The real peak is still intact! That is Peak Oil instead of Peak All Liquids. 74,298,000 barrels per day was produced in May of 2005 and is unlikely to be breached by October 2007 production.
At any rate, when we talk of the US peak, we speak of 1970, not June of 1970 or August of 1970, just 1970. Likewise, in the future when we talk about the World Peak we will talk about the year oil peaked, not the month. The average for the first eight months of 2007 world production is currently over 700,000 barrels per day below 2005 production. When the last four months come in, they will not even come close to lifting 2007 production above the 2005 level.
I am calling 2005 as the year the world oil production peaked.
Exactly, the 86.43mbd is clearly all liquids, not just oil. When natural gas peaks, then production of other liquids will probably peak as well, and total liquids will begin to fall.
The real peak is still intact! That is Peak Oil instead of Peak All Liquids. 74,298,000 barrels per day was produced in May of 2005 and is unlikely to be breached by October 2007 production.
Are you sure about this? If so, why?
At any rate, I think Peak All Liquids is the more economically relevant number, not Peak Oil (Crude + Condensate), because it is All Liquids that drives the economy. And if this is so, and All Liquids is continuing to grow, then who cares about Peak C+C?
You might be right about May 2005 or even 2005. But you have shifted your emphasis from the peak month to the peak year in light of a possible new peak month of October 2007.
I don't discount the utility of tracking C+C, and monitoring its peaking. It is easier to define and measure C+C, as opposed to All Liquids, the definition of which seems to be expanding with time. But as I said earlier, the economy is driven by All Liquids, not C+C.
This has been argued a lot. I, personally, think C+C is what we should be watching. It's what Deffeyes based his prediction on. For good reason, IMO. Hubbert's work was based on geology, and was never intended to model things like ethanol production.
And others have pointed out that using "all liquids" has some double-dipping, since the oil used to produce ethanol is essentially counted twice.
If he didn't he should have. What if the production data were reported weekly, or daily. Where is averging in all this, to discern the trend from the fluctuations? The trend is flat production. It'll take months or more to say otherwise. It's only years from now, averaging out the noise, that we'll put a month/year on peak. But it'll be academic.
It was either Cambell or Deffeys who said that peak should be indicated by whether producers are able to sustain production for at least 5 years.
I also think that this event develops on at least year-long scale. Month to month variations are too minute to indicate (almost) anything - pretty much like following day-to-day price variations.
I would appeal though that we should be equally fair on both sides - a dip in output in one or several months is as much a proof to the "peak-oil-now" theory, as much as a similar short-lived growth is a proof to the opposite.
I agree, C&C is what we should be watching. No matter what line is selected below, peak C&C has probably passed in the year 2005.
click to enlarge
The forecast from 2007 to 2012 is the same for all three lines, (red, green or black) as it is based upon new projects. These new projects include those in this list, which is under development, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Megaprojects
My own opinion is that world C&C will be between the red and green lines. The black line is shown because some people believe the USGS resource estimates.
using "all liquids" has some double-dipping, since the oil used to produce ethanol is essentially counted twice.
As is the oil used to produce oil.
Everything in "all liquids" is a direct substitute for a major use of oil. EIA and IEA both refer to all liquids as "oil supply". Looking at that number is the only reasonable thing to do.
More importantly, though, since looking at the all liquids number is what everyone else does, it accomplishes nothing to obsess over a different number, except maybe to make peak oil folk look a little out of touch. Nobody else cares about some arbitrary subset of the oil supply, and you'll just hurt your message if you insist they should. It'd be as foolish as insisting that the peak was years ago, since on-shore conventional peaked years ago.
It's also utterly pointless and unnecessary. The important idea is that oil supplies are having trouble satisfying oil demand; the minutiae of month-to-month production levels does not matter in that overall context, and obsessing over it just distracts people and undercuts your message.
Everything in "all liquids" is a direct substitute for a major use of oil. EIA and IEA both refer to all liquids as "oil supply". Looking at that number is the only reasonable thing to do.
I disagree completely with your statement. The various liquids in the reports are not equal in their ability to produce energy from each barrel of product. That's because there's less energy in a barrel of ethanol or propane than there is in a barrel of crude or products like diesel or JP5 fuel.
Adding all these into a total distorts the facts about the energy available. Without getting into a further discussion regarding the EROEI for oil vs. ethanol, just summing the energy available over time would be better than a total in barrels. That approach would certainly give a better picture of our situation.
Even better would be some attempt at an EROEI analysis, since, as we all know on TOD, the amount of energy required to produce corn ethanol is much higher than that required to drill a hole in the ground. And, were there to be an EROEI approach, this would also capture the fact that oil is no longer being found in large quantities by simply drilling, but now is recovered by major industrial enterprises placed far off shore. This would show that it's becoming ever more difficult to supply the energy demand of consumers outside the small world of the energy producing sectors. To do this would provide all who were interested with a much better grasp of the reality, without there being a need for detailed understanding of the sort we see here on TOD.
"All Liquids" measures by volume and not by energy.
NGL & ethanol have expanded in recent years, making up (in part or in whole) for declining oil production. But each has just 60% the energy density/volume of oil.
Also, oil intensive operations (Alberta tar sands) have increased. Although most energy used is NG, quite a bit goes toward diesel for those monster trucks !
So "Peak Liquid Energy" appears to be in the rear view mirror.
One indicator of the scam-ish nature of the "all liquids" category is that it includes "orimulsion," which includes WATER!
Raw bitumen has an extremely high viscosity, between 8 to 10 API degrees, at ambient temperatures and is unsuitable for direct use in conventional power stations. Orimulsion is made by mixing the bitumen with about 30% fresh water and a small amount of surfactant.
Simple answer: When crude is processed, some of it gets "fluffed up." By that, I mean the density is decreased. So, if I take a gallon of oil, and run it through a hydrotreater, for instance, I may come out with 1.2 gallons of lighter products (but containing the energy of around 1 gallon of oil).
but containing the energy of around 1 gallon of oil
Is this true? It was my understanding that there is some added energy from the hydrogen used in the process (ultimately coming from NG). Probably this depends upon the efficiency of hydrogenation but I would suspect it would be somewhere in between, probably 1.1 gallons of oil.
This is interesting to me, as if we implement a low-cost non-FF method to produce hydrogen (like high temperature electrolysis in nuclear reactors) we could use it to produce light hydrocarbons starting from abundant low-grade carbon source like coal. I would give this path an order of magnitude higher probability than straight hydrogen economy.
Refinery gains are simple, speek, at least as I understand them. The denser longer chain hydrocarbons are cracked producing less dense shorter chain products. Think of it like fluffing a pillow - you put a hundred barrels of crude in, the junk from the bottom of the barrel is 'fluffed', and you get a hundred and six barrels out ...
In any event,there is no evidence that are current path is sustainable -- none. And what if we haven't peaked? We don't have the time to be debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The world is in a world of hurt regardless of whether or not the peak was in 2005 or will be in 2020. We have already dilly dallied well beyond the point at which we could have taken effective remediation measures, unless one things that coal will save us all.
What interests me here is which side has really changed the terms of the argument mid-stream?
Of course, implicit in that is simply the question of the Net Energy we can produce, in particular those that can serve as Liquid Transportation Fuels. But since many of the 'alternative fuels' are produced with heavy inputs, you either have to count the EROEI shifting in this new output number, or in some other way acknowledge that you are double-counting a great many barrels, since they are produced once and then are basically 'converted' into an alternative fuel.. while both barrels are included in the tally of All Liquids output.
That is of course before anyone bothers to consider deducting the costs that the Increasing volumes of freshwater and other natural resources that get eaten up in the process.
The debts are piled high on top of this 86 million figure, but with the correct blinders on, that all doesn't have to be considered part of the equation..
But since many of the 'alternative fuels' are produced with heavy inputs, you either have to count the EROEI shifting in this new output number, or in some other way acknowledge that you are double-counting a great many barrels
That's come up a couple of times lately, I've got a few ponderances (the main one is #4):
#1 Non-alternative fuels, likewise are produced with 'heavy inputs' - although much less so, doesn't exactly the same argument apply? Shouldn't we automatically deduct the barrels produced used in producing the barrels?
#2 Isn't this the whole "do you count the energy used building the tractor / the oil-rig" question again, just in a more direct way?
#3 Is it not actually impossible to set any meaningful number in terms of energy inputs used, and therefore isn't it better to not try - better to know at least what the number is counting, even if flawed, than to add in what essentially would be guesswork? [This will for me forever be regarded as the Lindsay Lohan question]
#4 Finally, and this is actually where this train of thought started - lets say one barrel of ancient-bio-diesel is extracted and refined in the US, and is used as an input to a US farm which produces one barrel of less-recently-deceased-bio-diesel.
Do BOTH barrels get counted as contributing to GDP? Does the barrel of dino-diesel, in the course of being made into a barrel of eco-diesel, actually 'do work' in some abstract probably not-really-real but fundamental-to-the-economy accountancy speak?
If the farm is contributing nothing in terms of net energy, isn't it meanwhile supporting the farmer and family and farm suppliers? Do we ignore, when talking about EROI for biofuels, the small amount of 'processing gain' between input and output of roughly equal energy, which supports the local economy.
I dunno, I just find this stuff curious, and almost too hard to think about for some reason I can't quite grasp.
Re: Almost too hard to think about for some reason I can't quite grasp
EROEI is a fallacious concept because all energy is not created equal. Suppose that we used metal return on metal invested (MROMI) to decide which metal to produce. Now suppose for sake of argument that it take 10 pounds of iron to produce 1 pound of gold. The MROMI is therefor .1. Obviously using this reasoning no gold should be produced.
This is the reason EROEI is too hard to think about. It makes no sense, even if 99% of the posters here believe in it. It is fallacious. It is impossible to determine which form of metal/energy should be produced without taking into account market prices. When prices are left out of the equation, it all becomes nonsense. So don't strain your brain, just realize that EROEI is pure bullshit.
Please elaborate, I'm eager to understand your take on EROEI. Seems that unlike your metal example, there is a common denominator with energy - joules, BTUs, etc. Hard to figure, to be sure, but still not the same as metals.
This post is enticing, yet fallacious in its fundamental nature.
EROI is a simple and easily understood concept: How much energy do you have to put in to get a certain amount of energy out?
Let me state this in human terms. If I eat a grape I get a certain number of calories. The ones in the dish here next to me require very little energy to recover. If I had to walk to the grocery store (twelve miles) in order to get them I suspect I would have a negative EROI for the process.
If oil shoots out of the ground when you poke a stick into the soil you've got a very good EROI. If you're burning five barrels hauling, drilling, and refining for every six you recover the EROI is very poor.
The use of the example comparing iron used to gold produced is not a good comparison. Iron is used for some things, gold for others. They can be exchanged for a small set of uses but mostly they are not fungible, as one can't build a skyscraper out of gold and iron is not going to be found in bank vaults as it is far too common.
One can argue the minutia of oil vs NG vs various non FF electricity production schemes but energy is basically fungible - if you need heat to crack heavy crude into something lighter gas, oil, or electric can do the job. Some just happen to be more efficient than others based on a variety of factors.
SCT, good example. I was thinking, if I work all week for x $, and it takes that same x $ to pay my food, shelter, and tranportation, I'm treading water. If any of those costs go up, and my income stays the same, I'm in the neg eroei, or, if my costs stay put but my income goes down, same neg. eroei. Of course our global energy scene is based on way more complex inputs etc., but the concept is simple and, over all, I think you can safely apply the concept..
You're talking finances there, flexible child's toy, and while there are parallels EROI does not play - you have an input, you have an output, and there is no room anywhere in the mix for a central energy bank printing BTU IOUs.
I have suggested in the past that GDP and DJIA are just so much nonsense now; all that matters are consumable calories and usable BTUs.
Sorry, bad example, but used only to flesh the concept. Maybe too simple. I should have used the pv example. More energy too produce the pv system, sans subsidy, than the system provides. And, as ff prices go up, the cost of producing pv system rises correspondingly. No hope ever for that being a singular solution. Neg eroei. Thanks for the kick in the butt. ;^)
Sure, to a small degree, but using a pound of Gold next to 10 pounds of iron really doesn't illustrate the scale we're talking about.
Instead of metals, maybe you could get a fairer comparison using food, since it as another energy source has higher and lower value ways to get calories, nutrients,etc..
You seem to argue that price is the only thing that makes any of these calculations matter.. This may be somewhat true in a time of surplus or at least sufficient supply, but not if you're facing scarcity. Are you still going to 'grain finish' a cow if you're facing severe food shortages? No, that cow's back to pasture, and your formerly cheap grain stock will be keeping food in the larder for another month.
Energy return is THE name of the game, once those fat, old margins have dried up.
There is a common denominator to the major forms of energy, generating electricity. Today electricity is being generated from oil (all types), coal, natural gas, hydro, wind, nuclear heat, geothermal and solar. There is little or no economic use for several of these energy types except for generating electricity.
Electricity is the most useful form of energy (liquid transportation fuels are arguably as useful).
All types of energy have unique values and applications that hey are best suited for. And oil has retreated from electrical generation and other energy sources have substituted for it. But even in it's niche application, transportation, oil can be replaced by electricity (with infrastructure investments) and light hydrocarbons (different engines).
thanks for that. I forgot that energy industry itself uses a lot of energy.
I tried to calculate "peak energy" (my comment below the page), I forgot that:
* for every 6 boe generated by wind/solar industry you need at least 1 boe (do anyone have better figures?? I have only these bad estimates what I can barely recall)
* for every 10 boe produced from tar sands you need maybe 8 boe energy?
and so on.....
this means that if we add new energy capacity, let's say equivalent of 10 million boe, we actually need perhaps something like 0.5 million boe for doing that. It goes to energy infrastucture (fixed energy "cost") & operation. We should be able to calculate this better, we know EROEIs of every energy type & we can estimate the possible additions in energy production by energy type.
lets say one barrel of ancient-bio-diesel is extracted and refined in the US, and is used as an input to a US farm which produces one barrel of less-recently-deceased-bio-diesel.
That would be a very bad assumption.
The majority of the energy used in producing US ethanol is natural gas, both for fertilizer production and for the fermentation/distillation heat. The amount of actual oil is quite small. Indeed, there's no reason to assume the amount of oil used per liquid btu of ethanol is greater than the amount used per liquid btu of oil itself, especially considering how other ethanol producers (notably Brazil) tend to be much more efficient than the US.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea, of course, but there is a fundamental difference between "barrel of oil equivalent" and "barrel of actual oil".
The real peak is still intact! That is Peak Oil instead of Peak All Liquids. 74,298,000 barrels per day was produced in May of 2005 and is unlikely to be breached by October 2007 production.
At any rate, when we talk of the US peak, we speak of 1970, not June of 1970 or August of 1970, just 1970. Likewise, in the future when we talk about the World Peak we will talk about the year oil peaked, not the month. The average for the first eight months of 2007 world production is currently over 700,000 barrels per day below 2005 production. When the last four months come in, they will not even come close to lifting 2007 production above the 2005 level.
I am calling 2005 as the year the world oil production peaked.
Ron Patterson
Exactly. That's the evidence so far.
Exactly, the 86.43mbd is clearly all liquids, not just oil. When natural gas peaks, then production of other liquids will probably peak as well, and total liquids will begin to fall.
Are you sure about this? If so, why?
At any rate, I think Peak All Liquids is the more economically relevant number, not Peak Oil (Crude + Condensate), because it is All Liquids that drives the economy. And if this is so, and All Liquids is continuing to grow, then who cares about Peak C+C?
You might be right about May 2005 or even 2005. But you have shifted your emphasis from the peak month to the peak year in light of a possible new peak month of October 2007.
I don't discount the utility of tracking C+C, and monitoring its peaking. It is easier to define and measure C+C, as opposed to All Liquids, the definition of which seems to be expanding with time. But as I said earlier, the economy is driven by All Liquids, not C+C.
This has been argued a lot. I, personally, think C+C is what we should be watching. It's what Deffeyes based his prediction on. For good reason, IMO. Hubbert's work was based on geology, and was never intended to model things like ethanol production.
And others have pointed out that using "all liquids" has some double-dipping, since the oil used to produce ethanol is essentially counted twice.
Didn't Deffeyes also define the peak as an average over a 6 month period?
If he didn't he should have. What if the production data were reported weekly, or daily. Where is averging in all this, to discern the trend from the fluctuations? The trend is flat production. It'll take months or more to say otherwise. It's only years from now, averaging out the noise, that we'll put a month/year on peak. But it'll be academic.
It was either Cambell or Deffeys who said that peak should be indicated by whether producers are able to sustain production for at least 5 years.
I also think that this event develops on at least year-long scale. Month to month variations are too minute to indicate (almost) anything - pretty much like following day-to-day price variations.
I would appeal though that we should be equally fair on both sides - a dip in output in one or several months is as much a proof to the "peak-oil-now" theory, as much as a similar short-lived growth is a proof to the opposite.
