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.
does it strike you as likely that the petrochemical industry consumes nearly three times the entire world's consumption of electricity?
if one claims the energy for gasoline product comes from the crude itself then roughly half the crude must be consumed in its production... utilization is at around 90% so that poo poos that idea.
In the first statement, you're assuming that the inputs into gasoline production are in the form of generated electricity.
In the second, you're only looking at one narrow slice of the process of producing gasoline... the refining.
Let me ask you this... if I load a tanker with 100,000 barrels of crude oil in the United Arab Emirates, and sail that tanker through the Indian and Pacific Oceans to Los Angeles, how much energy in the form of fuel oil (diesel) is consumed in driving that behemoth through all that water?
Animals use the equation 'Energy out minus energy in'.
For example if it takes a bee more energy to fly to a flower than it gets back from the nectar then it's not worth flying to that flower.
A beaver will spend hours felling a tree because it gets more energy back from the leaves at the top than it uses getting at them.
To my mind, energy positive means you get more back than you put in.
Of course, you can express that as a ratio as well if you want.
Maybe the wise old beavers spend endless dark nights inside the lodge discussing the calculus of tree removal and licho is the beaver Deacon And some young cuss beaver says to Deacon licho "it's just subtraction, we don't have to think about it because it's so obvious" and the Deacon says "preposterous. The true value of wood is represented by the weight of the God Tree sitting upon the Dam and our Food. As we eat our Food the weight of God Tree increases and our thus so does our wisdom"
At that point another of the wise old beavers, this one is Pasteur Beverly Beaver says, "no, no, no, that is the old prophecy. Now the Leaf and Food Sprites are above in feminine dominance over the old God Tree, and as the food is consumed, the Leaf and Food is reduced meaning that wisdom approaches zero, so we must conserve."
Around and around goes the stories all during the dark nights and in the morning the little cuss beaver leaves the lodge and sees that the trees are gone. He thinks to himself, "hum maybe I should become a plankton feeder" and he lets his mustache hairs grow so he can strain and process the pond slime.
does it strike you as likely that the petrochemical industry consumes nearly three times the entire world's consumption of electricity?
if one claims the energy for gasoline product comes from the crude itself then roughly half the crude must be consumed in its production... utilization is at around 90% so that poo poos that idea.
In the first statement, you're assuming that the inputs into gasoline production are in the form of generated electricity.
In the second, you're only looking at one narrow slice of the process of producing gasoline... the refining.
Let me ask you this... if I load a tanker with 100,000 barrels of crude oil in the United Arab Emirates, and sail that tanker through the Indian and Pacific Oceans to Los Angeles, how much energy in the form of fuel oil (diesel) is consumed in driving that behemoth through all that water?
Caoimhan
not nearly as high as you think
basicilly a 200,000 ton super tanker consumes about 200 tons a day at full speed newer ones get as low as 90 tons per day much less at lower speeds
your looking at around 25 days to LA from ME
so around 5000 tons top speed less than 5% of energy in cargo .the round trip hurts thou but consumption is less empty but it is still a hit
as for the assumption i think electricity is used during refining I am not... I am assuming that to get a figure below or equivalent to 1I need to consume that amount of energy during production.
Joined: May 31, 2004 Posts: 920 Location: Brno, Czech rep., EU
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 12:48 pm Post subject:
Well, I really cannot help you much, if you have troubles understanding this discussion..
And AFAIK animals don't use any equations .. They are simply doing what is beneficial for them, not neccesary what provides highest energy returns (they cannot even spend extra energy, and they cannot store it, overeating is bad for you, it's also bad for animals). They are often seeking kind of food with less energy but some important vitamines, and it costs them more to search it, they are traveling thousands of miles just to mate etc.. so example with bee (which doesnt do any calculation, it simply flies to nearest source) is meaningless.
This is discussion about EROEI, eroei is DEFINED as energy returned / energy invested.
If you have troubles with understanding basics of math, you shouldn't be discussing this..
Math and physics used here in this thread didnt exceed those basics teached in elementary school, sorry, but it can hardly get easier.
This is discussion about EROEI, eroei is DEFINED as energy returned / energy invested.
So where has EROEI been defined as ER/EI? Please refer me to the definition.
I remember it being used at Peak Oil forums EROEI=ER-EI. So, for instance if you spend 10 barrels to get 100 your EROEI is 90. If you spend 30 barrels to get 100 EROEI is 70. Different, but not an order of magnitude so--an interesting and USEFUL fact.
It appear that you may have been distracted by the nomenclature-- ER ON EI where you believe that the ON refers to algerbra proximitry. I don't believe (nor does accepted usage here at Peak Oil suggest) that it does.
Licho wrote:
If you have troubles with understanding basics of math, you shouldn't be discussing this..Math and physics used here in this thread didnt exceed those basics teached in elementary school, sorry, but it can hardly get easier.
I have no trouble understanding math. My difficulty is the inappropriate application of it
Joined: May 19, 2004 Posts: 892 Location: San Francisco, California
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 3:33 pm Post subject:
pstarr wrote:
I remember it being used at Peak Oil forums EROEI=ER-EI. So, for instance if you spend 10 barrels to get 100 your EROEI is 90. If you spend 30 barrels to get 100 EROEI is 70. Different, but not an order of magnitude so--an interesting and USEFUL fact.
If that were true then not only could you not compare different technologies, you couldn't even compare different oil wells! That is, ER - EI (energy return minus energy invested) is dependent on the magnitude of the thing analyzed. A small unit with a high EPR could have a lower ER - EI than a large unit with a low EPR.
I think it's more useful to talk about EPR or net energy gain.
I remember it being used at Peak Oil forums EROEI=ER-EI. So, for instance if you spend 10 barrels to get 100 your EROEI is 90. If you spend 30 barrels to get 100 EROEI is 70. Different, but not an order of magnitude so--an interesting and USEFUL fact.
If that were true then not only could you not compare different technologies, you couldn't even compare different oil wells! That is, ER - EI (energy return minus energy invested) is dependent on the magnitude of the thing analyzed. A small unit with a high EPR could have a lower ER - EI than a large unit with a low EPR.
I think it's more useful to talk about EPR or net energy gain.
"The EROEI is calculated by taking the energy content of your energy (in whatever units you wish) and subtracting the energy used in producing the energy. The result will be a number either negative, positive or zero. The higher the number, the better.
The EPR is similar but the energy content is divided by the energy to produce: the answer will be a ratio where 1 is equal to the zero if EROEI, and less than 1 is equal to a negative."
-www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk.
I know Wolf is not the final word on the subject, but it is reputable and the definition echoes common usage here. What I object to is a bunch of engineering weenies trying to hijack a good, simple tool and turn it into something it is not Use EPR for your intended purpose. Leave EROEI to us
If that were true then not only could you not compare different technologies, you couldn't even compare different oil wells! That is, ER - EI (energy return minus energy invested) is dependent on the magnitude of the thing analyzed. A small unit with a high EPR could have a lower ER - EI than a large unit with a low EPR.
john,
If you want to standardize for sake of comparison then do it first. Convert therms to barrels or joules or whatever. But the last judgement made has to be the EROEI subtraction to see if the project is worth it from it from a thermodynamic, social, ecological, or civil point of view.
pete _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Joined: May 31, 2004 Posts: 920 Location: Brno, Czech rep., EU
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 9:02 pm Post subject:
Quote:
I remember it being used at Peak Oil forums EROEI=ER-EI. So, for instance if you spend 10 barrels to get 100 your EROEI is 90. If you spend 30 barrels to get 100 EROEI is 70. Different, but not an order of magnitude so--an interesting and USEFUL fact.
Sorry, I can't help myself, but this just shows your lack of math/physics basics. If you have EROEI of a well 90 .. well .. what can you say?
You are saying that EROEI of oil well is 90, and you count it in barrels. However, I count oil in litres, and my EROEI of same well is magically 14310, just because I calculate it in litres..
Friend of mine also took a look at the same well, and his result is horribly low EROEI (compared to mine with EROEI 14310), his well only has EROEI of 12!! (Of course, he measures oil in tonnes).
But, if he calculates EROEI not only by month, but by years, he has higher EROEI than your original well!
I hope, that you see now, that SUBSTRACTION without units, doesnt make ANY SENSE.
Your number is useless. EROEI is value without units, and it's calculated by division, we were never arguying about it, but about other things, as you can read in original post. EROEI of two sources doesnt have to be calculated in same units to be comparable. If you have black box, that is converting 3 batteries to 1 same battery, Eroei of boxed battery convertor will remain 1/3, and doesnt matter if you calculate batteries in tonnes, volume, count, and if you count sum production across 1 day, 1 month or millions of years...
There is also no need to define substraction as a special thing and call it "EROEI", you can say that net energy gain of your well over 1 month was 90 barrels - and it's clear statement, that has nothing to do EROEI. However other problems (like inability to calculate inputs, inability to set borders, inability to compare outputs) apply there too, if you decide to substract investments and convert both investments and outputs to same units.
So where has EROEI been defined as ER/EI? Please refer me to the definition.
well I am waiting
pstarr wrote:
"The EROEI is calculated by taking the energy content of your energy (in whatever units you wish) and subtracting the energy used in producing the energy. The result will be a number either negative, positive or zero. The higher the number, the better.
The EPR is similar but the energy content is divided by the energy to produce: the answer will be a ratio where 1 is equal to the zero if EROEI, and less than 1 is equal to a negative."
-www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk.
So where has EROEI been defined as ER/EI? Please refer me to the definition.
well I am waiting
pstarr wrote:
"The EROEI is calculated by taking the energy content of your energy (in whatever units you wish) and subtracting the energy used in producing the energy. The result will be a number either negative, positive or zero. The higher the number, the better.
The EPR is similar but the energy content is divided by the energy to produce: the answer will be a ratio where 1 is equal to the zero if EROEI, and less than 1 is equal to a negative."
-www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk.
Got a better definition?
pete
that is a ratio.... slight frustration
look if i am to create a value that is independent of the amount of energy invested a single subtractive value is not much help...
division is or can be viewed as "how many times can i subtract this value from that one"... this is a ratio.
i can subtract 2 from 12 six times ie the ratio is 6:1
if you use a single subtraction as your baseline there is no comparison possible
using a single subtraction I input 0.2 units of fossil energy into a oil field and refining and get 0.8 units of gasoline my EROEIsubtractive is 0.6 units
if i input 0.4 units I get 1.6 units of gasoline my EROEIsubtractive is 1.2...
does gasoline have a EROEIsubtractive of 0.6 or 1.2?
thats useless as gasoline has an infinite number of possible values even if we keep all other assumptions the same.. which was the problem discussed earlier in the thread.
if i use a ratio the figure remains the same and is independent of how much actual energy you are investing..
this is important as it allows use to compare processes.
on reflection its good people air there concerns or doubts about such things as carrying on in ignorance is really really stupid...
so ignore my slightly patronizing tone and instead I salute you for taking a shot at this naked in public as it where.
You are absolutely correct. EROEI is not a useful tool for oil depletion analysis. It will not allow engineers and mathematicians to model energy allocation.
What it is good for to explaining a very complex subject to lay people in the simplest terms possible. "That deep ocean oil is hard to get. It takes more gasoline and diesel for energy (for the ships, platforms, pumps, pipelines, and refining) then you get out the other end of the system”
(oil returned from deep ocean) - (oil used to retrieve deep ocean oil) = negative value
This negative value is shocking for people who never considered such an equation and cam lead to a more nuanced analysis and argument.
“Sure corn fuel replacement is possible. But have you considered that today’s tractors are built with cheap oil. If you powered the tractor factory with corn fuel, then you would have a negative EROEI--corn production energy inputs would be greater than corn fuel returned? Plus you wouldn’t have land enough to both eat and grow fuel?” This also is a simple EROEI analysis. Not rigorous, but very persuasive.
I am merely defending a useful tool for average people to comprehend a complex subject. Once they get this they are ready to dive into the real thing.
Joined: Oct 14, 2004 Posts: 1203 Location: Left the cult
Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 1:27 pm Post subject:
I did a quick survey using Google, and the only source using the definition ER-EI is wolfatthedoor, ALL other sources if they provide a formula give it as the ratio ER/EI. ER-EI does seem quite useless, I don't believe anyone in the know would use that definition, it is probably a misunderstanding.
However, as there is reasonable grounds for confusion, I will stop using EROEI in favour of EPR. FWIW you can substitute EPR for EROEI in all posts I have made and it makes no difference. ER-EI is a red herring, the original poster was complaining about the use of ER/EI. _________________ It's all downhill from here
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
Maybe the wise old beavers spend endless dark nights inside the lodge discussing the calculus of tree removal and licho is the beaver Deacon 
And some young cuss beaver says to Deacon licho "it's just subtraction, we don't have to think about it because it's so obvious" and the Deacon says "preposterous. The true value of wood is represented by the weight of the God Tree sitting upon the Dam and our Food. As we eat our Food the weight of God Tree increases and our thus so does our wisdom" 
says, "no, no, no, that is the old prophecy. Now the Leaf and Food Sprites are above in feminine dominance over the old God Tree, and as the food is consumed, the Leaf and Food is reduced meaning that wisdom approaches zero, so we must conserve."
Around and around goes the stories all during the dark nights and in the morning the little cuss beaver leaves the lodge and sees that the trees are gone. He thinks to himself, "hum maybe I should become a plankton feeder" and he lets his mustache hairs grow so he can strain and process the pond slime. 
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
Use EPR for your intended purpose. Leave EROEI to us 
