<DrumBeat: August 31, 2007The Oil DrumDrumBeat: September 1, 2007>

107 comments on EROEI Short #3: Price-Estimated EROEI

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jeffvail on August 31, 2007 - 11:25am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I agree that I think my .53 figure is conservative. But, as suggested above, there is a fundamental problem of using the price of fossil-fuel generated electricity as a metric, as that will likely dramatically increase in price (or at least scarcity) in the future. This measure also cannot incorporate the likelihood or lack thereof of technological improvements that will make a technology "cheaper" (a big argument from Solar PV advocates). Just my opinion, but the best use of this "price-estimated" methodology is to get a current snapshot comparison between two non-fossil fuel, "renewable" resources. I don't have the numbers because pricing seems so erratic at this point, but I'd be interested in the price-estimated EROEI (using this methodology) between thin-film solar and concentrating solar power.

Also worth noting that variable pricing (value) of electricity at different times of day and year further complicate this... just because, at the moment, most public utilities don't charge a 24/7/365 variable rate for electricity doesn't mean there is no variation...

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nate Hagens on August 31, 2007 - 11:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

This is why the big wind farm project in New York has just been scrapped (or about to be scrapped). Because people did an economic analysis as opposed to an energy analysis. The committee concluded that it was just uneconomical to put that many tens of millions into the wind projects, when coal, nat gas and nuclear electric were so cheap. I seriously doubt they did much sensitivity on what happens when electricity prices triple.

Buying wind power as a utility is like buying long maturity bonds as a pension investor in anticipation of interest rates going down. Wind has a HUGE 'duration', and will make the MOST economic sense if energy prices go up dramatically. Yes, if energy prices stay where they are, wind will underperform. But we all know government forecasting records on energy.

(I'll try to find the link on the scrapping of this wind project - if anyone has it - please post)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gail the Actuary on August 31, 2007 - 2:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The question that always bothers me is whether wind will really prove to be sustainable. I think wind turbines need a moderate amount of maintenance. In order to do this maintenance, one needs roads, fairly big equipment, replacement parts, and workers who can drive (or otherwise be transported) to the location. If the replacement parts are currently made overseas, one needs to either be able to continue importing them, or one needs to be able to make replacements here. I don't know about the finer points. Does one also need diagnostic equipment? If so, that has to be manufactured someplace and transported to the place where it is used.

There seem to be so many tie-ins of wind turbines with the current oil industry (and the financial system) that assuming that there is huge duration for wind seems like a moderately big assumption. It really seems to assume that we will be able to maintain technology at our current level. I would feel better if our replacement energy system were smaller and had fewer moving parts - more like solar thermal.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on August 31, 2007 - 7:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You are correct about wind turbines, and the same can be said for solar etc.
of course the whole discussion here is on will full ignorance of these facts cause they can't make things work otherwise.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Turitea on August 31, 2007 - 8:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"The question that always bothers me is whether wind will really prove to be sustainable. I think wind turbines need a moderate amount of maintenance."

Wind turbines need constant maintenance in fact and the Godzilla turbines , 125m high, will never be able to be replaced in an energy starved economy. Wind farms at best produce at 35 % of their rated output over time and their constant variabilty of output means that thermal backup is essential, thus virtually cancelling out the "benefits" of carbon emmissions savings. Der speigel has some interesting images here :
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,24219,00.html
Article here :
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,500902,00.html
More here:
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=509&idli=1
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=588

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oilmanbob on August 31, 2007 - 8:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Gail,

There may or may not be problems 30 years in the future getting replacement parts. The wind farms tend to be large, at least in Texas with a hundred turbines or more, so I don't anticipate that there will be much of a shortage of labor available locally for maintinence on either wind or solar in commercial size applications.

Engineering should always be prudent, and design needs to incorporate consideration for our descendents. But, if we do nothing we assure the future won't be nice-its a suicide through neglect. It will be their problem to solve along with a bunch of other 21st century problems. But, its their problem, not ours just as we have inherited erosion and deforestation from the past. Does it provide any part of the solution to know which clan leader ordered the last trees cut down on Easter Island?
Bob Ebersole

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
It Aint So Bad on September 1, 2007 - 11:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The price mechanism is the best we have for estimating EROEI. In a perfact world, there would be no subsidies of anything (save perhaps basics for people, such as food, shelter, education).

A few caveats. The price signal does not capture externalities. If we have to maintain a $600 billion a year military to gain access to oilfields, that reality is not captured in the price signal. Nor is environmental damage. Nor vulnerability to future cutoffs of oil.

Lastly, there is the oddity of world oil markets, and that is the short-term inelasticity. A minor surfeit of demand to supply (at least perceived) can shoot prices to the moon. So, investment in liquid feul sources whch replace some portion of demand might actually be worth it, if we can bring demand fossil oil down a notch or two.

And maybe lastly (unless I think of something else), when we engage in production (such as ethanol), we learn things. New and better ways of doing it. The E3 plant is talking about 5-1 EROEI. This is sometimes known as the infant industry argument.

So to wrap it up, free markets and price signals are best, unless the situation calls for taxes (on pollution) and subsidies (for alternative fuels).

Free markets, taxes and subsidies: The American Way!

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.