Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

[Jam]

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:

Starving Steve, I am not sure where you are getting your info, but it is incorrect. Small cars do run on natural gas in Europe. In fact, I have family in Poland who have their regular (gasoline-powered) cars modified to run on natural gas (the modification costs a couple of thousand $). They take advantage of the lower price of natural gas that is the result of a skewed tax system. Anyway, it definitely does not take overnight to fill up a tank. The fueling-up time is comparable to that with gasoline. The only inconvenience is that they don't allow self-service for safety reason (but then, they don't allow self-service in New Jersey either). And, there is the extra tank that takes some room in the trunk.

Furthermore, the required modification is not permanent. In fact, it is possible to change back to gasoline with a flip of a switch. I mean it literally--when they install the nat-gas option, they install a switch on the dashboard. This is in case you run out of natural gas, but you still have gasoline in the tank, you can switch back to the more expensive way to drive.

In case you wonder, there is no difference in the handling or driving a car powered with natural gas. I know b/c I drove one. It was a small car from Fiat (the Italian company--don't confuse with fiat currency ), similar in size to Honda Civic.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

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.

Yes, we have to get control of population growth; that is for sure. There are limits to what this planet can provide. Correct.

But I am a firm supporter of atomic energy, drilling for oil and gas, hydro-electric power, and developing the upgrading of heavy oil-to-light oil. That is not pot-head dreamland technology; that is real world technology that can help mankind out of this energy mess.

The ones that rub me the wrong way are the radical environmentalists who would rather improve habitat for salmon than improve the habitat for mankind. Yes, salmon need habitat. Yes, there has to be green space. Yes, cities must become more energy efficient and dense.... But NO, we do not have to live in poverty, in apartments above shops, in slums above streetcar lines in the downtowns--- the way we used to live before WWII. That is where I part company totally with so-called city planners nowadays.

Encouraging land costs to escalate and become outrageous is no way to plan cities. And encouraging energy costs to become outrageous is no way to plan for the world. This is where I totally part company with planners.

[oddlots]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

Re. the oft mentioned depletion rates of natural gas wells in new finds, I assume that most everyone here is referring to North American shale gas plays using horizontal drilling and frac techniques... my question is a) I am aware that the drop off on flow rates is rapid but b) I've also read that the production life of the wells plateaus and continues for a much longer period than conventional wells... Haven't seen it mentioned here... Just wondering if anyone knows more.

[mememonkey]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

God damn those pot headed environmental pot smoking salmon loving progress/growth stunting pot smokers and dam(n) the rivers, and EROEI calculations and those pot addled hippie scientists and their damn laws of thermodynamics.

Starving Steve
me thinks you've got some unresolved anger issues from your days at Berkley.

mememonkey

[gnk]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

Yes, we have to get control of population growth; that is for sure. There are limits to what this planet can provide. Correct.

But I am a firm supporter of atomic energy, drilling for oil and gas, hydro-electric power, and developing the upgrading of heavy oil-to-light oil. That is not pot-head dreamland technology; that is real world technology that can help mankind out of this energy mess.

The ones that rub me the wrong way are the radical environmentalists who would rather improve habitat for salmon than improve the habitat for mankind. Yes, salmon need habitat. Yes, there has to be green space. Yes, cities must become more energy efficient and dense.... But NO, we do not have to live in poverty, in apartments above shops, in slums above streetcar lines in the downtowns--- the way we used to live before WWII. That is where I part company totally with so-called city planners nowadays.

Encouraging land costs to escalate and become outrageous is no way to plan cities. And encouraging energy costs to become outrageous is no way to plan for the world. This is where I totally part company with planners.

