Solar Powered Technology Enhances Oil Recovery 82
mdsolar writes with this story of a company that uses solar energy to recover crude oil. Royal Dutch Shell has teamed with a sovereign investment fund from Oman to invest $53 million in a company that manufactures solar power equipment designed for increasing oil production. Glasspoint Solar Inc. installs aluminum mirrors near oil fields that concentrate solar radiation on insulated tubes containing water. The steam generated from heating the water is injected into oil fields to recover heavy crude oil. This concept of enhanced oil recovery. involves high pressure injection of hot fluids to recover heavy crude oil. The use of renewable energy like solar power makes great economic sense, as the fuel cost associated with this enhanced oil recovery technology is practically zero. Shell hopes to employ this technology in its oil fields in Oman. The company hopes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with enhanced oil recovery operations. A large-scale successful implementation of this technology could be a game changer for major consumers like India and the U.S.. Both have substantial oil reserves, but are unable to tap them due to high costs involved in heavy oil recovery.
I wonder if they could add geothermal. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Could you use directly geothermally-generated steam as a steam-flood source all in th
Renewable (Score:5, Interesting)
Using renewable energy to tap unrenewable energy... Seems not really enduring. Why not just use directly the renewable energy in first place?
Re:Renewable (Score:5, Insightful)
Because oil isn't just used as energy, though it often is.
Petroleum is a miracle substance from the standpoint of its chemistry. It would be hard to imagine modern life without all the chemicals and materials petroleum makes possible.
Burning such a flexible, important substance as fuel is terribly foolish.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
this is the breakdown as far as i found:
In a barrel (42gal) of crude you need to divide it into separate parts. These parts are roughly:
Naphta and other condensates that are liquid. 2gal .5gal .5gal
Kerosene, where most is jet-fuel 4gal
Unleaded gasoline 20gal
Diesel fuel and heating/furnace oil 10gal
Engine oil
Gear oil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming that list is accurate it is less than 8.3%.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As of 2014, how do you power trucks, tractors, cargo ships, and planes on solar?
Re: (Score:2)
As of 2014, how do you power trucks, tractors, cargo ships, and planes on solar?
I dunno. Maybe but using the energy to synthesize some chemicals that can later on be burned in a motor, performing a closed cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
> As of 2014, how do you power trucks, tractors, cargo ships, and planes on solar?
Using bioengineered microbes to efficiently produce ethanol or diesel directly: http://www.jouleunlimited.com/... [jouleunlimited.com]
The microbes don't have to produce leaf or stem structures, and are genetically engineered to emit the fuel molecules directly, like yeast emits alcohol. Except yeast poison themselves when the alcohol content in fermentation gets too high. The Joule Unlimited process draws off the fuel continuously, so the mi
Re: (Score:2)
Several examples are yeast. One tested recently is to use modified yeast to produce a chemical originally found in oranges that can be used to make up half the volume of jet fuel.
Re:Renewable (Score:4, Interesting)
Using renewable energy to tap unrenewable energy... Seems not really enduring. Why not just use directly the renewable energy in first place?
This reduces the carbon footprint of the Oil itself. Most people tend to forget that over half the CO2 released by oil is done prior to it ever getting into your gas tank. If we could make it carbon neutral up to that point we'd be making significant progress. This is a good thing no matter how you look at it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be nice if they could use something like this to heat the water they use to extract oil from tar sands. Canada could turn even more of itself into a barren wasteland.
Fortunately, this technology isn't so useful in Canada because of its lower solar insolation.
Re: Renewable (Score:1)
Nope, it just in increases the amount of recoverable oil in otherwise dying oil fields, whether it's in Oman or elsewhere, as long as they can find the extra water to pump into fields below the desert. If you apply the tech in tar sands extraction where the result is toxic run off and aquifer injection, it may reduce the overall carbon footprint of the worst case practices. It will only make further environmental damage less costly to those who seek to perpetuate their economic position. It'll just brown w
if you're right, you're wrong (Score:2)
If you are correct that it increases the amount that can be recovered from an individual well site, then it follows that it therefore reduces the number of well sites required to meet world petroleum demand. After all, Texas oil fields supplied all the oil we need, we wouldn't have even be talking about drilling in Alaska or offshore.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know anyone against renewable energy. The problems I have with it are the government favoring it over a neutral policy and mandates forcing me to use it when it's not yet the least costly.
Re: (Score:2)
The problems I have with it are the government favoring it over a neutral policy and mandates forcing me to use it when it's not yet the least costly.
That raises the question: Least costly to whom?
If, for example, the carbon emissions from your cheap energy today are going to result in my air conditioning bill doubling next year, shouldn't you be held liable to compensate me for the costs you incurred?
Or on a larger scale, if Shell's tar-sands pollution over the next few years causes Miami to have to be evacuated [nytimes.com] in, say, 2025, should the cost of losing Miami and relocating all of its people not be somehow factored in to our calculations about what is r
Re: (Score:1)
Inflation: It would cost more today to retard economic growth and combat climate change than it will in 2025. That's if you agree that the warming hiatus will end, and that humans have an substantial effect on the Earth's climate.
Re: (Score:2)
Just as a quick jab, maybe I want poor Canadians to be paid by rich beachfront property owning Miamians? Just something to think about.
Hmm, a sort of environmental extortion racket? I like it, but somehow the Canadians don't strike me as quite the type to try it. Maybe I'm wrong about that. :)
Inflation: It would cost more today to retard economic growth and combat climate change than it will in 2025.
Are you sure? Because while the relevant technologies will have no doubt advanced by 2025, the scale of the problem will be that much larger by that time as well. It's not obvious (to me anyway) how one would predict where the "sweet spot" would be, or if there even is going to be one -- it's entirely possible that the problems will continuously g
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because one is transportable and the other isn't. Renewables are fantastic in situations where they can be used, and a pointless waste of money everywhere else.
The answer to your question isn't non-renewable+renewable vs only renewable, the answer is either of new-renewable + renewable vs only non-renewable.
Re: (Score:1)
Because renewable energy lacks a good carrier - such as gasoline, diesel, propane, sugar, fat, li-ion battery. Usually the way they get the energy required to pump oil out of the ground, is by burning some oil to run the equipment, and you talk about the concept of net energy gain. In case it takes 90% of a barrel of oil worth of pumping to squeeze out 100% of one barrel from the ground, your net energy gain is 10%, and it may not be worth it. However, with renewables, which are kinda like free in the deser
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just use directly the renewable energy in first place?
How are you going to power a car in New Jersey with sunshine in Oman?
Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a good example of greenwashing.
They're using solar steam generators to extract heavy crude oil and tar sands. This oil is difficult to extract and environmentally costly to refine.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]
"With present technology, the extraction and refining of heavy oils and oil sands generates as much as three times the total CO2 emissions compared to conventional oil."
This oil should probably be left in the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
The likes of "biofuels" and "renewable" electricity generation can involve vast amounts of money and plant. Yet be useless, even counterproductive, assuming a goal of reducing fossil fuel usage. So the idea that "greenwashing" cannot involve these is false.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"With present technology, the extraction and refining of heavy oils and oil sands generates as much as three times the total CO2 emissions compared to conventional oil."
This isn't present technology, this is future technology. In other words you are using old data to tarnish the image of an improved technology, let me call you a green liar maybe even a green troll.
Also it is a practical way of converting sunlight into chemical energy and a simple storage solution for solar energy. If we can get rid of the 7
Re: (Score:2)
"With present technology, the extraction and refining of heavy oils and oil sands generates as much as three times the total CO2 emissions compared to conventional oil."
This isn't present technology, this is future technology. In other words you are using old data to tarnish the image of an improved technology, let me call you a green liar maybe even a green troll.
This does help with reducing the CO2 impact of extraction but not of transport and refining... so still should leave this oil in the ground.
The rest of your post is gibberish so I can't respond.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I didn't want to write that much, obviously I can't just throw out some ill connected thoughts though.
Ultimately I agree with you that the project in question will mainly aid extraction. It will be used to protect the investment in existing infrastructure way before we could hope for transitioning towards a world where oil is only used for production of plastics and transportation is achieved through technologies with a lower impact.
While I see your point of not burning fossil fuels you should offer so
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for this clear and reasonable reply.
Clearly you don't just stop the flow of fossil fuel without having a replacement source.
The credible way out of the problem of burning fossil fuels is to replace as many energy sources as possible with renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc.). This will cost money and there need to be strong market signals to accelerate the change. Something like a carbon tax with the proceeds going to develop renewable resources would work (for some value of $tax and $sub
Re: (Score:2)
Can we stop focussing on renewables and replace carbon based fuels with nuclear as far, soon and much as possible?
Once we've stopped burning carbon we can focus on renewables which aren't much more than a distraction in the scheme of things.
Re: (Score:2)
One important problem is that nuclear has a lead time of a minimum of 10 years whereas renewables have a lead time of about one year. We can't burn fossil fuels at the current rate for another 10 years waiting for nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind and solar are not especially credible energy sources. Except for specific niche applications, possibly excluding this one. Geothermal and hydro require rather specific geography with hydro often being opposed by "greenies". With the most effective and most truely "renewable" option being even more strongly opposed by the "greenies".
Re: (Score:2)
Easy, just bind it up with the lime we make from calcium carbonate :) No I'm not being serious, I'm highlighting how the "obvious" methods are like leaving the fridge door open to try to cool a house and make things worse.
Looks like we're stuck with it unless some dirt cheap energy source that does not produce as much carbon dioxide as can be removed per unit of energy becomes viable at immense scales. The "just cool down air u
Re: (Score:2)
I know you are joking but one interesting point on CO2 removal is that the problem is CO2 in the upper atmosphere which provides a "blanket" over us all. Lowering CO2 in the lower atmosphere will be helpful longterm but will not actually solve the CO2 problem for a long time. Upper atmosphere CO2 stays there for hundreds of years. Which is why we need to working on solutions today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good example of greenwashing.
They're using solar steam generators to extract heavy crude oil and tar sands. This oil is difficult to extract and environmentally costly to refine.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]
"With present technology, the extraction and refining of heavy oils and oil sands generates as much as three times the total CO2 emissions compared to conventional oil."
This oil should probably be left in the ground.
It reduces the CO2 footprint of the oil by reducing how many fossil fuels are needed to extract it. You can't just "Stop using oil" that's not possible, even remotely. So get over.
Re: (Score:2)
It reduces the CO2 footprint of the oil by reducing how many fossil fuels are needed to extract it. You can't just "Stop using oil" that's not possible, even remotely. So get over.
Even reducing the CO2 cost of extraction, this oil is very dirty and produces more CO2.
Yes, it's hard to stop using oil but not impossible....
"So get over."... ?
Re: (Score:2)
This oil should probably be left in the ground.
Probably but to what end?
The only reason the oil is being extracted is due to a demand for it. If you cut off the demand then it no longer becomes profitable to extract it. It's not just 3x as costly for CO2 but it's 3x as costly extract and refine too.
It's not green washing, the alternative is not to simply ignore it but rather the alternative is to use non-renewables to perform this process. One way or the other it's coming out of the ground so why not do it with the best footprint possible?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is that it should stay in the ground.
It should be replaced by renewable energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you work on the demand side of things, and in the mean time I'm glad the company is taking the best possible approach to extracting the worst kind of energy.
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't sound anything like greenwashing; greenwashing is a PR move to appear more "eco-friendly". This is simpler to explain as a rational economic decision: There are forms of non-renewable energy that are not harvested only because the energy cost to extract them exceeds the energy value they provide. If the energy costs to extract them can be brought down to near-zero, it is to Shell's economic benefit to extract and sell the heavy crude.
Your argument th
Re: (Score:2)
Irony is duly noted (Score:3)
my sides, my sides.
Re: Irony is duly noted (Score:1)
There more hilarity to the story. This method of using steam was originally used in the late 1800s as a concept to irrigate sections of north Africa. It was ultimately abandoned in favor of better crop production and transportation options that oil offered.
Re: (Score:2)
Then low and behold, they get massive government subsidies in the form of tax breaks, and are bitchin and complainin about not being profitable enough. Pick one. Either if fine, but they can't have it both ways. On top of that, it looks to me like using solar is more cost effective, oth
Re: (Score:2)
But thats totally diffrent, because everything around me could be made without well reserve oil.(I make the distinction because there are many things called "oil", and many sources for it.)
Wait until global warming really kicks in (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You're jesting, but I'd say that this process (like most, if not all, thermodynamical processes) works because of high temperature *difference*, not just high temperatures.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope - it's the high temperatures that make the heavy oil flow more easily. But "Global Warming" of only a few degrees doesn't really do the trick.
don't they already vent hydrocarbon gasses? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Another smart /. poster who exactly knows what the guys we talk about do wrong.
So, lets summarize: the oil platforms using mirrors (not solar panels aka PV as you claim!) should use natural gas instead, because that would be cheaper. And you are surprised that the owner of the oil platform disagrees? Perhaps that particular oil field has no gas left? Or the gas is sold elsewhere? Hm, how does it come, what degree or secret insight do you have that you know more about "competitive oil prices" than one who ac
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason the natural gas can't be sold commercially is that it's unpredictable. Some days, they extract a lot of high-quality gas, and other days they extract none, while still other days they might get something that's more toxic if burned.
To use such gas for any commercial purpose would mean it needs to be reliable. Adding that reliability comes only at great expense.
also transportation from a temporary well is a pro (Score:2)
Also, transporting natural gas from, a temporary site like most oil wells is problematic. It doesn't make sense to run pipelines to a well that will only there for a year, and natural gas doesn't compress well. This is why people who need gas in a tank use propane.
Re: (Score:2)
This solar process replaces up to order 80% of the fossil fuel that must already be employed to generate steam 'round-the-clock. There is also a gas-fired steam generator present to make steam at night and/or days with insufficient insolation, though they discuss on their website the notion that steam injection rates may vary - more during the day and less at night in order to increase the use of the solar-generated steam (to get up to the 80% level). Otherwise, the typical peak-rate to average-rate problem
Re: (Score:2)
One astonishing example is almost all of the electricity generated in Nigeria comes from actually doing something with the heat from the flames on vented off gas. Until recently it was just burnt off - now it's generating quite a few MW.
Already being done (Score:1)
Chevron has been doing this, with mixed results, in Coalinga, California for years.
http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/coalinga#.VBXxHUrvrcQ
EROEI (Score:2)