Sometimes my predictions turn out to be wrong

Last Thursday I posted the first half of a letter that I wrote to OMNI magazine back in 1979, and in it I made some cost estimates for the potential for a satellite in space beaming energy back to the Earth. I then made some additional cost estimates for solar energy.

On a day when there is growing concern that energy prices are again heading upwards, and with OPEC maintaining control by discussing an increase in production I am going to perhaps weaken your faith in me as a prophet (I consider that OPEC can only continue to maintain this control for another year or so before they too run out of enough oil to satisfy demand – providing the price remains reasonable). I am going to do this by adding the second half of the letter that I sent to OMNI. This is where I became less of a prophet than I had expected, and I will discuss some of those inaccuracies in a follow-on post. But first back to that 30-year old letter:

The next alternative is the biomass option. Firstly have seen figures that it takes 80 gal of gasoline equivalent to raise an acre of corn (including fertilizer) and that 4 gal of gas input to biomass gives 2.5 gal of alcohol out not an equitable exchange. Mr. Pohl's argument that "burning biomass does not (add to atmospheric CO2) ." is specious. Not only does accelerating the decay time increase the rate of change and the volume involved, but it also disregards that portion of the material which turns into humus. I'm sorry but biomass is not a significant option either. Hydro electric and wind power are very site selective and, as a practical but mundane point, can a TV oriented society realistically be expected to tolerate that much TV interference (from windmills). No, while every little counts I'm afraid that this is all this will amount to.

And thus we come to the big four; oil, gas, nuclear, and coal (I'd like to leave geothermal until later).

There is no question that our petroleum based oil and gas is very rapidly diminishing. Price decontrol will have very little long term effect on this situation and recent studies have shown that reserves are often even lower that predicted . It hardly bears repeating that the reason this is not too evident at the pumps is that we now import almost half of what is used. The fuel component is significant in almost all manufacturing and if our suppliers abroad put up their prices (as they will continue to do), then the result of course, is that inflation is virtually guaranteed for as long as this continues.

The Iranian oil stoppage, and the declining levels of the international oil pool all urge that something must be done, in the short term as well as the long.

In this regard we need all the domestic fuel supplies we can develop, for at least the remainder of this century until the time in the next that the SPS or fusion becomes practical. I stress domestic, because the need for supplies is critical and must be guaranteed, and from abroad this is not a sure thing.

This, in turn, casts grave doubts on the economic installation of more nuclear reactors. Figures for economically recoverable domestic uranium seem to center about 380,000 tons, while demand projections for the reactors in and currently planned appear to vary up to 1,500,000 tons, depending on whose figures you believe.

In 1974, when the price of uranium was $7.90, spokesmen for the power companies were quoted as saying that nuclear power stations would become uneconomic if the price doubled . The price is currently $15 and this supply will run out in the near future, putting the price up further . To those who start waving the breeder flag, I would rejoin that it takes 20 years to double the fuel supply, that it will take 10 to 15 years to get one built and that already moves us into the next century.

To be honest I don't know who to believe on gas. In 1977 we had a shortage of gas and thousands of businesses closed. I have heard that this caused a lot of companies to switch out of gas and this resulted in the current surplus, not the fact that we found that much more. In either case it is currently a popular fuel again, yet available data would indicate our supply is even worse than that of oil, a point I will return to later.

So far I have been very negative, not through malice but because energy costs are going up and we need to understand the realistic options that face us in the remainder of this century.

It is common these days to hear cries from Washington at something must be done and conservation is the cry. But after adding insulation to my house, turning the thermostat down to 60 and cutting out pleasure driving I don't see that I can do much more in that regard. The population continues to grow and energy demand per capita will grow with it. To give just one reason, the ore required to produce metals gets thinner every year and more must be mined to give us the same volume of material.

There is also a direct correlation between energy levels and jobs, to prove which, I attach a graph from a paper by Congressman McCormick.

To make this point another way, after that well known actor made his walk along the canyon for the TV cameras in the campaign which stopped Kaiparowits we did not see him in Watts explaining to the young unemployed that his actions helped ensure there would still be no jobs in the 1980's.

I say this not meaning to be facetious, but to point out that those whose major concern is with the environment must accept the social burden which is implied. Those who delay the construction of a power station must accept some of the blame for the resultant rate increase when the plant is built, or the unemployment which will result from the ultimate lack of power if it is not.

What I also am seeking to establish is that we are in a mess and while we need the long term solutions which will perhaps be brought about by fusion or the SPS system we are also in desperate need for some short term solutions as well.

