Peak Oil and EROEI

[Adam1]

But "net energy" is not the only reason we use oil, and we will still use it, even if it isnt net energy anymore, just like we still use disposable batteries.

That is absolutely correct but beside the point. If it isn't providing more energy out than we put in, it is by definition, no longer an energy source. And that is what we are concerned about. We may well still be extracting oil (at very limited flow rates) for centuries to come but it will be for its non energy uses, e.g. pharmaceuticals.

[clv101]

I'm sure we'll still be using oil for a very very long time. Long after it has stopped being a net energy source. The same way we mine all other other non-energy minerals. As Adam says though, this is beside the point.

Civilisation needs net energy. Oil is currently the single largest source of net energy. In time this net energy property of oil falls away. Our challenge is to maintain civilsation's energy supply (or more accurately energy service) as energy from oil falls away. Given the projected speed and magnitude of decline, this appears very hard to do - hence concern about peak oil.

That we can use electricity to extract oil is irrelevant. That we can still extract significant volumes of oil with EROEI < 1 is irrelevant.

[happychicken]

Our planet is finite. It is of a finite size and it has a finite reserve of resources for our ever-exanding population. Oil is just one of those resources.

I can't see electric cars saving the world from problems caused by oil depletion. Maybe electric cars will be available for the rich - probably - after all, they already are, but I can't see ever-increasing mass production of cars on the scale we have seen being possible or sensible.

There are a ridiculous number of cars on the roads all over the planet already and the number is increasing every day. Where will all those precious metals come from - nickel/cadmium/lithium - to make the batteries? Not to mention the raw materials for the plastic needed to make the casing for the batteries and the innards of the cars.

And just where will all that EXTRA electricity come from to power them??

If electric transport does take off, I think it should be used for vital transportation of food and goods and for people the priority should be good public transport - not private transport that would just allow people to continue to fritter away precious energy on a trip round the corner to the local shop.

[PS_RalphW]

There's an article in this week's New Scientist (no link) that is a study of future energy use by humanity.

If we get nuclear/fusion working efficiently and cheaply
and
If we replace all fossil fuels with this energy
and
If world population expands and is sustainable at 9 billion
and
If the developing world continues to develop towards first world standard
and
If the first world increases total energy production at 1% per annum

We would still fry the planet within a century by direct release of heat.

Business as usual is so last millennium.

[biffvernon]

If we get nuclear/fusion working efficiently and cheaply
and
If we replace all fossil fuels with this energy
...We would still fry the planet within a century by direct release of heat.

That idea was proposed in a book called Fuel's Paradise by Peter Chapman in 1975.
http://www.DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.co.uk/Fuels-Paradise- ... 0140222855

[fifthcolumn]

Okay, I understand where your misunderstanding is coming from now.

I DON'T MISUNDERSTAND. I D I S A G R E E.

I also reject 100% your position that you think you are the #1 expert on this just because you are an editor at the oil drum. I can tell you right now I'm better educated than you and I've been reading about peak oil non stop since 1997 AND I've actually worked in the oil industry. So give me a break about the "misunderstanding" things if you please.

Point 1: Civilisation needs a large amount of net energy to function, that's the energy available to do stuff other than harvest energy.

Great so it does. And if you were as much an expert as you think you are then you'd know that most energy produced IS NOT PRODUCED FROM OIL.

Point 2: Oil is currently our number 1 source of net energy.

No it's not. It's a large minority. 37% of world energy usage comes from oil. (see graph below) 50 some percent comes from coal and gas. Plenty of coal for now. Plenty of gas for now. Renewables are ramping up at breakneck speeds. It comes down to growth curves.

We go after oil BECAUSE it is a large source of net energy.

Well give the boy a star.

The statement above refers to the point when oil is no longer a net source of energy

Give the boy another star.

- at that point further extraction IS pointless IF your objective is to provide civilisation with net energy (which it is).

You were doing so well there.
No, we will extract as much or as little oil as we want if it is WORTH MORE than using the electricity directly. I can think of at least one (and I'm sure there's more) case where that would be true.

Whatever the source of input energy is, is irrelevant.

Wrong. Some sources are running out and others can be increased by building more infrastructure. HUGE difference. That is a fundamental and crucial error in the MISUNDERSTANDING propagated on TOD. Some of the posters in the comments section of the EROEI posts get it. Most don't.

If it takes more energy (even electrical energy from wind turbines) then we haven't got a net source of energy anymore and we might as well be attempting to run the world on Duracell batteries. They also aren't a source of net energy.

This is stating the obvious. Maybe it's too obvious for you to extrapolate the true picture though.

You're logic is changing the rules half way through, you're basically saying we can replace the net energy we currently get from oil with net energy from renewables.

Or Nuclear. Or Coal.

Great if we can... but for a long time now, many, many people have pointed out how the timescale and magnitude of oil decline can't be covered by renewables.

Uh huh. And others disagree.

[re]

I also reject 100% your position that you think you are the #1 expert on this just because you are an editor at the oil drum. I can tell you right now I'm better educated than you and I've been reading about peak oil non stop since 1997 AND I've actually worked in the oil industry.

I don't think working as a petrol attendant counts?

