The Green Files > EROEI

[Odograph.com] Study “peak oil” or “alternative energy” a little bit and you will hit the acronym called EROEI, or Energy Returned On Energy Invested. There is actually a website dedicated to the concept, and it is as important as they say. We are accustomed to a oil-based world, with so much energy returned on such a small amount of energy invested, that our gut feel is that all energy sources must work that way. If only.

Previous [Previous] Hydrogen, Return of the Skeptics...

Next [Next] WARM AIR...

Some slightly related from Technorati and Google.

http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com [Mobjectivist.blogspot.com] MOBJECTIVIST: Stage 5: The energy return on energy invested (EROEI) argument glazes over lots of eyeballs. Newberry provides a fresh perspective on what it will it take to make this concept sink in for the majority of people. I like his idea of amplification, which sounds a bit like perpetual motion at first glance, but in fact refers to using energy sources that provide a bootstrapping mechanism and that we can depend on for the long haul.

http://peaknik.blogspot.com [Peak Oil Premonitions] For Those of the Investor Class: Remember the theory of "energy returned on energy invested" or ERoEI. In other words, there may very well be a billion barrels of oil discovered in Utah but you have to remember that not all oil is recoverable from a cost effective standpoint. The first half of collectible oil is relatively easy to extract, most of the time, but as you get into the second half of recoverable oil, it becomes much harder to extract physically and so it's more expensive and not cost effective. From what I've learned, this billion barrels of oil found in Utah may not be fully extractable and the total amount is only about 12 days worth of wordwide oil at our present demand rates...and that is rising.

http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com [Resource Insights] Oil Famine: Preparing for a Post-Oil Future/Course Outline: Net energy - The amount of energy yielded by a resource minus the amount of energy it takes to find, extract, refine, transport and utilize that resource, i.e., it takes energy to get energy. If the net energy is positive, the resource is an energy source. If the net energy is negative the resource is an energy sink. (Also referred to as Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) and Energy Profit Ratio.)

http://richardsprague.blogspot.com [Richard Sprague] The Party's Over (Book Review): The trouble with this argument is that it ignores basic math, on several levels including the laws of supply and demand, and the fundamentals of net present value.  Heinberg’s case is based on a math error so simple that it calls into question the accuracy of the entire book.  EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) is a simple concept: producing energy usually requires expending some energy, whether in the form of the power that drives an oil well pump or the energy it takes to construct and operate a windmill. Throughout the book, he insists that high EROEI is good (a net profit) and low is bad (a net sink), which sounds reasonable except that he doesn’t appear to understand that in fact a ratio is based on the number one: anything greater than 1 is a net profit, and anything less than 1 is a net loss. Incredibly, Heinberg argues that the ratio can be negative!

[Moon of Alabama] EROEI PR: I think the PR agencies have figured out that the EROEI concept/meme is percolating outward to people in the investor class, to the intelligentsia in the managerial class, and even to the proles. Therefore they now instruct their copywriters to "make it look good with regard to EROEI," much as all toothpastes had to brag about their fluoride after the first one added some, all cars had to have digital dashboards after the first one, all clothing had to be "wrinkle resistant" after the first permanent press, etc. It will be the new buzzword and therefore a lot of BS will be written incorporating this acronym, just like all the insane BS about "green" cars now that "green" is a positive PR buzzword.

http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com [Mobjectivist.blogspot.com] MOBJECTIVIST: Vulture Capitalists: And with technology already well in hand, the cost of sucking oil out of the planet we occupy simply will not rise above roughly $30 per barrel for the next 100 years at least. Unfortunately, these two never mention EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). At some point, you have to consider more than monetary cost. Energy to extract costs money, and if that energy exceeds the energy gained, BYE-BYE.

Peakoil.com[Peakoil.com] Peak Oil News and Message Boards >> Forums >> Conservation ...: His son will ride a camel." Read my blog here: http://depletion.blogspot.com/ ... When I use EROEI, I mean Energy Returned on Energy Invested. ...

Peakoil.com[Peakoil.com] Peak Oil News and Message Boards >> Forums >> Conservation ...: His son will ride a camel." Read my blog here: http://depletion.blogspot.com/ ... When I use EROEI, I mean Energy Returned on Energy Invested. ...

[Cascadiascorecard.typepad.com] Cascadia Scorecard Weblog: Everybody Loves Biofuels: I'll leave my thoughts about food-based fuels for a later post.  But in the meantime, it seems like the article omits an important biofuel--ethanol that's made from crop and wood wastes, rather than grain. It's called cellulose ethanol, and there's a much more energy potential from that than there is from food crops.  A Canadian company, Iogen, is currently planning to build a cellulose ethanol plant in Idaho that will use crop waste as a feedstock.  (For more on this topic, see the energy section of this year's Cascadia Scorecard.)

Reflected tags on Technorati: Blog, ,