Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

New EROEI research

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

New EROEI research

Unread postby aspera » Thu 12 Dec 2019, 18:15:22

Extended Energy Return on Investment of Multiproduct Energy Systems.
by Mohammad Salehiab, Hossein Khajehpoura & Yadollah Saboohia
Energy (Online 7 December 2019, 116700)
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.116700
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544219323953

Highlights
    - The EROI of a multi-product oil and gas production unit in Iran is assessed.
    - LCA is used to obtain environmental externalities as an embodied energy investment.
    - Consideration of LCA emissions and indirect energy investments reduces EROI by 75%.
    - The exergy cost-based allocation of the invested energy is investigated.
    - Improper allocation of invested energy results in an error of aggregation of 11.3%.
Abstract [emphasis added]
Energy Return on Investment (EROI) is an indicator of how efficient is an energy supply system. In the present study, the conventional approach of EROI assessment is extended to include the equivalent energy investment needed for offsetting the life cycle environmental impacts. Moreover, the issue of allocation of the invested energy among different by-products is addressed. The EROI of multiple products has been specified using different benchmarks of price, energy content, exergy content, and exergy costs. The application of the concept is demonstrated through a case study of an Iranian oil production unit. The overall conventional and environmentally-extended EROI values of the produced oil in Iran is estimated to be 26.8:1, 23.3:1, respectively. Also, when taking the downstream environmental emissions into account, the EROI will be as low as 6.8:1. This shows that the EROI may be overestimated by 75% if the embodied costs are not taken into account. The comparison of the aggregated EROI estimates based on state-properties (price, energy, and exergy) and disaggregated process-property (exergy cost), gives a measure of the error of aggregation. It is shown that this error may be as high as 11.5% in the case of the multi-product energy system of the studied case.
Oceans rise, empires fall. - Apocalypse Lullaby, Wailin' Jennys.
Plant a garden. Soon.
User avatar
aspera
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 16:22:49
Location: Lakeland Republic

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 15 Dec 2019, 11:43:48

Before worrying about the error on a metric that isn't used within the industry for..anything...ever....how about we decide if the metric has any meaning in the first place, or at least agree on how to calculate it?

By definition, any EROEI greater than 1 needs to ignore some energy inputs along the way, and that has always been the rub with the calculation....it is relative to the system the author uses.

Charlie Hall in the early 80's demonstrated it can't predict real world effects related to oil and gas, and we had a local poster so embarrassed by his results trying to do the same thing that he removed his work from the internet.

This concept has attracted doomers and peak oilers alike, the peak oilers were attracted after their declining oil production idea 15 years ago became a joke with the punchline being their understanding of resource economics, and doomers like any idea that is a doom trigger.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4857
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby aspera » Sun 15 Dec 2019, 13:51:07

AdamB wrote:... a metric that isn't used within the industry for..anything...ever...

Speaking of Charlie Hall.
Note the several post-2016 studies published using EROEI.
I'll take your word Adam for the not "within the industry" but, increasingly, people do seem to be using the metric.

Rigo E. Melgar-Melgar & Charles A.S. Hall (2020) Why ecological economics needs to return to its roots: The biophysical foundation of socio-economic systems. Ecological Economics, 169, March 2020, 106567.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106567
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub
[post-2016 emphasis added].

Excerpt: Studies of EROI, have been very much a part of the renaissance of biophysical economics, especially in Europe and China where depletion of oil and gas are much more pertinent issues than in the United States (for now). In 2011, a special issue of 21 articles in the Journal Sustainability on “New Studies in EROI,” furthered cemented the importance of biophysical analyses to understand the nexus between energy and economic process (Hall and Hansen, 2011). Younger researchers entering the field have developed new measurements of EROI. For example, Court and Fizaine (2017) have derived the energy cost of generating all of the energy a society uses from its monetary costs, for which there are good records going back centuries. Celi et al. (2018) derived estimates from CO2 released (which were required for environmental accounting) and concluded that these were not too different from the values reported in the literature. A formal comparison of EROI values derived from these very different approaches would seem to be a useful endeavor. Many analysts believe EROI is a critical tool for understanding the future of civilization.

