[mousepad]

The windmills would have to be very efficient in themselves or very cheap to overcome all this and still provide a decent EROEI.

Good thing EROEI is no more important with windmills than it is with oil and gas development then.

Something needs to provide energy to the world. So something needs to have a decent EROEI. If not oil, nor wind, what then? What source carries the load?

[Newfie]

Mouse,

The Sun and natural radioactive decay provide all the energy there is. There is no phyaical law that says something has to produce the energy we want.

There is a physical law that says we can not use more energy than what is available. We don’t seem to be able to comprehend that point.

[careinke]

The windmills would have to be very efficient in themselves or very cheap to overcome all this and still provide a decent EROEI.

Good thing EROEI is no more important with windmills than it is with oil and gas development then.

Something needs to provide energy to the world. So something needs to have a decent EROEI. If not oil, nor wind, what then? What source carries the load?

Nuclear? Geothermal? biomass? Just off the top of my head.

Peace

[theluckycountry]

There is a physical law that says we can not use more energy than what is available. We don’t seem to be able to comprehend that point.

It's like watching someone sitting on the ground, handcuffed and surrounded by police. They are looking in all directions and wriggling against the cuffs but you know they are not going to escape the consequences of their actions.

That's the real problem now, instead of rapidly scaling back the old ways of energy consumption we are carrying on business as usual and at the same time consuming enormous amounts of additional energy chasing these so called alternatives. Like a fireworks display where right at the end they shoot skyward more than all before. Then comes the darkness.

[mousepad]

Nuclear? Geothermal? biomass?

How?

There must be an energy source with large EROEI to power our way of life.
Sources with EROEI < 1 are possible, but only in conversion scenarios where 1 source is cheap and the 2nd expensive.
Maybe an oil pump operation in the desert, solely powered by solar?
Or conversion of cheap coal to expensive diesel?
Or conversion of cheap nuclear into expensive hydrogen?

By the premise of EROEI <1, each of those conversions is lossy. They take more energy as input than they provide as output.

We know form statistics that world energy use is roughly 30% oil, 30% gas, 30% coal.
If they are all EROEI < 1, then there must be a subsidizing source way cheaper and way larger than oil gas and coal. Where is that source?
Nuclear? No, it only supplies about 10%. Biomass? Even less. Ditto geothermal.

[Newfie]

Mouse,

Forget economic models look at physically realities.

Attached is a longish interview with William Rees, one or the Global Footprint Founders. I have not had time to read it entirely, but because your question is fundamental to his research I think it will address it. It is presented as both an audio podcast and a PDF, pick your format.

https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/ ... lliam-rees

[theluckycountry]

EROEI must be a lot >1. 1 gives you break even but doesn't pay for the ongoing equipment consumption, perhaps that's 2:1. Then all the workers need to be paid and their families fed 3:1. Then the capital stakeholders want their share for setting it up in the first place, 4:1. The energy brokers all along the pathway, the distribution workers, the list goes on and on, even advertising costs must be factored in.

On another thread someone [a solution believer] though that hydrogen from nuclear could solve all the world's problems, but that's <1 at the end of the day, just like all those solar thermal plants, a dead end.

[mousepad]

that hydrogen from nuclear could solve all the world's problems, but that's <1 at the end of the day

That's exactly the scenario where EROEI does not matter directly.

If your nuclear plant has an EROEI = 100 and
if you're electricity to hydrogen has an EROEI = 0.1,
the cumulative EROEI is 100*0.1 = 10.
You have to look at the whole chain.

[AdamB]

Thanks for whatever drivel you wrote Adam, it makes a separator between my posts.

You're welcome. You don't need to leave so many clues as to how little you know about energy and economics and whatnot, but that EROEI praddle gives you away every time. Just sayin...

[yellowcanoe]

Thanks for whatever drivel you wrote Adam, it makes a separator between my posts. It looks obsessive when you write back to back posts.

Here is an interesting article on the matter of alternatives.

The Fatal Flaw Of The Renewable Revolution

Many people believe that installing more wind turbines and solar panels and manufacturing more electric vehicles can solve our energy problem, but I don’t agree with them. These devices, plus the batteries, charging stations, transmission lines and many other structures necessary to make them work represent a high level of complexity.

A relatively low level of complexity, such as the complexity embodied in a new hydroelectric dam, can sometimes be used to solve energy problems, but we cannot expect ever-higher levels of complexity to always be achievable.

According to the anthropologist Joseph Tainter, in his well-known book, The Collapse of Complex Societies, there are diminishing returns to added complexity. In other words, the most beneficial innovations tend to be found first. Later innovations tend to be less helpful. Eventually the energy cost of added complexity becomes too high, relative to the benefit provided.

