The Oil Drum: Europe

When my talk to the Royal Society of Chemists was first arranged this summer, oil cost over $130 per barrel, and we wondered where the price would be in October. Since then much has happened. The credit expansion bubble was pricked in part by inflation stemming from high energy prices, and the global banking system is teetering on the brink of collapse, reprieved only by the spread of social ownership throughout the OECD.

This is a guest post by Roger Brown, known as Roger K, whose graduate work was in physics. In reading about net energy and EROEI, he realized that energy balance alone is insufficient for characterizing the economics of energy production. In this post, he develops a multi-variable approach to account for the cost of other production resources. This post is the first publication of his innovative ideas. A summary is available at the end of the post.

Labor Cost of Energy

In order to produce an economic output, you have to invest production resources. At a minimum some amount of human labor must be invested. There is no such thing as a labor-free production process. Even if you lived in a sparsely inhabited tropical paradise filled with streams jumping with large tasty fish and heavily laden fruit trees growing profusely in the natural forests, you would still have to spend some amount of time gathering fruit and fish.

If you could gather all the food you needed for a single day in a half hour of work, then your food would be very cheap. If you lived in a less productive natural environment and had to spend eight hours a day gathering all of the food you needed, then your food would be very expensive.

This is a guest post by Adam Dadeby (Adam1). Adam is currently studying towards an MSc in Renewable Energy and the Built Environment with the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales, UK.

What is EROEI?

Energy returned on energy invested (EROEI or EROI) is a concept that mirrors the financial metric, return on investment (ROI). In order to make an energy gain or “profit”, energy or work must be consumed or exerted (Cleveland, C.J., 2001, p.1¹). The energy gain or profit often referred to as “net energy”. EROEI is usually expressed as a ratio, or occasionally as a percentage. EROEI can also be represented diagrammatically in simplified form (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: EROEI
(Charles Hall, Pradeep Tharakan, John Hallock, Wei Wu and Jae-Young Ko, Advances in Energy Studies Conference, Porto Venere, Italy, September 2002)²

The energy referred to in EROEI can be energy to run technology, such as liquid fuels for transport or electricity for lighting. It can however refer to energy in a form that can be taken in directly by living organisms: food.

_{Annual rates of total drilling for and production of oil and gas in the US, 1949-2005 (R² of the two = 0.005; source: U.S. EIA and N. D. Gagnon). Since drilling and other exploration activities are energy intensive, other things being equal EROI is lower when drilling rates are high.}

As oil prices increase and the presidential campaigns heat up there is a lot of discussion about increased drilling for oil. In economic theory higher prices will give market signals to increase exploration and exploitation of resources and hence deliver more to society, although at a higher price. Will this in fact occur with oil for the United States? Of course we will not know until we do it, but we can look to the past for hints. The enclosed figure represents the history of drilling and production for oil and gas in the United States. The answer seems inescapable: the rate of drilling for oil in the United States has been unrelated to finding or producing oil and gas, which is determined principally by geology. Mother nature, not market theory, determines resource availability, at least in this case and probably many more. (Source: Hall, Powers and Schoenberg (in press))

This is an updated post on the energy return on energy invested on Canadian natural gas by Jon Freise. Jon's initial draft of this analysis, and related comments, can be found here.

An intermittent but longstanding theme here on theoildrum is that dollars do not sufficiently inform us of the long term details of energy depletion, and that the inexorable race between technology and depletion can be better understood using biophysical methods. Essentially this post suggests that it is requiring more and more energy to procure the same amount of natural gas in Canada, and this trend will likely continue into the future. This update makes the initial analysis too pessimistic on the rate of EROI NG decline but also too conservative on the absolute level of energy return. It is going to be a very interesting few years as Canada declines, Barnett peaks, and Haynesville and other unconventional plays ramp up. The treadmill spins on.

This is a repost from Cutler Cleveland on the underlying principles of net energy. We previously highlighted Dr. Clevelands work on the Energy Return from Wind. This post is Professor Clevelands latest installment on net energy analysis at the Encyclopedia of Earth, which I have reformatted to theoildrum. The Encyclopedia of Earth, where Prof. Cleveland is an editor/director, is a great academic/content based web clearinghouse for information on earth and our environment. I encourage everyone to follow some of the hyperlinks in the below story and peruse that site.

Outside of taxes and profits, we are a society used to thinking in gross terms. But the net is what we get to use. Net energy analysis, (and its subset EROI) get alot of airtime in peak oil discussions, but not yet in public. If the world is running on a certain total energy surplus, what are the implications for a decline in this surplus? Will the market, via dollars, treat gross production the same and forget to factor in increased costs? There seems to be much disagreement as to how best to use EROI and net energy principles, if at all, in planning for the looming energy crisis.

This is the final piece of a series on Energy Return on Investment from Professor Charles Hall's EROI Workshop at SUNY. Today's papers outline the energy technologies of wave and geothermal power, concluding a 5 part series that has looked at Why EROI Matters, Natural Gas and Imported Oil, Tar Sands and Shale Oil, Nuclear Power, and Passive Solar, Photovoltaic, Wind, and Hydro-electric. Previously, Professor Hall also wrote the thought provoking, At $100 Oil, What Can the Scientist Say to the Investor. Forget not about the simple 'balloon graph' below of EROI x Scale for fossil and renewable energy sources that this project is attempting to update with the help of theoildrum.com readership.

This is 4th in a continuing series of articles by Professor Charles Hall of the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry and his students, describing the energy statistic, "EROI" for various fuels.

The concept of an energy theory of value has been around since (at least) the 1930s and net energy actually became part of law after Mark Hatfield petitioned Congress in 1970 regarding the importance of EROI. His efforts resulted in the passing of (now defunct) Public Law 93.577 which stipulated that all prospective energy supply technologies considered for commercial application must be assessed and evaluated in terms of their ‘potential for production of net energy”. However, insurmountable theoretical and practical difficulties arose when using the energy unit to understand, a) the conversion among disparate fuel types (energy quality), b) the contribution of the environment, and c) the boundaries of analysis. Despite these problems, energy analysis is grounded (largely) in physical principles, which gives it an important long term edge over financial analysis which may proximately be related to real things, but ultimately is related to the political will to print money.

Nuclear power is the logical step up in energy density from dung, wood, coal, oil..., but its scaling has been controversial and uncertain. Below is an overview of both the nuclear fuel cycle and its energy return. Please add your comments, links and expertise in a manner that Prof Goose is fond of saying, 'that would improve the silence'...;-)

This is third in a series of six guest posts by Professor Charles Hall of the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry describing the energy statistic, "EROI" for various fuels. As has been discussed often on this site, net energy analysis is a vitally important concept - just as we primarily care about our take home pay which is our salary minus the taxes, we should care about our 'take home' energy, which is what is left after energy costs have been accounted for. As important as it is, this measure is not easy to quantify, as: a)data is almost always measured in $ as opposed to energy terms, b) parsing non-energy inputs (and outputs) into energy terms is difficult, and c) analysis boundaries (including environmental impacts) are very disparate. As such, there is not (has not yet been) a consistent formula for EROI applied to all energy studies that has led to policymakers and analysts speaking the same language in useful ways. The lead paper in this months Royal Academy of Sweden's journal AMBIO will be about such an EROI framework, and we will link to it when it comes online.

Professor Hall has been working in this area for over 30 years. Below are net energy analysis from Hall's group on the unconventional oil sources from tar sands and oil shaletwo resources that theoretically are enormous in energy scale, but practically are limited by flow rates, costs, and externalities. Just how limited is the subject of todays two-part informative post is below the fold. Remember, any specific numerical help via referenced literature, personal experience or knowledge to better inform Dr. Hall and his students would be appreciated.

Last week's log entry by Andris Piebalgs starts this way:

Which is the best energy source? This is not an easy question. If we are to apply the European Energy policy, it has to be a source of energy that contributes to our security of supply, that is low carbon and that increases the competitively our economy. Several energy sources answer this question. Renewables, for sure. Some people argue that nuclear is the right choice. Others that we have affordable fossil fuels for many years, and with a bit of carbon capture and storage we can continue our hydrocarbonated lives, like we have done for the last 80 years. All these solutions have its defenders and its opponents. But none of them is my favourite.