Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:09 am Post subject: Re: How to lie about EROEI and (almost) get away with it
Don't worry, Pstarr. Lieing is the first stage. When you can't get away with that, you quote the most doubtful "scientist". If that scam is seen through, you make posts that are 1 km long, full of specious arguments, that no one can be bothered to read because they are a waste of time. The final stage is to make ad hominem attacks on anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. It is all part and parcel of the dishonesty that this kind of subject provokes in both opponent and proponent.
The unfortunate thing is that no one can quote the truth of the matter because there is no single truth. So, paradoxically, anyone who states the truth is a liar. _________________ Devil
Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:40 am Post subject: Re: How to lie about EROEI and (almost) get away with it
Devil wrote:
Don't worry, Pstarr. Lieing is the first stage. When you can't get away with that, you quote the most doubtful "scientist". If that scam is seen through, you make posts that are 1 km long, full of specious arguments, that no one can be bothered to read because they are a waste of time. The final stage is to make ad hominem attacks on anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. It is all part and parcel of the dishonesty that this kind of subject provokes in both opponent and proponent.
The unfortunate thing is that no one can quote the truth of the matter because there is no single truth. So, paradoxically, anyone who states the truth is a liar.
Devil, I never lied ... my arguments are transparent and no one really is addressing this (not even you). There are good reasons NOT to go down this route, but the energy bduget is not one of them. If you think I lied or I am dishonest, I would appreciate if you used the same data (Pimentel's, not mine) to answer the question. As matters stand I'm done with this thread myself. And I have wasted my time not yours ... you did not even bother to read them.
Cheers
PS Regarding the ad hominem attacks I responded (asymmetrically) I'm afraid to similar challenges.
Edit
------
Examples of why NOT to go down this route, inspite of a net gain energy profit were published in the July issue of Bioscience ( BioScience, Volume 55, Number 7, July 2005, pp. 593-602(10) ) and summarized :
here in the case of the USA and Brazil
Quote:
A new study of CO2 emissions, cropland area requirements, and other environmental consequences of corn- and sugarcane- ethanol production in the US and Brazil concludes that despite the net energy and CO2 benefits offered by the fuel, using ethanol as a full substitute for gasoline is neither sustainable nor environmentally friendly once the ecological footprint values are factored in.
The researchers also concluded, however, that as part of a diverse energy and fuel portfolio of alternatives to petroleum, “ the ethanol option probably should not be wholly disregarded.”
The paper, “Ethanol as Fuel: Energy, Carbon Dioxide Balances, and Ecological Footprint,” is to be published in the July 2005 issue of BioScience, the journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS).
The researchers, Marcelo E. Dias de Oliveira, Burton E. Vaughan, and Edward J. Rykiel, Jr., use the “ecological footprint” concept to frame the requirements for ethanol production from sugarcane, now widespread in Brazil, and from corn, the main feedstock in the United States.
The ecological footprint is an accounting tool based on two fundamental concepts, sustainability and carrying capacity. It allows the estimation of the resource consumption and waste assimilation requirements of a defined human population or economy sector in terms of corresponding productive land area.
Based on their assumptions and analysis, ethanol carries a positive energy balance (i.e., yielding more energy than directly required to produce it). That conclusion will be somewhat contentious on its own, as the academic debate over ethanol continues to volley back and forth over that precise question. ....
Dias de Oliveira and colleagues then looked at some consequences of moving to greater fuel ethanol use. The results were unfavorable to fuel ethanol in either country. In Brazil, reducing the rate of deforestation seemed likely to be more effective for taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. In the United States, reliance on ethanol to fuel the automobile fleet would require enormous and ultimately unachievable areas of corn agriculture, and the environmental impacts would outweigh its benefits.
(environmental impacts: CO2 emissions (mainly) )
MaxPlank institute in Germany has also looked into the issue (look at page 10) of the following PDF : http://www.european-climate-forum.net/events/norwich2003/pdf/ecf_conference_summary.pdf
which raise the issue of land conflict, potential for over-exploitation and eco-disaster in the 3rd world etc.
IMHO it is important to know why something will (not) work instead of simply and stubbornly stating that it will not work but using the wrong arguments _________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 1:17 pm Post subject: Re: How to lie about EROEI and (almost) get away with it
Devil wrote:
Don't worry, Pstarr. Lieing is the first stage. When you can't get away with that, you quote the most doubtful "scientist". If that scam is seen through, you make posts that are 1 km long, full of specious arguments, that no one can be bothered to read because they are a waste of time. The final stage is to make ad hominem attacks on anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. It is all part and parcel of the dishonesty that this kind of subject provokes in both opponent and proponent.
The unfortunate thing is that no one can quote the truth of the matter because there is no single truth. So, paradoxically, anyone who states the truth is a liar.
I do not believe it is dishonesty. I believe it is a paid agenda. EnergySpin is a friend of JohnDenver EnergySpin on JohnDenver's Anti-Peakoil Web Site. They are professional debunkers. They make a living confusing people for their masters at Archer Daniel Midlands. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 1:21 pm Post subject: Re: How to lie about EROEI and (almost) get away with it
EnergySpin,
Here is Pimentel's data. Please refute it
Quote:
Table 3. Average Inputs and Energy Inputs Per Hectare Per Year for Switchgrass Production
Input Quantity 10x3 kcal Dollars
Labor 5 hr 20 $65
Machinery 30 kg 555 50
Diesel 100 L 1,000 50
Nitrogen 50 kg 800 28
Seeds 1.6 kg 100 3
Herbicides 3 kg 300 30
Total 10,000 kg yield 2,755 $230
40 million input/ 1:14.4k
kcal yield output ratio
This table 3 shows that the energy content of the switchgrass is 14.4 times the input energy into the product.
******
Quote:
Table 4. Inputs Per 1000 l of 99.5% Ethanol Produced From
U.S. Switchgrass
Inputs Quantities kcal × 1000 Costs
Switchgrass 2,500 kg 694 $250
Transport, switchgrass 2,500 kg 300 15
Water 125,000 kg 70 20
Stainless steel 3 kg 45 11
Steel 4 kg 46 11
Cement 8 kg 15 11
Grind switchgrass 2,500 kg 100h 8
Sulfuric acid 118 kg 0 83
Steam production 8.1 tons 4,404 36
Electricity 660 kWh 1,703 46
Ethanol conversion to 99.5% 9 kcal/L 9 40
Sewage effluent 20 kg (BOD) 69 6
Total 7,455 $537
This translates to:
Inputs per 1,000 l of ethanol: 7,455,000 kcals.
Outputs per 1000 l of ethanol: 5,130,000 kcals.
Therefore, in Pimentel’s words it “requires 45% more fossil energy to produce 1 l of ethanol using 2.5 kg switchgrass than the energy in a liter of ethanol." _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 1:59 pm Post subject: Re: How to lie about EROEI and (almost) get away with it
Hello pstarr
I apologise about the comment about the college; I should ask my mother for a refund, for not insisting I learn manners
I do not have any problem with Table 3 (even though there seem to be a confusion about the nature of the switchgrass feedstock produced).
The energy return of the first step is therefore 14.4 (or 19 something if you do not use the emboddied energy). Note that the inputs include many stuff, including machinery hence this process can result in a net energy gain.
This is the reason behind the pelletization process and the use of switchgrass in coal fired plants. Do you agree with this so far?
Lets go to Table 4. First of all note that Pimente underestimates the cost of distilling ethanol out of switchgrass due to an error in Table 4. He (incorrectly) lists the energy content of 2500 tons of switchgrass as 694000 kcals where in fact it is 10million. If you permit me I will correct this (it is wrong to divide only one number, if you change the scale of measurement you have to do it for all numbers).