The frontier of BPE today includes a wide range of other topics as well. For example, Hall and Ramírez-Pascualli (2013) explore how vital fossil fuels are for the development of modern socio-economic systems. Feng et al. (2013) provide one of the first biophysical analyses of fossil fuels in China, and forecast future trends in energy supply and demand for the world's second largest economy. In Spain's Photovoltaic Revolution: The Energy Return on Investment (2013), the authors of this paper worked with Pedro Prieto to perform one of the first large-scale biophysical analysis of solar energy to comprehensively assess the EROI of solar power when all costs are computed, and to understand the implications of subsides via feed-in-tariff polices for the overall economic crisis of Spain. In America's Most Sustainable Cities and Regions: Surviving the 21st Century Megatrends, Day and Hall (2016) provide a comprehensive biophysical analysis of how the urban and rural regions of the United States will cope with the threat of climate change depending on the situation regarding access to energy, and the probability of environmental impacts. In Energy, Complexity and Wealth Maximization, Ayres (2016) gives a comprehensive survey of energy in wealth creation, and emphasizes how all evolutionary processes have always depended on physical laws. Palmer and Floyd (2017) undertake a comprehensive analysis of EROI of photovoltaic systems and their increased needs for backup as they become a larger share of our economy. Dittmar (2017) undertakes a comprehensive analysis of oil futures by region and provides a much less rosy perspective than official sources such as EIA. Tverberg (2019) sees peak oil use coming not only from geological limitations but also from the resulting price increases and the impacts on the poor. Herendeen (2019) calls for analyzing the spatial impacts of “renewability” and the biophysical implications of net zero energy plans in cities such as Burlington, Vermont which have already achieved 100% renewable electricity coverage. Hall and Balogh (2019) consider the biophysical requirements of our urban centers in their comprehensive textbook on Urban Ecology.
Oceans rise, empires fall. - Apocalypse Lullaby, Wailin' Jennys.
Plant a garden. Soon.
User avatar
aspera
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 16:22:49
Location: Lakeland Republic

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 25 Dec 2019, 12:40:35

aspera wrote:
AdamB wrote:... a metric that isn't used within the industry for..anything...ever...

Speaking of Charlie Hall.
Note the several post-2016 studies published using EROEI.
I'll take your word Adam for the not "within the industry" but, increasingly, people do seem to be using the metric.


They certainly are. Which is why I was specific about the industry that our favorite fisheries ecologist applied it to way back when, and demonstrated exactly what I said. He couldn't use it to predict crap within just the US oil and gas industry. Recently right here in this forum we had an engineer with no oil and gas experience prove it all over again, except unlike Charlie who can't remove his reference from the place it was published, our local nitwit removed everything he could find of his work to keep the riotous laughter to a minimum in the future. Admittedly, unlike Charlie's work, the errors in his were spotted during peer and/or technical review and in part led to the that riotous laughter I mentioned.

Let's hope Charlie does better next go round.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4857
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby aspera » Thu 26 Dec 2019, 04:33:25

AdamB wrote:Recently right here in this forum we had an engineer with no oil and gas experience prove it all over again...

Adam, can you point me to where on the board I can find this proof? I've searched, and found nothing. Without more details (e.g., his name, topic-name, dates) I'm not having any luck.
Oceans rise, empires fall. - Apocalypse Lullaby, Wailin' Jennys.
Plant a garden. Soon.
User avatar
aspera
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 16:22:49
Location: Lakeland Republic

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby Zarquon » Thu 26 Dec 2019, 05:41:06

My wild guess would be any thread with "ETP" in the title.
Zarquon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri 06 May 2016, 19:53:46

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 26 Dec 2019, 10:23:03

aspera wrote:
AdamB wrote:Recently right here in this forum we had an engineer with no oil and gas experience prove it all over again...

Adam, can you point me to where on the board I can find this proof? I've searched, and found nothing. Without more details (e.g., his name, topic-name, dates) I'm not having any luck.


Of course I can provide you the reference.

This is where the complete works of eroei proving that it didn't work at all WERE.

http://thehillsgroup.org/

Darn right you can't find anything nowadays, that is the entire point. Can you imagine the laughter required to have someone completely remove all evidence from the web?
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4857
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 26 Dec 2019, 10:27:58

Zarquon wrote:My wild guess would be any thread with "ETP" in the title.


That would be a great place to find our conversations about it. Turned down for official review because it was that bad, Short lost bets using the thing to make predictions and then welshed, I offered to do a technical review on it as I happen to be both familiar and experienced in this regard and Short wouldn't even provide how to use it as a footnote, as authors are conveniently hidden, it was never published, plus he wanted you to pay for it.

He hasn't ventured how much he made off of suckers who fell for the thing.

It also wouldn't hurt to search some of my posts from 2 years back where, within approximately a few minutes, I volunteered an accurate reason why the thing was silly. 2 years later, the author figured it out and began removing all the evidence.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4857
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby aspera » Thu 26 Dec 2019, 20:00:51

Thanks Adam and Zarquon for the leads. I may pass on doing a search within this site for now. I don't want to wade through the ETP/anti-ETP, short/anti-short conversations in search for insights on the economy as an energy system.

Those particular pro/anti conversations do seem to pop up with the least provocation; but they are contained to this site. Unfortunately, it's become impossible to start a new post on EROEI, etc. (like this one) without a quick return to them.

Now, I'm a believer in spirited, lively, heated debate. But sometimes, in place of conversation, posts become attempts at thought/conversation stoppers. A little bit of muddy water is par for the internet (and discourse in general). But too muddy and a site can't help in moving forward with developing a better understanding of energy/economy/environment linkages.

Thankfully, the EROEI and EcoE concepts are getting increasing attention elsewhere (as the citations listed a few posts back suggest). And the attention does seems to be of reasonable quality given the peer-reviewed outlets. So, the conversation is moving forward. Just elsewhere for now.

I would be thankful for advice on which other websites do a decent job of discussing the EROEI/EcoE notion.

(1) I've been following Morgan's https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com for some time now. The SEEDS system underlying his work hasn't been published yet; so, for now, it lacks peer-review. But the basic concept is straightforward, his explanations (and responses to questions) are clear and concise, and he's, slowly, been more forthcoming with details. For now, it has face validity. But more validation is needed.

(2) I've been hunting for information on the EROEI of food systems (at various scales and scopes). There's work by Canning et al. (2010) for the USDA. An image from the work:
Image
Years ago Eric Garza posted some work. There's the shell of his work at http://ericgarza.info/classes/ But most stuff seems gone or behind a wall.

2015 - There is a short piece by Garza at http://ericgarza.info/wp-content/upload ... or-web.pdf

2013-2014 - Resilience.org had an archive of Garza's work: http://www.resilience.org/tag/eroeioffoodproduction/ But he asked that they remove the posts. Not sure what to make of that. I've tried to contact him without a response so far.

Other food EROEI sites:

2019 info: https://www.chooseenergy.com/blog/energ ... roduction/

2018 info: https://georgejetson.org/eroi-of-food-production/

2016 info: http://www.isecoeco.org/wp-content/uplo ... hew-S..pdf

2011 info: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plu ... d-on-food/

2010 info: http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/en ... -food.html
Oceans rise, empires fall. - Apocalypse Lullaby, Wailin' Jennys.
Plant a garden. Soon.
User avatar
aspera
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 16:22:49
Location: Lakeland Republic

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby marmico » Thu 26 Dec 2019, 22:00:13

(1) I've been following Morgan's https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com for some time now. The SEEDS system underlying his work hasn't been published yet; so, for now, it lacks peer-review. But the basic concept is straightforward, his explanations (and responses to questions) are clear and concise, and he's, slowly, been more forthcoming with details. For now, it has face validity. But more validation is needed.


One look at the left panel suggests that ECoE (Morgan's acronym for net energy analysis) plays a minor role in the economy. The major role is some financial adventurism algorithm as a subtraction to the measured GDP level. Why is the blue line (GDP) not extrapolated like the black line (C-GDP) and the red line (ECoE)? Prima facie, it is GIGO.

Image
marmico
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 13:46:35

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 26 Dec 2019, 23:39:04



Cool. But this isn't a food site. And EROEI has been specifically attempted as a real world predictor within the oil and gas industry, and has failed miserably in that respect every time that I am aware of. As a matter of fact, I'm not even aware of anyone who has managed to assemble the most basic component of an oil and gas eroei calculation, that of a drilling rig and the wells it drills. If you find anyone doing that, let us know, please.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4857
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby aspera » Fri 27 Dec 2019, 03:02:15

AdamB wrote:But this isn't a food site.

I respectfully disagree. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that industrial agriculture turns oil and natural gas into food. The site's mission is “exploring the issue of hydrocarbon depletion.” One consequence of that depletion is food insecurity.
Oceans rise, empires fall. - Apocalypse Lullaby, Wailin' Jennys.
Plant a garden. Soon.
User avatar
aspera
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 16:22:49
Location: Lakeland Republic

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby asg70 » Fri 27 Dec 2019, 03:51:17

aspera wrote:It's only a slight exaggeration to say that industrial agriculture turns oil and natural gas into food.


It's actually a rather big exaggeration. The amount of oil that has to be used for food has been grossly overstated by peakers. As far as food production goes, we should be more concerned about topsoil loss, climate change, ocean deadzones, overfishing, and freshwater supplies than peak oil.

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-I'm glad Trump is in there now. I think we'll have a vaccine in a couple of months. (mmasters, 3/17/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3470
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 27 Dec 2019, 09:57:37

aspera wrote:
AdamB wrote:But this isn't a food site.

I respectfully disagree. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that industrial agriculture turns oil and natural gas into food.


It is a substantial exaggeration. All activity on this planet of all organisms requires the expenditure of energy. Human agriculture is just one of those things. That energy comes in many different forms and sources. Re-configuring this basic fact into a phrase that makes it appear that oil and natural gas are special encourages the "oil and natural gas uber alles" legions who created the peak oil meme in the first place.

Encouraging their brand of sloppy energy thinking (as well as the intellectual dereliction of the net energy backup scheme) is only that. Encouraging limited thinking on quite an expansive subject in order to argue doom.

aspera wrote:The site's mission is “exploring the issue of hydrocarbon depletion.” One consequence of that depletion is food insecurity.


Your quote makes a good argument for banning the net energy argument altogether. But only 1 portion of your quote comes from this site. The other is a conclusion you are drawing. One the Amish can certainly disprove in a heartbeat.

Hydrocarbon depletion is in the mission. A consequence of that MIGHT be food insecurity, but claimed peak oils of 15 years ago now certainly didn't cause it. Lower claimed EROEI across half a century now hasn't caused it. You simply claiming that this is a food site because of it doesn't make it so.

Like I said, this isn't a food site. Net energy hasn't meant anything to the oil industry in the history of the energy. Not for a single well, project, field, play or country. Ever. But if you want to discuss it in the gardening section, knock yourself out.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4857
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby aspera » Fri 27 Dec 2019, 13:04:18

AdamB wrote:Encouraging their brand of sloppy energy thinking... Encouraging limited thinking on quite an expansive subject in order to argue doom.

I'm not sure who your reading. But the sources that I'm finding are not gloom and doom folks. And they are not sloppy thinkers. I'm trying to share credible reports, peer-reviewed if possible, and provide links to sources. Consider the CSS, USDA, PCI, and others.

http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-food ... -factsheet

Image

https://www.postcarbon.org/publications ... y-descent/

https://www.academia.edu/5548375/Canning_et_al_2010

Image
AdamB wrote:One the Amish can certainly disprove in a heartbeat.
Since the Amish are not part of industrial agricultural, and making use of the CSS data (figure and link above), you're making the same point as I am.

AdamB wrote:Like I said, this isn't a food site.

If we were to extend your logic, then we shouldn't be discussing EVs, or the "Stock Market Crash!" or Greta, or Cyclones and Hurricanes, or Happy Talk, or Wildfires, or deluges and droughts, or Repo rates, or many of the items listed as Recent Board Topics.

Yet, for many board participants, these and many other topics fit the site.
Oceans rise, empires fall. - Apocalypse Lullaby, Wailin' Jennys.
Plant a garden. Soon.
User avatar
aspera
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 16:22:49
Location: Lakeland Republic

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 27 Dec 2019, 13:40:40

aspera wrote:
AdamB wrote:Encouraging their brand of sloppy energy thinking... Encouraging limited thinking on quite an expansive subject in order to argue doom.

I'm not sure who your reading.


Exactly the same people we were talking about earlier on this very website. I realize you have no urge to sort through the conversations, but you then don't get to claim you don't know who we are talking about when the information has been provided and you just didn't want to be bothered to find it.

aspera wrote:But the sources that I'm finding are not gloom and doom folks. And they are not sloppy thinkers. I'm trying to share credible reports, peer-reviewed if possible, and provide links to sources. Consider the CSS, USDA, PCI, and others.


Excellent. So you HAVE found real world consequences using eroei modeling?



Or not apparently.

aspera wrote:
AdamB wrote:One the Amish can certainly disprove in a heartbeat.
Since the Amish are not part of industrial agricultural, and making use of the CSS data (figure and link above), you're making the same point as I am.


Not at all. My point is that the Amish don't care about eroei either, it has no more to do with them than it does oil and gas development.

aspera wrote:
AdamB wrote:Like I said, this isn't a food site.

If we were to extend your logic, then we shouldn't be discussing EVs, or the "Stock Market Crash!" or Greta, or Cyclones and Hurricanes, or Happy Talk, or Wildfires, or deluges and droughts, or Repo rates, or many of the items listed as Recent Board Topics.


We certainly trend off topic quite a bit, don't we? :-D

But that isn't how this thread has gone. You referenced eroei research related to oil and gas, I made some assertions about its value in that industry, and you changed the topic to food. The original question wasn't about food eroei, and I don't dispute that maybe there is some use in the metric when it comes to gardening or agriculture. My expertise isn't in gardening or agriculture.

I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong when it comes to eroei within the oil and gas industry, and have only one criteria eroei that needs met to determine its value. Someone needs to have used eroei as a go/no-go decision on drilling a well, beginning exploration for a field, developing a field, beginning a project or workover, deciding to drill acreage across a play or formation, to DO , or NOT DO, something oily.

In 150+ years, millions of wells, tens of thousands of fields, hundreds of thousands of projects, to validate eroei as something of value, you just need to find one. Ever.

Then we can discuss how well (or not well) it went, the differences between using eroei and IRR calculations, and everything else.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4857
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby aspera » Fri 27 Dec 2019, 15:03:11

AdamB wrote:I realize you have no urge to sort through the conversations...

Not sure how you concluded that. I have searched the site (sorry if I gave you the impression that I hadn't). I asked for specific help. You gave what seemed to me to be an unspecific reference to ETP and short. Not much help since when I search using those terms it turns up lots of stuff, mostly scree, complaints about bets, and ad hominem attacks. No insights. In such situations I give up quickly (a coping strategy for maintaining sanity in the massive web). But perhaps you can be more specific?

What is it about the CSS research, or the PCI or USDA/Canning et al. research that you find wanting? Please be specific, not just another argument against EROEI. I do understand your thoughts there, I just don't agree with you. But I do want to learn about specific flaws that you've found in the CSS, PCI and/or USDA research.

AdamB wrote:My point is that the Amish don't care about eroei either...

I think that you are missing the point Adam. The issue is about applying the concept of EROEI to the hydrocarbon-dependent industrial food system. Something that the CSS document (http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-food ... -factsheet) highlights. Although they do not use the term EROEI or EcoE, their diagrams and text are about those concepts. It's hard to read their image at https://www.resilience.org/wp-content/u ... 24x768.jpg without seeing EROEI/EcoE at work.

AdamB wrote:We certainly trend off topic quite a bit, don't we? :-D

Not really. My interest in EROEI and EcoE is not constrained to their application to the oil and gas industry (I have no expertise whatsoever in that industry. Only what I've picked up here, at http://peakoilbarrel.com/, and at TOD years ago). I've always had more interest in its application to food systems. But, as you know, most of the development of these metrics has been focused on oil and gas. The extended-EROEI notion is relevant to food. And Morgan's EcoE is almost entirely about understanding the entire economy as an energy system (not a financial system), and thus applies to the food system. Lately, Morgan's mentions food insecurity more and more, as a consequence of a rising EcoE.

When I find a new research publication applying EROEI/EcoE to food systems, I'll post it here. But the two opening entries do have a food connection.

(1) The opening article has a focus on life cycle assessment (LCA). (This is the same framework used by the CSS folks in analyzing the US food system.) It was useful because it has an "upstream/downstream" perspective, instead of just looking at one end of a system. That perspective is important when looking into the food system.

(2) The second article I included is about socio-economic systems and includes discussion of EROEI. I trust you'd agree that gets close to food systems.
Rigo E. Melgar-Melgar & Charles A.S. Hall (2020) Why ecological economics needs to return to its roots: The biophysical foundation of socio-economic systems. Ecological Economics, 169, March 2020, 106567.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106567
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub
Oceans rise, empires fall. - Apocalypse Lullaby, Wailin' Jennys.
Plant a garden. Soon.
User avatar
aspera
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 16:22:49
Location: Lakeland Republic

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby asg70 » Fri 27 Dec 2019, 17:11:57

Aspera, your chart helps prove my point.

Note the 4% for food transportation.

That sticks a knife into the classic peak oil narrative of the trucks stopping and store shelves going empty. It also calls into question the merits of relocalizing (not that it wouldn't be a good thing to do anyway). Also, it turns out that the ultra-mechanized mega-farms are pretty efficient in terms of fuel use for factory machinery. And the green revolution got its start in the early part of the 20th century via fixing nitrogen out of the air via HYDRO power. From Wikipedia:

In 1905, Norwegian physicist Kristian Birkeland, funded by engineer and industrialist Samuel Eyde, developed the Birkeland–Eyde process which fixes atmospheric nitrogen as nitrous oxides.[41] The Birkeland–Eyde process requires a considerable amount of electricity, constraining possible site location; fortunately, Norway possessed several sites capable of meeting these needs. Norsk Hydro was founded 2 December 1905 to commercialize the new process.


So the "oil we eat" argument is grossly exaggerated. Is there a lot of waste in the food system? ABSOLUTELY. Just the amount of food that winds up getting thrown out at the end of the cycle without even being eaten is staggering. But that just illustrates how much slack there is in the system should resources become scarce. We waste a lot of BTUs because being sloppy carries with it very little cost, not because how it works now is the only way it can work.

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-I'm glad Trump is in there now. I think we'll have a vaccine in a couple of months. (mmasters, 3/17/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3470
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 27 Dec 2019, 19:38:48

aspera wrote:
AdamB wrote:I realize you have no urge to sort through the conversations...

Not sure how you concluded that.


Why...you told it to us yourself.

aspera wrote:I may pass on doing a search within this site for now. I don't want to wade through the ETP/anti-ETP, short/anti-short conversations in search for insights on the economy as an energy system.


aspera wrote:But perhaps you can be more specific?


Sure. See the metric I mentioned, sort of a threshold for determining if the metric is of value. It is simple, there is a sample size of millions of wells drilled spanning parts of 3 centuries now, and if anywhere in there someone can find the metric being the thing that success is defined by, we'll have a ball game.

aspera wrote:What is it about the CSS research, or the PCI or USDA/Canning et al. research that you find wanting?


Well, if you've got the $35 to buy the original article, we can start there. However, the main fault of an eroei calculation is by definition, it cannot include all the energy inputs. Otherwise eroei by definition can't be equal to or greater than 1. Therefore, also by definition, we need to exclude some of the inputs. The instant that happens, we now have a metric that is in no way scientific, but completely personal, and in some cases (such as Charlie Hall's work) isn't even calculated within energy measures, but he converts them to dollars. How about that for half baked?

aspera wrote:Please be specific, not just another argument against EROEI. I do understand your thoughts there, I just don't agree with you. But I do want to learn about specific flaws that you've found in the CSS, PCI and/or USDA research.


The first link was food. Wish I had enough time left in life to garner the experience in food eroei I've got in oil and gas, but I don't. PCI delivered a 404 error, and Canning required some form of sign in to gain access to.

How about we discuss some more seminal work, and you can point out what is now done correctly, as opposed to what obviously failed? Here is the article itself, seminal work even.

aspera wrote:
AdamB wrote:We certainly trend off topic quite a bit, don't we? :-D

Not really. My interest in EROEI and EcoE is not constrained to their application to the oil and gas industry (I have no expertise whatsoever in that industry. Only what I've picked up here, at http://peakoilbarrel.com/, and at TOD years ago). I've always had more interest in its application to food systems.


Then we can part friends with different interests. :)
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4857
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: New EROEI research

Unread postby aspera » Sat 28 Dec 2019, 01:32:43

AdamB wrote:Why...you told it to us yourself.
As I said above Adam, sorry I gave you that impression. My text was intended to be that your advice to search using ETP or short just turned up too much heat, not enough light (all the anti-ETP and anti-short repetition). I'm in agreement with you about wishing I had enough time left to sort through all the noise.

As for asking for specifics. I had thought that you were suggesting particular posts on this site that I could consult. My mistake.

AdamB wrote:Well, if you've got the $35 to buy the original article, we can start there.
...
PCI delivered a 404 error, and Canning required some form of sign in to gain access to.

I have these publications. Just tell me how to get them to you. Glad to have your feedback.

AdamB wrote:How about we discuss some more seminal work, and you can point out what is now done correctly, as opposed to what obviously failed? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5999536_Petroleum_Drilling_and_Production_in_the_United_States_Yield_per_Effort_and_Net_Energy_Analysis

From 1981 no less! Seminal indeed. As I said, I have no expertise whatsoever in that industry. I'd turn to your expertise to point out what's correct and what's not in that publication. Such expertise is why I'm still coming to this site despite its increasing noise.
Oceans rise, empires fall. - Apocalypse Lullaby, Wailin' Jennys.
Plant a garden. Soon.
User avatar
aspera
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 16:22:49
Location: Lakeland Republic

Next

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests