Energy Returned on Energy Invested Thread pt 2 (EROEI) (merg

[gasguzzler]

Question about EROEI and renewables, perhaps stupid...

But doesn't the energy form make a difference in practical terms. I understand the concept very clearly. Once EROEI equals one you break even, less than one you lose. My question is it seems to me that the energy form makes a practical difference even if the EROEI is low or negative. For example, If one were to use electrical energy to drive pumps to extract petroleum even at a low EROEI it seems that the petroleum is still useful, mostly for its energy density, and particularly in terms of transportation. Most of the practical problems with solar and other renewables is the lack of practical portability in terms of transportation. This is the arguement for hydrogen, even though it is an energy sink to produce it is still useful for it's portability and energy density. Even more so for gasoline. It seems to me that the power grid must be converted to a renewable, whatever the form. Then, even if the EROEI is less than one you are, for lack of a better word, wasting a renewable. So what if you have to spend 5 times more solar, for example, extracting oil than it returns. You always have more solar right? Now you might make environmental arguements to changing from petro for transportation to some renewable, but in purely energy terms, if you use a renewable to provide your transportation fuel, it seems to me it doesn't really matter what the EROEI is.

The power grid must be based on renewable energy for this arguement to hold up. And, the renewable must be used for producing the non renewable. Until someone comes up with practical renewable based transportation, I'm afraid were stuck with petroleum, no matter what the EROEI. Do we have to worry about peak solar too?

[pstarr]

Question about EROEI and renewables, perhaps stupid...

But doesn't the energy form make a difference in practical terms. I understand the concept very clearly. Once EROEI equals one you break even, less than one you lose. My question is it seems to me that the energy form makes a practical difference even if the EROEI is low or negative. For example, If one were to use electrical energy to drive pumps to extract petroleum even at a low EROEI it seems that the petroleum is still useful, mostly for its energy density, and particularly in terms of transportation.

In this case the coal or natural gas (used to generate electricity) is the primary energy converted (by the pumps) into a liquid transport fuel. Why not just use the electricity to run electric vehicles without the loss in efficiency?

Most of the practical problems with solar and other renewables is the lack of practical portability in terms of transportation.

In part. The problem is also intermittancy and the general storage issue.

This is the arguement for hydrogen, even though it is an energy sink to produce it is still useful for it's portability and energy density.

Yes and thus hydrogen would be useful in an all-electric low-demand sustainable economy.

Even more so for gasoline. It seems to me that the power grid must be converted to a renewable, whatever the form. Then, even if the EROEI is less than one you are, for lack of a better word, wasting a renewable. So what if you have to spend 5 times more solar, for example, extracting oil than it returns. You always have more solar right? Now you might make environmental arguements to changing from petro for transportation to some renewable, but in purely energy terms, if you use a renewable to provide your transportation fuel, it seems to me it doesn't really matter what the EROEI is.

energy return has to be greater than one. Eroei is an industrial cradle-to-cradle life-cycle analysis. It measure the embodied energy used to extract, grow, ferment, refine, generate, produce, etc. etc. the final energy product we use. Eroei is often confused with energy efficiency, the loss due to energy conversion. Read a Pimentel paper to understand what eroei is.

The power grid must be based on renewable energy for this arguement to hold up. And, the renewable must be used for producing the non renewable. Until someone comes up with practical renewable based transportation, I'm afraid were stuck with petroleum, no matter what the EROEI. Do we have to worry about peak solar too?

yup. worrying about everything will get you into heaven

[gasguzzler]

That makes some sense, especially regarding the difference between EROEI vs. efficiency of energy transfer. I am glad you replied, I didn't know if anyone would find this in such an old post but I didn't want to reinvent the wheel.

[nocar]

gasguzzler, bicycles and electric street-cars and trains are practical transport modes.

Bicycles always run on bioenergy, electric trains can run on renewable energy.

Do human beings really need cars to live fulfilling lives?

nocar

[MonteQuest]

Now you might make environmental arguements to changing from petro for transportation to some renewable, but in purely energy terms, if you use a renewable to provide your transportation fuel, it seems to me it doesn't really matter what the EROEI is.

Until you look at the price tag to do so.

And that is what peakoil is all about:

The end of cheap, readily available energy, upon which all we know was designed, built, and maintained.

[emersonbiggins]

Good gentlemen, we have found the future and it will be powered by corn-fed cow manure!

Saudi sweet light has nuthin' on this stuff!

Seriously, though, this kind of obfuscation equates with flat-out fraud, IMHO. And it's not that I found this website and decided to patch it through, but I've recently read an obtusely touting this company at their word.

E³ BioFuels Launches its Genesis Plant in Mead, Nebraska

High-Efficiency Facility is the Nation's First Closed-Loop Ethanol Plant

Contacts: Nathan Dayani, (913) 441-1800; Peter Kelley (202) 270-8831

MEAD, Nebraska, June 28, 2007–E3 BioFuels launched its high-efficiency Genesis Plant today in Mead, Neb., as the world's first closed-loop ethanol plant fueled largely by biogas from animal waste instead of coal or natural gas.

"This is the next generation of ethanol, and it's in production today," said E3 BioFuels President and CEO Dennis Langley, who was joined by Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman in a press conference before leading a tour of the plant. "Our process lets America get its automotive fuel from the croplands of the Midwest instead of the oilfields of the Mideast."

"This plant sets a new standard for ethanol production in this state and our nation, and is an example of the innovation needed to take this industry to the next level," Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman said. "We are very proud to be the home of this facility. It is an indicator that our state is committed to finding creative ways to use our natural resources in producing a more efficient and home-grown fuel."

In addition to the environmental benefits, the Genesis Plant at Mead represents an enormous advancement in energy efficiency. Within the plant itself, the closed-loop system can produce over 46 units of energy (in the form of ethanol) for each unit of fossil fuel energy required. That 46:1 ratio inside the plant compares to a conventional ethanol plant's efficiency per unit of fossil fuel of less than 3:1.
...

E3 Press Release

[gnm]

What a bunch of BS.... At 46:1 they could not only run the plant on ethanol they could fill their employees cars with it too...

-G

[AirlinePilot]

Well its not surprising, there IS a politician speaking there......

[NTBKtrader]

Well its not surprising, there IS a politician speaking there......

Lol well said

[Niagara]

Well its not surprising, there IS a politician speaking there......

Do you know how to tell when they're lying?

It's easy. You see their lips moving

[pstarr]

What a bunch of BS.... At 46:1 they could not only run the plant on ethanol they could fill their employees cars with it too...

-G

That is the first test. Then specially-adapted ethanol fuel tractors and corn harvesters to prove the numbers.

[emersonbiggins]

As specious as the claimed EROEI of this plant is, I still think it would be beneficial for new lurkers and members to us to discuss WHY this isn't a "solution" and, indeed, may be exacerbating the problem of energy depletion.

1. Grain feedstock. Cows require food, and lots of it. In this case, the cows are being fed corn, which is presumably grown using conventional farming techniques, which rapidly deplete the topsoil and aquifers, as well as being as oil-intensive as any industry on the planet, with resources present in everything from the natgas fertilizers to the construction, distribution and operation of the equipment, implements and vehicles need to acquire, grow, harvest and distribute said corn. That corn is then processed by the cows into manure, which leads us to #2 (no pun intended) below.

It's obvious that the life-cycle analysis of the feedstock was not considered in the owner's 46:1 EROEI claims.

2. Waste feedstock. Manure production, at least on the feedlot scale, is, by all accounts, considered "waste." AFAIK, the bulk of it is lost into nearby rivers and streams, polluting them heavily in the process. Therefore, reusing manure that would be lost to the environment appears to be a sensible idea, until you remember that cheap and ready access to grain feedstock (#1) is required to keep it all operating smoothly.

This is the only kind of operation that I'm aware of, including thermal depolymerization and cellulosic/waste harvesting operations, where the "waste" product truly is a waste product, with the others mentioned being diverted from other uses, usually byproducts and fillers in animal feed, compost, etc. So anything that decreases the end effects of factory farming has at least some merit, I suppose (quite a stretch, though).

If someone else could weigh in on these issues, I'd certainly prefer a refresher thread on them.

