kano’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  think again

  interesting, but like i mentioned, although there are many approaches that are inefficient, there are others that are revolutionary.  for example:

  http://www.ecoshale.com/

  there is no mine, so you can forget the idea of a gigantic monster crunching rock and earth that will never be replaced, and interestingly enough, the process uses no water (except for that required to make the clay lining).  thus, it will not require diversion of any water resources (which in my opinion, will be the subject to kick oil of the pedastal in future grist discussion platforms).

  i agree with you.  like i mentioned yesterday, i belive wind and solar are the best solutions for our future, but there has to be a bridge transition.  the world can't switch in overnight, in one or even 3 years to alternative energy because to make the infrastructure changes that support our power demand on that scale requires time.  it will be a process of 10-15 years (also because solar is a business supported by government incentives, without the revenue power to stand on it's own two feet).  On BLM finalizes plan for leasing oil shale in U.S. West posted 1 year, 2 months ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  oil shale is not all evil

  i read the article on oil shale in today's grist, and it doesn't come as the biggest shock to me, nor does it strike me as environmentally irresponsible.  i am in the investment profession in nyc, and take a strong personal interest in clean tech.  consequently, i have had a series of meetings with non-conventional energy companies in growth stages of production, and i can say with certainty that oil shale stands to pose great benefit for our environment (full disclosure: i am NOT invested in any such company and consequently have no benefit in promoting their services).  the reason for this is that not all technologies require greater energy input than output. (though some clearly do)  in this respect i was pretty angry to see an across-the board smackdown of oil shale from different posters.  let me address a few issues:

  groundwater seepage is not a concern for well organized approaches as certain companies undertake the stict approach of lining all oil-shale pits with bidium clay.  as water is absorbed into the clay molecules, they swell to create an airtight seal nationally recognized by the EPA as the highest standard of protection, and enforced at most treatment plants and industrial worksites.

  margeret e: you are absolutely right! extracting the oil requires heating the shale to temperatures of 700 degrees, yet performed efficiently, this produces a tremendous amount of energy that can be collected as both liquid and gaseous fuel.  temperatures above 850 degress can be problems however, as this causes the shale to decompose and potentially release noxious gases into the air.  responsible strategies will not employ technologies w/ heating temps above 800 to avoid this risk.

  something positive to consider about oil shale is this: a pit is dug and oil shale excavated.  the pit lined with the clay, supplied with a collection drain, and then backfilled with shale and the pipes necessary to heat.  reclamation can start immediately.  when the process has been run to completion, all technology is removed horizontally from the pit.  essentially, this leaves an identical pit (with rearranged rocks) as to what existed before, yet with appropriate vegetation species on top (which was not there).  a pretty impressive approach i thought.

  i am an avid reader of grist, extremely environmentally conscious, and yes--anti-bush.  but i say this not to win support from fellow posters, but as a reminder that being pro-environment is about more than being against anything "oil" or party-line liberal. we all have a responsibility to be informed of the facts in order to understand which ideas hold up, and which don't (belive me there are oil shale approaches that DON'T).  but don't immediatly discount an idea that comes from one side or immediatly praise an idea that comes from another.  be informed.  remember: at a certain point the world runs according to numbers, and no matter how evil or good an idea might be, not bush not, not gore, not anyone will support something that loses money (it's just reality)

  so don't worry so much about all those inefficient ideas for energy, because long term if they don't produce more than they require, they won't survive. ( a GREAT example of this is biofuels, which is HORRIBLY inefficient and is a scary imbalance of resources to products.  in my opinion there is nothing more evil--check out the water consumption) alternative energies to get behind are solar and wind, because these are for REAL, especially as soon as photovoltaic efficiencies increase and supply costs for polysilicon come down (solar).  

  anyway, don't mean to lecture and i hope no one takes this as promotion for oil shale, but its just a reminder that not all alternative energy is good because it's alternative, and not everything "oil" is bad because it's oil.  stay out there, keep your ears to the ground, and enjoy.On BLM finalizes plan for leasing oil shale in U.S. West posted 1 year, 2 months ago 10 Responses