Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

[mooncliff]

"... the petroleum sector's EROI in this country was about 100-to-1 in 1930, meaning one had to burn approximately 1 barrel of oil's worth of energy to get 100 barrels out of the ground. By the 1990s, it is thought, that number slid to less than 36-to-1, and further down to 19-to-1 by 2006.

"If you go from using a 20-to-1 energy return fuel down to a 3-to-1 fuel, economic collapse is guaranteed," as nothing is left for other economic activity..."

"The sharpest difference between biophysical economics and the more widely held "Chicago School" approach is that biophysical economists readily accept the peak oil hypothesis: that society is fast approaching the point where global oil production will peak and then steadily decline."

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10...pagewanted=all

[MulaMan]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

That is complete Whale Blubber.

[mooncliff]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

That is complete Whale Blubber.

Could you be more specific, or is this one of the I-don't-know-what-it-is-but-I-hate-it-so-it-is-not-true arguments?

Unless you can specifically explain what is wrong with the concept in detail, backed up by evidence, there will be no progress in understanding. This kind of thing is not the end of a discussion; it is the beginning.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

Could you be more specific, or is this one of the I-don't-know-what-it-is-but-I-hate-it-so-it-is-not-true arguments?

Unless you can specifically explain what is wrong with the concept in detail, backed up by evidence, there will be no progress in understanding. This kind of thing is not the end of a discussion; it is the beginning.

Care to compare pot-head electric rates from BC Hydro on Vancouver Island to Manitoba Hydro's electric rates????????????????????????????????? Or how about comparing Manitoba Hydro's electric rates to PG&E in California?????????????????? Duke Power's rates to PG&E???????????????

Witness, if you will, Manitoba Hydro with 5,018 mega-watts of DEVELOPED capacity thanks to DEVELOPED hydro-electric dams on the Winnipeg, the Nelson, and the Saskatchewan Rivers and electric rates of just 6.25cents per kwh. And witness Duke Power's 7cents per kwh rate for electricity thanks mainly to atomic energy in the South-east USA.

Now compare these rates to California's eco-fraud rates for power: 26cents per kwh from PG&E--- rates for electricity about FOUR TIMES what they should cost.

Ah, but California has preserved the Eel River for salmon habitat, so no dams were built there. And no atomic energy plants have been built for decades in California. And no new dams built on the Feather River.

California has bet-their-ranch on solar power and windmills. And now we have the reckoning.

Similarly, British Columbia has refused to build new dams. No atomic power is allowed. So, BC now imports its power from the Pacific North-west states, and residential power rates in BC are now 14 cents per kwh, about double what they should cost.

And BC trusted in tidal power that didn't work. Its wind power didn't work. Its solar power was another joke. But the salmon have great habitats on coastal rivers.

Yes, the cheap oil is gone in the world, but there is plenty of heavy oil from tar sands available: about a 200 year supply of it. Yes, the heavy oil is expensive, but it not only can be produced, it IS being produced in mega-quantity.

Yes, the cheap oil is gone, but living in caves and burning candles for light is no alternative.

The lesson is that there is plenty of energy available to serve the needs of mankind. The problem is that the mis-guided environmentalists have taken control of governments, and they have obstructed development of hydro-electric power, atomic power, and heavy oil projects. So, energy bills are skyrocketing, needlessly.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

Care to compare pot-head electric rates from BC Hydro on Vancouver Island to Manitoba Hydro's electric rates????????????????????????????????? Or how about comparing Manitoba Hydro's electric rates to PG&E in California?????????????????? Duke Power's rates to PG&E???????????????

Witness, if you will, Manitoba Hydro with 5,018 mega-watts of DEVELOPED capacity thanks to DEVELOPED hydro-electric dams on the Winnipeg, the Nelson, and the Saskatchewan Rivers and electric rates of just 6.25cents per kwh. And witness Duke Power's 7cents per kwh rate for electricity thanks mainly to atomic energy in the South-east USA.

Now compare these rates to California's eco-fraud rates for power: 26cents per kwh from PG&E--- rates for electricity about FOUR TIMES what they should cost.

Ah, but California has preserved the Eel River for salmon habitat, so no dams were built there. And no atomic energy plants have been built for decades in California. And no new dams built on the Feather River.

California has bet-their-ranch on solar power and windmills. And now we have the reckoning.

Similarly, British Columbia has refused to build new dams. No atomic power is allowed. So, BC now imports its power from the Pacific North-west states, and residential power rates in BC are now 14 cents per kwh, about double what they should cost.

And BC trusted in tidal power that didn't work. Its wind power didn't work. Its solar power was another joke. But the salmon have great habitats on coastal rivers.

Yes, the cheap oil is gone in the world, but there is plenty of heavy oil from tar sands available: about a 200 year supply of it. Yes, the heavy oil is expensive, but it not only can be produced, it IS being produced in mega-quantity.

Yes, the cheap oil is gone, but living in caves and burning candles for light is no alternative.

The lesson is that there is plenty of energy available to serve the needs of mankind. The problem is that the mis-guided environmentalists have taken control of governments, and they have obstructed development of hydro-electric power, atomic power, and heavy oil projects. So, energy bills are skyrocketing, needlessly.

Just reading off of the Bloomberg website that the California Air Resources Board in Sacramento wants 60,000 new plug-in electric vehicles on the road in California, beginning 2012 thru 2014. That means that an average electric bill in San Francisco and Los Angeles, a bill which now costs over $300 per month per residence, will have to rise substantially, once again.

So, maybe by 2014, the average California residence might be paying something like $500 per month for electricity, give or take, but close to it.
And that is the electric bill BEFORE you plug-in your electric car, if you choose to buy one. Electric charge-ups of electric cars will add further to the average electric bill, and substantially so.

The issue is the multi-billions of dollars electric companies have to pay to install upgrades into the electric grid to make electric plug-in cars possible. These costs will be passed-on to utility customers, and soon.

So, the issue of electric rates could be spelling "the end" of the green movement in California and across the world. Otherwise, we all may be living in caves and lighting with candles, not to mention, freezing in the dark in winter.

The Christian-right was absolutely terrible in America, especially under George Bush, but the radical environmentalists now setting the agenda in government may be even worse.

[Verdred]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything you say here starvingsteve, but the article/concept is an important one (nice to see it in the times instead of just of the oil drum).

as a transport fuel, oil is pretty hard to beat. and its energy density is a major factor. we can talk all day about electrical generation and batteries et al, but the hirsh report (the highest u.s. gov't sponsored paper, i believe, so far on the topic of peak oil) is pretty clear that it would take 20 years of full-on action PRIOR to peak oil to have no substantial decrease in standard of living, 10 years with significant shocks but the system holds, 0 years before peak and you can kiss it goodbye. That's hirsch, not me.

EROI is important. For instance, if you think you are going to replace a substantial amount of the 85 million or so barrels of oil produced a day with tar sands you are not facing the realities of the inputs required to dig it out, blast it with hot steaming water. I'm not saying insignificant (tar sands), just problematic.

Please don't viciously attack me with you question marks. i'm really trying to play nice here.

[Verdred]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

"California has bet-their-ranch on solar power and windmills. And now we have the reckoning."


Just to chime in on a point of agreement, i can tell you, that even that has been attacked by the Sierra Club for instance not wanting solar panels in "sensitive" desert areas (tortoise, etc). I love tortipodi, but give me break here. I almost wonder if the oil industry hasn't infiltrated some of these groups (did I say that or was that just homeland security tapping the conspiracy center of my brain?)

As for Canada, they better wise up and start protecting their resources or the US will continue to bleed them dry. I'm not an expert on that matter, but it seems that the trade agreements skew heavily into "guaranteeing supply" for the US

[halcyon]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

Yes, the cheap oil is gone, but living in caves and burning candles for light is no alternative.

Three areas to study if one is interested in this argument and is willing to try and falsify one's own position:

1) flow rates vs scaling of various harnessed energy flows
2) capacity substitution and addition in energy production systems vs energy demand as a part of economic growth in time
3) energy return on energy invested per fuel/energy source type vs energy acquisition budget as a % of GDP

Those will open some new thinking horizons.

