[Ulenspiegel]

Its literally impossible to transition from oil to wind and solar.

You need an EROEI of over 50 to transition to and the only things that fit that bill are molten salt(not necessarily thorium starvinglion) and HAWT.

Solar EROEI: 2 to 10
Wind EROEI 20 to 30

Moltex is my favourite molten salt:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/0 ... CRQoYXXKHl

LCOE $38 cheaper than any form of power on the grid.

Nonsense. You compare science fiction - there is no running molten salt reactor which produces hard economic data - with reality.

It is a save bet that onshore wind power in the USA beats all fission reactors. Get used to it.

[ROCKMAN]

"Its literally impossible to transition from oil to wind and solar." If Texas were a country it would tie with the 4th largest in wind power. And it had nothing to do with transitioning from oil. It was all about not adding more NG and especially coal fired electricity generation. And as such has proved very successful supplying the grid of the largest consuming state (much more then even #2) with 10% of demand. And almost 40% during a short winter emergency when we lost some NG plants a couple of years ago.

But the economics aren't that straight forward as playing the EROEI angle. First, the tax payers covered the $7 BILLION needed to expand the grid. Also some cities agreed to higher initial rates to subsidize wind generation. For instance one city, Georgetown, is going to go 100 alt by paying such rates. And it has nothing to do with wanting to be "green"...they couldn't care less about GHG and CC. City management clearly explains it's all about economies: pay higher rates now (when NG and lignite generation cost are relatively low) and get a 20+ year fixed lower rates. This avoids the volatility we've experienced: not too many years ago NG was costing 5X the current price.

As explained many times: EROEI has no bearing on fossil fuel development decisions...it's all about the $'s. In the case of Texas wind power the dynamics are the same: decisions never were and never will be made based upon EROEI.

[vtsnowedin]

As explained many times: EROEI has no bearing on fossil fuel development decisions...it's all about the $'s. In the case of Texas wind power the dynamics are the same: decisions never were and never will be made based upon EROEI.

But does not the EI at the end of ERoEI cost money to invest?
In a logic problem one could say that all energy is money but not all money is energy.
When the EI cost in $ gets high enough the ER will not be salable at a high enough price to cover the costs and projects will stop. Other costs might have stopped it long before that such as sovereign taxes or environmental protection requirements but tax rates can change and rules can be relaxed. The EI cost in $ will not be adjustable and will be the final nail in the coffin.

[Newfie]

Right, exactly. Vermont is not Philly. No chance of directional boring. All cut and cover. Boonies.

Vermont, largest city Burlington. 43,000 population

PA, largest city Philadelohia. 1,533,000. 35 times the size.

Hell your whole STATE population is less than half the size of Philadelphia.

I've had the opposite experience of over estimating when going from a large NE perspective to a SE area. Costs can be much different.

While I have always lived in Vermont most of my construction experience has been in New Hampshire. I worked as a construction inspector for the DOT for thirty years before retiring from them and working for consulting firms for the last ten years. Large cities like Philly have a lot of people that don't own or need cars so thy would be the last place I'd be looking to retrofit chargers. Instead I'd be adding them wherever streets were being rebuilt or new parking lots were being constructed. Where you already have the pavement and sidewalk torn up the addition of a wiring run is a cheap addition. Slipping it in between sidewalk and the front stoop of a Brownstone quite another. As it will take at least fifteen years to turn our fleet of cars from ICEs to electric we have plenty of time to start with the cheapest places first and leave the urban areas until sometime when they are being upgraded.

VT,
not so much difference in our final opinion, as usual our frame of reference is just different.

One final observation to ponder and I'll leave it alone.

We just moved out of out brownstone. We STILL can't get Verizion FIOS. Because of infrastructure costs. Never mind that almost every house on our block has 6 apartments rented by Penn Grad students who are starved for bandwidth.

[vtsnowedin]

One final observation to ponder and I'll leave it alone.

We just moved out of out brownstone. We STILL can't get Verizion FIOS. Because of infrastructure costs. Never mind that almost every house on our block has 6 apartments rented by Penn Grad students who are starved for bandwidth.

That is pretty classic. Bet it has something to due with getting city permits to do the work.
I'm surprised the grad students don't have a dish on the roof and a six way spliter.

[Newfie]

It's not work permits. It's the excessive cost.

We need some beer to share experiences.

[vtsnowedin]

It's not work permits. It's the excessive cost.

We need some beer to share experiences.

We could do that sometime when you have the boat close. Where are you spending the winter?

[ROCKMAN]

"But does not the EI at the end of ERoEI cost money to invest?" Yes, and thanks to the price of diesel falling along with oil that EI cost less today then 2 years ago. Likewise the ER is also selling for less. Thus the only way to keep the ROR of new drilling at an acceptable level is for the ER to be worth more...a bigger ER. IOW as the price of oil declined more bbls have to be recovered for the same EI. Thus projects now being developed have a higher EROEI then they did a few years ago. And that can be seen by the higher initial flow rates of new shale wells. Which is exactly ass backwards to what many have predicted the future to hold. Folks who ignored the dynamic between oil prices, rates of return and EROEI.

As the oil price varies so does the ER. But the metric companies strive to hold constant is ROR along with the one that remains fairly constant...EI.

[vtsnowedin]

As the oil price varies so does the ER. But the metric companies strive to hold constant is ROR along with the one that remains fairly constant...EI.

A barrel of oil returned at the well head has just as much energy returned ER at $30 as it dose at $80 so no ER dose not vary with price. And Energy invested EI is varying as we go deeper and further having used up the cheap shallow and easy. Oil companies would like to increase their Rate of Return but that is a constant battle and will get tougher as the ER measured in BTUs goes down vs the EI also measured in BTUs.

[Newfie]

It's not work permits. It's the excessive cost.

We need some beer to share experiences.

We could do that sometime when you have the boat close. Where are you spending the winter?

Bahamas. Sorry.

[vtsnowedin]

It's not work permits. It's the excessive cost.

We need some beer to share experiences.

We could do that sometime when you have the boat close. Where are you spending the winter?

Bahamas. Sorry.

You don't seem to be very sorry!! Don't get sunburned now.

[ROCKMAN]

vt - "A barrel of oil returned at the well head has just as much energy returned ER at $30 as it dose at $80 so no ER dose not vary with price." True but that single bbl of oil doesn't determ the amount of energy returned, does it? The ER isn't calculated solely by the Btu but the Btu X # of bbls produced...right? So do you think a company will drill the same wells with Y bbls potential when prices are $45/bbl as $90/bbl? IOW drilling decisions don't consider rate of return? So would a company drill a prospect that generated a profit at $90/bbl if that same prospect lost money at $45/bbl? Obviously not. The only way a company can make an accerptable ROR at CURRENT OIL PRICES is to drill wells that produce more oil: wells with higher TOTAL ER. And it takes the same EI to drill the identical well today as it did 3 years ago: the volume of diesel and embedded haven't changed.

So the calculation is simple: a larger ER divided by the same EI = an higher EROEI ratio. Again that dynamic at play is supported by the fact that initial production rates of currently drilling prospects have increased becauser the prospects with lower ER are not being drilled as they were when higher oil prices resulted in acceptable ROR for those projects.

ER is NOT a function of Btu content: it is Btu/bbl X the # of bbls. A bbl of Eagle Ford today has the same Btu it did 3 years ago. The total Btu's to drill the same EFS well 3 years ago is the same today. But to generate the same ROR at $45/bbl as it did at $90 the well has to produce more bbls. Which is exactly why the rig count fell so much: not as many high yield EFS prospects available. And more bbls at the same Btu/bbl = higher total ER. And thus a higher EROEI of EFS wells drilled today then 3 years ago.

As said many, many times: drilling decision have never and will never be made on the basis of EROEI. If the price of oil immedfiately jumped back to $90/bbl many of those EFS prospects with lower EROEI's would be drilled because they would then then have acceptable ROR's.