I'm surprised the author didn't mention Joseph Tainter's more recent book, "Drilling Down: The Gulf Oil Debacle and Our Energy Dilemma", which he co-authored with Tadeusz Patzek.

[theluckycountry]

that hydrogen from nuclear could solve all the world's problems, but that's <1 at the end of the day

That's exactly the scenario where EROEI does not matter directly.

If your nuclear plant has an EROEI = 100 and
if you're electricity to hydrogen has an EROEI = 0.1,
the cumulative EROEI is 100*0.1 = 10.
You have to look at the whole chain.

I was strictly speaking of the manufacture of hydrogen from electricity, how energy intensive that is. People regard it as a renewable fuel, I suppose you could see it that way, but it's really just a perpetual motion concept with water to hydrogen to water and it would be a lot more economic in my opinion to simply use the electricity for something else, like powering electric trains. Unless the hydrogen is consumed near where it's made, and consumed in a hurry, the whole equation becomes orders of magnitudes worse because of the leaky nature of hydrogen.

As for the EROEI of 100:1, well that sounds highly questionable, I would like to know where you got that figure mouse? The numbers vary, but there is this article from Scientific american.

Nuclear:
As with hydroelectricity, the EROI estimates for nuclear power span a very large range. Some claim that the EROI is actually less than 1—which would mean that the whole process is not a source of energy, but rather a sink—whereas others (such as the World Nuclear Association, an industry group) estimate that the EROI is much higher than perhaps any other source of energy, around 40 to 60 when using centrifuge enrichment. I drew on a paper that reviewed many studies, and estimated the EROI to be 5. Lenzen, “Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: A review,” Energy Conversion and Management (2008) (link).
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nvestment/

[theluckycountry]

I'm surprised the author didn't mention Joseph Tainter's more recent book, "Drilling Down: The Gulf Oil Debacle and Our Energy Dilemma", which he co-authored with Tadeusz Patzek.

lol, they should have titled the book "Drilling Down Down, Deeper and Down"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1gYJDQXPOk



Living in Australia certainly has its benefits.

[AdamB]

I'm surprised the author didn't mention Joseph Tainter's more recent book, "Drilling Down: The Gulf Oil Debacle and Our Energy Dilemma", which he co-authored with Tadeusz Patzek.

Tainter and Tad teamed up did they? This might be worth reading just for reference material. Ever since Tad was a pretty run of the mill peaker, moved up within the ranks, then ASPO organization imploded in embarassment and took him out with it, he hooked up with the Saudi's and got some of his Saudi students to try and solve a couple of resource questions, he has improved his work, albeit always on the pessimistic side. His methods became better as well. Unfortunately, he has always been trapped on the engineering side of the equation, and lacked incorpoating both geomath and economics. Not a surprise for a top flight engineer, but still, all of these college professor types need to be a little less myopic.

Maybe Tainter has improved his perspective?

[Tanada]

The latest revelations from the controversial Western Renewables Link (WRL)

The latest revelation from the controversial Western Renewables Link (WRL), a proposed large-scale transmission project in Western Victoria, is the discovery of apparent non-compliances and major errors in the WRL Project Assessment Conclusions Report (PACR), a cost-benefit test that allowed the WRL to progress to its current stage of development. Apparent non-compliances and errors have also been discovered in the Australian Energy Market Operator's (AEMO's) more recent Review of the WRL cost benefit analysis conducted under the National Electricity Rules.

According to recent reports by Professor Simon Bartlett AM, an expert with forty years’ experience in the power industry in electricity transmission, power systems and generation in Australia, Europe and Canada, there are apparent non-compliances in the application of the Regulatory Investment Test for Transmission (RIT-T), National Energy Rules (NER) Chapter 5.15 and 5.16 and the AER Guidelines for application of the RIT-T to non-actionable projects (Guidelines) in the WRL PACR and updated WRL cost benefit assessment (WRL assessments), and in particular Clause A5 of the Guidelines.

In addition to at least 15 apparent non-compliances, Professor Bartlett has also identified significant apparent errors in the WRL cost benefit test by analysing publicly available data (spreadsheets) that calculated the Net Present Value (NPV) of costs and benefits crucial to the RIT-T financial assessments for the WRL PACR.

The reports indicate that a spreadsheet error which omitted ~93% of the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for both options for 50 years must be rectified. This adjustment alone would reduce the net benefits of the WRL PACR’s preferred option (C2) to negative $26m NPV (i.e. $151m - $177m) and the net benefits of the second most credible option (B3) net benefits to negative $76m NPV (i.e. $69m - $145m).

The reports also indicate there is no doubt that a $115m market benefit incorrectly credited to C2 for deferring its own $235m investment in its 500kV assets (Ballarat North to Sydenham) should be removed as this investment must clearly be made when C2 is built and there is no second investment in these same assets by the proposed VNI West interconnector to be deferred. This would further reduce the net benefits of C2 by $115m to negative $141m NPV.

Other reductions in net benefits totalling another $163m NPV for C2 and $121m NPV for B3, suggests that the PACR should have concluded neither C2 nor B3 would deliver a positive net benefit and that neither should have been selected as the preferred option.

According to Professor Bartlett, proceeding with regulated transmission projects that have a significant negative net benefit could be contrary to the National Electricity Objective.

These findings come as little surprise to communities impacted by the proposed WRL. Community groups, led by the Moorabool and Central Highlands Power Alliance Inc. (The Alliance), have been campaigning for reapplication of the RIT-T for in excess of two years. In August 2022, The Alliance sought a decision from AEMO that due to significant material changes in circumstances C2 is no longer the preferred option and it’s in the public interest undertake a new cost benefit analysis.

In response to The Alliance request, AEMO initiated the Review of the WRL cost benefit analysis in November 2022, confirming claims that various changes in circumstances had occurred which could impact upon the assessment of market benefits for the WRL Project. Even so, based on the analysis in this document (analysis which is not supported by publicly available data), AEMO remained of the opinion that Option C2 remains the preferred option with higher net market benefits than Option B3.

These apparent non-compliances and major errors have potential to completely derail the WRL which has already experienced significant delays and is slowly progressing through the Environmental Effects Statement (EES) process. The WRL is already two years behind its expected 2025 commissioning year.

Given the serious consequences of these apparent non-compliances and major errors, Professor Bartlett has raised these matters with AEMO for further investigation and discussion. AEMO has advised that due to recent legal proceedings initiated by the Moorabool and Central Highlands Power Alliance Inc. in the Supreme Court of Victoria, AEMO is not in a position to respond to these matters.

While the community, market participants and stakeholders appreciate the sensitivities of a legal challenge, these proceedings should not prevent AEMO from addressing the apparent non-compliances and errors that have been identified in Professor Bartlett’s reports.

If these apparent non-compliances and errors are not addressed, maybe litigation will represent the the greatest challenge to AEMO's cost benefit analysis methodology, with accountability for appropriate transmission investment investigations left to the courts to determine.
Report One
Report Two

LINK

[theluckycountry]

The latest revelations from the controversial Western Renewables Link (WRL)

The latest revelation from the controversial Western Renewables Link (WRL), a proposed large-scale transmission project in Western Victoria, is the discovery of apparent non-compliances and major errors in the WRL Project Assessment Conclusions Report...

The reports indicate that a spreadsheet error which omitted ~93% of the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for both options for 50 years must be rectified.

LINK

Yes, well Victoria and SA are a race to the bottom when it comes to destroying their grids. They are leaders in Renewable energy of course.

Then there is this.

2016
On Wednesday, something very unusual happened: the entire state of South Australia lost power. Known as a “system black,” it’s something the Australian Energy Market Operator (Aemo) had only prepared for in theory – never having the unfortunate opportunity to put “black start” procedures into place.
What caused the blackout?

The cause was very clear. And it was not due to renewable energy. One of the worst storms to hit South Australia in 50 years knocked out 22 high-voltage power pylons. The lines on those pylons carry electricity generated near Port Augusta to the rest of the state. When they went down, a cascade of automatic safety switches appear to have been flipped, in order to protect the rest of the SA power network
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... t-to-blame

What the story doesn't say is that those towers were not that old, and they were of Chinese manufacture. The steel was not up to spec in other words. They cheaped out on the steel yet the Whyalla Steelworks is in the same state!

That was 2016,now on to 2019
The federal government have confirmed that local manufacturer Ferretti International could play a part in supplying transmission towers made with Whyalla steel for the ElectraNet High Voltage Interconnector. The interconnector will connect the South Australian and New South Wales' electricity grids, however there's been no guarantee that Australian steel will be used in its construction from the Australian Energy Regulator.
https://www.whyallanewsonline.com.au/st ... onnection/

What a joke.

https://australiafirstparty.net/sa-blac ... ese-steel/
Safety concerns over fabricated Chinese steel flooding Australian market
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-17/ ... el/6949506

[ralfy]

"Study: Germany's 30,000 wind turbines are drying out the soil."

https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/ ... 5225817095

[jato0072]

Now what will the Greenies do? Seneca Cliff in 2030? Olduvai Theory in 2040?

[AdamB]

Living in Australia certainly has its benefits.

Indeed. Unique entertainment.



And benign overlords.