Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Big Lies on Big Oil
Townhall.com ^ | March 9, 2012 | David Limbaugh

Posted on 03/09/2012 4:15:57 AM PST by Kaslin

How much truth is there in President Obama's latest favorite mantra that we consume a disproportionate share of the world's oil, especially considering how little of the world's reserves we have?

Recently, Obama said: "But here's the thing about oil. We have about 2, maybe 3, percent of the world's proven oil reserves. We use 25 percent of the world's oil. So think about it. Even if we doubled the amount of oil that we produce, we'd still be short by a factor of five."

First, let's look at the raw numbers and then examine Obama's misleading framing of the issue. This is important because he uses these statistics to justify his reckless expenditure of federal funds to pursue alternative "green" energy sources, such as the disgraceful and scandalous Solyndra project.

The United States has some 20 billion barrels of oil in reserves. By "reserves" we're talking "proven" reserves, meaning those that are certain to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. That is, we have 20 billion barrels of oil that is recoverable at current prices and under lands currently available for development.

That definition excludes many oil reserves that Obama has declared off-limits. According to the Institute for Energy Research, we have more than 1.4 trillion barrels of oil that is technically recoverable in the United States with existing technology. The largest deposits are located offshore, in portions of Alaska and in shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain states. So the United States has more recoverable oil than the rest of the non-North American world combined. The Heritage Foundation says this is enough to fuel every passenger car in the nation for 430 years. Therefore, "it is merely semantics -- not a scientific assessment of what America has the capacity to produce -- that allows critics to claim repeatedly that America is running out of energy."

When you add in recoverable resources from Canada and Mexico, the total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels. "To put this in context, Saudi Arabia has about 260 billion barrels of oil in proved reserves."

Another critical point: Even using the restrictive definition of reserves Obama is using, the 20-billion barrel figure is misleading, because Obama is clearly implying it is a fixed, or static, number -- as though with every barrel of oil we consume, we are pushing the oil energy doomsday clock another second toward the apocalypse. But in fact, that number is not static, but constantly in flux.

The institute tells us that in 1980, for example, the United States had 30 billion barrels of oil in reserves. But over the next 30 years -- through 2010 -- we produced 77 billion barrels. Now, how can it be that we produced almost 2 1/2 times more oil than we had available, consumed a great deal and still ended up with plenty left over?

Obama's own Energy Information Administration is predicting a steady increase in reserves on land currently available for exploration. Heritage's David Kreutzer says, "It projects that improvements in technology and the economics of extraction, production, and sales actually will lead to a 23.7 percent increase in U.S. reserves -- even after extracting billions of barrels of oil in the interim."

There's more. Obama's formulation conflates two different measures. True, we might have only between 2 and 3 percent of the world's recoverable reserves -- as narrowly and misleadingly defined -- but we don't consume 25 percent of the world's oil reserves, which is what Obama wants you to believe. We consume closer to 22 percent -- but it's not of reserves; it's of the world's oil production. But, as Heritage notes, "we consume about 22 percent of the world's production of everything," not just oil. Consumption is determined by income, not by available resources -- and for those who are always knocking the United States, we also produce about 22 percent of the world's total output of all goods and services.

Admittedly, we don't produce 22 percent of the world's total oil output; it's more like 6 to 10 percent. But experts say this number will increase even if we don't access the other abundant sources that Obama has declared off-limits.

For overblown and in some cases completely fabricated environmental concerns, Obama is preventing us from greatly expanding the pie of our oil reserves, from offshore drilling to Alaska to Keystone to fracking, and at the same time throwing government money down the ratholes of projects that aren't sound and economically prudent enough to warrant substantial private investment dollars.

He's told us he wants to bankrupt the coal industry, get us out of gas-driven cars and into electrical clunkers and onto bike paths, and increase the price of gas.

Why don't we believe him?


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: energy; oil

1 posted on 03/09/2012 4:15:58 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
If he survives the vetting process, which must be a condition... one of the issues in the next race should certainly be energy prices...

