[bbadwolf]

The high price of oil is a function of high demand growth and supply constraints rather than higher cost of production, as almost all oil production has lifting costs of under $20/bbl. North Sea is apparently around $10/bbl, and small fields were being produced especially in the US even when oil was under $20/bbl.

We were discussing the relative costs of unconventional oil, which has higher extraction costs. What you're talking about is conventional oil. Yes of course, the very high costs are due to supply/demand. The point being made was that unconventional stuff with it's higher extraction costs were not economic till these high prices were obtained. This in light of a broader argument across a series of posts. I don't quite see your point.

Vesta reckons their wind turbines have an EROEI of around 30 based on a life cycle analysis, if you believe them. It may be only half that. In any case, I would argue that EROEI is of marginal relevance in this case, as net energy does not increase linearly with the EROEI value, rather it moves towards an asymptote. The difference between an EROEI of 30 and of 15 in terms of net energy produced is marginal, and other factors such as labor intensity will easily swamp that difference in determining the cost. A source with an EROEI of 20 will give you 95 joules net out of 100 joules gross, whereas one with an EROEI of 100 will give 99 net out of 100. Once you get above an EROEI of about 10 the difference becomes quite small. Corn ethanol with an EROEI of ~1 is useless.

Again, you seem to be responding to small part of a much broader discussion that occurs across multiple posts. I agree that corn ethanol is of little use. (I would argue it's more political than anything actually, not real important in the discussion that we were having)

The point being made was that wind based energy mining methods were becoming comparable in effectiveness to some forms of oil extraction. I was pointing out that oil still had the advantage because of existing infrastructure, you can simply toss the output into the stream with the rest. Ie, a 'legacy effect'. I was further pointing out that this difficult oil would never have been produced without us using the easier to get stuff first. It wouldn't have been worth building all the current infrastructure (like millions of cars) for such low energy returns. This casts a shadow of doubt on the deployment of renewables in general, really. I can't really tell if you are attempting to agree or disagree with this. Would you care to elaborate?

-bbad

[Antimatter]

hmm yeah sorry, I have a habit of replying to bites of posts somewhat out of context. My point was that EROEI is only a minor factor once it gets above 10 or so, because it moves towards an asymptote rather than increasing linearly, with is often overlooked. Other factors can be more important in determing the costs and what gets used eg capital costs, labor and of course the legacy effect. For example the preference for gas fired power plants recently stems from their lower capital costs and public acceptability over coal and nuclear rather than EROEI considerations. However I do agree that we wouldn't be touching the tar sands if the infrastructure for distributing and using oil wasn't already in place.

I guess what I was getting at is that I don't see EROEI nor the laws of physics as hampering the roll out of non-fossil energy as they are already better in some cases (EROEI of US oil and gas is 10-15 according to Cleveland and Kaufmann), and there is plenty of energy out there for the taking in the form of solar (inc. wind) and nuclear. To me the issue is weather or not we can/will build them fast enough, which comes down to economics and social issues. When I'm feeling optimistic I agree with Jaymax that market forces will eventually make it doable, but the scale does indeed seem daunting. Guess I'll sit on the fence for a bit longer.

[doufus]

I am getting sick and tired of the American bashing. Not all 250 million of us drive SUVs and waste energy. Many of us garden, ride bikes and care about the environment. Don't blame all of us for a historically 'weak' government and a small percentage of arrogant internet loudmouths.

[/quote]

True. But the consequences for the rest of us from general american arrogance and stupidity are quite profound:

Iraq, Kyoto, Halliburton, ignoring the palestinian issue etc etc.

As they say, the only thing worse than 2 global gorillas is one.

Americans as individuals are fine people, but they continue to
"elect"- i.e. those that bother to vote- morons manipulated by the
military-industrial-complex. We ALL have to live with that.

Americans were dazed by 9/11 because they couldn't believe that
they- the good guys- could be so hated. And you are I'm afraid.

Most americans know absolutely nothing of the rest of the world.
You ARE your world and it shows in your treatment of the rest.

