[extropy-chat] OIL: Albertan tar sands, was Peak Oil?

Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org
Wed Sep 14 16:25:10 UTC 2005


On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:02:21AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> Umm...you state your opinion, but you don't give any facts to back it
> up.  The article specifically contradicts you on this point, if you

"The energy balance is favorable; under a conservative life-cycle 
analysis, it should yield 3.5 units of energy for every 1 unit used 
in production."

=Let's burn some fossil hydrocarbons so we have process heat to extract
fossil hydrocarbons so we can burn those fossil hydrocarbons, too.
This is not very good. Using nuclear process heat to extract fossil
hydrocarbons just for chemical feedstock is only moderately better. 

Also:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=oil+shale+problem&btnG=Google+Search

> mean it's dumb because of the economics - and the people actually
> working on this have far more credibility.  Or do you mean something

I don't have any credibility whatsoever. I just saw if on the internets. 

> else?

Else.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050914/68018c1d/attachment.bin>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list