Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

New EROEI research

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby shortonoil » Fri 03 Jan 2020, 09:46:38

The obtained results indicate that a fast transition achieving a 100% renewable electric system globally by 2060 consistent with the Green Growth narrative could decrease the EROI of the energy system from current ~12:1 to ~3:1 by the mid-century, stabilizing thereafter at ~5:1.


This is very bad news for civilization. Charles Hall, The Hills Group, and others have come to the determination that to continue our existing modern economy an EROI of ≈7, at the source, is required. An EROI of 3:1 would be an economic disaster! Petroleum is presently at an ERoEI (EROI at the well head) of about 8. At the present extraction rate that will have reach 7:1 by 2030.
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 7136
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 08 Jan 2020, 14:27:13

shortonoil wrote:
The obtained results indicate that a fast transition achieving a 100% renewable electric system globally by 2060 consistent with the Green Growth narrative could decrease the EROI of the energy system from current ~12:1 to ~3:1 by the mid-century, stabilizing thereafter at ~5:1.


This is very bad news for civilization. Charles Hall, The Hills Group, and others have come to the determination that to continue our existing modern economy an EROI of ≈7, at the source, is required. An EROI of 3:1 would be an economic disaster! Petroleum is presently at an ERoEI (EROI at the well head) of about 8. At the present extraction rate that will have reach 7:1 by 2030.

Yet via the MAP, you claimed WTI would approach $ZERO by the end of 2021, and the financial system is doomed, since it can't function without lots of crude oil.

Now, you're talking about the oil industry in 2030.

And you're still citing "The Hills Group", which has been discredited and whose website has disappeared.

So, why should anyone believe your randomness THIS time?
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 9232
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 08 Jan 2020, 14:37:34

rockdoc123 wrote:And I will extend the challenge to you. Please identify the energy in the EROEI equation for oil and gas F&D that is completely free. I've been involved in the industry since the seventies and can say with certainty there isn't any....you pay for everything hence the cost of production is fully assummed and given full cycle break even costs are on average around $35-$40/bbl in the US and average price is now $60 (meaning a positive net back to the producer) EROEI is basically meaningless as an industry metric.

Logic and facts. And the facts squaring with the markets big picture.

Makes far more sense than endless false pictures of the rapid demise of oil production from shorty, even as oil production continues apace, and the industry continues to make healthy profits overall.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 9232
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 08 Jan 2020, 14:52:05

Speaking of indicators for the long term viability of energy production and profitability, the energy sector is hitting new lows recently, as a proportion of the S&P 500.

rockdoc and other industry insiders, I wonder if you have any investment perspective on this, over, say, the next decade or two.

There are lots of theories on this, for example, various ones mentioned in the following two pieces.

https://articles2.marketrealist.com/201 ... -outlook/#

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... ood-reason

To this layman, some make more sense than others. One of the commonly mentioned ones, along the lines that "investors just aren't interested", seems to me the equivalent of "we just don't know".

Then again, I'm just an observer/layman, and freely admit it.

I just thought that, perhaps, with the energy industry having a rough valuation of about half of its average proportion of the S&P 500 over the past 3 decades, this seems to indicate lots of pessimism by investors, and might be worthy of discussion here (or elsewhere, if a separate thread is more appropriate).

Thanks for any insights from folks with actual expertise in advance.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 9232
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby marmico » Wed 08 Jan 2020, 15:10:51

the energy sector is hitting new lows recently, as a proportion of the S&P 500.


Energy spending relative to GDP is at record lows.

Image
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/mo ... ec1_17.pdf
marmico
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 14:46:35

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby shortonoil » Wed 08 Jan 2020, 15:18:23

Yet via the MAP, you claimed WTI would approach $ZERO by the end of 2021, and the financial system is doomed, since it can't function without lots of crude oil.

Now, you're talking about the oil industry in 2030.

And you're still citing "The Hills Group", which has been discredited and whose website has disappeared.

So, why should anyone believe your randomness THIS time?


