Decius wrote:

] You're comparing the cost associated with fossil fuels TODAY
] with the cost associated with ethanol or hydrogen TODAY,
] claiming that the equation is weighted toward oil, and
] concluding that we should just forget about those other energy
] sources.
]
] That doesn't make any sense.

What doesn't make sense? BTU into a system versus BTU out of a system. The ratio of energy expended in making the fuel versus the amount of energy the fuel yields. It's just a ratio, I'm not even discussing cost. True, these numbers do change over time, and technological advances are the wildcard variable that helps to improve the ratios. But oil is the precursor for just about every form of energy we use right now. All of the equations will follow oil.

A few numbers I've seen:

Ethanol: Average EROEI ranges from .59 to 1.34
Oil: Average EROEI ranges from 8.4 to 11.1

As oil's EROEI ratio drops, the other ratios will follow.

] If hydrogen or ethonal were more effecient TODAY then oil, we
] wouldn't be using oil.

I think I understand where you are going with this now. Tell me this: When the EROEI for oil becomes 1.0, then .99, then .98, what happens? Oil ceases to become an energy SOURCE at that point, because it's taking more energy to make fuel than the fuel can yield. And the trend has been a downward slope globally for years.

Yes, technological advances could improve these ratios, but consider this:

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/

Below more than a mile of ocean and three more of mud and rock, the prize is waiting. At the surface a massive drilling vessel called the Discoverer Enterprise strains to reach it. It's the spring of 2003, and for more than two months now the Enterprise has been holding steady over a spot 120 miles (200 kilometers) southeast of New Orleans in the Gulf of Mexico. The ship is driving a well toward an estimated one billion barrels of oil below the seafloor—the biggest oil field discovered in United States territory in three decades.

Tell me that drilling through a mile of ocean water and 3 miles of bedrock is an efficient discovery. Our technology allowed that to happen, true, but what is the EROEI ratio ultimately going to be for this reserve, that, if the estimate is correct, would fuel the US demand for oil for 83 days. Math on that:

1 billion / 12 million barrels per day (and that's a conservative estimate. The "naysayers" esimate is closer to 20 million.)

] If you compared the answer from 1985 and 2004 (there are newer
] studies, btw, then the ones you cite) what would you see?

I would see the obvious. That 80 to 90 percent of our total energy consumption comes from fossil fuels, and that the ratios for units of energy into the system versus out of the system are falling.

I'm sure there are newer studies, I'm sure I'll run across them, but I can't comment on them without seeing them. Can you cite something here? Just because they are newer doesn't mean they will reflect a drastic increase in EROEI ratios because of technological improvements. They could, and I think that's what you are alluding to, but I need to see them.

] The fact is that predictions about the end of the availability
] of oil have been consistently wrong for decades. The reason is
] that these predictions are made by considering the supply of
] oil that we are aware of today, and the techniques we have to
] extract and refine it today, and extrapolating that out into
] the future assuming that no technological advances occur.

See the reference I made above. You can throw all the technology at it that you want to. The trend has been a downward slope in North America since the early 70's, just like Hubbert predicted. How much does it cost, just economically, not even factoring in EROEI, how much does it cost to discover and produce deep sea oil?

I laughed when they said "Wow, 1 billion barrels, that's like, a well in Saudi Arabia!" No it isn't. It costs, on average, about 5 bucks a barrel to produce in Saudi Arabia. I think it's slightly more expensive to drill through a mile of ocean and 3 miles of bedrock, but I could be wrong.

What technological advance is going to make deep sea drilling economically feasible? What technological advance is going to make these new extractions yield positive energy profits that do not decrease?

] However, relying on the same "if technology doesn't improve"
] method of extrapolating from the present tense is also
] non-sentical when it comes to discussing the efficiency of
] alternative energy sources.

I agree, but the flip side of that is relying on the faith that technology will improve to counter the one thing people forget: DEMAND. It is growing. The rate of demand is outstripping the rate of discovery. What happens when demand is higher than supply?

] 3. Have we hit any clear theoretical roadblocks?

Yes. How much of our energy infrastructure has changed since the oil shocks of the 70's? Not much. And that was an artificial shortage. Think about what happens when the shortage is real and doesn't go away, ever. There will be no time to be saved by technology at that point. Tell me what infrastructure will be put into place at that point.

] sources. This IS the economic collapse that these guys are
] warning about. They want to prematurely increase the price of
] gas in hopes of cause the economic collapse they claim to fear
] early on. They advocate this because they LIKE the idea of an
] economic collapse based on overconsumption of scarce resources
] because it fits with their political ideology.

I think it's a big stretch to say this is all about politics or agendas. I know I sure as hell do NOT like the idea of an economic collapse. You have got to be kidding me. What political ideaology would this fall into? It's life or death to me.

] It is presently cheaper to heat my water with gas then with
] electricity, but if the price of gas went up, it would be
] cheaper to heat it electically, and that power may come from
] coal, but it might also be nuclear. In fact, for the short
] period of time that energy was actually deregulated in
] California it was possible to buy solar and wind based power
] for only a couple dollars more a month then the coal power
] PG&E was hawking.

I don't have the numbers handy, but most of our electric grid energy comes from fossil fuels. If the price of gas goes up, the 95% of all electric plants built in the last 5 years (don't quote me on that, that's just what I can remember off the top of my head) that are GAS FIRED will surely pass that cost onto their customers. I don't consider that an "option."

Solar and wind account for less than 1 tenth of 1 percent of our energy. I remember PG&E hawking it. Yes, it was more expensive. Could the whole grid run off it? Hell no.

] With all these options available to me it seems clear that the
] economy is prepared to adapt. I can buy an electric water
] heater at any Sears in the country. Why? Because people are
] preparing.

If every house that uses gas stopped using gas, they would all use electricity. That demand would probably be met from gas fired electric plants. If gas supplies dwindle, they'll move to coal, which will expend that resource that much faster. You are just shifting from downstream to upstream, or depleting the next cheapest (in EROEI cost) resource that much quicker.

I don't see that the economy is prepared to adapt, I wish I could.

---

EDIT: Yes, I do have an agenda with bringing this up now that you mention it. I want people to be informed. I want people to think about it. I want to discuss these issues. I think we're screwed, painted into a corner by the over-abundance we were lulled into believing would last forever. I see bad things coming, and I don't see technology saving us. Technology runs on fossil fuels and they are going away very soon. Economics will not save us from this.

RE: Observations and the State of Affairs - Peak Oil