Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on January 19, 2013
An EROEI Primer
Vermont Energy Generation Siting Policy
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
– Richard Feynman
Numerous factors are considered when evaluating prospective energy production facilities. The
outcome of a financial cost-benefit analysis is the key factor for most developers. Dependence on
additional resources and environmental consequences are more relevant to those living proximate and
downstream to the facility. With questionable future flow rates for fossil fuels, renewable and
sustainable resources are of ever-increasing importance. The location relative to end users and fuel
sources, as well as the scale of the contribution are metrics more relevant for operators, utilities, and
siting commissions.
A well thought out design will consider all of these factors and yet, from a “whole systems” approach,
may be inadequate. Failing to incorporate a net energy analysis may result in a project that is worthless
from an energy perspective, and detrimental to the society that diverts resources supporting it. To
evaluate energy production projects it helps to understand the concept of Energy Return On Energy
Invested (EROEI).
A leading reason that our economies have grown robustly over the last few generations is precisely
because our energy resources had unprecedentedly high EROEI ratios. As conventional fuels become
more challenging to produce, their EROEIs have become noticeably lower. Relatively low EROEI
challenges many renewable energy projects compared to most energy resources of the past century too.
13 Comments on "An EROEI Primer"
BillT on Sat, 19th Jan 2013 1:33 pm
Low EROEI is the future, and the future is now. Any real net energy research would prove that we passed peak energy decades ago. We are already on the way down and gaining speed. Tar sand/shale is barely better than moonshine, and maybe not even that high in net energy.
Arthur on Sat, 19th Jan 2013 3:30 pm
EROEI should not be overestimated, at least as important is the total amount of energy available of a particular source. In case of solar, and its derivative wind, it is nearly infinite. And then there is geothermal and tidal and hydro. Any source over 10 is fine. The real critical parameter is IQ as well as spine (leadership) enabling a society to face ugly truths and willingness to act upon insight. The bottleneck for the near future is not that there is no potential for substitution but that we could be simply too late in order to prevent a global catastrophy and a major dent in population numbers.
econ101 on Sat, 19th Jan 2013 4:31 pm
The value of the work being produced needs to be netted against the inputs when calculating eroei. If you do that eroei wont be effective as a weapon in arguments opposing conventional energy.
It seems any input you desire can be included in eroei without disclosure. This helps get a more “meaningful” number for your proof the end of the world and immeasurable suffering is upon us.
How do you handle governement policy in the eroei calculation? Government policy has forced development into areas they do not control. Development is costly. These costs include infrastructure that needs to be built to effectively get these huge new supplies to market. this has a negative impact on eroei early in the process.
The infrastructure build-out is a front end cost for any new development and puts downward pressure on costs over time as it gets paid for and marketing is more efficient.
What about fracking, it didnt even exist 10 yrs ago. Is this a negative on eroei, or rather is it a positive becuase the return on the fracking energy is so high?
econ101 on Sat, 19th Jan 2013 4:45 pm
The eroei of solar and wind is not infinite. In fact it is so poor they wouldnt exist if they werent heavily subsidized through tax policies and outright hand outs. If its so good wouldnt you be using them more cheaply and without any governement incentives?
There is no way tens of thousands of wind generators and towers are going to maintain any kind of positive output over time that can compete with the huge, cost effective, proven generators we supply the grid with now. As they age, and their useful economic lives doesnt appear to be as long as most had hoped, they require more and more costly maintenance. If they must be used they do the least harm in the role of load levelers for gas/coal turinces generators.
Solar panel output declines over time as the reactions become less efficient. These panels will not have the economic life expected. It will be much shorter. How long are useful solar facilities lasting now? have any been supported long enough through higher rates and/or by the taxpayers to determine their acutal life?
I know new wind towers are being built and older ones being torn down in our neck of the woods. The tear-down part of the cycle will increase exponentially over time as will generator replacement. All are negatives for the infinite eroei discussed above.
It seems the most efficient use of wind or solar would be to crack water into its hydrogen/oxygen compenents and capturing them for use in combustion engines or maybe fuel cells if the platinum problem can be solved.
Arthur on Sat, 19th Jan 2013 5:58 pm
“There is no way tens of thousands of wind generators and towers are going to maintain any kind of positive output over time that can compete with the huge, cost effective, proven generators we supply the grid with now.”
Completely ignoring that:
1) sooner or later carbon fuel is running out
2) Denmark is richer per capita than the US, yet generates ca 50% of its electricity from wind
Harquebus on Sun, 20th Jan 2013 12:54 am
Wind and solar Pv do not return the energy used to produce them. The author does not go far enough up the expanding supply chain. Each link wastes a certain amount of energy performing its tasks.
GregT on Sun, 20th Jan 2013 6:09 am
Without fossil fuels, all current alternate energy sources would not be feasible.
BillT on Sun, 20th Jan 2013 6:33 am
No one seems to remember that materials for ‘renewables’ begin in the mines of many countries all around the world. The very machines that mine the ores are ALL possible because oil energy makes them possible. Then there are the machines that make the mining machines, and on and on. The network will NOT exist when there is no concentrated energy to perform all of the hundreds of steps that make a wing tower or PV panel possible.
GregT on Sun, 20th Jan 2013 7:20 am
Econ101,
Your post above is very refreshing.
My apologies, but I can’t help but think that this post must be from someone else pretending to be you.
I hope I am wrong.
“Cracking ” water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen has been a dream for a very long time. While possible, doing so efficiently is in contradiction to the first law of thermodynamics. It requires more energy input than what is realized in energy output. EROEI.
I suppose that an empirical government could perhaps fuel military might for a while using this technology, but it will never allow the continuation of our current economic paradigm.
Arthur on Sun, 20th Jan 2013 8:17 am
If it were true that you need fossil fuels to produce renewable sources, than there is enough for millenia to come, assuming you are not wasting it on car driving or space heating.
@Greg: that is the hydrogen economy of former fame. Currently there is only one large, simple storage method and that is elavating water. Efficiency 80%.
BillT on Sun, 20th Jan 2013 10:53 am
Arthur, you ASSUME that the system will be in place to make it possible to recover that fossil fuel. I don’t think it will. When the current financial bubble bursts, globalization will become a rarely used word in the dictionary. There will not be billions to spend trying to recover and process fossil fuels of any kind. As equipment wears out, mining will cease. As energy declines so will the smelting of metals in any quantity to make new ones.
In the US we have to move mountains to get coal. We have to spend millions per well and drill thousands of wells just to keep today’s low production from declining. When that cost goes to billions each, oil will be dead. There will be no market for it for anything because it will be like rare black diamonds. Admired, but out of the reach of 99.999% of the market.
If you had been born in the pre-tech world, you would understand that it too is a bubble caused by cheap, abundant energy. We blew that opportunity by building a system of living in the West that was doomed to fail. No we pay the price. What could have been used wisely to create a really great future was wasted. Renewables may slow the decent, but the end is a world much like before oil was discovered and abused.
Arthur on Sun, 20th Jan 2013 12:51 pm
Bill, you are putting too much emphasis on financial matters. A crash of the Bretton Woods system is a near certainty… savings could be wiped out, international trade could collapse, all true. But as long as there are competent people around with a professional history in oil extraction, oil will be extracted, as long as there is oil to extract AND it costs substantial less energy to extract than the energy gain (eroei). When hungry and broke, American oil workers will work for ANY money to support their families. Ukrainians work for 500$ per month, there is no reason why Americans would not do the same if forced to after a crash. Eroei is decisive, not finance. Hickups in a financial system are temporarily, eroei is not.
Oil infrastructure is essential for survival of a society and any advanced society will make sure that some oilstream will keep going for essentials, long after most people have stopped driving. Society as a whole is going to contract, not collapse, in contrast to Bretton Woods.
But I do not believe we need oil for construction of renewables. Besides there will be coal, gas, biogas enough for decades for that purpose.
Another important considerstion is thst with a contracting world population, in the future, mining will we largely unnecessary since most of the materials are already above the ground, thanks to the efforts of previous generations. Thanks te recycling we will have enough iron we need for centuries to come.
Arthur on Sun, 20th Jan 2013 1:37 pm
Oh and Bill, maybe you want to read this as a proof that it is very well possible to create steel using electricity, obviously including wind and solar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnace
There is no reason why there cannot be an advanced society after the end of the carbon fuel age. But it will take decades to build a new energy infrastructure.