WOW! So much interesting information. Did you copy it off the back of a Cracker Jacks box, or do the calculations on your abacus?

Obviously, renewables are not going to save the world. They are too little, far too late. The US is still importing 6 mb/d, and exporting 3. For a supposedly energy independent country that is certainly a little strange. If Venezuela, and Iran had not been forceably taken off line, to reduce world production by 5mb/d, crude would now be $28/ barrel, and the oil industry would be folding up around the globe. We are playing our last card at the point of a gun. There are alternatives, and if we don't take them the the oil age will end with a world in economic ruin.
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 7136
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 08 Jan 2020, 16:12:44

peaking of indicators for the long term viability of energy production and profitability, the energy sector is hitting new lows recently, as a proportion of the S&P 500.

rockdoc and other industry insiders, I wonder if you have any investment perspective on this, over, say, the next decade or two.


To be honest, it is all a bit of a head-scratcher until you realize that although we need hydrocarbons (until such time as everything has been replaced by EV's or some electrical induced chemical reaction to create ethylene and ethanol has completely supplanted all refined petrochemical byproducts) it isn't the oil and gas companies that get to decide on the level of investment, it is the investment banking community who take their cues from government policies etc. I say this because although the very big companies don't need to take on additional equity dilution or debt those same banks and their interest levels are what creates the new startups and interest in share purchase of existing companies. Back in 2009 - 2011 there was a period where if you had an idea and mentioned the words oil and gas there would be a host of investment bankers crawling all over each other to make a pitch to you about raising equity in the market. No longer is that the case, in fact some of us used to joke that if you were in New York to visit any of the investment bankers a sure way to get thrown out on the street was to even mention oil and gas. I think the current attitude has a number of intertwined causes:
1. the ability of the shale gas/oil industry to ramp up production quickly through what was a relatively predictable back and forth with oil prices and OPEC control historically put the investment banks on their heels and they do not like uncertainty.
2. investment bankers are generally not happy with slow and steady growth, they want to fund companies/projects that can see a ten fold increase in valuation in a period of a few years. With uncertainty over oil price as a consequence of the increased production in the US such a strategy will only work for a select few startups.
3. when I was heavily involved talking with the investment folks on a daily basis they were largely folks with a lot of experience in the oil and gas business and especially in the realm of doing A&D, reverse takeovers and IPO's. From about 2012 onwards the big investment banks started to layoff those folks....the thought no doubt being from their consultants that they needed to replace their old folks with new graduates who were cheaper and after all anyone could do the job (according to the consultants). As a consequence, you suddenly went from a very experienced group of savy investment bankers to a group of young folks fresh out of B school who had nearly zero experience in the industry. That didn't, of course, keep them from thinking they were the next best thing since sliced bread (after all they had a damned MBa ....my wife who has one, suggests that plus $3.00 will get you a coffee at Starbucks). And they put all their efforts into those areas where quick returns could create heroes and they understood the technology...ie. tech companies. And they had no problem bad-mouthing an industry (oil and gas) that they had neither any experience in or understanding of.
4. there is a serious lack of understanding amongst the investment bankers and politicians how much the world's economy counts on oil and gas and how difficult (and expensive) it will be to supplant even half of that. Like Mark Carney they think you can just turn a switch and suddenly the world is running on EV's and all petrochemicals are no longer needed (I seem to remember similar suggestions back in the late fifties about flying cars). As a consequence, they see no problem in pushing the idea that we should stop investing in oil and gas entirely. I guess if you are willing to suddenly revert to the way life was 200 years ago that might work but you know for a fact the investment bankers are the last folks who are going to give up an over the top lifestyle. A real disconnect with reality.
5. In this new "woke" world you are popular if you bad mouth oil and gas and talk about the virtues of renewables. That applies to politicians as well as investment bankers. This, of course, is independent of what makes sense either from a technical or economic standpoint. Throw on top of that the amazing amount of misinformation floating around about climate change and you have a recipe for disaster. If the average investor feels he is somehow being a bad person by investing in an oil and gas company then the industry as a whole suffers.

So, in my opinion, the bottom line is until such time as there is a real meaningful event ....eg: a war which takes out a large proportion of hydrocarbon production or distribution, a sudden "come to Jesus" realization of how much hydrocarbons are actually left and how much is being consumed and sold at low prices, economists actually telling the truth about what is required to convert completely to a non-hydrocarbon existence, you will not see a lot of interest in the investment community regarding oil and gas. None of the current investment bankers have been through 3 or 4 cycles of oil and gas booms, most have only seen the last downturn inactivity due to lots of supply. Until they get the wake-up call the oil and gas industry will remain a pariah.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7683
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby aspera » Wed 08 Jan 2020, 19:39:49

EROI and the Icelandic society.
by Reynir Smari Atlason
Energy Policy (2018) 120: 52–57.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.069
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1tR1O8 ... bgQnzK71O4

Highlights (from ScienceDirect website)
• Since the two oil crisis in 1970's, Icelanders have mostly relied on energy provision from renewable sources.
• The Icelandic society has maintained societal EROI over 40:1 for the most part since 1975.
• Icelanders have mostly avoided fluctuations in societal EROI because of less reliance on imported fossil fuels.
• High societal EROI may influence the general prosperity on the island, despite its isolation.

Abstract (from article)
In this paper, the societal Energy Return on Investment (EROIsoc) is estimated for Iceland between 1960 and the present. The results indicate that the overall EROIsoc was around 27:1 in the early 1960s, and was volatile for a period of time before stabilizing at around 45:1 in 1974 after establishing a strong mix of renewable energy. These findings further show that Icelanders have generally had access to energy sources with higher EROI than if they had relied on fossil fuels, except for the period between 1963 and 1967. If they had relied on fossil fuels alone, Icelanders would now have access to combined resources with an EROI of around 16:1, likely too low for prosperity, and an even lower EROI for long periods of time. Regarding policies, this paper shows that relying on an energy grid mix with an EROI higher than 20-30:1, especially for island nations, has the potential to raise the standard of living greatly. For policymakers in island nations, attention should be given to this relationship between high-EROI energy sources with low price volatility and the standard of living.
Oceans rise, empires fall. - Apocalypse Lullaby, Wailin' Jennys.
Plant a garden. Soon.
User avatar
aspera
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 17:22:49
Location: Lakeland Republic

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 08 Jan 2020, 20:31:20

rockdoc123 wrote:
outcastsearcher wrote: [s]peaking of indicators for the long term viability of energy production and profitability, the energy sector is hitting new lows recently, as a proportion of the S&P 500.

rockdoc and other industry insiders, I wonder if you have any investment perspective on this, over, say, the next decade or two.


To be honest, it is all a bit of a head-scratcher until you realize that although we need hydrocarbons (until such time as everything has been replaced by EV's or some electrical induced chemical reaction to create ethylene and ethanol has completely supplanted all refined petrochemical byproducts) it isn't the oil and gas companies that get to decide on the level of investment, it is the investment banking community who take their cues from government policies etc. I say this because although the very big companies don't need to take on additional equity dilution or debt those same banks and their interest levels are what creates the new startups and interest in share purchase of existing companies. Back in 2009 - 2011 there was a period where if you had an idea and mentioned the words oil and gas there would be a host of investment bankers crawling all over each other to make a pitch to you about raising equity in the market. No longer is that the case, in fact some of us used to joke that if you were in New York to visit any of the investment bankers a sure way to get thrown out on the street was to even mention oil and gas. I think the current attitude has a number of intertwined causes:

...

So, in my opinion, the bottom line is until such time as there is a real meaningful event ....eg: a war which takes out a large proportion of hydrocarbon production or distribution, a sudden "come to Jesus" realization of how much hydrocarbons are actually left and how much is being consumed and sold at low prices, economists actually telling the truth about what is required to convert completely to a non-hydrocarbon existence, you will not see a lot of interest in the investment community regarding oil and gas. None of the current investment bankers have been through 3 or 4 cycles of oil and gas booms, most have only seen the last downturn inactivity due to lots of supply. Until they get the wake-up call the oil and gas industry will remain a pariah.

Wow. That's great. JUST the kinds of insights I was looking for rockdoc. Thank you VERY much.

What you are saying makes lots of sense, but much of it isn't at all "obvious" until you hear it laid out, at least to this layman.

re several of your interesting numbered points:

Point 1, re uncertainty -- Of course. I was (stupidly) assuming bankers would be looking longer term (like over decades). but why should they be different, or especially, be wiser, than the rest of the short term thinking business world these days (especially the US business world, re cultural attitudes about time and money)?

Ditto for point 2. Here I was thinking bankers would like decades of steady income, but then why would they be, for example, selling a huge number of their mortgages to book quick profits NOW if they were thinking longer term?

Point 3. Again with the short term thinking issue. (Am I detecting a theme here?) :)

Anyone with a decade in business and/or having such friends who talk about business has a legion of examples of companies STUPIDLY laying off "the talent" in droves, and then (often very predictably) SCREWING themselves as suddenly "oops we can't produce X efficiently, or at all", and then in (the words of John Cleese), a period of "knee-bent running about" as they attempt to deal with the reality.

Apparently people retire or move on before the company meaningfully LEARNS from such situations. :roll:

Point 4: I'm with you on the longer term need for petrochemicals (vs. burning hydrocarbons), but as per usual, the future is hard to predict. Sadly, I'll be dead before I'll likely know if we were right on this, assuming it plays out for several decades or more. That pesky human condition thing again...
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 9232
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 08 Jan 2020, 21:36:31

I can't emphasize enough that the investment banking community does not have an altruistic nor long view amongst the lot of them. The young bankers are driven by proving themselves to their bosses, meaning they need to hit some home runs really quickly. As well most of the bankers want something that they can have " a piece of". As an example the bank might want 3% of an IPO or RTO of which the actual person running the deal might take a 1/2 percent. Back in the good ole days these bankers might see 6 -10 deals a year valued at anywhere from $50 to $400 MM. A 1/2 percentage of $400 MM is a pretty sizeable carrot. So for them it is all about driving deals that see a personal profit for themselves first and secondly for the company (which might get them promoted). They have this attitude because the actual investment banks have no loyalty either (these days there is a lot of movement of personal between firms). Hence these guys will want to make hay while the sun shines. I never met one that could talk intelligently about alternative energy other than to say....oh it is good and we need to stop consuming oil. I guess they read that in the newspaper. :roll:

Pretty depressing when you stand back and look at it. On the other hand once you know what is going on it is possible to figure out what you need to invest in. My guess is these guys will not see an oil shortage until it is staring them in the face.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7683
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby aspera » Wed 08 Jan 2020, 22:20:48

Estimation of global final-stage energy-return on investment for fossil fuels with comparison to renewable energy sources.
by Brockway, Owen, Brand-Correa & Hardt
Nature Energy (2019) 4: 612–621
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0425-z
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rW4bT ... 8m1ejSUT2_

Abstract (from article)
Under many scenarios, fossil fuels are projected to remain the dominant energy source until at least 2050. However, harder-to-reach fossil fuels require more energy to extract and, hence, are coming at an increasing ‘energy cost’. Associated declines in fossil fuel energy-return-on-investment ratios at first appear of little concern, given that published estimates for oil, coal and gas are typically above 25:1. However, such ratios are measured at the primary energy stage and should instead be estimated at the final stage where energy enters the economy (for example, electricity and petrol). Here, we calculate global time series (1995–2011) energy-return-on-investment ratios for fossil fuels at both primary and final energy stages. We concur with common primary-stage estimates (~30:1), but find very low ratios at the final stage: around 6:1 and declining. This implies that fossil fuel energy-return-on-investment ratios may be much closer to those of renewables than previously expected and that they could decline precipitously in the near future.
Oceans rise, empires fall. - Apocalypse Lullaby, Wailin' Jennys.
Plant a garden. Soon.
User avatar
aspera
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 17:22:49
Location: Lakeland Republic

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby marmico » Fri 10 Jan 2020, 08:30:59

Brockway's conclusion is that fossil fuel final energy stage EROI has declined from 6.8:1 in 1995 to 6.1:1 in 2011. I say, so what. The difference between 85.3% net energy in 1995 and 83.6% in 2011 rounded is a 1 percentage point nothingburger, and certainly within reasonable rounding error of any EROI study.
marmico
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 14:46:35

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby aspera » Fri 10 Jan 2020, 16:28:26

marmico wrote:Brockway's conclusion is that fossil fuel final energy stage EROI has declined from 6.8:1 in 1995 to 6.1:1 in 2011. ... The difference between 85.3% net energy in 1995 and 83.6% in 2011 rounded is a 1 percentage point ... within reasonable rounding error of any EROI study.

True. But isn't it also correct to say that the decline from 6.8 to 6.1 is 10.3%.

A ten percent decline over every ~15 years might be something techno-industrial society can adapt to, provided the decline rate doesn't turn out to be non-linear (or, the effect(s) upon society are non-linear). This non-linear change notion is something that Morgan points out in his discussion of the societal impacts of an increasing ECoE.

Also, the declining final stage level reported in their analysis is worrisome should it turn out that techno-industrial society actually needs EROEI at or above that 6.1 level. "It is assumed that ERoEI >5 to 7 is required for modern society to function." Euan Mearns (2016). At: http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners

Others suggest that an EROEI below 11 is where noticeable effects occur:
Murphy (2013) [ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 6/20130126 ] found that society needed at least an EROI of 11. So much net energy is provided by any energy resource with an EROI of 11 or higher, that the difference between an EROI of 11 and 100 makes little difference. But once you go below 11, there is such a large, exponential difference in the net energy provided to society by an EROI of 10 versus 5, that the net energy available to civilization appears to fall off a cliff when EROI dips below 10 (Mearns 2008). Source: http://energyskeptic.com/2016/lambert-h ... y-of-life/

Hall et al. come up with very similar values:
    (1) Hall, Balogh & Murphy (2009). What is the minimum EROEI that a sustainable society must have? Energies, 2, 25-47.
    (2) Hall (2012). Energy return on investment. In Butler et al. [Eds.] The Energy Reader. (pp. 62-68) Sausalito, CA Watershed Media.
Stepping back for a moment, EROEI values between 5 and 11, and declining, seem to be of some consequence.

But perhaps focusing on just a single EROEI number might hide some of the societal risks involved. Work has begun to explore what end-use EROEI values are needed for various elements of techno-industrial civilization. Certainly need more research here, but the initial findings do catch one's attention. (I wonder where websites like this one, the servers we use, the larger network, our time, etc. fall in this triangle?)
Image Image from: http://energyskeptic.com/2016/lambert-h ... eroi-12-14 Published source of image: Lambert, J.G., Hall, C.A.S., et al. (2014) Energy, EROI and quality of life. Energy Policy. 64:153–167. https://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/up ... l_2013.pdf
Oceans rise, empires fall. - Apocalypse Lullaby, Wailin' Jennys.
Plant a garden. Soon.
User avatar
aspera
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 17:22:49
Location: Lakeland Republic

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby marmico » Fri 10 Jan 2020, 19:38:55

True. But isn't it also correct to say that the decline from 6.8 to 6.1 is 10.3%.


Clickbait. The EROI cheerleaders note Spindletop at 100:1 oil head EROI. Total oil production at Spindletop wouldn't supply Beaumont, Texas a years worth of transportation fuel but the claim is made that EROI declined from 100 then to 10 now or 90%.

Show me a credible study that the well to fuel tank (WTT) EROI of petroleum has materially declined in the last 50 years.

Too funny that you bring up Murphy. His co-authored Marcellus natural gas study says that well head to power plant EROI is 25. It is understated because the EUR of the well is higher than his study case. 2020 EROI of 25 with a combined cycle natural gas plant 55% thermal efficiency relative to a 1970 EROI of 50 with a single cycle plant 30% thermal efficiency. A 50% decline in natural gas EROI over 50 years is a nothingburger when it comes to net energy.

https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/bioerq/v1 ... 006-8.html
marmico
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 14:46:35

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby aspera » Fri 10 Jan 2020, 20:27:41

marmico wrote:The EROI cheerleaders note Spindletop at 100:1 oil head EROI. Total oil production at Spindletop wouldn't supply Beaumont, Texas a years worth of transportation fuel ...

I'm missing your point about the significance to EROEI of the volume of fuel that Beaumont consumes (large consumption, I presume, compared to Spindletop's output). Perhaps you can help us with your logic here since at first glace it's an apples-and-oranges comparison. Aren't you confounding the energy cost of extraction ratio (EROEI) with the ultimate volume extracted?
Oceans rise, empires fall. - Apocalypse Lullaby, Wailin' Jennys.
Plant a garden. Soon.
User avatar
aspera
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 17:22:49
Location: Lakeland Republic

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby marmico » Fri 10 Jan 2020, 21:06:57

I'm missing your point about the significance to EROEI of the volume of fuel that Beaumont consumes


Weighted average EROI of the ~1400 Gbs of oil consumed to date. What matters is consumption of 30 Gbs in 2020, not 3 Gbs in 1920.

In any event produce the EROI 50 year study and then consider that a personal ICE vehicle can travel twice as far per unit of net energy in 2020 than in 1970.
marmico
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 14:46:35

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby aspera » Fri 10 Jan 2020, 23:50:45

Annual changes in energy quality and quality of life: A cross-national study of 29 OECD and 37 non-OECD countries.
by Bowen Liu & Jun Matsushima
Energy Reports (2019) 5: 1354-1364
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.09.040
https://drive.google.com/open?id=18yoVp ... rJN7KiopJ-

Highlights (from ScienceDirect):
• Annual changes in the relation between EROIsoc, GDP, EC, and QoL are investigated.
• The relation between EROIsoc, GDP, EC, and QoL differs between OECD and non-OECD.
• The importance of EROIsoc for OECD increases in times of increasing energy prices.
• The importance of GDP for non-OECD decreases in times of increasing energy prices.

Abstract (from article):
Since the efficiency of obtaining energy is decreasing, it is important to determine how the degradation
in energy quality will influence society. Despite the rising importance of net energy, few quantitative
studies have been conducted on the relationship between energy quality and quality of life (QoL).
Energy return on investment on a society scale at a national level (EROIsoc) is used as an indicator of
energy quality, energy consumption (EC) per capita is used to represent energy quantity, and gross
domestic product (GDP) per capita is used as an economic factor. Eight indices are used for QoL.
Simple linear regression analysis is used to discuss the correlation coefficients between the three
indicators (EROIsoc, GDP per capita, and EC per capita) and eight QoL indices for 29 OECD and 37
non-OECD countries, and their annual changes over the 25 years from 1990 to 2015. We demonstrate
that the relationship between the three indicators and eight QoL indices changes annually and differs
between OECD and non-OECD countries. We also demonstrate that although GDP per capita is the most
influential factor among the three indicators for the Human Development Index (HDI), which is one
of the best-known composite indices of well-being, the importance of GDP per capita for non-OECD
countries has declined, especially in times of increasing energy prices, while the importance of EROIsoc
for OECD countries has increased.
Oceans rise, empires fall. - Apocalypse Lullaby, Wailin' Jennys.
Plant a garden. Soon.
User avatar
aspera
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 17:22:49
Location: Lakeland Republic

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby aspera » Sat 11 Jan 2020, 00:12:15

Developing an Input-Output Based Method to Estimate a National-Level Energy Return on Investment (EROI).
by Lina I. Brand-Correa, et al.
Energies (2017) 10(4), 534.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en10040534
https://drive.google.com/open?id=155St3 ... lUQOPn0KqJ

Abstract (from article, emphasis added):
Concerns have been raised that declining energy return on energy investment (EROI) from
fossil fuels, and low levels of EROI for alternative energy sources, could constrain the ability of
national economies to continue to deliver economic growth and improvements in social wellbeing
while undertaking a low-carbon transition. However, in order to test these concerns on a national
scale, there is a conceptual and methodological gap in relation to calculating a national-level EROI
and analysing its policy implications. We address this by developing a novel application of an
Input-Output methodology to calculate a national-level indirect energy investment, one of the
components needed for calculating a national-level EROI. This is a mixed physical and monetary
approach using Multi-Regional Input-Output data and an energy extension. We discuss some
conceptual and methodological issues relating to defining EROI for a national economy, and describe
in detail the methodology and data requirements for the approach. We obtain initial results for the UK
for the period 1997–2012, which show that the country’s EROI has been declining since the beginning
of the 21st Century. We discuss the policy relevance of measuring national-level EROI
and propose
avenues for future research.

Image
Figure 1. Types of EROI. EROIstnd: standard EROI. EROIpou: EROI at the point of use. EROIext: extended EROI.
Oceans rise, empires fall. - Apocalypse Lullaby, Wailin' Jennys.
Plant a garden. Soon.
User avatar
aspera
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 17:22:49
Location: Lakeland Republic

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 11 Jan 2020, 01:02:49

Aspera, perhaps you could look for a paper that is a bit more up to date than 7 years ago. That being said I ask the question...if the return on investment has been so bad for the oil and gas industry then why would anyone in their right mind be putting money there? Yet they still do. The reason is they make money doing it. Once again please show the free energy that goes into your EROEI calculations. As I have said numerous times "free" energy (not in the Gibbs sense) does not exist. This is why a monetary assessment of energy profitability pretty much makes all of this look like nonsense.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7683
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby aspera » Sat 11 Jan 2020, 02:02:51

rockdoc123 wrote:Aspera, perhaps you could look for a paper that is a bit more up to date than 7 years ago.
...
that goes into your EROEI calculations.

Rock: First, these are peer-reviewed publications that I post. They are not mine. (I assumed that was obvious, but for the record, I've posted nothing that comes from my own research nor from my own EROEI calculations).

Second, I've been, with rare exception, posting EROEI/ECoE-related publications done in the last few years (i.e., post-2017) including peer-reviewed work just published in 2020.

Third, since you weren't specific, I'm not sure what 7 year old piece you are referring to. Is there one in particular that you'd like to see updated? I could keep an eye out for updates, and post and/or send you a copy of whatever turns up.

A number of posts ago, I did include mention of the older Mearns, Murphy and Hall, et al. publications, all pre-2017. But that post also included more recent work (i.e., Brockway et al. 2019 and Mearns 2016). I included mention of the older work in order to show that there's a convergence emerging among both older and newer research on the minimum EROEI needed to support a complex techno-industrial society. Convergence across methodologies, researchers, datasets, etc. is itself one way of detecting patterns. But including the older work was in reply to a comment about the Brockway, et al. 2019 publication, not a posting about those older publications.

Finally, your request that I, "... look for a paper that is a bit more up to date than 7 years ago" is useful. After all, new work on EROEI may well convince others that this metric is, in fact, proving useful in certain domains. But I'm not sure how exactly to respond to your suggestion since that is exactly what I've been doing with this post. In fact, it's in the title to this thread.

It turns out that there is a significant amount of new peer-reviewed research being published on EROEI.
Oceans rise, empires fall. - Apocalypse Lullaby, Wailin' Jennys.
Plant a garden. Soon.
User avatar
aspera
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 17:22:49
Location: Lakeland Republic

PreviousNext

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests