Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

[Verdred]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

US oil production peaked inthe 70s.

There's the chart I was too lazy to find this morning, thanks *T*. But the author is right, notice the small uptick in production in the 1990's. See, we've only been declining for a little over a decade! Man do I love facts!

[hayekvindicated]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

There is an enormous amount of natural gas waiting to be tapped. There has already been a production glut in the US due to improved extraction technology which is why the price crashed earlier this year (even though oil prices kept going up).

The same methods can be applied in other parts of the world. Nat Gas can be used as a fuel even for cars that normally run on petrol (with some modifications). Peak Oil will not lead to the doom and gloom scenario that many are predicting.

For the record, I used to believe in the peak oil doom and gloom scenario myself. I no longer do.

Lastly, the most exciting technology on the horizon is the extraction of nat gas from methane clathrates. The Japanese are working on this feverishly as they happen to be sitting on the edge of some massive deposits. If that development is successful, there will be no shortage of gas to power cars, planes, trains etc.

[Verdred]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

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?

I was a little suspicious of those numbers which is why I questioned primo vs. non-primo. a return of 1 isn't good enough to debate over anyway. i'll give you 5 and I'm still not that excited over it.

But since we are here, I'm a little shocked to see the solar at 10. Is that the big thermal farms or roof tiles? Beats out atomic? I guess that's factoring in waste, construction, mining? this question is so complex, I better eat breakfast before I say more.

[Verdred]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

There is an enormous amount of natural gas waiting to be tapped. There has already been a production glut in the US due to improved extraction technology which is why the price crashed earlier this year (even though oil prices kept going up).

The same methods can be applied in other parts of the world. Nat Gas can be used as a fuel even for cars that normally run on petrol (with some modifications). Peak Oil will not lead to the doom and gloom scenario that many are predicting.

For the record, I used to believe in the peak oil doom and gloom scenario myself. I no longer do.

Lastly, the most exciting technology on the horizon is the extraction of nat gas from methane clathrates. The Japanese are working on this feverishly as they happen to be sitting on the edge of some massive deposits. If that development is successful, there will be no shortage of gas to power cars, planes, trains etc.

Putting aside the doom question.

The life-span of the average shale drilling well has been seriously questioned (plus problematic effects on drinking water supplies). So, potentially, you get temporary gluts with uncertain long-term supplies.

As for the methane calthrates, I've seen the phrase "game changer" about 50 times since the EJ article posted. Words like "promising", "exciting" and "horizon" are all well and good. The word I like most though is "feverish". Yes, the japanese know full well how important consistent energy supplies are. Can anyone say Dutch East Indies?

I refer you to halcyon's post for the techno-talk.

As for the doom question, I find not being a doomer is just way more relaxing. Its really no way to live. Or to put it another way, "what point is there in living anyway if its filled with fear of some completely overwhelming event".

But, and this is a very big but, I really haven't seen much in the way of scalable tech that makes me think we've found a substitute for whal... I mean crude oil. Possible? absolutely. probable? there is the crux. On the map as of this moment? I don't think you can really make that argument, but my man halcyon will take all comers;)!

[dummass]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

But since we are here, I'm a little shocked to see the solar at 10. Is that the big thermal farms or roof tiles? Beats out atomic? I guess that's factoring in waste, construction, mining? this question is so complex, I better eat breakfast before I say more.

Atomic must be expensive: the building and maintenance of plants and then the extraction and disposal of the fission material. On the other hand, solar is cheap to produce. It may not yield great quantities, but we manage to run all the systems on our boat with two panels: including a water maker and refrigeration. There is no maintenance, no danger to occupants, and nice an quiet -- just the way we like it.

[Chomsky]

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!!

I'm sure the 4500-sq.ft. McMansion owners (soon-to-be boarding-house managers) do their best to drive the average upwards.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

There is an enormous amount of natural gas waiting to be tapped. There has already been a production glut in the US due to improved extraction technology which is why the price crashed earlier this year (even though oil prices kept going up).

The same methods can be applied in other parts of the world. Nat Gas can be used as a fuel even for cars that normally run on petrol (with some modifications). Peak Oil will not lead to the doom and gloom scenario that many are predicting.

For the record, I used to believe in the peak oil doom and gloom scenario myself. I no longer do.

Lastly, the most exciting technology on the horizon is the extraction of nat gas from methane clathrates. The Japanese are working on this feverishly as they happen to be sitting on the edge of some massive deposits. If that development is successful, there will be no shortage of gas to power cars, planes, trains etc.

There is no shortage of natural gas; that is for sure. But uses of nat gas for vehicles is a bit problematic:
Nat. gas is hard to quickly and conviently pump into cars unless it's liquified. Liquification takes refrigeration down to cold temps which is difficult to do.... So to-day, only some buses and trucks run on nat. gas, and nothing else runs on nat. gas.

There are four perfect uses for nat. gas to-day:
a.) central heating in all homes;
b.) use in power-plants to generate electricity;
c.) use in tar sands projects to cook tar and make light oil;
d.) use in city buses and large trucks that can be refueled during the night when there is plenty of time to refuel such vehicles.

The general replacement of gasoline or diesel by natural gas in small vehicles is a pipe-dream for the future--- a dream for professors and pot-heads imagining the future 30 or 40 years from now. Another pot-head dream is electric plug-in vehicles replacing conventional vehicles.:rolleyes:

[Starving Steve]

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!!

From Quebec Hydro, here is a comparison of electric rates for 1000kwh per month consumption, by U.S. and Canadian city, as of April 1, 2009, excluding taxes:

http://www.hydroquebec.com/residential/prix.html

[Starving Steve]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

From Quebec Hydro, here is a comparison of relative electric rates for 1000kwh per month consumption, by U.S. and Canadian city, as of April 1, 2009, excluding taxes:

http://www.hydroquebec.com/residential/prix.html

So if your electric bill is $100 US equivalent in Montreal, it would be well over $300 in New York City or San Francisco or Boston.

That is about right because PG & E in California now bills at around 26c per kwh, and Quebec Hydro bills at under 10cents per kwh. So that makes the relative comparison correct: about 3 or 4 times as much for electricity in California versus Quebec.

Then come the charges for up-grades for plug-in electric cars to be ready in California starting 2012. Those will be added-onto all electric bills, statewide in California, whether you own an electric car or not.

Then come the charges for your plug-in electric car, and it will suck!

This is going to be hilarious, and it will be the end of the Democrats. They will be thrown-out nationwide for a mistake like this. The public will want heads of politicians that allowed this green crap.

[mesyn191]

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.

We'd have a reckoning no matter what due to a lack of cheap oil, the policies that CA has pursued will just exacerbate that issue, quit trying to blame environmentalists for everything.

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,

Which defeats the whole purpose of it in the first place. You know well and good we need vast supplies of cheap high volume oil, not vast supplies of expensive low volume oil if we are to avoid any drastic decreases in our standard of living and to prevent resource wars.

but it not only can be produced, it IS being produced in mega-quantity.

They're talking about getting production levels up to around 6 million bbl a day in 2035 or so, MAYBE. We use somewhere around 20 million bbl a day RIGHT NOW, and that will only grow in time. Tar sand oil production is as much of a pipe dream as wind power.

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

That probably won't happen, at least to us in the US anyways (some of the poorer 3rd world countries, I dunno...), but drastic decreases in our and the world in general stand of living are assured without cheap oil. Without some sort of rapid relief you'd start to see more conflicts spring up all over the world as the competition for resources gets ugly. You shouldn't attempt to make a mole hill out of that mountain in any way shape or form.

[gnk]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

There is an enormous amount of natural gas waiting to be tapped. There has already been a production glut in the US due to improved extraction technology which is why the price crashed earlier this year (even though oil prices kept going up).

The same methods can be applied in other parts of the world. Nat Gas can be used as a fuel even for cars that normally run on petrol (with some modifications). Peak Oil will not lead to the doom and gloom scenario that many are predicting.

For the record, I used to believe in the peak oil doom and gloom scenario myself. I no longer do.

Lastly, the most exciting technology on the horizon is the extraction of nat gas from methane clathrates. The Japanese are working on this feverishly as they happen to be sitting on the edge of some massive deposits. If that development is successful, there will be no shortage of gas to power cars, planes, trains etc.

I'm a doomer when it comes to peak oil - what made you now believe otherwise? Just curious. And didn't the US already peak with natty gas 30 some years ago? Sure there's potentially plenty there now, but a lot of the easy stuff is gone. Hence the EROEI issue.

As for the huge natural gas plays recently discovered, well, there's some difficulty there. Enormous amounts of water are needed, wells tend to peak 60-80% by year two. That water that is used gets very polluted, so you have disposal issues as well.

Interesting quotes:

For the next year or two, the nation is likely to indeed remain awash in gas. But if the country were to embrace fuel switching, as it may need to do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly, the glut would disappear and boatloads more LNG and dramatic increases in drilling would be needed.
Indeed, to displace half the coal we now use with gas, we’d need to complete 30,000 to 50,000 new wells a year for decades to come. If that’s our strategy for averting climate disaster, then we’ll need to put somebody like Sarah Palin in charge of drilling.

source: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50174

[gnk]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

"... 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

I agree with this theory. The only arguable issue is when.

Nothing grows exponentially - not pension funds, not populations, not resource use. Nothing. Everything has a limit, and I feel that we are approaching that limit.

Anything that grows at a steady rate ultimately grows parabolic/exponential. Just look at yeast or bacteria in a petri dish. Infinite growth in a finite environment is an impossibility. An economy that grows 2% a year doubles every 35 years. Forever... Think of the implications. Think it thru.

Let's apply this to the real world: It is impossible for the rest of the world to live like the average American. Impossible. Yet, that is what the rest of the world wants to do. You can't stop them from trying, so expect everything to get much more expensive, and ultimately, we'll be lucky to get what we need.

I'm not saying this will happen next week, next year, or the next decade. but it is unavoidable nonetheless.

Can someone spot hydrocarbon man on this chart below?



And for all those that beleive in alternative fuels. There are two big issues.

One- biomass sources (ethanol, palm oil, algae, etc...) are agrarian endeavors. How much water and land will we divert from growing food so we can drive around?

Two - Solar, Wind, hydro, geothermal, etc... In many uses, especially transportation, needs batteries. Does the world have enough rare metals to make efficient batteries? And battery technology still has a very long way to go.

Unless there is such a thing as cold fusion or a perpetual motion machine - we will eventually experience limits. Technology and energy can also be seen as two different things. Technology is but a diagram, a design on paper - without the tangible sources of energy and materials needed to create it and run it - it is just an idea.

[reallife]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

That is complete Whale Blubber.

MulaMan....thanks for the useful insight.:rolleyes:

[hayekvindicated]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

There is no shortage of natural gas; that is for sure. But uses of nat gas for vehicles is a bit problematic:
Nat. gas is hard to quickly and conviently pump into cars unless it's liquified. Liquification takes refrigeration down to cold temps which is difficult to do.... So to-day, only some buses and trucks run on nat. gas, and nothing else runs on nat. gas.

There are four perfect uses for nat. gas to-day:
a.) central heating in all homes;
b.) use in power-plants to generate electricity;
c.) use in tar sands projects to cook tar and make light oil;
d.) use in city buses and large trucks that can be refueled during the night when there is plenty of time to refuel such vehicles.

The general replacement of gasoline or diesel by natural gas in small vehicles is a pipe-dream for the future--- a dream for professors and pot-heads imagining the future 30 or 40 years from now. Another pot-head dream is electric plug-in vehicles replacing conventional vehicles.:rolleyes:

Im not sure its a pot head dream. Buses in many Indian cities already run on Nat Gas as do cars.

[hayekvindicated]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

I'm a doomer when it comes to peak oil - what made you now believe otherwise? Just curious. And didn't the US already peak with natty gas 30 some years ago? Sure there's potentially plenty there now, but a lot of the easy stuff is gone. Hence the EROEI issue.

As for the huge natural gas plays recently discovered, well, there's some difficulty there. Enormous amounts of water are needed, wells tend to peak 60-80% by year two. That water that is used gets very polluted, so you have disposal issues as well.

Interesting quotes:

For the next year or two, the nation is likely to indeed remain awash in gas. But if the country were to embrace fuel switching, as it may need to do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly, the glut would disappear and boatloads more LNG and dramatic increases in drilling would be needed.
Indeed, to displace half the coal we now use with gas, we’d need to complete 30,000 to 50,000 new wells a year for decades to come. If that’s our strategy for averting climate disaster, then we’ll need to put somebody like Sarah Palin in charge of drilling.

source: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50174

The Doomers are wrong about runaway chaos in any case because if the oil price skyrocketed again (not just in Dollars but all currencies), you would see another massive global downturn (there is some evidence that the collapse in '08 accelerated because of the rapid rise in the oil price). Economic activity would contract very rapidly which would reduce the standard of living and thereby oil consumption. You won't have people driving around in SUVs when oil is $300 a barrel.

But natural gas is still out there and its a potentially huge play. For generating power, there is a massive amount of nuclear energy that can be tapped today. America may dither on this but the Japanese and other Asian nations are already committed to it massively (as indeed is India). The peak oil problem is principally about finding a transport fuel replacement for oil. Its not fundamentally an energy shortage problem.

I like this web site: http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com

There is a lot of information on this blog.