 | Thanks to the TOD Staff, and to the TOD Community. (Social Capital is Alive and Well...) | The Oil Drum | Ignoring intrayear volatility, where do you expect WTI crude oil futures to close 2009? |  |
| The IEA WEO 2008 from the Perspective of Biophysical Economics | The Oil Drum: Net Energy | Implications of Energy Return on Investment, Peak Oil and the Concept of “Best First” | |
108 comments on Welcome to The Oil Drum: EROI
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
108 comments on Welcome to The Oil Drum: EROI
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Contact
- theoildrumeroi at gmail dot com
Personnel
Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
A minor quibble...again!
I think that the folks posting on TOD are trying to speak to the more general public. The use of the abbreviation "EROI" would seem to be a source of confusion in our world dominated with disussions of finance and economics, since "ROI" refers to investment of $$$$, not energy. Please, won't you guys use "EROEI" to be crystal clear to the readers who might not already know what the hell you are writing about???
E. Swanson, MsME
It's not a minor quibble.
The use of the inherently-confusing acronym EROI is quite unfortunate. Why are we reluctant to take even a minor logical step away from an arbitrary academic convention?
This has been discussed at some length in the past by me and by others. I won't beat it to death here, as there is no logic to using EROI. But since Black Dog brings it up, I'll agree.
I appreciate the motivation of the posters and wish them well, but as a longterm activist and strategist it's painful to see so little apparent forethought paid to the subject's accessibility by the target audience. Feel free to search my past comments on this if you forget the arguments.
"Return on Investment" is a financial consideration, and that's how it will be perceived by default every single time by every single new person who is introduced to it.
Like Boof below, I too am starting to use net energy profit because I can say "it's like net profit is to money; if the energy profit gets too low, in some cases it isn't worth taking the energy out of the ground. Right now that's the case for shale and it could possibly always be that way."
And when I do use the full term I definitely include the extra "energy" as in "energy return on energy invested" to make sure people don't start including money in their thinking except to distinguish why money doesn't play a role in this concept.
As for accessibility, I agree that EROI or EROEI aren't very good -- acronyms should be avoided for general audiences.
But TOD seems to have always been wonkish and not afraid of equations and acronyms. So I suppose it comes down to who the audience of these articles is and that's for the people behind TOD to decide. My guess is that the first articles are going to be pretty involved.
A salient comment by Boof, and in fact I personally use "net energy" as a conversational term for the same reasons; TOD:Net Energy would probably be a lot more intuitively accepted by new TOD readers.
Certainly here on TOD acronyms shouldn't be a problem per se among the cognoscenti. I know what the post is about. But it's rather the point that people who DON'T currently understand it not be hindered by unnecessarily poor terminology.
I'd say that the most important messages to get across here are that there are absolute thresholds beyond which energy carriers and mineral resources are not available even if they physically exist; and that the ER/EI ratio may be the one of the best quantitative determinants of the level of complexity which human societies can maintain. The words "invested" and "investment" should probably not be used at all due to the fiscal default connotation...
allright, that's it, I'm off to bed. g'nite gang.
Or maybe just TOD:Net
;-)
Nah, that sounds fishy as well as fiscal.
When it comes down to it, EROEI vs EROI is an add homonym argument. ER/EI would be a lot better, but it doesn't roll off the tongue well. "net energy" is probably the best compromise.
Other alternates might include words not currently in use, so one would be obliged to refer to the definition. Off the top of my head, I might suggest
e-mojo
monkey mischief factor
entropoopy
ploofmibble
gettability
hagens (where a 5 hagen source corresponds to a 5/1 EROEI)
etc
None of these are perfect, but none are as inherently confusing as is EROI. Just saying.
It IS a minor quibble.
I am fine with EROI. The first E is enough to get the concept across. The second E makes the acronym clumsy to say it out loud whether one uses just the acronym or say it in long form. Of course I am one of those participants that can be classified as in the "general public". I was pleased to see the acronym shortened and got its meaning right away.
"The first E is enough to get the concept across."
I disagree. The general public will and does interpret this as "How much energy can be extracted for how many dollars?" So the problem to them is one of financial investment: more money = more energy. This is of course dead wrong. There's a cartoon (probably many) that shows a man who looks like the rich guy from Monopoly running down the street with a hungry lion chasing him. He is hurling money behind him, wondering why it doesn't seem to be diminishing the lion's intent to eat him...
That said, I think "Net Energy" as suggested by others is the most broadly understandable to newcomers, but if we're using acronyms, we need the second E. EROEI.
Yes, the first E isn't nearly enough to get the concept across. Not only do I include the second E, I go out of my way to emphasize it as in "energy return on energy invested. This has nothing to do with money."
If we get people pointed in the right direction from the beginning, it's less work later. And in a group of 100 people, I promise that even with this emphasis some small minority will still think it has to do with money by the end of the discussion. At least it will be a smaller number than without the emphasis on "energy invested."
I've found speaking to the public that every opportunity should be taken to be precise and specific with language (thus, replace pronouns with nouns as often as possible, etc.); the conversation moves along better that way.
That's the view I advocate.
I agree that if we're talking about Net Energy, then EROEI would be a much better acronym. I also agree that not using acronyms is better than that.
However, both of Nate's comments above, his first post and the comment in this thread, as well as other's comments should be reminders that the real issue is not EROEI, but rather EROI where I is not defined strictly financially. The Investment must include natural resources (Tar Sands -> water, land) as well as political imbalances (Nigeria -> MEND) in the overall costs. These will be hard to factor in, but I think it is obvious that we have to start trying.
The problem with this approach is that calculating these costs necessitates agree upon some moral standards. What JD points out elsewhere as a political costs is really a moral one. One needs a moral framework not based on any one religion that is difficult for anyone to disagree with.
Possible sources could be the Preamble to the UN Charter:
* to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
* to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
* to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
* to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
or the similar UUA Principles:
* The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
* Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
* Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
* A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
* The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
* The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
* Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
Those were off the top of my head, there are probably other good examples that others may bring forward. I think the weakest part of each of these examples deals with the future consequences. That is valuing the rights of the future people and natural state as highly as the present. It is present, but not explicit and something stronger like the Seventh Generation Sustainability principle.
Morality has a tendency to bog down discussions, so I wouldn't let a lack of agreement get in the way of getting the ball rolling. It will be necessary to get it somewhat resolved at some point, though, so it might pay to begin starting such discussions now. It may turn out that some principles are too difficult to factor in while others are easy.
Wow, that went off much further than I expected. That's the nature of a forum. :)
My apologies if the definition has been broadened; I'm not following all the threads today as closely as I normally try to before writing.