This was one of the topics at the ASPO Conference and I quote David Hughes and Pamela Tomski who note that it takes about 20 - 40% of the energy generated by a power plant to run a CCS operation.

EROI?

But most people have horrible intuitions about energy conversion. Thermodynamics isn't, apparently, a subject taught to most folk. Instead they believe in magic.

Question Everything

George

EROEI and the laws of thermodynamics are the trump card of the imminent Peak Oil and hard energy limits position. It is unavoidable physics that clinches the case. It is when I grasped this that I became convinced myself of the imminent Peak Oil position four years ago.

Unfortunately, many people in our culture - including economists - are scientifically illiterate, so this intellectual trump card carries no weight with them.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

Sorry to puncture your bubble, but the laws of thermodynamics don't tell us anything about peak oil.

The Second Law Of Thermodynamics can only be applied to isolated systems and the world's energy producing infrastructure doesn't fit that criteria.

More bubble puncturing time! The second law has been extended to systems far from equilibrium where boundary conditions are sufficiently known. It also applies to all work processes and energy conversions where entropic losses end up as non-recoverable heat. In the end the world is a system essentially closed to material flows and in long-term steady-state with respect to energy flow (excepting radio-active decay heating which is diminishing over time and tidal pulses which are probably negligible for our current purposes) as long as the sun is in stable burn. Our burning fossil fuels is just releasing some of that energy that took up residence in chemical bonds temporarily.

What thermodynamics tells us is that there is no free lunch. That energy is on a one-way trip from source(s) to sink(s). It tells us a lot about the energy infrastructure if we know how to interpret and measure.

As far as Mencken goes, he was right. There certainly can be any number of clear, simple, and wrong solutions. So what? There can also be a simple, though apparently not so clear, answer that is right.

Question Everything

I'm with George on this one. Even analysis of non-isolated systems is possible if you can build a box around a segment of interest and characterize the flows across the boundary. Perhaps a better way of looking at it is everything increases entropy, so any observed state of increased organization implies a corresponding but larger increase in disorder somewhere else.

I suspect we'll get a lot more familiar with the notions of efficiency, entropy, and other aspects of thermodynamics as we go along. The wikipedia linked earlier has a quote worth repeating:

The tendency for entropy to increase in isolated systems is expressed in the second law of thermodynamics — perhaps the most pessimistic and amoral formulation in all human thought. — Greg Hill and Kerry Thornley, Principia Discordia (1965)

Maybe that's where TOD gets it's pessimism -- it's a disciple of the Second Law?

I didn't say that there was a free lunch and I said nothing about being close to equilibrium.

What I did say was that the energy production systems that civilization relies upon are not closed systems.

How do you figure they are not closed systems?

Let's take the simplified example of a pumpjack sitting in a field.

Case 1 - The pump is powered by the oil it brings up:

Approximates a closed system. As the well depletes, the net energy produced by the system will decrease. There will be a point at which the pump is using all the oil it can produce and net energy produced = 0. This is an example of the energy cliff so beloved by doomsters.

Case 2 - The pump is powered by a wind turbine:

Open system because we have outside energy inputs. Approximates the case in Alberta oilfields (and probably Texas and elsewhere). The pump will produce oil until something breaks or the field is dry.

Look c-dude, in case 1 the system is closed to energy flow coming in because there is a finite amount of oil. In fact it's worse than that because you need to increase the amount of oil you use to pump the oil as you go deeper (actually even worse than that but I'll spare you the details). This is EROI (ERoEI if you prefer).

In case 2 you have a steady input of sunlight driving wind but the latter is intermittent. But the real problem is that the conversion of wind to electricity at a high enough power level isn't all that great. You need more windmills dedicated to the job. And as you need more power to pump deeper wells, you need to build more windmills, etc. The boundary conditions are still that oil is finite and usable wind is too.

You still do believe in a free lunch, even though you don't think you do! Just because a system is open to the flow of energy doesn't mean the system will be able to use that energy effectively. You have to convert the raw form to a usable form, what physicists call 'free' energy (free to do work, not free for the taking). That conversion has an energetic cost as well. And, in the case of sunlight, the flow is effectively steady-state, meaning that there is an effective upper bound to how much free energy we can actually obtain.

It may not be turtles all the way down, but it is energy! If you have the math and statistical mechanics background or are willing to work hard, I recommend a classic book by Harold Morowitz called "Energy Flow in Biology". It is a real eye-opener for energetics. He has some more modern books that are aimed at general audiences, so you might try that if your background doesn't prepare you for this book.

George

FWIW, I have a degree in Mathematics.

In the past forty years, I have seen a lot of fancy mathematics applied inappropriately. The latest was the Wall Street swindle where Black-Scholes was used to cover up fraud.

How do you figure they are not closed systems?

Sunlight, for a start. An average of 250W/m^2 of it.

Considering it's what virtually all the world's agriculture depends on, in addition to the energy source for much of the non-fossil sources (solar, wind), it's pretty silly to pretend it isn't there.

The earth simply is not a closed system.

Pitt,

Of course the earth is not a closed system, energetically. I teach this stuff. The subject was, I thought, the petroleum-based system.

The subject was, I thought, the petroleum-based system.

The original claim was not only about petroleum:

"EROEI and the laws of thermodynamics are the trump card of the imminent Peak Oil and hard energy limits position."

The part I have bolded is what took the claim out of the realm of being about petroleum. The poster appeared to be claiming that thermodynamics means civilization must run out of energy. The laws of thermodynamics say no such thing.

They say civilization can extract a finite amount of useful work from the finite amount of fossil fuels in the ground, but that's a useless statement, as nobody is saying otherwise. The laws of thermodynamics have very little to say regarding EROEI (as the theoretical limits it gives are significantly better than the achievable levels in most cases), so there's nothing to say there either.

Indeed, invoking "the laws of thermodynamics" seems to be little more than trying to put a scientific veneer on an unscientifically-derived conclusion, namely that civilization has (near-term) hard limits to energy. It is precisely the "closed system" requirement of thermo laws and the "open system" nature of the earth that invalidates their use in supporting such a conclusion.

"How do you figure they are not closed systems?"

If the energy system of the Earth were a closed system, it would be a cold rock,
http://greyfalcon.net/energy2.png

RC

"The Second Law Of Thermodynamics can only be applied to isolated systems and the world's energy producing infrastructure doesn't fit that criteria."

For all intents and purposes it is.

You, like so many people, fail to realise that you cannot isolate one aspect of infrastructure, and ignore everything else that we rely on to run our civilisation.

Energetically, yes, the earth is open to huge amounts of energy from the sun. What is limited is our ability to utilise that energy. Our energy infrastructure allows us to use energy stored in fossil fuels (solar energy that biological organisms locked up in chemical bonds), solar energy, nuclear energy and so on, to do work. We use technology to enhance the range of things we can do with that energy, but ultimately all of this relies on us, and we and our infrastructure require the following (and much more besides):

Fresh water
Clear air
Healthy soil
Diversity of organisms (lack of diversity = prone to disease/environmental extremes/etc, e.g. in crops)
Mineral resources
Scalability (for technologies) - i.e. do not rely on other limited resources
Confidence in systems of exchange (financial systems)
Co-operation

If our energy infrastructure is limited by things other than simple inputs, then it is part of an isolated system.

Another failure to appreciate the complexity issue.

I believe most people these days are profoundly innumerate as well. It probably goes along with the belief in magic.

"Conservative" political pundits will bristle at this or that little social program, exclaiming "why, it will cost millions!" ... but are set to congratulate the Sec. Treas. and central bankers for saving the dollar and the economy by writing Wall St. a blank check with twelve zeros after the significant digit.

The basic thermodynamic difference between the entropy of flue gas, and flue gas split into two streams (CO2, and mostly nitrogen), is a lot less than 20% of the energy generated by combustion. The real issue is in finding a largescale practical way of doing the seperaion/concentration, which doesn't cost much energy. The quoted numbers are for the current leading methods (amine absorbtion, and ammonia), there exist other theoretically more efficient methods. It would make sense to concentrate research funding on those processes with a potentially much lower energy cost, as I doubt CCS with >20% energy penalty will be attractive.

it takes about 20 - 40% of the energy generated by a power plant to run a CCS operation.

Nobody's going to do that when better options are on the table.  Here's a quote from Hannegan's testimony before the Senate Energy Committee:

Such solvents—for example, chilled ammonium carbonate—could reduce the loss in power output imposed by the CO2 capture process from about 30% to about 10%.

That's the energy cost for retrofits.  Plants built from the ground up to capture carbon could almost certainly do better.