In this regard I would like to take exception to the remarks by Mr. Pohl who writes off coal mining in a short paragraph. I regret this because it is a very common occurrence when one reads reports on the current energy situation by a wide variety of people and unfortunately the attitude it conveys is pervasive. If one might first of all point out the fact that soil is dirty does not stop farmers from growing crops, and the thousands of fatalities a year do not stop Americans from driving cars. The dirty characteristic which is attached to the industry is, regrettable and based on history; more than current fact. It is not true, for example, that strip mining ruins everything it touches and there are areas in Texas and Wyoming, among others which would show that the 1,000 plus dollars put into each acre of reclaimed land have left the land in much better condition than it was before strip mining occurred. This does not make strip mine coal ruinously expensive and once a recognized set of regulations can be established and operated under I would expect that coal mining prices will stabilize. I would point out in this regard the experience of the National Coal Board in Britain would indicate that land can be restored to at least as good a condition after strip mining as it was beforehand.

One must accept that people are killed in coal mines and that much of the coal contains sulfur but surely these should pose challenges to science (as does developing "cheap" solar cells) rather than be shrugged off as absolute disqualifiers. Surely if we can develop robots to operate on Mars we can develop robots to operate within a thousand feet of the ground surface in coal seams and thereby make mining operations safe so that miners aren't killed.

This is perhaps a challenge for the future, however, in the short term while coal mining will produce as much energy as is required of it surveys indicate that, since its major use will be in power generation that to the turn of the century the supply will be demand limited rather than supply limited. Coal mines also take somewhere between 5 and 10 years to develop as do the power plants which must supply them.

Where then can we turn for more answers to the energy problem in the short term and what other techniques can possibly be used in the medium term. I would like to put forward two suggestions. Firstly, there is within the United States somewhere in the region of 4 trillion tons of coal of which proven reserves down to 3,000 ft run at levels of approximately 1,700 billion tons. This coal contains anything from 140 to 700 cu ft of methane per ton, and therefore gives a readily available additional volume of perhaps 500 trillion cu ft of gas. We currently use approximately 20 trillion cu ft of gas a year with conventional resources estimated at 220 trillion cu ft. (Hence my earlier comment about gas supplies.) One therefore would triple the amount of natural gas available if this resource were adequately developed. Since this supply occurs in deposits less than 3,000 ft from the surface it can very easily be accessed for utilization. It is, however, a reserve which is currently not being exploited mainly because of legal entanglements as to who exactly owns it.

It is frequently said that Congress cannot legislate technology however, in the situation which faces us, as we move towards a solution to an energy crisis, this is one instance where a move by Congress in regard to deciding on the exact ownership of this gas would free up a major resource rapidly as a means of supply. It would also, serendipitously, make later mining of the coal a much safer operation. In regard to the CO2 build up, one must accept that there is a problem which must be addressed. But, while we are responsible to future generations we are equally responsible to the current and past generation. Those people now returned have as much if not more right to power in their lifetimes and must also be factored into any solution.

The second option I would propose in relation to more proper use of underground space. This last winter a house built relatively close to mine with approximately the same sq footage was left unoccupied and unheated. The temperature inside never fell below 56 degrees.

As I have mentioned earlier it cost me up to 5,500 kilowatts/month to maintain the temperature inside my house at only 6 degrees higher. There would thus be great savings if a move were made to put at least part of future construction underground. To those who say it is expensive, traumatic, and unsafe, I would add three further facts, firstly, that the underground house cost $32/sq ft to build and this $32 is the same price as current super surface house construction in the Rolla area. Secondly, studies in Texas have shown that school children are if anything less anxious when taught in an underground school than they were on the surface. Thirdly, caves in Missouri survived, with no evident damage the worst earthquake in U.S. history. These structures are of course safer and much better able to withstand tornado, wind storms, ice storms, and other hazards of the weather which are prevalent in these times. The development of this technology is really already with us. It of course can only be applied to novel construction but nevertheless the savings which it would lead to in the long term would be not only in energy but quite frequently also in aesthetics and also in other potential areas since one can for example grow vegetables on one's roof. (Something one could not do underneath the solar collector which would cover my backyard.)

Well that is my response to the energy articles in your last issue. You must forgive me for being a little long winded but the matter is a little complex.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Respectfully I remain,

Yours sincerely,

Well that was the letter - we'll talk about how it really turned out next time.

Turning an Oil Well and down-hole motors

This is part of the series of technical posts on how to get fossil fuels out of the ground that appear here most Sundays. The last post in this series dealt with directional drilling, where I had mentioned the need to go back in time to the period where the then Soviet Government was developing the Volga-Ural basin in the Soviet Union, back in the 1950's. And I quote from John Grace's "Russian Oil Supply."

In the Volga-Ural basin, however, particularly after recognition of the enormous potential of the deeper Devonian strata, drilling targets were further below the Earth's surface. Moreover, the older, more lithified rock of the Volga-Ural basin was harder. This required higher drilling torque, which in turn demanded superior strength drill-string steel. The Soviet steel industry was basically unable to provide high-strength drill string in volumes necessary to develop the basin.

Engineers responded with turbo-drilling, which does not depend on rotating the drill string. Instead, immediately above the bit, they placed a turbo drilling motor, which itself did the work of turning the bit. This obviated the necessity of twisting the pipe and thereby reduced the required quality of steel.

Turbo drilling radically increased the productivity, Combined with the growing number of rigs available, the total number of feet of development drilling conducted per year nationwide jumped from 1.9 million feet in 1949 to 7.1 million feet by 1950 and 12.1 million feet by 1960."

They were also developing waterflood techniques in the basin at the same time, and we have discussed that in previous posts.

The idea of putting a motor directly behind the drilling bit was not new, the first Russian turbine drill having been designed in the mid 19th Century however it required a number of stages before the design could turn out enough power. And the first patent for an American downhole turbine was granted in 1873.

For those who are not familiar with a turbine drilling motor, essentially it consists of a set of fixed turning vanes at the top of the motor (the stator vanes) which direct the flow of mud going down the hole to flow onto a second set of vanes (the rotor vanes) which are pushed around by the flow, causing the drive shaft to which they are connected to rotate.

Single stage of a turbine motor, showing the stator and rotor vanes (Baker Hughes)

By combining a series of these stages together into a multi-stage turbine considerable torque, and speed, can be passed to the drilling bit which is attached to the rotating drive shaft.

Connection of a turbine drive to a drilling bit (Boraisegypt)

Putting the motor at the bottom end of the drill string had a couple of other advantages. One is that it allows the hole to make angle, i.e. to turn in a tighter radius than if the whole pipe were rotating. While conventional rotary rigs can build angle at only 10 degrees per 100 ft, with a down hole motor the angle can build at 13-15 deg per 100 ft. The Russian idea took a while to catch on in the West and to his credit, a guy in Houston called Bill Maurer, had a fair bit to do with that. Time and technology have however moved on a bit since then, and Bill’s company was acquired by Noble Drilling Corp so I can’t pass on links to the firm.

With the advent of down-hole motors there is no need to have the complexity of joining 30-ft lengths of drill pipe together to deliver power to the end of the bit. This had always been constrained by the steel strength and joint limitations. Now that could be designed out, and the power could be delivered to the bit hydraulically through the mud, since this could be used to drive the motor.

Later motors have included positive displacement designs, such as the progressing cavity motors which Dyna-drill illustrates with an animated figure at their web site.

For those interested in relative performance, and the gains that technology can bring there is a case study available of a well drilled with a down-hole motor and PDC bits with a rate of penetration (ROP) of 93.5 ft/hr.

Turbine motors work best at higher speeds, but to create the chips and achieve effective drilling with conventional tri-cones, rotation speeds had, historically been slow. And the problem remained of creating the high thrusts across the bit that were required for this type of drilling, when the motor turned faster.

One answer came in response to a second problem. As the rocks that have to be drilled become harder, so the forces used to cut through them also up, causing a materials problem. The materials used to make the drill bits were either wearing out, or teeth were being broken out as the bits pushed through the rock.

Worn out bit (Stavanger Oil Museum)

Drill with inserts knocked out (Stavanger Oil Museum)

But until now we had tried to break the rock in compression by pushing the tooth into the rock but if, instead we dragged the bit across the rock without trying to chip it, in the same way as a metal-cutting bit on a lathe peels off a layer of metal, maybe we could lower the forces on the bit.

And if we used a diamond tool to do this, then while each diamond insert would only remove a very small amount of rock, we could impregnate a whole bit face with small diamonds ( much cheaper than the single stone you buy for the intended, since they are much smaller, and more common). These diamonds can be dragged over the rock face and slice off very thin layers, but can do so when moved at a very fast speed. Putting the two together meant that a new drilling concept could be developed, and a new drilling bit.

Diamond drilling bit (Stavanger Oil Museum)

The next development came about with the development of larger polycrystalline diamond compacts (PDC's or PCD's depending on your level of technical correctness). By making these larger diamond coated discs and setting them on the drill bit it was easier to circulate the mud so that it kept the diamonds cool.

Used PDC bit (Stavanger Oil Museum)

This is important since, if you get the temperature of the inserts above about 3-400 degrees, the diamond starts to soften a bit and wears faster. In this regard the design of these bits is still not perfect, but it has become better.

The lower force required to drive these bits into the rock, and the ultimately faster ROP that they allowed meant that it became easier to consider turning the well, not only to some angle downwards to intersect an oil reservoir not directly below the rig, but that one could also turn the well so that it could be turned to the point that it was drilling a horizontal well.

And this had a lot of advantages – once the technique was developed. The first horizontal well that I know of was drilled at Rospo Mare in 1982, and it achieved a much higher initial and sustained production than vertical and slant wells in that reservoir. It was a technique also being developed for coal bed methane recovery, something still in development.

But I’ll leave that development, and more until next time.

The list of talks is getting longer, and as we are also getting a little more complicated, it might be more useful for those just finding this series to start at the bottom of the list on the right, and work upwards. Because this is a relatively informal it is also prone to the occasional short cut, which may not leave things as clear as I would like. So please ask, if I need to give more detail, or if you know more feel free to comment.

Is global warming regional - as in the MWP?

I was looking over Anthony Watts’ web site, and noted a picture that he had posted that shows the large number of stations around the United States that were showing record temperatures.

Places in the United States showing record temperatures (From WUWT)

What struck me was that, just as one could argue that this showed how cold we were getting, those that argue that carbon dioxide is raising global temperatures could as easily point to the points in the Western part of the country as evidence for their argument.

The problem of trying to determine which arguments are more accurate is made more difficult where there is this isolation of data, so that those seeking information are only presented with that which supports one side – so cheers to Anthony for showing both.

But individual data points, while interesting, don’t really reflect the sort of long-term changes that are predicted (or not) by various climate models. There is a considerable question over the accuracy and methodology used to derive an average measure of the global temperature, with satellite data, which was supposed to be more accurate, having its own limitations, in measuring ocean temperatures for example.


If one looks at the average temperature for the contiguous United States, for example,

Average US temperatures since 1880 (GISS )

One can see that the average for the country has been tending downwards over the last decade, and has not differed that much from the temperatures of the 1930’s (which still has the record for the hottest year). It is hard to argue for AGW based on this graph alone.

Yet if once compares the data from the two hemispheres, it is the Northern Hemisphere that is warming much faster than the Southern.

Hemispheric temp changes (GISS)

So if the US landmass isn’t warming, and the Southern Hemisphere isn’t currently doing much either where is all the global warming coming from? A look at the current temperature anomalies shows that it is the Arctic and Europe that is warming the most:

Global temperature anomalies (GISS)

But it is interesting that the actual anomaly is only 0.54 degrees, since, as I have noted before, the predictive values that Dr Hansen gave in the paper that is the most cited as authoritative on this predicted that by now the temperature would be between 1.0 and 1.2 degrees higher than the datum, and that only if there was dramatic reduction in greenhouse gases would we get to 0.65 degrees by now.

Now that is still a it higher than the 0.42 degrees – which Anthony is reporting and which is, I presume, the daily difference, but as he notes, the carbon dioxide levels are at 388 ppm, and if the impact was a severe as has been modeled it should be much higher (though the GISS graph above does show that it is heading backup).

But the other thing to comment on is that back when those of us who bring up the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) first did so, the response of the AGW proponents was that we were discussing something that was only true of Europe and the Arctic. Now that we are seeing a pattern that shows a regionalization of the global warming pattern I wonder if that argument can’t be reversed?

It is only by openly discussing these changes and their implications that true scientific understanding can be achieved, not by hiding, or adjusting data in less than transparent ways. Unfortunately scientific debate takes time and evidence only accumulates slowly. How long, for example must the current apparent cooling persist, (or the accelerated increase in temperature not occur) before the model predictions are discredited? Yet without that debate we risk the frittering away of resources on valueless measures that will have no impact on the future.

A 30-year old opinion on Space Power Systems

Just over 30 years ago there was a young science magazine called Omni. It ran from October 1978 through the fall of 1995. In the first April edition (1979) it ran three stories – one, by Mr. Stine, on the Satellite Power System (SPS), one on solar energy in general by Mr. Pohl, and one on an invention by a Mr. Ovshinsky.

I was sufficiently moved by these articles to write a response to the magazine, and I just uncovered that letter. For an amusing perspective on that time I, and since the first two are still around, I thought I would post the thoughts of a rather younger Heading Out (who wasn’t at the time). I will break it into two parts, one of which deals with my thoughts on solar power and the second, which is more of a general comment at the time on energy in general will be posted on Monday.

I am deeply concerned by the tenor of these article since their net promise is that, by implication the same sort of promise is now being made for solar power as was made, less than 20-years ago, by the nuclear industry: “Just give us our heads and you’ll have free energy for life.”

With your indulgence I would like to review the energy scene as I see it, starting with solar energy and working the opposite direction to Mr. Pohl.

Let us begin with the SPS system. If I may quote the article “ . . .the SPS system is generally feasible from the point of view of both technology and economics . . .it is technically feasible to convert that energy to microwaves and to transmit it to the Earth with no negative effects on the environment . . .this would lead to a small (5-Gigawatt or 5-million kW) SPS pilot plant operating in low earth orbit by 1987, giving us the technical and economic answers that we would need to begin construction of a full SPS system with 50 10-GW SPS units in geosynchronous orbit by the year 2000, supplying most of the projected electrical needs of the entire North American continent.”

Let’s do a little arithmetic on this prediction to understand what this means. (My facts, unless stated otherwise, are from the DOE/NASA SPS documentation.)

