Energy Returned on Energy Invested Thread pt 1 (merged) Arch

[JohnDenver]

Very interesting, stuff why didn't you convert to BTUs instead of leaving it in dollars?

Just trying to get a preliminary reading.There's a mother lode of info in there, and I'll digest it bit-by-bit as time permits. Those documents contain the figures for the 1992 and 1997 census. So maybe there is also a 2002 census? I'll check into it. That would allow us to get a better picture of the current situation, and changes over time.

I also found this interesting reference from Lynch, which I'll try to follow up:

Also, the only estimate I have seen of EROEI for oil has also been
increasing (Cleveland and Kaufman) for the past 15 years or so.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyres ... scount=100

[NevadaGhosts]

CalgaryEng wrote:

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.

[Liamj]

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.

[FatherOfTwo]

CalgaryEng wrote:

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:

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.

[bobcousins]

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.

[NevadaGhosts]

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.

[FatherOfTwo]

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.

[NEOPO]

In the post post TSHTF peak world ISSUES like this will be settled by a spin of the "wheel of death".

[Liamj]

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.

[fletch961]

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.

[Ferretlover]

As most of you know at sometime the energy invested on energy return will be below zero for American oil production. Since America is the longest oil producing country it will reach that point first. I am not really sure if the downslope of the curve is realistic as it is (going down further and further until near 0). Im wondering if at some point the energy production become negative meaning a cliff at say 5/6th of the downslope part of the curve

For those who don't grasp EROEI for oil production say i have a stripper well. It produces only 2 barrels per day at the moment after a grand era of great oil production. Now the question is at what point is the energy that it costs to run the stripper well, refine the oil and transport it more then the oil can give you.

I'm purely talking about energy content here, not about if the oil would be of more practical use EVEN if it costs more energy to produce etc. So does anybody have any idea if this is a possible scenario or that the oil content is SO big that it will never go below zero??

In Kunstlers book it said that current EROEI of American oil production is 2:1 (2 out for 1 in). However Kunstler didn't have the data to back it up.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[JohnDenver]

The 2002 Economic Census gives the following stats for the oil and gas extraction industry in 2002:

Total value of oil and gas shipments:
$82,571,843,000

Purchased fuels consumed (includes fuel oils, diesel, natural gas, gasoline, crude produced and used on site as fuel, natural gas produced and used on site as fuel, other fuels and undistributed fuels):
$810,959,000

Purchased electricity:
$1,339,504,000

So... input energy costs are about 2.6% of the value of the energy produced. This means that the monetary EROEI (sale value of output energy/price of input energy) is about 38.

Clearly the oil and gas industry is in no danger of needing $1.00 of energy to produce $1.00 of energy. They only need about $0.03 of energy to produce $1 of energy.

[Doly]

I think oil wells stop being profitable well before EROEI is 1:1

[Taskforce_Unity]

I am not asking for money numbers but for joules. You know Megajoules...

Energy.. Money is not energy.. Ah well i guess this discussion has already been done..

I do agree though that money gives a possible indication.

[JohnDenver]

For those who don't grasp EROEI for oil production say i have a stripper well. It produces only 2 barrels per day at the moment after a grand era of great oil production. Now the question is at what point is the energy that it costs to run the stripper well, refine the oil and transport it more then the oil can give you.

You shouldn't include the costs of refining the oil, or transporting it. The person running the stripper well will only stop pumping when the energy costs for his business exceed the value of the energy produced.

Depending on how expensive different kinds of energy are, the operator may keep producing with EROEI=1. For example, even if it takes 1 million btus (1 MMbtu) of energy to pump out 1 MMbtu of oil, the operator can use coal as the source energy and still make a profit.

Cheap coal only costs $0.45/MMbtu, while oil costs $9.14/MMbtu. So if you run the pump on coal, you can make a profit of $8.61 for each MMbtu of coal (45 cents) invested. That's a great return, so the operator will not stop.

The operator does not care about the costs of refining or transport, or any other process after the oil leaves the premises. Those costs do not appear on the operator's balance sheet, and thus will not affect the operators calculation of when it is logical to stop pumping.

I'm purely talking about energy content here, not about if the oil would be of more practical use EVEN if it costs more energy to produce etc. So does anybody have any idea if this is a possible scenario or that the oil content is SO big that it will never go below zero??

I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I don't believe decreasing EROEI will ever have a significant effect on oil production. My feeling is that even the crappiest, hardest to deliver oil plays (deep ocean etc.) have such a large EROEI that we will run out of conventional oil before its EROEI problems get large enough to bother with.

You can see this by looking at the figures I gave. The U.S. has been over its Hubbert peak for about 35 years, and yet the EROEI of U.S. oil is still in the neighborhood of 40. The oil's not getting harder to pump. It's still just as easy to pump as ever. It's running out.

[JohnDenver]

I think oil wells stop being profitable well before EROEI is 1:1

No, that's incorrect Doly. Oil wells can remain profitable long after the EROEI drops below 1. This is done by using cheap energy (such as coal) to recover more expensive energy (such as oil).

[JohnDenver]

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.

[Doly]

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.

[JohnDenver]

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.

[Leanan]

It might be interesting to do a graph. EROEI for U.S. oil. It started out about about 200, maybe as high as 300. By 1950, it was 100. Now, it's about 10, with some wells actually having a negative EROEI.

Of course, someone out there has probably already done it...