[vtsnowedin]

ER has always been calculated in the total number of barrels returned divided by the EI to find drill and lift the oil from that well. I never thought anything else.
Drilling yet another well in the EFS (eagle ford shale) doesn't take any more EI then the last one but if your not drilling in a sweet spot your ER will be lower then past wells and ERoEI will decline for that well. You are arguing that low prices have driven producers to only drill in sweet spots. Fine for a short time but what happens when you run out of sweet spots and have to drill the not so sweet or move on to the deep water arctic?

[ROCKMAN]

vt - "...but if your not drilling in a sweet spot your ER will be lower then past wells and ERoEI will decline for that well." Exactly my point: who the f*ck is going to drill anything but a sweet spot with oil at $45/bbl? LOL. Or do you really believe EFS wells being drilled now are going to produce the same number of bbls (the same ER) as wells drilled when oil was $90+/bbl?

That's my basic point: lower oil prices won't allow companies to drill wells with the same EROEI they did drill 3+ years ago. Just following Darwin's model: survival of the fittest. Wells with low EROEI's cannot survive in the current price environment. The same wells that contributed to the surge of US production.

A simple matter of natural selection: low EROEI drillers have become infertile. LOL.

[StarvingLion]

Its literally impossible to transition from oil to wind and solar.

You need an EROEI of over 50 to transition to and the only things that fit that bill are molten salt(not necessarily thorium starvinglion) and HAWT.

Solar EROEI: 2 to 10
Wind EROEI 20 to 30

Moltex is my favourite molten salt:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/0 ... CRQoYXXKHl

LCOE $38 cheaper than any form of power on the grid.

Nonsense. You compare science fiction - there is no running molten salt reactor which produces hard economic data - with reality.

It is a save bet that onshore wind power in the USA beats all fission reactors. Get used to it.

The university professors in germany must have to drink 5 bottles of red wine from the Rhine a day in order to go into the classroom with a straight face and declare: "Hey dummies, see those gigantic bird choppers littering the landscape outside the window? They have to get forever BIGGER BIGGER BIGGER!! or we all have to eat lawn clippings. Sure the lowly windmill was invented back in 500 AD but this really is progress and if you don't believe it I have a baseball bat behind my desk that will convince you"...."and you might wonder what we shall do with the 100's of thousands of useless windmills when they don't work no more...thats when we pass out the cyanide pills and go bye bye"

[vtsnowedin]

Ahem !
Moving on. The question remains is it possible to transition to wind and solar?
I believe we can for a couple of reasons. One: oil although our primary source of energy is not the only source of energy and solar panels and wind turbines can be built with hydro power, coal fired electric power , nuclear power and the power from completed solar and wind installations.
Second the availability of oil will decline, not suddenly stop, and we can prioritize the remaining supply to build the transition renewable infrastructure ahead of single occupant auto commuting.
On a BTU or KWH basis I think we can get by but the problem of liquid fuel to power aircraft remains to be solved. At some time in the future the only use of the remaining liquid fuel might be for our military aircraft with all other uses switched to renewables or done without.

[energyskeptic]

Wind and solar can't substitute for transportation fuel because transportation can't be electrified, nor can the grid stay up without fossil fuels for too many reasons to list, but discussed in "When Trucks Stop running: Energy and the future of transportation".
Also relevant, with new posts since "When trucks stop running":
http://energyskeptic.com/category/decli ... ic-trucks/

Here are 34 posts on the issues with solar: http://energyskeptic.com/category/energy/solar-energy/
And 24 on wind; http://energyskeptic.com/category/energy/wind/

ESPECIALLY http://energyskeptic.com/2015/wind/

Wind and solar can't substitute for the high heat needed by essential industrial processes (cement/concrete, steel, etc): Chapter 5 of "Our Renewable Future" by Richard Heinberg and David Fridley

[Newfie]

Energy skeptic,
Welcome aboard. You will have fun here.

[Ulenspiegel]

Lock Sarving Lion,

even after 5 bottles of wine I would not post such a nonsense you clain to post in sober state.