One of the many dirty little secrets about oil shale is that it will take huge amounts of energy to turn rock into a product we can put in our cars and trucks. That's because the currently proposed technology for producing oil shale involves using what amounts to glorified curling irons underground, heating them up to hundreds of degrees and melting the "kerogen" into something that can be sucked out of the ground and could be refined into a useable product.
To heat all those curling irons could require 10 or more new coal-fired power plants, making oil shale one of the dirtiest source of energy per unit in terms of greenhouse gases. This production process would also be incredibly thirsty - producing one barrel of fuel from shale may require 3 or more barrels of water.
According to a March news report, a recent study indicates oil companies have "more than 200 water rights held by six different energy companies [and two water districts] with the potential to divert 7.2 million acre-feet and store up to 2 million acre-feet of Western Slope water."
That's a LOT of water. By contrast, Denver Water needs less than 300,000 acre-feet of water to meet the demands of the 1.4 million people in its service area. OK, so the oil companies and those who may supply them apparently have rights with the potential to divert just 24 times as much water as Denver uses. (The oil companies may never use all the water they have rights to, but even if they use just a tenth of it ....)
And the coal-fired power plants to heat the rock will be controversial because of their emissions - not just CO2 but mercury and other poisons.
How to avoid the coal-oil shale connection, and maybe reduce some of the water demand? One man has a modest proposal. Aaron Diaz, the executive director of Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado - an association representing five counties including those where oil shale deposits are found - told a gathering of business people recently:
"Now this is just me talking, but with all the advances they’ve made with nuclear energy, why would it be such a big deal to have a nuclear reactor, maybe more than one, on site" in western Colorado to produce electricity to heat shale rock underground?
Well, maybe since we'll be dewatering rivers, drying out habitat, and turning the largely rural West Slope into a spider web of industrial facilities for Shell and its fellow oil shale producers, it won't be such a big deal.
Then again, maybe someone will care about the place, wonder where the nuke waste will go, worry about where the uranium will have to be mined (guess where? Western Colorado), and raise a ruckus. Those of us on the Front Range living downwind of the reactors may care, too.
Print this page
Email this page
Using existing technology, at what crude oil price does western slope shale oil break even on a net BTU energy basis and a 15% ROI on the required capital investment? Without Fed. Gove. subsidy, this approach can not be economically justified. Can you find even one "greedy capitalist" that would invest in this idea?
The only thing I'd quibble with is the idea that living "downwind" of a nuclear reactor is in any way equivalent of living "downwind" of a coal factory.
One of those produces toxic chemicals and climate changing CO2 that go into the air we breathe. The other produces hot water.
If we swapped every coal plant with a nuclear plant, we'd be significantly closer to a carbon-neutral nation. Switch cars/trucks to electricity rather than oil and we'd be even further.
The best part is that unlike CO2, people are mortally afraid of nuclear waste, so there's little chance the government would be able to sweep it under the table. Any slight deviation from the most rigorous storage procedures would result in a full-scale public riot.
Diane - Thanks for your support as well as your thoughts and information about the old dam. That's news to me.
The Flat Tops and the White River National Forest are some of my favorite landscapes on the planet - worth fighting for.
I'll be in touch if we need more info.
Ted Zukoski
wow, two really bad ideas, wrapped up in one lobbying effort! fantastic. can we possibly think of more ingenious ways of destroying our environment faster, while still completely ignoring climate change?
did these "advances" in nuclear reactors include finding a solution to "peak" uranium?
thanks for the heads up.
I'm a computer novice & don't understand the "threat" that if I close the window my "changes will be lost." Will my comments be lost?
My comment is brief & complete, & I need to move on to something else. OK?
One of the possible sources of water is of deep concern to me.
In the early 1970's an outfit (I forget company name) planned to dam the upper reaches of the South Fork of the White River (East of Buford, a mile or two beyond the end of the dirt road) in order to pipe the water to the Piceance Creek basin for oil shale development.
From the 1920's to the mid 1970's, my family had a large cattle ranch on the South & North Forks of the White River, in the Buford area. I spent my young life there in the summers beginning in the late 1930's, exploring & loving the area. If you're interested in more details, let me know.
I will be keenly interested if anyone is still planning to implement that damn White River dam scheme, but mostly as a supporter of EarthJustice I will continue to oppose oil shale development anywhere.
Post new comment