Even the oil industry is getting innovative with solar.
Peak Oil - the driver for change
(103 posts) (17 voices)-
I see rockabye has found another reference to this news.
This one has me scratching my head:
"Chevron Uses Solar-Thermal Steam to Extract Oil in California"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-03/chevron-using-solar-thermal-steam-at-enhanced-oil-recovery-plant.html
Having made solar thermal economic, is blowing expensive oil out of the rocks with it a sensible use of the power?Posted Thursday 13 Oct 2011 @ 10:28:41 am from IP # -
dbindoff
Member"Some 32 percent of California’s industrial and commercial gas use is for EOR as its use grows in the U.S. and all over the world, O’Donnell said. The state produces about 40% of its oil using EOR and in a few years that will grow to 60%, he said. "
That is astounding, one really has to question what the energy return on energy invested is if they are using this quantity of energy just to extract the oil. The refining and distribution is a further large energy input requirement.
When one considers that EROEI for current solar depoloyment is in to 20 to 40 times area , direct routes to energy use start to look eminently sensible.
Posted Friday 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:08:58 am from IP # -
Well, oil can be used for mobile application while solar energy is local (with the exception of the one solar plane and the solar race cars). So it might make sense economically. Environmental issues are not of concern for companies. These must be regulated by governments.
Posted Friday 14 Oct 2011 @ 8:02:14 am from IP # -
dbindoff
MemberThere are multiple routes to supply solar energy for transport, solar charging infrastructure appears to be one possibility
Home Solar installation plus plug-in car is something Toyota seem to be serious about for the new plug-in prius. ( can't find a ref. at the moment)
If you believe the hype here, external combustion powered by bio wastes could perhaps serve heavy tranport.
http://www.cyclonepower.com/Obviously(?) the clock is ticking faster and faster with respect to the finite oil and gas supplies available - wasting them perpetuating poor return processes which can never last is insanity.
Posted Friday 14 Oct 2011 @ 9:48:05 am from IP # -
I am really baffled by this conundrum. Is Chevron doing a good thing or a bad thing?
Chevron no doubt knows that extracting oil at higher and higher cost will end in tears. Chevron has more resources than the rest of us to develop a large solar-thermal plant to the point where it is economic. Good on them to choose do do it.
Then they use the energy, as steam, for enhanced recovery of oil (EOR). Rather than trying to reduce the energy they must invest to produce each unit of oil energy (to make more energy return on energy invested (EROEI)) they have changed the equation by producing cheaper energy to input into the oil energy production.
Is that a bad thing to do, or a less worse thing to do?
Posted Friday 14 Oct 2011 @ 10:52:06 am from IP # -
dbindoff
MemberLooked at from Chevron's point of view it's a good thing to be able to produce oil cheaper and with less emissions than it otherwise would have been - and I would agree with them from that perspective.
Considering the externalities of the situation - finite resources near or past their peak supply , whose use as a fuel is very polluting and could lead to catastrophic CO2 levels - the longer term common good is not being served, but from this perspective it is a 'common' responsibility we all must share to curb fossil fuel demand and actively invest in ways to minimize damage cause by tranportation needs - a value judgement can't be laid at Chevron's feet in isolation.At least with Chevron getting the technological footing in solar, we may be a step closer to them embarking on a strategy more dominated by a complete RE cycle.
A possible candidate is the 'windfuel' liquids technology
http://www.dotyenergy.com/They claim to be carbon neutral but I don't accept that, they will always be a derivative process to a fairly pure source of CO2 as far as I can see, and that CO2 should be sequestered in most cases. Nevertheless, if successful, liquid fuels derived by that route could potentially lead to dramatically lower net CO2 emissions.
Posted Friday 14 Oct 2011 @ 11:36:35 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberHeysa guys
I'd say the Chevron is mostly concerned with it's bottom line. But in an effort to kill two birds with the same stone, they adopted a more palatable process. reduce fossil cost and look green in the process. Cat your "good or bad" question is a moral, not technological one.I'd say that using solar thermal for process heat is generally a good idea, and should be more widely adopted by all industry. Using electrical energy for heat production is nearly 3x more wasteful than using the fuel directly for heating. On that basis it is a "good" thing. As dbindoff pointed out, using non-renewable fossils for fossil extraction and processing is just really a dumb use of resource, solar thermal is better by far.
But the real issue is the use of fossils being their main line of business. Any "wise" fossil company should invest heavily into RE instead, abandon fossils as quickly as possible, and as fast as new RE can displace. If considered in relation to the potential investment Chevron "could" make in RE, the diagnosis would have to be that it still does not have it's priority set on RE, and wishes to continue exploiting fossil reserves (including hard to extract sources). That would have to considered a "bad" thing.
As for the "plug in Hybrid" Toyota: It's planned release is early 2012. However, the same drive line with extra battery capacity is already used in the Chevy Volt in the USA. Solar energy for vehicles is some way off. The problem is still battery range and an required external PV array charging source. Energy density and convenience are also other factors that are of concern. Biofuels are far superior and can be grown locally, instead of manufactured centrally.
Posted Friday 14 Oct 2011 @ 11:56:50 am from IP # -
"Don't Count Oil Out"
The writer of this piece does not mention "Peak Oil". He seems unaware of the possibility of chaos resulting from ignoring the logical consequences of it. (He repeats the incantation: "At current rates of consumption,...")
The article is well worth reading, however, for a clear explanation of the obstacles to a renewable energy future.
Did you know, for example, "Believe it or not, in 2009, renewable energy sources had a smaller share of U.S. primary energy than they did back in 1949."
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2011/10/oil_and_gas_won_t_be_replaced_by_alternative_energies_anytime_so.single.htmlPosted Saturday 15 Oct 2011 @ 1:17:38 am from IP # -
dbindoff
MemberHi Jeff,
I think the Volt is a serial hybrid with all electric drivetrain and a generator which simply produces electricity. The plug-in prius is a hybrid drivetrain with an Atkinson cycle ICE 'married' to an electric motor, a ~5kwh battery pack and 20km electric only range.Of the 2 technologies I suspect the Volt will go further (timewise) because the all electric drive + efficient generator will give efficiencies above the 'hybrid synergy drive' , once GM refine it sufficiently.
One possibilty that presents is the Rak -e
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/09/16/opel-rak-e-electric-concept-looks-to-the-future-of-low-cost-urba/#continuedIt could be my kindda car! (~19km per Kwh efficiency!?)
Catopsilia,
when I saw the reference to Vaclav Smil, I knew where this article was coming from, not that I've read any of Smil's books, just contact with people who refer to him.
It seems to me the argument has an a priori assumption (the obstacles to RE are insurmountable and the benefits of fossil fuels are unassailable) and then proceeds to mount no logical argument at all, since the conclusion is already assumed, and merely proceeds to 'demonstrate' the result.
e.g. '“There is one thing all energy transitions have in common: they are prolonged affairs that take decades to accomplish,” wrote Vaclav Smil in 2008e.g. "There is no urgency for an accelerated shift to a non-fossil fuel world: the supply of fossil fuels is adequate for generations to come"
e.g.'If petroleum didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it. Nothing else comes close to oil '
e.g. "Smil’s point can be proven by looking at oil’s share of U.S. primary energy consumption."
I don't find any proof, only 'demonstrations'.
The paucity of this article is nailed by this statement;
'At current rates of consumption, the United States likely has enough natural gas to last 90 years or more'
2 obvious points - his article assumes exponential growth of some kind - even at 1% growth per annum the US will be out of gas within 50 years - then what happens to his 'energy transitions take decades to accomplish'? What happened to 'generations to come'?
It seems to me a big obstacle at this stage to a RE future is people like this article writer who is innumerate and seems incapable of making a realistic assessment of the situation. i.e resource depletion rates and ramping CO2 rates
Your previous post about Chevron virtually proved the point about solar thermal being 'cheaper' than natural gas for enhanced oil recovery - and gives yet another lie to this article.
Posted Saturday 15 Oct 2011 @ 6:50:25 am from IP # -
dbindoff
I agree with you on the defects you point out in the argument of "Don't Count Oil Out" by Robert Bryce (quoting Vaclav Smil).
I think he is wildly optimistic about the future of oil. However, I don't think he is unduly pessimistic about the practicality of scaling up the supply of renewable energy to replace oil. I am perhaps more pessimistic than he is, because I think there is very little time, and he doesn't.
I had not previously seen the "Slate" web-site. I suspect that I would disagree with many posts there. I see that it is "a Division of the Washington Post". Nuf sed.
My point of view is reflected rather in commondreams.org and theoildrum.com.The snare is that by reading only web-sites reflecting one's own point of view one can forget that the world is full of those who think otherwise, and who know that they are right.
Posted Saturday 15 Oct 2011 @ 11:44:01 am from IP # -
More change as people start to rally around the world against greed and corruption. Unfortunately there is likely to be a lot of 'collateral' damage.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-16/rioters-rampage-through-rome/3573430
Posted Saturday 15 Oct 2011 @ 10:38:11 pm from IP # -
dbindoff
MemberCatopsilia,
Yes, I agree with your points. I spent a lot of time feeling pessimistic, depressed and guilty and looking for solutions. At least when I started working on cleaning up my own act that was assuaged a little. I was despondent due to "the world is full of those who think otherwise, and who know that they are right." problem and that appeared to me to be too great a headwind for any technological suite of solutions to overcome. More recently I have come to see the recent technological strides as sufficiently significant to at least give us a genuine chance to do the necessaries, notwithstanding the continuation of those headwinds.
Whether I can maintain 'action and optimism' remains to be seen.
Posted Sunday 16 Oct 2011 @ 12:26:52 am from IP # -
The back seat 'driver' for change. We hit 7 billion people this month.
Posted Sunday 16 Oct 2011 @ 11:43:16 pm from IP # -
Buzzman
MemberYeah, but the scariest stat in that report is this:
"It took thousands of years - from prehistory to 1960 - for humankind to reach 3 billion. But then it took only 39 years - to 1999 - to add the next 3 billion. And now it has taken just 12 more years to move from 6 to 7 billion.
Growth has been so rapid that the US Population Reference Bureau estimates that about 5 per cent of all the people who have ever lived are living now."
READ THAT AGAIN!!!
Over the past 300,000 years (or whatever) of the entire span of human existence - 5% of ALL the people who have EVER lived over that entire span, are alive right now.
In other words, our 6 billion is 5% of all the people that have ever lived.
And 50% of them...........yes, HALF of them..............were born in the last 40 years.
Within my lifetime.
Scary, huh.
Now, is the this the right place to ask about 'carrying capacity of the planet' or should that be in another thread????
Posted Thursday 20 Oct 2011 @ 1:28:06 pm from IP # -
Buzzman
Your quote shows how expressing growth as total increase in a number of years gives results that startle nearly everyone.
The world population is growing at less than 2% per year, and no-one worries about that, but they should! Every number in the linked article results directly from that unimpressive annual percentage rate of growth. Two percent per year is a doubling in 35 years. Sustainable?I have bookmarked a favourite video lecture that explains this entertainingly in the simplest and clearest manner possible. It is by Professor Emeritus Dr Albert Bartlett of Boulder, Colorado:
http://www.archive.org/details/ArithmeticPopulationAndEnergyHumanity is blindly running off the edge of a cliff for one simple reason:
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."Posted Friday 21 Oct 2011 @ 2:32:35 am from IP # -
Two telling graphs:
The price of extracting a barrel of crude oil hovered near $10 in the 30 years from 1975 to 2004. By 2007 it was near $30: about three times as much!
http://gregor.us/uncategorized/not-a-myth-the-skyrocketing-cost-of-new-oil-supply/Global oil production has not increased in the last six years.
http://gregor.us/oil/failure-to-grow-global-oil-supply/Posted Saturday 22 Oct 2011 @ 7:00:05 am from IP # -
dbindoff
MemberInteresting info on both counts, we certainly could be past peak oil by the looks of it.
As I read the first graph, that is the cost of exploration and 'adding to reserves' which I think would not include the actual extraction costs. If that is the case, the cost of the extracted and delivered fuel will be well north of the $30 mark. I have read other articles suggesting additional supply requires a price north of $90 based on current demand sructures. In that case oil will only go lower than $90 for short durations except if there is a collapse in demand.
The world needs a collapse in demand at this point and it also needs that collapse to be the result of positive developments in both impemented technology and behaviour. If we can't engineer a collapse in demand, inelastic supply will lead to major and persistent wide-ranging disruption. That type of disruption is not conducive to mitigation of emissions or benign adjustments to unrealistic and damaging growth trajectories.
Anyway, that's my rant for the day
Posted Saturday 22 Oct 2011 @ 7:41:47 am from IP # -
A good talk on the Science show today about how ingenuity is our last resource in saving ourselves.
Mark Lynas is author of The God Species: How the Planet Can Survive the Age of Humans
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2011/3345456.htm
Posted Saturday 22 Oct 2011 @ 8:08:08 am from IP # -
This TED talk on how to use carbon and the power of innovative science to change the world is 13 mins of 5 star innovation. Enjoy.
http://www.ted.com/talks/justin_hall_tipping_freeing_energy_from_the_grid.html
Posted Saturday 22 Oct 2011 @ 11:23:46 am from IP # -
And now for the bad news. This one hour video from the mid 90's tells us how it really is.
The last 15 min is probably sufficient but the whole show is worth watching. Look at the thumbnails for a quick picture.
http://www.archive.org/details/ArithmeticPopulationAndEnergy
Posted Thursday 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:18:17 am from IP # -
Rockabye
SNAP!But the more people who see Dr Bartlett's talk and inwardly digest it, the better for Mankind.
I like the bit about the clever bacteria who realise that they will fill their once-spacious bottle in a minute or two, discover four more bottles, but postpone disaster only for a minute or two more.
Posted Thursday 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:57:15 am from IP # -
http://www.economic-undertow.com/2011/10/29/march-of-the-fairies/Steve from Virginia says:
"the growth economy only works when petroleum is mispriced as a ‘loss-leader’"If he is right, that encapsulates the predicament we are all in.
Is he right? I do not have the education to judge.Posted Monday 31 Oct 2011 @ 1:59:44 am from IP # -
Reading this book at the moment which basic confirms the current recession / post GFC situation is no longer recoverable in the usual way and efforts to stimulate the world economy will be unsuccessful primarily due to the reduction in availability of cheap oil.
http://richardheinberg.com/bookshelf/the-end-of-growth-book
Basically the early computer modelling which produced the early 70's 'Limit's to Growth' has been confirmed and we will be in gradual decline as the Earth's 7 billion population, and climbing, consumes what's left of the natural resources.
Haven't time to read the book? His followup supplementery web chapter is well worth the read and the video talks very good also.
http://richardheinberg.com/the-end-of-growth-exclusive-supplemental-materials
Posted Monday 31 Oct 2011 @ 2:32:45 am from IP # -
Megamines in Mongolia make our exports look tiny. Coal burning will keep on keeping on.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/07/gobi-mega-mine-mongolia
Posted Monday 7 Nov 2011 @ 5:54:52 pm from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
Memberdbindoff said:
Hi Jeff,
I think the Volt is a serial hybrid with all electric drivetrain and a generator which simply produces electricity. The plug-in prius is a hybrid drivetrain with an Atkinson cycle ICE 'married' to an electric motor, a ~5kwh battery pack and 20km electric only range.Of the 2 technologies I suspect the Volt will go further (timewise) because the all electric drive + efficient generator will give efficiencies above the 'hybrid synergy drive' , once GM refine it sufficiently.
I disagree. The Volt is no more a series hybrid than the Prius. The Volt uses the same TRW design and Patent with some additions. In order to propel the vehicle through the panetary gear, it requires a minimum of at least two propulsion/motive sources. These can be a combination of Motor/generator with main Motor, or main motor and ICE engine. If one of these is not used to regulate the planetary gear it will simply rotate the "unpowered" motive force drivetrain components, and NO power will make it to drive the vehicle wheels.
In a true serial Hybrid, the ICE engine is used to only generate electrcity, which is then used to drive the wheels via a electric motor only. The Volt can drive, and does predominately drive the vehicle (in non-Ev mode) with the ICE engine as this increases effciencies up to 10-15%. There are always losses involved with converting all the torque from the ICE into electricity. The generator is only about 95% eff. and the electric motor is only 95% eff., plus the batteries are typically under 90% for charge and discharge, if they are running at optimum parameters only. You start to introduce some real world loads and drive profiles and all the efficiency gains of a serial type hybrid quickly dissipate.
The only vehicle coming into production that I know of with a true "serial Hybrid" drivetrain is the Fisker Karma:
http://www.fiskerautomotive.com/en-us/karma/specifications
I saw this beast on the EV show in Munich/Germany three weeks ago. Looks even better in the flesh. But the thing is big. Won't be long before the big guys start making the same types of vehicle. There's lot of parallel hybrids from Mercedes, BMW and VW already, and even more coming out soon in Europe. Maybe we'll see some here to one day too...
Posted Tuesday 8 Nov 2011 @ 5:41:46 am from IP # -
Transition Towns are an interesting new? concept being setup around the world.
"A key concept within transition is the idea of a community visioned, community designed and community implemented plan to proactively transition the community away from fossil fuels."
"As of 2010, transition initiatives are generally including the global financial crisis as a third aspect beside peak oil and climate change"
Posted Thursday 10 Nov 2011 @ 6:35:21 pm from IP # -
Looks like all that carbon causes other problems. This time 'driving' across the Storey Bridge in Brisbane is affected.
The damage has been caused by a combination of carbon dioxide releases and the high humidity in the enclosed area under the Story Bridge.
Posted Wednesday 16 Nov 2011 @ 8:30:22 am from IP # -
The Athabasca oil sands in Alberta, Canada are touted as a way that Peak Oil will be put off for a while.
TED has an informative and moving talk by Garth Lenz on the appalling damage brought by extraction of oil from the Athabasca tar sands:
http://www.ted.com/talks/garth_lenz_images_of_beauty_and_devastation.htmlWikipedia covers the subject comprehensively:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Tar_SandsDevelopment has been greatly affected by fluctuating oil prices. The question is whether the world can afford the prices necessary for continued development.
That is without considering the trashing of environmental assets that we can ill afford to lose.Posted Sunday 26 Feb 2012 @ 3:32:52 am from IP # -
This thread: "Peak oil - the driver for change" seems to be the place for this post. The links suggest, however, that real change will come only when oil production is down to about 50%, if then.
There is a parallel thread in this ATA forum with a slightly different emphasis (I only recently realised this.): "Peak oil - Adjusting to the new reality":
http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/2631What will happen after the peak of oil production?
Theory seems to be moving forward.
Steve from Virginia introduces discussion between Dmitry Orlov and Ugo Bardi:
http://www.economic-undertow.com/2012/02/27/looking-at-petroleum-markets/
Steve's article includes:
"Peak oil is almost entirely an automobile problem. The almighty automobile is the axle around which modernity rotates. Its manufacture is the world’s single greatest industry, there is the required roads-and destinations construction, there is the advertising industry, the finance and insurance industries: the expansion of government into every corner of every persons’ life with the hated rules, laws, un-earned benefits and taxation: all of this is absolutely integral to automobilization of the world."Dmitry Orlov posts an e-mail exchange he had with Ugo Bardi:
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/pile-of-straw-at-bottom-of-cliff.html
They discuss the likelihood that the decline from peak oil will be a "Seneca Cliff". The term comes from this quote:
“It would be some consolation for the feebleness of our selves and our works if all things should perish as slowly as they come into being; but as it is, increases are of sluggish growth, but the way to ruin is rapid." Lucius Annæus Seneca, Letters to Lucilius, n. 91Bardi's article is:
http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/seneca-effect-origins-of-collapse.htmlPosted Wednesday 29 Feb 2012 @ 8:01:15 am from IP #
