EROEI and the New Materialism

Bo Eberle wrote a review of the New Materialism that I recommend.  I’ve been meaning to write more on this fantastic book for months, so that’s finally on the way over the next few weeks.

———————————-

EROEI- energy return on energy investment- was one of the simplest and yet most eye-opening concepts introduced to me in Religion, Politics, and the Earth: The New Materialism.  The book tackles the big three crises of capitalism, climate change, and energy, but the latter two are often conflated as one and the same.  Unfortunately, this means the two are ignored together as well by the climate denialist crowd.  But I couldn’t stop thinking that this single concept of EROEI- intuitive as it sounds once you realize its simplicity- is being left out of the talk of energy today.  It could change the conversation.

A rise in global temperature of 2 degrees Fahrenheit is enough to cause devastation in food supplies and species extinction, not to mention the weather anomalies we are already seeing and the decade of nearly consecutive “hottest years on record.”  But the has IPCC estimated that without a switch to cleaner energy, the best case scenario is a rise of 2.52 degrees (worst case, 10.44).  So we naturally frame the conversation in terms of clean energy alternatives.  But what happens if there is no serious alternative yet?

Kevin Mequet joined Crockett and Robbins to write the two chapters on energy.  The second chapter is a radical proposal for athermal nuclear power, and the need for alternatives to nuclear fission is set up by discussing EROEI.  The reason we need to think about alternatives (even alternatives to our current low-EROEI alternative/renewables) is simple:

“Unfortunately, while capitalist economics is premised upon the possibility of infinite growth, you cannot have infinite growth given a finite resource.  Oil, along with coal and natural gas, are fossil fuels; they result from deposits of vegetation that trapped carbon during the Carboniferous Period, around 400 million years ago.  We are using up these deposits of “ancient sunlight” at an astonishing rate, and they will not be replenished.” (95-6)

[Like all of life, economy is energy transformation]

For 9,800 of the last 10,000 years since the dawn of the agricultural era, we relied entirely on wood for energy.  The EROEI for wood is 4:1- for every unit of energy put into using wood, we get 4 units of energy in return.  Since all of life (and by extension, economy) is energy conversion, an EROEI of 4:1 produces natural limits on expansion.

The advent of coal provided a resource with an EROEI of 10:1, a 2.5 increase over wood.  This provided the energy for industrialization.  But coal was expensive, dirty, and difficult to transport.  We were not yet able to acquire and transport large quantities of natural gas, so we shifted to petroleum.

There was- and still is- absolutely nothing like petroleum.  Its EROEI was 150:1 when we first began to scale its acquisition and use.  We went from wood’s 4:1 to petro’s 150:1 in a century.  But here is the catch: EROEI changes as the resource depletes and acquisition becomes more costly.  By the mid-20^th century, oil EROEI fell to 100:1.  It is currently at 50:1 and will continue to drop.  This is part of the controversy wrapped up in the Canadian tar sands and Keystone XL pipeline.  Recent estimates are that tar sands oil will have an EROEI of 7-10:1 (read: less than or equal to coal).

What about nuclear energy and alternative/renewable resources?  This is where it only gets worse.  We have yet to figure out nuclear fusion for power plants.  Our reactors use fission.  Nuclear fission has a 4:1 EROEI (yes, you read that correctly- nuclear fission EROEI is the same as burning wood) because of the enormous costs of building plants and handling radioactive waste.  No other alternatives- solar, wind, hydroelectric- have an EROEI much better than 4:1.  We are depleting ourselves back into the EROEI of ten millennia ago.

If we shifted all energy production to nuclear fission reactors, Cal Tech’s David Goodstein tells us:

“You would have to build 10,000 of the largest power plants that are feasible by engineering standards in order to replace the 10 terawatts of fossil fuel we are burning today.” (97)

That would make energy-production cleaner; it would also last all of 10-20 years until we burned through all our current fissile uranium supplies.

The solution- which Mequet notes is always 25 years away- may rest in developing nuclear fusion.  Mequet again cites Goodstein, writing:

“…1 gallon of water if converted by nuclear fusion would equal the current exploitation of 300 gallons of gasoline.  At petroleum’s 100:1 EROEI that would be a phenomenal increase to 30,000 EROEI.  Given the last 350 years of history if the transition from wood to coal increased energy resource productivity by 2 1/2 times, then from coal to petroleum it increased another initially 15 and then 10 times, then a jump from petroleum to fusion anticipates a jump of another 300 times, it is reasonable to speculate the expected jump for athermal nuclear technology could be in the range of 25-30 times the petroleum EROEI.” (98)

The age of Homo carbonicus will come to an end.  That is simple math.  What the New Materialism asks is this:

“As Homo carbonicus goes extinct what can we do? Exactly what we’ve been doing- evolve… again.” (96)

Tad Delay

17 Comments on "EROEI and the New Materialism"

BillT on Thu, 14th Feb 2013 2:08 am 



We will go back to 4:1 or less EROEI. The dreams of fusion are only that, dreams. There are still way too many “ifs” to even think that it is a possibility.

