The pace of new developing technology to meet future energy demand is more vital than ever before. The natural world reserves of obtainable fuels assets are now assessed by expert geologists and fuels companies are to last but decades. With the exception of coal, this century will be the last era of oil, including shale and tar sands estimated reserves, to include natural gas production extractions from such shale and tar sands known reserve assets, foreseeing the deprivation of known world cost effective organic (fossil/carbon) fuels to meet our current and future demand.
There has been great progress with solar, especially thermal solar, wind, and advanced biofuels to meet private and limited public energy demands. However, to meet current and future world energy demand requirements, on a worldwide scale, by shifting public electric energy investments for the generation of electricity to private individuals, at current costs, is simply, privately, prohibitive throughout the world.
The truth of energy production limitations need to be understood so that relatively near future demand requirements are assured, and the development of known inadequate private-use technology will not delay reliable public energy solutions. Timing is now most crucial.
Government's control policy and developments of our energy and industrial civil needs. The seriousness of this can not be understated. Never in our industrial history has our energy policy to direct near future energy assurance been so vital. Previous era's possessed the necessary fuel assets to develop their industrial society's future. Intermittent government operations is not a response for our future energy policy, nor should we rely on intermittent energy to power our government and civil energy needs, no matter how financial incentives guise proved unreliability.
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.
Economic/Business Case for the Pyroprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF)
Charles Archambeau, PhD., repository (Yucca Mountain) Joe Shuster (Project Leader), chemical engineer, authority entrepreneur, businessman, author, lecturer
Tom Blees, president Science Council for Global Initiatives Randolph Ware, PhD. nuclear physics, former program
(SCGI), author, lecturer director UCAR, entrepreneur, businessman
Yoon Chang, PhD., former associate lab director of Argonne John Wooley, BBA, JD, Earth Energy, entrepreneur,
National Lab (ANL) businessman
Ray Hunter, former deputy director of the Office of Nuclear
Energy Department of Energy (DOE) November 2010
http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/PyroprocessingBusinessCase.pdf
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (United States)
- This article refers to the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve. For other countries see global strategic petroleum reserves
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is an emergency fuel storage of oil maintained by the United States Department of Energy. It is the largest emergency supply in the world with the capacity to hold up to 727 million barrels (115,600,000 m3).
The current inventory is displayed on the SPR's website. As of May 31, 2011, the inventory was 726.5 million barrels (115,500,000 m3). This equates to 34 days of oil at current daily US consumption levels of 21 million barrels per day (3,300,000 m3/d). At recent market prices ($65 a barrel as of October 2008) the SPR holds over $34.3 billion in sweet crude and approximately $51.2 billion in sour crude (assuming a $15/barrel discount for sulfur content). The total value of the crude in the SPR is approximately $85.5 billion USD. The price paid for the oil is $20.1 billion (an average of $28.42 per barrel).[1]
Purchases of crude oil resumed in January 2009 using revenues available from the 2005 Hurricane Katrina emergency sale. The DOE purchased 10,700,000 barrels (1,700,000 m3) at a cost of $553 million.[2]
The United States started the petroleum reserve in 1975 after oil supplies were cut off during the 1973-74 oil embargo, to mitigate future temporary supply disruptions. According to the World Factbook, the United States imports a net 12 million barrels (1,900,000 m3) of oil a day (MMbd), so the SPR holds about a 58-day supply. However, the maximum total withdrawal capability from the SPR is only 4.4 million barrels (700,000 m3) per day, making it a 160 + day supply.
Contents |
Facilities
The SPR management office is located in New Orleans, Louisiana.
The reserve is stored at four sites on the Gulf of Mexico, each located near a major center of petrochemical refining and processing. Each site contains a number of artificial caverns created in salt domes below the surface.
Individual caverns within a site can be up to 1000 m below the surface, average dimensions are 60 m wide and 600 m deep, and capacity ranges from 6 to 37 million barrels (950,000 to 5,900,000 m3). Almost $4 billion was spent on the facilities. The decision to store in caverns was made in order to reduce costs; the Department of Energy claims it is roughly 10 times cheaper to store oil below surface with the added advantages of no leaks and a constant natural churn of the oil due to a temperature gradient in the caverns. The caverns were created by drilling down and then dissolving the salt with water.
Existing
- Bryan Mound - Freeport, Texas. 20 caverns with a storage capacity of 254 million barrels (40,400,000 m3) with a drawdown capacity of 1.5 million barrels (240,000 m3) per day.[4][5]
- Big Hill - Winnie, Texas. Has a capacity of 160 million barrels (25,000,000 m3) with a drawdown capacity of 1.1 million barrels (170,000 m3) per day. This facility is planned to be expanded by 250 million barrels (40,000,000 m3) with a new drawdown capacity of 1.5 million barrels (240,000 m3) per day.[5]
- West Hackberry - Lake Charles, Louisiana. Has a capacity of 227 million barrels (36,100,000 m3) with a drawdown capacity of 1.3 million barrels (210,000 m3) per day.[5]
- Bayou Choctaw - Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Has a capacity of 76 million barrels (12,100,000 m3) with a maximum drawdown rate of 550,000 barrels (87,000 m3). This facility is planned to be expand to 109 million barrels (17,300,000 m3) with a new drawdown capacity of 600,000 barrels (95,000 m3) per day.[5]
Future
- Richton, Mississippi. This facility, if built as planned, will have a capacity of 160 million barrels (25,000,000 m3) with a drawdown capacity of 1 million barrels (160,000 m3) per day.[5] The Secretary of the Energy Department, Samuel Bodman, announced the creation of this site in February 2007.[6] This new site is currently facing some opposition.[7]
Retired
- Weeks Island - Iberia Parish, Louisiana (Decommissioned 1999) Capacity of 72 million barrels (11,400,000 m3). This facility was a conventional room and pillar near-surface salt mine, formerly owned by Morton Salt. In 1993, a sinkhole formed on the site, allowing fresh water to intrude into the mine. Because of the mine's construction in salt deposits, fresh water would erode the ceiling, potentially causing the structure to fail. The mine was backfilled with salt-saturated brine. This process, which allowed for recovery of 98% of the petroleum stored in the facility, reduced the risk of further freshwater intrusion, and helped prevent the remaining oil from leaking into the aquifer that is located over the salt dome.
History
Background
Access to the reserve is determined by the conditions written into the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), primarily to counter a severe supply interruption. The maximum removal rate, by physical constraints, is 4.4 million barrels per day (700,000 m3/d). Oil could begin entering the marketplace 13 days after a presidential order. The Department of Energy says it has about 59 days of import protection in the SPR. This, combined with private sector inventory protection, is estimated to equal 115 days of imports.
The SPR was created following the 1973 energy crisis. The EPCA of December 22, 1975, made it policy for the U.S. to establish a reserve up to 1 billion barrels (159 million m³) of petroleum. A number of existing storage sites were acquired in 1977. Construction of the first surface facilities began in June 1977. On July 21, 1977, the first oil—approximately 412,000 barrels (65,500 m3) of Saudi Arabian light crude—was delivered to the SPR. Fill was suspended in FY 1995 to devote budget resources to refurbishing the SPR equipment and extending the life of the complex. The current SPR sites are expected to be usable until around 2025. Fill was resumed in 1999.
Filling and Suspending the SPR
On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush announced that the SPR would be filled, saying, "The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an important element of our Nation's energy security. To maximize long-term protection against oil supply disruptions, I am directing the Secretary of Energy to fill the SPR up to its 700 million barrel [111,000,000 m³] capacity."[2] The highest prior level was reached in 1994 with 592 million barrels (94,100,000 m3). At the time of President Bush's directive, the SPR contained about 545 million barrels (86,600,000 m3). Since the directive in 2001, the capacity of the SPR increased by 27 million barrels (4,300,000 m3) due to natural enlargement of the salt caverns in which the reserves are stored. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 has since directed the Secretary of Energy to fill the SPR to the full 1-billion-barrel (160,000,000 m3) authorized capacity, a process which will require a physical expansion of the Reserve's facilities.
On August 17, 2005, the SPR reached its goal of 700 million barrels (110,000,000 m3), or about 96% of its now-increased 727-million-barrel (115,600,000 m3) capacity. Approximately 60% of the crude oil in the reserve is the less desirable sour (high sulfur content) variety. The oil delivered to the reserve is "royalty-in-kind" oil—royalties owed to the U.S. government by operators who acquire leases on the federally owned Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. These royalties were previously collected as cash, but in 1998 the government began testing the effectiveness of collecting royalties "in kind" - or in other words, acquiring the crude oil itself. This mechanism was adopted when refilling the SPR began, and once filling is completed, revenues from the sale of future royalties will be paid into the federal treasury.
On April 25, 2006, President Bush announced a temporary halt to petroleum deposits to the SPR as part of a four point program to alleviate high fuel prices.[citation needed]
On January 23, 2007, President Bush suggested in his State of the Union speech that Congress should approve expansion of the current reserve capacity to twice its current level.[8]
In April 2008, Speaker Pelosi called on President Bush to suspend purchases of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) temporarily.
On May 12, 2008, Rep. Peter Welch (D, Vermont) and 63 co-sponsors introduced the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act bill (H.R.6022), to suspend the acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.[9]
On May 16, 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy said it would halt all deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve sometime in July. This announcement came days after Congress voted to direct the Bush administration to do the same. The U.S. Department of Energy did not state when the shipments would resume.[10]
On May 19, 2008, President Bush signed the Act passed by the Congress, which he previously opposed.[11]
On January 2, 2009, the U.S. Energy Department said that it would begin buying approximately 12,000,000 barrels (1,900,000 m3) of crude oil to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, replenishing supplies that were sold after hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. The purchase will be funded by the roughly $600 million received in 2005 from the emergency sales.
Emergency sales to Israel
According to the 1975 Second Sinai withdrawal document signed by the United States and Israel, in an emergency the U.S. is obligated to make oil available for sale to Israel for up to 5 years.[12]
Limitations
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is exclusively a crude petroleum reserve, not a stockpile of refined petroleum fuels, such as gasoline, diesel and kerosene. Although there are small-scale (2,000,000 barrels) heating oil reserves in Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Jersey under the aegis of the Department of Energy (DOE), the federal government maintains no gasoline reserves on anything like the scale of the SPR. Consequently, while the US enjoys some protection from disruptions in oil supplies, it would have to depend on other stockpiling members of the International Energy Agency for relief from any major disruption to refinery operations. Since no new refineries have been constructed in the US for thirty years, there is little excess refining capacity.[citation needed] This was illustrated during Hurricane Katrina, when many of the Gulf coast oil refining complexes were disrupted for some time.
There have been suggestions that the DOE should stockpile both gasoline and jet fuel, to rectify this weakness.[13] Some countries and zones, such as Australia, have a strategic reserve of both petroleum and petroleum products.[14] In some cases, this includes a strategic reserve of jet fuel.
The former Secretary of Energy, Samuel Bodman, has said the Department will consider refined products as part of the expansion of between 1 billion and 1.5 billion barrels (240,000,000 m3).
SPR drawdowns
Petroleum sales
- 1985 - Test sale - 1.1 million barrels (170,000 m3)
- 1990/91 - Desert Storm sale - 21 million barrels (3,300,000 m3)
- 4 million in August 1990 test sale
- 17 million in January 1991 Presidentially-ordered drawdown
- 1996-97 total non-emergency sales for deficit reduction - 28 million barrels (4,500,000 m3)
- 2005 - Hurricane Katrina sale - 11 million barrels (1,700,000 m3) Katrina shut down 95% of crude production and 88% of natural gas output in the Gulf of Mexico. This amounted to a quarter of total U.S. output. About 735 oil and natural gas rigs and platforms had been evacuated due to the hurricane.
- 2011 - Arab Spring sale - 30 million barrels (4,800,000 m3) non-emergency sale to offset disruptions caused by political upheaval in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East. The amount was matched by IEA countries, for a total of 60 million barrels (9,500,000 m3) released from stockpiles around the world.[15]
Petroleum exchanges and loans
Note: Loans are made on a case-by-case basis to alleviate supply disruptions. Once conditions return to normal, the loan is returned to the SPR with additional oil as interest.
- April–May 1996 - 900,000 barrels (140,000 m3) lent to ARCO to alleviate pipeline blockage.
- August 1998 - 11 million barrels (1,700,000 m3) lent to PEMEX in return for 8.5 million barrels (1,350,000 m3) of higher quality crude.
- June 2000 - 1 million barrels (160,000 m3) lent to Citgo and Conoco in response to shipping channel blockage.
- July–August 2000 - 2.8 million barrels (450,000 m3) to supply the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
- September–October 2000 - 30 million barrels (4,800,000 m3) in response to a concern over low distillate levels in the North-eastern U.S.
- October 2002 - 296,000 barrels (47,100 m3) lent to Shell Pipeline Company in advance of Hurricane Lili.
- September–October 2004 - 5.4 million barrels (860,000 m3) lent to Astra Oil, ConocoPhillips, Placid Refining, Shell Oil Company, and Premcor after Hurricane Ivan.
- September–October 2005 - 9.8 million barrels (1,560,000 m3) lent to ExxonMobil, Placid Refining, Valero, BP, Marathon Oil, and Total S.A. after Hurricane Katrina.
- January–February 2006 - 767,000 barrels (121,900 m3) lent to Total Petrochemicals USA due to closure of the Sabine Neches ship channel to deep-draft vessels after a barge accident in the channel.[16]
- June 2006 - 750,000 barrels (119,000 m3) of sour crude lent to ConocoPhillips and Citgo due to the closure for several days of the Calcasieu Ship Channel caused by the release of a mixture of storm water and oil. Repaid in early October 2006.
- September 2008 - 250,000 barrels (40,000 m3) loaned to Citgo because it could not secure crude oil in the aftermath of Hurricane Gustav.
- September 2008 - 130,000 barrels (21,000 m3) loaned to Placid Refining's Port Allen refinery and 250,000 barrels (40,000 m3) loaned to Marathon Oil due to disruptions from Hurricane Gustav.[17]
See also
- Global strategic petroleum reserves
- Official gold reserves
- Oil reserves
- Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
- Strategic grain reserve
References
- ^ "Strategic Petroleum Reserve - Quick Facts and Frequently Asked Questions". US Department of Energy. Retrieved February 25, 2012.
- ^ [1] DOE SPR site
- ^ "The World Factbook - United States". CIA. Retrieved February 25, 2012.
- ^ Clanton, Brett (May 27, 2008). "Go past guards for tour of U.S. oil reserve in Freeport". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved February 25, 2012.
- ^ a b c d e billion barrels (160×106 m3).pdf Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan Expansion To One Billion Barrels Submitted To Congress (Page 5), United States Department of Energy
- ^ "DOE - Fossil Energy Techline: DOE Takes Next Steps to Expand Strategic Petroleum Reserve to One Billion Barrels". US Department of Energy. December 8, 2006. Retrieved February 25, 2012.
- ^ Oil reserve site raises ire, Bush policy tested, Reuters, Retrieved on May 16, 2008
- ^ Bush, George W. (January 23, 2007). "President Bush's 2007 State of the Union Address". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-01-24.
- ^ "H.R.6022 - Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 2008". Opencongress.org. Retrieved February 25, 2012.
- ^ "EERE News: DOE Stops Filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve". US Department of Energy. May 21, 2008. Retrieved February 25, 2012.
- ^ "Bush Will Sign Bill Halting Strategic Oil Stockpile". Fox News. May 19, 2008. Retrieved February 25, 2012.
- ^ Phillips, James (February 28, 1979). "The Iranian Oil Crisis". The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved February 25, 2012.
- ^ Tejerina, Pilar (September 30, 2005). "Senators propose gasoline reserve". CNNMoney.com. Retrieved 2007-01-24.
- ^ Australia - Plan to protect oil supply | EnergyBulletin.net | Peak Oil News Clearinghouse[dead link]
- ^ Smith, Aaron (June 23, 2011). "U.S. to release oil from strategic reserve". CNN.
- ^ "DOE - Fossil Energy: Quick Facts about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve". US Department of Energy. Retrieved February 25, 2012.
- ^ Oil ends up after dip below $100 CNN, retrieved 12 Sept 2008
External links
- DOE Fossil Energy: Strategic Petroleum Reserve
- Strategic Petroleum Reserve Inventory
- President Orders Strategic Petroleum Reserve Filled - November 13, 2001
- The Strategic Petroleum Reserve: History, Perspectives, and Issues - April 3, 2006
- "A rare peek inside our Fort Knox of black gold", Brett Clanton, Houston Chronicle, May 26, 2008 (rare tour of facilities w/ short video)
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/dv1c.cfm
Energy, and the exchange of climate reality.
Professor Bob Carter
Climate History:
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
"The Man Made Global Warming Hoax"
"The Great Global Warming Swindle"
"Patrick Moore is considered one of the foremost environmentalist of his generation. He is the co-founder of Green Peace."
Mr. Moore is quoted as saying; "The other reason that environmental extremism emerged was because world communism failed, the wall came down, and a lot of peace-niks and political activists moved into the environmental movement, bringing their neo-Marxism with them , and learned to use green language in a very clever way, to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization, than they do, anything, with ecology or science."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=DpX-Kae00s8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=2BJrdSRDVlQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=rf6C0cMq3RU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=nkSmdaLkd60
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=VlSSwErKWQs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=efxToyX5cPw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGZ1bHo6jR0&feature=endscreen&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2g9pFqCiqI&feature=related
To include both gasoline and electricity consumption, in terms of megawatt hours equivalent, the world consumed approximately 16,282,000,000 megawatt hours of electricity for the year ending 2008. This is the equivalent to 44,608,219 megawatt hours per day, or 1,858,675 megawatts per hour at-load. The consumption of approximately one billion tonnes of gasoline was consumed during this period. In terms of gasoline equivalent to megawatts would represent an additional 11,630,000,000 megawatt hours per year, 31,868,013 megawatt hours per day, or, 1,327,625 megawatts per hour at-load on the power grid. To replace both gasoline and standard fire combustion power plants converted to, and from, PV solar would require approximately 3,186,300 megawatts every hour on the grid(s) worldwide. Southern U.S. surface land; "Average Sun Hours Per Day" (useful) Solar Concentration is approximately 5.67 kilowatt hours in Tampa, FL, 6.58 kilowatt hours in Phoenix, AZ, 4.08 kilowatt hours in New York City, NY, and 3.84 kilowatt hours in Boston, MA averaged per day yearly. As noted above; man-suitable-Earth-acres are approximately 11,486,682,204. For simplicity, averaging the solar concentration distributed evenly to power-up the 3,186,300 megawatts per hour necessary, would require 76,471,200 acres worldwide, minimum, under ideal weather conditions. Keep in mind, that this is grossly under estimated, but by establishing a 6 hour solar concentration, for this example, you may assume 18 additional hours of surface area solar collection into storage batteries. This is equivalent to 76,471,200 acres of PV solar collection worldwide. Of the 11.4 billion acres this represents 1 acre of solar PV for every 150.2 acres of suitable-man-acres worldwide, or, 4.26 acres of every square mile of suitable land. Gasoline consumption in 2008 was approximately 317,759,562,000 gallons for 2008. You may assume 36.6 kilowatt hours equivalent for each gallon of gasoline to electric conversion. Some have claimed a "modest" increase in electric generating capacity would power electric vehicles replacing current automobile technology. However, as you can see, this would violate the laws of physics. Either you replace the btu value consumed by standard combustion, to produce electricity and energy, or you mislead the public with such modest claims. This also does not include any other form of liquid or gas fuel, i.e., home heating oil, distillates, diesel, etc., converted to electricity of green share replacements by consumers, which include current green consumers utilizing standard fire combustion convenient electricity, when and while, green technologies are non-generating units, in fact.
http://www.alternative-heating-info.com/Residential_PV_System_Cost.html
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2010/key_stats_2010.pdf
Cap & Trade
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 excrement, ("animal waste digestive business") and based on an attractive per-ton $2+/- Cap & Trade price, is just financial silliness. The btu value of the "animal waste digestion business" [sludge] has no substantial real heat value prior to sludge de-watering and heat treatments, compared to other standard fuels, without blending or adding in natural gas, or other gases, or, a solid standard combustion fuel such as coal or other solids. Other solids can include wood, sawdust, peat, nutshells, charcoal, sugarcane, stalks, etc;. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4762527.PN.&OS=PN/4762527&RS=PN/4762527 In any event, blending other fuels with the waste from cattle is an expensive transportation and technical fuel preparation specialty transport (added cost) business, in practice. A 2$+/- emissions credit (In this case charge - producing more methane to contend with.) is not "innovation." The waste produces methane in the field prior to lab research. Swine and cattle will suffer the same fate as humans utilizing their sewerage plants as a fuel containment source, as sewerage plants must maintain flow rates, prior and during activated sludge treatment, to even be considered for retention and sourced for fuel preparations prior to transport. Although, some cities may certainly produce enough sludge, for example, New York City, if they don't mind stocking the sludge for retention to be utilized for methane combustion onsite, notwithstanding, sludge transport, again, avoiding each sewage treatment plant from becoming a standard methane combustion facility, outside the lab. Further, some utilities have suffered from rollover transport vehicle accidents loaded with treated sludge, in which case, a single sludge transport vehicle accident could become a very expensive proposition per accident.
There are two hundred thousand, plus, sewage, and packaged sewage plants in the U.S. - that would have been able to ship their human waste to a waste to energy production plant, if, the btu value of sludge was greater than the btu value of diesel fuel to transport it, and the energy invested to render an affordable fuel... In other words, it is a net energy loss without vast amounts of scattered, (excrement) for the "production to methane" in of itself, that does not produce enough methane fuel, at most all sewage treatment plants to ever become suitable at the internal water utility scale without investing more fuel. Vast amounts of sludge, (...or "range" scattered sludge if you don't mind picking it up and delivering it...) and the sludge collection facilities for use preparation, beyond a partial internal co-generation increased cost, if at all suitable, for the incineration investment processes. Qualified Facilities, QF's, with a 75% waste material and 25% standard fuel admixture is a requirement for the power utility purchase of generated electricity derived from such fuel, and mandated as a QF. And, if so qualified, the electric utility must purchase, from a QF electricity and energy generated at 75 megawatts or below at their avoided fuel and avoided energy cost. "Standard Power Sales Agreement." Even the charcoal, sand, and gravel, surveyed into filtration tanks by levels, (standard in dual media water filtration plants.) with an enhanced btu granular activated carbon, [coal] GAC, which is utilized for primary, secondary, and polished water treatments, could technically be classified as a waste fuel after being utilized in the filtration process. However, the cost of GAC is far to expensive to compete with standard coal purchases by electric utility companies.