Recommended reading: Robert Ayres, David Pimentel, Vaclav Smil, IEA WEOs (esp. 2008), Charles A.S. Hall, Joseph Tainter, Peter Terzakian, David MacKay and of course TOD.

[dummass]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

Three areas to study if one is interested in this argument and is willing to try and falsify one's own position:

1) flow rates vs scaling of various harnessed energy flows
2) capacity substitution and addition in energy production systems vs energy demand as a part of economic growth in time
3) energy return on energy invested per fuel/energy source type vs energy acquisition budget as a % of GDP

Those will open some new thinking horizons.

Recommended reading: Robert Ayres, David Pimentel, Vaclav Smil, IEA WEOs (esp. 2008), Charles A.S. Hall, Joseph Tainter, Peter Terzakian, David MacKay and of course TOD.

I'm currently reading Charles Hall and John Day's, "Revisiting The Limits to Growth After Peak Oil."

http://www.esf.edu/efb/hall/2009-05Hall0327.pdf

[Verdred]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

"The United States is held as the prime example. Though the United States is still the world's third-largest producer of oil, its oil production stopped growing more than a decade ago and has flatlined or steadily fallen ever since. Other once-robust oil-producing countries have experienced similar production curves."

I haven't had any coffee yet, but does this article suggest that the US peaked in the 1990's? I guess "more than a decade" is close enough to "before I was even born" or "several decades". Important? Yes, if its a ten year gap one might still think "we can turn it around". If its 40 years and prudhoe bay didn't stop it then maybe we start thinking about alternatives.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

"The United States is held as the prime example. Though the United States is still the world's third-largest producer of oil, its oil production stopped growing more than a decade ago and has flatlined or steadily fallen ever since. Other once-robust oil-producing countries have experienced similar production curves."

I haven't had any coffee yet, but does this article suggest that the US peaked in the 1990's? I guess "more than a decade" is close enough to "before I was even born" or "several decades". Important? Yes, if its a ten year gap one might still think "we can turn it around". If its 40 years and prudhoe bay didn't stop it then maybe we start thinking about alternatives.

The only practical alternatives are: 1.) constructing new hydro-electric dams (for example, damming the Eel River in North-west California and using the water to produce power plus diverting some water south to SF and LA); 2.) constructing new atomic power plants ( which means reprocessing atomic waste or dumping it at sea, or storing atomic waste either at my house in East Sooke, B.C, provided that you pay me some rent, or storing the waste at Yucca Mtn. in Nevada ); 3.) completing the last phase of developing the tar sands in northern Alberta to solve the shortage in liquid fuels shortage ( which means telling the Energy Dept in the U.S. to f-off with its objections to carbon-based fuels being imported into the U.S. ).

The really DUMB alternatives are: solar power, windmills, tidal power, geo-thermal power, faith, hope, protectionism and nationalism, carbon credits and carbon banking, trusting in market-based solutions, trusting in so-called "smart grid technology", plug-in electric cars ( and $1000 per month electric bills ), or doing without energy all together, smoking pot, and relocating to live in caves..... Sadly, most countries in the Western World, especially the U.S, are choosing the dumb route. (Happily, the rest of the world is not.)

[KGW]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

Hmmm...My electric bill in Southern California averages $35 a month. My son in hotter inland Orange County, in a one-bedroom condo (he rents it) with air conditioning, averaged $130 this summer. He runs the air conditioning constantly! My mother, with a much larger two-bedroom condo, goes from $70 in the winter, to $130 in the summer.

Anyone paying over $200 a month has some 'splaining to do!!

Just reading off of the Bloomberg website that the California Air Resources Board in Sacramento wants 60,000 new plug-in electric vehicles on the road in California, beginning 2012 thru 2014. That means that an average electric bill in San Francisco and Los Angeles, a bill which now costs over $300 per month per residence, will have to rise substantially, once again.

So, maybe by 2014, the average California residence might be paying something like $500 per month for electricity, give or take, but close to it.
And that is the electric bill BEFORE you plug-in your electric car, if you choose to buy one. Electric charge-ups of electric cars will add further to the average electric bill, and substantially so.

[dummass]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

The only practical alternatives are: 1.) constructing new hydro-electric dams (for example, damming the Eel River in North-west California and using the water to produce power plus diverting some water south to SF and LA); 2.) constructing new atomic power plants ( which means reprocessing atomic waste or dumping it at sea, or storing atomic waste either at my house in East Sooke, B.C, provided that you pay me some rent, or storing the waste at Yucca Mtn. in Nevada ); 3.) completing the last phase of developing the tar sands in northern Alberta to solve the shortage in liquid fuels shortage ( which means telling the Energy Dept in the U.S. to f-off with its objections to carbon-based fuels being imported into the U.S. ).

The really DUMB alternatives are: solar power, windmills, tidal power, geo-thermal power, faith, hope, protectionism and nationalism, carbon credits and carbon banking, trusting in market-based solutions, trusting in so-called "smart grid technology", doing without energy, smoking pot, and relocating to live in caves..... Sadly, most countries in the Western World are choosing the dumb route.

I just finished reading "limits to growth after peak oil" by Charles Hall and John Days. According to the information provided within, the energy return on investment (EROI) for the above sources are as follows:

Hydro -- 3
Atomic -- 8
Tar sands-- <1
solar -- <1
Wind -- <1

(Tidal and Geo thermal are not given)

Oil has a return of 14 and Coal has the highest return at 27

Edit: after rereading the graph, I realized that I had quoted the numbers for exajoules of energy, not (EROI) as stated. Please reference corrections below:

Hydro -- 20
Atomic -- 5
Tar Sands -- 1
Solar -- 10
Wind -- 13

Coal -- 40

Sorry for the confusion. What's an exajoule anyway?

[*T*]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

"The United States is held as the prime example. Though the United States is still the world's third-largest producer of oil, its oil production stopped growing more than a decade ago and has flatlined or steadily fallen ever since. Other once-robust oil-producing countries have experienced similar production curves."

I haven't had any coffee yet, but does this article suggest that the US peaked in the 1990's? I guess "more than a decade" is close enough to "before I was even born" or "several decades". Important? Yes, if its a ten year gap one might still think "we can turn it around". If its 40 years and prudhoe bay didn't stop it then maybe we start thinking about alternatives.

US oil production peaked inthe 70s.

[Verdred]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

The only practical alternatives are: 1.) constructing new hydro-electric dams (for example, damming the Eel River in North-west California and using the water to produce power plus diverting some water south to SF and LA); 2.) constructing new atomic power plants ( which means reprocessing atomic waste or dumping it at sea, or storing atomic waste either at my house in East Sooke, B.C, provided that you pay me some rent, or storing the waste at Yucca Mtn. in Nevada ); 3.) completing the last phase of developing the tar sands in northern Alberta to solve the shortage in liquid fuels shortage ( which means telling the Energy Dept in the U.S. to f-off with its objections to carbon-based fuels being imported into the U.S. ).

The really DUMB alternatives are: solar power, windmills, tidal power, geo-thermal power, faith, hope, protectionism and nationalism, carbon credits and carbon banking, trusting in market-based solutions, trusting in so-called "smart grid technology", plug-in electric cars ( and $1000 per month electric bills ), or doing without energy all together, smoking pot, and relocating to live in caves..... Sadly, most countries in the Western World, especially the U.S, are choosing the dumb route. (Happily, the rest of the world is not.)

I've been seeing some reports STARTING TO COME OUT (nothing definitive I don't think) about bitumen densities tapering off fairly heavily from the primo locations. How good are the mapping techniques for consistencies of oil within the sands? And I wonder if Hall's <1 for tar sands is starting at the primo, or if that's over the life of a given deposit?

I'm obviously not a big fan of the scorched earth policy of energy production, but I'm sincerely wondering how good of a fix it is.

As for the dams, I would tend to agree with your points. Kitty loves the fishy though.