Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

energy collapse

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

energy collapse

Unread postby onlooker » Tue 22 Aug 2017, 17:15:32

Inside the new economic science of capitalism’s slow-burn energy collapse
And why the struggle for a new economic paradigm is about to get real
A groundbreaking study in Elsevier’s Ecological Economics journal by two French economists, for the first time proves the world has passed a point-of-no-return in its capacity to extract fossil fuel energy: with massive implications for the long-term future of global economic growth.

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence ... 7344fab6be
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10454
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: energy collapse

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 22 Aug 2017, 20:16:50

onlooker wrote:
Inside the new economic science of capitalism’s slow-burn energy collapse
And why the struggle for a new economic paradigm is about to get real
A groundbreaking study in Elsevier’s Ecological Economics journal by two French economists, for the first time proves the world has passed a point-of-no-return in its capacity to extract fossil fuel energy: with massive implications for the long-term future of global economic growth.

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence ... 7344fab6be


You would think people would check the credibility of the author before referencing neat another doom groupie. The Glen Beck of doomer porn, and that's just according to wiki.

Discover has labelled Ahmed as a "doomer." A December 2013 blog post by Kloor asserts: "Once someone starts down this civilization-is-collapsing road, like Guardian blogger Nafeez Ahmed, it’s hard to stop. If you want a tour guide to the apocalypse, Ahmed is your guy."[26] A March 2014 blog post says: "Like the most warped fundamentalists who exploit tragedy, the merchants of eco-doom also cynically seize on current events. On this score, nobody rivals Nafeez Ahmed (the UK Left’s faux-scholarly equivalent to Glenn Beck), who has an unquenchable appetite for peak-everything porn."[27]
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: energy collapse

Unread postby onlooker » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 05:59:36

Adam, Ahmed is just transmitting the news of the study by the French economists, the conclusions reached are not his, but from said study. Boy.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10454
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: energy collapse

Unread postby marmico » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 07:03:36

The French economists' study.

https://victorcourt.files.wordpress.com ... ctions.pdf

Charles Hall is cited 5 times. Hall's former pupil, David Murphy, is cited 4 times. Murphy did the meta-literature EROI analysis several years back and said that global oil EROI at the wellhead was 17.

The conclusion of the study is that in 2012 oil EROI at the wellhead is 15. No big deal. It ain't ground breaking research. But onlooker would rather believe the end is nigh.
marmico
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 13:46:35

Re: energy collapse

Unread postby onlooker » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 08:45:18

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2013 ... it-bitumen

Tar sands retrieved by surface mining has an EROI of only about 5:1, according to research released Tuesday. Tar sands retrieved from deeper beneath the earth, through steam injection, fares even worse, with a maximum average ratio of just 2.9 to 1. That means one unit of natural gas is needed to create less than three units of oil-based energy.

Hall, who wasn't involved in Hughes' study, thinks the EROI for oil sands would fall closer to 1:1 if the tar sands' full life cycle—including transportation, refinement into higher quality products, end use efficiency and environmental costs—was taken into account.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10454
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: energy collapse

Unread postby Subjectivist » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 09:30:10

onlooker wrote:https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130219/oil-sands-mining-tar-sands-alberta-canada-energy-return-on-investment-eroi-natural-gas-in-situ-dilbit-bitumen

Tar sands retrieved by surface mining has an EROI of only about 5:1, according to research released Tuesday. Tar sands retrieved from deeper beneath the earth, through steam injection, fares even worse, with a maximum average ratio of just 2.9 to 1. That means one unit of natural gas is needed to create less than three units of oil-based energy.

Hall, who wasn't involved in Hughes' study, thinks the EROI for oil sands would fall closer to 1:1 if the tar sands' full life cycle—including transportation, refinement into higher quality products, end use efficiency and environmental costs—was taken into account.


Uh huh. These so called studies involve people seeking data to support a conclusion they already believe. This kind of confirmation bias always leads to accepting supportinf data without question while discounting or outright ignoring contrary data.
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: 4395
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: energy collapse

Unread postby onlooker » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 09:50:09

Can anyone show whose studies are undeniably more credible and incontrovertible? If so I would love to see them. Until then, we are all just gleaning different research and analysis and not particularly qualified I think to be able to discern which analysis is the true accurate one. So, we are all just voicing our educated guesses and preferences anyway.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10454
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: energy collapse

Unread postby Subjectivist » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 10:12:03

onlooker wrote:Can anyone show whose studies are undeniably more credible and incontrovertible? If so I would love to see them. Until then, we are all just gleaning different research and analysis and not particularly qualified I think to be able to discern which analysis is the true accurate one. So, we are all just voicing our educated guesses and preferences anyway.


The entire theory of EROEI was created by peak resource advocates to support their view of reality. It is impossible to find a contrary view because you either accept the premise that you can calculate EROIE or you do not.

Philisophically EROEI is a neat catch all idea. In the real world however you can not actually account for all the energy that is used between your wheels spinning and the oil in the formation in the ground. How do you decide where to stop counting? For example, the person who drilled the well that released the oil had to get to the field somehow, do you count his fuel use? If you count his fuel use what about the energy to build his vehicle? What about the energy to build, pave and maintain the road he travled to get there? The same issue arises from the steel in the rig and drill pipe. Do you count the energy needed to manufacture the pipe? How much of the energy do you count, do you include the blast furnace and steel mill, or do you go back and count the mine, and then the miner and then the tools and equipment used to find and mine the ore?

Layer on layer on layer means if you want to you can keep adding or subtracting kayers of energy until you get the answer you want to get. This makes EROEI studies into a self referencing system that has no valid meaning in the broader context. If person A thinks tar sand is great they get a 9:1 EROEI while person B who thinks they are a wasted effort gets a 1:1!
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: 4395
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: energy collapse

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 10:12:28

Subjectivist wrote:
onlooker wrote:https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130219/oil-sands-mining-tar-sands-alberta-canada-energy-return-on-investment-eroi-natural-gas-in-situ-dilbit-bitumen

Tar sands retrieved by surface mining has an EROI of only about 5:1, according to research released Tuesday. Tar sands retrieved from deeper beneath the earth, through steam injection, fares even worse, with a maximum average ratio of just 2.9 to 1. That means one unit of natural gas is needed to create less than three units of oil-based energy.

Hall, who wasn't involved in Hughes' study, thinks the EROI for oil sands would fall closer to 1:1 if the tar sands' full life cycle—including transportation, refinement into higher quality products, end use efficiency and environmental costs—was taken into account.


Uh huh. These so called studies involve people seeking data to support a conclusion they already believe. This kind of confirmation bias always leads to accepting supportinf data without question while discounting or outright ignoring contrary data.

Many hard crash doomers call MSM economic news (including facts on the ground, not just predictions) conspiracies and lies, and say we should listen to the "real truth", on their favorite hard crash blogs, citing the likes of zerohedge constantly, etc.

Is it any coincidence that these folks will strongly tend be blind to the problem with "accepting supportinf [sic] data without question while discounting or outright ignoring contrary data"?

You're right of course. Sadly, brick walls don't change their views much.
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: 6733
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: energy collapse

Unread postby onlooker » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 14:03:15

The fact that calculating EROEI is quite difficult and open to interpretation should not disqualify it from being attempted. In fact it seems many have actually done that. One can compare it to a person's health. One can wait till one is in pain or some other signal that something is wrong in ones body or one can preempt and prevent by going for a medical checkup to uncover the comprehensive status of one's health. Well, same with the status of the Oil Industry we can wait till prices indicate something is very wrong or we can try and find out what the balance of energy return on energy invested is. In doing so we can ascertain how close we are to the point whereby further exploitation of Oil is counterproductive in an energetic/economic sense. I include this study about EROEI

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687841/
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10454
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: energy collapse

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 15:56:47

You with all your idiotic, fact free, sense free, meaningless posts are the LAST person to be able to credibly attack another poster who has demonstrated a ton more knowledge than them over the years on topics like economics.

But thanks for playing. While you're at it, you should go whole hog and throw in a bunch of childless name calling while you're at it. After all, it might gain you a few fans.
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: 6733
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: energy collapse

Unread postby Subjectivist » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 16:52:31

onlooker wrote:The fact that calculating EROEI is quite difficult and open to interpretation should not disqualify it from being attempted. In fact it seems many have actually done that. One can compare it to a person's health. One can wait till one is in pain or some other signal that something is wrong in ones body or one can preempt and prevent by going for a medical checkup to uncover the comprehensive status of one's health. Well, same with the status of the Oil Industry we can wait till prices indicate something is very wrong or we can try and find out what the balance of energy return on energy invested is. In doing so we can ascertain how close we are to the point whereby further exploitation of Oil is counterproductive in an energetic/economic sense. I include this study about EROEI

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687841/



Any science is based on hard numbers, but EROEI is not. As you say it is open to open interpretation, which means at the end it is all a judgement call, not science. Even fuzzy sciences like psychiatry and economics know that if you give a human X ammount of a drug 90 percent of patients will react in a predictable way, or if you raise interest rates to Y level the economic i pact will be in an expected direction. With EROEI nobody can tell you that substituting wind generated electricity to drive the well pumps will have Z impact on oil production compared to using a natural gas powered pump. If they can't do that it is not science, it is si ply opinion dressed up with numbers "open to interpretation"!!!!
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: 4395
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: energy collapse

Unread postby marmico » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 17:33:57

Or perhaps Hall C.A.S., Cleveland C.J., 1981. 'Petroleum Drilling and Production in the United States: Yield per Effort and Net Energy Analysis'. Science 211:576-579


Good one. The projection was that US drilling for petroleum would cease to be a net source of energy by 2000 at the earliest or 2004 at the latest.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17840957
marmico
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 13:46:35

Re: energy collapse

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 19:48:47

onlooker wrote:Adam, Ahmed is just transmitting the news of the study by the French economists, the conclusions reached are not his, but from said study. Boy.


You are obviously not familiar with the term "yellow journalism", and Ahmed's continuous participation in it.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26


Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests