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 AdamB » Sun 20 Sep 2020, 13:53:59

TomWayburn wrote:You answered: "Any metric that accounts for all energy inputs into a system/process/economy CAN'T have an EROEI=>1 because the 2nd Law doesn't allow you."
That sounds like a deliberately argumentative statement. You could have said, "Oh, he means it figuratively. What is he getting at? In classical (toxic) economics, the whole economy is the dog and energy is the tail; but, energy is the dog."


So a statement based in the laws of thermodynamics, as to what you can and cannot do with an energy metric of this type, is argumentative?

Can we agree that my take on the eroei metric is correct, in that if a full accounting of the energy in, and energy out, is done, the ratio cannot be equal to or greater than 1?

I have no objection to moving on to a conversation on emergy or whatever your new definition is, as soon as we establish that we both understand that a full accounting of energy in this ratio (energy returned/energy invested) can't be equal to or greater than 1.
Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.

StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6229
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby TomWayburn » Sun 20 Sep 2020, 16:08:21

I wrote: Energy isn't just one thing out of many. Energy is everything. I hope I am forgiven this figure of speech, because no matter how important we think energy is, it is probably more important than that.

You answered: You make grandiose statements that simply aren't true

That is what I thought was argumentative. I said it was a figure of speech.

In ERoEI practice, we do not charge the process for the energy from Nature which is the third meaning of free energy. If we did, I agree we could not hope to get as much out as went in. The reason it was called renewable in the first place is that we expect the Sun to rise again tomorrow and for many days into the future.
User avatar
TomWayburn
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu 13 Aug 2020, 08:14:12

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 20 Sep 2020, 16:32:21

TomWayburn wrote:In ERoEI practice, we do not charge the process for the energy from Nature which is the third meaning of free energy.


I presume this means that everyone completely ignores what might possibly be the single largest energy input into the system? Without that barrel of oil (energy input) you can't make all those cool petrochemicals (outputs).

I presume that you are identifying exactly the tremendous amount of input energy excluded, and this then lead to the ability to create eroei=>1.

TomWayburn wrote: If we did, I agree we could not hope to get as much out as went in.


Sounds reasonable to me as well. Can you speculate on any reason why this strikes the net energy folks as a reasonable thing to do?

TomWayburn wrote: The reason it was called renewable in the first place is that we expect the Sun to rise again tomorrow and for many days into the future.


Many days sure, but not forever. But skip the time component, have you any knowledge on a specific formula used in creating eroei numbers as to which energy to exclude? For example, drilling rigs are required to drill for the oil. Even if we ignore the oil itself, the energy that went into building and moving the drilling rig to the location, as well as all attendant personnel and electrics and fluids and whatnot, Is this all just more energy left out of the equation because someone felt like it? Or are there rules to make sure this kind of arbitrary inclusion/exclusion allows apples to apples comparisons between eroei calculations?
Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.

StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6229
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sun 20 Sep 2020, 20:44:55

I have seen one problem with EROEI calculations that has never been addressed. This problem makes comparing estimates from different people or organizations impossible.

The one problem is, nobody has set up a standard of what gets counted as in and out leaving the variables entirely at the discretion of the person/organization doing the calculations.

That is not sound science, it is opinion dressed up with a lot of numbers and arithmetic manipulations of that set of numbers. GIGO, Garbage In=Garbage Out. Until you define all the inputs you can never have a rational justification for the estimated output.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4645
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby TomWayburn » Sun 20 Sep 2020, 22:03:40

Subjectivist,

Yes,; that is precisely the problem I intend to solve at first by simply listing what should be included. Simple but difficult and subject to mistakes. The second way requires the operator to think harder:

Let us indulge ourselves in a little thought experiment: Suppose a very special community occupies a portion of the Earth's surface where repositories of every element needed for the manufacture, installation, operation, maintenance, and moth-balling of an alternative energy installation. In addition, it has whatever additional repositories are needed to feed, clothe, shelter, keep healthy, preserve from drudgery, entertain, and elevate spiritually. These are finite repositories although most of them are extremely large. Out of each repository a reasonably sized storehouse is kept at steady state, making up for such deficiencies of recycling as are bound to occur by drawing from the surrounding repository sufficiently slowly that the repositories will not reach the analogy to Peak Oil for some agreed upon length of time in excess of 1000 years certainly and maybe much longer under NO GROWTH.
The people of the community possess all of the expertise necessary to keep the energy flowing and to manage precisely whatever else is needed to support the people who manage the energy technology, although they needn't be specialists.
The sun shines on the community and the junk heat radiates to deep space. Other than this nothing crosses the boundary of the community (thought of now as a region) except possibly energy that is exported free of charge to the neighboring regions. If ERoEI is greater than 1.0, there is some net energy available for export. (The reason it is free of charge in this thought experiment is that I don't want to be concerned with anything coming back.)
The entire community produces energy and nothing but energy; therefore, everything consumed and everything produced (except the net energy) within the community is overhead for producing energy and belongs in the energy-invested term. In this figment of our imaginations, we have no control over what the members of the community produce and consume.

Now, here comes the punch line: If we should run into an engineering study in which an ERoEI is computed by a methodology that can be applied to our thought experiment, we may take the results of the study seriously. If the methodology is lacking in any important respect, it is probably not trustworthy.

I'll give an example of an omission of a component of sustainability that can be left out with only a slight concern. Suppose the analyst does not include the energy costs of restoring the plant site to its pristine natural beauty in case the plant is shut down or moved for one reason or another. The operators of the plant can apologize for this in a number of ways. In any case, we might open up a category of near-sustainability. Of course, we wouldn't put up with the mess frackers leave behind for two minutes let alone two years.
User avatar
TomWayburn
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu 13 Aug 2020, 08:14:12

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby TomWayburn » Mon 21 Sep 2020, 08:15:53

Subjectivist:

Your problem is solved, is it not? Use photovoltaic energy as an example of a candidate for renewable energy. Just set up the partly isolated Autonomous Alternative Energy District with sunlight entering and infrared radiation to deep space leaving. The life cycle energy of the equipment, environmental protection energy costs, recycle system energy costs, living expenses of energy workers, and indirect energy expense tallied with support of free-loaders taken to be part of net energy. You will have to think to be sure you have included everything especially living expenses of community. Just make a list that intends to cover everything. Knowing what the object is will nearly get you there. The AAED has one product, namely, net energy, even if quantity is infinitesimal.

Test of system under investigation to determine if ERoEI* is a measure of sustainability: Will the same methodology fit the AAED thought experiment? You don't have to consider what others have done. You will know if the system under investigation is renewable or not.
User avatar
TomWayburn
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu 13 Aug 2020, 08:14:12

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 14 Feb 2021, 12:24:47

Where energy modeling goes wrong.

There are a huge number of people doing energy modeling. In my opinion, nearly all of them are going astray in their modeling because they don’t understand how the economy really operates.
Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.

StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6229
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 14 Feb 2021, 12:31:09

May I congratulate Gail for being an actuary, herself associated with the energy modelers of TOD that called global peak oil in 2008 (oops!), claiming that others don't understand economics, is downright riotous.

Gail "high oil prices are bad" versus "low oil prices are bad" is itself an interesting question into her transactional psychology on this topic. She has demonstrated she knows nothing about oil ( I once corrected her edited discovery charts at TOD, but telling her the truth didn't work), she has no experience with economics other than saying so, she is as random in her causation/correlation claims as Short was, but..it is those OTHER folks who don't understand economics.

Fascinated by the duplicitous nature of folks who claim to be researchers, yet seem to know nothing about how research, or science, works.
Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.

StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6229
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sun 14 Feb 2021, 13:33:37

AdamB wrote:May I congratulate Gail for being an actuary, herself associated with the energy modelers of TOD that called global peak oil in 2008 (oops!), claiming that others don't understand economics, is downright riotous.

Gail "high oil prices are bad" versus "low oil prices are bad" is itself an interesting question into her transactional psychology on this topic. She has demonstrated she knows nothing about oil ( I once corrected her edited discovery charts at TOD, but telling her the truth didn't work), she has no experience with economics other than saying so, she is as random in her causation/correlation claims as Short was, but..it is those OTHER folks who don't understand economics.

Fascinated by the duplicitous nature of folks who claim to be researchers, yet seem to know nothing about how research, or science, works.

+1

One thing about knowing nothing, is to be able to lie passionately, even convincingly (to the ignorant) and with a straight face, as knowing nothing lets one believe in whatever shiny object seems most attractive.

Whether it's Bible thumpers, climate deniers, economics deniers, science deniers, anti-vaxxers, Covid-deniers, flat earthers, and on and on, the overall pattern is the same. And intransigence doesn't begin to describe how dug-in those folks are re their nonsense. So yeah, getting them to listen to reason or accede to facts is going to be a slim to none outcome.

The amount of tragedy this causes gets exponentially worse as society becomes more complex. It's going to do some serious ass-kicking in the next century if TPTB can't force the idiots to comply with science based policies, 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 StarvingLion » Sun 14 Feb 2021, 19:16:59

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
AdamB wrote:May I congratulate Gail for being an actuary, herself associated with the energy modelers of TOD that called global peak oil in 2008 (oops!), claiming that others don't understand economics, is downright riotous.

Gail "high oil prices are bad" versus "low oil prices are bad" is itself an interesting question into her transactional psychology on this topic. She has demonstrated she knows nothing about oil ( I once corrected her edited discovery charts at TOD, but telling her the truth didn't work), she has no experience with economics other than saying so, she is as random in her causation/correlation claims as Short was, but..it is those OTHER folks who don't understand economics.

Fascinated by the duplicitous nature of folks who claim to be researchers, yet seem to know nothing about how research, or science, works.

+1

One thing about knowing nothing, is to be able to lie passionately, even convincingly (to the ignorant) and with a straight face, as knowing nothing lets one believe in whatever shiny object seems most attractive.

Whether it's Bible thumpers, climate deniers, economics deniers, science deniers, anti-vaxxers, Covid-deniers, flat earthers, and on and on, the overall pattern is the same. And intransigence doesn't begin to describe how dug-in those folks are re their nonsense. So yeah, getting them to listen to reason or accede to facts is going to be a slim to none outcome.

The amount of tragedy this causes gets exponentially worse as society becomes more complex. It's going to do some serious ass-kicking in the next century if TPTB can't force the idiots to comply with science based policies, overall.


-1

Here is my Head Scientist:

https://www.quora.com/profile/Michael-Brenner-13

He says *****EVERYTHING***** TPTB taught me about Physics and History in K-12 and university is a GIGANTIC FRAUD....EVERYTHING!!!

He says Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Feynmann, Darwin are 100% FRAUDS. He says TITANIC, MOON LANDINGS, 9/11, ISS, etc are 100% HOAXES.

His latest words:

"I have shown in many recent posts how “reason” as a faculty and “logic” as a discipline have been erased from what we call hard sciences like physics and mechanics, ...."

'I have argued that Newtonian physics is - as Leibniz perfectly well understood - a cult, it is, in Leibniz’ words, “physical theology” and the above Mark quote combined with hundreds of comments posted by “nuclear physicist” Torsten Hehl here on Quora proves that: he tells us in no uncertain terms, that the “physics of projectile trajectories” as taught in schools is nonsense “flat earth physics” intended for toddlers only because they don’t understand better, but once you are accepted into the “cult training camp” called university, you will be taught the right stuff, and that stuff is opposite to what the simpletons outside are taught. Problem with this is, that the real world as perceived by “outsiders” works the way they are taught in toddler-class, and nobody so far has shown the “advanced way” actually takes or has taken place. Point in case, nobody has ever shown that the almighty gravity actually can change the direction of the velocity vector of a projectile."
I'M GETTING RID OF ALL MY FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES FOR PHYSICAL SILVER
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2041
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 18:59:17

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby Pops » Mon 15 Feb 2021, 12:29:55

When a person models how the system works, it becomes apparent that as increasing complexity is added to the system, the portion of the economic output that can be returned to non-elite workers as goods and services drops dramatically. This leads to rising wage disparity as increasing complexity is added to the economy. As the economy approaches limits, rising wage disparity indirectly leads to a tendency toward low prices for oil and other commodities because a growing number of non-elite workers are unable to afford homes, cars and even proper nutrition.

LOL, limits to growth is the reason for wealth inequality.
Yeah, that's the ticket!

Gail took over where short left off with the whole low oil price armageddon bit. At least she is able to make a buck off it.

It's physics I tells ya!
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19081
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 15 Feb 2021, 16:19:25

StarvingLion wrote:Here is my Head Scientist:

https://www.quora.com/profile/Michael-Brenner-13

He says *****EVERYTHING***** TPTB taught me about Physics and History in K-12 and university is a GIGANTIC FRAUD....EVERYTHING!!!

He says Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Feynmann, Darwin are 100% FRAUDS. He says TITANIC, MOON LANDINGS, 9/11, ISS, etc are 100% HOAXES.

His latest words:

"I have shown in many recent posts how “reason” as a faculty and “logic” as a discipline have been erased from what we call hard sciences like physics and mechanics, ...."

'I have argued that Newtonian physics is - as Leibniz perfectly well understood - a cult, it is, in Leibniz’ words, “physical theology” and the above Mark quote combined with hundreds of comments posted by “nuclear physicist” Torsten Hehl here on Quora proves that: he tells us in no uncertain terms, that the “physics of projectile trajectories” as taught in schools is nonsense “flat earth physics” intended for toddlers only because they don’t understand better, but once you are accepted into the “cult training camp” called university, you will be taught the right stuff."

Yeah. Using quora for a cite. Why not use your own clear dementia? 8O

Seek medical help. Seriously. But hey, claiming flat earth "science" is convincing is nothing new in modern internet nonsense, sad as that is.
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 Subjectivist » Sun 21 Feb 2021, 23:10:59

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
StarvingLion wrote:Here is my Head Scientist:

https://www.quora.com/profile/Michael-Brenner-13

He says *****EVERYTHING***** TPTB taught me about Physics and History in K-12 and university is a GIGANTIC FRAUD....EVERYTHING!!!

He says Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Feynmann, Darwin are 100% FRAUDS. He says TITANIC, MOON LANDINGS, 9/11, ISS, etc are 100% HOAXES.

His latest words:

"I have shown in many recent posts how “reason” as a faculty and “logic” as a discipline have been erased from what we call hard sciences like physics and mechanics, ...."

'I have argued that Newtonian physics is - as Leibniz perfectly well understood - a cult, it is, in Leibniz’ words, “physical theology” and the above Mark quote combined with hundreds of comments posted by “nuclear physicist” Torsten Hehl here on Quora proves that: he tells us in no uncertain terms, that the “physics of projectile trajectories” as taught in schools is nonsense “flat earth physics” intended for toddlers only because they don’t understand better, but once you are accepted into the “cult training camp” called university, you will be taught the right stuff."

Yeah. Using quora for a cite. Why not use your own clear dementia? 8O

Seek medical help. Seriously. But hey, claiming flat earth "science" is convincing is nothing new in modern internet nonsense, sad as that is.


Quora is like Wikipedia with multiple choice answers. If you listen to the ones which are well written and give citations they are usually pretty reliable as pointers to source material. If you just choose to ignore the sound answers because someone says what you already believe then that is selection bias at its very worst and pretty useless. But I don't think you should just write off a whole resource because it can be abused, look at Wikipedia. For its first decade of existence it was put down and denigrated, but today it is considered as accurate and useful as many of the old paper encyclopedias of the past.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4645
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Previous

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests