- Joined
- 12 November 2007
- Posts
- 2,944
- Reactions
- 4
True.
More simply put, the more expensive oil gets, the more expensive it will be to get anything - including shale oil - out of the ground.
800 Billion Barrels of shale reserves doesn't seem so amazing when you have to burn a barrel of oil in the process of getting 1 barrel to market, and at top speed you can only get 5M barrels / day in 30years time, I think conventional oil reserves would have declined by a much greater rate than 5M barrels / day by then.
Longterm we just have to burn less oil, through a combination of more efficent vechicles, switching to different energy sources and increasing renewable sources.
Longterm I think we need to switch the bulk of road transport away from oil and save the Oil (both conventional and alternative oil supplies) for the aviation and petrochemical industries.
It would be better all round for fast trains, electrically powered to travel between many centres. .
Sydney - LA on a train,... HA HA.
With new technology I would expect the efficiency of extracting oil from shale ( particularly the type of oil shale here in Aus) to improve to a point where it is economically sound and enviromentally acceptable. This could happen in the short term. I'm holding some shale oil shares because of that belief.
Ive been reading (Googleing) a bit tonight and the "Stuart Oil Shale Project"
that fell over in 2004 was sposed to be profitable with oil at over $30 a barrel :dunno:
It may have been profitable but there were so many ongoing technical problems that it just didn't stack up.
I listened to an interview with someone from QER who are selling the plant. They are a private company that bought the plant after it was closed down. I gathered that the reason for the sale of that plant is that they are looking at newer technology which will be much more effecient and more enviromentally friendly.
With new technology I would expect the efficiency of extracting oil from shale ( particularly the type of oil shale here in Aus) to improve to a point where it is economically sound and enviromentally acceptable.
Agreed...Renewables are the future...the distant future, along with hover cars and travel
to mars etc....
A Shale oil industry will be developed, according to this guy (Dr. Harold J. Vinegar) and his
employer Royal Dutch Shell
Assuming that 1.2 GW is a constant 24/7/365 load (typically is constant for heavy industrial processes) it's about 5% of all the electricity presently used in Australia. So we'd need in the order of 40% more electricity to meet Australia's present oil consumption this way.The RAND report mentioned earlier by someone else estimates that Shell would require a 1.2 GW power plant (which is apparently large enough to meet the needs of a city of 500,000 in the US) to produce 100,000 barrels of shale oil per day.
Totally agreed.800 Billion Barrels of shale reserves doesn't seem so amazing when you have to burn a barrel of oil in the process of getting 1 barrel to market, and at top speed you can only get 5M barrels / day in 30years time, I think conventional oil reserves would have declined by a much greater rate than 5M barrels / day by then.
Longterm we just have to burn less oil, through a combination of more efficent vechicles, switching to different energy sources and increasing renewable sources.
Longterm I think we need to switch the bulk of road transport away from oil and save the Oil (both conventional and alternative oil supplies) for the aviation and petrochemical industries.
Agreed with what you're saying - renewables etc.Investing the money that has been/is proposed to be spent on oil shale on renewables instead would significantly increase the amount of renewable energy installed in Australia & help bring down the cost of renewables, as well as reducing greenhouse emissions. Where those renewables are small-scale building-integrated technologies, they would also reduce people's energy bills.
Agreed with what you're saying - renewables etc.
But if you want to kill the renewables industry then there's one sure fire way to do it. Small scale, decentralised generation. A nice sounding idea that guarantees a safe future for fossil fuels because it simply can not achieve economy of scale to power the major users. And if we're only going to run houses, which aren't the major energy users, then we're stuck with rising fossil fuel consumption.
If you look at countries (and one Australian state) that actually have a large portion of renewable energy then there is one consistent feature. They had large scale development to the point that, in general, it became not simply a source of power but a dominant political, social and economic force above all others.
Tasmania is a local example (about 45% of total energy is renewable). New Zealand, Canada and parts of South America are other examples.
If we want to go predominantly renewable in Australia then think geothermal for baseload, solar thermal and wind to supplement it and pumped storage to balance the system to make it all work. A very serious threat to coal.
The companies evaluation of commercially and enviromentally friendly technologies will continue unabated.
OBL?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?