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.
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.
pete
no you do not understand my point...
I am in favor of using EROEI and other metrics...
the point i am making is a subtractive in out definition of EROEI is pointless as the net value is dependent on scale
IE: if i select different amounts of the same type of input for the same process i get different results
Joined: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 978 Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 5:17 pm Post subject:
CalgaryEng is correct, there is no universally accepted way to calculate EROEI, and that has been demonstrated in this thread over and over. Not only that, but EROEI is only of value when energy sources are scarce. (And scarcity to me necessarily includes our current inability to capture all of the solar radiation that hits the planet) If we were able to obtain fusion and had energy to burn (sorry, couldn’t resist), then we wouldn’t give a rats ass that it took a gazillion MJ of fusion energy to get at whatever oil remains, because oil has other properties than just being an energy source. Also, EROEI for a given energy source can not only decrease but also *increase* and I’ll offer up the real world example of THAI technology for the oil sands as an example.
On the other hand, EROEI has been advanced by many as a convenient way to explain Peak Oil to newbies, and there is some merit in it. There is merit because Peak Oil is all about the end of cheap oil, not the end of oil. Peak Oil just happens to be the biggest risk factor to our main concern - peaking energy. So the connection is made – in order to keep up with our production of oil, we’re spending more energy to obtain it. Since we don’t have solar oil wells handy, that energy is necessarily coming from other oil, natural gas, whatever, putting further pressure on our energy pie.
To me that is what it boils down to. Has the total energy pie shrunk or grown? If it’s shrinking you better conserve like a son-of-a-gun and you better ramp up on other sources of energy. Whether we will be able to do that is up in the air. The odds are long.
I think CalgaryEng is right. EROEI leaves a lot to be desired. Better to speak in terms of the total energy pie and how we not only are overly dependant on the oil piece of the pie, but how we're reaching the point where we are going to have to start devoting more of the other pieces of the pie to get that oil... _________________ 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.
I think CalgaryEng is right. EROEI leaves a lot to be desired. Better to speak in terms of the total energy pie and how we not only are overly dependant on the oil piece of the pie, but how we're reaching the point where we are going to have to start devoting more of the other pieces of the pie to get that oil...
that is an EROEI analysis?
this rejection of EROEI followed by this sort of assertion is very odd as it is a demonstration of EROEI analysis
Joined: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 978 Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 1:03 pm Post subject:
mididoctors wrote:
FatherOfTwo wrote:
I think CalgaryEng is right. EROEI leaves a lot to be desired. Better to speak in terms of the total energy pie and how we not only are overly dependant on the oil piece of the pie, but how we're reaching the point where we are going to have to start devoting more of the other pieces of the pie to get that oil...
that is an EROEI analysis?
this rejection of EROEI followed by this sort of assertion is very odd as it is a demonstration of EROEI analysis
Boris
london
Let me try again.
In order for something to be a scientific measurement it must be well defined and accepted by the scientific community. EROEI certainly does not qualify.
Now, is it useful as some sort of an anecdotal measurement? I think yes, which is the assertion I tried to make. (but it was the end of the day ..my post wasn't as clear as I would have liked it to be.)
Could it be made into a scentific measurement? I think there have been some good attempts made in this thread. _________________ 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: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 978 Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 9:39 am Post subject:
I clicked on one of the ads today Physics Today (doing my bit to generate revenue )
On this site I found the following:
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).
So hey, doesn't that sound an awful lot like EROEI? _________________ 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.
If we were able to obtain fusion and had energy to burn (sorry, couldn’t resist), then we wouldn’t give a rats ass that it took a gazillion MJ of fusion energy to get at whatever oil remains, because oil has other properties than just being an energy source.
The reason we "wouldn't give a rat's ass" is because the EROEI of fusion would be astronomical. We wouldn't be using that oil for energy, so it could just as well be soap or pocket knives as oil that we're using fusion to produce.
I think EROEI is about as straightforward a concept as possible for thinking about the viability of alternative energy sources. It's most useful for "apples to apples" comparisons, since using energy source X to produce energy source Y seems to imply that we're producing Y for the quality rather than the quantity of its energy.
Joined: Oct 12, 2004 Posts: 1647 Location: Davis, California
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 12:14 pm Post subject:
Well with a bountiful supply like fusion, you can do whatever the Fark you want basically.
You can take CO2 and make long chained hydrocarbons, you can take silicon and break the nucleus apart to get carbon, you can synthesize anti-matter, its really is mind-boggling what you can do with plentiful energy. _________________ Joseph Stalin "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
Joined: May 31, 2004 Posts: 920 Location: Brno, Czech rep., EU
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 10:12 am Post subject:
Yes, and this all is true, even if EROEI of fusion would be say 3..
But the abundance of fuels (oceans) would make it look like infinite and infinitely powerfull source of energy..
Another example that EROEI is not that usefull - abundance/scarcity, complexity of exploiting source is not incuded in EROEI.
I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, but would ask one simple question.
It's obvious that an EROEI of less than 1 is a net energy loss, or at best a level where the uncertainties become very significant.
Now is it a subtraction that's done or a division? In other words, energy loss being fractional (e.g. 0.5) or negative (e.g. -1) EROEI? (of course in the subtractional/negative scenario, the break-even point is zero as opposed to 1).
This thread should be required reading before anyone even considers quoting EROEI for anything. It is largely a meaningless number when assigned to any energy source. The biggest mistake we seem to make is using EROEI out of context. Clearly it is almost impossible to make a fair comparison between two energy sources with different hypothetical EROEIs.
When someone pulls a number out of their butt and says, "Oil had an EROEI of 50, but now it is 25, and coal is 8 and Ethanol is 1.6, SO WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE!!!"
Post a link back to this thread and ask for clarification on what the heck they are talking about.
Joined: May 15, 2005 Posts: 4142 Location: THE MATRIX
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:35 am Post subject:
OK then there is no way for simple people like us to understand it so why are we talking about it?
Is that what you want me to believe?
I have met very intelligent people who could not change a tire!!!!
They must have been baffled by mankinds amazing advancement in tire changing technology!!!
A panel of brilliant scientist were assembled to define the terminology for the various tire changing elements.
After much debate the name for raising the vehicle became "jacking" and the tool for performing this function became known as a"jack".
One of these scientist must have had a dog named Jack
I love posting thoughts when I have not read the whole thread!! not.
Wow so much for EROEI then huh?!?!? hahahah
As if this thread is the defining moment for EROEI - hilarious!!!
I think what you are trying to say is that this concept is used to show the difference between in and out.
We can apply this concept to anything we want to - as long as we know whats going in and whats coming out.
I dont care how you wish to define it - its a tool and it helps people understand what would probably take you an hour and two blackboards to illustrate!!!!
If you wish to call it pilecream then fine but can we get on talking about it now please?
Someone has to call it something.
Science gets knocked on its ass all the time.
One discovery can change everything.
licho - ASS.U.ME all you want to about other peoples forum habits.
I dont see any proof that EROIE is not a good tool that helps with the understanding of energy depletion.
It applies equally well to alternatives.
Until you show me something better I will stick with this concept thank you very much.
I dont have any blackboards and its not something I want to draw complex equations on while trying to explain the concept to anyone less then a quantum physicist!!!
INFORMATION DESTRUCTION - These guys are agents!!!!
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.
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
)
