Page 2 of 2

Re: EROI < 1:5 => collaps of modern civilisation!

Unread postPosted: Sun 16 Feb 2014, 09:54:58
by Pops
Our conundrum is trying to replace the irreplaceable. Nothing out there is a reasonable substitute for hydrocarbons - at least not at the rate we've become accustomed. 100:1 EROEI (or whatever) is just not attainable.

"The solution is dilution" the polluters always said. In this case I think "dilution" - as in lowering a concentration, is also the solution to PO. We should try to lower the concentration of the energy we require.

I've lived in several old houses, the original wiring of which is like layers of fossilized lifestyle. Originally there were a few ceiling lights and maybe an outlet or two. Then there were more outlets added, then one per room, then an outlet every 4 feet of wall - eventually resistance heating and finally a/c.

Eventually I think we'll retrace those stages and find out what is really important.

Re: EROI < 1:5 => collaps of modern civilisation!

Unread postPosted: Sun 16 Feb 2014, 12:13:41
by Quinny
I'm just refurbishing a house and am deliberately only providing one socket per bedroom. I've actually been told it's not up to standard as there should be more sockets per bedroom! Understand the reasoning, but am trying to discourage electricity usage by limiting outlets.

I'm retracing those stages partly by choice, partly no option!

You reminded me of this though.

Being Green

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.
The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days."
The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment f or
future generations."
She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.
Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were truely recycled.
But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags, that we reused for numerous things, most memorable besides household garbage bags, was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our schoolbooks. This was to ensure that public property, (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.
But too bad we didn't do the green thing back then.
We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.
But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.
Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throwaway kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.
But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.
But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.
We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.
But we didn't have the green thing back then.
Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.
But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

Re: EROI < 1:5 => collaps of modern civilisation!

Unread postPosted: Sun 16 Feb 2014, 13:09:29
by Strummer
The logic of that older woman in the story is wrong. Every young generation lives in a world that was created by the previous generation. The baby boomers did not create the nice green world that they grew up in, their parents did create it. And today's young people did not create all the consumerist bullshit that they are forced to live in, that's the legacy of the boomer generation.

Re: EROI < 1:5 => collaps of modern civilisation!

Unread postPosted: Sun 16 Feb 2014, 14:26:57
by Quinny
Seems to me energy consumption per capita has increased pretty significantly over the last few decades!


EROEI: A Useful Measure Or A Distraction?

Unread postPosted: Wed 07 Mar 2018, 13:57:53
by AdamB

EROEI = Usable Acquired Energy / Energy Expended It seems so simple. If the amount of energy produced relative to the amount of energy utilized in producing that energy tends to decline, at some point as the ratio approaches 1.0 (or perhaps even becomes a fraction less than 1.0) there is little if any return on the energy invested and society will collapse. But is this concept really workable and useful? There are many issues related to how this ratio (sometimes abbreviated as EROI) is calculated. This affects both the numerator and the denominator of the ratio. The first problem is that this equation is usually interpreted as being the useful acquired energy divided by the useful energy expended. Energy expended is usually limited to something you would miss if it became unavailable. This means you do not count the energy from the

EROEI: A Useful Measure Or A Distraction?

Re: EROI < 1:5 => collaps of modern civilisation!

Unread postPosted: Thu 08 Mar 2018, 12:46:19
oil is produced by companies who drill oil wells. Such as the ones Rockman has worked for over the last 40 years. And not one of those companies based drilling decisions on the embedded energy in the drilling infrastructure. Nor was the EROEI of refining oil a factor in any decision to drill an oil well. IOW it's actually very easy to estimate the EROEI of any oil well that gets drilled: it's the energy directly used to drill a well (essentially the diesel that powers the drill rig) and the energy that well eventually produces. That's because it's that diesel cost that is A SMALL PORTION of the total cost to drill the well. The total cost vs anticipated VALUE in $'s (not in Btu) that drives the decision making process. A well with an EROEI of 30 will not be drilled if the cost of well exceeds the VALUE of the oil produced.

LEI - greater energy availability = higher “quality of life.

Unread postPosted: Sun 11 Mar 2018, 11:04:39
by jawagord
An index like LEI that takes into account the quality, quantity and distribution of energy for society makes much more sense than fussing over EROI. In the end analysis it's about "quality of life".

We developed the Lambert Energy Index (LEI) in an attempt to account for the quality, quantity and distribution of energy delivered to a society more fully. LEI is a composite statistic combining Energy Return on Investment (for society), energy use per capita, and the Gini-Index of income distribution. The explicit purpose of LEI is to shift the focus of the analysis of the factors that determine human well-being from traditional economics to an energy-centered biophysical basis. LEI is not a substitute for existing economic metrics but a new tool for understanding the impact of energy on other social indicators. The LEI combines three factors:
-Energy efficiency of an economic/societal system: EROISOC
-Average energy use per capita: GJ per capita
-Income (Energy) Distribution: Gini-Index
Our results indicate that: energy surplus from fossil fuels and increases in the efficiency of energy use in an economic system (EROISOC) and especially their combination in LEI are correlated with various social indicators. For example, Canada has a moderate EROISOC (18:1) but an extremely high energy use per capita (311 GJ per capita) and a moderate Gini-index (32.5), resulting in a high LEI value (0.52, Fig. 9) and a high quality of life (e.g. HDI=0.81). Conversely a nation such as Denmark has a very high EROISOC (62:1) but a moderate energy use per capita (139 GJ per capita) and low Gini-index (24.7) and giving a similar LEI value (0.65, Fig. 9) and a high quality of life (e.g. HDI=0.8)....In severely impoverished countries (e.g. Pakistan and Nigeria) with low EROISOC values (5:1 and 4:1 respectively), low energy use per capita (20 and 29 GJ per capita respectively) and low overall energy availability (LEI=0.12 an 0.10 respectively, Fig. 9) and quality of life (e.g. HDI=0.336 and 0.246 respectively) are closely correlated. In other words, greater energy availability (high LEI values) appears to corresponds with higher “quality of life.” ... 1513006447

Re: EROI < 1:5 => collaps of modern civilisation!

Unread postPosted: Sun 11 Mar 2018, 11:46:30
Jaw - Very interesting...mucho thanks. Will study link when I have time. Seems like the critical issue will be the source/validity of the different metrics utilized.