US exports more oil than imports

[bholler]

Sorry to spoil the oily party @peakbagger, but the original article is BS. Don't know exactly how they cooked the numbers for the headline, but the US still uses WAY more oil than it produces.

Recent US oil usage is about 19 MM barrels per day, BPD, and she been pretty steady and slowly increasing over time
https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-much-oil-consumed-united-states

US oil production bottomed at around 6 MM BPD in the mid 2000s, a little over ONE THIRD of usage at the time.

Production has tentatively touched 10 MM BPD, a bit over HALF of usage in the last few years. It now is above that, but still well below TWO THIRDS of demand.

Also: I am yet to meet a petroleum engineer that thinks that oil fracking can sustain the current production rate for more than 5-10 years. The best fracking sites are already exhausted.

It was for one day only that is why it was possible. But that is by no means a fair representation of the real market.

 

[georgepds]

The majority of the plan revolves around using less power to begin with. A wood cook stove with domestic hot water option, solar water heater, and tank less water heater if needed. We don't have a dishwasher, clothes washer, or dryer. We watch very little TV and the majority of our use is keeping lights on, now that we found the source of our high power bill. Eventually I'd like to have a solar plus wind setup and we already have a generator. I know it's not going to cost less in the long run, we want to be off grid for other reasons. I have been reading a lot of posts on here about solar and the negative returns.

Forget wind.. I've yet to find a residential instal in new england that works

The problem is you need a tower at least three times as high as the nearest obstacle within x feet . Burn wood, collect solar power, and you will be better off

 

[georgepds]

My favorite energy map

https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy

Compare to 10 20 or 50 years ago

(broken link removed to https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/archive.html)

 

[woodgeek]

My favorite energy map

https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy

Compare to 10 20 or 50 years ago

(broken link removed to https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/archive.html)

Those are fun to look at, but they also understate the impact of Wind and Solar. The inputs on all the others are 2-4X higher than the useable outputs because of low efficiency, and that is masked by putting all the inputs into boxes together before removing the losses. Wind and solar **displace** more quads of input than you would guess looking at the chart....2-4X as much.

 

[SpaceBus]

Forget wind.. I've yet to find a residential instal in new england that works

The problem is you need a tower at least three times as high as the nearest obstacle within x feet . Burn wood, collect solar power, and you will be better off

I've seen a few residential wind setups, but as I understand it they just use it to charge the batteries while they sleep. I wouldn't expect wind to provide power while we are up and using. Maybe it still isn't worth the effort since wind speed and direction changes so much here on the coast.

 

[SpaceBus]

My favorite energy map

https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy

Compare to 10 20 or 50 years ago

(broken link removed to https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/archive.html)

What is "rejected energy"?

 

[peakbagger]

Rejected Energy - Every use of energy is not 100% efficient. The efficiency varies with the process, what isn't turned into useful energy is rejected heat. Think of your car engine, while its pushing you down the road its cranking out hot water through the radiator. If the water is used to heat the occupants that would be part of the useful energy of the gasoline. On the other hand if its going out the radiator into the air its rejected energy. In some cases you can collect it and maybe generate a bit more useful energy but frequently its not real valuable heat. From a unit of energy basis a 100 pounds of water heated 1 degree F is a 100 Btus and one pound of water heated 100 deg F is also 100 Btus but practically the 1 pound heated 100 F is lot more useful than the 100 pounds. There is way of characterizing the usefulness of energy versus its quantity but that brings in the concept of entropy which is bit more than most folks are educated to. Some but not all of the rejected energy is this type of heat where its not worth reusing the low grade heat. Going back to the car example, its just not practical to collect the waste heat and send it somewhere you can use it so its rejected. In other cases its just not economic.

Note this is a major oversimplification, In the case of power plants they cant beat the laws of physics and the laws are pretty cruel. An old fashioned coal plant sitting in a field is probably dumping over 60% of the heat input into the air, that is not by choice its physics. The only way they can boost the efficiency is to burn the coal hotter and at some point the steel used in the tubes will not hold up. If you want to get into the physics the Carnot Cycle sets the limit http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html.

 

[georgepds]

Those are fun to look at, but they also understate the impact of Wind and Solar. The inputs on all the others are 2-4X higher than the useable outputs because of low efficiency, and that is masked by putting all the inputs into boxes together before removing the losses. Wind and solar **displace** more quads of input than you would guess looking at the chart....2-4X as much.

Could be, the format first came out in the 50s, and they have stuck to it ever since. There is a lot to be said for
consistency. And just think how hard it is to summarize where does energy come from in a place as big as the US? Where does it go?

It does a good job of showing where energy comes from. Some of the earlier maps in the archives show the imported petroleum ( 50% or more) now too low to be listed

Also , it does a good job on showing why energy conservation is so important. A power plant that doubles as a source of city heat is much better than one that just looses its heat to the air

it does a great job of showing how much energy is transmitted by electricity, and how much oil is used in transportation

Personally, I was surprised to see the recent large growth of Biomass

I would not dismiss it too quickly, it's an invitation to think about the problem, and a good one , IMO


PS... welcome back to the discussions, great to see you here

 

[begreen]

I've seen a few residential wind setups, but as I understand it they just use it to charge the batteries while they sleep. I wouldn't expect wind to provide power while we are up and using. Maybe it still isn't worth the effort since wind speed and direction changes so much here on the coast.

I have a friend that had a large off grid house in AK that started out with wind power. It was a pita to maintain, expensive and had at least 2 breakdowns which meant long spells on a generator as they waited for parts. One breakdown happened in the middle of the night and ended up being quite costly to repair as the windmill self-destructed. They were happy to get rid of it.

 

[SpaceBus]

Rejected Energy - Every use of energy is not 100% efficient. The efficiency varies with the process, what isn't turned into useful energy is rejected heat. Think of your car engine, while its pushing you down the road its cranking out hot water through the radiator. If the water is used to heat the occupants that would be part of the useful energy of the gasoline. On the other hand if its going out the radiator into the air its rejected energy. In some cases you can collect it and maybe generate a bit more useful energy but frequently its not real valuable heat. From a unit of energy basis a 100 pounds of water heated 1 degree F is a 100 Btus and one pound of water heated 100 deg F is also 100 Btus but practically the 1 pound heated 100 F is lot more useful than the 100 pounds. There is way of characterizing the usefulness of energy versus its quantity but that brings in the concept of entropy which is bit more than most folks are educated to. Some but not all of the rejected energy is this type of heat where its not worth reusing the low grade heat. Going back to the car example, its just not practical to collect the waste heat and send it somewhere you can use it so its rejected. In other cases its just not economic.

Note this is a major oversimplification, In the case of power plants they cant beat the laws of physics and the laws are pretty cruel. An old fashioned coal plant sitting in a field is probably dumping over 60% of the heat input into the air, that is not by choice its physics. The only way they can boost the efficiency is to burn the coal hotter and at some point the steel used in the tubes will not hold up. If you want to get into the physics the Carnot Cycle sets the limit http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html.

I guess due to my interests/occupations, I hadn't run across that term. I know in ICE applications, turbochargers can scavenge the energy from the otherwise wasted/rejected exhaust gasses/heat. I did not know coal plants had such a high waste heat, but I guess that's part of the multitude of sources contributing to global temperature increase. I always assumed the wast of a coal plant was primarily the particulates that are released and unusable.

Do you work in energy? I do really enjoy reading your posts along with several others like Begreen. I've learned quite a bit about solar and other energy forms and the true cost, environmentally and economically.

 

[SpaceBus]

Could be, the format first came out in the 50s, and they have stuck to it ever since. There is a lot to be said for
consistency. And just think how hard it is to summarize where does energy come from in a place as big as the US? Where does it go?

It does a good job of showing where energy comes from. Some of the earlier maps in the archives show the imported petroleum ( 50% or more) now too low to be listed

Also , it does a good job on showing why energy conservation is so important. A power plant that doubles as a source of city heat is much better than one that just looses its heat to the air

it does a great job of showing how much energy is transmitted by electricity, and how much oil is used in transportation

Personally, I was surprised to see the recent large growth of Biomass

I would not dismiss it too quickly, it's an invitation to think about the problem, and a good one , IMO


PS... welcome back to the discussions, great to see you here

I agree entirely with the plants producing electricity and heat for residential areas. It's akin to eating a food that has a more diverse nutritional profile vs a processed burger. I think everyone gets this idea on the surface, but I don't think they really understand it. They think calories are the problem, but it is empty and wasted calories that are the problem. Nuts are very high calorie, but they also have other nutrients, good fats, etc and can provide a balanced diet when combined with other nutrient dense foods. Sure, you could get by with a less nutrient dense diet, but you will have lots of "Waste" in the form of excess fat, poor nutrition, etc, just like the power plant that only produces electricity and not heat.

 

[SpaceBus]

I have a friend that had a large off grid house in AK that started out with wind power. It was a pita to maintain, expensive and had at least 2 breakdowns which meant long spells on a generator as they waited for parts. One breakdown happened in the middle of the night and ended up being quite costly to repair as the windmill self-destructed. They were happy to get rid of it.

Maybe it's just too windy in places like AK or ME, especially coastal areas. Perhaps wind would make more sense in an area with lower wind speeds, but consistent wind speeds. I've thought about trying to make a water wheel for the snow melt creeks and stuff. Certainly it won't generate much, but it would be a nice way to trickle charge batteries. I have no idea on the practicality of the idea, it's just something that came to me while I'm stuck in the hospital.

 

[peakbagger]

I guess due to my interests/occupations, I hadn't run across that term. I know in ICE applications, turbochargers can scavenge the energy from the otherwise wasted/rejected exhaust gasses/heat. I did not know coal plants had such a high waste heat, but I guess that's part of the multitude of sources contributing to global temperature increase. I always assumed the wast of a coal plant was primarily the particulates that are released and unusable.

Do you work in energy? I do really enjoy reading your posts along with several others like Begreen. I've learned quite a bit about solar and other energy forms and the true cost, environmentally and economically.

Yup I work in power generation. Used to do a few biomass power plants in Maine and have tried to move the one in Sherman Mills Maine twice (with no success) a few trips up to Old Town to get their biomass boiler to run right and a couple of trips to Millinocket and East Millinocket to help try to make something work out of the scrap that was left. These days its combined heat and power plants, either turbines or recips with heat recovery on the tail end. We got an award for one in Mass a few years ago for the most efficient CHP in the state. It was over 70% of the fuel going in was either turned into power or useful heat.

 

[woodgeek]

Could be, the format first came out in the 50s, and they have stuck to it ever since. There is a lot to be said for
consistency. And just think how hard it is to summarize where does energy come from in a place as big as the US? Where does it go?

It does a good job of showing where energy comes from. Some of the earlier maps in the archives show the imported petroleum ( 50% or more) now too low to be listed

Also , it does a good job on showing why energy conservation is so important. A power plant that doubles as a source of city heat is much better than one that just looses its heat to the air

it does a great job of showing how much energy is transmitted by electricity, and how much oil is used in transportation

Personally, I was surprised to see the recent large growth of Biomass

I would not dismiss it too quickly, it's an invitation to think about the problem, and a good one , IMO


PS... welcome back to the discussions, great to see you here

Let me see if I can explain. Let's say you have 1 million dollars, and your friend says he is wealthier than you because he has 3 million 'foo-dollars'. In principle a foo-dollar is just the same as a dollar, and convert 1 to 1. But when you go to spend it on something, and take it out of the bank, you have to cash in 3 foo-dollars out to get 1 dollar out of the cash machine. You argue that you and he have equal spending power....he says he is 3X wealthier than you. Is he?

Now you and he decide to be roommates, and you should each pay half the rent, $2000/mo. You insist that he pay you in dollars, so he cashes in 3000 foo dollars/mo, gets 1000 dollars and gives them to you. You add 1000 of your dollars and pay the rent with the sum to your landlord.

He now makes a flow chart, like the energy one, to describe your household budget. He draws a box labeled 'rent'. He draws the thick line going into the left side of it 3X wider than yours, so it looks like his is 3 cm wide, and yours is 1 cm wide (1 cm = $1000/mo). On the right, he shows one line 2 cm wide that flows to another box that says 'landlord'. Then to make it look legit (like the left and right are in balance) he has another 2 cm wide line coming out the right of the rent box, that he draws going off the page and labels as 'lost money'.

Bottom line, on his diagram, it looks like he is putting 3X more into the rent pot than you, and that you are both contributing to the 'lost money' problem, when that is in fact ENTIRELY his problem, bc it corresponds to money lost at his 'foo dollar' bank that has nothing to do with you.

He then shows it to your girlfriend, says 'look how much more money I make than your boyfriend' and you feel like a loser. He is in fact, an azz.

 

[woodgeek]

Alternatively, each source could convert from 'input quads' to useful services 'quads' separately (with a rejected energy comparable to their respective inefficiencies), these lines (in service quads) could then split and merge on an equal basis and run into services boxes.

Of course, the use of waste heat or energy sources for space heating would have to be handled separately.

 

[georgepds]

Let me see if I can explain. Let's say you have 1 million dollars, and your friend says he is wealthier than you because he has 3 million 'foo-dollars'. In principle a foo-dollar is just the same as a dollar, and convert 1 to 1. But when you go to spend it on something, and take it out of the bank, you have to cash in 3 foo-dollars out to get 1 dollar out of the cash machine. You argue that you and he have equal spending power....he says he is 3X wealthier than you. Is he?

Now you and he decide to be roommates, and you should each pay half the rent, $2000/mo. You insist that he pay you in dollars, so he cashes in 3000 foo dollars/mo, gets 1000 dollars and gives them to you. You add 1000 of your dollars and pay the rent with the sum to your landlord.

He now makes a flow chart, like the energy one, to describe your household budget. He draws a box labeled 'rent'. He draws the thick line going into the left side of it 3X wider than yours, so it looks like his is 3 cm wide, and yours is 1 cm wide (1 cm = $1000/mo). On the right, he shows one line 2 cm wide that flows to another box that says 'landlord'. Then to make it look legit (like the left and right are in balance) he has another 2 cm wide line coming out the right of the rent box, that he draws going off the page and labels as 'lost money'.

Bottom line, on his diagram, it looks like he is putting 3X more into the rent pot than you, and that you are both contributing to the 'lost money' problem, when that is in fact ENTIRELY his problem, bc it corresponds to money lost at his 'foo dollar' bank that has nothing to do with you.

He then shows it to your girlfriend, says 'look how much more money I make than your boyfriend' and you feel like a loser. He is in fact, an azz.

Thanks,

My point is, among other things, that until I see the chart I do not realize how inefficient electric generation is. Transmission losses pale compared to generation losses, for example

The chart invites you to think of that

But back to your minor point about solar, suppose we take the 0.77 quads and multiply by 3, getting 2.3 quads, it’s still small compared to the other sources (~35 quads), even allowing your fudge factors

But fudge away, the chart invites such thinking


```````````````
Considering the main parts of a typical Transmission & Distribution network, here are the average values of power losses at the different steps*:

· 1-2% – Step-up transformer from generator to Transmission line

· 2-4% – Transmission line

· 1-2% – Step-down transformer from Transmission line to Distribution network

· 4-6% – Distribution network transformers and cables

 

[georgepds]

It’s also fun to look at historical trends

The last year they reported oil imports was 2002, and most of our oil was imported

Alas, solar that year was too small to even make the list

Even more interesting, the total use in 2017 was smaller than that in 2002.

It gets harder to do earlier, because some busy body got a bug up his tail and decided it was better to report in quads than the original exajoules

 

[georgepds]

I take back my comment about busy bodies.. the first charts were in quads ( 10^15 btu)

 

[woodgeek]

I remember looking at these charts back in the 70s.....and they were in quads then.

I was 10.