 
> All the current NRC applications have one thing in common: they’re for large-scale power plants, technically improved but functionally not dissimilar from the reactors of the 1970s. Today, Jane Fonda is a punchline, Real People is long since off the air, and disco is blessedly still dead, but the big electric companies remain stuck in the ‘70s as far as their strategic planning is concerned.
> 
> While political conservatives generally look favorably upon nuclear energy, the economics remain daunting. In a now-famous paper for Reason [4], Jerry Taylor of Cato said nuclear power “is to the Right what solar is to the Left: Religious devotion in practice, a wonderful technology in theory, but an economic white elephant in fact.” Taylor referenced industry studies showing nuclear electricity costing four to five times as much per kilowatt hour than coal or gas plants, and noted the massive subsidies and loan guarantees handed out to power companies as undermining the cost rationale for nuclear power.
> 
> All of which makes me wonder, again: this is the 21st century — why are we looking at huge, multibillion-dollar facilities in the first place? It’s not like other options don’t exist.
> 
> Take for instance the Hyperion Power Module [5], or HMP. Developed at, and then spun off from, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Hyperion is marketing the diametric opposite of the power companies’ massive and complex facilities. Hyperion’s reactor is a relatively tiny device, about the size of a dinky Smart Car [6].
> 
> Unlike large-scale plants requiring 24/7 monitoring by a small army of engineers and technicians, an HPM contains no moving parts, and is intended to operate for years with no human interaction to speak of. Hyperion reactors are actually intended to be buried underground during their service lives, with no hands-on maintenance at all between refueling cycles, which occur every 7-10 years.
> 
> Of course, a single Hyperion unit is hardly the equivalent of a Westinghouse AP1000 reactor, two of which are planned for the Votgle facility. One HPM generates only 25 MWe, while a massive AP1000 churns out an appropriately massive 1250 MWe or so.
> 
> But nobody ever said you have to buy just one. If we assume that a single new AP1000 costs about $7 billion  for 1250 MWe (which is not entirely fair as “sticker prices” go, since the $14 billion estimate for the Votgle plant upgrade includes financing costs as well as actual production), that works out to about $5.6 million per MWe.
> 
> A single HPM currently lists for $50 million [7] (and I should note here that this is already twice the price Hyperion promised [8] in its initial 2008 press releases). At 25 MWe per unit, we’re looking at $2 million per MWe, a little more than a third of the unit price of power from an AP1000.
> 
> Hyperion says its reactors aren’t intended to replace large-scale generation plants, but the engineer in me wonders, why not? HPMs are built on an assembly line, and Hyperion already has over 100 orders for them. Picking up my calculator again, I figure that in order to equal the output of one AP1000 reactor, I’d need to buy 50 HPMs.
> 
> At $50 million per unit (how about a bulk discount?), that would cost $2.5 billion. Now, I don’t have that kind of cash laying around myself, but you don’t need to be an accountant to see that $2.5 billion is a lot less than $7 billion. And that doesn’t count the untold millions I’d have to spend on the aforementioned army of maintainers for the AP1000 — although either way, you’d need a sizable team of regular power plant workers to maintain the actual power turbines.
> 
> I’m sure that these simple, back-of-the-envelope numbers don’t reflect anything like every detail of big vs. small in nuclear power, but a Hyperion or similar small-scale reactor would have to get a heck of a lot more expensive to cost as much as big, traditional plants.
> 
> There would also be other benefits, in that you wouldn’t have to locate the entire power apparatus out in the middle of nowhere. Hyperion-style reactors can’t melt down, and are designed to be buried in small plots. Why not use that easy portability to distribute your power plants all over the place? Put a couple near your city’s main hospital, a couple more in your industrial zone, with single units scattered around the suburbs and residential cores, and you’ve got a redundant system that’s far less susceptible to, say, blackouts during bad weather, as opposed to running power across hundreds of miles of transmission lines.
> 
> So, Georgia Power, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, et al — why aren’t you thinking small?
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/when-it-comes-to-nuclear-power-companies-should-think-small/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] granted permission: http://southerncompany.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1947
> 
> [2] already on the hook: http://savannahnow.com/node/712724
> 
> [3] 16 applications have been filed: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactorcom.html
> 
> [4] In a now-famous paper for Reason: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9740
> 
> [5] Hyperion Power Module: http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/index.html
> 
> [6] Smart Car: http://www.smartusa.com/smart-car-fortwo.aspx
> 
> [7] currently lists for $50 million: http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/about_invest.html
> 
> [8] the price Hyperion promised: http://gizmodo.com/5083522/backyard-nuclear-reactors-now-in-production-cost-25-million-each


----------



## a_majoor

While I can't claim to fully understand this, it seems to be a means of using biological process to strip CO2 and H2O into CO and H2 in a low energy and temperature version of the Fischer–Tropsch process. The link includes a short video which explains(?) this further:

http://www.carbonsciences.com/01/technology.html



> *CO2-to-Fuel Technology*
> 
> Carbon Sciences is developing a breakthrough technology to recycle CO2 emissions into fuels such as gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel. Innovating at the intersection of chemical engineering and bio-engineering disciplines, we are developing a highly scalable biocatalytic process to meet the fuel needs of the world.
> 
> The fuels we use today, such as gasoline and jet fuel, are made up of chains of hydrogen and carbon atoms aptly called hydrocarbons. In general, the greater the number of carbon atoms there are in a hydrocarbon molecule, the greater the energy content of that fuel. For example, gasoline has hydrocarbons with 7 to 10 carbon atoms and jet fuel has 10 to 16 carbon atoms. Hydrocarbons are naturally occurring in fuel sources such as petroleum and natural gas. To create fuel, hydrogen and carbon atoms must be bonded together to create hydrocarbon molecules. These molecules can then be used as basic building blocks to produce various gaseous and liquid fuels.
> 
> Due to its high reactivity, carbon atoms do not usually exist in a pure form, but as parts of other molecules. CO2 is one of the most prevalent and basic sources of carbon atoms. Unfortunately, it is also one of the most stable molecules. This means that it may require a great deal of energy to break apart CO2 and extract carbon atoms for making new hydrocarbons. This high energy requirement has made CO2 to fuel recycling technologies uneconomical in the past. However, Carbon Sciences is developing a proprietary process that requires significantly less energy than other approaches that have been tried. Also, with the global demand for fuel and price of oil projected to rise continuously in the foreseeable future, the economics have changed in favor of certain innovative lower energy approaches, such as Carbon Sciences' breakthrough technology.
> 
> Breakthrough Biocatalytic Process
> 
> Some of the known approaches for CO2 to fuel recycling include (1) direct photolysis which uses intense light energy to break off the oxygen atoms in CO2, and (2) chemically reacting carbon dioxide gas (CO2) with hydrogen gas (H2) to create methane or methanol. Both of these conventional engineering approaches require immense energy due to high pressure and high temperature chemical processes. For certain applications such as military and space, the high cost of these technologies may be justifiable. However, we do not believe these approaches will be economically viable in creating transportation fuels for global consumption.
> 
> By innovating at the intersection of chemical engineering and bio-engineering, we have discovered a low energy and highly scalable process to recycle large quantities of CO2 into gaseous and liquid fuels using organic biocatalysts. The key to our CO2-to-Fuel approach lies in a proprietary multi-step biocatalytic process. Instead of using expensive inorganic catalysts, such as zinc, gold or zeolite, with traditional high energy catalytic chemical processes, our process uses inexpensive, renewable biomolecules to catalyze certain chemical reactions required to transform CO2 and water (H2O) into fuel molecules. Of greatest significance, our process occurs at low temperature and low pressure, thereby requiring far less energy than other approaches.
> 
> The energy efficient biocatalytic processes we are exploiting in our technology actually occur in certain micro-organisms where carbon atoms, extracted from CO2, and hydrogen atoms, extracted from H2O, are combined to create hydrocarbon molecules. Our breakthrough technology allows these processes to operate on a very large industrial scale through advance nano-engineering of the biocatalysts and highly efficient process design.
> 
> Highly Scalable CO2-to-Fuel Recycling Plant
> 
> The Carbon Sciences CO2-to-Fuel technology includes a complete plant level process that takes CO2 from a large emitter, such as a power plant, and produces usable fuels as the output.
> 
> The complete process includes the following major components:
> 
> 1.CO2 Flue Gas Processor - Purification of CO2 stream to remove heavy particulates.
> 
> 2.Biocatalyst Unit - Regeneration of biocatalysts for the CO2 recycling process.
> 
> 3.Biocatalytic Reactor Matrix - The primary and largest part of the plant where mass quantities of biocatalysts work in a matrix of liquid reaction chambers, performing the multi-stage breakdown of CO2 and its transformation to basic gas and liquid hydrocarbons. These reactors are inexpensive low temperature and low pressure vessels. The number of reactors determines the size and output capacity of the plant.
> 
> 4.Filtration - The liquid solutions are filtered through membrane units to extract liquid fuels. Gaseous fuels are extracted through condensers.
> 
> 5.Conversion and Polishing - The output of the Filtration stage contains low hydrocarbon fuels. These hydrocarbons can then be further processed into higher fuels such as gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel.
> 
> The Carbon Sciences CO2-to-Fuel process can be configured to produce a variety of hydrocarbon fuels by customizing the Conversion and Polishing stage and biocatalytic formulation.


----------



## a_majoor

Here comes the sun:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24521/?ref=rss&a=f



> *Efficient Solar Cells from Cheaper Materials*
> IBM researchers have greatly increased the performance of a novel thin film solar cell.
> By Kevin Bullis
> 
> Researchers at IBM have increased the efficiency of a novel type of solar cell made largely from cheap and abundant materials by over 40 percent. According to an article published this week in the journal Advanced Materials, the new efficiency is 9.6 percent, up from the previous record of 6.7 percent for this type of solar cell, and near the level needed for commercial solar panels. The IBM solar cells also have the advantage of being made with an inexpensive ink-based process.
> 
> The new solar cells convert light into electricity using a semiconductor material made of copper, zinc, tin, and sulfur--all abundant elements--as well as the relatively rare element selenium (CZTS). Reaching near-commercial efficiency levels is a "breakthrough for this technology," says Matthew Beard, a senior scientist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, who was not involved with the work.
> 
> The IBM solar cells could be an alternative to existing "thin film" solar cells. Thin film solar cells use materials that are particularly good at absorbing light. The leading thin film manufacturer uses a material that includes the rare element tellurium. Daniel Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, says the presence of tellurium could limit the total electricity such cells could produce because of its rarity. While total worldwide electricity demand will likely reach dozens of terawatts (trillions of watts) in the coming decades, thin film solar cells will likely be limited to producing about 0.3 terawatts, according to a study he published last year. In contrast, the new cells from IBM could produce an order of magnitude more power. (_Interpolation: that means we could see a total of 3 Tw when the sun is shining using this technology on every available surface. Solar really is a niche market_)
> 
> The new cells could also have advantages compared to cells made of copper indium gallium and selenium (CIGS), which are just starting to come to market. That's because the indium and gallium in these cells is expensive, and while the selenium used in the IBM cell is rarer than indium or gallium, its cost is a tenth of either.
> 
> A new ink-based manufacturing process solves some of the key challenges to making efficient CZTS cells. A common approach to making any type of high-quality solar material is to dissolve a precursor substance in a solvent. This isn't possible with the CZTS cells because the zinc compounds required in the new cells aren't soluble. To get around this, the researchers used a combination of dissolved materials and suspended particles, creating a slurry-like ink that could then be spread over a surface that's been heat-treated to produce the final materials. The particles prevent the material from cracking and peeling as the solvent evaporates.
> 
> The IBM researchers are also investigating ways to improve the efficiency of the new solar cells, with the goal of reaching about 12 percent in the laboratory--high enough to give manufacturers confidence that they could be mass produced and still have efficiency levels of around 10 percent, says David Mitzi, at IBM Research, who led the work. Beard recommends targeting 15 percent efficiency in the lab, and Mitzi says this should be possible by improving other parts of the solar cell besides the main CZTS material, or by doping the semiconductor with other trace elements (which is easy with the ink-based process).
> 
> What's more, commercial cells will likely use different materials for conducting electrons. The experimental cells used indium tin oxide, which is limited by the availability of indium. But Mitzi says several other conductors could work as well.
> 
> One key next step is to completely replace the selenium in the solar cells with sulfur. For the record-efficiency cell, the researchers replaced half of the selenium used in a previous experimental cell. If all of the selenium could be replaced, the cells could, in theory, supply all of the electricity needs of the world. (Provided there are suitable means for storing and redistributing power for use at night or on cloudy days.)
> 
> The new type of solar cell will have several competitors, Beard says. For example, non-crystalline silicon is cheaper to make than crystalline silicon, and the efficiency of the resulting cells is improving. Researchers are also finding ways to use less expensive grades of crystalline silicon, and large-scale production has decreased the overall cost of producing such cells, making it difficult for new solar materials to gain a foothold.
> 
> Copyright Technology Review 2010.


----------



## a_majoor

More coal to oil conversion:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2010/02/22/pf-12980701.html



> *Scientists find way to make cheap gas from coal*
> By QMI AGENCY
> 
> It could be a boon for the Canadian prairies.
> 
> Researchers in Texas say they have found a way of cutting the cost of producing gasoline by two thirds, taking advantage of the lowest grade of coal available - one that is abundant beneath the Canadian prairies.
> 
> A new refining process being perfected at the University of Texas at Arlington can turn the low-cost lignite coal, also known as brown coal, into oil at a fraction of the cost of importing crude oil from abroad.
> 
> “We're improving the cost every day,” Rick Billo, the school's dean of engineering, told a local television station.
> 
> “We started off some time ago at an uneconomical $17,000 a barrel. Today, we're at a cost of $28.84 a barrel.”
> 
> As the price of crude oil continues to skyrocket – now overing near $80/barrel - being able to produce a barrel of oil at less than half of that price is an attractive proposition, especially for Canadian producers.
> 
> According to the Coal Association of Canada, there are major deposits of lignite coal in Southern Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, though only the Saskatchewan deposits are currently being mined.
> 
> Lignite was the source of up to 70% of Saskatchewan's electricity last year.
> 
> The University of Texas hopes to license their technology in the next few months and start building the first micro-refineries to produce the cheaper oil in the next year.
> 
> Germany, Russia and the U.S. are currently the world's leading producers of lignite coal.


----------



## Dean22

One of the more interesting articles I read about the oil issue a few years ago were two articles from the 1960's and 1920's.

Both articles had announced that the world would run out of oil in the next 10 years.

It seems people are predicting running out of oil and global warming for the last 100 years.

It's a big planet, we'll find more.

Who knows maybe we'll "make" fossil fuels in the next 100 years.


----------



## a_majoor

More on super efficient engines. The thing to note about this technology is it may be availabel to retrofit to *existing* engines, which has interesting downstream effects. Imagine if every military vehicle had this sort of fuel injection system; the projected gain is 25% increase in fuel economy for diesel engines. This means you could reduce the amount of fuel needed in the AOR by 25%, which equals a further reduction in the amount of truck traffic needed to carry the fuel, which translates to additional savings. (fewer convoys, fewer armoured or patrol vehicles on the road as escorts etc.)

Well worth a follow up:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/03/transonic-supercritical-fuel-injection.html



> *Transonic Supercritical Fuel Injection Could Improve Gasoline Engines by 50-75 Percent*
> 
> Transonic Combustion, based in Camarillo, CA, has developed a gasoline fuel injection system that can improve the efficiency of gasoline engines by 50 to 75 percent, beating the fuel economy of hybrid vehicles. A test vehicle the size and weight of a Toyota Prius (but without hybrid propulsion) showed 64 miles per gallon for highway driving. The company says the system can work with existing engines, and costs about as much as existing high-end fuel injection.
> 
> Transonic Combustion uses supercritical-state fuel to radically shift the technological benefits of the automotive internal combustion engine This technology was featured at the ARPA-E Innovation summit and has DOE funding.
> 
> TSCi Fuel Injection achieves lean combustion and super efficiency by running gasoline, diesel, and advanced bio-renewable fuels on modern diesel engine architectures. Supercritical fluids have unusual physical properties that Transonic is harnessing for internal combustion engine efficiency. Supercritical fuel injection facilitates short ignition delay and fast combustion, precisely controls the combustion that minimizes crevice burn and partial combustion near the cylinder walls, and prevents droplet diffusion burn. Our engine control software facilitates extremely fast combustion, enabled by advanced microprocessing technology. Our injection system can also be supplemented by advanced thermal management, exhaust gas recovery, electronic valves, and advanced combustion chamber geometries.
> 
> 
> Fuel efficiency improvements enabled by advanced combustion technologies of 50% or more for automotive engines (relative to spark-ignition engines dominating the road today in the U.S.) and 25% or more for heavy-duty truck engines (relative to today’s diesel truck engines) are possible in the next 10 to 15 years
> 
> 
> 
> Our fuel system efficiently supports engine operation over the full range of conditions – from stoichiometric air-to-fuel ratios at full power to lean 80:1 air-to-fuel ratios at cruise, with engine-out NOx at just 50% of comparable standard engines. Our real-time programmable control of combustion heat release results in dramatically increased efficiency.
> 
> Along with operating on gasoline, our technology can efficiently utilize fuels based on their chemical heat capacity independent of octane or cetane ratings. Thus, economical, highly functional mixtures of renewable plant products can be utilized which are not practical in either conventional spark or compression ignition engines. In dynamometer testing on current engine architectures, our technology has successfully run on gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, heptane, ethanol, and vegetable oil. Recently our engineers achieved seamless operation alternating between several different fuels on one of our customer’s engines in our Camarillo test facilities.
> 
> 
> Supercritical Fuel Injection
> 
> Automotive Engineering International Feature - Supercritical fuel injection and combustion
> 
> Recent work by Mike Cheiky, a physicist and serial inventor/entrepreneur, is focusing on raising not only the fuel mixture’s pressure but also its temperature.
> 
> Cheiky's aim, in fact, is to generate a little-known, intermediate state of matter—a so-called supercritical (SC) fluid—which he and his co-workers at Camarillo, CA-based Transonic Combustion believe could markedly increase the fuel efficiency of next-generation power plants while reducing their exhaust emissions.
> 
> Transonic’s proprietary TSCi fuel-injection systems do not produce fuel droplets as conventional fuel delivery units do, according to Mike Rocke, Vice President of Marketing and Business Development. The supercritical condition of the fuel injected into a cylinder by a TSCi system means that the fuel mixes rapidly with the intake air which enables better control of the location and timing of the combustion process.
> 
> The novel SC injection systems, which Rocke calls “almost drop-in” units, include “a GDI-type,” common-rail system that incorporates a metal-oxide catalyst that breaks fuel molecules down into simpler hydrocarbon chains, and a precision, high-speed (piezoelectric) injector whose resistance-heated pin places the fuel in a supercritical state as it enters the cylinder.
> 
> Company engineers have doubled the fuel efficiency numbers in dynamometer tests of gas engines fitted with the company’s prototype SC fuel-injection systems, Rocke said. A modified gasoline engine installed in a 3200-lb (1451-kg) test vehicle, for example, is getting 98 mpg (41.6 km/L) when running at a steady 50 mph (80 km/h) in the lab.
> 
> The 48-employee firm is finalizing a development engine for a test fleet of from 10 to 100 vehicles, while trying to find a partner with whom to manufacture and market TSCi systems by 2014.
> 
> “A supercritical fluid is basically a fourth state of matter that’s part way between a gas and liquid,” said Michael Frick, Vice President for Engineering. A substance goes supercritical when it is heated beyond a certain thermodynamic critical point so that it refuses to liquefy no matter how much pressure is applied.
> 
> SC fluids have unique properties. For a start, their density is midway between those of a liquid and gas, about half to 60% that of the liquid. On the other hand, they also feature the molecular diffusion rates of a gas and so can dissolve substances that are usually tough to place in solution.
> 
> To minimize friction losses, the Transonic engineers have steadily reduced the compression of their test engines to between 20:1 and 16:1, with the possibility of 13:1 for gasoline engines.
> 
> 
> Patents
> 
> Thus far 3 patents (#7444230, #7546826, #7657363) have been issued to Transonic from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office related to our technology, with another 14 patents pending.
> 
> Patent 7444230 - Fuel injector having algorithm controlled look-ahead timing for injector
> 
> The present invention provides an injector-ignition fuel injection system for an internal combustion engine, comprising an ECU controlling a heated catalyzed fuel injector for heating and catalyzing a next fuel charge, wherein the ECU uses a one firing cycle look-ahead algorithm for controlling...
> 
> 
> Application number: 12/464,790 - INJECTOR-IGNITION FOR AN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE
> 
> The present invention provides a heated catalyzed fuel injector that dispenses fuel substantially exclusively during the power stroke of an internal combustion engine, wherein ignition occurs in a fast burn zone at high fuel density such that a leading surface of the fuel is completely burned...


----------



## a_majoor

CANDU reactors are old technology and seem to have only one use left: recycle old nuclear fuel. (More modern designs do not use the heavy water moderator of the CANDU, and some designs don't use water at all):

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/03/china-loading-used-light-water-nuclear.html



> *China Loading Used Light Water Nuclear Reactor Fuel Into CANDU Heavy Water Reactor
> *
> 
> The first re-use of nuclear fuel in a Candu reactor has started at Qinshan nuclear power plant in China.
> 
> Over the next six months, another 24 of the 'natural uranium equivalent' (NUE) bundles will be used in two of the reactor's fuel channels. If successful over a one-year trial, this practice could help China get more energy from its imported uranium and reduce stocks of highly-radioactive used nuclear fuel at the same time.
> 
> To make this first batch of NUE fuel, Qinshan managers collaborated with AECL, the Nuclear Power Institute of China and China North Nuclear Fuel Corporation. Fuel that had previously been used was processed to recover unspent uranium and this was mixed with some depleted uranium to achieve a mix with the same overall characteristics as natural uranium. Technical challenges in doing this included the highly-radioactive nature of the used fuel and achieving the right blend of depleted uranium and the recovered stocks still enriched up to around 1.6%.
> 
> A report late in 2009 suggested that China should build another two Candu reactors as part of a used fuel managment strategy.
> 
> A program in South Korea has pursued similar goals for some time. Dupic (Direct Use of PWR fuel in Candu) envisages the used fuel pellets from PWR fuel being broken up, heated to drive off radioactive fission products and then reformed for use in Candu fuel. Using Candu reactors in a similar way is also under investigation in Ukraine.
> 
> Canada Atomic Energy of Canada needs this to work for any meaningful future for its reactors and the company. The only other business for the makers of CANDU would be supporting the legacy fleet of reactors until they are decommissioned. This would provide them with a unique capability and niche service for extending uranium supplies. This would last until there were other better ways to extend uranium with better deep burn reactors.


----------



## a_majoor

Yet more ways to make synthetic fuels from biomass:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24891/?nlid=2851&a=f



> *From Biomass to Chemicals in One Step*
> A startup's catalytic process converts biomass directly into components of gasoline.
> By Katherine Bourzac
> 
> An early-stage company spun out of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, plans to commercialize a catalytic process for converting cellulosic biomass into five of the chemicals found in gasoline. These chemicals are also used to make industrial polymers and solvents. Anellotech, which is seeking venture funding, plans to build a pilot plant next year.
> 
> Anellotech's reactors perform a process called "catalytic pyrolysis," which converts three of the structural molecules found in plants--two forms of cellulose and the woody molecule lignin--into fuels. Ground-up biomass is fed into a high-temperature reactor and blended with a catalyst. The heat causes the cellulose, lignin, and other molecules in the biomass to chemically decompose through a process called pyrolysis; a catalyst helps control the chemical reactions, turning cellulose and lignin into a mix of carbon-ring-based molecules: benzene, toluene, and xylenes.
> 
> The global market for this group of chemicals is $80 billion a year and growing at a rate of 4 percent a year, says Anellotech CEO David Sudolsky. "We're targeting to compete with oil priced at $60 a barrel, assuming no tax credits or subsidies," he says. The company's founder, George Huber, says his catalytic pyrolysis process can create 50 gallons of the chemicals per metric ton of wood or other biomass, with a yield of 40 percent. The other products of the reaction include coke, used to fuel the reactor.
> 
> "The advantage of pyrolysis is that it uses whole biomass," says John Regalbuto, an advisor to the Catalysis and Biocatalysis Program at the National Science Foundation. On average, lignin accounts for 40 percent of the energy stored in whole biomass. But because it can't be converted into sugars the way cellulose can, lignin can't be used as a feedstock for fermentation processes such as those used by some biofuels companies to convert sugarcane into fuels.
> 
> Pyrolysis is also different from gasification, another process for using whole biomass. Gasification results in a mixture of carbon and hydrogen called syngas, which can then be used to make fuel. Pyrolysis, by contrast, turns biomass into liquid fuels in a single step. And while gasification can only be done economically at a very large scale, says Regalbuto, catalytic pyrolysis could be done at smaller refineries distributed near the supply of biomass.
> 
> Pyrolysis is an efficient way to use biomass, but it's difficult to control the products of the reaction, and it's difficult to get high yields. The keys to Anellotech's process, says Huber, are a specially tailored catalyst and a reactor that allows good control over reaction conditions. Huber's group at UMass, where he is a professor of chemical engineering, was the first to develop a catalytic process for converting biomass directly into gasoline, and Anellotech's processes are based on this work.
> 
> So far, Huber has developed two generations of a reactor in the lab. In tests, the group starts with sawdust waste from a local mill. The ground-up biomass is fed into a fluidized bed reactor. Inside, a powdered solid catalyst swirls around in a mixture of gas heated to about 600 ºC. When wood enters the chamber, it rapidly breaks down, or pyrolyzes, into small unstable hydrocarbon molecules that diffuse into the pores of the catalyst particles. Inside the catalyst, the molecules are reformed to create a mixture of aromatic chemicals. The reaction process takes just under two minutes.
> 
> The company would not disclose details about the catalyst, but Huber says one of its most important properties is the size of its pores. "If the pores are too big, they get clogged with coke, and if they're too small, the reactants can't fit in," says Huber. The company's catalyst is a porous silicon and aluminum structure based on ZSM-5, a zeolite catalyst developed by Mobil Oil in 1975 and widely used in the petroleum refining industry. Sudolsky says that it can be made cheaply by contractors. Anellotech's reactors are very similar to those used to refine petroleum. But the company's reactors are designed to ensure rapid heat transfer and fluid dynamics that ensure that the reactants enter a catalyst before they turn into coke.
> 
> Stefan Czernik, a senior scientist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's National Bioenergy Center in Golden, CO, cautions that the process has so far only been demonstrated on a small scale, and the complexity of these reactors could mean a long road ahead for scaling them up. "It is not easy to replicate at a large scale the relationship between the chemical reaction and heat transfer as it's done in the laboratory," he says.
> 
> After demonstrating the process at a pilot plant next year, Anellotech hopes to partner with a chemical company to build a commercial scale facility in 2014. Sudolsky says the company will either license the catalytic pyrolysis process to other companies or build plants distributed near biomass sources, since transporting biomass is not economically viable.
> 
> Copyright Technology Review 2010.


----------



## a_majoor

Another approach:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/04/dense-plasma-physics-update-great-month.html



> *Dense Plasma Physics Update - A Great Month for Focus Fusion*
> 
> Lawrenceville Plasma Physics reports good progress in March, 2010.
> 
> At the beginning of March, good shots (those without pre-firing and with pinches) were a bit under 50% of the shots we fired. Since mid-month, we have increased that to 90% good shots. The two time-of-flight neutron detectors have produced more evidence that we are already duplicating the high ion energies achieved with higher currents in the Texas experiments. In our best shots, ion energies were measured in the range of 40-60 keV (the equivalent of 0.4-0.6 billion degrees K). The electron beam carried about 0.5 kJ of energy and the plasmoid held about 1 kJ of energy, nearly half that stored in the magnetic field of the device. So, this is evidence that a substantial part of the total energy available is being concentrated in the plasmoids and transferred to the beams.
> 
> We found that the control shots (with the magnetic coil turned off) were increasingly producing more neutrons (up to about 10 times) as the control shots in the beginning of our testing. It turns out the steel flanges that attach the vacuum chamber to the inner lower bus plate and the bus plate itself were both becoming permanently magnetized. This provides additional (though unintended) evidence that the predicted angular momentum effect is working. In the future, we may find it necessary to replace the flanges and bus plate with those made from non-magnetic alloys, but that will have to wait for now.
> 
> On March 18, Lerner gave an invited presentation on the DPF to an audience of physicists and engineers at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, the nation's largest fusion lab. The Princeton physicists responded with interest and some friendly questions. The atmosphere was one of collaboration, not competition.
> 
> Finally, we received enough investment money to carry us through the end of summer, with additional funding pledged. This means we are almost halfway to our goal of raising $900K in this capital drive.
> 
> Lawrenceville Plasma Physics had eight objectives for their two year research program This work seems to show good progress on four of the eight objectives.
> 
> Advancing dense plasma focus fusion to about break even energy would enable a radical advance to fusion spaceplanes and rockets
> 
> If Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (LPP) achieves the full success, then a Focus Fusion reactor would produce electricity very differently. The energy from fusion reactions is released mainly in the form of a high-energy, pulsed beam of helium nuclei. Since the nuclei are electrically charged, this beam is already an electric current. All that is needed is to capture this electric energy into an electric circuit. This can be done by allowing the pulsed beam to generate electric currents in a series of coils as it passes through them. This is much the same way that a transformer works, stepping electric power down from the high voltage of a transmission line to the low voltage used in homes and factories. It is also like a particle accelerator run in reverse. Such an electrical transformation can be highly efficient, probably around 70%. What is most important is that it is exceedingly cheap and compact. The steam turbines and electrical generators are eliminated. A 5 MW Focus Fusion reactor may cost around $300,000 and produce electricity for 1/10th of a cent per kWh. This is fifty times less than current electric costs. Fuel costs will be negligible because a 5 MW plant will require only five pounds of fuel per year. [About 40 million kWh per year from a 5 MWe plant and 5 MWe is equal to 6705 horsepower]


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is more on the topic:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/you-can-turn-off-the-lights-or-collect-solar-energy-in-space/article1520485/


> You can turn off the lights – or collect solar energy in space
> *Strategic prize: Space-based satellites can tap ‘an inexhaustible reservoir' of clean, renewable energy by 2050 or earlier*
> 
> Neil Reynolds
> 
> Thursday, Apr. 01, 2010
> Anyone can do their part for the planet – as millions of people did for an hour last month by turning off the lights. The trick is to do it without resorting to darkness.
> 
> For the moment, Japan leads the way with its ambitious program to collect solar energy in space, convert it into electromagnetic microwaves and deliver it wirelessly to precise locations on Earth. This transmission technology will do to terrestrial power lines what cellphones did to telephone poles. Funded in part by a consortium of 16 corporations (led by Mitsubishi Electric), Japan expects its prototype space-based power station to provide electricity to 300,000 Tokyo homes by 2030.
> 
> In the end, though, the United States won't be far behind – and, for competitive reasons, probably will surpass Japan in the pursuit of space-based solar power. Ostensibly at least, Tokyo lacks the military motivation of Washington – although, as a resources-bereft country, Japan must ensure its energy supply from somewhere else simply to survive.
> 
> For its part, the U.S. Defence Department's National Security Space Office (NSSO) adopted space-based energy as a strategic priority in 2007. President Barack Obama's 2010 budget, which essentially cut lunar adventures to fund economy-class spaceships, can be interpreted as a prerequisite investment in space-based energy: A power station in space, 36,000 kilometres or more above Earth, will require 120 launches (of maintenance crews) a year.
> 
> With its unclassified assessment of space-based solar power, the NSSO remains an accessible source of information on the relevant science and technology. For a bureaucratic organization in a military hierarchy, the NSSO compiled its report in a uniquely collaborative way – at no cost. The agency simply created an access-controlled website and invited the world's leading scientists to participate – and 170 did. The NSSO report reflects the scientific consensus.
> 
> The strategic prize, the NSSO concludes, is obvious: Space-based satellites can economically tap “an inexhaustible strategic reservoir” of clean, renewable energy by 2050 or earlier.
> 
> The military importance, it notes, is also obvious: “For the [Department of Defence] specifically, beamed energy from space … has the potential to be a disruptive game-changer on the battlefield.” With wireless technology, space-based solar power could deliver electricity across an entire theatre of war – right down to the individual soldier. It could dramatically reduce the chance of international conflict arising from energy shortages, and it could provide on-demand energy for humanitarian purposes in disaster zones. In short, the NSSO says, it could enable the U.S. military “to remain relevant” for the 21st century.
> 
> “The basic idea is very straightforward,” the NSSO says. “Place very large solar arrays into an intensely sunlit Earth orbit. Collect gigawatts of electrical energy and electromagnetically beam them to Earth.” The electricity could be delivered to either conventional electrical grids or directly to consumers. It could also be used to manufacture synthetic hydrocarbons.
> 
> Spread an array of solar collectors over a single square kilometre, the NSSO says, and you can collect a supply of energy – every year – “equal to the energy contained in all of the known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today.”
> 
> This amount of energy “indicates that there is enormous [energy] potential for … the nations who construct and possess an SBSP capability.” One of the countries that has expressed its interest in acquiring such a capability, the NSSO says, is Canada.
> 
> Although complicated, the delivery of space-based energy would not be much more heroic than “the construction of a large modern aircraft carrier, a skyscraper or a large hydroelectric dam.” A single solar-power satellite would be 15 times the size of the International Space Station (344 metric tonnes). In comparison, the Great Pyramid at Giza has a mass of 5.9 million metric tons.
> 
> Although the space beam would require a sizable target on Earth, this receiver would be based in a desert – perhaps in South Dakota or sub-Saharan Africa. With its abundant supply of energy, though, these desert zones would be transformed into lush agricultural land. (The NSSO compares the intensity of the space beam to the heat thrown off by a campfire.)
> 
> The NSSO expresses considerable curiosity why environmentalists appear obsessed with much more difficult terrestrial energy sources that can't be as efficiently or as cleanly produced as space-based power – which, it says, would produce (on a “lifecycle” basis) one-60th of the carbon emitted by fossil fuels.
> 
> You would think that environmentalists would be thrilled to join forces with the Pentagon. As Thomas Edison put it in 1931: “I'd put my money on the sun and on solar energy.”




The business of transferring electrical power as _’beamed power’_ is old hat. Canadians were doing it, the hard way, from earth to 'space,' 25+ years ago with a test vehicle called SHARP (Stationary High Altitude Research Project).


----------



## CougarKing

From last week:

Globe and Mail link




> *Researchers at the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA) announced last month that they have developed a clean way to turn the cheapest kind of coal - lignite, common in Texas - into synthetic crude.* "We go from that [lignite coal] to this really nice liquid," Brian Dennis, a member of the research team, said in describing the synthetic crude that can be refined into gasoline.
> 
> Assuming that these Texas folk are correct, this advance in technology could represent a historic moment in energy production - for Canada as well as for the United States. Canada has huge reserves of lignite coal in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan (which already gets 70 per cent of its electricity from this common coal) - not to mention in Nova Scotia.
> *
> The Texas researchers, who worked on the project for about 18 months, expect the cost to drop further. "We're improving the cost every day. We started off some time ago at an uneconomical $17,000 a barrel. Today, we're at ... $28.84 a barrel," Rick Billo, UTA's dean of engineering, told an Austin television reporter.
> 
> Texas lignite coal sells for $18 a tonne. The coal conversion technology uses one tonne of coal to produce 1.5 barrels of crude oil. One barrel of crude produces 42 U.S. gallons of gasoline. In other words, $18 worth of coal yields 63 gallons of gasoline: 0.28 cents a gallon.*
> 
> (...)


----------



## Kirkhill

Cougar Daddy and E.R.

you're both taking me back to 1970 and science fiction.

E.R. - Did  you ever read Larry Niven?

And Cougar Daddy - the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth was every bit as entertaining even though it was spoonfed to us the same way Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth was.

The same logical fallacy in both cases.  If you continue doing what you're doing dire things will happen.  The ONLY solution is to do as I tell you.....

One imagination vs 6,000,000,000 imaginations (more when you include those that have died and those that have been born since 1972).

I just can`t get overly scared about much of anything anymore .... except perhaps sheep and shepherds.


----------



## GAP

Am I not looking at this right or can someone not do math?



> Texas lignite coal sells for $18 a tonne. The coal conversion technology uses one tonne of coal to produce 1.5 barrels of crude oil. One barrel of crude produces 42 U.S. gallons of gasoline. In other words, $18 worth of coal yields 63 gallons of gasoline: 0.28 cents a gallon.



forget it.....I can't read.... :


----------



## George Wallace

Factor in the transportation to Refinery, costs of refining, storage, transport of finished product and then unionized labour and then what is the cost?


----------



## GAP

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Factor in the transportation to Refinery, costs of refining, storage, transport of finished product and then unionized labour and then what is the cost?



and carbon footprint....


----------



## George Wallace

Then we let the Provincial governments bring in their HST/PST/GST and other environmental taxes and such......  >


----------



## GAP

$6.00/liter gas....


----------



## a_majoor

Looking over the thread, I see literally dozens of initiatives to produce oil or an oil substitute (Bakken and other unconventional oil plays, means to improve the yield of the tar sands, bio-oil from plants, algae and bacteria, oil from biomass, oil from coal etc.)

Having multiple sources of "crude" allows market mechanisms to work, bidding the price of the feedstock down. As noted, regulatory failure in the form of government interventions can force the price up, but then again there are many means reported on this thread on how to reduce the use of c-18 hydrocarbons (gasoline and diesel fuel) through high efficiency engines, behaviour modification and substitution, activities which will be spurred on by high prices caused by shortages or regulatory failure.

Bottom line, so long as there is a demand for inexpensive energy, there will be lots of people trying to supply it to the market.


----------



## a_majoor

I guess they havn't been reading this thread!

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/04/15/u-s-military-warns-of-oil-production-shortage-by-2015/



> *U.S. military warns of oil production shortage by 2015*
> 
> by Nik Bristow (RSS feed) on Apr 15th 2010 at 7:49PM
> 
> 
> The U.S. military thinks we're one step closer to peak oil, the point at which oil demand will forever outstrip oil supply, and therefore we're one step closer to fighting over the last rusting cans of gasoline like so many scraps of meat. On the plus side, we're also one step closer to finally equipping our cars with superchargers and massive gas tanks rigged with explosives a la Mad Max and his archetypal peak-oil sled, "the last of the V-8 Interceptors."
> 
> The U.S. Joint Forces command has issued a Joint Operating Environment report that states that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and that there could be serious shortages by 2015. From the report:
> 
> By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day, While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India.
> 
> The Joint Operating Environment report didn't go quite as far as saying it was time to start dressing in leather, eating canned dog food and carrying sawed-off shotguns, but it didn't exactly paint a rosy picture of what post-2015 America could look like. "One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by ruthless conquest," the report points out. Ruthless conquest? They might as well say "massive oiled-up dudes wearing hockey masks and riding around the desert on tractors."
> 
> We're not sure where the U.S. Joint Forces command got their numbers from, but their conclusion does seem to jibe with a peak oil assessment by a Kuwaiti study and an estimate by Richard Branson's energy taskforce, all of which means we're off to practice our welding skills.


----------



## a_majoor

The fact that a huge supply of relatively cheap oil lies within the borders of the CONUS gives me hope that there will be something avalable to get the US and North American economy going again sometime in the future:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/05/prediction-of-one-million-barrels-per.html



> *Prediction of one million barrels per day from Bakken Oil Field by 2020*
> 
> David Hobbs, IHS, Cambridge Energy Research Association (CERA), is forecasting that by the end of the decade, production in the Bakken will be one million barrels a day
> 
> "The potential production is far greater than anyone would have admitted to even a couple years ago. The rate at which innovation is changing the unit costs to bring it into the attractive oil prices - will ensure that activity keeps on going." Hobbs' forecast is based on the acreage that's available and the number of wells that can be drilled on that land. (speaking at Williston Basin Oil Conference in Bismarck)
> 
> 70-80 rigs a year can drill 1,000 wells a year... And Hobbs also watched as production rates in the Bakken have reached higher levels with the help of new technology..
> 
> In addition he says the Bakken could out perform what he's predicting because he may have underestimated the improvements in technology
> 
> In February, 2010 there was 261,000 barrels of oil per day from North Dakota Oil. There was 65,000 barrels per day from Bakken Oil in Saskatchewan and about 50,000 barrels per day from Bakken oil in Montana.
> 
> Underneath most of the Bakken oil field is the Three Forks Formation which doubles the amount of recoverable oil.
> 
> North Dakota oil production has been predicted to be 350,000 barrels per day at the end of 2010 and in the 400,000 barrel per day range for 2011-2012


----------



## a_majoor

The art of saving fuel through reduction in friction. Airforce and Navy brass should be _very_ interested in these techniques:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/05/sharkskin-paint-to-lower-fuel.html#more



> *Sharkskin Paint to lower the fuel consumption of airplanes and ships and Hydrophobic ferns could also lower drag for ships*
> 
> 1. Sharkskin inspired paint made with Nanoparticles reduce drag and lower fuel consumption. If the paint were applied to every airplane every year throughout the world, the paint could save a volume of 4.48 million tons of fuel. The team was able to reduce wall friction by more than five percent in a test with a ship construction testing facility. Extrapolated over one year, that means a potential savings of 2,000 tons of fuel for a large container ship. The nanoparticles which ensure that the paint withstands UV radiation, temperature change and mechanical loads, on an enduring basis. Paint is applied as the outermost coating on the plane, so that no other layer of material is required. It adds no additional weight, and even when the airplane is stripped – about every five years, the paint has to be completely removed and reapplied – no additional costs are incurred. In addition, it can be applied to complex three-dimensional surfaces without a problem."
> 
> The next step was to clarify how the paint could be put to practical use on a production scale. The solution consisted of not applying the paint directly, but instead through a stencil. This gives the paint its sharkskin structure. The unique challenge was to apply the fluid paint evenly in a thin layer on the stencil, and at the same time ensure that it can again be detached from the base even after UV radiation, which is required for hardening.
> 
> 2. The hairs on the surface of water ferns could allow ships to have a 10 percent decrease in fuel consumption.
> 
> The plant has the rare ability to put on a gauzy skirt of air under water. Researchers at the University of Bonn, Rostock and Karlsruhe now show in the journal Advanced Materials how the fern does this. Their results can possibly be used for the construction of new kinds of hulls with reduced friction. The skirt of air layer prevents the plant from coming into contact with liquid. And that even with a dive lasting weeks.
> 
> Up to now with container ships more than half of the propulsion energy is lost through friction of the water at the hull. With an air layer this loss could be reduced by ten percent according to the researchers' estimate. Since ships are huge fuel guzzlers, the total effect would be enormous. "Probably one percent of the fuel consumption worldwide could be saved this way," is Professor Barthlott's prognosis. "Surfaces modelled on the water fern could revolutionize shipbuilding," Professor Dr. Alfred Leder from the University of Rostock concurs.


----------



## a_majoor

While this technology has a specific application in the article, the idea of spooling up high energy density flywheels and releasing the energy in short, controlled pulses has other military applications such as powering railguns or laser weaponry.

The same technology would make wind generators a viable part of the energy infrastructure, the energy could be collected at any time but released during peak demand (rather than irregular intervals whenever the wind happens to blow):

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/05/designing-building-and-using-larger.html#more



> *Designing, Building and Using Larger Flywheels*
> 
> The U.S. Navy is presently pursuing electromagnetic launch technology to replace the existing steam catapults on current and future aircraft carriers.
> 
> The present EMALS design centers around a linear synchronous motor, supplied power from pulsed disk alternators through a cycloconverter. Average power, obtained from an independent source on the host platform, is stored kinetically in the rotors of the disk alternators. It is then released in a 2-3 second pulse during a launch. This high frequency power is fed to the cycloconverter which acts as a rising voltage, rising frequency source to the launch motor. The linear synchronous motor takes the power from the cycloconverter and accelerates the aircraft down the launch stroke, all the while providing "real time" closed loop control.
> 
> The introduction of EMALS would have an overall positive impact on the ship. The launch engine is capable of a high thrust density, as shown by the half scale model that demonstrated 1322 psi over its cross section. This is compared to the relatively low 450 psi of the steam catapult. The same is true with energy storage devices, which would be analogous to the steam catapult's steam accumulator. The low energy density of the steam accumulator would be replaced by high energy density flywheels. These flywheels provide energy densities of 28 KJ/KG. The increased densities would reduce the system's volume and would allow for more room for vital support equipment on the host platform.
> 
> The EMALS offers the increased energy capability necessary to launch the next generation of carrier based aircraft. The steam catapult is presently operating near its design limit of approximately 95 MJ. The EMALS has a delivered energy capability of 122 MJ, a 29% increase. This will provide a means of launching all present naval carrier based aircraft and those in the foreseeable future.
> 
> The so-called Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS, is now under development in a shore-based test facility at Lakehurst naval air station in New Jersey. However, according to May 12, 2010 reports, the test mass-driver installation suffered serious damage earlier this year in a mishap blamed on a "software malfunction". Apparently the "shuttle" - which moves along the catapult track to accelerate a plane to flying speed - went the wrong way in a test shot and smashed into important equipment. The accident has delayed the shore-based testing by several months. It had been planned to commence launching aircraft - as opposed to test loads - this summer, but that will not now happen until autumn. The next US supercarrier, CVN 78, aka USS Gerald R Ford, is now under construction and intended to join the fleet in 2015. Navy officials confirmed last year that it is now too late to amend the ship's design and revert to steam catapults: EMALS must be made to work or the US Navy will receive the largest and most expensive helicopter carrier ever.


----------



## a_majoor

Of course, simply being more efficient works wonders. I was rather astonished to discover that a Diesel engine has a theoretical efficiency of 75%.

Of course, when Rudolf Diesel made these calculations, the state of the art was nowhere near the ability to extract that amount of energy; apparently his calculations called for a 52:1 compression ratio and used the long cylender throw to extract energy from the @ 20000C flame front at TDC to @ 200oC at BDC. I'm not sure that anything like that could even be built today .

Still, given that most medium duty engines are only at the 35 to 40% mark, there is a long way to go, and lots of room to move.


----------



## KingKikapu

Still waiting on viable fusion.  It's gonna take several years to get there, but it'll beat the pants off the vast majority of the proposals identified on this thread.


----------



## a_majoor

For people who use open flame to cook, a high tech stove that can produce electricity, and utilize thermal energy to make ice.  More versatile than a Coleman stove!

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/07/thermo-acoustic-generator.html



> *Thermo-Acoustic Generator*
> 
> There is a development project for using sound based generators that are over 18% efficient at converting heat to electricity. The target is to mass produce the units starting in 2012.
> 
> * Target of 100-150 Watts electrical thermo-acoustic generator (stove, fridge, electricity) for £20 in 1 million quantities with half the wood and no smoke
> * weight: 10-20kg
> * 1.6 kWth for cooking and 0.75 kWth for simmering.
> - Fuel: consumption 1 kg/hour, wood, dung and other bio-mass.
> * fuel is placed inside the stove and burned. The fire heats compressed air that has been pumped into specially shaped pipes located inside the stove's chimney and behind the stove. The heated air begins to vibrate and produce sound waves. Inside the pipes, the noise is 100 times louder than a jet taking off. But because the pipes are stiff and do no vibrate, the sound waves have nowhere to go. So outside the pipe, people hear only a faint hum.
> 
> * The sound waves vibrate a diaphragm located at the end of the pipe. The diaphragm is attached to a coil of metal wires that sit inside a magnet. As the wire coil vibrates — about 50 times per second — it generates an electrical current, which is captured by wires and converted to the proper voltage.
> * The stove has electrical sockets, where the homeowner can plug in, for example, a mobile phone for charging. Or she can sell the electricity as a phone-charging service.
> * For refrigeration, the heated, compressed air is sent through a different part of the pipe, where sound waves cause the air to expand. As it expands, it cools to a temperature that can produce ice. It takes about two hours of stove use to produce enough ice that will keep the fridge cold for 24 hours. But homeowners have the option of producing more ice to sell for income.
> 
> * Across the world, two billion people use open fires as their primary cooking method. These fires have been found to be highly inefficient, with 93 per cent of the energy generated lost. And when used in enclosed spaces, smoke from the fires can cause health problems.
> 
> In August 2009 a propane fueled Score stove produced 19.5 Watts of power. This allowed it to power lights and simultaneously charge a mobile phone.
> 
> The ice that is produced could be placed into the 5-6 day commercial coolers. A constant supply of ice would enable the coolers to constantly keep food cold. The thermo-acoustic generator would be very useful for camping or for survival situations.


----------



## a_majoor

And a totally different proposal, with the huge bouns of harnessing market power! I am a bit sceptical of the price of full fuel flexibility being only $100/unit (methanol is pretty corrosive, and the entire fuel system and all seals and gaskets need to be made of different materials in response), and Diesel engines are still far more efficient (can Diesel engines run on Methanol? Yes in theory, but very practical problems exist, such an engine would probably be single fuel only)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/2/open-standards-for-auto-fuel/print/



> *ZUBRIN: Open standards for auto fuel*
> Let the market decide - oil, ethanol or methanol
> 
> By Robert Zubrin
> 
> 4:45 p.m., Friday, July 2, 2010
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen of the left and the right: Let's be realistic. There is no chance whatsoever that the U.S. political system will either: A) Pass carbon or gas taxes sufficiently punitive to compel Americans to curtail their driving substantially, or B) Support rapid expansion of offshore drilling for the foreseeable future.
> 
> Therefore, if neither conservation nor production is in the cards, how can we hope to deal with our nation's dangerous and ever-growing dependence on foreign oil?
> 
> Here's my answer: We need to cure our cars of their oil addiction. To paraphrase Shakespeare, the fault is not in ourselves, but in our cars; we are made underlings.
> 
> Let's stop the guilt-ridden breast-beating and place the blame where it belongs. We are not addicted to oil. Our cars are addicted to oil. They are like a tribe of people who, because of some unfortunate flaw, can only eat one kind of food, say herring. Thus, if the herring merchants combine to rig up the price of their product to $100 per pound, the tribesmen have no choice but to submit. They would be far better off if they could become omnivores, capable of eating steak, ice cream, corn, eggs, apples, etc., as the power to use such alternatives would make them immune from herring-cartel extortion.
> 
> Our four-wheeled servants have the same problem; they can only drink one kind of fuel. Unfortunately, because we are the ones who must foot the bill for their singular habit, their problem is our problem. We need to cure them.
> 
> Fortunately, such a cure is at hand. The technology exists to make cars that are fully flex-fueled, able to run equally well on gasoline, ethanol or methanol, in any combination. If installed at the time of manufacture, the inclusion of this feature adds only about $100 to the cost of a typical car. The benefits of making such a childhood immunization against oil addiction a standard requirement for all new autos sold in the U.S. would be profound.
> 
> Were it the rule that only oil-addiction-immunized cars could enter the U.S. market, foreign carmakers would waste no time in switching over their entire lines to flex fuel. Thus, not only Japanese cars sold in America, but also those sold in Japan and everywhere else would be omnivores, as would nearly all other cars sold in any serious way internationally. Within a very few years, there would be tens of millions of cars in the U.S. endowed with the capacity for fuel choice, and hundreds of millions more internationally. Under those conditions, gasoline would be forced to compete at the pump against both methanol and ethanol made from any number of potential sources all over the world. This would put a permanent competitive constraint against future rises in the price of oil. Such a constraint is vitally needed, as without it, current $75-per-barrel recession oil prices could easily explode under conditions of economic recovery to levels of $150 per barrel or more, thereby aborting the recovery itself.
> 
> While ethanol can make a significant contribution - it has replaced 7 percent of the gasoline used in the U.S. and more than 50 percent in Brazil -* the real key here is compatibility with methanol, which can be made in limitless quantities from anything that either is or once was a plant, including coal, natural gas, recycled urban trash or any kind of biomass, without exception. Its current price on the international market is $1 per gallon, equivalent in energy terms to gasoline at $1.90 per gallon - without any subsidy.* If we cure our cars so they can drink this fuel, we will protect ourselves from extortion by the oil cartel, forever.
> 
> A bill has been introduced in Congress to do exactly that. Known as the Open Fuel Standards (OFS) Act, it has truly bipartisan support, with its Senate version (S.B. 835) sponsors including such liberals as Sen. Maria Cantwell, Washington Democrat, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota Democrat; moderates such as Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, and Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican; and conservatives such as Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, and Sen. John Thune, South Dakota Republican. Similarly, its House version (H.R. 1476) supporters run the political spectrum from Rep. Eliot L. Engel, New York Democrat, to Rep. Bob Inglis, South Carolina Republican. Under the bill's provision, by 2012, 50 percent of all new cars sold in the U.S. will need to be fully flex-fueled, with the number rising to 80 percent by 2015.
> 
> With a stroke of a pen, Congress can break the power of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to tax the world. The OFS bill will not cost the Treasury a dime, and it will protect the nation from hundreds of billions of dollars of potential losses because of future petroleum price increases. Those reluctant to support it need to answer the question: In whose interest is it that Americans lack fuel choice? In whose interest is it that our cars remain addicted to oil?
> 
> Robert Zubrin is president of Pioneer Astronautics and the author of "Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil" (Prometheus Books, 2007).


----------



## a_majoor

The upside is US oil shale can probavly be processed using the same methods. The downside is this will cut the legs from global demand, with the negative impact on Alberta/Saskatchewan in particular and Canada's oil export industry in general. Still, inexpensive energy is the true key to prosperity:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/07/china-has-catalyst-to-convert-shale-oil.html#more



> *China has a Catalyst to Convert Shale Oil Directly into Transportation Fue*l
> 
> Greencarcongress.com - China has identified a catalyst—NiMoW—for the hydrotreating of the diesel distillate fraction from Fushun shale oil to produce a product that can be directly used as a transportation fuel.
> 
> 
> In China, reserves of oil shales account for about 500,000 billion tons. It is distributed mainly in Fushun, Liaoning province, Huadian, Jilin province, and Maoming, Guangdong province... However, the shale oils produced from oil shales contain a considerable amount of heteroatomic compounds, especially unsaturated hydrocarbons, which may cause many troubles, such as, instability of fuel during its transportation or storage...Catalytic hydrotreating may be considered as the only convenient way to remove heteroatomic compounds from shale oil. However, many papers showed that severe process conditions were needed during catalytic hydrotreating of shale oils. The concentrations of heteroatomic compounds in shale oils could be reduced, but they were still too high to be used as a transportation fuel. Denitrogenation was more difficult than desulfurization for shale oils.
> 
> 
> That quote from the article is probably some kind of typo (500,000 billion= tons ?). It is difficult to nail down a clear estimate of the oil shale in China. One issue is the huge difference between proven reserves or economically developable at the time. Below are some other estimates.
> 
> Wikipedia lists China's oil shale at 32 billion tons.
> 
> There was an estimate of 3.3 trillion barrels of oil shale in world. 2.6 trillions barrels oil shale in the USA.
> 
> World Energy Council - Between 2004 and 2006 China undertook its first national oil shale evaluation, which confirmed that the resource was both widespread and vast.
> 
> 
> According to the evaluation, it has been estimated that a total oil shale resource of some 720 billion tonnes is located across 22 provinces, 47 basins and 80 deposits
> .
> 
> Energy & Fuels Journal - Catalytic Hydrotreating of the Diesel Distillate from Fushun Shale Oil for the Production of Clean Fuel
> 
> 
> 
> Because of high contents of nitrogen, sulfur, and unsaturated hydrocarbons in shale oil, its potential use as a substitute fuel is limited. In this paper, catalytic hydrotreating of the diesel fraction (200−360 °C) from Fushun shale oil was preliminarily investigated in a fixed-bed reactor. Hydrotreating experiments were carried out using various available commercial catalysts, including CoMo/Al2O3, NiW/Al2O3, and NiMoW/Al2O3, at different conditions of temperature, hydrogen pressure, liquid hourly space velocity (LHSV), and ratio of hydrogen/feedstock. The results showed that the NiMoW catalyst was most active for heteroatom removal, in comparison to other catalysts. Under relative mild conditions, it was possible to produce clean diesel from a Fushun shale oil distillate. The produced oil had low contents of sulfur, nitrogen, and alkene, reduced density, and increased cetane number, and it could be used as a more valuable fuel.


----------



## CougarKing

Business Week link



> *Saudi King Seeks Wise Oil Use, Not Output Ban, Sfakianakis Says*
> July 04, 2010, 4:39 AM EDT
> 
> 
> July 4 (Bloomberg) -- King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, holder of the world’s largest crude-oil reserves, encouraged using the fuel wisely to protect the interests of future generations, rather than a ban on exploration, an analyst said.
> 
> *The monarch told Saudi scholars studying in Washington that he had ordered all oil exploration to cease “in order to keep the earth’s wealth for our sons and grandsons,” state-owned Saudi News Agency reported yesterday.
> 
> “The King’s statement shouldn’t be perceived as a message that Saudi Arabia is stopping its capacity expansion projects but rather that Saudi Arabia has to be mindful of the future needs of the country and be cognizant of its usage wisely and prudently to support future generations,” said John Sfakianakis, chief economist at Riyadh-based Banque Saudi Fransi.*
> 
> Saudi Arabia, the largest member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, boosted oil output capacity to 12.5 million barrels a day last year to meet future global demand. State-owned Saudi Aramco plans to invest more than $120 billion in the next six years on crude oil and petrochemical projects, Chief Executive Officer Khalid al-Falih said Jan. 31.
> 
> “Even though Saudi Aramco’s conventional crude oil reserves are the largest in the world, at slightly more than 260 billion barrels, we operate an extensive and aggressive exploration program to ensure we will have the petroleum resources to meet domestic and world demand for many years to come,” Aramco said last month in its 2009 annual review.
> 
> Aramco, the world’s largest state-owned oil company, is drilling a record number of wells to find more hydrocarbons resources, Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said in December.
> 
> Aramco plans to drill 45 to 50 oil exploration wells in 2010, Abdulla al-Naim, vice president for exploration, said in December.
> 
> Saudi officials have begun to issue notices against expanding domestic energy use. Saudi Arabia’s demand will rise to 8.3 million barrels a day of oil equivalent in 2028 from 3.4 million barrels in 2009 unless the kingdom becomes more efficient, Aramco’s al-Falih said in April. The increase in demand may be cut by 50 percent through improved energy efficiency, he said.
> 
> --Editors: Claudia Carpenter, Leon Mangasarian
> 
> To contact the reporter on this story: Ayesha Daya in Dubai adaya1@bloomberg.net
> 
> To contact the editor responsible for this story: Steve Voss at sev@bloomberg.net


----------



## a_majoor

The reason electric cars will not make a dent in the market unless or until energy storage issues are resolved. In the here and now, directly harnessing the high energy density of hydrocarbon fuels using a fuel cell is the only practical method, batteries with that sort of energy density simply don't exist, and current electrochemical theories sharply limit the amount of energy batteries can hold in theory:

http://american.com/archive/2010/july/the-automobiles-forgotten-secret



> *The Automobile’s Forgotten Secret*
> By Ralph Kinney Bennett
> Wednesday, July 14, 2010
> 
> The automobile’s potential is its greatest secret—an open secret and yet, it often seems, a forgotten one. The big SUV in my garage may occasionally make a 10-mile trip to Walmart or 2-mile run to the volunteer fire station when the siren sounds. But it has the potential—the size, the power, the range—to take me, my friends, and our bicycles over the mountain to a distant bike trail, or 1,100 miles with a load of furniture and books to my son’s house in Florida.
> 
> A century ago, the gasoline-powered automobile revolutionized personal mobility. It did it so profoundly and swiftly as to make it a routine aspect of our daily lives. Wide-ranging mobility is so normal that many people, particularly in the anti-car crowd, have forgotten its importance. On whatever day you may happen to read this, Americans will travel 11 billion miles in their cars, going to work or to lunch with friends, shopping, visiting the doctor or dentist, picking up materials for a home project, transporting kids to soccer or a pet to the vet—compacting into a few hours tasks which, had they even been contemplated before the automobile, would have taken carefully planned days or weeks.
> 
> A century ago, the gasoline-powered automobile revolutionized personal mobility.This marvelous potential, whether we use it a little or a lot, is woven deeply and invisibly into the fabric of our economy and of our lives. We Americans do not buy cars merely to get from point A to point B. We do not buy cars to meet average 20- to 40-mile-per-day travel expectations. We buy them with the idea that they can take us where and when we want to go, day or night, good weather or bad. What’s more, we buy them for their potential to carry not just ourselves but our families, friends, poker cronies, softball teammates, dogs and cats, antiques, tools, fishing rods, Avon deliveries, picnic lunches, easels and paints, Salvation Army donations, church bazaar cookies, saddles and tack, groceries, vacation paraphernalia, and whatever else we may dream of with some degree of comfort and safety across town or country. And, oh, yes, we might be dragging a boat or a couple of dirt bikes or a pony trailer behind us as well.
> 
> This powerful potential is at the crux of replacing internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles with electric vehicles (EVs). Can EVs ever develop the potential that ICE cars routinely deliver? This is not merely an issue of range, but range plus the sheer reserve power to carry real-life loads, deal with emergencies, and finesse the unexpected detour or delay.
> 
> Because of motorcars’ potential, Americans continue to embrace the most articulate, the most useful, versatile, and satisfying means of personal transport ever devised.Take, for instance, the case of the celebrated and much-anticipated (coming to the United States in December) Nissan Leaf EV, with its projected range of 100 miles. This car has been touted as a breakthrough on range for a “decent”-sized EV with seating for five. We cautioned recently that its 100-mile range might not be realistic. Now, one of Nissan’s top engineers has warned that the Leaf’s range may be reduced by as much as 40 percent under what most drivers think of as typical driving conditions. Hidetoshi Kadota, the Leaf’s chief engineer, says, for instance, that if you are driving in heavy traffic on a cold day and using your heater you should expect your range to drop to about 62 miles. And that is predicated on your driving at about 15 miles per hour. At higher speeds the range will presumably drop more.
> 
> If you happen to be driving on a very hot day, using your air conditioner, you should expect a range of 70 miles—if you keep your speed under 50 mph. But on a really nice day, when you don’t need either your heater or your air conditioner, you may be able to drive more than 130 miles in your Leaf, provided you cruise at a steady 38 mph. Kadota’s estimates not only contemplate speeds the vast majority of drivers would find laughably unacceptable, they are also apparently based on the Leaf with a single driver. No passengers. No noticeably heavy cargo.
> 
> One of Nissan’s top engineers has warned that the Leaf’s range may be reduced by as much as 40 percent under what most drivers think of as typical driving conditions.This is not the potential most Americans expect in their cars. While in some quarters it may be exciting to contemplate even a theoretical 100-mile range, let’s put that in a little perspective. Here’s a headline from Motor World, January 15, 1914: “Ford To Build That Long Looked For Electric Car.” A subhead notes that the car “Will Employ Special 100-mile Edison Battery.” The article reveals that the great Thomas A. Edison “has been developing a battery especially for the purposes of the Ford electric and has succeeded so well that a 400-pound battery, capable of operating 100 miles without recharging, is assured.”
> 
> Well, history tells us nothing was assured about Edison’s battery or the Ford electric, which was never built. It is sobering to consider that after almost a century Nissan—with its $18,000 lithium-ion “sandwich” battery pack that weighs 660 pounds—is promising the same range that had been “assured” with the Edison battery, back before the First World War.
> 
> The electric car industry of a century ago seemed instinctively to admit—without quite admitting—that it could not offer the potential of its gasoline-powered rival. Go back and review automobile advertising between 1900 and 1920. Ads for electric cars tended toward pictures of light, elegant, glassed-in carriages pulled up to a city curb with a stylishly clad lady at the tiller. Ads for gasoline cars tended toward roaring “touring” cars on the open road to somewhere, laden with passengers and with a raffish, goggle-bedecked man hunched over the huge steering wheel.
> 
> The early EV makers quietly offered “odorless” and “noiseless” transport to milady’s hair dresser, the department store, or garden club. The ICE makers offered power, glamour, and the limitless adventure epitomized in one of the most famous auto ads of all time, written for the 1923 Jordan Playboy, a two-seater roadster which was shown in blurred silhouette roaring “somewhere west of Laramie" with a “broncho[sic]-busting, steer-roping girl” at the wheel. Sure, it was a masterpiece of Madison Avenue hyperbole, but it spoke to the truth of the motorcar’s potential (not to mention that ineffable something that makes us love or hate our cars).
> 
> We Americans do not buy cars merely to get from point A to point B.Because of this potential, Americans continue to embrace the most articulate, the most useful, versatile, and satisfying means of personal transport ever devised.
> 
> Now the Obama administration is backing a Congressional effort to dole out $6 billion more in subsidies to promote EVs through more battery research, building of home charging devices, and tax credits for EV buyers. The government has already poured $2.8 billion into battery research, begun doling out $25 billion in loans to auto makers for EV programs, and continues with $7,500 tax credits to EV purchasers. This is accompanied by vast and vague promises to wean us off our “petroleum dependency.”
> 
> These efforts may create a firmer niche for EVs in the American auto marketplace. In other words, we will be creating, at great public expense, another entitlement—a second or third “short trip” car for those who can afford it or simply can’t afford to miss those attractive tax rebates. But EVs will never supplant or even significantly augment ICE cars until and unless they can come near to matching the full potential that gasoline- or diesel-fueled cars have promised and delivered for more than a century.
> 
> Ralph Kinney Bennett writes the Automobility column for THE AMERICAN.


----------



## a_majoor

How *not* to save oil:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-gm-volt-fascism-strikes-the-auto-industry/



> *The GM Volt: Fascism Strikes the Auto Industry*
> 
> Corporatism produces one of the worst cars ever built, and citizens pay for it with their taxes and their liberty.
> August 8, 2010 - by Jeff Perren
> 
> Yet another example of crony capitalism rolls off the assembly line soon, in the form of the GM Volt — an electric hybrid that’s absurdly overpriced and woefully underperforms.
> 
> It’s set to sell for $41,000, and travels an underwhelming 40 miles before needing a charge (340 miles when the gas engine is invoked, defeating the basic purpose). It seats four, uncomfortably (thanks to the battery pack down the middle).
> 
> But there’s more to the story than just a poorly designed, expensive car subsidized with taxpayer money.
> 
> Not satisfied with violating bondholders’ rights during bankruptcy proceedings, Obama twisted GM’s arm into producing the car, despite a lack of projected demand to justify the investment economically. As is usual in such arrangements, Obama added some large carrots to the stick. According to the New York Times:
> 
> Quantifying just how much taxpayer money will have been wasted on the hastily developed Volt is no easy feat. Start with the $50 billion bailout (without which none of this would have been necessary), add $240 million in Energy Department grants doled out to GM last summer, $150 million in federal money to the Volt’s Korean battery supplier, up to $1.5 billion in tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives, and some significant portion of the $14 billion loan GM got in 2008 for “retooling” its plants, and you’ve got some idea of how much taxpayer cash is built into every Volt.
> 
> Whether the American taxpayers get their money’s worth out of the investment, which they won’t, is beside the point. The precedent has been set for a massive public-private partnership in the auto industry, which can easily spread to other industries (and already has). Granted, Chrysler gets partial credit for that precedent, owing to its $1.5 billion loan in 1980. Giving credit where it’s due, Chrysler’s loan did get paid back. But several things are different now that raise the Volt fiasco to a new level.
> 
> First, there’s no Lee Iaccoca in charge at GM. Second, that loan wasn’t made contingent on satisfying a quixotic “green” dream. To the contrary, Chrysler was forced to abandon continued development of a turbine engine as a precondition for obtaining the loan. Third, Congress’ 1979 bill required that Chrysler raise the money privately (though the Feds co-signed the note). Fourth, the amount was “only” $1.5 billion, a large sum even then, but not onerous to the public Treasury. (More importantly, the common view that in the end all worked out hunky dory back then is simply a myth.)
> 
> The most important difference, however, is this: in 1980, the government did not become a major stakeholder in the company. There was oversight, and arm-twisting, to be sure. But the Feds did not then take a 61% ownership stake in the company, despite influential economist John Kenneth Galbraith encouraging it. (After an upcoming stock sale, the govenment’s stake in GM is expected to be reduced to below a controlling share.)
> 
> And that 61% stake, not to put too fine a point on it, is fascism [6].
> 
> Soft fascism, but the squishy kind inevitably leads to the more robust variety. Even the former is ruinous for prosperity and freedom.
> 
> One of the chief characteristics of fascism is this sort of public-private “partnership [7].” A business is still nominally private, but its fortunes are controlled lock, stock, and executive compensation barrel by the government. In essence, under that arrangement, there’s no important difference between public and private; executives become civil servants in disguise. And that’s a fundamental shift — just the sort Obama had in mind during the campaign — from the normal way of doing business even in mixed-economy America.
> 
> Onerous regulations that distort market signals are impractical. Putting a heavy thumb on the scale [8] in favor of unions is wrong. Both lead to bad business outcomes and large-scale injustices; both violate the right of voluntary trade and hobble efficiency. But unfair and costly as those are, they don’t amount to a wholesale blending of government and private enterprise. That is what the semi-nationalization of the auto industry has done, and the Volt is how badly that scheme always turns out.
> 
> The fact that it will lose money is far from the worst effect. To envision the endpoint of this philosophy, one need only look to Italy during the ’20s and ’30s [9], when dissent was outlawed and opposition newspapers shuttered. Even in the milder version in America during the Wilson administration [10], dissidents were jailed, books burned, forms of free speech banned, and conscription instituted. In short, freedom shrank.
> 
> Sure, it’s just a car, and GM’s management invited the Feds into the boardroom. But history shows it’s not a long trip from the senior “partner” dictating compensation policy to Yellow Shirts bashing heads in the streets. Anyone who believes that liberal fascists [11] will stop at throttling “the rich” (as if that were OK) can find a roadmap there.
> 
> When government gets in bed with business, citizens lose a lot more than money.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-gm-volt-fascism-strikes-the-auto-industry/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] Image: http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/files/2010/08/Obama-VW-Lemon-Parody-8-6-10.jpg
> 
> [2] New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/opinion/30neidermeyer.html?_r=2
> 
> [3] a quixotic “green” dream: http://pajamasmedia.com../../../../../blog/obamas-solar-energy-fantasy
> 
> [4] required that Chrysler raise the money privately: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/economy/a/chryslerBailout.htm
> 
> [5] a myth: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1983/07/The-Chrysler-Bail-Out-Bust
> 
> [6] fascism: http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2010/08/06/new-for-2011-the-chevy-volts-wagen/
> 
> [7] public-private “partnership: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/04/obama_and_the_reawakening_of_c.html
> 
> [8] a heavy thumb on the scale: http://www.mackinac.org/4020
> 
> [9] Italy during the ’20s and ’30s: http://www.thecorner.org/hist/total/f-italy.htm
> 
> [10] during the Wilson administration: http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/wilson/essays/biography/4
> 
> [11] liberal fascists: http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2008/03/17/a-century-of-liberal-fascism/
> 
> 
> Jeff Perren is a freelance writer. Educated in philosophy and physics, the lure of writing soon outweighed science. He lives in the Pacific Northwest


----------



## a_majoor

If this technology pans out the way it is claimed, then re engining the various vehicle fleets will do wonders:

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/08/26/autobloggreen-qanda-with-transonic-combustion-can-supercritical-f/



> *AutoblogGreen Q&A with Transonic Combustion: Can supercritical fluids give a 30% mpg boost?*
> by Sam Abuelsamid (RSS feed) on Aug 26th 2010 at 8:00PM
> 
> Given that the traditional four-stroke Otto-cycle engine piston engine only has a thermal efficiency of 25-30 percent, there is clearly still plenty of room for improvement. While most of the green automobile attention in recent years has been focused on electrification, liquid fuels still have about 100 times the energy density of today's best lithium-ion batteries, a difference that probably won't change significantly any time in the near future.
> 
> With that in mind, there is still plenty of effort being expended on improving the humble internal combustion engine. These efforts range from completely different architectures like EcoMotors' opposed piston opposed cylinder (OPOC) to new combustion processes such as homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI). One of the more interesting combustion-related developments comes from a California-based startup known as Transonic Combustion. In 2007, the company was claiming it could get an ICE vehicle to 100 miles per gallon. A lot has happened since then, and we finally have a better idea what the company's technology is. We sat down with CEO Brian Ahlborn to learn more about what the company is working on, and you can read all about it after the jump.
> 
> 
> Gallery:Transonic Combustion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The heart of Transonic's technology is a new fuel delivery system conceived by company founder Mike Cheiky. Cheiky's idea was to get the liquid fuel into a supercritical state before injecting it into the combustion chamber. Traditionally, matter has been thought of as having three states, solid, liquid and gas and any given material can exist in one of those at any point in time depending on the temperature and pressure. Fuels like gasoline and diesel generally only burn after they are vaporized.
> 
> 
> The supercritical state is essentially a fourth phase of matter that lies between liquid and gas that has properties of each as well as unique properties of its own. Achieving a supercritical state requires raising the temperature above the boiling point of the fluid while also increasing the pressure. According Ahlborn, the supercritical fluid can burn much faster than it can in a "normal" gaseous state, something that provides a number of advantages with respect to efficiency and emissions.
> 
> There are two major aspects to Transonic's technology, the fuel preparation and the direct injection system. The fuel delivery system is an evolution of current direction injection systems that use a common high-pressure (200-300 BAR) rail to deliver fuel directly to each each combustion chamber through individually controlled injectors. Before fuel is injected, the preparation system gets it into the supercritical state and this, according to Ahlborn, is where the "secret sauce" lies.
> 
> Ahlborn was reluctant to get into too many details of its proprietary system, but did reveal that the fuel temperature is increased from about "100 degrees centigrade to approximately 350-400." The fuel is also catalyzed, and although Ahlborn again declined to be specific about exactly what this means, he did respond to our query with, "I wouldn't necessarily draw the conclusion that we heat it in the presence of a catalyst." Ultimately, the goal is to have the fuel "be better prepared for an optimal combustion" says Ahlborn.
> 
> In a traditional piston engine, up to one-third of the energy of combustion is lost to heat transfer through the cylinder walls and into the coolant. One way to reduce some of this energy loss would be to have the actual combustion concentrated closer to the center of the cylinder and away from the walls. The claim from Transonic is that the faster burn rate of the supercritical fuel consumes the fuel before the flame front gets to the cylinder walls, thus reducing the heat transfer. In this way, more of the available chemical energy in the fuel can be transformed into mechanical energy to push the piston down.
> 
> With traditional fuel delivery systems, ignition typically occurs while the piston is still rising up in the cylinder, leading to pumping losses as the expanding gases push back against the piston. The faster burn rate of the supercritical fluid would make possible to delay ignition to either top dead center or afterwards, thus reducing those losses. Transonic's current prototype engines use compression ignition, like a diesel, while running on regular 87 octane gasoline. However, unlike homogeneous-charge-compression-ignition (HCCI) engines, they require no spark-plug or cylinder pressure sensor. As with many other details, Ahlborn declined to reveal the compression ratio being used in the prototype Transonic engines, although it's believed to be about 15:1.
> 
> The Transonic system also allows the engine to run at air-fuel ratios that are, in Ahlborn's words, "much leaner than conventional," going as high as 80:1. Normally, such lean air-fuel ratios can lead to combustion temperatures that rise above 600 degrees C, which in turn leads to the production of nitrogen-oxides. This is exactly what happened in modern diesel engines as the air-fuel ratios got leaner, in part to reduce particulate emissions. Ahlborn declined to get specific about the combustion temperature but acknowledged that it is below the NOx generation temperature and the engineers are doing some "neat tricks" to keep it there.
> 
> Transonic has consistently claimed that its engines are able to meet all current Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions limits without resorting to the expensive and bulky particulate filters and selective catalytic reduction systems required on contemporary diesel engines. The only after-treatment required by a Transonic-equipped engine is a conventional three-way catalytic converter. Supercritical fluid fuel injection is also claimed to be compatible with a range of fuels including gasoline, diesel, ethanol and butanol. While the engines have been tested with multiple fuels, most of the ongoing work is focused on optimizing for gasoline since the retail infrastructure is the most prevalent.
> 
> While Transonic's approach will obviously slash the cost of the exhaust after-treatment, it's unclear how much of a price premium the fuel pre-treatment will add. According to Ahlborn, the system is still being optimized for production and the engineers are continually reducing the part counts. As with many other aspects of the design, details were scarce.
> 
> Transonic has seven engine dynamometer cells at its Camarillo, CA facility and has purchased a number of engines from various automakers that have been modified with its fuel system. The engineers have been able to push the supercritical fuel system to a 25-30 percent improvement in fuel efficiency over the base gasoline engines. In order to validate its own internal test results, Transonic shipped several stock engines plus two modified engines from automakers to a third-party engineering test lab in Detroit earlier this year. The results from the un-named lab achieved a high degree of correlation with those from Transonic. In fact, Ahlborn says that the emissions results achieved both internally and at the outside lab were better than the initial predictions. Subsequent testing and analysis has allowed the engineers to better understand the properties of the supercritical fluid and why it achieved those results.
> 
> In addition to engineers and designers that are working on building and developing prototype hardware and control systems, Transonic has 10 PhDs working on mathematical models of supercritical fluids, the fuel preparation components and the injectors. These highly sophisticated models are needed for up-front analysis of component sizing, flows and calibration before prototype parts are produced. So far, Transonic has built and tested between 500 and 1,000 injectors from which they have collected data for the modeling process. Ultimately, using the simulation models should cut the lead time for new product applications from two or three years down to just six months.
> 
> 
> 
> While the bulk of the development work has occurred in its own labs and independent of customers, Transonic is working with three different automakers to test prototypes based on modern current-generation engines that have sufficient real-world data to provide a good baseline. Ahlborn explains that he is trying to keep his team focused on the the R&D required to get a viable, robust product to market as soon as possible. However, keeping some potential customers in the loop will also provide a sanity check on their work to make sure that what they create is commercially suitable from a cost, performance and packaging standpoint for different applications. There is always a risk when sharing too much information too early, but Ahlborn feels that the potential benefits in this case are worth it.
> 
> Ahlborn's self-proclaimed "big-hairy-audacious-goal" is to have Transonic go into business as a supplier of fuel systems to the auto industry by the 2014-15 time-frame. Given the three to five year lead times required to bring a product to market in this industry, that doesn't leave a lot of time for an automaker to commit to a program with Transonic. Ahlborn is well aware of the difficulty of meeting his target, but he believes the internal combustion engine, "is a long-term product for many decades still to come" and says, "we believe there is a quantum leap breakthrough in what we're doing" and that, "there will be a lot going on commercially next year (2011)."
> 
> 
> Evidently Ahlborn is not alone in that belief. Transonic has been able to attract a substantial amount of venture funding from Vinod Khosla and, in May of this year, the company enticed retired General Motors executives Bob Lutz and Don Runkle to join its board of directors. Runkle's presence is particularly interesting since he also currently serves as the CEO of Ecomotors. There's been no public discussion of combining supercritical fluid injection with the Ecomotors OPOC architecture, but there doesn't seem to be any reason it couldn't be done.
> 
> Transonic Combustion still has a long road ahead of it to prove that it can beat the fuel efficiency of a diesel engine with cleaner emissions and a lower cost. Much more detail and public testing will be required to validate the company's claims, but this seems like one to watch.


----------



## a_majoor

Transporting natural gas as snow:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/26181/?nlid=3466



> *A Cheaper, Safer Way to Move Natural Gas*
> 
> A new transport method involving ice crystals could make it practical to get natural gas from remote areas, with no worries about explosions.
> By Kevin Bullis
> 
> Storing and shipping natural gas by trapping it in ice--using technology being developed by researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy--could cut shipping costs for the fuel, making it easier for countries to buy natural gas from many different sources, and eventually leading to more stable supplies worldwide.
> 
> The DOE researchers say the approach could also be safer than current methods of shipping natural gas, such as cooling it to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG), since there is no danger that iced natural gas will explode if the shipping container is damaged.
> 
> The technology traps natural gas in the form of methane hydrate, in which methane, the main component of natural gas, is confined within cage-like ice crystals. Conventional technologies for making methane hydrate take hours or days: they involve mixing water and the hydrocarbon in large pressurized vessels. The new approach forces water and methane through a specially designed nozzle that creates the methane hydrate "almost instantaneously," says Charles Taylor, the lead researcher on the project at the DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh. As the mixture exits the nozzle, it quickly forms hydrate, which looks like snow.
> 
> The challenge, Taylor says, was designing the nozzle to create precisely the right conditions for forming the methane hydrate immediately after the mixture of water and methane exits the nozzle. If the hydrate forms too soon, it clogs the nozzle. Although the approach has only been demonstrated at a small scale, it could prove cheaper than existing transportation methods, he says.
> 
> The difficulty and costs of transporting natural gas--it is either sent through pipelines or converted to LNG-- means many natural gas resources, particularly remote ones, are too expensive to access. Taylor says the new technology could help rescue some of these "stranded" resources--increasing worldwide supplies and allowing more countries to become producers.
> 
> The results of a methane hydrate demonstration project in Japan by Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding, a large maker of ships for transporting oil and natural gas, suggested that the total cost of transporting methane hydrate--including the infrastructure required to make it and release the gas at its destination--could be "much lower than that of LNG," according to the company. That demonstration used conventional methods for making methane hydrates, Taylor says. His new technology would make the approach even cheaper, he says, although the researchers haven't yet determined by how much.
> 
> Making methane hydrate involves mimicking the high pressure and low temperatures at which it forms in nature, typically deep under the ocean. (Huge reserves of methane hydrate exist in places such as the Alaskan North Slope, both threatening to become another source of greenhouse gases and potentially offering a huge source of natural gas.) Once the ice crystals form, they keep the methane confined even if the surrounding pressure is lowered, so the methane hydrate can be shipped at atmospheric pressure as long as it's kept frozen.
> 
> The snow-like hydrate can be packed into cubes and loaded into the refrigerated ships, boxcars, and trucks now used to ship frozen food at -10 °C. That temperature is far easier and cheaper to manage than the -162 °C required for LNG. Also, if LNG shipping containers are damaged, the methane can quickly vaporize and explode. Taylor says that while the methane hydrate can burn, the methane is released slowly enough that it's not explosive. (If a shipping container were damaged and the hydrates melted, the methane would escape slowly and dissipate before it reached explosive levels. There would be a danger of explosion if the methane were allowed to accumulate in a confined space.) When the hydrate reaches its destination, the methane can be released by letting it warm to room temperature.
> 
> "Conceptually, the approach is very interesting," says Anthony Meggs, a visiting engineer at MIT and former vice president for technology at BP. But he says that "it's hard to tell how practical it will be until you translate it into a cost per ton or cubic foot to transport natural gas." Doing that will require a larger-scale demonstration. He says that if the approach works, it could still take decades to make an impact on worldwide energy markets, because companies will want to recoup their investment for current transportation infrastructure, such as specialized LNG ships and terminals, before investing in new technology.


----------



## a_majoor

Practical electric vehicles from Israel. Some important reasons to support this initiative near the end:

: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/has-israel-just-figured-out-how-to-make-the-electric-car-worthwhile/?singlepage=true



> *Has Israel Just Figured Out How to Make the Electric Car Worthwhile?*
> A design allowing for battery swapping rather than long recharges gets a trial run this month.
> September 11, 2010 - by Ryan Mauro
> 
> Energy independence has been talked about so much for decades that many doubt it’ll happen in our lifetimes. But the world may soon see a dramatic change over the next few years — and that change is coming from Israel.
> 
> During my recent 10-day trip there, thanks to the Once in a Lifetime project by 24 Hebrew University students, I went to a facility run by Better Place — a company that seems to have worked all the kinks out of making electric cars free of gasoline a reality. The cars look like any other car, and drive smoothly and silently (you can see video of me test-driving one here). Once charged, either at your home or at a station, the car can drive 100 miles without needing another charge.
> 
> The new twist? Rather than wait for a recharge, you can go to a battery switching station that will install a new battery in less than two minutes. They charge up your old battery for another customer.
> 
> This recycling of the battery will significantly drop the price of the vehicle down to $20,000 or less, the company claims. Better Place is confident that they can make the electric car very affordable. Customers obviously won’t have to pay for gasoline, and maintenance will be cheaper. Plus, the vehicles employ a braking regeneration technology that will prolong the life of brakes.
> 
> The Israeli government has reduced the tax rate on electric cars down to ten percent — from 79 percent — to help get them on the road.
> 
> The system is ready. The staff answered every skeptical question posed to them by the audience, and they even had a pricing plan prepared. Customers will pay a monthly subscription to use the infrastructure based on how many miles they drive.
> 
> And this is coming very soon.
> 
> As you read this, Better Place is working to set up five to ten battery switching stations and thousands of charging stations around Israel for a test run this month. CEO Shai Agassi says that six months later, the cars will begin being sold, and they believe 100 switching stations will be set up and 1,000 electric cars will be added to the road per month. At least 92 Israeli companies have already agreed to convert some of their cars, and 17 local councils and municipalities have given the thumbs up to setting up charging stations. There are already 1,000 charging stations in Israel (and 100 in Copenhagen). Deals have been struck to build the switching stations in Australia, Canada, Japan, and Hawaii.
> 
> The significance of this cannot be overstated. According to War Footing, a book by Frank Gaffney and a team of national security experts, half of the cars in the U.S. are driven 20 miles per day or less. A “plug-in with a twenty-mile range battery would reduce gasoline consumption by, on average, 85 percent,” they write. But we’re not talking about a twenty-mile range. We’re talking about a range of about 100 miles with the ability to switch batteries if you need to drive longer.
> 
> One of the questions raised has been about the stress this would put on the electrical grid. Better Place says they are going to make use of alternative energy sources like wind power. The company is setting up its own energy infrastructure to take care of this obstacle and says electric cars are three times more energy efficient. Even here, Israel is making breakthroughs. Another company called Innowattech has developed the technology to generate electricity from generators in roads. The company says that it will not require extensive infrastructure construction and that the installation of generators on one traffic lane for one kilometer produces 220 kilowatts of electricity per hour.
> 
> However, not everyone believes the hype about Better Place. David Booth opines that the transformation in Israel isn’t transferable to the U.S. because of the size difference. He says that the limited range of a single charge means there’d have to be about as many battery switching stations as there are gas stations at the moment.
> 
> He also argues that car manufacturers won’t submit to one battery design, undermining Better Place’s plan to use the same batteries for each customer.
> 
> Booth’s first point puzzles me. If Better Place is successful in one part of the U.S., it will expand its operations just like any other business would. An immediate nationwide overhaul is not required. If customers are happy, the necessary revenue and demand will exist. As for the range, Booth doesn’t seem to take into account that customers won’t have to rely only upon battery switching stations. The charging stations that are much less expensive will be built in parking lots and you can count on the technology to improve and make each charge last longer as time goes on.
> 
> A valid point exists about car manufacturers wanting to design their own batteries, but we have to remember that they are businesses, first and foremost. Unless they want to build their own battery switching stations, they’ll have to make them compatible with Better Place’s facilities. Customers simply won’t buy their cars if it’s too difficult to exchange their battery. No matter how the capitalist competition ultimately unfolds, the point is that electric cars will have become a reality and businesses will be competing to make them as cheap and efficient as they can for consumers.
> 
> This is one of the few issues that all Americans can support wholeheartedly. It is great for the environment and will stimulate the economy as less money flows outside of the country to hostile governments. There may be nothing else that will as significantly shift the balance of power in the West’s direction.
> 
> Virtually every country hostile to the West relies upon our oil dependency, and a steep drop in this dependency will set off a chain reaction in our favor. Chavez will find himself struggling to fund the Colombian FARC. Ninety percent of the Iranian government’s export revenue is from oil sales and they can’t afford to lose a penny of it, especially as domestic consumption rises. Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria will find themselves without the Iranian sponsorship they require. Radical Islamic groups around the world will see their wallets get thin as they can’t raise as much money from the Gulf. The mosques, Islamic centers, and Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations springing up all over the place with Wahhabi financing will find their construction halted.
> 
> Israel may be about to deliver its most painful blow yet to its enemies since its creation in 1948 — without firing a single shot.
> 
> Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com, national security advisor to the Christian Action Network, and an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetrical Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC). He can be contacted at TDCAnalyst@aol.com.


----------



## a_majoor

A simple retrofit for office and barracks:

http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2010/Magnetic-Energy-Recovery-MERS.aspx



> *Magnetic Power Offers Energy-Saving Alternative*
> Office of Naval Research
> Corporate Communications Office
> Phone: (703) 696-5031
> Fax: (703) 696-5940
> E-mail: onrcsc@onr.navy.mil
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Sept. 23, 2010
> 
> By Rob Anastasio
> ONR Corporate Strategic Communications
> 
> ARLINGTON, Va. -- The Office of Naval Research Global (ONR Global) continues to pursue aggressive energy goals established by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, with the design of a system that controls electrical flow for lighting, a highly efficient platform that may spark a new era of power savings.
> 
> Designed by the Tokyo Institute of Technology and fine-tuned by researchers at MERSTech in partnership with the ONR Global’s office in Tokyo, the Magnetic Energy Recovery Switch (MERS) harnesses and recycles residual magnetic power that is produced by electrical current. By using a device that controls the flow of electricity, light bulbs can now maximize their potential. The proposal for the expanded experiment is scheduled for completion in October.
> 
> Dr. Chandra Curtis, program officer in ONR Global’s Tokyo office, said she is excited about the potential for mass consumption savings.
> 
> “We initially started by helping [MERSTech and the Tokyo Institute of Technology] optimize the development and assess the potential of the technology” Curtis said. “Now, we are looking for ways to demonstrate our commitment of energy savings to the Japanese government.”
> 
> This technology directly aligns with Mabus’ goals for the Department of the Navy, which were set at the 2009 Naval Energy Forum. Aside from utilizing renewable power sources for at least half of the shore-based energy on Navy bases, Mabus iterated a goal to ensure that at least 40 percent of the Navy's total energy consumption comes from alternative sources by 2020.
> 
> From April to June 2010, ONR Global funded a series of experiments at Tokyo’s Hardy Barracks Installation to analyze and evaluate the energy saving capability of the MERS lighting controller. After working with several overhead fluorescent lights that require 24-hour power, scientists proved that the MERS technology significantly reduced lighting energy consumption.
> 
> “After the testing was complete, we learned that with the new device installed there was a peak power saving of 39 percent,” Curtis said. “The device not only conserves electricity, but produces far less heat and produces less electromagnetic interference than conventional technologies.”
> 
> A proposal to apply the experiment to the entire Hardy Barracks Installation will be completed by the end of October 2010, carrying the project into 2011 if approved. Proposed testing areas include a break room, printing press room, laundry room, gymnasium and several offices.
> 
> “In trying to align with the Joint Statement of the U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee, scientists are trying to help reduce the impact on local communities by reducing the energy footprint of existing U.S. installations, becoming more responsible stewards of the environment,” Curtis said.
> 
> The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2008 about 517 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity were used for lighting by the residential and commercial sectors. Lighting accounts for nearly 20 percent of the average home’s electricity use, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
> About the Office of Naval Research
> 
> The Office of Naval Research provides the science and technology necessary to maintain the Navy and Marine Corps' technological advantage. Through its affiliates, ONR is a leader in science and technology with engagement in 50 states, 70 countries, 1,035 institutions of higher learning and 914 industry partners. ONR employs approximately 1,400 people, comprising uniformed, civilian and contract personnel with additional employees at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
> Image - Magnetic Recovery Switch
> 
> Office of Naval Research
> Corporate Communications Office
> Phone: (703) 696-5031
> Fax: (703) 696-5940
> E-mail: onrcsc@onr.navy.mil


----------



## a_majoor

I would be interested if this really was a 2013 model:

http://www.hybridcarblog.com/2009_09_01_archive.html



> *100+ mpg, cheap, 2-seat hybrids: Would you? *
> 
> Inevitably, if America is to end its foreign oil dependence anytime before 2040, it's going to take some serious out-of-the box thinking. And two-seat vehicles could be one bright breakthrough.
> 
> While Aptera has some cool thoughts on two-seat vehicles, the reengineered VW One-Liter L1 concept - potentially available by 2013 - might be the most compelling idea thus far.
> 
> Thanks to its 838 ponds and a slim 0.195 drag coefficient, the L1 diesel hybrid achieves a whopping 170 mpg.
> 
> Certainly, two-seats won't work for many, but for plenty of other commuters, couldn't such a vehicle be a hit if priced right?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I would be interested if this really was a 2013 model:
> 
> http://www.hybridcarblog.com/2009_09_01_archive.html



IMO, it will also hinge on top end speed and range.  It also better have a mighty impressive crash resistance.  I wouldn't want to be in one of those when it gets broadsided by an F-350.


----------



## a_majoor

A "real" car would be heavier and less efficient, but dropping from 170 MPG to "only" 100 MPG by adding crash and safety features is a trade most people would make. A more realistic proposal might resemble the SAAB 92 concept:


----------



## a_majoor

Of course it would be the Japanese who beat everyone (again) to the market:

http://gas2.org/2010/10/20/mazda2-subcompact-to-be-worlds-most-fuel-efficient-car/



> [close]
> *Mazda2 Subcompact To Be World’s Most Fuel Efficient Car?*
> 4 comments
> October 20, 2010 in Cars
> 
> I have a soft spot in my heart for Mazda. For one, they made one of the best sports cars of the 1980′s, the RX-7, and they did it their own way via a rotary engine. Mazda has also been integral to Ford’s renewed success, as the Blue Oval’s mid-size lineup (Fusion/Milan/MKZ) are based off of the Mazda6′s architecture. Ford has recently divested itself of its stake in Mazda, though perhaps at the wrong time.
> 
> Reuters is reporting that the Mazda2 subcompact, which goes on sale in Japan next year and will eventually make its way to America, could get gas mileage of around 70 mpg. That would make it the most efficient gas-only car in the world.
> 
> I have personally seen the Mazda2 up close and personal, and it certainly is a cute car. Mazda, which has no hybrid engine systems of its own, has taken to vastly improving its line of gas and diesel engines to compete with hybrids. If these rumors are true, not only are they competing, but completely blowing the competition out of the water. A 70 mpg gas-only car would outdo every hybrid on the planet. Of course, it depends on what continent the mpg is calculated, as Japan, America, and Europe all have different standards.
> 
> The Mazda2 goes on sale in Japan in 2011, and will be priced well-below any hybrid, which makes sense since it will use less “exotic” technology. It will have a choice of petrol or diesel engines from the new SKY lineup, which promises improved fuel mileage and performance by increasing the compression ratio and squeezing the most amount of energy out of every squirt of gas. Mazda is making a name for itself outside of the herd by ignoring hybrids and improving the internal combustion engine, though how long this tactic can work to their benefit, I don’t know. You’ve got to admire their gusto for trying to be different though, and it may pay massive dividends down the road.
> 
> Oh, and as for Ford, Mazda claims they still have a strategic partnership. We will see how that pans out as well.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

The Mazda2 is already here....I saw a number of them on the Mazda lot in Kitchener a couple of weekends ago on the way to my brother-in-law's place.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> The Mazda2 is already here....I saw a number of them on the Mazda lot in Kitchener a couple of weekends ago on the way to my brother-in-law's place.



Did you notice a sticker price?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Sorry....didn't get that close.

Was driving by and just caught them out of the corner of my eye and thought "Hey I know what those are!"

That being said, I just searched for and found the dealership online and here's the Mazda2 Pricing page:

http://kieswettermazda.com/New_Vehicles/2011-Mazda2-V_Price.php


Cheers, Matthew.


----------



## a_majoor

More on the Mazda 2 engine.

Perhaps a business model for them would be to sell engines built along these lines as drop in replacements for busses, trucks and high mileage vehicles like taxis.

http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=26613&channel=energy&section=



> *70 mpg, without a Hybrid*
> 
> A new Mazda model debuting in Japan gets its high fuel economy from an improved gas engine and a lightweight design.
> By Kevin Bullis
> 
> Next year, Mazda will sell a car in Japan that gets 70.5 miles per gallon (mpg), or 30 kilometers per liter. The fuel economy rating won't be nearly this good in the United States because of differing requirements, but even so, the car will likely use about as little fuel as a hybrid such as the Toyota Prius--without that car's added costs for its electric motor and batteries.
> 
> The Mazda, a subcompact called the Demio in Japan and the Mazda 2 elsewhere, will include a package of changes that improves fuel economy by about 30 percent over the current model. These include a more efficient engine and transmission, and a lighter body and suspension. The Mazda 2, and a range of new cars from other automakers that have been engineered to meet more stringent fuel economy standards, demonstrate what some experts have been saying for some time--internal combustion-powered cars are far from outdated. Indeed, improvements to gas-powered cars can reduce worldwide fuel consumption more quickly than introducing hybrids or electric vehicles, because variations on traditional engines tend to be less expensive and can be quickly implemented on more cars.
> 
> "We've been making engines for 100 years, and we keep figuring out how to make improvements in them. We will continue to figure out further improvements," says Greg Johnson, the manager of Ford's North American powerpacks. "For another 50 years, if not more, the internal combustion engine will be the primary driver." This week, Ford announced changes to its Focus model that improve its fuel economy by about 17 percent, to an estimated 40 mpg.
> 
> Mazda says the biggest source of improvement for the Mazda 2 is a new engine that compresses the fuel-air mixture in the engine far more than conventional gasoline engines do. Ordinarily, gas engines have about a 10-to-1 compression ratio. Mazda increased this to 14 to 1, a level typically seen only in diesel engines. Increasing compression has long been known to increase efficiency, but compressing the fuel-air mixture too much causes it to ignite prematurely--before the spark sets it off--a phenomenon called knocking. That decreases performance and can damage the engine. Mazda has introduced innovations to avoid knocking.
> 
> As a number of automakers, including Ford, are doing, Mazda has introduced direct injection--which involves spraying fuel directly into the engine's combustion chamber rather than into an adjacent port. Doing this cools the chamber, which helps prevent premature ignition. Mazda also modified the exhaust system--increasing the length and shape of the exhaust pipes to allow more exhaust gas to escape after combustion. Removing these hot gases also keeps the temperature down, but it has the drawback of interfering with emissions controls. That required other changes in the engine, including modifying ignition timing and the shape of the pistons.
> 
> Mazda also found that above a certain compression ratio, some of the bonds in gasoline molecules begin to break, generating heat. These reactions increase the total amount of energy released from the gasoline, improving efficiency, the company says. To take advantage of this phenomenon, the engineers set the ignition timing to occur after these bonds start to break.
> 
> Just as important for improving fuel economy were a new transmission and a redesign of the frame to use less steel, or to use lighter, high-tensile steel. Mazda also says it redesigned the suspension system to make it lighter without sacrificing performance. Mazda has also announced a diesel engine that could be about 20 percent more efficient than the new gasoline one.
> 
> The 70.5 mpg rating the car received in Japan isn't a clear indication of what Mazda 2's rating will be in the United States, which has different test procedures, safety requirements, and emissions requirements. The current version of the Mazda 2 was rated at 54 mpg in Japan, but only 35 mpg (for the manual transmission version) in the United States. Michael Omotoso, manager of the power train forecasting group at J.D. Power and Associates, estimates that the new car could be rated between 50 and 60 mpg in the U.S., giving it a chance to eclipse the 51 mpg rating of the Prius (which gets 48 mpg on the highway).
> 
> Mazda will introduce the new engine and transmission in a number of vehicles next year, although it has not announced the specific models, or when the new Mazda 2 will be available in the United States. The new engine and transmission will be introduced in the United States next year in a larger car that will get about 43 mpg.
> 
> Although the new Mazdas avoid the costly motor, power electronics, and battery pack required in a hybrid, the improvements will likely add to the cost of the cars. Volkswagen recently introduced an 83-mpg diesel vehicle that wasn't successful because of the high costs of achieving these fuel economy levels, Omotoso says. Mazda hasn't announced prices yet. "I would think they learned a lesson from Volkswagen," he says.
> 
> Copyright Technology Review 2010.


----------



## jhk87

Thucydides said:
			
		

> How *not* to save oil:
> 
> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-gm-volt-fascism-strikes-the-auto-industry/




1 - PJ media is generally known as the hard core of the Tea PArty movement _et al_ who are least concerned with factual accuracy and obsessed with the perils of big government.

2 - The label of "fascism" to a *car* demeans the victims of fascism and really makes rational discussion impossible.

3 - This isn't about a more efficient car engine, it about an economy (or series of economies) spending huge sums to ensure that the current consumption of hydrocarbons can be continued rather than investing that money in finding new ways to use mroe available forms of energy.

Take, for example, the Iraq War. Whether or not it was fought for direct access to oil reserves is up for debate, but it is very difficult to deny that it had a lot to with regional politics in a major oil-producing region. We do have rough estimates that the war will end up costing about $3 trillion US - a fraction of which could have rebuilt the US, and therefore the North American transport infrastructure (much in the same way that the Depression brought on the major highway systems that made the hyrdocarbon economy possible.)

Essentially, it's a matter of financing investment or consumption.


----------



## a_majoor

jhk87 said:
			
		

> (much in the same way that the Depression brought on the major highway systems that made the hyrdocarbon economy possible.)





> The Interstate Highway System was authorized by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956[11] – popularly known as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 – on June 29.


----------



## jhk87

> Total expenditures on WPA [works project administration, part of the New Deal] projects through June 1941, totaled approximately $11.4 billion. Over $4 billion was spent on highway, road, and street projects; more than $1 billion on public buildings, including the iconic Dock Street Theatre in Charleston, the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles, and the Timberline Lodge on Oregon's Mt. Hood;[9] more than $1 billion on publicly owned or operated utilities; and another $1 billion on welfare projects, including sewing projects for women, the distribution of surplus commodities and school lunch projects.[10] One construction project was the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut, the bridges of which were each designed as architecturally unique.[11]


----------



## a_majoor

Nuclear shipping?

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/11/nuclear-commercial-ships-on-specific.html#more



> *Nuclear commercial ships on specific trade routes will be here sooner than expected*
> 
> "We will see nuclear ships on specific trade routes sooner than many people currently anticipate," said Lloyd's Register CEO Richard Sadler. The organisation has been an independent service provider to the shipping industry for 250 years. There is the potential for market-based measures for controlling carbon dioxide emissions, while the entry into force of strict International Maritime Organisation controls in 2020 provides a firm deadline against which the industry can weigh the benefits of a range of technology enhancements and fuel options. But with no clear technological fix to lower emissions using traditional diesel or LPG fuels, nuclear energy is emerging as a practical option.
> 
> In response to its members' interest in nuclear propulsion Lloyd's Register has recently rewritten its 'rules' for nuclear ships, which concern the integration of a reactor certified by a land-based regulator with the rest of the ship. A draft of the rules was put before Lloyd's technical committee two weeks ago and this represents a further step towards an international regulatory regime to ensure worldwide safety in a potential nuclear shipping sector.
> 
> The new program of joint research (Marine and energy consultants BMT Group and Enterprises Shipping and Trading have joined with start-up small reactor firm Hyperion and Lloyd's Register to "investigate the practical maritime applications for small modular reactors.") is meant to produce "a concept tanker ship design based on conventional and modular concepts," said Lloyd's. It noted that "Special attention will be paid to analysis of a vessel's lifecycle cost as well as to hull-form designs and structural layout, including grounding and collision protection."
> 
> Nuclear power looked set for a maritime role in the 1960s thanks to early vessels like the Savannah and Otto Hahn, although in the end the Savannah worked for only ten years and the Otto Hahn was repowered with diesel engines after nine years. The Japanese-built Mutsu operated from 1970 until 1992 but none of these ships was a commercial success.
> 
> Nuclear options
> 
> Cruise liner
> 
> A luxury liner has the power demand curve of a town, including peaks at morning and evening mealtimes. Conceivably a 100 MWe nuclear power system could take the baseload role with smaller diesels for peak load and back-up.
> 
> Bulk carrier
> 
> Transporters moving large cargoes like raw materials on point-to-point routes could run much faster with the extra power and low emissions from a nuclear reactor. A frequent service could be run by fewer vessels, mitigating the extra capital cost.
> 
> Supertug
> 
> Existing conventionally powered vessels could attach to a nuclear-powered tug for emissions-free passage across oceans.
> 
> What about the ports?
> 
> Nuclear powered vessels could be the subject of controversy and this would seem to make a nuclear cruise liner concept difficult due to passenger and port acceptance. However, a point-to-point cargo service would need only agreement from two states and the supertug could remain in international water. Another idea is to create a large nuclear vessel with a conventionally powered detachable section to take cargo to port.
> 
> There remain about 200 small reactors at sea in military fleets but this technology cannot easily be transferred to the civil sector due to the requirement of using low-enriched uranium (LEU). High-enriched uranium allows more compact reactor designs with weight and controllability benefits.
> 
> The reactor of the Hyperion system uses LEU and measures about 1.5 metres by 2.5 metres. It would produce about 70 MWt - enough for about 25 MWe for propulsion. Its 'battery' design simplifies refuelling to a swap-out operation every 8-10 years with the possibility of managed lease arrangements similar to aircraft engines.
> 
> However, incorporation of any reactor in a ship would require extensive radiation shielding, consideration of impact protection. A step change in crew training would be required and there is a strong case for crew to be supplied by reactor vendors.


----------



## a_majoor

No oil indeed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/science/28tierney.html?_r=2&ref=science



> *Economic Optimism? Yes, I’ll Take That Bet*
> By JOHN TIERNEY
> Published: December 27, 2010
> 
> Five years ago, Matthew R. Simmons and I bet $5,000. It was a wager about the future of energy supplies — a Malthusian pessimist versus a Cornucopian optimist — and now the day of reckoning is nigh: Jan. 1, 2011.
> 
> The bet was occasioned by a cover article in August 2005 in The New York Times Magazine titled “The Breaking Point.” It featured predictions of soaring oil prices from Mr. Simmons, who was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the head of a Houston investment bank specializing in the energy industry, and the author of “Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy.”
> 
> I called Mr. Simmons to discuss a bet. To his credit — and unlike some other Malthusians — he was eager to back his predictions with cash. He expected the price of oil, then about $65 a barrel, to more than triple in the next five years, even after adjusting for inflation. He offered to bet $5,000 that the average price of oil over the course of 2010 would be at least $200 a barrel in 2005 dollars.
> 
> I took him up on it, not because I knew much about Saudi oil production or the other “peak oil” arguments that global production was headed downward. I was just following a rule learned from a mentor and a friend, the economist Julian L. Simon.
> 
> As the leader of the Cornucopians, the optimists who believed there would always be abundant supplies of energy and other resources, Julian figured that betting was the best way to make his argument. Optimism, he found, didn’t make for cover stories and front-page headlines.
> 
> No matter how many cheery long-term statistics he produced, he couldn’t get as much attention as the gloomy Malthusians like Paul Ehrlich, the best-selling ecologist. Their forecasts of energy crises and resource shortages seemed not only newsier but also more intuitively correct. In a finite world with a growing population, wasn’t it logical to expect resources to become scarcer and more expensive?
> 
> As an alternative to arguing, Julian offered to bet that the price of any natural resource chosen by a Malthusian wouldn’t rise in the future. Dr. Ehrlich accepted and formed a consortium with two colleagues at Berkeley, John P. Holdren and John Harte, who were supposed to be experts in natural resources. In 1980, they picked five metals and bet that the prices would rise during the next 10 years.
> 
> By 1990, the prices were lower, and the Malthusians paid up, although they didn’t seem to suffer any professional consequences. Dr. Ehrlich and Dr. Holdren both won MacArthur “genius awards” (Julian never did). Dr. Holdren went on to lead the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and today he serves as President Obama’s science adviser.
> 
> Julian, who died in 1998, never managed to persuade Dr. Ehrlich or Dr. Holdren or other prominent doomsayers to take his bets again.
> 
> When I found a new bettor in 2005, the first person I told was Julian’s widow, Rita Simon, a public affairs professor at American University. She was so happy to see Julian’s tradition continue that she wanted to share the bet with me, so we each ended up each putting $2,500 against Mr. Simmons’s $5,000.
> 
> Just as Mr. Simmons predicted, oil prices did soar well beyond $65. With the global economy booming in the summer of 2008, the price of a barrel of oil reached $145. American foreign-policy experts called for policies to secure access to this increasingly scarce resource; environmentalists advocated crash programs to reduce dependence on fossil fuels; companies producing power from wind and other alternative energies rushed to expand capacity.
> 
> When the global recession hit in the fall of 2008, the price plummeted below $50, but at the end of that year Mr. Simmons was quoted in The Baltimore Sun sounding confident. When Jay Hancock, a Sun financial columnist, asked if he was having any second thoughts about the wager, Mr. Simmons replied: “God, no. We bet on the average price in 2010. That’s an eternity from now.”
> 
> The past year the price has rebounded, but the average for 2010 has been just under $80, which is the equivalent of about $71 in 2005 dollars — a little higher than the $65 at the time of our bet, but far below the $200 threshold set by Mr. Simmons.
> 
> What lesson do we draw from this? I’d hoped to let Mr. Simmons give his view, but I’m very sorry to report that he died in August, at the age of 67. The colleagues handling his affairs reviewed the numbers last week and declared that Mr. Simmons’s $5,000 should be awarded to me and to Rita Simon on Jan. 1, but Mr. Simmons still had his defenders.
> 
> One of his friends and fellow peak-oil theorists, Steve Andrews, said that while Mr. Simmons had made “a bet too far,” he was still correct in foreseeing more expensive oil. “The era of cheap oil has ended,” Mr. Andrews said, and predicted problems ahead as production levels off.
> 
> It’s true that the real price of oil is slightly higher now than it was in 2005, and it’s always possible that oil prices will spike again in the future. But the overall energy situation today looks a lot like a Cornucopian feast, as my colleagues Matt Wald and Cliff Krauss have recently reported. Giant new oil fields have been discovered off the coasts of Africa and Brazil. The new oil sands projects in Canada now supply more oil to the United States than Saudi Arabia does. Oil production in the United States increased last year, and the Department of Energy projects further increases over the next two decades.
> 
> The really good news is the discovery of vast quantities of natural gas. It’s now selling for less than half of what it was five years ago. There’s so much available that the Energy Department is predicting low prices for gas and electricity for the next quarter-century. Lobbyists for wind farms, once again, have been telling Washington that the “sustainable energy” industry can’t sustain itself without further subsidies.
> 
> As gas replaces dirtier fossil fuels, the rise in greenhouse gas emissions will be tempered, according to the Department of Energy. It projects that no new coal power plants will be built, and that the level of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States will remain below the rate of 2005 for the next 15 years even if no new restrictions are imposed.
> 
> Maybe something unexpected will change these happy trends, but for now I’d say that Julian Simon’s advice remains as good as ever. You can always make news with doomsday predictions, but you can usually make money betting against them.


----------



## a_majoor

Another cold fusion announcement. Well, they promise to demonstrate a large power output, so there is either a vary bold bunch staking everything on this or the most elaborate fraud ever...

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/multi-kilowatt-nickel-hydrogen-cold.html#more



> *There will be 10 kilowatt nickel hydrogen cold fusion demonstration on January 15 in Italy and peer reviewed papers*
> 
> The Journal Of Nuclear Physics (Peer Reviewed online journal) is announcing:
> 
> Saturday january 15th Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi will make a press conference online about the presentation of the 10 kilowatt module reactor: with 100 of such modules is made the 1 MW plant in construction.
> 
> The press conference will start at 10 a.m. Italian Time.
> 
> It is a public demonstration of a significant level of power. The Nissan Leaf electric car has an 80 kilowatt electric motor
> 
> Here is the Italian press release. il Resto del Carlino is an Italian local newspaper based in Bologna, and is one of the oldest newspapers in Italy. Circulation 165,000.
> 
> Here is the Google Translate version of the Italian press release
> 
> Here is an earlier Rossi-Focardi paper describing their experiments and what they believe is nickel being fused with hydrogen into a copper isotope
> 
> 
> A process (international patent publication N. WO 2009/125444 A1) capable of producing large amounts of energy by a nuclear fusion process between nickel and hydrogen, occurring below 1000 K, is described.
> 
> Hydrogen/Nickel cold fusion probable mechanism
> 
> The Focardi-Rossi approach considers this shielding a basic requirement for surpassing the Coulomb barrier between the hydrogen nuclei (protons) and the Nickel lattice nuclei, resulting into release of energy, which is a fact, through a series of exothermic nuclear processes leading to transmutations, decays, etc.
> 
> The reasoning presented in this note is based on elementary considerations of
> 
> · The hydrogen atom (Bohr) in its fundamental energy state
> · The Heisenberg uncertainty principle
> · The high speed of nuclear reactions (10ˆ-20 sec)
> 
> The hydrogen atom (Bohr) in its fundamental state, in the absence of energy perturbations, remains indefinitely in its stationary state shown below. This is due to the in-phase wave (de Broglie), which follows the “circular” path of its single orbiting electron. The wave length and radius of the “circular” path are determined by the fundamental energy state of this atom.
> 
> When hydrogen atoms come in contact with the metal (Ni), they abandon their stationary state as they deposit their electrons in the conductivity band of the metal, and due to their greatly reduced volume, compared to that of their atom, the hydrogen nuclei (naked protons) readily diffuse into the defects of the nickel crystalline structure as well as in tetrahedral or octahedral void spaces of the crystal lattice.
> 
> It should be underlined that, in addition to the deposited hydrogen electrons, in the nickel mass included are also electrons of the chemical potential of the metal. Jointly these electrons constitute the conductivity electronic cloud, distributed in energy bands (Fermi), and quasi free to move throughout the metallic mass.
> 
> it is conceivable that, for a very short time period (e.g. 10ˆ-18 sec), a series of neutral mini atoms of hydrogen could be formed, in an unstable state, of various size and energy level, distributed within the Fermi band, which is enlarged due to the very short time (Heisenberg).
> 
> The neutral mini-atoms of high energy and very short wave length – which is in phase with the “cyclic” orbit (de Broglie) – are statistically captured be the nickel nuclei of the crystal structure with the speed of nuclear reactions (10ˆ-20 sec).
> 
> For these mini-atoms to fuse with the nickel nuclei, apart from their neutral character for surpassing the Coulomb barrier, they must have dimensions smaller than 10ˆ-14 m, where nuclear cohesion forces, of high intensity but very short range, are predominant. It is assumed that only a percentage of such atoms satisfy this condition (de Broglie).
> 
> The above considerations are based only on an intuitive approach and I trust this phenomenon could be tackled in a systematic and integrated way through the “theory of time dependent perturbations” by employing the appropriate Hamiltonian
> 
> The mechanism proposed by Focardi – Rossi, verified by mass spectroscopy data, which predicts transmutation of a nickel nucleus to an unstable copper nucleus (isotope), remains in principle valid. The difference is that inside the unstable copper nucleus, produced from the fusion of a hydrogen mini-atom with a nickel nucleus, is trapped the mini-atom electron (β-), which in my opinion undergoes in-situ annihilation, with the predicted (Focardi-Rossi) decay β+ of the new copper nucleus.
> 
> The β+ and β- annihilation (interaction of matter and anti-matter) would lead to the emission of a high energy photon, γ, (Einstein) from the nucleus of the now stable copper isotope and a neutrin to conserve the lepton number. However, based on the principle of conservation of momentum, as a result of the backlash of this nucleus, the photon energy γ is divided into kinetic energy of this nucleus of large mass (heat) and a photon of low frequency.
> 
> Furthermore, it should be noted that the system does not exhibit the Mössbauer* phenomenon for two reasons:
> 
> 1. The copper nucleus is not part of the nickel crystal structure and behaves as an isolated atom in quasi gaseous state
> 2. Copper, as a chemical element, does not exhibit the Mössbauer phenomenon.
> 
> In conclusion, it should be underlined that the copper nucleus thermal perturbation, as a result of its mechanical backlash(heat), is transferred to its encompassing nickel lattice and propagated, by in phase phonons (G. Preparata), through the entire nano-crystal. This could explain why in cold fusion the released energy is mainly in the form of heat and the produced (low) γ radiation can be easily shielded.
> 
> Further Reading
> 
> Is the Rossi energy amplifier the first pico-chemical reactor?
> 
> The nuclear signatures that can be expected when contacting hydrogen with nickel, were derived from thermal results recently obtained (Rossi energy amplifier), using the type of reaction paths proposed as the explanation of the energy produced. The consequences of proton or neutron capture have been studied. It was shown that these consequences are not in line with the experimental observations. A novel tentative explanation is thus described. Should this explanation be true, it is proposed to call pico-chemistry the novel field thus opened.
> 
> Nuclear signatures to be expected from Rossi energy amplifier
> 
> Strong nuclear signatures are expected from the Rossi energy amplifier and it is hoped that this note can help evidence them.
> 
> It is of interest to note that in a mechanism is proposed, that strongly suppresses the gamma emission during the run (it is the same mechanism that creates very low energy neutrons, subsequently captured by the nickel. This does not suppress the emission after shut-down, which should be observed, together with the transmutations described above.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

www.xconomy.com/boston/2010/09/14/joule-gets-biofuel-bacteria-patent/

Fair Dealings and all that:



> Joule Gets Biofuel Bacteria Patent
> Gregory T. Huang 9/14/10
> Cambridge, MA-based Joule Unlimited, a biofuels technology company, announced today it has been granted a U.S. patent for an engineered bacterium that produces liquid hydrocarbon fuels from sunlight and carbon dioxide. The company says it is the first to patent a direct, single-step, continuous process (based on photosynthesis) for producing hydrocarbon fuels without using raw material feedstocks like sugar or corn, or other intermediate steps. Joule says this process could be made cheap enough, and could be employed at large enough scale, to help replace fossil fuels. The news was first reported by the New York Times; a CNET report also has some useful context. Other companies in the biofuels technology sector include Amyris Biotechnologies, Aurora Algae, Bio Architecture Lab, LS9, Sapphire Energy, Synthetic Genomics, and Targeted Growth. Joule says it will begin pilot production of diesel fuel by the end of this year.
> 
> Gregory T. Huang is Xconomy's National IT Editor and the Editor of Xconomy Boston. You can e-mail him at gthuang@xconomy.com, call him at 617-252-7323, or follow him at twitter.com/gthuang.



If what Joule is claiming is even remotely true- it will change everything.  By definition, this would be a carbon neutral process.


----------



## DBA

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Another cold fusion announcement. Well, they promise to demonstrate a large power output, so there is either a vary bold bunch staking everything on this or the most elaborate fraud ever...
> 
> http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/multi-kilowatt-nickel-hydrogen-cold.html#more



Sorry to say the "Hydrogen/Nickel cold fusion probable mechanism" reference is just a pile of gibberish.


----------



## a_majoor

While we all wait for a plain english explanation of the "Cold Fusion" demonstration, rest assured that the market is providing incentives to uncover oil in lots of new places:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/estimates-of-north-dakotas-oil.html



> *Estimates of North Dakota's Bakken Oil and oil formations around the world like the Bakken*
> 
> 1. Harold Hamm, chairman and chief executive officer of Continental Resources Inc., said the formations in North Dakota and Montana hold about 20 billion barrels of recoverable crude, or about five times the amount previously estimated by federal geologists. The formations also hold the natural gas equivalent of 4 billion barrels of oil.
> 
> This is a follow up to a prior article about the Continental resources estimate of the recoverable oil from the Bakken formation
> 
> The U.S. Geological Survey released a study in 2008 that estimated that up to 4.3 billion barrels of oil can be recovered in the Bakken. USGS geologist Rich Pollastro said the agency hasn't seen enough data to amend its estimate.
> 
> "We think our numbers are fine," Pollastro said Thursday. "We don't see anything at this point that would radically change them."
> 
> A state study released after the USGS study found a near identical assessment as the federal report. The state has since bumped its estimate to about 11 billion barrels of oil, based on drilling success and current production rates.
> 
> Ed Murphy, the state geologist and director of the Geological Survey, said Continental's new estimate is possible.
> 
> "We know the Bakken is going up but we think (Continental's) estimate might be on the high end of what we would potentially come up with," Murphy said.
> 
> "The technology continues to improve," Hamm said.
> 
> Hamm called his company's assessment "believable" and could mean production at 1 million barrels daily by 2020. He told bankers that would make North Dakota "one of the 13 or 14 largest producing countries — not just state."
> 
> Hamm ranked as the 44th-richest American last year, with a net worth of nearly $6 billion, by Forbes magazine estimates
> 
> 2. How Many "Bakkens" Will Be Found?
> The Arthur Creek shale formation in the Southern Georgina (Australia) is very similar to the Bakken but with about 5 times the thickness. All 18 exploratory wells drilled so far have shown oil. Australian geologists certainly seem to think they have found another Bakken. In another 15 to 18 months we will know if this is indeed true.
> 
> It is not Australia, however, but France-- where the greatest industry anticipation and activity is building in the search for the next Bakken; in the well known Paris basin.
> 
> The Paris basin (current production of less than 15,000 bpd of conventional oil) covers the northern half of France and extends into neighboring countries. It is a vintage oil and gas basin. Over 2 thousand wells have been drilled and 52 fields discovered. It has extensive oil and gas shale deposits. The 3 oil shale formations are the Lower Lias , Amaltheus and Schistes Carton. The current focus of excitement is the Lower Lias with estimated oil in place resource base of a few billion to tens of billions of barrels. The estimates (guesses) for the oil in place in the other 2 formations are much higher.
> 
> Torreador Resources asserts that an estimated 100 billion barrels of oil have been generated from source rocks in the Paris basin, of which 30 billion are in the Lower Lias.
> 
> In addition to the Paris Basin, Hess thinks it has found a basin analogous to the Bakken in China.
> 
> There are potentially huge shale gas discoveries in Argentina, Quebec, Poland, India, the UK, off the coast of Israel, in China, British Columbia.


----------



## a_majoor

And if that drilling for oil thing isn't working:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2011/01/biofuel-breakthrough.html



> '
> *Biofuel Breakthrough?*
> 
> I have just been notified by my friends at Talk Polywell of a break through in the biologic generation of liquid fuels. The Globe and Mail reports on the breakthrough (although my friends at Talk Polywell think the report is garbled by a not entirely science literate reporter).
> 
> In September, a privately held and highly secretive U.S. biotech company named Joule Unlimited received a patent for “a proprietary organism” – a genetically adapted E. coli bacterium – that feeds solely on carbon dioxide and excretes liquid hydrocarbons: diesel fuel, jet fuel and gasoline. This breakthrough technology, the company says, will deliver renewable supplies of liquid fossil fuel almost anywhere on Earth, in essentially unlimited quantity and at an energy-cost equivalent of $30 (U.S.) a barrel of crude oil. It will deliver, the company says, “fossil fuels on demand.”
> Not only that. They can tailor the organisms to produce specific fuels using only CO2, water (fresh or salt), and sunlight.
> 
> Joule says it now has “a library” of fossil-fuel organisms at work in its Massachusetts labs, each engineered to produce a different fuel. It has “proven the process,” has produced ethanol (for example) at a rate equivalent to 10,000 U.S. gallons an acre a year. It anticipates that this yield could hit 25,000 gallons an acre a year when scaled for commercial production, equivalent to roughly 800 barrels of crude an acre a year.
> 
> By way of comparison, Cornell University’s David Pimentel, an authority on ethanol, says that one acre of corn produces less than half as much energy, equivalent to only 328 barrels. If a few hundred barrels of crude sounds modest, recall that millions of acres of prime U.S. farmland are now used to make corn ethanol.
> 
> So is this reputable or just a bunch of scammers?
> Joule acknowledges its reluctance to fully explain its “solar converter.” CEO Bill Sims told Biofuels Digest, an online biofuels news service, that secrecy has been essential for competitive reasons. “Some time soon,” he said, “what we are doing will become clear.” Although astonishing in its assertions, Joule gains credibility from its co-founder: George Church, the Harvard Medical School geneticist who helped initiate the Human Genome Project in 1984.
> 
> Well how about a look at what Biofuels Digest has to say.
> In Massachusetts, Joule Unlimited has won a second key patent for its genetically modified cyanobacteria that directly convert sunlight and carbon dioxide into n-alkanes, and other diesel fuel molecules. The patent is the first awarded for a bacteria that makes fuel directly from water, sunlight and CO2, as opposed to organisms that make fuels from sugar or other cellulosic biomass, such as those engineered by LS9, Amyris or Solazyme.
> 
> As reported previously in the Digest, Joule is using a genetically modified form of cyanobacteria. Two weeks ago, Joule received its first key patent for “methods and compositions for modifying photoautotrophic organisms as hosts, such that the organisms efficiently convert carbon dioxide and light into n-alkanes."
> 
> Those reporting the death of the US as a world power may have been somewhat premature. Joule is reported to be building a prototype plant in Leander, Tex. At this stage of course nothing is certain. It will probably take a couple of years to prove this out and get the "bugs" out of the system. And probably a couple of decades to scale up the idea until the production becomes a significant fraction of US liquid fuel use. Time will tell.
> 
> Here is another possible approach:
> 
> Green Algae Strategy: End Oil Imports And Engineer Sustainable Food And Fuel
> 
> Cross Posted at Classical Values


----------



## a_majoor

Another "wonder" engine design. I am a bit sceptical about the design as it has been described, and high compression can be achieved through the use of supechargers, turbochargers, comprex pressure wave devices and other external devices, as well as internally through Diesel technology. Wait and see

http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=27124



> *Automakers Show Interest in an Unusual Engine Design*
> The Scuderi engine could substantially improve fuel consumption by storing compressed air.
> By Kevin Bullis
> 
> An engine development company called the Scuderi Group recently announced progress in its effort to build an engine that can reduce fuel consumption by 25 to 36 percent compared to a conventional design. Such an improvement would be roughly equal to a 50 percent increase in fuel economy.
> 
> Sal Scuderi, president of the Scuderi Group, which has raised $65 million since it was founded in 2002, says that nine major automotive companies have signed nondisclosure agreements that allow them access to detailed data about the engine. Scuderi says he is hopeful that at least one of the automakers will sign a licensing deal before the year is over. Historically, major automakers have been reluctant to license engine technology because they prefer to develop the engines themselves as the core technology of their products. But as pressure mounts to meet new fuel-economy regulations, automakers have become more interested in looking at outside technology.
> 
> Although Scuderi has built a prototype engine to demonstrate the basic design, the fuel savings figures are based not on the performance of the prototype but on computer simulations that compare the Scuderi engine to the conventional engine in a 2004 Chevrolet Cavalier, a vehicle for which extensive simulation data is publicly available, Scuderi says. Since 2004, automakers have introduced significant improvements to engines, but these generally improve fuel economy in the range of something like 20 percent, compared to the approximately 50 percent improvement the Scuderi simulations show.
> 
> There's a big difference, however, between simulation results and data from engines in actual vehicles, says Larry Rinek, a senior consultant with Frost and Sullivan, an analyst firm. "So far things are looking encouraging—but will they really meet the lofty claims?" he says. Automakers should wait to see data from an actual engine installed in a vehicle before they license the technology, he says.
> 
> A conventional engine uses a four stroke cycle: air is pulled into the chamber, the air is compressed, fuel is added and a spark ignites the mixture, and finally the combustion gases are forced out of the cylinder. In the Scuderi engine, known as a split-cycle engine, these functions are divided between two adjacent cylinders. One cylinder draws in air and compresses it. The compressed air moves through a tube into a second cylinder, where fuel is added and combustion occurs.
> 
> Splitting these functions gives engineers flexibility in how they design and control the engine. In the case of the Scuderi engine, there are two main changes from what happens in a conventional internal-combustion engine. The first is a change to when combustion occurs as the piston moves up and down in the cylinder. The second is the addition of a compressed-air storage tank.
> 
> In most gasoline engines, combustion occurs as the piston approaches the top of the cylinder. In the Scuderi engine, it occurs after the piston starts moving down again. The advantage is that the position of the piston gives it better leverage on the crankshaft, which allows the car to accelerate more efficiently at low engine speeds, saving fuel. The challenge is that, as the piston moves down, the volume inside the combustion chamber rapidly increases and the pressure drops, making it difficult to build up enough pressure from combustion to drive the piston and move the car.
> 
> The split-cycle design, however, allows for extremely fast combustion—three to four times faster than in conventional engines, Scuderi says—which increases pressure far faster than the volume expansion decreases it. He says that fast combustion is enabled by creating very high pressure air in the compression cylinder, and then releasing it into the combustion chamber at high velocities.
> 
> Having a separate air-compression cylinder makes it easy to divert compressed air into a storage tank, which can have a number of advantages.  For one thing, it's a way to address one problem with gasoline engines: they're particularly inefficient at low loads, such as when a car is cruising at moderate speeds along a level road. Under such conditions, the air intake in a conventional engine is partly closed to limit the amount of air that comes into the engine—"it's like sucking air in through a straw," Scuderi says, which makes the engine work harder.
> 
> In the new engine design, rather than shutting down air flow, the air intake is kept wide open, "taking big gulps of air," he says.  The air that's not needed for combustion is stored in the air tank. Once the tank is full, the compression piston stops compressing air. It's allowed to move up and down freely, without any significant load being put on the engine, which saves fuel. The air tank then feeds compressed air into the combustion chamber.
> 
> The air tank also provides a way to capture some of the energy from slowing down the car. As the car slows, the wheels drive the compression cylinder, filling up the air tank. The compressed air is then used for combustion as needed.
> 
> It is still far from clear whether the design can be a commercial success. Even if the simulation results translate into actual engine performance in a car, the engine may not prove to be easy and affordable to manufacture, Rinek says, especially with equipment in existing factories. The design will also have to compete with many other up-and-coming engine designs. Scuderi says the first application of the engine might not be in cars, but instead as a power generator, especially in applications where having compressed air on hand can be useful. For example, construction sites can require electricity for power saws and compressed air for nail guns.


----------



## a_majoor

Fusion energy has been 20 years away for the last 50 years, maybe these alternative approaches will finally yield success:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/magnetized-target-fusion.html#more



> *Magnetized Target Fusion*
> 
> Discovery Magazine provides an update of the work at Los Alamos National Laboratory on magnetized target fusion
> 
> Wurden thinks his team has a shot at beating ITER to the break-even finish line, but only if he can scrounge up a little more cash. “We can’t do it with the funding we have now,” he says. “The Department of Energy sponsors all the magnetic fusion research in the country. Alternate projects like ours are at best about 10 percent of the budget, maybe $20 million divided among 10 universities and a couple of national labs.”
> 
> The Los Alamos work is similar to the work of General Fusion which we have covered extensively. We have also discussed the Los Alamos work before.
> 
> Even if NIF beats canned fusion to break-even, Wurden thinks his approach will be more practical in the long run. NIF’s lasers currently fire just two or three times a day. It takes 30 minutes just to position the fuel capsule. A commercial laser fusion reactor might have to fire about 15 times a second.
> 
> For a reality check on Shiva Star, I spoke with Jaeyoung Park, an experimental physicist who has taken leave from Los Alamos to join a small team in Santa Fe that is pursuing its own fusion research. His biggest concern is that Wurden may not be able to contain the deuterium plasma long enough. “It’s very difficult to squeeze the plasma uniformly—the squeezing has to be fast and furious,” Park says. “And heat losses might make it impossible for the plasma to achieve the high temperatures needed for fusion. But Glen is planning some significant experiments, and even if the first ones fail, the results should tell us something important.”
> 
> Wurden acknowledges those problems and brings up another for good measure. “How do you control millions of amps of current at thousands of volts?” he asks. “The switches we use are fancy things that work under high voltage. We can switch high currents maybe 20 times a day.” But a working fusion reactor based on Shiva Star would need to handle such currents once every 10 seconds.
> 
> Canada's General Fusion is also working to Magnetized Target Fusion but with a different approach
> 
> General Fusion’s magnetized target fusion reactor will incorporate a multipurpose liquid-metal lining to produce tritium, protect equipment from damage, and extract the heat that generates energy. The company hopes to achieve break-even by 2013


----------



## a_majoor

Good news/bad news. The good news is these techniques may radically reduce the need for Americans to import oil. The bad news is we sell the Americans a lot of oil...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110209/ap_on_re_us/us_shale_oil_3



> *New drilling method opens vast oil fields in US*
> By JONATHAN FAHEY, AP Energy Writer – Wed Feb 9, 3:20 pm ET
> 
> A new drilling technique is opening up vast fields of previously out-of-reach oil in the western United States, helping reverse a two-decade decline in domestic production of crude.
> 
> Companies are investing billions of dollars to get at oil deposits scattered across North Dakota, Colorado, Texas and California. By 2015, oil executives and analysts say, the new fields could yield as much as 2 million barrels of oil a day — more than the entire Gulf of Mexico produces now.
> This new drilling is expected to raise U.S. production by at least 20 percent over the next five years. And within 10 years, it could help reduce oil imports by more than half, advancing a goal that has long eluded policymakers.
> 
> "That's a significant contribution to energy security," says Ed Morse, head of commodities research at Credit Suisse.
> Oil engineers are applying what critics say is an environmentally questionable method developed in recent years to tap natural gas trapped in underground shale. They drill down and horizontally into the rock, then pump water, sand and chemicals into the hole to crack the shale and allow gas to flow up.
> 
> Because oil molecules are sticky and larger than gas molecules, engineers thought the process wouldn't work to squeeze oil out fast enough to make it economical. But drillers learned how to increase the number of cracks in the rock and use different chemicals to free up oil at low cost.
> "We've completely transformed the natural gas industry, and I wouldn't be surprised if we transform the oil business in the next few years too," says Aubrey McClendon, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy, which is using the technique.
> 
> Petroleum engineers first used the method in 2007 to unlock oil from a 25,000-square-mile formation under North Dakota and Montana known as the Bakken. Production there rose 50 percent in just the past year, to 458,000 barrels a day, according to Bentek Energy, an energy analysis firm.
> It was first thought that the Bakken was unique. Then drillers tapped oil in a shale formation under South Texas called the Eagle Ford. Drilling permits in the region grew 11-fold last year.
> 
> Now newer fields are showing promise, including the Niobrara, which stretches under Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas; the Leonard, in New Mexico and Texas; and the Monterey, in California.
> 
> "It's only been fleshed out over the last 12 months just how consequential this can be," says Mark Papa, chief executive of EOG Resources, the company that first used horizontal drilling to tap shale oil. "And there will be several additional plays that will come about in the next 12 to 18 months. We're not done yet."
> 
> Environmentalists fear that fluids or wastewater from the process, called hydraulic fracturing, could pollute drinking water supplies. The Environmental Protection Agency is now studying its safety in shale drilling. The agency studied use of the process in shallower drilling operations in 2004 and found that it was safe.
> 
> In the Bakken formation, production is rising so fast there is no space in pipelines to bring the oil to market. Instead, it is being transported to refineries by rail and truck. Drilling companies have had to erect camps to house workers.
> 
> Unemployment in North Dakota has fallen to the lowest level in the nation, 3.8 percent — less than half the national rate of 9 percent. The influx of mostly male workers to the region has left local men lamenting a lack of women. Convenience stores are struggling to keep shelves stocked with food.
> The Bakken and the Eagle Ford are each expected to ultimately produce 4 billion barrels of oil. That would make them the fifth- and sixth-biggest oil fields ever discovered in the United States. The top four are Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, Spraberry Trend in West Texas, the East Texas Oilfield and the Kuparuk Field in Alaska.
> 
> The fields are attracting billions of dollars of investment from foreign oil giants like Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Norway's Statoil, and also from the smaller U.S. drillers who developed the new techniques like Chesapeake, EOG Resources and Occidental Petroleum.
> 
> Last month China's state-owned oil company CNOOC agreed to pay Chesapeake $570 million for a one-third stake in a drilling project in the Niobrara. This followed a $1 billion deal in October between the two companies on a project in the Eagle Ford.
> 
> With oil prices high and natural-gas prices low, profit margins from producing oil from shale are much higher than for gas. Also, drilling for shale oil is not dependent on high oil prices. Papa says this oil is cheaper to tap than the oil in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico or in Canada's oil sands.
> The country's shale oil resources aren't nearly as big as the country's shale gas resources. Drillers have unlocked decades' worth of natural gas, an abundance of supply that may keep prices low for years. U.S. shale oil on the other hand will only supply one to two percent of world consumption by 2015, not nearly enough to affect prices.
> 
> Still, a surge in production last year from the Bakken helped U.S. oil production grow for the second year in a row, after 23 years of decline. This during a year when drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the nation's biggest oil-producing region, was halted after the BP oil spill.
> 
> U.S. oil production climbed steadily through most of the last century and reached a peak of 9.6 million barrels per day in 1970. The decline since was slowed by new production in Alaska in the 1980s and in the Gulf of Mexico more recently. But by 2008, production had fallen to 5 million barrels per day.
> 
> Within five years, analysts and executives predict, the newly unlocked fields are expected to produce 1 million to 2 million barrels of oil per day, enough to boost U.S. production 20 percent to 40 percent. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates production will grow a more modest 500,000 barrels per day.
> 
> By 2020, oil imports could be slashed by as much as 60 percent, according to Credit Suisse's Morse, who is counting on Gulf oil production to rise and on U.S. gasoline demand to fall.
> 
> At today's oil prices of roughly $90 per barrel, slashing imports that much would save the U.S. $175 billion a year. Last year, when oil averaged $78 per barrel, the U.S. sent $260 billion overseas for crude, accounting for nearly half the country's $500 billion trade deficit.
> 
> "We have redefined how to look for oil and gas," says Rehan Rashid, an analyst at FBR Capital Markets. "The implications are major for the nation."


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Good news/bad news. The good news is these techniques may radically reduce the need for Americans to import oil. The bad news is we sell the Americans a lot of oil...
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110209/ap_on_re_us/us_shale_oil_3




There is not, really, any bad news. The Americans may well be able to satisfy more of their domestic demand from their own, domestic sources but *global* demand for oil continues to rise, meaning that there will still be plenty of people who want to buy our oil at whatever price the market will bear.


----------



## Rifleman62

Further to Thucydides post, the Canadian connection.

There is a TV program about the North Dakota boom, and the complications to the local residents upcoming down here. 

http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/static/business/article1898055.html

*Drilling technology sparks new oil boom*

SHAWN McCARTHY

Gary Williams recalls the last time the oil industry showed up in his tiny town of Waskada, Man. Crews punched holes in the prairie ground, then disappeared as suddenly as they arrived when those holes came up empty.

But that was 30 years ago. This time, it’s different. Armed with new drilling technology and eager to reap the rewards of oil’s high prices, companies are tapping complex geological formations, and the crude is flowing, adding Manitoba to Canada’s list of significant oil-producing provinces.

“It’s just a huge boost for the economy in the area,” said Mr. Williams, the town’s mayor. “We were sending our young people to Alberta for the last 10 years and now the trend is reversing and we’re seeing a lot of Alberta people here and some of our people are coming back.”

The oil-drilling boom promises what one company executive calls a “quiet revolution” in the industry. It could reduce the U.S. appetite for imported oil – including, potentially, from the oil sands. And the technological breakthrough could put the brakes on future price increases by bringing new, relatively low-cost supplies to the market – not just in North America but around the world.

Waskada, population 225 and just a few kilometres away from the U.S. border, is on the northern fringe of the prolific Bakken field, a booming unconventional oil play that could soon make North Dakota the second-largest oil-producing state after Texas. The rapid development of the Bakken – which now is now producing 350,000 barrels a day – signals a dramatic new chapter in North American oil industry, where conventional, onshore production was recently considered to be in terminal decline.

As energy companies turned away from low-priced gas, onshore oil production in the United States began reversing a 30-year decline last year. Some analysts project so-called tight-oil plays could contribute two million barrels a day of production by the middle of the decade – nearly as much as current oil sands production.

“It could potentially be a real game changer,” said Peter Tertzakian, chief energy economist at Calgary-based ARC Financial Corp.

“Peak oil in North America is likely not to be peak” given $90 per barrel prices and new technology that makes it easier to recover oil, he said.

Drill crews are being deployed across Western Canada and the United States, tapping new formations or, in many cases, reworking old ones that were first brought on stream in their grandfathers’ time.

Oil companies are adapting the same advanced drilling techniques that created the boom in shale gas: horizontal drilling and multistage hydraulic fracturing that allow them to break open the rocks at various points and capture the hydrocarbons trapped within.

The other key factor in the tight-oil boom is a high oil price, as North American crude is trading around $90 (U.S.) a barrel and international grades, near $100.

“High oil prices are definitely driving this thing,” said Stephen Sonnenberg, a leading geologist at the Colorado School of Mines. “Gas prices are suppressed, oil prices are quite high and everybody is really excited about these tight oil plays.”

Growing U.S. oil production would not have the same deflationary impact on prices that the shale gas boom has had – natural gas is a North American commodity and more sensitive to continental factors, while oil price are set on global markets.

Development of tight-oil projects will reduce the United States’ reliance on crude oil imports from the Middle East and other OPEC sources as well as Canada, meaning producers in those countries will have to look to other markets to sell their oil. Canadian companies are already attempting to increase exports in the face of stagnant American demand; rising U.S. production will put even greater pressure on them to find new markets in Asia. And it could even delay investments in more costly and challenging Arctic fields, particularly if the companies use new drilling technology to boost production around the globe.

But the tight-oil boom is also reviving the fortunes of Canadian independents who expect to squeeze considerably more oil from formations that, until very recently, were viewed as nearly played out. And it is creating another revenue stream for Alberta and Saskatchewan, and to a lesser degree, Manitoba and British Columbia.

Still, there are major challenges to achieving the much-touted production potential. As with the shale gas, there are doubts over whether the production volumes can be sustained, given the rapid decline in individual wells.

As well, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is reviewing the use of hydraulic fracturing in the gas industry, and the tight-oil development may well be constrained by regulators. The EPA is addressing widespread fears about the impact on local drinking water resources from the hydraulic fracturing – in which chemical-laced water is shot into rock to pry open cracks and let the hydrocarbons flow.

Companies also need to marshal an army of drilling crews and equipment to develop the fields, and will require massive investment in new pipelines to get the crude to market.

But the boom is already in full swing.

The Waskada field is tiny compared with the Bakken. Still, drilling crews have invaded the thinly populated border area, and Manitoba Energy Minister Dave Chomiak says the province could soon be producing about 50,000 barrels a day of crude, though he admits his more cautious officials forecast 40,000.

Among the handful of companies active around Waskada is Calgary-based Penn West Exploration Ltd. It plans to spend up to $175-million to drill 100 wells in the area, part of a $1-billion capital plan that is focused on tight-oil plays across Western Canada.

Penn West chief executive officer Bill Andrew said it is still too early to know how much production can be squeezed out of the rocks using the horizontal drilling and multistage hydraulic fracturing techniques that have transformed the gas industry.

“It’s not being appreciated in Canada because we have a view that it is all about the oil sands or all about shale gas,” he said. “But the quiet revolution is in tight oil.”

He compares the potential growth pattern to the early days of development in the Western Canadian sedimentary basin. Saskatchewan’s Shaunavon field was discovered in the 1950s but took decades to develop. In the past few years, though, there have been over 200 wells drilled and more than 10 million barrels of oil produced.

“And the big story is, it is not even close to being drilled to its potential,” he said. “On all these fields, we’re still doing the front-end, early-stage delineation. … It seems like the [drilling] application is adaptable – it’s adaptable to multi zones, multi areas, multi jurisdictions.”

In Canada, analysts are still trying to come to grips with the potential for the new drilling technology to boost production from previously conventional plays.

But in the United States, there are some early forecasts. Cambridge Energy Research Associates issued a forecast late last month suggesting tight-oil production could reach two million barrels a day by 2016.

Analysts from Wood Mackenzie Ltd. are somewhat more cautious – forecasting U.S. tight-oil production of 1.6 million barrels a day by 2015, and growing from there.

In addition to the Bakken, companies are targeting Texas’s Eagle Ford play, which produces both gas and oil, the Colorado-centred Niobrara, and several others in California, Texas and Oklahoma.

Oil drilling has soared. The number of crews in United States drilling for oil hit 818 last week, a 23-year high and an 83-per-cent increase from early February, 2010.

Wood Mackenzie analyst Matthew Jurecky said the big tight-oil projects are attracting significant investment capital, including acquisitions by foreign multinationals.

Unlike shale gas, which can be uneconomic at low prices, the tight-oil plays are relatively inexpensive to develop, compared with the oil sands or the ultra-deep water wells. Mr. Jurecky said the leading projects are economical at oil prices below $50 (U.S.) a barrel. At $90, companies expect very attractive rates of return.

“In plays like the Niobrara, expectations are high and money has been put in place for large-scale development there,” Mr. Jurecky said in an interview. “As well, there’s been lots of M&A [mergers and acquisitions] capital, suggesting a high degree of confidence.”

With low gas prices, many natural gas producers – including Canadian companies like Encana Corp. and Talisman Energy Inc. – are shifting their targets to the “wet gas” zones of the Marcellus, Eagle Ford and other shale gas fields. Natural gas liquids – which are counted in U.S. oil production figures – contain many of the components of crude oil but have only 60 to 70 per cent of the heat value.

One of the leaders in the tight-oil boom is Chesapeake Energy Corp., the Oklahoma City-based company that was a prime mover in the development of shale gas.

Chesapeake is shifting its focus away from gas to projects that produce oil or natural gas liquids (NGL). The company expects to increase its liquids production from 49,000 barrels a day currently to 250,000 barrels a day by 2015, which would make it one of the top five producers in the United States.

*And foreign oil companies have taken note. Chinese state-owned oil company, Chinese National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC) has bought a one-third interest in Chesapeake’s acreage in Eagle Ford and Niobrara for $3.5-billion (U.S.).*

Mr. Jurecky said the current investment will be the tip of the iceberg if the tight-oil plays prove as prolific and lucrative as many believe they will be.


----------



## Rifleman62

If this keeps up, Quebec will be the only have not province.


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting. Many people don't take the train because it is inconvenient (It takes just as long to drive to Kingston from London as it is to take the train, due to a three hour stopover in Toronto to use an axample I am familiar with):

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/train-scheduling-algorithm-optimized.html#more



> *Train scheduling algorithm optimized for shorter commuter travel times can shorten average trips from 60 to 48 minutes*
> 
> Dr. Tal Raviv and his graduate student have developed a tool that makes passenger train journeys shorter, especially when transfers are involved — a computer-based system to shave precious travel minutes off a passenger's journey.
> 
> Dr. Raviv's solution, the "Service Oriented Timetable," relies on computers and complicated algorithms to do the scheduling. "Our solution is useful for any metropolitan region where passengers are transferring from one train to another, and where train service providers need to ensure that the highest number of travellers can make it from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible.
> 
> "Let's say you commute to Manhattan from New Jersey every day. We can find a way to synchronize trains to minimize the average travel time of passengers," says Dr. Raviv. "That will make people working in New York a lot happier."
> 
> The project has already been simulated on the Israel Railway, reducing the average travel time per commuter from 60 to 48 minutes. The tool can be most useful in countries and cities, he notes, where train schedules are robust and very complicated.


----------



## a_majoor

More on Joule energy's claims. This would be very exciting if they are as good as claimed, oil prices would collapse and long term energy sufficiency would be assured:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/joule-unlimited-claims-5-50-times-more.html#more



> *Joule Unlimited claims 5-50 times more fuel per acre than other biofuel processes*
> 
> Schematic comparison between algal biomass and direct photosynthetic processes. The direct process, developed by Joule and called Helioculture™, combines an engineered cyanobacterial organism supplemented with a product pathway and secretion system to produce and secrete a fungible alkane diesel product continuously in a SolarConverter™ designed to efficiently and economically collect and convert photonic energy. The process is closed and uses industrial waste CO2 at concentrations 50–100× higher than atmospheric. The organism is further engineered to provide a switchable control between carbon partitioning for biomass or product. The algal process is based on growth of an oil-producing culture in an industrial pond on atmospheric CO2, biomass harvesting, oil extraction, and chemical esterification to produce a biodiesel ester
> 
> A new dawn for industrial photosynthesis by Dan E. Robertson, Stuart A. Jacobson, Frederick Morgan, David Berry, George M. Church and Noubar B. Afeyan
> 
> The conversion efficiency for the direct process is about seven times larger than that for an algal open pond.
> 
> The article, entitled “A New Dawn for Industrial Photosynthesis,” quantitatively affirms the advantages of Joule’s direct conversion process as compared to the indirect production of fuel from biomass, including algae. Though both processes aim to convert solar energy into fuel, the latter method requires the costly culturing, harvesting and processing of algal biomass – a multi-step intermediate stage that Joule’s process avoids. Moreover, Joule’s process directly yields hydrocarbons that are fungible with existing diesel infrastructure, unlike the biodiesel product that is produced from algal oil.
> 
> Highlights include:
> 
> * Based on empirical measurements, Joule can directly produce 15,000 gallons of diesel per acre annually, as compared to 3,000 gallons of biodiesel produced indirectly from algae.
> 
> * The solar-to-product conversion efficiency of Joule’s direct, continuous process for producing diesel, ethanol and chemicals is between 5 and 50X greater than any biomass-dependent process, and gains additional efficiencies by avoiding downstream refining.
> 
> * Joule’s combined advances in genome engineering, solar capture and bioprocessing result in photosynthetic conversion efficiency of more than 7% relative to available yearly solar energy striking the ground, many times greater than prior industry assumptions.
> 
> Several emerging technologies are aiming to meet renewable fuel standards, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and provide viable alternatives to fossil fuels. Direct conversion of solar energy into fungible liquid fuel is a particularly attractive option, though conversion of that energy on an industrial scale depends on the efficiency of its capture and conversion. Large-scale programs have been undertaken in the recent past that used solar energy to grow innately oil-producing algae for biomass processing to biodiesel fuel. These efforts were ultimately deemed to be uneconomical because the costs of culturing, harvesting, and processing of algal biomass were not balanced by the process efficiencies for solar photon capture and conversion. This analysis addresses solar capture and conversion efficiencies and introduces a unique systems approach, enabled by advances in strain engineering, photobioreactor design, and a process that contradicts prejudicial opinions about the viability of industrial photosynthesis. We calculate efficiencies for this direct, continuous solar process based on common boundary conditions, empirical measurements and validated assumptions wherein genetically engineered cyanobacteria convert industrially sourced, high-concentration CO2 into secreted, fungible hydrocarbon products in a continuous process. These innovations are projected to operate at areal productivities far exceeding those based on accumulation and refining of plant or algal biomass or on prior assumptions of photosynthetic productivity. This concept, currently enabled for production of ethanol and alkane diesel fuel molecules, and operating at pilot scale, establishes a new paradigm for high productivity manufacturing of nonfossil-derived fuels and chemicals.
> 
> Sum of individual contributions and accumulated photon losses for two fuel processes and a theoretical maximum for energy conversion. The losses are represented on a logarithmic scale and accumulated serially for the processes beginning with the percent of PAR in empirically measured solar ground insolation. Total practical conversion efficiency after accounting for losses is indicated by the green arrows


----------



## a_majoor

High energy demand = high prices, which really focus the mind. The description is a bit garbled (gravity has very little to do with the process described here, but centrifugal force has everything to do with it):

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/02/prweb5084164.htm



> *Breakthrough Gas Separation Technology Poised to Allow Use of Up to 30% of The World’s Natural Gas Reserves*
> 
> Small nozzles to have a large impact on energy, computer chips, the environment, and 40 to 70 % of capital and processing costs in industry
> 
> "These nozzles look simple, but there has been a great deal of effort and analysis that has gone into their development"
> 
> Ponte Vedra, Florida (PRWEB) February 22, 2011
> 
> Unique methods of separating gases are in development by Armington Technologies, LLC’s affiliate Tenoroc, LLC.
> 
> Separating impurities from highly contaminated natural gas reserves is the main focus of Tenoroc’s research. According to an Innovations Report article of 5/12/2006, “Huge underground gas reserves, up to 16% of the total reserves, remain unused. The natural gas in these fields is too contaminated for exploitation. With existing technology, cleaning these fields is much too costly… It is almost impossible to convey the economic value of 16% of the world’s reserves. *They represent more that 360 times the annual natural gas production of Shell, Exxon, and BP put together.”* Other estimates put the level of these unused reserves as high as 30%.
> 
> Established in 2005, Tenoroc has been developing its patent pending curved nozzle technologies since 2006 at its Mankato, Minnesota research facility. These small nozzles, with no moving parts, incorporate gravitational forces that can exceed conventional spinning centrifuges, achieving improved separation levels. Tenoroc’s nozzle technology is divided into two areas, “condensation based separation” and “gas-to-gas separation”.
> 
> “Condensation based separation” is a method of using the expansion that occurs within the nozzle to convert one gas in a mix of gases to a liquid. When the gas constituent that has been turned to a liquid and remaining, different gas constituents are exposed to the curve in the nozzle, centrifugal energy forces the liquid, which is heavier than the gas, to the outside wall and it exits through the outside wall outlet.
> 
> According to Paul Donovan, Director of Technology Development, “We see our niche in the natural gas industry in applications where there are high levels of contamination, too high for today’s methods of cleansing natural gas. We also hope to improve or supplement cleansing on less contaminated natural gas currently being processed. Our small footprint and versatility in placement is an added bonus.” When asked about commercialization Mr. Donovan added, “The key to commercialization will be our ability to license our technology to a strategic partner that provides equipment and service to the natural gas processing industry. We intend to begin demonstrating our prototype immediately as a first step in this process.”
> 
> “Gas-to-gas separation” and isotope enrichment make use of the extreme gravitational force produced by the nozzle curve to move the heavier gas to the outside wall where it exits away from the lighter gas.
> 
> Michael Bloom, Principle Tenoroc Researcher, offered, “In addition to natural gas, an application that we have our sights on is isotope enrichment, including isotopically pure silicon for semiconductor wafers. Pure silicon has been studied by the industry for years and is believed to be the answer to the debilitating heat generated by today’s computers. However, no one has ever been able to purify the gas that silicon is made from at a reasonable cost or in the quantities needed.” Mr. Bloom has almost two decades of experience developing separation methods. He achieved a patent on a gas centrifuge in 1999.
> 
> “These nozzles look simple, but there has been a great deal of effort and analysis that has gone into their development,” stated Tenoroc’s President, Gary Capuano. He added, “The need for improved separation methods is all around us. The Department of Energy estimates that separation processes represent 40 to 70 percent of both capital and operating costs in industry. They also account for 45 percent of all the process energy used by the chemical and petroleum refining industries every year. There are numerous applications for our technologies, including water de-salination. For now though, we must maintain our focus, and that focus is natural gas.”
> 
> When asked about the challenges of commercializing a technology, Capuano replied, “Our company’s management has enjoyed success licensing technology in the past. With today’s interest in energy and the environment, this technology seems to have put us in the right place at the right time. We intend to find the correct industry partner for each application while we continue to improve what we already have.”
> 
> Please direct inquiries to;
> Armington Technologies, LLC
> P.O. Box 3492
> Ponte Vedra, FL 32004
> Tel: 407-236-7023
> Fax: 904-285-2156
> pd(at)armingtontech(dot)com


----------



## a_majoor

Battery power that is more energy dense and hence more practiacal:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/low-temperature-molten-salt-battery-ten.html



> *Low temperature molten-salt battery ten times cheaper than lithium ion by 2015*
> 
> Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd., in partnership with Kyoto University, has developed a lower temperature molten-salt rechargeable battery that promises to cost only about 10% as much as lithium ion batteries. Sumitomo intends to commercialize the battery around 2015 and market it as an alternative to lithium-ion batteries used in automobiles and homes.
> 
> 
> 
> The new battery uses sodium-containing substances melted at a high temperature. The technology has been around for decades, but existing molten-salt batteries require keeping the electrolyte in a liquid state at a temperature higher than 300 C. Sumitomo Electric worked with researchers at Kyoto University to develop a sodium material that melts at 57 C.
> 
> Having roughly double the energy density of a typical lithium ion battery, the new battery would let an electric vehicle travel twice as far as a lithium ion battery of the same size. Automakers would be able to reduce the space taken up by batteries in their EVs. Molten-salt batteries also boast high heat and impact resistance and are said to be less susceptible to igniting than lithium ion batteries.
> 
> Sodium is cheaper than lithium because it is in abundant supply. The new battery is expected to be priced at about Y20,000 per kilowatt-hour--about 10% as much as domestic lithium ion batteries and one-fifth as much as Chinese products.
> 
> But unlike a room-temperature lithium ion battery, the new battery must be kept at 80 C to output power. So for the time being, Sumitomo Electric envisions it being used in applications where it is operating continuously, such as homes and electric buses. The company and the university have applied to have the battery patented.
> 
> 
> Molten-salt batteries use highly conductive molten salts as an electrolyte, and can offer high energy and power densities. The ZEBRA battery is an example of a molten salt battery. A drawback to the general class of molten salt batteries has been high operating temperatures.


----------



## kstart

Some update on World's Oil Reserves:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33550165?slide=1
(derived from Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy) 

I converted the info into a chart for myself so I could read it better.  A few things stuck out for me though:


The US consumes twice as much oil as they are able to produce (produce 9.14 million; consumes 18.81 million
The US imports virtually all of the oil that Brazil produces, 2.52 million barrels, out of 2.57 million it produces, and this source is closer to finite, 11.65 billion barrels in reserve.  Brazil consummes an additional 2.57 million barrels (Brazil must rely on export oil back to them?)
US relies heavily on Saudia Arabia export of oil: over a million barrels (dec 2010)
Canada has the second largest oil reserves in the world, 175.2 in reserve, 13% of World Total.  We produce 3.20 million, consume 2.15 million and we export to the US, 2.71 million, which means we also rely on imported oil for our needs


President Jimmy Carter tried to warn the American people re: oil dependence and consumption patterns in general:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-energy/
It looks to me to be like an energy crisis.

How do we protect our democracy, well-being of our citizens, when BIG OIL has such a huge lobbying power in politics?  Bush family, it was easy to see, the relationship between BIG OIL and politics, likewise Cheney's Energy companies.  Having to suck up to Saudia Arabia, depsite their horrid human rights abuses.  

Obviously the dependence is high in industries, but we can develop useful alternative energies for consumers, and bring great reductions there.

Canada has huge oil reserves, some operating drills in Alberta and Saskatchewa, but also the Tar Sands.  They've developed cheaper extraction, but the impact of such intensive industry on water, is troubling-- and Water might be our greatest asset that needs to be protected-- humans can't live without clean water.

On Geothermal Energy, I have a friend, retired scientist (from Atomic Canada), has developed a Atmospheric Energy System-- it can both heat and cool houses, buildings.  

Some of the barriers to development include reduced funding in Research and Development in Canada and funding for green energy development, so it's trying to find corporate investors, but when the research end is underfunded, it makes it difficult.  He did arrange for a test home via private funding via one of the colleges.  So far, so good, house is warm and cozy through the winter months.

I have some research papers comparing the Enwave system, Okotoks in Alberta with the Atmospheric Energy system, the AE system seems to out-perform.  

We have brilliant minds here in Canada and in the US, it's a matter of the system working to support innovation, research and development, without hinderance from the powerful lobbying of Energy Corporations.


----------



## a_majoor

Is there any publicly available information on this system? A link to a company website would be nice.

From what you have described so far it sounds like a heat pump, except its reservoir is the atmosphere rather than the ground or water.


----------



## kstart

Atmospheric Energy

This is the test house: 
http://volkerthomsen.com/ae-atmospheric-energy-storage-system/


From: http://sustainability-journal.ca/  tolmie129@rogers.com 

Basic Principles of AE systems:



> *Atmospheric Energy Systems*
> 
> Operating at ambient ground temperature
> If you inject heat into the ground in a way that
> permanently raises the temperature of the ground then
> there will be a constant loss of the injected heat to the
> surrounding ground. Such a loss is acceptable in the case
> of a closely packed housing community – an AE Array –
> but not in cases where the heat stores are widely
> separated. For such cases the ground temperature can be
> cycled annually above and below the ambient ground
> temperature so that there is no net loss or gain to the
> surrounding ground at the end of the annual cycle. In
> that case the amount of energy that you recover from the
> ground is exactly the same as what was injected. It is a
> lossless system that illustrates the principle of
> conservation of energy.
> 
> Injection deficiency In practice it is desirable to inject
> slightly less heat than is expected to be recovered. In
> that case the surrounding ground will automatically
> make up for the deficiency so the system will still
> deliver the required amount of heat. There are a number
> of advantages to operating in such an imbalanced mode:
> (1) Since the total building heat load varies from
> year to year this takes care of that variance
> (2) The capital cost can be reduced because the
> borehole depth is reduced
> (3) If there is a net deficit then the direction of heat
> flow outside of the store will always be in the
> direction of the store, throughout the year and
> from year to year. This guarantees that there will
> be no conductive heat losses in such systems
> 
> Ground water flow Operating with an injection deficit
> also ensures that there will be no net loss caused by the
> flow of water through the ground. While the ground is
> above the ambient temperature ground water could carry
> away some of the heat but in the winter, when the
> ground temperature falls below the ambient temperature,
> the ground water will carry heat into the storage volume.
> If there is a injection deficit then the gain in the winter
> will exceed the earlier loss so the effect of ground water
> flow is to improve the performance of the system.
> 
> Multiple boreholes If you were to use a single
> borehole to both inject and recover the heat then the
> above considerations would apply and over a period of
> many years you would recover all of the heat that you
> had injected. However, in a given year some of the
> injected heat will disperse out to distances that are too
> far from the injection site to make it possible to recover
> all of the injected heat. The injected heat has had twice
> as long a period to disperse so the winter recovery is
> relatively poor even though technically the injected heat
> will eventually be recovered. For that reason it is
> desirable to surround the injection site with recovery
> boreholes that are spaced far enough out so that they
> recover the heat that slowly moves outwards. Since both
> the injection and the recovery boreholes can be used in
> the winter this practice does not increase the total
> borehole length so it does not have a substantial impact
> on the cost. Such systems can recover all of the injected
> heat during the following winter. (n.b. An AE-Array can
> efficiently utilize a single borehole per house because it
> does not need to use the travel velocity to trap the heat.)
> 
> Ground heat exchangers In a conventional ground
> source heat pump system the designer is dependent on
> the nature of the ground to determine the system
> performance. The amount of natural heat stored in the
> ground at the subject location, the past history of heat
> extraction, the ground water flow, the thermal
> conductivity of the rock or other ground material, its
> specific heat, etc., all affect the results. The equivalent
> calculations for an AE system are much simpler. It can
> be treated much like a storage battery. You still need to
> establish the capacity of the “battery” from the storage
> characteristics of the rock but you can then proceed to
> inject and recover the amount of heat that will be needed
> for the building without the need of complex computer
> programs.
> 
> This simplicity of operation has led to the development
> of techniques for reducing the borehole depth and of
> coping with short term, diurnal and longer term load
> variations. In Canada, conventional GSHP's deliver from
> 20 to 30 watts per metre of borehole length (including
> the heat pump's contribution). The test bed AE system (a
> 40 kW, 60,000 kWh per year system) is capable of
> delivering 208 watts per metre, and AE systems do not
> diminish in output from year to year or interfere with
> nearby systems.
> 
> AE systems utilize an energy source (the summer air)
> that has a capacity that is orders of magnitude greater
> than the total amount of energy needed to heat all of the
> buildings in Canada. They inherently provide a means of
> cooling those buildings by a process that requires
> relatively little power. The ground has sufficient capacity
> to store whatever amount of heat is needed, even for very
> large buildings. Their capital cost is competitive with
> conventional heating/cooling systems and the cost of the
> energy supply is limited to the cost of running the heat
> pumps and circulation pumps. That residual cost is
> minimized because the heat pumps operate with high
> COP's in both the winter and the summer



Ron Tolmie is a retired scientist from Atomic Canada.  In his retirement, he's developed a burgeoning interest in local and global environmental impact issues.  This has been non-funded, out-of-his-pocket research with other out-of-their-pocket partners.  He lucked out in forming a partnership, private funding from the former CEO of St.Lawrence college, Volker Thomsen.  We have the great promise of innovation in Canada, but a lot of stumbling blocks re: underfunding of Research and Development.  

Are banks eager to make loans on this sort of research and development-- is it in their interests (does it compete with profitability/investment return re: other energy sector investment, and growth?). . .are they willing to fund research and development and something risky at the beginner stages. . .?  More work on "marketing" can be done, and seeking out corporate partners.  Ron's a scientist, not a business person.  This is a retirement hobby, an interesting one at that.

It looks like Standford University is positioned to possibly embrace this technology, a supportive education program: http://cee.stanford.edu/programs/atmosenergy/index.html

Reduction by 68% of consumer household energy consumption, can leave more for industry, and military needs and benefit Canada through export of energy-- which would seem to be a win-win re: US energy needs, production, industry.  Easily be able to conform to Kyoto Protocals, without damaging industy, but there is this complex economics beast to deal with, market place and growth/profitability-- oil/energy companies which drive the economy. . .?  There are practical solutions, real sustainability within reach-- but it looks like the companies seek to drain every resource first for their profit.  Poison our waters, which we would also need re: future generations.  It looks like madness to me.  Our goverments won't govern this way, powerful lobby groups will block practical innovation, the craziness of the market economy and unwillingness, both ideologically and pragmatically to seek solutions to adjust for this.

I'm an idealist, my priorities would be different.  No-one staves, no-one denied needed health care; care for our vulnerable, our elderly, children-at-risk, etc.-- people first, a humane society.  I'm not anti-capitalist, but critical of some of the destructive elements of it, which I wish there were some thinking which allows for health of citizens and environment, with some help re: economic solutions to provide some flex room for solutions that in the long-run will benefit our future generations.  It's how things are prioritized, with the right priorities and have the planning to build the foundations to support it, find the economic resolutions to support it (but there is no agenda existing among those in power to even entertain it-- alternative think tanks,, are not funded either, here in Canada)  But it seems that there is no middle ground.  It seems that when we're not at war abroad, we're bringing war against our own citizens-- that to me, is a broken system.  I stand up for Veteran Rights, on principle, that's who I am.  I do the same for the elderly, or the sick -- my compassion goes beyond self-interest (only that I do self-identify with oppression, that's PTSD-related)-- I retained older generation values, an idealist not wiling to bend my principles.

Are there economic solutions which don't require war on the basic dignity of our own citizens.  I'm appaled for example, that seniors in my area have to wait 6 years for long-term care facility beds-- I can imagine the hardships of families, and without that essential care, the door wide-open to abuse and neglect of the vulnerable elderly-- when they paid into a system through their taxes-- what happened to the 'social contract'?  Have we explored all other options, then to bring hardship and suffering to our own citizens.  It seems like it's a power-grab among the most powerful, to the bitter end, literally. . .?  I'm not convinced that this is the only way.  I guess globally, we probably don't even own much of our own resources, so things like this are impacting our democracy.  Lost sovereignty-- what an enormous mess.    (enormous debt. . .foreign ownership).  Too bad there weren't more patriotic billionaires to help out. . .  Probably not enough.

If I'm misunderstanding, I'm open to lots of correction.  I'm a neonate re: economics-- definitely no PhD here


----------



## a_majoor

Field generators get a makeover. The second and third order effects (fewer trucks needed to transport fuel, fewer trucks and fuel needed in the logistics pipeline back to Canada etc.) would help pay for the system:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/35080/page1/



> *Hybrid Power for the Frontline*
> 
> Diesel-battery generators could cut troop fuel use at least by half.
> 
> By Phil McKenna
> 
> The U.S. Armed Forces are heavily burdened by the financial and tactical costs of transporting fuel to the battlefield. This July, in an effort to address the problem, the United States Marine Corps will deploy a pair of diesel generators coupled with powerful batteries to frontline troops in Afghanistan. The hybrid power systems should cut by 50 to 70 percent the amount of fuel needed to generate electricity, according to the manufacturer, Earl Energy of Portsmouth, Virginia.
> 
> The generators that U.S. military camps currently use operate inefficiently because they need to handle ocassional peaks in demand. "You may have a 10-kilowatt generator that at any time is only producing 1.5 kilowatts of power to satisfy its load," says Doug Moorehead, president of Earl Energy. "So you are wasting 8.5 kilowatts of power that you aren't storing for later use," he says.
> 
> The diesel-battery hybrid the company developed instead runs generators for short bursts to maximize energy utilization. Not only does this satisfy the immediate energy requirements of a camp, but the system also charges a bank of lithium-ion batteries. When the batteries are fully charged, the generator shuts off and the system begins drawing power from the batteries instead. "Generators can go from running 24 hours a day to three to four hours a day—it's that good in some cases," Moorehead says.
> 
> The hybrid systems to be deployed in July will combine an 18-kilowatt diesel generator, similar to those currently used in the battlefield, with a 40-kilowatt-hour bank of lithium-ion batteries. The system will also include a 10-kilowatt photovoltaic solar panel array that will further lower fuel consumption.
> 
> The entire system, including photovoltaics, sells for "over $100,000," as compared with $80,000 to $100,000 for a similarly sized conventional generator, Moorehead says. The cost to Earl Energy for just the batteries—which have built-in safeguards against the high temperatures and dusty field conditions of Afghanistan—is $750 to $1,500 per kilowatt-hour of storage.
> 
> Moorehead estimates the system will pay for itself within seven to 12 months, depending on the cost of fuel. Bigger savings would come from using the hybrid system without the photovoltaics, which are expensive, and the company is now developing a stand-alone generator without the added solar power, he says.
> 
> Maximizing the unit's energy efficiency requires repeatedly deep cycling the batteries—discharging them to their full capacity before recharging them. Conventional lead-acid and nickel-cadmium batteries quickly lose storage capacity if repeatedly deep cycled. The advanced lithium-ion technology in Earl Energy's batteries allows them to last close to 4,000 cycles, or 18 to 24 months, according to the company. Moorehead developed lithium-ion battery technology for battery maker A123 Systems before joining Earl Energy.
> 
> The hybrid power system also employs energy-management software that uses complex algorithms to maximize the generator's efficiency. Steven Minnihan, an analyst at Lux Research says this energy management, together with the power electronics that allow the system to quickly switch between generator and battery power, is very important. "Companies will speak quite freely about the chemistry of the batteries they are using, but they are very tight-lipped about the energy-management systems and power electronics," he says. "It is becoming an increasingly important piece of intellectual property."
> 
> The technology is competitive in the battlefield because transporting diesel fuel to the front lines in heavily armed convoys is very expensive.  Moorehead, a former Navy SEAL, says delivery costs for fuel transported to the front lines in Afghanistan typically range between $20 and $40 per gallon.
> 
> Reducing fuel use on the front lines saves more than money. Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, spoke of the "fully burdened" cost of fuel at a recent DOE Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) conference in Washington, D.C. "For every 24 [fuel] convoys, we lose a soldier or a Marine [who] is killed or wounded guarding that convoy," Mabus said. "That's a high price to pay for fuel."
> 
> Earl Energy hopes to begin scaling up production of its high-efficiency generator systems. According to the company, the number of fuel convoys could be cut in half if its devices are widely deployed.


----------



## kstart

Thanks Thucydides for sharing that great article.  

It gives me further appreciation of the military for innovation and some positive trickle-down effects culturally when it comes to production of science and innovation.  Life and death situations, responding to immediacy of need concerns-- helps feed the impetus and the will to seek pragmatic resolutions re: energy (and the broader meanings of energy, including people resources-- to protect life). 

At home, alternative energy solutions can stimulate domestic economy growth; jobs for our newer generation in specialized trades re: production, manufacture, installation, maintenance-- products and services that benefit us directly, on the most pragmatic of levels (vs. over-consumption of exported 'dollar store' junk  ); help combat stagnation of growth for our younger starter generations; free up resources for export and reduce the need/demand for import of resources from countries we'd rather not be doing business with.

Problems however with declining wages, shrinking middle class to purchase. . . (which made us stronger economically in the past, made the country healthy, the backbone of a healthy democracy, IMO). . .

The article was interesting as you said, the inefficiency of transport of oil to front line-- it points to unnecessary losses, people and resource.   That makes sense as well in a larger context, re: domestic oil need and consumption, its import from afar-- though less immediately catastrophic, re: loss of life.

It's good to see the power of military common sense prevail, innovation, the pragmatics of doing so re: alternative energy solutions.  It's liberating to hear, another very positive light. "Winning"   Maybe the power of Canadian and American innovation can pull us out of economic troubles, sustainable recovery, light at the end of the tunnel?

Update on the AE systems, they are good to go-- they did it without reliance on R&D government funding, maybe better that way, less wastage of tax payer dollars-- the power of sacrifice among genuinely committed individuals, local partnerships, patriotic to both Country and Environment.  

I imagine military members are directly engaged with problems re: government funding of military needs.  
Defense Secretary, Robert Gates expressed some frustration re: F-35 (which has doubled in predicted cost, seemingly not a result of Harper Government miscaluculation, but from Lockheed Martin itself): 





> "The culture of endless money that has taken hold must be replaced by a culture of restraint."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II  Security concerns as well, re: stolen terrabytes.  The planes need to be made safe for use, why that wasn't in the original figures though. . . ?


----------



## a_majoor

Canada steps forward (again):

http://www.financialpost.com/news/features/Canadian+technology+goes+global/4459773/story.html



> *Canadian gas technology goes global*
> 
> Claudia Cattaneo, Western Business Columnist, Financial Post · Mar. 17, 2011 | Last Updated: Mar. 17, 2011 7:06 PM ET
> 
> CALGARY — It took a decade for the Bakken play, centred in North Dakota and Saskatchewan, to evolve from a wild idea to one of North America’s most significant new sources of oil.
> 
> Now the technology that made it possible, a combination of horizontal drilling and targeted hydraulic fracturing — much of it developed and proven by Canadians — is on the cusp of global oil field deployment.
> 
> While it may not mean relief from high oil prices today, it could delay the sunset of the fuel if it’s as successful in the oil sector as it has been in the gas side of the business, where it made fields so much more prolific the flood of new supply has overwhelmed North American markets.
> 
> Adding to its promise is that this new type of unconventional oil involves a renewal of mature oil fields, many located outside politically risky places like the Middle East, where only a fraction of the oil has been recovered using old drilling methods.
> 
> Those on the leading edge of unlocking the world’s next Bakkens are enthusiastic about this new/old global oil source.
> 
> “There is absolutely huge interest from companies throughout the world that are looking for alternative sources of energy,” said Dan Themig, president of Packers Plus, the Calgary-based private company that pioneered the technology’s implementation in North America. It is now building operations in China, Argentina, Brazil, across North Africa, Romania, Russia, the U.K. and Norway.
> 
> “Certainly fracturing for oil will eventually be just every bit as big as fracturing in natural gas,” he said. “Almost every major oil basin, including Saudi Arabia, will utilize this technology to enhance recovery and revitalize some declining fields and possibly arrest the decline for a number of years.” Mr. Themig, an engineer, co-founded Packers Plus in 2001 with Peter Krabben and Ken Paltzat.
> 
> Houston-based Ryder Scott Petroleum Consultants, a top reservoir evaluation consulting firm, said in its latest quarterly newsletter, Reservoir Solutions, that net importers of oil like China, France and Poland are studying the Bakken as a model for similar deposits in their countries. Producers are already using Bakken technology in France’s Paris basin, Australia’s Georgina basin and New Zealand’s Taranaki basin.
> 
> “The U.S. and Canada have fairly drilled up basins, and so (they) tend to need to implement innovation faster,” said Scott Wilson, Denver-based senior vice president at Ryder Scott.
> 
> “If you have wells in Saudi Arabia that flow 10,000 b/d, you are probably not going to be spending $10-million a well to get a Bakken style producer. But if the best you can do is a Bakken style producer, your innovation will start to shine, and others can watch what you are doing and take advantage of that to the best of that your abilities.”
> 
> Bakken-type oilfield revivals around the world could be the next frontier, said Ward Polzin, managing director in Denver at Tudor Pickering Holt & Co., who specializes in mergers and acquisitions in oil and gas shale for the top oil and gas investment bank.
> 
> “It’s not on the scale of the oil sands in Canada or the Middle East, but when you add it all up, it has the potential to be the next significant find,” he said.
> 
> In North Dakota, oil companies had given up on the Bakken, known since the 1950s but seen as a marginal field, until a wildcat geologist in Billings, Montana, Richard “Dick” Findley, owner of a struggling two-staff independent geology firm, started re-thinking the play.
> 
> His work led to the development of the Bakken in the last decade, making North Dakota the fourth-largest oil producing state in the U.S. by quadrupling oil production to about 400,000 barrels a day from 5,000 wells.
> 
> In Saskatchewan, production from the Bakken by companies like Crescent Point Energy Corp. increased from 750 b/d in 2004 to 65,000 b/d, and the number of producing wells increased from 100 to 1,800.
> 
> Geological studies estimate the ultimate hydrocarbon potential of the Bakken Formation is between 100-billion to 400-billion barrels. Saskatchewan’s share of the resource could range from 25-billion to 100-billion barrels.
> 
> But that’s just the beginning. Canadian producers, mostly smaller companies, successfully applied the same methods in new areas in Saskatchewan and Alberta like the Lower Shaunavon, the Pembina Cardium and continue to look at new possibilities, including an Alberta version of the Bakken.
> 
> In the U.S., the search for the next Bakken is in full swing, with the Niobrara formation near the border of Colorado and Wyoing showing the most promise, and similar approaches being tried in Texas and Oklahoma.
> 
> Like all new oil frontiers, it has its challenges.
> 
> The drilling advancements are costly and require oil prices above $50 a barrel to be economic. Once in production, wells decline rapidly.
> 
> Adoption of the technology globally could take a long time, as international companies gain expertise, often by investing in U.S. and Canadian firms that know how to do it. And political interference is a given, once the off oil movement gets up to speed.
> 
> For those who are concerned about oil peaking, it could represent a brilliant reprieve with a big Canadian stamp.
> 
> Financial Post
> 
> ccattaneo@nationalpost.com


----------



## a_majoor

From the comments thread in The Truth About Cars, putting solar energy into perspective against hydrocarbons. Doing the numbers is very illuminating:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/10/the-chevy-volt-as-efficient-as-you-want-it-to-be/



> The natural resources board of Canada says you can, on average, expect 5.2 kwh/day per square meter of surface area POINTED DIRECTLY AT THE SUN. This panel would be on a roof facing straight up…and a slightly curved roof at that…and not tracking the sun across the sky, either.  That’d be fine, at noon, if you lived on the equator.  At 55 degrees latitude, a horizontal surface will only collect about 5.2 sin(35deg) of that energy on average (on the equinox).  That brings us down to 57%, for 2.98 kwh/day.  Lets reduce that further for the fact it doesn’t track the sun across the sky, and for shade, garage time, etc.  We’ll estimate half, for about 1.5 kwh/day.  With 10% cell efficiency likley to be found in affordable, lightweight cells, and neglecting any inefficiency in charging and discharging the batteries, we’re looking at 150 watt hours per day up in Canada.  *That’s the energy equivelent of 0.4 ounces of gas- just over a quarter of a shot glass, or about one cent worth of gas at $3/gallon.*  One cent per day is $3.65 if you drive every day of the year from a 1 square meter panel.  At $600 for the panel alone (neglecting fitment, wiring, electronics, etc. you’ll break even in a brisk 164 years.
> 
> From that, subtract a bit for the energy required to accelerate the extra mass.  Even if you live in Arizona and get several times that, it still isn’t worth it.  Now…those solar race cars use top of the line everything, and only require a couple hundred watts to do 35 mph, so they can get away with it.  On a normal car though, a solar panel is nothing but green washing until we can coat an entire car in thin-film cells for under, say, 60 pounds weight gain and under, say, $450 or so.


----------



## a_majoor

Using rivers and oceans to generate electricity:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/stanford-researchers-use-river-water.html#more



> *Stanford researchers use river water and salty ocean water to generate electricity*
> 
> Stanford researchers have developed a rechargeable battery that uses freshwater and seawater to create electricity. Aided by nanotechnology, the battery employs the difference in salinity between fresh and saltwater to generate a current. A power station might be built wherever a river flows into the ocean.
> 
> Stanford researchers have developed a battery that takes advantage of the difference in salinity between freshwater and seawater to produce electricity.
> 
> Anywhere freshwater enters the sea, such as river mouths or estuaries, could be potential sites for a power plant using such a battery, said Yi Cui, associate professor of materials science and engineering, who led the research team.
> 
> The theoretical limiting factor, he said, is the amount of freshwater available. "We actually have an infinite amount of ocean water; unfortunately we don't have an infinite amount of freshwater," he said.
> 
> Nanoletters - Batteries for Efficient Energy Extraction from a Water Salinity Difference
> 
> 
> 
> The salinity difference between seawater and river water is a renewable source of enormous entropic energy, but extracting it efficiently as a form of useful energy remains a challenge. Here we demonstrate a device called “mixing entropy battery”, which can extract and store it as useful electrochemical energy. The battery, containing a Na2−xMn5O10 nanorod electrode, was shown to extract energy from real seawater and river water and can be applied to a variety of salt waters. We demonstrated energy extraction efficiencies of up to 74%. Considering the flow rate of river water into oceans as the limiting factor, the renewable energy production could potentially reach 2 TW, or 13% of the current world energy consumption. The mixing entropy battery is simple to fabricate and could contribute significantly to renewable energy in the future.
> 
> As an indicator of the battery's potential for producing power, Cui's team calculated that if all the world's rivers were put to use, their batteries could supply about 2 terawatts of electricity annually – that's roughly 13 percent of the world's current energy consumption.
> 
> The battery itself is simple, consisting of two electrodes – one positive, one negative – immersed in a liquid containing electrically charged particles, or ions. In water, the ions are sodium and chlorine, the components of ordinary table salt.
> 
> Initially, the battery is filled with freshwater and a small electric current is applied to charge it up. The freshwater is then drained and replaced with seawater. Because seawater is salty, containing 60 to 100 times more ions than freshwater, it increases the electrical potential, or voltage, between the two electrodes. That makes it possible to reap far more electricity than the amount used to charge the battery.
> 
> "The voltage really depends on the concentration of the sodium and chlorine ions you have," Cui said. "If you charge at low voltage in freshwater, then discharge at high voltage in sea water, that means you gain energy. You get more energy than you put in."
> 
> Once the discharge is complete, the seawater is drained and replaced with freshwater and the cycle can begin again. "The key thing here is that you need to exchange the electrolyte, the liquid in the battery," Cui said. He is lead author of a study published in the journal Nano Letters earlier this month.
> 
> In their lab experiments, Cui's team used seawater they collected from the Pacific Ocean off the California coast and freshwater from Donner Lake, high in the Sierra Nevada. They achieved 74 percent efficiency in converting the potential energy in the battery to electrical current, but Cui thinks with simple modifications, the battery could be 85 percent efficient.
> 
> To enhance efficiency, the positive electrode of the battery is made from nanorods of manganese dioxide. That increases the surface area available for interaction with the sodium ions by roughly 100 times compared with other materials. The nanorods make it possible for the sodium ions to move in and out of the electrode with ease, speeding up the process.
> 
> Other researchers have used the salinity contrast between freshwater and seawater to produce electricity, but those processes typically require ions to move through a membrane to generate current. Cui said those membranes tend to be fragile, which is a drawback. Those methods also typically make use of only one type of ion, while his battery uses both the sodium and chlorine ions to generate power.
> 
> Cui's team had the potential environmental impact of their battery in mind when they designed it. They chose manganese dioxide for the positive electrode in part because it is environmentally benign.
> 
> The group knows that river mouths and estuaries, while logical sites for their power plants, are environmentally sensitive areas.
> 
> "You would want to pick a site some distance away, miles away, from any critical habitat," Cui said. "We don't need to disturb the whole system, we just need to route some of the river water through our system before it reaches the ocean. We are just borrowing and returning it," he said.
> 
> The process itself should have little environmental impact. The discharge water would be a mixture of fresh and seawater, released into an area where the two waters are already mixing, at the natural temperature.
> 
> One of Cui's concerns is finding a good material for the negative electrode. He used silver for the experiments, but silver is too expensive to be practical.
> 
> His group did an estimate for various regions and countries and determined that South America, with the Amazon River draining a large part of the continent, has the most potential. Africa also has an abundance of rivers, as do Canada, the United States and India.
> 
> But river water doesn't necessarily have to be the source of the freshwater, Cui said.
> 
> "The water for this method does not have to be extremely clean," he said. Storm runoff and gray water could potentially be useable.
> 
> A power plant operating with 50 cubic meters of freshwater per second could produce up to 100 megawatts of power, according to the team's calculations. That would be enough to provide electricity for about 100,000 households.
> 
> Cui said it is possible that even treated sewage water might work.
> 
> "I think we need to study using sewage water," he said. "If we can use sewage water, this will sell really well.


----------



## a_majoor

A new energy player in the Middle East?:

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/6987/Israel-Targets-Energy-Superpower-Status



> *Israel Targets Energy Superpower Status*
> By Peter C Glover
> Posted on Mar. 30, 2011
> 
> Due Diligence: How to Evaluate a Renewable Energy Technology
> 
> First it was two major offshore natural gas field discoveries. Now it’s an ambitious plan to exploit Israel’s massive shale oil deposits in the Shfela Basin. The gas finds alone will make the country self-sufficient in natural gas for decades and debut Israel as a key regional energy exporter. The latter, if successful, would quite simply catapult Israel into the energy superpower league.
> 
> Not surprisingly domestic excitement over Israel’s prospective new energy status is palpable, with the state’s energy insiders barely able to contain themselves, and with good reason.
> 
> Levantine riches
> 
> Speaking at the CERAWeek conference in Houston in early March 2011, CEO Charles Davidson, chairman of Noble Energy which, with Israeli partners Delek Group and Ratio Oil, made the Tamar natural gas discovery, announced that the $3 billion investment in the Tamar field will supply the Israeli domestic market for decades. Currently appraised at 8.4 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) Tamar is expected to deliver its first sales in 2013.
> 
> But what really drew the attention of potential suitors for Israeli natural gas was the announcement of the discovery of the Leviathan natural gas field as 2011 dawned. Lying to the north-west of Tamar, Leviathan holds around a further 16 Tcf, almost all of which could be slated purely for export. According to businessman Yitzhak Tshuva, part owner of Leviathan, its gas too will be ready for production by 2013, well ahead of schedule. But even at a combined total of 25 Tcf, Tamar and Leviathan only represent around a fifth of the 122 Tcf the US Geological Survey estimates lies in the Levantine Basin, much of which falls within Israeli jurisdiction.
> 
> Just how Israel’s vast reserves are to be monetized is yet to be seen. Already a national debate is raging in Israel over the royalties from the revenue and taxes that petroleum firms should pay the state. In the few years since the state’s changeover from oil to gas powered electricity generating plants Israel is already believed to have saved around $5 billion in revenue. With the state’s unique geological position however, Israel’s options for selling the gas include Europe, China or even India. In terms of development, a partnership with Cyprus tying in its gas fields and co-operating on building subsea gas pipes makes sense. And Greece has proposed becoming a distribution hub for eastern Mediterranean gas throughout Europe.
> 
> As if the sudden emergence of Israel on the natural gas stage was not enough, however, a new plan to develop Israel’s significant shale oil and gas deposits south-west of Jerusalem could put Israel alongside the energy-rich super-elite.
> 
> Vinegar’s Oil Plan
> 
> Harold Vinegar, the former chief scientists of Royal Dutch Shell, has devised an ambitious plan that would, if successful, turn Israel into one of the world’s leading oil producers. Now chief scientist for Israel Energy Initiatives (IEI), Vinegar maintains that the 238 sq km Shefla Basin holds the world’s second largest shale deposits outside the United States, from which around 250 billion barrels of oil – about the same as Saudi Arabia’s proven reserves, could be extractable. IEI estimates the marginal cost of production at between US$35 and US$40 per barrel. That, says Vinegar, would be cheaper than the US$60 or so per barrel it would cost to extract crude oil in more hospitable locations such as the Arctic, and even favourably with the US$30-US$40 in Brazilian deepwater.
> 
> IEI, owned by the American telecom giant IDT Corp, anticipates starting commercial production by 2020, producing 50,000 barrels a day initially. While that figure is a fraction of the 270,000 barrels per day Israel currently consumes, Vinegar maintains it is a further key step toward achieving energy independence. Vinegar proposes thermal recovery for Israeli shale oil.
> 
> The IEI shale oil project has already attracted serious interest from investors. In November last year, Jacob Rothschild and media mogul Rupert Murdoch bought an $11million stake in Genie Oil and Gas, the division of IDC that is the parent company of IEI. Genie’s advisory board also includes former vice-president Dick Cheney and hedge fund investor Michael Steinhardt. But it seems development funding is likely to be no bar to the Shefla project. Vinegar states, “Funding is not needed for the pilot and demonstration, although once we are getting 50,000 barrels per day, we would want to have a partner. We have been approached by all the majors.”
> 
> Not that it’s likely to be all plain sailing for the Shefla shale development. The size of the geological resource still needs to be confirmed. Environmental concerns and issues over whether the technology will work in situ also need to be addressed. But when it comes to the commercial long-term viability of the project, Vinegar believes it is validated, predicting, “the price of oil is going to continue rising” and “by 2030, will be around $200 per barrel.”
> 
> Land of energy promise
> 
> All of which could amount to a significant geopolitical power shift for the troubled wider region. First and foremost the clutch of new gas and oil initiatives would secure Israel’s longer-term energy security. Second, the social upheaval of neighboring, energy-producing, Arab states may also soon find governments in the West embarking on their own domestic shale revolutions – becoming less energy-dependent on Middle East oil and gas. For Israel, it would also mean there could be no repeat of the economic ransom to which the country was held in the 1970s when a pan-Arab energy embargo forced Israel to turn to the expensive and unpredictable international energy market.
> 
> The full extent of Israel’s subsea natural gas and onshore shale oil deposits will likely be confirmed over the coming year. But the old joke that Moses got it wrong, turning left and settling for ‘milk and honey’ instead of turning right and getting the oil, is already redundant. Israel is looking every bit a land of energy promise after all.


----------



## a_majoor

Things not to do:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/07/wind_power_actually_25_per_cent/



> *Wind power: Even worse than you thought*
> 
> But your 'leccy bill will keep going up to buy more of it
> 
> By Lewis Page
> 
> Posted in Environment, 7th April 2011 09:36 GMT
> 
> On Demand Webcast : Making the decision on hosted apps - What’s the risk and reward?
> 
> A new analysis of wind energy supplied to the UK National Grid in recent years has shown that wind farms produce significantly less electricity than had been thought, and that they cause more problems for the Grid than had been believed.
> 
> The report (28-page PDF/944 KB [1]) was commissioned by conservation charity the John Muir Trust and carried out by consulting engineer Stuart Young. It measured electricity actually metered as being delivered to the National Grid.
> 
> In general it tends to be assumed that a wind farm will generate an average of 30 per cent of its maximum capacity over time. However the new study shows that this is actually untrue, with the turbines measured by the Grid turning in performances which were significantly worse:
> 
> Average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
> 
> In general, then, one should assume that a wind farm will generate no more than 25 per cent of maximum capacity over time (and indeed this seems set to get worse [2] as new super-large turbines come into service). Even over a year this will be up or down by a few per cent, making planning more difficult.
> 
> It gets worse, too, as wind power frequently drops to almost nothing. It tends to do this quite often just when demand is at its early-evening peak:
> 
> At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
> 
> And unfortunately the average capacity over time is pulled up significantly by brief windy periods. Wind output is actually below 20 per cent of maximum most of the time; it is below 10 per cent fully one-third of the time. Wind power needs a lot of thermal backup running most of the time to keep the lights on, but it also needs that backup to go away rapidly whenever the wind blows hard, or it won't deliver even 25 per cent of capacity.
> 
> Quite often windy periods come when demand is low, as in the middle of the night. Wind power nonetheless forces its way onto the grid, as wind-farm operators make most of their money not from selling electricity but from selling the renewables obligation certificates (ROCs) which they obtain for putting power onto the grid. Companies supplying power to end users in the UK must obtain a certain amount of ROCs by law or pay a "buy-out" fine: as a result ROCs can be sold for money to end-use suppliers.
> 
> Thus when wind farmers have a lot of power they will actually pay to get it onto the grid if necessary in order to obtain the lucrative ROCs which provide most of their revenue, forcing all non-renewable providers out of the market. If the wind is blowing hard and demand is low, there may nonetheless be just too much wind electricity for the grid to use, and this may happen quite often:
> 
> The incidence of high wind and low demand can occur at any time of year. As connected wind capacity increases there will come a point when no more thermal plant can be constrained off to accommodate wind power. In the illustrated 30GW connected wind capacity model [as planned for by the UK government at the moment] this scenario occurs 78 times, or three times a month on average. This indicates the requirement for a major reassessment of how much wind capacity can be tolerated by the Grid.
> 
> Want to know why your 'leccy bill is climbing, and will keep on climbing no matter what happens to coal and gas prices? Yes - it's wind farms
> 
> Or, in other words, there is little point building more wind turbines above a certain point: after that stage, not only will they miss out on revenue by often being at low output when demand is high, but they will also miss out by producing unsaleable surplus electricity at times of low demand. The economic case for wind – already unsupportable without the ROC scheme – will become even worse, and wind will require still more government support (it already often needs large amounts [3] above and beyond ROCs).
> 
> The idea that pumped storage will be able to compensate for absent wind – meaning that there will be no need for full thermal capacity able to meet peak demand – is also exposed as unsound. The UK has just 2,788 megawatts of pumped-storage capacity and it can run at that level for just five hours. UK national demand is above 40,000 megawatts for 15 hours a day and seldom drops below 27,000. Pumped storage would have to increase enormously both in capacity and duration – at immense cost – before it could cope even with routine lulls hitting the planned 30-gigawatt wind sector, let alone rare (but certain to occur) prolonged calms.
> 
> The John Muir analysis goes on:
> 
> The nature of wind output has been obscured by reliance on "average output" figures. Analysis of hard data from National Grid shows that wind behaves in a quite different manner from that suggested by study of average output derived from the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) record, or from wind speed records which in themselves are averaged. It is clear from this analysis that wind cannot be relied upon to provide any significant level of generation at any defined time in the future. There is an urgent need to re-evaluate the implications of reliance on wind for any significant proportion of our energy requirement.
> 
> Unfortunately given all this, the ROC scheme is on an escalator: the amount of ROCs an end-use 'leccy supplier must obtain will rise to 15.4 per cent of megawatt-hours supplied in 2014, up from 10.4 per cent last year. The effect of this is to provide the large extra funds a wind farm needs to compete with thermal generation, by driving up electricity prices for the user: The ROC scheme is a stealth tax which appears neither on the electricity bill nor the Treasury accounts.
> 
> High electricity prices worsen the case for electric transport, electric heating and electric industry, so there are reasons to dislike windfarms even from a carbon-emissions point of view. There would be little point going to partially-wind electricity if the effect is to drive people more and more into using fossil fuels wherever possible.
> 
> But that's the way we're headed. ®
> Bootnote
> 
> You can look up all the current National Grid power figures here [4]: archives since 2008 are here [5] (registration required).
> Links
> 
> 1. http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/wind-report.pdf
> 2. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/21/wind_turbines_too_close_together/
> 3. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/20/hull_wind_turbine_bonanza/
> 4. http://www.bmreports.com
> 5. https://elexonexchange.bsccentralservices.com/ref=HISTORICGENERATIONBYFUELTYPE



Some very radical storage and load leveling technology needs to be invented to make windpower an even halfway practical source of supply.


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting numbers. OTOH, Pickens has been pushing for a vast government subsidy for windmill power in Texas and the Great Plains, so I wonder how much of this push for natural gas is related to his own energy interests and holdings? Much of this can be done and will happen without any market subsidies (and there may be many places where subsidies and market distortions are preventing or delaying changeovers)

http://blogs.forbes.com/richkarlgaard/2011/04/11/what-i-learned-about-natural-gas-from-boone-pickens/



> *What I Learned About Natural Gas from Boone Pickens*
> 
> Last week I interviewed the Texas energy baron T. Boone Pickens four consecutive nights in front of a live audience. Pickens would talk for 40 minutes and then I would interview him for 50 minutes. (Full disclosure: I was paid a fee to do this, not from Pickens but from the event’s owner.)
> 
> The Pickens presentations had an interesting underlying tension: Texas billionaire, oilman and Republican trying to convince earnest San Francisco Bay Area liberals about the virtues of natural gas. How did Pickens do in front of liberal, vaguely hostile audiences? Surprisingly well. He made his case with numbers.
> 
> Here is what Pickens said:
> 
> – Global demand for oil is 86-88 million barrels per day. It will be 90 million by the end of the year, due to global growth.
> 
> – Global production is 84 million barrels per day. Since production falls short of demand, prices have risen.
> 
> – America consumes 20 million barrels of oil per day. We produce 7 million barrels domestically and import the other 13 million barrels. Of the 13 million barrels of imported oil, 5 million come from OPEC – “nations that hate us,” says Pickens.
> 
> – The true cost of Middle Eastern oil is over $300 a barrel if you account for U.S. military presence in the Middle East, according to Pickens.
> 
> – “Drill baby, drill” – the conservative mantra to drill more oil from the Gulf of Mexico, off the East and West Coast shelves, and the Alaska Natural Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would produce an extra 2 million barrels a day at best, says Pickens. The would raise America’s domestic production from 7 million to 9 million barrels but still leave America 11 million barrels short each day.
> 
> – In ANWR, the bottleneck is the pipeline from Alaska’s north shore. “It would take 30 years to build another pipeline,” says Pickens.
> 
> Hence the allure of natural gas: Pickens claims the U.S. has natural gas reserves equivalent to three times that of Saudi Arabia’s known 260 billion-barrel oil reserve when you use a Barrel of Oil Equivalent (BOE) comparison.
> 
> – Using BOE, natural gas, at its current price, would be about $1.50 per gallon cheaper than diesel fuel.
> 
> – Using BOE, natural gas emits 30% less carbon
> 
> Boone Pickens wants to convert America’s 140,000-unit fleet of 18-wheel truckers to run on natural gas. Pickens says the cost of converting the next-generation fleet of 18-wheelers would be about $60,000 per vehicle – or roughly $9 billion for the entire 140,000 fleet. Where will that money come from?
> 
> Last week, Congressmen John Sullivan (R-OK), Dan Boren (D-OK), John Larson (D-CT) and Kevin Brady (R-TX) introduced H.R. 1380, the  ‘New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions’ (NAT GAS) Act to supply the funds. It would ladle out a billion or two a year.
> 
> Is this a smart use of government funds at a time when the government is essentially broke? Yes, I think so. If you believe the Pickens numbers, our imported OPEC oil is costing America $2 billion a day and would cost $6 billion a day if unsubsidized by the U.S. military presence in the Middle East. Also, some percentage of the money we send to Saudi Arabia makes its way to our enemies, such as the Taliban.
> 
> But if natural gas is so economically compelling, why won’t private investors come up with the funds? It’s a critical mass problem, argues Pickens. America needs to prime the pump, as it were, to get the wheels turning. Start with 18-wheelers, he says, and that will create a national infrastructure of conversion technology and delivery. To my libertarian friends: Don’t forget that the U.S. government bought the first billion dollars worth of semiconductors in the 1960s. That created the funds for factories and volume manufacturing which in turn drove prices down to affordable levels for civilian uses. Industrial policy? Yes.
> 
> America’s commercial use of its vast, cheap, natural gas reserves will take a bipartisan political effort. Democrats will have to say no to the radical environmentalists and their hostility toward fossil fuels. Republicans will have to say no to the Tea Party and their hostility toward government funding.
> 
> Bipartisan consensus is a rarity these days. It is certainly out of fashion. But energy independence will demand it.


----------



## a_majoor

The first cut of this study seems to indicate it is on the edge of prossibility and economic practicality. I wonder how the figures will change when subsitituting more efficient bioreactors for open ponds or using sewage rather than fresh irrigation water will change the figures. As well, the figures do not take into account the energy required to process algae into biodiesel. Still, we do have to get rid of sewage, and getting into adventures like Lybia to secure Middle Eastern oil is not a winning proposition for us. Reducing oil imports will also save the US economy hundreds of billions of dollars annually, something which should be at the top of everyone's to do list:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/04/algal-fuels-could-cut-oil-imports-17-percent/



> *Algal Fuels Could Cut Oil Imports 17 Percent*
> By Chuck Squatriglia  April 15, 2011  |  5:00 am  |  Categories: Alt Fuel
> 
> Forget hydrogen. Algae may be the fuel of the future.
> 
> A study by researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory finds algal fuel could replace 17 percent of the petroleum the United States imports for transportation fuel each year.
> 
> Of course, one of the major concerns about algae is the volume of water needed to produce it. But the researchers note that water use can be significantly curtailed by raising algae in the humid climates of the Gulf Coast, Southeastern Seaboard and Great Lakes regions.
> 
> “Algae has been a hot topic of biofuel discussions recently, but no one has taken such a detailed look at how much America could make — and how much water and land it would require — until now,” said Mark Wigmosta, a hydrologist and lead author of the study, in a statement. “This research provides the groundwork and initial estimates needed to better inform renewable energy decisions.”
> 
> Algal fuels are made by extracting and refining the lipids within algae. Algae are attractive biofuel feedstock because it grows quickly and thrives in everything from seawater to irrigation runoff to sewage. Such fuels could go a long way toward meeting the Energy Independence and Security Act. That law requires that biofuels replace more than 10 percent of our current petroleum consumption by 2022. Half of that biofuel must come from something other than corn.
> 
> The PNNL study provides an in-depth assessment of the United States’ annual algal fuel potential given the available land and water.
> 
> The researchers, who detail their findings in Water Resources Research, analyzed currently available data to determine how much algae can be grown in open, outdoor ponds of fresh water — as is typical — using current tech.
> 
> First, they created a database analyzing topography, population, land use and other data about the contiguous United States. The info, spaced every 100 feet, allowed them to determine which areas are ideally suited to raising algae.
> 
> Then they gathered 30 years of weather info to determine how much sunlight the algae could realistically photosynthesize and how warm the ponds would become. They used that data in a mathematical model to calculate how much algae could be produced each hour at a given site.
> 
> Using that model, they say 21 billion gallons of algal oil could be produced domestically. That’s equivalent to 17 percent of the petroleum the United States imported for transportation fuel in 2008.
> 
> Growing all that algae would require land roughly the size of South Carolina and 350 gallons of water for each gallon of algal oil. All told, that comes to about 25 percent of the water we currently use for crop irrigation. (The researchers say that’s on par with ethanol.)
> 
> “Water is an important consideration when choosing a biofuel source,” Wigmosta said. “And so are many other factors. Algae could be part of the solution to the nation’s energy puzzle – if we’re smart about where we place growth ponds and the technical challenges to achieving commercial-scale algal biofuel production are met.”
> 
> If we went for broke and maxed out our capacity to produce algae, we could cut petroleum imports by 48 percent, the researchers say. But we’d need several times our annual consumption of irrigation water to do so. It isn’t terribly practical.
> 
> John Timmer, a biochemist who writes for our sister publication Ars Techica, offers some interesting analysis of the study.
> 
> He says the 48 percent figure is based on unrealistic assumptions. Even the possibility of replacing 17 percent of our oil imports with algal fuel must be taken with a grain of salt.
> 
> “Even for the more realistic scenarios, the list of caveats is pretty extensive,” he writes. “Water and nutrients are unlimited, only evaporation is considered, only open ponds are used, and the authors ignore the energy demand involved in keeping the ponds from freezing or processing the algae into fuel. ”
> 
> The authors identified areas that could be used for open ponds and focused on land that is relatively flat and isn’t farmland or parkland. That includes roughly 5 percent of the country’s land. If we used it all for biofuel production, we could produce 220 gigaliters a year, or about half our current oil imports, Timmer writes.
> 
> But we don’t have the water needed to do that.
> 
> With that in mind, Timmer writes, the researchers balance productivity and water requirements. That left the Gulf Coast, Southeast Seaboard and Great Lakes as ideal locations. And that led them to conclude we could replace 17 percent of our imported oil while consuming one-quarter of the water used each year for agriculture irrigation.
> 
> “That’s still quite high, but remember that this assumes unpolluted freshwater,” Timmer writes. “The areas along the Gulf and Atlantic cost could easily use a combination of saltwater and municipal waste. The latter source could potentially provide for facilities in some of the areas in the Southwest that are otherwise ruled out due to their high water use.”
> 
> Such details were beyond the scope of the PNNL study, but critical to consider, Timmer writes. The authors hope other researchers use their model to conduct further studies.
> 
> “Ideally, if they’re taken up on this offer,” Timmer writes, “we’ll have a clearer picture of the potential of algal biofuels.”


----------



## a_majoor

More developments in solar energy:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/37481/?p1=A3&a=f



> *More Power from Rooftop Solar*
> A startup says technology inspired by RAID hard drives can boost power output by up to 50 percent.
> By Kevin Bullis
> 
> A startup called TenKsolar, based in Minneapolis, says it can increase the amount of solar power generated on rooftops by 25 to 50 percent, and also reduce the overall cost of solar power by changing the way solar cells are wired together and adding inexpensive reflectors to gather more light.
> 
> TenKsolar says its systems can produce power for as little as eight cents a kilowatt-hour in sunny locations. That's significantly more expensive than electricity from typical coal or natural-gas power plants, but it is less than the average price of electricity in the United States.
> 
> Solar cells have become more efficient in recent years, but much of the improvement has gone to waste because of the way solar cells are put together in solar panels, the way the panels are wired together, and the way the electricity is converted into AC power for use in homes or on the grid. Typically, the power output from a string of solar cells is limited by the lowest-performing cell. So if a shadow falls on just one cell in a panel, the power output of the whole system drops dramatically. And failure at any point in the string can shut down the whole system.
> 
> TenKsolar has opted for a more complex wiring system—inspired by a reliable type of computer memory known as RAID (for "redundant array of independent disks"), in which hard disks are connected in ways that maintain performance even if some fail. TenKsolar's design allows current to take many different paths through a solar-panel array, thus avoiding bottlenecks at low-performing cells and making it possible to extract far more of the electricity that the cells produce.
> 
> The wiring also makes it practical to attach reflectors to solar panels to gather more light. When solar panels are installed on flat roofs, they're typically mounted on racks that angle them toward the sun, and spaced apart to keep them from shading each other over the course of the day. Reflectors increase the amount of light that hits a solar array, but they reflect the sunlight unevenly. So in a conventional solar array, the output is limited by the cell receiving the least amount of reflected light. The new system can capture all the energy from the extra, reflected light. "The small added cost we put in on the electronics is paid back, plus a bunch, from the fact that we basically take in all of this reflected light," says Dallas Meyer, founder and president of TenKsolar. "We've architected a system that's completely redundant from the cell down to the inverter," he says. "If anything fails in the system, it basically has very low impact on the power production of the array."
> 
> The reflectors use a film made by 3M that reflects only selected wavelengths of light, reducing visible glare. The material also reflects less infrared light, which can overheat a solar panel and reduce its performance.
> 
> Meyer says the system costs about the same as those made by Chinese manufacturers but produces about 50 percent more power for a given roof area. Power output is about 25 percent higher than from the more expensive, high-performance systems made by SunPower, he says.
> 
> The new wiring approach does have a drawback: because it's new, the banks that finance solar-power installations may have doubts that the system will last for the duration of the warranty, and this could complicate financing, says Travis Bradford, an industry analyst and president of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development.
> 
> TenKSolar, which has so far raised $11 million in venture funding and has the capacity to produce 10 to 12 megawatts of systems a year, is working on partnerships with larger companies to help provide financial backing for guarantees of its products.
> 
> Copyright Technology Review 2011.


----------



## a_majoor

Recharging using microbes that live in dirt. Now there is a technology that can really be used anywhere!

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/press-releases/gates-grant



> *SEAS receives $100k Grand Challenges Explorations Grant*
> 
> April 28, 2011
> 
> Aviva Presser Aiden '09 and colleagues to develop microbial-based cell phone charger to increase access to health care via mobile apps
> 
> Seattle, Washington and Cambridge, Mass. – April 28, 2011 – A project to use dirt-powered batteries to charge cell phones in Africa won a $100,000 grant from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation today.
> 
> Aviva Presser Aiden '09 (Ph.D.), an affiliate of the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) who is now a student at Harvard Medical School, and colleagues will help to develop a Microbial Fuel Cell-based charger that could be readily and cheaply assembled out of basic components to increase access to health care via mobile applications in the developing world.
> 
> The project, hosted by the Laboratory-at-Large at Harvard, will have an initial field-test site in sub-Saharan Africa. Harvard Fellow Erez Lieberman-Aiden will serve as the lead investigator on the project.
> 
> This grant was made under the call for Gates Grand Challenges Exploration Grant (CGE) proposals to "Create Low-Cost Cell Phone-Based Applications for Priority Global Health Conditions."
> 
> GCE funds scientists and researchers worldwide to explore ideas that can break the mold in how to solve persistent global health and development challenges. Aiden’s project is one of over 85 Grand Challenges Explorations Round 6 grants.
> 
> Cell phones are becoming a ubiquitous and increasingly crucial part of the health care infrastructure of the developing world. The devices provide a critical gateway to health information and offer contact with physicians who cannot reach remote locations.
> 
> For instance, even in Sub-Saharan Africa, where 500 million people lack power in their homes, 22 percent of households have cell phones. Keeping the devices charged, however, can be a challenge.
> 
> "For households lacking power in Sub-Saharan Africa, recharging a cell phone battery often means a long, possibly multi-hour walk to a charging station, where recharges cost between 50 cents and a dollar," says Aiden. "Because the per-capita income is several hundred dollars per year, this is a significant cost. Existing solutions for charging cell phones in off-grid areas are inadequate. For instance, a solar-panel based charger costs around $20, and is difficult to even bring to market because of poor access and inability to repair them if they break."
> 
> The solution is the use of an natural abundant source of energy: microbial power. Certain naturally occurring soil microbes produce free electrons during the course of their ordinary metabolic processes. A Microbial Fuel Cell (MFC) uses a conductive surface to harvest these electrons and use them as a power source.
> 
> "We plan to develop an MFC-based cell phone charger," says Aiden "Our goal is to make a charger would cost of order a dollar and could completely charge a phone in 24 hours. Furthermore, unlike solar panels, MFCs do not require any sophisticated materials: they can be easily assembled in only a few minutes. As cultural knowledge of MFC technology spreads, Africans will become capable of assembling their own chargers almost entirely from scratch, and at minimal cost that will be recouped with the very first recharge."
> 
> Aiden has already demonstrated the effectiveness of the MFC-approach, building MFCs that can produce enough to power LED lights for use in homes in regions such as Tanzania and Namibia. Moreover, the MFCs were able to operate continuously in the lab for 14 months.
> 
> "With the funding from the Gates Foundation, our plan is to send two researchers to Africa for this deployment," she says. "The researchers will spend two weeks introducing themselves and their work to the community and collecting data regarding typical phone usage behavior and recharge frequency. After this introductory period, the researchers will install the prototypes in the homes of volunteer families, showing these families about how to plug in their phones."
> 
> Following the completion of the pilot program, Aiden hopes to follow-up with a larger-scale project, distributing chargers across broader region, thereby demonstrating the viability of this approach to charging cellular phones in developing world contexts.
> 
> “GCE winners are expanding the pipeline of ideas for serious global health and development challenges where creative thinking is most urgently needed. These grants are meant to spur on new discoveries that could ultimately save millions of lives,” said Chris Wilson, Director of Global Health Discovery at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.


----------



## a_majoor

USGS assesses the Bakken deposit:

http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Bakken-Formation-Oil-Assessment-in-North-Dakota-Montana-will-be-updated-by-US-Geological-Survey.cfm



> Bakken Formation Oil Assessment in North Dakota, Montana will be updated by U.S. Geological Survey
> World-class formation developing into major source of onshore domestic energy, benefiting nation, American Indian tribes, rural communities
> 
> 05/19/2011
> 
> Contact: Kendra Barkoff (DOI) 202-208-6416
> Jessica Robertson (USGS) 703-648-6624
> Alex Demas (USGS) 703-648-4421
> 
> WASHINGTON, DC – Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today announced that the U.S. Geological Survey will update its 2008 estimate of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas in the U.S. portion of the Bakken Formation, an important domestic petroleum resource located in North Dakota and Montana.
> 
> “The Administration supports safe and responsible oil and gas production as part of our nation’s comprehensive energy portfolio,” Salazar said. “We must develop our resources armed with the best science available, and with wells drilled in the Bakken during the past three years, there is significant new geological information. With ever-advancing production technologies, this could mean more oil could potentially be recovered in the formation.”
> 
> The 2008 USGS assessment estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in the U.S. portion of the Bakken Formation, elevating it to a “world-class” accumulation. The estimate had a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. The USGS routinely conducts updates to oil and gas assessments when significant new information is available, such as new understanding of a resource basin’s geology or when advances in technology occur for drilling and production.
> 
> The 2008 Bakken Formation estimate was larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest "continuous" oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS. A "continuous” or "unconventional" oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences, such as those in conventional accumulations. Unconventional resources require special technical drilling and recovery methods.
> 
> “The new scientific information presented to us from technical experts clearly warrants a new resource assessment of the Bakken,” said USGS Energy Resources Program Coordinator Brenda Pierce. “The new information is significant enough for the evaluation to begin sooner than it normally would. It is important to look at this resource and its potential contribution to the national energy portfolio.”
> 
> The 2008 USGS assessment showed a 25-fold increase in the amount of technically recoverable oil as compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil. New geologic models applied to the Bakken Formation, advances in drilling and production technologies, and additional oil discoveries resulted in these substantially larger technically recoverable oil volumes. About 135 million barrels of oil were produced from the Bakken between 1953 and 2008; 36 million barrels in 2008 alone. According to state statistics, oil production from the Bakken in North Dakota has steadily increased from about 28 million barrels in 2008, to 50 million barrels in 2009 to approximately 86 million barrels in 2010.
> 
> “The Bakken Formation is producing an ever-increasing amount of oil for domestic consumption while providing increasing royalty revenues to American Indian tribes and individual Indian mineral owners in North Dakota and Montana,” Salazar noted. Interior agencies have been working closely, for example, with the Three Affiliated Tribes (the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara) and individual Indian mineral owners on the Ft. Berthold Reservation in North Dakota to facilitate this development.
> 
> Technically recoverable oil resources are those producible using currently available technology and industry practices. USGS is the only provider of publicly available estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources.
> 
> The new update effort will be a standard assessment task under the existing USGS National Oil and Gas Assessment. It will begin in October 2011, at the start of the 2012 fiscal year. Depending on funding, it is expected to take two years to complete. Drilling and production will continue while the USGS conducts its assessment update.
> 
> For more information about the Bakken Formation, please visit the USGS frequently asked questions that were developed after the 2008 resource assessment at http://www.usgs.gov/faq/index.php?action=show&cat=21


----------



## a_majoor

Mini nuclear reactors might fill some gaps. Notice this is a type of nuclear reactor which does not use the same fissile material as nuclear weapons, nor does it produce the same fissile byproducts:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/05/thorenco-llc-presents-little-40-mw.html



> *Thorenco LLC presents a little 40 MW Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor*
> 
> Charles S. Holden founder of Thorenco LLC working with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory physicists has proposed a small transportable 50-megawatt-thermal Thorium converter reactor for multiple uses: producing electricity (15 megawatts), burning up high-level actinides from spent fuel, and producing low-cost, high-temperature steam (or process industrial heat). This high-temperature steam can be used for extraction of oil from tar sands, or desalinating, purifying, and cracking water. The reactor’s fuel matrix can be “tuned” to provide the right output for each particular work process.
> 
> The reactor core is a squat cylinder, about 140 centimeters in diameter and 50 centimeters tall. Its size makes it portable, so that it can be brought to remote locations to work site and supply heat and electricity there without dependence on long-distance transmission lines. Its small size also allows it to be factory-built and transported to its destination, “plugged in” in a deep underground containment structure, and put to work quickly. The core can be shipped back to the factory when the fuel needs to be changed.
> 
> Thorium Energy Alliance held its third national conference on May 12, 2011 - Charles S. “Rusty” Holden, founder of Thorenco LLC, did offer a specific design: a 40MW pilot plant that he called “a little LFTR.” Using fissile uranium-235 as a source of ignition neutrons and a mix of thorium tetrafluoride in a beryllium fluoride molten salt, Thorenco’s design includes a deep salt pool with a honeycomb geometry that offers “a superior way to clean and condition the fuel during operations,” Holden said.
> 
> 23 page presentation - Liquid Fueled Thorium Reactor: 40 Megawatt Pilot Plant Outline
> 
> •Neutrons convert Fertile Thorium-232 to fissile Uranium-233
> •No Plutonium Produced
> •No melt downs
> •No fuel rods
> •No cooling ponds
> •No 10,000+ year spent fuel storage
> •10 years at 40 megawatts
> •141 Kg. U-233 “burned” during decade
> •More than 100 Kg. of fissile produced
> •1600 kilograms of U-233 fissile load
> •9000 kilograms of Th-232 fertile load
> •23 Grams U-232 produced in fuel over the decade of operations
> •Hexagonal Prism 160 Cm. Width and Height
> •Fuel Volume 2330 Liters
> •Fuel 11.65 Metric Tonnes; 1-2 Metric Tonnes Fissile in Fuel
> •Coolant 93,200 Liters; 450 Tonnes
> •Reflector Volume 1420 Liters 16.65 Metric Tonnes
> 
> Thorenco’s ceramic fuel is dispersed in an inert metal matrix covered by Holden’s Patent Cooperation Treaty application. This solid state metal alloy is composed of four materials. The thorium and uranium fuel particles are embedded in the alloy, which both slows and moderates the fissioning process. There are moderating materials dispersed in the alloy along with the actinide particles. Using the metallic alloys as moderators (instead of the water used in other Thorium reactor designs) allows Thorenco’s reactor to operate in a more energetic neutron spectrum so that its core can have a long life.
> 
> The self-regulating reactor is expected to operate for 10 years without needing refueling.


----------



## a_majoor

More good news; SOFCs are becoming practical for more applications"

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/37439/?nlid=4369



> *Cooling Down Solid-Oxide Fuel Cells*
> 
> A startup moves toward thin-film solid-oxide fuel cells suitable for practical devices.
> 
> By Katherine Bourzac
> 
> Startup company SiEnergy Systems has overcome a major barrier to commercializing solid-oxide fuel cells with a prototype that operates at temperatures hundreds of degrees lower than those on the market today. Working with Harvard materials science professor Shriram Ramanathan, SiEnergy Systems, based in Boston, has demonstrated a solid-oxide fuel cell that can operate at 500 degrees Celsius, as opposed to the 800 to 1,000 degrees required by existing devices. This allows the cell, which uses a thin-film electrolyte mechanically supported by a metal grid, to be much larger than similar devices fabricated before—on the order of centimeters in area, the size needed for practical applications, rather than micrometers.
> 
> Solid-oxide fuel cells, which can run a variety of fuels including diesel or natural gas, bring in oxygen from the air to be reduced at the cathode, and then pass the oxygen ions through a solid-oxide electrolye membrane to the anode, where the fuel is oxidized to produce electrons that are drawn out of the device. Their high operating temperatures are dictated by the fact that the ions move more quickly through the electrolyte at higher temperatures.
> 
> If the electrolyte is very thin—just a few hundred nanometers thick—a solid-oxide fuel cell can operate at lower temperatures. Such electrolytes can power very small demonstration devices, but until SiEnergy and Ramanathan's work, no one had been able to make an ultrathin solid-oxide membrane large enough for practical devices, says Harry Tuller, professor of materials science and engineering at MIT. "The challenge has been that the films, being so thin, are fragile and easily tear during processing or during heating and cooling cycles," says Tuller. When heated and cooled, the different materials of which they are made expand and contract at different rates, damaging the delicate film. "We and others have tried to support the films by one or more structural supports," he says, "but have not succeeded in doing so over as large an area."
> 
> In a paper published in the journal Nature Nanotechnology, the researchers describe making an electrolyte membrane that is more stable both thermally and mechanically. They started with a 100-nanometer-thick electrolyte membrane made up of zirconia and yttrium. They deposited a supportive metallic grid on top of it, to hold the membrane in place while it was heated and cooled and, since the grid was made of conductive material, to act as the anode. They combined this with a dense, high-performance cathode previously developed by Ramanathan. In their published work, SiEnergy has demonstrated arrays of fuel cells each about five millimeters square. Ramanathan says the method can be scaled up to the centimeter-scale areas needed for devices.
> 
> SiEnergy's general manager, Vincent Chun, says this is just a first demonstration and the company is now working on integrating the thin fuel cells into full systems and testing fuels. Chun hopes the company's fuel cells will save on materials costs because they are so thin.Chun says the company plans to offer replacements for diesel generators and home heating and power-generation systems.
> 
> Copyright Technology Review 2011.


----------



## a_majoor

Conventional wisdom turned on its head:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/31/linbd_fossil_fuels/index.html



> War Room
> Tuesday, May 31, 2011 07:01 ET
> *Everything you've heard about fossil fuels may be wrong*
> The future of energy is not what you think it is
> By Michael Lind
> 
> Are we living at the beginning of the Age of Fossil Fuels, not its final decades? The very thought goes against everything that politicians and the educated public have been taught to believe in the past generation. According to the conventional wisdom, the U.S. and other industrial nations must undertake a rapid and expensive transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy for three reasons: The imminent depletion of fossil fuels, national security and the danger of global warming.
> 
> What if the conventional wisdom about the energy future of America and the world has been completely wrong?
> 
> As everyone who follows news about energy knows by now, in the last decade the technique of hydraulic fracturing or "fracking," long used in the oil industry, has evolved to permit energy companies to access reserves of previously-unrecoverable “shale gas” or unconventional natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, these advances mean there is at least six times as much recoverable natural gas today as there was a decade ago.
> 
> Natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide than coal, can be used in both electricity generation and as a fuel for automobiles.
> 
> The implications for energy security are startling. Natural gas may be only the beginning. Fracking also permits the extraction of previously-unrecoverable “tight oil,” thereby postponing the day when the world runs out of petroleum. There is enough coal to produce energy for centuries. And governments, universities and corporations in the U.S., Canada, Japan and other countries are studying ways to obtain energy from gas hydrates, which mix methane with ice in high-density formations under the seafloor. The potential energy in gas hydrates may equal that of all other fossils, including other forms of natural gas, combined.
> 
> If gas hydrates as well as shale gas, tight oil, oil sands and other unconventional sources can be tapped at reasonable cost, then the global energy picture looks radically different than it did only a few years ago. Suddenly it appears that there may be enough accessible hydrocarbons to power industrial civilization for centuries, if not millennia, to come.
> 
> So much for the specter of depletion, as a reason to adopt renewable energy technologies like solar power and wind power. Whatever may be the case with Peak Oil in particular, the date of Peak Fossil Fuels has been pushed indefinitely into the future. What about national security as a reason to switch to renewable energy?
> 
> The U.S., Canada and Mexico, it turns out, are sitting on oceans of recoverable natural gas. Shale gas is combined with recoverable oil in the Bakken "play" along the U.S.-Canadian border and the Eagle Ford play in Texas. The shale gas reserves of China turn out to be enormous, too. Other countries with now-accessible natural gas reserves, according to the U.S. government, include Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, France, Poland and India.
> 
> Because shale gas reserves are so widespread, the potential for blackmail by Middle Eastern producers and Russia will diminish over time. Unless opponents of fracking shut down gas production in Europe, a European Union with its own natural gas reserves will be far less subject to blackmail by Russia (whose state monopoly Gazprom has opportunistically echoed western Greens in warning of the dangers of fracking).
> 
> The U.S. may become a major exporter of natural gas to China -- at least until China borrows the technology to extract its own vast gas reserves.
> 
> Two arguments for switching to renewable energy -- the depletion of fossil fuels and national security -- are no longer plausible. What about the claim that a rapid transition to wind and solar energy is necessary, to avert catastrophic global warming?
> 
> The scenarios with the most catastrophic outcomes of global warming are low probability outcomes -- a fact that explains why the world’s governments in practice treat reducing CO2 emissions as a low priority, despite paying lip service to it. But even if the worst outcomes were likely, the rational response would not be a conversion to wind and solar power but a massive build-out of nuclear power. Nuclear energy already provides around 13-14 percent of the world’s electricity and nearly 3 percent of global final energy consumption, while wind, solar and geothermal power combined account for less than one percent of global final energy consumption.
> 
> (The majority of renewable energy consists of CO2-emitting biomass -- wood and dung used for fires by the world’s poor, plus crops used to make fuel; most of the remainder comes from hydropower dams denounced by Greens.)
> 
> The disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima have dramatized the real but limited and localized dangers of nuclear energy. While their initial costs are high, nuclear power plants generate vast amounts of cheap electricity -- and no greenhouse gases. If runaway global warming were a clear and present danger rather than a low probability, then the problems of nuclear waste disposal and occasional local disasters would be minor compared to the benefits to the climate of switching from coal to nuclear power.
> 
> The arguments for converting the U.S. economy to wind, solar and biomass energy have collapsed. The date of depletion of fossil fuels has been pushed back into the future by centuries -- or millennia. The abundance and geographic diversity of fossil fuels made possible by technology in time will reduce the dependence of the U.S. on particular foreign energy exporters, eliminating the national security argument for renewable energy. And if the worst-case scenarios for climate change were plausible, then the most effective way to avert catastrophic global warming would be the rapid expansion of nuclear power, not over-complicated schemes worthy of Rube Goldberg or Wile E. Coyote to carpet the world’s deserts and prairies with solar panels and wind farms that would provide only intermittent energy from weak and diffuse sources.
> 
> The mainstream environmental lobby has yet to acknowledge the challenge that the new energy realities pose to their assumptions about the future. Some environmentalists have welcomed natural gas because it is cleaner than coal and can supplement intermittent solar power and wind power, at times when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. But if natural gas is permanently cheaper than solar and wind, then there is no reason, other than ideology, to combine it with renewables, instead of simply using natural gas to replace coal in electricity generation.
> 
> Without massive, permanent government subsidies or equally massive penalty taxes imposed on inexpensive fossil fuels like shale gas, wind power and solar power may never be able to compete. For that reason, some Greens hope to shut down shale gas and gas hydrate production in advance. In their haste, however, many Greens have hyped studies that turned out to be erroneous.
> 
> In 2010 a Cornell University ecology professor and anti-fracking activist named Robert Howarth published a paper making the sensational claim that natural gas is a greater threat to the climate than coal. Howarth admitted, "A lot of the data we use are really low quality..."
> 
> Howarth’s error-ridden study was debunked by Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations and criticized even by the Worldwatch Institute, a leading environmentalist organization, which wrote: "While we share Dr. Howarth’s urgency about the need to transition to a renewable-based economy, we believe based on our research that natural gas, not coal, affords the cleanest pathway to such a future."
> 
> A few years ago, many Green alarmists seized upon a theory that an ice age 600 million years ago came to an abrupt end because of massive global warming caused by methane bubbling up from the ocean floor. They warned that the melting of the ice caps or drilling for methane hydrates might suddenly release enough methane to cook the earth. But before it could be turned into a Hollywood blockbuster, the methane apocalypse theory was debunked recently by a team of Caltech scientists in a report for the science journal Nature.
> 
> All energy sources have potentially harmful side effects. The genuine problems caused by fracking and possible large-scale future drilling of methane hydrates should be carefully monitored and dealt with by government regulation. But the Green lobby’s alarm about the environmental side-effects of energy sources is highly selective. The environmental movement since the 1970s has been fixated religiously on a few "soft energy" panaceas -- wind, solar, and biofuels -- and can be counted on to exaggerate or invent problems caused by alternatives. Many of the same Greens who oppose fracking because it might contaminate some underground aquifers favor wind turbines and high-voltage power lines that slaughter eagles and other birds and support blanketing huge desert areas with solar panels, at the cost of exterminating much of the local wildlife and vegetation. Wilderness preservation, the original goal of environmentalism, has been sacrificed to the giant metallic idols of the sun and the wind.
> 
> The renewable energy movement is not the only campaign that will be marginalized in the future by the global abundance of fossil fuels produced by advancing technology. Champions of small-scale organic farming can no longer claim that shortages of fossil fuel feedstocks will force a return to pre-industrial agriculture.
> 
> Another casualty of energy abundance is the new urbanism. Because cars and trucks and buses can run on natural gas as well as gasoline and diesel fuel, the proposition that peak oil will soon force people around the world to abandon automobile-centered suburbs and office parks for dense downtowns connected by light rail and inter-city trains can no longer be taken seriously. Deprived of the arguments from depletion, national security and global warming, the campaign to increase urban density and mass transit rests on nothing but a personal taste for expensive downtown living, a taste which the suburban working-class majorities in most developed nations manifestly do not share.
> 
> Eventually civilization may well run out of natural gas and other fossil fuels that are recoverable at a reasonable cost, and may be forced to switch permanently to other sources of energy. These are more likely to be nuclear fission or nuclear fusion than solar or wind power, which will be as weak, diffuse and intermittent a thousand years from now as they are today. But that is a problem for the inhabitants of the world of 2500 or 3000 A.D.
> 
> In the meantime, it appears that the prophets of an age of renewable energy following Peak Oil got things backwards. We may be living in the era of Peak Renewables, which will be followed by a very long Age of Fossil Fuels that has only just begun.
> 
> Michael Lind is Policy Director of the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation and is the author of "The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution." More: Michael Lind


----------



## a_majoor

Maturing technologies bring natural gas into play in new ways. The ability to capture "flare" gas with this technology alone could put a huge amount of "new" fuel on the market:

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/04/arabian-alchemy-shell-makes-black-gold-in-qatar/?print=1



> *Arabian Alchemy: Shell makes black gold in Qatar*
> Posted By Charlie Martin On June 4, 2011 @ 8:12 pm In Politics | 32 Comments
> 
> PJ contributor Leon de Winter mailed us an article from The Volkskrant, which Leon calls the New York Times of the Netherlands (which seems damning with faint praise to me, but never mind that).  The title of the article is (roughly) “Shell’s magic makes black gold from natural gas.” Frustratingly, I can’t get the Volksrant website to deliver me a link to the original article, but I was able to find it on Lexis, and between my small ability to read Dutch (see, you learn how the Dutch spell things, then read it out loud — if you speak both English and German, you can make sense of it) and Google Translate, I was able to get the gist.
> 
> And it’s a pretty interesting gist, I’ll tell you what.
> 
> Here’s the basic story: In a June 4th story, Michael Persson reports that the first product is coming from the Shell-Qatari joint project a half-hour out of Doha. The project is called “Pearl” and its function is to transform natural gas into synthetic replacements for petroleum products. In other words, turning natural gas into oil.
> 
> Conceptually the process is simple. Natural crude oil is a mix of a variety of hydrocarbons, which of course are simply molecules made of hydrogen and carbon. (This is distinct from carbohydrates like sugar, which also include oxygen.) A lot of the hydrocarbons in crude oil are long chains — they have many carbon atoms joined together. When crude oil is refined, the refinery basically does two things: first, it separates out any naturally-occurring shorter chains, which includes things like pentane, hexane, heptane, and octane. We call a misture of those things (and some other stuff, this is a bit oversimplified) “gasoline.” This isn’t sufficient to provide as much gasoline as we’d like, so a catalytic process is used to convert other fractions into the right components for gasoline. Natural crude usually contains some other compounds, like sulfur compounds. When you hear the TV business people talk about “sweet crude”, they mean crude with relatively little sulfer. “Sour” crude, naturally, has more sulfur. The sulfur compounds have some commercial uses, but they present processing problems, so “sour” crude is less desirable” than “sweet” crude.
> 
> The effect is that long-chain hydrocarbons are broken down into shorter chains; this process naturally releases some energy, so it’s “downhill”.
> 
> What Shell is doing, through a process called GTL (“gas to liquid”, aren’t scientists just poets?), is running a refinery backwards. Natural gas is primarily methane, the simplest hydrocarbon; the GTL process pushes it back up the hill to form longer hydrocarbon chains. This process consumes some energy, so it’s a little bit counter-intuitive why you’d want to do such a thing, but there are some real advantages. First off, natural gas is hard to handle — you can’t run a pipeline across the Pacific, and storing it in tankers means either storing it under very great pressure, or cooling it to very low temperatures to make it a liquid.
> 
> Longer chain hydrocarbons naturally have a higher boiling point, so they’re easier to keep liquid, easier to store in tanks. Years of transporting liquified natural gas in large quantities have proven that the whole effort is an expensive pain in the — expensive pain.
> 
> What’s much more important about the synthetic long-chain hydrocarbons from the Pearl operation is that they are very much like gasoline, diesel fuel, and kerosene (jet fuel.) Since they’re being built-to-order, so to speak, they have an advantage over conventional fuels too — they’re much purer. Natural gas is perfectly “sweet” — in fact, a sulfur compound, ethyl mercaptan, is added artificially to give it the “smell of gas”. Otherwise, natural gas would be odorless. The GTL process produces synthetic longer-chain hydrocarbons that never had the odd sulfur compound, or aldehydes and ketones (more smelly stuff) to be removed.
> 
> One result is a fuel like diesel fuel, that can be used without engine changes in a conventional diesel engine, but that produces cleaner exhaust, little or no soot, and is much less smelly. Changing the process lightly creates something very much like gasoline; a slightly different change creates something like kerosene.
> 
> The other result is this: we have lots of natural gas, throughout the world and in the USA in particular. Hydraulic fracturing — “fracking” — has opened up amazing reserves that weren’t thought to be practical a few years ago.The discovery of immense clathrate deposits — so called “burning ice” — are another immense source of natural gas. (In fact, the estimates right now are that clathrate deposits are the equivalent of twice all other other fossil fuels on Earth.) And perhaps best of all, the current costs of transporting natural gas are high enough that many refineries and oil fields simply flare off — burn — waste natural gas.
> 
> The gas-to-liquid process makes all those sources available not just to generate power and heat, but to replace fuel oils, and even lubrication oils. The combination of natural gas production and GTL technology could conceivably replace the whole expensive infrastructure required to move oilgas from the Middle East to Europe and the Americas, and make “waste” natural gas into a commercially useful product. As long as the price is right.
> 
> That’s the literal bottom line to the GTL process: it appears that the Shell process, as it stands right now, is financially feasible if the price of oil exceeds $20 a barrel.
> 
> Article printed from The PJ Tatler: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/04/arabian-alchemy-shell-makes-black-gold-in-qatar/


----------



## a_majoor

Two approaches to fuel economy and substitution. I don't think that flex fuel is quite as easy as the author seems to think (Methanol is quite corrosive to ordinary plastics and rubber used in the fuelsystem, for example), but is still cheaper than the technical and infrastructure changes needed to convert a large portion of the fleet to CNG:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268621/two-approaches-fuel-choice-robert-zubrin?



> *Two Approaches to Fuel Choice *
> Open Fuel Standards is the right choice.
> 
> Americans are currently being heavily taxed by the governments of the OPEC cartel, who are using a policy of restricting oil production to drive up prices. Indeed, with prices inflated to the $100-per-barrel range, America’s 5 billion barrels per year of petroleum imports will cost our economy $500 billion, an amount equal to 25 percent of the federal government’s tax receipts or, alternatively, the nation’s whole balance-of-trade deficit.
> The only way to break the power of the oil cartel to set global liquid-fuel prices is to open the market to competition from non-petroleum-based fuels. With this in mind, two bipartisan bills have recently been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. One is H.R. 1380, known as the “New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act,” or “NAT GAS Act” for short. The other is H.R. 1687, the Open Fuel Standards Act. The approaches adopted in these two pieces of legislation are very different.
> 
> The NAT GAS Act, which is strongly supported by oil and gas tycoon T. Boone Pickens, would provide a $7,500 tax-credit subsidy for the purchase of natural-gas cars, as well as a further subsidy to their manufacturers of $4,000 each, for a total of $11,500 per car. Natural-gas-truck subsidies would be at least double this, with the amount of the subsidy increased to as much as $64,000 per truck, depending on size. Further subsidies of up to $100,000 each would be available to filling stations to install natural-gas pumps.
> 
> The budgetary impact of this bill could be quite significant. For example, if we assume a sales rate of 1 million cars per year subsidized at $11,500 each, plus 100,000 small trucks subsidized at $23,000 each, and forget about the larger trucks and filling stations, the total tab would come to $13.8 billion per year. This would be triple the $4.5 billion per year ($0.45 per gallon times 10 billion gallons) currently being spent on the controversial corn-ethanol program, which has replaced 8 percent of our gasoline use. In contrast, it would take 18 years of such subsidies, with no vehicle losses, for the NAT GAS Act to replace 8 percent of the American automobile fleet, at a total cost to the treasury of $248 billion. Thus, at the end of 18 years, assuming a 2 percent compound rate of growth, the U.S. vehicle fleet will expand from 180 million to 257 million, of which 237 million will still be gasoline-powered, leaving us more dependent on foreign oil than at the program’s start. But since the average life of a car is only 17 years, it is unlikely that even this very modest degree of accomplishment will be achieved.
> 
> Another remarkable feature of the NAT GAS Act is the degree to which it has been championed by an openly self-interested party who would profit from increased sales of the sole alternative fuel chosen for support by the bill. However, it should be noted that the total amount of natural gas sold per car is unlikely to exceed $1,000 annually, of which perhaps 20 percent might be profit. Thus, even after several hundred billion dollars are spent to create a 20-million-car natural-gas fleet, the resulting profits to the entire natural-gas industry would be only about $4 billion per year. So, if helping the natural-gas industry were the objective, this could be accomplished at much lower cost to the treasury just by giving them their cut.
> 
> In contrast, the Open Fuel Standard bill does not choose a single winner, and would not cost the treasury anything. Instead, it stipulates that within several years the majority of new cars sold in the U.S. must give the consumer fuel choice by being any one of the following: full flex fuel (i.e., capable of using methanol, ethanol, and gasoline), natural gas, plug-in hybrid, or biodiesel compatible. Of these, the cheapest to produce will be flex fuel (zero to at most $100 additional cost per car), as many gasoline-powered vehicles now sold in the U.S. are already built with flex-fuel capability in mind, and need only a software upgrade to realize it. However, should consumers wish to spend their own money for the other alternatives, they will have every right to do so.
> 
> That said, it is the flex-fuel car’s methanol capability that will truly open up the source market for liquid fuels, as methanol can be made cheaply from coal, natural gas, or biomass. In fact, if the goal is to open up the vehicle-fuel market to natural gas, that can be much more readily accomplished, in a much bigger way, by the Open Fuel Standard legislation than by the NAT GAS Act, without any cost to the taxpayers at all — provided, of course, that natural-gas-sourced methanol continues to beat coal- or biomass-sourced methanol on price. This is as it should be.
> 
> Furthermore, unlike the NAT GAS Act, which will have near-zero impact on global oil prices, the worldwide effects of the Open Fuel Standard bill would be profound. This is because foreign carmakers will not wish to walk away from the American automobile market. If flex fuel becomes the standard for U.S. auto sales, foreign carmakers will switch their lines over, and their products worldwide will be predominantly flex fuel as well. This will subject gasoline to competition from methanol, and in some places ethanol, made from the cheapest local sources everywhere, thereby creating a permanent global competitive constraint on future oil prices.
> 
> The NAT GAS Act would cost the treasury a fortune, while accomplishing next to nothing. The Open Fuel Standard bill would cost the treasury nothing, while protecting both the U.S. and world economies from continued taxation by the oil cartel.
> 
> One can only hope that Congress makes the right choice.
> 
> — Dr. Robert Zubrin is president of the aerospace-engineering firm Pioneer Astronautics, a fellow with the Center for Security Policy, and the author of Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil.


----------



## a_majoor

Free markets and energy supplies:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/06/free-market-not-government-policies-drives-energy-boom



> *Free market, not government policies, drives energy boom*
> By: Michael Barone 06/07/11 8:05 PM
> Senior Political Analyst Follow Him @MichaelBarone
> 
> (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images) There's an awful lot that's stale in the debate on government energy policy.
> Some stale arguments are nevertheless valid: It's dangerous to depend heavily on Middle Eastern oil. Others have increasingly been seen as dubious: that global warming caused by human activity will result in catastrophe.
> 
> There's stale talk about federal and state laws that promised great change but have produced very little. Electric cars, even with subsidies, are no larger a part of the auto fleet than they were 100 years ago.
> 
> Renewable energy sources like wind and solar still produce only a tiny percentage of electricity. That offshore wind farm hasn't gone up in Nantucket Sound, and the Mojave Desert is never going to be covered with solar panels.
> 
> Ethanol subsidies have jacked up the price of corn, raising the price of meat here and tortillas in Mexico. But the subsidies haven't done much for gas mileage, and presidential candidates heading to Iowa now call for abolishing them.
> 
> In contrast to the marginal effects of these much-ballyhooed public policies, there has been a huge breakthrough in energy production in the past couple of years.
> 
> Petroleum engineers working for private companies have used a technique called "hydraulic fracking," injecting vast amounts of water into rock, to release commercially viable amounts of natural gas and oil.
> 
> Hydraulic fracking has resulted in a boom in the Bakken oil shale formation under North Dakota and Montana. North Dakota is now the No. 4 state in oil production.
> 
> And hydraulic fracking has made commercially viable huge volumes of natural gas previously imprisoned in shale rock in western Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
> 
> The U.S. Energy Information Administration has estimated that there is at least six times as much natural gas available now as a decade ago as well as a big increase in commercially recoverable oil.
> 
> All thanks to hydraulic fracking, a phrase I bet you didn't hear in the energy debate in the 2008 presidential campaign or in the debate over the cap-and-trade bill passed by House Democrats in June 2009. My (perhaps defective) search for the phrase in the New York Times and Washington Post websites didn't yield any mentions earlier than 2010.
> 
> While government's ethanol subsidies and renewable requirements have made little difference, the private sector's hydraulic fracking has increased our energy supply and reduced our dependence on dicey Middle Eastern oil.
> 
> This kicks back against the efforts of government under the Obama administration to restrict energy supply. The administration has shut down much offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (even though Obama cheered Petrobras' drilling off the shore of Brazil) and has been denying permits for oil drilling in Alaska that is needed to keep the pipeline pumping. This on top of environmental groups' successful attempts to prevent drilling on the desolate tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
> 
> The State Department has even been stalling on approving the Keystone pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta to refineries in Oklahoma and Texas. Environmental groups object to drilling techniques Canada allows.
> 
> It's unclear why we should feel called on to second-guess the internal regulations of a competent and environmentally-conscious nation like Canada. And it's incomprehensible why we should want to keep out a plentiful supply of oil from a dependable and friendly neighbor.
> 
> There is a lesson here for public policy generally, including health care. No centralized government expert predicted the vast expansion in energy supply from hydraulic fracking. It was produced by decentralized specialists in firms subject to market competition.
> 
> Just as Friedrich Hayek taught, no central planner can know or foresee enough to produce the beneficial results regularly produced by competition in free markets regulated in accordance with the rule of law. And no central planner can accurately predict the course of innovation that can be achieved in decentralized markets. That's something you might want to keep in mind when someone tells you that Medicare costs can be controlled by 15 members of an unelected board created by Obamacare. Better results and lower costs can be expected with the kind of market competition set up by the 2003 Medicare prescription drug law.
> 
> No one can tell you just how that will happen, just as no one was telling you three years ago just how hydraulic fracking would expand our energy supply. But it did. That's what market competition can do -- and government control can't.
> 
> Michael Barone,The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.
> 
> 
> Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/06/free-market-not-government-policies-drives-energy-boom#ixzz1OhT9IHD1


----------



## a_majoor

Every little bit helps (I think this should be added to existing vehicle fleets post haste):

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/system-for-bringing-engine-oil-to.html



> *System for bringing engine oil to optimal temperature could increase fuel efficiency by 7% in old and new cars*
> 
> ShareFrank Will with the Formula SAE racing ca
> 
> A minor modification to your car could reduce fuel consumption by over seven per cent. The Deakin University (Australia) invention uses waste heat to reduce friction by warming the engine oil. A prototype has been built and tested and the inventors are now talking to the car manufacturers and developing an aftermarket conversion kit. The system, which can be retrofitted, works by diverting waste heat to bring engine oil up to its optimal operating temperature. It was developed by researchers at Deakin University led by Mr Frank Will of the School of Engineering during his PhD project.
> 
> Half of all oil usage is for gasoline in cars and trucks. A 7% fuel saving that can be applied to existing cars and new cars would save 2.8 million barrels per day worldwide. It could save 700,000 barrels per day in the United States.
> 
> “Preliminary testing of our system has demonstrated fuel savings of over seven per cent as well as significant reductions in exhaust emissions,” Frank says.
> 
> The work is being presented through Fresh Science, a communication boot camp for early career scientists held at the Melbourne Museum. Frank was one of 16 winners from across Australia.
> 
> A typical car engine wastes about 80 per cent of the fuel consumed. Only 20 per cent of the fuel’s energy is used to drive the car forward. The rest is lost as heat. He believes his invention – which he has named OVER7™ – represents a smarter approach to vehicle engine design.
> 
> “One of its most important features is that it doesn’t have to heat all the oil in the sump. Instead, it heats only the active oil in the engine lubrication system. This makes the overall heat transfer process much more efficient.
> 
> “The system has the potential to be retrofitted to existing engines and we don’t think it will require big changes. It should be much cheaper to fit than an LPG conversion for example. Built into a new car it should pay for itself within a month or two,” he says.
> 
> “We also think the system will be suitable for a range of vehicles, including diesels, hybrids and those using alternative fuels.” Other benefits include the potential to reduce engine wear and improve performance.


----------



## a_majoor

While we wait for the political roadblocks to cheap oil to evaporate, here is another bit of work on biofuel alternatives:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-wood-digesting-enzyme-bacteria-boost-biofuel.html



> *First wood-digesting enzyme found in bacteria could boost biofuel production*
> June 9, 2011
> 
> (PhysOrg.com) -- University of Warwick researchers funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)-led Integrated Biorefining Research and Technology (IBTI) Club have identified an enzyme in bacteria which could be used to make biofuel production more efficient. The research is published in the 14 June Issue of the American Chemical Society journal Biochemistry.
> 
> This research, carried out by teams at the Universities of Warwick and British Columbia, could make sustainable sources of biofuels, such as woody plants and the inedible parts of crops, more economically viable.
> The researchers, who were also supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, have discovered an enzyme which is important in breaking down lignin, one of the components of the woody parts of plants. Lignin is important in making plants sturdy and rigid but, because it is difficult to break down, it makes extracting the energy-rich sugars used to produce bioethanol more difficult. Fast-growing woody plants and the inedible by-products of crops could both be valuable sources of biofuels but it is difficult to extract enough sugar from them for the process to be economically viable. Using an enzyme to break down lignin would allow more fuel to be produced from the same amount of plant mass.
> 
> The researchers identified the gene for breaking down lignin in a soil-living bacterium called Rhodococcus jostii. Although such enzymes have been found before in fungi, this is the first time that they have been identified in bacteria. The bacterium’s genome has already been sequenced which means that it could be modified more easily to produce large amounts of the required enzyme. In addition, bacteria are quick and easy to grow, so this research raises the prospect of producing enzymes which can break down lignin on an industrial scale.
> Professor Timothy Bugg, from the University of Warwick, who led the team, said: “For biofuels to be a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels we need to extract the maximum possible energy available from plants. By raising the exciting possibility of being able to produce lignin-degrading enzymes from bacteria on an industrial scale this research could help unlock currently unattainable sources of biofuels.
> “By making woody plants and the inedible by-products of crops economically viable the eventual hope is to be able to produce biofuels that don’t compete with food production.”
> The team at Warwick have been collaborating with colleagues in Canada at the University of British Columbia who have been working to unravel the structure of the enzyme. They hope next to find similar enzymes in bacteria which live in very hot environments such as near volcanic vents. Enzymes in these bacteria have evolved to work best at high temperatures meaning they are ideally suited to be used in industrial processes.
> Duncan Eggar, BBSRC Sustainable Bioenergy Champion, said: “Burning wood has long been a significant source of energy. Using modern bioscience we can use woody plants in more sophisticated ways to fuel our vehicles and to produce materials and industrial chemicals. This must all be done both ethically and sustainably. Work like this which develops conversion processes and improves efficiencies is vital.”
> More information: This paper is available online here: http://pubs.acs.or … 21/bi101892z
> Provided by University of Warwick (news : web)


----------



## a_majoor

If subsidies can be eliminated, then market forces will have a much greater impact on supply and demand (ethanol subsidies distort the market in favour of an inferior fuel with the negative results described):

http://princearthurherald.com/archives/5673



> *Vaughan: U.S. Energy Subsidies Must Go*
> Posted on June 24th, 2011 by Eleanor Vaughan in Politics
> 
> Some called it a green miracle. On Thursday, a supermajority in the U.S. Senate voted to scrap a $6 billion annual corn ethanol subsidy. The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), removes the 45 cent tax break that oil companies receive for every gallon of ethanol that they blend into their gasoline. The amendment also ends the 54 cent per gallon import tax on foreign ethanol designed to protect domestic industry. If enacted, the amendment would save an estimated $6 billion per year. The victory is, however, a symbolic one. It is doubtful that the amendment will actually be enacted as the underlying bill—a new push for green subsidies—is unlikely to pass through the House or Senate. President Obama also opposes the amendment, claiming ethanol helps reduce foreign energy dependence.
> 
> 
> Will the necessity of deficit reduction finally put an end to unjust and counter-productive U.S. energy subsidies?
> 
> Yet, the battle against ethanol subsidies—and indeed all energy subsidies—must be pursued. Broad support from a motley coalition of Republicans and Democrats highlight the widespread consensus on ditching ethanol subsidies. While corn producers have tried to claim that bio-fuels reduce greenhouse gas emissions and foreign energy dependence, these arguments don’t hold up to scrutiny.
> 
> Ethanol does not significantly reduce carbon emissions. Growing huge amounts of corn and distilling it to produce ethanol consumes vast amount of energy and stresses natural resources. It takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than that gallon actually contains and its gas mileage is poor compared to conventional gasoline. The Energy Information Administration reports that a gallon of fuel ethanol is equal to only 0.67 gallons of conventional gas. Ethanol puts out 11% less energy per gallon than petroleum diesel. Ethanol subsidies also damage the environment by encouraging farmers to irresponsibly expand corn production, often on ecologically sensitive land.
> 
> Ethanol subsidies also increase global corn prices, leading to food shortages and starvation around the world. Livestock producers, whose animals feed largely on corn, say that ethanol has pushed up their costs, borne out as higher meat prices for consumers. The injustice is clear—the amount of corn it takes to produce a single tank of ethanol could feed one person for an entire year.
> 
> Ethanol also does little to alleviate foreign energy dependence. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the ethanol industry already uses about 40 per cent of the nation’s corn crop but produces less than 10% of the fuel supply. There is simply not enough corn to support significantly greater production. For the United States to completely depend on ethanol as a fuel, the country would need to use every single acre of its land to grow corn—and would still need 20% more land on top of that to meet its energy needs.
> 
> 
> “Ethanol subsidies,” concludes Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), “are bad economic policy, bad energy policy, and bad environmental policy.”
> 
> Indeed, why subsidize the energy industry at all?
> 
> As fiscal strain mounts in Washington, the pressure to cut subsidies will build. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is reportedly working on legislation to wipe out an array of tax subsidies for other energy sources. “When we are borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend,” Lamar notes, “it is a good time to take a hard look at unwarranted tax breaks and one appropriate use of those funds is to reduce the deficit.” Cutting energy subsidies would lead to savings in the tens of billions.
> 
> The premise that the federal government must intervene to promote alternative energy sources is dubious at best. Energy subsidies distort market signals, diverting resources from their most effective uses to their most politically favorable ones. In a free market, investors will invest in the alternative energy technology that makes economic sense. Subsidies discourage investment into more promising energy alternatives, like cellulosic ethanol made from non-food crops.
> 
> While incentives and tax breaks can be used to help get new technologies off the ground, they should not be used to permanently prop up the energy industry. Subsidies for ethanol, natural gas, oil, and coal directly harm the environment by keeping the price of pollution-producing energy sources artificially low and thus encouraging their consumption. For green energy innovation to occur, markets must be free to allocate capital to the best technology. Government, swayed by the demands of their corn-growing constituents, should not pick winners and losers through the tax code.
> 
> Eleanor Vaughan graduated from McGill University in June and is interning in Washington, D.C.


----------



## a_majoor

Getting clean, cheap electrical energy is another big issue. Since so many people get bent out of shape by the word "nuclear", here is one possible alternative:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/meeting-all-of-earths-energy-needs-with.html



> *Meeting all of the earth's energy needs with tethered platforms*
> 
> A tethered platform hovering at an altitude of 20 kilometers would operate in the stratosphere, above most clouds and weather. At that altitude, a platform covered with photovoltaic cells would be able to collect considerably more sunlight than a ground-based solar collector. A company called stratosolar has developed a proposal to use either concentrated solar collectors or straight photovoltaic cells to generate electricity. Such schemes could potentially bring the cost of solar power down to 1 cent per kilowatt-hour. In an interview with Sander Olson, StratoSolar President Edmund Kelly describes what will be needed to make this concept a reality.
> 
> Edmund Kelly
> 
> Question: What is StratoSolar?
> 
> It's a proposal to collect solar power at an altitude of 20 kilometers, where the troposphere gives way to the stratosphere. The stratosphere is a nearly ideal location for collecting solar power, since at that altitude the atmosphere has absorbed little of the sun's rays. There are no clouds and low winds. There is day and night, but that's totally predictable.
> 
> Question: StratoSolar has researched two versions, one using Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) and the other involving floating platforms of straight photovoltaic cells. How does the CSP system work?
> 
> The basic idea is a huge tethered concentrator at 20 km that tracks the sun. It continually collects light during the day and sends it to the ground through a light pipe. Some of the energy is stored as heat for 24-hour power production. Each square meter of a 2 km dish collects six times as much sunlight as a ground based heliostat mirror. In regard to converting sunlight into electric power, it is as efficiently as the best thermal plants. It is a fairly complicated system involving light pipes, heat storage, turbine generators and so forth.
> 
> Question: What will it cost?
> 
> Based on the cost of materials, plastic, aluminum, hydrogen and steel wire or Kevlar and a ten-year payoff the CSP version we expect it to eventually fall to around 1 cent per kilowatt-hour when the technology matures. Thermal storage is remarkably low cost, in this design no more than a tenth of a cent per kWh.
> 
> Even an early version looks like it will initially generate electricity for 6 cents per kilowatt-hour.
> 
> At 20km, a tethered platform gets the benefits of abundant sunlight and a benign environment. A tethered platform will get nearly constant sunlight from dawn till dusk, whereas on the ground a platform will only get peak sunlight for a brief period.
> 
> Question: Can't ground-based photovoltaic provide all of the earth's energy needs?
> 
> Photovoltaic technology has made considerable progress during the past two decades, but it is not anywhere close to being competitive with coal, in terms of cost per kilowatt-hour. In ground installations, the cell only receives sunlight on sunny days, and even then only intermittently. More efficient and less expensive cells can ameliorate these problems, but those advantages would also make our concepts even more viable. Therefore, we have developed an inherently better solution, one that can be deployed as far north as Stockholm.
> 
> Question: Is the CSP approach is the more sophisticated of the two approaches?
> 
> We believe that the most efficient way to get solar energy is by floating large solar collectors at an altitude of 20 Kilometers. However, the technology for concentrated solar power is newer, trickier than for photovoltaics, and involved greater R&D and higher risks. Therefore, for that reason we developed the photovoltaic system, which is simpler and easier to implement. The PV system floats a platform using hydrogen gas, also at 20 kilometers. The photovoltaic (PV) system should result in costs of 8 cents per kilowatt-hour, but with the continuing improvements in PV panels, we can reduce the cost even further.
> 
> Question: What R&D costs are we talking about to fully develop the CSP and PV systems? How much electricity could one platform provide?
> 
> The CSP systems contain many elements and the minimum system is large. This means the R&D cost to build a complete functioning system is several hundred million dollars. It will ultimately require billions of dollars to perfect this technology and to develop the infrastructure. However, the first platforms will generate revenue which will help fund the R&D. The PV platforms contain fewer elements and are smaller initially and modular, so the initial R$D cost is much lower than CSP, in the region of tens of millions of dollars for the first operational platform, and they can be easily scaled up to larger systems without additional R&D. We have calculated that 30 of these larger PV platforms could provide all of the daylight electricity needs of all of California. California could achieve energy independence within a decade.
> 
> Question: Given sufficient funding, how long would it take to launch the first CSP platform?
> 
> We would require at least five years to get a full-scale CSP platform up and running, since significant R&D is needed to make that concept viable. Within three years, we should be able to create a small platform that confirms the feasibility of the approach. The photovoltaic approach is modular, and therefore can be scaled up faster.
> 
> Question: How confident are you that a 20 kilometer tether could be made sufficiently strong? What materials will be required for the floating platform?
> 
> We will use Kevlar or UHMWPE for the tether, which have sufficient strength to support the platform without breaking. For a high voltage line, the tether will be very narrow in diameter. For the platform there is no need for exotic materials - the required materials are mostly aluminum, Mylar, and structural fabric.
> 
> Question: What sort of efficiency losses would be incurred getting the power down to the ground?
> 
> Low. Not different from 20 km of power lines.
> 
> Question: At what latitudes can tethered platforms operate?
> 
> Our platforms are designed to operate at between latitudes 30 and 60, which pretty much covers the industrial zones. We don't recommend deploying these platforms over cities, at least initially. However, you could place them close to cities, obviating the need for long power cables and efficiency losses. Therefore, these platforms could operate over Germany, and collect substantially more energy than ground-based solar cells in a desert.
> 
> Question: To what extent will weather be a problem? What about static electricity or hydrogen safety issues?
> 
> With the CSP, there is a possibility of catastrophic risk from a major hurricane or tornado. That is one of the reasons that we developed the PV system. The platform itself will be above most clouds and so only the cables will have to endure weather. The PV system is designed to be able to withstand any expected wind, and will in general be unaffected by weather. We have also specifically designed the platforms to be unaffected by electrical discharges. In a properly designed system, the risks from using hydrogen are negligible. For example, surround the hydrogen bags with nitrogen.
> 
> Question: To what extent can the costs of conventional ground-based solar power be reduced?
> 
> During the past decade, packaging costs have come down substantially, and the costs for packaging the cell and the electronics have been reduced. There are limits as to how much lower costs can go - fixed costs for land and paving that won't go down. A conventional solar station on the ground requires square miles of land and huge amounts of material. So there exists a bottom limit to costs. By contrast, the stratosolar approach has costs that are only 1/3 of those costs of a conventional solar station. Our system is the only feasible way to generate solar power that is cost-competitive with coal.
> 
> Question: Could this technology be used to eventually provide all of the earth's energy needs?
> 
> Within a few decades, there could be thousands of platforms in operation. That sounds like alot, but it would have these platforms are surprisingly easy to build, and are actually quite safe to operate. Building and operating thousands of these platforms is a feasible and cost-effective proposition, even without any subsidies.
> 
> Question: How much progress could be made with CSP and PV within the next decade?
> 
> Within a decade, we could have PV deployed on a very large scale. CSP will take longer, but we could see the multiple CSP platforms operating within ten years. PV is on a technology development curve, and if we could develop an efficient electricity storage system, we might not even need CSP.


----------



## Kirkhill

I wonder how big a shadow that thing casts at 9 o'clock in the morning?


----------



## a_majoor

Several of the potential replacements for oil depend on biological systems, such as biofuels derived from algae, artificial enzymes to break agricultural and biological wastes for conversion into ethanol, methanol or bio diesel and synthetic bacteria to produce fuels from various raw materials. This technology has the potential to unlock these biological systems:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/07/accelerated-evolution-machine-being.html



> *Accelerated evolution machine being adapted to human stem cells and creates the new field of Recombineering*
> 
> In May, 2010, Venter and his team successfully inserted a fully customized strand of DNA into a living cell, creating what they call the "first synthetic genome." Church says MAGE (Multiplex Automated Genome Engineering) can achieve similar results faster and cheaper. His lab's device will go on sale later this year for about $90,000, and at least a dozen companies, including chemical giant DuPont (DD) and biotech startup Amyris, are considering purchasing it.
> 
> The new term is recombineering.
> 
> Recombineering (recombination-mediated genetic engineering)is a genetic and molecular biology technique based on homologous recombination systems, as opposed to the older/more common method of using restriction enzymes and ligases to cut and glue DNA sequences. It has been developed in E. coli and now is expanding to other bacteria species and is used to modify DNA in a precise and simple manner. The procedure is widely used for bacterial genetics, in the generation of target vectors for making a conditional mouse knockout, and for modifying DNA of any source often contained on a bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC).
> 
> New Scientist had updated coverage
> 
> The machine let the E. coli multiply, mixed them with the DNA strands, and applied an electric shock to open up the bacterial cells and let the DNA get inside. There, some of the added DNA was swapped with the matching target sequences in the cells' genomes. This process, called homologous recombination, is usually very rare, which is where the viral enzymes come in. They trick cells into treating the added DNA as its own, greatly increasing the chance of homologous recombination.
> 
> * Church is adapting MAGE for genetically modifying human stem cell lines. The work, funded by the US National Human Genome Research Institute, aims to create human cell lines with subtly different genomes in order to test ideas about which mutations cause disease and how.
> 
> * if MAGE really can be used to edit the genome of human cells, it would provide a way to fix the mutations that cause inherited disease. It could be the technology that opens the door to the genetic engineering of humans.
> 
> Recombineering utilizes linear DNA substrates that are either double-stranded (dsDNA) or single-stranded (ssDNA). Most commonly, dsDNA recombineering has been used to create gene replacements, deletions, insertions, inversions. Gene cloning and gene/protein tagging is also common. For gene replacements or deletions, usually a cassette encoding a drug-resistance gene is made by PCR using bi-partite primers. These primers consist of (from 5’→3’) 50 bases of homology to the target region, where the cassette is to be inserted, followed by 20 bases to prime the drug resistant cassette. The exact junction sequence of the final construct is determined by primer design. These events typically occur at a frequency of approximately 10^4/10^8cells that survive electroporation. Electroporation is the method used to transform the linear substrate into the recombining cell.
> 
> Recombineering with ssDNA provided a breakthrough both in the efficiency of the reaction and the ease of making point mutations. This technique was further enhanced by the discovery that by avoiding the methyl-directed mismatch repair system, the frequency of obtaining recombinants can be increased to over 10^7/10^8 viable cells. This frequency is high enough that alterations can now be made without selection. With optimized protocols, over 50% of the cells that survive electroporation contain the desired change. Recombineering with ssDNA only requires the Red Beta protein; Exo, Gamma and the host recombination proteins are not required. As proteins homologous to Beta and RecT are found in many bacteria and bacteriophages (over 100 as of February 2010), recombineering is likely to work in many different bacteria. Thus, recombineering with ssDNA is expanding the genetic tools available for research in a variety of organisms. To date, recombineering has been performed in E. coli, S. enterica, Y. pseudotuberculosis, and M. tuberculosis
> 
> The biggest advantage of recombineering is that it obviates the need for conveniently positioned restriction sites, whereas in conventional genetic engineering, DNA modification is often compromised by the availability of unique restriction sites. In engineering large constructs of over 100 kb, such as the Bacterial Artificial Chromosomes (BACs), or chromosomes, recombineering has become a necessity. Recombineering can generate the desired modifications without leaving any 'footprints' behind. It also forgoes multiple cloning stages for generating intermediate vectors and therefore is used to modify DNA constructs in a relatively short time-frame. The homology required is short enough that it can be generated in synthetic oligonucleotides and recombination with short oligonucleotides themselves is incredibly efficient. Recently, recombineering has been developed for high throughput DNA engineering applications termed 'recombineering pipelines'. Recombineering pipelines support the large scale production of BAC transgenes and gene targeting constructs for functional genomics programs such as EUCOMM (European Conditional Mouse Mutagenesis Consortium) and KOMP (Knock-Out Mouse Program). Recombineering has also been automated, a process called "MAGE" -Multiplex Automated Genome Engineering, in the Church lab
> 
> Human MAGE
> 
> Next-Gen Reading and Writing of Microbial and Human Genomes talk by George Church
> 
> The cost of sequencing has plummeted a million fold in six years and integration with next-gen genome engineering is following a similar path. Our SynBERC SynBioSIS - BIOFAB group supports the community via high-throughput production and characterization of synthetic genes and genomes by novel and cost-effective resources like oligonucleotide chips and Multiplex Automated Genome Engineering (MAGE). Starting with up to 244K 300-mers or 1M 75-mers per chip (for as little as $500 per chip), with enzymatic error correction these assemble in 600-mers with error rates as good as 1/6000 (and with sequencing even better). E.coli MAGE (via ss-oligomers) can incorporate up to 5 mutations per 90-mer and up to seven 90-mers per cell per 2 hr. One MAGE device can produce up to 4 billion combinatorial genomes (cells) per day per each of 8 growth chambers. The engineered cells are characterized by FACS, automated microscopy, selective growth and quantitative sequencing assays of RNA and protein-NA interactions. Applications include optimization of metabolite, fuel, drug, and macromolecular production levels. New translation codes are aimed at efficient incorporation of multiple non-standard amino acids, multi-virus resistance and safety through nutritional and genetic isolation. For human MAGE we are optimizing various combinations of ss-oligos, Zn-finger and TALE targeting, ds-nucleases, deaminases, and recombinases. The SynBioSIS chip pipeline and E.coli MAGE help with constructing and selecting new ZnF and TALE and BACs for use in fibroblast, stem cells (hiPS) etc. Next-gen sequencing measures off-target mutational and epigenomic impacts and ratios of bar-codes.


----------



## a_majoor

Another amazing technology:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/07/modified-carbon-nanotubes-can-store.html



> *Modified carbon nanotubes can store solar energy indefinitely*
> 
> Modified carbon nanotubes can store solar energy indefinitely, then be recharged by exposure to the sun.
> 
> Storing the sun’s heat in chemical form — rather than converting it to electricity or storing the heat itself in a heavily insulated container — has significant advantages, since in principle the chemical material can be stored for long periods of time without losing any of its stored energy. The problem with that approach has been that until now the chemicals needed to perform this conversion and storage either degraded within a few cycles, or included the element ruthenium, which is rare and expensive.
> 
> Nanoletters- Azobenzene-Functionalized Carbon Nanotubes As High-Energy Density Solar Thermal Fuels
> 
> Solar thermal fuels, which reversibly store solar energy in molecular bonds, are a tantalizing prospect for clean, renewable, and transportable energy conversion/storage. However, large-scale adoption requires enhanced energy storage capacity and thermal stability. Here we present a novel solar thermal fuel, composed of azobenzene-functionalized carbon nanotubes, with the volumetric energy density of Li-ion batteries. Our work also demonstrates that the inclusion of nanoscale templates is an effective strategy for design of highly cyclable, thermally stable, and energy-dense solar thermal fuels.
> 
> Using carbon nanotubes the new chemical system is less expensive than the earlier ruthenium-containing compound, but it also is vastly more efficient at storing energy in a given amount of space — about 10,000 times higher in volumetric energy density, Kolpak says — making its energy density comparable to lithium-ion batteries. By using nanofabrication methods, “you can control [the molecules’] interactions, increasing the amount of energy they can store and the length of time for which they can store it — and most importantly, you can control both independently,” she says.
> 
> Thermo-chemical storage of solar energy uses a molecule whose structure changes when exposed to sunlight, and can remain stable in that form indefinitely. Then, when nudged by a stimulus — a catalyst, a small temperature change, a flash of light — it can quickly snap back to its other form, releasing its stored energy in a burst of heat. Grossman describes it as creating a rechargeable heat battery with a long shelf life, like a conventional battery.
> 
> One of the great advantages of the new approach to harnessing solar energy, Grossman says, is that it simplifies the process by combining energy harvesting and storage into a single step. “You’ve got a material that both converts and stores energy,” he says. “It’s robust, it doesn’t degrade, and it’s cheap.” One limitation, however, is that while this process is useful for heating applications, to produce electricity would require another conversion step, using thermoelectric devices or producing steam to run a generator.
> 
> While the new work shows the energy-storage capability of a specific type of molecule — azobenzene-functionalized carbon nanotubes — Grossman says the way the material was designed involves “a general concept that can be applied to many new materials.” Many of these have already been synthesized by other researchers for different applications, and would simply need to have their properties fine-tuned for solar thermal storage.
> 
> The key to controlling solar thermal storage is an energy barrier separating the two stable states the molecule can adopt; the detailed understanding of that barrier was central to Grossman’s earlier research on fulvalene dirunthenium, accounting for its long-term stability. Too low a barrier, and the molecule would return too easily to its “uncharged” state, failing to store energy for long periods; if the barrier were too high, it would not be able to easily release its energy when needed. “The barrier has to be optimized,” Grossman says.


----------



## a_majoor

More oil from the Bakken formation:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/07/eco-pad-oil-recovery-in-bakken.html



> *Eco-pad oil recovery in the Bakken*
> 
> Billionaire Harold Hamm is convinced thereʼs 24 billion barrels of oil to be coaxed from the Bakken field of North Dakota and Montana. Continental Resources has already prospered from Hammʼs Bakken bet—shares are up 250% since early 2009. Hammʼs 72% stake is worth $8 billion. Hamm currently has 25 of the 175 rigs working the Bakken. In the past year Continental’s Bakken output has exploded 70% to 28,000 barrels per day.
> 
> Operators like Continental, EOG Resources, Hess Corp., Occidental Petroleum and Marathon Oil have drilled some 3,000 wells there since 2008, and learn more on each one. A primary discovery: that just 100 feet below the primary Bakken formation (itself 10,000 feet down) is a whole other layer of oil-bearing rock called the Three Forks, which is separate from the Bakken and sealed off by a layer of shale. Watching flow rates, the companies agree that the average well drilled into either layer will produce around 500,000 barrels of oil in its lifetime.
> 
> Hammʼs number is aggressive because his drilling technique is aggressive. Most analysts and operators assume one well per 640 acres of reservoir. Too conservative. Continental has developed a new drilling concept it calls Eco-Pad to exploit both reservoirs. One rig will develop a 2-square-mile area by drilling eight wells—four into the Bakken layer and four into the Three Forks. Each well goes down two miles, then horizontally two miles through the reservoir. Using explosive charges, the drillers will make hundreds of holes (called “perforations”) in the pipe of each well. Then comes the hydraulic fracturing— where the well is injected with 1.8 million gallons of water and sand that props open tiny fractures in the dolomite rock to let out the oil. The “Eco” in this Eco-Pad concept? All this work on eight giant wells gets done from one spot, causing less surface impact.
> 
> From there, itʼs simple arithmetic. The basin covers about 8 million acres. Hamm figures there’s room for 48,000 wells. If each one delivers that 500,000 barrel average, you get 24 billion barrels. Even then, drillers will be harvesting well less than 10% of what geologist Edward Murphy of the North Dakota Geological Service figures is 250 billion barrels of original oil in place. The Williston basin is churning out 450,000 bpd now. Within four years, says Hamm, it will be producing 1.2 million bpd — as much oil as is currently recovered from the entire U.S. side of the Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> Bakken production has been slowed this year because of flooding in North Dakota.
> 
> Carbon dioxide injection is starting to be used to increase production in Montana.
> 
> Injecting the greenhouse gas underground could produce 40 billion barrels of oil in the United States, Evans said.
> 
> A DOE estimate is that enhanced oil recovery (nextgen CO2 injection) could unlock 240 billion barrels of oil.
> 
> This would involve hundreds of billions of investment if not trillions of investment. There would need to be massive pipeline projects to take captured CO2 from coal plants to oil wells.


----------



## a_majoor

A new approach to extracting oil from the oil sands:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/07/nsolv-has-solvent-based-approach-to.html



> *Nsolv has a solvent based approach to the oilsands that uses no water and 85% less energy*
> 
> N-Solv Corporation holds patents for proprietary technology for in situ solvent extraction of bitumen from oil sands. The process uses no water and 85% less energy than Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD). They have been awarded with $10.5 million by the Canadian government.
> 
> The N-Solv process is also expected to have lower operating and capital costs than SAGD with fewer restrictions on the reservoir conditions under which it can operate.
> 
> Other members of the consortium are oil sands producer Suncor Energy Inc. and Hatch Ltd.
> 
> In making the award, SDTC noted that Canada has some 170 billion barrels of recoverable crude oil stored in the oil sands. Of these remaining established reserves in Alberta, 80% are too deep to be mined and are currently recovered using in situ processes such as SAGD which is water- and energy- intensive.
> 
> N-Solv injects heated solvent (such as propane) vapor at moderate pressures into the gravity drainage chamber. The vapor flows from the injection well to the colder perimeter of the chamber where it condenses, delivering heat and fresh solvent directly to the bitumen extraction interface.
> 
> In solvent extraction, the production rate is limited by the rate that the solvent diffuses into the bitumen; the penetration rate of solvent into bitumen is determined by the bitumen viscosity. With Athabasca bitumen, a 25-30ºC temperature rise typically reduces the bitumen viscosity by a factor of 100. Thus, says N-Solv, a substantial acceleration in the bitumen extraction rate is achieved with a very modest increase in temperature. This is the key principle of N-Solv.


----------



## a_majoor

When good intentions go wrong:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/08/researchers-castigate-planning-bodies-for-ill-conceived-jatropha-programs.html



> *Researchers castigate planning bodies for ill-conceived Jatropha programs*
> 3 August 2011
> 
> The results of massive plantings of Jatropha worldwide for use as a biofuel feedstock—some 12.8 million ha (49,421 square miles) are expected to be planted by 2015—are “anything but encouraging”, according to Promode Kant from the Institute of Green Economy in India and Shuirong Wu of the Chinese Academy of Forestry.
> 
> In a Viewpoint published in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology, Kant and Wu suggest that what they call the “extraordinary collapse of Jatropha as a biofuel” appears to be due to “an extreme case of a well intentioned top down climate mitigation approach, undertaken without adequate preparation and ignoring conflict of interest, and adopted in good faith by other countries, gone awry bringing misery to millions of poorest people across the world”.
> 
> The current situation began in 2003 with the decision by the Planning Commission of India to introduce mandatory biofuel blending over increasingly larger parts of the country with a target of 30% by 2020. The Planning Commission pushed for Jatropha as it was considered to be high, early yielding, nonbrowsable and requiring little irrigation and even less management.
> 
> India encouraged millions of marginal farmers and landless people to plant Jatropha across India, Kant and Wu said. In 2006, China decided to meet 15% of its transportation energy needs by 2020 and, following India’s example, focused on Jatropha, with plans to raise it on more than 1 million ha of marginal lands. Other developing countries took similar measures, in the hope that the crop would provide enhanced income for farmers as well as renewable energy. By 2008, Jatropha had been planted on more than an estimated 900,000 ha, of which 85% was in Asia, 13% in Africa and the rest in Latin America.
> 
> According to the authors:
> 
> In India the provisions of mandatory blending could not be enforced as seed production fell far short of the expectation. A recent study has reported discontinuance by 85% of the Jatropha farmers.
> 
> China is seeing very little production of biodiesel from Jatropha seeds.
> 
> Research on Jatropha planting in Tanzania found the net present value of a five-year investment in Jatropha plantation was negative with a loss of US$ 65 per ha on lands with yields of 2 tons/ha of seeds and only slightly beneficial at US$9 per ha with yields of 3 tons when the average expected Jatropha seed yield on poor barren soils is only 1.7 to 2.2 tons/ha.
> 
> Jatropha, the authors note, was never considered economically important enough for domestication; as a result, seed and oil productivity is highly variable.
> 
> ...its phenotypic, physiological, and biochemical variability expressed in flowering age, intensity, and frequency, and seed size and oil content, is largely an epigenetic response to the varied environment it encounters as the phenotypic plasticity of genetic traits allows morphological and physiological adjustments with the environ. But such epigenetic accommodation lowers plant efficiency which is also reflected in its lowered seed production capacity.
> 
> These observations are, however, nothing out of ordinary and should have been anticipated by the Planning Commission of India, the powerful apex body that decides national priorities and allocates funds for them, before taking up such a continent sized program involving millions of low income farmers. *But the Commission may have relied too heavily on the opinion of one of its top functionaries, who expected an internal rate of return ranging from 19 to 28% across India. National planners’ enthusiasm for the species rubbed off easily on research organizations and Universities that rely heavily on the Planning Commission for funding and some of these institutions themselves became partners in raising Jatropha plantations*. (_Interpolation: sounds familier. See the Global Warming superthread for other examples of this sort of behaviour_)
> 
> It appears to be an extreme case of a well intentioned top down climate mitigation approach, undertaken without adequate preparation and ignoring conflict of interest, and adopted in good faith by other countries, gone awry bringing misery to millions of poorest people across the world. And it happened because the principle of “due diligence” before taking up large ventures was ignored everywhere. As climate mitigation and adaptation activities intensify attracting large investments there is danger of such lapses becoming more frequent unless “due diligence” is institutionalized and appropriate protocols developed to avoid conflict of interest of research organizations.
> —Kant and Wu
> 
> Resources
> 
> Promode Kant, Shuirong Wu (2011) The Extraordinary Collapse of Jatropha as a Global Biofuel. Environmental Science & Technology Article ASAP doi: /10.1021/es201943


----------



## a_majoor

No oil indeed:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/the_americas_not_the_middle_east_will_be_the_world_capital_of_energy?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full



> *The Americas, Not the Middle East, Will Be the World Capital of Energy*
> Adios, OPEC.
> BY AMY MYERS JAFFE | SEPT/OCT 2011
> 
> For half a century, the global energy supply's center of gravity has been the Middle East. This fact has had self-evidently enormous implications for the world we live in -- and it's about to change.
> 
> By the 2020s, the capital of energy will likely have shifted back to the Western Hemisphere, where it was prior to the ascendancy of Middle Eastern megasuppliers such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in the 1960s. The reasons for this shift are partly technological and partly political. Geologists have long known that the Americas are home to plentiful hydrocarbons trapped in hard-to-reach offshore deposits, on-land shale rock, oil sands, and heavy oil formations. The U.S. endowment of unconventional oil is more than 2 trillion barrels, with another 2.4 trillion in Canada and 2 trillion-plus in South America -- compared with conventional Middle Eastern and North African oil resources of 1.2 trillion. The problem was always how to unlock them economically.
> 
> But since the early 2000s, the energy industry has largely solved that problem. With the help of horizontal drilling and other innovations, shale gas production in the United States has skyrocketed from virtually nothing to 15 to 20 percent of the U.S. natural gas supply in less than a decade. By 2040, it could account for more than half of it. This tremendous change in volume has turned the conversation in the U.S. natural gas industry on its head; where Americans once fretted about meeting the country's natural gas needs, they now worry about finding potential buyers for the country's surplus.
> 
> Meanwhile, onshore oil production in the United States, condemned to predictions of inexorable decline by analysts for two decades, is about to stage an unexpected comeback. Oil production from shale rock, a technically complex process of squeezing hydrocarbons from sedimentary deposits, is just beginning. But analysts are predicting production of as much as 1.5 million barrels a day in the next few years from resources beneath the Great Plains and Texas alone -- the equivalent of 8 percent of current U.S. oil consumption. The development raises the question of what else the U.S. energy industry might accomplish if prices remain high and technology continues to advance. Rising recovery rates from old wells, for example, could also stem previous declines. On top of all this, analysts expect an additional 1 to 2 million barrels a day from the Gulf of Mexico now that drilling is resuming. Peak oil? Not anytime soon.
> 
> The picture elsewhere in the Americas is similarly promising. Brazil is believed to have the capacity to pump 2 million barrels a day from "pre-salt" deepwater resources, deposits of crude found more than a mile below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean that until the last couple of years were technologically inaccessible. Similar gains are to be had in Canadian oil sands, where petroleum is extracted from tarry sediment in open pits. And production of perhaps 3 million to 7 million barrels a day more is possible if U.S. in situ heavy oil, or kerogen, can be produced commercially, a process that involves heating rock to allow the oil contained within it to be pumped out in a liquid form. There is no question that such developments face environmental hurdles. But industry is starting to see that it must find ways to get over them, investing in nontoxic drilling fluids, less-invasive hydraulic-fracturing techniques, and new water-recycling processes, among other technologies, in hopes of shrinking the environmental impact of drilling. And like the U.S. oil industry, oil-thirsty China has also recognized the energy potential of the Americas, investing billions in Canada, the United States, and Latin America.
> 
> The revolution-swept Middle East and North Africa, meanwhile, will soon be facing up to an inconvenient truth about their own fossil-fuel legacy: Changes of government in the region have historically led to long and steep declines in oil production. Libya's oil output has never recovered to the 3.5 million barrels a day it was producing when Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi overthrew King Idris in 1969; instead it has been stuck at under 2 million barrels a day for three decades and is now close to zero. Iran produced more than 6 million barrels a day in the times of the shah, but saw oil production fall precipitously below 2 million barrels a day in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It failed to recover significantly during the 1980s and has only crept back to 4 million in recent years. Iraq's production has also suffered during its many years of turmoil and now sits at 2.7 million barrels a day, lower than the 3.5 million it produced before Saddam Hussein came to power.
> 
> The Arab Spring stands to complicate matters even further: A 1979-style disruption in Middle Eastern oil exports is hardly out of the question, nor are work stoppages or strikes by oil workers caught up in the region's political zeitgeist. All in all, upwards of 21 million barrels a day of Arab oil production are at stake -- about a quarter of global demand. The boom in the Americas, meanwhile, should be food for thought for the Middle East's remaining autocrats: It means they may not be able to count on ever-rising oil prices to calm restive populations.
> 
> This hydrocarbon-driven reordering of geopolitics is already taking place. The petropower of Iran, Russia, and Venezuela has faltered on the back of plentiful American natural gas supply: A surplus of resources in the Americas is sending other foreign suppliers scrambling to line up buyers in Europe and Asia, making it more difficult for such exporters to assert themselves via heavy-handed energy "diplomacy." The U.S. energy industry may also be able to provide the technical assistance necessary for Europe and China to tap unconventional resources of their own, scuttling their need to kowtow to Moscow or the Persian Gulf. So watch this space: America may be back in the energy leadership saddle again.


----------



## Northalbertan

What a lot of folks don't realize is that a lot of the technology and recovery techniques to recover shale gas and new oil from old wells was and is developed right here in Canada.  We have long been the innovators of the world wide oil industry.  Progressive Cavity Pumps, SAGD, all started here.  

Hydraulic fraccing as well, although from the news you would think this is brand new technology.  Not....  It has been used here and elsewhere for decades.  I am unsure why it is such an issue with the environmental movement nowadays.  The new Bogey man now that they are being called on their BS about the oilsands?


----------



## a_majoor

Frakking is not new, just the application to crack oil deposits and the refining fo the technology to crack open natural gas deposits in very hard rock. I suppose this might be considered a case of something reaching a tipping point, enough people have heard about it now that is is "common" knowledge.

Another unconventional source is being examined:

http://energeopolitics.com/2011/08/23/pre-development-of-huge-utah-oil-shale-block-begins-energy/

[quote}
*Pre-development of huge Utah oil shale block begins*
August 23, 2011

TomCo Energy is a London-based company which owns leases on over 3000 acres of oil shale land in Utah’s Uintah Basin.  As I have noted several times (most recently just last week), the Uinta Basin is the site of the massive Eocene Green River Shale formation – potentially the largest reservoir of unconventional petroleum in the world.  With total reserves estimated at up to 1.3 trillion barrels,  and ultimately recoverable reserves of 800 billion barrels or more , this formation holds three times or more the amount of Saudi Arabia’s proven reserves.  Unlocking this formation would change the energy outlook of the nation – and of the world – for a century or more.

Today, TomCo has announced that it has awarded contacts toward the development of this resource.  These are pre-development contracts intended to provide the baseline operational and environmental information required to move forward.

There is a long way to go in developing this resource.   As I have noted in the past, the Uinta Basin is a place of scenic beauty and we can anticipate very strong resistance from environmental interests on any development.  However, TomCo will be able to avoid the most visible environmental damage by refraining from traditional mining methods.  TomCo envisions using an in situ heating process to develop their lease blocks.  They plan to use what they call a new type of heating process called EcoShale In-Capsule technology.   While the EcoShale process sounds similar to the in situ process long under development by Shell Oil, a major difference seems to be in the use of water.  Shell’s process was said to utilize three barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced.  The EcoShale process, on the other hand, claims to use no water.  If so, this would of course be a tremendous development and would disarm one of the main points of attack against shale oil development.  If successful, TomCo’s development would mark the beginning of The Second Age of Oil.

EGP will watch this story closely over the coming months.
[/quote]


----------



## a_majoor

$2.00 a gallon?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277246/achieving-2-gas-robert-zubrin



> *Achieving $2 Gas*
> It’s possible, with the right policy.
> 
> Republican presidential contender Michele Bachman has said that if she is elected, gas prices will fall to $2 per gallon. Such promises have understandably been greeted with considerable skepticism. But $2 gas is exactly what America needs. The question is, how can we get it?
> 
> We can’t do it just by expanded domestic drilling. In order for gasoline prices to fall to $2 per gallon, oil prices must be cut to $50 per barrel. And oil prices are set globally, with the dominating influence being the OPEC oil cartel. Since 1973, this cartel, which controls 80 percent of the earth’s commercially viable oil reserves, has refused to expand production, thus keeping petroleum prices artificially high. While, with a more pro-business government, the United States might conceivably be able to expand its production by a million or two barrels per day, OPEC could easily counter by cutting its production to match, or more likely, by simply continuing its non-expansion policy and letting increased Chinese demand take care of the slack.
> 
> If we are ever to get $2 gas, the power of OPEC to control oil prices needs to be broken. The United States Congress could do this with a stroke of the pen, simply by passing the bipartisan Open Fuel Standard bill (H.R. 1687). This act would effectively destroy OPEC by requiring that all new cars sold in the USA be fully flex fuel, able to run equally well on gasoline, ethanol, and — most important — methanol. This latter capability is critical because methanol can be, and is, made cheaply in large quantities from coal, natural gas, or any kind of biomass without exception. The United States has only 4 billion tons of oil reserves, but we have 270 billion tons of coal, vast amounts of natural gas, and an enormous capacity to produce biomass. By requiring that all cars sold here (and thus all cars made worldwide) be compatible with methanol, the act would force oil to compete with a fuel whose sources are not controlled by the cartel, and that we and our allies possess in abundance.
> 
> Methanol has only about half the energy per gallon as gasoline, but is 105 octane, which means it can be burned more efficiently. Taken together, these two factors make methanol’s current spot price of $1.38 per gallon roughly competitive with $2 gasoline.
> 
> Of course, the passage of the OFS bill would not cause gasoline prices to crash instantly. While it would no doubt hit oil futures hard, and thus cut the speculative premium on petroleum prices, the most immediate result of allowing methanol to compete against gasoline in the vehicle-fuel market would be to send methanol prices up, perhaps by as much as 60 percent. This situation would not, however, last for long. Methanol can be made and sold profitably today for $1.38 per gallon. At a 60 percent markup, its manufacture would be super-profitable, and massive amounts of capital would rush in to expand production. This would drive the price of methanol down, dragging gasoline and oil down prices with it, until methanol reached a price point where its production offered no greater profit than that prevailing in the economy at large. The fact that methanol would reach this price — what Adam Smith would term its natural price — follows from the fact that the sources to make methanol are plentiful and diverse, so that no cartel can artificially limit its production.
> 
> This underscores the key issue. There is not a free market in oil. Adjusted for inflation, the price of oil has increased eightfold since 1973, but OPEC production has not increased at all. In a free market, such a price increase would spur increased investment, with subsequent expanded production driving the price right back down again. That is why the inflation-adjusted price of coal, and nearly every other industrial commodity, has not risen in four decades. But because of the cartel, oil production has not responded to price increases in the way that it should in a properly functioning capitalist economy. In order for the free-enterprise system to do its work and deliver the cheap fuel the world needs, the ability of this cartel to limit the world’s liquid-fuel supplies needs to be broken. The Open Fuel Standard bill would accomplish that.
> 
> High oil prices are wrecking our economy. Since the United States imports 5 billion barrels of oil per year, the current price of nearly $90 per barrel will hit us for $450 billion this year alone, a huge tax on our economy. As a result, millions of jobs and thousands of businesses are being lost. If this wealth-draining process is allowed to continue, fiscal necessity will require us to withdraw the military forces protecting our national interests abroad, without a shot being fired.
> 
> Instead of seeking to exploit this catastrophe by placing its blame on their opponents, or posing with empty promises of salvation contingent upon their promotion to higher office, politicians need to take action. Two-dollar gas is not just a nice idea for inclusion in a campaign speech. It’s a critical necessity for economic recovery.
> 
> Either we break the cartel, or the cartel breaks us. The Open Fuel Standard bill needs to be passed.
> 
> — Robert Zubrin is a member of the Board of Advisors of Americans for Energy and author of Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thucydides said:
			
		

> $2.00 a gallon?
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277246/achieving-2-gas-robert-zubrin




What arrant nonsense.  :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor

Re reading the article, the only thing that strikes me as out of sync is the timeline.

The processs of making Methanol is well known and scalable, so there is little reason to suppose Methanol production won't scale if demand were to rise.

Making vehicles which can use Methanol is another thing; Methanol fuel systems need to be made out of different materials than ordinary Diesel or gasoline engines since the Methanol will eat away rubber and many synthetic materials in fuel hoses and gaskets. Multi fuel vehicles will also need extensively reprogrammed computers and few multi fuel vehicles actually run on mixtures of fuel; the driver will have to drain the tank of one fuel to effectively use the other type. Finally, vehicles typically last 10 years in normal service, even a 100% conversion rate will take a decade to convert the fleet. Zubrins proposal will take decades to impliment and effect prices.

A more serious proposal would be to convert municiple fleets like busses, utility vehicles and garbage trucks to straight Methanol fuel. They fuel up at central facilities, making conversion of the supply system easier and would make a fairly large dent in the overall fuel consumption. This won't increase methanol demand to the extent that Zubrin is calling for, but it will save some oil consumption and taxpayer dollars as well (since the municiple fleet won't be paying $4.00/gal or higher).


----------



## a_majoor

Another company jumps in with a process to convert non food biomass into ethanol:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/09/way-to-make-motor-fuel-out-of-wood.html

[/quote]
*A Way to Make Motor Fuel Out of Wood*

NY Times - A Georgia company says it has overcome a major roadblock in turning agricultural waste into vehicle fuel and other useful chemicals by experimenting with a technology that treats the waste with compressed water heated to very high temperatures. The goal is to accomplish something that has eluded a dozen companies in recent years despite big government inducements: to commercialize a technology for making use of cellulosic biomass, or wood chips, switchgrass and the nonedible parts of crops.

Renmatix, the leading producer of cellulosic sugars, today unveiled the PlantroseTM process, the company’s commercial approach to producing sugars more cheaply than ever before. Access to non food derived low-cost industrial sugars, the foundation of the emerging bioindustrial economy, will trigger a dramatic shift from petroleum-based fuels and chemicals to cost-effective biobased alternatives.

At Renmatix’s demonstration facility in Kennesaw, Georgia, the company has already scaled its process to convert three dry tons of woody biomass to sugars daily.

PlantroseTM and Supercritical Hydrolysis

Renmatix’s PlantroseTM process is the first to break down cellulose at industrial scale through supercritical hydrolysis, which utilizes water at elevated temperatures and pressures to quickly solubilize cellulose. The supercritical state of matter has long been utilized in industrial processes including coffee decaffeination and pharmaceutical applications.

Before the arrival of the Plantrose process, supercritical water had never successfully yielded sugar from biomass at significant scale. The process breaks down a wide range of non-food biomass in seconds, uses no significant consumables and produces much of its own process energy. Current methods of breaking down biomass require expensive enzymes or harsh chemicals, and can take up to three days to yield sugars. With its water-based approach, Renmatix is able to provide cellulosic sugar affordably and on large-scale.

“Sugar has game-changing potential for the bio-based fuels and chemicals market,” said John Doerr, a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Renmatix board member. “The Renmatix breakthrough enables access to affordable non-food based sugar on an industrial scale.”

Doerr, who earned his reputation with early investments in Amazon, Google, Sun Microsystems and other tech giants, led today’s discussion on the role of sugar in scaling bio-based fuels and chemicals. The panel comprised a broad representation of bioindustry leaders: Paul Bryan, head of the Department of Energy’s Biomass Program; John Melo, CEO of Amyris, a synthetic biology company working to reduce the cost of lower carbon, second generation, biofuels and chemicals; and DuPont’s industrial biosciences strategy leader, Vik Prabhu. An intimate group of bioindustry peers joined Renmatix, Governor Tom Corbett and local Pennsylvania partners for the roundtable discussion and technology reveal.

“In the twentieth century, petroleum was the basis for making materials, chemicals and fuels. In the twenty-first century, sugar is replacing petroleum as the raw material for those industries,” said Mike Hamilton, CEO of Renmatix. “Renmatix will provide those sugars faster and cheaper than anyone else, and our move to the Greater Philadelphia area will enables us to attract the talented material science and engineering talent we’ll need to scale rapidly.”
[/quote]


----------



## a_majoor

No oil indeed. The idiotic last line about appropriating the royalties of the oil fields to prop up "green energy" marks this as an NPR piece, but otherwise it is interesting reporting:

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/25/140784004/new-boom-reshapes-oil-world-rocks-north-dakota



> *New Boom Reshapes Oil World, Rocks North Dakota*
> by NPR Staff
> 
> September 25, 2011
> 
> Listen to the Story
> All Things Considered
> [11 min 16 sec] Add to Playlist
> Download
> Transcript
> 
> A couple months ago, Jake Featheringill and his wife got robbed.
> 
> It wasn't serious. No one was home at the time, and no one got hurt. But for Featheringill, it was just the latest in a string of bad luck.
> 
> "We made a decision," he says. "We decided to pick up and move in about three days. Packed all our stuff up in storage. Drove 24 straight hours on I-29, and made it to Williston with no place to live."
> 
> That's Williston, ND. Population — until just a few years ago — 12,000. Jake was born there, but moved away when he was a kid. He hadn't been back since.
> 
> "We came in right through the stretch of where the Badlands is," he remembers. "And then you come into the town. So many trucks. Semi trucks and four-wheel-drive pickups — for a mile straight. You've never seen so many trucks in your life."
> 
> Those trucks were in North Dakota for one reason — the same reason Featheringill had decided to move his wife and three kids to a remote section of western North Dakota.
> 
> Oil.
> 
> A $1,200 Parking Space
> 
> Two years ago, America was importing about two thirds of its oil. Today, according to the Energy Information Administration, it imports less than half. And by 2017, investment bank Goldman Sachs predicts the US could be poised to pass Saudi Arabia and overtake Russia as the world's largest oil producer.
> 
> Places like Williston are the reason why.
> 
> "For many years, they knew that there was oil in that area, but the technology wasn't available to get it out," the town's mayor, Ward Koeser, tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz.
> 
> But in the last few years, advances in such technologies as "fracking" and horizontal drilling have made, by some estimates, as much as 11 billion barrels of oil available in the Bakken formation under North Dakota and Montana.
> 
> "There's oil companies coming from all over the country now." Koeser says.
> 
> Williston has skipped the recession entirely. Unemployment there is less than 2 percent. The population, the mayor estimates, has grown from 12,000 to 20,000 in the last four years.
> 
> "We actually have probably between 2,000 and 3,000 job openings in Williston right now," Koeser says.
> 
> Oil workers like Jake Featheringill are fueling Williston's population growth. He's working as a shophand for Baker Hughes, making enough to support his wife and three children. But with such a sudden population increase, Williston's infrastructure can't keep up.
> 
> "When we came up here, we were told housing was tough but not impossible," Featheringill says. He and his wife got lucky and borrowed an RV from a family friend. "We got lucky again and got to park the RV in a place where we were rent-free. Most of the RV spots around here run $1,000 to $1,200."
> 
> That's $1,000 a month, just for a parking space. "Is that not amazing?" Featheringill says. "And that's in a 70-mile radius. Just to park your RV."
> 
> 'Boom-Town Syndrome'
> 
> "It's the old boom-town syndrome," says Charles Groat says, professor of energy and mineral resources at the University of Texas in Austin.
> 
> A small town like Williston, he says, can be burdened by a sudden oil boom.
> 
> 
> Enlarge Gregory Bull/AP
> Ben Shaw hangs from an oil derrick outside Williston, ND, in July 2011. Williston's mayor, Ward Koeser, estimates that the town has between 2,000 and 3,000 job openings for oil workers.
> 
> Gregory Bull/AP
> Ben Shaw hangs from an oil derrick outside Williston, ND, in July 2011. Williston's mayor, Ward Koeser, estimates that the town has between 2,000 and 3,000 job openings for oil workers.
> "All the workers. And then you have roads and trucks and pipelines. And then you have all the community services that have to be provided — law enforcement, education. So it turns into a real bonanza in terms of income, but it becomes an environmental effect that people aren't used to experiencing."
> 
> In Williston, many workers forgo prices as high as $2,000 a month to rent a small apartment and instead live in "man camps," massive group-housing provided by their companies.
> 
> "Just a little room with a bed and a TV," Mayor Ward Koeser explains. "And then they have recreation areas."
> 
> The boom in Williston, Charles Groat says, is happening in spots across America. New drilling technology is also fueling boom towns in Texas, Louisiana, and Colorado. New drilling technologies mean companies can extract oil and natural gas from shale rock that was previously thought unreachable.
> 
> "Horizontal drilling — accessing a huge area of reservoir — and then the fracking process, which props opens those cracks, and allows the liquid or gas to flow to the well," Groat says. "That's what's made shale gas and shale oil such a viable resource."
> 
> But those techniques also raise environmental concerns that Groat is studying.
> 
> "There is a danger, here – the fact that we drill so many wells," he says. "If you look at the numbers of wells that have been drilled in North Dakota, just in recent times, the numbers of wells are huge, which increases the opportunity for bad things to happen environmentally or procedurally in developing the resource. We also are not dealing, of course, with the question of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide as we continue our hydrocarbon dependence."
> 
> Global Implications
> 
> Amy Myers Jaffe of Rice University says in the next decade, new oil in the US, Canada and South America could change the center of gravity of the entire global energy supply.
> 
> "Some are now saying, in five or 10 years' time, we're a major oil-producing region, where our production is going up," she says.
> 
> The US, Jaffe says, could have 2 trillion barrels of oil waiting to be drilled. South America could hold another 2 trillion. And Canada? 2.4 trillion. That's compared to just 1.2 trillion in the Middle East and north Africa.
> 
> Jaffe says those new oil reserves, combined with growing turmoil in the Middle East, will "absolutely propel more and more investment into the energy resources in the Americas."
> 
> Russia is already feeling the growth of American energy, Jaffe says. As the U.S. produces more of its own natural gas, Europe is free to purchase liquefied natural gas the US is no longer buying.
> 
> "They're buying less natural gas from Russia," Jaffe says. "So Russia would only supply 10 percent of European natural gas demand by 2030. That means the Russians are no longer powerful."
> 
> The American energy boom, Jaffe says, could endanger many green-energy initiatives that have gained popularity in recent years. But royalties and revenue from U.S. production of oil and natural gas, she adds, could be used to invest in improving green technology.
> 
> "We don't have the commercial technology now," she says, noting the recent bankruptcy of American solar companies like Solyndra.
> 
> "The point is you can't force a technology that's not commercial. Rather than subsidize things that are not going to be competitive, we need to actually use that money to do R&D to create technologies — the same way that the industries created these technologies to produce natural gas and it turned out so commercially successful."


----------



## a_majoor

The 53% figure seems a bit outlandish (thermal cycles are generally much lower), but opposed piston engines have existed in the past (Junkers Jumo, for example) and are even used as backup powerplants on US submarines today:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/10/achates-20111006.html



> *Study finds Achates two-stroke opposed-piston engine shows indicated thermal efficiency of 53%*
> 6 October 2011
> 
> Achates Power, the developer a two-stroke, compression-ignition (CI) opposed-piston (OP) engine (earlier post), is presenting performance and emissions results of the Achates engine used in a medium-duty application, as well as the results of a detailed thermodynamic analysis comparing the closed-cycle thermal efficiences of three engine configurations: a baseline 6-cylinder, 4-stroke engine; a hypothetical 3-cylinder opposed-piston 4-stroke engine; and a three-cylinder opposed-piston two-stroke engine (the Achates engine).
> 
> Achates began presenting the results at the SAE 2011 Commercial Vehicle Engineering Congress, along with two SAE papers in Chicago; continued on to Der Arbeitsprozess des Verbrennungsmotors (The Working Process of the Internal Combustion Engine) in Graz; and then moved to the 2011 Directions in Engine-Efficiency and Emissions Research Conference in Detroit.
> 
> Thermodynamic analysis. Working with David Foster from the University of Wisconsin, the Achates Power team found in the thermodynamic review that combining the opposed-piston architecture with the two-stroke cycle increased the closed-cycle thermal efficiency through a combination of three effects:
> 
> Reduced heat transfer because the opposed-piston architecture creates a more favorable combustion chamber area/volume ratio;
> 
> Increased ratio of specific heats (γ) because of leaner operating conditions made possible by the two stroke cycle; and
> 
> Decreased combustion duration achievable at the fixed maximum pressure rise rate because of the lower energy release density of the two-stroke engine.
> 
> In a closed-cycle simulation, they found that the 4-stroke (4S) showed an indicated thermal efficiency (ηfuel) of 47.5%; the opposed-piston 4-stroke (OP4S), 50.1%; and the opposed-piston 2-stroke (OP2S, the Achates engine), 53%.
> 
> They selected five mode points to assess the OP2S efficiency advantage over a simulated operating map, and returned with a weighted average indicated thermal efficiency over the five points of 52.6% for the OP2S, compared to 47.7% for the 4S.
> 
> Averaged over a simple engine operating map, the opposed-piston two-stroke had 10.4% lower indicated-specific fuel consumption than the four-stroke engine and was accomplished with significantly lower peak cylinder pressures and temperatures.
> 
> Medium-duty application. The Achates team compared the performance of an inline 6-cylinder 4-stroke conventional diesel (Ford 6.7L V8) with an inline 3-cylinder 2-stroke opposed piston engine.
> 
> They found that the Achates engine demonstrated an 19% fuel consumption improvement over the conventional engine at similar engine-out emissions levels (EP 2010). Furthermore, oil consumption was measured to be less than 0.1% of fuel over the majority of the operating range. (Historic OP engines, and two-strokes in general, suffer from high oil consumption, on the order of ~1% or more.)
> 
> The Achates team notes that the two-stroke cycle and its double firing frequency provides the opportunity of decreasing brake mean effective pressure (BMEP) levels and increasing power density compared to four-stroke engines of equivalent power output. The lower BMEP levels can be accomplished with lower peak cylinder temperatures, which lead to lower mechanical stress on engine components, which can therefore be designed to be of lighter weight.
> 
> Lower cylinder temperature result in decreased NOx formation during combustion, lowering the requirements for aftertreatment. The increased power density leads directly to smaller engine package size and weight, the Achates team suggested, both beneficial to decreasing fuel consumption and manufacturing costs.
> 
> Resources
> 
> Randy E. Herold, Michael H. Wahl, Gerhard Regner, James U. Lemke, David E. Foster (2011) Thermodynamic Benefits of Opposed-Piston Two-Stroke Engines (SAE 2011-01-2216)
> 
> Gerhard Regner, Randy E. Herold, Michael H. Wahl, Eric Dion, Fabien Redon, David Johnson, Brian J. Callahan, Shauna McIntyre (2011) The Achates Power Opposed-Piston Two-Stroke Engine: Performance and Emissions Results in a Medium-Duty Application (SAE 2011-01-2221)


----------



## a_majoor

City and provincial officials will inspect? Do they even know what they are looking at? I would suggest this company pack up and move to where they are wanted, and the ignorant officials can live with the consequences of their actions (Direct consequences, high tech jobs and a $30 million budget go elsewhere, potential consequences; this project actually works and becomes a multi billion dollar enterprise):

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/10/general-fusion-getting-inspections-from.html



> *General fusion getting inspections from the City of Burnaby*
> 
> The mayor of Burnaby, B.C., says he’s concerned about the development of a fusion reactor in his city as revealed in a CBC News report on October 3, 2011, and wants assurance the company involved has the proper licensing and oversight.
> 
> Nuclear energy is prohibited in B.C., but that can change — although it would not be a simple process, provincial energy minister Rich Coleman.
> 
> Mayor Derek Corrigan says future testing of the project's massive plasma injector, which will heat plasma gas to one million degrees Celsius, will be monitored by local officials.
> 
> "It is the conclusion of staff that the current operation of General Fusion at the Bonneville site does not pose any risk to its neighbours or the surrounding community," Corrigan said in a statement on Thursday.
> 
> The company hopes to build the world's first commercial fusion reactor within the next three years.
> 
> The reactor would be a three-metre-wide steel sphere filled with a spinning mix of molten lead, lithium and super-heated plasma gas. The contents would be compressed with 200 computer-controlled pistons and the resulting shock waves, in theory, would produce a fusion reaction.
> 
> In 2011 and 2012, they are planning to collapse liquid metal cavity with 14 pistons to check the symmetry achieved. They also plan to compress in 100 microsecond with high explosive the spheromak plasma from our generator from an initial 40 cm, 1E17 cm-3, 100 eV, 100 us life to a final 4 cm, 1E20 cm-3, 10 keV, 10 us life and therefore demonstrate break-even conditions. We presently have 24 M$ in the bank and 47 employees (and still hiring) to achieve these goals.
> 
> Other Recent General Fusion news
> 
> According to company spokesman Michael Delage, the first laboratory tests of the design have gone well, achieving a temperature of 5 million degrees for 1 microsecond. It remains to be seen whether this approach can be scaled up all the way to fusion - and beyond that to break-even. "There are no magnetised plasma experiments that we are aware of at the plasma temperatures and densities necessary for net-gain fusion," Delage says. "The only way to verify this is by experiment." The firm has raised the $30 million it says it needs, some of it from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos


----------



## a_majoor

We're practically swimming in hydrocarbons:

http://energy.aol.com/2011/10/07/utica-shale-may-be-its-own-energy-game-changer/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chp-desktop%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk2%7C103029



> *Utica Shale May Be Its Own Energy Game-Changer*
> By Jon Hurdle
> Published: October 7, 2011
> 
> When it comes to superlative descriptions of oil and gas reserves, the Utica Shale may be in a class of its own.
> 
> The rock layer that extends from Quebec to Kentucky with major concentrations in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia has been called the next big play for shale gas; attracted billions of dollars in land investment, and been hailed by Chesapeake Energy chief Aubrey McClendon as "one of the biggest discoveries in US history."
> 
> It may contain even more energy potential than the Marcellus Shale -- a formation that lies above the Utica over some of the latter's range -- whose vast reserves of natural gas have themselves been called a "game-changer" for American energy independence.
> 
> According to an estimate from Ohio state geologists, that state's portion of the Utica alone could contain up to 15 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, which would make it a significant contributor to national supplies of the fuel that will help cut greenhouse gas emissions and create thousands of jobs.
> 
> But the Utica is distinguished by also harboring natural gas liquids and large quantities of oil which have sparked a rush by energy companies to acquire leases on millions of acres of land, especially in eastern Ohio.
> 
> The Ohio geologists calculate there could be as many as 5.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil underlying their state's share of the Utica, or about a third of the expected production from Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, the largest US oil reserve.
> 
> The Utica's riches have already generated investment from at least half a dozen oil and gas companies including Chesapeake Energy, the world's leading shale-gas producer, which has leased 1.25 million acres across the play, more than any competitor.
> 
> Widespread Impacts
> 
> "This is huge from the standpoint of energy independence," said Mike Arthur, a Pennsylvania State University geoscientist and co-director of the college's Marcellus Shale Center for Outreach and Research.
> 
> "It could even obviate the need for a pipeline from the tar sands," he said in reference to a proposed pipeline from Canada to Texas that has sparked opposition from environmentalists.
> 
> The Utica's potential would be endorsed if, as expected, Chesapeake forms a joint venture to develop the play, said Chris Perry, manager of the Energy Resources Group at the Ohio Geological Survey, and a co-author of the state's Utica study.
> 
> "It would be an independent appraisal of what Chesapeake is claiming they have," Perry said.
> 
> In late September, Chesapeake released results from four of its first 12 Utica wells in eastern Ohio and western Pennsylvania. The wells achieved "strong initial production success," producing between 3.1 million and 9.5 million cubic feet a day, the company said.
> 
> That suggests that the Utica is living up to its promise, said Perry.
> 
> "We know from Chesapeake's initial production numbers that the eastern part of the state looks pretty darn good," he said.
> 
> A Lucky Accident
> 
> He also cited a vertical well drilled in Ohio's Belmont County by another company that wanted only to dispose of brine but, hitting the Utica formation, found itself producing 1.5 million cubic feet of gas a day from the well even without stimulation and without the benefit of the horizontal drilling technology that has been a crucial facilitator of the shale-gas boom.
> 
> Other companies investing in Ohio's Utica play include XTO Energy, Chevron, Anadarko and Shell, said Tom Stewart, executive vice president of the Ohio Oil & Gas Association.
> 
> "What that shows is that very large, well-capitalized producers have all seen the potential of making a major investment on this basis," Stewart said. "These are cold, hard business people making rational decisions."


----------



## a_majoor

Another promising development; the ability to refine hydrocarbons more efficiently. A great deal of energy saving in this step leads to more product downstream:

http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2011/UR_CONTENT_359338.html



> News Release
> 
> U of M researchers developed “carpets” of flaky crystal-type nanosheets that can be used to separate molecules as a sieve or as a membrane barrier in both research and industrial applications to save money and energy.
> 
> University of Minnesota discovery could make fuel and plastics production more energy efficient and cost effective
> 
> Breakthrough culminates a decade’s worth of research
> 
> Contacts: Rhonda Zurn, College of Science and Engineering, rzurn@umn.edu, (612) 626-7959
> Preston Smith, University News Service, smith@umn.edu, (612) 625-0552
> 
> MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (10/12/2011) —A University of Minnesota team of researchers has overcome a major hurdle in the quest to design a specialized type of molecular sieve that could make the production of gasoline, plastics and various chemicals more cost effective and energy efficient. The breakthrough research, led by chemical engineering and materials science professor Michael Tsapatsis in the university's College of Science and Engineering, is published in the most recent issue of the journal Science.
> 
> After more than a decade of research, the team devised a means for developing free-standing, ultra-thin zeolite nanosheets that as thin films can speed up the filtration process and require less energy. The team has a provisional patent and hopes to commercialize the technology.
> 
> “In addition to research on new renewable fuels, chemicals and natural plastics, we also need to look at the production processes of these and other products we use now and try to find ways to save energy,” Tsapatsis said.
> 
> Separating mixed substances can demand considerable amounts of energy—currently estimated to be approximately 15 percent of the total energy consumption—part of which is wasted due to process inefficiencies. In days of abundant and inexpensive fuel, this was not a major consideration when designing industrial separation processes such as distillation for purifying gasoline and polymer precursors. But as energy prices rise and policies promote efficiency, the need for more energy-efficient alternatives has grown.
> 
> One promising option for more energy-efficient separations is high-resolution molecular separation with membranes. They are based on preferential adsorption and/or sieving of molecules with minute size and shape differences. Among the candidates for selective separation membranes, zeolite materials (crystals with molecular-sized pores) show particular promise.
> 
> While zeolites have been used as adsorbents and catalysts for several decades, there have been substantial challenges in processing zeolitic materials into extended sheets that remain intact. To enable energy-savings technology, scientists needed to develop cost-effective, reliable and scalable deposition methods for thin film zeolite formation.
> 
> The University of Minnesota team used sound waves in a specialized centrifuge process to develop “carpets” of flaky crystal-type nanosheets that are not only flat, but have just the right amount of thickness. The resulting product can be used to separate molecules as a sieve or as a membrane barrier in both research and industrial applications.
> 
> “We think this discovery holds great promise in commercial applications,” said Kumar Varoon, a University of Minnesota chemical engineering and materials science Ph.D. candidate and one of the primary authors of the paper published in Science. “This material has good coverage and is very thin. It could significantly reduce production costs in refineries and save energy.”
> 
> Members of the research team include Ph.D. candidates Kumar Varoon and Xueyi Zhang; postdoctoral fellows Bahman Elyassi and Cgun-Yi Sung; former students and Ph.D. graduates Damien Brewer, Sandeep Kumar, J. Alex Lee and Sudeep Maheshwari, graduate student Anudha Mittal; former undergraduate student Melissa Gettel; and faculty members Matteo Cococcioni, Lorraine Francis, Alon McCormick, K. Andre Mkhoyan and Michael Tsapatsis.
> 
> This research is being funded by the United States Department of Energy (including the Carbon Sequestration Program and the Catalysis Center for Energy Innovation – An Energy Frontier Center), the National Science Foundation and a variety of University of Minnesota partners.
> 
> To read the full research paper in Science, visit http://z.umn.edu/nanosheets.


----------



## a_majoor

After reading this, everyone should _want_ more oil and fossil fuel energy:

http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111017/111017_green_costs/20111017



> *Green energy costs 40 per cent higher: study*
> 
> TORONTO — A new study says the cost of providing wind and solar energy in Ontario will be about 40 per cent higher than government estimates.
> 
> The study says people should expect their electricity bills to rise by 65 per cent by 2015 and 141 per cent by 2030.
> 
> That's substantially higher than current government predictions that say bills will increase by 46 per cent by 2015 and 100 per cent by 2030.
> 
> University of Guelph professor Glenn Fox, who co-authored the study, says that would have Ontarians paying some of the highest costs of electricity in the developed world.
> 
> He says those higher costs would erode the competitiveness of businesses in Ontario and pose challenges for low-income households.
> 
> The study also says creating 50,000 new green energy jobs as promised by the governing Liberals will require ratepayer subsidies of about $200,000 a year for each position.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Well, we get what we vote for. The myoptic Ontario voters felt some inbred need to re-elect the Slick Willy of the North who has done nothing but lie to us for the last eight years. Can't be drugs, because he's screwed up our medical system also.  :facepalm:

Oh well, time to stock up on cord wood and look into changing my lights to 12 v LEDs. :dunno:


----------



## a_majoor

Israel has discovered large natural gas deposits, which will change the regional dynamics in some pretty interesting ways:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/israels-energy-discovery-game-changer/?print=1



> *Israel’s Energy Discovery: Game-Changer?*
> Posted By Jonathan Spyer On October 26, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 23 Comments
> 
> One of the most remarkable — perhaps game-changing — developments in the Middle East has been the discovery of massive natural gas deposits in the eastern Mediterranean. Will this transform Israel into a wealthy energy-exporting state? Will it produce more conflicts in the area given conflicting claims by Cyprus, Israel, Lebanon, and Turkey?
> 
> Few people are better qualified to analyze these issues than Amiram Barkat — an Israeli journalist working at Globes.
> 
> Amiram, please discuss Israel’s natural gas exploration in the eastern Mediterranean. What has been found so far? What is expected to be found?
> 
> Israel had traditionally been perceived as a country bereft of natural resources: “Our only resource is in our brains,” the country’s leaders used to say. Throughout the years many attempts were made to find oil. From Israeli government companies to devout Christians following clues in the Bible and deeply convinced that the Land of Milk and Honey had to also be the land of oil. Some 400 drillings were made during the years; practically all of them ended in failure.
> 
> It turned out that the entrepreneurs were not completely mistaken. They were just not looking in the right places: Israel’s natural resources are offshore and require state-of-the-art deep-water drilling equipment to be extracted. The first discoveries were made in the late 1990s, but the two most significant are quite recent: the Tamar (2008) and Leviathan (2010) natural gas reservoirs.
> 
> If expectations regarding the Leviathan field are confirmed, what will this mean for the Israeli economy?
> 
> The Tamar reservoir holds enough natural gas to provide for Israel’s needs for 20-25 years. It will enable Israel to convert most of its power stations from oil and coal-fueled to natural gas-fueled. Leviathan, considered the world’s biggest offshore discovery in the last decade, is almost twice the size of Tamar. Moreover, Leviathan could also include a significant oil reservoir; an exploratory drill to check is planned for early 2012. An oil discovery would be of great significance for the whole region.
> 
> Hizballah and Lebanon are disputing the northern boundaries of Israel’s territorial waters. Where does this matter currently stand?
> 
> In 2009 following the Tamar discovery, Hizballah claimed that the reservoir is situated in Lebanese waters. A year later the claim was remade regarding the Leviathan reservoir. Hizballah’s claims were echoed by important political figures in Lebanon, and in 2010 Lebanon filed a complaint with the UN claiming that Israel violated its sovereignty by de-facto annexing a maritime area of some 850 square kilometers.
> 
> How does Turkey come into the picture?
> 
> Until now, Turkey had no official position regarding Israel’s offshore activities. It is rumored that Turkey quietly supports Lebanon’s claim in the maritime border dispute with Israel. If true, this has more to do with Turkey’s policy toward Cyprus [part of which it rules] than with Israel. The Lebanese claim with regard to Israel is based on the maritime delimitation line agreed between Lebanon and [the ethnically Greek republic of] Cyprus. In January 2007, Cyprus signed an Agreement on the Delimitation of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) with Lebanon. The agreement, however, hasn’t been ratified by the Lebanese parliament. Turkey strongly objects to international recognition of a Cypriot EEZ, which contradicts its own claims in the east Mediterranean.
> 
> What are the latest developments regarding the dispute between Turkey and Cyprus over exploratory drilling for offshore gas deposits off the coast of Cyprus? Are Turkish Navy ships still in the area?
> 
> In late September this year, Noble Energy, a Houston-based company, started drilling the Aphrodite prospect within a maritime area known as Block 12. Noble, the company that has made all the significant gas discoveries in Israel, received the drilling license in Block 12 from the Cypriot government in 2008.
> 
> Turkey had threatened to use military force should drilling commence, but refrained from action. Turkey has two major claims regarding Cyprus exploration plans: first, as the protector of the rights of the Turkish minority in Cyprus, it aims to guarantee that the Turkish Cypriots gain a share in the future revenues from any discovery. Second, Turkey doesn’t recognize the Cypriot EEZ and claims that parts of it are actually in Turkish waters.
> 
> Is there a realistic possibility that this could lead to conflict between Israel and Turkey? Or has Turkey, as a NATO member, been warned against escalating the situation?
> 
> The strengthening ties between Israel and Cyprus underpinned by mutual interests in the export of natural gas could make the possibility of regional conflict involving Turkey a realistic one, though not in the near future. Israel is aware of this and an internal debate has been going on regarding Cyprus.
> 
> Looking from Nicosia, the choices seem simpler. Recent developments in the area have clearly weakened Cyprus’s geopolitical position vis-à-vis Turkey. Greece, Cyprus’ patron, is practically bankrupt. Egypt and Libya, traditional allies within the Arab world, are both undergoing a revolutionary process.
> 
> Against this backdrop Cypriot government officials openly invited the Israeli military to play an active role defending Cypriot interests. In private talks Cypriot officials are supportive of letting the Israeli Air Force use Cypriot bases.
> 
> What effect is this situation having on Israel’s strategic situation? Can we expect a rapid improvement of relations between Israel and Cyprus?
> 
> The idea of an Israeli-Cypriot pact seemed inconceivable not many years ago. Relations between Israel and Cyprus had never been warm. During the Cold War, Cyprus together with its traditional political patron Greece had been under strong Soviet influence, counter-balancing Turkey’s strong ties with NATO and the United States. Until recent years, Israel regarded Cyprus as pro-Palestinian, while from a Cypriot point of view Israel was above all Turkey’s strategic ally. Cypriots, especially from the powerful radical left, drew similarities between Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and Turkey’s harsh policies toward the Kurds and the Armenians.
> 
> In recent years, as Israeli-Turkish relations cooled, tensions between Israel and Cyprus subsided. This rapprochement was significantly boosted by the recent developments in the oil and gas sector.
> 
> Where do you expect to see this situation heading in the period ahead?
> 
> Further discoveries of natural gas, and perhaps even oil reservoirs, near Israel and Cyprus could have far-reaching geopolitical implications, including potential instability. History teaches that the discovery of strategic assets in a disputed territory at a time of regional instability and shifting balance of power is a highly explosive formula. The flip side is that with wise handling and a productive trust-building international effort, these tensions could be defused and the immense revenues could be very helpful for the area’s development.
> 
> Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com
> 
> URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/israels-energy-discovery-game-changer/


----------



## a_majoor

Imagine if every building on a base is hooked up to this sort of monitoring system. For that matter, if every building in a FOB is hoked up to somethig like this, the need for diesel fuel for the generators may be reduced by a good percentage, with a virtuous logstical circle forming (less fuel=less fuel tanker trucks=smaller convoys=less fuel for transport=less fel consumption in theater etc. etc.)

http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/news/articles/111107pilio.php



> *ECI's first commercial spin-out is energy-saver for business*
> 
> The latest spin-out from the University of Oxford, and first from Environmental Change Institute - Pilio Limited - provides a cost-effective online tool enabling small and medium businesses to monitor and manage their energy usage. The tool can enable savings of up to 40 per cent from energy bills.
> 
> Pilio’s online energy monitoring tool, sMeasure, was developed and piloted at the University’s Environmental Change Institute as part of a research project funded by the UK Energy Research Centre looking at ways to reduce energy demand. It has been available online for three years and in the last year has been used by over 400 businesses to monitor their energy use.
> 
> sMeasure works by combining two sets of data: gas and electricity meter readings provided by the customer and weather data, to accurately assess a building's energy efficiency. It requires no additional meters or devices.
> 
> Pilio CEO Catherine Bottrill said: "Energy costs are going up significantly this winter. Many businesses will be looking for a way to save money."
> 
> "sMeasure allows companies to implement their environmental and energy policy. We have kept the cost for our customers low at a subscription of £120 a year per building. Using the tool requires only 5 minutes a week to input meter readings."
> 
> "sMeasure helps companies to use their own common sense to stop energy being wasted in their buildings. They can look at their patterns of energy use over time so they can spot peaks, troughs and abnormalities, which will alert them to problems with their building control settings or prompt them to carry out maintenance work."
> 
> Chief Executive of the Royal Albert Hall, Chris Cotton, said: "We have used SMEasure for the last 3 years. It is an inexpensive, simple to access and extremely effective tool to allow those running businesses get a snapshot of their energy consumption over a day, week or year and then take appropriate action to improve efficient use of energy."
> 
> Managing Director of Isis Innovation, Tom Hockaday , said: "Pilio, with sMeasure, is a great example of how Isis makes innovative technology from the University accessible for the benefit of business and the environment. We’re delighted that Pilio’s service is already proving its value, and that the company is now able to take the next step in its development."
> 
> Pilio’s UK clients include Greater Authority of London, Julie’s Bicycle, Ebico and Severn Wye Energy Agency. sMeasure is expanding into the US market as part of the Innovator Pilot Project with Sierra Business Council. This project is supported by Pacific Gas and Electric, the largest utility in the US. Over the next year, the company aims to increase the number of UK and US SMEs it works with four-fold.
> 
> Pilio has spent one year as part of the Isis Innovation Software Incubator, and has been supported by a £15,000 investment of working capital from the Oxford University Challenge Seed Fund, also managed by Isis. Companies can visit the Pilio website and get a free 30 day trial of sMeasure. No downloads or kit are necessary.
> 
> The company is named Pilio, after a small butterfly, and symbolises the positive effect that informed energy usage could have on the environment.
> 
> Read more about Pilio's other online energy management tools at: www.Pilio-ltd.com
> 
> 
> 
> On the civilian side of the house, dysfunctional energy policies in Ontario are predicted to increase the price of electricity by 140% by 2030 (with similar markups on other energy), so a reduction in consumption will help people and business stay solvent.
Click to expand...


----------



## a_majoor

Canadian company "General Fusion" is still working on its rather "Jules Verne" fusion reactor...

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/09/141931203/-power-for-the-planet-company-bets-big-on-fusion



> *'Power For The Planet': Company Bets Big On Fusion*
> 
> by Richard Harris
> Listen to the Story
> 
> All Things Considered
> [7 min 50 sec]
> 
> A section of the fusion machine being tested at General Fusion's facility outside of Vancouver, British Columbia. General Fusion is hoping to implement a long-shot strategy that could produce fusion energy in the next few years.
> 
> November 9, 2011
> 
> The world would be a very different place if we could bottle up a bit of the sun here on Earth and tap that abundant and clean energy supply. Governments have spent many billions of dollars to develop that energy source, fusion energy, but it's still a distant dream. Now a few upstart companies are trying to do it on the cheap. And the ideas are credible enough to attract serious private investment.
> 
> One such company is hidden away in a small business park in the suburbs of Vancouver, British Columbia. Nothing seems unusual here — there's a food distributor, an engineering firm and small warehouses. But on one door there's a sign suggesting that all is not normal.
> 
> The sign says "General Fusion" and warns people with pacemakers to proceed with caution.
> 
> The reason for that caution can be found behind bulletproof walls that surround an experimental machine. This gleaming metal structure could be out of a science fiction movie set. It stands 15 feet tall, is crisscrossed with wires and is covered with aluminum foil. Two men are hunched over an instrument, troubleshooting.
> 
> The machine is flanked with banks of electrical capacitors, which hold — and release — the amount of energy you find in a stick of dynamite. A siren warns to stay clear: The system is charging up, and with all that electric charge, some piece of hardware could go flying.
> 
> This plasma ray gun is part of a bigger instrument, which is still under construction. The goal, simply put, is to create a small piece of the sun and harness that energy.
> 
> "This is an insanely ambitious project," says Michel Laberge, the brains behind the project. He's a physicist and inventor with a rusty beard and a college-casual wardrobe.
> 
> Michel Laberge, president and chief technology officer of General Fusion, says the fusion machine he is developing "is an insanely ambitious project."
> 
> Beating The Big Guys
> 
> This story really starts a dozen years ago, when the company where he was working asked him to join in a hot technology race that had nothing to do with energy. He was asked to build a switch for fiber optics communication cables.
> 
> "So I was in competition with Nortel, Bell Lab, Lucent," Laberge says. "All those guys were putting literally billions of dollars in this project. And they gave me half a million dollars, and one guy ... said, 'Do something that will work better than the other guy.' [And I said,] 'Oh, OK!' "
> 
> As Laberge tells the story, he actually succeeded.
> 
> "For half a million dollars, we beat the billion-dollars worth of work. So that inflated my head a little bit. I said, 'Hey, look at that. You can beat the big guy if you do something different.' "
> 
> Of course I think it's going to work! Do you think I'm going to spend ten years of my life doing something I think won't work?
> 
> So, on his 40th birthday, he quit his job in what he calls a midlife crisis, took the pile of money he'd earned at his old company, and decided to try something really revolutionary. With his Ph.D. in fusion energy, he thought he'd try to beat the big boys in the fusion field.
> 
> "Reason No. 1 is to save the planet. We are in deep poo-poo," Laberge says.
> 
> Fossil fuels will run out, and in the meantime they are causing global warming. Among the allures is that fusion reactors can't melt down, and they don't produce significant nuclear waste. And Laberge says if he succeeds, he could be worth billions.
> 
> "As for glory, I word that as a negative. I don't want glory. That's just a pain. I don't want anybody to know me, really. Not interested in the glory. I'll take the money, though," he says with a hearty laugh.
> 
> He knew he couldn't beat the existing multibillion-dollar fusion labs at their own game. So instead, he decided to combine ideas from the two current approaches to make a vastly cheaper machine.
> 
> A One-Two Punch
> 
> The general principle behind fusion is simple. If you can fuse together light atoms, you can create a heavier atom plus lots of energy. The trick is that in order to fuse atoms together, you need to provide enough energy to heat the atoms up to 150 million degrees Celsius.
> 
> When two atoms fuse together to form a larger, heavier atom, they release large amounts of energy. That's called a fusion reaction, and it's what powers the sun.
> 
> Canadian startup General Fusion has designed a machine to generate fusion power by smashing together two variants of hydrogen atoms: deuterium, which has one neutron and one proton, and tritium, which has two neutrons and one proton.
> 
> The result: helium gas (which will get released into the atmosphere) and vast amounts of energy, which will get captured and turned into electricity. The company is still constructing its prototype. Here's how it's supposed to work.
> 
> "Other fusion uses a very complex way of producing energy — superconducting magnets, laser beams, all sorts of expensive and complicated and pricey stuff," he says. "It costs them billions and billions of dollars, so it's not so practical in my opinion. Here, what the energy source is, is compressed air. Compressed air is dirt cheap."
> 
> Think of his idea as a one-two punch. His big electrical gizmo starts to heat up the atoms. Those get injected into a 10-foot-wide sphere full of swirling molten lead.
> 
> "The liquid will be circulated with a pump, so it spins around and makes a vortex in the center. You know, like your toilet with a hole in the center," Laberge says.
> 
> And just as the heated atoms get into the center, Laberge fires 200 pistons, powered with compressed air, which surround the sphere. "Those are compressed air guns ... that send a big compression wave, squash the thing, and away you go!"
> 
> Banks of capacitors are a key part of General Fusion's machine. The capacitors, which charge up and release bursts of electricity, will be used to heat gases to 1 million degrees Celsius in preparation for a fusion reaction.
> 
> If all goes as planned, squashing the mixture heats it up enough to fuse the atoms and ignite nuclear reactions.
> 
> The concept is called magnetized target fusion. Laberge didn't invent the idea, but he re-imagined it, and, more to the point, he raised $30 million from Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos and several venture capital firms to see if he can get it off the ground.
> 
> Ask Laberge if he thinks it will work, and you'll get an indignant reply: "Of course I think it's going to work! Do you think I'm going to spend 10 years of my life doing something I think won't work? I think it [has] a good shot of working."
> 
> He adds, "I wouldn't say I'm 100 percent sure it's going to work. That would be a lie. But I would put it at 60 percent chance that this is going to work. Now of course other people will give me a much smaller chance than that, but even at 10 percent chance of working, investors will still put money in, because this is big, man, this is making power for the whole planet. This is huge!"
> 
> Changing The Venture Capital Game
> 
> And the physics concept isn't the only big idea here: Laberge is also pioneering the idea that venture capital firms, which are used to taking big gambles but expect a quick payback, can sometimes have the patience to invest in a project they can't just flip in three years. Private funding could change the game for fusion energy.
> 
> Richard Siemon used to run the fusion program at Los Alamos National Laboratory, which is part of the multibillion-dollar federal research effort. He says radical ideas like this get dreamed up at the big labs, but they get starved for money, which flows mostly to the industrial-sized projects. Sure, he says, those big projects are exploring important physics, "but when they are working on a concept and somebody says, 'Yeah, but it's going to cost too much for the customer in the end,' that's sort of like a non-issue for a government researcher."
> 
> General Fusion is relying heavily on funding from venture capital firms, which are generally accustomed to quick turnarounds. This project is pioneering the idea that such firms can have the patience to invest in longer-term projects.
> 
> But private investors are only interested in projects that could become commercially viable power sources. That's why Siemon is happy to see private investors taking an interest in fusion energy.
> 
> "I really think that venture capital might just come in at this point and pick the best fruits off the tree and run with them," says the retired physicist.
> 
> In fact, Laberge's company is not the only one out there using private funds to build reactors based on magnetized target fusion and other novel concepts. Siemon says he's confident someone will eventually figure this out. And that may be an economic competitor.
> 
> "Just in the last year I heard it reported from some technical meetings that China has gotten interested in magnetized target fusion," Siemon notes.
> 
> China could easily throw hundreds of millions of dollars at the idea. So venture capitalists could have some serious competition. Laberge, of course, is betting he will emerge victorious.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Cheap and easy


----------



## a_majoor

Not so cheap and easy, but consider that e coli is pretty ubiquitous:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/november/khosla-ecoli-biodiesel-111011.html



> *E. coli could convert sugar to biodiesel at 'an extraordinary rate,' say Stanford researchers*
> 
> Researchers studying how biodiesel can be generated using E. coli as a catalyst have determined the bacteria have what it takes to produce high volumes of the fuel. Now they need to figure out how to tweak its cellular controls in order to kick it into high gear.
> L.A. Cicero Xingye Yu and Chaitan Khosla
> 
> Xingye Yu, a graduate student in chemical engineering, and Professor Chaitan Khosla examine a culture of e. coli bacteria.
> 
> BY LOUIS BERGERON
> 
> When it comes to making biodiesel cheaply and efficiently enough to be commercially feasible, E. coli may prove to be "the little bacterial engine that could," say Stanford researchers.
> 
> Biodiesel can be made from plant oil or animal fat – usually the former. Used cooking oil from restaurants is common, but for biodiesel to contribute significantly to reducing fossil fuel use, there needs to be a way to mass produce it from plant-derived raw materials. The problem is that synthesizing biodiesel is complicated. That is where E. coli comes in.
> 
> The bacteria, often discussed in terms of the human digestive tract, also act as a catalyst in generating biodiesel by converting inexpensive sugars into fatty acid derivatives that are chemically similar to gasoline.
> 
> But E. coli's natural conversion capability is not up to snuff, commercially speaking, and researchers tinkering with its internal machinery have yet to boost its capability enough to cross the commercial threshold.
> 
> So Chaitan Khosla, a Stanford professor of chemistry and of chemical engineering, decided to investigate whether there might be a natural limit that holds back E. coli's conversion capabilities. In other words, does the basic catalytic engine in E. coli have enough horsepower to do the job at the needed scale?
> 
> A powerful engine
> 
> "The good news is that the engine that makes fatty acids in E. coli is incredibly powerful," Khosla said. "It is inherently capable of converting sugar into fuel-like substances at an extraordinary rate. The bad news is this engine is subject to some very tight controls by the cell."
> 
> It turns out that like any high performance engine, the catalytic process in E. coli can only attain peak efficiency when all the controls are tuned just right. The research is described in a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Khosla is a coauthor of the paper, which is available online.
> 
> Scientists don't yet understand how all the cellular controls operate. It will require a deeper understanding of the biochemistry of E. coli than they have now to figure that out, Khosla said. But his research team is making progress homing in on the most promising part of the conversion process, thanks in part to a new approach they employed in their analysis.
> 
> The researchers managed to isolate all the enzymes and other molecular participants involved in the process that produces fatty acids in E. coli and assemble them in a test tube for study.
> 
> "We wanted to understand what limits the ability of E. coli to process sugar into oil. The question we were asking is analogous to asking what limits the speed of my Honda to 150 miles an hour and no faster?" Khosla said. "The most direct and powerful way to figure it out is to pull the biosynthetic engine out of the cell and put it through its paces in a test tube."
> 
> By doing so, the team was able to study how the enzymes involved in fatty acid biosynthesis performed when they were free from other cellular influences. That was critical to their analysis, because the products in question, fatty acids, are essentially soap, Khosla said, and too much of them would hurt the bacteria. That is why E. coli has developed some very elaborate and effective ways to contain the amount of fatty acid biosynthesis inside the cell.
> 
> Precursor to biodiesel
> 
> The fatty acids can't be pumped directly into your gas tank – cars and trucks won't run on soap, after all – but they are an excellent precursor to biodiesel.
> 
> Biodiesel has so far lagged behind ethanol as a means of cutting fossil fuel use in vehicles because ethanol is easier and cheaper to make. But biodiesel has a higher energy density and lower water solubility than ethanol, which offer significant advantages.
> 
> "It is closer in chemical properties to a barrel of oil from Saudi Arabia than any other biologically derived fuel," Khosla said. Thus it could easily be blended into diesel and gasoline, or used alone as a bona fide transportation fuel.
> 
> If researchers can figure out how to manipulate the cellular means of production in E. coli, biodiesel could be made cheaply enough that the little engine of E. coli could end up powering a lot of larger engines at far less cost to the environment than with fossil fuels.
> 
> Xingye Yu, graduate student in chemical engineering, and Tiangang Liu, postdoctoral scholar in chemistry, contributed equally to the research and are coauthors of the paper.
> 
> The research was funded by a grant from LS9, a biofuels company.
> Media Contact
> 
> Chaitan Khosla, Chemistry Department: (650) 723-6538; khosla@stanford.edu
> 
> Louis Bergeron, Stanford News Service: (650) 725-1944, louisb3@stanford.edu


----------



## GAP

Changing the genetic structure of E Coli, might just make it an excellent engine to breakdown those pesky human fats into biodiesel fuel......oh.....they got loose?


----------



## a_majoor

GAP said:
			
		

> Changing the genetic structure of E Coli, might just make it an excellent engine to breakdown those pesky human fats into biodiesel fuel......oh.....they got loose?



Cure the obesity epidemic _and_ solve the oil crisis! Win Win if you ask me........ >


----------



## a_majoor

Green salvage:

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46519



> *14,000 abandoned wind turbines*
> November 19, 2011 by Don Surber
> 
> As Jimi Hendrix may have put it: “And the wind cries bankrupt…”
> 
> Minnesotans for Global Warming report that in the last 30 years, the United States has had 14,000 wind turbines abandoned. Apparently, once the subsidies and the wind run out, these 20-story high Cuisinarts are de-bladed and retired. This means more bats and migratory birds will live.
> 
> From Minnesotans for Global Warming: “The symbol of Green renewable energy, our savior from the non existent problem of Global Warming, abandoned wind farms are starting to litter the planet as globally governments cut the subsidies taxes that consumers pay for the privilege of having a very expensive power source that does not work every day for various reasons like it’s too cold or  the wind speed is too high.”
> 
> Andrew Walden of American Thinker explored nearly 2 years ago the demise of the 37-turbine wind farm at Kamaoa Wind Farm in Hawaii: “Built in 1985, at the end of the boom, Kamaoa soon suffered from lack of maintenance. In 1994, the site lease was purchased by Redwood City, CA-based Apollo Energy. Cannibalizing parts from the original 37 turbines, Apollo personnel kept the declining facility going with outdated equipment. But even in a place where wind-shaped trees grow sideways, maintenance issues were overwhelming. By 2004 Kamaoa accounts began to show up on a Hawaii State Department of Finance list of unclaimed properties. In 2006, transmission was finally cut off by Hawaii Electric Company.California’s wind farms — then comprising about 80% of the world’s wind generation capacity — ceased to generate much more quickly than Kamaoa. In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills.”
> 
> When an honest history of this period in the United States is written, it will no be kind to the corporate cronyism that preyed upon public ignorance of earth science to create a crisis — global warming — to exploit and loot the Treasury.
> 
> UPDATE: Linked by Glenn Reynolds. Thanks.
> 
> Oh, and the queen’s husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, calls wind turbines a “fairy tale.”


----------



## a_majoor

Recovering waste heat could be a huge advance:

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/sectors/energy-and-environment/news/researchers-find-way-to-create-cheap-thermoelectric-materials/1010936.article



> *Researchers find way to create cheap thermoelectric materials*
> 
> 17 November 2011 | By Andrew Czyzewski
> 
> Researchers claim to have found a way of making cheap thermoelectric materials that could harvest waste heat from a range of scenarios.
> 
> A team led by Dr Ole Martin Løvvik of Oslo University’s Centre for Materials Science and Nanotechnology in Norway has been studying the thermoelectric effect at the nanoscale for several years.
> 
> Discovered in 1821, it essentially describes the generation of a voltage arising from a temperature difference across a material — generally made up of two different metals.
> 
> ‘It looks easy on the outside, but on the inside the electrons are doing all the work,’ Løvvik told The Engineer. ‘It’s essentially a heat engine but the working fluid is the electronic gas, because the electrons are free to move all around.’
> 
> However, the technology been limited to specialist applications — for example, deep-space missions use radioisotope thermoelectric generators based on plutonium.
> 
> Attempts to bring the technology into the mainstream, in order to harvest waste heat from industrial and everyday scenarios, have been limited by cost and practicality.
> 
> Løvvik said the key to the problem is that a good thermoelectric material ought to have high thermal resistance but low electrical resistance. Therefore, perhaps counter-intuitively, it is important to prevent heat dissipation through the material.
> 
> The team achieved this by introducing nanoscale barriers into various common semiconducting materials, which reflect waves of vibrating ‘hot’ energetic particles of certain frequencies.
> 
> ‘It’s possible to choose your frequencies with care and then you can maintain the electronic conductivity while dramatically changing the heat dissipation — that’s what we aim for,’ Løvvik explained.
> 
> The fabrication method involves cooling down blocks of semiconducing materials to -196°C with liquid nitrogen to make them more brittle and less sticky, then grinding them down into nanoscale particles using a ‘mill’. These particles are then essentially compressed back together in a controlled fashion, leaving the essential nanoscale barriers.
> 
> ‘We use the same kind of mill they use to make paint, it’s a well-established technique, it can be upscaled and it’s cheap, so that’s important,’ Løvvik said.
> 
> The team’s calculations suggest it could recover around 15 per cent of all energy losses in a variety of scenarios. The team is in talks with a major automotive manufacturer with a view to first placing the material in the exhausts of cars.
> 
> ‘This is just the starting point for using this technique to exploit the vast amount of waste heat that is available almost everywhere in society,’ he added.
> 
> Read more: http://www.theengineer.co.uk/sectors/energy-and-environment/news/researchers-find-way-to-create-cheap-thermoelectric-materials/1010936.article#ixzz1eclHpIzR


----------



## a_majoor

Focus Fusion comes closer to "hot" fusion with their machine. The beauty of this is it is much smaller and cheaper than any "conventional" hot fusion device (most of which cost in the multiple billions of dollars each), so if it works, it can be placed into production quickly and easily.

http://focusfusion.org/assets/lppx/LPPX_2011_11_23.pdf

(long document)


----------



## a_majoor

Bob Zubrin on Methanol. I'm a bit astonished, since my understanding was that much of modern car's fuel systems are incompatible with methanol, but that is obviously not the case here. (Anyone who is thinking of trying this experiment had better carefully check their car's specifications, you might not have such an easy time).

Since unconventional oil production has exploded and the availability of hydrocarbons is no longer in doubt for decades to come (if not longer), the case for methanol is not quite as compelling as Zubrin is advocating. OTOH methanol is a valuable industrial chemical, so ramping up inexpensive methanol production may have other benefits.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/284560



> *Methanol Wins*
> It’s time to open up the Open Road with H.R. 1687.
> 
> On August 2, I published an open wager on National Review Online. I offered to bet up to ten people $10,000 each that I could take my 2007 Chevy Cobalt, which is not a flex-fuel car, and, running it on 100 percent methanol, get at least 24 miles per gallon on the highway. Since methanol averages less than half the price of gasoline — and can readily be made from coal, natural gas, or any kind of biomass without exception — this would demonstrate superior transportation economy from a non-petroleum fuel that is producible from plentiful American resources.
> 
> Unfortunately, no one took the bet. That fact alone says a lot. Of the 7 billion people on this planet, there are about a million or so who know a great deal about cars. Clearly, not one of them was sufficiently doubtful that it could be done to put his money on the line. Although it left me short a nice chunk of easy cash, the refusal of anyone to accept my challenge should have settled the matter. But some people, while refusing to take the bet, still demanded that I conduct the test anyway. I did, and here are the results.
> 
> First, I ran the car on 100 percent methanol. This required replacing the fuel-pump seal made of Viton, which is not methanol compatible, with one made of Buna-N, which is. The new part cost 41 cents, retail. In order to take proper advantage of methanol’s very high octane rating (about 109), I advanced the timing appropriately. This dramatically improved the motor efficiency and allowed the ordinarily sedate sedan to perform with a significantly more sporty spirit. As measured on the dyno, horsepower increased 10 percent. With these modifications complete, I took my Cobalt out for a road test. The result: 24.6 miles per gallon.
> 
> When I first made the bet, many commentators thought that I would aim for high-efficiency performance with high-octane fuel by increasing the compression ratio of the engine (which is how race-car drivers using methanol have done it for the past half-century). However, with modern cars using electronic fuel injection, this is unnecessary. Instead, the necessary changes to the engine can be made simply by adjusting the Engine Control Unit software. Thus, except for switching the fuel-pump seal as noted above, no physical changes to the car were required.
> 
> Other critics commented that while I might be able to achieve good fuel economy, the idea was impractical because the emissions would not be acceptable. In response, I had the car tested for emissions with 100 percent methanol (M100), 60 percent methanol (M60), and ordinary gasoline (i.e., E10, which contains about 10 percent ethanol), and for comparison, did mileage tests for these alternatives as well. The results of all these tests are shown in the table below.
> 
> It can be seen that, far from failing to meet emissions standards, the Cobalt running on methanol was extremely clean, beating both the strict Colorado emissions standards and the national EPA averages by an order of magnitude. The complete elimination of carbon-monoxide emissions when using M60 is particularly remarkable — so much so that I initially thought it was an experimental error caused by faulty equipment at the emissions test station. I tested it again at a different station and got the same result.
> 
> Returning to the subject of fuel economy, this can be evaluated by dividing the miles per gallon by the pre-tax spot price of the fuels in question in order to obtain the pre-tax miles per dollar shown in the table above. It can be seen that when methanol is used, fuel-economy improvements of 40 percent can be achieved. (The spot price shown in the table is the New York Harbor spot price of gasoline and the non-discounted Methanex spot price, both averaged over the past year.)
> 
> These results should not be too surprising. Methanol contains about half the energy content of gasoline, but its high octane allows it to be burned more efficiently, and thus obtain two-thirds of the mileage. The fact that the Cobalt could easily be made to use it should be no shock either: While not a flex-fuel car, the Cobalt uses the same E-37 computer and the same engine as GM’s HHR, which is a flex-fuel car. In fact, all GM cars sold in the U.S. for the past five years use either the E-37 (for small cars) or the equally flex-fuel-capable E-38 (for larger cars), and so all are capable of flex-fuel operation provided they are programmed correctly. The same is true at Ford, whose cars, whether flex-fuel or not, indiscriminately use the same “black oak,” “green oak,” or “silver oak” computers. Without question, the same must be the case for European and Japanese cars as well, since all are sold in Brazil, where flex-fuel capability is mandatory.
> 
> There was a time when adding flex-fuel capability to an automobile increased its cost by about $100. This is no longer true. Now almost all new cars already have flex-fuel hardware, and could easily be marketed as flex-fuel vehicles. Yet the automakers have failed to do so. This is an extraordinary disservice to the nation, because it is preventing us from meeting our fuel needs using our own resources. The United States has only about 4 billion tons of oil reserves, but over 270 billion tons of coal, unknowably vast supplies of natural gas, and by far the world’s most powerful agricultural sector — all of which could be used to produce methanol. Yet instead of being able to put these assets effectively to use to meet our transportation needs, we are being forced to buy 5 billion barrels per year of imported oil. At $100 per barrel, this is costing us $500 billion per year, a deduction from our GDP equal to that required to support 5 million jobs, at $100,000 annually per job.
> 
> The Open Fuel Standard bill (H.R. 1687) would remedy this situation by requiring automakers to activate the flex-fuel capabilities of their vehicles. This would open the market to fuels producible from plentiful domestic resources not under cartel control, free us from looting by OPEC, create millions of jobs, slash our deficit, reduce the flow of income to the Islamists, and cushion us from counter-effects should forceful action be required to deal with threats such as the Iranian nuclear-bomb program. Introduced by Reps. John Shimkus (R., Ill.) and Eliot Engel (D., N.Y.), its current bipartisan list of sponsors includes liberals such as Jim McDermott (D., Wash.), Allyson Schwartz (D., Pa.), Steve Israel (D., N.Y.), and Howard Berman (D., Calif.) to conservatives Dan Burton (R., Ind.), Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md.), Tom Cole (R., Okla.), and Allen West (R., Fla.), as well as many in between. It is a bill clearly in the national interest, and should be supported by everyone from left to right.
> 
> By eliminating the artificial incompatibility between the vehicles we drive and the fuels we can make ourselves, the Open Fuel Standard bill will unchain the Invisible Hand, creating a true free market in vehicle fuels. Those reluctant to embrace it need to answer the following questions: In whose interest is it that Americans should continue to be denied fuel choice? In whose interest is it that America’s vast natural-gas, coal, and biomass resources remain unusable as a source of liquid vehicle fuel? In whose interest is it that America continue to give hundreds of billions of dollars each year to foreign potentates bent upon our destruction, instead of paying our own people to make fuel out of our own resources? In whose interest is it that a foreign cartel retains unlimited power to raise the cost of our fuel? In whose interest is it that we remain in the power of our enemies? Finally, should their interests be allowed to prevail, or should ours?
> 
> The fault, dear reader, is not in our cars, but in ourselves, that we are tributaries. We can set ourselves free, but action is required.
> 
> — Dr. Robert Zubrin is president of Pioneer Astronautics, a member of the Steering Committee of Americans for Energy, and author of Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil. His next book, Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudoscientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism, will be published by Encounter Books in February.
> 
> editor’s note: This article has been amended since its initial publication.


----------



## a_majoor

Swimming in a sea of hydrocarbons, and why it is so difficult to access them (hint; it isn't a technical or technological problem). From a Canadian perspective, a huge increase in supply might actually "strand" the oilsands as being too expensive to economically access, and the generally lower prices of petroleum products will decrease our ability to make the $C a strong "petrodollar". Lots of graphics, please go to link:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/12/americas-vast-energy-resources.php



> *America’s Vast Energy Resources*
> 
> For a long time, the Left has gotten away with underselling America’s energy resources. The old chestnut that the U.S. uses 25% of the world’s oil but only has 2% to 3% of the world’s oil reserves has been repeated endlessly by Barack Obama and many others. This claim fooled millions of people who didn’t understand that in the U.S., “reserves” means petroleum that is 1) legally available for development, and 2) profitably extracted at current prices. So if Democrats would stop preventing drilling, we could vastly increase our “reserves,” as legally defined, overnight.
> 
> Happily, the publicity that has recently been given to massive shale oil and natural gas deposits in North Dakota, Pennsylvania and elsewhere has awakened many Americans to the fact that our energy resources are truly vast–greater, in fact, than any other country’s. The point is driven home by a new report that has just been released by the Institute for Energy Research. IER describes the problem (and the opportunity) bluntly:
> 
> Access to affordable, abundant energy is, fundamentally, a means of freedom. But for those seeking to create a crisis that provides an opportunity to direct the way we live, work and act, affordable, reliable, abundant, domestic energy is a threat. In a very real sense, the more energy we have, the less power they will have. Energy abundance ends the justification for central energy decision-making.
> 
> The report is worth reading in its entirety, but here are a few graphics that sum up the bottom line. First, North American oil; click to enlarge:
> 
> Natural gas:
> 
> And coal:
> 
> This graphic compares North America’s recoverable oil with the world’s total “proved reserves.”
> 
> There is much more, but let’s end for now with this beautiful map of America’s shale gas resources:
> 
> The IER report pinpoints the obstacle to millions of new jobs and the creation of vast wealth that will be shared by all Americans in the form of lower energy costs:
> 
> As it turns out, many of the problems of energy scarcity and rising costs in the United States have been caused by the government itself. In 2004, the U.S. Department of Energy issued a report that outlined many of the policy and regulatory constraints that impact domestic energy production. While the report focused on natural gas specifically, many of the laws and procedures also represent roadblocks to any form of safe and responsible energy production. The list of energy barriers included the following policies, all of which can limit access to U.S. resources, increase delays related to exploration and production, and/or increase costs of development:
> 
> The list of statutes and other legal impediments that follows is *three pages long*. Only liberal politicians stand between the American people and development of our vast energy resources.
> 
> STEVE ADDS:  John–how could you leave out my star turn in the video our IER pals did to accompany the report?


