 | Bogota Part 2: Transmilenio Bus Rapid Transit | The Oil Drum: Local | RFK and Garbage Trucks: Two Measures of Success |  |
47 comments on David Paterson: First Openly Peak Oil Aware Governor
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
47 comments on David Paterson: First Openly Peak Oil Aware Governor
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
The Oil Drum: New York City archives
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Was that quote from that article? There are problems with that quote.
First of all EROI is a ratio, so can't go negative. Secondly, EROI has declined, but there is no evidence that it goes subunity at the point of 50% of peak production. Thirdly, we use natural gas and electricity to procure oil, so we could still produce oil at an energy loss if the importance to society was high enough. And finally, we just don't have these numbers available - we can understand how important they are in a world of fiat currency, but we don't have the data to make definitive claims, which is unfortunate, because people respond to definitive claims.
Yes, it was from the article - here it is in a fuller version:
I find it difficult to believe that the DOE said that - there is perhaps some confusion, Nate.
Yes its clearly wrong but it doesnt change the fact that a high ranking politician is thinking along these lines, which is impressive and hopeful. Most of us were not taught biophysical principles, scientific method, who we are where we came from, etc. in our schools. Thats how I see places like TOD - raise the level of discourse - maybe not have all the answers but at least have people speak a common language to save time and get to the heart of the matter.
And after being on the spot on video or radio myself numerous times in the past year, I know that my emotional brain burps some stuff that my rational mind would prefer it didn't...;-)
No wonder politicians don't spout facts so often - they are hard to keep straight and if you mis-speak you get called to the mat!
Not to mention that he's actually read a few books himself ;-).
Frankly, I think my governor just improved dramatically.
Sharon
Hey, I wasn't knocking the guy! I was interested in what he was saying, which is unusual for me when a politician is speaking! :-)
One sentence that is dodgy out of umpteen is the reverse of the ratio of most of the politico-speak we normally hear!
Nate,
At risk of being called 'innumerate', I am going to suggest that you are being 'overnumerate'. An EROEI of less than 1:1 can in all fairness be called 'Negative', since you do get Less out than you put in. I don't think the actual Ratio is required to carry a minus sign for people to make the connection.
The only reason I quibble is that this is the most useful kind of expression to ring that alarm bell and tell people in the simplest of terms that said spent barrel of oil (or the difference anyway) was, in such a case essentially thrown away, as were the time and effort of swapping 'this barrel for that one'. I think Negative is the right word. (And yes, if the oil is doing a job that no other source can satisfy, I guess we'll see how much of an overage the market will bear.. to drag it up with Solar, Nuclear or Hydro, etc..)
Sometimes being 'exceptionally literal' can get in the WAY of communicating an idea. I asked my (very literal) wife about something on the 'Left side of our car..', and she said "Left-? looking at it from where?" Now how complicated do we have to make these things?
Best.
Bob
all true points - science is about precision though so it's not good to aspire to be half-right. I don't know the answer, other than I prefer 'net energy' to EROI. Net energy is the energy surplus and is "EROI-1", so can be negative.
The credit crisis is going to be nasty, but it might smack some upside the head that are completely used to using dollars as the metric by which to make decisions. The credit/debt fiasco will at the margin cause people to rely on 'real things', and with this headwind perhaps biophysical analysis can become more common. But perhaps I am just being overnumerate....;-)
Absolutely! I can't count the number of times you have done that! :-)
'Net Energy' does paint the picture fairly well. Like you, I don't pretend to know the magic formula. Communication is an imprecise art form (science?)..
But I'd suggest that the aspiration is not to be 'Half-right', which comes out sounding like 'Half-truth' or something, but it is to get the point across.
I did like Patterson's analogy of oil-depletion to blood-loss. Makes a good, visceral visual..
Giving it 110%,
Bob
"Giving it 110%"
Heh. At least it gets the point across ;-)
I'm an American.. we prefer being in 'overshoot'.
Science may be about precision but politics is about doing what is possible. The man made a political speech, not a scientific dissertation, which was 99% correct (I particulalary liked his blood analogy) and that is all it had to be. It's aim was to get the message across conserve today - renew tomorrow.
Bob, Nate understands human psychology and all that stuff so knows that the best way to deal with the innumerate is to chastise them and provide technical terms they won't understand.
;)
Now, why don't we have a secondary term for Energy Lost? You could call it ELOI but people might think you're making a Time Machine reference...
But then again when somebody says a 100% increase, it sounds a lot worse than saying "doubling". This fits in with that class of euphemisms.
Talk about quibbling! Give the guy a break. If you invest more energy than you get in return, you may call that "going subunity" but I think most people would understand that as "negative."
I find it very strange that someone who was realy PO aware would believe this???
That is down to his researcher, who obviously briefed him poorly (regarding EROI falling below 1 once production reaches half peak)
My guess would be that there is some confusion here with cash flow, and at some time a study was done at some particular level of cost per barrel and they worked out that it would not pay in cash terms to drill for more - which even at the current cost of oil seems to be rather the thought of much of the oil industry, as even though there is a lot of drilling there does not seem to be as much as would be assumed from the current oil price, if i have read west texas's posts right.
Again I'll nag about EROEI versus EROI. A financial investment can go negative - you lose money, and that's how people intuitively see it. So EROEI is always the better to use.
Probably better still to state it as ER/EI to clarify that it's a ratio, but there's that pervasive innumeracy problem... Describing it with verbal reasoning, most people would consider getting back less energy than you put in to be "negative" in a "bummer, dude" sense.
So I vote for ratios. But New Rule: anyone who uses EROI doesn't get to complain about confusion over what it means.
cheers
You mean, the 50% yield from the money I put into Click and Clack's Capital Depreciation Fund isn't what I think it is?
Sheesh. Who can you trust these days?