Yes, we both agree on population. I will add this - it is already too late. The issue now is not one of slowing down or stopping population growth - the issue is how many people of the current world pop of 6.7 billion can live like Americans? How long can Americans live like Americans? We Americans are just under 5% of the world's population, yet we consume 23-25% of the world's oil. The BRIC countries alone represent almost 40% of the world's pop and are just beginning to ramp up consumption. Obviously they cannot consume the same amount of oil per capital that Americans consume. There's just not enough annual production capacity let alone how much remaining oil is left and how many decades that kind of consumption can last. Something has to give. The real world implications of that are rather serious.

Regarding radical environmentalists:

1)That is often a red herring. Sure they impede "progress" LOL. But there is a convenient reason to have them here in the US. A hegemon uses everyone else's resources before he will use up his own. That's National Security 101. Yet the drill baby drill supporters don't think that far thru, or at least, the leaders of the drill baby drill school of thought would never publicly mention that.

2)The issue of salmon habitat or any other habitat is really two different issues. One Scientific, one philosophical. Yes, If I were a billionaire, I would have every right to live in several mansions, jet around the globe, and consume massive amounts of hydrocarbons. Same if I lived in a McMansion, but just to a lesser extent. That is our philosophical capitalist ideology. The Scientific issue is how many people can drive hummers, live in McMansions, etc... before the environment gets impacted? When so many people live well above their means, even "rightfully" so because they earned it - resources get depleted faster, the environment gets degraded faster, etc...

In my view, we ignore the uncomfortable scientific issue of depletion and environmental degredation and focus instead on the feel good issue of enjoying the fruits of our labors. Ultimately, the Scientific issue trumps the philosophical issue, in my view. The city planners you deride are thinking long term, the happy resource depleting capitalists are thinking short term.

As for your belief in using up all available resources:

If we replaced all hydrocarbon use with Nuclear - the world would need 10,000 nuclear plants and we would likely have a few decades of uranium before it gets depleted. (I got this stat from physicist David Goodstein in "Crude Awakening")

Shale oil and tar sands will quickly get an EROEI of less than 1:1. I predict that we will never deplete the tar sands of Canada. To get at the tar sands, you use electricity (coal) and natural gas, and diesel trucks. We will soon see, in a decade or so, or much sooner, that when one energy source becomes hyperexpensive, it affects the use of other energy sources. All get expensive. Tar Sands are only beneficial today because natural gas is so cheap.

I have already addressed biomass and the issue of batteries in my prior post.

Capitalism was born in a world of unimaginable resources. The frontier "American Dream" began when the nation was young and there was a ton of practically free land and resources for the taking, and it was up to you to develop it and get rich. The lazy were scorned as evil for ignoring such a "god-given" bounty. How times have changed.

Classical economics does nothing to address resource depletion and environmental degredation of the commons - the seas, ancient freshwater aquifers, forests, etc...

I don't see humanity adopting a new system voluntarily. Too many self interested players. That decision will be forced onto humanity by wars, and ultimately, significant dieoff.

I'm not giving a timeframe, I'm just saying that ultimatley, the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of exponential growth matter more than Classical economics and the goal of eternal economic "growth" fostered by pieces of paper and digits on a computer.

[BlackVoid]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

1. Tar sands have an EROEI of 1:2, it is not sufficient to power an industrial civilization. And the rate of expansion is VERY SLOW. Peak Oil is not about reserves, but flowrate.
2. Peakoildebunked - this site is very amateurish, you do not have to be a science PhD to spot bad research and misinformation. Try theoildrum.com for some science - it is not all gloom and doom, quite a few different viewpoints presented. Nothing convinces me more about the reality of peak oil than the argument of the opposition. It is weak and often false, many times based on assumptions and wishful thinking. Peak Oil is not just a liquid fuel problem, oil is our largest energy input at 38% globally. This 38% must be replaced in a few decades - not an easy task.
3. Nuclear - unless breeder reactors are used (which are still experimental after decades), uranium deposits are insufficient for a new nuclear age. Breeders may or may not work, but the rate of building of nuclear plants currently is way too slow anyway.
4. Natural gas: the prices did not collapse due to too much supply, rather they have collapsed because a crash in demand (industrial activity declined). This is the big wildcard, if shale gas production can be ramped up worldwide, then this CAN mitigate Peak Oil. NG can be used for vehicles, it is not a big deal, in Europe many vehicles run on NG. Other energy sources in my opinion have no chance to seriously replace oil. Even if NG production can be ramped up, it will only delay the day of reckoning, shale gas is not infinite either.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

