Big Oil getting scared, full page WSJ ad (Exxon)

[stopcrazypp]

I've never seen any references that low. I can't seem to find anything on the efficiency of the extraction process, but Updates to Petroleum Refining and Upstream Emissions shows a 91% refining efficiency using 2010 data:

That 90+% number probably includes the energy of non-energy products like asphalt and road oil. For example the 90.1% number for 2008 for overall refining is reduced to 86.4% if you don't include those products.
http://greet.es.anl.gov/files/hl9mw9i7

 

[JRP3]

Yes, 91.4% includes all products, 88.3% with "less desirable products excluded". They also break it down a bit further. Table 4, page 6.
http://greet.es.anl.gov/files/petroleum

 

[richkae]

A lot of the numbers are for best case old style conventional oil, where you push a nice clean straw into the ground and oil flows up. That is more and more rare because we've used it up. Those numbers are likely obsolete.

A major source of oil in the US is tar sand from Canada. The tar sands plants use a LOT of natural gas to steam the tar sand out of the ground. Estimates of 2.9:1 in terms of oil energy recovered versus natural gas energy used. Then you still end up with super heavy oil that takes a lot more energy to transport and refine than conventional oil.
We would be far better off to leave the stuff in the ground and use the natural gas to make electricity... and the oil companies in the US keep talking about how they want to develop shale oil.

Also the fracking process that is now in vogue has a lot of loss in terms of how much of the energy in the ground that is recovered. A lot of the gas in the ground escapes in to the atmosphere instead of being recovered, where it pollutes the atmosphere. As an oversimplification I would say that if there is X amount of gas in the ground, and some portion stays in the ground, that doesn't count because you might be able to recover it in the future - but any that escapes into the atmosphere is "loss" that counts against your efficiency. But in reality it is far far worse, because it is pushing the stuff directly into the atmosphere without using any of the energy in it.
Gasland 2: A film by Josh Fox - NOW on HBO
Limiting Methane Leaks Critical to Gas, Climate Benefits | Climate Central

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

I've never seen any references that low. I can't seem to find anything on the efficiency of the extraction process, but Updates to Petroleum Refining and Upstream Emissions shows a 91% refining efficiency using 2010 data:

+/-90% for refinery efficiency sounds about right, and IIRC the efficiency of extraction in the US is something like 80%. There's a ton of natural gas, and some electricity, used to pump oil out of the ground.

http://www.evnut.com/docs/cec_petro_industry_power.doc

 

[JRP3]

Some of that NG may come from the well itself, and if it's not near a pipeline it would just be flared off, so I don't know if that would count against overall efficiency, though it should count against total greenhouse emissions.

 

[Dan5]

If you really want to get to the bottom of it, there is a basic chemical engineering principle called an energy balance.

Essentially mass* energy per unit mass = X
outputs mass* energy units =y

Y/X = your energy efficiency

in a barrel of oil contains 1.7 MWH of energy

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-99-18.pdf

outputs from a barrel of oil
Oil Industry Statistics from Gibson Consulting - oil barrels

run the numbers, you get about 86% efficient, just for refining (I assumed the asphalt has the highest energy density per gallon)

Here's the thing, companies have a reason to bend the truth, but they can't hide what they produce. Energy balances hold the truth.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

But they don't need truth. The idea is to get factoids out there that they can use to feed peoples' natural reluctance to change.

 

[scaesare]

If you really want to get to the bottom of it, there is a basic chemical engineering principle called an energy balance.

Essentially mass* energy per unit mass = X
outputs mass* energy units =y

Y/X = your energy efficiency

in a barrel of oil contains 1.7 MWH of energy

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-99-18.pdf

outputs from a barrel of oil
Oil Industry Statistics from Gibson Consulting - oil barrels

run the numbers, you get about 86% efficient, just for refining (I assumed the asphalt has the highest energy density per gallon)

Here's the thing, companies have a reason to bend the truth, but they can't hide what they produce. Energy balances hold the truth.

That's the approach taken in the Tesla Paper I refrened in Post #53 and your 86% number is close to the value I pulled from that paper in Post 58.

I don't know why it seems folks seem to be ignoring that Tesla comparison paper... it sheds interesting light on this discussion.

 

[JRP3]

The only problem with the Tesla paper is it's 7 years old and based on even older studies. There have been efficiency gains in extraction and refining since then, though of course the increased use of tar sands may have counteracted those gains. I'd like to see more recent studies, and from a more independent source than Tesla. Not that I don't trust their data, but others will dismiss it.

 

[Dan5]

The only problem with the Tesla paper is it's 7 years old and based on even older studies. There have been efficiency gains in extraction and refining since then, though of course the increased use of tar sands may have counteracted those gains. I'd like to see more recent studies, and from a more independent source than Tesla. Not that I don't trust their data, but others will dismiss it.

The important aspect to consider is that for the refining portion, you can assume it is a black box and do inputs and outputs.
As long as you know the outputs per barrel and the energy in each of those outputs, it is a trivial calculation.
I had a professor, smart guy, he used to do energy balance for countries for the CIA concerning nuclear materials, same premise.

The transport, exploration, and transport of the finished product may prove more difficult.

 

[JRP3]

Yeah I can't find a current source for exploration, drilling, extraction, and transport to the refinery.

 

[travelinglites]

Indeed. I used to love the sound of a big V8 or a superbike at full bore. Now I can't wait to turn all of my formerly loud "toys" into EV's.

While I love my S and wouldn't want to think of not having it, sometimes the sound of a V-8 through pipes without mufflers is just fun. I have a friend who drives a Cobra. It is loud, open not exceptionally comfortable, but absolutely fun to drive or just ride in. In the same way he loves the feeling of acceleration from my Tesla without the noise - ninja mode.

"sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't"

 

[TSLAopt]

While I love my S and wouldn't want to think of not having it, sometimes the sound of a V-8 through pipes without mufflers is just fun. I have a friend who drives a Cobra. It is loud, open not exceptionally comfortable, but absolutely fun to drive or just ride in. In the same way he loves the feeling of acceleration from my Tesla without the noise - ninja mode.

"sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't"

I would've thought I'd have similar feelings but I've had my Tesla for a year and hate driving ICE engines now, I've gotten so comfortable with the silence that any noise just now annoys me, the louder the more I dislike it now. No ICEs for me ever again.

 

[mgemmell]

I would've thought I'd have similar feelings but I've had my Tesla for a year and hate driving ICE engines now, I've gotten so comfortable with the silence that any noise just now annoys me, the louder the more I dislike it now. No ICEs for me ever again.

+1 on that!

ICE noise is just plain annoying. Even a great V6, V8 or V12 after about 10 minutes becomes tedious. And the smell of the exhaust from any car over about 3 years old (gas or diesel) is getting about as irritating as walking behind a smoker. Its only a matter of time before everyone thinks the same way frankly.

 

[StephenM]

+1 on that!

ICE noise is just plain annoying. Even a great V6, V8 or V12 after about 10 minutes becomes tedious. And the smell of the exhaust from any car over about 3 years old (gas or diesel) is getting about as irritating as walking behind a smoker. Its only a matter of time before everyone thinks the same way frankly.

Agreed. Although I've never owned a fancy V-10 or V-12 car, my 2nd favorite car that I owned before the Model S was the Honda S2000 and I used to love taking it to 9000 rpm. I've quickly gotten over associating big noise with great speed (at the automotive level anyway) and am never looking back.

 

[wycolo]

> It is loud, open not exceptionally comfortable, but absolutely fun to drive or just ride in. [travelinglites]

Try that for 5 or 6 hours and you'll be frazzled, hearing shot. First thing to replace on a new beater was always the glasspaks/straight pipes.
--

 

[Robert.Boston]

While I love my S and wouldn't want to think of not having it, sometimes the sound of a V-8 through pipes without mufflers is just fun. I have a friend who drives a Cobra. It is loud, open not exceptionally comfortable, but absolutely fun to drive or just ride in. In the same way he loves the feeling of acceleration from my Tesla without the noise - ninja mode.

"sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't"

I'm sure you could find a shop to retrofit a Model S with hidden external speakers. Then you just need to hook them up to an app that generates engines noise based on the accelerator pedal's position and delta. We know that BMW injects simulated engine noise into the M5's cabin, so this is a doable project.

 

[MikeL]

I want to point out something I find especially nefarious in that same ad campaign from the OP. (Besides the fact that it's oil co marketing)

they have begun to refer to Natural Gas, coal, and oil/gas as "kinds of energy" and their products, generally, as "energy". I know it's already obvious to all of you where I'm going with this, but I'll explain anyway. Oil is NOT "energy" and Nat Gas is NOT a "kind of energy". They are merely substances that, when combined with Oxygen in a chemical reaction, are able to create a "kind of energy". IOW, We Burn them to make Heat. Great for them because the moment the burning starts, a deficit condition is created, requiring the purchase, and subsequent burning of more of their product(s). The attempt to get us to equate the product with the general concept of the energy we need and use (but could get from other sources) is the worst disgusting spin. It drives me crazy, and there currently seems to be no limit to their ability to try to spin us all. They have the budget. I'm trying to take some of it away from them. ML