[Devil]

And, if you wish to see another example of the US Administration's sheer arrogance that gets peoples' backs up, read what Secretary Michael Chertoff said in the past few days and compare it with what one of America's best non-governmental institutions published in October 2004, at today's post in http://www.bnellis.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=26

[bbadwolf]

I guess what I was getting at is that I don't see EROEI nor the laws of physics as hampering the roll out of non-fossil energy as they are already better in some cases (EROEI of US oil and gas is 10-15 according to Cleveland and Kaufmann), and there is plenty of energy out there for the taking in the form of solar (inc. wind) and nuclear. To me the issue is weather or not we can/will build them fast enough, which comes down to economics and social issues. When I'm feeling optimistic I agree with Jaymax that market forces will eventually make it doable, but the scale does indeed seem daunting. Guess I'll sit on the fence for a bit longer.

J & I seem to be coming to an agreement to disagree. I did not originally understand that he finds solace in in some longer term possibilities while my faith in them is limited (fusion and high efficiency solar conversion). This leads him to think we can continue our profligate lifestyles with alternatives merely making up the difference in fossil fuel declines til these inventions come about. Not completely impossible as long as you factor in fusion etc.

My lack of faith in these future advancements leads me to argue that with currently available alternatives, land, water and other limitations will prevent us from scaling these up to anything near what might be called profligate energy use not to mention that the low energy returns inherently result in loss of living standards even if we could scale them up.

So our essential disagreement was over whether we would be able to continue our exorbitant lifestyles. Not surprising that I didn't see your point, as it had little to do with what J and I were discussing.

That said, I see your point. EROEI has diminishing returns. News to me, but ok. I have no evidence either way. However, none of the alternatives current on the table have an EROEI anywhere near that of conventional oil, that which built our society. With lower energy profits, we expend more effort for each unit of energy harvested and by the laws of physics, we have a reduced standard of living. (reduced from the current standard provided by oil, that is) Even unconventional oil and tar sands are lowering our standard of living right now, although we don't really have a choice now, do we. They also keep Mr Bush's precious system of musical $ from collapsing and lowering the standard living abruptly, tar sands do have some value!

The laws of physics certainly do not prevent rolling out the alternatives. However, my biggest concern has to do with how our economy will deal with the necessarily lower standard of living. I mentioned in another post that I have a bad feeling there is an avalanche point. We can probably contract economically by a small percentage quite gracefully, everyone will bitch and complain but we'll be ok. But at some rate of contraction, the economy will simply implode with each disaster invoking yet another disaster til the world starts looking like a science-fiction movie.

Now take the necessity of a lower standard of living coming with/regardless of the rollout of alternative forms of energy harvest. Add to that the likelihood of this avalanche point and the fact that no one knows what contraction rate will trigger the phenomenon...

In short, in a low EROEI society, we may well not have the resources to deploy new energy fast enough to prevent complete meltdown even if we're co-operating with each other! It would be prevented by the laws of physics. Which is WHY I was in this discussion in the first place.

This possibility scares the hell out of me, particularly since it looks quite likely. And if Simmons is correct and Saudi declines rapidly. (head for the hills time) If Uncle Bin gets lucky...hell, even a simple economic depression might be enough to topple the whole house of cards.

Four months ago, I thought our descendents would zip around the stars and swoosh their light sabers. What a disappointment!

-bbad

[Jaymax]

I use the ASPO decline curve - so I expect those alternatives to replace in excess of 27 million bbl/d, being the amount of decline by then.

--J

So you don't take into account any future demand growth in energy consumption?

Two different takes on this - I said 'in excess' specifically with demand growth in mind... But I dont expect we will be able to maintain the same level of demand growth as previously - infact I expect a contraction for a few years.

HOWEVER - the other take is that we don't even actually need to achieve anywhere near the same level of raw energy replacement if we're clever about it (ie: if the market applies sufficeint pressure to make us clever).

If we keep natural gas for generating heat where required (very high efficiency) and use alternatives (eg: wind) to generate electric, for conversion to hydrogen, to drive vehicles, then the efficiency of transport energy perhaps moves from about 20% as at present, to (absolute best case) 80% in the future.

This would mean (and these figures are over-optimistic) to replace one barrel of crude oil energy (roughly 1600kWh) we would only need to generate about 400kWh of wind energy. (ie: only find about 7m b/d replacement + demand growth)

Of course, if we burn natural gas to generate electricity, and use the electricity from wind to generate heat, well (a) we're just stupid, and (b) we'll need that entire 27m+ bbl equivalent replaced.

I of of the view that alternatives will soften the fall but won't be able to mitigate economic collapse and won't ever be able to ultimately replace oil and the keep the way of life as we know it going on.

