Tech

Shale Oil as an Power Answer – 20080807 – Fox Information

1484841275_hqdefault.jpg
Written by AI Translator



The fine-grained sedimentary rock often called oil shale incorporates important quantities of kerogen (a stable …

50 Comments

  • Even if your attitude wasn't so crass, the math of shale simply won't work! The flow-rates would be far too low to satiate current demand. It's not free-flowing oil and can't be compared to conventional crude simply because of hypothetical reserves. Shale was always considered part of the 1970 U.S. oil production peak. By "peak" they mean flow-rates in barrels per day.

    Google "Four Corners Broadband Edition: Peak Oil" for one of the best Peak Oil documentaries you can watch online.

  • EROEI debunks this cornucopian fantasy. The "wet" Bakken shale (which can be fracked) may never yield more than 5 billion barrels (less than a year of total U.S. consumption). "Dry" kerogen shale has far lower net energy and water use alone makes it impractical on the scale they suggest.

    The land-rape factor is a big deal, too. What "wise" species would trash countless pristine acres instead of using its intelligence for alternate energy sources? It's too late already in Canada with tar mining.

  • You're right. Politics is the big one. But politics has to do with people's understanding and perception of what is going on. There is a lot of misunderstanding and ignorance about this subject.

    I'm trying to do my part to educate people. Have you checked out my channel?

  • @Vulcan750L We've currently got about 30 percent of the world's thermal energy generation. There are numerous alternatives for the future. Which one we'll choose… it'll depend on several things, politics probably being a big one.

    and what I meant in the last message is that we have to live by those rules, but they don't. sorry, typo. 

  • @Vulcan750L For some of them, it seems like we should just lower our standard of living to where it was 200 years ago. For them, not us, of course. They're enlightened, so they're exempt from the rules.

    I've heard some say that saving money through using less electricity isn't as great as it seems because people use the money to but environmentally unfriendly products. Clearly, the only solution is for our lives to be controlled 24 hours a day. 

  • @DanPhantom89
    Yellowstone is the largest dormant volcano known to man. It has a massive magma chamber near the surface.

    AND BY THE WAY, that's not even necessary. They could dig pretty much anywhere on the west coast going down only 2 or 3 miles to get the amount of heat they would need.

  • @DanPhantom89
    And you are missing MY point.

    You will never satisfy everyone.

    There are people in California protesting the power lines that will be running through their properties from a new proposed wind or solar farm. Even some environmental groups are joining the fight. They don't like power lines ruining the landscape and think high power transmission lines emit harmful electromagnetic waves.

  • @DanPhantom89
    "Saving the planet" wasn't meant to be taken literally. It was meant in the way that most people use it, meaning keeping the planet habitable for human beings. Mother nature could care less what the atmosphere consisted of or if the whole planet froze over or became submerged under water. She cares not. The planet will still be here.

  • @Vulcan750L we have at least 2 trillion barrels of oil shale in this country alone. it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was a lot more than that.

    don't expect us to tap into geothermal energy at Yellowstone anytime soon. it's a protected area, and thus, you can't do anything to it. Cutting down some of the unhealthy trees so that the healthy ones can grow would help the park, but again, won't happen.

  • @Vulcan750L you're missing my point. I'm saying there are people who will protest ANY nuclear power plant, just because the very concept frightens them.

    We can't save the planet, because we can't destroy the planet. It's been here for 4.5 billion years and will be here long after we're gone. Our planet is far more resistant than people give it credit for.

  • In the past, they couldn't make shale profitable because the price of oil was still too low. That is no longer the case.

    Shale could replace all imported oil. We also have enough of it to export if we triple our domestic oil production. We could sell to the Chinese and India and get all our money back from them and turn the tables on them.

    I hate to see 600-700 Billion of our dollars going to foreigners, especially to the Arabs, and a good chunk of that does.

  • @DanPhantom89
    You don't think free energy and saving the planet is worth the money and effort?

    The fact that it is protected federal land doesn't mean that they can't make an exception if they chose to.

    Yellowstone is the largest dormant volcano known to man. It has a massive magma chamber near the surface. And by the way, that's not even necessary. They could dig pretty much anywhere on the west coast going down only 2 or 3 miles to get the amount of heat they would need.

  • @DanPhantom89
    Again you keep making the comparison with Fission power.

    There is no possibility of a runaway reactor and a meltdown with this technology. There is no radiation to be accidentally released. That's like arguing that a tiger and a house cat are similar. Sure, they are. But one has the potential to kill me, and might one day. The other is harmless.

  • @Vulcan750L well, it has to be worth the money and effort you put into digging that deep. In many areas, it's not, and it has to be consistent energy as well, like near a volcano, for example. The reason we don't do it in Yellowstone is that it's considered a "protected" area and thus we can't do anything. 

  • @Vulcan750L I've heard that said about our current nuclear reactors, that we can educate them, that we can show them that the danger is minimal. It hasn't worked; the anti-nuclear crowd has been very effective at getting their message out. we haven't built a new nuclear plant in close to 40 years. You so much as say nuclear, they start screaming their heads off. I won't be in the least surprised if they react the same way to fusion. 

  • @DanPhantom89
    I don't understand why they don't just make a super massive geothermal power plant at Yellowstone that could power half the country, or even the whole country.

    From what I understand, geothermal power can be built anywhere in the world. Dig down deep enough and it gets hot. 5 or 6 miles at the deepest. This is how deep we are currently drilling for oil.

  • @DanPhantom89
    Once they become educated on the subject, they will see the light. Fission and Fusion power are two different things.

    You can't satisfy everybody. Some people don't like dams because it kills fish. Some don't like wind generators cause it kills birds, or they think it is an eye sore, some don't like the constant droning noise that drives them mad. Some don't like solar or wind cause of the new power lines needed all over the place.

  • @Vulcan750L Perhaps, but I doubt it's going to fully stop people's protests. Some don't want anything to do with nuclear power, period, no matter how safe and efficient they're told it is. 

  • @Vulcan750L I don't have only one teacher, moron. I meant that the teacher I'm always having to correct happens to be a man. I have other teachers, but none are as dumb as him. If you feel the need to go on youtube and call kids that just want a cleaner earth retards, then you obviously have some issues to work out.

  • @sullgass
    What kind of school do you go to that you only have 1 teacher? Is it a school for retards? lol

    I can't believe I spent 3 or 4 days trying to explain ignorance to a smart ass kid. If you're too stupid to understand what ignorance means after 3 explanations. I think it's time to give it up.

  • @DanPhantom89
    Fusion power does not have the same problems as Fission power, so don't lump them together.

    Fusion power is already on it's way to becoming commercially available. They've already solved the problems associated with Fusion power. Right now, they are just tweaking it to make it more efficient and doing more testing. They should have a full scale pilot plant in about 20 years. Soon after that, Fusion power plants will be popping up all over the place.

  • @Vulcan750L Say we do discover fusion power in 2 decades. It's been promised for over a generation, but hasn't come around. I'm sure we'll find a way to do so one day, but I don't know when that will be. If we develop a sustained fusion reaction that we can harness energy from, I fully expect many political protests warning about the dangers to due their best to keep fusion reactors from being put into use. even without fusion, we have enough uranium to last thousands of years.

  • @Vulcan750L I admit, I'm not as optimistic about the future of nuclear power as you are. We were hugely optimistic about it in the 50's and 60's, but we stopped building nuclear plants. Not because we lacked the technology or the resources, but because people became afraid of nuclear power. (I've debated these people and found that they often know little about it) Until that disappears, I don't see us making any great strides. 

  • @Vulcan750L Actually my teacher is a guy. I know the idea of a MAN being wrong is probably hard for you to comprehend but it's true. You are right that ignorance means that you don't know something, but: If I do not know that there are ways to purify exhaust fumes then I argue that we should not support Shale Oil because of then toxic exhaust fumes that come from using it. When you tell me that there are methods to purifying it, I tell you I did not know that and that you now have a point. 

  • @sullgass
    No, claiming ignorance means you claimed that you didn't know. Ignorance is when you don't know something. In which case, you would not be arguing.

    Telling your teacher that she is wrong or lying, is to imply that you know something she does not. Ignorance is just the opposite. Ignorance means you do not know. Arguing implies that you know something.

    

  • @Vulcan750L If by CLAIM IGNORANCE, you mean thinking there were no ways to purify exhaust fumes and when told there were that were not aware of that fact, then yes, I did. Otherwise, no I still think that investing time and money into clean renewable sources of energy as opposed to oil shale is a good idea. Not all teachers are the same, some make mistakes and when they do they need to be corrected, because not everything they say is solid fact, they are no more perfect than you or I! 

  • You don't learn by arguing UNLESS you think you know more than someone else. If you're going to turn around and CLAIM IGNORANCE, then why were you arguing?

    Sound familiar?

    You did think you knew something they did. That is why you argued, right? Did you claim ignorance afterwords? Do you see the contradiction there?

    On the one hand you are saying you know better than your teacher but at the same time you would not say that you were a teen and didn't know anything.

  • @Vulcan750L I was arguing because I did not know there were methods to purifying exhaust fumes and other info. Without those in mind I actually have a valid argument. BTW, I DO sometimes argue with a teacher because some aren't very smart and they occasionally make mistakes which, had I not pointed them out, the rest of the class would have believed them. Even when I admit you have a point you STILL condescend me by questioning why I dared question your point of view, and stated my opinion. 

  • @sullgass
    If you don't know something and you want to learn then you ask questions. When you argue, you're insisting that you are right and the other person is wrong. If you don't know what you are talking about then don't argue. Do you go to school and argue with the teachers? Or do you sit there and listen and learn and ask questions?

    You don't learn by arguing unless you think you know more than someone else. If you're going to turn around and claim ignorance, then why were you arguing?

  • @Vulcan750L The point of ignorance is that I didn't know there were ways to purify exhaust and other things so I argued my point of view. Besides if I hadn't I never would have learned anything. Are you saying I shouldn't argue my view when I learn something out of it??? 

  • @Vulcan750L None of that information about the past is part of the game. The creator of the CP videos, Ross Scott, was just using that game to talk about the current problems in the world. I looked up some of what he said and you're right that a lot of it is exaggerated but as I said the point of it is pretty clear. 

  • @sullgass
    There is no truth to the storyline in Half Life. That was the game wasn't it? I'm not sure . . .

    Everything was exaggerated and blown out of proportion to make for an interesting story. The storyline is based on some myths and popular misconceptions.

    If you're going to claim that you're a teen and you're ignorant, then don't go around arguing with people who know more than you and don't accuse somebody of being a liar if you don't even know what the facts are.

  • @Vulcan750L And btw I'm in my teens right now so cut me some slack for not having a ton information and research. I just want a clean earth with renewable energy sources used instead of MORE oil.

  • @Vulcan750L Yeah the GAME is fictitious. But the facts he said were true (to a degree) and even if they weren't the message is clear: We should not be researching new ways to extract a resource that will pollute our atmosphere and run out any way! I know you said the exhaust can be purified and that the Shale Oil will last a while, but it seems ALOT easier to just improve energies like solar, wind, and hydroelectric. I'm not making stuff up. Maybe some of my sources are but I'm not. 

  • @sullgass
    I just looked up Civil Protection Oil's as you suggested. LOL

    Are you kidding me? You get your info from a fictitious storyline in a computer game? LOL

    Man! You crack me up! LOL

  • @sullgass
    I was in my teens in the 80's and I don't remember anybody claiming we would be living on the moon and driving around in hover cars, except for maybe science fiction writers and Hollywood movie makers. So again, you just resort to making stuff up to support your arguments.

    Everything I've talked about and "predicted" already exist and is already happening. So I'm not making any "wild" claims. The "within 60 years" is just how long before all of this will COMPLETELY take place.

  • @sullgass
    So now you're accusing me of making stuff up even though you have no proof of it or any reason to believe it? Be more specific about your accusations. I can defend everything I've said. Why don't you do some research into the things that I've claimed instead of just calling me a liar without any proof of it.

  • And btw I did not make that oil consumption rate up. Search Civil Protection Oil's Well. A good amount of my info originally came from there but I later checked them from on sources I found online. You're right, I can't prove it's true but I'd say the same goes for alot of the stuff you're writing. You won't be laughing out loud when you see things aren't going as well as one would expect.

  • @Vulcan750L That's easier said than done. Eventually I hope something like that does happen, but I think 60 years is being a little optimistic. Back in the 80s people thought that by now we'd have colonies on the moon and hover cars and we're not even near that. However, if that is true then I fail to see the need for Oil Shale or Tar Sands. Sure, regular amounts of oil are running out but if we start setting up more energy plants based on RENEWABLE energy then it should last us 60 years. 

  • @sullgass
    Yes it takes more energy to cleanse the emissions but not much. However, it also makes a lot more energy by feeding the Algae. Algae is then turned into bio-fuels and other even more valuable products in Pharmaceuticals and health supplements.

    In 60 years, carbon fuels will be history. We will have very cheap and very clean Fusion power, affordable efficient electric cars, and cheap affordable solar panels on every roof top.

  • @sullgass
    I don't know where you get your info, but you are way off. I think you just make stuff up. LOL

    The US consumes 7.66 Billion annually. We have enough to last for well over 200 years at current levels. Consumption levels will probably go up gradually in the near future, probably no more than 10 Billion barrels annually, but then it will start to DECLINE as fuel becomes expensive, and as we increase use of electric and hybrid cars and as more bio-fuels become available.

  • @Vulcan750L I'm not familiar with recycling methods for exhaust fumes but I assume that takes energy to cleanse and recirculate as well, and what you said earlier about there being 2 trillion barrels of shale oil, that won't last as long as you'd think. Right now the world is consuming ALOT of oil and it will only increase as population and industry do. Even now the United States alone is sucking down 30 billion barrels annually, and with China and India coming online that oil won't last long.

  • @sullgass
    It takes one barrel of oil to extract 3 barrels of oil, same for Tar Sands.

    Vapors and exhaust can be cleansed and recirculated into the system through algae ponds and other means.

    Right, we should be putting time and money into green energies, and we are. But, the oil companies aren't going to do that, so they can put time and money into cleaning up their own act.

  • @Vulcan750L The point of advancing technology isn't to find new ways to extract oil! Even if it does become efficient. The cost of extracting the oil is more energy than we get back from the oil itself and even if that changes the toxic vapors produced from extraction will still tear apart the ozone layer and damage the atomoshere. We should be putting our time and money into researching green tech not more types of oil. You're right that green tech isn't perfect but it'll be easier to improve.

Leave a Comment