----------



## a_majoor

Good news for a change:

http://metanoodle.blogspot.com/2011/12/our-world-is-safer-thanks-to-shale-gas.html



> *Our world is safer thanks to shale gas find. Energy independence for China and the US.*
> 
> The US is re-approaching energy self-sufficiency thanks to gas and oil from the Bakken, Haynes and Marcellus shales. It may even export a surplus.
> Now China may also reach energy independence. This week PetroChina and Shell report finding major supplies of shale gas in Sichuan province. This bring China's reserves to 1275 trillion cubic feet by US estimates.  Test wells are working. Picture on the right shows Chinese investment.
> 
> The world is safer .
> The mighty won't be held for ransom over energy.
> Some of the reasons for having military adventures and bases in foreign lands will disappear.
> 
> Self-sufficiency will defuse war flashpoints that oil must pass through.  Think of Arab oil coming out of the Hormuz strait, under they eye of bellicose Iran and think of the narrow strait of Malacca off Singapore that China relies on.  What if it didn't  matter much what the corrupted mullahs are up to in the Persian Gulf?
> 
> As Walter Russell Mead says, "Vast reserves of energy resources at home make armed conflict over resources abroad far less likely."


----------



## a_majoor

Oil is an excellent high energy density fuel for portable and mobile applications, but electrical generation is another issue to be addressed:

http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2011/12/13/small-reactors-could-figure-us-energy-future



> *Small reactors could figure into U.S. energy future*
> By Steve Koppes
> December 13, 2011
> 
> A newly released study from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) concludes that small modular reactors may hold the key to the future of U.S. nuclear power generation.
> 
> “Clearly, a robust commercial SMR industry is highly advantageous to many sectors in the United States,” concluded the study, led by Robert Rosner, institute director and the William Wrather Distinguished Service Professor in Astronomy & Astrophysics.
> 
> “It would be a huge stimulus for high-valued job growth, restore U.S. leadership in nuclear reactor technology and, most importantly, strengthen U.S. leadership in a post-Fukushima world, on matters of nuclear safety, nuclear security, nonproliferation, and nuclear waste management,” the report said.
> 
> The SMR report was one of two that Rosner rolled out Thursday, Dec. 1, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. Through his work as former chief scientist and former director of Argonne National Laboratory, Rosner became involved in a variety of national policy issues, including nuclear and renewable energy technology development.
> 
> The reports assessed the economic feasibility of classical, gigawatt-scale reactors and the possible new generation of modular reactors. The latter would have a generating capacity of 600 megawatts or less, would be factory-built as modular components, and then shipped to their desired location for assembly.
> 
> The U.S. Department of Energy funded the reports through Argonne, which is operated by UChicago Argonne LLC. The principal authors of the report were Rosner and Stephen Goldberg, special assistant to Argonne’s director.
> 
> The reports followed up a 2004 UChicago study on the economic future of nuclear energy. The 2004 study concluded that the nuclear energy industry would need financial incentives from the federal government in order to build new plants that could compete with coal- and gas-fired plants.
> 
> The first report, “Analysis of GW-scale Overnight Costs,” updates the overnight cost estimates of the 2004 report. Overnight costs are the estimated costs if you were to build a new large reactor ‘overnight,’ that is, using current input prices and excluding the cost of financing.
> 
> It would now cost $4,210 per kilowatt to build a new gigawatt-scale reactor, according to the new report. This cost is approximately $2,210 per kilowatt higher than the 2004 estimate because of commodity price changes and other factors.
> 
> Struggling restart
> 
> At the Center for Strategic and International Studies event on Dec. 1, CSIS president and CEO John Hamre said that economic issues have hindered the construction of new large-scale reactors in the United States. The key challenge facing the industry is the seven-to-nine-year gap between making a commitment to build a nuclear plant and revenue generation.
> 
> Few companies can afford to wait that long to see a return on the $10 billion investment that a large-scale nuclear plant would require. “This is a real problem,” Hamre said, but the advent of the small modular reactor “offers the promise of factory construction efficiencies and a much shorter timeline.”
> 
> Natural gas would be the chief competitor of nuclear power generated by small modular reactors, but predicting the future of the energy market a decade from now is a risky proposition, Rosner said. “We’re talking about natural-gas prices not today but 10, 15 years from now when these kinds of reactors could actually hit the market.”
> 
> The economic viability of small modular reactors will depend partly on how quickly manufacturers can learn to build them efficiently. “The faster you learn, the better off you are in the long term because you get to the point where you actually start making money faster,” Rosner noted.
> 
> Small modular reactors could be especially appealing for markets that could not easily accommodate gigawatt-scale plants, such as those currently served by aging, 200- to 400-megawatt coal plants, which are likely to be phased out during the next decade, Rosner said. An unknown factor that will affect the future of these plants would be the terms of any new clean-air regulations that might be enacted in the next year.
> 
> An important safety aspect of small modular reactors is that they are designed to eliminate the need for human intervention during an emergency. In some of the designs, Rosner explained, “the entire heat load at full power can be carried passively by thermal convection. There’s no need for pumps.”
> 
> Getting the first modular reactors built will probably require the federal government to step in as the first customer. That is a policy issue, though, that awaits further consideration. “It’s a case that has to be argued out and thought carefully about,” Rosner said. “There’s a long distance between what we’re doing right now and actually implementing national policy.”
> 
> The full reports can be downloaded at the Energy Policy Institute website: http://epic.uchicago.edu/page/publications-and-presentations.



Small reactors would be suitable as  heat and power sources for bases, and perhaps as powerplants for ships as well (although something like an SSN would need the energy resources of a full scale nuclear poweplant; this is why the SSn idea fell down; all the costs of a nuclear reactor with few of the benefits)


----------



## a_majoor

Improved solar cells. Just breakng the 31% barrier is pretty important (and only really expensive and highly refined cells can do that today):

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2011/12/15/dark_state/



> *Discovery of a ‘Dark State’ Could Mean a Brighter Future for Solar Energy*
> 
> Dec. 15, 2011
> 
> AUSTIN, Texas — The efficiency of conventional solar cells could be significantly increased, according to new research on the mechanisms of solar energy conversion led by chemist Xiaoyang Zhu at The University of Texas at Austin.
> 
> Zhu and his team have discovered that it's possible to double the number of electrons harvested from one photon of sunlight using an organic plastic semiconductor material.
> 
> "Plastic semiconductor solar cell production has great advantages, one of which is low cost," said Zhu, a professor of chemistry. "Combined with the vast capabilities for molecular design and synthesis, our discovery opens the door to an exciting new approach for solar energy conversion, leading to much higher efficiencies."
> 
> Zhu and his team published their groundbreaking discovery Dec. 16 in Science.
> 
> The maximum theoretical efficiency of the silicon solar cell in use today is approximately 31 percent, because much of the sun's energy hitting the cell is too high to be turned into usable electricity. That energy, in the form of "hot electrons," is instead lost as heat. Capturing hot electrons could potentially increase the efficiency of solar-to-electric power conversion to as high as 66 percent.
> 
> Zhu and his team previously demonstrated that those hot electrons could be captured using semiconductor nanocrystals. They published that research in Science in 2010, but Zhu says the actual implementation of a viable technology based on that research is very challenging.
> 
> "For one thing," said Zhu, "that 66 percent efficiency can only be achieved when highly focused sunlight is used, not just the raw sunlight that typically hits a solar panel. This creates problems when considering engineering a new material or device."
> 
> To circumvent that problem, Zhu and his team have found an alternative. They discovered that a photon produces a dark quantum "shadow state" from which two electrons can then be efficiently captured to generate more energy in the semiconductor pentacene.
> 
> Zhu said that exploiting that mechanism could increase solar cell efficiency to 44 percent without the need for focusing a solar beam, which would encourage more widespread use of solar technology.
> 
> The research team was spearheaded by Wai-lun Chan, a postdoctoral fellow in Zhu’s group, with the help of postdoctoral fellows Manuel Ligges, Askat Jailaubekov, Loren Kaake and Luis Miaja-Avila. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy.
> 
> For more information, contact: Lee Clippard, College of Natural Sciences, 512-232-0675; Xiaoyang Zhu, professor, 512-471-9914.





> Science Behind the Discovery:
> 
> Absorption of a photon in a pentacene semiconductor creates an excited electron-hole pair called an exciton.
> 
> The exciton is coupled quantum mechanically to a dark "shadow state" called a multiexciton.
> 
> This dark shadow state can be the most efficient source of two electrons via transfer to an electron acceptor material, such as fullerene, which was used in the study.
> 
> Exploiting the dark shadow state to produce double the electrons could increase solar cell efficiency to 44 percent.


----------



## a_majoor

While I am sckeptical of LENR (which just seems to be "cold fusion" with a cool new acronym), evidently Royal Dutch Shell thinks this is worth looking into. If it does pan out, then distributed energy and the dismantling of the "grid" is a possibility. (Personally, I would place my bets on modular fission reactors putting out several hundred Mw as the first option, Thorium salt reactors as the second option and compact aneutronic fusion reactors like Focus Fusion or Polywell as a distant third; these have strong theoretical and engineering work behind them):

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/16/shells-interest-indicates-major-shift-for-lenr/



> Shell’s Interest Indicates Major Shift for LENRPosted on December 16, 2011 by Steven B. Krivit
> 
> Royal Dutch Shell, plc, one of the largest energy companies in the world, is interested in exploring low-energy nuclear reaction research as a possible game-changer in the energy business.
> 
> Two Shell scientists, Anitha Sarkar and Gilles Buchs, with the backing of the Shell GameChanger program, are looking for opportunities to work actively with LENR experts, according to a brief introduction the researchers prepared.
> 
> Edward Beardsworth, a venture capitalist at Jane Capital Partners in San Francisco, introduced the researchers to the field in a message to the CMNS e-mail list today.
> 
> “At my request, they prepared the attached biographical sketches and description of what they bring to the group. They are both located at the company’s research and development offices in the Netherlands,” Beardsworth wrote. “I believe their fresh and enthusiastic approach will lead to good contributions to the field.”
> 
> According to its Web site, Shell GameChanger “helps move ideas to reality by sponsoring entrepreneurs to develop their ideas into a product that can be introduced to the marketplace.”
> 
> “Specifically,” the site says, “we look for innovative ideas that address a demand or significant problem in the energy industry and have the potential to change the game.”
> 
> The Shell researchers, according to the document provided by Beardsworth, offer the following to the field:
> 
> - Broad expertise in wide variety of energy conversion systems
> - Access to significant group of Shell surface science and catalysis experts
> - Access to key related disciplines: thermodynamics, physics, electrochemistry, computational chemistry,   heat exchange, etc.
> - Shell GameChanger program, (www.shell.com/gamechanger) rapidly funds initial proof of concept testing for revolutionary innovation
> - Significant expertise and track record of development and scaling-up and from lab-scale to commercial unit of a wide range of complex energy technologies.
> 
> This is not the first time Shell has looked into LENR research. In 1995, Shell sponsored LENR research at the French laboratory Laboratoire des Sciences Nucléaires at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers (CNAM). This research showed high-quality LENR work, and the research paper provided the expected level of professionalism in a scientific communication.
> 
> The researchers found a small ratio of excess heat compared to the input electrical power in both light- and heavy-hydrogen experiments. However, the experiments demonstrated a sustained period of steady excess-heat production. The hydrogen experiment produced 16 megajoules during a 39-day run, with a mean excess-heat production of 4.7 Watts from a 150 Watt electrical input.
> 
> Consistent with the extensive body of LENR research, the CNAM researchers found no significant levels of dangerous radiation from neutrons, X-rays or gamma rays. The researchers failed to find nuclear signatures consistent with the amount of excess energy produced. They did not, however, check for isotopic shifts or transmutations, and they did not use solid-state nuclear track detectors to look for alphas or bursts of spallation neutrons.
> 
> The current Shell initiative follows an inquiry from the United States intelligence community into LENR. Both news items are powerful indicators that 2012 is the year that LENR will move forward into serious technology research.


]


----------



## a_majoor

Old fashioned tech taken for a new spin: converting coal to liquid fuel with much higher efficiency. Germany used the FT process in WW II and South Africa used the FT process during the apartheid era, so improved versions of the process will allow any nation with coal reserves to create liquid fuel if there is no other alternative:

http://www.sri.com/news/releases/122011.html



> *SRI Research Identifies Environmentally Friendly Process to Make Coal-Based Liquid Fuel
> coal to liquid*
> 
> Menlo Park, Calif. — December 20, 2011 — Research from SRI International has identified a promising new way to produce liquid transportation fuels from coal without consuming water or generating carbon dioxide. Based on data from bench-scale tests, SRI engineers estimate that the capital cost for a full-scale plant using SRI’s process would be less than half that of a conventional coal-to-liquids (CTL) plant that uses a process called Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS). FTS produces only a small fraction of the hydrocarbons needed for fuel and requires extensive recycling.
> 
> SRI’s new process uses natural gas to provide the hydrogen needed to convert coal to syngas (a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen). Syngas is first converted into methanol, which can then be efficiently processed to make transportation fuels.
> 
> Using natural gas eliminates the need to add water as a source of hydrogen, reduces the need to add energy to drive the gasification reaction, and results in the use of a smaller gasifier. In conventional CTL approaches, energy is supplied by burning a portion of the coal feed, which then produces carbon dioxide. SRI’s approach makes it economical to use carbon neutral electricity, such as nuclear, hydro, or solar as a source of additional energy.
> 
> "The implications of this research are expansive, including enhancing US energy security through the use of domestic carbon sources," said Robert Wilson, Ph.D., director, Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory, SRI International. "The process can also dramatically reduce the environmental footprint associated with alternative transportation fuels."
> 
> SRI performed a series of analyses to examine the environmental impact of the technology under several scenarios. Based on these analyses, if diesel were produced using biogas as the source of methane, the resulting product would qualify as an alternative fuel under the revised Renewable Fuels Standard of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The Act requires alternative fuels to meet a standard of 50-percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions compared to other fuels.
> 
> The SRI process was recently presented at the 28th Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference in a presentation titled, "Coal Gasification with Methane Reforming: A Novel Environmentally Benign CTL Process" by Ripudaman Malhotra, associate director of SRI’s Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory.
> 
> The effort or project depicted is supported by DARPA under Contract No. HR0011-10-0049. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressly or implied, of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or the U.S. Government.
> 
> About SRI International
> Silicon Valley-based SRI International, a nonprofit research and development organization, performs sponsored R&D for governments, businesses, and foundations. SRI brings its innovations to the marketplace through technology licensing, new products, and spin-off ventures. Commemorating its 65th anniversary in 2011, SRI is known for world-changing innovations in computing, health and pharmaceuticals, chemistry and materials, sensing, energy, education, national defense, and more.


----------



## a_majoor

Improvements in efficiency should never be discounted:

http://vtt.fi/news/2012/12012012.jsp?lang=en



> *One third of car fuel consumption is due to friction loss*
> 
> 12.01.2012
> 
> Fuel consumption and emissions can be reduced with new technology
> 
> No less than one third of a car’s fuel consumption is spent in overcoming friction, and this friction loss has a direct impact on both fuel consumption and emissions. However, new technology can reduce friction by anything from 10% to 80% in various components of a car, according to a joint study by VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) in USA. It should thus be possible to reduce car’s fuel consumption and emissions by 18% within the next 5 to 10 years and up to 61% within 15 to 25 years.
> 
> There are 612 million cars in the world today. The average car clocks up about 13,000 km per year, and in the meantime burns 340 litres of fuel just to overcome friction, costing the driver EUR 510 per year.
> 
> Of the energy output of fuel in a car engine, 33% is spent in exhaust, 29% in cooling and 38% in mechanical energy, of which friction losses account for 33% and air resistance for 5%. By comparison, an electric car has only half the friction loss of that of a car with a conventional internal combustion engine.
> 
> Annual friction loss in an average car worldwide amounts to 11,860 MJ: of this, 35% is spent in overcoming rolling resistance in the wheels, 35% in the engine itself, 15% in the gearbox and 15% in braking. With current technology, only 21.5% of the energy output of the fuel is used to actually move the car; the rest is wasted.
> 
> Worldwide savings with new technology
> 
> A recent VTT and ANL study shows that friction in cars can be reduced with new technologies such as new surface coatings, surface textures, lubricant additives, low-viscosity lubricants, ionic liquids and low-friction tyres inflated to pressures higher than normal.
> 
> Friction can be reduced by 10% to 50% using new surface technologies such as diamond-like carbon materials and nanocomposites. Laser texturing can be employed to etch a microtopography on the surface of the material to guide the lubricant flow and internal pressures so as to reduce friction by 25% to 50% and fuel consumption by 4%. Ionic liquids are made up of electrically charged molecules that repel one another, enabling a further 25% to 50% reduction in friction.
> 
> In 2009, a total of 208,000 million litres of fuel was burned in cars worldwide just to overcome friction; this amounts to 7.3 million TJ (terajoules) of energy. Theoretically, introducing the best current technological solutions in all of the world’s cars could save EUR 348,000 million per year; the best scientifically proven solutions known today could save EUR 576,000 million per year, and the best solutions to emerge over the next 10 years could save EUR 659,000 million per year.
> 
> Realistically, though, over a period of 5 to 10 years of enhanced action and product development measures could be expected to enable savings of 117,000 million litres in fuel consumption per year, representing an 18% reduction from the present level. Furthermore, in realistic terms, carbon dioxide emissions could be expected to decrease by 290 million tonnes per year and financial savings to amount to EUR 174,000 million per year in the short term.
> 
> Drivers can influence fuel consumption
> 
> A driver can significantly influence the fuel consumption of his or her car. A reduction of 10% in driving speed, e.g. from 110 km/h to 100 km/h, translates into a 16% saving in fuel consumption. Slower speeds also allow for higher tyre pressures; an increase from 2 bar to 2.5 bar can translate into a 3% saving in fuel consumption.
> 
> VTT and ANL calculated friction loss in cars worldwide using a method that incorporated total crude oil consumption and fuel consumption of cars, the energy consumption of an average car, and the energy that an average car uses to overcome friction.
> 
> Friction losses were accounted for in the subsystems of a car – tyres, engine, gearbox, brakes – and also in its components, such as gears, bearings, gaskets and pistons. The friction losses caused at friction points and lubrication points were also considered.
> 
> The study was conducted at the Metal Products and Mechanical Engineering strategic competence cluster in the DEMAPP programme, co-ordinated by FIMECC Oy, where practical solutions for minimising friction loss are also being developed. The study was funded by the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes), VTT and FIMECC Oy, and the Argonne National Laboratory, Department of Energy (Chicago, USA).
> 
> The recent research report on friction loss in cars and the potential for reducing energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions was published in the Tribology International scientific journal. The article can be accessed here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2011.11.022


----------



## a_majoor

Green fail. Ontario can look forward to something like this as well, since our energy policies seem to have been modeled after Germany:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/energie-anzeige/germanys-green-energy-supply-transformation-has-already-failed/



> *Germany’s Green Energy Supply Transformation Has Already Failed!*
> 
> Energy expert Dr. Guenter Keil has closely examined Germany’s energy policy of shifting away from nuclear and fossil fuels and over to renewables. What he finds is a bleak picture. Years ago Germany ambitiously embarked on transforming its energy supply system, and hopes to supply at least 80% of its energy needs through renewable energies by 2050, and thus become a moral leader on environmental responsibility for the rest of the world.
> 
> To do this, the former Socialist-Green coalition government, led by Gerhard Schröder, enacted the so-called Renewable Energy Feed-In Act (EEG) in 2000. This Feed-In Act requires electric utilities to buy all renewable energies, such as solar and wind power, from all producers at fixed, exorbitant rates and to feed it into the power grid for a period of 20 years. This has led to a boom as thousands of homeowners, businesses, and investors have installed thousands of megawatts of solar and wind power capacity over the years. The current Conservative-Liberal government, not to be outdone by its predecessor, is also gleefully pushing the Feed-In Act to the limit.
> 
> Weather-dependent supply wreaking havoc on the power grid
> 
> The problem is that these energy sources are weather-dependent and thus their sporadic supply is starting to wreak havoc on Germany’s power grid and is even now threatening to destabilize power grids all across Europe. The other problem: the power grid needed to distribute the decentrally produced green power is simply not there yet. They forgot to build it! So far, after tens of billions of euros spent on renewable energy systems and higher prices for consumers, not a single coal or gas-fired power plant has been taken offline. To the contrary, old inefficient plants have been brought back into service in an effort to stabilize the grid.
> 
> In a panic reaction, Germany shut down 8 nuclear power plants
> 
> To make matters worse, in a fit of panic and hysteria, the German government shut down 8 of its older 18 nuclear reactors in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, thus removing a very cheap and stable supply of power and further pushing the grid to the limits. Before the shutdown of the nuclear reactors, Germany had been a net power exporter; today it is a net power importer and is at times severely straining neighboring power grids. To compensate for the missing nuclear power, the government is now heavily promoting even more weather-dependent wind power, which is further destabilizing the German and European power grids. A solution to the problem of storing electricity is still at least a generation away.
> 
> The question of course is how could such absurd decisions have been made to begin with? Were there no experts involved in the planning of the new power generation infrastructure? The answer obviously is no. Power executives are viewed as evil, dirty and greedy polluters, and thus were never really consulted. They could not be counted on to give the politically correct solutions. Therefore the decision to shut down the German nuclear power plants and to massively support renewables was done unilaterally by the government, without consulting the power executives or even neighboring countries.
> 
> Offshore wind parks, but no transmission lines to industrial regions!
> 
> Now that the damage is spreading, Germany’s utilities are now struggling to keep the grid stable and to fill in the power gap left by the shut-down of nuclear reactors. To do this the German government has ordered the installation of large-scale wind parks in the North and Baltic seas, in addition to the re-commissioning of mothballed, inefficient coal-fired plants. This overall energy production transition from nuclear and fossils over to “renewables” is dubbed by German officials as the Energy Supply Transformation. Construction of the offshore wind parks is now progressing rapidly. But there’s just one problem: the huge high voltage power transmission lines needed to bring their power to Germany’s industrial heartland to the south are missing! More than 3000 km of these lines are needed, but are nowhere near in sight. The government forgot about those too!
> 
> Activists groups blocking grid expansion
> 
> Building the power transmission lines quickly across the landscape will be a virtually impossible task. Activist groups have long since organized and are effectively blocking their approval and construction. So far only a measly 214 km have been built. As a result, surplus wind power cannot be delivered to the markets, and thus either has to be destroyed, dumped on the market at “negative prices”, or wind park owners are simply ordered to stop generating. No problem though - paragraph 12 of Germany’s Energy Feed-In Act requires electric utilities to pay for the electricity that they ask not to have produced! Technically, there is an incentive for wind parks to destabilize the grid.
> 
> Eventually all these costs add up and in the end they get passed along to the consumer. Under the bottom line, consumers have to pay more and more, and for a lower and lower quality supply. German industry is getting nervous and surveys show that many are leaving Germany, or are planning to do so. They no longer view Germany’s power supply as reliable.
> 
> In a death spiral…”will fail spectacularly”
> 
> Dr. Guenter Keil’s report focusses in detail on the amazing absurdities of Germany’s Renewable Energy Feed-In Act and the country’s utopian Energy Transformation. The government, through intrusive meddling and ballooning bureaucracy, has maneuvered Germany’s energy supply system into a vicious death spiral: the more the government intervenes, the greater the mess becomes. And the greater the mess becomes, the more the government intervenes! Dr. Keil concludes:
> 
> “Germany’s energy transformation has already failed. For Germans, the outlook is bleak. …the planned mismanagement is heavily damaging the economy and will fail spectacularly some years later because its economic and social costs will have become unbearable. The question remaining open is how many billions of euros will have to be destroyed before a new energy policy (a new energy transformation?) picks up the shattered pieces.”
> 
> So it’s no wonder that according to a survey of experts from 21 national committees by the World Energy Council, 0% said they could imagine their own country completely taking over the German political approach. An equal number believe Germany will reach its stated targets.
> 
> Germany’s model will serve as a classic lesson on how not to handle energy production and management.
> 
> Michael Limburg; with thanks to Pierre Gosselin from notrickszone for excellent translation support
> 
> Dr. Guenter Keil was a scientific employee at the Technical University of Munich / Fraunhofer Society, as well as Project Support at the Federal Research Ministry.


----------



## exabedtech

Clearly too early to call any 'renewable' anything more than a supplement to existing energy sources but the fact remains that fossil fuel sources are becoming more and more expensive.  
While the German experience seems to be a failure for all other than the solar industry, the status quo simply won't cut it.
I don't think anyone outside of the tinfoil hat crowd thinks we will run out of oil, but our extraction costs will certainly hit a point, if they haven't already, where they dampen any hope for a return to the economic growth we saw in the past decade.
In the end, supply and demand rules IMO and this will force major changes in the ways we live.  Let's all take a moment and thank the Alberta Oilsands!!!!  That will be our 'shock absorber'  as the world adjusts over the next 100 years to a new and largely unknown reality.


----------



## Kirkhill

Climate expert says coal not oilsands real threat
From the CBC yesterday


> ....if all the hydrocarbons in the oilsands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about .36 C. That's about half the total amount of warming over the last century.
> 
> When only commercially viable oilsands deposits are considered, the temperature increase is only .03 C.
> 
> In contrast, the paper concludes that burning all the globe's vast coal deposits would create a 15-degree increase in temperature.
> 
> Burning all the abundant natural gas would warm the planet by more than three degrees....
> 
> ....He said the real message is that the world has to start limiting its use of fossil fuels.
> 
> "*This idea that we're going to somehow run out of coal and natural gas and fossil fuels is really misplaced. We'll run out of human ability to live on the planet long before we run out of them.* (Kirkhillian Interjection:Half Time Gentlemen!  All Chaaaange! The new message now is: We're not running out of fuel....but we're still very naughty people and need to find virgins to flog or some such).
> 
> 
> "I have always said that the tarsands are a symptom of a very big problem. The problem is dependence on fossil fuels."




Meanwhile:
Canada threatens EU over oil sands emissions rating  
From the Globe and Mail today



> ...The directive seeks to reduce the carbon footprint of fuels by 6 per cent over the next decade. It places fuel from most so-called *“conventional” oil * into a category with *a carbon value of 87.1 grams per megajoule*. *Fuel derived from oil sands – or “natural bitumen” – is assigned a value of 107*, 23 per cent higher. Fuel from oil shales, such as those in Estonia, is also given a higher number, at 131.3, while liquid fuels made from coal are 172.
> 
> The EU has stuck by those numbers. In a letter sent to Mr. Plunkett, Ms. Hedegaard argued that, “when looking at the production weighted average for oil sand feedstocks, it is clear that their GHG emissions are higher than for other feedstocks.”...
> 
> ....*It’s not clear, however, how EU member states will treat the directive at the vote this week. “From what I understand, it’s close to 50-50 at the moment*,” said Darek Urbaniak, a spokesman for Friends of the Earth. .....



And why would our green-tinged eurocrats be swithering over making a decision on those nasty oil sands?  Why it seems that their own petard has hoist them.

Biodiesels pollute more than crude oil, leaked data show
From Euractiv.com 27 January 2012.



> In its recent review of the Fuel Quality Directive, the EU proposed a default value of 107g CO2 equivalent per megajoule of fuel (CO2/mj) for oil from tar sands, as compared to 87.5g CO2/mj for crude oil, reflecting the greater environmental harm that its production causes.
> 
> Yet while advanced ‘second generation’ biofuels comfortably outperform fossil fuels in the EU’s new data, palm oil is ascribed a value of 105g, soybean 103g, rapeseed 95g, and sunflower 86g, once ILUC is factored in.
> 
> The data propose ILUC-incorporating CO2/mj values for biofuels as follows:
> 
> Palm Oil - 105g
> Soybean – 103g
> Rapeseed – 95g
> Sunflower – 86g
> Palm Oil with methane capture – 83g
> Wheat (process fuel not specified) – 64g
> Wheat (as process fuel natural gas used in CHP) – 47g
> Corn (Maize) – 43g
> Sugar Cane – 36g
> Sugar Beet – 34g
> Wheat (straw as process fuel in CHP plants) – 35g
> 2G Ethanol (land-using) – 32g
> 2G Biodiesel (land-using) – 21g
> 2G Ethanol (non-land using) – 9g
> 2G Biodiesel (non-land using) – 9g
> Biodiesel
> 
> *Isabelle Maurizi, a spokesperson for the European Biodiesel Board*, told EurActiv that data such as the leaked biofuels values, and recent reports by the EU’s Joint Research Centre, the European Environmental Agency, and the International Food Policy Research Institute, were not consistent with research in the US.
> 
> *“We do not recognise the validity of the science due to discrepancies in the results. The science is not grounded yet and is still immature so we would favour incentives in policy-making rather than punitive proposals,” * she said.
> 
> Any application of the leaked values could severely hamper the ability of biodiesel manufacturers to enter into the EU’s new biofuels certification plan, announced last August.



Now, I am firmly on record as opposing any policy that promotes the burning of any carbon generated on arable land (there is no waste in farming)...but, it is fascinating to note that our "Allies" in the fight against the EU's "science" include the very Greenies that the EU is promoting.

Strange, and amusing, bed-fellows.


----------



## a_majoor

High fuel prices are a political, not a resource problem. President George W Bush cause a collapse in prices by signing an executive order opening up major areas for drilling and exploration in 2008; this administration has relentlessly closed off Federal land to drilling and exploration, stopped Keystone XL and several refineries have closed during this administration:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/29/chu-to-congress-were-not-interested-in-lowering-gas-prices/



> *Chu to Congress: We’re not interested in lowering gas prices*
> posted at 11:00 am on February 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
> 
> Hey, at least Energy Secretary Stephen Chu gave an honest answer.  When asked by Rep. Alan Nunnelee whether the Obama administration wants to work to get gas prices to come back down, Chu replied that they’re not focusing on that — and that higher gas prices mean more of a push for the alternative energy sources the administration wants to push:
> “We agree there is great suffering when the price of gasoline increases in the United States, and so we are very concerned about this,” said Chu, speaking to the House Appropriations energy and water subcommittee. “As I have repeatedly said, in the Department of Energy, what we’re trying to do is diversify our energy supply for transportation so that we have cost-effective means.”
> 
> Chu specifically cited a reported breakthrough announced Monday by Envia Systems, which received funding from DOE’s ARPA-E, that could help slash the price of electric vehicle batteries.
> 
> He also touted natural gas as “great” and said DOE is researching how to reduce the cost of compressed natural gas tanks for vehicles.
> High gasoline prices will make research into such alternatives more urgent, Chu said.
> 
> “But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.
> 
> “No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,” Chu replied. “We think that if you consider all these energy policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and we’ll help the American economy and the American consumers.”
> The Heritage Foundation jumped all over Chu’s comments:
> 
> As shocking as his remarks are, they shouldn’t come as a surprise. Chu has a long record of advocating for higher gas prices. In 2008, he stated, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Last March, he reiterated his point in an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, noting that his focus is to ease the pain felt by his energy policies by forcing automakers to make more fuel-efficient automobiles. “What I’m doing since I became Secretary of Energy has been quite clear. What I have been doing is developing methods to take the pain out of high gas prices.”
> 
> One of those methods is dumping taxpayer dollars into alternative energy projects like the Solyndra solar plant. Another is subsidizing the purchase of high-cost electric cars like the Chevy Volt to the tune of $7,500 per car (which the White House wants to increase to $10,000). In both cases, those methods aren’t working. Solyndra went bankrupt because its product couldn’t bear the weight of market pressures, and Chevy Volts aren’t selling, even with taxpayer-funded rebates. What’s the president’s next plan? Harvesting “a bunch of algae” as a replacement for oil.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is seemingly doing everything it can to make paying for energy even more painful by refusing to open access to the country’s oil and gas reserves and blocking new projects that would lead to the development of more energy in America. Case in point: the president’s decision to say “no” to the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would have delivered hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil from Canada to Texas refineries, while bringing thousands of jobs along with it.
> 
> And while Chu gave an honest answer that actually matches the actions taken by this administration, Heritage notes that Obama has offered nothing but double-talk on gas prices:
> 
> Sensing impending political fallout from the high cost of gas, President Obama last week spoke on the subject and attempted to deflect blame for the pain. He said that there is no quick fix to high gas prices and the nation cannot drill its way out of the problem, but as Heritage’s Nicolas Loris writes, the president ignored reality and dished out a series of half-truths. Among them, the president claimed oil production is its highest in eight years, that increasing oil production takes too long, and that oil is not enough. Loris writes that while production is up on private lands, unrealized production on federal lands and offshore could have yielded even more output, increasing supply and driving down costs. If the president had said “yes” to Keystone, oil could have reach the market quickly. And as for the president’s push for alternative energy, those sources simply cannot stand the test of the market.
> 
> Even before Chu spilled the beans, Democrats have begun pressing Obama to start taking gas prices seriously:
> 
> Congressional Democrats are ramping up pressure on President Obama to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to prevent rising gas prices from threatening the economy and their election-year prospects.
> 
> They are growing anxious that the price of fuel could reverse their political fortunes, which had been improving due to signs of growth in the economy.
> 
> Republicans have hammered Democrats on the price spike, repeatedly noting that gas prices — now at $3.72 per gallon for regular — have doubled since Obama won the White House.
> 
> I guess Democrats in Congress don’t see this as a feature rather than a bug in Obama’s energy policies.  The RNC came out with a video slamming Obama for high gas prices, but I suspect they’ll be rushing a new video to publication featuring Chu’s “who cares” attitude.  Otherwise, this is a pretty effective 1-minute spot, and it might start showing up on TV broadcasts soon:


----------



## GAP

World's cheapest gas: Top 10 countries
Article Link

While Americans and Europeans  bemoan the cost of gasoline at the pumps, people in some other parts of the world enjoy filling up their tanks cheaply thanks to subsidies provided by wealthy, oil-rich governments. But fuel subsidies tend to benefit the rich (who own motor vehicles) more than the poor. The IMF estimated that 65 percent of the fuel subsidies in Africa benefit the richest 40 percent of households (2010). Only 8 percent of the $410 billion in government fuel subsidies worldwide went to the poorest 20 percent of the population (International Energy Agency - estimates, 2010).

The British insurance firm Staveley Head has released the latest list of the world’s gas pump prices. Here are the 10 cheapest countries on Earth to fill a gas tank.
Countries and information listed on link


----------



## a_majoor

And Rex Murphy on why oil production is so important to Canada and the world:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/17/rex-murphy-oil-sands-are-a-triumph-for-the-human-environment/



> *Rex Murphy: Oil sands are a triumph for the human ‘environment’*
> Rex Murphy  Mar 17, 2012 – 5:55 AM ET | Last Updated: Mar 16, 2012 2:47 PM ET
> 
> I’m lucky to be going to Fort McMurray, Alta. this weekend with colleagues from CBC Radio’s Cross Country Checkup. I have a great wish to see what the green Jeremiahs deem to be the greatest blot on the visage of Mother Gaia, and to meet some of the soulless folk who work there. After all, environmentalists might ask: Who would take a job on a site that threatens the destiny of the planet, except people whose souls have been bought off with oil-company lucre?
> 
> Outside Fort McMurray, it is impossible to escape the furor over the Alberta oilsands. Its product is routinely described, lazily and slanderously, as the dirtiest on the planet. The Premier of Ontario, a province that owes much of its prosperity to its huge automobile industry shivers when he looks at Alberta, mutters about the dark forces of the “petro-dollar,” and implied (until he was scolded and half-recanted) that somehow Ontario’s fretful financial state is Alberta’s fault.
> 
> It’s almost a fantasy disconnect. Dalton Mcguinty can throw billions at General Motors and urge the feds to do the same, all to save the automobile industry. He ignores that four decades or more of Ontario’s prosperity wasn’t founded on windmills: It was based on gas-guzzling cars and trucks.
> 
> Down in the States, Fort MacMurray is the green lobby’s ultimate bogeyman. Environmental groups raise money by attacks on the oilsands. Fort McMurray and the Keystone XL pipeline that would take its bounty south. This rhetoric has even made it into presidential politics. The shameless and high-gloss National Geographic put out a hit-issue deploring the oilsands as the ultimate “polluter.”
> 
> Are Canadians falling for this propaganda, too? The bounty of our country has made us complacent, even smug, about the resource extraction that makes it possible. Canada is at the very forefront of the world’s developed nations. Our schools, hospitals, universities, arts and industries are at the very top of the chain — all because we have the energy to drive an economy that can support these great boons.
> 
> Yet how easily we bite the hand that feeds us. “Environment” has become a narrow, bitterly focussed word turning exclusively on hurts or despoilations of nature, magnifying the slightest alteration or disturbance of “the natural” as an unspeakable sin.
> 
> There is another wider, larger, humane dimension to the environment — larger and more vital than any reference to landscape. That is the human and social element, the business of supplying reasonable support for workers and their families, towns and communities, and ultimately wealth for the entire nation. We owe something, it is true to the rocks and trees. We also owe something to human beings as well.
> 
> In my view, this is the first and deepest justification for Fort Mac and the oil industry. Jobs are essential for the human environment — for a woman’s or a man’s sense of self-reliance and independence. By this, I mean the right to be able to obtain what you need for yourself and your family from what you have honestly earned. Being able, because you are employed, to stay off welfare, to turn aside from handouts — this is good for the environment of human dignity.
> 
> It mightn’t have the smug appeal of a panda face, and you will not see it on the vivid posters of the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but having a job and earning a living is a great thing. Those who have been out of work know what a cruel “environment” that is — an emotional and psychological assault of frightful power. So we should celebrate some of the contributions that the oil sands have already made to the fundamental human environments of so many Canadians.
> 
> I have thought, and thought again, of my own province of Newfoundland, caught in the great calamity of the fisheries’ close-down in the 1990s, and how providential it was that “out West,” an oil economy was booming at the same time. Many Newfoundlanders (and Maritimers) migrated there in a time of real need.
> 
> Great social misery was averted because of the oil boom and Newfoundland’s related offshore developments: Thousands of divorces never happened, thousands of families didn’t break up, thousands of men and women didn’t fall into the trap of depression and worse, which so often attends long-term unemployment — because there was a great oil industry that allowed them the wherewithal to feed their families. It is a great story of modern Confederation: How Alberta, in particular, modified and mitigated the misery of Newfoundland — and other places.
> 
> I can summarize the entire case very simply. The environment is not just what you see on green posters. It is not just sunsets and tall trees. It is also the people living in it. And people need energy, and people need jobs. Projects such as the oilsands, which supplies both in abundance, should be celebrated for its cutting-edge technological and scientific prowess. It is Canada’s great national project for the 21st century. I look forward to the trip.
> 
> National Post
> 
> Rex Murphy offers commentary weekly on CBC TV’s The National, and is host of CBC Radio’s Cross Country Checkup.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an article about energy independence for the USA:

My emphasis added
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/features/taking-stock/saudi-america-heads-for-energy-independence/article2373074/


> ‘Saudi America’ heads for energy independence
> 
> BRIAN MILNER
> 
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> Published Sunday, Mar. 18, 2012
> 
> Now that the U.S. economy is showing signs of life after debt, President Barack Obama has decided it’s safe to hold up his administration’s less than stellar economic record as a selling point on the campaign trail. But one big dark cloud still hovers overhead: the steadily rising price of oil in general and gasoline in particular.
> 
> Oil prices are plainly headed in the wrong direction for an economy still in the early stages of recovery and reliant on energy imports. Benchmark Brent crude closed in on $125 (U.S.) a barrel Friday, a hike of more than 30 per cent so far this year.
> 
> But what really scares sitting politicians in an election year are sharp jumps at the pumps. U.S. retail gasoline prices rose again last week, to a national average of $3.83 a gallon, an increase of more than 55 cents so far this year. In half a dozen states, including politically important California and New York, the price is already north of $4. Canadians would be delighted to be paying the equivalent of only slightly more than $1 a litre. But Americans are fuming.
> 
> The good news for President Obama and his brain trust is that these price trends won’t continue.
> 
> “What we’ve had is a tight [oil] market,” says economist Philip Verleger Jr., who has devoted much of his long career to digging deep below the surface of oil and other commodity markets. “I think it is in the process of unwinding.”
> 
> Mr. Verleger, who recently recommended that the U.S. government release oil from its strategic reserves to ratchet up pressure on Iran, dismisses that country’s threats to disrupt Mideast shipments. He also notes that U.S. gasoline consumption has been falling at an accelerating clip – 5.5 per cent in January from a year earlier, 7 per cent in February and probably more than that in March.
> 
> The U.S. really behaves like three different countries when it comes to oil – the East Coast, West Coast and the vast middle, which he calls “Saudi America”, stretching from the Appalachians in the east to Utah in the west. “ ‘Saudi America’ is moving very quickly to energy independence,” says Mr. Verleger, president of Colorado-based research firm PKVerleger LLC. Refiners in the midwest have more gasoline than they know what to do with. “By summertime, a wall of gasoline is going to be working down the Mississippi, pushing on refiners down there.”
> 
> All of which will ease pressure at the pump.
> 
> But even bigger changes in the market lie just down the road. That’s because the U.S. is in the midst of a remarkable transformation that will end its dependence on foreign imports, including Canadian oil, much faster than anyone realizes and give its manufacturers a huge comparative advantage over competitors from China and other high-cost energy markets.
> 
> Mr. Verleger has circled November, 2023, as the magic date, exactly 50 years after then president Richard Nixon called for the U.S. to meet all its own energy needs by 1980. Now, the shale gas explosion and increased production from offshore and unconventional oil sources in the U.S. heartland are turning the impossible dream into reality.
> 
> “It is a very good news story for the [U.S.] economy, leaving the [presidential] campaign aside,” says Mr. Verleger, who retired last year as a professor of strategy at the University of Calgary. “And it’s a good news story for Canada, if you respond quickly and realize the best thing that ever happened [to the industry] was Keystone getting delayed.”
> 
> The U.S. Midwest is awash in crude and natural gas supplies, “so what are we going to do with the Canadian oil? The smartest thing the Canadians could do is take a look at the rapidly changing energy situation in the United States and realize that what you’re doing is pumping oil into the middle of the United States and it’s just going to sit here. We could have a situation of $1 a gallon gasoline in Houston and $5 a gallon in New York City. And there’s no way for the stuff to get out [of the country]. We don’t have any export ports.”
> 
> The solution for Canada: Expand the necessary pipeline and port capacity and steer the production to Asian markets. But in the meantime, “we’ll keep seeing the Canadian exports coming into the U.S. market, because they have no place else to go. What’s going to happen is that the price gap between U.S. and world prices is just going to get wider and wider and wider.”
> 
> Getting back to the here and now, the world market has faced a series of disruptions in recent months, including lost output from Nigeria, the bankruptcy filing of Europe’s biggest refiner, PetroPlus, and the surprising fallout from the European Union’s decision to impose sanctions on Iranian oil.
> 
> The actual oil embargo doesn’t take effect until July and is expected to have minimal impact on the global market – and even less, if the U.S. taps the surplus in its strategic reserves. But the sanctions have already taken a big chunk of the world’s tanker fleet out of the market, because operators can no longer obtain the costly insurance they need from European underwriters to cover cargos of Iranian crude, even if they pick up the oil in Egypt, where it is shipped via pipeline.
> 
> Traders have been scrambling to locate other supplies since the curbs went into effect in January, while major Asian importers continue lobbying the EU for an exemption. It’s far more serious than any Iranian military threat, Mr. Verleger says. “The sanctions on the insurance side are really a big deal.”




Don't fuss about _Keystone_, it's a sideshow for US political consumption; the _Northern Gateway_ pipeline is the one that matters and it's the one upon which we, Canadians, need to focus our attention.


----------



## a_majoor

For people like you and I looking to ease the pain of high prices while still being able to get around, automakers are now on the verge of releasing three cylinder engines to the North American market:

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-autos-three-cylinders-20120317,0,4405998.story?track=lat-pick



> *Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big thing*
> Car companies are beginning to test the U.S. market for three-cylinder engines, which offer better mileage and more power than in the past.
> 
> By Jerry Hirsch, Los Angeles Times
> 
> March 16, 2012, 6:01 p.m.
> 
> Imagine a car that gets more than 40 miles per gallon in everyday traffic and 50 on the highway — and it isn't an expensive hybrid and it doesn't require special fuel.
> 
> Get ready for a new generation of cars equipped with surprisingly powerful three-cylinder engines that, according to early reviews out of Europe, have both the zip and zoom Americans expect in the four-cylinder compact sedans they buy today.
> 
> "This engine is a game-changer," Steve Cropley of Autocar magazine, a British publication, said of the three-cylinder Ford Focus that just went on sale in Europe. "You barely hear the thing start, and it idles so smoothly you'd swear it had stalled."
> 
> Better yet for power enthusiasts, "this lean upstart makes some bigger engines look puny," wrote Phil McNamara of Car, another British magazine.
> 
> Automakers are starting to test the waters for how such vehicles will sell in the U.S. market. Ford Motor Co. said it will have a three-cylinder Focus or Fiesta for sale here by the middle of next year. Mitsubishi plans to launch a compact car with a three-cylinder engine sometime in 2013.
> 
> BMW, known for its full-throttle, throaty engines, is developing a three-cylinder power plant that could show up in its U.S. offerings in three to five years. Volkswagen and Nissan also are working with three-cylinder engines, but there's no word on whether or when they will hit the U.S. market.
> 
> Automakers are proceeding cautiously because previous efforts to pack tiny engines in cars for the U.S. market mostly sputtered.
> 
> In the 1990s, Suzuki sold the Swift, and General Motors Corp. sold its version of the same vehicle under the Chevrolet Metro and Geo Metro names. While the cars' fuel economy was among the best in the industry, drivers complained that they were noisy and struggled going uphill.
> 
> The Smart Fortwo is the only three-cylinder car still being sold in the U.S., but it's not a popular model. It is a tiny two-seater without much power. And because it requires premium gas, its fuel economy, at least as measured by how much money is spent on gas annually, is only slightly better than that of much larger vehicles with far stronger four-cylinder engines, such as the Honda Civic and Hyundai Elantra.
> 
> To be attractive to today's drivers, any vehicles with such small engines must be sure "not to compromise performance or fuel economy," said Rebecca Lindland, an analyst with IHS Automotive.
> 
> That's why automakers are packing more power — as measured by horsepower and torque — into these new engines.
> 
> The car companies are encouraged by how quickly Americans have downsized from larger engines to four-cylinder power plants. Almost half, or 47%, of the cars sold last year had four cylinders, according to auto information company Edmunds.com. That's up from 34% in 2007. Many small sport utilities, and even some larger ones such as the Ford Explorer, also come in four-cylinder models.
> 
> "Three cylinders shouldn't be much of a stretch," said Dave Sullivan, manager of product analysis for automotive consulting firm AutoPacific Inc.
> 
> Downsizing engines is part of an auto industry strategy to meet federal fuel economy standards that require the combined industrywide fleet to average 34.1 mpg by the 2016 model year, and a proposed 54.5 mpg by 2025.
> 
> Because of the way the Environmental Protection Agency calculates fuel economy for the window stickers on new vehicles, any vehicle that has a fuel economy of more than 37 mpg in combined driving probably will meet the 2025 standard.
> 
> "Everything is on the table right now with the new fuel economy standards," said Monty Roberts, a BMW spokesman.
> 
> Ford's tiny gas-sipper has the footprint of a laptop computer.
> 
> The new 1.0-liter EcoBoost three-cylinder — the smallest engine Ford has ever built — is turbocharged and patterned on the same technology used in much bigger vehicles, including Ford's F-150 pickup truck. The engine will pack 100 to 125 horsepower, depending on the configuration. British drivers will pay about $400 extra for the engine over the base five-door Focus.
> 
> Its horsepower and torque outputs are equivalent to or better than many 1.6-liter, four-cylinder engines now on the market, said Derrick Kuzak, Ford group vice president of global product development.
> 
> Both Ford and BMW are said to be developing even more powerful three-cylinders — engines that could pack upward of 150 ponies, making them stronger than many of the four-cylinders that come in cars today.
> 
> Ford is shipping two of the three-cylinder Focus models to its Dearborn headquarters, where next month the North American marketing team will start to evaluate how U.S. drivers might view the car. Engineers will review technical aspects, looking to see what modifications might need to be made.
> 
> Engine sound will be one of the things engineers will be sure to consider as they ready the new three-cylinder engines for the U.S. market, said Sullivan of AutoPacific. Small engines can sound tiny and cheap to some American consumers. BMW and Ford's Lincoln division are both using the internal audio systems of vehicles to enhance engine sound in larger vehicles.
> 
> "This could be used on a three-cylinder engine to make it sound like an inline four-cylinder engine or a V-6 via the speakers in the car," Sullivan said. "If you could offer a 175 HP inline three that sounds like a V-6, would you buy it?"


----------



## a_majoor

This could equally be posted on the "Making Canada Relevant economic superthread" or the US Economy (or Election 2012) threds as well. Removing perverse incentives from the marketplace will do far more to affect fossil fuel prices than anything the government can do:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/category/fp-comment/



> *Lawrence Solomon: Free global gas prices*
> Lawrence Solomon  Mar 23, 2012 – 9:39 PM ET | Last Updated: Mar 23, 2012 9:45 PM ET
> 
> There is a silver bullet for lowering gas prices: a return to a free market in gasoline.
> 
> The Republican presidential candidates blame high gasoline prices on President Obama’s failure to approve the Keystone XL pipeline and to drill drill drill. Obama blames Iran for heightening tensions in the Mideast, touts alternative energy, and claims no silver bullet can lower gas prices.
> 
> Both sides have a case but both come up short. There actually is a silver bullet, and it would lower gas costs by more than either imagines, for the U.S. and the rest of the industrialized world. The silver bullet is a free market in gasoline, something that was abandoned almost a century ago, when the auto industry convinced governments to finance roads through a gasoline tax, and something that subsequent government interventions have further distorted. A return to a free market would not only dramatically raise the supply of gasoline, as the Republicans claim, but would also reduce the demand, as many Democrats desire. The combination of higher supply and lower demand would whiplash gasoline prices downward.
> 
> Step one in restoring a free market in gasoline is removing its punishing taxes — levies of about 40¢ per gallon in the U.S. over and above the sales taxes that normally apply and much more in Canada and Europe. The road-building rationale for these extraordinary taxes will soon be ending in any case, both because governments now realize that they won’t be able to raise enough money in future through gas taxes to meet motorists’ needs and because modern toll road technology allows for true user fees for roads, based on the specific costs of using specific roads. When consumers pay for their gasoline at the pump, they should be charged the market price for gasoline, no more no less.


----------



## a_majoor

While the current prices are quite steep ($1.31/l today in Pet), the longer term veiw is promising. Sadly, political rather than physical or technical considerations are distorting the market, so supply and demand have not been able to be reconsiled and prices adjusted to reflect. The longer term political and strategic picture also looks more promising, as an era of relatively cheap and abundent energy should increase prosperity and lower tensions around the world:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/03/30/lawrence-solomon-a-world-awash-in-oil/



> *Lawrence Solomon: A world awash in oil*
> Lawrence Solomon  Mar 30, 2012 – 10:32 PM ET | Last Updated: Mar 30, 2012 11:22 PM ET
> 
> Comments Email Twitter
> inShare
> 
> 
> 
> Middle East will go back to being an obscure backwater
> 
> Today, the Middle East is in the news daily — we hear of strife in Syria, in Iran, in Israel and Palestine. Ten or 20 years from now, conflicts in the Middle East will count for less in the world’s scheme of things, just as the daily conflicts that now occur in Africa get short shrift, despite Africa’s far greater loss of life. Twenty years from now, the Middle East could be about as important as it was at the turn of the previous century — before its oil was discovered — which was not very important at all.
> 
> The Middle East will attract scant attention in future, not because the region will have run out of oil — it will have found much more — but because the rest of the world will also be awash in oil. As supplies increase, oil depreciates in price, as does the political value of its purveyors.
> 
> To see the future of oil, consider the present of natural gas. Until recently, many thought the West was running out of gas — most of the easily accessible natural gas finds were being depleted, making the West reliant on ever more distant, ever more difficult reserves to exploit. The U.S., the world’s biggest natural gas importer, began to build ports to receive liquefied natural gas from distant continents in the expectation that it couldn’t import enough from Canada and Mexico.
> 
> Then everything flipped. New technologies emerged to extract gas from shale and other rock formations. Because these so-called unconventional technologies — fracking is the best known among them — proved cheaper than obtaining gas from the harder-to-find “conventional” sources, and because shale gas is plentiful, the unconventional became the norm. Thanks to fracking, the U.S. has suddenly become the world’s largest producer of natural gas, creating a massive glut that has more than halved the price of natural gas. Those liquefied natural gas ports that the U.S. was building to import gas will now be used to export gas.
> 
> A glut will soon also materialize in Europe, another major natural gas importer, where massive finds of shale gas in the U.K., in France, in Poland, in Ukraine and elsewhere will be slashing the cost of energy. So too with China and other major energy importers — the world is now awash in shale gas and will remain so for many decades, if not centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> The oil story is following a script similar to that of natural gas, with “unconventional” sources of oil overtaking distant, harder-to-exploit conventional sources. Until recently, “unconventional” mostly meant oil from Canada’s plentiful tar sands, which made Canada the single largest supplier to the oil-dependent U.S. No longer. Unconventional now also means shale oil and oil from other rock formations, much of it in the U.S., which has by far the world’s largest store of shale oil. The U.S. has become the world’s fastest growing oil and gas producer, it will soon be self-sufficient in oil and it is already a net petroleum product exporter.
> 
> China, another major importer, may also become an exporter, given that it has the world’s second-largest store of shale oil. All told, some 38 countries in every continent in the world have 4.8 trillion barrels of shale oil, making oil a ubiquitous commodity that gives every region of the world the wherewithal to be energy self-sufficient.
> 
> With the world awash in oil and gas, and Western nations no longer dependent on the energy exporting countries of the Muslim Middle East, the countries of the Middle East will revert to being seen as exotic and backward curiosities in the eyes of Westerners, as they have been through most of the last 500 years. Accelerating this diminution in status will be a likely collapse in oil prices.
> 
> Although shale oil technology is still in its infancy, much of the U.S. shale oil can be developed inexpensively, at a cost comparable to the US$50 to US$60 per barrel cost of tar sands, which has itself been dropping. The trend down in shale oil costs is likely to continue over the coming years. Israel, which has some 250-billion barrels in one basin near Jerusalem alone, an amount comparable to Saudi Arabia’s reserves, expects to develop its oil at a cost of US$35 to US$40 per barrel. Should the world price of oil drop to this level — which happens to be the average price over the last two decades — the halving in oil prices will have mirrored that of natural gas. In the process, today’s Middle East energy exporters will have been bankrupted and their autocrats ousted.
> 
> Saudi Arabia, for example, now depends on petroleum for 80% of its budget, 45% of its GDP and 90% of its export earnings. A dramatic decrease in oil revenues would render the next generation of Saudi rulers incapable of maintaining the lavish payments needed to appease the Saudi clerics, let alone the social welfare payments that have kept the Saudi populace at bay, such as the US$130-billion in instant benefits conferred upon Saudi citizens last year to tamp down dissent during the Arab Spring. This artificial country, carved out of the Ottoman Empire after World War I by the British and given to the Saudi clan, would then likely break up, to once again be ruled along tribal lines. But few in the West would then take much notice.


----------



## a_majoor

Cheap energy is the result of the application of thought, and economic growth, while immensely accelerated by cheap energy, is a result of the application of clear thought to problems:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/05/10/the-end-of-thought/



> *The end of thought?*
> Special to Financial Post  May 10, 2012 – 10:50 PM ET | Last Updated: May 10, 2012 10:51 PM ET
> 
> Jeff Rubin forgets that knowledge, not cheap oil, brings growth
> 
> By Philip Cross
> 
> Jeff Rubin is the kind of guy I want to like. He made a remark in 2005 about sheiks and mullahs controlling oil supplies that provoked his handlers at CIBC, where he was chief economist for 20 years, to send him on a course to heighten his sensitivity and political correctness. If my former employers at Statistics Canada had been nearly as skittish, I could have spent much of my 36 years there taking courses. Anyway, the course apparently had its desired effect on Rubin, as his new book on The End of Growth is as politically correct as it gets when it comes to decrying our addiction to autos and suburbs, our indifference to climate change, and ultimately our grubby materialism.
> 
> This book is an extension of his previous work, in which he predicted high oil prices were here to stay, and would fundamentally alter how and where we live and work. In this book, he extends this thesis to claim that permanently high oil prices will permanently cripple economic growth. The book notes that this may not be all bad, since the end of growth would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, although I think for most people that would not take the sting out of being unemployed. We are told the end of growth may even be good, since some studies supposedly have found happiness and incomes are not closely linked. Whenever I hear that argument, I recall the saying, “People who don’t think money can buy happiness don’t know where to shop.”
> 
> For an economist, Rubin displays a distressing lack of knowledge of how economics works, something surprisingly common in the profession. He repeatedly says the way to discourage energy consumption is to raise its price, which would be true if price was the only relevant variable. But look at the data on gasoline consumption by Canadians. Even as the price of filling up the tank rose over the last decade to record levels, Canadians kept buying more gasoline. Why? Because they could afford it, partly because the plunging cost of heating homes with natural gas capped the total energy bill to households and mostly because incomes rose.
> 
> This income effect, as economists call it, also explains why global oil consumption has risen steadily over the last decade. China, India and other rapidly developing countries can afford higher oil prices, which they regard as a small price to pay for their rapid economic growth. Indeed, it is this very acceleration in oil consumption that has sustained higher oil prices. While supply has risen, notably with the expansion of Canada’s oil sands, it has struggled to keep up with demand. Energy consumption fell only in countries like the U.S. at the worst of their recessions, because the impact of shrinking jobs and incomes reinforced, rather than offset, the impact of higher prices.
> 
> Rubin’s almost exclusive focus on high oil prices ignores falling prices for other types of energy, notably shale gas, and the opportunities for substitution. What scares me about the high price of oil today (and not all oil prices are in triple digits) is not its impact on economic growth, but the arbitrage opportunities it creates, both within the market for oil and between oil and other sources of energy. This is why you can’t open a business paper without reading a story about new pipelines to move lower-priced oil from the interior of North America to the higher-priced peripheries, or about converting coal-fired power plants to natural gas, or about using natural gas in vehicles. Rubin claims “a magical new power source isn’t waiting in the wings to solve Japan’s energy problems.” Don’t tell that to companies trying to build liquefied natural gas terminals on the B.C. coast to ship our cheap gas at $2 per million BTU to Asia, where it trades for $16. Sounds like magic to me.
> 
> Historically, the high price of a once-dominant energy source did not lead to the end of economic growth, but to the shift to new and ultimately cheaper energy sources.  When Britain began to run out of wood as its primary energy source, it developed its coal resources. When coal prices soared in the mid-19th century, leading to what today would be called Peak Coal and the inevitable Royal Commission into coal’s prospects, the world miraculously discovered petroleum. And then we developed electricity, gas and nuclear power as new energy sources. The rule is that cheaper energy will drive out more costly alternatives. If that happens before we can fully exploit the oil sands, the Athabasca region will revert to being a desolate landscape of interest only to moose and the occasional trapper, forgotten by the environmentalists who are so determined to slow its development.
> 
> More than its shaky analysis of energy prices and supplies, the bigger problem with The End of Growth is Rubin’s lack of understanding of the ultimate sources of economic growth. Economic growth took off over the last couple of centuries not because of cheap oil but because of the rapid increase in the exchange and creative use of knowledge. As Matt Ridley concluded in The Rational Optimist, “a billion pages of knowledge make up the book of human prosperity.” Of course, one of the first areas where we applied this knowledge was finding new energy sources to lower its price, and we’ll undoubtedly do that again.
> 
> But more fundamentally, economic growth comes from exchanging our knowledge and extending it to new areas, notably technology. The owner of one of today’s cellphones has access to better mobile communications than the president of the United States had 25 years ago, and if it is a smartphone, more information than the president had access to 15 years ago. The low and falling cost of communicating ideas and information by mobile phones, the Internet and satellite are stimulating growth more than it is being deterred by the cost of moving people and things.
> 
> The role of knowledge in economic growth is so paramount that predicting The End of Growth is tantamount to predicting The End of Thought. After reading this book, maybe we are closer to the latter than I imagined possible. Keep me away from courses that heighten sensitivity but dull the ability to do sound economic analysis.
> 
> Financial Post
> Philip Cross is the former chief economic ­analyst at Statistics Canada.


----------



## a_majoor

If this is true, this single formation has the potential to crash world oil prices. This can have positive effects (marginalizing the Middle East and cutting off major revenue sources to Russia and other hostile nations), as well as negative effects (Canada's multi billion dollar investment in the Oil sands will have been effectively negated, and our reliance on oil revenues will also negatively impact the Canadian economy until substitute areas are developed). Since the formation is mostly under Federal lands, it is off limits for exploration under the current Administration, but a future administration can open it for exploration at the stroke of a pen (and the markets will react with astonishing speed):

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/we-are-swimming-in-oil.php



> *We Are Swimming In Oil*
> 
> America has more fossil fuel resources than any other nation. Russia is second, Saudi Arabia is third. On Thursday, a representative of the Government Accountability Office testified before the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment that the Green River Formation alone–it is located at the intersection of the states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, and mostly underlies federal lands–contains as much oil as the entire proven reserves of the rest of the world combined. America is uniquely blessed in its energy resources. Two questions remain: 1) will Obama finally abandon his moronic two percent claim, and 2) will Obama, in a possible second term, block the development of the resources that can assure America's economic supremacy for generations?


----------



## brihard

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If this is true, this single formation has the potential to crash world oil prices. This can have positive effects (marginalizing the Middle East and cutting off major revenue sources to Russia and other hostile nations), as well as negative effects (Canada's multi billion dollar investment in the Oil sands will have been effectively negated, and our reliance on oil revenues will also negatively impact the Canadian economy until substitute areas are developed). Since the formation is mostly under Federal lands, it is off limits for exploration under the current Administration, but a future administration can open it for exploration at the stroke of a pen (and the markets will react with astonishing speed):
> 
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/we-are-swimming-in-oil.php



Thucydides,

In short, no it doesn't have that potential.

Green River is a shale oil formation, like the Bakken formations in Alberta/Sask/Montana/North Dakota, or the Devonian-Mississippi in the eastern U.S. Shale oil is more expensive to develop than conventional oil plays. It's subject to a great deal of scrutiny and environmental lobbying, and there are technological and political risks that make it a riskier capital investment than conventional oil plays. As a result, it's not economically viable below certain per barel prices. Further, these plays take a long time to prove, to develop, and to bring online. Only sustained high oil prices allow a permissive environemnt in which to attract investment capital.  It's really not dissimilar in the larger sense form the oil sands. 

If a president made the 'stroke of a pen' tomorrow, we _might_ see meaningful production in eight to ten years. And production would only expand at a rate sufficient to keep oil prices pretty much steady.


----------



## FSTO

Brihard said:
			
		

> Thucydides,
> 
> In short, no it doesn't have that potential.
> 
> Green River is a shale oil formation, like the Bakken formations in *Alberta*/Sask/Montana/North Dakota, or the Devonian-Mississippi in the eastern U.S. Shale oil is more expensive to develop than conventional oil plays. It's subject to a great deal of scrutiny and environmental lobbying, and there are technological and political risks that make it a riskier capital investment than conventional oil plays. As a result, it's not economically viable below certain per barel prices. Further, these plays take a long time to prove, to develop, and to bring online. Only sustained high oil prices allow a permissive environemnt in which to attract investment capital.  It's really not dissimilar in the larger sense form the oil sands.
> 
> If a president made the 'stroke of a pen' tomorrow, we _might_ see meaningful production in eight to ten years. And production would only expand at a rate sufficient to keep oil prices pretty much steady.



Actually Bakken is partially located in Manitoba not Alberta.


----------



## a_majoor

While it is true that there are technical reasons to expect production from shale oil plays to be slow, the forward markets will react with extreme speed. President George W Bush signed an executive order opening up drilling in 2008 which collapsed the price of oil within five months, despite the fact there was no appreciable production due to new drilling during that time frame.

The reason which will trump other all other factors is American domestic politics. With the current US economy essentially stagnant, low workforce participation and 10% unemployment (U3), developing the formation would provide a desperately needed economic boost to any Administration. Coupled to that is the bonanza in oil royalties once the play is developed, which would put a huge dent in the $15 trillion + debt. Restoring finances and the AAA credit rating of the United States will also pay long term political dividends.

There will be considerable political pressure to develop the formation, and regardless of who wins this election, I think it will more than overcome the pressure from "Green" crony capitalists and environmental groups.


----------



## brihard

FTSO, sorry- you're right. The Exshaw formation's been dubbed the 'Alberta Bakken' due to the similarities, but you're correct that they're distinct.

Thucydides- I agree that these formations will be developed. I'm not so sure that we'll see a crash in oil futures prices. Bush's lifting of the offshore drilling ban opened up development of conventional offshore oil that was not dependent on high prices to be feasible. Permitting unconventional/tight oil plays would simply be a first step. Those plays would not be economical if oil prices dropped precipitously; consequently there's no impetus for a crash in oil prices. Such a crash would in and of itself eliminate the market conditions making such increased production and secure domestic supply possible in the first place. There may be a slight drop in price, but nothing precipitous.


----------



## DBA

Brihard said:
			
		

> FTSO, sorry- you're right. The Exshaw formation's been dubbed the 'Alberta Bakken' due to the similarities, but you're correct that they're distinct.
> 
> Thucydides- I agree that these formations will be developed. I'm not so sure that we'll see a crash in oil futures prices. Bush's lifting of the offshore drilling ban opened up development of conventional offshore oil that was not dependent on high prices to be feasible. Permitting unconventional/tight oil plays would simply be a first step. Those plays would not be economical if oil prices dropped precipitously; consequently there's no impetus for a crash in oil prices. Such a crash would in and of itself eliminate the market conditions making such increased production and secure domestic supply possible in the first place. There may be a slight drop in price, but nothing precipitous.



Oil sands, oil shale etc while more expensive than a lot of conventional production is still in the $30-$40/barrel range which provides solid profit even if oil drops to $50-$60/barrel. Add in less risk of getting tangled in regional wars (middle east) or nationalizations (South America) and it's a pretty solid investment to hedge against riskier and potentially more profitable production sites.


----------



## a_majoor

An interesting analysis on how these new energy plays are affecting Canada. The endless regulatroy purgatory of the McKenzie valley pipeline project may now end because US Shale gas has collapsed the price of natural gas. Notice what has happened to the Trans Canada pipeline (although it may now be converted to move oil from the oil sands).

If this is causing such turmoil in Canada, imagine the changes happening throughout the world as unconventional plays are brought on line and traditional markets get upended:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/05/30/peter-foster-energys-better-mousetrap/



> *Peter Foster: Energy’s better mousetrap*
> Peter Foster  May 30, 2012 – 7:36 PM ET
> 
> Shale gas boom results from reducing restrictions on the private sector
> 
> Government energy strategies are described as “road maps to the future.” They usually wind up speeding dead-end technologies into the cul-de-sac where they belong, while the private sector builds better mousetraps up unanticipated paths. This truism is confirmed as government-backed wind and solar industries flag, while unconventional gas production booms.
> 
> The International Energy Agency this week confirmed that unconventional gas has implications that reflect its technology of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking:” They are earth-shattering. According to the IEA’s chief economist, Fatih Birol, who spoke on the release of a new IEA report, Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas: “Unconventional gas will fracture the status quo, and will be a complete game-changer with major geopolitical implications.”
> 
> The IEA released its first golden age of gas report almost a year ago. This version appears aimed at burnishing the IEA’s credentials as a paid-up member of the UN/NGO sustainability cabal, stressing that new gas producers need “social licence.”
> 
> In fact, no rules could satisfy environmental radicals, who are less than delighted at the prospect of a new fossil-fuel bonanza just as their climate crusade is foundering. One might imagine that the green warmists would be happy with the reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions attached to the gas revolution. Gas-fired plants have half the emissions of coal-fired units. Another recent IEA report found that the U.S.’s rapid switch to unconventional gas had led to a fall of 450 million tons of carbon-dioxide emissions in the past five years, more than in any other country. However, a key part of the radical Agenda is that all forms of fossil fuels are evil (even more so their corporate facilitators).
> 
> Green radicals have sought to stir hysteria about the potential dangers of fracking via the usual biblical shopping list, warning of earthquakes and flaming tap water, but the audience for catastrophism seems to be in decline.
> 
> The IEA sings from the catastrophist hymnal, but still projects that fossil fuels will dominate global energy supply for decades to come. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Annual Energy Outlook recently also projected that Mr. Obama’s “energies of the future” would climb — over the next quarter-century — from 7% of U.S. energy supply (less than the early 1980s) to a whopping 11%. Fossil fuels will still account for 77%.
> Advertisement
> 
> According to the IEA golden gas report, as global production of unconventional gas (mainly from shale, but also coal-bed methane and other “tight” forms) triples, to 1.6 trillion cubic feet by 2035, natural gas will become the world’s No. 2 energy source after oil, accounting for a quarter of total energy demand.
> 
> Such technological innovation does not come without turmoil for the private sector. The gas boom has led to a collapse in North American prices and threatens existing infrastructure, in particular TransCanada Corp.’s giant west-to-east pipeline system. This government-promoted line (which led to the fall of the Liberal government that backed it in the 1950s) was once seen as as much of a “nation-builder” as CP Rail. However, as CP’s board recently discovered, this is not a good time for nation-builders to be resting on their laurels.
> 
> As the Post’s Claudia Cattaneo and Jameson Berkow recently noted, TransCanada’s declining throughput has led to soaring tolls that have angered producers and threaten a “death spiral.” Much cheaper gas is now available from U.S. sources in the Northeast. The shale gas revolution also appears to cement the tombstone over the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, and threaten the further decline of Canada’s once-lucrative U.S. export market.
> 
> Canadian industry has responded with a speed and ingenuity that contrasts dramatically with the policy inertia of jurisdictions such as Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario, which is still dialled into its own wind and solar death spiral. Canadian producers are aggressively seeking liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports via projects such as the Kitimat terminal in B.C. TransCanada has proposed changing at least part of its west-to-east system to oil from natural gas, which would theoretically ease the problem of oil sands production bottled up by lack of conduits. The company has already begun the transition from gas to oil with its proposed Keystone XL line to the Gulf Coast, which for the moment remains embroiled in presidential election politics.
> 
> Although there will be individual losers among companies and projects, the prospect of booming shale-gas supplies and new LNG exports provides a classic example of the overall win-win nature of innovative markets. The revolution will boost depressed prices in North America while lowering them in Asia, but will leave North American consumers with prices well below traditional levels. This means more affordable home heating, cheaper electricity and lower manufacturing costs.
> 
> For those seeking further perspective on the history of regulatory wisdom versus market innovation, it is perhaps worth remembering that 40 years ago Canadian authorities — vociferously supported by energy nationalists — were restricting natural gas exports because they thought we were running out of the stuff. The U.S. faced a supply crisis entirely due to price controls and restrictions on interstate shipping.
> 
> Those who claim that Canada needs a comprehensive energy strategy might note that the most significant policy innovation of the past 35 years has been the abandonment of price controls and trade restrictions, and increased reliance on private innovation and markets. The unconventional gas boom is a wonderful example of the results.


----------



## a_majoor

A vast amount of energy is lost in inefficient conversion process, transmission losses and so on. A 10% gain in efficiency is actually quite huge (consider that most baseline powerplants generate multiple megawatts or even gigawatts of energy). Sadly for the "green" movement, this single action has created more electrical energy than all the current fleets of windmills. Too bad the author is so focused on the "renewables" rather than the nuts and bolts of incentivizing the current fleet of generating stations to be as efficient as possible

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-we-ignore-low-tech-fixes-for-the-climate/2012/06/01/gJQAVUUm7U_blog.html



> Why we ignore low-tech fixes for the climate
> Posted by Brad Plumer at 01:00 PM ET, 06/02/2012 TheWashingtonPost
> 
> Whenever the conversation turns to greening the world’s energy supply, a lot of the ideas tend to emphasize new and futuristic sources of power. Build more wind turbines. Stack up more solar panels. Make sure fresh coal plants don’t get built.
> 
> A climate savior? (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post) But Catherine Wolfram, an economist at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, says that we too often ignore simpler solutions, such as wringing more efficiency out of our existing fossil-fuel and nuclear plants. Many of those power plants, after all, are likely to stick around for decades to come. And there are quite a few minor tweaks that can be made to these plants that can cut greenhouse-gas emissions dramatically — tweaks that can have as much impact as building hordes of new wind farms or solar panels.
> 
> Here’s an example: In a recent column for Bloomberg, Wolfram described what happened in the 1990s after some U.S. states began deregulating their electricity sectors. Utilities sold off their nuclear reactors to private operators. And, Wolfram found in a recent paper with Lucas Davis, electricity output at these newly privatized reactors increased 10 percent compared with those that stayed in the hands of tightly regulated utilities. That small boost in carbon-free power, she notes, “helped offset more greenhouse gas emissions in the 2000s than all of the wind and solar generation in the country combined.”
> 
> How did these nuclear plants magically become so much more effective? It all comes down to incentives. After deregulation, Wolfram told me in a phone interview, plant owners could now make a profit by selling as much electricity as possible on the wholesale market. That gave the owners incentives to make small tweaks like reducing the amount of time that the reactors needed to be shut off for refueling. That involves a lot of tricky organizational maneuvers, and until deregulation, operators rarely felt the need to figure it out.
> 
> And there are all sorts of small tweaks like this that get ignored because of misaligned incentives. Even today, Wolfram notes, many U.S. power plants still don’t have incentives to operate as efficiently as possible. There are many coal plants in the Southeast that are regulated under “cost-of-service” rules, in which power plants can pass their fuel costs onto consumers. That means there’s less reason to operate as efficiently as possible. And a carbon tax wouldn’t necessarily fix this — not if utilities could just pass costs onto consumers.
> 
> Bruce Buckheit, a former EPA official, concurs. He notes that the efficiency of the U.S. coal fired fleet has remained flat since the 1970s. And a variety of research (pdf) suggests that small improvements in operations could boost the overall efficiency of the U.S. coal fleet by as much as 5 percent. (Wolfram, for instance, has found that a coal plant’s efficiency can vary as much as 3 percent depending on the skill of the guy sitting at the controls.) That may not sound like much, says Buchkeit, but spread across hundreds of coal plants, there are real carbon savings to be had here.
> 
> So would more deregulation produce these savings? Perhaps. Another possibility, though, is that the EPA could start regulating carbon emissions from existing fossil-fuel plants — something that remains a possibility after the agency set limits on emissions from new plants this year.
> 
> Meanwhile, Wolfram says, the place where truly significant gains could be had are in China and India. Both countries are building coal plants at a staggering pace, with coal accounting for 70 to 80 percent of their electricity. For the most part, their plants are often newer and more efficient than coal plants in the United States. But plant owners in these countries don’t necessarily have incentives to operate these plants as efficiently as possible.
> 
> “Back-of-the-envelope calculations,” Wolfram estimates, “suggest that improving the fuel efficiency of Chinese coal plants by about 5 percent would offset more carbon emissions than all of the non-hydro renewable energy in the world.”
> 
> That’s a big deal. It won’t, by itself, get carbon emissions low enough to avert severe global warming. We’ll likely still need all those wind turbines and electric cars and other fancy low-carbon technologies that garner all the headlines. But those mundane carbon-belching coal plants and inefficient nuclear plants that will likely stick around for years to come shouldn’t get ignored, either.


----------



## GAP

Israel’s Undersea Gas Bonanza May Spur Mideastern Strife
By Meghan L. O’Sullivan May 21, 2012 6:21 PM CT
Article Link
    
Egypt’s decision last month to stop selling natural gas to Israel could be a harbinger of increasingly confrontational Egyptian-Israeli relations, an indication of a worsening Egyptian economy, or both.

In any case, the end of the arrangement, which provided 40 percent of Israel’s supply, suggests the need for more Israeli creative thinking and assertive diplomacy -- not with Egypt but, counterintuitively, with Turkey and Lebanon.

The Egyptian move would have raised greater concerns just a few years ago than it does today among Israelis, who import 70 percent of natural gas and all of their oil. Then, Israel saw no alternative to a near-complete dependence on other countries to meet its energy needs.

Discoveries of large underwater gas fields in the eastern Mediterranean, however, have changed Israel’s energy prospects almost overnight. In 2009, a consortium of U.S. and Israeli companies discovered the Tamar field about 50 miles off the Israeli coast, with an estimated 8.3 trillion cubic feet of gas. A year later, a similar consortium discovered Leviathan, a huge field nearby estimated to hold 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Strategic Game-Changers

These finds, and the prospect of more in adjacent waters, could be strategic game-changers for Israel. A 2010 U.S. Geological Survey study estimated that the Levant Basin off the coast of Syria, Lebanon, Israel and the Gaza Strip could hold about 1.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil, 122 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas and 5 billion barrels of natural gas liquids. If true, Israel could meet its own electricity needs in the future and possibly become a net exporter to a gas-thirsty region. This would bring economic and political benefits as well as regional clout at a time when Israel’s regional standing is more uncertain than it has been for decades.

But, because nothing is simple in the Middle East, there is also a real threat that these gas discoveries could serve as a spur for conflict rather than economic growth. The Tamar and Leviathan discoveries are generally accepted to fall within Israel’s exclusive economic zone in the Mediterranean, although Lebanon originally insisted that Leviathan crosses into its waters. Exploration continues, and it could be only a matter of time before a field is discovered straddling contested boundaries.

Imagine a scenario in which a new field is found in Israeli waters but bleeds into the 330-square-mile disputed area where Israel and Lebanon’s claimed economic zones overlap. It could also run into Cypriot territorial waters. Suddenly, the world could face a situation in which Turkey insists that the field not be developed until the problem of a divided Cyprus is resolved, while Hezbollah threatens to take military action against what it sees as an Israeli effort to commandeer Lebanese national resources. (In December 2010, Hezbollah stated that it wouldn’t allow Israel to “plunder Lebanon’s maritime assets.”) The U.S. would be pulled in two directions -- one by its NATO ally Turkey, the other by Israel. 
More on link


----------



## a_majoor

Israel is already working quietly with Greece and Cyprus in planning the exploitation and use (including exports) of this discovery. Some of this information may be found in the "No Oil" superthread.


----------



## GAP

Then that's where that post should be...I'll contact a mod...


----------



## a_majoor

Diane Francis on how the new face of natural gas is going to affect Canada. Our "energy superpower" status may be in doubt if natural gas (especially frcked shale gas) and liquid fuels processed from natural gas (using evolved versions of the FT process, also pioneered by Shell) displaces petrolium as a fuel source for surface transport as suggested here. Vast amounts of fracked natural gas has already cut Canadian gas export sales. Moving truck traffic, trains, and possibly shipping to these kinds of fuel could put a huge dent in the demand for oil. Canada's oil patch might be headed for rough times:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/06/08/shell-is-changing-the-energy-game-and-in-a-big-way/



> *Shell is changing the energy game — and in a big way*
> Diane Francis  Jun 8, 2012 – 3:07 PM ET
> 
> This week, Royal Dutch Shell PLC began rolling out a strategy that will dramatically change the energy world.
> 
> With revenues larger than the economies of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia combined, Shell is betting big on natural gas to replace oil as the world’s foremost transportation fuel.
> 
> This is the game-changer.
> 
> It was only a handful of years ago when small independent oil companies proved that a technology called fracking worked and was able to blow up deep shale rocks to release natural gas. They sold out to majors who, in turn, sold reserves to super-majors like Shell that have fuel refining and retailing expertise and operations.
> 
> There have been pilot projects involving the use of natural gas, liquefied or compressed, as fuel in trucks, but this week Shell made a big move.
> 
> The giant announced a partnership with an American gas station operator to supply liquefied natural gas (LNG) for heavy-duty trucks at 100 fuelling stations across the U.S. by 2013.
> The company will build LNG plants to service this chain and others that will follow.
> In Canada, Shell has made a similar deal with a truck-fuelling chain along 1,600 kilometers of highway between Fort McMurray and Vancouver. Shell has called this its “Green Corridor project”.
> 
> The liquefied, or frozen, gas is an ideal transport fuel for large trucks and compressed gas for smaller vehicles. Roughly 92% of transportation fuels are petroleum-based, but could be replaced by natural gas, compressed or liquefied. This will take years, but Shell’s move breaks the Catch-22 that has slowed adoption of gas.
> Related
> 
> Gas is greener too and the United States has a glut — one century’s supply of gas at current consumption rates. This, on top of the glut of conventional gas in Canada and the U.S., has driven natural gas prices down to the point where fuel switching makes sense. Shell has made its move because it doesn’t expect a rebound in gas prices anytime soon, and the company’s gas production outpaced oil production in 2012 for the first time in its history.
> 
> The shale gas phenomena is going to primarily impact oil but also the coal industry. Recently, three large power plants in the U.S. announced they will close and generate power from natural gas.
> 
> Eventually, Shell and others will build out a complete infrastructure to offer LNG, and possibly, CNG, to all trucks.
> 
> The use of LNG is limited to big vehicles because the gas must be kept at minus 162 degrees Celsius and only large-scale fuel-ups by big trucks would justify the additional cost of providing special coolers at filling stations.
> 
> Shell is going to roll out this strategy around the world. An LNG initiative in gas-rich Indonesia was just announced by Shell.
> 
> “We see opportunities for a concept like this one in other areas of the world as well,” said Jose-Alberto Lima, Shell’s vice president for LNG and gas sales in the Americas.
> 
> Shale gas deposits exist all over the world, in France, Poland or Ukraine in Europe and in China and Indonesia in Asia.
> 
> Plans are to refine and sell LNG as fuel for trains, ships and to power large engines used in mining or manufacturing. Engines have been developed to run on compressed natural gas (CNG) or LNG. The CNG is used by smaller vehicles and requires thicker fuel tank walls to contain the pressure. But LNG is better for huge trucks. Despite this, some large trucking firms in the U.S. are using CNG in their fleets already.
> 
> The desirability of gas as a transportation fuel has been a crusade for several years by legendary oilman T. Boone Pickens. He has championed natural gas as a means of cleaning up the environment and also eliminating foreign oil imports. And he has lobbied for tax breaks that he believes will lead ordinary motorists to switch to gas from gasoline. President Barack Obama backed Picken’s proposed tax breaks and in January said “we, it turns out, are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.” But the breaks fell victim to election politics and Congress narrowly defeated the tax proposal in March.
> 
> Even so, Shell and others are betting heavily that the breaks will happen and, even if delayed, won’t matter given the long-term price scenario for gas compared with oil. The ramifications of Shell’s initiative, or tax breaks, would not be good news for energy exporters like Canada.
> Shale gas has lowered prices, but in the past five years the large volumes being produced in the U.S. have sliced Canada’s gas exports to the U.S. by half. Worse yet, if gas replaces oil as a fuel too, and its sister-fuel shale oil continues to balloon in production levels, Canada’s oil sands export ambitions may have to be trimmed too.


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting opportunity as Canada and Israel combine forces to develop Israeli oil shale and tight gas. Israeli energy independence would make things more secure for our ally and the outpost of liberal democracy in the Middle East:

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/06/22/canada-moves-to-strengthen-energy-ties-with-israel/?__lsa=ba7381ea



> *Canada moves to strengthen energy ties with Israel*
> Jameson Berkow  Jun 22, 2012 – 4:56 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 22, 2012 5:03 PM ET
> 
> Chris Wattie/Reuters
> “For [Israel], obviously energy security is a critical strategic issue. I think it is for every country, but for them in particular,” Joe Oliver said.
> 
> CALGARY • Canada is looking to strengthen energy ties with Israel in a move that could help the Jewish state alter the balance of oil power in the Middle East.
> 
> Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver left for the country on Friday. His trip will be focused on pitching Canada to his counterparts in government, oil company executives and leading academics as an ideal partner to help Israel develop its newly discovered bounty of unconventional oil and gas.
> 
> “Our presence in energy there, it creates a potential that did not exist before,” Mr. Oliver said in an interview.
> 
> ‘Our presence in energy there, it creates a potential that did not exist before’
> Since its founding six decades ago, multiple failed exploration attempts have led many to conclude the country, just a third larger than Prince Edward Island, was devoid of any significant energy resources.
> 
> But the discovery last year of a field 30 kilometres southwest of Jerusalem estimated by the London-based World Energy Council to contain up to 250 billion barrels of shale oil, together with 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas found offshore, have suddenly put Israel’s name on the energy map. The oil find rivals global oil superpower Saudi Arabia’s 260 billion barrels in proven conventional reserves and was publicly dubbed “the equivalent of Saudi extra-light” by Harold Vinegar, former chief scientist for Royal Dutch Shell.
> 
> At minimum, it could mean energy independence for Israel. The country currently imports nearly its entire oil supply mostly from Russia and the former Soviet bloc. Several times throughout history and as recently as the 2006 Hezbollah conflict, those supplies have been blocked off, spawning fuel shortages.
> 
> “For them, obviously energy security is a critical strategic issue. I think it is for every country, but for them in particular,” Mr. Oliver said. “There has been talk, and this isn’t a prediction, but there has been discussions of them maybe even being an exporter.”
> Canada, meanwhile, has led the development of shale technology, a costly and complex process.
> 
> “There are Canadian companies, Canadian science and technology which might be able to be helpful to them,” Mr. Oliver said.
> 
> Michael Byers, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia who holds the Canada Research Chair in global politics, said the impact to the region would have been far more dramatic had Israel discovered those resources 40 years ago.
> 
> Today, “the most significant impact will be in Israel’s comfort level, [but] that is a significant factor in a dangerous and unpredictable part of the world,” Mr. Byers said.
> 
> A free trade agreement has been in place between Canada and Israel since 1997, though despite subsequent expansions it still lacks provisions for the transfer of services, investment or government procurement. Ottawa first announced plans to “modernize” the agreement in 2010 and Mr. Oliver stressed time is of the essence.
> 
> “In some cases there are contracts that are going to be signed or are being signed as we speak that could leave us out of markets,” he said, adding the global energy picture in 10 years is “going to look very different and we need to stay ahead of the curve.”
> 
> “If we are nimble we could get there in time.”
> 
> Bob Schulz, professor of petroleum land management at the University of Calgary’s Haskayne School of Business, said the possibility of Canadian technology and investment going to Israel “would certainly change the [political] dynamics of the Middle East,” in that energy revenue would give it the means to finance much of its own defence instead of continuing to rely heavily on Western support.
> 
> If the plan is to maximize output, then Mr. Schulz said Canada’s energy producers could face even lower oil prices as a result of the jump in global supply.
> 
> “If I were a producer I’d want to talk to the minister when he got back and try to figure out what Israel’s plans are,” he said.
> 
> With the environmental debate over shale raging in Israel just as hard as it is here, those plans may require more than one state visit to learn.


----------



## Scott

There's a lot of technical knowhow commuting between Canada and Israel, as well as Scotland and Israel, right now. Everyone I have spoken to says their reserves are the real deal.


