US Task Force finds unconventional fuels from tar sands to shale oil will make little contribution to future energy needs.
< Previous Page |
<< To Start
Open Access Article Originally Published: October 04, 2007
“So long as oil is used as a source of energy, when the energy cost of recovering a barrel of oil becomes greater than the energy content of the oil, production will cease no matter what the monetary price may be.”
"Simple economics dictates that resources with a negative net energy balance will not be produced. Hubbert suggests that resources with an EROI less than 50 percent will not be pursued, regardless of economic return," says the Task Force.
It indicates that Energy Return on Investment (EROI) on U.S. Oil Shale, for example, is between 6.9 (in-situ, non-electric heat) to 2.5 (in-situ, electric heat) compared to conventional petroleum, estimated at 10.5. Corn ethanol is a miserable 0.34 (Wang).
The implication is clear: the more energy it takes to produce energy, the less likely that source will be produced; and to date, producing shale oil economically -- not to mention environmentally -- has simply not happened despite decades of trying and millions of public and private research dollars.
Not surprisingly, the Task Force identified conservation and energy efficiency as perhaps the most important tools in addressing the growing gap between energy demand and energy produced.
As previously noted, no single fuel source is likely to be adequate to substantially reduce America’s dependence on imported oil. Even with the production of almost 7 million barrels per day of incremental supply by 2035, unconventional fuels development would only slightly reduce the volume of net imports, after offsetting expected demand growth. As such, reducing demand must also be part of the nation’s overall strategy for lowering imports and achieving greater self sufficiency.
The graph from the report illustrates the importance of energy efficiency and conservation compared to the contribution made by nonconventional fuels..
"The most likely place for efficiency gains relative to liquid fuels," continues the report, "is in the individual transportation sector. It is assumed that expected efficiency gains in aircraft, trucks, and industrial uses have already been accounted for in the AEO base case. To achieve this objective the public will need to become part of the solution."
The report lists the following requirements to achieve this:
- Increasing miles per gallon (MPG), through improved engine and vehicle efficiency and consumer choices
- Reducing miles driven, by changing habits, proximity to work, etc and
- Reducing the number of people driving which is a function of total population, carpooling, use of mass transit, etc.
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 12576 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
A valid email address and confirmation is required before your comment can be posted. Comments not confirmed within
24 hours are automatically deleted.
8 comments so far...
05-Oct-2007
58603
| |
'...consuming in 2006 some 312 million barrels of oil a day...' I think the author got the units wrong. World wide oil consumption is about 85 Mbpd...don't see how the US airforce could use 3 times that in 06. I think he meant gallons.
Posted by: Entropy Brain
|
|
05-Oct-2007
58604
| |
...more likely that was a yearly total for the US military.
Posted by: Entropy Brain
|
|
05-Oct-2007
58605
| |
Here's is the direct quote from the report:
The Department of Defense (DOD) needs secure and reliable sources of energy. In 2006, the DOD purchased 312 MBbl/d to meet its defense requirements.4 Of the total, 219 MBbl/d were jet fuels, 35 MBbl/d were ground fuels, 46 MBbl/d were marine fuels, and 12 MBbl/d were heating oils (Figure I-5).
However, the accompanying pie chart (Fig I-5) seems to suggest that the numbers should be 1000's, not millions, which would make more sense if we are talking daily consumption. It appears the question is what does the report mean by 'M', the classic Latin 1000 or as is standard oil industry parlence, 1 million?
Posted by: Bill Moore
|
|
05-Oct-2007
58608
| |
Changing life habits...no way. Changing technology habits, for sure. Oil today is a deliberate choice not a necessity. Heating oil for the house can be replaced by a heat pump. Gasoline for your car can be replaced by electricity and biofuels in a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid. Airplanes can be replaced by high-speed trains on the short distances that like for cars also happen to be the biggest part of the trips. The remainder can be made on biofuels and yes, also liquid hydrogen. It is also, more then time to finally build the Reagan envisioned NASP to replace airplanes on intercontinental flights. It may not appear as obvious but a NASP on a route from London to Sidney would use less fuel then a 777 on the same route. This is because the NASP is not using any fuel once the big burst to orbit is over. It has then used 90+ % of its fuel but the rest of the trip is free. In more, the NASP would use very little kerosene but rather Ethylene and Hydrogen that can burn faster and be derived from bioethanol for the Ethylene and obtained through electrolysis for the Hydrogen. Thus, an oil free NASP in fact.
For the rest, the ethanol can replace the fuel in ships and a to build Ethanochemical industry can replace the petrochemical industry.
There is also a need for more electrified train transport through more lines and the completion of big projects like the Bering straight tunnel.
Big cities can also have a huge benefit from using hot-dry-rock geothermal technology for heat and electricity.
And last but not least, we have to enter the thermonuclear age faster then what is now envisioned, even if ITER is a good start. The intended timing must enter into military mode, not the present snail pace. We need it in years not decades.
Posted by: Patrick Leonard
|
|
05-Oct-2007
58620
| |
On the issue of how much fuel the Pentagon purchased in 2006, I asked Congressman Roscoe Bartlett's press secretary to get a clarification. She checked with her laiason at the Task Force and got a reply that the U.S. Air Force purchased 2.6 Billion GALLONS of jetfuel in 2006.
A rough estimate (2.6b gal/42/365) equates to 169,602 barrels (approx 7.1 million gallons) of jet fuel daily, just for the USAF flight ops.
So, it would seem that the 'M' refers to thousands, not millions of barrels.
Posted by: Bill Moore
|
|
06-Oct-2007
58634
| |
Sorry guys this stuff is all non-sense. Its 50 years too late. There is no way in the world that alternatives or conservation can save the world from "peak oil chaos". This chaos is going to unfold when billions of people begin starving and freezing because they can't afford to live in a world with $100 oil. When demand edges slightly above supply the market will cause the price of oil to sky rocket. Worldwide recession will ensue.
Posted by: Gale Whitaker
|
|
10-Oct-2007
58679
| |
MBbl means megabarrel, or 1000 barrels. Matt Simmons often uses the term MMBbl, Megamegabarrel, or one million barrels.
Posted by: Steve Erlsten
|
|
15-Oct-2007
58751
| |
The photo caption states: "The American military utilized some 312 million barrels of petroleum fuel a day in 2006".
Hardly. World production never exceeded 86 MBD.
Posted by: Heinz Guderian
|
|
