|
I think that the first step in the United States is to build a new HVDC grid to replace our old infrastructure, which is pretty lossy (comparably). If we get the political will to do a very basic, essential infrastructure upgrade like that, then I think it will be possible to move away from the status quo of power generation in the US.
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
Turks posted:I really can't see how space based solar makes any sense given the astronomical ( On the other hand, you would also need a lot less energy storage since you can have uninterrupted solar power if you beam the energy down in the right wavelength range. Eliminating the intermittancy problem is a pretty huge draw. Plus, you'd use a lot less land area, which is good from an ecological perspective coffeetable posted:And as the big proliferation concern nowadays is dirty bombs rather than full-blown nukes, it isn't much better than uranium in that respect either. Eh, not really. Dirty bombs have never really been a thing except in sensationalist news pieces and politics. If you're a terrorist, then you want a bigass explosion that causes a lot of death and destruction. A dirty bomb doesn't accomplish this any better than a normal bomb, and meanwhile you're going to have to handle a bunch of radioactive material while you build it, putting yourself at far greater risk. The radiological material from a dirty bomb might cause a slightly higher incidence of cancer in the local area of the explosion, but that's not going to appear on a headline for probably many many years. This means that you'd have to go through a lot more risk and effort to build a dirty bomb for basically no added benefit. And the larger the blast, the less effective it is as a dirty bomb; a larger blast spreads the radiological material over a greater area and actually makes it less effective because the dosage/area is now smaller. tl;dr The concept of a dirty bomb is scarier to most Americans than the actual results of a dirty bomb explosion, dirty bombs aren't a an actual thing, no more so than a conventional bomb
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2012 07:38
|
|
) cost of launching anything into space. Consider how many tons of mirrors a solar thermal plant rated at 200MW needs, and even if you magically quadrupled that figure by putting it in space you'd probably still be better off putting it on the ground. Same goes for PV.
|
jigokuman posted:Isn't lifespan another major issue with solar panels? The numbers I have seen indicate around 30 years of service, which is good, but not quite enough to say, put on your roof when you first purchase a home and then forget about electricity bills for the rest of your life, which is what I, at least, imagined when I looked into them. Isn't that wrong in most geographic locations, especially with subsidies? I know that in Arizona and Hawaii you can even get state subsidies on top of the federal subsidies, and you end up paying off the panels in 5-10 years. Yeah you have to replace them eventually, but they seem to pay for themselves pretty quickly in most places. If I remember correctly, there was a goon in A/T who did a thread about his DIY home solar installation, which took like 7-8 years to pay off, and he lived somewhere in the midwest (Ohio I think?) e: Basically I think that solar PV is the way to go for a lot of our green energy. It's basically a way to convert a ton of useless surface area into an electricity generator. The downsides are that you need some pretty uncommon elements to make PV panels, and they're not cheap to make, but it seems like this is sort of a low-effort way of getting more green energy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2012 07:42
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:That's only pretty much only true for PV technologies that you can't buy today. Is it? I'd love to know more, what's usually used to make PV panels today?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2012 07:47
|
|
|
Thanks, that was a very informative and interesting post! It's good to know that material abundance isn't a real concern for PV anymore
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2012 08:08
|
|
|
Piell posted:The entire point of the dirty bomb is the concept. People freak the gently caress out over ATOMZ, and that's all a dirty bomb needs to do is cause the panic. Yup, which is why a dirty bomb isn't actually a real concern when discussing pros and cons of nuclear power. Improving public perception is what needs to be done, not worrying about dirty bombs
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2012 10:45
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:This is a wasted effort; the public in general is stupid as gently caress and has no intention of changing that. Humanity would be better off just working to improve efficiency and technology; gently caress what stupid people think. You won't ever be able to build more nuclear reactors with that attitude. PR is the single largest roadblock to a nuclear nation, and I am certain that this is an obstacle that we can overcome.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 01:10
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:If we're having trouble convincing people that basic facts are true, that does not seem like an obstacle that is surmountable. Hell, a good chunk of the population believes that simple vaccinations cause autism and evolution is a bunch of junk. But that's not true, education can demonstrably correct public perception. Cigarettes used to be considered good for you (by the ignorant public at least) and everyone smoked, but today cigarette usage is way down and people are at least aware of the hazards. Even if you're pessimistic and believe that usage is down only because of cigarette taxes, you still can't deny that people are more aware of the hazards of smoking E: what needs to happen is an anti-coal ad campaign that pushes nuclear power as an affordable alternative QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Sep 6, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
Aureon posted:Three thousand wind turbines in one site WILL reduce efficiency and reduce winds. (as the power to be harvested is finite) Would the efficiency reduction be that large? I was under the impression that wind contained several orders of magnitude more energy than what a vast array of wind turbines could ever extract, do you have any numbers?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 02:23
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:Where I see there potentially being a place for nuclear, is in countries like India and China. They're the ones with huge energy demands, most of which is generated by fossil fuels at the moment, that's where the punch of nuclear could be best used I think. That's the United States, too 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:Yeah but I see the US as having more ability and opportunity to go for renewables. Developing countries are just that, developing, and their demand will be increasing faster than already developed countries. So they have more of an excuse to 'cheat' with nucelar, to satisfy their growing consumption, without compromising their opportunity to industrialise. That's just my reading of it though. But some nuclear plants in the US wouldn't hurt too I guess. I'm not sure that I agree; the US has a lot to gain from renewables, but its energy demands are so massive already that it probably can't go exclusively onto renewables any more easily than India or China could. All of these nations should be investing in nuclear power and abandoning coal power. They should get as much renewable energy as possible, but there's no feasible reason to expect the US to run completely on renewables e: I'd like to make the point that the fight shouldn't be renewables vs nuclear; they're both clean forms of energy that are relatively inexpensive, albeit nuclear provides a smaller electrical bill plus other benefits at the cost of having to deal with waste products. The fight should be US energy production with coal power vs without. If we want to get rid of coal power, then we need a combination of nuclear + renewables. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Sep 6, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
the posted:Cool, thanks for the info. I was just wondering if there was any possible way that families could possibly provide their own power, or if there were any simple initiatives that could be provided on a citywide level to reduce consumption. I know that painting roofs a certain color was famously suggested by our President (and mocked by Conservatives). There have been some ask/tell threads on exactly this topic, and there are a lot of resources online for DIY roof PV and commercial roof PV It depends greatly on where you live. States like Arizona and Hawaii provide huge subsidies for solar power systems, and there's also a federal subsidy that stacks on top of those, which gives you a total saving of around 50%. Depending on your usage and the size of your solar system, you can typically pay off the system in 5-10 years in a sunny climate. If you live in a cloudier region then it might take 10-15 years to pay it off and you probably don't have a state subsidy to work with, but that's with panels that typically have a lifespan of 30 years. But then that's one of the major drawbacks: you have to plan to stay in your home between 5 and 20 years. Most people don't feel comfortable making that sort of commitment for a cheaper electrical bill. But the real fact of the matter is that most people either rent or can't afford to put a bunch of money into a solar system. If you're barely scraping by then you certainly can't afford to buy a solar system even if it would save you money in the longrun. Subsidies are usually a tax rebate, so that makes them harder to access for people who might be on the borderline of being able to afford this kind of thing. I live in Hawaii, and rooftop solar systems are a common sight here. It's a sunny climate, and electricity is expensive as gently caress because fuel has to be shipped in, so it makes sense to use solar power for as much of your electricity as possible. Between the state/federal subsidies and the normal cost of electricity, these systems tend to pay for themselves in just a few years. The best solar systems, IMO, provide hot water and electricity whenever you need it but still keep you on the grid for those times that you need more juice. This is a pretty common setup among people who have roof PV systems. Living "off the grid" with PV really isn't necessary unless you want to be a crazy hermit or something. Solar water heating is also a pretty sweet gig if you live in a sunny climate. These tend to be a lot cheaper and pay themselves off a lot more quickly QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Sep 6, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
Aureon posted:Subsides are a solution in the micro, but change absolutely nothing in the macro. Coal and Oil got huge subsidies in their infancy (and still get huge subsidies today, for that matter), so really the PV subsidies are just leveling the playing field. And as others have already pointed out, subsidies increase adoption rates and hurry along development of cheaper, better products. Subsidies have a huge long-term effect
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
Aureon posted:I also have to admit that I'm trying to understand if molten salt really produces power during the night, or just stores it Molten salt (as it pertains to solar power) is just an energy storage system. It produces power at night by releasing energy that was given to it during the day
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2012 10:39
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Aren't all fossil fuels sequestered carbon that'll be released into the atmosphere? At least with methane you get a better energy to CO2 released ratio. I agree that methane leakage and catastrophic release are very large concerns here. That's correct, although I would guess that there's a much higher risk of an accident simply releasing a bunch of methane into the atmosphere, so it's a bit more hazardous than liquid carbon stores
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
marmot25 posted:This is certainly an issue, since I don't think we have any real clue whether we can do it safely. The broader point I was trying to get at is that we're now introducing a huge new source of greenhouse gases from this nearly inexhaustible supply (wiki: "The worldwide amounts of carbon bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth."), meaning that unless we get some breakthrough cheap technologies, we're not transitioning to carbon neutral energy sources anytime soon. Oh, I know; even if we are able to effectively extract it, we're looking at pushing much more CO2 into the atmosphere than ever before, which is definitely the bigger problem. On the other hand, if we could safely resequester this carbon into a non-gaseous solution then that would definitely be the best scenario, because then we wouldn't have to worry about that methane being released randomly during a natural disaster
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
Shipon posted:Yes, that's another good reason to wean ourselves off of burning oil for energy people sometimes overlook. My understanding was that gasoline and other oil products did not have any overlap in the refining process, by which I mean that per barrel you get X gallons of gasoline, Y pounds of plastic products, etc with relatively little variation in these quantities. So being able to make plastic from methane wouldn't change gas prices, but it would help with plastic production, which is important for its own sake QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Sep 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
schmen posted:In term's of localized power generation, has anyone looked up much on RTG ( Radioisotope thermoelectric generator) for domestic or small scales applications? This is just a small quibble, but it's not really as simple as that; what is the 1kW rated at, the beginning of the reactor's lifecycle, after 30 years, or is that the theoretical output in the scenario where we're able to transport nuclear waste products immediately from reactor to generator? Each day your generator will produce less power as the sample decays, which can be fine depending on how much power you need out of the generator and for how long. For a space probe/rover this kind of thing is perfect since you can only reasonably expect 10 years or so of operation before something else breaks anyway. For a hospital or something you just need to replace the generator every however many years. spankmeister posted:I'm as much for nuclear power as the next guy, but putting radioactive waste and/or materials into peoples' homes seems like a bad idea. This is "dirty bomb" material. Also tracking all those radiation sources would be very difficult. You can't be sure it won't end up on some scrapheap somewhere sold as lead or whatever. The person stripping this thing likely will die. Everybody handling one of these with breached containment for extended periods of time will get a serious dose of radiation. Dirty bombs are not a thing to be concerned about. No one who wants to build a bomb is going to build a dirty bomb, the entire concept makes no sense to anyone who takes a minute to understand the biological effects of radiation. Nuclear material record-keeping in the US is much better than in the USSR, and a hospital basement with well-marked warning signs is quite different from a radio navigation beacon in the middle of Siberia. I see no issue so long as the generator is marked and put it in a lead container with a warning engraved on the side. I wouldn't suggest putting these in homes QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Sep 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 09:32
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:The LEDs do actually save you money though in the long run. Their price upfront is easily outweighed by the drastically lower electricity usage, and the far longer lifetime of the device before it "burns out" - even compared to CFL! The only problem with them ends up being is that they're usually in designs oriented to be used more like a spotlight or floodlight than a normal bulb pattern, but more normal lighting patterns have come out over time. I really want to emphasize the LED bulb love. If you can, get LEDs, the savings are better overall and you don't have to worry about disposal, so they're better in every way except for the slightly higher cost up front (and the difficulty of actually finding them). CFLs are just a transition technology
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
Aureon posted:20$/W means $60k for a 3kW... It doesn't work like that; forty years later the generator will be producing much less power (unless the source has a long half life, but that requires a lot more fuel), so you get less energy overall than just (time)*(power on day one)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
I was a bit disappointed when I discovered that my parents had bought 500 incandescent bulbs right before the de facto ban on the old, inefficient style went through (they were worried about mercury in CFLs and didn't know about LEDs). I imagine that many Americans aren't aware of the existence and advantages of LEDs
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:How many times have you moved in the past 17 years, and did you take all your light bulbs with you each time? Can you be sure that the fixtures you have in your home (or the new one you move to) will require the same mix of bulbs of various wattages over such a long period? Have you ever broken a light bulb? This is not an actual disadvantage; either LED bulbs will become so common that you can find them preinstalled wherever you go (like normal bulbs), in which case everyone pereptually wins, or you can just take the LED bulbs with you and leave behind something shittier. This is what people have been doing with CFLs for years; keep the old incandescent bulbs that come with your residence in the back of a closet, plug in CFLs everywhere, reverse the switch when you leave and take the CFLs with you. This works even better with LEDs because LEDs are a lot harder to break. quote:There are a bunch of less tangible possibilities we can't predict: LED prices drop every year, almost predictably, so that's a plus for LEDs. LED bulbs are also hard as gently caress to break, so you can scratch that one off, too. Rent-A-Cop posted:I hope everyone involved in the above ridiculous discussion realizes exactly how dumb the idea of telling people to spend $20 now so they can save $5 over the next 15 years is. The advantages are a lot more dramatic than that; the bulbs are hard to break, they're not hot to the touch, they last years and years longer, you save a ton of electricity per bulb, etc. And they're not any less convenient than CFLs or incandescents, they plug into the same sockets just like any other bulb and they sit alongside the other bulbs at the store. There are maybe a few very specific situations in which buying an LED won't benefit you