1. Tar sands have an EROEI of 1:2, it is not sufficient to power an industrial civilization. And the rate of expansion is VERY SLOW. Peak Oil is not about reserves, but flowrate.
2. Peakoildebunked - this site is very amateurish, you do not have to be a science PhD to spot bad research and misinformation. Try theoildrum.com for some science - it is not all gloom and doom, quite a few different viewpoints presented. Nothing convinces me more about the reality of peak oil than the argument of the opposition. It is weak and often false, many times based on assumptions and wishful thinking. Peak Oil is not just a liquid fuel problem, oil is our largest energy input at 38% globally. This 38% must be replaced in a few decades - not an easy task.
3. Nuclear - unless breeder reactors are used (which are still experimental after decades), uranium deposits are insufficient for a new nuclear age. Breeders may or may not work, but the rate of building of nuclear plants currently is way too slow anyway.
4. Natural gas: the prices did not collapse due to too much supply, rather they have collapsed because a crash in demand (industrial activity declined). This is the big wildcard, if shale gas production can be ramped up worldwide, then this CAN mitigate Peak Oil. NG can be used for vehicles, it is not a big deal, in Europe many vehicles run on NG. Other energy sources in my opinion have no chance to seriously replace oil. Even if NG production can be ramped up, it will only delay the day of reckoning, shale gas is not infinite either.

Dear Blackvoid:

May I inform you and your classmates in the ecology departments of major universities that Imperial Oil, the Canadian Oil Sands Trust, Arc Energy Trust, among others, have bet against your thesis that tar sands are unproductive with regard to flow-rates. May I inform you that China wants to buy into tar sands projects in Alberta. May I inform you that at $80 US per barrel for oil, the world will have centuries of light oil up-graded from tar sands in Alberta alone. May I inform you that there are heavy oils just waiting to be up-graded in Mexico, Saudi-Arabia, and around the world.

May I inform you and your classmates in the ecology departments of major universities that there is no shortage of uranium for use in fuel rods in atomic reactors, and that uranium could be harvested by DIS-MANTLING the warheads from atomic weapons. May I inform you that there are vast amounts of atomic weapons that could be dis-mantled worldwide, including at the Atomic Weapons Arsenal in Boulder, Colorado..... May I also inform you and your classmates that Saskatchewan has vast amounts of natural uranium that could be mined and exported worldwide for use atomic reactors, and British Columbia could mine uranium if only the eco-frauds would lift their ban on the mining of uranium in that province.

Finally, there are vast free-flowing rivers of water that could be dammed and used to generate hydro-electric power, as well as provide water- supply for cities. And here in, I sited the example of the gigantic Eel River which flows North-westward in northern California.

The Eel River is currently allowed to dump scarce fresh water into the Pacific Ocean--- so salmon might have a free-flowing river to spawn. But to me, this is a crime against the people of the world. The Eel River could be dammed and vast amounts of electric power could be sent south to California's cities. Also, vast amounts of fresh water could be diverted south to California's depleted aquifers.

Blackvoid, I am ashamed to say that I attended the University of California at Berkeley in the late 1960s and that it was my generation at Berkeley --- and elsewhere --- that gave birth to the ecology movement. I am also ashamed to say that my bunch at UC were the one's who invited the radical Islamists in Iran to speak at Berkeley about over-throwing the Shah of Iran and setting-up the world's first Islamic republic in Iran.

Blackvoid, every child on this planet is entitled to the highest standard-of- living this planet, Earth, can provide. I believe no child and no generation of children anywhere on this planet should be sacraficed to protect the welfare of salmon, or rare birds, or rare species, or rare anything.

Yes, the population growth of this planet has to be controlled, but letting people starve is no way to manage population growth.:rolleyes:

[Verdred]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

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'll agree about the energy problem. I remember back in the golden years of 2003 the talk was about the collapse of the grid: "lights out by 2020". I just don't think it would be that difficult to get spare parts and as you say, most electricity is not generated with oil.

As for the overall scenario though, i see a big problem still with peak oil. And it is hard to pin down but I'll give it a shot. (I'm sure these bogeymen are shot down on peakoildebunked but humor me).

1) past results are not always predictive of future behavior: just as EJ predicts there will come a time in which the flight to safety of the dollar doesn't occur, there might come a time (similar in the run-up of oil from $100 to $147), when peak oil becomes apparent, that there is not a run away from oil even in an economic downturn. (If this ever happens, I'm not sure any gov't will ever admit to below ground peak: see later).

2) the wealthy: the current conspicuous consumption model really works well for them. this particular point is very hard to explain so I'll just skip to the end: it is possible the wealthy and the poor will both survive peak oil, its just the middle class will not. If you do not see an obvious truth to this statement, then i retract it, because it is not worth expending your time and mine at this moment to try and prove it.

3) You have the control issues: I have a huge problem envisioning the US military wanting to run off battery power while oil supplies still remain. No matter how much is left, control of the vital resource will be pre-eminent in US strategy goals. This very easily could fly into the face of a reasonable transition to alternatives, even if alternatives existed that could somewhat compete with oil (short of fusion, etc).

4) You have the growth paradigm: there's is a lot of debt out there. and it is hard to service debt in a shrinking economy (of course, I'm guessing, but it sounds like something an economist would say). Basically, all the muckety muck of the complex international financial distribution of goods that EJ is saying is too complex for a gov't bureaucrat (see first interview-style commentary, I believe when he's talking about socialism). Which he has a good point. Its complex, and peak oil isn't going to make it easier, only harder.

5) political expediency: capitalism won! oh wait, now we have to tell you about all these things you can't do. the list of "super easy ways to crush peak oil" on the site you link... you can pry my truck derby out of my cold red-necky hands (I have actually lived in towns where THE MOST EXCITING THING that happens in the year is the demolition derby). I'm not saying this isn't possible to make these transitions. I think a country like China with its command-n-control economy might actually do better. But which party is going to fall on that sword. Give up new iphone or invade Saudi Arabia: hmm. All I'm saying is, don't equate "I could reduce my oil consumption drastically if I had to by car-pooling" with the majority of gun-wielding americans willing to give up hardly anything. For example, we'll probably have to abandon texas, except for the oil. sorry texas.

In a country like Japan, which actually had its peak moment (peak wood, I think Jared Diamond talks about them as one of the few success stories in his book "Collapse") and it's always felt very vulnerable, a transitionary spirit is easy to evoke (being in the shadow of china for 3,000 or so years will do that to you). Do you just stun the americans to the point where they'll do whatever you ask of them? What about telling all the 100's of millions of chinese and indians they'll never be able to drive, and probably never fly? Or if they can, how do you price that so that everything doesn't go through the roof?

I don't predict a total collapse, but I do see katrina-like events on the horizon where the governments of the world are simply unable to respond to crises in the ways they used to (relative of course: early warning tsunami systems, I seem to remember, would have cost about 19k for the 275k? people lost in indonesia. Lets say for argument the system would have cost 1.9 million, that's still only $8 a person. Ouch! brother, can you spare a ten-spot?).

The crux of my issue is that capitalism has rules and peak oil has rules. In this corner, clocking in at 517 years, 7 or so billion people, and quadrillions of dollars, the Raging Bull, Caaaapitalismmmmm! and in this corner, weighing in at a shit-ton of pounds, billions of years old, and an unknown quantity of species, the Mother Like No Other, Eaaaarrrrrrth! Its going to be a good fight.

(sorry for the long post, but it is sunday, and I'm not giving up this EROEI question with "peakoildebunked" being the last word, though I found his attitude and points to be very reasonable, thanks hayekvindicated!)

[Verdred]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

The Eel River is currently allowed to dump scarce fresh water into the Pacific Ocean--- so salmon might have a free-flowing river to spawn. But to me, this is a crime against the people of the world. The Eel River could be dammed and vast amounts of electric power could be sent south to California's cities. Also, vast amounts of fresh water could be diverted south to California's depleted aquifers.

Blackvoid, I am ashamed to say that I attended the University of California at Berkeley in the late 1960s and that it was my generation at Berkeley --- and elsewhere --- that gave birth to the ecology movement. I am also ashamed to say that my bunch at UC were the one's who invited the radical Islamists in Iran to speak at Berkeley about over-throwing the Shah of Iran and setting-up the world's first Islamic republic in Iran.

Blackvoid, every child on this planet is entitled to the highest standard-of- living this planet, Earth, can provide. I believe no child and no generation of children anywhere on this planet should be sacraficed to protect the welfare of salmon, or rare birds, or rare species, or rare anything.

Yes, the population growth of this planet has to be controlled, but letting people starve is no way to manage population growth.:rolleyes:

I refer people to my response to hayekvindicated and use this quote from starvingsteve as a good example of the real reason why peak oil is such a problem. (even though I haven't seen a full debunking of the overall energy issue from a technical standpoint).

Don't worry starvingsteve, you are not alone! the wealthy of the world agree with you and I'm convinced the scorched earth policy will be enacted to secure future oil and overall energy supplies.

Also, what is it with all these poor people on the planet! I'm glad we can all agree that poor people who probably aren't even using that much oil are definitely the problem when it comes to peak oil! I hate you poor people so much! I know I know, carrying capacity, etc. I'm just speaking out for all those poor bastards who don't have internet and thus aren't represented on itulip. i know no one said the word, but come on, we were all thinking it

But to kind of sum up blackvoid, i think what starvingsteve is saying is that if we just converted a ton of stuff over to electric and pumped up our hydro we would be okay. Which, is coincidentally what he's been saying like throughout the thread, I just couldn't see through the pot-smoke to notice. So the question then would remain, can hydro do the dew? i'm way to f'd up to answer that myself and i've got football highlights to watch. tootles.

[Verdred]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

damn radical environmentalist: are you smoking pot at this very instant?

good post.

[Verdred]

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

is energy investment going to effect my investment investments?

[gnk]

Re: Energy Return on Energy Investment below 19 to 1

damn radical environmentalist: are you smoking pot at this very instant?

good post.

Sorry - my points were potless. Thus, by my mere potless existence Starving Steve's theory is unsupported.

I have visited the peakoildebunked blog a few times. Overall, I don't find it convincing enough to turn me into a techno-fix cornucopian.

And I will add an additional tidbit of doom to the discussion:

As EROEI diminishes, so too will a society's level of complexity.

An example - in pre-hydrocarbon ancient times, those civilizations that had gyms, public baths, theater competitions, etc... also had a lot of slaves. Those slaves were essentially "free energy." Sure, you had to capture them, police them, and feed them - but the output was enough to create a complex society. Remove the amount of slaves from such a society, and you also remove the amount of poets, actors, artists, gladiators, gym facilities managers, etc....


And another thing related to food:

Today, hydrocarbons in the form of petrochemical herbicides, pesitcides, and ammonia derived from nat gas revolutionized agriculture. Remove that from the equation and crop yields collapse. So the amount of time a dog psychologist spends visiting his patients will be severely impacted by the need to swing a hoe in his backyard to grow his own corn.

I don't think hydro, wind, or solar is really good at killing weeds and bugs. And for anyone that has had a backyard garden, they know how pesky those bugs and weeds can get. My sore back is proof of that.