A scary strategic problem - no oil

[a_majoor]

New news on Polywell fusion devices:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/04/inertial-electrostatic-bussard-fusion.html

Inertial Electrostatic (Bussard) Fusion Gets $2 million in Funding



Department of Defense (DoD) released its EXPENDITURE PLAN for the projects to be funded with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ($7.4 billion) and $2 million of it is going to fund Inertial Electrostatic Fusion. [H/T IECfusiontech.blogspot.com

    There is a pdf of the plan. On pdf page 166 there is a small item under the heading Domestic Energy Supply/Distribution. It is as follows:

    Plasma Fusion (Polywell) Demonstrate fusion plasma confinement system for shore and shipboard applications; Joint OSD/USN project. 2.0 [million]

Introduction to Bussard Fusion

This site has covered IEC (Bussard) Fusion many times. Bottom line is that it is one of the most promising technologies for achieving cheap, clean and non-controversial energy within ten years. Success would alter energy production, the world economy, propulsion of ships and other vehicles and enable inexpensive access to space.

    IEC fusion uses magnets to contain an electron cloud in the center. It is a variation on the electron gun and vacuum tube in television technology. Then they inject the fuel (deuterium or lithium, boron) as positive ions. The positive ions get attracted to the high negative charge at a speed sufficient for fusion. Speed and electron volt charge can be converted over to temperature. The electrons hitting the TV screen can be converted from electron volts to 200 million degrees.

    The old problem was that if you had a physical grid in the center then you could not get higher than 98% efficiency because ions would collide with the grid. The problem with grids is that the very best you can do is 2% electron losses (the 98% limit). With those kinds of losses net power is impossible. Losses have to get below 1 part in 100,000 or less to get net power. (99.999% efficiency)

    Bussard system uses magnets on the outside to contain the electrons and have the electrons go around and around 100,000 times before being lost outside the magnetic field.

    The fuel either comes in as ions from an ion gun or it comes in without a charge and some of it is ionized by collisions with the madly spinning electrons. The fuel is affected by the same forces as the electrons but a little differently because it is going much slower. About 64 times slower in the case of Deuterium fuel (a hydrogen with one neutron). Now these positively charged Deuterium ions are attracted to the virtual electrode (the electron cloud) in the center of the machine. So they come rushing in. If they come rushing in fast enough and hit each other just about dead on they join together and make a He3 nucleus (two protons and a neutron) and give off a high energy neutron.

    Ions that miss will go rushing through the center and then head for one of the grids. When the voltage field they traveled through equals the energy they had at the center of the machine the ions have given up their energy to the grids (which repel the ions), they then go heading back to the center of the machine where they have another chance at hitting another ion at high enough speed and close enough to cause a fusion.

 

[KingKikapu]

I hope they can build their full scale polywell for 2 million.

 

[a_majoor]

Methane Hydrates, another potential source of hydrocarbon energy:

 

[a_majoor]

Roll out the barrel.......

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/04/electro-thermal-dynamic-stripping-oil.html

Electro Thermal Dynamic Stripping Oil Recovery Could Unlock 400 Billion More Barrels of Oil in Alberta at $26/Barrel


A field test was performed from Sept 2006 to August 2007 and the recovery and performance exceeded expectations. The recovery factor was over 75%, energy used per barrel was 23% less than anticipated and peak production rates were better than expected.

ET Energy's Electro Thermal technology could be used to pump out 600 billion barrels of Alberta's oil sands bitumen. That's more than triple the Alberta government's best guess at what's currently recoverable from the oil sands, and enough to satisfy total global demand for twenty years.

Saudi Arabia has 260 billion barrels of oil reserves, so the additional 421 billion barrels would be close to double the oil in Saudi Arabia.

    In coming weeks, the company will hit the road to raise $150-million to commercialize its technology.

    That technology isn't much to look at — just a few well heads and large tanks sitting on a windswept field south of Fort McMurray. A series of electrodes dangle in each well. When they are turned on, they pass a current through the earth — like electricity through a stove element — and heat it up. The result: The bitumen, which is normally locked in sand as hard as rock, begins to flow — like molasses in a microwave. No huge mines needed, no greenhouse gas-spewing steam projects required.

    In a place accustomed to prying bitumen from the earth using monstrous shovels and vast quantities of steam, this pilot project is a bold attempt to reshape the environmental and financial costs of the oil sands.

    In other parts of Alberta, companies are using radically different techniques: Petrobank Energy and Resources Ltd. is studying how to free bitumen using underground combustion, while Laricina Energy Ltd. is mixing steam with solvents, which dramatically cuts the amount of natural gas used to extract bitumen from deeper oil sands. At universities and provincial research bodies, scientists are studying how microbes could be used in bitumen upgrading, and examining the effectiveness of new techniques inside specially modified medical CT scanners.

    E-T has stumbled in its attempts to apply the technology to the oil sands (it has worked dozens of times in environmental remediation applications). In its second major test, it managed to produce oil from only one of four wells. Its problems ranged from electrical cables that were accidentally severed by surface equipment, to the design of its electrodes. In total, E-T has produced less than 3,000 barrels of oil.

    Yet the potential prize for success is huge. E-T's technology, for example, could help open up carbonate oil, a huge hydrocarbon resource that is so tricky to produce that virtually no one has tried. And Petrobank believes its process, which uses a controlled underground burn to intensely heat oil sands and make them flow, can be used in a huge variety of heavy oil fields around the world. Like E-T's process, it requires virtually no water and uses dramatically less energy.

Even repressive "Cap and Trade" regimes will not be able to cripple the economy if the underlying energy source is cheap enough and abundent enough.

 

[PanaEng]

I like Petrobank's technology better - and has been producing for a while now. For ET technology you need a source of electricity (lots of it presumably) which will probably require the use of some of the oil and makes it a more complex process. Interesting to see how they work it out.

cheers,
Frank

 

[SeaKingTacco]

This is where a Nuclear reactor or five in Northern Alberta/Saskatchewan suddenly begin to make sense.

 

[KingKikapu]

The only problem there is power transmission becomes an issue.

 

[a_majoor]

Look at the end of the article, we have the potential to be sitting pretty and pay off a large fraction of the national debt through increasing oil sales (and neither India or China are interested in Kyoto or "cap and trade" if the US isn't interested):

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/05/bakken-and-oilsands-update.html

Bakken and Oilsands Update

Petrobank's canadian oil production averaged 22,085 barrels per day (bpd), up 59 per cent from 13,889 bpd in the first quarter of 2008. Petrobank credited the gains to its Bakken properties in southeast Saskatchewan that account for more than 85 per cent of its production and reserves. The Bakken remains profitable for Petronbank at today's prices--bench-mark oil prices briefly hit a six-month high of $60 US a barrel in New York before settling at $58.85, up 35 cents on the day.

Petrobank's oilsands vice-president Chris Bloomer said the company is ready to proceed with a 100,000-barrel-a-day commercial project at May River, immediately south of Whitesands.

Bloomer predicted the fireflooding technique could unlock 70 to 80 per cent of the existing oil in place in Saskatchewan -- some 20 billion barrels -- compared with seven per cent using existing heavy oil techniques.

Petrobank has four projects currently underway to develop and commercialize the THAI and Capri oil recovery processes.

-The Dawson project will be Petrobank's first application of THAI™ in a more conventional heavy oil reservoir and will be an important step in the expansion of THAI™ as a heavy oil application that can be broadly applied in Canada and internationally.
- White sands project
- May River project
- Sutton (in Saskatechewan)


Output from Canada’s oilsands could rise to as much as 6.3-million barrels a day by 2035, a nearly fivefold increase above current levels, according to energy consultancy IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) in a study called Growth in the Canadian Oil Sands: Finding a New Balance.



To reach the theoretical level of 6.3 million barrels a day, the study assumes strong economic growth and robust oil prices over the long-term. If the global economy stagnates and oil prices remain weak, it is projecting daily production of 2.3 million barrels a day by 2035. That is still about one million barrels a day above current levels.

The numbers show just how important Canada’s oil will become to the United States, as the study predicts that Canada would account for 37 per cent of U.S. oil imports if production is ramped up to 6.3 million barrels a day. It was just 19 per cent in 2008.[/yellow]
[/quote]

 

[GAP]

What I don't understand is why they don't consider Hydro power, especially with the North Sask River reasonably close....the capital costs are about the same, there's already a precedent regarding native rights/partial ownership (manitoba), transmission lines need to be install whichever is developed.....etc., etc......

 

[a_majoor]

What I don't understand is why they don't consider Hydro power, especially with the North Sask River reasonably close....the capital costs are about the same, there's already a precedent regarding native rights/partial ownership (manitoba), transmission lines need to be install whichever is developed.....etc., etc......

>Hey there, no using logic and fiduciary duties when proposing government projects! >

 

[KingKikapu]

Canada is a power transmission nightmare.  Our situation is far more difficult than Europe or the US.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Canada is a power transmission nightmare.  Our situation is far more difficult than Europe or the US.

And why would that be?

 

[KingKikapu]

And why would that be?

Widely separated population centres create a myriad of resistive losses in DC power transmission, and there are physical limits to the voltages that you can transmit at before all sorts of corona effects rear their ugly heads.  Everything becomes a trade off.

Snap, crackle, pop.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Gotcha.  Thanks for the explanation.
(dare I ask what a "corona effect" is?)

 

[GAP]

Gotcha.  Thanks for the explanation.
(dare I ask what a "corona effect" is?)

Occurs when the shipments from Mexico get stopped at the US border for security reasons......

 

[KingKikapu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_discharge

In particular, check out the Problems Caused by Coronal Discharge section. 

 

[zipperhead_cop]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_discharge

In particular, check out the Problems Caused by Coronal Discharge section.

Thanks for the info brother! 

 

[a_majoor]

The greatest issues for electric cars or generating electrical energy through intermittent low density power sources (AKA Green energy) is the storage of electrical energy. Nothing comes close to the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels in any practical form (imagine a self serve station dealing in super compressed hydrogen gas or cyrogenic liquid hydrogen at -200 C....), but the energy density of batteries is so low as to be laughable. Even the GM Volt only proves the point, having a battery pack weighting almost a ton to go 40 miles, and a miniscule fuel tank that can take it 300 miles.....

Help may be on the way:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/06/ultimate-specific-energy-for-batteries.html

Ultimate Specific Energy for Batteries, Ultracapacitors

A comparison of practical and theoretical specific energy limits for various battery technology. Others predict higher practical and theoretical levels.

The determination of the theoretical maximum capacity of a Lithium-air battery is complex, and there isn’t a flat statement of fact in the Handbook of Batteries , Third Edition as are many more well developed chemistries. To provide the most accurate value for the maximum capacity, BD asked Dr. Arthur Dobley to provide an expert opinion, which we quote as follows:
“Specific capacity:
* For lithium metal alone 13 kWh/kg.
* For the lithium and air, theoretical, 11,100 Wh/kg, not including the weight of oxygen, and 5,200 Wh/kg including the weight of oxygen. This was checked by calculation and agrees with K.M. Abrahams publication ,JECS 1996.
* For the Lithium air cell, practical, 3,700 Wh/kg, not including the weight of oxygen, and 1,700 Wh/kg with the weight of oxygen. These numbers are predictions and are made with the presumption that 33% of the theoretical energy will be obtained. The battery industry typically obtains 25% to 50% of the theoretical energy (Handbook of Batteries). Metal air batteries are higher in the range. Zinc-air is about 44% (Handbook of Batteries, 3rd Ed. pg 1.12 and 1.16 table and fig).

We selected a conservative 33%. You may quote these numbers above and make any comments with them. The theoretical numbers are similar to the numbers in the ECS 2004 abstract. ( The difference is due to mathematical rounding.)

PolyPlus Battery Company is developing novel lithium/air batteries with unprecedented energy density, rivaling that possible for hydrocarbon fuel cells. The technology is based on proprietary encapsulated water stable lithium metal enabling the practical realization of unique galvanic couples such as Li/Air and Li/Water batteries. The theoretical specific energy of lithium metal/aqueous couples is greater than 10,000 Wh/kg and commercial batteries are expected to exceed 1000 Wh/l and Wh/kg.

IBM is starting research on lithium air batteries as well.

Only a handful of labs around the world, including those at PolyPlus Battery, in Berkeley, CA, Japan's AIST, and St. Andrews University, in Scotland, are currently working on lithium-air batteries. Lithium metal-air batteries can store a tremendous amount of energy--in theory, more than 5,000 watt-hours per kilogram. That's more than ten-times as much as today's high-performance lithium-ion batteries, and more than another class of energy-storage devices: fuel cells. Instead of containing a second reactant inside the cell, these batteries react with oxygen in the air that's pulled in as needed, making them lightweight and compact.

Metal Air Batteries estimated specific energy:

Polyplus has approached the challenge of the Lithium metal electrode with a coating of a glass-ceramic membrane, sealing the Lithium from an aqueous catholyte. The resultant structure exhibits very small self discharge, ordinarily a large contributor to cell failure. Test cells have produced 0.5 mAh/cm2 for 230 hours exhibiting approximately 100% Coulombic efficiency.

A production oriented cell construction with double sided lithium anode, solid electrolyte and double sided air/cathode is anticipated to have 600 to 1000 Wh/kg energy density.

 

[KingKikapu]

The energy density in hydrocarbons may be relatively high, but the vast majority of it goes to waste.

Break even fusion will be the holy grail of power generation.

 

[a_majoor]

Waste heat is a result of the laws of thermodynamics, and thus there is nothing we can do about it in this universe. Obviously if you can perfect a means of extracting the energy from hydrocarbons without going through a thermodynamic cycle like the Carnot cycle, then efficiency will increase. SOFC fuel cells are probably the closest technology to date, now we are talking practical extraction of 40-50% of the energy avalable in hydrocarbon fuels.

High energy density allows you to extract a lot of usable energy even when (as in a car) up to 66% of the energy is flowing out the tailpipe and radiator. Low energy density means you need a ton of batteries to go 40 miles.

Even with nuclear fusion, much of the energy will go to "waste heat" turning water to steam, any thermal energy plant can only get a maximum of @ 40% of the available energy regardless of the heat source (cow dung or nuclear fusion). There are some direct conversion schemes that are theoretically possible with nuclear fusion, but depend on using exotic reactions like 3He+3He or p+11B, which are far more difficult to initiate than D+D, and may not be technically possible for years to come.