 | A Few More Thoughts Related to Pedro Prieto's "NINJA" Post | The Oil Drum | Jeff Rubin Talks about Oil and the Economy |  |
| Using Thermodynamics to (Re)Examine Environmental Kuznets Curves | The Oil Drum: Net Energy | The Net Hubbert Curve: What Does It Mean? | |
46 comments on A Net Energy Parable Revisited
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
46 comments on A Net Energy Parable Revisited
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
Energy is an abstraction. It does not exist outside its concrete forms. I do not care how it is measured whether in calories, joules, megawatts or whatever. There must be a concrete form of it to be measured.
The same is true of another abstraction: grain. It does not exist outside its concrete forms. It doesn't matter how it is measured in bushels, kilos or pounds. There must be a concrete form of grain to measure it. Grain can not be measured except in its concrete forms.
It is also true with metal. Metal is an abstraction like energy and grain. It does not exist except in its forms. It can be measured in tons, ounces, kilograms whatever, but a concrete form of metal has to exist in order to measure it.
Now lets examine net grain. Are we going to choose whether it is better to produce corn or soybeans based on net grain? Clearly corn would be the choice since for every seed planted about 450 seeds are produced on the ear while soybeans have about 50 pods of 3 each from each soybean seed or 150. GROGI for corn is 3 times GROGI for soybeans. Using that logic no soybeans should be produced. It is absurd.
The case is similar for metal. The yield of a gold mine is very small compared to the iron needed for shaft supports and such. The MRORI is very low for gold therefore no gold should be mined using logic similar to EROEI. It is nonsense.
The EROEI/net energy logic is further complicated in that energy is unique it that it is relatively easy to change one form into another. Whereas forms of grain are difficult to change from one to another and forms of metals almost impossible except in nuclear reactions. Furthermore energy is not finite like metal or grain. A new supply arrives from the sun everyday. Why should we care about net energy except in the case of fossil fuels which deplete and are finite?
The idea that EROEI/net energy which are abstractions can be used as a determinate for which concrete form to produce is absurd. It is even more absurd that this intellectual miscarriage should be used to decide which grains should be produced or not. The same applies for metals.
EROEI/net energy has only limited application to comparable forms of energy produced in comparable ways and with comparable characteristics. Otherwise it is nonsense.
You say
and go on to make your points about grain and metals.
But then you reverse and say
That's not a complication -- that's the essence of the matter -- energy is NOT just an abstraction.
Precisely wrong! Energy can be converted, (although there is always a tax) and this is precisely what the cornucopians rely upon in wishing us a merry future (or whatever). If only we could get fusion working, if only breeder reactors could made safe, if only we could unlock methane hydrates.
You don't need to go to the sun to prove that energy is not finite. E=mc^2. Mass is energy. One mountain totally converted to energy would take care of all our needs for a very long time. Of course energy is infinite! What's NOT infinite is ACCESSIBLE energy -- energy we can get at! That's the problem. Nature has not supplied us an infinite amount of accessible energy. Luckily. We would do ourselves in more certainly than any cokehead with an unlimited supply.
"You don't need to go to the sun to prove that energy is not finite. E=mc^2. Mass is energy. One mountain totally converted to energy would take care of all our needs for a very long time. Of course energy is infinite! What's NOT infinite is ACCESSIBLE energy -- energy we can get at! That's the problem. Nature has not supplied us an infinite amount of accessible energy. Luckily. We would do ourselves in more certainly than any cokehead with an unlimited supply."
In a debate between fossil fuel usage and alternative energy usage it as boneheaded to say that "we're running out, because we can't come up with any good alternatives" as "there is no problem if we run out, because we can come up a good alternative".
1. The "running out" part is debatable for one: we don't know what we don't know: there is no gauge on Earth's crude oil tank. (Exxon thinks there is still plenty out there). Although, it seems safe to assume that we're running out so as to have us make an effort to find alternatives before we're completely on empty.
2. To say that we can't or can come up with good alternatives, is showing magical insights into what is not yet known and therefore not reliable enough. How do you know we can (or cannot) get fusion to work some day? Until then, it seems justified to keep looking for good alternatives.
I don't. But the best and the brightest have been working on it for over 50 years. Even the extreme optimists say its 20 years off. So there's a hint in there someplace.
BUT, if if we were to find a miraculous source of energy, it would at best delay our problems. Metals and minerals are depleting, albeit more slowly than energy. Their extraction therefore takes escalating amounts of energy, water and land, and metals and minerals themselves. Plus, there is an escalating toll on the atmosphere, the soil, the water, etc. If one takes a somewhat holistic view, it becomes evident that we are facing systemic limits, not just energy limits.
Ahh good your typical skeptic lets skip the BS and analyze the powerful logic form they use to debate peak oil and the crisis we face.
Understand that one of the main results of my own work is that your probably right when attacks on your position do not use powerful logic with excellent data. And of course this ensures we will certainly have problems post peak.
Here we find the typical name drop attack in this case its "Exxon" certainly someone who is in the energy industry is far more knowledgeable then a bunch of people on the internet. No mention of course of Exxons position on global warming or other positions Exxon takes. Nor to mention that most publicly traded companies are not exactly going to be announcing from the rooftops that the resource that forms the core of their business is declining. And even with all this no mention of other industry experts that don't share Exxons views.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b0d83bfa-87df-11dc-9464-0000779fd2ac.html?ncli...
This suggests that the CEO of Total feels compelled to disagree with the view points of some of the other large players given the situation this calls into question Exxons position.
You can read the rest of the article and I happen to feel that even his claims are probably not correct the reserves are not only hard to get out they are not real reserves we will never extract them. Modern reserves have increasingly become and estimate of OIP with very optimistic assumptions about its extractability.
Regardless if you wish to argue the situation using real logic at the minimum include a statement that suggests the opinions are not unified on the subject. Exxon believes we have plenty of oil while Total does not question the reserves but our ability to extract them at high production rates. Overall the energy industry seems to believe that future production will be a lot more expensive than in the past.
This is I think a balanced consensus of the energy industry all have suggested that the era of cheap oil is probably over. I don't think this is debatable and its a balanced viewpoint.
The lack of cheap oil however tends to fit quite well with concerns about EROEI so its not near as good as the name dropping cheap shot approach.
Why ? Obviously if we are eventually running out production will decline well before we hit "empty". This sort of backhanded well your wrong but I'm going to make a statement that makes no sense to support my position.
I'd suggest that maybe we should wait until production has obviously peaked we have every indication that we have plenty of oil but it will be expensive and we may not be able to grow our production rate. Lets wait until we are sure that alternatives are warranted and viable in a more open market. Certainly we should support research into alternatives now. Even if we find ourselves on a undulating plateau as CERA claims we need to expand our energy supply to grow our economy.
Plenty of sound reasons to continue to pursue alternative energy.
Not magical or at least no more magical than Moores Law. Most of the concerns are about our ability to make the transition. If there is any magic its in the assumption that some magical breakthrough will save us. If it happens great but realistically we have to plan to go renewable with technology thats off the shelf and that does not look all that promising.
Robert Rapier did some brilliant analysis of corn ethanol and found it was not a viable alternative fuel. Using arguments quite similar to what Nate is using. He was widely criticized by many people most using variants of faulty logic short of facts.
Now we are finding that his work is becoming the mainstream view point.
And last but not least no one is really attacking alternative energy on the oildrum its just that many of us believe that its a much much harder problem than proponents suggest. And its not clear that it will allow us to seamlessly move off of oil.
My own position is fairly simple our biggest problem is not energy its population the first problem we have to solve is our breeding problem and it will be solved regardless of what we do. Doing nothing ensures the worst possible outcome.
The energy problem is a result of two things rapid population growth and consuming large amounts of non-renewable energy. We have to develop a society willing to be happy with much lower population numbers and much lower total and net energy usage.
We need to decrease our own impact on the earth to the point it does not hinder natures biodiversity. Obviously renewable energy resources are critical to accomplishing this but its a much deeper position and it suggests that far more important is that we focus on becoming wise stewards of the earth limiting ourselves on purpose. And thats really the key position its not a renewable vs non-renewable energy debate but one of if we choose to self limit or not. We simply don't do certain things regardless of if we can or cannot. If we choose the self limiting route then it makes sense to limit ourselves to this biodiversity impact level why set the limit higher ?
So not only is it questionable that we can transition to renewables and continue to grow its questionable that growth makes sense at all regardless of how its accomplished.
If your talking about a population limited to under 1 billion people or even less then its obvious that we have plenty of renewable resources we simply don't need to consumer more than we produce and indeed the earth will be primarily a natural planet.
So by actually addressing the actual opinion which is really a question about growth with concerns about renewables as being viable as a secondary issue I think the battle lines are clear.
My position and that of many on the board is that we need to focus on reforming ourselves to a society of 1 billion or less people.
We have six billion people on the planet running out of oil how do we get to the target number with the least amount of pain ?
Underlying this desire is ever mounting evidence that we may well not have a choice in the matter. This alone should convince you that verbal games are probably not worthwhile lets move the debate to the crux of the problem and talk population. I'm sure there are plenty of people that believe we can allow the earths population to increase a lot more without harm but lets debate changing and considering a real alternative living in harmony with our planet.
So if your serious:
What are your views on population ?
What are your views on the disparity between incomes on this planet ?
How can we really improve the life of the global average person ?
Where does alternative energy and the decline of fossil fuels fit into the equation ?
Memmel has it right --population is it. I happen to have the luck to live on a huge bit of well-watered land covered with trees, deer, and turkeys, and my wife likes to grow food. A couple of days a year and we have all the meat we can eat- and we don't use any fossil fuel or NPK on the garden. I don't but I could easily get all my energy from wood using quite primitive technology we all know about.
And of course anybody could do the same with the same amount of land per person that I have.
So how do we get to that paradise? First create the vision by way of new stories, then let the thousands of ways to work down the population do it.
And, by the way, we have gobs of energy just waiting for our brains to go get it. Think, for example, of big wind kites pulling on a windlass. And so on.
And don't tell me I have to rewind that windlass. You rewind the furled kite with the one that's pulling at the high angle of attack.
If we are to fully embrace our new role within technological society, indentured to a corporate taskmaster, ruled by the clock and surrounded by the concrete, steel and mechanisms, then we should hand over our reproductive rights so that our lives become theirs entirely and we exist only for them. We will be trained for their use in the schools and we will enjoy the mind-numbing and body destroying fruits of mass production. When we are no longer useful and efficiency demands, we will be terminated. It (the society) will decide when and how we are to live and how many children we shall have and how they shall be raised.
For a while we could all kid ourselves that we were evolving towards greater freedom where all would be enlightened and freed from the drudgery of life and even freed from death itself. Now where do we stand? Realizing that if we move backwards we will have to abandon our dreams of technological utopia? And realizing that if we move forward we will become more and more controlled and our freedoms given up to the imperatives of the mass-consuming monster this society has become. We will become permanently trapped within the machine.Technological utopia is a myth as we shall become enthralled by the machines that we create. (I can't remember but maybe Lewis Mumford wrote about this in "The Myth of the Machine".)
The technological experiment will fail as the monkey becomes alienated and disillusioned with the destructive and controlling forces unleashed by technology.
Man is an ape, a freedom loving ape. Machines lack the desire to live and procreate without man. Either technology will shape man for a more perfect fit or man will destroy technology and perhaps himself in the process. (Or, then again, maybe we'll just run out of energy. : )
Memmel, keep the great thoughts coming. It's nice to have an alternative to the fodder served to the obedient in the MSM trough. I'll opt for some occasional fine dining on TOD.
It's a little hard to read all these ramblings. So, I address 3 points:
1. Exxon (and other oil producers). You seem to acknowledge that these guys have "deep" insights about the oil reserves, but then you say that you think even they are NOT correct. Based on what?
If there is plenty of oil out there, then of course it's a matter of how do we get it. And that is a matter of price and feasibility. That's why the EROEI method doesn't give you much guidance as to how to proceed. Because higher priced oil, would justify lower EROEI exploitations. In other words: EROEI is elastic and you can stretch it to whatever you want.
2. The same applies for the alternatives or oil substitutes. What is their affordability and feasibility? And I am not sure why Mr. Rapier's assessment would be so brilliant. I think many have argued against corn ethanol independently from him. But of course every belief system has their own saints...
3. How would you get rid of the population surplus? What would be your target number and why? What quality of life do you have in mind for the global average person? It seems to me that your "solution" is easier said then done than all the others....
Well we can do nothing and all I argue is that doing nothing will probably result in one of the most painful outcomes. Before you can even get anywhere you have to consider if any other solution besides nothing is possible. I'd argue probably not.
However whats important is to have a decent basic model of population and energy a simple yet powerful one is easily constructed.
Consider the net energy curve as a sort of parabolic or bowl shaped curve at the bottom the net energy is high as you go away from the center its lower. For now we need not worry about the exact shape just that the overall system is bowl shaped.
Next consider population modeled as a ring of spheres like a pearl necklace periodically the number of spheres double but in doing so they move up the net energy curve to lower net energy. There is a doubling rate and a rate at which the population ring moves towards lower net energy. This can easily be seen by dropping various sized rings into a a concave bowl they will stick at different heights.
Now the key doomer hypothesis is that at some point the net energy falls below a level that allows doubling to proceed. In fact the system has a sharp inflection point.
When the system hits this inflection point the population can no longer double but has to decline to access lower net energy resources. Now instead of a ring moving up a net energy curve with expanding population the system undergoes a complete phase transition and you have a shrinking ring moving down a declining net energy curve eventually to some very small but stable level at the bottom.
If this concept is correct the the population need not do any constructive action to deal with the situation it well naturally happen.
------------------------------------
So first and foremost thats the basic doomer model before you can eve discuss anything else you need to decide if you believe this basic model. If you don't then its fruitless to go forward.
Assuming you agree with the basic model then its a matter of determining the exact shape of the system etc. Once you get past the basic population issue then and only then can you discuss how to prevent the simple outcome I presented from happening.
Now as far as oil goes if you make it far enough even past this first stage we can happily discuss how steep the walls of this net energy bowl are. I believe that are quite steep and have so far found nothing to invalidate this conclusion. But these are small details realistically. At best they have some effect on our own lives and maybe with a lot of optimism even a few generations but if the basic model holds then this is really not all the relevant. It really boils down to if we will be alive or dead when or own detailed view of the model is proven right or wrong. My own model results in it being proven or not within months or years at most well within my natural lifespan. I have noticed that most of the alternative models have a interesting property in that they tend to be proven wrong after the promoter has either retired or died. I find that linkage interesting indeed. In general all the serious problems mankind faces of the invariant property that if they are not dismissed completely they tend to be 30 years out in the future if they exist at all. The current generation seems to always not be facing any serious problems.
Hopefully you can at least see why I argue we must start with population only once the population/ net energy problem is recognized can you even begin to asses the true situation.
1. I honestly have a hard time picturing your model. You suppose a cause and effect relationship between population growth and net energy. Why? (the OP defines net energy as the result of ER - EI) How is that more people would reduce the effectiveness of oil exploitation? Maybe the thinking is that more people will consume more oil (of which there is less available) and therefore even less would be available as EI for exploration/exploitation. But if E is scarce, the price will go up: therefore less will be consumed, and exploitation of lower net energy sources becomes feasible. Then more oilfields will come into production, etc. etc..
2. Doomer model. That population growth could be determined by lack of energy supply (not to be confused with "net energy") supposing that people cannot grow enough food in their vicinity nor can get it transported to them from elsewhere and starvation would result is a possibility (rather extreme though). We don't need complicated models to state the issue.
3. Prophet's death. If you're right you will be dead too, no? So, what's the point in arguing that "alternative models have a interesting property in that they tend to be proven wrong after the promoter has either retired or died."?
Sorry Willem you failed the test.
I gave you several chances and you missed every opportunity to enlighten yourself.
Its your problem not mine.
I'm sorry but I must reply to myself.
There are now six billion people on the planet you personal views converted to chemistry are measured in parts per billion. Which is often th limit of detection. Ive give you far more food for thought then most people get. Take or leave it I have a lot more to be concerned about and your personal views are barely worth consideration.
I simply don't have the time to wast for skeptics if if can execute what I feel I'm forced to do I could save millions the opinion of one of the billions is no longer important.
Let's say the teacher failed...
Willem I did not fail you don't think there will be a big problem.
Thats fine your certainly entitled to your opinion.
However at some point your in a triage type situation you have to decide.
We talk a lot about wasting resources on the oildrum but I think its now reached the point if you look at the overall US social/financial/energy situation that we are either going to manage to pull off a transition without dramatic change most importantly in the social situation or we are going to crash and burn.
If its really crash and burn then unfortunately its time to start triage you have no choice but to write off some people until they are forced to face reality.
My own father who is close to retirement devastated by the financial crash even though I warned him to get out of stocks last summer. He still believes he is going to get his pension. I can't get him to even consider that his pension may be worthless.
He still believes in the system and I suspect he will right to the bitter end.
On the plus side he has a large farm its paid off and he will get buy.
So either the doomers are completely wrong or they are right if they are right then its reached the point that if people are undecided then they have made a decision.
I'm not suggesting anyone take and action they would not be happy with if by some miracle we pull out of this White Swans are as possible as Black Swans. But I think its no longer productive to try and change a significant portion of the population thats not interested in changing. Nothing personal I've been forced to come to the same conclusion with my own parents. And I assure you thats a lot harder then some random person on the internet. Its not pleasant realizing that my parents who worked hard their whole lives and believed in the system and played by the rules and lived frugally are probably going to be mostly wiped out in the end.
If I'm wrong then feel free to laugh but if I'm right then I hope you realize that you had a chance, maybe you will get lucky and make it out either way no telling if so be thankful but I do hope you at least look at your own personal situation and think about how you would fare. Just the financial news alone should compel you to take stock of you life and how you can minimize the effects of problems.
Good Luck.
Do you have any evidence that people were generally wealthier when there were only 2 billion people on this planet? If so, please show us. Till then, I don't believe that massive population kill will get anyone out of the woods....
@x
Your "net grain" concept is one of the most pathetic straw man arguments I have ever seen. Even you, in your own post, admit that it has nothing to do with EROEI/net energy, because "energy is unique" in that is can be changed from one form to another. In admitting that, you are admitting that what you have been arguing for however long its been (months? years?) is wrong. Unlike you've been saying, EROEI and net/energy do compare concreta, and thus have very practical applications to a very broad set of concrete concerns. The only difficulties are in consistently measuring the concreta consistently. But science has become quite adept at measuring concreta in the last two hundred or so years, and there is very little about comparing different forms of energy that is actually difficult nowadays, for those who are trained.
Give this up, x.
X
This is nonsense. An abstraction is something which does not have a 'concrete form'.
We should care because we cannot simply passively receive usuable energy from on high, like manna descending on the Israelites. Energy must always be expended in order to harvest more energy. Solar panels must be manufactured and maintained. Energy must be expended to plant cultivate and harvest crops which must then be processed into a useable form. If the final amount of energy 'harvested' is not significantly greater than that expended in the harvesting process the whole process is a waste of time and resources, including energy! Moreover, it would also be unsustainable (without an energy subsidy from some other energy procuring activity which did have a significant energy return).
If EROEI were unimportant it wouldn't matter how much effort it took to procure energy and how many intermediate stages it took to manufacture a fuel. We could then disregard thermodynamics and use fuel like this to power all our agricultural machinery.