What climate change is not

[billvon]

Fracking is a completely different method of extracting oil from conventional drilling.

Nope. As I mentioned, fracking started as a way to rejuvenate old wells. From Wikipedia:
---------
The process [fracking] was further described by J.B. Clark of Stanolind in his paper published in 1948. A patent on this process was issued in 1949 and exclusive license was granted to the Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company. On 17 March 1949, Halliburton performed the first two commercial hydraulic fracturing treatments in Stephens County, Oklahoma, and Archer County, Texas. Since then, hydraulic fracturing has been used to stimulate approximately one million oil and gas wells in various geologic regimes with good success.

In contrast with large-scale hydraulic fracturing used in low-permeability formations, small hydraulic fracturing treatments are commonly used in high-permeability formations to remedy "skin damage", a low-permeability zone that sometimes forms at the rock-borehole interface. In such cases the fracturing may extend only a few feet from the borehole.
---------
Nowadays they will start drilling in a known-poor area and rely on fracking alone.

Really, and you are counting all tangent uses of spent oil?

??

To replay this discussion:
You: "bulk electric power is still mainly produced by burning oil"
Me: "Really, and you are counting all tangent uses of spent oil?"

Yes. As the article you posted mentions, less than 1% of US generation comes from oil, and most of that is on islands like Hawaii where it's hard to get any other sources of energy. (And oil is easy to transport.)

 

[Quantum Quack]

and most of that is on islands like Hawaii where it's hard to get any other sources of energy.

geothermal?
The key issue is making long term investments that go well beyond immediate need. ( 1000year plus)
A quality adaptive geothermal sourced energy system would remove any dependency on foreign sources in the long term.

 

[billvon]

geothermal?

Sure. But using all the geothermal available in the US with existing technology gets you about another 1 or 2 gigawatts - we need 250 gigawatts to replace just the coal fired plants in the US. Also geothermal emits more CO2 than an equivalently sized gas plant, although far less than a coal plant. So it's not a great solution. Maybe it will be in 50 years.

A quality adaptive geothermal sourced energy system would remove any dependency on foreign sources in the long term.

But leave us with global warming problems.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sure. But using all the geothermal available in the US with existing technology gets you about another 1 or 2 gigawatts - we need 250 gigawatts to replace just the coal fired plants in the US. Also geothermal emits more CO2 than an equivalently sized gas plant, although far less than a coal plant. So it's not a great solution. Maybe it will be in 50 years.

But leave us with global warming problems.

what sort of voltages are you guys running out of your typical power point in a home? (In Australia it is 240vlt)

 

[billvon]

what sort of voltages are you guys running out of your typical power point in a home? (In Australia it is 240vlt)

Mostly 120V. We have a few 240V outlets for clothes dryers, EV chargers, stoves, things like that.

 

[iceaura]

Let's look at the biggest nuclear disaster ever in the US - Three Mile Island. How many square miles of permanently irradiated dead spots are there near that reactor site?

The Fox News/Limbaugh/Trump "question", dodging the issue again.
I'm pretty sure they used to teach risk analysis and cost estimation in tech schools, rather than rightwing corporate media propaganda techniques - although even then the nuke advocates were more or less willfully blind to the issue.

A series of near catastrophes avoided by sheer luck is not something from which safety can be inferred.

Better yet - reuse the fuel over and over again.

After a few cycles, it has to be discarded (and in those kinds of reactors the waste is somewhat harder to secure and handle, with more dangerous stuff in it) - the waste problem remains unsolved even at the spent fuel level, never mind the decommissioned reactor and fuel production infrastructure and military threat and so forth.

Meanwhile, including the risks (of any reactor or fuel type) boosts the costs of nukes even farther beyond the better options (already currently underfunded by many billions). And they are slower on line, more centralizing and erosive in governance and management, etc.

Money first to the better options. Anything left over can be devoted to the more problematic, more speculative, higher risk possibilities.

 

[Write4U]

No

Nope. As I mentioned, fracking started as a way to rejuvenate old wells. From Wikipedia:

You mean using methods of pressurizing remaining oil so that it be extracted as a last resort of remaining volume. Rejuvination suggests a low volume of remaining oil.

But that is a false use of the term "fracking", which mean "fracturing solid earth formations by means of injecting fuids under extreme pressures and thereby releasing trapped pockets of oil. Instead of vertical drilling, fracking is usually a horizontal process affecting large areas of the earth which become undermined by the fracking process, often affecting acquifers and rendering wells unusable . This is why many states are restricting Fracking in populated areas, which was not necessary for vertical deep wells.

Here is the definition of fracking

What is fracking?
Fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside.

Water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure which allows the gas to flow out to the head of the well.

The process can be carried out vertically or, more commonly, by drilling horizontally to the rock layer, which can create new pathways to release gas or used to extend existing channels.

The term fracking refers to how the rock is fractured apart by the high-pressure mixture.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-14432401

Pros and cons of fracking: 5 key issues Air quality, health, and the energy menu

ISSUE: The new supply of natural gas reachable by fracking is now changing the overall picture for U.S. electricity generation, with consequences for air quality.

PRO FRACKING: Increasing reliance on natural gas, rather than coal, is indisputably creating widespread public health benefits, as the burning of natural gas produces fewer harmful particles in the air. The major new supply of natural gas produced through fracking is displacing the burning of coal, which each year contributes to the early death of thousands of people. Coal made up about 50 percent of U.S. electricity generation in 2008, 37 percent by 2012; meanwhile, natural gas went from about 20 percent to about 30 percent during that same period. In particular, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions have been reduced dramatically. Fracking saves lives, and it saves them right now and not at some indiscernible date well into the future.

CON FRACKING: First, it is not the case that a new natural gas facility coming online always replaces a legacy coal-fired power plant. It may displace coal in West Virginia or North Carolina, but less so in Texas and across the West. So fracking is no sure bet for improving regional air quality. Second, air quality dynamics around fracking operations are not fully understood, and cumulative health impacts of fracking for nearby residents and workers remain largely unknown. Some of the available research evidence from places such as Utah and Colorado suggests there may be under-appreciated problems with air quality, particularly relating to ozone. Further, natural gas is not a purely clean and renewable source of energy, and so its benefits are only relative. It is not the answer to truly cleaning up our air, and in fact could give pause to a much-needed and well thought-out transition to wind, solar, geothermal, and other sources that produce fewer or no harmful airborne fine particulates.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/05/pros-and-cons-of-fracking-5-key-issues/

 

[Write4U]

The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking

Abstract
Unconventional oil and natural gas extraction enabled by horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is driving an economic boom, with consequences described from “revolutionary” to “disastrous.” Reality lies somewhere in between. Unconventional energy generates income and, done well, can reduce air pollution and even water use compared with other fossil fuels.

Alternatively, it could slow the adoption of renewables and, done poorly, release toxic chemicals into water and air. Primary threats to water resources include surface spills, wastewater disposal, and drinking-water contamination through poor well integrity.

An increase in volatile organic compounds and air toxics locally are potential health threats, but the switch from coal to natural gas for electricity generation will reduce sulfur, nitrogen, mercury, and particulate air pollution. Data gaps are particularly evident for human health studies, for the question of whether natural gas will displace coal compared with renewables, and for decadal-scale legacy issues of well leakage and plugging and abandonment practices.

Critical topics for future research include data for (a) estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) of unconventional hydrocarbons, (b) the potential for further reductions of water requirements and chemical toxicity, (c) whether unconventional resource development alters the frequency of well integrity failures, (d) potential contamination of surface and ground waters from drilling and spills, (e) factors that could cause wastewater injection to generate large earthquakes, and (f) the consequences of greenhouse gases and air pollution on ecosystems and human health........more.

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-031113-144051

 

[billvon]

You mean using methods of pressurizing remaining oil so that it be extracted as a last resort of remaining volume. Rejuvination suggests a low volume of remaining oil.

Yes - using fracking to open (and hold open) crevices so the remaining oil can be extracted.

But that is a false use of the term "fracking", which mean "fracturing solid earth formations by means of injecting fuids under extreme pressures and thereby releasing trapped pockets of oil. Instead of vertical drilling, fracking is usually a horizontal process affecting large areas of the earth which become undermined by the fracking process, often affecting acquifers and rendering wells unusable . This is why many states are restricting Fracking in populated areas, which was not necessary for vertical deep wells.

Important word highlighted there. Yes, today most fracking is used to make new wells. It was developed as a way to get more oil from old wells. There's plenty of material on the net on fracking.

Here is the definition of fracking

Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing. Here's the dictionary definition:
"the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks, boreholes, etc. so as to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas."

 

[Write4U]

Details aside. Fracking is no different from drilling in that it extracts billions of years of sequestered CO2 from a non-renewable resource. It just extends the inevitable a little furthet into the future. But this will end. The question is will we be prepared to replace our oil dependence with renewable energy ?

Compared to China, the US is a kid on the block as far as renewable energy is concerned.

China is investing hundreds of billions in renewable resources because they think long range. One has to admire this long range planning as China is positioning itself as the greatest clean renewable energy supplier on earth.

Carbon Emission

China sees renewables as a source of energy security and not just only to reduce carbon emission.[3] China’s Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution issued by China’s State Council in September 2013, illustrates the government's desire to increase the share of renewables in China’s energy mix.[4] Unlike oil, coal and gas, the supplies of which are finite and subject to geopolitical tensions, renewable energy systems can be built and used wherever there is sufficient water, wind, and sun

Renewable energy in China

China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. By the end of 2018, the country had a total capacity of 728 GW of renewable power, mainly from hydroelectric and wind power. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity.

Hydropower

The project consists of the construction and operation of eight run-of-riverhydropower plants providing total capacity of 35.4 GW, which will generate an average of 224 GWh/year.

The project is located in Dang Town, Subei Mongolian Autonomous County, Gansu Province, China, and was certified by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) to be in compliance with the "Measures for the Operation and Management of Clean Development Mechanism Projects in China".

Compare this with the US lifting of environmental protection laws in order to allow big polluters to increase their bad practises.

The power generated by the project will be sold to the Gansu power grid which is part of the China Northwest Regional Power Grid (NWPG). This will displace equivalent amounts of electricity generated by the current mix of power sold to the NWPG.

Wind power

As of 2010, China has become the world's largest maker of wind turbines, surpassing Denmark, Germany, Spain, and the United States.

[21] The initial future target set by the Chinese government was 10 GW by 2010,[22] but the total installed capacity for wind power generation in China had already reached 25.1 GW by the end of 2009.
In September, 2019, Norwegian energy firm Equinor and state-owned China Power International Holding (CPIH) announced their plan to cooperate in developing offshore wind in China and Europe.

Solar power

China produces 63% of the world's solar photovoltaics (PV).[26] It has emerged as the world's largest manufacturer as of June 2015.

Following the new incentive scheme of Golden Sun announced by the government in 2009, there are numerous recent developments and plans announced by industry players that became part of the milestones for solar industry and technology development in China, such as the new thin film solar plant developed by Anwell Technologies in the Henan province using its own proprietary solar technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

What "on earth" are we doing? Are we becoming an under-developed third world nation?

 

[billvon]

Details aside. Fracking is no different from drilling in that it extracts billions of years of sequestered CO2 from a non-renewable resource. It just extends the inevitable a little furthet into the future. But this will end. The question is will we be prepared to replace our oil dependence with renewable energy ?

Well, non-fossil energy at least.

China is investing hundreds of billions in renewable resources because they think long range.

Carbon Emission
Renewable energy in China Hydropower

All that is great. They are still adding coal plants faster than they are adding renewable energy, so the net is negative.

 

[Quantum Quack]

billvon

Why do you think we haven't harvested high pressure from the depths of the oceans?
When you think on it, it is an amazingly free, plentiful, renewable, clean and easy resource sitting right under our noses.
Average ocean depth pressure is 35000 kPa

Sink a suitable container down to desired depth, auto seal it and return it to the surface. Wallah! You have a pressurized fuel cell.

Have you ever played around with soda siphon bulbs making rockets, electrical generation etc...?

 

[billvon]

Why do you think we haven't harvested high pressure from the depths of the oceans?

For the same reason we haven't harvested low pressure from the top of Everest. Not much use.

Sink a suitable container down to desired depth, auto seal it and return it to the surface. Wallah! You have a pressurized fuel cell.

I hope you are joking but I fear you are not.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I hope you are joking but I fear you are not.

Explain?
In principle:
Pulling up a container with sea water at 10,000 kPa (1450psi) should give plenty bang for the buck...and whats more it is more or less free, can be automated, and is clean.

So what is the idea killer?
Quick Google: Pressure harvesting and nil result...

notes:
The pressure needed to run a Super Critical Steam Generator is about 3200psi
Average ocean depth is about 4400 psi (?)

 

[billvon]

Pulling up a container with sea water at 10,000 kPa (1450psi) should give plenty bang for the buck...and whats more it is more or less free, can be automated, and is clean.

Water is effectively incompressible. You will not end up with pressurized water. You will end up with a container of cold water at surface pressure.

The pressure needed to run a Super Critical Steam Generator is about 3200psi

You need something else to generate steam.

 

[Write4U]

Water is effectively incompressible. You will not end up with pressurized water. You will end up with a container of cold water at surface pressure.

A collapsible container filled with a compressible gas would work, no?
How does pressure change with ocean depth?

At sea level, the air that surrounds us presses down on our bodies at 14.5 pounds per square inch. You don't feel it because the fluids in your body are pushing outward with the same force.

Dive down into the ocean even a few feet, though, and a noticeable change occurs. You can feel an increase of pressure on your eardrums. This is due to an increase in hydrostatic pressure, the force per unit area exerted by a liquid on an object. The deeper you go under the sea, the greater the pressure of the water pushing down on you. For every 33 feet (10.06 meters) you go down, the pressure increases by 14.5 psi.

Many animals that live in the sea have no trouble at all with high pressure. Whales, for instance, can withstand dramatic pressure changes because their bodies are more flexible. Their ribs are bound by loose, bendable cartilage, which allows the rib cage to collapse at pressures that would easily snap our bones.

A whale's lungs can also collapse safely under pressure, which keeps them from rupturing. This allows sperm whales to hunt for giant squid at depths of 7,000 feet or more.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/pressure.html

 

[billvon]

A collapsible container filled with a compressible gas would work, no?

Yes, that would work. And it would take more work to haul the container down (against its buoyancy) than you would get out of it. Again, do the math.

 

[Write4U]

Yes, that would work. And it would take more work to haul the container down (against its buoyancy) than you would get out of it. Again, do the math.

I disagree with that, detachable weights can easily be used to allow for a slow a slow decent without any use of power.

That's what deep sea divers use. They don't swim down. They attach weights and sink down.

There will be no difference in boyancy at any depth, the container just becomes more compressed (smaller in volume)

 

[Quantum Quack]

Water is effectively incompressible. You will not end up with pressurized water. You will end up with a container of cold water at surface pressure.

Even if we assume you are correct and that 1 cubic meter of water at 4400 psi is still 1 cubic meter at 14 psi surely you can see that in principle and with clever minds a way of harvesting pressure resources is totally feasible.

But then again you probably can not given your:

You need something else to generate steam.

If you have the pressure you don't need steam therefore you don't need heat, therefore you don't need nuclear reactions and certainly don't need waste products.
What is more is that you have an effective infinite abundance of high pressure available to harvest.

You only need a reasonable amount of pressure to drive a turbine.
About 3200 psi currently (top end) but could generate electricity at much lower psi.
Cheaper power stations, waste free and no natural resources consumed.

 

[Write4U]

If you have the pressure you don't need steam therefore you don't need heat, therefore you don't need nuclear reactions and certainly don't need waste products.

And the ocean is a natural compressor, at our disposal in many places all around the world.
I never thought of this before and I used to dive and "equalize" my air pressure to avoid the bends.....