Fossil Fuels
Follow
Find
8 views | +0 today
 
Rescooped by James Krall from Sustain Our Earth
onto Fossil Fuels
Scoop.it!

Sandia National Laboratories: Energy-Water Nexus

Sandia National Laboratories: Energy-Water Nexus | Fossil Fuels | Scoop.it
The continued security and economic health of the United States depends on a sustainable supply of both energy and water.

 

U.S. Energy Sustainability - The Missing Piece

 

"U.S. energy sustainability is a complex puzzle of interlocking parts. ... However, one critical component of the R&D mix is missing - water. .."

 

The Energy-Water Connection

 

"Energy production requires a reliable, abundant, and predictable source of water, a resource that is already in short supply throughout much of the U.S. and the world. The electricity industry is second only to agriculture as the largest user of water in the United States. Electricity production from fossil fuels and nuclear energy requires 190,000 million gallons of water per day, accounting for 39% of all freshwater withdrawals in the nation, with 71% of that going to fossil-fuel electricity generation alone.1 Coal, the most abundant fossil fuel, currently accounts for 52% of U.S. electricity generation, and each kWh generated from coal requires withdrawal of 25 gallons of water. That means U.S. citizens may indirectly depend upon as much water turning on the lights and running appliances as they directly use taking showers and watering lawns. According to the 2001 National Energy Policy, our growing population and economy will require 393,000 MW of new generating capacity (or 1,300 to 1,900 new power plants-more than one built each week) by the year 2020, putting further strain on the nation's water resources."

 

 

 

 


Via Duane Tilden, SustainOurEarth
James Krall's insight:

I think that we should really move towards another mean of energy. Coal, which is the most abundant of all fossil fuels is #1 mean of energy in the U.S.. To produce energy is takes a reliable and abundant source of water which is already in short supply. I think that we put too much of our nations freshwater into the production of energy and that we should move off of the fossil fuels so that we can save more water for our nation. I think that if we moved towards solar energy or natural gas energy was to power things, that maybe our planet will last a little longer. 

more...
No comment yet.
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by James Krall from Fossil Fuels
Scoop.it!

Extending Fossil Fuels: Super-Efficient (118 MPG) Hybrid Combustion Engine ... - Science World Report

Extending Fossil Fuels: Super-Efficient (118 MPG) Hybrid Combustion Engine ... - Science World Report | Fossil Fuels | Scoop.it
Science World Report
Extending Fossil Fuels: Super-Efficient (118 MPG) Hybrid Combustion Engine ...

Via Destiny Arkema
James Krall's insight:

I think that this engine is the engine of the future. This engine gets 118 miles per gallon, and it said to not compromise performance. The engine runs off of natural gas and diesel, which makes the a more green engine. This engine is what could possibly make the future a more greener place. It is said that this engine could be in mass production in the next 5 years. 

more...
yongyee yang's comment, September 27, 2013 1:37 PM
I like how this article talks about an engine that has more mpg but doesn't add or do much to the performance its self. Its really fuel efficient and if people made more engines like this in ordinary cars with the ordinary price, we could really cut back on the fuel and not only save money, but come closer to saving the world.
Auston Kelling's comment, October 2, 2013 12:12 PM
WOW that was a great article
James Krall's comment, October 2, 2013 12:16 PM
This is such a cool article and I think that this could definitely change the way we see automobiles.
Rescooped by James Krall from Sustain Our Earth
Scoop.it!

Oil sands facts that will blow your mind

Oil sands facts that will blow your mind | Fossil Fuels | Scoop.it
Canada has the third largest oil reserves in the world - 97% of which are in the oil sands.

Via SustainOurEarth
James Krall's insight:

It's pretty unbelieveable on how much oil comes from these oil sands. Evidently Canda has 168 MILLION barrels of recoverable oil. If you were to take Canada's fossil fuel pipelines, they could circle the Earth end to end two and a half times! I think that is so crazy that there is THAT much oil being produced in Canada. 



 

more...
Aleasha Reed's comment, September 27, 2013 2:16 PM
WOW. These facts just blow my mind. I didn't know all of that. Great article for your topic.
James Krall's comment, September 27, 2013 2:16 PM
k
Auston Kelling's comment, September 27, 2013 2:22 PM
yeahh i didnt know that much about oil. NOW I KNOW!
Rescooped by James Krall from Sustain Our Earth
Scoop.it!

Sandia National Laboratories: Energy-Water Nexus

Sandia National Laboratories: Energy-Water Nexus | Fossil Fuels | Scoop.it
The continued security and economic health of the United States depends on a sustainable supply of both energy and water.

 

U.S. Energy Sustainability - The Missing Piece

 

"U.S. energy sustainability is a complex puzzle of interlocking parts. ... However, one critical component of the R&D mix is missing - water. .."

 

The Energy-Water Connection

 

"Energy production requires a reliable, abundant, and predictable source of water, a resource that is already in short supply throughout much of the U.S. and the world. The electricity industry is second only to agriculture as the largest user of water in the United States. Electricity production from fossil fuels and nuclear energy requires 190,000 million gallons of water per day, accounting for 39% of all freshwater withdrawals in the nation, with 71% of that going to fossil-fuel electricity generation alone.1 Coal, the most abundant fossil fuel, currently accounts for 52% of U.S. electricity generation, and each kWh generated from coal requires withdrawal of 25 gallons of water. That means U.S. citizens may indirectly depend upon as much water turning on the lights and running appliances as they directly use taking showers and watering lawns. According to the 2001 National Energy Policy, our growing population and economy will require 393,000 MW of new generating capacity (or 1,300 to 1,900 new power plants-more than one built each week) by the year 2020, putting further strain on the nation's water resources."

 

 

 

 


Via Duane Tilden, SustainOurEarth
James Krall's insight:

I think that we should really move towards another mean of energy. Coal, which is the most abundant of all fossil fuels is #1 mean of energy in the U.S.. To produce energy is takes a reliable and abundant source of water which is already in short supply. I think that we put too much of our nations freshwater into the production of energy and that we should move off of the fossil fuels so that we can save more water for our nation. I think that if we moved towards solar energy or natural gas energy was to power things, that maybe our planet will last a little longer. 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by James Krall from Big Fossil Fuel
Scoop.it!

Time Is At A Premium:Near-Term Systemic Implications of a Peak in Global Oil Production

Time Is At A Premium:Near-Term Systemic Implications of a Peak in Global Oil Production | Fossil Fuels | Scoop.it

The summary and attached comments represent an excellent analysis of the need to apply critical thinking and risk assessment to the approaching fossil energy shortages\problems. It is well worth ploughing through the large number of comments. Time is running out.


Via Sumner
James Krall's insight:

I really like this article because it talks about the future of our planet and how it is going to be affected with our over-use of fossil fuels, which also fluxuates the greenhouse gases, giving soon to be major climate changes so to say. I think that this article really gives good insight of the risks and probabilities of our usage of fossil fuels. I think that us as a planet should really try and not use up so much energy, or at least switch over to a more efficient way of producing such. I don't really think that our planet is going to last very much longer so to say in the long run, and I think we should help clean up what we've caused as humans. I strongly believe we should switch to more efficient means of energy. 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by James Krall from Grain du Coteau : News ( corn maize ethanol DDG soybean soymeal wheat livestock beef pigs canadian dollar)
Scoop.it!

Canada’s first new refinery in decades breaks ground

Canada has the third largest oil reserves in the world - 97% of which are in the oil sands.

Via Stéphane Bisaillon
James Krall's insight:

I think that this is such a great thing for Canada because it is giving jobs to over 3,000 people once the underground utilities are installed. This is also such a great thing because it will produce 50,000 barrels a day by late 2016. Also eventually the site will start producing low surful diesel fuel. This is such a great thing for the economy because it will bring in over 500 million dollars in revenue and I think that it could really boost the economy. 


 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by James Krall from Amazing Science
Scoop.it!

Fracking and Shale Oil Won’t Lead to U.S. Energy Independence

Fracking and Shale Oil Won’t Lead to U.S. Energy Independence | Fossil Fuels | Scoop.it

The United States could see a surge in oil production that could make it the world’s leading oil producer within a decade, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency. But that lead will likely be temporary, and it still won’t allow the United States to stop importing oil. Barring technological breakthroughs in oil production and major reductions in consumption, the United States will need to rely on oil from outside its borders for the foreseeable future.

 

This week’s IEA report predicts that a relatively new technology for extracting oil from shale rock could make the United States the world’s leading oil producer within a decade, beating the current leader, Saudi Arabia. The idea that the U.S. could overtake Saudi Arabia, even temporarily, is a stunning development after years of seemingly inexorable declines in domestic oil production. U.S. production had fallen from 10 million barrels a day in the 1980s to 6.9 barrels per day in 2008, even as consumption increased from 15.7 million barrels per day in 1985 to 19.5 million barrels per day in 2008. The IEA estimates that production could reach 11.1 million barrels per day by 2020, almost entirely because of increases in the production of shale oil, which is extracted using the same horizontal drilling and fracking techniques that have flooded the U.S. with cheap natural gas.

 

As of the end of 2011, production had already increased to 8.1 million barrels per day, almost entirely because of shale oil. Production from two major shale resources in the U.S.—the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana and the Eagle Ford shale in Texas, now total about 900,000 barrels per day. In comparison, Saudi Arabia is expected to produce 10.6 million barrels per day in 2020.The shale oil resource, however, is limited. The IEA expects production to start gradually declining by the mid-2020s, at which time Saudi Arabia will reclaim the top spot.

 

Shale oil is creating a surge in U.S. oil production in part because it’s easy to find, says David Houseknecht, a scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey. The oil is spread over large areas, compared to the relatively small pockets of more conventional oil deposits in the United States. So whereas wildcatters drilling for conventional oil might come up empty two-thirds of the time or more, over 95 percent of shale oil wells strike oil.

 

Just how much shale oil can be produced—and how fast—depends heavily on two factors: the price of oil, and how easy it is to overcome possible local objections to oil fracking, says Richard Sears, a former executive at Royal Dutch Shell and a visiting scientist at MIT. Oil shale costs significantly more to produce than oil in Saudi Arabia and many other parts of the world, so for oil companies to go after this resource, oil prices need to stay relatively high. It’s hard to put a firm number on it, but Sears estimates that $50 to $60 a barrel would be enough, compared to the $85 per barrel price of oil now. Houseknecht puts the cost of production at closer to $70 a barrel. Although costs for producing conventional oil in the Middle East also vary, they typically don’t change more than $10 per barrel.


Via Dr. Stefan Gruenwald
James Krall's insight:

I really think the U.S. should stop importing so much oil from the middle-east because you never know when they could possibly cut us off due to political differences or something. At least if we were to produce some and import some they'd make the price at the pump go lower for us. Which would boost the economy. But I think that if we are to become a leading producer of oil in the world, I think we should make ourselfs independant in ways of producing energy for ourselves. I think it would just lead to less problems and make it easier for everybody. 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by James Krall from Big Fossil Fuel
Scoop.it!

Production And Distribution Expertise

Production And Distribution Expertise | Fossil Fuels | Scoop.it

The oil and gas industries have developed advanced and complicated production and distribution technology over a 100+ year period. Backed by their deep experience, they and their engineers could do the same for the hydrogen economy. Is there sufficient time to replace it? Or should we take a long look at the experience of similarly large enterprises that transformed themselves into highly competitive and innovative companies. What choice do the oil and gas majors have? Public opinion is dramatically turning against them. They have had to spend millions of dollars and Euros on advertising to prove they have socially redeeming value(see below). This money is better spent on a new future.


Via Sumner
James Krall's insight:

I think that this article has some good importance. We all want to switch over to better means of energy, but what do we do about the oil production and distribution companies that have been built up over the past 100+ years? I think that we should replace them with other means of energy, such as natural gas or something. I think that we definitely need to spend a lot more money on our planets future so that we aren't grieving in the future. I think that if we start to clean up the messes we've made as humans now, that maybe we can give this planet a chance. 

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by James Krall
Scoop.it!

Extreme Energy Extraction Roadtrip — The Scary Ways We're Ruining the Country to Get Fossil Fuels

Extreme Energy Extraction Roadtrip — The Scary Ways We're Ruining the Country to Get Fossil Fuels | Fossil Fuels | Scoop.it
The view from a Cessna reveals some dirty secrets.
James Krall's insight:

Wow, this article really opened my eyes a bit.  Appalachia has long been one of the centers of American energy extraction, a place whose history is almost synonymous with coal. Since the 1830s the region has shoveled 35 billion tons of coal into the furnace of our economy. And all because it was just a cheapers way of energy. Now is easy always the best way to go? Obviously not, look at what it is doing to our planet. Coal miners have been destroying the mountains with mountaintop coal removal which takes the coal out of the thinnest most inner layer. This itself removes the natural beauty of mothernature.  Entire mountaintops are obliterated to reach thin seams of coal. The “overburden” – the mining industry’s term for rocks and soil – is dumped into nearby valleys, burying streams, and covering forrests. Am I the only one who thinks this is terrible? We are ruining the ecosystem of the appalatians as humans and we need to stop. I think that this is definitely one of the most eye-opening articles that i've came across. And something really needs to change. 

more...
Auston Kelling's comment, October 2, 2013 12:16 PM
james i like how your really in to your scoops. they are very ngood topics