Firstly a 5 GW satellite would weigh up to 50,000 tons and have an area of 100 km2. Assuming that the shuttle can carry 32 tons means 1,500 plus trips by weight. Assuming an average thickness of 0.1 cm for the structure would give a volume of 100,000 cu. m. The shuttle hold is 91 cu. m. in size, so that, on a volume basis – with no voids –we’d still need about 1,100 trips. Accepting bulking and some larger components, I hope that you will agree that 1,600 trips would not be an out-of-line assumption.

To put the first SPS system in orbit by 1987 would therefore require 200 trips/year starting (in 1979). To then create an additional 50 10-GW stations would require, in the following 13 years, 160,000 trips or 11,500 trips a year.

In regard to the cost for the solar cells Heliotronics have predicted (Electronics, Oct 26, 1978) a cost of $0.25/watt in 8 years, at a 10% level of efficiency – about that considered by the DOE/NASA paper. That level of cost is included in the DOE/NASA reference design which predicts a capital cost of $2,500/kW installed, it also would require an initial R&D phase of $45 billion. (My quibble with these figures are that they are 1977-78 dollars admit no inflation and assume an interest rate of 6%).

The study also considers two other pertinent factors. The first is land for the rectennas. This has been evaluated at an average of 80 sq miles/site; land which could become permanently barred to people and hazardous to the health of all wildlife therein. To quote the report in regard to a full SPS system “Only a small number of sites, relative to population, could be located in either the Northeast or Mid-Atlantic states. Those sites that could be identified were in fairly mountainous areas.” Which means that our scenic wilderness will become hazardous to our health.

The second point which, in its way is more worrisome is the critical materials report. Two systems were evaluated – the silicon system and the gallium arsenide system. The report lists 25 commodities required to provide 2 5-GW satellites a year. It highlights those for which problems might arise. For the silicon option two items – mercury and tungsten are considered critical. The mercury need for 168 tons is a problem since it would require a 10% increase in domestic production. Tungsten at 1,220 tons would require a 25% increase in domestic production. Although gallium requirements are 7 tons, against a current annual production of 8 tons, this is not considered a problem in the silicon option.

The gallium arsenide option, however, has 6 critical items. The most severe of these is the Gallium of which 2,186 tons is required. This is still set against 8 tons of domestic and 7 tons of foreign production per year. It should also consider, as the report does, that the total domestic reserve is only 2,000 tons, with a world reserve of 112,000 tons. A similar requirement for 2,356 tons of arsenic per year meets a similar problem with an annual production of around 23 tons being predicated by the 2000.

The net result of the data to date, I believe, is to show that any realistic use of the SPS system is at least 30-50 years away, as the DOE/NASA study predicts, and will probably only become economic when the material is supplied either from a lunar or asteroidal source? (Incidentally won’t a 100 sq. km. surface act as a solar sail?)

Coming rather rapidly therefore down to Earth where we unfortunately lose a lot of the sun’s power, let us examine the current status of the solar industry. Unfortunately, the arguments about gallium and arsenic still hold, so as foar as the gallium arsenide cell is concerned (with 25% efficiency) the material is unavailable, and so we must, pro forma, accept a 10-15% cell efficiency.

Living in the mid-West I will use Missouri as my initial location for analysis. St. Louis receives about 1,000 Btu/sq ft on a horizontal surface on an average day in March. With a peak demand of about 15 GW this would require, at a 10% efficiency level, an area of 441 sq. miles of collectors or adding 30% for walkways, roads etc about 600 sq. miles.

I could take the analogy further and show that the 76 Quad energy demand of the United States could be satisfied by a collector area of 69,700 sq miles – the area of the state of Missouri – but I’d rather reduce the scale and talk about my back yard.

In January my energy consumption was 5,530 kWh, or an average of 7 kW/hour. Oman and Gelzer, in the Energy Technology Handbook tell me that I need a peak supply of 5 times average demand to get me through the bad spells. My solar cell requirement therefore should be about a 35 kW system. At $0.25/watt (which I would remind you is about 1/30th of current cost) the cells would cost some $8,750. Accepting Oman and Gelzer’s figures for the costs of installation (but multiplying by the necessary factors) I get:

Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$2,000
Fuel Cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7,500 ( 35kW peak at $400/kW)
Electrolyzer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$2,450 (35 kW peak at $70/kW)
Metal hydride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$4,000 (4,000 lb FeTi at $0.50 a lb and structure)
Hydrogen and Oxygen storage tanks $2,500 ($300/1,000 scf and controls)
Electric power conditioning/controls$500
Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$1,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$28,200

I have accepted the arguments that I should use metal hydride rather than batteries on the basis of their projected cost effectiveness. The area of collector that I would require is about 5,000 sq. ft. – which is where I came in because it’s bigger than my house and backyard, and since 8% interest on $28,000 is $2,240 and my total electricity bill last year was $903, I don’t think I, or probably anyone living North of me, can really afford solar electricity just yet, even at $0.25 a watt.

Incidentally in regard to solar heating, Forbes quotes the house built for Mark Hyman in Waltham, Mass where it cost $24,000 for heating only. I don’t think I can afford that option, even with the current tax credits.

If then solar power cannot be used North of me, what are the situations in the South? The general consensus would appear to be that solar systems are best developed in the desert. To which I would like to draw the following points:
Firstly for a 5-MW system we are still talking of somewhere in the region of a 100 sq. mile unit. The equipment for that installation would be installed by heavy construction would be installed by heavy construction equipment that would destroy the surface integrity of the desert lands. We know, from experience, for, example from the Badlands of the Dakotas, that when this occurs the underlying surface can e readily eroded by rain and winds.

The solar collectors will be set up at an angle to the surface and this will act as a wind trap, bringing the wind down across the exposed sand. The result will be to lift the sand into the air, and one can readily anticipate that it will fall across the surface of the collectors.

In a recent paper Hawthorne has shown that such grit, falling from a height of 1 m. will cut the reflectance of a surface by 25% within 10 seconds. One can therefore predict two things; firstly that the collector surfaces will gather considerable amounts of dust which will have to be cleaned off. Secondly that the surfaces will become rapidly scratched loosing their ability to transmit energy because of the impact of the sand particles. Since we are talking about somewhere around 8 million collectors, keeping these clean, and the energy efficient levels up and keeping them protected, will in itself e a major undertaking.

One other consideration is that we have, already, discounted the use of gallium arsenide as a collector. It has the advantage that it can be operated at high temperatures, and since the location of these collectors in the desert, where they get hot, as Mr. Pohl has pointed out this will mean that they need to be cooled, and thus we come back to the ubiquitous mater cooling towers. These symbols of current power station design will thus again be required in the desert.

So that was my opinion, and some data (the real reason for putting up the post) from some 30-years ago – I’ll have a comment on reality and how some of this turned out, after Monday’s post. There is a lot that I got wrong, but I'll come back to that.

Gasoline consumption and today's TWIP

So how far has the recovery progressed? Not being one of the many financial gurus that have been peering over the bull’s entrails for the past six months my measure, as you may have noted has been a bit simpler. I have been looking, each month, at the amount of miles driven and the gasoline consumed, as reported in the weekly TWIP, by the EIA. It is not a particularly accurate measure but it does indicate a level of activity that first started reversing the decline last April, and it has been picking up ever since. The current curve, published today, shows a continuing increase in consumption.

U.S. gasoline demand (EIA TWIP)

However it does require a little clarification since the data that the TWIP is plotting (if one goes one layer deeper into the site) appears to be the finished gasoline supplied. However, since this tends to fairly rapidly transfer to the consumer in most cases it remains a simple guide to what may be happening.

So the curve is going up, and so I wondered where we stood relative to the conditions of the economy pre-recession. Going to the tabulated data – conveniently in a spreadsheet – I simply sorted the data by the size of the demand (thousands of barrels a day).
The data for the top weeks of production shows that we peaked (in the short term) in 2007.

Top 20 days of gasoline production/consumption in the United States (EIA)

However, if we look at the second block of 20:

Second top 20 days of gasoline consumption/production in the United States (EIA)

You will notice that in the week of May 22 (number 27) and of August 28 (number 40) 2009 has made it back into the list. This is not the season for high demand, and so, even though the trend is up, the next 2009 entry does not come until number 85, but the fact that the numbers have headed back, and that the difference between the current peak (9,762,000 bd) and the highest this year (9,538,000 bd) is only 224,000 bd might suggest that the public awareness of the OPEC restriction on production – or the relaxation of that quota system – may come a little earlier than we might otherwise have thought. The FHA plot for the month on actual vehicle miles driven for August is not out yet, but the picture for May was showing that, barring the South East, the rest of the nation was starting to drive more than in the same period of 2008.

Change in regional driving habits over 2008 for May of this year (FHA)

It will be interesting to see how the winter turns out, though the use of different fuel sources, the economy and the type of winter we’re going to have are all still in question.

Interestingly the commentary at the start of today’s TWIP dealt with the need for more transparency in the global oil market, noting that information on inventories is the most opaque. Since this is the buffer between production and consumption and the growth of “floating storage” – an even more opaque value – means that the real trends in production can be masked and even more difficult to predict.

Dr Chu, Dr Aleklett and the price of oil

There are a number of us who write about the situation in regard to the world supply of liquid fuels, and the future availability of those supplies. In general we began by gleaning our information from the internet, or each other, and from those relatively amateurish beginnings a community has developed to study the condition of “Peak Oil.” That community was immeasurably helped coalesce and grow by the conferences that began under the ASPO banner, with ASPO standing for the Association for the Study of Peak Oil. Kjell Aleklett began these conferences on the study of peak oil some years ago, and has watched the growth of the community (shepherding, as International President, where necessary) since then.

He has recently reviewed the papers given at the ASPO – USA conference in Denver, providing the type of coverage I would have liked to provide had circumstances been different.

Kjell is located outside Stockholm, in a University that I almost made it to earlier this year and has shown, through his graduate student’s dissertations, that it is possible to acquire and publish a wealth of information about the condition of the various aspects of future energy supply that cast a relatively realistic view of what we might expect in the future. (And if I don’t always agree about some of the conclusions – that is, after all, the underlying basis of scientific discussion).

I look at what he has been able to accomplish, and then I contrast this with the current U.S. Secretary of Energy, an individual who has the vast resources of one of the larger Departments in the United States Administration at his disposal. Their request for funding this year totaled some $25 billion. The imperatives of the Department are listed as:

• Support deployment and expand research of cost-effective carbon capture and storage,
• Accelerate technological breakthroughs with the Advanced Energy Initiative,
• Provide additional energy security expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,
• Foster scientific leadership with the American Competitiveness Initiative,
• Advance environmental cleanup and nuclear waste management,
• Maintain the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile and continue
transforming the weapons complex, and
• Work with other countries to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Today the Secretary noted that the rise in the price of oil to $80 a barrel was “making him nervous.”

Folk such as Dr Aleklett have studied the real situation in regard to the future of oil. Based on detailed studies of the actual rate of oilfield discoveries and oilfield production individuals such as Rembrandt Koppelaar (ASPO Netherlands) have been able to produce high quality analysis of the reality of the global oil situation that has caught the attention of groups such as Global Witness, who have in turn produced a report “Heads in the Sand” that documents some of the issues that the global economy faces as future supplies of crude oil are unable to meet demand.

The evidence that forewarns of a problem has been out there for a long time, Sites such as Energy Bulletin and The Oil Drum have documented the evidence that has come to show that non-OPEC production of crude oil has already likely peaked, and the ability of OPEC itself to much increase their production beyond another couple of million barrels a day or so is in serious question.

There is, in short, a problem, and in the United States the responsibility for resolving that problem sits at the desk of the Secretary of the Department of Energy. Who with all due respect should not be surprised at all by the current rise in the price of crude, and the path that the price will take in the future, yet he is!

At least it would if he were paying attention. Unfortunately, however, the listing of the priorities of the Department – given above – show that peak oil or the related issues over the supply volumes and prices of natural gas – are not that great a concern. In regard to coal, the Secretary is more energized in waving Dr Mann’s hockey stick curve relating to the inter-relationship between global warming and carbon dioxide levels (regardless of the uncertainties revealed by the Wegman review inter alia) and willingly ignores the lack of significant global warming since 1998, in order to push climate change activities (see list above) at the price of ignoring the coming crisis in fuel supplies.

Even the British Government have recognized that, while making the politically correct genuflection toward the motif of global warming, that they are responsible for the ultimate fuel supply security of the British Isles, and have gone ahead and permitted more coal mines. Reality has a nasty way of intruding into the discussions of ideology and mandating actions that provide realistic, rather than merely ideological, answers.

Unfortunately at the moment the United States does not seem as well served by its Administration in this area, since the Secretary seems woefully unaware of the underlying fragility of the energy supply situation. Sweden seems better served in this regard, since Dr. Aleklett does provide information to that government, and they seem more aware of the problem, and the steps needed to meet the situation.

Our Secretary sees the problem in a different light

"We've repeatedly said what the world wants and needs is stable prices," Chu said. "They have been inching up recently and it's a little bit concerning."

Oil price volatility can also harm the alternative energy sector, Chu said. He said the fall in energy costs after the oil price shocks of the 70s and early 80s wiped out many clean energy companies.

To help stabilize crude prices, Chu said the administration is working to improve market transparency. In particular, he said the Energy Department is focused on teaching developing countries how to compile energy data.

Um, yes I know, this is one of Matt Simmons pet peeves – but you know what – I don’t think it is really going to help assure our future energy supply, which might, just possibly be something in his job description.

There is a meaning to the current rise in oil prices, control of which has now been passed to the OPEC nations, at least in the short term. If the Secretary is not aware of this, it would be extremely unfortunate not only for him but for the nation, particularly if his on-the-job training meant that he was unprepared when the next phase of this rolls around in the next year or so. Maybe in the meantime he might sit in the odd seminar at Uppsala.

The other meaning of "Clean Coal", and related mineral preparation

There is a lot of talk about Clean Coal these days. The Federal Government are issuing, though DoE, a significant number of requests for proposal (RFP’s) seeking those ideas to improve the combustion and reduce the carbon dioxide emissions when coal is burned. Largely these are related to the combustion process itself and the consequent separation of the carbon dioxide, which is where there is a relatively large body of expertise within the Universities, and where progress is likely to be incremental, given that most of the technologies in place are relatively mature and well-known.

Of lesser importance, it would appear, are the pre-cursor parts of the coal cycle that prepare coal for combustion, or those post-combustion parts where the gas, after concentration, is to be sequestered. Part of this lack of interest, I suspect, comes from the lack of experience within the Government and the funding agencies in these areas. Thus there is no-one to speak for them when the funding pie is divided and money is allocated to the different processes seen to be contributing to solving the problems.

Yet in the end these are the parts of the process that will prove to have as great a contribution to the solution of the problems as any. Coal is inherently a dirty fuel – by which I mean that is it virtually impossible to go into a coal mine or operation where coal is being processed without the dust leaving a residue on your skin, requiring that you either wash or take a shower to become clean again. That dust is part of the coal structure – we used to call it fusain – and it is defined as

the only constituent in coal which blackens objects with which it comes in contact.

In that classification the other constituents are clarain, durain and vitrain.

But most coal isn’t found as just a mix of these four parts. Coal was formed as vegetation (including trees) collapsed into the mud, and other plants grew on top of it. Mud got into the layers between the plant remains, and occasionally local water floods would carry sand and other material in and over the plants. As the swamps sank, and the vegetation grew thicker the band of material thus had thin layers of other material interspersed with the coal itself. As the layer was buried beneath later sediments (deposition was largely during the Carboniferous era, some 300 million years ago, or roughly a little longer ago than the time it takes the Solar system to go once around the galaxy). it was compressed and while the vegetation turned, in the end, to coal the included beds became shale, and sandstone or limestone layers within it.

When coal was mined a century ago the miners filled tubs of coal that held roughly a ton, with each tub marked with the miner’s “token”. When the tub came to the surface it was judged by management and if it was felt that it contained too much rock, then the tub was not counted as part of the miner’s production for the day. Thus there was a reliance on the miner himself to make sure that the coal being “loaded out” was just coal and did not contain rock, or dirt as it became colloquially known.

As mining became more automated, the pick of an individual miner was replaced with the multitude of picks that are mounted on the rotating drums of most mining machines. These drums are alternately raised and lowered to mine out the full section of the coal, and they indiscriminately mine, break up and load onto shuttle cars, or conveyors, the resulting mixture of small coal with some waste rock. Now there is little control of the coal quality at the face (apart from making sure that little of the rock above and below the coal is also mined). The coal, as a result, comes to the surface with the contained dirt still in it, and in many parts of the world that is what is then sold to the customer.

However the rock contents don’t burn well, and the residue can fuse to form clinkers that clog furnaces and reduce firing efficiency. So as the market grows for the mine from local consumption to a larger market, pressure comes to bear to “clean” the coal by “washing” it. In a simple form this involves running the coal through a bath that contains fluid of a carefully selected density. Coal floats in that medium, while the rock settles to the bottom. And thus the two are separated and the washed coal can then be sold to the customer as something that will burn in a cleaner way.

So why write about this tonight, rather than holding it over for a technical talk on a Sunday? Well the problem comes down to this – in the past the job of cleaning up the minerals that came out of the ground – whether separating the coal from the waste, or getting the valuable mineral components out of the different ores and waste rock in which they are found was allocated, at most universities to the Mineral Preparation division, which often ended up as a sub-group of Metallurgy.

Skip forward a decade or two and now Metallurgy departments have been merged, often with Ceramics, into Mineral Engineering or Science, and it is these departments where some of the more exciting research is done on nano-materials and the components that go into the electronic circuits on which we all rely. These folk also work on materials such as those sought to improve the operational lifetime of existing and planned power plants. Hiring new faculty into these departments will usually bring on board faculty that work at these cutting edges of those areas, and the world makes considerable progress from their efforts. But in the process, since in many departments total faculty numbers remain fixed, this has come at the cost of not replacing those who are experts in the fields of Extractive Metallurgy. Nor has the field of Coal Preparation seen strong support, as other issues have claimed greater visibility and funding.

So now here we are – we need cleaner coal to be supplied to the power stations, so that it can reduce the burden of dealing with the combustion products. As the ores from which valuable minerals come become leaner (the richer veins having been mined) it becomes more important, as part of the economic operation of the mine, to get the most mineral for the least cost from the ore. (Mines have closed when they could not do this well).

Who will provide that knowledge? Who is funding the research to advance it? Sadly the answers in both cases are likely to be almost no-one. It is a critical part of the continuation of our industrial society, but, being neglected, it has lost its voice and champions.

Sadly it takes more than the stroke of the pen by the Administration to create or recreate that collection of experts and as the current generation now retire, we will all, in time, mourn in one way or another, their passing.