Nice how the EROEI of Nuclear is finally coming out into the public domain. I think it is actually less, but…

As for all of the other ‘renewables’. They can honestly be called ‘extenders’, but not ‘replacements’ for oil and NG. They all require oil to exist.

DC on Thu, 14th Feb 2013 3:25 am 



Fusion RoFL! Even if they ever figure out how to make fusion ‘work’, all the other resources, especially the mountains of soon-to-be-radioactive-and-useless-for-bugger-all else rare and exotic minerals that a fusion reactor would require for it s contrustion and on-going operation, will all be either A) gone, or B) far too expensive to throw into a fusion reactor

rollin on Thu, 14th Feb 2013 3:49 am 



Why are almost all the ERoEI numbers quoted here significantly different than the numbers from the many books and papers I have read. Coal 10:1? Really? Usually given an 80:1. Tar sands suddenly double in ERoEI? Amazing.

Wind is usually given at least a 20:1 ratio and solar around 10:1. Hydro has a typical 40:1 ratio. Here they are listed as 4:1. Strange.

dave thompson on Thu, 14th Feb 2013 5:15 am 



As Homo carbonicus goes extinct what can we do? Exactly what we’ve been doing- evolve… again.” (96)

Arthur on Thu, 14th Feb 2013 9:40 am 



EROEI is an important concept to describe a steadily depleting resource like carbon fuel, but it tends to be overrated for a resource that exists in abundance, like solar and its derivatives wind and hydro. There is no substantial difference between eroei value of 10 or 100. Assume you have a starting capital of 100 potatoes. Eroei 10 means you have to reserve 10 potatoes for the next harvest and you can eat 90. Eroei 100 means you have to reserve 1 potatoe for the next harvest and you can eat 99. Income difference 90-99. Big deal. Solar is available in, for humans, unlimited quantities. It takes an area as small as Spain to completely replace the entire energy needs of the planet. The planet is littered with formerly useless places like the Gobi, Sahara, Kalahari, Outback, New Mexico, etc. Forget the crap that you need oil to create and maintain renewables, you don’t. Or rather only to initiate the bootstrap process. Once a minimum base is installed, you can use the excess energy to install new devices, just like with the potatoes. First year 10, next 100, next 1000 and after merely 10 years you are the proud owner of 10 billion potatoes. Just with a meager eroei of 10. Renewable energy same story. I have shown on my blog yesterday that it takes 2 years of US steel production to get it done for the US. And for people who insist that you do need oil (you don’t, only for plastic, but who needs plastic?), there is always biofuel to do that. And to debunk notions that you need oil to create steel, well you don’t either. I have shown that steel furnaces exist today that operate completely on electricity.

To some it up: there is no fundamental energy problem per se, we are merely too late to avoid a major dent in economic development and subsequent population numbers. Lets say that the gods in the heavens have decided that human population needs to be decimated before it will recover.

deedl on Thu, 14th Feb 2013 9:41 am 



@rollin

Youre right, the EROEI values given are very strange. For Germany wind for example is between 16:1 and 51:1 depending on size and place of turbine. There have been lots of studies about it, because germany wouldn’t dare the energyshift if it was not feasible. Coal in Germany is around 30:1, so the change to renewables is actually not really a drop in EROEI.

deedl on Thu, 14th Feb 2013 9:45 am 



@Arthur can you post the Link to your blog?

Arthur on Thu, 14th Feb 2013 9:58 am 



http://deepresource.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/us-steel-production-required-for-energy-transition/

BillT on Thu, 14th Feb 2013 11:44 am 



Arthur, take off the techie blinders and stop pushing your products. You work in the renewables industry so why should we believe your propaganda? Renewables CANNOT exist without oil, cheap abundant oil. The EROEIs in this article are more correct because they actually take into account the total energy from the mines to the recycle life of a wind generator or other energy extender.

deedle, you better check info coming from some source NOT promoting the subject. The numbers you are using are way above most I have seen from independent sources. ALWAYS look at the source of the article and who signs their paycheck. That will tell you how the ‘facts’ are spun.

deedl on Thu, 14th Feb 2013 12:53 pm 



@Bill: Do not make the mistake of false induction. Just becaue currently oil based energy is used to manufacture install and maintain renwables does not mean that in every case it is needed. It is possible for renewables to exist without oil. They did so before the oil age. Do not make again the mistake of false induction in assuming that the pre oil world is the only way a world without oil can be like.

The EROEI numbers for wind power are well established for Germany due to hard data collected by more than 20.000 windpower stations that have been produced, installed and maintained during the last two decades. I know the people who do the research and I know the people who train the future generations of german engineers, i know where the studies come from and who made them.

