• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A scary strategic problem - no oil

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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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

 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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 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.

 
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.
 
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


 
Back
Top