[quote]BackForMore wrote:
If we had a sane government they’d be subsidizing this sort of thing rather than the ethanol hoax and research related to that man-made global warming myth. But I suppose sanity is too much to hope for. [/quote]
I still say let the market determine its efficiency. No more subsidies for anything…I don’t care how “full-proof” it may seem. That’s how big business and government end up in bed with each other and we end up with more useless regulations.
To all the people who view oil companies as price gougers I have to ask:
Do you think you can bring enough gas to the market to supply a decent size consumer base for less than the current lowest price being offered in the US?
I bet you can’t; and if you can please allow me to be your first customer.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
To all the people who view oil companies as price gougers I have to ask:
Do you think you can bring enough gas to the market to supply a decent size consumer base for less than the current lowest price being offered in the US?
I bet you can’t; and if you can please allow me to be your first customer.[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]Zap wrote:
It doesn’t take more energy to extract the oil than is available from the oil. That is false. It is true it is more expensive than pumping light sweet crude out of the ground but at current oil prices these fields are likely very viable.[/quote]
I didn’t say that it was actually a negative balance, but was implying that it’s a huge step down from light crude. Hence “inefficient”. The other point was basically Lifticus’ point - that it’s nowhere near enough.
[quote]Majin wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
To all the people who view oil companies as price gougers I have to ask:
Do you think you can bring enough gas to the market to supply a decent size consumer base for less than the current lowest price being offered in the US?
I bet you can’t; and if you can please allow me to be your first customer.
Exactly.
Zap wrote:
It doesn’t take more energy to extract the oil than is available from the oil. That is false. It is true it is more expensive than pumping light sweet crude out of the ground but at current oil prices these fields are likely very viable.
I didn’t say that it was actually a negative balance, but was implying that it’s a huge step down from light crude. Hence “inefficient”. The other point was basically Lifticus’ point - that it’s nowhere near enough.[/quote]
If the preliminary reports are accurate it is plenty of oil for decades to come. It is just expensive but the money is staying in the US.
Oh there’s plenty in the ground, but not enough in our possession. Which is why the prices are rising in the first place. Subsequent extractions will be more difficult, require more oil to extract the hard-to-get reserves and before you know it, driving is left for the weekends.
[quote]Majin wrote:
Oh there’s plenty in the ground, but not enough in our possession. Which is why the prices are rising in the first place. Subsequent extractions will be more difficult, require more oil to extract the hard-to-get reserves and before you know it, driving is left for the weekends.[/quote]
This massive oil field is in our possession It will be plenty to fuel our habits, but it won’t lower the current pricing.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Majin wrote:
Oh there’s plenty in the ground, but not enough in our possession. Which is why the prices are rising in the first place. Subsequent extractions will be more difficult, require more oil to extract the hard-to-get reserves and before you know it, driving is left for the weekends.
This massive oil field is in our possession It will be plenty to fuel our habits, but it won’t lower the current pricing.[/quote]
Even if it is more expensive, it would be domestic spending. If Big Oil can dole out trillions to the terrorist sponsoring idiots in the ME for their oil - they should be willing to do the same for their own country.
[quote]Majin wrote:
It’s not a strawman if you want it to actually produce more energy then you put into it. And I was talking about actual fuel needed for the heavy machinery. The total costs make this type of recovery very inefficient.[/quote]
If you are able to devise a way to “produce more energy than you put into it” you will be very wealthy indeed though the USPTO will summarily reject your patent applications since they do not recognize claims to perpetual motion machines / systems. Such schemes violate the basic laws of thermodynamics and therefore cannot exist.
There is no way to create energy, energy can only be transformed from one form to another. EROEI, or more specifically the arguments levied against certain forms of energy on EROEI grounds, are staw men, vast endless armies of straw men in fact, because in the entire frame of reference both sides of the equation must balance. Or, if you prefer, energy returned / energy invested = 1 in all cases and without exception. If someone suggests otherwise they are: a) lying; b) ignorant of the laws of nature; or c) considering only a portion of the relevant frame of reference in an attempt to distort the analysis to support their preconceived notions.
The question is not whether more energy can be produced than consumed, that cannot occur. The proper question is whether we can, in effect, transform one form of energy into another more useful form of energy in order to extract useful work from the latter that we could not easily extract from the former. Consider, for example, the following energy storage mediums and the amount of energy stored therein:
1 gallon of gasoline contains 130 MJ
1 bbl of crude oil contains 6100 MJ
1 ton of coal contains 32,000 MJ
1 gm of U-235 contains 81,400 MJ
Why not simply drop a single cc of U-235 in one’s gas tank rather than bothering to pay for gasoline? After all at a density of 19.1 g/cm^3 a single cc of U-235 contains as much energy as around 12,000 gallons of gasoline. The answer is, of course, that the energy in U-235 is not in a form usable by one’s automobile which is the same reason arguments based on EROEI are such nonsense.
For example: around here wells are typically drilled to a depth of 600-1200 ft. which takes roughly 1 long day for the crew running the rig. During that time the rig might consume 75-100 gallons of diesel, an amount that contains roughly the same energy as a couple of bbls of crude oil. Once the well is drilled a pump run by an electric motor is set on the wellhead and production commences with the overwhelming bulk of the “heavy equipment” run by said electric motor for the life of the well. Thus what we’re really doing is transmuting U-235 consumed at the nuclear plant down the road into oil produced at the wellhead in exactly the same way alchemists (wished they could) transmute lead into gold.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that my hypothetical oil well requires a bit over 12,000 J of energy input to produce a single bbl of oil (a ridiculous number, the real one is well over an order of magnitude less). Should I continue producing oil from this well? You would doubtless cite EROEI concerns and demand that I cease production since I require around twice as much energy input per bbl produced as the bbl itself contains. I would examine my costs and determine whether I could make a profit from the continued operation of the well. Even under this extremely ridiculous scenario I could continue production if the cost per Joule of electric energy were half or less the price I could receive per Joule of energy in the oil produced.
Why might such an energy arbitrage exist? Precisely because you cannot drop a cc of U-235 in your gas tank and avoid paying for your next 12,000 gallons of gasoline. And not only could I continue production at a seeming energy deficit, I absolutely should do so because the sort of work able to be done by a Joule of energy from crude oil has more utility to society (as reflected in the relative prices) than the work able to be one by a Joule of energy produced from U-235.
In the same manner the cost of production from tar sands or shales will determine how long those sources remain viable. The cost to produce a bbl of oil from tar sands was under $15 a few years ago, shale sources are alleged to become commercially viable when crude prices reach $30/bbl. Does it come as any surprise that tar sand production is well underway while production from shales is lagging a bit? It shouldn’t. Further the fact that tar sands can be produced for roughly 1/7 the price of a bbl of crude absolutely precludes the idea that more energy from hydrocarbon fuel is used in the production than is gained from it, the economics simply make that assertion impossible to substantiate.
The sole place where limited EROEI calculations may have some merit in this context are where hydrocarbon motor fuels or the equivalent are utilized to produce hydrocarbon fuel replacements. Corn ethanol comes to mind immediately but even here the economics of producing it will determien whether it should be produced … so long as the government can resist the provision of heavy subsidies which will distort the market and perpetuate a bad idea.
The take-home point here is that no one needs to tell producers whether they should or should not produce certain sources of energy based on the energy necessary to produce them, this is a self-correcting “problem”.
[quote]Majin wrote:
You were just talking about EROEI being a strawman and then you put together something completely questionable and included something that just came out two months ago? Come on. And I think breeder reactors aren’t exactly in working order either.
[/quote]
The synthesis of hydrocarbon fuels is far from a straw man of any sort. Any first-year chemical engineering student at your local university should be able to wax poetic about the relevant processes as many are quite well-known. The article I linked discussed utilizing a well-known hydrocarbon synthesis process powered by a novel solar apparatus; it was cited as a ready example not as the answer to all our energy needs. The problem isn’t the feasiblity of the synthesis technology it’s the economics: synthesized hydrocarbons are significantly more expensive, even today, than their natural counterparts (and see Carter’s failed Synfuels Program that ran aground for precisely the same reason). This won’t always be the case but I certainly hope the change happens because new and novel ideas make synthesis much cheaper rather than because we drag our collective heels, bury our heads in the sand, and wait until naturally produced hydrocarbons are so expensive that fuel is beyond the budgets of most.
Breeder reactors are exactly the same: they work just fine but uranium is so cheap (~$9/kg for ore on the spot market, and about ~$240/kg for UF6 on the spot market) that it’s not economically viable to build reactors that breed new nuclear fuels right now. This, too, shall pass but probably not for a while.
