Flow wrote:Now if you take all of the energy input verses the energy gained, the EROEI is crap. But when you think that we used a lot of cheap and abundant energy (electric and natural gas) to make this oil that is more expensive and less abundant, EROEI doens't really matter.
A better way to look at it is FOSSIL FUEL return on FOSSIEL FUEL invested.
Flow wrote:So let me get this straight, you don't understand this statement:
If we use electricty from a nuclear power plant to strip mine the coal out of the ground and we produce natural gas that can be created from Coal Gasifaction to heat the coal during the coal liquefaction we are using two forms of cheaper and abundant enegery to create a more expensive and less abundant energy source. To make Coal Liquefaction profitable, oil must sell for around $35 a barrel. To make Tar Sands profitable, oil must sell for around $30 a barrel. We are hoovering around $60 a barrel so the cost of the cheaper electricty and natural gas don't really matter. And as I have stated, as the "real" natural gas becomes scarce, we can always manufature it too.
Take off the Peak Oil blinders and think about it for a few moments. There is nothing non-sense about it.
Flow wrote:So let me get this straight, you don't understand this statement:
If we use electricty from a nuclear power plant to strip mine the coal out of the ground and we produce natural gas that can be created from Coal Gasifaction to heat the coal during the coal liquefaction we are using two forms of cheaper and abundant enegery to create a more expensive and less abundant energy source. To make Coal Liquefaction profitable, oil must sell for around $35 a barrel. To make Tar Sands profitable, oil must sell for around $30 a barrel. We are hoovering around $60 a barrel so the cost of the cheaper electricty and natural gas don't really matter. And as I have stated, as the "real" natural gas becomes scarce, we can always manufature it too.
Optimist wrote:Hint: Here is the systematic error that you (and others) commit. Say you evaluated 100 different alternatives to oil and all proved unworkable. What does that tell you about Technology #101? A: Nothing!
So sit back, relax and wait for #101.
Optimist wrote:So sit back, relax and wait for #101.
Technology is not energy.
Dezakin wrote:Technology is not energy.
Sure it is, if you'll recall its been demonstrated the capacity for nuclear for long enough to get to whatever comes after it.
Huh? Technology is just a transformer of existing energy sources.
Dezakin wrote:Huh? Technology is just a transformer of existing energy sources.
I suppose. Sounds like a semantic game. I'm not sure I would label the slow march of all heavy elements to iron across the eons as an energy source without the technology to exploit it.
If you haven't noticed, I edit my post and input stuff that is missing. I also input additional important info from time to time.
This means that any technology and philosophy not compatible with steady state cycling (fossil fuels, nuclear fission including breeder technology and constantly expanding populations) will eventually FAIL!!!!!!!!!
unless we get the idea that at some point, growth will no longer be possible,
The descripitons on solar and nuclear power are fallacious anyway
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests