<DrumBeat: August 28, 2007 The Oil Drum Monetary Policy and Weaseling Out of Debt>

68 comments on EROEI Short #2: Lenin & Lohan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

findrbob on August 28, 2007 - 2:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Well, if energy alternative A has a 3:1 EROI and energy alternative B has a 5:1 EROI, one might be tempted to choose B, ceteris paribus. But if one knows discovers that society currently runs on an EROI of 12:1, then neither is fully acceptable

Why not? Why can't a society currently run on 12:1 be adjusted to run similarly on 5:1? You could still in principle produce just as much net energy.

and conservation, lifestyle, infrastructure have to be changed IN ADDITION to introducing the new energy source

Well, infrastructure would have to be changed even if the new energy resource is 12:1. Focusing on relative EROEI in no way presupposes that conservation and lifestyle will not change. They will by economic imperative.

he important point is, we need everyone involved in 'energy accounting' to speak the same language, and if they don't, at least tell people what language (e.g. what boundaries) they are using.

Yes, good point. But wouldn't it be far easier to get them to agree if the focus is on relative EROEI? Absolute EROEI strikes me as one of those cases where there simply is not enough good information and the problem is just too complex to ever get various groups with different agenda to agree on how to measure it. So, your goal of achieving agreement is, in my opinion, facilitated by focusing on relative EROEI.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nate Hagens on August 28, 2007 - 3:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

This is Jeffs post, so I don't want to hog the comment threads, but:

Why not? Why can't a society currently run on 12:1 be adjusted to run similarly on 5:1? You could still in principle produce just as much net energy.

This is incorrect, but very important. Society aggregate EROI of 5:1 is NOT the same net energy as 12:1. Not even close. Put it this way. Right now the average american uses around 60 barrel of oil equivalent of primary energy - lets use those same numbers. That means we are using 5 BOE to get the 60. If we use that same 5 in the future we will only get 25. Thats 35 BOE of efficiency and sacrifice we have to come up with. (Or alternatively, we would need an input of 12 to get the 60). We now have 20 boe available to do work for each american, as opposed to 55 before - meaning that conservation, efficiency and infrastructure changes must accompany this decline in net energy. Sure it can be done and yes we can be successful and happy, but there are constraints.

Similarly, if we discover nuclear fusion and its 100:1, it frees up an enormous amount of energy that we could use (or waste)on any manner of wild ventures. Few constraints

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
findrbob on August 28, 2007 - 3:38pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

That means we are using 5 BOE to get the 60. If we use that same 5 in the future we will only get 25. Thats 35 BOE of efficiency and sacrifice we have to come up with. (Or alternatively, we would need an input of 12 to get the 60). In either case, there is much less energy available to do work for society, meaning that conservation, efficiency and infrastructure changes must accompany this change.

Or put in 14 to get 70, yielding more than the original 55 net. Going to lower EROEI does not, of course, logically constrain us to producing less net energy. More of the economy would be devoted to energy production and less to fast food and car servicing.

My main point was that this fact does not seem to be relevant to the merits of relative versus absolute EROEI calculations. What we really need to know is which of the various available alternatives is best under a given set of circumstances (e.g., geographical region). In the end this is the only exercise that will actually affect policy/decision making, in my opinion. Fortunately it is apparently relatively easy.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nate Hagens on August 28, 2007 - 3:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

OK - take that one step further. Imagine there are only 100 people in society, so that right now the 60 boe are 6000 boe for entire society. That means at 12:1, society is using 500 boe to get the 6000. Now after the energy decline to 5:1, we have to input 1200 to get the 6000. And from that 6000, we need 1200 to get the next 6000, etc. If we 'put in 14 to get 70', where does it come from?? this is the critical point With a decline in societal net energy, this DOES logically constrain us to producing less net energy. By definition.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
findrbob on August 28, 2007 - 4:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

But you are assuming that the rate of gross energy extraction must remain constant and does not change with energy resources utilized. Let's assume that rate of oil extraction is already at its peak. Rate of solar and wind extraction is clearly not. The combined rate of extraction that is possible from these and other alternative resources in principle probably exceeds, by a wide margin, the current rate of energy extraction from oil. If so, then even at lower EROEI, there could in principle be more net energy extracted from these resources someday than is currently extracted from oil. If you want to make claims about possible rates of net energy extraction you must consider not only EROEI but also maximum possible gross extraction rate.

Please don't jump on me about being too optimistic about alternatives. I'm not claiming that this will happen, but just that it logically could, and hence in my opinion your argument is flawed, or at least incomplete.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nate Hagens on August 28, 2007 - 7:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If so, then even at lower EROEI, there could in principle be more net energy extracted from these resources someday than is currently extracted from oil

You are correct. This is why people (including me) need to be clear on their assumptions. And I wasn't jumping on you, but many people don't get precisely this important point, which is why I spelled it out So thanks for fleshing it out - yes - if the SCALE of energy is doubled, the EROI can be halved and we would be at the same societal net energy.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Toby Kelsey on August 29, 2007 - 7:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

EROEI seems a nice objective scale we can use to compare technologies, but it misses many factors which should affect our choice. An energy technology with high EROEI may consume excessive fresh water or despoil the environment, or it may prove to be more socially beneficial to forgo some energy intensive activities instead of generating the extra energy.

Let's think about what we are trying to accomplish. We have

  • a population with needs and desires
  • biological and geographical assets providing natural services
  • a limited flow rate of solar, wind and other renewable energies
  • a limited flow rate of food and clean water
  • a limited stock of land, topsoil and biodiversity
  • finite mineral resources and fossil fuels
  • social capital (educated cohesive communities)
  • physical and technological infrastructure.

and many options (technologies, industries) for using resources to fulfill human desires and improve welfare. We need to choose options and allocate our limited resources to maximize human welfare for this and future generations. Energy is important, but only one of the limiting factors we must allocate. Happiness is not proportional to energy use, and you need a multi-factor approach to determine how much of what types of energy society needs.

What we really need to measure is HROARI - Happiness return on aggregate resources invested.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nate Hagens on August 30, 2007 - 11:33am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yup!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
findrbob on August 30, 2007 - 12:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

And I wasn't jumping on you

right, you weren't. I was just trying to avoid having someone throw the "you are a cornucopian" epithet at me.

Thanks for your comments.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dryki on August 28, 2007 - 10:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Why not...?

This particular bit of the thread needs to be expanded Jeff.

We can't just replace all the high return energy with more of the low return. The machine (society, technology and terms of trade) doesn't *work* at the low return. Suppose we had to go back to horses. Everything would take much, much longer to accomplish. Many things we do now would not get done at all. We can't even scale our agricultural system to produce the feed.

I went to visit John Howe yesterday and drove in his solar powered MG. One could take it to town and back - on a good day and not twice. The MG is about ten horses and hills are a huge problem. We can't change to all electric cars powered by huge arrays of windmills because we can't scale up to that quantity of windmills without changing society. Just like the horse and horse feed, it takes too much time and resources to build the windmills; doing so will drag the machine down. [I don't have this 100% clear, sorry.]

I'm trying to cut my energy use to the point where I can go off grid. That means the freezer goes - everything possible has to go into the solar drier. That's time and attention. Taking a bicycle to town takes 2 to 3 times as long as driving. I'm only working half-time, so it will be harder to replace my computers with laptops, etc.... I don't have time for Lindsey; what I really need is a couple of serfs. That's a different society.

cfm in Gray, ME

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

68 comments on EROEI Short #2: Lenin & Lohan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version