Clean Energy & Efficiency

Isn't oil shale much more difficult to access or to refine or something? Isn't there something that makes it much more expensive to produce petrol etc from oil shale than the stuff in Saudi Arabia?

It's oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming etc. and oil in Alaska ? Is oil shale oily rocks or oil that doesn't come out easily ?

Supposedly it's harder to refine.
According to Wikipedia....

Quote :

Shale oil does not contain the full range of hydrocarbons used in modern gasoline production, and could only be used to produce middle-distillates such as kerosene, jet fuel, and diesel fuel.^[4] Worldwide demand for these middle distillates, however, is increasing rapidly.

The same wiki article goes on to say...

Quote :

According to a survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, the cost of producing a barrel of oil at a surface retorting complex in the United States would be between US$70–95 ($440–600/m³, adjusted to 2005 values).
The analysis also discusses the expectation that processing costs would drop after the complex was established. The hypothetical unit would see a cost reduction of 35–70% after its first 500 million barrels (79×10⁶ m³) were produced

Too much gloom here but luckily I am an optimist. I now bring you the best news yet. http://www.vloggingtheapocalypse.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=626&title=FREE_ELECTRICITY&ref=Bagattel

You would need to look at the Physics behind this and run some thorough tests. Hope it proves true.

There are going to be major developments in energy production and efficiency generally in the next few decades. This is one of the reasons why sinking large sums into nuclear is of dubious merit, unless you are interested in weapons grade material.

youngdan wrote:

Too much gloom here but luckily I am an optimist. I now bring you the best news yet. http://www.vloggingtheapocalypse.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=626&title=FREE_ELECTRICITY&ref=Bagattel

Yeh, I've seen that one before, about a year ago. Very funny.

AfricanDave wrote:

Supposedly it's harder to refine.
According to Wikipedia....

Quote :

Shale oil does not contain the full range of hydrocarbons used in modern gasoline production, and could only be used to produce middle-distillates such as kerosene, jet fuel, and diesel fuel.^[4] Worldwide demand for these middle distillates, however, is increasing rapidly.

The same wiki article goes on to say...

Quote :

According to a survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, the cost of producing a barrel of oil at a surface retorting complex in the United States would be between US$70–95 ($440–600/m³, adjusted to 2005 values).
The analysis also discusses the expectation that processing costs would drop after the complex was established. The hypothetical unit would see a cost reduction of 35–70% after its first 500 million barrels (79×10⁶ m³) were produced

If oil price was the only issue it wouldn't be so acute. There is also the question of climate change and carbon emissions.

There might be something to be said for putting smog masks on and using our dirtiest carbon fuels right now to get the global dimming levels up for the next ten years whilst we shift from carbon fuels to alternatives.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Yeh, I've seen that one before, about a year ago. Very funny.

Tut Tut you actually doubt the wonders of Aussie technology. A year ago I think it was in the form of the perpetual motion machine. It is one of those ones that you think could be used as an excuse to visit Australia. 6 month on the beach in Brisbane against tax, worth a try.

On the serious side increased investment will bring technological improvement in energy production and use. If you could predict some of the winners now you would minting it in some future energy.com type bubble when the lemmings start herding in.

This is an interesting "Energy Security" report from today.

Quote :

BreakingNews.ie > World« Previous
British mercenary begs coup court for mercy
19/06/2008 - 17:56:38
British mercenary Simon Mann today based his sole defence on charges of planning to overthrow an African regime on a plea for clemency.

Mann, a former SAS officer, repeated his claim to the court in Equatorial Guinea that he was only a junior member of the team which planned to overthrow its government in 2004.

The argument was laid out by his lawyers as the trial in the Central African country entered its third day.

Equatorial Guinea’s government has accused Mann of masterminding a failed coup plot financed by Mark Thatcher, son of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher.

The government says the accused hoped to install an exiled opposition leader who would open up Africa’s third-biggest oil producer to them.

Mann said yesterday that he knowingly agreed to take part in the coup, but he apologised for his role.

He repeated the apology in court today and argued that he was not a key member of the plot.

“I’m very sorry for it. I regret it very much,” Mann said.

Mann said Nigerian-born British businessman Eli Calil “was very much the boss. So nothing could happen without Calil telling me yes or no.”

He had said yesterday that Thatcher was not only a financier, but an integral part of the group.

Mann said Calil did not invite him, Mann, to a key meeting in Beirut to draw up a document that would serve as Equatorial Guinea’s new constitution because Mann was too “junior.” He added that if the coup had been successful he would only have been named security manager, whereas Calil stood to become the right hand man of the new president.

Mann appeared calm as he stood answering questions, his hands held in front of his stomach.

The morning session continued with testimony from witness Lebanese businessman Mohamed Salaam, who also said he was part of the plot. It was not immediately clear if Salaam has been charged.

It's weird how this kind of thing seems funny when they're caught, and so unfunny when they get away with it.

I would not be so quick to discount this electricity machine. I am going to do some research on this claim. I have frequently heard talk of zero point energy so I know there is research being done on it.
Another little known research is into Cold Fusion which if true would be revolutionary.

Have you heard of Joseph Newman, youngdan ? I think he's mighty !

Newman Energy Google Video 1 - 71 mins

No but I will watch these when I can squeeze them in.

