"North America stands at an energy crossroads. As cheap, plentiful conventional oil becomes a luxury of the past, we now face a choice: to set a course for a more sustainable energy future of clean, renewable fuels, or to develop ever-dirtier sources of transportation fuel derived from fossil fuels -- at an even greater cost to our health and environment."

Source: http://www.nrdc.org/energy/dirtyfuels.asp

"There is no such thing as clean coal...(paraphrasing) If I put liquid coal in my Prius and drove it, I'd be producing the same lifecycle CO2 emissions as a Hummer."

Source (Video): http://www.youtube.com/v/NC8OhWBwDqE&hl=en

 

Just curious, is there an estimate about how much these shales and oil sands might supply? The geographical areas, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, don't sound really that big.

Something along the lines of how much versus our consumption?

Thanks,
Bob Wilson

 

I'd have to watch it again, but the NRDC video I thought mentioned a figure of about 10% reduction in use of oil if the three sources of "liquid coal" were used. That's where they switched to showing the open pit mines, strip mines, etc. since apparently mining would have to ramp up at least 40% to meet the increased need to supply the liquid coal plants.

Hope I got that right; check the video again for specific numbers. I don't know if the NRDC assumed the coal would be mined only in the US to meet the need, or if we don't have near enough and we'd also be suddenly importing more coal (Canada, etc.) to meet the domestic liquid oil needs.

Feels like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, to me.

 

This is a very tough issue to deal with because the variables are so extensive. There are estimated to be well over 2 trillion barrels in oil sands and oil shale. This is something like 10 times the total Saudi Arabian proven reserves.

However, there are a couple of catches. No one really knows how much of that is recoverable at any cost. Much of those reserves are in Arab countries and Venezuela so it doesn't change the geopolitical situation all that much. However, the North American reserves probably exceed the current Saudi proven reserves.

Recovery requires a significant amount of heat. If that is produced by burning oil, the CO2 impact is much higher than conventional oil. That is why the Canadians are looking at nuclear plants to provide the heat. However, current plans still require a lot of water and there are issues with water availability and discharge quality.

 

There is a new technology coming on line that requires no water and has zero emissions. It utilizes microwaves in a vacuum environment. It is useful for abandoned wells, shale oil, oils sands and residual oil (waste oil at the refinery). In addition, this technology is being installed commercially at an auto recycling center in NY state. Apparently it can convert any hydrocarbon bearing material, i.e. tires, moldings, water bottles, into distillate fuels and natural gas directly. It has a 17 to 1 energy produced to energy used ratio.

Pop Science featured the company not too long ago.

This is very promising. I hope it isn't bought and buried by an oil concern. This is not going to further alternative energy but it may stretch out the inevitable.

Due diligence statement: I won't mention the name of the company here as I am a minor (micro, minuscule) shareholder.

 

I say burn it if you've got it.

If you've got coal in Wyoming, burn it there.
If you've got ethanol in Iowa, burn it there.
If you've got oil in Texas, burn it there.

I shudder at how much energy is wasted moving energy from place to place.
Ethanol may not make sense in all states, since all states can't grow corn.

I think we should focus Micoscale, lets get each STATE self-sufficent.