Obama gas prices

2 posted on 03/09/2012 4:20:19 AM PST by Bon mots ("When seconds count, the police are just minutes away...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Why don’t we figure out what % of the USA the
Tyrant Emperor and his Marxist Czars and Czarinos
represent, ... and what % of US gasoline consumption
is actually consumed by THEM?


3 posted on 03/09/2012 4:23:58 AM PST by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
the world's proven oil reserves.

Key key word is proven (actually should be called "proved")

Oil is not allowed in the proved reserves column until it is drilled and flow tested.

By keeping large areas not available from exploration and production, he artificially lowers the amount of the actual oil in the ground to be counted as proved reserves.

4 posted on 03/09/2012 4:38:15 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Bookmark bump.


5 posted on 03/09/2012 4:46:16 AM PST by SunTzuWu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Another lefty claim is that ‘big oil’ has many wells that are proven, but capped, sitting on them while the price goes ever upward. Thoughts?


6 posted on 03/09/2012 4:49:06 AM PST by pingman (Durn tootin'; I like Glock shootin'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Obama is also parroting Marxist rhetoric about the US using disproportionately too much of the “world’s” resources that must be shared with everyone. What the US does with its use of oil is to quite literally feed the world, serve as the world center for new innovation and invention and give ALL its people the highest standard of living in the world. Obama wants to end all this.


7 posted on 03/09/2012 4:52:43 AM PST by The Great RJ ("The problem with socialism is that pretty soon you run out of other people's money" M. Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pingman

And then there’s the claim that the companies aren’t maintaining their refineries, letting them go, and not building new ones, to keep the price of refined goods up.

Sounds like balderdash to me.


8 posted on 03/09/2012 4:54:13 AM PST by pingman (Durn tootin'; I like Glock shootin'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

His lips move - you know what that means!


9 posted on 03/09/2012 5:14:24 AM PST by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pingman

Oil companies don’t make money leaving oil in the ground.

If it is owned by a major oil company, it is either flowing or so new the pipeline is a year away to complete then it flows.

Some old stripper wells producing maybe 2 barrels a day get capped when the price falls. When the price climbs and the drill rigs get busy, you cannot justify tying up a rig to rework an oil well for a few barrels a day versus a new well producing hundreds to maybe even thousands a day at first.

The only wells left capped are the uneconomic ones.


10 posted on 03/09/2012 5:14:40 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pingman
And then there’s the claim that the companies aren’t maintaining their refineries, letting them go, and not building new ones, to keep the price of refined goods up.

We have spent billions upgrading and expanding our existing refineries. Combined with our falling demand, our refinery capacity is now noticeably larger than our refined product consumption.

Note: our total petroleum usuage is larger than the above graph, but that includes about 2.2 MMBPD of Natural Gas Liquids like propane, ethane, etc.

Click the graphs for the data links.

11 posted on 03/09/2012 5:19:41 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
He's told us he wants to bankrupt the coal industry, get us out of gas-driven cars and into electrical clunkers

Either way, coal can be converted to liquid fuels and gas, further enhancing the supply. Clean burning coal-gas can also be used to generate the electricity desperately needed for the liberals' sacred electric cars.

The coal gasification plants should be built at or near the mining sites. Underground pipelines should be run to power-plants near the filthy communist cities where it is used, rather than the inefficient power robbing high tension transmission lines currently in use.

12 posted on 03/09/2012 5:29:00 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Underground pipelines should be run to power-plants near the filthy communist cities where it is used, rather than the inefficient power robbing high tension transmission lines currently in use.

So what do you claim is the efficiency of a gas pipeline versus the efficiency of a high voltage transmission line?

13 posted on 03/09/2012 5:36:50 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Well, doesn’t all of the gas get to where it’s going?


14 posted on 03/09/2012 5:50:30 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Well, doesn’t all of the gas get to where it’s going?

No. Compressor stations are built along the pipeline consuming a portion of the Gas as fuel to keep pushing it along and overcoming the constant pressure drop created by friction.

Gas and Liquid pipelines have losses due to friction. They require some other form energy to overcome those losses. You either burn the fuel in the pipeline, or consume some other source of energy to drive pumps or compressors.

15 posted on 03/09/2012 5:59:03 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Here is an example of a Natural Gas Pipeline. I worked on a major expansion of this one years ago.

The total pipeline is miles 1,407 miles long.

It has 18 Compressor Stations.

The total installed Horsepower of those stations equals 517,000.

It can carry up to 2,400 million cubic feet per day. This is a very large pipeline.

Some of these stations are compressors as large as 42,000 Hp aircraft derivative jet engines. Other are smaller 10~15,000 Hp Electric driven variable speed drives.

16 posted on 03/09/2012 6:11:32 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: thackney
Well, in the current model, conventional coal burning requires stack scrubbers and extra consumption in order to overcome the transmission losses. Conventional coal plants are under serious attack by Obama and other watermelons.

Nuclear plants are Satan, and for some reason so is hydro, but their "fuel" efficiency is not a factor.

The gasification concept is practically pollution-free other than the dust and exhaust from ground equipment. Plus pipelines generate no electromagnetic induction issues.

Gas and Liquid pipelines have losses due to friction. They require some other form energy to overcome those losses. You either burn the fuel in the pipeline, or consume some other source of energy to drive pumps or compressors.

We also have tons of NG, pipelines already crisscross the US. NG is almost free, and could be used to power the booster pumps...I'm not sure if the two are miscible, but they might be, allowing NG to flow from its source and coal gas to be added where it is produced.

Being sold as a cleaner/safer technology, think of the jobs it would create.

Pull out all the stops!

17 posted on 03/09/2012 6:19:26 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: thackney
It is great having at least two people (you and Smoking Joe)in the oil business here.

With the glut of Natural gas out there shouldn't the price of propane go down?

18 posted on 03/09/2012 6:24:10 AM PST by painter (Rebuild The America We love!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pingman
Another lefty claim is that ‘big oil’ has many wells that are proven, but capped, sitting on them while the price goes ever upward. Thoughts?

There are plenty of wells that are capped, typically because the yield has dropped off as the oil was depleted. It's not economical to continue trying to pump out the oil at the reduced flow rate. The equipment could be moved to someplace else more productive. Or even if it was left in place, the equipment has to be maintained.

If the price gets high enough, then it can become economical to restart production on marginal oil wells. There's no conspiracy -- it's just supply and demand. What is the point of spending $110 to pump out a barrel of oil that you can only sell for $100?

If the price goes to $120, you can make a profit. However, are you sure that the price will stay at or above $120? Or, will it drop again before you can get production started? Think about it, and you'll understand why it's a risky bet.

A lot of the solar boondoggles (like Solyendra) are because Chinese imports reduced the market price per kilowatt to a point where US manufactures can't compete. And, one of the reasons that solar power is still a niche market is because the cost of producing power is STILL more than just buying it from your local electric utility.

If either of these factors were reversed, there would be a huge market for solar panels, and manufacturers would be cranking up the production lines. But, if you were to apply the same leftist analogy: solar panel manufacturers are holding them off the market to inflate the prices.

One last thing to consider: so many people think that "big oil" is making obscene amounts of money. But, they only consider revenues, and not the costs. What is the actual profit margin? You can get the information here:

Basic Materials Sector

That has an entry for a lot of different industries involved in resource recovery. The net profit margin for "Major Integrated Oil and Gas" (like Exxon, BP, etc.) is 7.9%. Compare that to this:

Industry Sectors

You can click on the header entry for Net Profit Margin and sort by profit margin. Look around and you'll see that a 7.9% profit margin is not outrageous. You can even check individual companies. Check out:

Major Integrated Oil & Gas

Compare those to Apple, Inc. -- which has a 28.20% profit margin.

Just for grins, check the "Semiconductor - Specialized" industry under the "Technology" sector. You'll find most of the well-known names in the solar panel business in that category. Their profit margins will explain why it's a horrible investment at this time.

