Chevron taps solar-powered steam to get more oil

Solar power, it turns out, can mean more than just clean electrons and home hot water systems.

Chevron on Friday disclosed plans to use solar thermal technology from BrightSource Energy to enhance oil recovery from an aging well in central California.

BrightSource Energy's demonstration facility in Israel's Negev Desert, where an array of heliostats, or moving mirrors, concentrate light onto a tower to make steam.

(Credit: BrightSource Energy)

The system will use 7,000 mirrors on Chevron-owned land to reflect light onto a tower to make steam. The steam will be pumped underground to heat up heavy oils and make them easier to extract, according to a Reuters report. Right now, Chevron uses natural gas to make steam.

Concentrating solar power has emerged as one of the most cost-effective solar technologies for utility-scale solar projects. Using mirrors or reflective troughs, sunlight from desert areas is concentrated onto a liquid that makes steam. In a power plant, that steam turns a turbine to make electricity.

Production on the plant in Coalinga, Calif., is slated to begin by the end of 2010, Chevron executives told Reuters. Chevron Technology Ventures, the company's venture arm, is an investor in BrightSource Energy.

BrightSource Energy's main business continues to be utility-scale solar. But another young solar company, Ausra, shifted its focus from building solar power plants to using its solar thermal technology to make a system for different industrial processes.

[surfernerd6987]

Instead of wasting the time and money building this giant oil extracting steam tower, take the funds and invest it into more renewable energy sources period. Build some energy creating sources. This instead proves that we are dependent on oil, and will pay any amount to continue its flow rather than look at alternatives.

[jaguar717]

When a single one of them becomes feasible, I'm sure they will. But with wind turbines and solar panels still costing 10x as much per unit of power, it's a losing proposition.

The only energy *creating* source would be nuclear, which the Luddites do everything they can to block.

[JonFraudCarry]

If it is so easy, you do it. The problem is, It is not easy, solar and wind are terrible energy sources.

[texaslabrat]

@jaguar717:

10x? Really? Hmmm. A modern fossil-fuel powered power plant costs roughly a dollar per watt just to BUILD. Then you have to buy fuel for it for decades (I won't even mention all the environmental damage THAT causes...and no I'm not talking about climate change) until it is decommissioned, costing thousands of dollars per watt over its lifetime in fuel expenditures. The newest generation of photovoltaic panels are approaching $1/watt wholesale ($3-$4 retail installed in large quantities, and rooftop "land" is typically considered a freebie) and the fuel is free. Just one example among many renewable sources that are coming online now. Feel free to chime back in when your math skills improve.

@JonFraudCarry: Yep, they are so terrible being renewable and free after initial capital expenditure. Horrible indeed.

[philnye]

texaslabrat,

You say do the math on the system costs of solar versus fossil fuel but did you also do the math on system size? Even if the commercial solar panels do approach $1/watt wholesale and $3-$4/watt retail (mind you this hasen't happened in practice yet as commercial and residential systems are typically $20k-$40k for just 4-5kW systems sans installation), there is still the physical land area required for generating large amounts of power. Yes, roof top space is ideal but there are many limitations and many roof tops required as right now, it typically takes around 100 sq.ft. to generate 1kW of energy (averaging most of the US). If you assume that an average modern power plant is in the neighborhood above 500 MW in capacity that would mean you would require 50,000,000 sq.ft. of area or 1.8 sq. miles of solar panels. That is a huge chunk of land (not even considering available roof top space) to generate an equivalent amount of power during daylight hours (you would probably need to then double that since you cannot produce power at night). Alternative energy is a great path to follow and I am a big proponent but until we figure out a way to increase the power density of these systems they simply cannot directly replace dirty conventional systems.

[kingsnoofer]

No matter how green this planet gets these companies are going to keep pumping for oil. This is a fact. It's not pessimism. Yes they are using the solar energy to make it easier for them to get at the fossil fuels. But at least they are making the process itself greener. At least there is less pollution caused by the extraction.

[rejobi]

Let me see if I understand. They are going to take nearly non-existing water in southern California, create steam, pump it deep underground where it condenses and is lost to the ecosystem practically forever?

[mike_ekim]

When fuel is burned the carbon combines with oxugen to create water. They may be providing us with more water than they consume.

[solitare_pax]

Actually, water does move underground, which is tapped for wells, or comes up into rivers and lakes - it isn't lost.

[pixelpusher220]

@mike_ekim:
Unfortunately you didn't learn basic chemistry ;-) Carbon combines with Oxygen to produce...wait for it...Carbon-di-Oxide. Burning oil/gas does not produce water.
.
Running hydrogen thruogh a fuel cell does produce water which is probably what you were thinking. Unfortunately this is an Oil well not a hydrogen well.

[Been_there_Saw_it_before]

Why not just use the steam to run a turbin and generate electricity directly? That is exactly what Southern California Edison did 40 years ago with their Solar One plant in the Mojave desert.

Chevron needs to realize it is in the energy business, not just the oil business. Clean solar power would be much better than extracting the oil in order to get the carbon to burn and stink the atmosphere. Try factoring that into the equation and see how the balance comes out.

Also, the oil from the Coalinga area is pretty dirty stuff, lots of sulfer in it. It does make good asphalt.

Bonus question: Where did Coalinga gets its name? Southern Pacific railroad coaling station A.

[jaguar717]

Because the amount of steam energy available is just a tiny fraction.

If you could hook up a bike to an oil well in your back yard, would it make sense to say you should just hook the bike straight up to your house to generate power "directly"? Obviously they're using the relatively little (& expensive) solar power to extract the very energy-dense oil.

[mlamonica]

Just to be clear, making steam to make electricity with a turbine is mainly what BrightSource Energy and other concentrating solar power companies do. This project w/Chevron is a first for BrightSource, but we may see more companies using solar to make steam for industrial applications.

[mike_ekim]

Because they don't want to make electricity, they want to make steam. The sun heating water will make steam.

An alternative would be to use the sun to make steam to turn a turbine, and have that turbine turn a generator that makes electricity for a water heater that makes steam. Considering the steam cycle is about 30-40% efficient, you get about 3 times more steam by making steam with sunlight, than you would if you made electricity with sunlight and used that electricity to make the steam.

[squished]

Wouldn't it make sense to convert this plant to regular solar-thermal electricity generation once the oil is extracted? Are they thinking about doing that? Surprised it's not mentioned in the article if they are. Does the sun not shine as much in this "Central California" location?

I see this as a potential win/lose then win. For now it's using greener tech to develop fuel that will create more CO2 (lose). At least it addresses the foreign oil problem (win). In the long term, hopefully it'd become a regular electricity generation plant. (win if it happens)

[JonFraudCarry]

Because the amount of electricity generated by this system is a tiny fraction of what we need. You would have to literally pave the desert with solar collectors to generate enough power to supply California. The environmental damage that would cause would be far worse than using fossil fuels.

[solar_thermal]

Well Jon that is pretty far from the truth. A company call Ausra figures it could power the US, day and night, with a 92 by 92 mile square of land. This is a huge amount of land granted but is only about 1/3 the size of the Mojave Desert. This does not even take into account the Sonoran Desert. California uses about 7% of the total of the US. So we would need about 2 1/2% of the Mojave to power California. Again this does not even take into account the larger Sonoran Desert. Ok to be fair not all of the Mojave is in California and Ausra may be a little optimistic here.
For several years I operated a couple of the largest solar-thermal plants. When you talk about environmental damage you need to factor in land used in mining coal and pollution. Hydro has limited new potential and uses large amounts of land. Natural gas is great but you have a limited resource that competes with consumers. Many people feel it would be better to run our cars and busses on. Nuclear energy shows some real promise but California will not even look at it until storage issues are resolved.
We are never going to run the country on just solar but it does show some real promise to be a piece of the puzzle