156 comments on A Net Energy Parable: Why is ERoEI Important?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
156 comments on A Net Energy Parable: Why is ERoEI Important?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Home Buyers Demand Short Commutes, Efficient Homes (with Backyards, Parking, lots of Square Feet)
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
TOD:Europe
- IEA WEO 2008 - Fossil Fuel Ultimates and CO2 Emissions Scenarios
- The IEA WEO 2008: Will coal usage be phased out?
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“It takes as much energy to wish as it does to plan.”
—Eleanor Roosevelt
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.





GAIA Host Collective
EROEI terms are much more specific than efficency. Your coal to liquids example is incorrect if you put coal in it your input is not zero, if it was fischer tropp (spelling) would be a fountain of energy. The coal is the input. You can heat it with propane or coal or nuke or whatever but using EROEI totals all inputs and calculates the value of end product. Some products are more valuable (diesel vs coal) becuase of their form but that is why we convert them. Every conversion has process losses, that is why engineers always look for ways to capture lost energy. (exhaust heat boilers etc)
matt
If you're including all inputs, then it can never be greater than one, thermodynamics being what it is.
So, why do I keep seeing these EROEI numbers of 5, 10, 1.2, etc. thrown around?
So what you're really saying is this...
- We have a process for converting these "free" input to useful output.
- We consider the utility of this process based on only the amount of non-free inputs it consumes to produce outputs, not on how efficiently it converts the free inputs to useful outputs.
Is that really what you're saying, because that is what EROEI is. And it can be infinite, look at my example above. What exactly is wrong with it?If you have an ethanol operation that runs everything off of ethanol, then energy input is zero (0), whereas "energy returned" is (presumably) something not zero. If energy returned is zero, then it isn't a source of energy, case closed. If it is not zero, then the EROEI is infinite, by definition. How is this a useful number again?
Seems like nomenclature to befuddle the foolish if you ask me. Use efficiency, it has some basis in science, and makes perfect sense. Such as "with what efficiency does this ethanol process turn sunlight into ethanol?". Answer that question (it isn't terribly hard), and you know, for instance, how many acres of land would be needed to produce X units of ethanol. Simple, useful.
That's so irrelevant though. Ok, if you count it that way, then a process that didn't use any fuel (like having peasants harvest it and not using irrigation...) would have a vastly higher EROEI, even though it would be wildly less efficient than just using the ethanol from the output to run the machinery.
How can this be a meaningful number if it's boosted dramatically by disposing of the machines, even as that causes output to plummet.
What exactly are you trying to measure? The efficiency of converting sunlight into fuel? EROEI doesn't even touch on that problem, so what good is it?
IMHO you are correct to recognize that eROI is an accounting game just like $ROI is.
In the case of eROI, if we stoped allowing ourselves to not-count energy inputs that are "free" (don't cost money) then eROI will always be less than unity because of the entropy laws of thermodynamics --all real world transformation processes are lossy and energy is conserved (assuming no E=mc^2 stuff allowed).
However, if we choose to exclude the money-wise "free" parts of the energy inputs and to exclude the one-time energy costs for manufacturing the contraptions (e.g. ethanol plant) used in transformation (e.g. corn to ethanol), then we get some sort of partly-economic, partly-physics measure of the long term payback we get for our efforts.
We can use this eROI number for comparing one type of apples against another, for example, switch grass ethanol versus corn ethanol --which has higher eROI assuming conversion plants for each are equal?
I'll grant you most of that (and the E=mc2 stuff doesn't really pose a problem, matter is nothing more than "frozen" energy anway), but the comparison between switchgrass and corn, I don't agree with.
If switchgrass had an EROEI of 1.5, but produced (net, after all fuels and such are accounted for) 2 units of fuel per unit of land, and corn had an EROEI of 1.2, but produced (net, again) 25 units of fuel per unit of land, which is really better? Seems to me that in this (contrived, I know) scenario the corn would be better. Neither of us would have any trouble coming up with complete numbers that would make the above work out (switchggrass uses y units of fuel, and produces z units of mass per acre, etc...)
What is the point of EROEI again? It doesn't seem to be actually measuring anything significant. As near as I can tell, it's measuring the boundaries between the various corporations and occupations that run the system. Seriously, why bother?
1st Law of Thermodynamics:
Energy cannot be consumed or destroyed--only transformed from one form to another. (Energy must be conserved.)
2nd Law of Thermodynamics:
When energy is transformed from one form to another, some of the energy is necessarily transformed into heat. (Entropy always increases).
In a closed system--a system in which no energy can enter or leave--every energy transformation increases entropy and makes less transformable energy available in the system. The earth, however, is an open system--there is a constant flow of energy arriving at earth from somewhere else and a constant flow of energy escaping from the earth.
The fundamental energy source for all life on earth is the sun. Plants (and some bacteria) transform electromagnetic energy (light) into chemical energy. Much of the light energy is lost to heat during this transformation. Living things then transform that energy into other forms to carry out life processes (e.g. organisms move by transforming chemical energy into kinetic energy). If the organism has stored chemical energy and dies before it can be used, that energy can be "harvested" by other organisms. Thus they have found an energy reservoir.
We can sum up the process of energy transformation on earth:
--> indicates an energy transformation
- mass enegery --> heat energy (via thermonuclear fusion in the core of the sun)
- heat energy --> electromagnetic energy (via radiation at the sun's surface)
- electromagnetic energy --> chemical energy (via photosynthesis by organisms on earth)
Energy stored in chemical form can be transformed by humans to do "useful work". Here are some common exosomatic energy transformations that humans initiate (i.e. energy transformed outside our bodies, not used internally):- chemical energy --> heat energy (via oxidation/combustion)
- heat energy --> kinetic energy (via heat engines, e.g. steam or ICE)
- kinetic energy --> electromagnetic energy (via electric generators)
- electromagnetic energy --> heat energy (via your stove, TV, computer, etc.)
In transportation, Step 5 is the human end-use--kinetic energy is the form of energy we desire in order to quickly transport ourselves in cars, airplanes, etc.The conclusion of Step 6 provides energy in the form of electricity.
In every single step described above, energy is lost as heat during the transformation process.
A oil deposit is a reservoir of energy, that is, it is a large reserve of stored chemical energy. All of that stored energy can be obtained and released (transformed) by using a much smaller amount of energy. This is EROEI.
Even so, it is still not a useful number. Imagine I made an oil rig (or whatever...) that ran off of oil (as they actually do). Now EROEI is infinite, as there is no energy input. It takes energy from the reservoir, and uses that to proudce more energy from the reservoir, some of which it sends on too the next stage in the process. Energy input is zero, energy output is not zero, therefore EROEI is infinite.
You say that EROEI (for oil, for instance...) is 2, or 10, or whatever, but this all depends on where you draw the lines. Draw the lines to include the refineryy and all the machinery to drill, pump, and refine the oil, and the EROEI is infinite. Draw the lines around all of Saudia Arabia to see this effect, or do you think they import gasoline to fuel the pumps that pump oil? Saudia Arabia has an infinite EROEI, but so what? This makes absolutely no difference in the real world. A number that has nothing to do with the process, and everything to do with where the lines around the process are drawn is not a viable way to describe the process itself.
It still seems that it's all about what you consider input. If you consider the "free" coal in the ground to be input, then EROEI is always less than one. If you don't, then it can be infinite. Really, it's as simple as that. If you include all inputs, then it's the same as efficiency, if you don't, then it has no meaning. The laws of thermodynamics don't cover something as arbitrary and contrived as EROEI, any more than they tell us how high the stock market can go.
Free inputs (fossil fuels, renewable flows) plus the technology that accesses them plus the efficiency of consuming them.
FREE(stocks +flows)*efficiency of production *efficiency of consumption = societal EROI