19 posted on 03/09/2012 6:30:58 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
The gasification concept is practically pollution-free other than the dust and exhaust from ground equipment.

I don't know where you came up with that concept, but it is far from true. The same impurities in the coal still exist when you gasify the coal. They same sulfurs and the like still have to be recovered.

Coal Gasification is also VERY energy intensive. You have huge losses of energy, orders of magnitude greater than the transmission line losses you were trying to save.

Plus pipelines generate no electromagnetic induction issues.

No, they produce exhaust along the pipeline at every compressor station. They have EPA monitoring and special NOX limitations. They are far from pollution free. And electromagnetic radiation from transmission lines are only a problem for people wearing tinfoil hats.

We also have tons of NG

Yes, over a 1/3 of it is used to generate electric power in this country.

NG is almost free

Dream on. Although it is far cheaper than petroleum, it is far more expensive than the coal you are trying to replace.

Being sold as a cleaner/safer technology, think of the jobs it would create.

Only to the ignorant. First you waste energy and release the same pollutants in the coal gasification plant.

Then you added more engines at the compressor station spreading them along the pipeline as they approach the population center.

Now you have the power plant burning gas, at the population center (EPA attainment area with greater requirements for pollution controls). Also, since the most efficient thermal power plants (combined cycle gas turbine, using waste heat recover) are around 60% efficient, you have to move far more energy in the pipeline than you would have in the electric transmission line.

20 posted on 03/09/2012 6:38:06 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: pingman
One more chart that I think you'll find interesting:

Industry Summary

This takes all of the industries in each of the sectors, and combines them into one chart. You can sort by Net Profit Margin, and see where your favorite industry fits into the list.

Don't forget to consider the market capitalization. You'll find some industries near the top, but with very small market capitalization, relative to other industries.

21 posted on 03/09/2012 6:40:30 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: painter
It is great having at least two people (you and Smoking Joe)in the oil business here.

There are several others. I am just a serial poster, mostly of cut-and-paste variety.

With the glut of Natural gas out there shouldn't the price of propane go down?

Propane isn't methane. And the relative high price of propane and other natural gas liquids is part of what is driving the "glut" of natural gas.

Many companies are going after the natural gas liquids from "wet" shale gas fields. They develop the field and build gas processing plants to recover the natural gas liquids. A lot of that is happening in Southern Texas. The Natural Gas is almost a byproduct at this point. But the low price will drive more consumption and eventually bring that price back up.

22 posted on 03/09/2012 6:42:22 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: thackney
It's nice to see someone speaking from knowledge, rather than speculation. I don't know if this is your specialty, but I'll ask anyway:

We have coal. Lots of it. But, some of it is dirtier than others. In East Texas, I think we have the dirtier coal (high sulfur content), which requires more scrubbing or results in more pollution.

But, don't we have a huge amount of low-sulfur coal in the upper Midwest and Western states? The same stuff that Clinton put off-limits by executive order?

Is there really a huge difference in the emissions? If so, wouldn't it be more efficient to build the power plants right on the edge of the coal deposits and feed the power into the grid?

23 posted on 03/09/2012 6:47:34 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
conventional coal burning requires stack scrubbers and extra consumption in order to overcome the transmission losses

I've tried several different ways to figure out what you meant by this and cannot figure it out.

How do you imagine stack scrubbers are related to transmission losses? It doesn't matter if the power plant is immediately adjacent to the electrical load or a thousand miles away.

The requirement for pollution controls doesn't change, until you get very close to major cities, then it becomes more stringent, meaning expensive and causes even more losses.

24 posted on 03/09/2012 6:49:26 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: thackney
I've tried several different ways to figure out what you meant by this and cannot figure it out.

I think he meant that:

  1. Conventional coal burning requires stack scrubbers (more expensive).
  2. Extra consumption is required to overcome transmission losses (being farther away).

They are two independent clauses, rather than clause being dependent on the other.

But as you pointed out, coal gasification still requires scrubbers, and the process is more energy intensive than the power line losses.

25 posted on 03/09/2012 6:59:24 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
I don't know if this is your specialty

I am an electrical engineer, specialized in power systems, working for the oil/gas industry from a family of coal miners. I took some nuclear engineering course in college but in the early 80's this looked like a dead end. Most of my "hobby" time is consumed reading energy news.

We have coal. Lots of it. But, some of it is dirtier than others. In East Texas, I think we have the dirtier coal (high sulfur content), which requires more scrubbing or results in more pollution.

The lignite we have in Texas could be (and is) described as "dirt that burns". It has a lower energy per volume rate compared to most coals.

But, don't we have a huge amount of low-sulfur coal in the upper Midwest and Western states?

There is a lot of that left in the Midwest that is not all that low in sulfur. In the huge powder river basin is a large lower sulfur coal (sub-bituminous) that has a lower BTU content than the Midwest bituminous coal.

The same stuff that Clinton put off-limits by executive order? I believe you are referring to the Executive Order designating 1.7 million acres of land in southwest Utah as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

Is there really a huge difference in the emissions?

In terms of sulfur emissions, yes. This was the acid-rain concerns back at the 70's or so that shut down a lot of Ohio and other Midwest coal mines.

If so, wouldn't it be more efficient to build the power plants right on the edge of the coal deposits and feed the power into the grid?

Some of that is done, like with the Texas lignite mines where the volume of "coal" to be moved is so great compared to the energy produced.

But you can move a lot of coal by train fairly cost effectively. The advantage of coal fuel is you don't have to build pressure containing vessels or the like to store a 30 day supply. The market is pretty good at coming to the least cost solution without government interference.

26 posted on 03/09/2012 7:03:12 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
Conventional coal burning requires stack scrubbers (more expensive).

More expensive than what option?

Extra consumption is required to overcome transmission losses (being farther away).

But compared to a Gas pipeline, where you have to be moving 167 MW of gas for 100 MW of delivered electric power, the slightly lower losses of a gas pipeline are greatly offset by the massive amount of more energy that has to be moved the same distance before reaching the power plant.

By converting to electric power farther out, less energy has to be transported the greater distance.

27 posted on 03/09/2012 7:08:12 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: thackney
More expensive than what option?

Not scrubbing it. :-) But, as you pointed out -- coal gasification still requires scrubbing.

28 posted on 03/09/2012 7:12:52 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
I don't know if this is your specialty

I should have added I worked in the electric power industry for a few years before I got too bored to stay with them. They develop people extremely knowledgeable in narrow areas of specialty related to their work, typically.

The idea of spending 20 years doing something like transmission line relaying, terrified me.

As a consulting engineer, our goal is to work ourselves out of a job to go on to the next one. We are hired by oil/gas companies to build facilities. We engineer/design a facility, specify and procure equipment and assist with construction. Most of the construction assistance is answer questions either due to our own mistakes, changes from vendor supplied equipment, making design changes due to forced changes during construction, etc.

It means every job has a defined ending. It usually only last longer than that because it is going badly. Doing very good work shortens the length of time the job will keep you employed. For some, this is terrifying; they need more perceived security. Over time I figured out that you make your own security by being good at what you do. Sometimes I didn't do so well and my time got cut short. Sometimes my personal attitude was the biggest problem. Sometimes I moved from companies that would have kept me for the next project but I was eager to lead another big job started by someone else.

By having many different clients and working different types of facilities, we learn a lot of different ways of accomplishing design requirements. Good consulting engineering companies get a lot of repeat business. Bad ones get a lot of different clients before closing.

I've enjoyed the travel it has given me. I don't like the time it takes away from the family. I really enjoy getting to visit new places. It makes for some interesting personal conflicts. It sure is not for everyone.

29 posted on 03/09/2012 7:26:26 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
Not scrubbing it. :-) But, as you pointed out -- coal gasification still requires scrubbing.

okay, I see that. The gasification process doesn't use an actual scrubber, but it still spends energy removing the contaminates and has other significant losses in the gasification process.