----------



## a_majoor

The inversion of the "No oil" trope will have some very interesting long term fallout in the global political and economic systems. Some of these will not be to our liking, but best to be prepared:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/07/08/the-energy-revolution-part-one-the-biggest-losers/



> *The Energy Revolution Part One: The Biggest Losers*
> Walter Russell Mead
> 
> Over the past year, we’ve been watching a geopolitical revolution get underway. It’s much bigger and more consequential than the Arab Spring, though the legacy media are giving it much less play. It will rearrange the global chessboard, improving the position of some powers, weakening others. It is a powerful boost to American power, reducing America’s strategic and economic liabilities while adding considerably to its assets. And it dramatically changes the long term outlook for, among other things, the US dollar. In line with Via Meadia‘s policy of trying to focus attention on the most consequential events of the time, we will be following this story as it unfolds, looking at the implications of the shifts now underway for world politics, the US economy, our domestic politics, and the green movement.
> 
> While the chattering classes yammered on about American decline and peak oil, a quite different future is taking shape. A world energy revolution is underway and it will be shaping the realities of the 21st century when the Crash of 2008 and the Great Stagnation that followed only interest historians.  A new age of abundance for fossil fuels is upon us.  And the center of gravity of the global energy picture is shifting from the Middle East to… North America.
> 
> The two biggest winners look to be Canada and the United States. Canada, with something like two trillion barrels worth of conventional oil in its tar sands, and the United States with about a trillion barrels of shale oil, are the planet’s new super giant energy powers. Throw in natural gas and coal, and the United States is better supplied with fossil fuels than any other country on earth. Canada and the United States are each richer in oil than Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia combined.
> 
> Further bolstering America’s new geopolitical edge, the rest of the western hemisphere is also rich in oil. Venezuela is now believed to have more oil that Saudi Arabia, and Brazil’s offshore discoveries make it a significant factor in world oil markets as well.
> 
> China is another winner, though on a smaller scale. China has the second largest shale oil reserves in the world, estimated at about half the size of America’s. This puts China in the Saudi class as well, but given the anticipated growth in China’s economy, its shale oil wealth will reduce but not end its need for energy imports.
> 
> The other important change in the new world energy picture is one I wrote about earlier this week: Israel’s potential emergence as a major oil and gas producer. With trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, and potentially as much as 250 billion barrels of recoverable shale oil, Israel may be on the verge of joining the wealthiest Arab states as a world class energy producer.
> 
> These changes won’t take place overnight, but they are coming faster than many understand. US domestic oil production is up almost half a million barrels a day thanks to North Dakota, and the surge in US natural gas production is already changing international trade patterns. More change will come.
> 
> The Biggest Losers
> 
> If the US, Canada and Israel are the likeliest big winners, the biggest losers in the coming shift will be the Gulf petro-states and Russia. Their Gulf losses aren’t going to be economic; the Gulf  will still have the world’s cheapest oil to produce and so its oilfields will be the most profitable at any given price point.
> 
> Russia, on the other hand, is going to have a harder time. Its oil and gas are more expensive to produce and so Russia’s profit margins are likely to fall.
> 
> But regardless of the simple economic impact, in different ways and different degrees the Gulf countries and Russia are going to lose a lot of the political advantages that their energy wealth now gives them. They will have less ability to restrict supply and to manipulate prices than they have had in the past. Oil and gas are going to be less special when supplies are more abundant and more broadly distributed.
> 
> The unexpected success of the economic sanctions on Iran show how this process works. Rising production in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the United States enabled the world to do something most people would have thought impossible in the golden age of OPEC. Iran’s oil sales have been cut by something like 40 percent even as world crude prices fell. Iran’s Supreme Leader believed that the world needed his oil so much that the US could never get the Europeans and others to agree to serious sanctions. He was like Jefferson Davis in 1860, who believed that Britain and France needed Confederate cotton so badly that they would force the North to recognize Confederate independence.
> 
> The Supreme Leader, like Davis, was wrong. The world survived without Confederate cotton, and the world is surviving with less oil from Iran. In fact, even as Iranian production declined, world oil prices fell.
> 
> What Iran is discovering today, others will feel tomorrow. Since the 1970s, the states on both sides of the Gulf have been central to all kinds of global issues, and the great powers have focused enormous amounts of time and attention on their wants and needs. As the energy revolution proceeds, they won’t completely sink into insignificance (and the US concern to protect the independence of countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the rest won’t disappear), but the days when the world hung on every word that fell from the lips of OPEC are gone.
> 
> More, the political importance of the Gulf derives in part from the intersection of energy politics and national policy in many European countries. In places like Italy, France and Greece, national oil companies have much greater power in national politics than they do in the US. (The US has more oil companies, and there are more corporate and regional interests competing against what the oil companies want.) The ability of the Gulf countries to make or mar the fortunes of foreign oil companies has been an important source of political power for them. This power won’t go away, but it won’t be the same. There are lots of new places to look for oil these days, and with more countries interested in attracting international investment, the balance of power will shift from resource rich countries to firms with the capital and skill to turn those resources into revenue.
> 
> Coming back to Russia, the biggest threat to Moscow’s hopes for rebuilding its power based on energy resources comes from the discovery of huge natural gas reserves under the eastern Mediterranean seabed. Russia can and will do what it can to join in the exploitation of these resources; Greece, Cyprus and Israel are all willing to cooperate with the Russians when it comes to exploitation and processing.
> 
> So Gazprom won’t starve — but it could lose its ability to stop the flow of natural gas into western Europe. New pipelines will be built from Greece north and east and while a friendly Greek government and a strong capital position for Russian companies in the Greek gas business could give Moscow an edge, the Greeks are unlikely to allow Russia to turn Europe’s gas taps on and off at will. Additionally, new terminals on the Atlantic coast will be built to take LNG shipments from the US. As the world gains experience with fracking technology, and the carbon benefits of natural gas as opposed to coal grow more obvious, look for Europe to do more to explore its own considerable potential to develop gas fields. Russia will continue making money selling gas and oil to Europe, but the political consequences of this trade will likely disappoint.
> 
> Another group numbered among the losers: energy states who finance unorthodox economic policies and anti-US foreign policies on the basis of their oil wealth. It will still be easier for the president of Venezuela to thumb his nose at the US and spend money on programs that build up his political strength at home than, say, for the president of Guatemala to do that, but as world energy supplies continue to flow, both the financial and the political benefits of having a lot of oil are going to diminish. Hugo Chavez’ successors are likely going to have to watch their wallets and watch their words a little more closely than the Great Bolivarean has done.
> 
> These changes won’t materialize overnight. We are so far seeing only the first stages of new energy geopolitics. But one way to begin getting your head around the new geopolitics is to think about a world in which Kuwait matters less, and Alberta more.
> 
> Over the next couple of weeks I’ll be coming back to this subject, looking at some other aspects of this big, complicated set of changes coming down the pike: how the change will affect the winners and world politics as a whole, what the environmental and economic consequences are likely to be, and how politics in the US may change.  And going forward, Via Meadia will do its best to follow the energy revolution in the news of the day — keeping an eye both on the progress or the lack of it at bringing the new potential sources online and on the ways world politics shift in response.


----------



## exabedtech

Yes, we have tons of unconventional fossil fuels, but our need to exploit these type of resources speaks loudly to the fact that fossil fuels are finite in nature.  
The question isnt whether or not we will ever reach a point where fossil fuels become so rare that they are no longer economical to produce, but when.

Plenty of crackpots figure peak oil will occur in the next few years if it hasnt already.  I doubt those folks have really factored in the magnitude of oilsands/oilshale, but peak oil still has to occur at some point since the planet isnt producing more of it... or if it is, certainly not at the same rate that we extract it.  Reaching a peak is a mathematical certainty.  Determining when that might happen is pure speculation with some footing in past performance.

If not in the next 50 years, will it be in 100?  200? 1000?  We've been walking this planet for millions of years, using oil for 170 or so years.  I'm no alarmist, but clearly it won't last forever and I don't see anything else out there that is anywhere near ready to take over.


----------



## a_majoor

Walter Russel Mead with Part 2 of his essay on how the new oil bonanza will affect America and the world. Some interesting notes on how he sees the growth of the energy sector as having changed Canada. The energy bonanza is actually such a huge story and covers so many different areas that it could have been posted in the "Grand Strategy for a Divided America" thread, the US Economy thread or the 2012 election thread:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/07/15/energy-revolution-2-a-post-post-american-post/



> *Energy Revolution 2: A Post Post-American Post*
> 
> Walter Russell Mead
> 
> Forget peak oil; forget the Middle East. The energy revolution of the 21st century isn’t about solar energy or wind power and the “scramble for oil” isn’t going to drive global politics. The energy abundance that helped propel the United States to global leadership in the 19th and 2oth centuries is back; if the energy revolution now taking shape lives up to its full potential, we are headed into a new century in which the location of the world’s energy resources and the structure of the world’s energy trade support American affluence at home and power abroad.
> 
> By some estimates, the United States has more oil than Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran combined, and Canada may have even more than the United States. A GAO report released last May (pdf link can be found here) estimates that up to the equivalent of 3 trillion barrels of shale oil may lie in just one of the major potential US energy production sites. If half of this oil is recoverable, US reserves in this one deposit are roughly equal to the known reserves of the rest of the world combined.
> 
> Edward Luce, an FT writer usually more given to tracing America’s decline than to promoting its prospects, cites estimates that as early as 2020 the US may be producing more oil than Saudi Arabia.
> 
> So dramatic are America’s finds, analysts talk of the US turning into the world’s new Saudi Arabia by 2020, with up to 15m barrels a day of liquid energy production (against the desert kingdom’s 11m b/d this year). Most of the credit goes to private sector innovators, who took their cue from the high oil prices in the last decade to devise ways of tapping previously uneconomic underground reserves of “tight oil” and shale gas. And some of it is down to plain luck. Far from reaching its final frontier, America has discovered new ones under the ground.
> 
> Additionally, our natural gas reserves are so large that the US is likely to become a major exporter, and US domestic supplies for hydrocarbon fuels of all types appear to be safe and secure for the foreseeable future. North America as a whole has the potential to be a major exporter of fossil fuels for decades and even generations to come.
> 
> Since the 1970s, pessimism about America’s energy future has been one of the cornerstones on which the decline theorists erected their castles of doom; we are now entering a time when energy abundance will be an argument for continued American dynamism.
> 
> The energy revolution isn’t a magic wand that can make all America’s wishes come true, but it is a powerful wind in the sails of both America’s domestic economy and of its international goals. The United States isn’t the only big winner of the energy revolution — Canada, Israel and China among others will also make gains — but the likely consequences of the energy revolution for America’s global agenda are so large, that the chief effect of the revolution is likely to be its role in shoring up the foundations of the American-led world order.
> 
> I will look at the global consequences for geopolitics and the environment in some upcoming posts, but first things come first and I’d like to look at the domestic consequences of the boom before moving on to its impact on the world.
> 
> Domestically, the energy bonanza changes the American outlook far more dramatically than most people yet realize. This is a Big One, a game changer, and it will likely be a major factor in propelling the United States to the next (and still unknown) stage of development — towards the next incarnation of the American Dream.
> 
> The energy revolution is first and foremost a revolution that affects jobs. We are in the very early stages, but since the financial crisis of 2008, fracking alone has created something like 600,000 new jobs in the United States, says the FT. Throw in more jobs in both extracting and refining the new energy wealth, and add the manufacturing and processing industries that will return to US shores to benefit from cheap, secure and abundant energy and feedstock, and it is clear that the energy revolution will be a jobs revolution.
> 
> These jobs pay well; for the first time in a generation we are looking at substantial growth of high-income jobs for skilled blue collar workers. Some of these jobs, especially with overtime, will pay in the six figures; most offer wages well above the national blue collar average.
> 
> The boom has the potential to change the debate over immigration. The best blue collar jobs in the new oil and gas patches will demand workers with good English language skills and some technical background — good junior colleges and strong vocational high schools will prepare workers for these new jobs. Low skilled, non-English speaking workers will have a hard time competing for these jobs but will work instead in less well paid jobs servicing the energy sector and its workers. They will build houses for the oil workers to live in and staff the restaurants where they eat. As more blue collar native-born Americans see their living standards rise, it is likely that (legal) immigration will lose some of its political salience.
> 
> Towards A New Geography of Power?
> 
> There’s another advantage: these jobs will mostly be located away from the coasts. The hollowing out of Middle America has been one of the tragedies of the last generation. Looking at the depopulation of the northern Great Plains, planners began to speculate about returning large chunks of whole states to the wild: the “Buffalo Commons” idea that would have taken up to 20 million acres out of private hands. The buffalo will have to move over now for the oil rigs and the people who work them; North Dakota will not be reverting to the wild anytime soon.
> 
> But there are large oil and/or gas reserves in other downtrodden areas. Western New York State and much of Pennsylvania and Ohio appear to have commercial quantities of fossil fuel. The revival of the Rustbelt may be getting under way. And Dixie will not lose out: the US share of the Gulf of Mexico is now believed to have the potential to produce 2 to 3 million more barrels per day than the 1.2 million that it currently pumps.
> 
> Overall, the new energy geography points toward a revival of the Mississippi-Ohio-Missouri river system as the axis of American growth. That’s likely among other things to be good for America’s political climate; the Midwest has traditionally been something of a swing region — less liberal than the coastal northeast and less aggressively conservative than Dixie. Middle Westerners have tended to be pragmatic optimists over time, and it would be interesting to see how a revival of this political tendency would work out in our politics today. In any case, we may be looking at a decline in the power of the northeast and (unless California embraces its inner tycoon and begins to exploit its own energy riches) the Pacific, while Dixie continues current rates of growth and the Middle West booms.
> 
> Energy frontiers tend to be individualistic places. Canada, where the oil boom is a few years ahead of the US, has shifted to the right as power and money flow from blue Ontario and Quebec to Alberta. Prosperous blue collar workers and aspiring oil tycoons are not generally the strongest supporters of expensive welfare states, and American greens are already feeling the political consequences of a newly energized hydrocarbon sector. They are also not very interested in subsidizing the fiscal problems of other states; should California’s woes worsen and the state come to Washington for more help, the energy rich states and their representatives are likely to take a hard, skeptical look at its requests.
> 
> Even so, the Middle West’s traditional moderation is going to soften the rough edges a bit; much of the oil is coming to places where people historically have valued community ties and concerned themselves about the well being of the less fortunate. This won’t be the second coming of Ayn Rand.
> 
> Heartland Economics
> 
> There are significant economic benefits in having all this prosperity in the heartland. North Dakota and Wyoming are states where shipping costs from China and Japan are high — but Chicago and St. Louis are much better placed to serve them. Put cheap and secure energy in the Middle West, and build large new cities and centers of economic demand in the neighborhood, and the energy revival in a few states will support general economic growth in many more.
> 
> The long term outlook for the dollar and even for the federal government’s accounts will also improve. Even quite recently people assessing the long term health of the United States pointed toward inexorably rising energy imports as an important drain on the balance of trade and on the health of the dollar. But oil imports are going to decline, and exports — especially of natural gas — will help offset them. The federal government is also going to be collecting taxes on the new energy production — and on all the incomes of the individuals and companies involved, directly or indirectly, in the new energy boom.
> 
> The United States will be a more attractive place for foreign investment. Building the infrastructure required to get the new energy industry up and running and to transport its products to the market offers some very profitable and secure investment opportunities. And with the US much less dependent on foreign oil (and with the foreign oil it does need coming largely from Canada), the US economy will be much less exposed to the risks associated with turmoil in the Middle East. That is the kind of thing investors look for: high growth in safe places.
> 
> Few places are going to look more secure in the 21st century than America between the Rockies and the Appalachians, between the Gulf of Mexico and the Canadian frontier. Some of the world’s largest energy reserves will be sited next to the world’s most fertile crop land. Geopolitically, few places on earth are as secure from war; politically few can match its record of stable governance; legally, few offer as much protection for property rights and few have as long a record of offering foreign investors the equal protection of the law.
> 
> Avoiding the Pitfalls
> 
> Every silver lining has a cloud, and the energy bonanza isn’t all good. We will have to watch out, for example, that the hydrocarbon boost to the dollar doesn’t price American manufacturing goods out of world markets. Here we will need to look at Europe, and see how some countries — like Germany — responded in a more disciplined way through the years when the euro was high to reduce costs and improve quality so that German goods remained internationally competitive.
> 
> We will also have to work to keep the political classes from distributing the oil wealth to the rent-seekers. We don’t want to be either the Nigeria or the Russia of the new century, in which corrupt rent-seeking elites hijacked the political process and appropriated the lions’ share of the hydrocarbon wealth to themselves. Cheap, attractive subsidies for the masses, while the real wealth goes into the Swiss bank accounts of the well connected and the unscrupulous: that could very well happen here and there are plenty of people in leading positions in American life — in both parties — who stand willing and ready to sequester the loot.
> 
> But the first great wave of oil discoveries did not turn America into a corrupt petrostate when the oil discoveries of the late 19th and early 20th centuries made the US the world’s greatest producer of fossil fuels. One important reason that still holds true today is that the US economy was so diversified and so high tech (by the standards of the day) that the oil tsunami was only one part of a much larger story of innovation and development.
> 
> Innovation remains a big part of the American energy picture. The United States has very large reserves of these new fuels, but we are not alone on the planet in having this wealth. But America is getting to the energy revolution early because our oil companies and drillers were ahead of other people in developing the technologies that can bring the new resources on line. We don’t just happen — like the Saudis and others — to be sitting on incredibly large pools of oil which the skills of other people discover and pump out of the ground. We haven’t exactly made our own luck, but we’ve made the discoveries that enabled us to take advantage of it.
> 
> That spirit of innovation and the culture that supports it are the true sources of American wealth. That is how we found oil in the first place and built our first energy economy; it is what enables us to benefit from these additional reserves — and it is what will get us on to the next thing when the new energy sources begin to run dry.
> 
> Thankfully, the United States is not a Russia or a Nigeria. Our economy and our political system are strong enough and diverse enough to benefit from an energy boom without being overwhelmed by it. The energy boom will stimulate the development of new technologies and new products in the non-energy sectors and will likely to usher in an era of broad prosperity and social advance across many industries and regions rather than just in a few.
> 
> Nature — or perhaps Nature’s God — seems to love mocking pundits. Just when the entire punditocracy, it sometimes seemed, had bought into the “American decline” meme, Europe collapsed and huge energy reserves were discovered underneath the United States. The “special providence” that observers have from time to time discerned in America’s progress through history doesn’t seem to be quite finished with us yet.
> 
> Getting the new oil and gas raises complicated technical and environmental issues, and it may take some time before the dust settles and we understand exactly what we are looking at here. And drilling is a notoriously uncertain business. The energy revolution may fall short of the full hopes it stirs up. Yet the rapid progress of extraction technology is making these unconventional reserves look more real and more ‘gettable’ all the time. Rather than coping gracefully with the consequences of inevitable decline, America’s job in the 21st century looks like handling its new set of opportunities wisely and well.



The flow of money, power and people into the "Red" American heartland will probably be the biggest social and political change, just like it was here in Canada, and the "Blue" elites and power brokers on the coasts won't like it a bit (also similar to the tantrum the old power elites in the Toronto-Montreal corridor have been reacting in Canada).


----------



## exabedtech

" North America as a whole has the potential to be a major exporter of fossil fuels for decades and even generations to come."  An interesting line to include in an article overflowing with confidence.
Yes, we really should just stick to business as usual and burn that stuff up as fast as we can pump it if we have DECADES worth of it!!

Even if we accept the numbers which seem to be randomly trotted out ie 3 trillion barrels with 1/2 recoverable, we currently use around 85 million barrels a day on this planet.  So, by fraking until we have no usable groundwater (come out to my place if you need evidence) and building a few dozen upgraders, we could keep on happily polluting ourselves to death for another 50 years!!!  That's just AWESOME!

Yes, lets just pass this problem on to the next generation.  I'm sure they'll come up with something...


----------



## a_majoor

The laws of physics are rigorously enforced in all times and places, which should go a long way to explaining why green fantasies of wind and solar power make such a tiny portion of the global energy picture, or battery powered cars simply cannot compete with fossil fueled cars (switching to non Carnot cycle systems like SOFC fuel cells would simply tilt the balance still further to hydrocarbon energy).

So unless you can point to some competitive alternate system of energy storage and production, or choose to drop out of the modern economy completely (and by that I mean adopt a Neolithic hunter gatherer lifestyle) you really have no way of changing the modern economy, or to avoid benefiting from the availability of cheap energy.

We have literally pages and pages of alternative schemes right here, and the one common denominator of all of them is they don't produce net energy at anything like a competitive price. I might not like this either, but this is the way of things.


----------



## exabedtech

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The laws of physics are rigorously enforced in all times and places, which should go a long way to explaining why green fantasies of wind and solar power make such a tiny portion of the global energy picture, or battery powered cars simply cannot compete with fossil fueled cars (switching to non Carnot cycle systems like SOFC fuel cells would simply tilt the balance still further to hydrocarbon energy).
> 
> So unless you can point to some competitive alternate system of energy storage and production, or choose to drop out of the modern economy completely (and by that I mean adopt a Neolithic hunter gatherer lifestyle) you really have no way of changing the modern economy, or to avoid benefiting from the availability of cheap energy.
> 
> We have literally pages and pages of alternative schemes right here, and the one common denominator of all of them is they don't produce net energy at anything like a competitive price. I might not like this either, but this is the way of things.



That is exactly my point.  We are tied to fossil fuels, have no viable alternatives and that resource is in decline.  Yes, we do find more of it, but the planet isnt making more of it, therefore it can only be in decline.  It's a mathematical certainty that most of us choose to ignore because we're old enough to be dead before it the shit hits the fan.
I don't have a solution, neither does anyone else as far as I can tell and THAT is the problem.  
I often hear the argument that "the stone age didnt end for lack of stones", the implication being that we will magically invent something new and unheard of before it becomes a problem.  That really is the equivalent of buying lottery tickets as a retirement plan except that in the case of energy, we arent even buying the tickets.


----------



## a_majoor

I might point out that the British were experiencing "Peak wood" in the 1600's (wood may be renewable but not in a human lifetime), but found a substitute in coal, and whale oil was displaced in the 1860's by petrolium. It is possible for petrolium to be displaced by nuclear fission (and has been for a while) except that regulatory burdens and hysterical "anti nuclear" activists have stalled that technology.

Nuclear fusion may be the next enabling technology, but to date has not broken even (although a croop of small private ventures have managed to reach the same point the massively funded government projects have reached using a series of different technologies).

There may be a way to displace oil, but until then we should intelligently use the resources we do have (an impoverished Earth will not be able to afford to do energy research).


----------



## exabedtech

Yes, i'm very much in favour of Canada being an energy superpower.  I'd just like us to take some of that oil revenue and put it into research to find that next big thing.  Why should we limit ourselves to oil?  We have the financial and intellectual means to do so much more.  
Solar may have had a breakthrough at MIT this year...

An an electrical contractor i'd love to see everything running on electricity and have that power generated in a de-centralized manner.  Solar allows for this, but its in its infancy and the current technology makes no economic sense.  

Imagine a grid that it virtually impossible to take down since every 10th house is part of the generating capacity.  Things like EMP and solar storms would be so much easier to recover from.

There was a time when steam powered cars made more sense than gas power, so yes, things can and do change.  I'd like to see Canada position itself as a leader in that change.  There may not be another country on earth better positioned to do so.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Solar power satellites.


----------



## GAP

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Solar power satellites.



Not until they learn how to tighten the beams down to the earth. Right now we'd probably fry every second Canada Goose migrating south.......maybe only turn them on on Thankgiving day morning.....


----------



## a_majoor

The continuing analysis of the new energy future by Walter Russel Mead. New wealth can and will cause changes in foreign policy that should be to the long term benefit to America and her allies:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/07/18/energy-revolution-3-the-new-american-century/



> *Energy Revolution 3: The New American Century*
> WALTER RUSSELL MEAD
> 
> Get ready for an American century: that appears to be the main consequence of the energy revolution that is now causing economic and political experts to tear up their old forecasts all over the world. The new American century won’t be a repeat of the last one, but in some very important ways the world now looks more likely to continue in the direction of global liberal capitalism that the US—like Britain before us—has seen as its geopolitical goal for many years.
> 
> Energy was critical to the geopolitics of the 20th century; energy shortages shaped some of the strategic decisions that led both Germany and Japan to defeat in World War II, and the struggle over the energy-rich Middle East played an important role in the Cold War. The assumption that the world was at or near “peak oil” has been a driving force behind predictions that the 21st century would be an era of U.S.-China competition as China’s desperate quest for more energy resources led it to push an aggressive global energy policy that would conflict with vital U.S. interests. The assumption that there were few major discoveries left to be made also led many to forecast that the Middle East and especially the Gulf region would continue to be a major fulcrum in global affairs; indeed, countries like Saudi Arabia, with the ability to increase production to meet the thirst of an oil-starved world, would become more important than ever as the geopolitics of oil scarcity took hold.
> 
> But as I’ve been writing recently, none of that looks true anymore. Advances in extraction technology have changed our understanding of the world’s energy future. As I wrote in my last post, the U.S. and Canada each may have more energy potential than the entire Middle East. China also has significant resources. So do Israel and Brazil.
> 
> It is too soon to tell just how much of this potential can be unlocked, but for several years now it has begun to look as if much more of these unconventional resources will be available much sooner than thought, and serious people now argue that the US could pass Saudi Arabia to become the world’s leading oil producer by 2020.
> 
> Even if some of the new sources prove difficult to extract at a reasonable economic and environmental price, the amount of available energy out there may be even greater than we now think. Because the extraction technology is new, and because it is still developing, much of the world has not been surveyed for these unconventional deposits. Both on land and under the sea, there is a lot of territory still to explore.
> 
> It’s going to take time for us to develop a clear picture of what the new energy future looks like, but there is more than enough information already available to start thinking through some of the important consequences of the new energy situation for 21st century politics and policy. In the first of these energy posts I identified some geopolitical losers; in the second I took a look at the domestic implications of the new energy situation for the United States. In this post I’ll sketch out some initial thoughts about how the new energy picture—if it isn’t a mirage—will affect American foreign policy.
> 
> The effects won’t be trivial. Changes this profound in the energy outlook imply major changes in world politics and given the unique global role of the United States and the global scale of its interests, those changes matter hugely for American foreign policy. Much of the punditry of the last ten years is looking suddenly obsolete; a number of writers are going to hope that some of the books and articles they’ve recently published will be quickly forgotten. They shouldn’t worry; the public is quick to forget, and most prophets of decline and Malthusian struggle will have little trouble in reinventing themselves as analysts of abundance.
> 
> The U.S. may not be the biggest geopolitical winner in the new dispensation; that title may go to Israel if it’s energy potential proves out. If Israel’s potential as an energy superpower is actually realized, the Jewish state will be like a pudgy orphan girl who inherits a billion dollar trust fund and suddenly tranforms from social pariah to belle of the ball. Not only will it replace or supplement Arab countries as a principle source of oil and gas for Europe, it will see the weight of its most serious enemies in world politics decline as the Gulf becomes only one of a number of energy-rich regions.
> But on the bigger stage of world politics, it’s the United States that benefits most from the energy revolution. To begin with, the core objective of the United States—a reasonably stable, orderly and liberal global system—is a lot easier to achieve in an era of energy abundance than in one of tough resource competition. Oil is a lubricant, and the more the world has, the more smoothly things are likely to run. A world in which jealous, competing states are trying to elbow each other aside to access the last few remaining pools of oil is a much nastier place than one in which the whole oil question is a lot more laid back.
> 
> Abundant energy will also promote global economic growth, an effect that strengthens and stabilizes the world system. It is easier for countries to cooperate when their economies are doing well. There is less nationalist pressure inside countries driving political leaders to take confrontational stands, and it is easier to negotiate win-win solutions and build functioning international institutions when all parties are relatively optimistic about their prospects.
> 
> On the whole, a world of energy abundance should be particularly good for U.S.-China relations. If both China and the United States have large energy reserves at home, and if new discoveries globally are making energy more abundant, there is less chance that China and the U.S. will compete for political influence in places like the Middle East. More energy security at home may also lessen the political pressure inside China to build up its naval forces.
> 
> Oil may calm the troubled waters around China’s shores. The maritime disputes now causing trouble from Korea and Japan to Malaysia and the Philippines will be easier to manage if the potential undersea energy resources are seen as less vital to national economic security. Nationalist passion will still drive tough stands on the maritime issues, but nationalism is a much stronger force when powerful economic arguments share the agenda of radical nationalist groups. If the South China Sea issue is seen as both a question of national pride and, because of perceived energy supply issues, a vital national interest, Chinese policy will be much tougher than if it is simply a question of pride.
> 
> Depending on the size of China’s unconventional domestic reserves (and some analysts think the country could have something like the equivalent of double Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves), China will feel marginally less constrained by Washington’s global naval supremacy. As it now stands, in any serious clash with China, the U.S. could bring Beijing to its knees with a naval blockade. With much larger domestic energy production, China would be less vulnerable to this threat. This could translate into a greater willingness to take a hard line on international issues.
> 
> On the other hand, China is unlikely to gain complete energy independence, and in any case it will still need access to the global system for trade and investment. Indeed, assuming that the new energy abundance promotes global economic prosperity, access to the global market will become more attractive for China and its deepening economic independence with world markets would make China less willing to risk cutting off its maritime connections to the rest of the world.
> 
> The energy revolution is likely to have profound implications for American policy in the Middle East. American public opinion, already deeply depressed about the prospects for constructive change in the region and deeply weary of war, is likely to welcome any chance to think less about a part of the world in which U.S. initiatives rarely seem to go well. The Gulf in particular will, however, continue to be important to countries like India, China and Japan as well as to Europe. Over time, as the world’s energy picture becomes less Middle East-centric, the U.S. is likely to explore the possibility of becoming more of a balancer, less of a hegemon in the region. It will still be a goal of U.S. policy to prevent any single other power from being able to dominate the region and interrupting the oil flow, but the U.S. will likely look to achieve that more through agreements and power balancing than through overwhelming military superiority by land, sea and air. This will not happen all at once, and may not happen at all if initial U.S. attempts to disengage lead to greater threats, but both public and elite opinion would much rather reduce than increase the U.S. presence in this part of the world, and if the changing world energy picture makes that easier to do, the U.S. will take the opportunity to step back.
> 
> India, Russia, Turkey, China, Japan, Israel, Iran and the European powers will all have interests in the Middle East. If the U.S. goal is to manage and limit competition among these players and other local governments, the multiplicity of interests and powers involved in the region could make that a complex but not altogether impossible task. The future of this region remains hard to predict, but the U.S. may well find that its key interests in the Middle East can be achieved with much less sweat in the next fifty years than in the last thirty.
> 
> The one exception is likely to be U.S. support for Israel. Israel’s security does not require U.S. ground troops or even naval forces, but U.S. public opinion will likely continue want Israel to be safe. Arms sales, aid and cooperation can be expected to continue, though if Israel’s own potential energy resources come online, Israel may have more friends, more money and fewer and weaker enemies than it now has.
> 
> Globally, America’s ambition is not and never has been to be an active, busy hegemon. At its core, America is a lazy power. The world order America wants is liberal, capitalist, predominantly democratic and broadly accepted by the major powers. It wants to prevent the domination of either end of Eurasia by a single power and it doesn’t want any part of the world to close itself off for purposes of investment and trade, but otherwise it is open to a wide range of political and security arrangements.
> 
> An American century is one in which the world is moving towards this kind of configuration. The 21st century already appeared to be heading America’s way—less because the U.S. has the will or the power to impose its designs on the world than because American objectives match up reasonably well with the vital interests of most of the world’s important powers. The new energy picture supports that kind of outcome in three ways.
> The American economy will gain important advantages that will ease the transition to a post-blue social model and promote social cohesion and public confidence in our economic model.
> 
> Energy abundance will promote global economic growth, increasing global acceptance of liberal capitalism as living standards rise.
> The new geopolitics of oil will weaken hostile countries, strengthen friendly ones, and promote U.S.-China cooperation.
> From all these points of view, the new energy picture is almost completely positive. Oil makes everything better. But the environmental question remains. Will an era of hydrocarbon abundance lead to an environmental catastrophe? Many greens are already warning that exactly this will happen. In the next and concluding post in this energy series, I’ll look at those issues.


----------



## a_majoor

Part 4 of Walter Russel Mead's look at a hydrocarbon rich future, Teh Progressive left has been left hanging by the upending the assumptions like "peak oil" and "Climate Cnange". The simplistic models of Progressiveism are unworkable in all times and places for a far more fundimental reason termed by F.A, Hyack as the Local Knowledge problem. The Earth is by far the most complex interrelated system humankind has access to, so any sort of assumption that there is "superior knowledge" of how complex systems work is just hubris. The hydrocarbon explosion is just the latest and probably the largest and most visible example to date:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/07/28/the-energy-revolution-4-hot-planet/



> *The Energy Revolution 4: Hot Planet?*
> WALTER RUSSELL MEAD
> 
> Over a series of recent posts, I’ve been looking at the energy revolution that is changing the look of the 21st centuries. Some countries are losers, but the US in particular stands to make big gains at home and in its foreign policy.
> 
> On the whole, this news is about as good as it gets: trillions of dollars of valuable resources are now available to power the US economy, cut our trade deficit and reduce our vulnerability to Middle East instability. Hundreds of thousands of well paid blue collar jobs are going to reduce income inequality and help rebuild a stable middle class. Many of the resources are exactly where we would want them: in hard hit Rust Belt states.
> 
> World peace is also looking more possible: the great powers aren’t going to be elbowing each other as they fight to control the last few dribs and drabs of oil. Nasty dictatorships and backward-facing petro-states aren’t going to be able blackmail the world as easily.
> 
> But there is one group (other than the Russians and the Gulf Arabs and the Iranians) that isn’t sharing in the general joy: the greens. For them, the spectacle of a looming world energy crisis was good news. It justified huge subsidies for solar and wind power (and thereby guaranteed huge fortunes for clever green-oriented investors). Greens outdid themselves year after year with gloom and doom forecasts about the coming oil crunch. They hoped that public dislike of the Middle East and the costs of our involvement there could be converted into public support for expensive green energy policies here at home: “energy independence” was one of the few arguments they had that resonated widely among average voters.
> 
> Back in those salad days of green arrogance, there was plenty of scoffing at the ‘peak oil deniers’ and shortage skeptics who disagreed with what greens told us all was settled, Malthusian science. “Reality based” green thinkers sighed and rolled their eyes at the illusions of those benighted techno-enthusiasts who said that unconventional sources like shale oil and gas and the oil sands of Canada would one day become available.
> Environmentalists, you see, are science based, unlike those clueless, Gaia-defying technophiles with their infantile faith in the power of human creativity. Greens, with their awesome powers of Gaia-assisted intuition, know what the future holds.
> 
> But those glory days are over now, and the smarter environmentalists are bowing to the inevitable. George Monbiot, whose cries of woe and pain in the Guardian newspaper have served as the Greek chorus at each stage of the precipitous decline of the global green movement, gave voice to green grief at the prospect of a wealthy and prosperous century to come: “We were wrong,” he wrote on July 2,”about peak oil. There’s enough to fry us all.” Monbiot now gets the politics as well:
> 
> There is enough oil in the ground to deep-fry the lot of us, and no obvious means to prevail upon governments and industry to leave it in the ground. Twenty years of efforts to prevent climate breakdown through moral persuasion have failed, with the collapse of the multilateral process at Rio de Janeiro last month. The world’s most powerful nation is again becoming an oil state, and if the political transformation of its northern neighbour [a reference to Canada] is anything to go by, the results will not be pretty.
> 
> In other words, a newly oil rich United States is going to fight even harder against global green carbon policies, and the new discoveries will tilt the American political system even farther in the direction of capitalist oil companies.
> 
> Capitalism is not, Monbiot is forced to admit, a fragile system that will easily be replaced. Bolstered by huge supplies of oil, it is here to stay. Industrial civilization is, as far as he can now see, unstoppable. Gaia, that treacherous slut, has made so much oil and gas that her faithful acolytes today cannot protect her from the consequences of her own folly.
> 
> Welcome to the New Green Doom: an overabundance of oil and gas is going to release so much greenhouse gas that the world is going to fry. The exploitation of the oil sands in Alberta, warn leading environmentalists, is a tipping point. William McKibben put it this way in an interview with Wired magazine in the fall of 2011:
> 
> I think if we go whole-hog in the tar sands, we’re out of luck. Especially since that would doubtless mean we’re going whole-hog at all the other unconventional energy sources we can think of: Deepwater drilling, fracking every rock on the face of the Earth, and so forth.
> Here’s why the tar sands are important: It’s a decision point about whether, now that we’re running out of the easy stuff, we’re going to go after the hard stuff. The Saudi Arabian liquor store is running out of bottles. Do we sober up, or do we find another liquor store, full of really crappy booze, to break into?
> 
> A year later, despite the success of environmentalists like McKibben at persuading the Obama administration to block a pipeline intended to ship this oil to refineries in the US, it’s clear (as it was crystal clear all along to anyone with eyes to see) that the world has every intention of making use of the “crappy liquor.”
> 
> Again, for people who base their claim to world leadership on their superior understanding of the dynamics of complex systems, greens prove over and over again that they are surprisingly naive and crude in their ability to model and to shape the behavior of the political and economic systems they seek to control. If their understanding of the future of the earth’s climate is anything like as wish-driven, fact-averse and intellectually crude as their approach to international affairs, democratic politics and the energy market, the greens are in trouble indeed.  And as I’ve written in the past, the contrast between green claims to understand climate and to be able to manage the largest and most complex set of policy changes ever undertaken, and the evident incompetence of greens at managing small (Solyndra) and large (Kyoto, EU cap and trade, global climate treaty) political projects today has more to do with climate skepticism than greens have yet understood. Many people aren’t rejecting science; they are rejecting green claims of policy competence. In doing so, they are entirely justified by the record.
> 
> Nevertheless, the future of the environment is not nearly as dim as greens think. Despairing environmentalists like McKibben and Monbiot are as wrong about what the new era of abundance means as green energy analysts were about how much oil the planet had.
> The problem is the original sin of much environmental thought: Malthusianism. If greens weren’t so addicted to Malthusian horror narratives they would be able to see that the new era of abundance is going to make this a cleaner planet faster than if the new gas and oil had never been found.
> 
> Let’s be honest. It has long been clear to students of history, and has more recently begun to dawn on many environmentalists, that all that happy-clappy carbon treaty stuff was a pipe dream and that nothing like that is going to happen.  A humanity that hasn’t been able to ban the bomb despite the clear and present dangers that nuclear weapons pose isn’t going to ban or even seriously restrict the internal combustion engine and the generator.
> 
> The political efforts of the green movement to limit greenhouse gasses have had very little effect so far, and it is highly unlikely that they will have more success in the future. The green movement has been more of a group hug than a curve bending exercise, and that is unlikely to change. If the climate curve bends, it will bend the way the population curve did: as the result of lots of small human decisions driven by short term interest calculations rather than as the result of a grand global plan.
> 
> The shale boom hasn’t turned green success into green failure. It’s prevented green failure from turning into something much worse.  Monbiot understands this better than McKibben; there was never any real doubt that we’d keep going to the liquor store. If we hadn’t found ways to use all this oil and gas, we wouldn’t have embraced the economics of less. True, as oil and gas prices rose, there would be more room for wind and solar power, but the real winner of an oil and gas shortage is… coal. To use McKibben’s metaphor, there is a much dirtier liquor store just down the road from the shale emporium, and it’s one we’ve been patronizing for centuries. The US and China have oodles of coal, and rather than walk to work from our cold and dark houses all winter, we’d use it. Furthermore, when and if the oil runs out, the technology exists to get liquid fuel out of coal. It isn’t cheap and it isn’t clean, but it works.
> 
> The newly bright oil and gas future means that we aren’t entering a new Age of Coal. For this, every green on the planet should give thanks.
> 
> The second reason why greens should give thanks for shale is that environmentalism is a luxury good. People must survive and they will survive by any means necessary. But they would much rather thrive than merely survive, and if they can arrange matters better, they will. A poor society near the edge of survival will dump the industrial waste in the river without a second thought. It will burn coal and choke in the resulting smog if it has nothing else to burn.
> 
> Politics in an age of survival is ugly and practical. It has to be. The best leader is the one who can cut out all the fluff and the folderol and keep you alive through the winter. During the Battle of Leningrad, people burned priceless antiques to stay alive for just one more night.
> 
> An age of energy shortages and high prices translates into an age of radical food and economic insecurity for billions of people. Those billions of hungry, frightened, angry people won’t fold their hands and meditate on the ineffable wonders of Gaia and her mystic web of life as they pass peacefully away. Nor will they vote George Monbiot and Bill McKibben into power. They will butcher every panda in the zoo before they see their children starve, they will torch every forest on earth before they freeze to death, and the cheaper and the meaner their lives are, the less energy or thought they will spare to the perishing world around them.
> 
> But, thanks to shale and other unconventional energy sources, that isn’t where we are headed. We are heading into a world in which energy is abundant and horizons are open even as humanity’s grasp of science and technology grows more secure. A world where more and more basic human needs are met is a world that has time to think about other goals and the money to spend on them. As China gets richer, the Chinese want cleaner air, cleaner water, purer food — and they are ready and able to pay for them. A Brazil whose economic future is secure can afford to treasure and conserve its rain forests. A Central America where the people are doing all right is more willing and able to preserve its biodiversity. And a world in which people know where their next meal is coming from is a world that can and will take thought for things like the sustainability of the fisheries and the protection of the coral reefs.
> 
> A world that is more relaxed about the security of its energy sources is going to be able to do more about improving the quality of those sources and about managing the impact of its energy consumption on the global commons. A rich, energy secure world is going to spend more money developing solar power and wind power and other sustainable sources than a poor, hardscrabble one.
> 
> When human beings think their basic problems are solved, they start looking for more elegant solutions. Once Americans had an industrial and modern economy, we started wanting to clean up the rivers and the air. Once people aren’t worried about getting enough calories every day to survive, they start wanting healthier food more elegantly prepared.
> 
> A world of abundant shale oil and gas is a world that will start imposing more environmental regulations on shale and gas producers. A prosperous world will set money aside for research and development for new technologies that conserve energy or find it in cleaner surroundings. A prosperous world facing climate change will be able to ameliorate the consequences and take thought for the future in ways that a world overwhelmed by energy insecurity and gripped in a permanent economic crisis of scarcity simply can’t and won’t do.
> 
> Greens should also be glad that the new energy is where it is. For Monbiot and for many others, Gaia’s decision to put so much oil into the United States and Canada seems like her biggest indiscretion of all. Certainly, a United States of America that has, in the Biblical phrase, renewed its youth like an eagle with a large infusion of fresh petro-wealth is going to be even less eager than formerly to sign onto various pie-in-the-sky green carbon treaties.
> 
> But think how much worse things would be if the new reserves lay in dictatorial kleptocracies. How willing and able would various Central Asia states have been to regulate extraction and limit the damage? How would Nigeria have handled vast new reserves whose extraction required substantially more invasive methods?
> 
> Instead, the new sources are concentrated in places where environmentalists have more say in policy making and where, for all the shortcomings and limits, governments are less corruptible, more publicly accountable and in fact more competent to develop and enforce effective energy regulations. This won’t satisfy McKibben and Monbiot (nothing that could actually happen would satisfy either of these gentlemen), but it is a lot better than what we could be facing.
> 
> Additionally, if there are two countries in the world that should worry carbon-focused greens more than any other, they are the United States and China. The two largest, hungriest economies in the world are also home to enormous coal reserves. But based on what we now know, the US and China are among the biggest beneficiaries of the new cornucopia. Gaia put the oil and the gas where, from a carbon point of view, it will do the most good. In a world of energy shortages and insecurity, both the US and China would have gone flat out for coal. Now, that is much less likely.
> 
> And there’s one more reason why greens should thank Gaia for shale. Wind and solar aren’t ready for prime time now, but by the time the new sources start to run low, humanity will have mastered many more technologies that can used to provide energy and to conserve it. It’s likely that Age of Shale hasn’t just postponed the return of coal: because of this extra time, there likely will never be another age in which coal is the dominant industrial fuel. It’s virtually certain that the total lifetime carbon footprint of the human race is going to be smaller with the new oil and gas sources than it would have been without them.
> 
> Neither the world’s energy problems nor its climate issues are going away any time soon. Paradise is not beckoning just a few easy steps away. But the new availability of these energy sources is on balance a positive thing for environmentalists as much as for anyone else.
> Perhaps, and I know this is a heretical thought, but perhaps Gaia is smarter than the greens.


----------



## a_majoor

Unintended consequences from the biofuel mandate. Canada has no need to be part of this under any circumstances, but as usual perverse incentives (crony capitalism and electoral politics) displaces common sense:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/08/15/peter-foster-biofuel-policy-on-thin-ice/



> *Peter Foster: Biofuel policy on thin ice*
> Peter Foster | Aug 15, 2012 10:50 AM ET
> More from Peter Foster
> 
> Washington’s biofuel mandate is hurting poor people right now
> 
> The New Yorker is — mostly — a wonderful magazine. Although its left liberal leanings are hardly a secret, its cover illustrations are usually whimsical rather than political. The cover of its latest issue, however, portrays Santa Claus sitting on a tiny ice floe at the North Pole. Cute, but fraught with catastrophic implication (This past Christmas, the Suzuki foundation had a child-scaring fund-raising campaign based on the claim that Santa’s workshop was sinking).
> 
> In fact, the climate scare du jour relates not to the Arctic but to this summer’s extreme heat and drought in the U.S. Midwest, which is the worst since the mid-1950s and on a par with the Dust Bowl years of the Great Depression. However, while providing rich fodder for bloviation by the usual suspects, current weather is in no way outside the normal range, as three skeptical experts, MIT’s Richard Lindzen, Princeton’s William Happer, and American Geophysical Society fellow Roger W. Cohen, point out in a letter to The Wall Street Journal published Tuesday. How, they note, do you explain the greater heatwaves of the 1930s?
> 
> Which brings us back to The New Yorker. Last month, the magazine’s leading proponent of draconian climate policy, Elizabeth Kolbert, penned a piece titled “The Big Heat,” in which she suggested the drought was, at last, bringing home the reality of potential climate catastrophe to those redneck numbskulls and deranged conservatives recently more concerned with “Obama’s birth certificate.” She bemoaned, however, that neither the president, nor his electoral opponent, Mitt Romney, seemed eager to bring up global warming. “And so,” she concluded, “while farmers wait for rain and this season’s corn crop withers on the stalk, the familiar disconnect continues. There’s no discussion of what could be done to avert the worst effects of climate change, even as the insanity of doing nothing becomes increasingly obvious.”
> 
> Related
> Peter Foster: Not much to fear from CNOOC
> 
> Peter Foster: Private plastic checkout tax
> 
> Strangely, however, (I’m being ironic) Ms. Kolbert, while mentioning corn, failed to note the factor that is turning a weather-related problem into a global food crisis, a factor that is very much related to taking action on climate change: cornbased ethanol. What is greatly exacerbating the impact of the heat wave on food prices is Washington’s biofuel mandate, under which 40% of the corn crop winds up being turned into ethanol under a program of forced consumption. The policy — like every climate policy hatched to date — while claiming to help the poor of the future, has been captured by special interests, and is hurting poor people right now.
> 
> Biofuels policy in the U.S. — which was in fact installed in a big way under president George W. Bush — is also linked to “energy security.” When U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was recently trying to defend the biofuels policy, the words “climate change” didn’t crop up. Instead he peddled the nose-stretching claim that gasoline might be up to US$1.30 a gallon cheaper as a result of the policy. And look at all the jobs created (if, that is, you used single-entry bookkeeping, which ignores the costs).
> 
> Canada, too, retains a biofuels policy that is even less defensible, because of the lack of any security rationale. The inevitably boondogglish nature of the policy, which also forces ethanol into gasoline, has recently made the news because of a proposed new ethanol facility in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s Oshawa riding. NDP transport critic Olivia Chow has complained that the project was approved by a harbour commission stacked with Mr. Flaherty’s political cronies. Certainly, if ethanol is designed to win the farm vote (which it is), the plot seems to be a bit lost in Oshawa, where votes may well be lost because of stout local opposition to the plant. Still, the Canadian policy is not causing the major global disruptions to which U.S. policy has already contributed. The U.S. is the world’s largest exporter of corn, soybeans and wheat, thus the impact of the drought on food prices has been greatly exacerbated by the biofuels mandate. When even the UN and environmental NGOs have jumped off the ethanol bandwagon, the fact that biofuel mandates refuse to die suggests how nakedly this is about electoral politics.
> 
> The policy — like every climate policy hatched to date — while claiming to help the poor of the future, has been captured by special interestsThe UN has recently been joined in its demands that Washington dump its biofuel policies by major food manufacturers. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents food giants Kraft and Kellogg, is asking the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce the biofuel requirement. Ken Powell, the chief executive of General Mills, has also spoken out against the policy, as has Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, chairman of Nestlé, the world’s largest food producer.
> 
> Predictably, the protests have been met with diversionary bafflegab from Beltway ethanol lobbyists, in particular Matt Hartwig of the Renewable Fuels Association. He said that a waiver of the mandate “will not make it rain.” But this unwittingly draws attention to the fact that the biofuels mandate was indeed part of a policy whose rationale and effectiveness were all too similar to those of a rain dance, but way more costly. It has particularly hit the poorest, who spend much more of their income on food, and rarely, if ever, get presents from Santa.


----------



## a_majoor

From the WSJ, new ways to boost the production of the oil sands. If the price can be brought down below @ $65/bbl, then the oil sands can remain competative against conventional drilling, fracking and shale oil (and we should be getting a break at the pumps):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443570904577544860568722418.html



> The Hunt to Unlock Oil Sands In Canada, Radiowaves and Heating Coils Are Among Efforts Used to Extract Sticky Petroleum From Rock
> Article By EDWARD WELSCH
> 
> ALBERTA, Canada—Ten years ago, new oil field technologies unlocked vast crude supplies from western Canada's oil-sands deposits, propelling America's northern neighbor to the top echelon of the world's petroleum repositories.
> 
> Oil companies in Canada are experimenting with technologies that could unlock even more reserves from what is some of the world's heaviest and stickiest petroleum. Edward Welsch reports on digits. Photo: Harris Corp.
> Now oil companies here are experimenting with technologies that could unlock even more reserves from what is some of the world's heaviest and stickiest petroleum. The new technologies could also drive down the cost of producing oil in Canada.
> 
> One consortium aims to get oil flowing to the surface by sending radio waves from huge antennae pushed through wells deep underground—adopting technology first developed for the U.S. government to eavesdrop on underground bunkers.
> 
> Another company is working on inserting electrical heating coils into wells to melt the oil, while other firms are tinkering with petroleum-based solvents they hope to pump into wells to get more oil out.
> 
> All the experimentation is aimed at improving a standard method of oil-sands extraction: so-called steam-assisted gravity drainage, or SAGD.
> 
> (That is pronounced "Sag-Dee" in industry parlance.) That technology is itself a recent breakthrough—essentially injecting superheated steam into wells to heat deposits of sticky bitumen, a form of petroleum, making it liquid enough to be pumped to the surface.
> 
> The technology was commercialized in Canada's northern Alberta province early last decade, and helped enable oil companies to tap deeper oil-sands reserves. For decades, most oil-sands development had more in common with strip mining than conventional oil drilling. Companies dig up a mix of bitumen and quartz sand and wash the sludge down with hot water to extract the bitumen.
> 
> SAGD quintupled the amount of bitumen that may be possible to recover in Canada, and helped lift Canada's overall recoverable oil reserves to No. 3 in the world, behind Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
> 
> But those reserves are only a 10th of the 1.7 trillion barrels of bitumen found in Canada. Alberta's Energy Resources Conservation Board estimates there are also more than 400 billion barrels of bitumen trapped in carbonate rock formations in Alberta, mostly in a large formation called the Grosmont that stretches across the center of the province.
> 
> "If we postulated that 25% of that can be recovered, Canada could move to No. 1" in world oil reserves, said Glen Schmidt, chief executive of privately owned Calgary energy-technology company Laricina Energy Ltd.
> 
> Laricina is one of several companies including Royal Dutch Shell RDSB.LN +0.21%PLC, Athabasca Oil Corp. ATH.T -0.38%and Husky Energy Inc. HSE.T +0.59%that are adapting SAGD technology to rock formations like the Grosmont and trying out new enhancements to cut the use of fresh water and energy, which will bring down the overall cost and greenhouse gas emissions of operations there. While SAGD doesn't gobble up as much surface area as conventional oil-sands mining, it still uses lots of energy and water. That makes it expensive and carries a big greenhouse-gas footprint.
> 
> Basic SAGD technology uses two horizontal wells drilled parallel to each other, one above the other. Natural gas is used to boil water into steam, which is injected underground into the top well. The steam heats and softens the bitumen, separating it from the sand, causing it to drip down to the bottom well, which sucks it back up.
> 
> Laricina is part of a consortium including large Canadian energy companies Suncor Energy Inc. SU +0.96%and Nexen Inc. NXY +0.27%that is testing replacing the steam with an antenna, developed by Melbourne, Fla., telecommunications-equipment manufacturer Harris Corp. HRS +0.28%After being fed down a well, the antenna blasts out heat, warming the bitumen.
> 
> Nexen announced Monday that Chinese international energy company Cnooc Ltd. plans to acquire it for $15.1 billion.
> 
> Mr. Schmidt said early tests show the technology could cut energy use by 40%. It also removes the high upfront costs of water treatment and steam generation facilities. That could cut the cost the cost of SAGD production, which is currently around $55 to $65 a barrel for most projects.
> 
> "If we eliminate steam, we eliminate potentially 60% of the cost of a facility, which is huge," he said. The technology could be ready as soon as 2019.
> 
> The antenna project got started back in 2008, when Harris was working on technology aimed at improving underground listening capabilities for the U.S. government.
> 
> As part of its research, Harris executives sought out oil field experts experienced in horizontal drilling techniques.
> 
> "We were trying to gain access to underground facilities, underground locations, so we had to bring in people who had specialties in horizontal drilling," Wes Covell, a Harris vice president, said. He declined to be more specific about what he said was a classified project.
> 
> Harris executives had an epiphany when the drilling experts mentioned the Canadian oil industry's problem of getting energy-efficient heat to travel down horizontal wells into the bitumen reservoirs deep underground.
> 
> Harris and other antenna designers try to reduce electromagnetic heat as much as possible to improve the efficiency of a radio antenna for communication. Harris "realized that we can take our antennae and instead of using them for communications, we can use them as a source of electromagnetic energy that generates heat," Mr. Covell said.
> 
> Athabasca Oil, another big Canadian oil producer, is testing a similar electric-heating technology to unlock bitumen from carbonate rock. The company inserts electric coils, made of the same material as heating elements on a stovetop, into wells. If tests are successful, Athabasca plans to start a commercial project for its technology by 2018.
> 
> Laricina and several other companies are also testing adding light hydrocarbon solvents to steam in SAGD wells to boost output. The solvent dilutes bitumen, making it easier to flow.
> 
> Cenovus Energy Inc. CVE +0.94%is working on a solvent project that could be rolled out commercially in 2017.
> 
> Jason Abbate, head of production engineering at one of Cenovus' projects, said solvent technology could increase oil production rates by up to 25% and cut the amount of steam and natural gas use by up to 30%. It could also improve the percentage of oil that producers can capture from bitumen deposits.
> 
> "If you can get 80% to 90% of that rather than the regular 70% with SAGD, there's a big economic benefit for us," Mr. Abbate said.
> 
> Write to Edward Welsch at edward.welsch@dowjones.com
> 
> 
> Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443570904577544860568722418.html#ixzz23oAwYOHw


----------



## GAP

OPEC has Probably Deceived Us About the Size of its Oil Reserves
By Kurt Cobb | Mon, 10 September 2012 
Article Link

Has OPEC misled us about the size of its oil reserves? The short answer is probably. The long answer is that currently, there is no way to know for sure.

The next question we should ask is: Does it matter? The answer is most definitely yes. OPEC, short for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, currently claims that its 12 members hold 81.3% of the world's oil reserves. And, with few exceptions the world believes them. Trouble is these reserves "are not verified by independent auditors," according to a study (PDF) done by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan investigative arm of the U.S. Congress. OPEC reserves are simply self-reported by each country. Essentially, OPEC's members are asking us to take their word for it. But should we?

It ought to give us pause that the reserve numbers OPEC countries release are used in major reports produced by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA); the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA), a consortium of 28 of the world's oil importing nations; oil giant BP which annually publishes the widely cited BP Statistical Review of World Energy; and myriad other organizations. Reports from the two agencies cited above and BP are frequently consulted by governments, industry, banks and investors around the world for policy formulation, long-term planning, and lending and investment decisions. Yet these groups seem blissfully unaware of the caveats surrounding the numbers in those reports and by extension surrounding more than 80 percent of the world's oil reserves.

Keep in mind as we go along that the sometimes astronomical numbers thrown around for world oil reserves by the uninformed or by those who intend to mislead us either have no basis in fact or actually refer to "resources." Resources are only an estimate of oil thought to be in the ground based on rather sketchy evidence. And, most of that oil will never be recoverable. Reserves, however, are what can be produced at today's prices from known fields using existing technology. It turns out that reserves are only a tiny fraction of so-called resources.

Now here's the caveat from the International Energy Agency in its World Energy Outlook 2010:

Definitions of reserves and resources, and the methodologies for estimating them, vary considerably around the world, leading to confusion and inconsistencies. In addition, there is often a lack of transparency in the way reserves are reported: many national oil companies in both OPEC and non-OPEC countries do not use external auditors of reserves and do not publish detailed results.

"National oil companies" refers to government-owned companies which typically control all oil development within a country.

The BP Statistical Review of World Energy for 2012 provides this explanatory note under a table listing oil reserves by country:

The estimates in this table have been compiled using a combination of primary official sources, third-party data from the OPEC Secretariat, World Oil, Oil & Gas Journal and an independent estimate of Russian and Chinese reserves based on information in the public domain. Canadian oil sands 'under active development' are an official estimate. Venezuelan Orinoco Belt reserves are based on the OPEC Secretariat and government announcements.

The key words are "OPEC Secretariat" which refers to the OPEC staff located in an office in Vienna. That office is where BP presumably gets its information about OPEC reserves. The EIA lists the OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin put out by--you guessed it--the OPEC Secretariat. Alas, the Annual Statistical Bulletin tells us under the heading "Questions on data" that "[a]lthough comments are welcome, OPEC regrets that it is unable to answer all enquiries concerning the data in the ASB." In other words, trust us. So, information about OPEC reserves comes either from the OPEC offices in Vienna or from member countries. Some analysts may adjust those figures based on the few shreds of evidence that are available outside of official government pronouncements. But, in reality, there are almost no hard facts when it comes to OPEC reserves.

Strangely, many of these countries say that a detailed audit of their fields by independent observers is out of the question because oil reserves are a state secret. And, yet those countries report their reserves to OPEC which publishes them for all to see. So, are oil reserves in many OPEC countries a state secret or not? Apparently, what's secret is the field-by-field data that would tell us whether the reserves claimed by these countries are actually there. Are there reasons to believe that if we saw this data it would contradict the official overall number provided by some countries? In a word, yes.

First, OPEC allocates production levels among its members. It does this to control the flow of oil to world markets and thus to manipulate the price. OPEC bases production quotas for its members in part on the size of each member's reserves. When this policy was first established in the 1980s, reported reserves for several OPEC members jumped between roughly 40 and 200 percent within one year--not always the same year--as each country jockeyed for a higher production quota.

Not every country participated in the free-for-all. But the countries with the largest exports participated with a vengeance. There was no drilling program in any of these countries that could have explained such jumps in reserves.
More on link


----------



## cupper

The case of Energy Independence vs Energy Security. It's one of the better discussions I've seen on the subject, and provides an excellent explanation of how boosting domestic production will not have as significant an effect on oil and gasoline prices as some think it will.

*Energy Independence For U.S.? Try Energy Security*

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/25/163573768/energy-independence-for-u-s-try-energy-security



> Gone from this year's presidential campaign are most mentions of climate change, environmental pollution, or green jobs. Former Gov. Mitt Romney, the GOP presidential nominee, prefers to call attention instead to the country's continuing dependence on foreign energy sources.
> 
> "I will set a national goal of North American energy independence by the year 2020," Romney declared in August.
> 
> The line is now a standard part of Romney's stump speech, and he repeated it in his first two debates with President Obama.
> 
> With that promise, Romney joins a long line of U.S. leaders who have preached the virtues of energy independence. Few, however, have explained precisely what this goal means.
> *
> A Global Market*
> 
> In truth, it would be virtually impossible for any country to be totally independent where energy is concerned. Not only would it have to produce all its own oil; it would also have to be independent of the global economy.
> 
> Like sugar, wheat, gold and other commodities, oil is also bought and sold on a global market. All the oil produced in the world becomes part of the global oil supply; all the oil used comes out of that supply. The global oil price depends on the supply/demand relation, and the price is essentially the same for all countries.
> 
> Energy analyst Amy Jaffe likens players in the global oil market to swimmers in a swimming pool.
> 
> "If you're in the deep end or the shallow end and somebody takes water out of the pool, it affects both swimmers equally," Jaffe says. "[It's the] same thing if we start pouring water in. You're not pouring the water into just the deep end or just the shallow end."
> 
> With oil, all countries are affected when the total supply is down relative to demand; the price goes up. When the supply is boosted and there is plenty of oil for everyone, the global price goes down.
> 
> *With respect to price, therefore, there is no such thing as energy independence. Even if the U.S. were producing as much oil as it was consuming, a halt in production by Iran or Saudi Arabia would still drive up the oil price in the U.S.*
> 
> *Energy Security*
> 
> But there is another way to think about energy independence. If a country produces as much oil as it uses, it is less vulnerable to some foreign country shutting the tap. Jaffe, executive director of energy and sustainability at the University of California, Davis, says this is the big reason governments want to reduce their dependence on foreign oil producers.
> 
> "If someone is going to cut off your supply, because they don't like your foreign policy or they want to keep you from attacking a country, this is a dangerous thing," Jaffe says.
> 
> But is "energy independence" the proper term to describe the national goal?
> 
> "I prefer the term 'energy security,' " says Roger Altman, who served as deputy Treasury secretary under President Clinton.
> 
> "What that means," Altman says, "is, 'Let's get to the point where the amount we import from rogue or potentially rogue nations who might be hostile to us is down to a point where, if suddenly that supply was interrupted or shut off, we go right on.' "
> 
> The U.S. learned the importance of "energy security" in 1973, when Arab countries imposed an oil boycott on the United States to protest its military support for Israel in its war against Egypt and Syria. Americans were soon waiting in long lines at gas stations.
> 
> In response to the Arab oil boycott, President Nixon set a new national goal in his 1974 State of the Union speech.
> 
> "At the end of this decade, in the year 1980," Nixon proposed, "the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes and to keep our transportation moving."
> 
> *A Glimmer Of Hope*
> 
> The fact that we are still talking about this goal nearly 40 years later shows how hard it is to achieve. But there is reason now to believe that energy security may finally be within reach. Energy production in the U.S. is booming, thanks in large part to new techniques for extracting oil and gas from hard-to-reach deposits.
> 
> According to the latest estimates from the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration, U.S. production of oil and other liquid petroleum products could soon overtake production from Saudi Arabia, the world's No. 1 oil producer. Oil imports, meanwhile, are declining.
> 
> U.S. energy demand remains high, however, and it is likely to be years before the United States has an energy supply entirely its own.
> 
> Even in that case, however, the U.S. could significantly boost its energy security, because new production throughout the Western Hemisphere would leave the country less vulnerable to a shutoff from the Middle East or elsewhere.
> 
> "It doesn't mean we would never import another barrel of oil outside the Western Hemisphere," says Altman, who is now the chairman of Evercore Partners, an investment banking firm. "What it means is that most of our oil imports would come from Canada, Mexico, Brazil and so forth, and whatever happened in the Middle East would have no severe downside for our economic stability."
> 
> This is progress. It's hard to imagine how a conflict with Brazil or Mexico, much less with Canada, could jeopardize the U.S. energy supply.
> 
> Increased energy security on the supply side, however, does not mean energy independence on the economic side. A smaller share of the oil we use in the U.S. comes from foreign sources today than was the case a decade ago. But an increase in the world oil price has left U.S. consumers paying more at the gas pump and reminded them of their continued dependence on market events beyond White House control.


----------



## a_majoor

An interesting and humerous look at why solar energy is doomed as anything other than a niche energy source. The key here is surface area; since solar energy is converted at fairly low efficiencies using current or foreseeable technologies you need enourmous amounts of surface area to generate useful amounts of energy. Anyone who doubts that should look at a picture of the ISS; even with virtually uninterrupted sunlight the solar array is by far the largest part of the station. On Earth we have clouds, the Day/Night cycle and the atmosphere to diffuse sunlight, so the situation is much worse:

http://what-if.xkcd.com/17/



> *If cows could photosynthesize, how much less food would they need?*
> 
> —Anonymous
> 
> In a way, they already do. A field of grass sits there all day soaking up energy from the sun and storing it chemically. A grazing animal can then come along and absorb weeks of accumulated energy in a matter of minutes.
> 
> A Jersey cow presents in the neighborhood of nearly two square meters of usable space to the sun if it stands right. (Cows would have to be trained to stand optimally, but we might not have too far to go; research suggests they already align themselves north-south <http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/08/22/0803650105>.
> 
> Chlorophyll photosynthesis extracts 3%-6% of the total energy from sunlight. If we figure on any given day the cow gets the equivalent of about six hours of peak sunlight, it works out to less than two million joules of usable energy each day.
> 
> Is that a lot? Well, a 450-kilogram cow just wandering around in a field might eat about 10 kilograms of dry matter a day, extracting on the order of 50 million joules of metabolic energy. So photosynthesis could only make up about 4% of the required intake—saving only a few handfuls of grain.
> 
> If we could equip cows with solar panels, which can be several times more energy-efficient than photosynthesis, we could improve that number—but not by much.
> 
> The basic problem facing cows is the same one facing solar cars—they're too small. If you saw the world's cattle population in silhouette, they'd have an overall cross-sectional area of about two thousand square kilometers. This means that if they were migrating through the air over Rhode Island (biology is not my strong suit), they'd blot out the sun over barely half the state. They'd only catch enough sunlight to produce a daily average of about 40 gigawatts of power (two megayodas <http://what-if.xkcd.com/3/>).
> 
> By contrast, about 3% of the world's surface area is cultivated, which means that (given rough estimates of geographic distribution of farmland) our crops easily intercept over a thousand times more sunlight than our cattle—which is why grazing is a good strategy.
> 
> I'd like to conclude with this quote, which I found in the Cedara Agricultural Development Institute's Applied Ruminant Nutrition for Dairy Cows:
> 
> Cows on a typical dairy ration can produce 80 to 100 litres of saliva per day.
> 
> This has nothing to do with photosynthesis, but I wanted to share anyway.



A car covers an area of roughly 2m X 5m (more looking at the way some people park), so there is a bit more surface area available for solar panels, but not really that much more, and driving a car uses much more energy than a cow.


----------



## kevincanada

The only abundant source we have is nuclear for the future.  The problem is storage.   Prototype cars can be plugged into your garage now, which is good  they just don't get the mileage between recharges and take to long to recharge.  4 hours at 220volt and 20 hours at 110volt.  Perhaps if batteries could be charge at around 2000 volts, it maybe feasible, you could even take a  road trip as it would be mere minutes to recharge a battery.

Providing that doesn't fry the battery, then safety and infrastructure needs to be established,  With voltage being so high in order to charge a batter fast I wouldn't be surprised if it is illegal for non-electricians to work with it which creates new problems.  Plus household fuse panels cannot handle that many volts or can the wiring,  new panels and and high voltage lines would need to be installed to charge it fast.

Sadly this is the most practical method we have to date.

Of course there is other ways to power a car, you could even forgo the battery and do it like in the days of Nikola Tesla and beam it through the air from the hydro pole and have the battery as backup as if it is a Star Trek movie. (remote control anyone?)  again it boils down to safety and being practical.

In short, it can work.  Just how painful will the adjustment be to the new way of doing business is the question.


----------



## a_majoor

Quick history lesson here: Electric cars actually outnumbered all other types early in the last century (Steam has issues and early IC engines were dangerous and unreliable), but the sticking point was the electrical infrastructure simply could not be expanded at anywhere near the rate needed to support electric cars.

Flash forward to the 21rst century and lo and behold, the electrical infrastructure simply cannot handle a large number of electric cars. Kevin has pointed out some of the issues, since batteries are low energy density devices, it takes a lot of batteries to get any significant range from an electric car and the infrastructure to charge them would be difficult and expensive to install. Not only would houses have to be rewired to take high voltage chargers (and several houses wired to do so in the US have caught fire as a result), but the entire grid needs to be redone to provide reliable high voltage to the house. All that energy running through wires in your neighbourhood migh cause issues as well with things like wi-fi and radio signals, among other things.

As well, moving metal uses a great deal of energy, so the base load capabilities need to be boosted considerably (and we are not talking windmill farms). Somewhere upthread I remember posting an article which pointed out a solar panel capable of charging a car battery would need to be something like 3X the size of the typical suburban house roof. And this is for the one way trip to work...you can translate this to tthe number of coal or nuclear plants that would be needed to do this as a baseline (and then imagine the uproar the Greens and NlIMBY's would raise if you seriously proposed to build them).

For the immediate future, we will be seeing an increase in oil sands, and post 2016, tight oil, oil shale and fracked oil and petrolium liquids coming on the market produced here in North America.


----------



## Edward Campbell

This report, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, suggests that North America will be a net exporter of oil:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/north-america-to-be-net-exporter-of-oil-by-2030-iea-predicts/article5188639/


> North America to be net exporter of oil by 2030, IEA predicts
> 
> SHAWN MCCARTHY
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> 
> Published Monday, Nov. 12 2012
> 
> North America will become a net oil exporter by 2030, as booming unconventional production and tougher mileage standards for vehicles squeeze out offshore imports, the International Energy Agency forecast today.
> 
> The United States is expected to become the largest crude producer in the world by 2020, overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia, due to soaring production in tight-oil fields like North Dakota’s Bakken and Texas’s Eagle Ford, the Paris-based energy agency said in its annual forecast of energy-market trends.
> 
> The U.S. will see its crude production peak at 11.1-million barrels per day by 2020, up from 8.1-million currently. But production will not be sustained, given the U.S. has only the world’s eleventh-largest pool of reserves. The reservoirs of light, tight crude are difficult to extract and require intensive drilling and vast amounts of water to maintain production.
> 
> But coupled with continued growth in the oil sands, North American will provide a supply bounty that was not anticipated just a few years ago. The IEA expects Canadian production to grow from 3.5-million barrels per day to 4.9-million in 2020, and 6.3-million in 2035, fuelled largely by growth in the oil sands.
> 
> “North America is at the forefront of a sweeping transformation in oil and gas production that will affect all regions of the world, yet the potential also exists for a similarly transformative shift in global energy efficiency,” the agency’s executive director Maria van der Hoeven said in a release.
> 
> She said that improvements in energy efficiency are “just as important” as growth in supply in meeting the world’s energy needs at a reasonable costs adding that, by 2035, the world could achieve economically-viable energy savings equivalent to nearly a fifth of current demand.
> 
> In oil markets, the U.S. is expected to reduce its imports from 10-million barrels per day currently to about 4-million barrels per day within 10 years. With U.S. gains and growing supplies from Canada’s oil sands, North American is forecast to eliminate the need for imported oil by 2030, a trend that does not existing in other crude importing regions.
> 
> “This accelerates the switch in direction of international oil trade towards Asia, putting a focus on the security of the strategic routes that bring Middle East oil to Asian markets,” the IEA said.
> 
> Despite the improvement in North America’s energy security, the analysts warn there is “no immunity” from global forces in the oil and broader energy markets. Americans and Canadians will continue to be impacted by a rising world price for crude, which will climb to $125 (U.S.) a barrel (in 2011 dollars) by 2035. By that year, demand is expected to grow 99.7-million barrels per day, from 87.4-million last year, with China alone accounting for 50 per cent of the increase.
> 
> The U.S. won’t hold its pre-eminence in production for long. By the middle of the next decade, Saudi Arabia will reclaim its traditional position as the world’s largest producer, while Iraq is expected to climb to number two within 20 years.
> 
> The largest increases in production outside of the Organization of Oil Exporting Countries are expected to occur in Brazil, Canada, Kazakhstan and the United States.




So it may a short-lived stay "on top" but it is indicative of the fact that science generally negates Malthusian predictions.


----------



## kevincanada

I question that article,  USA hasn't been able to sustain itself in the terms of oil since probably the 1930's. She presently consumes 20million barrels per day, and only produces around a 3rd of that.  Even by the terms used in the article that math doesn't add up.

Canada on the other hand yeah, the pipe lines are being installed for exporting.  Most of it will likely go to the USA, and any extra from there gets exported.  I'm basing that on a national defense point of view.  With the constant fighting and trade routes being regularly threatened in the Mid East.  I would suspect it is in both countries interest to keep the oil mostly domestic (canada, usa, britian) the main/major allies and sell surplus only to non NATO countries.


----------



## a_majoor

Since oil is a fungable commodity, global events will impact on global prices (even if full bore fracking, shale oil extraction and oil sand production were to fully satisfy North American demand). Most people don't realize that the US presence in the Middle 
East isn't to secure oil for US domestic production (much of the imported oil comes from Mexico, Canada and Venezuela), but to ensure that there is no interruption to important US clients like Japan, or trading partners like China (and to a lesser extent India). The war in Libya was mainly to secure British and French oil interests there and ensure the flow of oil to the Europeans.

Restrictions in oil production due to war, political events or natural disasters throttle supply, while demand remains fairly constant, hence the price of US gasoline and diesel will increase when Iran cannot sell oil to India due to the embargo. Russia also enjoys a huge surge in export earnings for oil and gas when alternate supplies are restricted, hence some apparently counterproductive Russian actions really serve to fill the Kremlin coffers.

WRT where we sell our oil, producers will go to wherever they can get the highest price at the lowest cost to them, hence the interest in pipelines running to Prince Rupert or to the East Coast, since the US Administration is making a political decision to restrict oil supply and close off market access.


----------



## a_majoor

Steam is an important industrial "fluid". Here is an interesting way to rapidly raise steam even in ice cold water without huge energy inputs. Being able to run a boiler with low inputs could be a big bonus in distributed energy sources, either off grid or to suppliment grid energy:

http://news.rice.edu/2012/11/19/rice-unveils-super-efficient-solar-energy-technology-2/



> *Rice unveils super-efficient solar-energy technology*
> Jade Boyd– November 19, 2012
> Posted in: Current News
> 
> ‘Solar steam’ so effective it can make steam from icy cold water
> Rice University scientists have unveiled a revolutionary new technology that uses nanoparticles to convert solar energy directly into steam. The new “solar steam” method from Rice’s Laboratory for Nanophotonics (LANP) is so effective it can even produce steam from icy cold water.
> 
> Details of the solar steam method were published online today in ACS Nano. The technology has an overall energy efficiency of 24 percent. Photovoltaic solar panels, by comparison, typically have an overall energy efficiency around 15 percent. However, the inventors of solar steam said they expect the first uses of the new technology will not be for electricity generation but rather for sanitation and water purification in developing countries.
> 
> Rice University graduate student Oara Neumann, left, and scientist Naomi Halas are co-authors of new research on a highly efficient method of turning sunlight into heat. They expect their technology to have an initial impact as an ultra-small-scale system to treat human waste in developing nations without sewer systems or electricity. Photo by Jeff Fitlow
> 
> “This is about a lot more than electricity,” said LANP Director Naomi Halas, the lead scientist on the project. “With this technology, we are beginning to think about solar thermal power in a completely different way.”
> 
> The efficiency of solar steam is due to the light-capturing nanoparticles that convert sunlight into heat. When submerged in water and exposed to sunlight, the particles heat up so quickly they instantly vaporize water and create steam. Halas said the solar steam’s overall energy efficiency can probably be increased as the technology is refined.
> 
> “We’re going from heating water on the macro scale to heating it at the nanoscale,” Halas said. “Our particles are very small — even smaller than a wavelength of light — which means they have an extremely small surface area to dissipate heat. This intense heating allows us to generate steam locally, right at the surface of the particle, and the idea of generating steam locally is really counterintuitive.”
> 
> To show just how counterintuitive, Rice graduate student Oara Neumann videotaped a solar steam demonstration in which a test tube of water containing light-activated nanoparticles was submerged into a bath of ice water. Using a lens to concentrate sunlight onto the near-freezing mixture in the tube, Neumann showed she could create steam from nearly frozen water.
> 
> Steam is one of the world’s most-used industrial fluids. About 90 percent of electricity is produced from steam, and steam is also used to sterilize medical waste and surgical instruments, to prepare food and to purify water.
> 
> The solar steam device developed at Rice University has an overall energy efficiency of 24 percent, far surpassing that of photovoltaic solar panels. It may first be used in sanitation and water-purification applications in the developing world. Photo by Jeff Fitlow
> Most industrial steam is produced in large boilers, and Halas said solar steam’s efficiency could allow steam to become economical on a much smaller scale.
> 
> People in developing countries will be among the first to see the benefits of solar steam. Rice engineering undergraduates have already created a solar steam-powered autoclave that’s capable of sterilizing medical and dental instruments at clinics that lack electricity. Halas also won a Grand Challenges grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to create an ultra-small-scale system for treating human waste in areas without sewer systems or electricity.
> 
> “Solar steam is remarkable because of its efficiency,” said Neumann, the lead co-author on the paper. “It does not require acres of mirrors or solar panels. In fact, the footprint can be very small. For example, the light window in our demonstration autoclave was just a few square centimeters.”
> 
> Another potential use could be in powering hybrid air-conditioning and heating systems that run off of sunlight during the day and electricity at night. Halas, Neumann and colleagues have also conducted distillation experiments and found that solar steam is about two-and-a-half times more efficient than existing distillation columns.
> 
> Halas, the Stanley C. Moore Professor in Electrical and Computer Engineering, professor of physics, professor of chemistry and professor of biomedical engineering, is one of the world’s most-cited chemists. Her lab specializes in creating and studying light-activated particles. One of her creations, gold nanoshells, is the subject of several clinical trials for cancer treatment.
> 
> For the cancer treatment technology and many other applications, Halas’ team chooses particles that interact with just a few wavelengths of light. For the solar steam project, Halas and Neumann set out to design a particle that would interact with the widest possible spectrum of sunlight energy. Their new nanoparticles are activated by both visible sunlight and shorter wavelengths that humans cannot see.
> 
> “We’re not changing any of the laws of thermodynamics,” Halas said. “We’re just boiling water in a radically different way.”
> 
> Paper co-authors include Jared Day, graduate student; Alexander Urban, postdoctoral researcher; Surbhi Lal, research scientist and LANP executive director; and Peter Nordlander, professor of physics and astronomy and of electrical and computer engineering. The research was supported by the Welch Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.




I'm not sure that there is a typo, but it would seem that if the purpose was to harness solar energy the particles should be able to intercept visible light and _longer_ wave lengths that humans cannot see. Much of the Sun's energy production comes as infrared light, which is why I think this is a typo.


----------



## Edward Campbell

kevincanada said:
			
		

> I question that article,  USA hasn't been able to sustain itself in the terms of oil since probably the 1930's. She presently consumes 20million barrels per day, and only produces around a 3rd of that.  Even by the terms used in the article that math doesn't add up.
> 
> Canada on the other hand yeah, the pipe lines are being installed for exporting.  Most of it will likely go to the USA, and any extra from there gets exported.  I'm basing that on a national defense point of view.  With the constant fighting and trade routes being regularly threatened in the Mid East.  I would suspect it is in both countries interest to keep the oil mostly domestic (canada, usa, britian) the main/major allies and sell surplus only to non NATO countries.




Here is the IEA report, it seems to add up for most people.


----------



## cupper

kevincanada said:
			
		

> I question that article,  USA hasn't been able to sustain itself in the terms of oil since probably the 1930's. She presently consumes 20million barrels per day, and only produces around a 3rd of that.  Even by the terms used in the article that math doesn't add up.
> 
> Canada on the other hand yeah, the pipe lines are being installed for exporting.  Most of it will likely go to the USA, and any extra from there gets exported.  I'm basing that on a national defense point of view.  With the constant fighting and trade routes being regularly threatened in the Mid East.  I would suspect it is in both countries interest to keep the oil mostly domestic (canada, usa, britian) the main/major allies and sell surplus only to non NATO countries.



You need to review the data from the US Energy Information Administration. They have detailed breakdowns of consumption, import /export volumes, and more.

They current data on imports shows that the US is currently importing 10 to 11 million barrel equivalents of petroleum products per day, while consuming 19 to 20 million. Add to that they are exporting just under 3 million. The data includes all petroleum products both crude oil and refined products.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_w.htm

http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/

http://www.eia.gov/

It is also interesting to note that the US is currently a net exporter of petroleum products and has been over the past year or so. Partly due to the decreased domestic demand as a result of the economic conditions, the milder than normal winter of 2011 / 2012, and policies leaning towards reduced oil consumption (higher fuel efficiencies in automobiles, investment in alternate energy sources, drop in natural gas prices).


----------



## kevincanada

Oh they been mass producing the shale reserves.  I had no idea they started moving on that.  I recall it being problematic a few years back.  It makes sense that the USA can increase their production levels now.  That's cool.


----------



## a_majoor

While rebuilding everyone's houses might be a bit problematic, these sorts of principles could be incorporated into public buildings, offices and so on reasonably quickly, and into new home construction as well:

http://www.ryerson.ca/news/media/General_Public/20121203_rn_richman.html



> *RYERSON UNIVERSITY RESEARCH EXPLORES FEASIBILITY OF “HOUSE WITHIN A HOUSE” DESIGN*
> New findings suggest that changes to home construction design could result in 80% energy savings
> December 03, 2012
> 
> Ryerson professor Russell Richman (left) with his research partners Ekaterina Tzekova and Kim Pressnail, in front of the Toronto home that will be retrofitted with their nested thermal envelope design this winter.
> 
> As temperatures fall this winter, heating costs will inevitably rise. In response, Canadians will pull out their slippers, light the hearth and vigilantly monitor their thermostats, but what more can be done? According to collaborative research led by Ryerson University, a simple change in the way we live in our homes, and the introduction of a heat pump, could save up to 80% on energy consumption.
> 
> Russell Richman, a professor in the Department of Architectural Science at Ryerson University, is the co-principal investigator of an on-going research project that explores the practicality of Nested Thermal Envelope Design, a home construction design that employs zonal heating.  Space heating is the largest single contributor to residential energy use in Canada at 60% of the total. Minimizing envelope heat losses is one approach to reducing this percentage. Thanks to a construction research grant including $200,000 and $100,000 cash contributions from the Ontario Power Authority's Technology and Development Fund and the University of Toronto, the nested thermal envelope design will soon be implemented in a home in downtown Toronto.
> 
> “In the winter, you could get savings by living in a smaller space, period,” says Richman. “But you can’t just heat one room, because there is no insulation between one room and the outside or other rooms. To do it really well, you need to insulate the room and then insulate the whole house. As we explain it, zonal heating is just a house within a house, or a box within a box.”
> 
> The nested thermal envelope design has two key components.  First, the home must be divided into two different zones; the perimeter and the core. The core is the home’s main living area, for example, the kitchen, the living room and bedrooms. The perimeter is those less often used rooms, such as a formal dining room, sunrooms and secondary bathrooms. Secondly, the home must have a small heating unit that cycles heat from the perimeter into the core during the winter season. The heat pump funnels heat lost to the perimeter back into the core of the home, before it escapes the perimeter and is lost to the exterior of the home.
> 
> To take full advantage of the design, the home’s core must be set at a reasonable temperature, for example 21 degrees, while the perimeter stays at 5 degrees. It is important to note that living in the core of the home is only necessary during the colder months, when the desire to save money on heating costs is at its height and when the disparity between indoor and outdoor temperatures is greatest.
> 
> This nested thermal envelope design was originally conceived by Richman and his colleague, University of Toronto professor Kim Pressnail, following a discussion between the pair on the heat loss they were experiencing in their own homes. After considering the practicality of simply living in fewer rooms, the researchers experimented with the practice of living in a smaller space while also recycling heat from within their homes. Along with Ph.D. candidate Ekaterina Tzekova, also from the University of Toronto, the team has been evaluating variations on nested thermal envelope designs since 2007.
> 
> After drafting the original design, the research team tested it using a building energy simulation program, called EnergyPlus.  Calculations revealed up to 80% in energy savings.
> 
> This winter, the researchers are moving into the next stage of the project. The nested thermal envelope design will be implemented into a home in downtown Toronto.  The team will elect test subjects to live in the home, beginning with a student and, later on, the home will become a residence for visiting professors. The research team will track behaviour patterns and get feedback from the occupants themselves.
> 
> “The question is, is it worth the additional effort of installing a heat pump? The pump needs to be servicing a lot of energy in order to validate this design,” says Richman.  “There are so many research questions to be answered with the house. It’s always exciting to take theoretical research and turn it into practice.”
> 
> Richman and his colleagues hope to collect data from the home and its inhabitants over the next five years, after which time they will continue their research with a custom built home.
> 
> The group’s preliminary findings were published in the November 2012 issue of Energy and Buildings.
> 
> Ryerson University is Canada's leader in innovative, career-oriented education and a university clearly on the move. With a mission to serve societal need, and a long-standing commitment to engaging its community, Ryerson offers more than 100 undergraduate and graduate programs. Distinctly urban, culturally diverse and inclusive, the university is home to more than 28,000 students, including 2,300 master's and PhD students, nearly 2,700 faculty and staff, and 140,000 alumni worldwide. Research at Ryerson is on a trajectory of success and growth: externally funded research has doubled in the past five years. The G. Raymond Chang School of Continuing Education is Canada's leading provider of university-based adult education. For more information, visit www.ryerson.ca.
> 
> -30-
> 
> MEDIA CONTACT:
> 
> Johanna VanderMaas
> Public Affairs
> Ryerson University
> Office: 416-979-5000 x 4630
> johanna.vandermaas@ryerson.ca
> 
> Follow us @RyersonNews


----------



## cupper

This isn't really all that new an idea.

I remember from my previous building technology courses that some of the concepts discussed in the article are used in design of commercial buildings to reduce energy consumption.

For example, take your typical suburban shopping mall (where the storefronts are mainly accessed from within the main building, as opposed to a strip mall where you have a bunch of stores built adjacent to each other, all with individual external access). Much of the mechanical and service corridors are on the perimeter of the building, with the stores and public areas internal to the perimeter corridors. This provides a separation between the climate controlled public areas and the exterior walls, reducing the heat transfer directly to the outside. Further zoning of the HVAC systems allows energy consumption to be controlled by cutting back on heating / cooling in unused areas or stores, and adjusting for higher occupancy areas. You also see this in office high rises with a central HVAC plant / system.


----------



## a_majoor

True, the idea of an air gap for insulation is not really new. What these experiments are getting at is to transfer the heat energy from the "air gap" into the central living area. Since the air will be somewhat warmer than outside air (which is where heap pumps usually draw their energy from), then the energy savings are expected to be quite large.

On a re read, I'm not sure how keen people would be to have the dining room or spare bedrooms at 50C, and of course any energy savings will be eliminated when guests arrive and actually want to use the spare bedrooms. This is why I suggested that this may be more practical in public or government buildings, where the work space can be cocooned and the machinery and storage spaces used to buffer the system and act as the energy reservoir for the heat pump.


----------



## cupper

Here is an example of how the interrelationship of the energy sector and the food sector effects prices in ways you wouldn't think. An extreme take on the whole supply vs demand equation. Although not as significant as corn based ethanol as a fuel additive, it does make one think over their ice cream. 

*How fracking affects a bean grown in India*

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/how-fracking-affects-bean-grown-india



> Many people may not know what guar gum is, but chances are they've put it in their mouths or on their hair. Guar gum is made out of the seed and it’s used to thicken things like ice cream, shampoo and paper. It’s also a key ingredient in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the controversial oil drilling process.
> 
> Frackers inject guar gum into cracks in the earth, after they blast into shale rock miles underground.
> 
> "You have to have something to keep it open," says Kelly Youngblood, director of investor relations at Halliburton, one of the biggest frackers in the world. "You can fracture the earth and open it up, but, over time, the earth will settle and all the channels that you have created will essentially close."
> 
> As fracking took off, so did guar gum prices. Then there was a bad harvest in India, the guar gum capital. Guar gum went from about a $1 a pound in 2010 to $12 earlier this year. Halliburton’s profits took a hit and the company took action.
> 
> "We went out and bought a significant supply, a strategic reserve of guar," says Youngblood, "to make sure that we didn’t run out."
> 
> The global supply of guar gum got even tighter and prices got even higher. That’s when market forces stepped in, says Dan Manternach, agriculture services director for Doane Advisory Services in St. Louis.
> 
> "High prices are the best cure for high prices," he says, quoting an economic adage. "High prices discourage consumption and encourage production."
> 
> True to form, farmers planted guar like crazy just as companies like Halliburton started developing cheaper substitutes. Supply soared, demand fell. And, just as quickly as guar gum prices spiked, they dove.
> 
> "Prices are now regressing to where they were just a few years ago," says oil trader and analyst Stephen Schork.
> 
> Guar gum is now cheaper than the substitute Halliburton developed -- at least for now.



For those who are wondering what guar gum is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guar_gum


----------



## a_majoor

China has a huge amount of shale gas. The question is can it be extracted in an economical manner. The usual gerfluncting to the church of global warming at the end of the article should not distract us from the essential points being made here. An energy secure China will reduce a lot of internal tensions and worries, and at the same time undercut both Russia and other Middle Eastern countries by lowering prices of natural gas world wide:

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/508146/china-has-plenty-of-shale-gas-but-it-will-be-hard-to-mine/



> China Has Plenty of Shale Gas, But It Will Be Hard to Mine
> 
> The country aims to use computer simulations to overcome significant challenges in extracting shale gas.
> 
> By Kevin Bullis on December 11, 2012
> 
> Why It Matters
> 
> If China can produce large amounts of natural gas, this might slow the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> The discovery of vast amounts of shale gas in the United States has already had a big impact on the country’s energy use—prompting a shift away from coal and helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (see “A Drop in U.S. CO2 Emissions” and “King Natural Gas”). By some estimates, China has even more shale gas. But it will be difficult for China to access these resources, which are bound up in shale rock, without significant advances in extraction technologies—including the use of powerful computer simulations of the physical properties of shale deposits.
> 
> China has set itself an ambitious goal of obtaining 60 billion cubic meters of shale gas by 2020, enough to produce about 6 percent of all of its energy, up from almost none today. But China faces a number of challenges in developing these resources. Most of the gas is found in arid areas, and the current approach for freeing the gas—hydraulic fracturing—requires a lot of water. What’s more, the geology is different in China than in the United States, which could make hydraulic fracturing more difficult.
> 
> “China has a lot of natural gas in shale,” says Julio Friedmann, chief energy technologist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “But we don’t know how much of that gas they can produce, and what’s necessary to get it out of the ground; we don’t know how much it will cost to produce.”
> 
> New fracking techniques could help. For example, ways to reduce water consumption are being developed in the United States, where some of the shale gas is in dry areas, such as parts of Texas. New water treatment methods are making it possible to recycle more water (see “Can Fracking Be Cleaned Up?”). In the future, extremely fine particles that flow “like ball bearings” might replace much of the water used now, says Franz-Josef Ulm, a civil and environmental engineering professor at MIT. The particles could be pumped into a shale deposit under pressure to fracture the shale, along with just a small amount of liquid.
> 
> Addressing the differences in geology will likely require a much better understanding of the specifics of each formation—such as temperatures, pressures, mineral composition, and the way organic materials interact with the rock. “Whenever you talk about gas shale, every area is completely different. Each gas play has its own features, depending on its geologic history,” Ulm says. For example, shale rock in China tends to contain considerably more clay than the shale in much of the U.S., and clay deforms rather than fractures under pressure. The amount of clay in some shale deposits in China may be small enough that the rock can be fractured simply by increasing the hydraulic pressure. Where that doesn’t work, new techniques may be required.
> 
> Ulm is developing computer simulations that can predict the behavior of shale rock from the interactions of different minerals and organic materials in a deposit. The simulations suggest that injecting solvents into a formation to dissolve specific organic materials that act as glue could reduce the amount of pressure needed for fracking, Ulm says. But such an option should be a last resort because the chemicals could be dangerous, he notes.
> 
> Ulm’s simulations also suggest potentially easier ways to improve the efficiency of shale gas extraction. Since temperature, pressure, and geology vary with depth, in some cases precisely selecting the depth of a well could be enough to free previously inaccessible gas, Ulm says. Injecting carbon dioxide or heating up the formation with steam—as is done now with tar sands in Canada—could also help.
> 
> But even if such techniques prove successful, it is unlikely that producing and using shale gas will have a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions in China, as least in the next several years, Friedmann says. China lacks a pipeline infrastructure to carry natural gas from western China, where most shale gas is, to the population centers in the east to be burned in power plants instead of coal. Instead it’s likely to be used first for chemical production. Friedmann estimates that even so, emissions from coal consumption are likely to be reduced by 100 to 150 million tons a year, since coal is now used to produce some chemicals in China. But China is estimated to produce over 9,000 million tons of greenhouse gases a year, and that number is expected to grow substantially.
> 
> “If shale gas production scales up in China, we’ll get some offsets of produced coal. But it’s not a panacea for [addressing] climate [change],” he says.


----------



## a_majoor

As more and more North American oil production hits the market, we will see the further eroson of OPEC, and secondary effects on other oil producers like Russia and the 'Stans. How this will play out is interesting to contemplate; these nations will have fewer resources while the United States will have a much better cash flow and balance of payments in the years and decades to come:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/12/12/us-energy-boom-deals-blow-to-opec/



> *US Energy Boom Deals Blow to OPEC*
> 
> The members of OPEC meet in Vienna this week with nothing major to discuss. Despite economic uncertainty and political turmoil in the Middle East, oil prices remain over $100 per barrel, and production has not wavered far from the quota of 30 million barrels per day in quite some time.
> But OPEC workers had to hustle to maintain the calm. In particular Saudi Arabia, which has the most flexibility in production, has revved it up to a 30-year high this year. If not for this increase, sanctions against Iran might have administered a severe shock to oil supply. In the past, Saudi Arabia has been happy to play the role of swing producer, but the FT reports that those days may be quickly coming to an end. Saudi Arabia is thinking of stepping back in 2013, when OPEC will likely face additional issues:
> 
> The Saudis’ zeal is now moderating. Figures published by Opec on Tuesday showed that the kingdom cut its crude production to its lowest level this year, pumping 9.5m b/d in November, significantly less than its June high and 230,000 b/d less than in October.
> Analysts warn that monthly production figures can show seasonal fluctuations. But the numbers do appear to indicate that Riyadh is running its own production policy, with little reference to Opec.
> 
> Prices have stayed strong for much of this year, but Saudi is now adjusting production to slowing global demand growth and a big jump in domestic US crude output thanks to the shale boom. In 2013, the risks might be harder to manage.
> 
> It’s the last point here that’s most important. Saudi’s are cutting back their production for a number of reasons, but high among them are the oil and gas reserves in North America, many of which are only now beginning to come online.
> 
> This is the beginning of a trend. The American energy boom is already changing Saudi thinking regarding its own oil reserves, and OPEC’s influence is in an even more advanced stage of decline. Divisions within the cartel and the threat of competition from “vast” North American reserves pose a serious threat to a tight-knit organization that isn’t used to external competition. And as its influence wanes, the remaining members will begin to compete for portions of a continually shrinking pie, weakening the organization’s cohesion and further reducing its influence.
> 
> It will take time for the full effects of the shale boom to fully manifest themselves, but even at this very early stage OPEC can feel its power slipping away. The rest of the world will do its best to contain its sorrow.


----------



## a_majoor

The only thing "Green" about this is the money. Considering the flood of money being spent by governments on so called "green" energy, the field is ripe for scams like this. Soylendra anyone?:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/12/19/mystery-biodiesel-train-credits.html



> *Biofuel credits behind mystery cross-border train shipments*
> Back and forth shipments prompt accusation of fraud, EPA and CBSA probes
> By John Nicol and Dave Seglins, CBC News
> Posted: Dec 19, 2012 4:58 AM ET
> Last Updated: Dec 19, 2012 10:47 AM ET
> 
> Biodiesel rail shipments that went back and forth across the Sarnia-Port Huron border were part of a deal that made several million dollars importing and exporting the fuel to exploit a loophole in a U.S. green energy program Cross-border train shipment fraud?
> 
> CN's $2.6M mystery U.S. trips never unloaded biodiesel
> 
> The mystery of the trainload of biodiesel that crossed back and forth across the Sarnia-Port Huron border without ever unloading its cargo, as reported by CBC News, has been solved.
> 
> CBC News received several tips after a recent story about a company shipping the same load of biodiesel back and forth by CN Rail at a cost of $2.6 million in the summer of 2010. It turns out the shipments were part of a deal by a Toronto-based company, which made several million dollars importing and exporting the fuel to exploit a loophole in a U.S. green energy program.
> 
> The entire U.S. biodiesel market has been the centre of controversy and even legislative hearings this summer over problems with the regulatory program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The fallout and distrust of a market-based biodiesel credit system has had several repercussions for the industry, particularly for fledgling biodiesel companies trying to produce environmentally friendly fuel. The recent CBC reports on that train to nowhere have prompted an investigation by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), as well as a further investigation by the EPA.
> 
> The company that organized the train shipment was Bioversel Trading Inc. of Toronto. Its principal, Arie Mazur, gave CBC a detailed explanation this week explaining that the trip was all about RINs — renewable identification numbers — the credits set up by the EPA to promote and track production and importation of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.
> 
> The complicated deal unfolded in the final two weeks of June 2010.
> Train records used to generate millions in RIN credits
> 
> Bioversel Trading hired CN Rail to import tanker loads of biodiesel to the U.S. to generate RINs, which are valuable in the U.S. because of a "greening" policy regulating the petroleum industry. The EPA's "Renewable Fuel Standard" mandate that oil companies bring a certain amount of renewable fuel to market, quotas they can achieve through blending biofuel with fossil fuel or by purchasing RINs as offsets.
> 
> Because RINs can be generated through import, the 12 trainloads that crossed into Michigan would have contained enough biodiesel to create close to 12 million RINs. In the summer of 2010, biodiesel RINs were selling for 50 cents each, but the price soon fluctuated to more than $1 per credit.
> 
> Once "imported" to a company capable of generating RINs, ownership of the biodiesel was transferred to Bioversel's American partner company, Verdeo, and then exported back to Canada. RINs must be "retired" once the fuel is exported from the U.S., but Bioversel says Verdeo retired ethanol RINs, worth pennies, instead of the more valuable biodiesel RINs. Bioversel claims this was all perfectly legal.
> 
> However, one of the companies Bioversel approached to be the ‘importer of record’—Northern Biodiesel Inc. of Ontario, N.Y. — discovered that the same fuel was going back and forth across the border and the same gallons were being used to repeatedly generate new RINs under their company’s name. The company called the EPA and also sent a letter that would become an open letter to the biodiesel industry, accusing Bioversel of “trying to perpetrate a fraud against NBI and the Renewable Fuel Standard program.”
> 
> The EPA, which has a buyer beware policy for oil companies that buy RINs, did not act immediately, and the industry has been begging for it to play the role of sheriff on this case and others. The EPA won’t comment on continuing investigations, but insiders said the case is still under investigation.
> Trust in US biodiesel credits shaken
> 
> Many observers of the Bioversel deal of 2010 doubt the RINs repeatedly generated on the same gallons of fuel are legal.
> 
> Invalid RINs
> 
> Since 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified more than $100 million in invalid RINS and accused three companies of violating regulations:
> 
> In June 2012, Rodney Hailey, CEO of Maryland-based Clean Green Fuel, was convicted of selling $9 million worth of fraudulent credits to traders and oil companies. Hailey used the money to buy jewelry, property and a fleet of 22 luxury cars; he was found guilty of wire fraud, money laundering and of violating the Clean Air Act.
> 
> Two Texas companies also face similar accusations: Last week, Jeffrey Gunselman, head of Absolute Fuels, pleaded guilty to the sale of more than $40 million worth of invalid credits, the profits of which he’d spent on real estate, cars, a demilitarized tank and a personal jet. Gunselman faces a maximum sentence of up to 1,268 years in prison and a fine of nearly $20 million.
> 
> This spring, Houston-based Green Diesel, helmed by Philip Rivkin, received a Notice of Violation from the EPA for allegedly generating 60 million fake RINS over a two year period. The investigation is ongoing.
> 
> "If the facts in your story bear out, there needs to be some people go to prison," said Joe Jobe, CEO of the U.S. National Biodiesel Board. “It’s not a victimless crime. [RIN fraud] has impacted the livelihoods and jobs of absolutely everybody in this industry, and it has cost the folks in the petroleum industry who have to comply with this, millions and millions of dollars and it has put small- and medium-sized biodiesel producers completely out of business.
> 
> CN's $2.6M mystery U.S. trips never unloaded biodiesel
> 
> "We've taken this very seriously. I testified before the House energy oversight committee this summer. Congress has been whopping mad about [RIN fraud] as well.”
> 
> CBC has contacted the EPA repeatedly in recent days asking for an opinion on whether the Bioversel imports were legal. The agency has refused to comment.
> 
> Northern Biodiesel owner Bob Bechtold says his company’s role in the deal made it a victim. His firm agreed to act as importer to generate the RINs, but when the paperwork wasn’t forthcoming from Bioversel, one of his employees called CN Rail to find out what was happening at the border.
> 
> "All we got from [CN Rail] was that there was a curious thing happening, that there were a number of cars that just kept going back and forth across the Canadian border," he told CBC News. "When we started smelling something that was weird, we called the EPA, and notified them that this was happening, and then we called the company that we were doing this transaction with and said we’re not doing any more business with you."
> 
> Bechtold said Bioversel had a "fit."
> 
> "First they threatened us that we were breaking the contract," he said. "One person came here and tried to insist that I would be in a lot of trouble because of breaking the contract, and I assured him that I thought he would be in a lot more trouble if this continued. Then they offered to buy our company, which we thought was pretty absurd, and I basically sent him on his way."
> 
> In its letter to the EPA, Northern Biodiesel cautioned its RIN company codes had been compromised, alleging that Bioversel’s partner company, Verdeo, took its numbers and made up new RINs “as if the biodiesel has been blended into the U.S. transportation fuel stream and separated from the renewable fuel. Then they were illegally sold by Verdeo to parties obligated to acquire RINs by the Renewable Fuel Standard.”
> 
> "One person came here and tried to insist that I would be in a lot of trouble because of breaking the contract, and I assured him that I thought he would be in a lot more trouble if this continued."—Bob Bechtold, Northern Biodiesel owner
> 
> Northern Biodiesel insisted the RINs issued were not valid because it had never received any bills of lading or chemical analysis reports from Verdeo, and thus Northern Biodiesel never reported/certified them with the EPA. However, millions of these RINs were sold in its name.
> 
> As a result, Northern Biodiesel RINs became tainted within the industry and Bechtold said that put him out of business.
> 
> "That was about the dumbest thing we ever did," said Bechtold about the letter and coming forward to the EPA. "We thought we were saving the industry, doing good to protect the industry, but it ended up being the kiss of death for us, because we are no longer able to participate in the field."
> 
> Beyond this case, the entire U.S. biodiesel RIN system has been plagued by problems, loopholes and even outright frauds. It has all undermined efforts to get U.S. industry to use more renewable fuels and has left big oil companies and other major fuel purchasers wary of smaller producers.
> Biodiesel plant set for Welland, Ont.
> 
> Bioversel Trading told CBC News this week that everything it did was legal and insisted they never directly generated or sold RINS. The company also distanced itself from its partner Verdeo, even though one of Verdeo’s former names was Bioversel Trading (US), and Arie Mazur of Bioversel Trading (Canada) was a former director and executive of the US company.
> 
> Bioversel Trading of Toronto is at the centre of a probe by the European Union and the CBSA, which claims in search warrant documents (executed on their Toronto office last spring) that the firm is suspected of exporting American biodiesel to Romania and Italy while saying it was Canadian, to avoid huge duties. That would amount to violations of the Customs Act – but have never been proven. Bioversel Trading flatly rejects the CBSA allegations.
> 
> The Bioversel family of companies has changed its names in Canada and the U.S., and has also been embroiled in several lawsuits in the U.S. over its trading in biodiesel fuel.
> 
> One of the companies that shares the same Toronto office space, once known as Bioversel Sarnia Inc., is now known as Great Lakes Biodiesel (GLB), which is planning to open a biodiesel plant in Welland, Ont. Mazur’s lawyer said Mazur is no longer a director of Great Lakes but confirms Mazur is involved in Einer Canada, which is a shareholder of GLB.
> 
> If it opens in early 2013 and meets its production targets, Great Lakes Biodiesel is eligible for $65 million in Canadian government subsidies over the next five years under the federal eco energy biofuels incentive program.
> 
> Send tips to dave.seglins@cbc.ca and john.nicol@cbc.ca


----------



## a_majoor

Funding for artificial tornadoes? A Canadian company devises a new way to harness waste heat and other low quality energy:

https://www.breakoutlabs.org/news-events/news-event-item/article/power-a-city-with-tornados-latest-grants-announced-by-thiel-foundations-breakout-labs-includes-an.html



> *Power a City with Tornados? Latest Grants Announced by Thiel Foundation's Breakout Labs Includes an Unusual Twist*
> 
> Canadian company, AVEtec, plans proof-of-concept test to extract energy from a man-made, controlled tornado
> 
> San Francisco - December 13, 2012 - The Thiel Foundation announced today three new grants awarded through Breakout Labs, its revolutionary revolving fund to promote innovation in science and technology. The most recent award takes the program into clean energy, with a bold new proposal to harness the power of atmospheric vortexes.
> 
> AVEtec is the brainchild of Canadian engineer, Louis Michaud. His Atmospheric Vortex Engine (AVE) harnesses the physics of tornados to produce extremely cheap and clean energy. In his design, warm or humid air is introduced into a circular station, where it takes the form of a rising vortex, i.e. a controlled tornado. The temperature difference between this heated air and the atmosphere above it supports the vortex and drives multiple turbines. The vortex can be shut down at any time by turning off the source of warm air.
> 
> Among its advantages over other sources of energy, AVE power generation neither produces carbon emissions nor needs energy storage. AVEtec projects that the cost of the energy it generates could be as low as 3 cents per kilowatt hour, making it one of the least expensive forms of energy production. An AVE power station could have a diameter of 100 meters and generate 200 megawatts of electrical power, the same order of magnitude as conventional coal power stations.
> 
> "The power in a tornado is undisputed," said Louis Michaud. "My work has established the principles by which we can control and exploit that power to provide clean energy on an unprecedented scale. With the funding from Breakout Labs, we are building a prototype in partnership with Lambton College to demonstrate the feasibility and the safety of the atmospheric vortex engine."
> 
> Additional Breakout Labs grants were also recently awarded to General Genomics and Siva Therapeutics. General Genomics uses ancestral DNA sequence reconstruction to radically improve the efficiency with which protein- and peptide-based therapeutics, as well as industrially-relevant enzymes, can be developed. Siva Therapeutics is developing therapies with the potential to be more effective, safer, less expensive, and less invasive by exploiting the biophysical properties of gold nanorods engineered to capture infrared light and emit heat that destroys diseased tissue.
> 
> "Our three newest grant recipients-AVEtec, General Genomics, and Siva Therapeutics-are vastly different in their technologies, company strategies, and goals," said Breakout Labs Executive Director, Lindy Fishburne. "What unites them is ground-breaking science coupled with the passion, vision, and creativity of their founders. We are delighted to bring them into the Breakout Labs community."
> 
> Launched in November 2011, Breakout Labs provides early-stage companies with the means to pursue their most radical goals in science and technology. To date Breakout Labs has awarded a total of twelve grants of up to $350,000 each. Breakout Labs accepts and funds proposals on a rolling basis.
> 
> Previous grants, announced earlier in the year, have been awarded to companies working on cultured meat, biomarker detection, brain reconstruction, reversible cryopreservation, human cell re-engineering, universal airborne contaminant detection, artificial protein therapeutics, and antimatter-based fuel. A summary of the 2012 Breakout Labs grant recipients is available at: https://www.breakoutlabs.org/recipients.html
> 
> "The world faces enormous challenges-resource scarcity, aging populations, economic mismanagement-and we need more visionary scientists and engineers like those at Breakout Labs making authentic discoveries and bringing world-changing products to market," said Thiel Foundation president Jonathan Cain. "We hope Breakout Labs inspires more investors to fund real innovation; more young people to pursue technology and entrepreneurship; and more nonprofits to foster risky, radical ideas."
> 
> ABOUT BREAKOUT LABS Breakout Labs, the newest program of the Thiel Foundation, does not make typical foundation grants-it is a revolutionary, revolving funding model through which successful projects fund the next generation of daring scientific exploration. Breakout Labs is reshaping the way early-stage science is funded, by providing support for young companies to advance their most radical ideas. Successful grantees will return a modest royalty and warrant stake to Breakout Labs and in this way, contribute to the next generation of scientific innovation. For more information, see www.BreakoutLabs.org.
> ABOUT THE THIEL FOUNDATION
> 
> The Thiel Foundation defends and promotes freedom in all its dimensions: political, personal, and economic. The Thiel Foundation supports innovative scientific research and new technologies that empower people to improve their lives, champions organizations and individuals who expose human rights abuses and authoritarianism in all its guises, and encourages the exploration of new ideas and new spaces where people can be less reliant on government and where freedom can flourish. For more information, see www.ThielFoundation.org.
> 
> Return to News & Events


----------



## a_majoor

Yet another demonstration that the "Green" approach to science is situational. Notice the report is almost a year old, yeat has not officially seen the light of day, and it s quite possible that without the actions of this whistle blower it never would have been released, while politicians in New York continued to oppose and prevent fracking:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/01/05/fracking-safe-in-ny-state-says-leaked-report/



> *Fracking Safe in NY State, Says Leaked Report*
> 
> Thanks to a leak from an anonymous insider, we learned Thursday that a report commissioned by the State of New York has given fracking a clean bill of health. The insider “did not think it should be kept secret” and released the document, which is now nearly one year old, to the New York Times, which reported:
> 
> The state’s Health Department found in an analysis it prepared early last year that the much-debated drilling technology known as hydrofracking could be conducted safely in New York.
> 
> The eight-page analysis is a summary of previous research by the state and others…[that] delves into the potential impact of fracking on water resources, on naturally occurring radiological material found in the ground, on air emissions and on “potential socioeconomic and quality-of-life impacts.”…[It] concludes that fracking can be done safely.
> 
> The analysis and other health assessments have been closely guarded by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and his administration as the governor weighs whether to approve fracking. Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, has long delayed making a decision, unnerved in part by strident opposition on his party’s left.
> This is very good news. Contrary to green fears that fracking is a mortal danger to both humans and the environment, this report finds exactly the opposite, arguing that fracking “can be done safely within the regulatory system that the state has been developing for several years.” With the environmental concerns largely settled, the ground is now set for New York to claim its share of the energy revolution and the jobs and industry that come with it.
> 
> Unfortunately, the fact that the Cuomo Administration attempted to keep the report a secret suggests that Albany was nonetheless worried about a green backlash. And rightfully so: New York’s greens have responded to the leak with characteristic force:
> 
> Environmental groups have long complained that the state has refused to make documents about its health assessments public.
> 
> “The document itself is not a health impact study at all,” said Katherine Nadeau, the water and natural resources program director at Environmental
> 
> Advocates of New York, who has reviewed it. “As drafted it is merely a defense or justification as to why the administration didn’t do a rigorous study.”
> Greens are quick to defend their climate change position with scientific evidence and have positioned themselves as a movement wedded to science. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that evidence is a flag of convenience for a movement that is rooted in emotion and passion far more than it likes to admit.
> 
> Let us hope that Governor Cuomo and his administration see this report for the good news that it is.


----------



## a_majoor

At last, an opportunity to make an almost one to one comparison between regular and hybrid vehicles. Since this hybrid is essentially hybrid technology grafted onto a stock vehicle (as you see in the article, companies like Toyota have interesting dodges like installing a different IC motor in the hybrid version of a regular name-plate, while ground up hybrids like the Prius have very little in common with other brands, making direct comparisons difficult), the benifits and downsides of hybrid technology are now clear for all to see:

http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/01/04/is-the-bmw-activehybrid7-worth-its-weight/



> *Is the BMW ActiveHybrid7 worth its weight?*
> 
> David Booth | Jan 4, 2013 1:18 PM ET | Last Updated: Jan 3, 2013 3:43 PM ET
> More from David Booth | @MotorMouthNP
> 
> The 2013 BMW ActiveHybrid7 enjoys a 14% fuel consumption advantage when compared with the automaker’s basic 740, but does that make it worth its premium price?
> 
> Road Test: 2013 BMW ActiveHybrid7
> 
> Ottawa — What do hybrids do and whom do they benefit? As vague and obtuse as that open-ended query may seem, it isn’t a rhetorical question. After 15 years of rampant media hype and the creation of a sub-cult of electrified car acolytes, I still have the same question: Exactly what is it that hybrids accomplish and who benefits — or, more specifically, who benefits most — from their abilities.
> Related
> 
> BMW 3 Series hybrid has a sporty soul
> Motor Mouth: ‘Magical’ Tesla S is not our saviour
> Ford C-Max Hybrid: A case of mysterious fuel economy
> 
> Ostensibly, the answers would seem obvious. By partial electrification of an automobile’s powertrain, a hybrid system lessens the load on the gasoline engine at appropriate times, thus lessening fuel consumption. Ignoring the benefits of brake regeneration, the electric motor reduces the load on the gas engine while accelerating (when an internal combustion engine is at its least efficient) and recharges itself when the IC motor is either cruising or decelerating (when it is most efficient). There really is no magic to the hybrid equation; the gasoline engine is simply borrowing some energy when the demand is high and then repaying amount when the demand is low. Think of it as an internal combustion Ponzi scheme.
> 
> It’s also problematic looking for “real-world” fuel economy evaluations
> 
> How effective hybrids are at this robbing-Peter-to-pay-Peter scheme is a subject of much discussion. First, there is the question of how accurate fuel economy testing really is. Transport Canada’s fuel consumption testing is notoriously optimistic and particularly easy on hybrids. The American EPA’s five-step test is more rigourous, but as recent headline news stories emanating from south of the border indicate, they too are prone to misprints and exaggerations.
> 
> It’s also problematic looking for “real-world” fuel economy evaluations. Hybrid owners, especially those fanatical enough to vocally proclaim their fuel economy, are a devoted lot and often found hyper-miling at exactly 92.3 kilometres an hour in the fast lane, their every driving habit modified with the expressed goal of lording their parsimoniousness over we profligate environment destroyers.
> 
> And, finally, there is the difficulty trying to directly compare a hybrid with a conventional car. Toyota’s Prius C may be frugal, but it is difficult to compare with a traditional counterpart; its size, dimensions and running gear are not shared with any other Toyota product. Even the Camry Hybrid, outwardly similar to its base model sibling, uses an Atkinson-cycle variant of its 2.5-litre compared with the conventional four-banger in the LE. Comparisons are possible, but they must always be caveated with a fudge factor to accommodate the different powertrains.
> 
> Ah, but a little digging reveals that there might be a car similar enough to warrant a direct comparison of hybrid technology’s worth. BMW’s latest big hybrid, the Active 7, may be expensive and out of the reach of most of the environmentally conscious, but it is mostly identical to the company’s 740 Li. The engine, most importantly, is identical, with both cars’ TwinPower 3.0-litre turbocharged inline six pumping out 315 horsepower and 332 pound-feet of torque. And, unlike some hybrids that use constant velocity transmissions (CVTs) to boost fuel economy, the Active 7 uses the same eight-speed automatic as the 740. The biggest difference between the two is the Active 7’s addition of a 55-hp/155-pound-feet electric motor (which replaces the aforementioned transmission’s torque convertor) and its attendant kilowatt-hour lithium-ion battery.
> 
> That means, among other things, that Active 7 drives very well indeed. I am already on record as saying the 740 Li xDrive is the sweetest of all BMW 7’s and, since the Active 7 drives almost identically, it too reaps the same compliment. And identical is the appropriate descriptor for its performance compared with the 740. Through the addition of that 55-hp electric motor, BMW claims a total of 349 hp and 367 pound-feet of torque (increases of 34 hp and 35 lb-ft over the 740), that’s offset by the extra 150 kilograms worth of batteries and motor the Active 7 has to lug around. In the end, it’s a wash, with the 740 Li and the Active 7 sharing the exact same 5.9-second zero-to-100-kilometres-an-hour acceleration time. From behind the wheel, then, the 740 Li and the Active 7 are almost impossible to tell apart, the performance and handling virtually indistinguishable, since the Active 7’s 150 extra kilos are hardly noticed in a limousine-like sedan that weighs 2,000 kilograms.
> 
> One of the few differences is that the Active 7 does offer a modicum of electric-only motoring, though here, like other hybrids, BMW’s claims are a little exaggerated. For instance, BMW says the Active 7 can drive up to 60 kilometres an hour using electric power alone, claiming that, if one is judicious enough with the throttle, one could take off from a standstill and toddle up to those 60 klicks without engaging the gasoline engine.
> Advertisement
> 
> Not possible. Despite my best princess-and-the-pea impression, no amount of intra-foot delicacy could entice the big Bimmer to travel more than a few feet and perhaps eight kilometres an hour on electricity alone. What the Active 7 can do, however, if you are already travelling below about 50 km/h on a perfectly flat road with no headwind, is shut down the gasoline motor for a short period of time. As well, if you’re creeping along in rush-hour traffic and simply need to lift your foot off the brake to keep apace with the car in front, the Hybrid 7 will do so without activating the turbocharged 3.0-litre. In all other circumstances, however, the two cars are identical save for some minor equipment differences and their respective price tags (more on that later).
> 
> That similar performance and comportment, of course, is to be expected. It’s exactly why I chose to make this comparison to determine the fuel economy benefits that the hybridization of an otherwise identical car promises. And, in a surprising rarity, both Transport Canada and the U.S. EPA agree the ActiveHybrid7 enjoys a 14% fuel consumption advantage compared with the basic 740 (10.9/7.3 L/100 km being the 740’s city/hwy. consumption, while the Active 7 is rated at 9.4/6.6). In my real-world testing, I averaged 7.7 L/100 km at my normal 120 km/h cruising speed, 13.5 in the city and 11.1 on a combined route. That overall figure is about a 10% improvement over the 740 I tested — commendable, if not quite outstanding. Most of the improvement, by the way, came in the urban cycle; the Active 7’s highway consumption was little different from the base 740’s.
> 
> For comparison purposes, it’s also worth noting that I averaged an only slightly more frugal 7.5 L/100 km on the highway in Ford’s new C-Max hybrid econobox, proving yet again that frontal area and aerodynamics are much more important than weight and size of the engine when it comes to high-speed fuel economy. Perhaps a little more troublesome to hybrid advocates is that I managed to eke 7.6 L/100 km out of a conventional Audi A6 3.0 over exactly the same route. Hybridization does highway fuel economy few favours, then. On the other hand, the 2013 Active 7’s 11.1 L/100 km overall fuel consumption easily bested the 2012’s 12.2 L/100 km I attained on essentially the same route. Credit BMW’s decision to substitute the new 3.0-litre six for the 2012 ActiveHybrid’s 4.4-litre V8 as the reason for the fuel efficiency improvement.
> 
> So is the Active 7 worth the expense and technological complication? Or, to address my original question directly, whom does such hybridization benefit? With its $140,200 price tag, the Active 7 is some $33,600 more expensive than the 740 Li. At today’s pump prices and estimating a typical 15,000 kilometres in annual motoring, recouping that premium would require about 100 years — hardly a boon to consumers. Advocates might counter that the true environmentalist is willing to pay such a premium, but methinks it will still be a tough sell. For that large a difference, the wealthy Birkenstocks aficionado could buy a 740 and motor around town completely gas-free in a Nissan Leaf.
> 
> For BMW, however, the ActiveHybrid7 may be far more important. All auto companies, especially purveyors of large luxury automobiles, are struggling to meet the ever-toughening fuel consumption regulations that governments around the world are mandating. A 10% (real world) or 14% (Transport Canada’s claim) increase in fuel economy seem be a pittance for anyone able to afford a 7 Series, but it’s a significant boon to a company looking to squeeze every mile per gallon out of its corporate average fleet economy.
> 
> 7seriesint Type of vehicle  Rear-wheel-drive, full-sized luxury hybrid sedan
> Engine  3.0L turbocharged DOHC I6/55-hp electric motor
> Power (gasoline motor)  315 hp @ 5,800 rpm; 332 lb-ft of torque @1,300 rpm
> Transmission  Eight-speed manumatic
> Brakes  Four-wheel disc with ABS
> Tires  P245/50R20
> Price: base/as tested  $140,200/$147,300
> Destination charge  $2,095
> Transport Canada fuel economy L/100 km  9.4 city, 6.6 hwy.
> Standard features  Power door locks, windows and mirrors, four-zone air conditioning with micron air filter, AM/FM/CD/MP3 player with hard drive media storage, steering wheel-mounted audio controls, hard drive-based navigation system, cruise control, power glass sunroof, information display, head up display, tilt and telescopic steering wheel, leather seats, 16-way power-adjustable Active driver and passenger seats, heated front and rear outer seats, ventilated front seats, heated exterior mirrors, auto headlights, dual front air bags, front knee air bags, side curtain air bags, brake fade compensation, dynamic braking control, dynamic traction control, hill descent control, LED front fog lamps, rearview and side view cameras, automatic soft close trunk lid



In the real world, a diesel engine, shaving off as much weight as practical and paying careful attention to aerodynamics probably would make much more difference at a fraction of the price.


----------



## kevincanada

A practical comparison (shows actual fuel consumption)

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Ford2013.shtml

There is 4 factors I know of, number of cylinders, vehicle size, and if it is manual or automatic. If you have a manual 4 cylinder vehicle you will do well in conserving fuel.  A 8 cylinder truck automatic will get terrible fuel mileage.

Hybrid is the only break through in consumption since the invention of the "V' design engine.


----------



## tomahawk6

There is plenty of oil/natural gas,all we need to do is drill for it and ignore the Al Gore acolytes.


----------



## cupper

kevincanada said:
			
		

> A practical comparison (shows actual fuel consumption)
> 
> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Ford2013.shtml
> 
> There is 4 factors I know of, number of cylinders, vehicle size, and if it is manual or automatic. If you have a manual 4 cylinder vehicle you will do well in conserving fuel.  A 8 cylinder truck automatic will get terrible fuel mileage.
> 
> Hybrid is the only break through in consumption since the invention of the "V' design engine.



You left out the engines which selectively cut out cylinders when the demand for power is reduced, only to maintain speed. Variable Speed Transmissions. Electronic monitoring. The switch to composite materials to lighten the vehicle weight. It's not just the Big Bold innovations that contribute, it's the small incremental changes as well.


----------



## kevincanada

cupper said:
			
		

> You left out the engines which selectively cut out cylinders when the demand for power is reduced, only to maintain speed. Variable Speed Transmissions. Electronic monitoring. The switch to composite materials to lighten the vehicle weight. It's not just the Big Bold innovations that contribute, it's the small incremental changes as well.



True I left them out on purpose.  Where is the raw data on it?  In my defense I did say vehicle size which affects weight.  They all work, but sadly they are all not very practical.  Hydrogen works.  It works great! clean, abundant.  Drives a bus, car, jeep.  But you can't store the stuff.  Electrical is the best.  But again you can't store it.  These technologies all have serious problems that hold them back.


----------



## a_majoor

The biggest problem with most of these comparisons (as alluded to in the article upthread about the BMW hybrid) is even notionally identical models of gas and hybrid cars use dramatically different systems. A Toyota Camrey uses a very different gasoline engine to the apparently different Camery Hybrid.

When it is all said and done, probably the best option would be for car makers to switch over to small, turbocharged diesel engines connected to CVT transmissions to combine fuel economy, reliability and overall simplicity and cost control.


----------



## a_majoor

An experiment to use "clean coal" in Saskatchewan. The key noted in the article is controlling the parasitic load created by the equipment needed to scrub the exhaust gasses, if too much power is being siphoned off, then the concept will be uneconomical:

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/01/28/canadian-carbon-project-aims-to-prove-clean-coal-works/?__lsa=3022-3bf3



> *Canadian carbon project aims to prove ‘clean coal’ works*
> 
> Alister Doyle, Canadian Press | Jan 28, 2013 10:34 AM ET
> More from Canadian Press
> 
> “Once people hear that the economics are very good, maybe we won’t have everybody dash to gas and throw out coal. We hope the rest of the world can learn from our plant.”
> 
> A technology that holds the hope for cleaner use of coal will be tested on a commercial scale for the first time in Canada next year, aiming to resolve big uncertainties about the vast amount of power it will need.
> 
> Saskatchewan Power Corp. (SaskPower) hopes that a US$1.24-billion refit of its 45-year-old Boundary Dam power plant to capture carbon dioxide emissions will make investors think twice about shifting to gas-fired plants from dirtier coal.
> 
> “This will come in on time and on budget,” Michael Monea, head of SaskPower’s carbon capture and storage (CCS) initiatives, told Reuters in an interview.
> 
> The company hopes that its carbon capture technology will reduce Boundary Dam’s power output by only a quarter or thereabouts, making it the world’s first commercially viable large-scale CCS project at a coal-fired power plant.
> 
> Success could spur interest in CCS technology from China to the United States as an effective way to fight climate change.
> 
> “We need this as an example of carbon capture and storage actually happening,” said Camilla Svendsen Skriung, of the Norwegian environmental group Zero.
> 
> The plant is designed to capture one million tonnes a year of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from April 2014. It will also trap the pollutant sulphur dioxide.
> 
> SaskPower agreed last month to sell the carbon dioxide it captures to Canadian oil company Cenovus Energy – when injected into an oil well, the gas raises the pressure and forces more oil to the surface. Monea did not reveal the price agreed.
> 
> Monea said that the key to proving that clean coal is possible is to limit the “parasitic load” – the amount of power needed to capture the carbon and sulphur.
> 
> “The big deal for us is parasitic load. The old 140 megawatt plant will be new again, so will probably generate 150 to 155 megawatts. Then the capture plant may mean we lose 40 megawatts of power,” he said.
> 
> “I am hoping that we will net higher than 110 megawatts (after the carbon has been captured).”
> 
> COSTS AND PENALTIES
> 
> There are a few other commercial carbon capture projects, such as the one at the Sleipner natural gas field off Norway run by Statoil, which re-injects a million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year beneath the seabed.
> 
> However, high costs and low penalties for emitting carbon mean that such projects have failed to catch on for coal-fired plants as part of efforts to slow climate change.
> 
> “Once people hear that the economics are very good, maybe we won’t have everybody dash to gas and throw out coal,” Monea said. “We hope the rest of the world can learn from our plant.”
> 
> SaskPower says that the plant will reduce carbon emissions by about 90 percent – the equivalent, it says, of taking 250,000 cars off the roads in the province every year.
> 
> Almost 200 nations have set themselves a deadline of end-2015 to agree a United Nations-led pact to combat climate change, with its implementation set for the start of 2020. But after past failures, there is little prospect of a global price on carbon emissions that would help to make carbon capture more viable.
> 
> Monea said that lessons from the Boundary Dam refit, aided by a federal government subsidy of $240 million, will cut costs and mean that future refits can be completed without state aid.
> 
> The costs of the Boundary Dam refit were comparable to those for replacing it with a new natural gas plant, Monea said. The plant has ready access to water, which might otherwise be a constraint.
> 
> The cost of the refit means that power prices paid by SaskPower’s clients will rise by a few cents from the 10 to 11 cents per kilowatt that they pay now, he said.
> 
> The European Commission last month said that it failed to find a winner in a contest to fund EU carbon capture and storage projects, deepening doubts that the technology can soon emerge to help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> © Thomson Reuters 2013


----------



## a_majoor

Another piece of good news. Using this technology to harvest some of the "waste" energy from power generation will create a surge in energy output, and compensate somewhat for the shutting down of existing thermal plants. (Industry could also use this technology to "co generate" energy from the waste heat of various industreal processes). While it also works with some forms of solar energy, it simply makes a niche player better in its niche.

For a typical thermal plant, output is measured in Megawatts or even Gigawatts, so even a small increase in output is a big deal. Look for this in the next 5-10 years

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/breakthrough-for-superefficient.html



> Breakthrough for superefficient conversion of heat to electricity could boost coal plant efficiency to 54% from 30-45% and concentrated solar power to 40%
> 
> Arxiv - Thermionics (electronics for converting heat to electricity) previously had efficiency limitations due to “space current” – build-ups of electrons mutually repelling each other and choking the flow of current – so the new system uses external electric or magnetic fields to get the electrons going in the right direction. The system promises a high fraction of the Carnot Limit can be converted directly into electrical power.
> 
> 54% Efficient Coal Plants for one third less coal for the same power
> The new thermoelectronic approach promises efficiencies in the high 40-50% range, achieving the latter by acting as a “topping cycle” to a lower temperature steam system. For example a coal furnace burns at ~1500 C (1773 K), but a steam turbine runs at 700 C (973 K) and outputs at 200 C (473 K). Thus there’s significant loss due to the mismatch between furnace and steam power-cycle. A thermoelectronic converter covering the 1773-973 K range will add significantly to the overall power extracted by the power-plant pushing its efficiency above 50%. In this case a 45% efficient coal plant can be pushed to 54%, thus increasing the power output for no additional fuel costs and NO MOVING PARTS.
> 
> 40% efficient concentrated solar power
> 
> Switching to solar-power applications, imagine a thermoelectronic converter at the centre of a concentrator system which focuses sunlight to 500 times its normal intensity (temp ~1900 K.) By using a Photon Enhanced Thermionic Emission (a cousin of the Photoelectric effect) the system can convert raw sunlight to electrical power at over 40% efficiency
> 
> ABSTRACT - Electric power may, in principle, be generated in a highly e cient manner from heat created by focused solar irradiation, chemical combustion, or nuclear decay by means of thermionic energy conversion. As the conversion e ciency of the thermionic process tends to be degraded by electron space charges, the e ciencies of thermionic generators have amounted to only a fraction of those fundamentally possible. We show that this space-charge problem can be resolved by shaping the electric potential distribution of the converter such that the static electron space-charge clouds are transformed into an output current. Although the technical development of practical generators will require further substantial e orts, we conclude that a highly e cient transformation of heat to electric power may well be achieved.
> 
> Optimization of the conversion effi ciencies requires the development of metal or semiconductor surfaces with the desired e ffective work functions and electron a nities, respectively, which may also be done by nanostructuring the electrode surfaces. These surfaces need to be stable at high temperatures in vacuum. The tunability of the gate fi eld opens possibilities to alter the converter parameters during operation. Although the need to generate Cs+ ions to neutralize the space-charge cloud is eliminated, adatoms of elements such as Cs can be used to lower the work function of the electrodes, in particular of the collector. For high effi ciency, the devices must be thermally optimized to minimize heat losses through the wiring. Furthermore, thermal radiation of the emitter must be reflected e fficiently onto the electrode. For ballistic electron transport between emitter and collector, a vacuum of better than 0:1 mbar is also required, reminiscent of radio tubes.
> 
> Such devices may be realized, for example, in a flip-chip arrangement of oxide-coated wafers separated by tens of micrometers using thermal-insulation spacers. This produces hundreds of Watts of power from active areas of some 100 cm2. The magnetic fields, typically 1 T with large tolerances in strength and spatial distribution, can be generated by permanent magnets or, for applications such as power plants, by superconducting coils. Achieving viable, highly efficient devices requires substantial further materials science efforts to develop the functional, possibly nanostructured materials, as well as engineering e orts to achieve a stable vacuum environment in order to minimize radiative and conductive heat losses, and to ensure competitive costs. Remarkably, however, no obstacles of a fundamental nature appear to impede highly efficient power generation based on thermoelectronic energy converters.


----------



## a_majoor

Another interesting device that converts natural gas into "Syngas"; which has a higher energy content. While it does not seem to scale as ell as might be wished (look at the number of devices that are needed for a modest 500 MW generating station), the fact that it can be used as a suppliment during the daylight hours but can be bypassed on cloudy days and at night with no loss of generation by the plant is good news: no need for expensive back up generators. Since it is powerd by heat energy, versions that recycle waste heat from the turbine exhaust stream might be possible as well:

http://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=981



> *A solar booster shot for natural gas power plants*
> 
> April 11, 2013
> 
> Frances White, PNNL, (509) 375-6904
> PNNL’s concentrating solar power system reduces greenhouse emissions — at a price that’s competitive with fossil fuel power
> 
> RICHLAND, Wash. – Natural gas power plants can use about 20 percent less fuel when the sun is shining by injecting solar energy into natural gas with a new system being developed by the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The system converts natural gas and sunlight into a more energy-rich fuel called syngas, which power plants can burn to make electricity.
> 
> "Our system will enable power plants to use less natural gas to produce the same amount of electricity they already make," said PNNL engineer Bob Wegeng, who is leading the project. "At the same time, the system lowers a power plant's greenhouse gas emissions at a cost that's competitive with traditional fossil fuel power."
> 
> PNNL will conduct field tests of the system at its sunny campus in Richland, Wash., this summer.
> 
> With the U.S. increasingly relying on inexpensive natural gas for energy, this system can reduce the carbon footprint of power generation. DOE's Energy Information Administration estimates natural gas will make up 27 percent of the nation's electricity by 2020. Wegeng noted PNNL's system is best suited for power plants located in sunshine-drenched areas such as the American Southwest.
> 
> Installing PNNL's system in front of natural gas power plants turns them into hybrid solar-gas power plants. The system uses solar heat to convert natural gas into syngas, a fuel containing hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Because syngas has a higher energy content, a power plant equipped with the system can consume about 20 percent less natural gas while producing the same amount of electricity.
> 
> This decreased fuel usage is made possible with concentrating solar power, which uses a reflecting surface to concentrate the sun's rays like a magnifying glass. PNNL's system uses a mirrored parabolic dish to direct sunbeams to a central point, where a PNNL-developed device absorbs the solar heat to make syngas.
> 
> Macro savings, micro technology
> 
> About four feet long and two feet wide, the device contains a chemical reactor and several heat exchangers. The reactor has narrow channels that are as wide as six dimes stacked on top of each other. Concentrated sunlight heats up the natural gas flowing through the reactor's channels, which hold a catalyst that helps turn natural gas into syngas.
> 
> The heat exchanger features narrower channels that are a couple times thicker than a strand of human hair. The exchanger's channels help recycle heat left over from the chemical reaction gas. By reusing the heat, solar energy is used more efficiently to convert natural gas into syngas. Tests on an earlier prototype of the device showed more than 60 percent of the solar energy that hit the system's mirrored dish was converted into chemical energy contained in the syngas.
> 
> Lower-carbon cousin to traditional power plants
> 
> PNNL is refining the earlier prototype to increase its efficiency while creating a design that can be made at a reasonable price. The project includes developing cost-effective manufacturing techniques that could be used for the mass production.  The manufacturing methods will be developed by PNNL staff at the Microproducts Breakthrough Institute, a research and development facility in Corvallis, Ore., that is jointly managed by PNNL and Oregon State University.
> 
> Wegeng's team aims to keep the system's overall cost low enough so that the electricity produced by a natural gas power plant equipped with the system would cost no more than 6 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2020. Such a price tag would make hybrid solar-gas power plants competitive with conventional, fossil fuel-burning power plants while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> The system is adaptable to a large range of natural gas power plant sizes. The number of PNNL devices needed depends on a particular power plant's size. For example, a 500 MW plant would need roughly 3,000 dishes equipped with PNNL's device.
> 
> Unlike many other solar technologies, PNNL's system doesn't require power plants to cease operations when the sun sets or clouds cover the sky. Power plants can bypass the system and burn natural gas directly.
> 
> Though outside the scope of the current project, Wegeng also envisions a day when PNNL's solar-driven system could be used to create transportation fuels. Syngas can also be used to make synthetic crude oil, which can be refined into diesel and gasoline than runs our cars.
> 
> The current project is receiving about $4.3 million combined from DOE's SunShot Initiative, which aims to advance American-made solar technologies, and industrial partner SolarThermoChemical LLC of Santa Maria, Calif. SolarThermoChemcial has a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement for the project and plans to manufacture and sell the system after the project ends.
> 
> More information about PNNL's concentrating solar power system for natural gas power plants.
> 
> REFERENCE: RS Wegeng, DR Palo, RA Dagle, PH Humble, JA Lizarazo-Adarme, SK, SD Leith, CJ Pestak, S Qiu, B Boler, J Modrell, G McFadden, "Development and Demonstration of a Prototype Solar Methane Reforming System for Thermochemical Energy Storage — Including Preliminary Shakedown Testing Results," 9th Annual International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, July-August 2011, http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2011-5899.



One can only hope this isn't some Soylendra type boondoggle


----------



## a_majoor

The North American continent is afloat on a sea of hydrocarbons. Also, not mentioned in these articles is another source of hydrocarbon energy: Methane hydrates, which is in ice trapped under the ocean floor. The economic consequences of cheap energy (especially post 2016) will include a revival of the American economy as energy prices drop. The downside is other nations which are counting on energy resource sales to power their economies may find the rug cut out from under them. This is bad for these nations, but I suppose the overall effect is situationally dependent. We are pretty good about the Russians getting their comeuppance, but not as pleased when it is us....

Two articles posted here. The consequences of these hydrocarbon discoveries will mean a large rethink of many political, economic and international strategic issues.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/the-u-s-has-much-much-more-gas-and-oil-than-we-thought-20130430



> *The U.S. Has Much, Much More Gas and Oil Than We Thought*
> 
> By Amy Harder
> Updated: April 30, 2013 | 10:13 p.m.
> April 30, 2013 | 1:17 p.m.
> 
> The United States has double the amount of oil and three times the amount of natural gas than previously thought, stored deep under the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana, according to new data the Obama administration released Tuesday.
> 
> In announcing the new data in a conference call, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell also said the administration will release within weeks draft rules to regulate hydraulic fracturing, technology that has come under scrutiny for its environmental impact but that is essential to developing all of this energy.
> 
> “These world-class formations contain even more energy-resource potential than previously understood, which is important information as we continue to reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign sources of oil,” Jewell said in a statement.
> 
> The formations, called Bakken and Three Forks, span much of western North Dakota, the northern tip of South Dakota and the northeastern tip of Montana. The last time the United States Geological Survey assessed this area for its oil and gas reserves was in 2008. But that assessment did not include the Three Forks formation, which explains the substantial increase in the estimates. USGS estimates that these two formations together hold 7.4 billion barrels of undiscovered—but technically recoverable—oil and 6.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
> 
> The estimates were requested by Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., in early 2011. “This is clearly great news for North Dakota and great news for the nation,” Hoeven said in a statement. “It will further serve to enhance our state’s role as an energy powerhouse for the nation.”
> The energy boom’s impact on North Dakota’s economy is undeniable. The state has the lowest unemployment in the country, at 3.3 percent.
> 
> These estimates don’t necessarily represent oil and gas resources that could be immediately developed or are even recoverable right now. Many factors must align to compel companies to access energy resources, including prices and environmental regulations.
> 
> Nonetheless, the data add more hard evidence of America’s energy boom, which was largely unimaginable just seven years ago. The estimates also underline the opportunities, including economic benefits and energy security, and the challenges, especially President Obama’s commitment to tackle climate change, that come with a major fossil-fuel boom.
> 
> “Combined with recent declines in oil consumption, foreign-oil imports are less than 40 percent of oil consumed in America,” Jewell said. “That’s the lowest level since 1988.”
> 
> Jewell also announced the department will release “within weeks” reworked, draft rules requiring stricter regulations on hydraulic-fracturing operations. She said the earlier version of the draft rules generated enough comments—roughly 100,000—to prompt the administration to allow for a second round of public input.
> 
> The symbolic importance of these rules could have a greater impact than their substantive effect. The regulations apply to oil and gas production only on federal lands, a small portion of the total amount of oil and gas produced in the U.S. According to the Interior Department, 11 percent of the natural gas produced in the country is on public lands, as is 5 percent of the oil.
> 
> The rules will provide a marker for states to implement individual regulations and for Congress to debate legislation that could create a federal standard.
> 
> “We must develop our domestic energy resources armed with the best available science,” Jewell said. “This unbiased, objective information will help private, nonprofit, and government decision-makers at all levels make informed decisions about the responsible development of these resources.”
> This article appears in the May 1, 2013, edition of National Journal Daily.



http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/05/01/us-shale-gas-boom-undermining-putins-gazprom/



> *US Shale Gas Boom Undermining Putin’s Gazprom*
> 
> The Russian energy firm Gazprom is increasingly off its stride in Europe, its largest export market. Bulgaria has managed to negotiate a 20 percent price cut in its new ten-year contract with the gas giant, an unprecedented reversal of fortune from only a short time ago. Gazprom had cut off gas to the Ukraine in 2006 and 2009 during contract negotiations, which left Bulgaria freezing for several days as they were on the same pipeline. Bulgarians are probably relishing their success now with no small amount of schadenfreude.
> 
> The cause of the turnaround, the Wall Street Journal reports, should come as no surprise: the shale gas boom in the United States. The US has begun exporting gas to Europe, and has also ramped up coal exports by more than 250 percent since 2005. The net result has been to knock Gazprom back on its heels. The WSJ reports that the negotiations with Bulgaria were heated, with Gazprom’s negotiators shouting in frustration on several occasions.
> In public statements, however, the Russian company remains defiant (and perhaps in a state of denial) about the implications of the shale gas boom:
> Speaking on state television on March 30, Gazprom Chief Executive Alexei Miller minimized the impact of gas from U.S. shale fields, extracted using hydraulic-fracturing techniques. He predicted that it was a “bubble that will burst very soon. We are skeptical about shale gas. We don’t see any risks [to us] at all.”
> 
> Gazprom spokesman Sergei Kupriyanov acknowledged that shale-gas development “does have an impact” on contract negotiations. “But we don’t see any tragedy here….Our main competitive advantage is that we can guarantee volumes for a long time.”
> 
> Maybe, maybe not. But the immediate impact on Russia should not be underestimated. Vladimir Putin’s plans for reclaiming Great Power status for Russia are predicated on the country’s continuing strong economic performance, and the energy sector is key. Gazprom accounts for more than 10 percent of the country’s exports, and hits to its bottom line this year, the WSJ speculates, will cause Russia to miss Putin’s target of 5 percent annual growth.
> 
> Putin’s hardball tactics in his near-abroad when Russia was energy top dog were instrumental in confirming him as an authoritarian bully in the minds of many Westerners. These tactics also inadvertently made Russia more vulnerable to shifts in the global energy market, with many of its main customers desperately seeking out alternative suppliers so that they would never find themselves backed into a corner again. So it’s easy to join the Bulgarians in gloating over this reversal.
> 
> But everything in moderation. As we’ve said before, a cagey, resentful and frustrated Russia facing economic decline and increasing powerlessness on the world stage is good for no one at all.


----------



## CougarKing

link



> *Analysis: Shale oil storm blows U.S. tanker trade out of doldrums*
> 
> By Anna Louie Sussman
> 
> (Reuters) - Thanks to the U.S. shale energy boom, the once-quiet niche of U.S.-flagged oil tankers is in unprecedented flux.
> 
> A half-dozen vessels that typically carried gasoline to Florida are now rushing crude oil along the Texas coast. Major investment at the port of Corpus Christi, which now exports more than half of all Eagle Ford shale oil, suggests more to come even as new pipeline projects promise further market shifts.
> 
> *The shale oil revolution, now in its third year, has already scrambled the inland U.S. crude market, forcing pipelines to reverse direction and fuelling a revival in railway oil trade.*
> 
> Since the start of this year, the U.S. oil tanker industry has jumped into the act, with traders including BP  and Royal Dutch Shell  racing to charter a handful of the three-dozen U.S.-flagged tankers permitted, per a century-old law called the Jones Act, to carry oil between U.S. ports.
> 
> The trade is helping Gulf Coast refiners such as Valero  cut costs and wean plants off imported sweet crude.
> 
> Christos Papanicolaou, director of business development for the Greenwich, Connecticut-based shipbroker Charles R. Weber Co Inc, said it's the first time the Jones Act market has been clearly profitable in the 20 years he has worked in shipping.
> 
> "The cost of entry and the duration of contracts were such that any venture was a leap of faith," he said. Investment in the Jones Act trade required hiring expensive unionized crews with no guarantee the ship would find a fixture.
> 
> "Nobody wanted to trade in the U.S., because there was no oil here."
> 
> *Shale oil has changed that abruptly, specifically Eagle Ford in south Texas, where output swelled from near zero to more than 500,000 barrels per day in three years. * Unlike the land-locked Bakken of North Dakota, the field is less than 100 miles from the Gulf of Mexico and the "refinery row" that lies along the Texas-Louisiana coastline.
> 
> While markets have largely adapted to changes in inland trade patterns, the flux in tankers is still evolving. Each new train terminal or pipeline threatens to rewrite the economics of seaborne trade; limited tanker supply and rising rates are squeezing traditional routes like shipping fuel to Florida.
> 
> Since February, the number of ships plying the route from crude-loading hubs in Houston and Corpus Christi to eastern Gulf Coast ports such as Beaumont, Texas and the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP), has jumped to six from one. Daily rates for those ships have risen 50 percent over the past year to historic highs, boosting profits for operators such as Crowley Maritime Corp and Overseas Shipholding Group .
> 
> While the eastern Gulf Coast is a refining hub, pipeline capacity to move oil from west Texas is limited and the region has relied largely on imports. Shipments from the port of Corpus Christi have surged from near zero to more than 340,000 barrels per day, over half of total Eagle Ford output, in the past year. Two-thirds of that oil has remained in the Gulf, with much of the rest heading to Canada, shipping data shows.
> 
> *JONES ACT: SO HOT RIGHT NOW*
> 
> The Jones Act requires ships moving between U.S. ports to be U.S.-owned, U.S.-made, and U.S.-crewed, making them three times more expensive than foreign-flagged vessels. The majority of large Jones Act tankers and coastal barges in use take refined products such as gasoline from the Gulf Coast to Florida, which is far from refinery centers and not linked to any pipelines.
> 
> Fewer than 40 are oceangoing tankers able to carry 235,000 barrels or more; smaller articulated barges and 11 Alaska-trade tankers make up the rest of the 300-strong coastal fleet.
> 
> More Jones Act tankers and barges for the non-Alaska trade are on order, but the new tonnage will not be delivered until 2015. That's partly due to backlogs at the few commercial U.S. shipyards, which include Aker Philadelphia Shipyard  and General Dynamics  NASSCO in San Diego.
> 
> Limited supplies have traders competing fiercely to charter vessels, and the percentage of ships in long-term charter has gone from around 20 percent to 100 percent over the past year.
> 
> Rates for medium-range 330,000-barrel tankers used in the Gulf Coast trade have risen from $45,000 to around $75,000 a day, excluding fuel costs of another $25,000 a day when the ship is in transit, shipbrokers said.
> 
> Rates are so high that "the most profitable area right now for a Jones Act tanker owner is to relet it out and ship gasoline to Florida by barge," said Donald Bogden, director of research at Stamford, Connecticut-based shipbroker MJLF.
> 
> When a tanker does open up in the spot market or for relet, the day rate can reach $100,000 before fuel, brokers say. ExxonMobil  paid that near-record sum in June when the American Phoenix was relet, shipping brokers said.
> 
> "Because of the changing dynamics of the crude oil market in the U.S., most of these vessels that were designed to move petrol products have been trading crude oil," said Basil Karatzas, president of Karatzas Marine Advisors, a shipping finance firm based in New York.
> 
> "That's primarily the reason the Jones Act tanker market is so hot right now."
> 
> *SWITCHING GEARS*
> 
> The switch in Jones Act traffic has come on fast, as the profit opportunities from the short-haul Gulf Coast cabotage trade upended expectations late last year that the ships would carry Texas crude to East Coast refiners or gasoline to Florida.
> 
> "It suggests that (the western Gulf Coast area) is the most acute bottleneck at the moment," said Julius Walker, global energy markets strategist at UBS in New York.
> 
> In the six months through June 6, Jones Act vessels have moved over 22.5 million barrels of oil from ports around Houston and Corpus Christi to nearby Gulf Coast refineries compared with around 4.6 million in the six months prior, according to calculations by Reuters based on historical vessel tracks.
> 
> A trip from Corpus Christi, which takes much of the Eagle Ford crude, to Nederland, Texas refineries, takes about a week.
> 
> Carrying 340,000 barrels at a time, the Overseas Texas City, a Jones Act vessel chartered by BP, made 18 trips in the 180-day period analyzed by Reuters, delivering more than 6.15 million barrels. When BP relet the tanker in January 2013 from Conoco , it had been carrying refined products, or "clean" fuel, to Florida, vessel track data suggests.
> 
> Three of the ships plying the inter-Gulf Coast crude oil trade are on charter to Shell, two to BP, and one to Conoco, brokers said. The companies declined to comment.
> 
> At a per-day rate of $75,000, it costs around $2 per barrel to ship crude from the western Gulf Coast to oil centers such as Port Arthur and Beaumont in Texas, or LOOP, according to Reuters calculations.
> 
> *FLUX AHEAD*
> 
> The rapid build-out in infrastructure suggests more changes ahead for Gulf Coast shipping. If more tankers taking fuel to Florida switch to carrying oil, it may have to import gasoline. The state already buys much of its jet fuel, diesel and ethanol from countries like Venezuela, South Korea and the Netherlands.
> 
> Corpus Christi port, meanwhile, is in the midst of a multi-year expansion that will add eight docks to its current 27 by June 2014 and 10 million barrels of crude tanker storage, a 33 percent gain, suggesting plans for even greater seaborne trade.
> 
> But some refiners currently taking Eagle Ford crude by tanker may soon have cheaper options. By the end of 2013, the reversal of a crude pipeline from Houston to Houma, Louisiana, will pump up to 250,000 bpd to the eastern Gulf of Mexico for rates as low as 59 cents per barrel.
> 
> That capacity would ease some of the sea traffic, but with Houston refiners receiving plenty of shale oil from the Midwest, Eagle Ford oil will likely still need a seaborne outlet.
> 
> "The growth in crude production has been so far beyond what anyone anticipated that the infrastructure just isn't there to deal with it," said Andrew Weissman, senior energy adviser at law firm Haynes and Boone in Washington, D.C.
> 
> (Reporting by Anna Louie Sussman; Editing by Jonathan Leff, Matthew Robinson and Dale Hudson)


----------



## a_majoor

One issue to look for is will the United States build new oil refineries. No new ones have been built since the late 1970's due to rising costs and regulatory burdens (as well as NIMBY opposition); even radically upgrading existing refineries can only go so far.


----------



## a_majoor

Looking at the article, the big issue for everyone is the gradual decline of oil prices due to the production boom. For the US economy, this is great news, inexpensive energy will be one of the factors that propels real economic growth, and reducing the outflow of American money to overseas producers will have a positive effect on American balance of payments and the current payments account.

The downside is this will depress prices for producing nations (like us). For Canada, it is a setback, but not a disaster, our economy is diversified. Provinces like Alberta and Ottawaq will have to scale back plans that were contingent on oil revenues to power economic growth or pay for things. For nations like Russia and the OPEC nations, this will be a big hit on their export earnings. This will affect Russia's plans to rearm and re emerge as a "first tier" nation. This will reduce the ability of nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia to fund trouble makers, and also make it more difficult to paper over internal difficulties by using oil revenues to subsidize food and fuel (for example).

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/07/harvard-has-new-us-shale-oil-study.html#more



> *Harvard has a new US Shale Oil Study forecasts US as world number one oil producer with 16 million barrels per day of all liquid oil in 2017*
> In a paper titled “The Shale Oil Boom: A U.S. Phenomenon,” [64 pages] Maugeri wrote that the unique characteristics of shale oil production are ideal for the United States -- and unlikely to be mirrored elsewhere in the world. These factors include the availability of drilling rigs, and the entrepreneurial nature of the American exploration and production industry, both critical for the thousands of wells required for shale oil exploitation.
> 
> Maugeri, author of a 2012 report forecasting rapid growth of global oil production and belying the notion that oil output has “peaked,” argues in his new paper that the boom in U.S. shale oil production is central to the overall U.S. oil surge. If oil prices remain close to today’s levels, total U.S. production of all forms of oil [all liquids includes natural gas liquids and ethanol] could grow from 11.3 million barrels per day to 16 million barrels per day by 2017.
> 
> The dramatic surge in U.S. shale oil production could more than triple the current American output of shale oil to five million barrels a day by 2017, which would likely make the United States the No. 1 oil producer in the world, according to the new study by researcher Maugeri at Harvard Kennedy School.
> 
> NOTE - The United States is already the world's number one oil producer in terms of all liquid oil production.
> 
> The shale oil counts as crude oil so 10.4 million bpd would put the US as the number one crude oil producer in the world in 2017 unless there is increased production from Russia and/or Saudi Arabia. Updated EIA oil production comparison between USA, Russia and Saudi Arabia is here.
> 
> He used a possible best-case scenario encompassing a West Texas Intermediate (WTI) price of $85 per barrel in 2013, $80 per barrel in 2014, $75 in 2016, and $65 long term, along with an 8 percent per-well cost reduction per year through 2017 (that is consistent with what is already happening across the shale industry), and the progressive easing of the transportation problems that now imply significant price discounts for most of U.S. shale crude oils. My projection of the total U.S. oil potential also assumes that, from 2013 to 2017, more than 6,000 new oil producing wells are brought online annually in the shale/tight oil arena alone
> 
> Maugeri said the number of American shale oil wells in North Dakota and Texas could soar from the current 10,000 to more than 100,000 working wells by 2030. He said steady improvements in technology and cost would continue to drive industry growth in the shale oil fields in the Dakotas and Texas.
> 
> The United States holds more than 60 percent of global drilling rigs, and 95 percent of American rigs can perform horizontal drilling, which along with hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), is necessary to exploit shale oil.
> 
> Some Details
> 
> He estimates of recoverable oil reserves from Bakken-Three Forks is about 45 billion barrels.
> 
> Given the oil price scenario he used for this study, he assumed that if the number of Bakken’s new producing wells increases progressively by 12–20 percent a year from 2013 on, the play may reach a crude oil production of 1.8 mbd by 2017.
> 
> Given the oil price scenario he used for this study, he assumed that if the number of Eagle Ford’s new producing wells increases progressively by 15–25 percent a year from 2013 on, this shale formation could reach a crude oil production of 1.5 mbd by 2017.
> 
> He assumed that, from 2014 on, the number of new producing wells would increase by 25 percent a year, allowing the Permian Basin shale crude oil production to exceed 1.3 mbd by 2017.
> 
> Considering the scarce data available for all U.S. shale oil plays other than the Big Three, he could not model the evolution of their future liquids production.
> 
> However, according to a probabilistic method (with a ±50 percent probability ratio of production, based on yet-to-find discoveries) assuming a number of new producing wells per year growing from 200 to 1,000 in 2017, with an average production of 30,000 b/d of crude oil during the first 12 months, he projected a cumulative crude oil production from all other U.S. shale oil plays of 400,000 crude oil b/d by 2017. This could be a highly conservative estimate, but in the absence of more reliable data, it is not possible to go beyond that hypothetical assumption.
> 
> Winners and Losers
> 
> The US will have less oil imports if this happens.
> Coal usage will be a loser, but more coal will be exported.
> Ethanol and biofuel liquid growth will be flat or negative.


----------



## a_majoor

The ethanol boondoggle continues, but it may end sooner than later as the costs are unsustainable. However, there is a huge downside to the collapse of the Ethanol mandate as well:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/07/17/ethanol-still-a-boondoggle/



> *Ethanol Still a Boondoggle*
> 
> The US has a law on the books, the Renewable Fuel Standard, that mandates an ever-increasing amount of ethanol to be blended into gasoline. Under the 2007 law, oil companies must blend the required amount of ethanol or, in lieu of that, buy credits, known as renewable identification numbers (RINs). The price of those credits has skyrocketed this year more than 2,300 percent, hitting an all-time high yesterday.
> 
> The ethanol targets set by the Renewable Fuel Standard are out of sync with both the demand for ethanol and its potential supply. Gasoline consumption is projected to be relatively flat this year, a change that the Renewable Fuel Standard lacks a mechanism to account for. This shortfall in demand could potentially be fixed if producers up the percentage of ethanol they mix in with their gasoline past the current industry standard of 10 percent, but few oil companies are willing to move past this so-called “blend wall,” citing studies that link higher ethanol content with engine damage. Even if refiners started blending in more ethanol, the supply problem remains: this year’s supply is projected to be less than the mandate.
> 
> All of this explains why oil companies are snatching up increasingly-rare RINs at ever-higher prices. Oh, the RIN-sanity!
> 
> This is a mess even before you consider the foibles of the source of the lion’s share of this ethanol: corn. Before the Renewable Fuel Standard set these arbitrarily high targets, the US used just 23 percent of its corn to produce ethanol. Last year 43 percent of our corn crops went towards producing the biofuel. That shift has driven up global prices for corn, starving the world’s poor and potentially fueling food riots. And to what end? Corn ethanol is categorized as a biofuel, but it doesn’t reduce emissions. Advanced biofuels produced from such sources as sugarcane and algae pass the green test, but they haven’t yet proven their commercial viability.
> 
> Two bills—one to repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard, the other to reform its targets to more reasonable levels—are making their way through Congress as we speak. The oil lobby is heating up its rhetoric to turn the tide against these mandates, and even the ethanol lobby acknowledges that these biofuels targets have been set too high.
> 
> The EU is planning on nearly halving its biofuels targets in the face of studies disproving the energy source’s green credentials. For once, the US should follow Europe’s lead on green energy policy.



and from Instapundit:



> UPDATE: Reader J. Johnson writes:
> 
> Something that very seldom is mentioned in re the ethanol boondoogle is the profound effect the ethanol mandate has had on land prices in the midwest USA. The impact of ethanol on corn prices has been monumental, with average prices per bushel nearly double (and sometimes much more than that) what they were prior to the ethanol mandate. In turn, this has driven the prices of ‘corn ground’ profoundly higher, such that there are now hundreds of thousands of acres in the midwestern corn belt and elsewhere with prices (as much as $12,000/acre) which are completely unsustainable if the mandate was eliminated or substantially rolled back. It would result in a farm-belt crisis akin to what happened in the early 1980′s when tens of thousands of farmers went bankrupt when land prices collapsed.
> 
> A ‘partner in crime’ in this fiasco is Bernanke, whose zero interest rate policy has allowed farmers, bankers and speculators to pay exhorbitant prices for farm ground that is used strictly for producing corn for ethanol and servicing of the enormous debt associated with much of this acreage depends totally on continuation of the ethanol mandate. This mostly hidden debt bomb probably explains why the mandate not only continues, but is possibly going to get even more onerous. There are just too many money men who have too much to lose if anything changes.
> 
> Seems like it’s market-distorting cronyism all the way down, these days.


----------



## kevincanada

I'm hard pressed in seeing oil cost going down due to rising USA production.  There is a lot more factors into oil cost than just production levels.  Shale oil is more expensive to drill.  I suspect American labour wages are higher than the sources is presently purchased from.  Again I suspect tighter control and environmental standards in the USA than from where oil is purchased from.

while in general theory yes, high production levels usually equal lower prices as a whole for everything.  These gains in production are not from efficiency, they are from a supply glut, the production costs per barrel unless things have changed is not lower than the easy to drill crude from Saudi Arabia.  Ergo why I fail to see how a upswing in USA oil output will have a positive affect.  I'm sure it will have a affect of somekind due to being a significant change.  All we are doing is purchasing our oil supply from at home instead of abroad but at a higher production cost.  Where is the offset to actually lower price?  Sadly I just don't see it.


----------



## a_majoor

Just remember Kevin that oil is a fungable commodity. What goes in your tank (or the plastic gizmo in your hand) can come from anywhere. It is a little known fact that the United States imports virtually no oil at all from the Middle East, so the various aguments about "blood for oil" are idiotic at best.

The real reason the United States spends blood and treasure in the ME is to secure oil and a certain amount of price stability for its allies in Europe and Japan, as well as its major trading partner: China. Americans consume oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and some other South American producers because it is cheaper to ship to the US market from there.

American oil prices are fallig slowly (the main sticking point right now is the Administration, which is infatuated with "green" energy and big payouts to green crony capitalists), and I suspect they could fall rapidly after the mid terms if the GOP manages to win the House and Senate, or 2016 when the Administration leaves. Supply and demand is pretty much the one clearly demonstrated and proven law of economics, and absent of market distortions, works 100% of the time.


----------



## kevincanada

I won't argue why they are in the middle East, but saying they import very little doesn't line up with official data.  

http://www.eia.gov/countries/index.cfm?view=production (10.14 M bbl/day)
http://www.eia.gov/countries/index.cfm?view=consumption (18.95 M bbl/day)
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_m.htm [(10.76 M bbl/day) imported from OPEC]
plus additional [(6.296 M bbl/day) from non-opec]

Yes the blood oil argument is stupid.  Makes sense if you are from the middle east and hate the USA to say that.  My present understanding is it will be another 5 to 10 years before America is independent in terms of purchasing oil.  5 years before they become the worlds largest producer.


----------



## a_majoor

This could not happen to a nicer bunch of people </sarc>. It also has some interesting possibilities for United States itself: California is sitting on a treasure trove of oil shale and could easily dig itself out of the crippling financial situation it is in by opening up the shale oil basins to exploitation, while powering a massive resurgence in US economic activity predicated on access to inexpensive energy reserves. Chinese access to shale oil technology will also decrease the Chinese need to import energy, and the overall drop in demand will serve to stabilize global prices and allow many poorer nations to grow their economies as well (India, for example, does not, to my knowledge have much local oil or shale oil reserves, but must import a lot of its energy from the Persian Gulf and shipping coal from Africa).

Stabilized prices and lowering overall demand will release the United States Navy from one of its primary roles, which is to protect the flow of ME oil to its allies and trade partners in India, Japan and China, although for other reasons the USN will still need to patrol the Indian Ocean and oversee the freedom of trade that buttresses the overall global economy and US economic power.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/07/29/saudi-prince-us-shale-threatening-our-economy/



> *Saudi Prince: US Shale Threatening Our Economy*
> 
> Saudi royal and billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal thinks the US shale boom is endangering his country’s economy. The WSJ reports that the prince published a letter yesterday that he wrote in May to the Saudi Oil Minister and several others, warning of the dangers to Saudi Arabia of American gas production:
> 
> Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil exporter, is now pumping at less than its production capacity because consumers are limiting their oil imports, Prince Alwaleed said. This means the kingdom is, “facing a threat with the continuation of its near-complete reliance on oil, especially as 92% of the budget for this year depends on oil,” said the prince.…
> 
> In a report last month, OPEC’s own analysts predicted that demand for the group’s crude would fall next year to 29.6 million barrels a day, more than 600,000 barrels a day below its level last year. The International Energy Agency expects demand for OPEC crude to decline again in 2015 to 29.2 million barrels a day, before starting to rise gradually in the following years.
> 
> Still, the importance of Saudi oil to the US and to the world market is not diminishing. The Kingdom’s spare capacity and ability to increase exports in times of need (during periods of decreased supply from Iran and Libya, for example) helps keep the global oil market stable. Saudi oil has been consumers’ best shield against price shocks for a while now, and as long as we consume oil, no amount of cheap American gas can make that otherwise.
> 
> But if you’re in the House of Saud, that’s not much comfort. There’s no denying that the Kingdom’s economy will suffer under decreased demand for petrochemical exports from its biggest customer—the US. American domestic production means a steep drop-off in demand for the $100 billion Gulf petrochemical industry, and if China masters the exploitation of its own shale reserves, the cracks in the Saudi economic model will grow wider still.
> Unless the Saudis do some economic rebalancing to cope with this sea change, they’re in for a rude awakening.
> [Image of desert oil tower courtesy of Shutterstock]


----------



## GAP

The world will not wait for Canada’s oil
SHERRY COOPER The Globe and Mail Tuesday, Aug. 06 2013
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-world-will-not-wait-for-canadas-oil/article13608302/?cmpid=rss1

Building oil pipelines to bring Canadian product to market is in many ways a no-brainer.

Take for example the proposed Northern Gateway from Alberta to the West Coast and the Energy East proposal from Alberta to the East Coast.

The construction of these projects is a no-brainer because today, more than ever before, we need Canadian oil sands product to reach tidewater and international markets.

According to a recent bank report, Canadians lost $25-billion in oil revenue in 2012 due to a lack of pipeline infrastructure and continuing bottlenecks that prevent our oil from getting to the highest-paying markets.

We’ll lose another $20-billion this year and $15-billion every year going forward without new pipeline construction.

This is money that would benefit Canadians from coast to coast, helping to fund our health, education and social programs.

The time when we could depend on the United States as our sole oil and gas customer is long gone. In 2011, for the first time in more than 60 years, the US exported more gasoline, diesel and other fuels than it imported.

Thanks to the shale revolution, the United States is set to become the world’s largest oil producer – overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia – just four years from now according to the International Energy Agency.

Given the U.S. is awash in oil and gas and given the country remains Canada’s only customer, Western Canadian oil sold earlier this year for a discount of as much as $43 a barrel compared to the oil known as West Texas Intermediate. And Canadian oil was discounted even further compared to the North Sea oil known as Brent. While those differentials have since narrowed, Canadian oil still trades at a significant discount.

Even more worrisome is the prediction by experts that in the foreseeable future the US won’t need Canadian oil at all. Currently, the U.S. has been able to reduce its reliance on oil from unfriendly countries such as Venezuela by replacing it with increased imports from Canada. But as U.S. oil production continues to grow rapidly, its imports of Canadian oil will inevitably decline.
more on link


----------



## a_majoor

Another technological refinement that makes oil recovery more efficient, particularly heavy oils like we find in Western Canada:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/08/new-heavy-oil-recovery-process-can-get.html



> *New Heavy oil recovery process can get over 80% of oil in place and is 11% better than previous method*
> 
> A new enhanced heavy oil recovery (EHOR) process called Cyclic Production with Continuous Solvent Injection (CPCSI) has been developed at the University of Regina in Canada.
> 
> In this process, a vapourized solvent near its dew point is continuously injected into the reservoir to maintain reservoir pressure and also supply extra gas drive to flush the diluted oil out through an injector that is located on the top of the reservoir; while a producer, which is located at the bottom of the reservoir, is operated in a shut-in/open cyclic way. A series of experiments have been conducted to evaluate the CPCSI performance. The recovery factors (RFs) are up to 85% of original oil in place (OOIP) in 1-D tests, and the RF is improved by 11% by using the 2-D lateral CPCSI, compared with the traditional 2-D lateral VAPEX. Well configurations and the producer shut-in/open scenarios are key optimization factors that affect the CPCSI performance. Experimental results show that the foamy oil flow and solvent trap are the two major EHOR mechanisms for enhancing the oil production rate during the production period. In comparison with continuous injection process, such as vapour extraction (VAPEX), and cyclic injection process, such as cyclic solvent injection (CSI), CPCSI offers free gas driving, and the reservoir pressure is maintained during the producer opening period so that the diluted oil viscosity is kept low. This work shows that CPCSI could be an alternative optimization production scenario for applying solvent based in situ EHOR techniques for heavy oil reservoirs in Western Canada.
> 
> Highlights
> • We tested a new enhanced heavy oil recovery technique, named cyclic production with continuous solvent injection (CPCSI).
> • 1-D and 2-D experimental tests were conducted to test the performance of this process.
> • The oil recovery factor for this process can reach 80%.
> • Compared with the classical VAPEX process, the oil recovery factor is increased by 11%.
> 
> This solvent based approach would work far better than SAGD for thin heavy oil formations.


----------



## a_majoor

While I think the headline is over the top (nuclear energy can wean the world off coal and natual gas driven thermal generators, but liquid hydrocarbons have vast advantages in energy density and material handling properties making them ideal fot the transportation industry), the idea of a fleet of mini nuclear reactors spread around in a distributed array will have many advantages in ensuring the grid is robust and responsive.

Note, this is a different idea than thorium powered molten salt reactors, although molten salt reactors can also be scaled to this size as well.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/thorium-reactors-could-wean-world-oil-just-five-years



> *Development of Tiny Thorium Reactors Could Wean the World Off Oil In Just Five Years*
> By Rebecca BoylePosted 08.30.2010 at 1:18 pm75 Comments
> 
> Thorium One ton of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium and 3.5 million tons of coal, according to the former director of CERN. via Telegraph
> 
> An abundant metal with vast energy potential could quickly wean the world off oil, if only Western political leaders would muster the will to do it, a UK newspaper says today. The Telegraph makes the case for thorium reactors as the key to a fossil-fuel-free world within five years, and puts the ball firmly in President Barack Obama's court.
> 
> Thorium, named for the Norse god of thunder, is much more abundant than uranium and has 200 times that metal's energy potential. Thorium is also a more efficient fuel source -- unlike natural uranium, which must be highly refined before it can be used in nuclear reactors, all thorium is potentially usable as fuel.
> 
> The Telegraph says thorium could be used as an energy amplifier in next-generation nuclear power plants, an idea conceived by Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia, former director of CERN.
> 
> Known as an accelerator-driven system, it would use a particle accelerator to produce a proton beam and aim it at lump of heavy metal, producing excess neutrons. Thorium is a good choice because it has a high neutron yield per neutron absorbed.
> 
> Thorium nuclei would absorb the excess neutrons, resulting in uranium-233, a fissile isotope that is not found in nature. Moderated neutrons would produce fissioned U-233, which releases enough energy to power the particle accelerator, plus an excess that can drive a power plant. Rubbia says a fistful of thorium could light up London for a week.
> 
> The idea needs refining, but is so promising that at least one private firm is getting involved. The Norwegian firm Aker Solutions bought Rubbia's patent for this thorium fuel cycle, and is working on his design for a proton accelerator.
> The Telegraph says this $1.8 billion (£1.2 billion) project could lead to a network of tiny underground nuclear reactors, producing about 600 MW each. Their wee size would negate the enormous security apparatus required of full-size nuclear power plants.
> 
> After a three-decade lull, nuclear power is enjoying a slow renaissance in the U.S. The 2005 energy bill included $2 billion for six new nuclear power plants, and this past February, Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants.
> 
> But nuclear plants need fuel, which means building controversial uranium mines. Thorium, on the other hand, is so abundant that it's almost an annoyance. It's considered a waste product when mining for rare-earth metals.
> 
> Thorium also solves the non-proliferation problem. Nuclear non-proliferation treaties (NPT) prohibit processes that can yield atomic bomb ingredients, making it difficult to refine highly radioactive isotopes. But thorium-based accelerator-driven plants only produce a small amount of plutonium, which could allow the U.S. and other nations to skirt NPT.
> 
> The Telegraph says Obama needs a Roosevelt moment, recalling the famous breakfast meeting when Albert Einstein convinced the president to start the Manhattan Project. A thorium stimulus could be just what the lagging economy needs.


----------



## a_majoor

Iceland embarking on becoming an oil power? _No oil_ indeed....

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/10/05/iceland-on-cusp-of-oil-boom/



> *Iceland On Cusp of Oil Boom?*
> 
> Iceland is sitting pretty for what will likely be the world’s next oil boom. The USGS estimates that the Arctic circle holds roughly 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil, and as the world warms, that ice is melting, uncovering billions of barrels of black gold. Countries are licking their lips at the possibility of tapping these reserves, and tiny Iceland is well-positioned to take advantage. The North Atlantic Current keeps the country’s harbors ice-free, making it an ideal jumping-off point for countries like China who are eager to invest in new oil plays. And, as the New York Times reports, Iceland is working towards developing some of this Arctic oil for itself:
> 
> It issued two licenses for oil exploration in January and is finalizing a third, hoping to pave the way for rigs to drill beneath its seas for the first time. Still, any drilling is probably years off, and will happen only if fresh studies confirm the signs that significant amounts of oil may be present under the sea floor. [...]
> 
> “There’s definitely something interesting there,” [Andy Brogan, oil and gas transactions leader at Ernst & Young] said. If the undersea rocks prove to be as rich in oil as those in Norway, “then there could be some quite big prospects there.”
> “It’s one of those high risk, high return options,” he added.
> 
> Admittedly we’re still too early on in the process to know how this will pan out. Analysts predict that Iceland is still three years away from drilling the exploratory wells that will make or break these projects, and at least a decade away from commercial production. But for a country still clawing its way out of the 2008 financial crisis, there’s real reason to be optimistic about the future.
> 
> And even if the specific plays Iceland has a claim on don’t work out, Iceland can support what will surely be a thriving service industry to other Arctic drillers. As the NYT points out, China is particularly interested in cultivating a friendly relationship with the Nordic country for just this reason.
> The energy landscape is already radically different from what is was even 10 years ago thanks to the shale boom and the rise of LNG. We’re far from the first to say it, but it bears repeating: Arctic hydrocarbons promise to be the next big shakeup. At the macro level, the world’s energy outlook is changing faster than it ever has, largely due to the rapid acceleration of technological innovation. Fortunately, the majority of these changes are for the better, confounding Malthusians and buying scientists more time to further develop renewable technologies.


----------



## a_majoor

While more and more oil producing plays are being found, the other end of the equation (more energy efficiency) is also showing increasing gains. The only issue I have right now with LED lightbulb replacements is they are so freaking _expensive_ ($30 for a 100 watt replacement bulb).

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/11/ucsb-breakthrough-puts-leds-on-track.html#more



> *UCSB breakthrough puts LEDs on track for 300 lumens per watt or 90% efficiency vs 5% efficiency for incandescent ligth bulbs*
> 
> By determining simple guidelines, researchers at UC Santa Barbara's Solid State Lighting and Energy Center (SSLEC) have made it possible to optimize phosphors –– a key component in white LED lighting –– allowing for brighter, more efficient lights.
> 
> "These guidelines should permit the discovery of new and improved phosphors in a rational rather than trial-and-error manner," said Ram Seshadri, a professor in the university's Department of Materials as well as in its Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, of the breakthrough contribution to solid-state lighting research.
> 
> This breakthrough puts efforts for high-efficiency, high-brightness, solid-state lighting on a fast track. Lower-efficiency incandescent and fluorescent bulbs –– which use relatively more energy to produce light –– could become antiquated fixtures of the past.
> 
> "Our target is to get to 90 percent efficiency, or 300 lumens per watt," said DenBaars, who also is a professor of electrical and computer engineering and co-director of the SSLEC. Current incandescent light bulbs, by comparison, are at roughly 5 percent efficiency, and fluorescent lamps are a little more efficient at about 20 percent.
> 
> "We have already demonstrated up to 60 percent efficiency in lab demos," DenBaars said.
> 
> ED (light-emitting diode) lighting has been a major topic of research due to the many benefits it offers over traditional incandescent or fluorescent lighting. LEDs use less energy, emit less heat, last longer and are less hazardous to the environment than traditional lighting. Already utilized in devices such as street lighting and televisions, LED technology is becoming more popular as it becomes more versatile and brighter.
> 
> According to Seshadri, all of the recent advances in solid-state lighting have come from devices based on gallium nitride LEDs, a technology that is largely credited to UCSB materials professor Shuji Nakamura, who invented the first high-brightness blue LED. In solid-state white lighting technology, phosphors are applied to the LED chip in such a way that the photons from the blue gallium nitride LED pass through the phosphor, which converts and mixes the blue light into the green-yellow-orange range of light. When combined evenly with the blue, the green-yellow-orange light yields white light.



And for the Twofer; progress on Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. Because they can extract electrical energy directly from the chemical energy of hydrocarbon fuels, units like this could be used to power vehicles and ships with electric motors in place of diesel generators. Even aircraft might benefit from using something like this as an APU, rather than a turbine:

http://www.technologyreview.com/demo/520451/avoiding-the-power-grid/



> *Avoiding the Power Grid*
> A cheaper fuel cell could provide affordable power for microgrids.
> 
> By David Talbot on October 22, 2013
> 
> Eric Wachsman
> Also featured in:
> MIT Technology Review Magazine
> November/December 2013
> More in this issue »
> 
> WHY IT MATTERS
> 
> The electricity grid is increasingly stressed, and existing backup power sources are either expensive or inefficient.
> 
> A one-meter-square gray box studded  with green lights sits in a hallway near the laboratory of materials scientist Eric ­Wachsman, director of the Energy Research Center at the University of Maryland. It is a mockup of a fuel-cell device that runs on natural gas, producing electricity at the same cost as a large gas plant.
> 
> The box is designed to house stacks of solid-oxide fuel cells that differ from their conventional counterparts in a dramatic way: they’re projected to produce electricity for $1 per watt, down from $8 in today’s commercial versions, thanks to improvements that ­Wachsman has made in the ceramic materials at their heart.
> 
> The technology could eventually become a practical and affordable way to ease strain on the increasingly stressed electricity grid; anywhere there’s cheap natural gas, we could also have constant and cheap electricity.
> 
> That would make it possible to do away with the diesel generators that are now widely used for backup power and as a key component of microgrids in places like Malaysia and cellular base stations in rural areas around the world. Solid-oxide fuel cells—which can run on diesel fuel or gasoline, not just natural gas—use much less fuel per watt than diesel generators of similar size.
> 
> Conventional solid-oxide fuel cells run at high temperatures, making them more expensive and prone to performance losses. A key advance in the Maryland fuel cell is that it is based on cerium oxide and bismuth oxide, which are far more electrically conductive than materials used in commercial versions and produce much more electricity per square centimeter. The cell can operate at 650 °C, down from 900 °C in existing products, reducing thermal stresses and insulation needs. And the final product is made of 32 stacks, each of which can be replaced if it fails.
> 
> The gray box mocks up a 25-kilowatt version of the technology, which is now under development by a startup called Redox Power Systems. Redox is building a factory in Melbourne, Florida, and hopes to launch the product in 2014. A 25-kilowatt fuel cell is enough to power a small strip mall; units that are smaller still could serve a single house. In the long term, the technology could even be put into hybrid vehicles to charge their batteries, since it is both lighter than an internal-­combustion engine and more efficient at producing electricity.
> 
> But the stand-alone generators, if successful, would be impressive enough. They’d mean “we’re on par with conventional power generation,” Wachsman says. “It’s not just backup power—it’s energy security.”


----------



## CougarKing

Mexico as a rival to Canada's oil sands?

Financial Post/National Post link



> *Mexico emerging as new rival to Canada’s oil sands*
> 
> The Canadian oil sands sector is set to revive its rivalry with resurgent Mexican heavy crude production in the next few years as the southern country pushes through reforms and starts attracting billions of dollars in foreign investment in its energy sector.
> 
> 
> “There is a potential for headwinds for Canadian heavy oil in the Gulf Coast, if Mexico gets its groove back, and is able to stabilize and then increase exports of Mayan crude,” said Judith Dwarkin, director, energy research at ITG Investments.
> 
> Mexico’s state-owned Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) already exports its benchmark heavy oil crude to Gulf Coast refineries but its influence has waned as domestic production declined over the past few years. During this time, Canadian heavy oil has increased its market share on the Gulf Coast.
> 
> President Enrique Pena Nieto, who swept to power last December partly on a pledge to dismantle PEMEX’s 75-year monopoly, has cut through decades of resistance towards foreign participation in the country’s energy sector. *Mexico’s Congress passed a bill on Dec. 12 that ended PEMEX’s grip on petroleum resources and opens the sector to foreign investment. *The bill must be ratified by state assemblies before becoming law, but analysts widely expect the process to be smooth.
> 
> *“This serves to connect the last missing piece of the North American energy landscape,” wrote Michael Cohen*, an analyst at Barclays Bank Plc, in a report to clients. “Adding Mexico’s oil and gas resources to world markets, given the U.S.’s tight oil and gas and Canadian oil sands, could have dramatic implications in the medium and long term.”
> 
> The new law offers production-sharing contracts and licenses for companies, and gives Pemex the freedom to pursue joint ventures with Canadian and other foreign companies. Mexican crude production may increase slightly from 2.5 million bpd, but reaching the government’s target of 3 million bpd by 2018 and 3.5 million bpd by 2025 is ambitious.
> 
> 
> *Mexico’s oil renaissance comes at a time when Canadian oil production is expected to reach 4.9 million barrels per day by 2020, according to industry estimates.
> 
> Adding to North America’ energy prowess is the United States’ raising production to 9.5 million barrels per day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration in its latest Annual Energy Outlook published Monday. The shale-driven surge would dramatically shrink U.S. imports to about 25% by 2016, from about 40% last year, before edging back up in the latter half of the decade.
> 
> The North American abundance has the potential to weaken the value proposition of Canadian energy, especially as finding and development costs in Mexico stand around $10.97 per barrel, according to Barclays, much lower than its peers.*
> 
> But analysts say it will be some time before Mexico can start threatening Canadian heavy oil, which is the U.S.’s biggest crude supplier.
> 
> “Mexico’s production has been in a tailspin,” said Ms. Dwarkin. “First they will notionally arrest potential decline and then start providing more to the export market, as well as potentially refining more at home.”
> 
> This serves to connect the last missing piece of the North American energy landscape
> 
> 
> (...)
> 
> MORE AT LINK


----------



## a_majoor

No oil indeed. Using natural gas (methane) as a low cost feedstock to create synthetic fuels has another benefit not mentioned in the article: it is sulphur free, reducing a huge source of emissions and also extending the life of catalytic converters:

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/523146/chasing-the-dream-of-half-price-gasoline-from-natural-gas/?utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_source=newsletter-daily-all&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20140115



> *Chasing the Dream of Half-Price Gasoline from Natural Gas*
> A startup called Siluria thinks it’s solved a mystery that has stymied huge oil companies for decades.
> 
> By Kevin Bullis on January 15, 2014 .Why It MattersThe world depends almost exclusively on oil for chemicals and liquid fuels.
> Quick screen: A technician at Siluria operates some of the company’s equipment for quickly making and testing new catalysts.
> At a pilot plant in Menlo Park, California, a technician pours white pellets into a steel tube and then taps it with a wrench to make sure they settle together. He closes the tube, and oxygen and methane—the main ingredient of natural gas—flow in. Seconds later, water and ethylene, the world’s largest commodity chemical, flow out. Another simple step converts the ethylene into gasoline.
> 
> The white pellets are a catalyst developed by the Silicon Valley startup Siluria, which has raised $63.5 million in venture capital. If the catalysts work as well in a large, commercial scale plant as they do in tests, Siluria says, the company could produce gasoline from natural gas at about half the cost of making it from crude oil—at least at today’s cheap natural-gas prices.
> 
> If Siluria really can make cheap gasoline from natural gas it will have achieved something that has eluded the world’s top chemists and oil and gas companies for decades. Indeed, finding an inexpensive and direct way to upgrade natural gas into more valuable and useful chemicals and fuels could finally mean a cheap replacement for petroleum.
> 
> Natural gas burns much more cleanly than oil—power plants that burn oil emit 50 percent more carbon dioxide than natural gas ones. It also is between two and six times more abundant than oil, and its price has fallen dramatically now that technologies like fracking and horizontal drilling have led to a surge of production from unconventional sources like the Marcellus Shale. While oil costs around $100 a barrel, natural gas sells in the U.S. for the equivalent of $20 a barrel.
> 
> But until now oil has maintained a crucial advantage: natural gas is much more difficult to convert into chemicals such as those used to make plastics. And it is relatively expensive to convert natural gas into liquid fuels such as gasoline. It cost Shell $19 billion to build a massive gas-to-liquids plant in Qatar, where natural gas is almost free. The South African energy and chemicals company Sasol is considering a gas-to-liquids plant in Louisiana that it says will cost between $11 billion and $14 billion. Altogether, such plants produce only about 400,000 barrels of liquid fuels and chemicals a day, which is less than half of 1 percent of the 90 million barrels of oil produced daily around the world.
> 
> The costs are so high largely because the process is complex and consumes a lot of energy. First high temperatures are required to break methane down into carbon monoxide and hydrogen, creating what is called syngas. The syngas is then subjected to catalytic reactions that turn it into a mixture of hydrocarbons that is costly to refine and separate into products.
> 
> For years, chemists have been searching for catalysts that would simplify the process, skipping the syngas step and instead converting methane directly into a specific, desired chemical. Such a process wouldn’t require costly refining and separation steps, and it might consume less energy. But the chemistry is difficult—so much so that some of the world’s top petroleum companies gave up on the idea in the 1980s.
> 
> Siluria thinks it can succeed where others have failed not because it understands the chemistry better, but because it has developed new tools for making and screening potential catalysts. Traditionally, chemists have developed catalysts by analyzing how they work and calculating what combination of elements might improve them. Siluria’s basic philosophy is to try out a huge number of catalysts in the hope of getting lucky. The company built an automated system—it looks like a mess of steel and plastic tubes, mass spectrometers, small stainless steel furnaces, and data cables—that can quickly synthesize hundreds of different catalysts at a time and then test how well they convert methane into ethylene.
> 
> The system works by varying both what catalysts are made of—the combinations and ratios of various elements—and their microscopic structure. Siluria was founded based on the work of Angela Belcher, a professor of biological engineering at MIT who developed viruses that can assemble atoms of inorganic materials into precise shapes. Siluria uses this and other methods to form nanowires from the materials that make up its catalysts. Sometimes the shape of a nanowire changes the way the catalyst interacts with gases such as methane—and this can transform a useless combination of elements into an effective one. “How you build up the structure of the catalyst matters as much as its composition,” says Erik Scher, Siluria’s vice president of research and development.
> 
> The process of making and testing catalysts isn’t completely random—Siluria has the work of earlier chemists to guide it, and it has developed software that sorts out the most efficient way to screen a wide variety of possibilities. The result is that what used to take chemists a year Siluria can now do in a couple of days, Scher says. “We’ve made and screened over 50,000 catalysts at last count,” he says. “And I haven’t been counting in a while.”
> 
> Nonetheless, some seasoned chemists are skeptical that Siluria can succeed. Siluria’s process is a version of one that chemists pursued in the 1970s and 1980s known as oxidative coupling, which involves reacting methane with oxygen. The problem with this approach is that it’s hard to get the reaction to stop at ethylene and not keep going to make carbon dioxide and water. “The reaction conditions you need to convert methane to ethylene do at least as good a job, if not better, of converting ethylene into carbon dioxide, which is useless,” says Jay Labinger, a chemist at the Beckman Institute at Caltech.
> 
> In the late 1980s, Labinger wrote a paper that warned researchers not to waste their time working on the process. And history seems to have borne him out. The process “hasn’t been, and doesn’t appear at all likely to be” an economically viable one, he says.
> 
> Yet in spite of the challenging chemistry, Siluria says the performance of its catalysts at its pilot plant have justified building two larger demonstration plants—one across San Francisco Bay in Hayward, California, that will make gasoline, and one in Houston that will only make ethylene. The plants are designed to prove to investors that the technology can work at a commercial scale, and that the process can be plugged into existing refineries and chemical plants, keeping down capital costs. The company hopes to open its first commercial plants within four years.
> 
> Siluria can’t tell you exactly how it’s solved the problem that stymied chemists for decades—if indeed it has. Because of the nature of its throw-everything-at-the-wall approach, it doesn’t know precisely how its new catalyst works. All it knows is that the process appears to work.
> 
> The hope for finding more valuable uses for natural gas—and making natural gas a large-scale alternative to oil—doesn’t rest on Siluria alone. The abundance of cheap natural gas has fueled a number of startups with other approaches. Given the challenges that such efforts have faced, there’s good reason to be skeptical that they will succeed, says David Victor, director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California at San Diego. But should some of them break through, he says, “that would be seismic.”


----------



## a_majoor

And reducing the demand side for oil. Ford is working on producing a new F-150 pickup truck which is 12% lighter than the previous model. Weight is one of the biggest factors in fuel economy (although the brick like proportions of pickups and SUV's doesn't help at highway speeds), and 12 % is actually a very big deal:

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-detroit-auto-show-ford-truck-20140113,0,1356693.story#axzz2qj1gjsfS



> *Detroit Auto Show: Ford bets big on aluminum with F-150 truck *
> 
> Ford's all-new 2015 F-150 now features an aluminum body that shaves as much as 700 pounds off the truck's weight. Ford also announced a second available EcoBoost turbocharged engine on the new model. (Kirk McKoy / Los Angeles Times /January 13, 2014)«2»1/20By Jerry Hirsch
> 
> This post has been updated as indicated below.
> 
> January 13, 2014, 5:00 a.m.
> While designing the next-generation F-150 truck, Ford Motor Co. secretly substituted the steel body on some of its current pickups with an aluminum shell and delivered them to business customers.
> 
> The automaker was looking to test how lightweight aluminum alloys would hold up on the job, at a gold mine, an energy utility and a construction firm. So it lent out the trucks in a test program — without telling the companies what was being tested. What Ford learned from 300,000 total miles convinced the world’s biggest seller of full-size pickups to make wholesale changes to the F-Series.
> 
> [Updated 9:49 a.m. Jan. 13: The 2015 model truck debuted Monday at the Detroit Auto Show, weighing 700 pounds less than the old one. After its introduction on the floor of the Joe Louis Arena, Ford Chief Operating Officer Mark Fields acknowledged that working with aluminum was more expensive than steel.
> 
> “But given the volume we are working with," Fields said, "we will find some efficiencies.”
> 
> He said the new truck builds on the experience Ford has had working with aluminum in smaller amounts in other models “for a number of years.”
> 
> “We are taking it up a step into the mass production of our most important vehicle,” Fields said.]
> 
> Aluminum alloys will make up the engine compartment and almost every visible metal part of the new truck — the doors, the hood, the side panels, the truck bed, the tail gate.
> 
> Being the first major truck to embrace lightweight materials represents a big gamble for Ford, said Brian Johnson, an analyst with Barclays Capital, who estimates Ford earns about $11,000 on a pickup truck sale compared with $5,000 for a car. The F-Series trucks account for nearly half of Ford’s North American profits, he said, and the company can’t afford a misfire.
> 
> “It is the single most important product from Ford,” said Johnson.
> 
> With its secret test, Ford kept customers in the dark about the aluminum so they would use the trucks just as they would any steel-bodied pickup, said Pete Reyes, the chief engineer for the F-150.
> 
> Ford eventually took some of the trucks back and tore them apart, looking to see how they withstood the rigors of the rugged worksites. It then made some changes, such as making the inner surface of the tailgate thicker for extra protection. The companies will now learn that they were aluminum, Reyes said.
> 
> Ford introduced the first F-Series truck, the F-1, in 1948. It was one of the first commercial vehicles produced following World War II. Chevrolet was the biggest seller of pickups at the time. But Ford believed a vehicle with a bigger, more comfortable cab could be used for small businesses and farm work, but also double as an every day driver.
> 
> The formula worked. The F-Series became the nation’s best-selling truck in 1977. It became the best selling vehicle of any type in 1982 and has retained the title since. Ford has sold 33 million F-Series trucks since 1948, and at least 11 million are still on the road, the company said.
> 
> Last year, the automaker sold 763,000 trucks in the U.S. That’s more sales than many major brands generate from their entire vehicle line-ups, including Dodge, Hyundai, GMC, Jeep and Kia.
> 
> The goal for the next truck, said Doug Scott, Ford’s truck marketing manager, was to create a truck as strong as the previous version, but with greater fuel economy and towing and cargo capacity. The new pickups go on sale near year-end.
> 
> “Our big challenge was, how do you advance the best selling truck ever?” Scott said. “We have to do it with no compromises.”
> 
> The switch to aluminum has its complications. Already there are reports of manufacturing delays. The material is more complicated to stamp and weld than steel, requiring higher heat and more electricity. That could be contributing to Ford’s weak 2014 profit outlook and has spooked the stock market, said Adam Jonas, a Morgan Stanley analyst.
> 
> GM and Chrysler, Ford’s closest truck competitors, are still singing the praises of steel.
> 
> “We use aluminum on the hoods and certain engine blocks and in all the appropriate places,” said Roger McCormack, director of Buick/GMC marketing as General Motors. “There are a lot of advantages of high strength steel — great structural integrity.”
> 
> It’s customers such as Jamie Sailor of Chatsworth, that Ford needs to convince.
> 
> A professional horse trainer whose parents also are Ford truck loyalists, the 22-year-old needs a rugged vehicle to transport animals during the week and haul her dirt bike to the desert on weekends. Having once blown an engine on a Ford truck hauling a too-heavy load up a hill, Sailor pays close attention to durability and toughness.
> 
> “Aluminum is a strong metal, but not as strong as steel,” said Sailor, who owns a 2012 F-250.
> 
> Consumers such as Sailor present a marketing challenge for the automaker, said Stephanie Brinley, an analyst at IHS Automotive.
> 
> “Ford will have to do a good job of telling its story, all the way down to training the sales people at the dealerships,” Brinley said,
> 
> That story will start with the term “military grade aluminum” in Ford advertising. It has no specific technical meaning; it’s just a way for Ford to tie the truck to war machines made with the same stuff.
> 
> “We are using the same alloys that are used in the Hummer and the Bradley fighting vehicle,” Scott said. “We have the same objective of strength and durability.”
> 
> He doesn’t think the extensive use of aluminum will spook most Ford truck owners, many who have become familiar with the strength of the metal through its use in ladders, tool boxes and other equipment.
> 
> Thilo Koslowski, an analyst at Gartner Inc., agreed.
> 
> “Consumers don’t really care about what metal is being used to make a vehicle,” Koslowski said. “What they care about is if it will leave them with more money in their pocket, especially if they are using it for a business.”
> 
> Aluminum isn’t exactly a foreign material to the automobile industry. Mercedes-Benz will make the body panels of its new C-Class sports sedan from the metal. Tesla Motors makes extensive use of aluminum in its Model S, as does Land Rover in its big Range Rover SUV.
> 
> As the auto industry faces more stringent fuel economy standards, Koslowski said, Ford had to make a transformational move with its new truck rather than sitting back and implementing incremental changes, as seen in the recent redesigns of the Ram and Chevrolet pickups.
> 
> “I don’t think they really have a choice but to do something like this,” he said.
> 
> Still, the new truck just isn’t about aluminum. Ford increased the amount of increased high-strength steel in the frame, from 23% to 77%, to give the vehicle rigidity and improve its handling.
> 
> There are other changes, too.
> 
> The beltline of the new truck is lower than the current version, a move that improves visibility for the driver — a constant truck owner complaint — and makes it easier to lift items in and out the side of the bed.
> 
> Other improvements include all-LED lighting on the outside of the truck; dampening on the tailgate hinges that slow its descent; and spotlights on the mirrors that can be targeted to light the truck’s surroundings. New safety features include a 360-degree viewpoint that can be displayed on the dashboard monitor, a forward collision alert and a blind spot monitor to make lane changes easier.
> 
> The truck offers easier access to the second row of seats on the SuperCab model via a rear door that opens 170 degrees toward the back of the truck. There’s no central pillar separating the front and back doors.
> 
> Ford also has added a second turbocharged engine to the F-150 lineup. This new 2.7-liter V-6 engine is from the same “EcoBoost” family as the turbocharged four-cylinder that Ford recently dropped in its all-new Mustang and Lincoln’s MKC crossover. The engine will also likely see use in other large Ford and Lincoln vehicles in the future. Ford has yet to release power figures, or mileage ratings, for this, or any of the engines in the new F-150.
> 
> Meanwhile, the 3.5-liter EcoBoost remains the top-dog in the F-150 lineup. Power will be similar to the outgoing model, which now has 365 horsepower and 420 pound-feet of torque. Also available will be a base 3.5-liter V-6 engine, and a workhorse 5.0-liter V-8.
> 
> Ford also is including high wattage power outlets in the cabin so that workers can plug in power tools and recharge batteries.
> 
> Combined with the new aluminum architecture, Ford believes it has designed a modern truck that will have the power, durability and amenties its millions of customers demand, but be a step ahead of its rivals in technology and fuel effeciency.
> 
> It all adds up to a big leap in truck design, said Golam Newaz, an automotive engineering professor at Wayne State University in Detroit.
> 
> “There has been a lot of testing by Ford, but let’s say that we find that these aluminum vehicles are more difficult to repair, or that the joints aren’t as durable,” he said. “Or what if consumers just don’t like it for some reason? We really won’t know until the vehicle has been in the market for some years.”
> 
> Times staff writer David Undercoffler contributed to this report.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

“Consumers don’t really care about what metal is being used to make a vehicle,”  

They will after they have an accident and have to get the repairs done at a shop that has the capability of working with aluminum or have to pay for those specialized parts.


----------



## chrisf

Add to that, road salt corrosion will be much worse with an aluminium frame.

Might be ok in a southern climate, but galvanic corrosion will eat out solid aluminium at a mind boggling rate.


----------



## GAP

“Consumers don’t really care about what metal is being used to make a vehicle"

In addition, wait until the insurance companies up the rates skyhigh because of the cost of body shop work, most of which are not equipped to work with aluminum on a large basis....


----------



## a_majoor

Although not covered in the article, Ford must have thought about these issues and their solutions, otherwise there would be no point in moving forward with production. Given the changing in Government fuel economy mandates and consumer preferences, some radical steps do need to be taken (like eliminating 12% of the dry wight of the vehicle) in order to survive.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Although not covered in the article, Ford must have thought about these issues and their solutions, otherwise there would be no point in moving forward with production.



I _think_ you're affording them too much credit. I'm sure they thought about it. I'm sure they even looked at some solutions. I doubt whether they notified any body shops or insurance companies what those solutions are. What they likely did, as they are wont to do, is to leave it to the market and the owners to sort out their problems. Most body shops will just resort to replacing panels instead of repairing them. This will drive up insurance costs and provide more, inflated, part sales for Ford (which is likely the solution they settled on).

They will be providing no financial help to body shops to upgrade equipment or technical staff and insurance companies will increase rates accordingly to insure they still make a profit.


----------



## PuckChaser

Seems to me the only reason they're taking a gamble on aluminum construction is that they are struggling to meet the combined MPG limits for 2025 set by Obama this year. Perhaps they cannot get the fuel economy out of an engine rework, or thought this was the cheaper route than redesigning a truck engine?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/business/energy-environment/obama-unveils-tighter-fuel-efficiency-standards.html?_r=0


----------



## a_majoor

While the article seems to have been written by an acolyte of the Church of Global Warming, the takeaway is there is lots of high quality hydrocarbon energy which is relatively easy to access. Generating methane underground and then piping it to customers or liquifying it (or using the FT process to convert it to a diesel fuel substitute) will keep the lights on for generations to come.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/02/underground-coal-gasification-must-also.html#more



> *Underground coal gasification must also have carbon capture and storage*
> 
> Trials of UCG (Underground Coal Gasification) under way globally from China to Queensland, and South Africa to Canada, the stakes are high. Not least for the atmosphere. Without a way to capture all the carbon and store it out of harm's way, it could raise the world's temperature by 10 degrees or more.
> 
> In the past decade, the focus has been on shale gas: methane tightly trapped in tiny pores and fractures in shale, a sedimentary rock made up of mud and clay mixed with minerals such as quartz. Capturing that gas required two crucial new technologies. Horizontal drilling launched from conventional vertical wells can penetrate for up to 3 kilometres along shale beds. And hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, blasts high-pressure water into the shale to fracture the rock and release the gas. As well as opening up the shale, these technologies open the door to a wide range of alternative sources of methane. They can release methane trapped within coal seams, for example, notably in the coalfields of Wyoming and Montana. Methane is often produced as seams develop, as the coal becomes compacted and heated deep underground. The gas has always been the bane of coal mining, but if collected and pumped to the surface, it becomes an asset.
> 
> According to the International Energy Agency's latest estimates, some 400 trillion cubic metres of economically recoverable methane lies trapped in coal and shale beds around the world. It roughly doubles estimates of how much gas miners may be able to get their hands on. But that is just the start. There might be even more gas down there in different rock strata, much of which has migrated from coal seams over millions of years. And why limit the plan to existing gas? The real prize, the miners say, is to create yet more methane by setting fire to the huge amount of unmineable coal lurking underground.
> 
> An assessment by the World Energy Council puts the proportion of global coal that is readily recoverable at 15 to 20 per cent of the total, which Gordon Couch of the International Energy Agency's Clean Coal Centre puts at 18 trillion tonnes. Potentially, UCG could unleash the energy from the other 80 to 85 per cent – enough to supply the world, at current requirements, for 1000 years.
> 
> Industrialists may salivate at the idea of burning all that coal, but for the climate the prospect is truly terrifying. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently reckoned that the world needs to limit total emissions of carbon, from now on, to less than half a trillion tonnes just to keep global warming below 2 °C. Most climate analysts agree even burning a large fraction of conventional fossil fuel reserves would produce unacceptable warming, let alone what could be released by UCG.
> 
> Burning dilemma
> 
> What to do? Either we have to leave the fuel in the ground, or develop a global industry for capturing CO2 at the source and storing it out of harm's way. In the case of UCG that would mean capturing the CO2 produced both when the coal is burned underground and when the resulting methane is burned in power stations. Climate scientists such as Myles Allen at the University of Oxford argue that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the only practical way forward. And this is where UCG has something to offer. Burning coal in situ leaves huge voids that are ideal places for burying captured CO2. And the infrastructure created to bring coal gas to the surface, purify it and deliver it to power stations would be ideal for carrying the CO2 away again.


----------



## Sailorwest

Thucydides said:
			
		

> No oil indeed. Using natural gas (methane) as a low cost feedstock to create synthetic fuels has another benefit not mentioned in the article: it is sulphur free, reducing a huge source of emissions and also extending the life of catalytic converters:
> 
> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/523146/chasing-the-dream-of-half-price-gasoline-from-natural-gas/?utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_source=newsletter-daily-all&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20140115


The technology to develop GTL or LNG is not cheap. Methane has great potential to be a key energy source of the future but to convert it into a form that can be used to replace gasoline and oil based petroleum products is not going to make it a cheap source of energy. 

The people that want to convert gas to liquids are doing so because of the huge price differential that currently exists between gas and oil. By converting cheap gas into high value oil-like products, they would sell that product at or close to the value of the oil products. It would not result in cheap energy products. If the gas to oil price differential decreases substantially, these ideas will likely be even lower on the priority list.


----------



## a_majoor

Given the current situation in Europe and Ukraine, this is a development which should be pushed so *we* can step in and provide lots of inexpensive oil whenever the Russians or the Iranians decide to throw their weight around. Taking away the oil weapon and depressing the oil income of hostile states is a good long term political and strategic goal that Canada should be pursuing.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/03/terrestrial-energy-integral-molten-salt.html



> *Terrestrial Energy Integral Molten Salt Reactor Developers is Working with an Oil Sands Partner*
> 
> Dr. David LeBlanc and Chris Popoff of Terrestrial Energy conducted an in-car interview regarding the use of nuclear power to make oilsands production more environmentally friendly. LeBlanc sees little obstacle in the development of his Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR), now that he has funding from a partner ‘who can pay the development of IMSR with the spare change in his pocket’
> 
> Their reactor is a Denatured Molten Salt Reactor called the "Integral Molten Salt Reactor", drawing on the single fluid MSR research conducted at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
> 
> There is an important difference between the Canadian and the US regulatory authorities. The US is rule-based and Canada nuclear regulations are output-based. In the USA, anyone wanting to develop a new type of reactor will have to prove its safety before it exists. All of the US rules are based on light water reactors. In Canada, you will have to prove the safety of your concept while it is operating. Terrestrial IMSR seems to moving ahead very quickly. Canada's nuclear regulators could allow a molten salt reactor to be built and operating in 6 years.
> 
> The oilsands and molten salt reactors are a good energy transition with an overlap. Molten salt reactors can produce the steam to get oil from the oilsands. The economics work where more oil from the oilsands pays for the the development and the first few hundred molten salt reactors.
> 
> Molten salt reactors would create "green" bitumin production. It would bring oilsand oil production to be equal or better environmentally than other oil production. Currently oilsand oil is less environmentally friendly than other oil sources.
> 
> 73 minute video explains details of the Molten Salt reactor and SAGD oil extraction from the oilsands


----------



## a_majoor

A Canadian company moves closer to the goal of nuclear fusion. While the reactor itself is wonderfully steampunk in concept and design, the fact that this company is "bending metal" puts it well ahead of many larger efforts (and it is interesting to see the reactions of many conventional "fusion workers" in the article). Good luck to General Fusion:

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/technology-news/crazy-genius/



> *How a Canadian fusion reactor could revolutionize the energy sector*
> For years no one took them seriously. Now it looks like their idea is just crazy enough to work
> 
> Apr 11, 2014 Michael McCullough
> 
> Russ Ivanov, a Russian immigrant living in Vancouver, was surfing the web for news from his homeland back in 2009 when he first read about the crazy plan. According to a news article that caught his eye, a ragtag group of Canadian physicists was planning to build a working commercial thermonuclear reactor. A further search led Ivanov, then teaching math at a private school, to a story in a local community newspaper. It confirmed that a startup in the neighbouring municipality of Burnaby had set itself an ambitious goal: to be the first commercial enterprise in the history of the world to generate usable energy from fusion.
> 
> Ivanov immediately cold-called General Fusion’s then CEO, Doug Richardson. He had a lot of questions. What kind of technology were they using? What massive temperatures and densities were they trying to create, and for how many millionths of a second?
> 
> A few days later he called back again. Ivanov had worked on fusion research in Russia and Germany. He ended up joining the company, among the first of the dozen-odd PhDs that populate the 65-member staff.
> 
> Ivanov’s story is just one example of the serendipity involved in this small Canadian company’s rise to the forefront of a worldwide race to harness nuclear fusion, a race that has been going on fitfully, consuming tens of billions of mostly public dollars, for more than half a century. (All existing reactors operate using nuclear fission, rather than fusion, which is a very different process.) Started in 2002 by a successful corporate scientist in the throes of a midlife crisis, General Fusion has already outlasted past private-sector attempts to commercialize fusion energy. Instead of petering out, it’s garnered the attention and respect of a small but growing cadre of scientists, energy executives and adventurous investors around the world.
> 
> Fusion research is now moving from the whiteboard and academic papers to working reactors. In the south of France, a consortium of the world’s major nations (with the notable exception of Canada) is building a US$23-billion facility known as ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor). It is scheduled to begin operation in 2020.
> 
> Meanwhile in February the U.S.-government funded National Ignition Facility (NIF) in California, known for housing the world’s most powerful laser, reported experiments indicating they were close to achieving “net gain,” where more total energy comes out than was put in—a goal that has eluded scientists for six decades.
> 
> If being the first to net gain was all that mattered, General Fusion might as well pack up its plasma injector and go home. But instead, possibly as early as this year, the company will begin work on a full-size prototype reactor. At the centre will be a sphere, three metres in diameter, inside which molten lead swirls at high speed creating a vacuum, or vortex, in the middle. Arrayed around it will be 200 to 300 pistons, each the size of a cannon. Firing in perfect harmony, they will create an acoustic wave that collapses the vortex at the very moment a plasma injector shoots hydrogen isotopes, the nuclear fuel, into it. If General Fusion has its physics right, the heat and pressure will ignite a fusion reaction that spins off countless neutrons which will heat the lead even more. Pumped through a heat exchanger, that hot lead will help generate steam just like a conventional thermal power plant.
> 
> Getting the reactor to work once is the easy part. Getting it to work repeatedly and cost effectively for power production, that’s harder. And that explains why, as the fusion age dawns, there is ever more interest in what this small, slightly dishevelled Canadian company is doing. In a scientific community that is starting to talk about fusion in terms of pennies per kilowatt-hour, General Fusion aims to build a cheaper alternative to the multi-billion-dollar reactor designs. It wants to solve the world’s energy dilemma on a practical level, not just a theoretical one.
> 
> Still, one can’t help but ask: Is there any profit to be had trying to create a man-made sun in a Vancouver-area industrial park? Nathan Gilliland, who was hired in February as General Fusion’s new CEO, thinks the company can outperform the government-funded efforts. He previously founded biomass energy company Harvest Power and worked as an entrepreneur-in-residence at venture capital giant Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers. Gilliland notes private company Solara bested the government-funded Human Genome Project by hitting important milestones first, and Elon Musk’s SpaceX found a way to send rockets into space for a fifth the cost of a NASA launch. “Speed and practicality are what private innovation does best,” he says. “We’ve started to create something that might just have a breakthrough here.”
> 
> To understand fusion is to understand where most of the energy we use here on earth originates. The sun is mostly composed of hydrogen. More precisely, it’s composed of plasma, super-heated gas made up of hydrogen’s constituent isotopes, deuterium and tritium—the smallest and most basic atoms. Under the sun’s conditions of extreme heat and density, deuterium and tritium fuse together to form helium atoms, giving off still more heat in the process.
> 
> So, scientists have been asking for six decades, what if we could spark up fusion on command? We’ve already done that with the opposite reaction, fission—the breaking of large atoms into smaller particles—which leaves us with the troublesome byproduct of radioactive waste. By contrast, fusion would produce no waste, just inert helium, and its fuel can be extracted from seawater. Moreover, it should take even less fuel than a fission reactor does to produce a lot of energy.
> 
> Solar fusion, though, happens in space, where there’s nothing to contaminate the reaction. The fundamental challenge to replicating and sustaining it on earth is containment of the plasma: how can you get it that hot without vaporizing the reactor walls and having that foreign matter snuff the sunburst like rain on a campfire?
> 
> Over six decades, scientific consensus has coalesced around two answers: magnetic and inertial confinement. The magnetic camp, which includes ITER, aims to suspend the plasma in a magnetic field within a doughnut-shaped chamber known as a tokamak. The inertial confinement experts, such as those at NIF, are attempting to ignite a fusion reaction by firing powerful lasers at plasma contained in a pellet the size of a pea.
> 
> The magnetized target fusion that General Fusion is attempting is what’s known as an “alternate concept,” which shares elements from both other concepts, explains Stephen Dean, president of Fusion Power Associates, a Washington, D.C.–based non-profit aimed at sharing knowledge and furthering the global research effort. Stacked as most fusion scientists are in favour of one mainstream technology or the other, they struggle to keep an open mind with regard to the opposite side’s ideas. “I can’t tell you that people are all excited about [General Fusion’s] program in the fusion community, but they are a credible group in this smaller niche,” says Dean, who has invited the company to present at his association’s past three annual meetings. Indeed, the invitations are coming ever more frequently. Last fall General Fusion made presentations at the World Energy Congress in Daegu, South Korea, and at workshops hosted by the Chinese Academy of Physics and the U.S. government’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). Still, there are naysayers. In the pages of the scientific journal Physics in Canada in 2010, Eric Vogt, director emeritus of the TRIUMF nuclear accelerator at the University of British Columbia, described General Fusion as “unproven science masquerading as achievable technology.”
> 
> Occupying two nondescript buildings at the end of a light-industrial cul-de-sac, General Fusion’s headquarters bring to mind a super-sized tinkerer’s garage. One building houses the plasma injector, resembling a lunar capsule, swathed in tubes and wires and shielded from the offices nearby by steel dividers decked in blast-proof tiles. The other contains a one-metre-wide model of the spherical reactor core, studded with 14 pistons like a pincushion.
> 
> The company chose its current location in part because it’s built on solid bedrock at the foot of Burnaby Mountain, capable of withstanding the pulses from the pistons. The landlord nearly fainted, Richardson recalls, on the day he walked in to see excavators digging a trench in the floor to contain the pipes and pumps handling the liquid lead that spins within the core.
> 
> The reception area is undergoing a facelift, at the insistence of the board of directors. The rest of the facility is the domain of woolly-headed scientists, engineers and technicians who place little stock in appearances.
> 
> Chief among them is Dr. Michel Laberge who, upon turning 40 in 2001, quit his job as a senior physicist and principal engineer at Creo Inc., a printing technology company. He wanted to apply his talents toward something more ambitious, more meaningful. Given that his PhD from UBC was in plasma physics, nuclear fusion—potentially a solution to mankind’s damaging dependence on fossil fuels—was a natural choice. He chose to investigate magnetized target fusion, a branch of research abandoned in the 1980s. Part of the problem at that time was the lack of diagnostic and synchronization technology available then to build a working reactor. That technology, he noted, had improved since.
> 
> He raised money from family, friends and the federal government and built a rudimentary reactor, no bigger than a kitchen range. It was nothing much, but something happened with the plasma reactions he generated therein. Sensors detected excess neutrons, suggesting at least a few hydrogen atoms had fused. “I called them my marketing neutrons,” Laberge later joked.
> 
> It was then, in 2006, that Laberge persuaded Richardson, his team leader and partner on a number of projects at Creo, to join the venture. The pair brought on Michael Brown, a sort of godfather of tech finance in B.C,, and his Chrysalix venture capital firm. Brown would serve as chairman until 2012. They also lured a handful of serious scientists away from comfortable, tenured jobs at universities and big companies. The attraction: the chance to stop studying and modelling fusion, and actually make the machine go.
> 
> *The cultural chasm between General Fusion and competing government labs could not be more stark. Some of the potential hires Richardson interviewed had worked in fusion for 15 years without ever once turning a screw. Others he’s come across will say, “I could never work here. I don’t have anybody expecting results. I just have to publish some papers.”*
> 
> Even less like a public research lab, Laberge and Richardson set themselves a deadline, as they had done developing products for Creo: four years to net gain. They would get more energy out of a fusion reaction than they put in by the summer of 2013. Unfortunately, plasma would prove more stubborn than designing a new thermal printing head. In 2011 General Fusion had what at first looked like a successful test of its plasma injector, a funnel-shaped machine where plasma is created from super-heated hydrogen gas. “The plasma looked beautiful,” Richardson recalls. It was the temperature sensors that the scientists were beginning to suspect. Sure enough, the plasma was cooling down too quickly as it travelled the length of the injector. They knew that they would need to get a better handle on plasma before building a full-size prototype.
> 
> “That’s where we’ve had our ups and downs, getting the plasma where it’s hot enough and dense enough and lasts long enough…before we compress it,” concedes Michael Delage, General Fusion’s vice-president, strategy and corporate development. As for the deadline to net gain, “We’re a little more humble in terms of exact dates these days.”
> 
> Fortunately, the company has grown and evolved on the corporate front too, which has given it more wiggle room. In 2011 a new round of financing brought the total raised up to $50 million. In addition to earlier investors, who anted up again, some notable new money joined the group. One was Bezos Expeditions, the venture capital arm of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. The other was Cenovus Energy, a major player in Canada’s oilsands. “Cenovus is impressed by General Fusion’s innovative, pragmatic approach,” executive vice-president Judy Fairburn explained in a release announcing the $3.8-million investment from the oil company’s Environmental Opportunity Fund. “As world energy demand increases, we’ll need all types of energy to meet those needs. Fusion technology has the potential to revolutionize energy production.”
> 
> No longer this quirky startup from La-la Land, General Fusion was attracting international attention. Along with that came a new chairman, Rick Wills, the chair and CEO of measurement equipment maker Tektronix, out of Portland, Ore. General Fusion also established an advisory board of experts in various aspects of commercializing fusion power and added impressive figures to its board like Jacques Besnainou, the former president and CEO of Areva Group North America, and Frederick Buckman, who held executive positions with various utilities as well as the Shaw Power Group, an engineering and construction outfit. They all bring expertise that will be useful to the company as it plots its long-term strategy. “This kind of technology does not come out of one company on its own,” says Delage. It will require a consortium of power companies, turbine manufacturers, plant designers and builders to make it competitive with existing sources of energy. Moreso than either government-funded labs or venture-capital-backed rivals, General Fusion has reached out to create a community of partners.
> 
> The approach is a shrewd one in the opinion of Dallas Kachan, head of Kachan & Co., a San Francisco–based clean-tech research and consulting firm. Not only does it spread around the risks of commercialization, but also ensures continued funding in the increasingly bearish VC market for green energy. “As the company runs out of reasons why the technology won’t work, and gets closer and closer to illustrating that it will work, I think it’s entirely possible that they will raise the billions of dollars they will need to prove this concept out,” he says, noting that it was Cenovus’s investment, more than that of Bezos, that turned heads among investors.
> 
> Another guiding principle that General Fusion has kept despite its growing credibility and business focus is frugality. Only the cheapest, most readily available materials go into the machine. Technicians working there have been known to obtain supplies from the Costco store around the block. “You can study plasma-facing surfaces for 10 years or you can go to your local coating supplier and say, ‘Make me five of these and do this, this, this and this,” says Richardson. “Before long you’re an expert in how these things perform.”
> 
> For example, General Fusion turned to a local dry-ice company to help clean microscopic carbon soot from its plasma injector. An array of spectrometers used to measure what’s happening with the plasma came from Photon Control, a nearby company managers had spotted while driving past.
> 
> A bigger venue will be needed when the time comes to build the full-size prototype, featuring a three-metre-diameter sphere, between 200 and 300 pistons and plasma injector all connected together. It’s expected to take at least three years to build. Ideally, that process will begin before this year is out. The mechanical aspect—getting pistons to fire synchronously within 10 microseconds of each other—is pretty much ready. So is the computer modelling, an essential leg up in the effort to make the reaction work in the real world. What continues to bedevil General Fusion’s efforts is the damned plasma. The team has to get the combination of energy and confinement to a level that sustains, even for a fraction of a second, the conditions in which fusion energy is released.
> 
> And the clock is ticking, faster than for its public-sector rivals. “We’re a privately funded fusion company. Private money is not necessarily patient money, especially if it’s a VC. We are always in a rush,” Richardson says.
> 
> Fusion Power Associates’ Dean, a 50-year veteran of the research effort, believes there is a role for private companies in fusion research. Even if the big public-sector research projects succeed in sparking up a fusion fire first, the cost of actually building power plants would be prohibitive. Therefore the private firms’ search for a cheaper, faster shortcut is essential, if less assured of success. Other private ventures have set out to master fusion, made some initial progress, but run out of capital and investors’ patience when it came time to scale up to the next level. Rigatron, a San Diego company, fizzled this way. So did a collaboration between Phillips Petroleum and General Atomics.
> 
> But does a VC-backed, for-profit company stand any chance of making money while attempting to solve the world’s energy problems? “There will be multiple winners as this thing matures, and we certainly hope we’re one of them,” says Gilliland.
> 
> It’s impossible to say whether a company like General Fusion can contribute anything important to this global energy quest, Dean confesses. “You’ll only know when success proves the point.”


----------



## a_majoor

Toyota brings an evolved type of engine to the table. This type of engine is already in the Prius series of vehicles, and once you get rid of the batteries, control electronics and electric motor, a lighter car should get pretty impressive fuel economy. I do wonder about scaleability, would it be possible to make larger V6 or even V8 engines for the larger vehicles in the Toyota lineup, like minivans, SUVs and the Tundra pickup truck?

http://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/7458/Toyotas-Awesome-Atkinson-Cycle-Engine.aspx



> *Toyota’s Awesome Atkinson Cycle Engine*
> 
> Kyle Maxey posted on April 15, 2014
> 
> With fuel efficiency becoming a prominent factor driving car purchases; Toyota has gone on the offensive by launching two new small-displacement, Atkinson cycle engines.
> 
> Built to power the Japanese-automaker’s Aygo commuter and the 2015 Lexus RC F, respectively, the new Atkinson-cycle engines will come in 1.0 and 1.3L versions. While neither engine will generate frame-crunching torque, their higher compression ratios, improved combustion chamber design, weight reduction and reduced frictional energy loses will mean major gas savings for drivers.
> 
> While this isn’t Toyota’s first attempt at using an Atkinson cycle engine in a vehicle (they’re used in the company’s Prius hybrid), it does represent the company’s first attempt at using the Atkinson design as a standalone power plant.
> 
> Featuring a number of innovations including a redesigned intake port, an idle stop function, a cooled exhaust gas recirculation system, plastic coated bearings and Toyota’s Variable Valve Timing intelligent Electric technology, the independent Atkinson will best its predecessor’s fuel efficiency by approximately 30 percent. Put into performance terms, Toyota’s new 1.0L Atkinson will get an estimated 78mpg. While some of that efficiency will be lost in the Lexus RC F’s 1.3L model, Toyota insists the larger Atkinson model is also a world-beater. Still, no concrete numbers have been released for that incarnation of the engine.
> 
> According to Toyota, the newly announced engines will be incorporated in at least 14-vehicle variations by 2015, giving consumers many more options for hyper-efficient commuting.
> 
> Whether a standalone 1.0L Atkinson cycle engine can climb the steep slopes of San Francisco’s streets or endure a trip through West Virginia’s hills is still a mystery to me. However, if you’re looking for a fuel-efficient, flatland commuter, you might do well to look for one armed with this amazing engine.



Not entirely sure if this sort of technology could be transferred to diesel engines, a 30% boost in fuel economy for military vehicles would be a huge boost to the logistics system in many cascading steps (less fuel, fewer fuel trucks, smaller convoys, or alternatively longer ranges or times between refuelling).


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting example of how rent seeking and crony capitalism distort the markets for oil and energy (and directly affecting Canada's interests as well) Long article part 1:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/the-epic-hypocrisy-of-tom-steyer.php



> *THE EPIC HYPOCRISY OF TOM STEYER*
> 
> Billionaire hedge fund operator and “green” energy magnate Tom Steyer has pledged $100 million in the 2014 election cycle to help Democratic candidates who oppose the Keystone pipeline and who favor “green” energy over fossil fuels. Steyer claims to be a man of principle who has no financial interest in the causes he supports, but acts only for the public good. That is a ridiculous claim: Steyer is the ultimate rent-seeker who depends on government connections to produce subsidies and mandates that make his “green” energy investments profitable. He also is, or was until recently, a major investor in Kinder Morgan, which is building a competitor to the Keystone pipeline. Go here, here, here, here, here and here for more information about how Steyer uses his political donations and consequent connections to enhance his already vast fortune.
> 
> But Steyer’s hypocrisy goes still deeper. Today, he is a bitter opponent of fossil fuels, especially coal. That fits with his current economic interests: banning coal-fired power plants will boost the value of his solar projects. But it was not always thus. In fact, Steyer owes his fortune in large part to the fact that he has been one of the world’s largest financers of coal projects. Tom Steyer was for coal before he was against it.
> 
> A reader with first-hand knowledge of the relevant Asian and Australian markets sent us this detailed report on how Steyer got rich on coal. He titled his report “Hypocrisy & Hedge Funds: Climate Change Warrior Tom Steyer’s Secret Life as Coal Investment Kingpin.” Here it is, in full:
> 
> Tom Steyer founded Farallon Capital Management L.L.C. (“Farallon”) in 1986. Farallon has grown to become one of the largest and most successful hedge funds in the United States with over $20bn in funds under management.1 Mr. Steyer’s net worth is reported to be $1.6bn.2
> 
> Mr. Steyer left Farallon in 2012 to focus on political and environmental causes and potentially to position himself for public office. He has been described in the press as the “liberals’ answer to the Koch Brothers”3 due to his wealth and his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline and carbon-based energy in general. He has dedicated some $50 million of his personal fortune to back political candidates who support his position on climate change – and punish those who don’t. Mr. Steyer has led recent campaigns with Bill McKibben to encourage university endowments to divest coal equities.
> 
> In his recent letter to the Middlebury College and Brown University Boards of Trustees, investment professional Mr. Steyer wrote:
> 
> I believe a coal free portfolio is a good investment strategy…4
> 
> In a recent interview, Mr. Steyer was quoted referring to “coal-industry baron David Koch”:
> 
> [Koch is] taking the most incredible risk that I’ve ever seen someone take, of going down in ￼history as just an evil – just a famously evil – person!5
> 
> By their nature, hedge funds are shadowy organizations and Farallon is no exception. Farallon staff do not talk to the press. Their website provides virtually no information and, because it is a private fund, Farallon is not required to report details of its investments.
> 
> Essentially all the public knows about Farallon’s investment activities is what the fund is forced to file; for example when their ownership stake in a publicly listed company rises above a disclosable threshold, or when they are compelled to disclose information pursuant to a lawsuit.
> 
> While a few bits of information on Farallon’s investments in carbon energy have seeped into the North American press via these disclosures, this information doesn’t begin to scratch the surface. The North American press’s lack of awareness of Mr Steyer’s activities in the coal sector is due to the fact that all of Farallon’s investments in coal have been made outside of North America, and wherever possible through opaque structures which mask their direct involvement.
> 
> In order to gain an appreciation of the extent of Farallon’s epic involvement in the coal sector under Mr. Steyer’s tenure one needs to spend time in Jakarta and Sydney, and in the regional financing centers in Hong Kong and Singapore, and speak to professionals (bankers, lawyers, mining consultants and principals) who were directly involved in these Farallon-sponsored coal transactions. With a modicum of effort one discovers that since 2003 Farallon has played the pivotal role in financing the tremendous restructuring and growth in thermal coal production in the region. All of this took place under Mr. Steyer’s tenure as founder and senior partner of Farallon.
> 
> Steyer0027
> 
> Farallon_Capital_Management,_L.L.C
> 
> Buried in his recent missive to the Middlebury College and Brown University trustees on the evils of investing in coal, Mr. Steyer added this statement:
> 
> …I have directed my financial team to divest my holdings of coal investments so that I will have a ￼￼coal free portfolio…
> 
> Perhaps he is being disingenuous and wishes people to believe that some low level employee at Farallon bought a few shares in coal companies without his permission. It is possible that he is trying to inoculate himself against the inevitable perceptions of hypocrisy that he knew would arise when the scale of his involvement in the coal sector came to light, as eventually it must.
> ￼
> The facts, summarized below, might lead one to conclude that:
> 
> • Mr. Steyer has had a direct, personal involvement in assembling, through Farallon, a portfolio of strategic investments in overseas coal miners and coal fired power plants which is unprecedented in scale. The total quantum of Farallon’s investments in these transactions is not publicly disclosed, but reasonable estimates suggest that it could be between US$1 and $2 billion in total.6 Taken collectively, the coal producers in which his fund has amassed these investment interests represent one of the largest sources of thermal coal in the world;
> 
> • The financing provided by Mr. Steyer’s fund enabled these coal producers to restructure and recapitalize thereby freeing them to grow rapidly during a period of rapidly rising coal prices, leading to one of the largest expansions of thermal coal production in modern times7;
> 
> • Made during a period of ever rising coal prices, these investments were almost certainly extremely profitable for Mr. Steyer’s fund overall, and my extension Mr. Steyer personally. It stands to reason that few people in American history have made more money from investment in thermal coal than Mr. Steyer.
> 
> Some facts:
> 
> • As casual conversation with professionals involved in the regional coal sector will confirm, over the past decade Farallon has become, without question, the pre-eminent financier of coal transactions in Asia and Australia.
> 
> • Under Mr. Steyer’s tenure as senior partner, Farallon has been responsible for providing acquisition and expansion funding to about a half dozen of the largest coal mine and coal power plant buyouts in Australia and Asia since 2003. In each case the funding provided by Farallon was pivotal to the success of the transaction.
> 
> • Without the leading role played by Farallon many of these transactions, and the subsequent leaps in production (often necessary to repay Farallon’s high interest rate debt facilities), would not have occurred.
> 
> • The half dozen Indonesian and Australian coal producers in Farallon’s investment stable produced about 80 mtpa of coal collectively prior to Farallon’s involvement. By 2012 these companies produced 150 mtpa (see table below). In other words, the capital provided by Mr. Steyer’s Farallon group was pivotal in enabling incremental coal production of about 70 million tonnes of thermal coal production per year.
> 
> • Looked at another way, the coal mines that Mr. Steyer has funded through Farallon produce an amount of CO2 each year that which is equivalent to about 28% of the amount of CO2 produced in the US each year by coal burned for electricity generation.8
> 
> • As above, the companies in which Farallon has made these huge strategic investments produced about 150 mt of coal in 2012. On a combined basis this would make them one of the largest private coal sector companies in the world9 (by comparison the “famously evil” Koch brothers appear to own a grand total of … wait for it ….one coal mine which, at its peak, produced 6 mtpa and is no longer in operation).10
> 
> • The quantum of Farallon’s profits on these investments over the past 10 years is not publicly available. Based on the estimated investment quantums6, typical hedge fund returns of 20% and an assumed average holding period of two years per investment, total profit to Farallon from coal investments of $400 million is a reasonable estimate. As the founding and senior partner of Farallon, Mr. Steyer would have received a sizeable share of this profit personally.
> 
> Partial History of Farallon’s Overseas Coal & Related Investments:11
> 
> This data is based on public information and in a few instances information available from professional sources. All of these investments took place during the period of Mr. Steyer’s tenure as senior partner of Farallon.
> 
> 2003 – PT Kaltim Prima Coal
> 
> In October 2003 Indonesia’s Bakrie Group, through listed vehicle PT Bumi Resources, purchased PT Kaltim Prima Coal from Rio and BP in a transaction valued at $500 million. Around $200 mn of the financing was technically underwritten by an investment bank but Farallon is understood to have been the actual provider of funds. At the time of the transaction Kaltim Prima Coal produced 18 mtpa. As a result of the buyout the mine has been able to lift production of to 41 mtpa by 2012.
> 
> This transaction initiated a long standing relationship between Farallon and the Bakrie group, one of Indonesia’s leading business groups and largest coal mine owners. This relationship led to a series of refinancings of their coal operations including the PT Arutmin coal mine.
> ￼￼
> Farallon has also been a substantial lender to other Bakrie Group assets. They have recently been identified in the press as a leading member of a consortium which lent $1.4 billion to Long Haul Holdings12, which owns various Bakrie-linked investments including stakes in listed PT Berau Coal (subsequently sold) and the Bakrie’s stake in PT Bumi Resources (which in turn controls the PT Kaltim Prima Coal and PT Arutmin coal mines).
> 
> 2004 – PT Berau Coal
> 
> Farallon provided significant financial backing to the Indonesia buyout consortium for their ~$279 m
> buyout of a 90% stake in Berau Coal (conducted in two stages in 2004 and 2006).13
> 
> PT Berau Coal was subsequently sold to another Indonesian investor which was then sued by Farallon in 2010 in order to obtain a 3% equity stake in PT Berau Coal that Farallon said they were entitled to (these were most likely “equity kickers” which Farallon was given for providing debt financing for the buyout).14
> 
> PT Berau Coal is an Indonesian thermal coal producer which mines and sells around 21 mtpa today.


----------



## a_majoor

Part 2:



> 2005 – PT Adaro Coal
> 
> Farallon played a leading role in an investment consortium which purchased the 41% equity stake in Indonesian coal producer PT Adaro Coal from New Hope Corporation of Australia for $378 million.15 PT Adaro is one of the world’s largest thermal coal producers with annual production of 50 mtpa.
> 
> 2010 – Maules Creek Acquisition
> 
> In a transaction initiated personally by Steyer16, Farallon took the lead in providing $455 m of debt and equity linked acquisition financing to back Australian entrepreneur Nathan Tinkler in his A$480 m acquisition from Rio of the Maules Creek coal mine in Australia’s Hunter Valley. Maules Creek was not in production at the time of the acquisition, but with Farallon’s support it was able to complete an initial public offering on the ASX (as Aston Resources) with a completed feasibility study to reach 10 mtpa of annual coal sales.
> 
> 2011 – Aston Resources – Whitehaven Coal Merger and Restructuring
> 
> Aston Resources and ASX listed coal producer Whitehaven Coal merged in March 2012. Mr. Tinkler emerged as the largest single shareholder of the combined entity. It is widely reported16 that Farallon is one of Mr. Tinkler’s leading financiers (with the lion’s share of a reported A$600 m financing facility to Mr. Tinkler backed by his shares in, among other entities, Whitehaven Coal). Pursuant to a restructuring of the facility to Mr. Tinkler, Farallon acquired a direct stake in Whitehaven in June 2013, buying 9.9% for A$300 million. At that time a representative from Farallon took a position on Whitehaven Coal’s Board of Directors. Farallon is now listed as one of Whitehaven’s single largest shareholders with 16.6%.17
> ￼
> Data on growth in coal production from Farallon-invested coal companies is provided below:17
> 
> FarallonChart01
> 
> ￼￼￼Farallon’s Strategic Investments in Coal Fired Power Plants
> 
> In addition to strategic investments in major coal producers, under Mr. Steyer’s direction Farallon became a major investor in coal fired power plants, all made offshore and with barely a ripple of publicity.
> 
> In late 2012 Mr. Steyer said: “We immediately get off coal. We move to something …where we are not causing massive destruction.”18 More recently his NexGen Climate Action group was stirring up concern about sinister Chinese investment in Canadian tar sands.19
> 
> Shortly before these statements Mr. Steyer’s fund was, in fact, banking the check from the sale of their investment in a major Chinese coal fired power producer, Meiya Power, to China Guangdong Nuclear Power Company. Farallon and another fund had purchased Meiya Power a few years earlier. Meiya Power is one of the leading foreign invested independent power producers in China (founded by PSEG), with ownership stakes in six major coal fired power stations in China which provide more than 2,400 MW of electricity per year.20
> 
> In 2008 Farallon purchased an 18% stake in India Bulls Power, one of India’s top power developers, for approximately $158 m.21 At the time of the investment India Bulls Power had 11,400 MW of power developments underway in India – the two most active are 2,700 MW of coal fired power at the Amravati and Nasik projects.
> 
> The foregoing suggests that there is a significant gap between Mr. Steyer’s words and deeds with respect to carbon based energy. Since he has chosen to inject himself into the national dialogue in such a high profile fashion it is reasonable for the public to ask Mr. Steyer to clarify his personal history regarding fossil fuel investments.
> 
> Whatever the merits of his message, it would be unfortunate if it was clouded by the perception that he might be saying one thing (offering unsolicited investment advice to major educational foundations urging them to sell coal investments) while at the same time doing another (profiting massively from coal investments).
> 
> A complete declaration by Mr. Steyer of the following items might clear the air:
> 
> i) information on all of coal-related investments made by Farallon during Mr. Steyer’s tenure as senior partner (amount, date made, date sold, return);
> 
> ii) if he was on the Investment Committee when these investments were made, a record of whether he for or against the investment;
> 
> iii) a list of Farallon’s current holdings of coal investments (to the extent that Mr. Steyer has an ongoing financial interest in them);
> 
> iv) to the extent he does, a commitment on an absolute date by which they will be sold;
> 
> v) information on how much of his personal fortune comes from these coal investments (and out
> of curiosity, is it more than the $50 million he intends to invest in the anti-coal message?)
> ￼
> Notes:
> 
> 1. Regulatory Assets Under Management US Securities & Exchange Commission website, ADV filings, April 2014
> 
> 2. Forbes on-line, April 19th, 2014
> 
> 3. LA Times, December 21, 2013
> 
> 4. Message to Middlebury College’s Board of Trustees, January 22nd 2013
> ￼￼
> ￼5. Men’s Journal, March 2013
> ￼
> 6. Estimated as follows:
> 
> FarallonChart02
> 
> ￼￼7. Statistics from Barlow Jonker and the Indonesian Government suggest that Indonesian coal production rose from ￼about 175 mtpa in 2004 to over 400 mt in 2013, an average growth rate of about 9% pa over ten years.
> 
> 8. ￼150 mtpa x ~2.86 tonnes of CO2 from one tonne of coal / 1,514 mtpa CO2 from coal burned in US to produce electricity. Data for 2012. Source http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=77&t=11
> 
> 9. As reference, Peabody Energy, the largest coal producers in the US, mined 184 mt of coal in the US in 2013. The next largest was Arch Coal which produced 137 mt of coal in the US in the same year.
> 
> 10. A brief, good faith scan of the internet to understand the Koch brothers’ coal mining interests suggests that the only coal mine they own is through William Koch’s company Oxbow Mining LLC which operated the Elk Creek underground coal mine in Colorado. Elk Creek reached peak production of 6 mtpa in 2008 and subsequently closed due to seismic issues.
> 
> 11. Farallon’s investment activities in Asia were completed under the “Farallon” name until about 2004. At that time the Asian activities of Farallon were restyled as Noonday Asset Management (“Farallon” and “Noonday” are the names of a group of rocks about 30 km off the coast of San Francisco). In 2013 Noonday Asset Management announced that it would once again use the name Farallon. In this note “Farallon” and “Noonday” are used interchangeably.
> 
> 12. Financial Times, Oct. 4th, 2012. “Bakries Under Pressure Over Bumi Resources” ” …￼￼For example, a $1.4bn financing in February 2011 to Bakrie and Brothers and another affiliate, Long Haul ￼Holdings, was ultimately placed with several hedge funds including affiliates of San Francisco-based Farallon, DE Shaw and an Austrian bank, according to one hedge fund manager who was part of the lending group…”
> 
> ￼13. Reuters, June29th, 2010. “Ownership Claim Casts Pall on Berau’s IPO.”
> 
> ￼14. Euroweek, June 16, 2006. “…Merrill Lynch had been marketing a refinancing and recapitalisation that would allow￼investors in the mine–which include Farallon Capital, the US fund–to recoup some of their investment in Berau by ￼adding more leverage to the company…”
> 
> ￼￼15. New York Times, April 5th, 2005.
> 
> 16. Sydney Morning Herald, October 30, 2011 “How Singo Made Tinkler Rich”
> 
> 17. Listed company public filings.
> 
> ￼18. CleanTechnica and Reuters, October 10, 2012.
> 
> ￼19. See National Journal, Feb 20th, 2014, “Tom Steyer’s China Syndrome” and, in view of Farallon’s investments in coal￼fired power plants, view the link to the Youtube video from Mr. Steyer’s NGO which attempts to malign Chinese ￼investment in North American hydrocarbon resources.
> 
> 20. Meiya Power website (www.meiya.com);”Electricity privatisation and restructuring in Asia-Pacific” by Steve Thomas, David Hall and Violeta Corral, December 2004; and Enipedia.tudeflt.nl.
> 
> 21. The Financial Express, Feb 15, 2008.
> 
> Hypocrisy is not in short supply in the political world, but Tom Steyer is in a class by himself. Now that he is enriching himself through “green” cronyism, coal is evil. Sure: like all hydrocarbons, it competes with the solar energy boondoggles on which he is making millions, with the aid of the Obama administration. But where was Steyer’s alleged social conscience when he was one of the world’s biggest investors in coal? And how substantial are his current holdings in coal projects? Is Steyer financing his anti-fossil fuel campaign on profits from past or, perhaps, ongoing investments in Asian and Australian coal? Inquiring minds want to know! Tom Steyer appears to have elevated political hypocrisy to an entirely new level.


----------



## Edward Campbell

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, financial journalist Carl Mortished speculates that a combination of technology advances in solar power and batteries will _disrupt_ the current (oil powered) mobility model ... parts of it, anyway:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/rob-insight/get-set-for-the-great-energy-disruption/article20320257/#dashboard/follows/


> Get set for the great energy disruption
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> LONDON — Special to The Globe and Mail
> 
> Last updated Saturday, Sep. 06 2014
> 
> On good days, your car is a glorious speed machine, but most of the time it’s just an overpriced shopping cart. But consider the possibility that within a decade, that lump of steel, plastic and rubber in your garage could become a vital component of the national electricity grid. We are approaching a tipping point at which the falling cost of solar energy and improving battery technology will transform the way we power our lives, turning homes into generators and cars into moving power storage units. It will hugely disrupt the business of producing and distributing electricity and it will bring about the gradual eclipse of the age of oil.
> 
> The know-how is already here, says UBS, and the cost, which once seemed prohibitive, now looks manageable. The investment bank has developed an economic model to show how solar panels and batteries will within this decade become competitive and disruptive technologies. The cost of solar panels has collapsed, falling by 85 per cent in the last seven years and UBS expects the cost of lithium batteries to halve by 2020. Driven by the availability of cheaper and more efficient energy storage and inexpensive solar power, electric vehicles will begin to attain cost parity with cars driven by internal combustion engines.
> 
> According to UBS, in a market with high road fuel prices, such as Germany, the total cost of ownership of an electric vehicle such as the Tesla S is already comparable with a gasoline-powered car, such as the Audi A7. By 2020, the UBS analysts reckon that in Europe, the all-in cost of electric vehicles will be lower than conventional ones.
> 
> The key to the UBS model and its interest is not in the projections of falling technology costs , but in the combination of three technologies – solar panels, batteries and electric cars – which behave in a symbiotic way, each providing a boost to the economic opportunity created by the other. Batteries provide the solution to the problem of solar intermittency; inexpensive solar power lowers the cost of charging an electric car. The three pillars of the system solve the problem of fluctuating demand on the grid, including the excess demand created by the charging of electric cars.
> 
> For example, a stationary battery in your home, apartment block or neighbourhood might store power from domestic solar panels during peak daylight for discharge at night. Grid electricity would fill the remaining night or early morning supply gap. Meanwhile your car’s battery could fulfill an additional storage function and the cost of recharging your car at your place of work would be offset by the value of the power generated by your solar panels at home.
> 
> In UBS’s model, by 2025, power will no longer be something we buy exclusively from big centralized utilities; everyone will generate and store power. It will be a world of smart, local grids linked to each other, mutually interdependent and maximizing the utility of locally-generated solar power while at the same time connected to larger commercial generators. Your home and your car will be an integral part of the grid – consuming, generating, storing and discharging power.
> 
> The UBS vision is not fantastic; it is entirely plausible in parts of the world, such as the U.S. Southwest and Australia, where there is ample sunlight and the potential for large economies of scale in the creation of microgrids. If it is to happen, we need to acknowledge and accept a major disruption to the current electricity model. This will require not just aggressive carbon pricing but a shift by incumbent utilities to a new business model of local grid management. It may also require legislative intervention to unbundle those utilities unwilling to invest in microgrids.
> 
> There will be corporate casualties. In Europe, the business of manufacturing and distributing road fuels is contracting every year. The automotive market is saturated; French oil giant Total is even threatening to shut the doors on its French refineries. Electric vehicles linked to smart grids could be the final nail in the coffin. But it would also be a strange new world for individuals in which most activities would be monitored, metered, costed, and ultimately controlled by an integrated grid. It sounds like a scary Hollywood movie but then, again, the prospect is economically compelling and quite plausible.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

That is great. So where are all the nuclear, hydro, natural gas and coal power plants being constructed to provide the base load for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of electric cars? I am sceptical that solar power has anywhere near the efficiency or energy density to work well outside of perpetually sunny areas like the US Southwest or Australia.  There is also the small matter of of the exotic rare earth metals that must be mined to make all these things.  Makes the oil sands look positively benign.

I have no problem with electric cars (except outside big cities in Canada, they are not very practical. Oh yes, they tend not to hold a charge well at-40C, either), if that is what people want to spend their money on.

TANSTAAFL.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I agree regarding Canada, outside of Toronto and, maybe, Vancouver. But: I can see this sort of _disruption_ in a significant share of the gas powered market; let's say, just for argument, that (maybe even autonomous) electric cars can replace 25% of gas cars in many (most?) high density urban centres,* maybe 5% of the gas market overall, and, maybe, and even greater share in trucking which _might_ be massively changed with new technologies, say 10% of the gas market, in total. That is a HUGE shift, it _postpones_ the threat of "peak oil" with all it implies.

-----
* I can imagine that e.g. Shanghai, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Hangzhou Mexico City, Madrid, Rome, Cairo, Mumbai and Manila (really big, densely populated, cities, unlike Toronto or Chicago) might convert much more than 25% of cars to electrical power (and, in many cases, build new coal fired power plants to power them)


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Edward, my point (which I should have made clearer) is that there has not been a nuclear power plant constructed in Canada since the 70s- blocked by environmentalists of all stripes. In fact, virtually all new power generation proposals (much less, power transmission proposals) run afoul of environmentalists of one stripe or another.

Yet, we have a proposal to vastly increase the load on our electrical system, by also having it power our transportation network. All without building new power generation possibilities- except solar, I guess.

To me, the numbers just do not add up and tell me that we are headed for rolling blackouts in 5 years.  Maybe no big deal in Coastal BC in the winter, but it sure can suck in Ontario at -40C...


----------



## a_majoor

More and more oil can be recovered from the oilsands using solvents, steam or even electrical energy. If you have an online subscription you can read about it here: http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21615488-new-technologies-are-being-used-extract-bitumen-oil-sands-steam

or

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/solvents-and-microwaves-to-lower-energy.html



> Solvents and microwaves to lower energy and cost of oilsand oil recovery and increase the oil recoverabe
> 
> 
> 
> Email This
> BlogThis!
> Share to Twitter
> Share to Facebook
> Share to Pinterest
> Using steam extraction for the oilsands means that nine-tenths of the land above a reservoir can be left intact. There is no need for waste ponds because the sand is left underground and most of the water recovered from the bitumen can be cleaned with distillation for reuse. Steam can also produce bitumen from a reservoir half-a-kilometre underground, whereas strip mining is only economical for deposits less than 70 metres or so from the surface.
> 
> The proportion of bitumen produced with steam now stands at 53% and will continue to grow in Canada's oilsands.
> 
> The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) estimates the total bitumen resource-in-place in Alberta to be approximately 1.8 trillion barrels (which would be greater than all of the world’s known conventional reserves). Of this amount, 315 billion barrels are considered potentially recoverable using future technologies and economic conditions, and of that amount, 167.9 billion barrels are considered to be established or proved reserves that can be recovered using current, known technology.
> 
> Of the estimated 1.8 trillion barrels of total bitumen resource-in-place, roughly 536 billion barrels are attributed to carbonate formations. At 406 billion barrels, the Grosmont Formation is by far the largest carbonate reservoir in Alberta
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), has proved particularly effective, says Ken Schuldhaus of the AER. SAGD involves drilling two horizontal wells through an oil-sands reservoir, one about five metres below the other. Steam is then released from the top well and over a few weeks can melt bitumen as far as 50 metres above and to the sides of the bore. The bitumen then percolates down and into the lower well, from which it is pumped to the surface.
> 
> In a trial last year, Suncor, an Alberta firm, found that adding oil-based solvents to steam increases recovery while reducing the amount of water that has to be heated by 15%. Suncor will begin commercial production within a year using solvents that include butane, propane and a proprietary substance that weakens the surface tension between liquids and solids.
> 
> Another Alberta firm, Laricina Energy, reckons it can cut the amount of water that needs to be heated by 25% or more. Such reductions promise to reduce break-even costs.
> 
> Laricina Energy solvent with SAGD test
> 
> The 1,800 barrel-per-day capacity Laricina Energy Saleski pilot consists of a central processing facility (CPF) with diluent treating and an adjacent well pad. The CPF consists of two 50MM BTU steam generators, associated water treating train, and a solvent injection / recovery system.
> 
> The Germain Commercial Demonstra on Project (CDP) is an in situ oil sands project. The CDP is Laricina Energy Ltd.’s first full-scale commercial development in the Grand Rapids Forma on, located in the western Athabasca region of northern Alberta. Laricina will use steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) and incorporate solvent opera ons into its recovery process referred to as solvent-cyclic SAGD (SC-SAGD). The use of solvents is expected to reduce the amount of steam needed and as a result, reduce carbon emission intensity. Surface water is not used to create steam.
> 
> Imperial Oil, based in Calgary, has replaced steam altogether by injecting solvents under high pressure but at much lower temperatures. This will undergo a $100 million test this year.
> 
> This year Suncor began building facilities in Alberta to test melting bitumen with microwaves. It will insert a microwave-transmitting antenna into a horizontal borehole with the circumference of an arm but the length of a football pitch. The idea is to melt bitumen without wasting energy heating sand and rock—just as domestic microwave ovens heat moist food but not its glass or ceramic container. Laboratory tests suggest this could slash energy costs by 80%.
> 
> N-solv uses the injection of a pure heated solvent vapor into and oilsand reservoir where it condenses and eventually dissolves the bitumen.
> 
> Nsolv has the potential for the following :
> 
> * Extraction Rate: ≥ SAGD extraction rates at 40°C with zero water usage
> * Oil Quality:
> Upgrade in-situ bitumen from ~8 °API to ~13 °API
> * Nickel and vanadium less than 150 ppm
> * Carbon residue at ~5%
> * Recovery Factor: 65% or higher
> * Solvent / Oil Ratio: 5 or less
> * Solvent Hold-up: 0.2 bbl/bbl extracted or less
> * GHG Emissions: Reduction of ≥ 80% relative to SAGD
> 
> 
> Germany’s Siemens is developing a system that floods a thick copper cable with an electrical current to create an alternating magnetic field to melt bitumen. Tests could begin in a few years.


----------



## a_majoor

No oil indeed:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/montney-oil-and-gas-could-soon-be-one.html#more



> *Montney Oil and Gas could soon be one of the largest commercially viable plays in the world*
> 
> The Montney (oil and gas formation in BC and Alberta Canada) is estimated to hold 2,200 trillion Cubic feet of gas, Almost 29 billion barrels of natural gas liquids and over 136 billion barrels of oil. But it is the tight liquids rich fairway (approximately 15-20 miles wide) that contains high concentrations of both free condensate and natural gas liquids that everyone is pursuing in what may very soon be one of the largest commercially viable plays in the world.
> 
> Initially, companies targeted the Upper Montney, and the entire formation was viewed more as a dry gas play with high productivity and immense gas in place. Through the Technological Advances That have Begun to Move up to Canada and A General de-Risking of the play, the Middle Montney is proving That there is A very large liquids-rich fairway available with A Potential for incredible returns and economics.
> 
> Canadian supermajor Encana (NYSE: ECA) -a Montney shale heavyweight-is focusing its drilling to the east of the formation. Last year, Encana announced it would spend over 25 percent of ITS capex for 2014 on the Montney, and the liquids-rich Plays in the eastern area will Get the lion's Share of this, with 80-85 New wells Planned for this year alone


----------



## a_majoor

Saudi Arabia may be using the fall in oil prices as a means of leveraging Iran and potentially other members of the OPEC cartel. How long the Saudis can do this can be questioned, but they are sitting on a vast reserve of cash, so it is possible they may be able to ride out a drop in crude prices better than many of their rivals:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/10/09/saudis-do-nothing-while-crude-prices-plunge/



> *Saudis Do Nothing While Crude Prices Plunge*
> 
> It’s a good time to buy a barrel of oil. Prices have dropped precipitously in recent weeks for a host of reasons, including slackening demand in Europe and Asia and a gush of new production from North America (thank you shale) and Libya. But low oil prices pose a threat to the world’s petrostates, which rely on the sales of crude to keep their governments afloat. The specific price these nations require—called the breakeven price—varies, but rest assured that OPEC is not anxious to see oil lapse into a bear market.
> 
> The cartel’s usual play in these situations is to constrict supply. Saudi Arabia, the largest OPEC producer, typically leads these cuts in production, but thus far hasn’t done so—rather, it has discounted the price at which it sells its crude to Asia. While it’s difficult to say why, exactly, Saudi Arabia hasn’t reduced production, analysts believe it has to do with intra-cartel posturing ahead of a November meeting. The FT reports:
> 
> “[The Saudis] are making a statement by cutting prices. Market share is more important than the price of Brent right now. If prices fall too low, they may decide to cut, but it is not yet a panic moment” [said Laura El-Katiri, a research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies]. “This is a commercial decision they are making.”
> 
> But, as Bloomberg reports, some still expect Saudi Arabia to resume its traditional role as the cartel’s chief crude curtailer soon, in order to stave off further price drops:
> 
> “I don’t think there’s any rush on the Saudis’ side to bring the market lower” when disappointing demand could do that anyway, Francisco Blanch, head of commodities research at Bank of America Corp., said by phone from New York on Oct. 7. “…Saudi Arabia will cut if needed.”
> 
> In the meantime, the Saudis get to keep up pressure on Iran, which has a much higher breakeven price. Next month’s OPEC meeting will attract plenty of global attention—the price of oil is that important—so stay tuned.



This also hurts Russia, which has been supporting Syria and Iran, so the Sauds may be thinking very strategically indeed.


----------



## George Wallace

Questions that enter my mind start with the falling price of oil perhaps being a reaction to the sale of oil by ISIS/ISIL to fund their activities and procurements.  Why the oil is being permitted to leave territory controlled by ISIS/ISIL is the next question.  Once the pipelines exit the ISIS/ISIL controlled territory, it should be a simple matter of shutting them down.  Same with any tanker trucks leaving ISIS/ISIL controlled territory, or for that matter tanker ships.  Stop the trucks at the borders, blockade the seaports and their supplying of contraband crude is stopped.  

Admittedly, I look forward to the drop of the price of crude as not only will my gas be cheaper (eventually) but the costs of all the food and other products that I buy will also drop due to lower transportation costs.   It becoming too expensive to exploit the Tar Sands will not be the first time that we have found it too expensive to draw natural resources out of the ground.  We have many mineral deposits that currently are too expensive to mine and refine.  The Tar Sands, if the price of crude drops much more, will turn into another such case.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I thought I throw this in here, this LNG Canada that is proposing to use the old Kitimat Methenx and Eurocan sites to export LNG

http://youtu.be/FbwHhsuI684


----------



## a_majoor

I have been seeing rumours on the Internet recently suggesting Apple Inc. is planig to compete against Tesla, GM and Nissan in the production of an electric car. While it is cool to contemplate electric cars, and of course a private corporation like Apple can invest in whatever they want, there are some basic physics that mean electric cars in their present form will _never_ be practical. XKCD has perhaps the clearest explanation that I have come across; remember that a ham sandwich has about the same amount of energy as a fully charged car battery:

http://what-if.xkcd.com/128/



> *Zippo Phone*
> 
> What in my pocket actually contains more energy, my Zippo or my smartphone? What would be the best way of getting the energy from one to the other? And since I am already feeling like Bilbo in this one, is there anything else in my pocket that would have unexpected amounts of stored energy?
> —Ian Cummings
> 
> The Zippo lighter easily beats the phone, even though its fuel tank is barely half the size of a large phone's battery, because hydrocarbons are fantastic at storing energy. Gasoline, butane, alcohol, and fat contain a lot of chemical energy, which is why our bodies run on them.[1]​[2]​[3]​[4]
> How much energy do they contain? Well, let's put it this way: A fully-charged car battery holds barely as much energy as a sandwich.
> Solve for x.
> 
> A container of butane the size of a phone battery could, in principle, power the phone about *13 times* longer than the battery itself could.[5] The obvious question, then, is "why doesn't my phone run on propane?"
> 
> The obvious answer is "because your phone would catch fire," but that's not quite it. See, lithium-ion batteries are also extremely flammable, and a huge amount of effort has gone into making Michael Bay scenarios less common.
> 
> The truth is more complicated. People have wanted to build various kinds of "fuel cell" batteries for almost as long as we've had portable electronics. The allure of hydrocarbon energy storage continues to this day—if you do a Google search for fuel cell phone charger, you'll find news stories about new products announced every year. Many of them are no longer available.
> 
> If you really want to power your phone with butane, the current hot project—as far as I can tell from a cursory search—seems to be the kraftwerk portable USB generator, which has made over a million dollars on Kickstarter with several weeks left in its campaign. Of course, a portable battery of the same size could do a lot of the same things, but there are certainly some use cases where the butane charger offers advantages. If you place a premium on reducing weight, or have to go a long time without contact with the power grid, it could be a good option. Let's put it this way: If the phrase "power your phone on butane", makes you think, "hey, that would solve a problem I have!" then go for it.
> 
> This gives us the answer to Ian's second question. The Zippo lighter has more energy, but getting it into the phone is a little difficult and requires the overhead of a fuel cell or generator. Getting the phone to start a fire, on the other hand, is quite reasonable, although it may require doing bad things to the battery.
> 
> Ian's third question was "what else in my pocket might contain more energy?" Like Gollum, I have no idea what's in your pocket,[6] but I can guess that it might contain one thing with more energy than a battery: Your hand.
> 
> An adult man's hand weighs about a pound.[7] The hand isn't the fattiest part of the body, but if burned completely, it would probably give off about 500 watt-hours of energy, give or take. That's 50 times the energy content of the phone battery, and almost 10 times that of the Zippo. It's also about as much as a car battery.
> 
> And, for that matter, about as much as a sandwich.


----------



## a_majoor

While General Fusion's plan seems hilariously improbable (repeatedly whacking a huge steel sphere with steam pistons to collapse the plasma inside to initiate the fusion reactions...), enough people who know the physics have been investing in it. Now we have a new investor coming aboard:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/05/malaysia-invests-27-million-in-canadas.html



> May 19, 2015
> 
> *Malaysia invests $27-million in Canada's General Fusion startup to bring total funding over $100 million*
> 
> A Malaysian state-owned company invested $27 million in General Fusion.
> 
> Malaysia's sovereign wealth fund, the Khazanah Nasional Berhad, made an investment with current investors Growthworks and Jeff Bezos's personal venture capital fund. The funds will go to commercializing the company's key technology—a metal sphere pumped full of molten lead-lithium that spews out quantities of energy. The Burnaby-based company has raised over $100 million to date.
> 
> General Fusion is nearing significant milestones. General Fusion’s Approach is Magnetized target fusion (MTF). Magnetized target fusion is a hybrid between magnetic fusion and inertial confinement fusion. In MTF, a compact toroid, or donut-shaped magnetized plasma, is compressed mechanically by an imploding conductive shell, heating the plasma to fusion conditions.
> 
> General Fusion has a full-scale prototype [of the injectors and other subsystems], twin plasma injectors resembling five-metre-long cones, each attached to opposite ends of a three-metre-diameter sphere, would pulse a few milligrams of hydrogen gas, heat it until it becomes a plasma, and inject it into a vortex of swirling liquid metal. Electricity circulating in the plasma would create magnetic fields that bind the plasma together and confine the heat.
> 
> From there, an array of as many as 300 huge pistons attached to the sphere’s shell would act like synchronized jackhammers, ramming it at 200 km/hr. This would send shockwaves into the very centre of the chamber, compressing the hydrogen isotopes to 100 million degrees celsius — hot enough for fusion to occur, and good enough to generate clean electricity from steam turbines.
> 
> General Fusion reached its milestones on the piston timing about two years ago. Technicians are now perfecting functionality of the plasma injectors.
> 
> The nearly 200 capacitors that send 10-gigawatt bursts into General Fusion’s machine were “recycled” from an old laser fusion experiment in Los Alamos, California.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is 2013 paper on the progress on the driver timing and the injector work.
> 
> General Fusion, which shares investors with D-Wave, is about two to three years out from creating its own power plant. Today, the pistons work well, and the plasma is hot enough and dense enough. Within the last month, the gas donut has started lasting long enough for the system to work, so now the company is turning its focus to compression and timing, according to Michael Delage, VP of strategy and corporate development.
> 
> General Fusion thinks it can provide power at a cost of seven cents per kilowatt hour, comparable to the cost of coal.
> 
> General fusion also wants to heat the spheromak to 500 eV before injection. They have reached 200 eV, while they would want to reach 500 eV and expect actually to exceed 600 eV.
> 
> 31 page presentation on General Fusion from mid-2013
> 
> In the TEDX talk of 2014 - there is the offhand mention that the plasma lifttime issue of getting to 100 microseconds had good progress
> 
> The Plan from 2012
> 
> In a 2014 Nature paper, there is the statement that the General Fusion "beefier" prototype will be built perhaps by the end of 2016.
> 
> General Fusion has demonstrated the idea with a small-scale device, using pistons driven by explosives, and has raised about $50 million from venture capitalists and the Canadian government. If the company can win another $25 million or so, Laberge says, it will build a beefier implosion system that can compress the plasma to the levels needed for fusion — perhaps within the next two years.
> 
> Not sure if the beefier prototype would be the net gain prototype since previously that was $80-100 million.
> 
> General Fusion is developing full scale subsystems to demonstrate that they can meet their performance targets. This includes full scale plasma injectors and acoustic drivers, and liquid metal vortex compression tests. Every step is matched with simulation to guide ongoing development work.
> 
> Author: brian wang on 5/19/2015


----------



## a_majoor

If this is true, then the UK can throw the Russians and ME oil barons under the bus, causing an endless amount of consternation to our enemies as their revenue sources shrivel even more. This could also (under some circumstances) help the UK as well, buy providing some relief to the Exchequer and allow them to pay off their debt (but how likely is that?):

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/06/05/britains-underground-elephant-gets-bigger/



> Britain’s Underground Elephant Gets Bigger
> Two months ago, a small British oil exploration firm shocked the world when it announced a massive new oil discovery in southeast England, describing the site underneath Gatwick airport as a “world class potential resource.” The lucky firm, UK Oil & Gas Investments, estimated that the region’s Weald basin held as many as 158 million barrels of oil per square mile, which extrapolated out could mean a grand total of more than 100 billion barrels. Now, an outside assessment estimates the basin to contain 271 million barrels per square mile—72 percent more oil than was initially reported. Bloomberg reports:
> 
> An independent assessment of the Horse Hill well has estimated there could be about 271 million barrels of oil per square mile. That compares with a prior estimate in April of 158 million.
> 
> UK Oil & Gas, which has a 20% interest in the well, was up as much as 53% today. The company’s CEO said the study “adds further weight to the potential significance of the HH-1 well and the potential of the Horse Hill licences.”
> The Gatwick discovery received plenty of pushback for being “wildly optimistic,” but UK Oil & Gas echoed these calls for caution when it warned that the recovery rate was somewhere between 3 and 15 percent, deflating the relevance of that estimate of 100 billion barrels.
> 
> Still, this new corroboration of the play’s promise, and more importantly this upgrade of its actual potential, should come as welcome news for Britain, which is currently seeing production from its important North Sea oil reserves decline rapidly. Getting that oil out of the ground won’t be an easy thing, especially given the virulent Not-In-My-Backyard protests it’s sure to face (which have already scuppered attempts to tap British shale). But for British energy security, the difficulty will be worth it.
> ['/quote]


----------



## a_majoor

The dramatic drop in oil prices also means a dramatic drop in tax revenues. This puts the pressure on renewables, which only thrive when insulated from competition by govenment (i.e. taxpayer funded) subsidies:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/01/13/solar-stocks-plunge-alongside-oil-prices/



> *Solar Stocks Plunge Alongside Oil Prices*
> 
> After a downright dismal 2015 for producers, oil prices are finding new lows this year over fears about a Chinese economic slowdown and a global glut of crude. And, as Reuters reports, solar stocks have fallen right along with oil prices over the past two weeks:
> 
> 
> The [MAC Global Solar Energy Stock index] has dropped 16 percent so far in January, due in no small part to oil’s 20 percent slide so far this year. Oil briefly fell below $30 a barrel on Tuesday for the first time in 12 years, [O/R] and the solar index tumbled 2.75 percent [. . .]
> “They are not substitutes,” Raymond James research associate Angelica Jarvenpaa said of crude oil and solar energy. “However there is probably an impact on market psychology.” Some investment funds, Jarvenpaa said, have sold off their energy holdings altogether as the oil market carnage has intensified and caused financial pain to oil producers across the world. Solar and renewables, as energy stocks, are often dumped along with other energy shares even though solar installations are expected to log a 30 percent increase for 2015 and the cost of solar has come down so much that it remains cost competitive with traditional energy sources in many places.
> 
> Renewables don’t directly compete with fossil fuels. If they did, we would have hardly any wind or solar farms. Those green energy sources simply can’t beat their dirtier cousins on price, and so they survive on the grace of heavy government subsidies, not consumer demand. Therefore, the reason why solar stocks have plunged alongside oil prices is not because lower prices help oil beat out renewables in the marketplace.
> 
> But just because renewables might be insulated from market forces by government support doesn’t mean falling oil prices can’t still pose a threat. As we’ve noted before, cheap oil can change the political calculus underpinning these subsidies if policymakers are no longer willing to pay what amounts to increasing premiums for renewables.
> 
> Subsidizing current generation renewables has never made much sense, but it’s looking downright foolish now as natural gas and oil prices plummet in a world swimming in hydrocarbons. This kind of government support often isn’t sustainable (just look at the mess in which Germany has found itself), but it also carries with it an opportunity cost: The hundreds of millions of dollars spent propping up today’s relatively inefficient solar panels and wind turbines could be better spent on the research and development of technologies that might one day be a cheaper option than fossil fuels. That’s the path towards a greener global energy mix, and the sooner global greens wake up to that reality, the better off the planet will be.


----------