[WisJim]

They are running the manure through a digester to produce bio-gas or methane, and using the methane to provide the energy to run the ethanol plant. There is a methane digester on a farm nearby that uses the manure from 900 dairy cows to make methan to run an engine to power a generator that produces enough power (running 24/7) to supply 600 homes with all of their electrical power.
http://www.dunnconnect.com/articles/200 ... prog09.txt
http://www.dairyimpact.com/OccupationSp ... fault.aspx
The digester at Five Star Dairy in Wisconsin has nothing to do with ethanol, of course, but I believe that is what the E3 Biofuels folks are planning to do with the manure. I think that just using the manure to produce electricity to feed the grid makes a lot more sense than to use it to provide the energy to make ethanol to fuel cars.

[sicophiliac]

In principle this does sound like a good idea after all the cows will crap anyways and that crap will decompose and release methane so why not use it ? The 46:1 might be just the IN PLANT use of fossil fuels vs energy output. Not counting the fossil fuels used in growing the corn, building the plant or shipping the ethanol. Also burning that methane would be beneficial from a global warming standpoint given methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas compared to C02 which is the bi-product of burning it. Then again 46:1 sounds very high and misleading, though I would bet the true EROEI is still much better than conventional corn ethanol.

[pstarr]

To understand why this is a scam you need only to ask yourself why the world's best educated and well-funded farmers did not previously use their own crops for liquid fuel and methane waste for electricity? Why did these guys hand over their hard-earned cash to the oil companies and power generators when they could have saved money and been more competitive then their neighbors?

[FloridaGirl]

I think it's a great idea as a small piece of the solution puzzle. It addresses the three problems of energy depletion, environmental pollution and global warming all at once.

If you consider that the energy input to the cows as the cost of the meat or milk they produce, then it would be double bookkeeping to also add it to the energy cost of the bio-fuel produced by the waste.

This assumes of course that they don't add to the cow population specifically for the purpose of generating bio-fuel. We already have an unsustainable population of cows. So it will always be a small piece of the solution.

I like the Five Star solution best. Feedlots are inhumane and unsanitary as the cows are forced to stand, eat and sleep in manure which they would not do in the open range. If you look at an aerial photo of a feedlot, they stand out as black figures against the green area on the outside of the lots.

[MonteQuest]

This is the only kind of operation that I'm aware of, including thermal depolymerization and cellulosic/waste harvesting operations, where the "waste" product truly is a waste product, with the others mentioned being diverted from other uses, usually byproducts and fillers in animal feed, compost, etc. So anything that decreases the end effects of factory farming has at least some merit, I suppose (quite a stretch, though).

If someone else could weigh in on these issues, I'd certainly prefer a refresher thread on them.

In nature, there is no such thing as "waste". It's all food for something. This is nothing more than a continuation of the "takeover method". We already "takeover" 40% of NPP.

[IslandCrow]

BioFuels launched its high-efficiency Genesis Plant today in Mead, Neb., as the world's first closed-loop ethanol plant fueled largely by biogas from animal waste instead of coal or natural gas.


In addition to the environmental benefits, the Genesis Plant at Mead represents an enormous advancement in energy efficiency. Within the plant itself, the closed-loop system can produce over 46 units of energy (in the form of ethanol) for each unit of fossil fuel energy required. That 46:1 ratio inside the plant compares to a conventional ethanol plant's efficiency per unit of fossil fuel of less than 3:1.
...

Clever use of misinformation . The 46:1 ratio relates to fossil fuel intake, not to the whole fuel intake. The article says nothing about how energy efficient the plant is, just that they have substitute BS and CowS... for coal or gas.

Unlike some of the posters I do not think that technically the press release was a lie, but I am sure it was written in such a way as to give a false impression of just how efficient the plant was. Maybe if we had learned more text analysis as school we would not be fooled by such statements.

"Logic!" said the Professor half to himself. "Why don't they teach logic at these school?"

[emersonbiggins]

Unlike some of the posters I do not think that technically the press release was a lie, but I am sure it was written in such a way as to give a false impression of just how efficient the plant was.

I think the plant touting themselves as "closed-loop" is certainly a flat-out lie, unless they are growing the feed for the cows on the premises.

That said, I'll agree that I was a bit played by that press release.

[Armageddon]

How many piles of shit would it take to run my suv one mile ?