Energy Report

Energy Report

Most of this you probably already know, but this may bring you up to date if you don't.
First off, there is no sign that congress will reverse the law they passed making most of our oil off limits. So, as gas prices continue spiraling upward, no relief is in sight and we can look forward to $5, $6, ... gas.

Now oil will not last forever and we need to have something else on line by the time it drops off, but that is not going to be as soon as many expect. There is a lot more oil than thought just a few years ago. New seismic techniques allow spotting oil that could not be seen just a few years ago, and it can be located to within 100 feet. Drilling can now be controlled amazingly, so able to hit those tiny reservoirs, often several with one hole, kinda like stringing beads. They can turn a 90 degree corner in as little as 100 feet and drill horizontally about 4 miles, as well as going down 6. They can find and reach lots of oil that was not seen or out of reach just a few years ago. The amount of known untapped oil has actually increased. For all its faults, oil has a lot of advantages and needs to be used at least until replacements are on line. The activists are looney for wanting to block it in favor of other, "alternative energy", before such is on line.

Note: that there is no real concern for the polar bears and other critters, as a mere 8 acre drilling site can drain about 50 square miles of oil. You would only need one every 6 or 8 miles across the frozen wasteland. The bears and caribou would hardly notice them.

Now some of this new oil can be hard to get. The Bakken requires horizontal drilling, the North Slope has miserable weather, the huge new field off the coast of Brazil is several miles down, but the oil can be gotten.

In addition to ANWR, there are other sites off limits, such as the west coast of Florida and the rest of the gulf. While we have to keep hands off, other nations are drilling as close as 60 miles off our coast. The oil will be pumped. We lose energy, what do we gain by not pumping? Then there are other sources. Most people seem surprised to know Canada is our leading source of oil and Mexico second. Maybe this has something to do with the illegal alien problem. For decades, administrations of both parties have refused to do anything productive about illegal aliens flooding our country. Could it be they want to eliminate the borders so all that oil will be "domestic"? Sounds farfetched, but there has to be a logical explaination. I won't buy that garbage about they can't be found and identified. All that info relative to social security that is required for employment can be easily checked to determine citizenship, and it can be done on line and in real time while the applicant is standing there. Then a stiff fine for hiring an illegal, and without jobs, they will have to head home. Simple, so all that nonesense is a smoke screen.
Actually, it might not be a bad idea. China is moving in, buying up Canadian oil companies, contracting for all the oil they can get. Every barrel they get is one less for us.

Canada is now ramping up production to 4 million barrels a day from the tar sands. The Athabasca Tar Sands is an extensive deposit in Alberta, and is the only one in the world that is large and at or near the surface so it can be surface mined. Brazil has about as much in the Oronoco Tar Sands, but they are too deep to mine. Canada has been messing with them for decades, but at about $60 a barrel for synthetic crude from them, have had to shut down several times as crude prices dropped. This time that is not likely.

The tar sand is broken up, mixed with hot water to separate the sand and other junk, then the water is removed. There is also an in situ process, circulating steam to sort of melt the bitumen so it flows and can be pumped out like very heavy crude. That can be used for the Oronoco, and both methods are applicable to our oil shale, which is about as extensive, but we can't touch it any more than we can touch the oil in the gulf or North Slope. The oil shale is different, but rather equivalent to the tar sands. It is porous rock containing kerogen, a waxy hydrocarbon that simply hasn't cooked long enough to turn into oil or coal. We have enough to last decades, centuries even, and currently it too can be produced for about $60 a barrel of synthetic crude.
Then there is still the methane hydrates, which no one seems to be interested in. It can be tricky to get, and unfortunately, is found in the off limits areas, off the coasts and in the permafrost up north. Chances of getting it anytime soon seem remote. Methane is essentially natural gas (or more accurately, the other way around). At any rate, it is a rather clean, easily used fuel, and a good feed stock for all sorts of things, including hydrogen for vehicles (more about that later), so it would be very desireable to start getting it. There are centuries worth of it, but of course it would mean carbon dioxide, and the politicians wont even consider it.

Now when it comes to coal, there is nothing much to report. Coal is still being used, coal fired power plants are very much frowned upon in this country, even though China is putting a new one on line a time or two every week. Lots of CO2 is being put into the air anyway, but we can't be allowed to do it for such a crass purpose as keeping our industry and lights going, not to mention air conditioning. The coal will be burned. We lose energy, what do we gain by not burning coal? This (not enought power plants) is going to be an unpleasant problem within about the next two years.

Deep geothermal is moving along, but our government seems blissfully unaware of it. The medium depth plant in Australia has completed their first and third wells, the second one encountered problems and was abandoned. An illustration of why large profits are necessary. Lots of money can be lost fast. Risk needs reward, i.e. profits. They are currently hooking up equipment to see what energy they can get. They have been delayed by late arrival of equipment from overseas. As is typical these days, stuff is shipped all over for about anything. A big heat exchanger came from Ohio, for example. The one near the France - Germany border is producing power and undergoing testing, but is not on line yet. Note that both of these are just medium depth, 3 miles or so, so need a big hot mass of rock to be located, but I see no difference between a medium and a deep plant, other than the depth of the well that has to be drilled. The wells can be drilled to 6 miles, so if everything can be worked out at 3, there is no reason 6 won't work the same.

I am really interested in the geothermal as that with rechargable electric cars can greatly reduce the need for oil. I am surprised that no government,especially ours, seems to show any interest in hot dry rock geothermal. Too few votes, I guess, not like the corn to ethanol.

For better mileage, a lot of tinkering is being done. Such as variable valve timing. At low engine speed, you want to open and close the valves at about the end of the piston stroke. At high speed they need to open sooner and close later. A typical car engine has a cam shaft with lobes that open and close near the ends of the stroke. As a result it runs smoothly at idle, but loses power at high speed. Those for a race car have longer lobes, keeping the valves open longer. As a result, they can turn faster, but are rough at idle and must idle much faster to keep running. The variable valve timing engine usually has a cam shaft with pairs of lobes, one for low speed and one for high. At some point the entire shaft is moved sideways to position the other lobe under the lifters to give better efficientcy at both the high and low end. That is a lot of extra complexity and expense for a little improvement in efficientcy.

Another scheme is to shift the transmission to nuetral or even stop the engine when the car stops. That can save gas especially at a stop light, but may mean a pause before you can get back into motion. Restarting the engine can take a bit of time and could even be difficult if hot or cold or various other things, but the computer probably takes care of most of that. It still seems like a lot of complexity for a few percent gain. Switching to electric can give several fold increase and cut the complexity and expense while doing so.

Speaking of electric cars, interest seems to be picking up. I am not in favor of high oil and gasoline prices, especially the rapid run up. This is going to be devestating to our economy and way of life in many ways. You haven't seen anything yet. For example, our only long range public transportation is airline, and that is rapidly becoming a limited means that only the wealthy can afford. Other means can be provided, but it will take time and lots of money. Since most everything depends upon energy, expect a lot of inflation. On the other hand, high fuel cost might come in handy to get the electric cars accepted more quickly. Ten, even five years ago, the typical guy looking at an electric with a bit limited range, would probably have said, "Naw, I want a BelchFire 8. I like the rumble and roar, and might want to hit the interstate". Now at $4 a gallon, he might say "That will get me to work and back, a lot cheaper. And it is nice and quiet. And.." The only problem is they will just about arrive along with the brownouts and rolling blackouts from too few power plants, and might fall on their faces as a result.

For right now, Lutz says the Chevrolet Volt is coming right along. They figure they have the battery solved and are satified they can consistently get 40 miles range. Now they are playing with the computer programming to work out when to start and stop the ICE, and how to best get the battery up to operating temperature in extremely cold weather. He says November 2010 still looks good, less than 2 1/2 years away.

Before the Volt, Toyota expects to hit the fleet market in the U.S. and Japan with a plug in car. I have no details, but looks like they will be using the same NiMH battery they use in the Prius. It is proven, they have it in production, and by putting several (a battery of baterries) in each car can get enough energy for whatever the range is. Now getting out there first is important, but the Volt Li ion battery is a better way to go.

Speaking of the Prius, I understand they have just hit 1 million production. I am surprised it is not far more as I see a lot around Columbia, but this is a liberal town with a lot of people wanting to show they care. Toyota has also announced they will have a hybrid version of their entire product line by 2030.

Nissan has announced they are readying a "zero emmision" car for the U.S. market. No details, but apparently a plug in.

The surprising thing is hydrogen. When the administration announced the energy bill and there was a mention of hydrogen, I figured that was just politics. Turns out a lot of people are taking that seriously. In the U.S. over a billion has been spent on hydrogen development, and several foreign manufacturers are working on hydrogen cars. I can't believe it, but I bet it has to do with avoiding CO2. They are willing to play with an impractical vehicle just to have it zero emmision. One of them, I believe Japanese but I have forgotten, has one they claim will do over 500 miles on a fill up. To get that they have made the fuel cell more efficient (that is good) and have greatly increased the fuel supply (very questionable).

In the first place, I think 500+ miles is a bit much. Who can sit for 8-10 hours? 100 miles is a bit short, but 200-300 is probably a reasonable range. They are using a 40 gallon tank, and are charging it to 10,000 psi!. Man, if that thing lets go I don't want to be anywhere around it. Forget hydrogen is flamable and explosive, the rupture alone will leave nothing recognizable of the car. If the hydrogen mixes with air and explodes, well, you will have a nice pond.

And there is still the problem of supply. Where do you get hydrogen? Industrially, it can be arranged and some warehouses use hydrogen equipment to keep the air breathable. Seems to me rechargable electric would be simpler, but I know hydrogen is sometimes used. For a car, there are only a handfull of stations in the whole country, and most of them in California. Of those, a few are solar powered, which appeals to conservationists and will work in California, but hardly in Seattle. The rest reform natural gas and of course emit CO2, but the cars are zero emission. Methane hydrates would be a good source for the hydrogen reformers, if they ever become common, but you are stuck with the chicken and egg problem. There are too few hydrogen cars to justify a lot of stations: there are too few stations to justify a lot of cars. Again, I think electric would be easier. Just run a medium power line to a truck stop and set up a recharge unit. It could be done quickly and cheaply anywhere that electric rechargables show up or are expected to show up. Limited to commuting ranges until the recharging stations show up nearby, the electric cars are still usable and make sense. The numbers could build up until someone took advantage of it by putting in a recharging unit. I see no corresponding way to do it with hydrogen, unless you want to invest in your own home refueling unit. Reforming needs methane (natural gas), which without tapping the methane hydrates, is in limited supply and expensive.

Well, that is about the way things currently look to me.