Rant: 'The sample of 1' problem

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 09 Jun 2009, 11:36

The efficiency would of course have a bearing on it, since losses accumulate throughout the life of the system.

However efficiency is more of an instantaneous view, focussed on process losses, whereas EROEI is more of a lifecycle view, focussed on gains, usually tapping into an externality ("free" energy from fossil fuel, sun, wind etc).

For example you may hear the EROEI of a windturbine being 20. You don't hear it expressed as an efficiency of 2000%, do you? You'd be more likely to hear the "conversion efficiency from the energy in the wind to electrical energy - in the region of 59%" - which references the instantaneous process of energy conversion, as opposed to its ability to harness energy from elsewhere.

Andy_K · Post by **Andy_K** » 09 Jun 2009, 12:31

Catweazle wrote:
Bandidoz wrote:You're confusing EROEI with efficiency - power plants may well be 35% efficient, but may have an EROEI of 20 (provides 20 times more energy over its lifetime than was consumed building/maintaining/decommissioning it).
Surely the EROEI of the power plant has to include the efficiency doesn't it ?

If you invest energy in the form of coal to return energy in the form of electricity that has to count, no ?

Apples and oranges everywhere!

If you're comparing the EROEI of a renewable powered system such as a wind turbine, to a fossil fuel powered one such as a coal plant, what you have to include to keep the comparison 'fair' is the energy expended to mine the coal.

In reality, any energy source we use must do two things
1) Collect energy in some form
2) Convert it into a useful form

A wind turbine does both, whereas a coal plant does only (2).

Likewise, any direct comparison between the EROEI of drilling for oil (1) and any renewable source (1+2) is also meaningless, because you've got to account for the process by which the oil is made useful. You might consider this to be refining, or you might want to consider burning it in an oil plant. Either makes oil/coal EROEI significantly lower than most 'comparisons' with renewables suggest it is.

Furthermore, unless the 'useful form' is the same in each case, you *still* can't really say one is better than the other unless you also factor in any conversion process you require to make this so.

But since you might not want to convert your oil to electricity, or your gas to oil, that's not perfect either.

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 09 Jun 2009, 13:43

[quote="Blue Peter"]

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 09 Jun 2009, 14:09

RGR wrote: Right now there is an everywhere crude glut,

Is a price of about $70 a barrel an indication of a glut? or do you think that that price is temporary? (or is somehting else going on)?

Peter.

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 09 Jun 2009, 14:25

RGR wrote:Has anyone checked what has happened to the spot price of uranium over the past year?

Interesting...

http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_g_price.html

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 10 Jun 2009, 19:00

[quote="Vortex"]

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 10 Jun 2009, 20:17

[quote="fifthcolumn"]

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 10 Jun 2009, 20:32

[quote="Vortex"]

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 10 Jun 2009, 22:53

Were my papers that bad?

Nope. Very professional. You clearly know your speciality.

I do however like to have 'helicopter views', to use the corporate jargon.

This way of looking at the world can give the situation a different 'flavour'.

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 11 Jun 2009, 00:48

[quote="Vortex"]

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 11 Jun 2009, 09:38

RGR wrote:
fifthcolumn wrote:
Vortex wrote:
Seeing the weary look of resignation on an oil professional's face as they discuss depletion is a LOT more worrying than reading any number of 'run to the hills' posts on LATOC.
I wonder who you are talking to. I can say with all honesty that there is no "oh god we're doomed mentality" here. Quite the contrary.
I wonder the same thing myself. Tuesday morning alone I was with 3 oil companies, 4 consultants and 3 others from related industries discussing industry behavior, discovery amounts and ideas, industry expectations, and while everyone was tired from 2 days of judging exhibits, committee meetings and glad handing, I didn't see a single person praying for divine intervention.

But you wouldn't expect people in the industry to be praying for divine intervention if this is peak would you? Giving thanks more like, I would have thought. If it is peak, then the industry is producing more oil than ever before, and it will go on producing a lot of oil (just not as much) in the years ahead. And that oil will be more valuable since it will be scarcer. And, it will be harder to get, which might make the job more interesting for those involved. What's not to like?

The wider implications of it, however, might be less appealing,

Peter.