The Energy Thread

i have a question about that EROI - which externalities does it include?

probably the right ones, those dudes seem like they have pretty good credentials

i have a question about that EROI - which externalities does it include?

the methodology and the availability of good data differs for each energy source, but in general, EROEI can be defined as "the energy that one obtains from an activity compared to the energy it took to generate that energy. The procedures are generally straightforward; simply divide the Energy Gained (Out) by the Energy Used (In), resulting in a unitless ratio."

for externalities, they try to simplify things a bit by calculating EROEI at the extraction stage (for fossil fuels). For example, in one of Cutler Cleveland's studies (a leading EROEI dude, and cited underneath the terrible MS Paint graph), he says:

The EROI for petroleum and coal is calculated at the extraction stage of the resource transformation
process. Only industrial energies are evaluated: the fossil fuel and electricity used directly and indirectly
to extract petroleum. The costs include only those energies used to locate and extract petroleum and
prepare it for shipment from the lease. Transportation and refining costs are excluded from this analysis.

ok so that's a best case scenario

heh, pretty much. one of the terrible aspects of being an energy realist is that even when people are already rolling their eyes at how pessimistic you are, you have that voice in the back of your head that says "and that's the OPTIMISTIC VIEW, actually!"

yeah it's one of those subjects where if you just give people the basic numbers and facts they'll think you're a conspiracy theorist

the other subject being the suburbs

imagine if they included health/environment externalities everything in that graph would be scaled down on the y-axis but how much?

well, i'm with you that the impacts to human health and the environment are the most important externalities of fossil fuels, but it wouldn't affect the Y-axis, which measures the energy return / energy invested. a ton of coal produces about 21 gigajoules of energy, regardless of whether or not it contributes to droughts, hurricanes, rising seas, asthma, etc.

that is gross energy return ... like what if we counted the energy expenditure related to irrigation after a drought?

i realize that is farfetched right now but i have a friend working on a phd measuring the "el nino effect" on flood insurance costs in california

oh, i don't think it's a mistake at all to think about the energy it will require in the future to address climate change! it's definitely a huge factor - The Stern Report is all about the immense costs of climate change (5-20% of global GDP if we do jackshit, which is a likely scenario). The report argues that if we started NOW, stabilizing at 550 ppm would "only" cost about 1% of global GDP. and 1% global GDP entails the investment of a huuuuuuuuge amount of energy. so you're right, there's definitely an amount of energy that will be required in the future to mitigate the consequences of burning fossil fuels, and that's not included in a standard EROEI formula.

But it's difficult to measure or estimate because when considering adaptation to climate change in the future you have to introduce a load of variables and assumptions - how far into the future do you estimate, how high does the GHG ppm get, what's the level of devastation and what's our technological capacity to adapt, and so on. rather than doing that, EROEI just attempts to measure what's happening now. and even with that limitation, estimates can vary widely.

yeah my friend's study is just restricted to looking at flood insurance costs for people who live in california and whose properties abut watersheds, and all he is doing is measuring the extent to which the oscillation in cost between el nino, la nina and regular years is getting bigger (and whether it is at all) due to worse and worse swings in the cycle

another part of his study is whether people are making rational decisions based on knowledge of el nino / la nina / global warming and the unsurprising part is that they're not, they'd rather buy insurance based on ease (buy a policy and forget about it) rather than buy a policy that would allow them to change their coverage depending on weather that year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/americas/recent-discoveries-put-americas-back-in-oil-companies-sights.html?_r=1

lol?

The challenges of tapping Brazil’s new offshore fields, located beneath 6,000 feet of water and salt beds formed by the evaporation of ancient oceans, are even greater.

sounds great. a mile under the ocean? no problem!

(sorry - this is kind of a tangent on Daniel Yergin, CERA and IHS)

first expert cited in the NYT article:

“This is an historic shift that’s occurring, recalling the time before World War II when the U.S. and its neighbors in the hemisphere were the world’s main source of oil,” said Daniel Yergin, an American oil historian. “To some degree, we’re going to see a new rebalancing, with the Western Hemisphere moving back to self-sufficiency.”

YERGIN! Yergin's was a famous asshole in Peak Oil circles during the 2000s because on the rare occasion that a media outlet managed to publish something suggesting that perhaps there might be problems with oil supplies in the future and that oil prices might go up, he would always play the attack dog and publish an op-ed a few days later saying everything will be just fine. He's the head of Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), a group of consultants who make their money by telling other people with money and power what they want to hear - production will pick up soon, prices will stabilize soon, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

check out CERA's excellent track record over the last decade:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cera.h2.jpg

CERA likes to ignore all "below-ground" issues and instead focus on political factors as the primary cause of stalled rise in oil production. the "political factors" - conflicts, oil wars, libya, etc - do play a real role, of course, but it's ludicrous to ignore the underlying (no pun intended) drivers:

http://i54.tinypic.com/aonnrd.jpg

on the production side, most of the output is concentrated in a small number of field, many of which are post-peak and declining:

-*In 2007, just over half the world’s crude oil production came from 110 oil fields, with approximately one quarter from just 13 fields. There are 70,000 smaller oil fields which account for just under half of the world’s conventional crude oil production.

• By 2007, out of the world’s 20 largest producing oil fields, 17 were over 40 years old. The volume of

oil production from 16 of this group of 20 largest fields was below their historical maximum.

• The rate of decline in oilfields can be rapid. By 2007 the average post-peak production rate of decline was 6.7% per year.

`Peak Oil' Backers Don't Have Data to Support Claims, IHS Says

By Edward Klump
Feb. 13 (Bloomberg) -- IHS Inc., owner of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said those who espouse the theory that the world's oil production has already peaked lack evidence to support their claims. "The only thing that's relevant is our data," Jerre Stead, chief executive officer at Englewood, Colorado-based IHS, said today in an interview in Houston. Believers in the so-called Peal Oil theory "don't have our data".

Stead made his comments at an industry conference hosted by Cambridge Energy Research Associates, which is headed by Daniel Yergin, the energy researcher whose Pulitzer Prize-winning book was touted as a bible of the petroleum industry. Yergin has said supposed oil shortages historically have eased as breakthroughs unlock new sources of crude.

if their data is so relevant, how come CERA has repeatedly failed to make a oil forecast that passes the laugh test?

anyway, all of that is a tangent i guess, but everytime the newspaper of record leads a story with a comment from daniel fucking yergin it makes me want to tear my hair out. i'm sure there will be more significant "discoveries" of oil ("discoveries" in scare quotes because frequently it's oil in insane locations that they knew was there but wasn't profitable to extract until they were confident that prices would remain above $80/barrel for the foreseeable future), but the real question is whether the new production can make up for the losses in production in the aforementioned giant oil fields. that is doubtful. it's like we're frantically dumping little measuring cups of water into a draining bathtub in a sisyphean effort to keep it full. and the bathtub is full of BLOOD.

okay that last sentence was a joek

haha

I immediately thought it was suspect when the times gave his title as "oil historian"

well, tbf, he did write the Pulitzer Prize winning book The Prize, which is an exhaustive account of the history of oil production and its intersection with politics. it's really good, actually! *impending wild speculation alert* unfortunately it seems like during all of the interviews with people in the oil industry to write the book he ended up drinking a ton of their kool-aid and turned into a total stooge

drank a ton of their crude-aid

that sweet, sweet crude-aid

To be fair, it's rare that anyone's price speculation is correct about anything.

i will proudly point to my own history of price speculation, as exemplified by a comment i made in early 2003 at a bar, when, just before passing out, i drunkenly slurred to my friend "price of oil...it's only going to go up...peak oil dude, it's going up...*BLURRRGHGG!!*"

in other news, the U.S. Energy Information Administration's new International Energy Outlook (IEO) is out, and yet again, it forecasts massive increases in oil consumption over the next 25 years:

http://i51.tinypic.com/19l45z.jpg

big surprise. and how will we produce enough oil to meet the increased demand? by reversing the trends of the last 40 years, that's how! take the U.S. as an example. The IEO forecasts that we'll increase our production from 9.1 million barrels/day in 2009 to 12.8 million b/d in 2035, an increase of 3.7 million b/d. 1.6 million b/d of that increase would come from conventional sources of oil, and the other 2.1 from unconventional (oil shale, etc).

focusing in on the 1.6 million b/d increase of conventional fuels. U.S. conventional oil production peaked in 1970/71. looking at the trend since then, would anyone in their right mind project an increase of oil production 25 years into the future?

http://i54.tinypic.com/xgft08.jpg

more re yergin

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2011/09/more_thoughts_o_4.html

Even in the absence of these facts, there's a real problem with Yergin's line of argument for the question at hand, and it troubles me because I have seen the same argument raised almost every time someone takes the skeptic's position on the question of peak oil. Suppose I was trying to convince you that you are a mortal being, and your counterargument was, "but that's what you said in 2005, and I didn't die then! You said it again in 2007 and 2009, and each time you were wrong. Why should I believe you this time?"

Perhaps acknowledging one's own mortality is a similar proposition to embracing the possibility that global oil production need not continue to rise forever.

and for those that thirst for even more yergin rebuttals:

The Oil Drum - Peak Oil - Now or Later? A Response to Daniel Yergin

feel like TOD could permanently hire someone whose only task would be to rebut Yergin

yergin get beat

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/business/energy-environment/in-north-dakota-wasted-natural-gas-flickers-against-the-sky.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

thank u fracking

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/business/us-says-some-chinese-subsidies-violate-trade-rules.html

God forbid a country spend money on supporting renewable energy.

this whole article is just ugh

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204226204576602524023932438.html

I can't even get through a WSJ article anymore, even when I navigate their expecting to be outraged. it's fucked up.

meanwhile, there's been some crazy news leaking out regarding the Keystone XL pipeline in recent weeks, in particular the way that Dept of State has been handling the hearings and environmental impact statement (EIS).

- it turns out that the company that conducted the EIS for the Dept of State, Cardno Entrix, works very closely with TransCanada, the fuckers that want to build the pipeline. In fact, TransCanada is one of Cardno Entrix's biggest clients. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
- in fact, it turns out that Dept of State let TransCanada manage the entire bidding process for the EIS, and TransCanada recommended Cardno Entrix for the contract! ENORMOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST

McKibben:

In other words: The pipeline company recommended the firm they wanted to review them, a firm that listed the pipeline company as one of their major clients. Perhaps—just perhaps—that explains why the review found that Keystone XL would have “limited adverse environmental impacts,” a finding somewhat at odds with the conclusion of 20 of the nation’s top scientists who wrote the president this summer to say it would be an environmental disaster.

And perhaps it’s why the report notes only briefly in an addendum the disastrous spill of tar sands oil in the Kalamazoo River last year—35 miles of the river remains closed, and so far the taxpayers have shelled out $500 million to help clean up. Is there any way (besides reading the newspapers and talking to local officials) that Cardno Entrix could possibly have known about the Kalamazoo spill? Well yes. Cardno Entrix—get ready for it—was in fact hired by that pipeline company to assess the damage of that spill.

- Finally, Cardno Entrix administered the Dept of State hearings through the Midwest (every state that the pipeline passes through has an official hearing on the issue).

- Added to that is the long-known news that the primary lobbyist for TransCanada, Paul Elliot, was also a primary advisor for Hilary Clinton during her 2008 run for president. Now he's lobbying for her to grant the Keystone XL permit. What does the U.S. govt have to say about this?

this:

Kerri-Ann Jones, assistant secretary at the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, said following public hearings regarding the pipeline in Washington that the State Department was committed to an impartial and transparent review of the pipeline.

"Past relationships are not of importance," she said in response to queries about Elliot.

FUCK

Sorry, "McKibben" above should read "Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein", since I guess they co-wrote the article. Another quote:

This is quite possibly the biggest potential scandal of the Obama years. But there’s a danger that it will go ignored for three reasons

First, it’s so incredibly blatant that it’s hard to believe—neither of us are naifs, but we are still astonished that they’d show their industry bias this clearly. There were plenty of other signs, of course—emails released last week, for instance, showed Department officials cheerleading for the pipeline. But the Entrix connection is truly mind-boggling. It’s the kind of thing Dick Cheney might have done, on a particularly sloppy day.

not to mention that an oil leakage from a similar pipeline, that happened a year ago, is still being cleaned up and costing much more than they thought it would

http://www.freep.com/article/20111008/NEWS05/110080367/EPA-orders-Enbridge-do-more-oil-spill-cleanup-Kalamazoo-River

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/animal-fat-replaces-crude-oil-in-f16s-as-biofuels-head-to-war-commodities.html

The U.S. Air Force is set to certify all of its 40-plus aircraft models to burn fuels derived from waste oils and plants by 2013, three years ahead of target, Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary Kevin Geiss said. The Army wants 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025. The Navy and Marines aim to shift half their energy use from oil, gas and coal by 2020.
“Reliance on fossil fuels is simply too much of a vulnerability for a military organization to have,” U.S. Navy Secretary Raymond Mabus said in an interview. “We’ve been certifying aircraft on biofuels. We’re doing solar and wind, geothermal, hydrothermal, wave, things like that on our bases.”

What a bunch of hippies!

But yeah, I do think the military's embrace of clean energy is a powerful argument to make with a subset of people who don't gone a shit about the environment or the wellbeing of humanity but might care about the natl security significance

um now what

http://www.smu.edu/News/2011/geothermal-24oct2011.aspx

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/science/earth/inquiry-into-keystone-xl-pipeline-permit-process.html?ref=us

Obama's gonna wait to make this decision until it is most politically expedient

TV news screen in office elevator mentioned oil pipeline protest yesterday morn, I smiled a secret "ilxor in the news" smile.

the actual planned protest (circling the white house, we had about 13K people, awesome) went very well, but i was a little bummed that none of the coverage seemed to mention the spontaneous takeover of the streets that happened directly afterward with hundreds of people carrying a giant mock pipeline around various streets in downtown DC, walking up to the American Petroleum Institute and creating a ruckus. that was pretty much the most amazing and joyous part of the entire day, and it was so great to see various bystanders cheering us on, like the fire department, bus drivers, and so on.

http://i41.tinypic.com/73f3wl.jpg

World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/31/OMFG.jpg

Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline delayed!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/10/us-usa-pipeline-idUSTRE7A64O920111110

would have preferred a denial of the permit rather than a delay, but still, this is fucking awesome

that's good... I guess? like I noted above about O making this decision when it's politically expedient, after he wins election he won't have anything to lose (politically anyway) by approving the pipeline. environmentalists will have zero leverage against him.

so I dunno.

yeah, definitely. with all of the momentum built up now in opposition, the landscape in early 2013 is bound to be more favorable for him, if he wants to please Big Oil. which, let's face it, he will.

but i think it's about the most favorable thing that was likely to happen right now. as much as i believe that he should reject it right now, it was exceedingly unlikely that he ever would.

A pair trade for the cynical:

short: TransCanada (Keystone XL pipeline to U.S.)
long: Enbridge (Northern Gateway pipeline to China)

good, long article by naomi klein at the nation.

This is where the intersection between hard-right ideology and climate denial gets truly dangerous. It’s not simply that these “cool dudes” deny climate science because it threatens to upend their dominance-based worldview. It is that their dominance-based worldview provides them with the intellectual tools to write off huge swaths of humanity in the developing world. Recognizing the threat posed by this empathy-exterminating mindset is a matter of great urgency, because climate change will test our moral character like little before. The US Chamber of Commerce, in its bid to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon emissions, argued in a petition that in the event of global warming, “populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations.” These adaptations are what I worry about most.

How will we adapt to the people made homeless and jobless by increasingly intense and frequent natural disasters? How will we treat the climate refugees who arrive on our shores in leaky boats? Will we open our borders, recognizing that we created the crisis from which they are fleeing? Or will we build ever more high-tech fortresses and adopt ever more draconian antiimmigration laws? How will we deal with resource scarcity?

We know the answers already. The corporate quest for scarce resources will become more rapacious, more violent. Arable land in Africa will continue to be grabbed to provide food and fuel to wealthier nations. Drought and famine will continue to be used as a pretext to push genetically modified seeds, driving farmers further into debt. We will attempt to transcend peak oil and gas by using increasingly risky technologies to extract the last drops, turning ever larger swaths of our globe into sacrifice zones. We will fortress our borders and intervene in foreign conflicts over resources, or start those conflicts ourselves. “Free-market climate solutions,” as they are called, will be a magnet for speculation, fraud and crony capitalism, as we are already seeing with carbon trading and the use of forests as carbon offsets. And as climate change begins to affect not just the poor but the wealthy as well, we will increasingly look for techno-fixes to turn down the temperature, with massive and unknowable risks.

As the world warms, the reigning ideology that tells us it’s everyone for themselves, that victims deserve their fate, that we can master nature, will take us to a very cold place indeed. And it will only get colder, as theories of racial superiority, barely under the surface in parts of the denial movement, make a raging comeback. These theories are not optional: they are necessary to justify the hardening of hearts to the largely blameless victims of climate change in the global South, and in predominately African-American cities like New Orleans.

Heard about an optimistic film Carbon Nation via Jim Puplava's Financial Sense Newshour yesterday. Thought Z S and others here might be interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLs73KJI36w