Talking is good, although we should note that there hasn't been any new refinery built in the last 30 years in the US!!! Local governments and enviromental standards make it almost impossible to build one... Again about the size, at this point it is not very relevant. The Canadian oilsand reserves are the biggest, nevetheless currently it only produces 1 mbpd and they don't expect it to go above 4 at the max. production. That is a fart in the wind compared to the extra 30 mbpd needed by the projections for 2015-2020...
Doesn't matter to me in any case. I prefer to see oil go much higher than it is now. These prices are still tolerable. Once consumers can't tolerate the increases, there will have to be innovation. The slow innovation of the auto industry is astounding, and IMO can only be attributed to price manipulation in the petrol industry. Also, I personally don't think the 30mbpd requirements will materialize. It might be niave but I'm counting on innovation, particularly solar power.
I think solar is a much more reasonable alternative. Example: First Solar is one of the most heavily capitalized businesses on planet earth. Look at this P/S ratio of 63!! It should remind you of the dot com days: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=FSLR First Solar is probably the premier maker of thin-film solar technology, which will is probably going to be one of the few viable energy alternatives for the future. Here's a few links for any one who is interested: http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/08/fi...ity-cx_cg_1108markets39.html?partner=yahootix http://www.aps.com/general_info/newsrelease/newsreleases/NewsRelease_315.html These people are serious about taking over the world: they have 1000% earnings growth and plants in Germany and Malaysia. And, btw, the reasons are several: 1. One exec predicted that in ten years thin-film can be producted at HALF the cost of coal: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/02/19/ccview19.xml "Rather than being manufactured laboriously piece by piece, it can be mass-produced in cheap rolls like packaging - in any colour. The "tipping point" will arrive when the capital cost of solar power falls below $1 (51p) per watt, roughly the cost of carbon power. We are not there yet. The best options today vary from $3 to $4 per watt - down from $100 in the late 1970s. Mr Sethi believes his product will cut the cost to 80 cents per watt within five years, and 50 cents in a decade. It is based on a CIGS (CuInGaSe2) semiconductor compound that absorbs light by freeing electrons. This is then embedded on the polymer base. It will be ready commercially in late 2009." 2. This stuff can be applied to the sides and tops of buildings even! "The secret? Mr Sethi lovingly cradles a piece of dark polymer foil, as thin a sheet of paper. It is 200 times lighter than the normal glass-based solar materials, which require expensive substrates and roof support. Indeed, it is so light it can be stuck to the sides of buildings." 3. It will even produce significant power in sun-less climates: ""It'll even work on a cold, grey, cloudy day in England, which still produces 25pc to 30pc of the optimal light level. That is enough, if you cover half the roof," he said." I just can't wait to see the expression on a few of those shiekh's faces!!
The following paragraphs are from a paper on the subject and illustrate why oil shale is so problematic. ...The most direct obvious environmental impact of an oil shale industry would be the immediate displacement of ecosystems in land under development. Surface retorting, which requires underground or surface mining would strongly alter the local ecology and current land uses. Strip mining would require some of the largest open-pit mines in the world. Around 1.5 tons of spent oil shale is produced for every one barrel of retorted oil (Albulescu and Mazzella, 1987), so a surface retorting operation of a million barrels per day would require more than half a billion tons of raw shale to be mined and disposed of each year. Furthermore, the retorting process increases the volume of the shale by 15-25 percent so that the pit or mine from which the shale was removed cannot store all of the waste product (US DOE, 2004). Both surface and underground mining would require piling this material above ground, thereby creating an unnaturally elevated landscape and likely causing decadelong displacement of preexisting flora and fauna (RAND). This new landscape would not only be reshaped but would also become toxic and would alter both runoff patterns and groundwater quality. Spent shale has a higher salt content than raw shale and contains small concentrations of arsenic and selenium which can be mobilized by water that infiltrates tailings piles (Harney, 1983). Shellâs in-situ method is often touted as a clean alternative because it does not require surface mining or waste piles, but this approach can still cause groundwater contamination. The âfreeze-barrierâ would only protect groundwater during production; once the kerogen has been removed the hydraulic conductivity of the remaining shale increases allowing groundwater to flow through and leach salts from the newly toxic aquifer (RAND). Because the Green River formation lies within the greater Colorado River drainage basin, any surface or groundwater contamination will not only affect the local population but will likely have a significant impact on water quality for the millions of downstream users. In addition to likely groundwater contamination, large-scale development would also require tremendous quantities of water to be used in production operations. Water is required at various stages of the mining, retorting, and refining