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. ?? 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.)
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.
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)
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. 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.
No 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-14432401 Pros and cons of fracking: 5 key issues Air quality, health, and the energy menu https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/05/pros-and-cons-of-fracking-5-key-issues/
The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-031113-144051
Yes - using fracking to open (and hold open) crevices so the remaining oil can be extracted. 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. 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."
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 Renewable energy in China Hydropower Compare this with the US lifting of environmental protection laws in order to allow big polluters to increase their bad practises. Wind power Solar power Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China What "on earth" are we doing? Are we becoming an under-developed third world nation?
Well, non-fossil energy at least. All that is great. They are still adding coal plants faster than they are adding renewable energy, so the net is negative.
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...?
For the same reason we haven't harvested low pressure from the top of Everest. Not much use. 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 (?)
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. You need something else to generate steam.
A collapsible container filled with a compressible gas would work, no? How does pressure change with ocean depth? https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/pressure.html
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)
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: 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.
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.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