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
In a world where interest rates are close to zero and stocks are perpetually lovely, you'd have to be crazy to not see the value of a cheap investment with good returns like LED bulbs. The equivalent yearly interest is something like 3% and the income is completely tax free (coming in the form of a cheaper electric bill). People would go absolutely nuts if banks started offering 3% tax free saving accounts, especially if these accounts reduced local CO2 emissions. The investment cap is super low but the returns are solid
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:It's still the weakest of several arguments. Seriously, most Americans can't figure out why pay-day loans are a bad idea. "Saves you $0.25 a day!" isn't much of a marketing slogan. It's the exact same argument that caused the surge in demand for fuel efficiency, so maybe you should rethink your position. Pay day loans prey on people who live hand to mouth, not people who can afford to buy LED bulbs
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Do you honestly not see a difference between a large savings with a small (if any) additional up-front cost as in the case of fuel efficient cars, and a small savings with a significant additional up-front cost? Is this a joke post or are you just making bad arguments? In what universe is a few dollars extra for an LED bulb considered "a significant up front cost" but the many hundreds or sometimes thousands of dollars spent for a more fuel efficient vehicle model (especially hybrids and electrics) is a small or insignificant up front cost? You're quibbling over an additional up front cost of maybe $100 over traditional bulbs when you upgrade a small house or large apartment. For the kind of person who can afford to pay extra for a more fuel efficient car, this is not significant And as was pointed out already, the returns on LEDs are vastly superior as a percentage of additional cost. The large group of people who pay extra for more fuel efficiency are easy targets for LED marketing QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Sep 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
Yeti Fiasco posted:But when do you see these changes? When you get the electricity bill, that fridge/tv/whatever will take years to pay for itself in efficiency savings. Only if you're buying a new fridge/tv/whatever for efficiency purposes alone; as Install Gentoo alluded to, most people get something more efficient than their old model when the old model breaks whether they like it or not (for instance, you can't even give away CRT monitors anymore)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
Narbo posted:You'll find that while electricity production increases fairly steadily in the US, per capita electricity use has started to reverse it's upward trend over the past few years. This is at least partly attributable to large scale demand-side management programs in places like California, Vermont and other north-eastern states. This sort of information is available from Google Public Data, which uses sources like The World Bank and the US Census Bureau to make cool graphs. Solid lines are taken from data, dotted lines are taken from predictions US electricity consumption per capita for several countries [in kWh] (it does appear to be starting to fall, and note that this wouldn't be correcting for things like population growth, and Canada consumes a lot more electricity per capita than the US it seems  )Population growth rate for several Western countries (the US is the highest of the countries that I chose, it's predicted to remain relatively flat at about 0.7-0.8% per year, so we'll probably still be growing for awhile yet) The same plot, but just population instead of population growth
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
This kind of term is also known as "phantom load" and some other terms. If we're talking appliances, then older appliances suffer the same problem so I don't think that your assessment is accurate. The growth of phantom power comes from the tendency to make more products that are remote controlled and things like that and doesn't really have anything to do with efficiency; in fact, most electronics and appliances these days have industry standards that attempt to minimize phantom load, but those standards might not be enough. These kinds of losses are usually dwarfed by efficiency gains in other areas While it's important to be aware of phantom load it's not really something that you need to concern yourself with if you're worried about a new refrigerator consuming more power than your old one from the 1960s. A brand new fridge or even a new computer won't really have any more phantom load than the older model. A new coffee maker with a digital display, a new remote controlled stereo, and things of that nature will all increase the phantom load of your home (unless your old coffee maker also had a display, your old stereo was also remote controlled, etc.) That 1% seems about right, phantom load is a small fraction of overall electricity usage. It's something that people can reduce if they're willing to be mindful about it (it seems silly to pay electricity for no reason, but people also love being able to control things remotely and not having to mess around with plugs or a kill switch whenever they want to turn something on) Did you think about your suggestion that a master kill switch is a "simple" solution? Sometimes, sure, you can just lay down a power strip and then hit the switch whenever you're done with that outlet, but I can think of some other scenarios where this would be cumbersome (and hopefully you didn't intend to imply that you could just have a big lever that controls "all nonessential appliances" because that would be a lot of work to setup, unless you just want to use a well-marked fuse box to cut power to entire room sections, which could work adequately with a little planning) QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Sep 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
There is a type of person who, when congratulated for using less electricity than their neighbors, will deliberately start using more electricity. You will never convince this person to use less power voluntarily. This person eats entire meals of pure meat to spite vegetarians and drives an SUV a few times around the block to spite environmentalists
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
Narbo posted:Only having to produce 50% as much energy sounds like a pretty good deal to me though there has to be an accompanying shift in the energy mix. Efficiency won't solve any energy problems alone but it's a fantastically cheap place to start. Can't we do both? I don't know why we're even discussing this, it's the Energy Generation thread. Of course improving efficiency is important, but removing fossil fuels from the energy generation mix is at least just as important, if not more important.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2012 09:20
|
|
|
TURBO BUTTON posted:RE: the LED bulb argument, it has always been the case that it is expensive to be poor. Crappily made stuff costs less up front but breaks more often and leads to more money being spent in the long run. People should buy the more expensive but better quality item but often are unable. The answer will probably not come from something inherent to lightbulbs but a fundamental change in the relationship between producer and consumer. Pretty much; making an effort to upgrade your lightbulbs is middle class effort, the family trying to keep a roof of their heads won't be thinking about lightbulbs Maybe there's an argument to be made that fighting poverty lets people who end up leaving poverty make better energy decisions, which in turn helps fight poverty (by slightly bringing down electricity costs)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
Yeti Fiasco posted:No one ever seems to mention the sheer quantity of water you need to keep the vast array of mirrors clean, along with the difficulty of getting it where solar power is situated (In arid, sunny regions at high altitude). Every type of power plant requires vast quantities of water, solar thermal isn't any different in this respect
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Vermain posted:Is there a good book that deals with presenting the actual facts of nuclear power in a concise manner? It'd be nice to have something to give to people to help to dispel a lot of the myths surrounding it. I enjoyed Superfuel, though something written from a more academic context would also be good. This one is reasonably good at dispelling scientific misinformation and covers a lot more topics than just nuclear power Physics for Future Presidents 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
blacksun posted:Yeah, there's no 'need' for it here if we spend 4x the money (compared the nuclear) replacing our coal fired power generation with solar/wind. I think 4x is a bit optimistic if you really want 24/7/52 uninterrupted power without nuclear or fossil fuels
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:Ok. Let me try a different tack. Solar uses about the same amount of water, assuming you mean solar thermal and not PV
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
ductonius posted:Most of the water "use" of a nuclear power station is exactly the same as the water "use" for a coal power station: removing waste heat. That's the most fascinating part about nuclear power to me; people seem to think that we just absorb electricity from the atoms directly somehow, but really we're just heating up water and using the steam to run turbines. It's a steam engine. We're just obtaining heat from a different source (atomic fission instead of burning coal or wood). Most power generators, including solar thermal, are still just steam engines at heart 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2012 07:31
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Germany's gone a lot of the way towards having most of their grid powered by renewables, at least in theory. In practice it's causing very severe problems. I didn't read the article, but I do know that Germany is now importing significantly more power from France, so mostly nuclear power. A lot of people were predicting that this would be the end result when Germany declared that they were shutting down all of their nuclear power plants, and that's exactly what happened. They're doing an admirable job of using as many renewables as they can, but it's simply not enough.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2012 08:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No. I'm going to contend this. You are mad if you think Solar and Wind are the sole solutions, nuclear is the only long term low emission on-demand power generation system. I thought he was arguing that nuclear would be a better solution, and that was what wasn't even up for debate (in the sense that it has been hashed out a million times and renewables never come close to being as economical)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2012 09:40
|
|
|
Someone suggested to me that the oil shale in Wyoming and its neighbor states is the best route for US energy independence. Now I am already aware that using oil shale is very expensive, but is it cheaper to use oil shale to power gasoline vehicles or nuclear power to power electric vehicles?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2012 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
Dameius posted:Wikipedia says that with current technology sustained prices above 70-95 USD per barrel makes oil shale profitable. Though possible future tech could drive the break-even price down to $30 USD/barrel. That can't be right though, oil barrel prices have been in that range for years. Today it's $86/barrel. American oil companies would be going nuts with oil shale development if oil shale were that profitable at this price range
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2012 03:39
|
|