And this is where it gets interesting - because the question becomes 'soften the fall' by how much. If it's 10%, we're scr*wed, if it's 80%, there's more than enough time for society to adjust, if it's 99% we'll barely even notice the slow decline, and if it's 101% we're home safe.

The more research and math the better, cos this REALLY matters.

--J

[Jaymax]

[ding] [ding] round three

I've given up on even a passing attempt at brevity - sorry. Wanted to reply in detail, and also want to get to bed before 4am. Writing 20 words takes so much longer than writing 100...

You seem to be quite optimistic about fusion. I don't feel all that warm and fuzzy about it.

The impression I got from the handful of folk in the fusion research community I've talked to is they've observed their research run very fast at times, and very slow most of the time - depending on the political climate (and therfore funding) at the time - high oil prices generate political will. I accept that it's speculative, and very much wait and see... It's just a question of how long we have to wait to see what ITER and perhaps DEMO deliver. The folk I talked to pretty consistently said '50 years at current funding levels' - the last three words seem to me the most significant.

Specifically, I have a hard time seeing how we are going to keep up investment during the energy shortage that makes it so necessary to begin with!

In a recession, there's still a lot of money in the system, just that the balance has altered - I would expect any government is an energy crisis driven recession to quadruple the money going into fusion - it'd barely register...

Similar for the "hyper-efficient solar conversion". I have to point out that the engineers don't have anything concrete here, though I will confess that you are at least not breaking the laws of nature. Again, neither of us has a good argument.

Pure fantasy on my part for today - I envisage silvery things that look alot like trees, built to fractal algorithms with electrical cables coming out the side. 40 years is a long time though, and I belileve other alternatives can get us that far down the track.

But note that the lower EROEI is largely due to much more difficult extraction and refining.

Indeed - once you could hammer a nail into the texas landscape and get 1m b/d of sweet light crude for your efforts. Now you have to spend years drilling wells miles underground that produce nothing, inject steam just to cring the little that is there to the surface, and put a ton of energy into refining it. And that's just recent conventional - tar sands and shale are a joke. (although, some are certainly laughing all the way to the bank)

Do you have any good sources for info (EPR or EROEI

No, in fact I bookmarked your reference, I'll check when it's back up. But I remember having seen quite a few separate references that have kind of formed an aggregate in my mind.

Me too - but I'm at the point here where I need figures to give me confidence in my arguments - even where we're in agreement.

The only reason that deplorable garbage is useable at all is your 'legacy effect', the fact that we don't need much new infrastructure for it's use.

I saw a news report once, I almost posted about it here, but I figured that the probability was the article had the numbers wrong - after all, anyone investing $6b checks the numbers, right? When I ran the numbers in the article ($6b invested for a flow of however-many bbl/d) it came to something like a 50 year ROI at current prices (then about $50/bbl) - which if true would be madness - it couldn't be true, could it?

I don't have specific links at hand but you can google it. I've read that there is specialised chemistry used in making photo-voltaics that would become problematic in the large scale.

This is the area where there is something in the back of my mind...

For the tar sands mentioned above, we are fast running out of ...

As far as I can tell, nothing about tar sands makes sense unless your a Canadian politician/businessman taking advantage of the US or the Chinese (Caveat Emptor - I've no problem with that)

The inertia makes the conversion to wind difficult.

Difficult or impossible? Therein lies the rub. And I believe the difference between difficult and impossible depends upon cash-flow models presented to investors more than any other factor.

But scarcity of land, water and assorted 'stuff' prevents us from scaling these things up enough to overcome their lack of "mechanical advantage" in the best of times.

One thing to consider - these things (notably solar and wind) tend to scale DOWN very effectivly, even if they don't scale UP as well as say coal, oil, or nuclear plants. If the power / heating bill is such that every western home with a roof wants to throw on a few solar panels, or a roof-effect micro wind turbine, because payback only takes 2-3 years, an awful lot will do it. If the govt subsidises as well...

A recession will worsen things immensely due to an inability to invest.

The last great-depression was an era of great road-building and other infrastructure projects within make-work schemes.

Perhaps if we sink into another depression, the govenment will keep people alive by paying them subsistence to build windmills.

I have noted that you base your argument not on the replacement of oil but on covering declines..a different posting.

It's mathmatically easier - and it avoids having to argue likely growth scenarios with economists (or demand destruction scenarios for that matter) - preserving the status quo seems like a good road to tred in terms of the figures - if they show we can probably do that, then I'm hopeful.

there will be no way to invest/build quickly enough to cover declines while in the midst of severe economic recession.

If there were, it wouldn't be severe - but the very severity of it may be what provides all the cheap labour required to play catch-up.

if we continue the just started policy of lowering our environmental standards to try to account for for fuel shortages, we could have difficulties with rather more than carbon,

And we will, in all probability - if we find a way to dredge up tons of methyl-hydrates from the ocean floor and stick that in furnaces, we'll probably do that too. G'night Gaia, see you in the new dawning.

And then there's the economy. How do we invest in an economic depression.

Touched on above - history shows that depressions are good for building infrastructure. Hell, maybe Bush's great road-building bill is nothing more than getting the projects defined before the SHTF.

it's important to compare net at point of use

You are correct that the internal combustion engine uses energy much less efficiently than the electric motor. Unfortunately the use of combustion to generate electricity is little if any better so by the time power reaches the wheels, not a lot of difference I'm afraid.

But if you take combustion out of the equation - a'la renewables - see prior post to Raxozanne - that was my point.

Not unless we move massively towards renewables, which I have argued is difficult.

And again, we're back to difficult vs impossible, and the required rate of transition.

I'm not a complete pessimist. I truly think this is all necessary and for the best in the long run.

You won't be saying that if the world decides the solution is methyl hydrates and coal... I go with 'inevitable' rather than 'necessary' - but that's probably a reflection of the difference in ideology you referred to at the start.

But I fear it may kill me in a gruesome and perhaps drawn out fashion. I'm having a bit of trouble seeing the bright side of that!

Damn, it's gonna be interesting to watch though, ain't it? I used to think I'd been born at a particularly boring epoch, not any more...

[Jaymax]

The high price of oil is a function of high demand growth and supply constraints rather than higher cost of production, as almost all oil production has lifting costs of under $20/bbl.

Supply constraints and production costs are the same thing - or at least have exactly the same factors driving both, and can be treated as so within this debate. Harder to find = more dosh spent locating and producing = tighter supply. Once upon a time in texas, even the term' lifting costs' would have generated odd looks as the oil squirted up.

I would argue that EROEI is of marginal relevance in this case, as net energy does not increase linearly with the EROEI value, rather it moves towards an asymptote. The difference between an EROEI of 30 and of 15 in terms of net energy produced is marginal.

True, but it's one of these 'where do you draw the line' scenarios - 30 to 15 is probably noticable, with enough economics behind it to drive the market if both are readily available. But it's impossible to say 6 is viable, and 5 isn't - or whatever... But your point is taken.

and other factors such as labor intensity will easily swamp that

You mean human labour here (ie: application of labour with inbuilt neural processing capability), or work (ie: energy)? It occurs that a product with lower lifetime EROEI might be more attractive commercially to a product with higher lifetime EROEI, if the up-front, first-few-years energy inputs are eg: 90% of the total for the later product.

--J

[bbadwolf]

Ok Mr Jmax.

It would seem I can sum up thusly:

Short term - we seem to agree that it truly sucks.

Long term - you see new developments saving us, I lack faith. We both know that what's on the table right now won't cut it long term. It would involve at best a much lower standard of living.

I think I must call stalemate. It has been very interesting!

Damn, it's gonna be interesting to watch though, ain't it?

Indeed. But I'd rather watch from farther back. I don't *recall* asking for this front row seat!

-bbad

[Jaymax]

So our essential disagreement was over whether we would be able to continue our exorbitant lifestyles. Not surprising that I didn't see your point, as it had little to do with what J and I were discussing.

Just to be clear.

I believe that we will recover our exhorbitant lifestyles within 20 years of peak - I don't think that is dependant on novel new energy sources (not that they wouldn't help if there's a breakthrough).

I also think that these regained exhorbitant lifestyles won't last beyond about 40 years post peak, unless the energy tightness over the years post-peak leads to the development of new, novel, hyper efficient energy sources such as new-solar or fusion... Mostly just due to the scale of things - we'll have tapped most accessible wind by then, and rooftop solar at traditional efficiencies will only help so much, even with loads and loads of it.

--J

PS: I never agree to disagree - I just sulk instead

[Dezakin]

bbadwolf:

All the alternatives have energy returns well below that of oil. If that were not true, we'd be using them already (big oil might not want YOU to produce alternatives but they'll damn well do it themselves if there's profit in it!). This is simply the result of the laws of physics (like the amount of heat needed to get metals out of rock) which won't be changed by more efficient engineering.

Thats demonstrably false. Nuclear has an energy return today well above that of todays oil. It costs more than oil because today it requires more capital and labor inputs, which aren't energy. You can make reactors with energy returns in the hundreds if you like, and I believe CANDU's are allready there given they dont have to do any enrichment.

I suspect solar concentrator systems will have absurdly high energy returns as well.

Cost in dollars is not the same as cost in energy, and the idea that you can reduce the entire economy to its energy costs is naive at best.

But please, ignore fusion. Its not pertenant to the discussion given that fission is just as good and the fuel is abundant enough for our discussion well into the next several millinea. I'm sure when fusion is finally done right, fission will still be cheaper, and solar power will be the least expensive way of producing energy. Its primary value will be for long haul space travel.

Jack:

Perhaps I may yet win a place in Freya's halls.

Only if the betrayer of warriors doesn't select your lot for his own ends.

[Caoimhan]

Energy comes from ONE place, only one, the sun.

This is not quite true.

Tidal energy comes from lunar gravitation acting against the rotational momentum of the oceans.

Geothermal energy comes from a combination of heat resulting from pressure and heat from the passive breakdown of radioactive isotopes.

Nuclear fission is the active breakdown of radioactive isotopes.

Granted, all radioactive isotopes were generated inside a star, but not within OUR sun.

[Jaymax]

Thanks ALL on this thread for the debate. The most enlightened I've had on peakoil.com - I hope I've made you think and challenge some of your assumptions, in the same way you have done for me. I hope our speculations on the future have been interesting for any thread-lurkers following along.

Gonna take a break from the po.com forums for a while now, because its more important for me personally to carry on doing what I encourage others to do... I want to spend some time doing a bit more research without being drawn into arguments as on some other threads with those who cannot comprehend their inability to forcast the future with certitude.

To anyone who happens to read this, I would just say: Don't believe what you are told on here or anywhare, just because the person telling appears authoratative, or appears well respected, or because the view is prevalent. Beware of the cult of peakoil. Research and verify for youselves, look for facts and theories which challenge, as well as those which confirm your existing beliefs.

We're all here because we're concerned about peak oil. We're all in agreement that the worlds oil extraction must go into decline at some point - but there is more disagreement here than is evident about what the consequences of that will be.

Regards to all,
--Justin

[cheRand]

Part of the problem is sunk cost in an oil infrastructure. There are sustainable farming alternatives, but these involve substituting fossil fuel inputs with more land and labor. Seems to me like transitioning will involve:

1st- Personal Conservation due to pricing as a modification of human behavior.

2nd- Commercial Substitution, due to pricing.

Eventually- Progressive governmental planning and policymaking that will give us a more accurate baseline picture of energy subsidies.... Energy audits in government. How many Farm Bill dollars end up as the energy cost of fertilizer, like in the EQIP program for example? How many dollars are fleetcar dollars? That sort of thing.

Implementation of serious open-concept energy efficiency R&D dollars creating alternatives. My research will be on chemical conversion-- photosynthesis. (Just kidding. Should've taken science in college.)

That's my rosy version (I posted a Hobbsian view on Montequest's Liebig Die-Off thread.) Which version we get depends on who we hire to run the show.

[cube]

What!!!???

You mean to tell me that necessity isn't necessarily the mother of invention?

No I'm sure that's not right, surely THEY'LL THINK OF SOMETHING at the last minute.

I just LOVE those Star Trek episodes when the starship enterprise is stuck in dire straits but 5 minutes before the show ends the engineering crew comes up with a solution to the problem.

Somehow I doubt the same will happen when the peak oil date comes.

[JudoCow09]

Because OF COURSE we'll only have 5 MINUTES to think of something. Silly me.

[/sarcasm]

[cube]

Because OF COURSE we'll only have 5 MINUTES to think of something. Silly me.

[/sarcasm]

Every since Drake drilled his first oil well (1859) the doomsayers have been predicting that peak oil is just "around the corner". Luckily the doomsayers have been wrong....at least for now. We are no closer to a PO solution even after all these years.