Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on December 9, 2011
Let’s carefully use our power supply to invest in new sources
Two weeks ago, a new manufacturing facility in Eastern Idaho was connected to Idaho Power’s grid. At 82 megawatts, it’s a hefty load, requiring as much power as Micron did during its peak needs in Idaho. The fact that manufacturing requires a lot of energy isn’t surprising. What did catch some folks as interesting, at least, was that this energy is going to the production of solar panels. In other words, we’re using energy to make energy.
While some may see this as ironic, this phenomenon has long been understood by energy experts and is becoming an important part of the energy discussion. In fact, it even has its own acronym, EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested, pronounced “EE-ROY”). Any type of energy we exploit, whether it’s fossil fuels or geothermal heat pumps, requires an up-front investment of energy to mine, pump, refine or otherwise extract the fuel (in the case of coal, oil and gas) or fabricate the devices that perform the conversion (most notably solar photovoltaic arrays and wind turbines).
It turns out that EROEI is a great lens through which to view our energy options. In the early days of fossil fuel production, we exploited the reserves that were both close to the surface and under pressure, requiring only a small amount of energy investment. Back then, relatively shallow wells tapped into pressurized reserves, often resulting in gushers where the oil didn’t even have to be pumped, resulting in an EROEI as high as 100. Today it’s closer to 20. In other words, we get about one-fifth the amount of energy from oil for the same amount of energy invested than we used to. The bottom line is that EROEI for fossil fuels is getting worse as we have to drill deeper, in less hospitable environments and use more complex and energy-intensive techniques (e.g. fracking). Estimates for oil sands (the huge reserves of oil in the Canadian plains) are about 5, and oil shale is 3.
The EROEI of most renewables, on the other hand, is moving in the other direction. Solar photovoltaic, widely criticized for having a low (or even negative) EROEI, is now returning about 10 units of energy for each unit invested. Wind is doing even better, returning 20 to one, on par with some natural gas wells.
These two opposite trends, fossil fuels returning less, with renewables returning more, argue strongly for continued investment in renewable energy technologies. If it takes energy to get energy, then we must carefully consider how we invest our energy today to get maximum benefit in the future.
It also points to a hidden danger in waiting too long to make those investments. Today, we have ample resources to meet our energy needs, but that won’t always be the case. The declining EROEI of fossil fuels coincides with increasing worldwide energy demand. The longer we put off investments in renewable energy technologies, the more expensive, energy-wise, it will be to make those investments.
Some experts view the fossil fuel resources in the earth’s crust as our endowment, a one-time inheritance that, once it’s used up, is gone forever. While I agree with that assessment, I believe a better metaphor for our fossil resources is seed corn, a precious commodity that must be reserved so that it can be planted (invested) next season to ensure a healthy harvest in the future.
By delaying a transition to a renewable energy economy, we are eating our seed corn, and that’s never a good thing.
7 Comments on "Let’s carefully use our power supply to invest in new sources"
BillT on Fri, 9th Dec 2011 2:52 am
Sorry, but we are eating our ‘seed corn’ faster than we can grow it. We should have started 20 – 30 years ago when our own oil production peaked. It is too late now.
Harquebus on Fri, 9th Dec 2011 5:20 am
That’s the first I’ve heard that renewables can return a positive EROEI.
If it is really true, the planet will soon be covered in them. I don’t see that happening.
sunweb on Fri, 9th Dec 2011 7:44 am
There is an illusion of looking at the trees and not the forest in the “Renewable” energy world. Not seeing the systems, machineries, fossil fuel uses and environmental assaults that create the devices to capture the sun, wind and biofuels allows myopia and false claims.
ERoEI is only a part of the the equation. Each of these processes and machines may only add a miniscule amount of energy to the final component of solar or wind devices. How else would we do it? There is always the old way. Who of us will go down first?
A story in pictures and diagrams:
From Machines making machines making machines
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/12/machines-making-machines-making.html
Kenz300 on Fri, 9th Dec 2011 3:52 pm
Quote — ” The bottom line is that EROEI for fossil fuels is getting worse as we have to drill deeper. Estimates for oil sands are about 5, and oil shale is 3.
The EROEI of most renewables, on the other hand, is moving in the other direction. Solar photovoltaic, widely criticized for having a low EROEI, is now returning about 10 units of energy for each unit invested. Wind is doing even better, returning 20 to one.
These two opposite trends, fossil fuels returning less, with renewables returning more, argue strongly for continued investment in renewable energy technologies.
—————————
The transition has begun. Wind and solar are the future.
BillT on Sat, 10th Dec 2011 1:38 am
BS Kenz! There is no transition. There is a bit more emphasis placed on alternate energy sources because there is also government funding paying the bill, or a line of suckers ‘investing’ in ideas.
If a true ERoEI from minerals in the ground, to equipment in place, to maintenance, to replacement was made, NONE of the alternates would be on the plus side. None of them. ZERO. Without oil, there will not even be machines to mine the minerals ALL of these ‘renewables’ require to exist.
BillT on Sat, 10th Dec 2011 3:40 am
Perhaps this should be a permanent post until EVERYONE has seen it…
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/01/energy-in-real-world.html
“…Solar and Wind are not renewable. The energy from solar and from wind is of course renewable but the devices used to capture the energy of the sun and wind is not renewable. Nor are they green or sustainable.
An oak tree is renewable. A horse is renewable. They reproduce themselves. The human-made equipment used to capture solar energy or wind energy is not renewable. There is considerable fossil fuel energy embedded in this equipment. The many components used in devices to capture solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy and biomass energy – aluminum, glass, copper, rare metals, petroleum in many forms to name a few – are fossil fuel dependent…”
Carterb on Sat, 10th Dec 2011 4:41 pm
Andrea Rossi’s Secret Catalyst:
Iron pyrite oxidation is sufficiently exothermic that underground coal mines in high-sulfur coal seams have occasionally had serious problems with spontaneous combustion in the mined-out areas of the mine. The solution is to hermetically seal the mined-out areas to exclude oxygen.