On 1/3/2015 1:29 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:23 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote
I thought Wikipedia was consistently wrong about everything and only
used by
shallow people like me.
>I go to Wikipedia quite a bit myself but
Oh yes, I knew there would be a "but".
> when big money depends on some numbers looking good
Or when Wikipedia is not in sync with your scientific ignorance and says something that
you wish were not true. Apparently you believe that if you wish hard enough that
something is not true it isn't.
> Wikipedia is open to corruption
But only when Wikipedia says something that you wish were not true. We shouldn't trust
Wikipedia but we should trust Chris de Morsella even when he has absolutely nothing to
back up his claims.
>You were wrong in trying to maintain that because the efficiency of a
solar cell is
around 20% then the 80% of incident solar energy that the cell was not able
to
capture must therefore be counted as ENERGY INVESTED.
*OF COURSE IT'S WRONG YOU BRAINLESS TWIT*, only a fool would count light that you didn't
pay for as energy invested, but you are a fool and so you do count the self-energy of
the kerogen, energy that you didn't pay for, as energy invested when figuring out the
EROI to convert kerogen to oil. So why the inconsistency, why not use the same
imbecilic method for solar cells that you use for kerogen? Could it possibly be because
you like solar cells but don't like kerogen? Nah, I'm sure that was just a coincidence.
> The process of producing oil (+gas) from shale rock containing kerogen
requires
huge energy inputs in order to cook all of that rock!
Yes and a large part of that energy comes from the chemical energy of the kerogen itself
that is released as heat. Of course that means that the chemical energy in a pound of
kerogen is greater than the chemical energy in the crude oil that the pound of kerogen
produced, and a pound of crude oil has more chemical energy than the refined gasoline
that came from that pound of crude oil, but given that the law of conservation of
energy is what it is a educated person, a smart person, and a honest person wouldn't
expect anything else.
> EROI is ONLY measuring the ratio of the *measurable energy* inputs
required to
produce the energy yield
Like the *measurable* amount of solar energy falling on a solar cell.
>to the *energy value* contained in the resultant yielded product.
If that is the correct way to calculate EROI, and assuming you think the first law of
thermodynamics is valid please explain how the EROI of ANYTHING is EVER greater than 1.
Perhaps I shouldn't have made that assumption, do you believe the law of conservation of
energy is wrong, Wikipedia says it's correct but you say they don't know anything.
The difference is that if you treat kerogen as a primary energy source it takes energy to
get it, unlike sunlight. So if it takes two units of kerogen to produce enough energy to
get one unit of kerogen you can't sustain extraction of kerogen. You can keep extracting
it using some other source of oil or nuclear power or photovoltaics, but you can't do it
just using kerogen. So my understanding of EROI is
EROI = (Usable energy out)/(Total energy used to produce it)
It doesn't matter to the EROI where the denominator comes from, but it matters in the
sustainability of the source as primary energy. One may well choose to expend more energy
than you get out because the form of energy out makes it more suitable - that's why we
extract avgas from crude, but you can't do that as a primary energy source.
Brent
--
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.