If a power utility company can not economically place such sludge into their fuel cycle it's very unlikely water treatment plants will compete with power utilities generation cost. Additionally, this will not meet, in practice, their avoided fuel and avoided energy costs. If a GAC waste product which was placed into service, as a paid source for water treatment by waste water utilities, and has a general btu value of, for example, 11,000 btu per pound (coal), and still can not be suitable for co-generated electricity compared to stand alone utility coal fuel costs, (vs. a 2,000 btu per pound of slightly de-watered sludge) after fuel production costs, are very unlikely to meet electric utility demands compared to standard coal fuel cost. Calgon, Merck & Company, was willing to sell their spent reclaimed GAC for five cents per pound in 1986, this was when coal was selling for ten dollars USD per ton. Merck would of burned this coal if it was profitable to do so, in terms of utilizing the coal for co-generation of the spent GAC , as it was becoming chemically and thermally more expensive to regenerate and reactivate respectively compared to initial virgin carbon sales. As you can imagine, most municipal water utilities do not produce enough income for the additional investments for electric power production initiated by a 2,000+/- btu sludge heat value. Further, the massive amount of digestion solids, sludge, held in retention, to create utility scale power production, would expand surface area collection of unwanted sludge, massively, at most all maintained waste water utility flow rates.
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/pdf/tablees1.pdf
~ 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 19.5 million barrels of oil per-day which are consumed in the United States.
These companies produce Biofuel, "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. Once again, to replace the U.S. consumption of approximately 19.5 million barrels of oil per day, or, 819,000,000 gallons of oil per day, would require 21,352,500 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 106 acres of the U.S. land surface, or, 6.03 acres of every sq mile of U.S. land surface. This is, of course, before any net energy loss or internal energy required 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 megawatt hours, 11,301,534 megawatt hours per-day, and 470,897 megawatt hours 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"
This is presented only in terms of world oil asset assumptions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QozxeBIEkAM
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 (both energy and scheduled debt service) in a short order financial demand concerning cost, 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? Trying to demand their financial losses by the only means available, you, the rate payer.
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 (small and large), 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 the cost, loss, of unearned electricity income 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.
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
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: In this example, although this power station currently burns Petro Coke, (petroleum residues), and natural gas, it is licensed to burn several different fuels including coal.
TECO Energy: Polk (County) Power Station
http://www.tecoenergy.com/news/powerstation/polk/
TECO Energy: Big Bend Power Station
This actual power island is located on approximately 165 acres, not including settling basins and additional utility property. The average solar available use hours of Tampa Bay daily is approximately 5.67 hours. To replace this 2,000 megawatt combustion fired power plant would require approximately 48,000 acres. That's 75 square miles, or, 1 mile inland and 35 square miles north and south.
http://www.tecoenergy.com/news/powerstation/bigbend/
State Electricity Profiles
Data for 2010 | Release Date: January 30, 2012 | Next Release: October 2012 | full report
Archived State Electricity Profiles
| Name | Average Retail Price (cents/kWh) | Net Summer Capacity (MW) | Net Generation (MWh) | Total Retail Sales (MWh) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 8.89 | 32,417 | 152,150,512 | 90,862,645 |
| Alaska | 14.76 | 2,067 | 6,759,576 | 6,247,038 |
| Arizona | 9.69 | 26,392 | 111,750,957 | 72,831,737 |
| Arkansas | 7.28 | 15,981 | 61,000,185 | 48,194,285 |
| California | 13.01 | 67,328 | 204,125,596 | 258,525,414 |
| Colorado | 9.15 | 13,777 | 50,720,792 | 52,917,786 |
| Connecticut | 17.39 | 8,284 | 33,349,623 | 30,391,766 |
| Delaware | 11.97 | 3,389 | 5,627,645 | 11,605,932 |
| District of Columbia | 13.35 | 790 | 199,858 | 11,876,995 |
| Florida | 10.58 | 59,147 | 229,095,935 | 231,209,614 |
| Georgia | 8.87 | 36,636 | 137,576,941 | 140,671,580 |
| Hawaii | 25.12 | 2,536 | 10,836,036 | 10,016,509 |
| Idaho | 6.54 | 3,990 | 12,024,564 | 22,797,668 |
| Illinois | 9.13 | 44,127 | 201,351,872 | 144,760,674 |
| Indiana | 7.67 | 27,638 | 125,180,739 | 105,994,376 |
| Iowa | 7.66 | 14,592 | 57,508,721 | 45,445,269 |
| Kansas | 8.35 | 12,543 | 47,923,762 | 40,420,675 |
| Kentucky | 6.73 | 20,453 | 98,217,658 | 93,569,426 |
| Louisiana | 7.80 | 26,744 | 102,884,940 | 85,079,692 |
| Maine | 12.84 | 4,430 | 17,018,660 | 11,531,568 |
| Maryland | 12.70 | 12,516 | 43,607,264 | 65,335,498 |
| Massachusetts | 14.26 | 13,697 | 42,804,824 | 57,123,422 |
| Michigan | 9.88 | 29,831 | 111,551,371 | 103,649,219 |
| Minnesota | 8.41 | 14,715 | 53,670,227 | 67,799,706 |
| Mississippi | 8.59 | 15,691 | 54,487,260 | 49,687,166 |
| Missouri | 7.78 | 21,739 | 92,312,989 | 86,085,117 |
| Montana | 7.88 | 5,866 | 29,791,181 | 13,423,138 |
| Nebraska | 7.52 | 7,857 | 36,630,006 | 29,849,460 |
| Nevada | 9.73 | 11,421 | 35,146,248 | 33,772,595 |
| New Hampshire | 14.84 | 4,180 | 22,195,912 | 10,890,074 |
| New Jersey | 14.68 | 18,424 | 65,682,494 | 79,179,427 |
| New Mexico | 8.40 | 8,130 | 36,251,542 | 22,428,344 |
| New York | 16.41 | 39,357 | 136,961,654 | 144,623,573 |
| North Carolina | 8.67 | 27,674 | 128,678,483 | 136,414,947 |
| North Dakota | 7.11 | 6,188 | 34,739,542 | 12,956,263 |
| Ohio | 9.14 | 33,071 | 143,598,337 | 154,145,418 |
| Oklahoma | 7.59 | 21,022 | 72,250,733 | 57,845,980 |
| Oregon | 7.56 | 14,261 | 55,126,999 | 46,025,945 |
| Pennsylvania | 10.31 | 45,575 | 229,752,306 | 148,963,968 |
| Rhode Island | 14.08 | 1,782 | 7,738,719 | 7,799,227 |
| South Carolina | 8.49 | 23,982 | 104,153,133 | 82,479,293 |
| South Dakota | 7.82 | 3,623 | 10,049,636 | 11,356,149 |
| Tennessee | 8.61 | 21,417 | 82,348,625 | 103,521,537 |
| Texas | 9.34 | 108,258 | 411,695,046 | 358,457,550 |
| Utah | 6.94 | 7,497 | 42,249,355 | 28,044,001 |
| Vermont | 13.24 | 1,128 | 6,619,990 | 5,594,833 |
| Virginia | 8.69 | 24,109 | 72,966,456 | 113,806,135 |
| Washington | 6.66 | 30,478 | 103,472,729 | 90,379,970 |
| West Virginia | 7.45 | 16,495 | 80,788,947 | 32,031,803 |
| Wisconsin | 9.78 | 17,836 | 64,314,067 | 68,752,417 |
| Wyoming | 6.20 | 7,986 | 48,119,254 | 17,113,458 |
| U.S. Total | 9.83 | 1,039,062 | 4,125,059,899 | 3,754,486,282 |
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 6.486 trillion cubic meters of Natural Gas - Proved Natural Gas Reserves (31 December 2010 est.) The U.S. current annual consumptive use rate of Natural Gas is "683.3 billion cubic meters." ("1 January 2010 est.") This means the U.S. has 9.49 years of remaining Known Proved Reserves of Natural Gas at our current consumptive use rate. ("1 January 2011 est.") In cooperation with EIA:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
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