From the American Chemical Society , something that will cause synapse arcing in Bill McKibben’s and Joe Romm’s brains. I guess Obama can build that Keystone XL pipeline after all. Bzzt!
Using the energy in oil shale without releasing carbon dioxide in a greenhouse world
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28, 2011 — New technology that combines production of electricity with capture of carbon dioxide could make billions of barrels of oil shale — now regarded as off-limits because of the huge amounts of carbon dioxide released in its production — available as an energy source. That’s the topic of the latest episode in the American Chemical Society’s (ACS) award-winning “Global Challenges/Chemistry Solutions” podcast series.
Adam Brandt, Ph.D., notes in the podcast that almost 3 trillion barrels of oil are trapped in the world’s deposits of oil-shale, a dark-colored rock laden with petroleum-like material. Brandt and colleague Hiren Mulchandani are at Stanford University.
The United States has by far the world’s largest deposits in the Green River Formation, which covers parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The domestic oil shale resource could provide 1.2 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels. But concerns over the large amounts of greenhouse gases — mainly carbon dioxide — released by current methods prevent many companies from trying to extract oil from shale.
Brandt’s answer is EPICC — a self-fueled method that generates electricity, as well as the heat needed to produce that electricity from shale. The report, which appears in ACS’ journal Energy & Fuels, describes how EPICC could generate large amounts of electricity without releasing into the atmosphere carbon dioxide from burning the shale. That carbon would be captured and stored underground as part of the production process.
The new podcast is available without charge at iTunes and from www.acs.org/globalchallenges.
Global Challenges/Chemistry Solutions is a series of podcasts describing some of the 21st Century’s most daunting problems, and how cutting-edge research in chemistry matters in the quest for solutions. Global Challenges is the centerpiece in an alliance on sustainability between ACS and the Royal Society of Chemistry. Global Challenges is a sweeping panorama of global challenges that includes dilemmas such as providing a hungry, thirsty world with ample supplies of safe food and clean water; developing alternatives to petroleum to fuel society; preserving the environment and assuring a sustainable future for our children and improving human health. During the 2011 global celebration of the International Year of Chemistry (IYC), Global Challenges/Chemistry Solutions also is focusing on the main themes of IYC — health, environment, energy and materials.
The American Chemical Society is a nonprofit organization chartered by the U.S. Congress. With more than 163,000 members, ACS is the world’s largest scientific society and a global leader in providing access to chemistry-related research through its multiple databases, peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. Its main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Using real scientific research to develop real solutions. Is there anything better? 🙂
CO2 sequestering scares me more than anything. Talk about a bomb underground just waiting to bubble up one day into low lying areas asphyxiating unsuspecting animals and people.
I just can’t read these articles without shouting in my head “CO2 IS NOT BAD, JUST RELEASE IT ALREADY SO THE DARN MIDWEST CORN CROPS GROW THAT MUCH FASTER!”
Ugggh.
Implicit in this methodology is we are driving electric cars (since that is a primary use for oil as a fuel) & the process generates electricity. Also implicit in this is that there are no other environmental / economic / technical concerns beyond CO2. Last I checked, that ins’t the case, but maybe those battles are worth fighting if the technical concerns are addressed by this methodology.
No such thing as an environmental free lunch!
Jeff L says:
September 28, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Implicit in this methodology is we are driving electric cars (since that is a primary use for oil as a fuel) & the process generates electricity. Also implicit in this is that there are no other environmental / economic / technical concerns beyond CO2. Last I checked, that ins’t the case, but maybe those battles are worth fighting if the technical concerns are addressed by this methodology.
=============================================================
Jeff, I thought the plan was to get everyone to driving electric cars, powered by plants burning coal……then trick everyone into letting them over regulate and tax the coal industry…so the government makes more money
Yeah, yeah, yeah, there’s lots of shale. Yeah, yeah, yeah, this technology doesn’t release CO2.
But what’s the freaking technology?
Did I miss it? Is it still a secret? Do we need to buy the report to find out? Will it be offered at night in-between infomercials for a convection oven and the secrets to buying real estate with no money down?
Let’s just get the oil (energy) we need and forget the stupid CSS thing.
That’s what I always thought….Better living through chemistry.
Prediction: assuming this is real, deep greens will forego acknowledging that clean energy isn’t going to satisfy them after all and skip straight to a precautionary principle stranglehold.
There may be some confusion here. At least there was confusion in my mind until I looked it up just now!
“Shale oil”, oil found in shale deposits, is not off limits. It’s being produced enthusiastically, and so far the EPA hasn’t done anything serious to stop it.
The article is talking about “oil shale”, which is not crude oil at all but a petroleum precursor called kerogen. This requires many extra stages of heating and chemical processing before it can enter the usual refinery.
Mods., There must be some error here. There doesnt seem to be any information about the process itself in the links.
REPLY: It is a press release on Eurekalert.com I’ll see what I can find – Anthony
polistra says:
September 28, 2011 at 6:16 pm
… you are spot on – this article is about kerogen based oil shale, which is not being produced , only experimented with. The lead map in the article is mis-leading because it goes through the Bakken Oil Shale play, which is being produced, which has nothing at all to do with this new technology, whatever it may be.
Assuming that Bill McKibben brain has synapses is a very big assumption.
Totally ignores the herd of elephants in the room!! 1KG of shale has less energy in it than 1KG of camel dung. Shale is simply not viable as an energy source as it takes nearly as much energy to extract as you get from it. Then add the energy costs of saving humanity from CO2 by pushing it back into the earth and the scheme will only work with massive cash injections from the poor old tax payer. Just as well I’m not a US tax payer!! 😉
Presumably some energy must be siphoned off to “capture” the CO2, making the process less fuel-efficient than it would be if the CO2 were simply released. If so, why capture the CO2? Let the plant world share in the abundance of fossil fuels, too.
HMMMMmmm that triggers memories of Mauices Strong (father of Global warming) AZL (Arizona Land and Cattle Resources), Baca ranch, and another swindle. http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/al-groe-and-maurice-strong-con-artists-extordinaire/
“…In 1984, Arizona Land sold the Baca Ranch (several dozen square miles extending from Crestone to the Sand Dunes) to TOSCO — The Oil Shale Company — but two years later, he (Strong) formed American Water Development, Inc., which bought the Baca ranch from TOSCO…..”
http://cozine.com/1995-june/additional-evidence-that-crestone-is-the-vortex/
“…In last summer’s (2005) massive energy bill, Sen. Salazar got sensible language added to give states and communities a say in oil shale development. As much as 1.8 trillion barrels of oil shale may lie beneath Colorado, Wyoming and Utah, but past attempts to develop the resource mostly produced shattered dreams…..” http://www.thewesterner.blogspot.com/archives/2005_12_11_thewesterner_archive.html
Tangles upon tangles… I wonder if Strong and friends still have “interests” in that area.
W. Stanley Jevons, a 19th C economist, predicted a calamitous coal shortage that would shut down British industry. He had no idea of oil, gas, nuclear or e even hydroelectrics. Now its peak oil (identified in The 1950s) and we have since developed the oil sands, oil shales and in recent decades, discovered enormous resources of methane hydrates on the seafloor. Peak fossil fuels would appear to have been pushed off a few hundred years. Nothing will turn off the clanging alarm. if we don’t use the hydrates they will end up in the atmosphere anyway with no benefit to us. I’m not sure about the chemistry but it seems likely erosion and oxidation of oil sands and oil shales will ultimately put them in the atmosphere too even if we don’t use them .
OK, recycling the CO2 used in retrieving the shale oil is fine, as long as it does not waste energy, time, or money. If releasing the CO2 is cheaper, then it’s a go, as we need all the CO2 we can get to keep our food supply up while we cool.
Here’s a link to a good description. They are using a solid oxide fuel cell buried in the shale, and recycling some of the hydrocarbons produced back into the SOFC.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/04/epicc-20110420.html
Major technical hurdles exist. This is far, far from reality.
I’m not sure this is true. I know that one of the big Independent Oil Companies (IOCs) had a successful project (I think in South America) as did a start-up in Utah. I think the start-up in Utah was using extremely shallow deposits – around 15 feet deep. Their method wasn’t very graceful, and it did seem expensive, but I think it was supposed to be profitable as long as oil stayed above $70 or something.
Thomas S says:
September 28, 2011 at 5:13 pm
CO2 sequestering scares me more than anything.
I’ve heard that mixing CO2 with sunlight and trees will sequester it for a hundred years or more. Except for REDD this process would have been free.
ferd berple says:
September 28, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Thomas S says:
September 28, 2011 at 5:13 pm
CO2 sequestering scares me more than anything.
I’ve heard that mixing CO2 with sunlight and trees will sequester it for a hundred years or more. Except for REDD this process would have been free.
_________________________________________________________________
NAH, the better process is CO2 + Sunlight + Hemp = Bio-diesel made at home
There is a guy down the street who has made bio-diesel for years.
Carbon sequestration is political advantageous today so this technological discovery is all to the good, but in a couple of years when everyone realized that modern warm period has crested and that the real the danger is cooling, it will follow as a corollary that we should release the CO2, not bury it.
There’s a lot more energy contained here than in the whole Middle East! It’s a crime it hasn’t been developed.
I worked for years on this stuff. It’s equal to tar sands, and now we’re importing about 200,000 barrels of this stuff daily from Canada. Works fine in a modern refinery!
This technology isn’t economically viable unless there is a high price on carbon. The warmists will love it.