Hi Leanan,
I agree, C&C is what we should be watching. No matter what line is selected below, peak C&C has probably passed in the year 2005.
click to enlarge
The forecast from 2007 to 2012 is the same for all three lines, (red, green or black) as it is based upon new projects. These new projects include those in this list, which is under development, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Megaprojects
For more information please see my October world oil forecast http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3064
My own opinion is that world C&C will be between the red and green lines. The black line is shown because some people believe the USGS resource estimates.
The current trajectory of the URR is "aimed" directly at 2200 GB.
But for a laugh, you ought to include the EIA's IEO 2006 projections.
As is the oil used to produce oil.
Everything in "all liquids" is a direct substitute for a major use of oil. EIA and IEA both refer to all liquids as "oil supply". Looking at that number is the only reasonable thing to do.
More importantly, though, since looking at the all liquids number is what everyone else does, it accomplishes nothing to obsess over a different number, except maybe to make peak oil folk look a little out of touch. Nobody else cares about some arbitrary subset of the oil supply, and you'll just hurt your message if you insist they should. It'd be as foolish as insisting that the peak was years ago, since on-shore conventional peaked years ago.
It's also utterly pointless and unnecessary. The important idea is that oil supplies are having trouble satisfying oil demand; the minutiae of month-to-month production levels does not matter in that overall context, and obsessing over it just distracts people and undercuts your message.
Pitt the Elder wrote:
I disagree completely with your statement. The various liquids in the reports are not equal in their ability to produce energy from each barrel of product. That's because there's less energy in a barrel of ethanol or propane than there is in a barrel of crude or products like diesel or JP5 fuel.
Adding all these into a total distorts the facts about the energy available. Without getting into a further discussion regarding the EROEI for oil vs. ethanol, just summing the energy available over time would be better than a total in barrels. That approach would certainly give a better picture of our situation.
Even better would be some attempt at an EROEI analysis, since, as we all know on TOD, the amount of energy required to produce corn ethanol is much higher than that required to drill a hole in the ground. And, were there to be an EROEI approach, this would also capture the fact that oil is no longer being found in large quantities by simply drilling, but now is recovered by major industrial enterprises placed far off shore. This would show that it's becoming ever more difficult to supply the energy demand of consumers outside the small world of the energy producing sectors. To do this would provide all who were interested with a much better grasp of the reality, without there being a need for detailed understanding of the sort we see here on TOD.
E. Swanson
"All Liquids" measures by volume and not by energy.
NGL & ethanol have expanded in recent years, making up (in part or in whole) for declining oil production. But each has just 60% the energy density/volume of oil.
Also, oil intensive operations (Alberta tar sands) have increased. Although most energy used is NG, quite a bit goes toward diesel for those monster trucks !
So "Peak Liquid Energy" appears to be in the rear view mirror.
Peak Liquid Energy Exports certainly are !
Alan
Yes.
One indicator of the scam-ish nature of the "all liquids" category is that it includes "orimulsion," which includes WATER!
That's just one category of "liquids" to be suspicious of.
Oh...and don't forget Refinery Gains!
I wish someone could explain "refinery gains" in such a way that I could understand what is meant by it.
Simple answer: When crude is processed, some of it gets "fluffed up." By that, I mean the density is decreased. So, if I take a gallon of oil, and run it through a hydrotreater, for instance, I may come out with 1.2 gallons of lighter products (but containing the energy of around 1 gallon of oil).
but containing the energy of around 1 gallon of oil
Is this true? It was my understanding that there is some added energy from the hydrogen used in the process (ultimately coming from NG). Probably this depends upon the efficiency of hydrogenation but I would suspect it would be somewhere in between, probably 1.1 gallons of oil.
This is interesting to me, as if we implement a low-cost non-FF method to produce hydrogen (like high temperature electrolysis in nuclear reactors) we could use it to produce light hydrocarbons starting from abundant low-grade carbon source like coal. I would give this path an order of magnitude higher probability than straight hydrogen economy.
Is this true? It was my understanding that there is some added energy from the hydrogen used in the process (ultimately coming from NG).
True, and that is why I said "around." But I was trying to keep it relatively simple.
In hydrotreating there is added hydrogen. In other refining processes (cat cracking, coking) there isn't.
Thanks.
Refinery gains are simple, speek, at least as I understand them. The denser longer chain hydrocarbons are cracked producing less dense shorter chain products. Think of it like fluffing a pillow - you put a hundred barrels of crude in, the junk from the bottom of the barrel is 'fluffed', and you get a hundred and six barrels out ...
No it doesn't - orimulsion hasn't been produced in about a year.
In any event,there is no evidence that are current path is sustainable -- none. And what if we haven't peaked? We don't have the time to be debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The world is in a world of hurt regardless of whether or not the peak was in 2005 or will be in 2020. We have already dilly dallied well beyond the point at which we could have taken effective remediation measures, unless one things that coal will save us all.
What interests me here is which side has really changed the terms of the argument mid-stream?
Of course, implicit in that is simply the question of the Net Energy we can produce, in particular those that can serve as Liquid Transportation Fuels. But since many of the 'alternative fuels' are produced with heavy inputs, you either have to count the EROEI shifting in this new output number, or in some other way acknowledge that you are double-counting a great many barrels, since they are produced once and then are basically 'converted' into an alternative fuel.. while both barrels are included in the tally of All Liquids output.
That is of course before anyone bothers to consider deducting the costs that the Increasing volumes of freshwater and other natural resources that get eaten up in the process.
The debts are piled high on top of this 86 million figure, but with the correct blinders on, that all doesn't have to be considered part of the equation..
Bob
That's come up a couple of times lately, I've got a few ponderances (the main one is #4):
#1 Non-alternative fuels, likewise are produced with 'heavy inputs' - although much less so, doesn't exactly the same argument apply? Shouldn't we automatically deduct the barrels produced used in producing the barrels?
#2 Isn't this the whole "do you count the energy used building the tractor / the oil-rig" question again, just in a more direct way?
#3 Is it not actually impossible to set any meaningful number in terms of energy inputs used, and therefore isn't it better to not try - better to know at least what the number is counting, even if flawed, than to add in what essentially would be guesswork? [This will for me forever be regarded as the Lindsay Lohan question]
#4 Finally, and this is actually where this train of thought started - lets say one barrel of ancient-bio-diesel is extracted and refined in the US, and is used as an input to a US farm which produces one barrel of less-recently-deceased-bio-diesel.
Do BOTH barrels get counted as contributing to GDP? Does the barrel of dino-diesel, in the course of being made into a barrel of eco-diesel, actually 'do work' in some abstract probably not-really-real but fundamental-to-the-economy accountancy speak?
If the farm is contributing nothing in terms of net energy, isn't it meanwhile supporting the farmer and family and farm suppliers? Do we ignore, when talking about EROI for biofuels, the small amount of 'processing gain' between input and output of roughly equal energy, which supports the local economy.
I dunno, I just find this stuff curious, and almost too hard to think about for some reason I can't quite grasp.
If a fuel requires FF inputs its derivative rather than alternative, right?
Re: Almost too hard to think about for some reason I can't quite grasp
EROEI is a fallacious concept because all energy is not created equal. Suppose that we used metal return on metal invested (MROMI) to decide which metal to produce. Now suppose for sake of argument that it take 10 pounds of iron to produce 1 pound of gold. The MROMI is therefor .1. Obviously using this reasoning no gold should be produced.
This is the reason EROEI is too hard to think about. It makes no sense, even if 99% of the posters here believe in it. It is fallacious. It is impossible to determine which form of metal/energy should be produced without taking into account market prices. When prices are left out of the equation, it all becomes nonsense. So don't strain your brain, just realize that EROEI is pure bullshit.
Please elaborate, I'm eager to understand your take on EROEI. Seems that unlike your metal example, there is a common denominator with energy - joules, BTUs, etc. Hard to figure, to be sure, but still not the same as metals.
This post is enticing, yet fallacious in its fundamental nature.
EROI is a simple and easily understood concept: How much energy do you have to put in to get a certain amount of energy out?
Let me state this in human terms. If I eat a grape I get a certain number of calories. The ones in the dish here next to me require very little energy to recover. If I had to walk to the grocery store (twelve miles) in order to get them I suspect I would have a negative EROI for the process.
If oil shoots out of the ground when you poke a stick into the soil you've got a very good EROI. If you're burning five barrels hauling, drilling, and refining for every six you recover the EROI is very poor.
The use of the example comparing iron used to gold produced is not a good comparison. Iron is used for some things, gold for others. They can be exchanged for a small set of uses but mostly they are not fungible, as one can't build a skyscraper out of gold and iron is not going to be found in bank vaults as it is far too common.
One can argue the minutia of oil vs NG vs various non FF electricity production schemes but energy is basically fungible - if you need heat to crack heavy crude into something lighter gas, oil, or electric can do the job. Some just happen to be more efficient than others based on a variety of factors.
SCT, good example. I was thinking, if I work all week for x $, and it takes that same x $ to pay my food, shelter, and tranportation, I'm treading water. If any of those costs go up, and my income stays the same, I'm in the neg eroei, or, if my costs stay put but my income goes down, same neg. eroei. Of course our global energy scene is based on way more complex inputs etc., but the concept is simple and, over all, I think you can safely apply the concept..
Jeff
You're talking finances there, flexible child's toy, and while there are parallels EROI does not play - you have an input, you have an output, and there is no room anywhere in the mix for a central energy bank printing BTU IOUs.
I have suggested in the past that GDP and DJIA are just so much nonsense now; all that matters are consumable calories and usable BTUs.
Sorry, bad example, but used only to flesh the concept. Maybe too simple. I should have used the pv example. More energy too produce the pv system, sans subsidy, than the system provides. And, as ff prices go up, the cost of producing pv system rises correspondingly. No hope ever for that being a singular solution. Neg eroei. Thanks for the kick in the butt. ;^)
Jeff
"...all energy is not created equal."
Sure, to a small degree, but using a pound of Gold next to 10 pounds of iron really doesn't illustrate the scale we're talking about.
Instead of metals, maybe you could get a fairer comparison using food, since it as another energy source has higher and lower value ways to get calories, nutrients,etc..
You seem to argue that price is the only thing that makes any of these calculations matter.. This may be somewhat true in a time of surplus or at least sufficient supply, but not if you're facing scarcity. Are you still going to 'grain finish' a cow if you're facing severe food shortages? No, that cow's back to pasture, and your formerly cheap grain stock will be keeping food in the larder for another month.
Energy return is THE name of the game, once those fat, old margins have dried up.
Best,
Bob
There is a common denominator to the major forms of energy, generating electricity. Today electricity is being generated from oil (all types), coal, natural gas, hydro, wind, nuclear heat, geothermal and solar. There is little or no economic use for several of these energy types except for generating electricity.
Electricity is the most useful form of energy (liquid transportation fuels are arguably as useful).
All types of energy have unique values and applications that hey are best suited for. And oil has retreated from electrical generation and other energy sources have substituted for it. But even in it's niche application, transportation, oil can be replaced by electricity (with infrastructure investments) and light hydrocarbons (different engines).
Alan
thanks for that. I forgot that energy industry itself uses a lot of energy.
I tried to calculate "peak energy" (my comment below the page), I forgot that:
* for every 6 boe generated by wind/solar industry you need at least 1 boe (do anyone have better figures?? I have only these bad estimates what I can barely recall)
* for every 10 boe produced from tar sands you need maybe 8 boe energy?
and so on.....
this means that if we add new energy capacity, let's say equivalent of 10 million boe, we actually need perhaps something like 0.5 million boe for doing that. It goes to energy infrastucture (fixed energy "cost") & operation. We should be able to calculate this better, we know EROEIs of every energy type & we can estimate the possible additions in energy production by energy type.
That would be a very bad assumption.
The majority of the energy used in producing US ethanol is natural gas, both for fertilizer production and for the fermentation/distillation heat. The amount of actual oil is quite small. Indeed, there's no reason to assume the amount of oil used per liquid btu of ethanol is greater than the amount used per liquid btu of oil itself, especially considering how other ethanol producers (notably Brazil) tend to be much more efficient than the US.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea, of course, but there is a fundamental difference between "barrel of oil equivalent" and "barrel of actual oil".
Good summary (sans the hair-splitting of this thread).
The composition of the peak is fairly irrelevant. What matters at the end of the day is the price of whatever stuff goes in the gas tank.
And the # of miles you get for whatever liquid you pour in.
Since ethanol has 60% of the energy/volume of gasoline, 10% ethanol means 4% fewer miles and one or two more fill-ups/year for most drivers.
All Liquids were not created equal.
Alan
That's just hair splitting. I didn't say per fill up, did I?
Exactly, and the cost to the user incorporates this factor.
the cost to the user incorporates this factor
*NOT* with ethanol !
From memory, a 51 cent/gallon federal subsidy.
Most buyers are unaware of the reduced energy/gallon, so market knowledge is lacking.
Alan