Point 2: Oil is currently our number 1 source of net energy.

No it's not. It's a large minority. 37% of world energy usage comes from oil. (see graph below) 50 some percent comes from coal and gas.

Yes it is. I think number 1 means higher than the other sources, not higher than the other sources combined. The song that's number one in the charts doesn't need to sell more than the rest of the top 40 to be the number one song.

[fifthcolumn]

Yes it is. I think number 1 means higher than the other sources, not higher than the other sources combined.

That's semantics. The facts are that if it was an unassailably high percentage of our TOTAL energy usage then we'd be screwed.
It isn't and we aren't.

In fact there's something that most of you are missing.
Wind for example is 0.3% of total.
If it moves to 1% it doesn't displace 1% of oil in terms of utility.
It displaces 4%.
Now look at the growth rate of wind.

Chew on that and then see if you still come to the same conclusions.

[emordnilap]

But "net energy" is not the only reason we use oil, and we will still use it, even if it isnt net energy anymore, just like we still use disposable batteries.

That is absolutely correct but beside the point. If it isn't providing more energy out than we put in, it is by definition, no longer an energy source. And that is what we are concerned about. We may well still be extracting oil (at very limited flow rates) for centuries to come but it will be for its non energy uses, e.g. pharmaceuticals.

Those two pieces in bold are equal. It takes fifty times more energy to make a disposable battery than you get out of it.

Just to point out (and this agrees with RGR, irritatingly enough) the contradiction within this argument. We will continue to ignore EROEI so long as the end result is what we appear to want.

[Adam1]

FC - you are not advancing your argument with the personal attacks on Chris. You are speaking to an audience many of whom either know him personally or have heard or read his other contributions. You do seem a bit fixated on him. He seems to be your RGR - needless to say, his credibility here and in the peak oil community generally isn't purely a function of his role on TOD.

Picking through the petulance, one of the points you seem to be saying is that energy sources have other qualities other than net energy which drive our choices to exploit them. I think this accepted. Indeed, the academics who work in the field of net energy have incorporated energy quality into their analysis.

BTW, there is no firm data to show that coal is as plentiful as you claim.

[Adam1]

In fact there's something that most of you are missing.
Wind for example is 0.3% of total.
If it moves to 1% it doesn't displace 1% of oil in terms of utility.
It displaces 4%.
Now look at the growth rate of wind.

Chew on that and then see if you still come to the same conclusions.

How do you reach that conclusion?

[fifthcolumn]

FC - you are not advancing your argument with the personal attacks on Chris.

There's two sides to this Adam. Chris takes the position that he knows better and it comes through in his writing such as "Ah, I see your misunderstanding". That's irritating and condescending and it's equivalent of saying "you're thick mate I'm smarter than you."

So if chris wasn't condescending I wouldn't return the favour. It's not one sided as you seem to be suggesting.

You are speaking to an audience many of whom either know him personally or have heard or read his other contributions. You do seem a bit fixated on him. He seems to be your RGR - needless to say, his credibility here and in the peak oil community generally isn't purely a function of his role on TOD.

As others have pointed out, this is about the facts and our understanding of them, not a popularity contest. He condescends to me and I'm not taking it.

Picking through the petulance, one of the points you seem to be saying is that energy sources have other qualities other than net energy which drive our choices to exploit them. I think this accepted. Indeed, the academics who work in the field of net energy have incorporated energy quality into their analysis.

I don't think it is accepted. We have the argument propounded that the net EROEI of civilisation is declining because the net EROEI of oil is declining. I think this is wrong headed if the percentages are not overwhelmingly high in terms of our reliance on oil.

BTW, there is no firm data to show that coal is as plentiful as you claim.

Let's just say "we'll see".

[fifthcolumn]

How do you reach that conclusion?

Ha Ha. I knew most of you didn't know that. It was obvious from your responses. It's all about EFFICIENCY mate.

[Adam1]

But "net energy" is not the only reason we use oil, and we will still use it, even if it isnt net energy anymore, just like we still use disposable batteries.

That is absolutely correct but beside the point. If it isn't providing more energy out than we put in, it is by definition, no longer an energy source. And that is what we are concerned about. We may well still be extracting oil (at very limited flow rates) for centuries to come but it will be for its non energy uses, e.g. pharmaceuticals.

Those two pieces in bold are equal. It takes fifty times more energy to make a disposable battery than you get out of it.

Just to point out (and this agrees with RGR, irritatingly enough) the contradiction within this argument. We will continue to ignore EROEI so long as the end result is what we appear to want.

I'm not sure where the contradiction is but I agree it's likely that policymakers won't explicitly recognise or act on EROEI factors in their choices of energy sources but, unfortunately, history shows that is exactly how complex societies get into difficulties (that's a nice euphemism, isn't it? )

We need to make things "appear" differently to policymakers. Their perceptions are driven by lots of psychological factors that have been discussed before and of course by their attachment to the ideology of neo-classical economics and those exulted, high-priest, economic advisers who espouse it.

[Adam1]

How do you reach that conclusion?

Ha Ha. I knew most of you didn't know that. It was obvious from your responses. It's all about EFFICIENCY mate.

Care to expand on that?