EROEI and doing grass! :-)

estatemaker · Coal Joined: Jul 01, 2004 Posts: 5

I can't help noticing that a lot of posters on these forums are fascinated with things line "Energy in vs. Energy Out, or the much discussed EROEI (as well we all should be fascinated by this). It caused me to begin thinking of some current "crops", since EROEI is so often used to dismiss other energy alternatives, (other than oil/gas that is), and is used to beat up on bio-fuels with great frequency (as in "yeah, sunflowers for oil to be used in Diesel engines will work, and would be a great alternative, but the "EROEI" just doesn't add up....and a whole alternative is thus dismissed...). What about the "EROEI" of a very, very common current American crop? For the purposes of our discussion, we will consider something a "crop" if it is (a)essentially mono-culture cropped, that is one type of plant, (b) Intentionally planted in quantity, (c) irrigated, (d) fertilized and (e) pest controled by both herbicides and insecticides. Does this sound like a fair and quite tightly stated definition?
The crop we are discussing is cultivated on some 10 to 16 million ha(hectacres), easily surpassing such crops as barley (5 million ha), cotton (4.5 million ha), and rice (1.1 million ha) This crop also accounts for 17%+ of the total insecticide use in the U.S., is watered both naturally and by artificial irrigation, creates a comensurate amount of "run-off" of polluted water, and must be controlled and cultivated by machinery powered by both 2 and 4 cycle engines, leading to a comensurate consumption of fossil fuel, (gasoline and Diesel are most commenly used) and of course, the airborne emissions these machines create.
The crop we are discussing is, of course, The American Lawn. While other cultivated crops have actually declined in acreage in the U.S. over the last decade, with 17 million ha (hectacres) being removed from productive cropping between 1982 and 1997, the growth in Lawn has been continuing unabated, with, in case studies of counties observing, Lawn now consisting of some 25% or more of developed area ground surface.
So the next time someone points out that we cannot grow crops for use as energy because we lack the water, fertilizer, pesticides to do so without removing it from the mouths of hungry citizens, or that the energy consumed and pollution generated by such a program would destroy America's environment, question them about the use of that 17 million hectacres removed from agricultural production, and ask them an interesting and ironic question: What is the EROEI of lawn grass? How many hungry mouths does it feed? Would it be possible to use half that lawn space (which would be 5 to 8 million ha) and half that unused crop space (8 million or so ha, we could hold the other half out for a real emergency!) and crop the resulting 13 to 16 million hectacres for energy rich fuels? I know, it may be an unbearable sacrifice (putting agricultural land back to work, and possibly reducing lawn sizes by half!), but do consider the possibility.
Oh, let's close with a fascinating "EROEI" riddle: How much of that fantastically efficient oil (on an EROEI basis, according to all the pundits who tell us there is no alternative even close to its magnificant efficiency) could we enjoy with the "EROEI" of a nuclear aircraft carrier fleet to protect it? Exactly what is the "EROEI" of a nuclear aircraft carrier?

tkn317071 · Heavy Crude Joined: May 29, 2004 Posts: 106

Good points estatemaker,

Indeed, lawn will more than likely give way to gardens/food production as energy becomes more scarce.

The way I see it, having had a taste for massive EROEI sources, anything less just doesn't cut it. We need a big pipeline for the massive appetite. But as we are learning, those days will soon be over.

But many of the alternatives have small (but POSITIVE) EROEI and in sum, these little trickles of energy can add up to important contributors. The largest rivers in the world start as rainfall and tiny trickles/springs. Our energy regime should follow that model.

nailud · Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 3:58 pm Post subject:

And, the worst part of it is that nobody even LIKES mowing their lawns, but we all do it anyway (myself included). What kind of insanity is that?

Atr0p0s · Moderator Joined: Apr 08, 2004 Posts: 119

So you have pushed aside all of that scientific jargon - I am very impressed by the numbers and estimates you have gathered. Now all we have to do is convince the American public at large that a crisis is inevitable, and likely to occur within their lifetimes.

Embarassed

Infrastructure too...stupid infrastructure.

tonka · Coal Joined: May 11, 2004 Posts: 8

Very good observation, with fact to back up what you are saying

Would you mind if I added to your post (without any facts to back up what I am saying)

We could tell all those stupid p*** pots who insist on taking a little white ball for a walk several times a week to go and take a hike, the acres of lawn they demand for there entertainment must be absurd. The fertilizer they use must be astronomical, adding to everything else they do. I was once in my local agricultural merchant (I’m a farmer) obtaining some crop chemicals and in came the ground keeper for a golf coarse asking for some amistar (an expensive and well used fungicide for cereals), I asked him what he wanted that for, his relayed “to spray on the greens, makes them greener”. Right enough it would have that effect, I’ve never hear of such a waste of money just to please the eye of a few *’+#*!~/?,=”#* Mad

I’m sure this would give us a few more acres, any one have some figures on this

estatemaker · Coal Joined: Jul 01, 2004 Posts: 5

I want to thank everybody for the interesting and informative give and take on the expansion of American lawn grass, our fastest growing non-productive, very consumptive crop by acre in the U.S. Some mention sources, and I used multiple sources to get the stats I used, but the following link is absolutely a gold mine for putting the picture together in one place, fascinating reading:

http://www.cfr.washington.edu/research.urbaneco/student_info/classes/spring2004/turfgrass_revolution_robbins.pdf

As for the mention of Golf courses, that is very interesting and I would like to do more research there...I do know that due to the high level of cosmetic appeal they maintain, they are EXTREMELY consuptive and expensive per acre, surely a subject worth looking into. It simply points up once more how much real estate, chemicals, water, top soil, etc., is being used in the U.S. at a very negetive net production of ANYTHING except eye appeal. Surely we can do something more efficient with some of this land. Smile

kenbathrhume · Tar Sands Joined: Jul 12, 2004 Posts: 64

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding going on here!

What is the EROEI of grass? 0! It doesn't produce energy.

But that's not what EROEI is about. What is the EROEI of driving to Las Vegas? 0.

If you want a REPLACEMENT FUEL then you must look at EROEI. Does it make more sense to consume a barrel of oil, or invest it in an energy project that will produce x barrels of oil equivalent. If x if greater than 1 then yes, it makes some sense, especially if it's like 30 or 100. If x if less than 1 then it makes no sense.

People don't grow grass for energy. If they did you'd have a good point, but they grow it for aesthetics mostly.

If someone said "let's grow grass and then squeeze the oil out of it and that is the way we'll run our country so we really have no worries about OPEC, etc.", then EROEI would come into play. If it takes more oil to grow, fertilize, and cut grass then it generates then it is not a solution! It will actually make the problem WORSE.

This is important, because all ways of getting energy require some energy. If an oil deposit is under the deep seas and contains a 50 million barrels but costs $500 million to get...people often (wrongly) say that "well...as soon as oil prices get high enough, it will make sense to get that oil!". But if oil prices are high enough then the $500 million (which consists of a large number of barrels of oil), will also grow. Consequently it makes no sense to ever get the oil. It may take more oil to get it than there is there!

estatemaker · Coal Joined: Jul 01, 2004 Posts: 5

kenbathrhume, that's exactly my point. First, I do hope no one missed the intended irony in my original message on this subject, it was intended to be a bit tongue in cheeck, but with a serious point:
If one discuss's any other alternative to oil or gas, some on this board will immediately shoot it down on the basis that it's "EROEI" or some such is not a DEAD MATCH to crude oil/natural gas. Such is almost every option dismissed by many, but I was pointing out that America does things every day with a HUGE negative energy return. Your right that if people wish to do these things, they will have to pay for the energy to do them, but I choose lawn grass in particular, simply because it consumes all the things that could be used to assist in producing one type of energy substitute, i.e. bio-fuel, and at no positive return....thus questioning the logic of those who say, "yeah, bio-fuel will work, technically, but you'll be competing with our food supply and depriving the land, fertilizers, herbicides, irrigation water, etc., from the crops needed to produce food for the starving poor....how immoral!" I am saying that we would be competing with the lawn grass industry which is already wasting all these things to produce neither food nor fuel!! How much more immoral is that!!
And let me make one point which I am working on currently, so I will not attempt yet to deliver numbers, just something that has long bothered me about this EROEI thing: I will conjecture that the energy return on gas/oil is NOT NEARLY AS GOOD AS MANY HERE MAKE IT OUT TO BE, If you calculate ALL the true costs of getting it. That was the reason for my tongue in cheek reference to the nuclear aircraft carrier;-) EXACTLY how much of the energy used by our military (and this is no small consumer of energy by the way) is billed to protect the production area and the sea lanes needed by the oil/gas industry? How much of the environmental costs are actually billed to the oil/gas industry when more money/fuel/resources are spent to try to clean up behind them? When we talk about EROEI, do we count against the oil/gas industry the cost of energy to produce the pipeworks, the boilers, the heat exchangers, the road work that is part and parcel of of every giant refinery? How much energy does it take to produce the aluminum, steel, cast iron, asphalt, not to mention the control facilities with it's array of computer chips, copper wire, switch gear, etc., plus the tanker trunks and railcars to carry material to and from these giant refineries? Do we bill that to the EROEI of oil/gas? You will notice on this board that often someone says "solar!" at which they will be duly chastised that it will take x pounds of aluminum (new or recycled?) and x pounds of glass (new or recycled?) to produce x square feet of solar panel (recycle-able?), with the end result that if the EROEI does not add up to exactly that of oil/gas, option dismissed! DO WE COUNT OIL/GAS IN THE SAME WAY? I have my doubts... Wink

Remember too: if we build solar panels and other alternatives to be recycled, then the material is not LOST, but once that oil goes up the stack or out the exhaust pipe, it is GONE FOR GOOD.