(Page 2 of 2)
The wrapped wire is heated to 150 °C until a resin in the tape hardens the insulation, but the insulation remains flexible for shipping and installation. It's then heated on site to 500 °C, turning it into a solid, durable ceramic coating.
As part of a recent demonstration project under a DOE program, Composite Technology successfully tested its insulated cables for more than 5,000 hours at temperatures ranging from 760 to 850 °C. At these high temperatures, "it has stable electrical properties," says Tupper. "It's not affected by the environment, and it doesn't degrade."
Tupper adds that the cables can also operate under a wide range of voltages and temperatures, and can be manufactured in virtually any length. "There are similar types of materials out there, but we've developed a way to make something that would perform the same way but at a fraction of the cost," Tupper says. "That makes the economics work for the oil and gas industry." He adds that Shell has already evaluated the technology and is showing strong interest.
But even with this breakthrough, some question the wisdom of using electricity to heat up rock just to squeeze more oil out of the planet. Shell claims that its process produces three to seven units of energy for every one unit that's needed for the process.
"Assuming this cable worked, what does that give you?" asks Clement Bowman, a former top scientist at Imperial Oil, who helped lead the development of Canada's oil sands. "Electricity is a high-end electrical product, and using it to recover low-end energy products like kerogen or bitumen will always carry an economic penalty."
High prices still haven't prompted companies to use advanced extraction methods.
Don't expect the scarcity of fossil fuels to drive us toward alternative energy sources anytime soon: we're getting smarter about finding and extracting oil.
Oil companies are, to the chagrin of environmentalists, mining a rich source of bitumen in Canada.
Vulvox's breakthrough collectors will be able to generate electricity with 60% efficiency or greater.
The dual solar thermal-photovoltaic system will wrest approximately twice as much power from an area as regular solar thermal or photovoltaic energy systems. Our technology can be used to retrofit existing parabolic troughs and solar power towers to increase their efficiency. Besides applications at utility scale solar power plants that are contributing electricity to the California power grid, they will also have an important advantage in the upcoming industry of rooftop solar power. Apartment buildings, skyscrapers and industrial buildings all have flat roofs that can accommodate our solar power systems and the greater efficiency of dual thermal-photovoltaic energy generation systems will make it cost competitive with other generation systems.
The Vulvox collectors will not depend upon complicated advances in quantum or solid state physics. Our novel combination photovoltaic-solar thermal collectors will achieve the unprecedented efficiencies predicted here by means of relatively simple modifications to solar energy equipment; modifications that can be developed at a moderate cost.
The Vulvox solar system will generate higher power levels than competing parabolic troughs and solar power towers, while retaining all of the storage capabilities of solar thermal power.
Besides the inherent efficiency advantages of this collection system, we are sure we can add other modifications that will increase energy collection and electricity generation beyond those efficiencies. Modifications to increase the heat flow rate of the thermal collectors are an example.
Every time a photovoltaic panel system is upgraded and increases in power we can substitute it for a lower power panels used in previous "builds." and the higher power panels can be used in upgraded combination PV-solar thermal collectors with higher efficiency. Also, every time solar thermal systems are upgraded they can be combined with the latest practical photovoltaic collectors to keep the next generation combination systems cost competitive and to keep their efficiency higher than all other collection systems.
Contact us for more information.
HTTP://VULVOX.TRIPOD.COM
PROTN7@ATT.NET
More lying spam by vulvox's so-called president Neil Farbstein.
A company with no employees, but a president - go figure.
Neil spams tech websites with fraudulent claims of research. Nanothechnology, genetics, cold fusion - he's claimed it all.
Therefore, the solution IS !!!
The solution IS ...
Use nuclear wastes !?!!?!?
Store nuclear waste canisters in the shale, and wrap the canisters with this new ceramic !!!
WAY COOL !!!
Nuclear waste canisters can become TWICE as hot as the temps normally used to bake the oil out of the shale and they must maintain the heat for at least two years ...
... USE THE NUCLEAR WASTE TO TOTALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
The quake risk in the areas with shale is about 3 Max, no big deal !
Re: Therefore, the solution IS !!!
Some would proclaim the above obvious solution to the HEATING THE SHALE problem as politically infessible, incorrect, and NOT DOABLE -- THAT IS A LOAD OF BUNK !!!!!!
The way this is implemented is the following:
1. The President declares an economic/energy state of emergancy.
2. Identify the largest contiguous area of shale anex it and create a millitary base over it.
3. Create better cannisters for the nuclear waste.
A. The largest diameter hole a standard oil rig can drill is 36 inches, so we do have plenty of room to build good a quality container for the waste.
B. Start with a steel pipe that the waste will go into, wrap the inside of the pipe with the new cerramic to guard against corrosion holes in the pipe that may occur over time.
Put an insulating layor over the outside of the steel pipe to avoid electrolysis with the lead layor.
Then wrap a large layor of lead over it to stop radiation from getting to the shale or oil.
Now wrap another thick layor of the cerramic over the lead.
Now you have very good protection against leakage of waste or radiation getting out.
4. Drill medium, 1/2 depth of the oil collection depth, holes at maximum width all over the shale field.
5. Drill many smaller angled holes at 3/4 depth crisscrossing the entire area and the wide holes.
6. Drill full depth holes that the oil will collect in and can be pumped from.
7. Now lower the new nuclear waste containers into the wide holes, there should be a bit of space around the outside of the containers.
8. Create an pouder aluminum alloy that will melt around the normal melting point of aluminum 1200 °F which is also how hot todays nuclear waste barrels are often reported to get.
9. Blow the aluminum pouder into the smaller 3/4 depth holes and around the waste containers, and continue to add as needed as the years pass !!!
This should do a VERY good job of transfering the heat of the nuclear wastes all over the shale site. The aluminum will melt and move into the shale and makes the best heat sinks so that should do the job very well.
DO NOT USE THIS OIL FOR DOMESTIC USE TRANSPORTATION !!!
Have the millitary use it, and use it for electricity production at oil burning electrical production plants and actively monitor any smoke emitions that may occure for radioactivity and adjust the production methods as needed to avoid exposure to radiation in the fuel.
There should not be any radiation in the fuel but it should be monitored anyway as production errors in the field may result in some rediation in the fuel and if any fuel has high amounts of radiation it should me disposed of in a deep well which is radiative naturally.
Shift all the oil that would normally be used by the military and for electricity production to transportation.
HOW DO YOU LIKE MY DESIGN ???
My name is Robert Mehlschau.
Re: Therefore, the solution IS !!!
Has anyone tried this with Coal ?
Could this be used to get a CLEAN transportation fuel from coal ???
Temps for extraction would be much lower of-course.
Re: Therefore, the solution IS !!!
shale kerogen will change viscosity at the temperatures of the heater and will flow. it will also crack to some extent like in a visbreaker. coal will not become a liquid from heating. it can undergo pyrolysis and gasify and liquify a portion of the carbon but leaves most of the energy in solid form. there is work underway for in situ gasification using air.
er
Re: Therefore, the solution IS !!!
Actually Robert the waste should be allowed to contact the shale. Ionizing radiation will fracture some of the long chain molecules of the kerogen. Radiolysis of in situ water will also add hydrogen ions to the formation aiding in the upgrading process. You would get a greater oil return by using the same technique to upgrade Alberta's bitumen but they seem to thing it is politically infessibl and NOT DOABle etc.
the most likely source for the electricity for the shale project would have to be from a nuclear power plant or a coal fired power plant. either way the net effect is to convert electricity into gasoline and diesel. if you can produce 6mmbtu's of oil from 1 mmbtu's of electricity and if that electricity costs 10 cents per kwh that works out to $35 per barrel for electricity costs alone. Drilling and cable placement and surface treatment facilities would probably add another $15 to $25 per barrel. Maybe less if you get good thermal cracking insitu of the kerogen. this oil would probably be pretty light and make great fcc feed. transport from the region would add another $5 per bbl. the real problem going forward is permission from the government to produce both environmentally and legally since much of the shale deposits are on federal land. the other impediment and why gov't funds are needed is that price fluctuations make investment too risky. in the 1980's Exxon spent over a billion $ on shale and got nothing out of it. only peak oil will make it different in this century.
ER
Re: electricity converted to oil
ANOTHER problem is that there is extensive ground water resources under the most promising shale area and schemes to tap the region include proprietor methods to freeze a layer very deep just above the ground water reservoir. This solution is potentially very expensive in terms of the energy budget for oil production.
I think creating a frozen layer for YEARS is too expensive and some other method should be devised like more active pumping of the oil collection holes, or actively pump the ground water out into other more publically useful reservoirs.
Perhaps plastic tarps could be placed in multiple sections over the entire area and apply suction to the collection wells to cause the oil to move through the shale cracks into the collection holes. I was thinking this might work well with my overall methodology because the higher heat would cause increased oil production so the added energy required would be a minor per gallon addition. One way or the other we need some better solution to protect the ground water in the area and increase the yield and shorten the initial 2 year time span before production begins.
All these problems taken together for the CONVENTIONAL METHODOLOGY indicate an extremely risky project concerning profitability and a positive energy budget.
BUT THE REWARDS FOR SUCCESS ARE TRULY MASSIVE, this is why I am very much against the conventional wrought and insist that we should move forward with the nuclear waste methodology immediately.
There is no legitimate reason not to use what I have proposed to solve this problem. The energy budget from my solution would be much more positive and the field would produce for many generations without additional large monetary inputs it is simply lazy and stupid not to at least make a good try at my plan !!!
I also think that my suggestion of using powdered aluminum could make the overall project quite a bit more economic but the idea only works because of the higher temps given off by the nuclear heat source powdered aluminum may not add any benefit for conventional electrical heaters. The idea may also not work even with my proposed heat source as the melting temps of aluminum may be a bit too high, perhaps a lower melting temp alloy could be devised, or perhaps a more complex canister is needed one which also incorporates the conventional electrical heaters so that the total amount of heat applied can be adjusted within a fairly wide range and initially taken much higher then the melting temps of aluminum just to get the aluminum well set throughout the shale and then lower the temps to ensure that the aluminum does not move beyond the shale area over time.
If the idea of applying suction to the area is actually feasible then in the beginning when the aluminum is first set into the shale, if possible, air pressure should be applied to push the aluminum down into the shale area.
The CARBON cost of this NEW OIL ...
If this new oil was produced using nuclear waste to heat the shale the energy to create the heat to produce that oil would have ZERO carbon cost since all the nuclear waste needed already exists and is currently stored locally at nuclear power plants all over the USA.
And the oil would be produced for MANY generations without any carbon costs.
BUT once this methodology is working of-course it would be exploited to its greatest extent and this would produce HUGE amounts exhausts of carbon when cars burn the oil, OR MAYBE NOT !!!
IF oil was produced this way we could supply the entire nation for more then enough years with full economic growth and scientific advancement to switch completely over to space based electricity production AND ALL ELECTRICAL CARS THAT COULD EASILY DO 200 MPH to 500 MPH between cities and WE WOULD STILL HAVE PLENTY OF OIL LEFT OVER.
No more need for cramped polluting airplanes for domestic travel !!!
So the way we should use all the excess oil is remove carbon from the atmosphere and turn it into transportation fuel. This has been proposed by Sandia National Laboratories and I they even said it is not all that difficult to do. Electrical power plants that burn oil are vastly more efficient then cars and those pollutants can be brought to zero much much more cheaply then cars pollution.
I would propose the BEST way to do this is build the plants to produce the carbon fuel near the many active volcanoes in northern chili and in Hawaii and use the carbon constantly emitted by the planets most massive polluters thus the job of collecting the carbon will be very cheap and carbon removal can be a great as is required and a immediate as needed.
THIS WOULD RESULT IN THE MOST MASSIVE AND IMMEDIATE CARBON REDUCTION FROM THE ATMOSPHERE ! IT WOULD ENTAIL A RETURN TO NATURAL EARTH !! AND IT IS FAR BEYOND WHAT ANYONE ELSE HAS PROPOSED OR CONCEPTUALIZED !!!
By comparison to any of the other proposals it is the simplest solution and highly doable, it is also the ONLY solution that simultaneously solves the oil shortage and Global Warming consequences.
The cost estimate is far too high ...
Storage onsite of nuclear wastes should NOT be allowed ESPECIALLY IN CALIFORNIA -- if the BIG one hits ARMAGEDDON !!!
AND nuclear power plant owners should be charged for the storage of the wastes.
Amortize the money flows, costs and the income, out over 100 years because that is at least how long the fields would produce if nuclear wastes was use to heat them, also production would be much higher because the amount of heat produced by nuclear wastes is twice what electrical heaters can create then the cost per gallon would much much lower then currently estimated.
Why not use wind and solar to power the electric cable elements? It would not have to be 24 hours and the electricity would not have to be tightly regulated. Maybe this could be a pilot program to where better methods of energy storage could be pioneered.
By the way, has anyone heard of this scheme?
www.oceanethanol.com
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
jmaximus9
86 Comments
More Socialism
Maybe somebody can explain to me why one richest companies on the planet needs corporate welfare to do basic R&D? Just another example of Reverse Robin Hood Socialism; steal from the middle class to give to super wealthy.
Reply
RD
212 Comments
Re: More Socialism
And what corporate welfare is that? Too many times ecoliberals repeat talking points and haven't the foggiest ides what they're talking about.
Don't think of it as oil, think of it as representing $40 TRILLION in assets (@$50/barrel). The liberal Congress has been doling out taxpayer money faster than Obama can beg China and Saudi Arabia to loan it. It's time our screwed up government allowed America to tap this resource and work its way out of debt.
Reply
jefferee
22 Comments
Re: More Socialism
And I can't think of a better way to do that than a strong energy policy based on fossel fuels.(Drip, drip. Here that? Sorry, it's not oil...it's sarcasm.)
Reply
kstauff
130 Comments
Re: More Socialism
Precisely, jefferee. Those carbon based fuels are still cheaper, more portable and higher in energy density than alternatives. While I support alternative energy, the idea that wind or solar can contribute more than around 20% is laughable. And in the case of solar, it will be considerably more expensive and require the use of many toxic substances to create the vast numbers of PV arrays. Solar thermal is not viable in many parts of the world. That leaves nuclear, and if you support that, we can talk.
Of course, cost isn't really a problem when all you do is print more money - until foreign lenders stop backing it and you crash the economy completely. Really jefferee, if you can't articulate a viable and economically feasible alternative, you're just blowing smoke.
Reply
ronwagn
33 Comments
Re: More Socialism
You contend that solar and wind can only provide 20% of our needed power. That doesn't make sense to me. What limiting factors are there? Some claim that all our electricity needs could be met with a 100 mile square of desert. Also you are not considering biomass. It can provide all of our heating needs. Efficiency of insulation passive solar building designs, more efficient engines can make a big dent in the needs. Then there is hydropower, tidal power etc. I am a fan of shale oil, methane,natural gas, propane, and all other forms of energy we can dream up. As long as we can dilute the demand for crude oil, we will have cheap oil, until it runs out. That is a good thing, as is " clean coal" if it is really clean, and isn't coal from cutting off mountain tops etc. We are surrounded by energy. Crude oil is only one option, and our competitors own it.
Reply
kstauff
130 Comments
Re: More Socialism
The 20% figure is a fairly common estimate of what we can expect to provide using today's wind and solar technology. Certainly improvements in technology might make a difference, but solar has been around a long time, and although it's improved, it hasn't changed that radically in the last 30 years. I believe the top efficiency is still around 15% for PV silicon, although special fabrications (ie, more expensive ones) might be much higher. PV and solar-thermal are workable in the southern US, but not so much in the northern part of the country. Presently, solar-thermal is approaching competitiveness with fossil fuels in price; PV is still a long way out and requires various toxic materials to manufacture. Until recently, silicon has been in short supply and this has also influenced the cost of PV.
As "green" sources go, wind is probably the most easily deployed, but as with solar, not all locations are adequate for this kind of energy. It's very cost competitive with fossil fuels, and if you can deal with the bird issues, then it makes a great deal of sense. That said, it's a widely distributed energy source that requires a lot of infrastructure. I live in Texas, where we produce more wind energy than any other state. Oddly enough, it was GWB who pushed through legislation as governor and started the effort in the 1990's. I believe windis now around 8-9% of total electrical production, and Texas will likely exceed 20%. But not all states are as big and flat as Texas, characteristics that contribute to such a high percentage. Texas also has about half the population density of California.
If your goal is to get off foreign crude, the easiest thing to do is drill in Alaska. There's more oil up there - lots more oil. There is also more oil in the Gulf of Mexico. If instead your goal is to get off of crude altogether, then the fastest way is probably through increased use of natural gas and nuclear along with plug-in series hybrids. This is certainly doable, but there is still strong, and in my opinion, irrational resistance to nuclear.
The irony of all of this is that when demand for oil is lowered by switching to other energy sources, its price falls to levels that make it very attractive as an energy source. And this occurs while the price for the alternative sources increases as their demand increases. So I suggest that until gas reaches $4-5/gallon as the new low end price, you won't see a significant shift in how we produce energy.
Reply
RD
212 Comments
Re: More Socialism
One possibility is that by using taxpayer money the developed technology belongs to the DOE and can be farmed out to other companies. This way one company won't have a patent to prevent others from using it.
Reply