So Table 4 should be something like:
Table 4. Inputs Per 1000 l of 99.5% Ethanol Produced From
U.S. Switchgrass
Inputs Quantities kcal × 1000 Costs
Switchgrass 2,500 kg 10000 $250
Transport, switchgrass 2,500 kg 300 15
Water 125,000 kg 70 20
Stainless steel 3 kg 45 11
Steel 4 kg 46 11
Cement 8 kg 15 11
Grind switchgrass 2,500 kg 100h 8
Sulfuric acid 118 kg 0 83
Steam production 8.1 tons 4,404 36
Electricity 660 kWh 1,703 46
Ethanol conversion to 99.5% 9 kcal/L 9 40
Sewage effluent 20 kg (BOD) 69 6
Inputs are 10000+300+70+45+46+15+100+4404+1703+9+69 =17197
The actual energy efficiency of this step is therefore 29.8%
The conclusion is that for plants which operate this way, in order to recover 50% of the energy contained in the switchgrass (5100/1000) one has to invest a significant amount of additional energy.
If the plant burns 40% of the lignin component (which is the position of NREL and Arkenol), one has to subtract 4000 kcal from the input, and the energy efficiency step is therefore higher 5100/13197 ca 40%
Note that a statement such as: it takes x amount more energy than the energy contained in gasoline can be made, but the interpretation will be different to different people. For example refining 42 gals (1 barrel) of oil to gasoline results in 19.5 gals of gasoline but requires an extra input of 2-12% of the energy contained in the feedstock.
Technically Pim is not incorrect in stating that refining is an energy looser, but distillation will always be an energy looser (you can see that in the case of gasoline).
The important question is whether growing switchgrass to produce ethanol is a net looser, since one gained energy in the first step, energy that one would not have if farming had not be done. What are the inputs for this process? Everyting in Table 3 + everything else (with the exception of switchgrass) in Table 4. Note than 10 tons (the output of 1 ha) is 4 times the amount of switchgrass so one has to multiple gains and costs by 4 .
Output is therefore 4 x 5100 = 20400 kcals. Inputs are: 2755+ 4 x 7197 (when the lignin part is not burnt) or 2755+ 4 x 3197 (if it is burnt)
EROEI = 20400/(2755+28788) = 0.64 (first case) OR 1.31 (second case)
The way one does the processing can influence the results and Pim did not do the calculations all the way. Had he done the calculations he would have been able to give the holistic EROEI which depends on the way the grass is processed.
IF biofuels are to be energy source (and not carrier) then 4 questions have to answered in succession:
1) Does it have an EROEI > 1 (it does in modern practises)
2) How reliable is it as a process? (more data are needed, I cannot answer that one needs more data than averages)
3) What is the absolute yield of energy (this is 20400*0..3)
4) How does it relate to the demant?
5) Are there any land conflicts?
6) Can we use the resource more effectively?
Going down the checklist one finds that switchgrass-ETOH passes 1 (under the modern refinery processes) but runs into problems of 4 and 5 when the process is scaled up.
A more efficient use of the resource is to pelletize it and burn it in coal fire plants or stoves preferably close to the point of production (the only cost would be transport then).
The wrongful way of doing the calcs blur the important issues which go above and beyond the EROIE I'm afraid. But let's start with accurate calcs to understand why one particular solution is not an effective solution (in spite of the net energy gain) , or that it is a good solution to a different problem (decrease in emissions, or land remediation). _________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 2:08 pm Post subject: Re: How to lie about EROEI and (almost) get away with it
pstarr wrote:
Devil wrote:
Don't worry, Pstarr. Lieing is the first stage. When you can't get away with that, you quote the most doubtful "scientist". If that scam is seen through, you make posts that are 1 km long, full of specious arguments, that no one can be bothered to read because they are a waste of time. The final stage is to make ad hominem attacks on anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. It is all part and parcel of the dishonesty that this kind of subject provokes in both opponent and proponent.
The unfortunate thing is that no one can quote the truth of the matter because there is no single truth. So, paradoxically, anyone who states the truth is a liar.
I do not believe it is dishonesty. I believe it is a paid agenda. EnergySpin is a friend of JohnDenver EnergySpin on JohnDenver's Anti-Peakoil Web Site. They are professional debunkers. They make a living confusing people for their masters at Archer Daniel Midlands.
There are many other people contributing to JDs ... is there a law against contributing? I do contribute occasionally to his site using the same alias I use at po.com
Regarding the professional debunking business .. I do not think so, but then again one has to keep in mind that with the exception of the admins and Devil himself , everyone else is essentially anonymous on this corner of the internet _________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:44 am Post subject: Re: How to lie about EROEI and (almost) get away with it
EnergySpin wrote:
He (incorrectly) lists the energy content of 2500 tons of switchgrass as 694000 kcals where in fact it is 10million.
The 694000kcal value is not the energy content of 2500 tons of switchgrass. It is the energy cost of the input into the fermenter to grow the switchgrass. And it is not in tons it is in kilos.
Given these two obvious mistakes (kilos not tons and cost not content) I did not even bother to read the rest of your analysis. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 6:03 am Post subject: Re: How to lie about EROEI and (almost) get away with it
pstarr wrote:
EnergySpin wrote:
He (incorrectly) lists the energy content of 2500 tons of switchgrass as 694000 kcals where in fact it is 10million.
The 694000kcal value is not the energy content of 2500 tons of switchgrass. It is the energy cost of the input into the fermenter to grow the switchgrass. And it is not in tons it is in kilos.
Given these two obvious mistakes (kilos not tons and cost not content) I did not even bother to read the rest of your analysis.
An energy analysis adds outputs of real energies and subtracts real energy costs. If you scale any number you have to scale all of them
Yes it is kgrs ... I'm afraid I did not put the decimal point _________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Joined: Mar 02, 2006 Posts: 1198 Location: England
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:45 am Post subject: Re: EROEI: Energy Returned on Energy Invested
This whole EROEI discussion has hurt my head.
Suppose I find 10 gadzillion tons of tar sands ... decades or centuries worth ... and then dig them up to convert into oil.
However I need to use 9 out of every 10 barrels of this oil to fuel the processing plant ... so I can only export just one barrel in every 10.
From the external view I have found a useful oil source.
It's only when I look over the fence do I see the huge factory chewing up vast chunks of land ... sadly polluting like crazy.
What is the EROEI in this case? Do we really care?
Joined: May 15, 2005 Posts: 4142 Location: THE MATRIX
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:17 am Post subject: Re: EROEI: Energy Returned on Energy Invested
no but I believe it is 1.111111111111111111 _________________ It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:11 am Post subject: Re: EROEI: Energy Returned on Energy Invested
SoothSayer wrote:
From the external view I have found a useful oil source.
It's only when I look over the fence do I see the huge factory chewing up vast chunks of land ... sadly polluting like crazy.
What is the EROEI in this case? Do we really care?
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject: Re: EROEI: Energy Returned on Energy Invested
Code:
And even if we could somehow replace oil with renewables, we cannot do it fast enough. The time required to build the infrastructure is just not there.
This presumes that our demand for energy will continue to increase. However, when the price of oil (and natural gas prices increase similarly) increases to $120 to $180 per barrel, people will conserve at a much more serious level. They will use their vehicles less, they will work from home more, they will purchase more fuel efficient vehicles (including chargeable electric hybrids which will allow for wind and solar to be directly used to power vehicles), they will purchase their next house closer to their workplace (which can happen very quickly for some), they will carpool, they will insulate their house better and invest in more efficient heating, and they will vacation closer to home (or spend their vacations improving their energy efficiency). I
believe that these changes will buy us time to start increasing renewable fuel energy generation to make up the slack. In the meantime, Congress will act out of necessity to improve the efficiency of new equipment that will reduce energy demand and make grants for improving energy efficiency.
I do believe that peaking oil will be a very stressful time which may be exacerbated by our actions in the Middle East, although George Bush will likely be out of office by then, so there is hope.....
Joined: Sep 06, 2004 Posts: 5315 Location: Smalltown New Zealand
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:06 pm Post subject: Re: EROEI: Energy Returned on Energy Invested
Retsel wrote:
This presumes that our demand for energy will continue to increase.
If it doesn't, you have a recession.
Retsel wrote:
They will use their vehicles less
When they are unemployed they won't need to go to work.
Retsel wrote:
they will purchase more fuel efficient vehicles (including chargeable electric hybrids which will allow for wind and solar to be directly used to power vehicles),
How many people can afford a new car without it going onto the never-never?
Retsel wrote:
they will purchase their next house closer to their workplace
Which will be more expensive, and they can't sell their previous home because nobody else wants a long commute
Retsel wrote:
believe that these changes will buy us time to start increasing renewable fuel energy generation to make up the slack.
You can have as much bio-fuel as you want as long as you don't need people to eat.
Retsel wrote:
In the meantime, Congress will act out of necessity...
to protect their campaign donors and vested interests. _________________ "Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
It seems to me that the concept of EROI is a cost versus benefice analysis from the energy supplier standpoint only. It is a very important factor but I think something is missing: the energy end user efficiency.
I think you are quite right when we are talking about ways to mitigate the effects of peak. I hope that idea is kept in mind when people are pushing their favorite solution to conserve energy. It may make more sense to use natural gas to create electricity rather that extract or refine oil.
This is one of those 'gotchas' that will get us. Like the declining net exports of oil as the producing countries use more for themselves. _________________ Civilization is a personal choice.
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 6:25 pm Post subject: Re: EROEI: Energy Returned on Energy Invested
Retsel wrote:
This presumes that our demand for energy will continue to increase.
Code:
If it doesn't, you have a recession.
Well in Michgan, where automotive manufacturing is a big job provider, there will (continue to) be a recession. But not necessarily in other places. Can't we replace incandescent light bulbs with florescent light bulbs without having a recession? When people who can, work from home, can't they make this change without causing a recession?
Retsel wrote:
They will use their vehicles less
Code:
When they are unemployed they won't need to go to work.
Higher energy prices will cause some unemployment, we see this in Michigan today. However, people make many unecessary trips in their vehicles, such as vacations, which can be eliminated thus saving them money in energy expeditures. People can carpool thus doubling the per-capita miles traveled to and from work without affecting their ability to go to work.
Retsel wrote:
they will purchase more fuel efficient vehicles (including chargeable electric hybrids which will allow for wind and solar to be directly used to power vehicles),
Code:
How many people can afford a new car without it going onto the never-never?
Well, if people purchase small fuel-efficient diesel powered vehicles instead of gasoline-sucking SUVs, they can easily afford such a low cost vehicle, even if automotive manufacturing costs increase dramatically. Apparently, people have had lots of disposable income to spend on motor vehicles which is why the automotive industry has been so successful at selling SUVs, really, really big SUVs. The poor will probably have to wait several years until when those very fuel efficient vehicles trickle down from their first owners.
Retsel wrote:
they will purchase their next house closer to their workplace
Code:
Which will be more expensive, and they can't sell their previous home because nobody else wants a long commute
There will be a reorganization of both the labor and housing markets. People will start moving closer to where they work, other people will find jobs closer to their houses. More remote houses can be purchased by those who can telecommute. We have already seen a shift in the housing market here in Michigan. Many people who either lost their jobs or who are no longer are willing to have a second home in the Northern part of the state are selling off their vacation homes.
Retsel wrote:
believe that these changes will buy us time to start increasing renewable fuel energy generation to make up the slack.
Code:
You can have as much bio-fuel as you want as long as you don't need people to eat.
A lot of more grain can and will be more available when people eat a vegetarian diet. Something like 10 times more energy (and lots of land too....) in grain is consumed by cows than the energy content available from their meat. This will free up a lot of biofuel capacity.
I don't want to be labeled as a blind-eyed optimist, and I should not have to be. The U.S., in particular, consumes way, way more energy than it needs to. Cutting back on our energy demand will result in very cost-effective energy savings that will buy us time to make changes in how we produce energy.
My question to you is are you being too pessimistic?
I guess that we will all see the impact on the world by peak oil soon enough.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
but I believe it is 1.111111111111111111