processes. The U.S. Water resources council estimated consumptive water use of around three barrels of water per barrel of shale oil production (Water Resources Council, 1981). Water resources from the Colorado River Basin are already very tightly regulated and are in high demand from a growing population in the arid Southwest. A recent agreement with California water districts will return roughly 8 million acre-ft/year to the Upper Basin (Bunger and Crawford, 2004). A one million bpd oil shale industry would consume the entirety of these reallocated water rights (Sura, 2005) â water that could alternately be used to support a combination of municipal supply, irrigation, ecosystem restoration, and recreation â and would likely diminish the quality of previously available water supplies. http://srb.stanford.edu/nur/GP200A Papers/elliot_grunewald_paper.pdf
I always laugh when I hear statements coming from Shell, Cheveron, or BP execs claiming that solar isn't really that viable. Wake up guys! It is the only viable energy source. Let's consider the different alternatives: Oil - we all know the issues with this. Ethanol/Butanol - Still has harmful byproducts. Is only renewable in the sense that more crop can be grown. This requires water usage and fertilization. The result is much higher food prices. I can choose not to drive, but I can't choose not to eat people. This has to be the worst idea of them all. Not surprising that our governement is supporting this. Nuclear - great way to get power, but very difficult for me to approve on a large scale. Too many inherent problems. I think this is best suited for jet aircraft that require portable power sources capable of extreme output. Not good for heating homes, powering automobiles, etc... Hydroelectric - not a bad way to get power but isn't really capable of powering most nations. Pretty good option for places like Nepal if the government wants to invest all that money. Wind - Not a bad way to go, but wind is many times unpredictable. I don't believe that this has the ability of producing large scale energy that we need throughout the world. Geothermal - This is ok and I think has the best potential behind solar. Mass amounts of energy can be produced throug recycled sewer water. the problem with this is that it still requires an energy grid. Such a grid is assumed by most , but I think that assumption is flawed. Why use a grid if not necessary. Central power grid means vulnerability. Solar - Completely renewable. Absolutely safe. Inherently abundant. Doesn't necessitate use of a power grid. Can make use of otherwise useless desert landscape. Can be safely used for heating homes, powering buildings, autos, electrical devices, etc. It is almost feesable at currently low efficiency rates. Better technology makes this an even better alternative. One day I guessing we will be able to mimic the ability of plants to harness this power.
Good summary overall. But I would comment about wind and hydro: because in some of the windiest parts of the country, it occurs at night - they are already using wind at night to pump water back a dam system which they then release during peak. This came from the guy who told me about First Solar - and he's actually in the middle of the industry - and so it should be reliable. If anyone has any links, I'd love to know more... Also, I don't see the big problem with nuclear if we would just follow in the footsteps of France. They have been doing it for years without incident. Of course, there is that little problem of spent fuel rods, but it's still an excellent technology imo if done right...
Good summary. But I would comment about wind and hydro: because in some of the windiest parts of the country, it occurs at night - they are already using wind at night to pump water back a dam system which they then release during peak. This came from the guy who told me about First Solar - and he's actually in the middle of the industry - and so it should be reliable. If anyone has any links, I'd love to know more... Also, I don't see the big problem with nuclear if we would just follow in the footsteps of France. They have been doing it for years without incident. Of course, there is that little problem of spent fuel rods, but it's still an excellent technology imo if done right. Likewise, Brazil's ethanol program is much, much more successful. Btw, it's ironic that French nuclear technology came from America, which we then subsequently botched up badly: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html
There are some safer technologies coming out from Japan on nuclear pebble bed stuff. Overall the waste factor makes it non-viable IMO. To be viable IMO, waste shouldn't require containment. My problem with wind and hydro is that they aren't solutions for the entire world. They are great for certain areas though.
Time will tell, but the claim from some of the thin film solar companies is that their technology will soon work even on a cloudy day: http://blog.scifi.com/tech/archives/2007/02/20/thin_film_solar.html Btw, I don't think the guy is blowing smoke. Here's some ads for the thin film claiming it performs well even in cloudy environments: http://store.altenergystore.com/Sol...Power-Film-10W12V-Thin-Film-Solar-Panel/p705/ http://www.siliconsolar.com/15W-Thin-Film-Solar-Panel-p-17848.html In fact, here's a news release about a set up that produces more power under cloudy conditions than the old voltaic in sunny conditions! http://www.shell.com/home/content/m.../solar_rooftopthinfilmtech_28102003_1620.html
Here's a great blog on energy and subsequent coverage of First Solar as of a couple of days ago: http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/11/first-solar-rec.html