[quote]Majin wrote:
Oh there’s plenty in the ground, but not enough in our possession. Which is why the prices are rising in the first place.[/quote]
Well, yes and no. The overwhelming majority of the increase we’ve seen in oil prices in the US over the past few years is due to economics, not production or supply issues. Most of the Wall St. crowd seems to believe that 20-30% of the cost of oil is the result of futures traders driving the price up. Here in the US a good bit of the price increase, perhaps as much as half, in recent years is due to the weakening dollar. The former issue is exacerbated by the latter as, for a month or so now, there has been much dumping of the dollar and purchasing of oil futures.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I still say let the market determine its efficiency. No more subsidies for anything…I don’t care how “full-proof” it may seem. That’s how big business and government end up in bed with each other and we end up with more useless regulations.[/quote]
For the most part I couldn’t agree more but government does have a proper role to play where commercial technologies are so far away that the basic science necessary to develop them won’t be done by private industry.
For example, I firmly believe that government should directly fund a great deal of basic energy research. Things like the LLNL’s National Ignition Facility will push back the boundaries of science that might lead to ultra-long-term clean and almost limitless energy sources. The reward is almost beyond comprehension but the odds of seeing a commercially viable system spring forth from this research in the next few decades are vanishingly small. Industry wouldn’t go there, government must.
There is also a proper role for government action where industries necessary to self-defense (e.g., metals processing and large-scale manufacturing) are imperiled. Not that everything need be preserved mind you but we should, at all costs, preserve the infrastructure necessary to independently meet the threats that exist or might exist. Personally I don’t care if we have to take the steel mills and manufacturers completely off the tax roles in order to make this happen, it’s a proper consideration.
Generally I abhor subsidies but in some cases government involvement is absolutely necessary.
[quote]BackForMore wrote:
You would doubtless cite EROEI concerns and demand that I cease production since I require around twice as much energy input per bbl produced as the bbl itself contains. I would examine my costs and determine whether I could make a profit from the continued operation of the well. Even under this extremely ridiculous scenario I could continue production if the cost per Joule of electric energy were half or less the price I could receive per Joule of energy in the oil produced.[/quote]
That’s because electricity costs so much less these days. But with less oil, coal prices will also go up, along with natural gas. And, in turn, electric power will cost much more as well. Not to mention that demand is constantly increasing. That’s what our whole economy is based on. We’re gonna take a hit one way or another. Soon enough we will not be able to provide enough for the demands placed at affordable prices.
[quote]
The synthesis of hydrocarbon fuels is far from a straw man of any sort. Any first-year chemical engineering student at your local university should be able to wax poetic about the relevant processes as many are quite well-known.[/quote]
This is the same argument. You’re assuming that there’s always an unlimited cheap electric power source to convert hydrocarbons into usable fuel.
I’m a proponent of trying to advance breeder and mixed oxide reactors, but so far everyone in Europe shut theirs down and Russia is the only one still trying something. Hopefully these things will eventually fly.
[quote]BackForMore wrote:
For example, I firmly believe that government should directly fund a great deal of basic energy research. Things like the LLNL’s National Ignition Facility will push back the boundaries of science that might lead to ultra-long-term clean and almost limitless energy sources. The reward is almost beyond comprehension but the odds of seeing a commercially viable system spring forth from this research in the next few decades are vanishingly small. Industry wouldn’t go there, government must.[/quote]
Excellent. Then to recuperate some of the costs, the government should take a share in the profits from the use of the patents resulting from their subsidies.
The revenue going to further subsidies of technology. Eventually run the entire program without tax dollars, but with a self-maintaining, arms-length trust-fund administered by the gov’t.
I’d like to see governments take any revenue resulting from renewable resources (hydro, geothermal, solar, wind, etc.) completely off the tax rolls. It makes the industry more profitable, stimulates further growth, and creates a competitive incentive to produce more profitable (read: more efficient) technologies in that area.
It also increases the supply of electricity, which drives down the price. Cheaper electricity makes it more economical to extract the oil in the formation described in the OP.
While they’re on it they should take away all government subsidies on factory farming and grain production, put it all on certified organic farming instead.
I’d like to see the day we have mass-producing, certified organic factory farms.
ElbowStrike
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
I’d like to see governments take any revenue resulting from renewable resources (hydro, geothermal, solar, wind, etc.) completely off the tax rolls. It makes the industry more profitable, stimulates further growth, and creates a competitive incentive to produce more profitable (read: more efficient) technologies in that area.
It also increases the supply of electricity, which drives down the price. Cheaper electricity makes it more economical to extract the oil in the formation described in the OP.
While they’re on it they should take away all government subsidies on factory farming and grain production, put it all on certified organic farming instead.
I’d like to see the day we have mass-producing, certified organic factory farms.
ElbowStrike[/quote]
I’d like that as well. Too bad the people and the government have different interests.
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
While they’re on it they should take away all government subsidies on factory farming and grain production, put it all on certified organic farming instead.
I’d like to see the day we have mass-producing, certified organic factory farms.
ElbowStrike[/quote]
The only reason we have farm subsidies is because people don’t want to pay what a loaf of bread really costs.
Define factory farming.
Define certified organic farming.
You do know that the overwhelming bulk of the “Farm Bill” goes to welfare recipients, don’t you?
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
While they’re on it they should take away all government subsidies on factory farming and grain production, put it all on certified organic farming instead.
I’d like to see the day we have mass-producing, certified organic factory farms.
ElbowStrike[/quote]
I wouldn’t say all of it. If they are going to subsidize farming and food production, the subsidies should be distributed equitably.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
While they’re on it they should take away all government subsidies on factory farming and grain production, put it all on certified organic farming instead.
I’d like to see the day we have mass-producing, certified organic factory farms.
ElbowStrike
I wouldn’t say all of it. If they are going to subsidize farming and food production, the subsidies should be distributed equitably. [/quote]
Payments are based on either yield (for loan deficiency), or productive acres (based on a sliding scale for a per acre production capability)for the counter cyclical payments.
How can it be distributed more equitably?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Payments are based on either yield (for loan deficiency), or productive acres (based on a sliding scale for a per acre production capability)for the counter cyclical payments.
How can it be distributed more equitably? [/quote]
It is my understanding that the vast majority goes to corn and soy, making the production of those two particular crops so cheap that food industries scramble to find more uses for those two crops. Which is why high fructose corn syrup is cheaper than cane or beet sugar, and so on. So rather than giving a huge share of subsidies to corn, why not give an equal share to sugar cane production, so that if you want a cheap sweetener, you use actual sugar, rather than some highly processed derivative of corn?
Also, most “Vegetable oil” is either corn or soy, because that’s the cheapest. But corn isn’t very fatty. How much corn do you have to process to get a liter of cooking oil? Why not subsidize canola, olives, walnuts, coconuts? There are a lot of crops that make better oil for human consumption, and prices would probably be more competitive if so much money wasn’t pumped into corn and soy to artificially lower the price.
Honestly, I’m more of a free-marketer, so I wouldn’t subsidize anything and let market demand determine value. If processing corn into high fructose corn syrup was still cheaper than cane sugar when there were no subsidies, that would be fine with me.
But I’m not very well informed on this subject, and you seem to know more than me, so let me ask, when you say “Payments are based on…productive acres (based on a sliding scale for a per acre production capability)for the counter cyclical payments” is that where farmers receive payments for land not in use? If so what is the purpose of paying farmers for crops they don’t grow? Also, if I chose to grow an acre of peppers instead of an acre of corn, would I receive the same amount of money for the yield of that acre?
I don’t have the time right now to give a decent explanation. It is tax time, and I am an accountant. I will revisit this in a few days.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
The only reason we have farm subsidies is because people don’t want to pay what a loaf of bread really costs.
[/quote]
Costs are externalities that have nothing to do with price. They are historical data only. Costs are only relevant to producers in that producers wish to keep costs low so that profits remain high. For example, just because it costs me $1000 to produce a given good does not mean I will be able to charge $1000 + $X to make a profit of $X. That is an ideal that will be determined by consumers and it is what keeps me as efficient as possible.
Price is determined by the values of consumers only. In a free market with adequate competition prices will reflect the schedule of supply and demand – the theoretical point where they intersect.
When costs are artificially low for producers they can remain inefficient and at the same time scare off competition. It is a two way loss for consumers that always results in higher prices. In a free market, if consumers demand a loaf of bread at a certain price then producers must meet it or go out of business.
Besides this, as has already been asked, how do the regulators know where to best direct funding? This is a job best left to entrepreneurs.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Define factory farming.[/quote]
That’s a tough one. Some simple criteria may be where the animals spend their entire lives under a roof and artificial lighting.
There are a number of certifying bodies out there, but I see some basic criteria being no pesticides, herbicides, hormones, or chemical fertilizers added. No genetic modification.
Probiotic & shit-based fertilizers only.
Nadda clue.