Natural gas from shale

[Albatross]

http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15661889

That would be amazing,especially for Europeans.The Russian bear can go hibernate for a few decades,Gazprom is already in trouble:http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/09/scrap-windfarms-says-gazprom
Please,buy more gas from us!!It`s in your interest to be dependent on Russia.no,really!!

UPDATE:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article7087585.ece

American technology to produce shale gas is unleashing a scramble for drilling rights in Poland
;estimates that there could be as much as 48 trillion cubic feet (1,36 trillion cubic metres) of unconventional gas.
If confirmed, Wood Mackenzie’s estimate would boost the European Union’s proven reserves of natural gas, which stand at 101 trillion cubic feet, by 47 per cent and be enough to make Poland, which imports 72 per cent of its gas, self-sufficient for the foreseeable future.

More good news for everybody,except Russia

 

[Moonbeam]

There will be no need for this. You just need a swimming pool and some sun.

 

[bfdd]

Is that just natural gas caught in shale or quantity of shale?

 

[theamericans075]

Or we could built nuclear plants, seeing as we have enough uranium/thorium for like 10,000 years

 

[Moonbeam]

Or we could built nuclear plants, seeing as we have enough uranium/thorium for like 10,000 years

We'll have swimming pools and sun for a billion years and no toxic radiation and no need fro transmission lines.

 

[ebaycj]

Or we could built nuclear plants, seeing as we have enough uranium/thorium for like 10,000 years

Long (LONG) term, the best would likely be Solar / Wind / Wave + Huge arrays of supercapacitors, to even out the load.

Nuclear is a good option though, in the short term.

 

[Matthiasa]

Long term fusion would be better then all of those...
Unless your trying set up a solar arrays in space and space elevators
and all that fun stuff.

 

[bfdd]

Long (LONG) term, the best would likely be Solar / Wind / Wave + Huge arrays of supercapacitors, to even out the load.

Nuclear is a good option though, in the short term.

agreed

Long term fusion would be better then all of those...
Unless your trying set up a solar arrays in space and space elevators
and all that fun stuff.

one could only dream i wish we had a badass space elevator

 

[Hacp]

Drill baby DRILL!!!

 

[theamericans075]

We could also harvest all the methane clathrates in the arctic that global warming has conveniently freed up.

 

[Bitek]

The US has vast NG reserves and plans are well under way to develop them. See Exxon's big buy of XTO.

NG is going to rock, way cleaner than coal, and way cheaper and safer than nukes. G/l trying to fight legal battles for the next 20 years just trying to site all the reactors we would need to have serious nuke dependence. Nukes are going to have to have huge subsidies from the gov't to be competitive. Nukes are overrated IMO

 

[Matthiasa]

Cheaper if only because of environmental groups trying to halt any new nuke plant from being built and safer not so much. Nuke plants are incredibly safe.

Oh yeah and you generally don't have as large of ng plants if you were going to use it for electrical generation.

 

[Moonbeam]

The US has vast NG reserves and plans are well under way to develop them. See Exxon's big buy of XTO.

NG is going to rock, way cleaner than coal, and way cheaper and safer than nukes. G/l trying to fight legal battles for the next 20 years just trying to site all the reactors we would need to have serious nuke dependence. Nukes are going to have to have huge subsidies from the gov't to be competitive. Nukes are overrated IMO

Don't try to mess with these fuckers and their Nuke Religion. The idiots think fusion is days away.

The bets are that fusion will never be a commercial reality and obiously since all you need is a glass of water and some sun and no power lines.

No terrorist will be able to knock out the grid.

 

[Matthiasa]

Yes because electrolysis is such a good use of energy, and solar cells are cheap and don't take up a ton of space.

Oh and no one thinks fusion is days away, at best most place them decades off. Though we do already have fusion reactors with net energy gain...

 

[nonlnear]

Yes because electrolysis is such a good use of energy, and solar cells are cheap and don't take up a ton of space.

Solar cells are also excellent at base load generation and don't in any way exacerbate the need for expensive peaking plants.

 

[herm0016]

shale methane is harder to produce than the "tight gas".
I work mostly in tight gas formations that have lower permeability but have a large porosity like consolidated sand stones. these formations are considered resivoir rocks because the gas is not produced there, it simply accumulates there because of conditions being met, like having a cap rock, or some seal over top of the reservoir such as a shale or other impermiable rock, and a rock formation that is shaped by a fault, dome, anticline or other shape that acts to collect the gas.

shale is generally thought of as a source rock, meaning that is where the gas is being produced, we have gotten good enough with directional drilling and fracturing that it has become economical to produce out of these shale zones which have very little porosity and nearly zero permeability. we can drill a hole horizontally through the formation and then fracture along that entire length.

 

[silverpig]

Yes because electrolysis is such a good use of energy, and solar cells are cheap and don't take up a ton of space.

Oh and no one thinks fusion is days away, at best most place them decades off. Though we do already have fusion reactors with net energy gain...

Once you have the fusion plant, you don't need to worry about electrolysis anymore...

 

[Zebo]

There will be no need for this. You just need a swimming pool and some sun.

I debunked this crap throughly in OT excerpt:

There is nothing "optimistic" about this except his research bank account from Federal Funding. He's selling to idiots (congress) after all. A few volts in yields a few volts out..basic thermodynamics. It doesn't matter what the energy carrier is, hydrogen, batteries, etc he will never power a car off a roof of solar cells like he's describing.

you know better Moonie

Nevermind the fact a hydrogen fuel cell has not been developed as of yet that could operate in RL 24/7 and storing gases like H2.

 

[Hacp]

shale methane is harder to produce than the "tight gas".
I work mostly in tight gas formations that have lower permeability but have a large porosity like consolidated sand stones. these formations are considered resivoir rocks because the gas is not produced there, it simply accumulates there because of conditions being met, like having a cap rock, or some seal over top of the reservoir such as a shale or other impermiable rock, and a rock formation that is shaped by a fault, dome, anticline or other shape that acts to collect the gas.

shale is generally thought of as a source rock, meaning that is where the gas is being produced, we have gotten good enough with directional drilling and fracturing that it has become economical to produce out of these shale zones which have very little porosity and nearly zero permeability. we can drill a hole horizontally through the formation and then fracture along that entire length.

Excellent. Keep up the good work.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Once you have the fusion plant, you don't need to worry about electrolysis anymore...

We shouldn't have to worry about it with fission plants either...

 

[Moonbeam]

I debunked this crap throughly in OT excerpt:

There is nothing "optimistic" about this except his research bank account from Federal Funding. He's selling to idiots (congress) after all. A few volts in yields a few volts out..basic thermodynamics. It doesn't matter what the energy carrier is, hydrogen, batteries, etc he will never power a car off a roof of solar cells like he's describing.

you know better Moonie

Nevermind the fact a hydrogen fuel cell has not been developed as of yet that could operate in RL 24/7 and storing gases like H2.

Well excuse me, I had no idea you debunked this. What OT. I saw this in MIT review months ago and Harvey linked it back then. Can you show me where your debunk is? All I see here is a bunch of crap.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well excuse me, I had no idea you debunked this. What OT. I saw this in MIT review months ago and Harvey linked it back then. Can you show me where your debunk is? All I see here is a bunch of crap.

If he doesn't agree with the method, he ought to understand the problem at least.

I tried to find where the MIT guy was in error about having to build 1.5 nuke plants a day forever to get to 2080 demand (starting now) and I can't.

Centralized power plants simply won't scale for this, and there's the cost of delivery through power lines etc. The best solution does indeed seem to make power on site whenever possible.

 

[Moonbeam]

If he doesn't agree with the method, he ought to understand the problem at least.

I tried to find where the MIT guy was in error about having to build 1.5 nuke plants a day forever to get to 2080 demand (starting now) and I can't.

Centralized power plants simply won't scale for this, and there's the cost of delivery through power lines etc. The best solution does indeed seem to make power on site whenever possible.

Hehe, I don't know what the hell he's on about but I just got this as a measure of his verisimilitude:

"Q: Can I charge a plug-in car with solar or wind power?
A: Yes. The cleaner the power the cleaner the car. Using solar PV or wind power at your home or business makes even more sense with a plug-in car. The investment pays off faster, and the car becomes truly zero-emission. EVs typically can travel 3-4 miles (or more) per kWh. If you drive 12,000 miles per year, you will need 3,000-4,000 kWh. Depending on where you live, you will need a 1.5kW-3kW PV system to generate that much power using about 150-300 sq. ft. of space on your roof. In fact, many EV drivers recharge their cars from rooftop solar panels today, generating virtually no pollution for their local driving."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hehe, I don't know what the hell he's on about but I just got this as a measure of his verisimilitude:

"Q: Can I charge a plug-in car with solar or wind power?
A: Yes. The cleaner the power the cleaner the car. Using solar PV or wind power at your home or business makes even more sense with a plug-in car. The investment pays off faster, and the car becomes truly zero-emission. EVs typically can travel 3-4 miles (or more) per kWh. If you drive 12,000 miles per year, you will need 3,000-4,000 kWh. Depending on where you live, you will need a 1.5kW-3kW PV system to generate that much power using about 150-300 sq. ft. of space on your roof. In fact, many EV drivers recharge their cars from rooftop solar panels today, generating virtually no pollution for their local driving."

Part of the TCO of solar is having to get electricity when the sun isn't shining. What Nocera's (the MIT guy) idea is to use a catalyst to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen, then recombine them to generate power. If the excess is sufficient it could even generate hydrogen and oxygen to power a car. The example of a fuel cell is used, but there are other ways to extract energy from the reaction. Fuel cells tend to be more efficient.

This avoids the problem of batteries, which have problems of their own and are exceedingly expensive and not at all environmentally friendly.

 

[Oceandevi]

Part of the TCO of solar is having to get electricity when the sun isn't shining. What Nocera's (the MIT guy) idea is to use a catalyst to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen, then recombine them to generate power. If the excess is sufficient it could even generate hydrogen and oxygen to power a car. The example of a fuel cell is used, but there are other ways to extract energy from the reaction. Fuel cells tend to be more efficient.

This avoids the problem of batteries, which have problems of their own and are exceedingly expensive and not at all environmentally friendly.

If everyone had 2 cars per person we could charge one when you go to work and just switch back and forth. And flying cars/