Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject: Re: Available Energy
yesplease said:
Quote:
There is no differentiation between me using ten gallons of refined oil to move myself and and another a thousand miles and using ten gallons of gas to fuel a bonfire in my front yard because I want to.
The differentiation is that if the world’s oil fields follow the same path as the US fields have, you soon won’t have ten gallons of anything. What you do with ten gallons that you don’t have is irrelevant.
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject: Re: Available Energy
shortonoil wrote:
yesplease said:
Quote:
There is no differentiation between me using ten gallons of refined oil to move myself and and another a thousand miles and using ten gallons of gas to fuel a bonfire in my front yard because I want to.
The differentiation is that if the world’s oil fields follow the same path as the US fields have, you soon won’t have ten gallons of anything. What you do with ten gallons that you don’t have is irrelevant.
Fortunately it won't go instantaneously from ten gallons to no gallons, and unless people enjoy paying exorbitant amounts, which they seem to some extent, users with certain exceptions, will likely increase the efficiency of use as prices increase after some point. _________________
Joined: Jul 12, 2006 Posts: 84 Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:44 am Post subject: Re: Available Energy
That is a scary graph - as if Peak Oil was not serious enough. It looks to me to be clear enough as to what it suggests. However, given that current figures would seem to show that global crude oil production peaked in 2005, putting that together with shortonoil's graph would say to me that we really are getting awfully close to global economic growth turning into a serious recession, even without considering the impact of the current credit crisis.
If it is the case that we can expect declining net energy from each future barrel of oil, then that may also impact negatively upon our ability to replace oil as a source of energy. How many of the people planning such transformations as electric cars replacing oil-fuelled cars have included net declining energy from oil in their calculations of the resources that would be required to achieve such things? The longer we put off the transformation, the greater the quantity of oil we will need to complete that transformation, as it looks to me. Therefore, are we likely to reach a point where we simply will not have the energy available to complete such a transformation without taking energy (or oil in particular) from other sectors of the economy to such an extent as to make the transformation idea somewhat moot?
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: Re: Available Energy
Temperedoil said:
Quote:
If it is the case that we can expect declining net energy from each future barrel of oil, then that may also impact negatively upon our ability to replace oil as a source of energy.
That idea certainly did not originate from this study. Many aware individuals have been proclaiming this for several years in the form of generalized statements. The study does, however, give us a well based mathematical model to predict such future events more accurately.
dorlomin said:
Quote:
Very educational stuff there shortonoil. Can I ask if the dynamics for a gas field are the same, or does this only cover oil?
The hypothesis behind the study is based on the correlation that should exist between the logistic curve and the ERoEI curve. It is an energy perspective of oil production, which allows us to bypass many of the hurdles presented by using exclusively only volume production models.
It can be hoped that it may be extendable to other fossil fuel extraction processes, but at this time it hasn’t been attempted. A shortage of man power is now the primary deterrent. Anyone with good math and engineering skills, and knowledge of mining or oil extraction is welcome to join the effort.
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:28 pm Post subject: Re: Available Energy
I'm pleased to see a few more coming to accept this aspect of depletion. There is an awful lot of resistance, I think mainly due to the gravity of the problem. Many just don't want to accept it.
There is a strong tendency to claim that ERoEI is irrelevant because oil is just a source of liquid fuel and doesn't have to be a primary energy source, that nuclear or solar (or more likely other fossil fuels) could provide the additional energy. While technically true, it ignores the system effects and the inevitable treadmill from having to constantly put more energy in, just to remain in place; energy that is then unavailable for any other activity. In fact this is where we are now. Increasing amounts of all resources are being redirected to make up for the primary energy deficit, this includes raw materials, food and water, and additional load on environmental sinks (polar ice cap loss) I did mention system effects!
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:09 am Post subject: Re: Available Energy
sjn said:
Quote:
I'm pleased to see a few more coming to accept this aspect of depletion. There is an awful lot of resistance, I think mainly due to the gravity of the problem. Many just don't want to accept it.
There is a strong tendency to claim that ERoEI is irrelevant because oil is just a source of liquid fuel and doesn't have to be a primary energy source, that nuclear or solar (or more likely other fossil fuels) could provide the additional energy. While technically true, it ignores the system effects and the inevitable treadmill from having to constantly put more energy in, just to remain in place; energy that is then unavailable for any other activity. In fact this is where we are now. Increasing amounts of all resources are being redirected to make up for the primary energy deficit, this includes raw materials, food and water, and additional load on environmental sinks (polar ice cap loss) I did mention system effects!
Many don’t want to accept it because it requires a paradigm shift in how we view our energy supply, and our world in general. Even though contemporary economic models have been failing for the last six years with regard to energy, there are those who are still tenaciously holding on to them.
In spite of an annual 34% increase in price over the last six years, we have seen almost no increase in world production. This belies basic economic theory; as price goes up, so will supply. To compensate for this “in your face” blatant contradiction, we have seen one ad hoc and ridiculous excuse after another paraded out as an explanation. It is the speculators, the terrorist, and of course, “above ground factors”!
Not once has anyone postulated that maybe they are measuring the wrong metric. They continue to appraise barrels of oil, like they were some kind of a sacrosanct and unchallengeable deity. Then they sit around slack faced; perplexed in the failure of their projections. Even on the front page of this forum today we see another article that tries to explain the phenomena we are witnessing. This one they call a “resulting mismatch”.
Quote:
Even Amid High Oil Prices, Troubling Signs in Production
As oil prices soared to record levels in recent years, basic economics suggested that consumption would fall and supply would rise as producers opened the taps to pump more.
But as prices flirt with $120 a barrel, many energy specialists are becoming worried that neither seems to be happening. Higher prices have done little to attract new production or to suppress global demand, and the resulting mismatch has sent oil prices spiraling upward.
IF, (which I use judiciously, because the studies at this time have not yet been completed) world oil production and Available Energy decline similarly to what has been experienced in the US, world economic activity either is, or will soon begin a 4.8% annual decline. This decline will last at least a decade and will undoubtedly result in the worse depression that has ever been witnessed in modern history.
Perhaps some Abe Lincoln or Winston Churchill will arise to face this new and terrifying threat. Of course, our course may continue to be plotted by the likes of the CEOs of Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan. In that case, expect the very worse!
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject: Re: Available Energy
I'm curious about a couple other things regarding the results. In the graph used, where would that line tangent to the EROEI/available energy function intersecting the Y-axis at the same place as the EROEI function and intersecting the x-axis at peak production rates be? Also, Do you have the details for statement four? Lastly, do you have the data set you used w/ Fig(5) from Cleveland's paper? _________________
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:36 am Post subject: Re: Available Energy
Shortonoil,
Good work. According to your graph the eroi of US 48 oil should be about 1 about now, however Cleveland 2005 arrives at an eroi of 18 (without quality correction) or about 11 with.
Could you post the full calcs/figures you used so disparities such as this could be resolved. (I will attempt to get input from those that started the whole eroi thing!)
Best
C _________________ "At some point in the not too distant future, mother nature will initiate bankruptcy proceedings against the standing crop of human flesh". Catton Overshoot
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 7:31 am Post subject: Re: Available Energy
Mastodon said:
Quote:
Shortonoil,
Good work. According to your graph the eroi of US 48 oil should be about 1 about now, however Cleveland 2005 arrives at an eroi of 18 (without quality correction) or about 11 with.
Could you post the full calcs/figures you used so disparities such as this could be resolved. (I will attempt to get input from those that started the whole eroi thing!)
Best
I’m sort of in a time bind this week, but I’ll get the ERoEI graph up this afternoon. That should help clarify a lot of this.
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 7:09 pm Post subject: Re: Available Energy
This is the ERoEI graph (except obviously the logistic curve) from which the other curves shown at the beginning of this thread are constructed. The other graphs are a function of the ERoEI graph, and the ERoEI graph is a function of the logistic curve.
As explained above, it was derived from Cleveland’s data set from his 2001 paper “Net Energy from the extraction of oil and gas in the United States”. His work is undoubtedly the best energy study ever completed on a major oil field.
The ERoEI decline of the US fields was not linear, as is shown. This is of little consolation as each year the percentage of available energy lost from the remaining energy grows larger. It is also necessary to remember that it is the ERoEI of the finished product that is of concern. For example, when the ERoEI of the finished product is 10:1, a drop of .47 removes almost 5% of the fuels total energy contribution. The ERoEI of the finished product lies 10 to 16 points below the ERoEI of the oil at the well head.
It should also be noted that the US fields did not employ enhanced extraction methods on a wide bases until after the fields had peaked. Many of the world’s fields have had enhanced extraction methods applied from the very beginning of the field’s development. This will make the Total AE curve much steeper toward the end of the field’s life span.
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:38 pm Post subject: Re: Available Energy
Edit- NVM, Mastodon pointed out my mistake. At ~22:1 EROEI assuming no energy extraction costs only refinery inputs in CA circa 1997, how could we have seen ~100:1 EROEI in the 30s? _________________
Professor Membrane wrote:
Not now son! I'm making...TOAST!
Last edited by yesplease on Mon Jun 09, 2008 2:44 am; edited 2 times in total
Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 2:01 am Post subject: Re: Available Energy
yesplease wrote:
Current refining efficiency in terms of energy is ~80% for all products and ~90% if excluding non-fuel products, which is an EROEI of ~5-10:1 assuming little to no energy used in extraction. I doubt the energy efficiency of refining oil has dropped since the 1930s, so how could the EROEI of oil be 100:1 at that time?
Yesplease,
Refining is only a part of the process (and no, a refining efficiency of 80% does not reflect eroi>1), the total energy out (er part of the ratio) of fossil fuels was huge compared to the energy in back at the start of the last century. Thing is, even today the eroi for fossil fuels is massive, the one that suprises me is coal which even today has an eroi of 60 to 80.
I would like to insert/upload an multifuel eroi graph but how? _________________ "At some point in the not too distant future, mother nature will initiate bankruptcy proceedings against the standing crop of human flesh". Catton Overshoot
Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 2:38 am Post subject: Re: Available Energy
Ah, I gotcha. But still, even assuming no energy extraction costs and 100% refinery efficiency, the EROEI in CA circa 1997 is still ~28:1 (~1.1 trillion kWh at 100% efficiency compared to ~40 billion kWh of inputs), so how can we have seen 100:1 in the past? Refineries probably weren't as efficient and while it was much less costly in terms of energy to get the oil, it still required more than nothing.
You can upload images by creating an account at a site like flikr or photobucket or similar and uploading one there, then insert it by using it's link/location on their website within the [img] tags, or just click the little picture (hills and the sun) icon up top and enter the url of your picture there. _________________
Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 3:00 am Post subject: Re: Available Energy
yesplease wrote:
Ah, I gotcha. But still, even assuming no energy extraction costs and 100% refinery efficiency, the EROEI in CA circa 1997 is still ~28:1 (~1.1 trillion kWh at 100% efficiency compared to ~40 billion kWh of inputs), so how can we have seen 100:1 in the past? Refineries probably weren't as efficient and while it was much less costly in terms of energy to get the oil, it still required more than nothing.
You can upload images by creating an account at a site like flikr or photobucket or similar and uploading one there, then insert it by using it's link/location on their website within the [img] tags, or just click the little picture (hills and the sun) icon up top and enter the url of your picture there.
I will sort the image thing later but I think I get your issue, eroi is a ratio it is not a "measure" of efficiency (indirectly it is in a way) but it is purely a ratio, energy out divided by energy in. This ratio could be as high as 1000 ie for in kwhr of energy in we get 1000kwhr of energy out, needless to say this would be some mother of an energy source (fusion in 1000yrs hohohohoho). Like the Price of oil therre is no upper limit to eroi, its all physics and totally dependent on the energy source being studied.
It is when you get to eroi approaching 1 that things get interesting, consider the situation where a civilisation has an energy source with an eroi of 2, this means that 50% of the total activity of that civilisation would be involved in that energy production in some way . This is where we get into the area of complexity and the energy necessary to support it, Charlie Hall suggests a minimum eroi of 5 is necessary to support any reasonably technologically complex civilisation, seems sensible to me when you look at the raft of stuff we need to support just the simple act of making a bearing...
read tainter also try to think of any structure that retains complexity with reducing energy, does not work in biology or physics afaik.... _________________ "At some point in the not too distant future, mother nature will initiate bankruptcy proceedings against the standing crop of human flesh". Catton Overshoot
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