Oil tumbles $5 as China raises gas prices

Europe is leading the way in high prices - if America puts up its prices next we might see a further drop in the oil barrel price.

Fuel protests spread and China to increase prices

Quote :

MADRID: Spanish farmers marched, Israeli truckers slowed rush-hour traffic and Nepali students stoned cars on Thursday, all angry at rising fuel prices and inflation that they say are crippling their economies.

Protests by truckers, taxi drivers, fishermen and farmers demanding fuel-tax breaks have spread across the world, increasing fears of political instability and a global economic downturn.

The oil price, which dipped $3 to $133 on news that China will raise retail gasoline and diesel prices from Friday, has touched record highs near $140 in recent months, fuelling inflation and squeezing business margins.

Lot of fuel trouble there (An bhfuil mad max ag teacht?)

A selection of world prices of petrol if you're interested (only 5 cents a litre in Venezuela)

youngdan wrote:

I would not be so quick to discount this electricity machine. I am going to do some research on this claim. I have frequently heard talk of zero point energy so I know there is research being done on it.
Another little known research is into Cold Fusion which if true would be revolutionary.

How do you get more energy out than you put in? Don't get me wrong I will be first to buy one in B&Q when they are for sale.

Cold Fusion is the modern Holy Grail. Maybe someone some day just might.

I think it is about 1998 when the cold fusion thing was in the news. There is this story from a few days ago to show that the research is ongoing. http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sci-tech/cold-fusion-success-in-japan-gets-warm-reception-in-india_10053182.html I have heard lads taling about this down through the years and they reckon that a small box would power a house. Cold fusion has nothing to do with nuclear fusion.
The lads in Australia seem to be drawing the power out of the magnets and is simple enough. This lad is showing the gist of it http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3549534527967562116&q=magnets+zero+point+energy&ei=mEFbSK2sMIWqrgKb-YzkDg&hl=en
Zero point energy is the term used in this complecated set up http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5738531568036565057&q=+zero+point+energy&ei=KUNbSIKHMKX0rAKOp5XvDg&hl=en

Auditor. What that guy is doing is just the same as the kid with the magnets on the marble surface in the 2nd clip I linked. I watched 40 minutes of your clip so I din't know how it concludes. The run arround he got from the authorities was no surprise because as I have said here before the powere that be don't want free energy. How they screwed your hero Tesla is just one example of many. The truth will out and the past week has revealed a lot of truth to a lot of people.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/oil-giants-return-to-iraq-1417627.html

Plus ca change.

well, if any sweet innocent was still under the impression that Operation Enduring Cheap Petrol was all about WMD or Saddam Not Being a Very Nice Person, the above should be enough to finally convince them otherwise. Snafu, Fubar, told yiz so all along

This is interesting... 60 odd million barrels of oil off Hook Head, they think... at 200,000 barrels per day, that should keep our habit going for....oh..., 300 days or so!

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/hope-for-60mbarrel-oil-bonanza-1416037.html

If you want to get the best out of solar energy in Ireland you need a big, well insulated hot water tank. That way, if there are two or three hours sunshine at some time over a couple of days, you will have plenty of hot water for 48 hours or more. A small tank means you need sunshine every 24 hours, and lets face it, that is statistically much less likely to happen.

I hope no one is going to tell me that the carbon footprint of a solar panel is the size of Croke Park.

What is a solar panel ? The ones you have are pipes with hot water or blackened glass ? The carbon footprint can't be high of those - glass, copper pipes and not much else. The black paint they use is Zinc Oxide I think - maybe that's virulent for the environment.

On the other end you have a large thermos-flask of a cylinder and the better ones lose 1 degree of heat per day.

That's getting a lot of the initial energy through manpower and it could be something similar for the photovotaics - it's a type of silicon that reacts to light, releasing electricity. The footprint of a lot of those things is small - a motor is a magnet and some copper wire and getting one to move around or inside the other and you have electricity production.

Electricity and heat can be cleanly created, feel no guilt.

Whew, thanks. I'm off to jump into a guilt free bubble bath with a lime lush bath bomb.

Got one of these ?

Auditor #9 wrote:

Thanks for that explanation Ard-T.

You're very welcome, I aim to help people out in matters economical!

Quote :

Some news about Alaskan oil

Bush Urges Congress to Lift Offshore Drilling Ban

Quote :

President Bush called on Congress today to lift a 26-year-old ban on oil drilling off the shores of the United States, arguing that the country needs more domestic energy production to alter the circumstances that are driving up oil prices.

Bush also repeated his call for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern Alaska and urged Congress to allow access to oil shale in the Green River Basin that stretches across
parts of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. He said the basin contains the equivalent of about 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil, more than three times the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

I wonder what sort of oil that actually is. Is it nice and light so that it requires very little refining, or is it thick and gelatinous and requires heavy work to leaven it?

I'm very dubious about Alaskan drilling. Firstly because I think oil is the last century's fuel and we should look to hydrogen and secondly because I feel that the ecological integrity of Alaska should be preserved.

Shale is this not economical because it takes so much energy and water to get it. The oil in Dakota is beautifull but is mostly inaccessible due to depth. Forget about the landscape of Alaska. Alaska is about have the size of the rest of the country. The area to be drilled is 2000 acres. Nobody wants cheap oil.