 |
Oh, the ER-O-I was a'fallin'
And the win was gettin' low...
-- Adapted from the ER-I-O (Erie Canal) folksong
EROEI / EROI For Doomies
Energy Return On Energy Invested, a.k.a., Energy Return On Invested is a core concept for those of us thinking of our present and near future. But it doesn't travel alone. Here, I'll try to lay out a useful set of related concepts, their dynamics and consequences.
Useful terms
EROEI -- The ratio of an amount of energy divided by all necessary investment of all EI inputs (expressed as energy) required for ER outputs (energy extraction, refinement, production and distribution... from here on, I'll use the shorthand production for all of these).
Historically, EROI has fallen and is falling significantly. Lower numbers tend to account for more, often overlooked inputs.
Any complex, adaptive system (e.g., a living organism or an economy) requires an EROEI > 1 by some significant factor as its minimum for survival. This is in accord with the laws of thermodynamics, and remains undisputed.
NOTE: EROEI is often expressed as a ratio (EI/ER) or a proportion (usually EI:ER).
Gross Energy -- The total amount of extracted energy under discussion before adjusting for its production overheads.
Net Energy -- The amount of energy left over from Gross Energy after its production overheads.
Surplus Energy -- The amount of energy left over from Net Energy after systemic overheads (all the necessaries to support life). This is what's left over for electives.
NOTE: Gross and Net Energy can increase, even while EROI is falling. This has been the case, historically, prior to the present moment.
Peak Energy -- The point at which approximately half of energy resources have been extracted. At this point, the easy pickings have been picked and the (energy) cost of production for remaining, harder-to-access resources rises. From this point, required energy investment for extraction rises exponentially and EROI accordingly falls.
For further reading, see Hubbert Curves, which describe the prospects of any given resource being commercially extracted, and have successfully predicted Peak Energy for any given energy resource.
NOTE: Peak Energy from fossil fuels could conceivably become moot in the face of new energy sources, but for the foreseeable future, they are dominant and likely to remain so.
Implications
By industry assessments, we already have- or are soon to enter post-Peak Energy. EI to produce energy from fossil fuels will increase exponentially (rapidly declining EROEI and Net Energy).
Falling EROEI consequent to rising production costs in a post-Peak Energy environment chews away at Net Energy in proportion to Gross Energy. Gross Energy may be increasing, but the available Net Energy (GE minus overheads) is an ever smaller fraction of the gross. Eventually, as necessary extraction investments increase, Net Energy falls toward zero.
At the same time, should Gross Energy plateau or decline (as considerable data suggest is now or soon to be the case), Net Energy falls toward zero.
For us Doomies, this is an alarming double squeeze!Net Energy is what pays for shit. All the stuff we really need or think we need. All the stuff we think of as wealth. It's what Finances it. Grows it. Builds it. Produces it. Maintains it. Moves it around... roads, rail and bridges, shipping and supply chains. Keeps the lights on, water clean and flowing. Education, entertainment, arts. Everything. When we run too low on Net Energy and things start to fail for want of energy, it's TEOTWAWKI.
But it's slow to unbuild. As the surplus dwindles, things start to be under energized and fail at the fringes. It's made worse by wealth inequity, where the powerful turn wealth-sharing flows toward themselves. The disenfranchised don't have the energy/wealth/power to organize and defend themselves, and become prey to 'strongmen' who use their plight to their own ends.
As the surplus energy available to global, industrial civilization decreases, we can foresee the following:
- Failing infrastructures
- Increasing pollution (from energy investments, lower quality fuels, less remediation)
- Increasing climate instability
- Resource conflicts
- General impoverishment and reduction of total wealth
- Reductions of social services and safety nets
- A political turn toward far-right 'solutions'
- Increasingly authoritarian state control
- Increasing social unrest, protest, war and displacement
- Cascading failures and contagion proliferate
- Tipping points are reached
- Collapse
All of these (including localized Collapses, world-wide) are the major headlines of our day.
Objections and IMHO
Here are a few of the standard objections to the above...
There's Still Plenty of Fossil Fuel
Well, yes - about half, give or take, and that's a LOT - but that's not the point.
The point is that that post-peak half is trending toward a point where its production is prohibitively expensive. The half that's left is less accessible, of lower quality (e.g., tar sands and shale) and/0r plays out more quickly (e.g., fracking). All this means low EROEI.
This is a consensus view among industry analysts (vs. PR types). Only the timing and what might intervene is in debate.
Green Tech will Save Us
Well, maybe, but both the will and a pathway are absent. It appears to be a long shot.
One large problem is that the conversion of existing infrastructure and systems to 'renewables' is energy (and materially) intensive, with its own, lowish EROEI. It is unclear whether, even given the will and commitment to the cross-over, that there would be enough Net Energy available for the task, not to mention related environmental impacts of the project.
Time is another... whether we have time for such conversion before some critical tipping point is reached? But of course that applies to all paths forward. Still, we're talking best case in terms of decades.
Tech Tech will Save Us
Well, maybe, but...
Alternative energy projects at BAU (Business As Usual) scale are promising but distant. Nuclear fusion has just passed operational EROEI slightly greater than 1. That is to say, a skosh over break-even so long as we don't count the infrastructure, conversion (heat to electricity) or distribution costs. This after years and billions of dollars in hot pursuit of the dream.
Deep-bore, grid-scale geothermal may be the best possibility in the offing. In this tech, high energy beams (from gyrotrons developed for nuclear fusion) replace mechanical drilling techniques for much deeper wells reaching into high heat regions of the Earth's mantle. It's in development, uses existing infrastructure for conversion/distribution and should be boot-strappable. Unfortunately, it too appears be well behind schedule with very little success to report. Bootstrapping is predicted to require decades.
The Market will Provide
Well, no. The market has worked wonders, but is not magical.
That the market will provide is an economic article of faith among Cornucopians who believe (more or less) that, given a high enough demand in the face of low supply, and substitutions can and will be made.
This may be theoretically true but is pragmatically false. For example, since e=mc^2, given enough market incentive and energy, any resource could be synthesized. In practice, the EI of this approach would be prohibitive.
Further, the implicit assumption is that solutions will be found and implemented on demand (i.e., just-in-time innovation and production) given enough market incentive. Problem is, this flies in the face of considerable experience with Scientific Method... discoveries are not made on a schedule, regardless of the incentive. Industrial scale production is also far from instantaneous. Other market forces, such as cost, are in opposition.
An example would be the fairly recent discovery of one of the side-effects of sildenifil citrate, originally studied as a treatment for high blood-pressure... despite vast market incentive and effort across centuries, this active ingredient of Viagra(R) is without an historical peer. It was observed serendipitously during clinical studies, and, approximately 12 years later, hit the market.
Who says it's all gloom and doom?
Bottom Line
The bottom line is that EROEI and related concepts are a lens for viewing the lifeblood of our global industrial economy and civilization.
That EROEI and Net Energy are falling with nothing assured in prospect would indicate that we are suffering from terminal, congestive heart failure.
Time to set our affairs in order.
For further reading, here's a good place to start.
