[Duende]

Recently I became familiar with a term called the Law of Receding Horizons, and based on what I've read it has some pretty dire consequences for future development of other non-renewable resources out there like tar sands, oil shale, and nuclear.

For the uninitiated, the idea plays out like this: As the cost of producing oil rises, the [tar sand, oil shale, nuclear] project’s costs balloon until it is no longer economical. It's as if they believe that their costs will magically remain where they were, even as the cost of oil (and everything else) increases. In short, all the costs associated with these various projects rise too.

It seems that when it comes to non-renewable resources, "the Invisible Hand stays in its Invisible Lap."

[mekrob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Duende', 'R')ecently I became familiar with a term called the Law of Receding Horizons, and based on what I've read it has some pretty dire consequences for future development of other non-renewable resources out there like tar sands, oil shale, and nuclear.

For the uninitiated, the idea plays out like this: As the cost of producing oil rises, the [tar sand, oil shale, nuclear] project’s costs balloon until it is no longer economical. It's as if they believe that their costs will magically remain where they were, even as the cost of oil (and everything else) increases. In short, all the costs associated with these various projects rise too.

It seems that when it comes to non-renewable resources, "the Invisible Hand stays in its Invisible Lap."

[Bas]

I think it's commonly known around here as EROEI (Energy Return On Energy invested).

[Duende]

Bas wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think it's commonly known around here as EROEI (Energy Return On Energy invested).

[aahala]

It seems to me that the cost of "A" will always increase
in unison with the cost of "B", that the price difference will
always increase or it will always decrease, are all claims of
the same order--"high" claims.

The higher the claim the more weighty the evidence must be
for its general acceptance. I doubt any of the three are always true, but if you believe otherwise, here's your chance to convince
me by providing the evidence.

[Tyler_JC]

The Law Of Receding Horizons is incorrect.



Does anyone dispute these charts?

[MattSavinar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'T')he Law Of Receding Horizons is incorrect.



Does anyone dispute these charts?

[Duende]

Thanks Tyler_JC. So it appears that the law of receding horizons does not apply for renewables.

But is there a consensus that it does apply to the development of non-renewables (particularly tar sands and oil shale)?

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Duende', '[')b]Bas wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think it's commonly known around here as EROEI (Energy Return On Energy invested).

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '.')..
We are swimming in energy, we merely need to reach out our finger tips to retrieve it.

[LoneSnark]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s the cost of producing oil rises, the [tar sand, oil shale, nuclear] project’s costs balloon until it is no longer economical. It's as if they believe that their costs will magically remain where they were, even as the cost of oil (and everything else) increases. In short, all the costs associated with these various projects rise too.

[Duende]

Ok, so there isn't a one-to-one cost increase with the rising price of oil.

However, wouldn't the development of tar sands or oil shale (using oil imputs for extraction/transportation/etc.) essentially be "turning gold into lead" since oil has a much higher EROEI than either tar sand or oil shale?

Could the LRH be taking this effect into consideration?

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'T')he Law Of Receding Horizons is incorrect.



Does anyone dispute these charts?

[Tyler_JC]

EROEI:

Compare these two examples.

A wind turbine takes 10 units of energy to build and produces 100 units of usable energy in its lifetime.

An oil well takes 10 unites of energy to build and produces (after refinement, transportation, etc.) 200 units of usable energy in its lifetime.

When the oil runs dry, the oil well is finished. It can be recycled and turned into something else but overall the oil well will no longer be able to produce oil energy.

When the turbine breaks down, it can be repair or recycled...but the underlying energy source (the sun) hasn't disappeared.

The only limit to solar energy is our ability to capture it. (and the practical limits of land use but we have so much underutilized land compared to our needs that it becomes a moot point)

The limit to fossil fuels is their physical availability. Once the oil's gone, it's gone. You can't just build an oil well in Central Park and expect oil to come out. But you can stick a solar panel just about anywhere and get energy out of it.

As for the inability to maintain society off of installed renewable energy, I don't buy that argument.

If the EROEI of a wind turbine is 10 to 1, it's not going to suddenly drop below that point. Oil, on the other hand, can have a negative (X<1) EROEI if too much processing is necessary to turn oil shale into usable oil.

Produce lots of solar energy (in all of its forms) and you can electrify the transportation grid. Battery-powered service vehicles can buzz around repairing the wind turbines and the system is sustainable for much longer than the fossil fuel grid ever could be.

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Duende', '[')b]Ok, so there isn't a one-to-one cost increase with the rising price of oil.

However, wouldn't the development of tar sands or oil shale (using oil imputs for extraction/transportation/etc.) essentially be "turning gold into lead" since oil has a much higher EROEI than either tar sand or oil shale?

Could the LRH be taking this effect into consideration?

[namenick]

When I was in Syncrude in N. Alberta in 99, they said that they were getting down to close to total cost of $10 a barrel, everything in. I think it's more like $15 now but that's a hard figure to uncover because they don't seem to be forthcoming on it. Considering that they don't have any energy costs to operate but do have labour costs and materials costs, the profits have skyrocketed. It needs to be looked at as how much energy in to get energy out. That remains stable and the tarsands will remain a viable source of oil until it's tapped out.

And of course their extraction efficiency is getting better which drives cost down. Taxes could be the wildcard.

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', 'I')f you remove the government subsidies, the price of solar is about 40-45 cents per kwh.

[JPL]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'T')he Law Of Receding Horizons is incorrect.



Does anyone dispute these charts?

[aflurry]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Duende', '[')b]Bas wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think it's commonly known around here as EROEI (Energy Return On Energy invested).

[LoneSnark]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')owever, wouldn't the development of tar sands or oil shale (using oil imputs for extraction/transportation/etc.) essentially be "turning gold into lead" since oil has a much higher EROEI than either tar sand or oil shale?