There's 43 years of known proved oil reserves remaining in our world. Depending on producing countries willingness to sell
If the U.S. replaced oil, with a Algae/CO2 biofuel, it would require 1 acre in every 102 land acres of the U.S., and ideal weather.
"The triple bottom line; economic, environmental, and social."
- Kris Smith, and CEO, Rick George "2011 Report on Sustainability" Suncor Energy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egNQqV8VpTA&list=PL74C603C612D3CA30&feature=plcp&context=C368f69dFDOEgsToPDskLgC0tdc0MF6N2QBtVq6tLD
Here we offer the best available real climate historical known facts going back for more than one million years.
Presented by Professor Bob Carter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=iCXDISLXTaY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bpQQGFZHSno
And, in fairness.
Solar Thermal
"The most advanced concentrated PV + Solar Thermal low cost per Watt. Third generation Solar Power with up to 75% Combined Heat & Power." http://www.zenithsolar.com/
It's best to start out with a few facts.
Earth: Surface area 510,072,000 km2 (196,939,900 square miles)
148,900,000 km2 land (29.2 %) (57,506,055 square miles)
361,132,000 km2 water (70.8 %) (139,433,844 square miles)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
"It is estimated that only one-eighth of the surface of the Earth is
suitable for humans to live on—three-quarters is covered by oceans, and
half of the land area is either desert (14%), high mountains (27%), or other less suitable terrain." This equates to approximately 24,617,487 square miles, or, 15,755,191,680 acres.
Crop lands account for approximately 6,400,546 square miles (26%), or, 4,096,349,836 acres. "Some scientists have said that in the future, densely populated cities will use vertical farming to grow food inside skyscrapers.
The notion that space is limited has been decried by skeptics, who
point out that "the Earth's population of roughly 6.8 billion people
could comfortably inhabit an area comparable in size to the state of
Texas, in the United States" (about 269,000 square miles or 696,707
square kilometers) - (about 172,160,000 acres - 1/4 acre per human). However, the impact of humanity extends over a far greater area than that required simply for habitation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
Therefore, the remaining 17,947,941 square miles, or, 11,486,682,240 acres would have to be utilized for all others purposes. However, excluding everything else, the total electric generation worldwide for "Source of Electricity (World total year 2008 Electricity (TWｈ/year) was 20,261 Terawatt hours. 2,304,223 megawatts at-load per-hour, averaged. Solar PV, quoted by BP Solar, requires approximately 6 acres per-megawatt. Additionally, three times the surface area required for a eight-hour solar consumption demand, under ideal weather conditions, would require 16 hours of additional solar collection area to be stored in batteries for later use. This would require a minimum of 41,476,014 acres to replace current electric (2008) generated electricity, again, with ideal weather. This would mean it would require 1 acre in every 276.94 acres, or, 2.31 acres of every remaining square mile of available land surface on Earth. (Replacing 2008 World Electric Generation exclusively with PV solar.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation
Growing food to produce fuels for transportation and electric energy will not solve our near future energy crisis in this lifetime or the next, apples and oil. There are more than 1,400 organics that can produce fuel, few are cost effective. The real problem at this time is providing efficient resources that aren't cost prohibitive to render a fuel source affordable, near term. Only a very few organic sources, needed for our current combustion technologies, meet the affordable cost to production requirements effecting our world economy.
Some alternatives such as wind and solar on a worldwide scale of development, as a replacement to meet world current consumptive energy demands, would cost more than the entire world currency printed today. Many people claim that one hour of solar energy striking the Earth in one hour could power the world for a year. Sure, if they were to cover the world with solar panels. That's like saying one foot of world seashore ocean water could give everyone a 16 once class of water every minute for the next one thousand years. Technologically, it doesn't mean anything.
Cap & Trade
Animal and human waste blending attempts to produce biomass fuel have developed patented fuel admixture processes, from sludge to methane production, and even a patented human waste sludge and coal admixture to be utilized at a utility scale. Cap & Trade advocates such as Mr. Richard Sandors, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXigcWflMak&feature=related making the insinuation that enticed investments were made to Intrepid of $17 million for biofuel methane production, from animal excretement, ("animal waste digestive business") is based on an attractive per-ton $2+/- Cap & Trade price is just financial silliness. Swine and cattle will suffer the same fate as humans utilizing their sewerage plants as a fuel transport to the two hundred thousand, plus, packaged sewerage plants in the U.S., that would have been able to ship their human waste to a waste to energy production plant. In other words, the vast amount of scattered, (excretement) "production to methane" in itself, does not produce enough methane fuel to ever become suitable at the utility scale without investing fuel, and vast sludge collection to recover it, you know, outside the lab... It's one thing to burn extracted methane from animal waste at a small scale waste to energy production rural facility as internal co-generated use of energy, with the same type of standard stack emissions technology controls governed today, (after all, this is the exact opposite intent of Cap & Trade to avoid such fuel i.e., natural gas, coal, etc.) based on the theory that this is a way to dispose of the waste, and the runoff.
Florida Power Corp, now Florida Progress utility company, patented a waste sludge and coal admixture process back in the 1980's. So this is nothing new. With an approximate btu value of only 2,000 btu per-poop-pound before the admixture of coal, along with enormous pump and transport losses thrown in the mix, concerning poop fuel resource supply, and fuel preparation, most waste water engineers prefer to pelletize it, bag it, and ship it for fertilizer.
Without attempting to be so crude, one slightly dewatered poop-per-day-per-person won't burn very long nor heat your home, considered as similar to a wet briquette prior to BOD ("Biological Oxygen Demand") an industry term - bacteria, "bugs," to consume waste solids and excrete reduced solids, decomposition, while producing methane from their digestion. Get it? So the rendered solids (waste) after the extraction of methane just creates the proposition to move the waste twice, before and after, feeder fuel separation and to further waste stock treatments, and prior to transportation which are only the partial net energy losses. So any attempt to assume that such investments were created because of the cost of emissions per-ton, otherwise incurred which are not actually avoided, and to be charged as a emissions certificate tradeoff by still creating more methane at any Cap & Trade price of $2+/- per-ton is just silly for the uniformed, and fraud by those who are, as public statements' testimony. Most utilities qualifying a fuel for, and in, their combustion processes incur a fuel analysis cost of approximately $1 million USD for a given fuel to be analyzed, and utilized. (Source; GE) Much of this was not expressed in the testimony given at the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. So the House Committee on Energy and Commerce representatives could not be held complicit for perpetrating scientific testimony they must not have understood.
We do not accept the view that elected officials are not entitled to earnings based on legal and financial business, prior to official service, that may affect current and future national policy. Where that line is drawn after private to public service remains to be seen. Like it, or not, we already have laws in the United States that govern this. Exiting government service does not thwart earnings potential, with a few exceptions, and where conscience has no law.
http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/wonder-why-obama-hillary-al-gore-goldman-sachs-and-others-still-push-carbon-trading-when-the-global-warming-hoax-has-been-so-thoroughly-discredited-follow-the-money-they-will-all-make-billions-2/
Some have claimed that there is more than $40 trillion USD prepared for Cap & Trade investments. This report stated there are 285 investors worth $20 trillion. "And the world’s largest investors agree. Today, in the lead-up to the COP 17 climate talks in Durban, South Africa, 285 of the top investors representing $20 trillion in assets signed a letter of support for policy action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions": http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/19/347597/investors-worth-20-trillion-call-for-urgent-action-on-climate/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
This may be a wonderful investor asset comparison to global warming. However, published reports of the U.S. contribution to Green House Gas emissions is approximately 25%. So it's unclear if an all-in investment bubble of $10 trillion (U.S. 25%) would be justifiable when the total operating revenue of all U.S. electric utilities is only $34 billion USD. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/pdf/tablees1.pdf
Although there may be huge quantities of animal field waste accounted, and unaccounted for, that is vastly scattered on the "range," as mentioned, and, when such stock piles become a serious issue, those skilled in the art of animal waste industrial scale collection may publish additional research bringing the vast waste collection cost reductions, if any, public. Utility fuel scale receiving stage yards and receiving terminals not currently prepared for additional animal waste feed stock collection may, or may not, be enticed to make such investments required to receive such additional waste for further disposal at any additional energy cost. Nor, should this fuel be considered as an offset emissions investment, produced by an additional methane fire combustion unit, to be added to their contractual waste emissions bottom line. Utilities will not receive credits by adding additional methane combustion fuel to their portfolio, (that doesn't avoid anything, including emissions physically) and a Cap & Trade cost of $2 per-ton, as if that has anything to do with an additional attractive energy investment, is foolish, at best.
~ Beautiful oil
Then, and now?
Although it is believed that approximately 47,025,000 acres of Algae could replace our entire U.S. oil demand, we hope that with work and research the hungry won't need to burn their crops. This would also mean 1 acre in every 48.1 acres of the entire U.S. land surface, at this time, estimated and claimed would be needed to meet and replace the U.S. oil demand. In others words, approximately 13.3 acres of every square mile of land surface, excluding the 6.76% of the U.S. surface water area, that has been claimed to be required to replace our current oil consumption with CO2 and an algae mixture. Unless of course, one would choose to build and grow upward offsetting the 20 million barrels of oil per-day which are consumed in the United States.
These companies produce Biofuel, such as "Blue Oil", from CO2 and Algae.
Commercial full scale projection is five to 10 years. This company claims they can produce 1.25 million barrels of "Blue Oil" on approximately 50 Square kilometers, 19.3 square miles, annually. About as much oil as Iraq exports per-day.
Bio Fuel Systems, Inc http://www.biopetroleo.com/english/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZOEYELdbjU
This petro algae producer has published that they produce approximately 14,000 gallons of oil per-year-per-acre. Again, to replace the U.S. consumption of approximately 20 million barrels of oil per day, or, 840,000,000 gallons of oil per day, would require 22,105,263 acres of U.S. land surface, excluding surface water, while actually delivering 38 gallons of oil per-day-per-acre. Of the 2,264,076,800 U.S. land acreage, that would be 1 acre in every 102 acres of the U.S. land surface, or, 6.4 acres of every sq mile of U.S. land surface. This is, of course, before any net energy loss acquired through production and transportation. Without intending a complete transfer of this similar organic, compared to the other organics of gasoline and oil as the sole source for all transportation needs, this may certainly fuel vast heavy vehicle markets, and, timely.
PetroAlgae, Inc. http://www.petroalgae.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wECYL5QCfxc&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL7D98C84BAF453EE7
The "Net Generation" of electricity in the United States, year ending 2010, was 4,125,060,000 megawatthours, 11,301,534 megawatthours per-day, and 470,897 megawatthours at-load-per-hour, averaged.
2010: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/pdf/tablees1.pdf
The truth in providing energy is vital in terms of national reliability and national energy security. It is not surprising that affordable energy is the catalyst for world development. Heating your home in America is much different than 80% of our world that earn less than $10 per day. It is one thing to provide natural gas for 10 million homes for 100 years, it's quite other to supply 100 million homes, or more, with given supplies of natural gas for the next 40 years. Some of these facts may surprise you, or even shock you, but they are vital when understanding how our future energy infrastructure may evolve, realistically.
Massey Energy Company
Mr. Don L. Blankenship, Chairman and CEO of Massey Energy Company addressed a National Press Club luncheon to express real facts related to the delivery of our energy needs. We hope you'll take the time to learn.
http://www.c-span.org/Events/NPC-Luncheon-with-Massey-Energy-CEO-Don-Blankenship/18590-1/
Video Series "Collapse"
We do not share this hypothesis, nor conclusions. However, in terms of oil assets, differing opinions matter. We don not believe that an end to our modern world is determined by the future lack of oil as we know it. Preparing for doom is nonproductive. We offer solutions. Personally, we respect Mr. Michael W. Ruppert and his insights. He is well informed. However, service, changes in terms of international law in a vast world of differences. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QozxeBIEkAM
In the above video presented, certain aspects concerning government responsibility may be noted as published. In contrast; " "Ensuring balance in national policies on controlled substances" "Guidance for availability and accessibility of controlled medicines" "
http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/GLs_Ens_Balance_NOCP_Col_EN_sanend.pdf
Off topic, to energy and unrelated CIA references published above, involving the eminent energy "Collapse", deviates from the pending energy crisis by throwing in everything but the kitchen sink. And thus, should be noted by above such reference; "The U.S. Percentage of global morphine consumption was 55.9%"; ("Morphine: distribution of consumption")
2009 World Health Organization
"WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data Ensuring balance in national policies on controlled substances: guidance for availability and accessibility of controlled medicines. Revised edition of “Narcotic and psychotropic drugs: achieving balance in national opioids control policy: guidelines for assessment”, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2000 (WHO/EDM/QSM/2000.4)"
"1.Drug and narcotic control. 2.Essential drugs - supply and distribution. 3.Health policy. 4.Human rights. 5.Legislation, medical. 6.Legislation, pharmacy. 7.Opioid related disorders - prevention and control. 8.Guidelines. I.World Health
Organization. ISBN 978 92 4 156417 5 (NLM classification: QV 33.1)"
"Relevant international law and principles"
"Single Convention, Article 20, paragraph 1: “The Parties shall furnish to the Board for each of their territories, in the manner and form prescribed by the Board, statistical returns on forms supplied by it in respect of the following matters:
a) Production or manufacture of drugs;
b) Utilization of drugs for the manufacture of other drugs, of preparations in Schedule III and of substances not covered by this Convention, and utilization of poppy straw for the manufacture of drugs;
c) Consumption of drugs;
d) Imports and exports of drugs and poppy straw;
e) Seizures of drugs and disposal thereof;
f) Stocks of drugs as at 31 December of the year to which the returns relate; and
g) Ascertainable area of cultivation of the opium poppy.”
Back to Our Energy Complexities
Complexities concerning both electric vehicles and technically disassociated emissions, (powering such electric vehicles at recharge, and real shared cost evaluations, publicly, which must provide the energy to recharge them, rather than private eccentric energy demonstrations of various alternatives), should be more than considered, our energy liabilities and reliability demand this by law, publicly. Private take over of our national energy grid transmission will not hold down costs. In fact, only the very rich, utilizing alternatives, could afford the liabilities of non-generating units, at any time, which would drive up the cost to consumers to absorb such financial losses at-load. The U.S. Federal Government owns approximately 75% of the U.S. electric power lines. In other words, American's own these power lines as U.S. assets. We elect officials to administrate these power line assets. The Federal Government only produces approximately 10% of the electric energy transmitted. A private speculative take over of these power lines would surely cause rate increases to the Federal, State, Municipal, and private consumers. Believe it. The idea of hundreds-of-thousands, or millions of small, medium, and large generators all competing to raise your rates, for earnings, would be disastrous. Again, the very rich would gobble them up in an alternative intermittent, take or pay (rates), non-generating energy default short order financial demand concerning reliability, and their liabilities. In other words, you simply can't call a electric dispatcher and say, I don't have generated electricity and energy today, it's not windy but very cloudy. You don't mind, right?
Utilities contract for the purchase of additional electricity when needed to service their customers. Relying too heavily on intermittent electric generation, causing unreliable "Firm & Fixed" capacity, gambling they've shifted their generation cost to private generators, that may or may not generate electricity based on rates and schedules testified, and approved, by utility districts and commissions for long-term energy commitments and delivery is much more than just risky. One can not simply write-off energy that is not generated. Unless of course, you can withstand electric generation outage's consequential to your investment, whereby, customers do not depend on your electric generation to service their electric utility needs while you write-off and depreciate your equipment, as a "see ya," (unlike utilities), energy commitment as necessary... Otherwise, understand the liabilities and your financial survival, at-load.
Vehicle-to-grid: uploading and grid buffering - BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle) are planned to supply power to the Smart grid during peak demand, which is stored in at-rest vehicles connected to the grid. In other words, the electricity and energy is stored in your vehicle, connected to the grid, that has been metered and sold to you which you would store. Do, or will, your utilities pay you their "Avoided Fuel" and "Avoided Energy" cost by purchasing this electricity and energy from you, for the redistribution of the energy to be wheeled and made available for others to consume? After all, you would have already paid for it. This is but one of the serious issues to be worked out between the DOE, utilities, and you, the consumer. Now, a little smarter grid.
Vehicle to Grid
"Vehicle-to-grid:" uploading and grid buffering. Main article: Vehicle-to-grid; See also: Economy 7 and load balancing (electrical power) A Smart grid allows BEVs to provide power to the grid, specifically:
During peak load periods, when the cost of electricity can be very high. These vehicles can then be recharged during off-peak at cheaper rates while helping to absorb excess night time generation. Here the batteries in the vehicles serve as a distributed storage system to buffer power.
During blackouts, as an emergency backup supply. Such a system will not be widely feasible until the cycle durability of battery packs is significantly increased." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_cars
Facts:
CO2: "Plants (and trees) also emit CO2 during respiration, and so the majority of plants and algae, which use C3 photosynthesis, are only net absorbers during the day." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2
The largest producer of greenhouse gas is termites, methane gas, another form of hydrogen. So plants, trees, insects, animals/humans, and industry produce CO2.
New growth forests produce 20% more CO2 than mature - old growth forests. Just vastly planting more trees will exacerbate this CO2 emissions dilemma without planning the harvesting, "carbon offset," and the industrial requirements. A balance of truth is needed, and timely. The last five ice age's were not caused by industrialization. More than likely they were caused by the over abundant decay of organic materials saturating the atmosphere with cloud cover. We are not suggesting to slash and burn forests but only to recognize the balance humans may contribute while adjusting emissions, because other species can't. Healthy forests absorb more CO2 than dying and decaying forests, as well as other decaying organics that produce additional methane. (methane, hydrogen sulphide, and ammonia) "The chemical aspects of plant decomposition always involve the release of carbon dioxide."
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads11/GHG-Fast-Facts-2009.pdf
Published Article provided of Dr Jeff W. Eerkens Ph.D
Green Nuclear Power
Green nuclear power is the only practical solution to simultaneously (1) ameliorate global warming, (2) avoid dependence on foreign oil/gas, and (3) overcome oil/gas depletion. Only two prime energy sources, coal and uranium, can affordably deliver terawatts of "mother" electricity for: (a) heavy industry, i.e. manufacture of automobiles, ships, airplanes, bridges, etc; (b) power for vast fleets of future electric plug-in autos; and (c) production of portable synfuels (hydrogen and ammonia) and biofuels to replace oil. However coal worsens global warming and should be preserved as raw material to make plastics and other organics when oil/gas is gone. This leaves uranium as the only "big-mama" green energy source, an "inconvenient truth".
Popular solar and wind energy are very useful for small-quantity power generation in select locations. But at terawatt levels, immense areas of land and/or sea would be needed, requiring enormous maintenance operations, spoiling scenic land- or sea-scapes, and destroying local ecosystems. As scientifically documented in "The Nuclear Imperative - A Critical Look at the Approaching Energy Crisis" (ISBN 1-4020-4930-7), by 2050 when petroleum fuels are basically exhausted, only uranium and thorium can affordably sustain global energy needs for some 3000 years, using proven fuel reprocessing and advanced reactor technology. A serious in-depth analysis of our future energy shortage by engineers (not by anti-nuclear hand-waving philosophers) reveals that nuclear power is essential to rescue our children from a future economic collapse. For the USA, 500 additional nuclear reactors are required, built on 9000 acres (@ $1.5 trillion), compared to 1,500,000 windmills with storage batteries on 6,000,000 windy acres (@ $4.5 trillion). Ten times these numbers are needed for the entire world. (Costs are in 2005 dollars; for later years, these costs must all be multiplied by the dollar inflation factor).
A stale anti-nuclear lament is "what do we do with all the long-lived radioactive nuclear waste". The volume of waste amounts to one aspirin tablet per year per person using nuclear electricity, compared to tons of air pollutants and globe-warming gaseous CO2 emitted by coal or fossil-fuel combustion. Nuclear waste can be easily stored and safely transported, as the US nuclear navy has done for half a century. Contrary to allegations that uranium and plutonium in spent fuel elements pose a problem because of million-year half-lives, they are separated from fission products by reprocessing and burnt as fuel in future fast-breeder reactors. They will not be dumped. This reduces 50,000 tons from ten-year accumulation of spent fuel to 500 tons (with shorter decay lives) of fission products, taking centuries instead of decades to fill the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada. The notion that long radioactive lifetimes are undesirable is also erroneous. The longer the decay lifetime, the less the radiation emitted per gram of radio-isotope. Most elements that make up our bodies (hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc) have infinitely long decay lifetimes. All humans are "hot" because everyone has radioactive potassium-40 (K-40; 0.012% abundance) in his body, which continuously emits beta particles with a half-life of one million years! Man successfully evolved in this environment, and there are even indications that low levels of radiation benefit health (called hormesis). The hue and cry about possible terrorism and "dirty bombs" is also highly exaggerated. By the reasoning of anti-nuclear activists, we should stop flying 707 jets because they can be used as weapons to kill thousands of people.
Energy is man's third most important need after water and food. Those who hinder expansion of nuclear power will be viewed as irresponsible neo-luddites by future generations. Any further delay of a committed worldwide nuclear energy program will cause certain impoverishment and death of many people by 2050. Those responsible will and must be held accountable for this. Without greatly expanded nuclear power, desert cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix will become ghost-towns. Originally the US had planned to have 300 reactors by the year 2000, but instead there are only 104 today. After the Three-Mile-Island (TMI) reactor meltdown in 1979 in the US (with 0 casualties) and Russia's Chernobyl accident in 1986 (with 57 fatalities), public hysteria fanned by fear-mongering antinuclear activists caused cancellations and moratoria on construction of new nuclear plants. While the USA was once the leader, most US businesses with reactor manufacturing know-how closed. Instead France, Russia, Japan, South-Korea, India, and China are now in charge. Zealous anti-nuclear lobbyists and a mal-informed government have created the pending energy crisis...
Jeff W. Eerkens, Ph.D
Adjunct Research Professor,
Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute
University of Missouri, Columbia
http://thesciencecouncil.com/index.php/dr-jeff-eerkens
Thank you, Dr Eerkens.
Truth in energy is vital. Generations before us have worked millions of man hours collectively to solve our future energy demand. These were not wild eyed scientists obscured in dark science. Today in fact, scientists are still working collaboratively around the world, as they should be, to ensure our world energy consumptive use requirements are fueled.
In the United States our federal regulatory departments and agencies oversee regulation, compliance, and planning for such vital national energy security, publicly, to ensure reliability, of demand and availability, of our national electric energy grid. This is no small task that only requires a cursory read, opinion, and problem solved. The United States already has the most stringent safety, environmental, and operational regulations and laws administering the production of our electric and energy power generation.
Should one understand the economics of available current operational technology creating revenues to advance future developments of power production, and, unrelated financially, future technologies that are not producing such power at this time economically, or otherwise, may be able to remain soft spoken. In other words, future technology must be paid for from current technologies delivering electric power and revenues without massive grant funding, and the bridge financing from subsidies to produce energy from start-ups, in real time, that are not able to produce assured baseload capacity. "Maybe," on any given day of a non-generating unit(s), is not the correct solution to our future energy and reliability growth needs.
Glimpse into the future and be assured that these technologies were developed with the most stringent, aforementioned, regulations in the world. Reductions of emissions should be understood, balancing, across our entire future energy infrastructure resulting in overall emissions reductions utilizing various technologies to accomplish, and meet, our emission reductions threshold of compliance. There is no "all or nothing" technology, from resource to grid (elements that manufacture technology), that can accomplish this exclusively, period.
Many believe that electric utilities do not wish to purchase electricity from other producers and only prefer to generate electricity to sell to their customers. This is simply not true. If you can provide generated electricity, at a more attractive price to a utility, than the utility can generate, they'll buy that electricity from you, and provide a more attractive return for their shareholders and rate payers at their reduced "Avoided Fuel and Avoided Energy" cost for which they can pass on to shareholders and customers. And if not, they can explain why to their shareholders prior to being replaced as an officer or director of their invested utility shareholders, generally, for their losses incurred.
IGCC: This example, although this power station currently burns Petro Coke, (petroleum residues), it is licensed to burn several different fuels such as natural gas and coal.
TECO Energy: Polk (County) Power Station
http://www.tecoenergy.com/news/powerstation/polk/
Note:
Saudi Arabia has 81 years of remaining oil reserves for their country. However, the U.S. is 11.4 times Saudi Arabia's population. If Saudi Arabia had to supply the U.S., solely, for the total U.S. oil supply demand, Saudi Arabia would run out of oil in 37.1 years at the current consumptive used rate of the United States compared by population and consumption.
As you can see below, Kuwait has 121 years of remaining oil reserves for their country. The U.S. is 87 times Kuwait's population. If Kuwait had to supply the U.S., solely, for the total U.S. oil supply demand, Kuwait would run out of oil in 14.6 years at the current consumptive use rate of the United States, compared by population and consumption.
The U.S. has "6.928 trillion cubic meters of Natural Gas - Proved Natural Gas Reserves ( 1 January 2009 est.)" The U.S. current consumptive use rate of Natural Gas is "646.6 billion cubic meters of Natural Gas ( 1 January 2009 est.)" This means the U.S. has 10.71 remaining years of known proved reserves of natural gas at our current consumptive use rate. ( "1 January 2009 est.")
List of countries by proven oil reserves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves
| Country | Reserves (bbl) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Venezuela (more information) (2010) [1] [2] |
296,500,000,000 |
| 2 |  Saudi Arabia (more information) (2011)[3] |
264,600,000,000 |
| 3 |  Canada [4] (more information) (2008) |
175,200,000,000 |
| 4 |  Iran (more information) |
150,600,000,000 |
| 5 |  Iraq (more information) (2010) |
143,500,000,000 |
| 6 |  Kuwait (more information) (2010) |
104,000,000,000 |
| 7 |  Brazil |
123,000,000,000 |
| 8 |  United Arab Emirates (more information) (2008) |
97,800,000,000 |
| 9 |  Russia (more information) (2009) |
74,200,000,000 |
| 10 |  Libya (more information) (2010) |
47,000,000,000 |
| 11 |  Nigeria (more information) (2011) |
37,200,000,000 |
| 12 |  Kazakhstan (2009) |
30,000,000,000 |
| 13 |  Qatar (2009) |
25,410,000,000 |
| 14 |  China |
20,350,000,000 |
| 15 |  United States (more information) |
19,120,000,000 |
| 16 |  Azerbaijan |
14,000,000,000 |
| 17 |  Angola |
13,500,000,000 |
| 18 |  Mexico (more information)[7][8][9] |
12,420,000,000 |
| 19 |  Algeria |
12,200,000,000 |
| 20 |  Sudan |
6,800,000,000 |
| 21 |  Norway |
6,680,000,000 |
| 22 |  Ecuador |
6,542,000,000 |
| 23 |  India |
5,800,000,000 |
| 24 |  Oman |
5,500,000,000 |
| — |  European Union |
5,453,000,000 |
| 25 |  Ghana |
5,000,000,000 |
| 26 |  Vietnam |
4,700,000,000 |
| 27 |  Egypt |
4,300,000,000 |
| 28 |  Indonesia |
4,050,000,000 |
| 29 |  Gabon |
3,700,000,000 |
| 30 |  Australia |
1,100,000,000 |
| 31 |  United Kingdom |
3,000,000,000 |
| 32 |  Yemen |
3,000,000,000 |
| 33 |  Malaysia |
2,900,000,000 |
| 34 |  Syria |
2,500,000,000 |
| 35 |  Argentina |
2,386,000,000 |
| 36 |  Colombia |
1,900,000,000 |
| 37 |  Congo, Republic of the |
1,600,000,000 |
| 38 |  Chad |
1,500,000,000 |
| 39 |  Brunei |
1,100,000,000 |
| 40 |  Equatorial Guinea |
1,100,000,000 |
| 41 |  Denmark |
1,060,000,000 |
| 42 |  Trinidad and Tobago |
728,300,000 |
| 43 |  Romania |
600,000,000 |
| 44 |  Turkmenistan |
600,000,000 |
| 45 |  Uzbekistan |
594,000,000 |
| 46 |  Timor-Leste |
553,800,000 |
| 47 |  Peru |
470,800,000 |
| 48 |  Bolivia |
465,000,000 |
| 49 |  Pakistan |
436,200,000 |
| 50 |  Thailand |
430,000,000 |
| 51 |  Tunisia |
425,000,000 |
| 52 |  Italy |
423,700,000 |
| 53 |  Ukraine |
395,000,000 |
| 54 |  Germany |
276,000,000 |
| 55 |  Turkey |
262,200,000 |
| 56 |  Cote d'Ivoire |
250,000,000 |
| 57 |  Cameroon |
200,000,000 |
| 58 |  Albania |
199,100,000 |
| 59 |  Belarus |
198,000,000 |
| 60 |  Congo, Democratic Republic of the |
180,000,000 |
| 61 |  Cuba |
178,900,000 |
| 62 |  Papua New Guinea |
170,000,000 |
| 63 |  Philippines |
168,000,000 |
| 64 |  Chile |
150,000,000 |
| 65 |  Spain |
150,000,000 |
| 66 |  Bahrain |
124,600,000 |
| 67 |  France |
101,200,000 |
| 68 |  Mauritania |
100,000,000 |
| 69 |  Netherlands |
100,000,000 |
| 70 |  Morocco |
100,000,000 |
| 71 |  Poland |
96,380,000 |
| 72 |  Austria |
89,000,000 |
| 73 |  Guatemala |
83,070,000 |
| 74 |  Suriname |
79,600,000 |
| 75 |  Serbia |
77,500,000 |
| 76 |  Croatia |
73,350,000 |
| 77 |  New Zealand |
60,000,000 |
| 78 |  Myanmar |
50,000,000 |
| 79 |  Japan |
44,120,000 |
| 80 |  Kyrgyzstan |
40,000,000 |
| 81 |  Georgia |
35,000,000 |
| 82 |  Bangladesh |
28,000,000 |
| 83 |  Hungary |
26,570,000 |
| 84 |  Bulgaria |
15,000,000 |
| 85 |  South Africa |
15,000,000 |
| 86 |  Czech Republic |
15,000,000 |
| 87 |  Lithuania |
12,000,000 |
| 88 |  Tajikistan |
12,000,000 |
| 89 |  Greece |
10,000,000 |
| 90 |  Slovakia |
9,000,000 |
| 91 |  Benin |
8,000,000 |
| 92 |  Belize |
6,700,000 |
| 93 |  Taiwan |
2,800,000 |
| 94 |  Israel |
1,940,000 |
| 95 |  Barbados |
1,790,000 |
| 96 |  Jordan |
1,000,000 |
| 97 |  Ethiopia |
430,000 |
| - | Total | 1,392,461,050,000 |
According to the CIA World Factbook, and others, estimate for 2010, "the world consumes about 87 million barrels of oil each day."
Or, 31,755,000,000 barrels per-year. Without any additional consumption annual increases, the Remaining Proved Oil Reserves will last 43.8 years.
Note: "Most of the oil sands of Canada are located in three major deposits in northern Alberta. These are the Athabasca-Wabiskaw oil sands of north northeastern Alberta, the Cold Lake deposits of east northeastern Alberta, and the Peace River deposits of northwestern Alberta. Between them they cover over 140,000 square kilometres (54,000 sq mi)—an area larger than England—and hold proven reserves of 1.75 trillion barrels (280×109 m3) of bitumen in place. About 10% of this, or 173 billion barrels (27.5×109 m3), is estimated by the government of Alberta to be recoverable at current prices, using current technology, which amounts to 97% of Canadian oil reserves and 75% of total North American petroleum reserves.[1] The Cold Lake deposits extend across the Alberta's eastern border into Saskatchewan. In addition to the Alberta oil sands, there are major oil sands deposits on Melville Island in the Canadian Arctic islands, which are unlikely to see commercial production in the foreseeable future."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands