Joined: Dec 08, 2004 Posts: 921 Location: 145'2"E 37'46"S
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:40 am Post subject:
Well this is uplifting. Mob A can't understand Mob B, so therefore Mob B's are asshole eggheads. B can't be bothered starting from GO again, so therefore A is illiterate.
I like anti-intellectual attitudes, they'll help concentrate the worlds intellectual capital in fewer countries. This is a regional/suburban phenomena too, watch out for it - don't want to get stuck in a monoculture of either.
Joined: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 978 Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:58 pm Post subject:
NevadaGhosts wrote:
CalgaryEng wrote:
Quote:
I thought my original post was really clear. Apparently it was not. Actually, after spending 12 years teaching in a classroom, I should not be surprised that the inability to read simple English sentences is a real challenge for so many.
What an arrogant, know-it-all asshole attitude.
Eggheads can split atoms, but they still can't figure out how to wipe their asses. This thread is is a perfect example of why I can't stand eggheads. So smart, yet so stupid. College doesn't teach common sense. Either you are born with it or you aren't. An idiot with a piece of paper is still an idiot.
CalgaryEng's correct, it isn't well defined, and the mere length of this thread should be proof enough of that.
As I quoted above:
Quote:
That history illustrates the profound economic importance of the concept of net energy. The economic value of an alternative energy technology depends on the net rate of energy QNE it will deliver after the rate of energy production QPR is debited by the energy consumed for its operation QOP and the energy invested in its creation E during its lifetime T:
QNE = QPR − (QOP + E/T).
This seems like a good crack at defining it. But I'm sure there would be lots of other opinions.
I don't think CalgaryEng disputes the underlying ideas. He’s just looking for a definition that has been agreed upon by the scientific community. _________________ Do not underestimate the difficulties of surviving the transition of peak oil, nor the dangers of global warming. We must embrace nuclear energy and renewables.
Joined: Oct 14, 2004 Posts: 1203 Location: Left the cult
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:39 pm Post subject:
FatherOfTwo wrote:
I don't think CalgaryEng disputes the underlying ideas. He’s just looking for a definition that has been agreed upon by the scientific community.
EROEI is used by the scientific community and has a well defined meaning. CalgaryEng et al repeatedly disputed the underlying idea.
The clue is in the title "I do not understand EROEI..." He found several other people that did not understand it either. A lot of people don't understand the Theory of Relativity, but that doesn't mean people who do don't find it useful, or that they should stop using it.
If anyone doesn't like the concept of EROEI, I suggest they don their Peril Sensitive (TM) sunglasses and ignore the gap in their understanding, but throwing a tantrum doesn't lead to comprehension. _________________ It's all downhill from here
Well this is uplifting. Mob A can't understand Mob B, so therefore Mob B's are asshole eggheads. B can't be bothered starting from GO again, so therefore A is illiterate.
I like anti-intellectual attitudes, they'll help concentrate the worlds intellectual capital in fewer countries. This is a regional/suburban phenomena too, watch out for it - don't want to get stuck in a monoculture of either.
My point is that the many educated eggheads that I have known are dumb as rocks when it comes to common sense. And they usually have had a snobby, arrogant attitude on top of that.
Joined: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 978 Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:47 pm Post subject:
bobcousins wrote:
EROEI is used by the scientific community and has a well defined meaning. CalgaryEng et al repeatedly disputed the underlying idea.
The clue is in the title "I do not understand EROEI..." He found several other people that did not understand it either. A lot of people don't understand the Theory of Relativity, but that doesn't mean people who do don't find it useful, or that they should stop using it.
If anyone doesn't like the concept of EROEI, I suggest they don their Peril Sensitive (TM) sunglasses and ignore the gap in their understanding, but throwing a tantrum doesn't lead to comprehension.
I'll stop speaking for CalgaryEng and let him speak for himself.
As for me, I too tried searching for a clear definition. I went back through the thread and aside from my quote from "physics today", I see you quoted eroei.com, which lists a formula which appears to be from the DOE. A search on DOE's website for EROEI shows 0 hits and EROI shows 0 hits as well. That's a bit strange.
All of the other hits on google for EROEI (first 4 pages anyways) are from peak oil type sites... EROI doesn't fare much better.
EPR (which bobcousins also mentioned earlier on page 9) is more well known, although DOE doesn't have anything on it either. I guess I shouldn't be surprised on that one. _________________ Do not underestimate the difficulties of surviving the transition of peak oil, nor the dangers of global warming. We must embrace nuclear energy and renewables.
Joined: Dec 08, 2004 Posts: 921 Location: 145'2"E 37'46"S
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:44 pm Post subject:
I think the probs of EROEI have been amply demonstrated on this thread ( first 5 pgs best), probs which other correspondents have raised in many other forums going back years. I'm just embarrassed it took me so long to catch on.
Yes it is still a useful rhetorical/allegorical idea, yes it MAY one day be our guiding star, but currently its use suffers terribly from fuzzy thinking and a lack of analytical depth. Lumping diff energy sources together solely so that can do sums with them and draw some conclusion, any conclusion, is NOT a scientific method. Great for explanation, terrible for decision making.
Its a shame its not dead simple and that we can't just ignore the qualitative and situational differences, but its a shame too that whales don't eat toxic waste or piss crude oil, so what. Allegations that those wanting to put proviso's on EROEI are ill-intentioned are plain kill-the-messenger, just the kind of "i don't like it so it musn't be true" thinking that got us here. The world IS that complicated, get over it, get on with it.
EROEI and how it is relevant.
It is not relevant when it comes to operating a profitable business. The manufacturing tvs, cars, etc (most human activities) have EROEI of 0 (they don't contribute any energy back to the supply-they only consume energy). They depend on industries that do have EROEI > 1. Those industries supply more energy than consumed.
Can tarsands be a profitable venture with EROEI of .5?-yes, but it will be a net consumer of energy. It is not a solution for our total enegy needs, but a solution (to what extent is debatable)for our liquid energy needs.
The argument is that presently conventional oil is a major source of our total net energy, because of its relatively high EROEI. Replacing it would have to come from another high EROEI source.
You can use coal or natural gas to produce petroleum products from tars, but you will have less total energy than you started with. Since gas in your cars engine is more valuable than coal in the ground you make a profit. EROEI has nothing to do with profit though. It is the search for solutions that contribute to our energy supply above and beyond the energy costs to extract it. When you add all human activity together you have to come up with an EROEI of approx. 1 in order for that level of activity to be maintained. If less than 1 you will be consuming energy faster than producing it, which is not sustainable long term.
Using the apple analolgy you will only be able to continue to climb the tree (<1 eroei) as long as there is a source of >1 EROEI food on the ground.
Since Oil is presently one of the sources of "food on the ground" and it will become limited another source of positive net energy will have to take its place.
Conclusion: Assuming tarsands have an EROEI of .5, it can profitably be turned into gas, but will have to be offset by other human activities that are >1 EROEI ( more coal,wind,nuclear,solar,etc) in order to maintain our current standard of living- or will have to reduce other human activities to balance our total energy needs.
Disclaimer: I don't what the EROEI of tarsands is-I'm only using it as a theoritcal example.
EROEI is very important when analyzing the cheapest energy source, which is coal at the moment ($0.45/MMbtu).
This is because there is no cheaper substitute for coal, and thus no other form of energy can be turned into coal at a profit. If you can't profitably mine a coal deposit using coal as the energy input, you can't mine that coal at all.
Oil can be produced from coal (even with EROEI<1) because coal is cheaper than oil. Coal, on the other hand, cannot be produced, even with nuclear electricity, because the cost of the input energy is greater than the value of the output energy.
In the worst case scenario, you keep cutting input energy costs until you wind up mining coal with coal. That would be the final stage of the meltdown. At that point EROEI calculations and monetary calculations converge. They are the same thing because your inputs and outputs are in the same "currency", i.e. tons of coal. You'd like to squirm out of this trap, but you can't if you can't find a cheaper source of energy than coal. Otherwise you will have to work within the rigid constraints of EROEI.
Greenspan's view is that the price per MMbtu of the various types of energy will tend to converge over the long term, as producers exploit (and thereby reduce) price differentials by converting cheap gas into expensive oil etc. If this happens, then (as time goes on) monetary calculations will approximate energy calculations with increasing accuracy until money=energy. So, in the long run, it seems that EROEI will become an increasingly important concept, even within the mainstream economy, as understood by Greenspan. This phenomenon occurs because, when all forms of energy have the same price, then they are all "the cheapest". So none of them can be synthesized or obtained by conversion from another form of energy. You're at rock bottom, where no process with EROEI<1 can be "subsidized" with cheaper energy to generate a profit.
Interesting idea, JD. But not all forms of energy are equal, in the sense that not all of them can be used for the same purposes. Liquid fuels can be used for transportation much better than solids or electricity.
Interesting idea, JD. But not all forms of energy are equal, in the sense that not all of them can be used for the same purposes. Liquid fuels can be used for transportation much better than solids or electricity.
Yes, that's true. But if you ever get to a point where coal and gas have the same price as oil, coal->oil and gas->oil conversions will cease. They won't work anymore financially, or energetically. This phenomenon is closely akin to the peak oiler's (mistaken!) idea about EROEI=1 causing oil production to cease.
Joined: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 482 Location: Cheshire, England
Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:34 am Post subject:
"Widgets Inc. make a profit of $1m."
"Widgets Inc. make a profit of 10%."
Both the above statements are true. The first expresses profit as a $ value, the second as a ratio.
The same is true for EROEI. You can express is as a value or a ratio. EROEI isn't defined by the way you express it. Don't waste your time arguing that it has to be expressed one way or the other; it doesn't. Both are valid.
It like arguing about whether company profit is defined as a value or a ratio. It's an unnecessary argument.
Joined: Dec 08, 2004 Posts: 921 Location: 145'2"E 37'46"S
Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:40 pm Post subject:
Doly wrote:
Interesting idea, JD. But not all forms of energy are equal, in the sense that not all of them can be used for the same purposes. Liquid fuels can be used for transportation much better than solids or electricity.
Very true Doly, and forms of energy diff in other ways too: some types of energy generation also have massive uncosted externalities (coal: climate change, acid rain, mercury pollution, radiation, massive landscape change; nuclear: WMD proliferation, unsolved waste problems/intergenerational terrorism).
These costs are omitted from money calculations, and don't expect that to change so long as the market rules democracy. The advantage of EROEI and other physically based calcs is that can evade the many curiosities of money-based assessments. The longer we rely on money as THE measure the closer we get to dieoff.
This is because there is no cheaper substitute for coal, and thus no other form of energy can be turned into coal at a profit. If you can't profitably mine a coal deposit using coal as the energy input, you can't mine that coal at all.
No other cheaper substitute for coal? no other forms turn into coal?
I am going to tell you that there are factories making coal from non-coal sources. They are highly profitable. It is a trick, though. They combined biomass with coal to make coal. So you can call it cheating or whatever.
But, I have no idea if they are EROIE positive. My guess is not, but if you are talking about money. It is profitable to turn things into coal!
Interesting idea, JD. But not all forms of energy are equal, in the sense that not all of them can be used for the same purposes. Liquid fuels can be used for transportation much better than solids or electricity.
Very true Doly, and forms of energy diff in other ways too: some types of energy generation also have massive uncosted externalities (coal: climate change, acid rain, mercury pollution, radiation, massive landscape change; nuclear: WMD proliferation, unsolved waste problems/intergenerational terrorism).
These costs are omitted from money calculations, and don't expect that to change so long as the market rules democracy. The advantage of EROEI and other physically based calcs is that can evade the many curiosities of money-based assessments. The longer we rely on money as THE measure the closer we get to dieoff.
Exactly. people need to stop using money to measure everything. our economy doesn't weigh everything with money. happiness is not measure in money. air is not measure in money. if you want to use money to measure. you need to start charging air, water, oil, etc... right now, we just charge the delivery, exploration, etc... but not the cost to produce it from another source. for instance, air we breathe need to be produced by plants and such. they are giving you the air for free. etc....
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
