Internet The world oh ! meters

[Star Voyager]

Here is a great article about Shale Oil. I went and found an article that was supportive of expanding our infrastructure for you, but it is still quite clear that our current technology makes shale seem silly:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.sum.pdf

Honestly, I actually didn't do any research in particular for this thread because I've written about and researched the subject a lot (this stuff is quite relevant to the stuff I study). That said, I could provide links to good research for any claim I made. Just ask and I will cite.

Well that makes sense. I just know that America has oil, and OPEC seems to be cheating us (judging by the prices of gas in oil producing states in the U.S. compared to non-producing oil states). Let me ask you this: if we do create the technology to make oil from shales, then do you think we could drill for it?

 

[insanity]

Well that makes sense. I just know that America has oil, and OPEC seems to be cheating us (judging by the prices of gas in oil producing states in the U.S. compared to non-producing oil states). Let me ask you this: if we do create the technology to make oil from shales, then do you think we could drill for it?

That is actually a tough question and the answer is dependent upon when our technology could improve enough that we wouldn't be accelerating environmental decay just by attempting to refine it (not counting the damage caused by setting up facilities etc..). If in the next 15 years or so we can do it 'cleanly' then there might be some benefit for the next century and maybe even a tad longer. I sure wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket though, because peak oil is inevitable and investing a lot of new money towards drilling could only delay that problem while worsening the related problems that arise from mass oil dependency.

There are alternatives, and each of them has advantages and disadvantages that need to be explored. I'd rather put resources towards moving us off oil, even if in the short-term it ends up being CNG (which we have a lot of in the US) it would be a step in the right direction.

If you read here:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

You might be surprised to learn that we import more oil just from Russia, Mexico, and Canada then we do from almost all of the OPEC countries combined (a gap that is made up when you add the oil we import from Brazil and Colombia). The reason why OPEC is able to 'push' us around is because we let them. The people who invest in future markets have an excuse to jack up the prices based on what OPEC does, and the gas and oil companies are able to skim a bunch of that off the top and pass higher prices to the consumer. Everyone gets a nice chunk of that pie except the western consumers, whose dependence on oil allows them to be price- gouged.

 

[Star Voyager]

If you read here:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

You might be surprised to learn that we import more oil just from Russia, Mexico, and Canada then we do from almost all of the OPEC countries combined (a gap that is made up when you add the oil we import from Brazil and Colombia). The reason why OPEC is able to 'push' us around is because we let them. The people who invest in future markets have an excuse to jack up the prices based on what OPEC does, and the gas and oil companies are able to skim a bunch of that off the top and pass higher prices to the consumer. Everyone gets a nice chunk of that pie except the western consumers, whose dependence on oil allows them to be price-gouged.

Truly interesting...I didn't know that. Thanks for the info :thumbup:. Like I said before, I would like to be driving oil-free vehicles eventually...

 

[Dickie]

The oil we have in the U.S. is enough to last us centuries! Gas prices would be soooooooooooo much lower than what the Arabian countries are seeling us right now :dry:.

I reality, what that would mean is that you would pay slightly less at the pump for your 'gas' (is that like petrol? ), whilst the oil companies would simply make a much higher profit.

 

[garyw]

Isn't there an issue with drilling for oil where the oil is excavated via pressure and when they pressure drops below a certain level the oil is no longer able to be removed?

This means that there might be millions of barrels but without the right conditions it's impossible to get at it, I also recall that a lot of oil wells are closed up not because they are dry but because the oil is no longer possible to pump.

 

[Urwumpe]

The problem is also that pumping oil gets more and more complicated over time. We already have a solution for accessing deep oil, which requires the pumps to be installed inside the drill hole, deep below the surface. But that is expensive and means serious business if a pump breaks.

We can solve almost any problem with technology. It just depends how much money you have and how much of this planet we can make inhabitable.

Also, the US oil is a big dream, not more. It will take 20 years to access it, will produce only a minor part of the daily oil consumption in the USA unless the other sources run out earlier, and will quickly reach peak-oil.

Also, NEVER trust oil companies about their potential production capacity. They will lie. For their own and your good. Guess how the world would react if Saudi-Arabia announces that it can't increase the production of oil anymore and is at the limits...it would currently be a major disaster, for all us little oil addicts.

 

[Sky Captain]

Is there any point at all of spending who knows how many billions of $$$ to develop shale oil which is hard and expensive to extract and also produces lot of pollution while being only short term solution when the same money could be used to develop nuclear and renewable energy sources and better batteries for vehicle applications which is a long term solution to energy problems?

 

[T.Neo]

better batteries for vehicle applications

Why expensive and polluting batteries, when renewable biofuels can do the job?

 

[Urwumpe]

Why expensive and polluting batteries, when renewable biofuels can do the job?

Because they don't do the job, while batteries really can. Biofuels are actually more polluting than mineral oil fuels, they just sound more ecologic. Batteries are also not automatically polluting, most modern forms are not comparable to the stuff you buy in supermarkets, and which is technologically 20 years behind.

For cars, high capacity elements (HICAP) become more and more interesting, especially the developments in nanotechnology allow already building capacitors with a higher energy density than a tank of gasoline. The lifetime would be much higher than for batteries in any case, since capacitors run without chemical reactions (they store charges by electrostatic), the key problem is just: How to build them outside a special laboratory? And in much higher numbers. Building two small elements of the size of a post stamp is different to building larger and more of them for building a car energy storage.

 

[T.Neo]

Because they don't do the job, while batteries really can.

Tell that to my plastic 30km/h golfcart (I mean car, sorry) of the future, that takes an hour to recharge.

Biofuels are actually more polluting than mineral oil fuels, they just sound more ecologic.

Not if you burn the right ones in the right manner- if it's a "carbon footprint" that we're trying to avoid, then fuel from a renewable resource is surely better then a fuel from a non-renewable one.

Batteries are also not automatically polluting, most modern forms are not comparable to the stuff you buy in supermarkets, and which is technologically 20 years behind.

Until you factor in their construction- even lithium batteries and other newfangled concepts produce unsavoury chemicals during production, AFAIK.

How to build them outside a special laboratory?

Well, there's your problem- remember that the first of the new is always better then the last of the old, and what is "hi-tech" doesn't always work in the real world (read: the Karoo or Australian outback).

And secondly, we already have a hydrocarbon fuel infrastructure in place- it'd be a pity to put it to waste. And I know that some people (myself included) would rather drive a conventional vehicle.


In no way am I trying to say that renewable hydrocarbon fuels are a be-all and end all solution (IMO, fossil fuels are best from a purely engineering point of view), but that hi-tech shouldn't be trusted as some sort of gift from the gods...

 

[Urwumpe]

Tell that to my plastic 30km/h golfcart (I mean car, sorry) of the future, that takes an hour to recharge.

actually, even Volkswagen plan with at least 130 km/h and 250 km range per charge, with reasonable recharge times. And Volkswagen is pretty critical of electrocars or even hybrids, because they currently have a lead in downsized combustion engines.

Not if you burn the right ones in the right manner- if it's a "carbon footprint" that we're trying to avoid, then fuel from a renewable resource is surely better then a fuel from a non-renewable one.

All biofuels are bad in the carbon footprint - that is the result of a chain of scientific studies.

 

[T.Neo]

actually, even Volkswagen plan with at least 130 km/h and 250 km range per charge, with reasonable recharge times.

What is a "reasonable charge time", btw?

All biofuels are bad in the carbon footprint - that is the result of a chain of scientific studies.

A slightly higher atmospheric carbon level being recycled into fuels is sure a lot less worse then CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere from a non-renewable resource.

And better then a battery plant leaking chemical waste over the Chinese countryside.

 

[Urwumpe]

What is a "reasonable charge time", btw?

About 30 minutes for a full charge using special recharging plugs (not household plugs, which are limited in power output), something that is acceptable for city cars.

A slightly higher atmospheric carbon level being recycled into fuels is sure a lot less worse then CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere from a non-renewable resource.

If the slightly higher additional carbon level is higher than the level you get by burning gasoline, it is worse. And that is the problem.

 

[T.Neo]

About 30 minutes for a full charge using special recharging plugs (not household plugs, which are limited in power output), something that is acceptable for city cars.

Whereas a liquid hydrocarbon fueled car can be refueled in 10 minutes or so.

If the slightly higher additional carbon level is higher than the level you get by burning gasoline, it is worse. And that is the problem.

Managable levels of CO2 vs. a buildup of 80 years- sorry, not buying it.

Either way, if you want to introduce renewable energy quickly using existing infrastructure and proven techniques, use liquid hydrocarbons. Non-renewable resources being depleted are far more problematic then any anthropogenic climate change.

 

[Sky Captain]

I doubt it would even be possible to produce enough biofuels to make a significant dent in world`s oil consumption - there is just not enough land to grow all that stuff and let`s not forget that land is also needed to grow food for humans. Tearing down the world`s last remaining forests just free more space to grow fuel would be environmentally worst possible option.

And electric engines has better performance than their IC counterparts, they are also lighter and more compact and need very little maintenance.

 

[T.Neo]

I doubt it would even be possible to produce enough biofuels to make a significant dent in world`s oil consumption - there is just not enough land to grow all that stuff and let`s not forget that land is also needed to grow food for humans.

Which is why biofuel production would be done via waste biomass recycling, or some sort of algaculture.

And electric engines has better performance than their IC counterparts, they are also lighter and more compact and need very little maintenance.

The actual engine (or motor, in this case) is an afterthought. It is where the energy is stored that the discussion lies.

 

[Urwumpe]

Which is why biofuel production would be done via waste biomass recycling, or some sort of algaculture.

Which produces lots of methane, and waste biomass is also a strange economic concept. Here the semicommercial waste management companies sell high-quality soil made of "waste biomass" for good money to gardeners. A tree binds about 800 times more CO2 then any plant used for biofuel.

The actual engine (or motor, in this case) is an afterthought. It is where the energy is stored that the discussion lies.

Which is a minor problem in the actual use case. I drive 350-400 km per week, and that mostly inside urban regions. With technology available in 2010-2011 time frame, I could already replace my car by an electrical car and have only the limitation that I would need a high-power electrical outlet somewhere at work (I should ask the high-voltage electricians, who do the lightning and plasma stuff) or stop for one hour per week at a suitable charging station.

Both is acceptable, especially when calculating the costs: A KWh of electrical energy costs way less than a KWh of gasoline. And electricity is easier to be transported then gasoline, which could be way more economic.

Problem: I also need my car for longer distance trips, which are not possible with electrical cars yet. And I still plan to own my 1999 car until it received a "H"-license plate (H means historical car in German license plates)... in 2029.

 

[Sky Captain]

If algae fuels turns to be implementable on large scale then it might work to some degree, but still it seems unlikely to me the huge amount of oil consumed can be replaced with biofuels in reasonable time. We would be lucky if we manage to replace the gap in fossil fuel production with renewable fuels after the world starts to to ride downhill the peak oil curve.

Still at least in city I`d like to see primary electric cars because biofuels or not there is still a lot of crap coming out from exhaust pipe of any IC powered automobile..

 

[T.Neo]

Problem: I also need my car for longer distance trips, which are not possible with electrical cars yet.

Yeah, that's one of the big problems I have with electric cars- I'm not just driving a few KM to work each day. I want to have the freedom of driving through the Karoo.

And I still plan to own my 1999 car until it received a "H"-license plate (H means historical car in German license plates)... in 2029.

:rofl:

Still at least in city I`d like to see primary electric cars because biofuels or not there is still a lot of crap coming out from exhaust pipe of any IC powered automobile..

Well, IMO if you're in a city, at least a large built-up one (i.e. London, New York, Athens) you should be using public transport, and forget or at least limit the use of cars. The only problem I've had with public transport in Athens, was having to drive in a car to the station.

The simple (both fortunate, and unfortunate) truth is that humans don't really care about the climate- despite all our scientific warnings, eco-alarmism and governmental deadlines, we don't change our society unless there's money involved- we'll scramble for a solution when the oil runs out, not when infamous effects of climate change finally become apparent en-masse.

 

[fort]

Elektra automotive: pakistan first electric vehicule

http://www.elektraautomotive.com/

Elektra 1, la voiture électrique faite maison (... home made )

" Faraz Khan has much to be proud. It flows through one of the few electric cars in Pakistan, a car he built with his own hands."

http://observers.france24.com/fr/co...son-pakistan-ecologie-petrole-prix-faraz-khan