172 comments on Should EROEI be the most important criterion our society uses to decide how it meets its energy needs?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
172 comments on Should EROEI be the most important criterion our society uses to decide how it meets its energy needs?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- 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
- 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
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
thx for a good post, vernon. One area of EROEI that has me scratching my head is when to include the energy in the fuel used up in the production of fuel. e.g. if oil is used to generate liquid fuel (e.g. bioethanol) then clearly it needs to be an input wheras a renewable such as wind or solar presumably wouldn't. But what about nat gas used to produce oil from tar sands? Or if the ng were substituted for nuclear? Is there a factor that can be used sensibly to allow for the degree of renewableness of the inputted energy or is it better to consider ALL nonrenewable inputs on the debit side of the energy invested balance sheet?
rgds
tw
"e.g. if oil is used to generate liquid fuel (e.g. bioethanol) then clearly it needs to be an input wheras a renewable such as wind or solar presumably wouldn't"
As you count the FF used to generate bioethanol, one should also count the FF used to produce solar panels or windturbines. Why wouldn't you??
And indeed ALL nonrenewable inputs need to end on de debit side.
It seems that he means the Sunlight and Wind Energy ITSELF does not get counted as a debited input, which in some of these arguments people have insisted should it be. Clearly, one would only debit energy sources that are coming from our own inventory, so to speak.
So if for example you have electrical energy coming FROM a solar installation, and were using that power to create a fuel or another energy source, that would count as an energy cost against this other fuel being produced, but the sunlight that was a 'free' input for that providing PV or CSP installation is not a debit against that power plant, only the energies YOU had to provide or pay for to bring the plant online.
"e.g. if oil is used to generate liquid fuel (e.g. bioethanol) then clearly it needs to be an input wheras a renewable such as wind or solar presumably wouldn't."
These renewable inputs to liquid fuel production should count, in my view, if for no other reason than they are unavailable for other uses, like consumer use at home.
I don't get that logic at all. What you have to count is what it costs YOU to bring that fuel or power source on line. If you have a rig that grabs the Sunlight, say to cook your refined product, then the only input you have had to supply is the energy to build that collector.