On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 8:31 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > >> 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. >
To convert kerogen to crude oil you must first start to heat it with outside energy and you have to pay for that energy and so it must be included in calculating EROEI. However that initial heat causes chemical changes in the kerogen that also releases a substantial amount of heat, and that heat came from the chemical self-energy of the kerogen itself, and that energy you did NOT pay for and so it would be ridiculous to include it in calculating EROEI. That is why 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."* 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
