On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:26 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > >>> Perhaps the existence of this string of failures and no corresponding >>> list of success stories should tell you that maybe, just maybe those 2.5:1 >>> EROI numbers I gave are on the mark. >>> >> >> >> I'm confused. I think you're using some weird EROI convention because >> usually EROI numbers are always compared to 1 and so any EROI number above >> 1 is a net energy generator; 2.5: 1 would mean you'd get 2.5 times as much >> energy out as you put in and thus would be worth doing, but that doesn't >> seem to be what you're saying. I think you mean 1:2.5 or as compared to 1 >> .4:1 or better yet just .4 . I need for you to clarify this point because >> I can't debate you when I'm not sure what you're saying. >> > > > oops, my bad; I inadvertently transposed the positions. > Shame on you, I never things transpose. But I'm starting to understand where you're getting those strange numbers and strange ideas about economics and energy. > > I should have said and meant to say 1:2.5 that is one unit of energy out > for every 2.5 units of energy put in. > > Wikipedia says: "A 1984 study estimated the EROEI of the various known oil-shale deposits as varying between 0.7–13.3. More recent studies estimates the EROEI of oil shales to be 2:1 or 16:1 *depending on whether self-energy is counted as a cost* *or internal energy is excluded and only purchased energy is counted as input.*" Wow, forget about cooking the oil shale, this is cooking the books! Why on earth would anybody include the self energy of the Kerogen, which costs absolutely nothing, as part of the energy COST of converting Kerogen to oil?? I can think of only one reason for doing so, to make the ERORI figures look worse than they really are. And who would want to do something like that? My old friends the environmentalists. And sure enough a very recent report came out that said: "Oil shale’s Energy Return on Investment (EROI) is extremely low, falling between 1:1 and 2:1 *when self-energy—the energy released by the oil shale conversion process that is used to power that operation—is counted as a cost."* And who funded this study which came out with these shamefully misleading figures? The Western Resource Advocates, a organization of environmental lobbyists. But claiming its 1:2.5 is going too far even for most environmental loonies. Look, despite what you may think I'm really not a huge fan of oil shale or even oil in general, I think there are better energy alternatives either now or in the near future, but I think we should play fair and not fudge the numbers to accommodate our personal likes and dislikes. John K Clark > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