Do you think a nation of scientists and engineers that was always low on resources does no objective research about EROEI?

Your problem may be, that you have the wrong language to have access to the important resources. The cutting egde in renewables does not happen in the english speaking world, it happens in Germany, Denmark, China and a few other nations. It does not happen in US, UK or Canada.

Arthur on Thu, 14th Feb 2013 12:57 pm 



Bill, I am NOT working in the renewables industry and never have, merely have a college degree in that direction, but that’s 30 years ago.

I am not pushing ‘my product’, I have no advertiding on my blog and besides I can see in my logs that nobody clicks the posted link, except two or three other posters the very same day. Nobody reads these comments. If you want to be read, write a blog instead of posting comments. Last month I got 6000 hits, ALL of them originating from google plus 30 followers. The reason why I make this blog is to develop a coherent vision about the energy situation, maybe one day I will summarize it in a book, maybe not. And these links can be used perfectly in the opinion battle that is raging on this site, which sometimes, certainly in your case, can become tiresome repetative. You have a series of opinions (“you need oil for everything, renewables have too low an eroei, you need satellites for internet, the west is going under but China miraculously will continue to thrive, technology is to be abandoned almost completely, the internet consumes much energy, the Philipines is the place to be to survive “) that have been debunked time and time again (thats why you hate my links).

I have been following your posts for a year now and in the beginning I was impressed, certainly by your courage of conviction, namely that the end was near and that the only thing left was to run to the hills. Now, after spending a lot of time on the subject I am no longer convinced this is going to be the case and that in fact the US or Europe are in fact the places with the best chances for survival (and the Philipines about the worst, certainly if you are indeed a Euro-American as you say you are and the jews in Washington manage to bring the US into war with China, an Asian country). I am getting the impression that you made your decision on the basis of an unhealty diat of doomer literature and thst slowly these prophecies have become program, and that you start to fight anyone who dares to come up with pointers towards ways out of this mess. Because if the west does not collapse (and it will not, short of nuclear war, although depression and dollar collapse are almost certain), you look pretty silly alone in the jungle. A little bit like these japanese soldiers found in the jungle in the seventees, who had missed that the war was over. That’s your fear and that is the driving force behind your excessive doomerism and dogmatic rejection of anything hinting at a ‘solution’.

Again, eroei of offshore windturbines can easily be 50, solar 10 or higher and that includes full production cycle. 150,000 steel windturbine towers can be produced by US steel industry in a couple of years and they will survive two centuries. Growth will be over for sure, but collapse will be prevented and we can avoid a ‘world made by hand’. It for sure is a challenge but it can be done. And yes, technology, after an energy footprint assessment is a good thing.

GregT on Thu, 14th Feb 2013 4:47 pm 



Arthur et al,

I think that you are missing a very large piece of the puzzle here. While you are correct, that if we focus a great deal of time, energy, and resources we MIGHT be able to find ways to replace fossil fuel use in electric power generation, you in no way have even begun to address the problems that we face.

Electricity will not replace fossil fuels. We have evolved technologies for over a century. Technologies that we now need for our very survival. Technologies that are completely reliant on oil, and without oil they will no longer exist.

Dreaming of BAU, or something even remotely resembling BAU, is nothing more than a dream.

Arthur on Thu, 14th Feb 2013 5:28 pm 



Nobody here is dreaming about BAU. Name me a few things where oil/gas is indispensible and I will be happy to think and comment about it.

Oil is mainly used for transport, power generation and heating. All three can be done with electricity. For smaller quantities in other applications there will be enough oil left, gradually replaced by biofuels.

GregT on Thu, 14th Feb 2013 5:40 pm 



The signs are already starting to show worldwide, and they are not going to get better, they are going to get much worse. You can ignore reality all you want, and you can pretend that alternate energy will solve our problems. It will not.

You have the opportunity to prepare yourself for what is coming, or you can just keep on dreaming. The problems that we are presented with, are far to complex to solve with simple solutions.

poaecdotcom on Thu, 14th Feb 2013 7:49 pm 



“Name me a few things where oil/gas is indispensable and I will be happy to think and comment about it.”

How about the entire agribusiness model, from fertilizer to JIT distribution.

That is why there are 7 billion on the planet.

poaecdotcom on Thu, 14th Feb 2013 7:52 pm 



The end of the current paradigm is not a problem.

It is a predicament with no solution.

In my view, any/all positive thoughts and actions should be channeled to post growth/oil/debt homo-sapien

GregT on Thu, 14th Feb 2013 9:41 pm 



poaecdotcom,

You are of course correct. The biggest issue that we face as a species will be that of food production. Our exploitation of the earths resources and energy usage are what caused the dilemma that we currently face.

Focussing on how to maintain an abundance of energy will do nothing to solve our biggest problems, it will only make them worse further on down the road.

We need to unlearn what we think to be normal, and return back to living within the natural environment that we call earth.