30 posted on 03/09/2012 7:29:15 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
We have so much oil,it's seeping up from the ocean floor through relief cracks.Years of vital resources untapped and unused. Absolutely galling.

2012 can't come soon enough.
31 posted on 03/09/2012 8:16:13 AM PST by gimme1ibertee (If you want to kick a tiger in the ass, you better have a plan for dealing with his teeth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney
How do you imagine stack scrubbers are related to transmission losses? It doesn't matter if the power plant is immediately adjacent to the electrical load or a thousand miles away.

Well, it's not exactly a "transmission loss" but it's a loss nevertheless. Just like a gasoline powered vehicle loses about 80% of its fuel's energy as heat...the coal burning process is only so efficient.

The coal doesn't burn clean, or scrubbers wouldn't be necessary, the gasification process is much hotter, much more like a catalytic converter temperature, and those same scrubbers wouldn't likely be in the mix.

I really doubt those units are free, use no energy, require no maintenance and are not detrimental to overall efficiency.

Of course if the coal was near to a given city or there were an established rail connection for supplying coal, the pipeline and transmission issue would also not apply.

What I can tell you from looking at my power bills, CMP couldn't "efficiency" their way out of a wet paper bag, not to mention the third world crappy reliability.

Needless to say, I think power should be produced near where it is consumed, and let those who overuse it suffer the environmental consequences of their demands. I hate the uber-grid.

32 posted on 03/10/2012 6:29:42 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Well, it's not exactly a "transmission loss" but it's a loss nevertheless.

Agreed. There are multiple points of loss in both systems.

Just like a gasoline powered vehicle loses about 80% of its fuel's energy as heat...

Most of the losses are in the heat engine, but not 80%.

the coal burning process is only so efficient.

Yes, but the gasified coal is still going to go through heat engines and still be limited by the Carnot Cycle.

The coal doesn't burn clean, or scrubbers wouldn't be necessary,

The scrubbers are not there because of the burning process being "unclean". The scrubbers are added because of the impurities in the coal besides pure carbon and hydrogen. Those impurities still exist in a gassified process and they are "cleaned" with their own process.

the gasification process is much hotter, much more like a catalytic converter temperature, and those same scrubbers wouldn't likely be in the mix.

The difference is the "scrubbing" is done before the final combustion instead of after wards. This still consumes energy and adds to the system inefficiency.

I really doubt those units are free, use no energy, require no maintenance and are not detrimental to overall efficiency.

No, in both systems, the units to clean up consume energy, cost money to build and maintain. The both contribute to the losses of each system.

Of course if the coal was near to a given city or there were an established rail connection for supplying coal, the pipeline and transmission issue would also not apply.

Every major city has rail. No major city wants a power plant, gas or coal, contributing to their overall pollution. Nearly every major city has some compromise already of nearby or adjecent power plants to balance cost.

I think power should be produced near where it is consumed

You think that because you don't understand the losses in moving fuel versus moving electrons.

I hate the uber-grid.

You are only suggesting replacing a electrical grid with a less efficient and more polluting pipeline grid.

33 posted on 03/10/2012 9:37:43 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: thackney

I don’t know, your flowchart looks pretty darn efficient to me. All those additional fuel/chemical byproducts and hydrogen, three sources of electric power.

The only thing missing was the use of leftover heat for heating the plant facilities, or as a marketable heat source for an adjacent industry.

CO2 sequestration is just so much crap. Those regulations need to be eliminated as AGW is an obvious hoax.


34 posted on 03/10/2012 7:16:25 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

3 power generators and 7 major power consumers.

If the efficiencies you want to imply resulted in more power for less fuel (cost) it would be done today without tax payer subsidies. It is not because it is not; it cost mores.

While I agree about CO2 sequestration for global warming is junk, it has great use in enhanced oil recovery. In West Texas and some others places it is used to recover more oil from older fields.


35 posted on 03/10/2012 7:37:12 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

bump


36 posted on 03/12/2012 8:02:25 AM PDT by painter (Rebuild The America We love!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson