On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:26 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> You are misrepresenting EROI numbers > Let's talk a little about misrepresenting EROI numbers. There is something called the first law of thermodynamics and it says that no process can produce energy from nothing, so if you count self energy as you and environmentalist morons do you can ensure that the EROI number for ANYTHING never gets above 1. And there is also something called the second law of thermodynamics and if you use that too you can ensure that the EROI never even gets as high as 1, it's always less, and so nothing, absolutely positively nothing, is worth doing. That's all you need to come up with EROI numbers that are always as low as you want them to be. Well.., you need one other thing, a desire to deceive. > >> 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. >> > > What do those numbers have to do with kerogen shale extraction. > THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT KEROGEN OIL EXTRACTION! See for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil At the very beginning of the article it warns that if you're interested in "tight oil" which is sometimes also called shale oil it recommends a completely different article. The article I quoted also says: "Shale oil is extracted by pyrolysis, hydrogenation, or thermal dissolution of oil shale. The pyrolysis of the rock is performed in a retort, situated either above ground or within the rock formation itself. As of 2008, most oil shale industries perform the shale oil extraction process after the rock is mined, crushed and transported to a retorting facility, although several experimental technologies perform the process in place (in-situ). The temperature at which the *KEROGEN* decomposes into usable hydrocarbons varies with the time-scale of the process" > > And argument from authority is very often the cover of those who have no > argument of any worth themselves So I should renounce Wikipedia's authority but embrace Chris de Morsella's authority. Everybody is wrong except you. > > Is your understanding of energy matters is only Wikipedia deep perhaps? Wikipedia flatly contradicts you, even a bunch of wacky tree huggers contradicts you, but you still insist you're right. So tell me, do you honestly believe you are being intellectually honest right now? Is this a moment you're going to look back on with pride? > You are confusing and conflating apples and oranges again. At one time I confused tight oil and oil from kerogen oil shale but you corrected my mistake and I thank you for that because although it was a little embarrassing I learned from my mistake and that's much more important. And now it's your turn to be confused by the difference between tight oil and oil from kerogen oil shale, but unlike me you do not learn from your mistakes. > > Any liquid oil that has been cooked from the kerogen is sold. > The liquid oil is a solid? And by the way, all oil was probably kerogen at one point in it's life until the the heat of the Earth cooled it into crude oil. > The needed energy inputs would come from electricity. > The needed heat energy need not come from electricity, it could come from anything, and a large part of that heat would come from the self energy of the Kerogen itself. It's exactly the same with crude oil, when you refine a pound of crude oil the resulting gasoline produced from it has less chemical energy than the original crude oil, energy is conserved so the difference is released as heat. Does this mean that it takes more energy to refine crude oil than the energy you get out of it? Yes, if self-energy is counted as a cost, but only a moron would do that, or a swindler who wanted to make the EROI number look bad. > I’ve been noticing that you seem to have a tendency to shoot your mouth > off John. What do you actually know about kerogen extraction processes? > Not a lot but clearly one hell of a lot more than you do. > Please don’t point me to some Wikipedia article you googled in five > seconds; > Because five seconds is all it takes to prove that you're dead wrong. I was wrong a while back and when it became clear to me that I had made a mistake I admitted it, do you have the intellectual courage to do the same thing. > "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. >> > > > Says the hack – that would be you John > It's hack work but not by me, it's the work of "The Western Resource Advocates" ; and yes they are moronic but not as moronic as you, your EROI figure of 1:2.5 is too stupid even for them. > > If we are talking about Kerogen shale then use numbers for kerogen > shale. > *I HAVE BEEN!!* 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.
