Will humankind die of "thermal death"?
Scenarios “My Dream” has always been and will be popular. At a minimum, this is a convenient way to attract attention and make the reader groan and gasp. The subject of energy is no exception, and there are two main apocalypse here - one of them is the peak of oil production. The concept of peak oil is becoming widespread with high oil prices and goes into oblivion at low. So, back in 2008, everyone wrote about the peak of oil in 2012, and later it came to RuNet. Fortunately, world oil production is still growing since those years, so supporters of the theory had to reduce their theory of “peak oil production in general” to particulars: “peak of easily accessible oil” or “peak of traditional oil”. The reason for the mention of “easy accessibility” lies in the second “apocalypse” - in the reduction of the energy profitability ratio (EROEI), by analogy with the economic profitability (ROI). About him and talk.
What is EROEI? Imagine a cheetah hunting antelope. Antelope meat contains proteins and fats that give the cheetah energy, so necessary for existence. If the cheetah had thermodynamics, then before each hunt he should have figured out how much energy he would spend on chasing an antelope and how much he would get from her meat. If he hunts for the antelope, and as a result catches only the mouse, which cannot even compensate for the loss of energy in the hunt, it is obvious that it was better not to hunt at all that day.
The ratio of energy extracted by a cheetah to the expended energy will be called the EROEI coefficient. If an antelope cheetah gets 20 joules and spends 1, then the cheetah's EROEI will be equal to 20: 1. It is obvious that EROEI = 1 is a critical value, below which the energy resource, in fact, ceases to be an energy resource, and becomes even a burden.
If the cheetah has antelopes, then we have oil, gas and coal. They satisfy the needs of humankind for energy by 92%, that is, almost entirely. And if more energy is spent on the extraction of these and other energy resources than is contained in them, then humanity will remain without energy for its existence and is doomed to perpetual torment of entropy growth and death, according to the second law of thermodynamics. In general, the allegory of this article goes to a similar scenario for the universe. Therefore, the second apocalyptic scenario implies a decrease in EROEI energy resources to unity and below. To deal with this scenario, you should refer to the real values of EROEI, but here's the bad luck - the calculation of EROEI is rather time-consuming, vague, and most importantly - does not carry commercial value. The result is predictable - there are many estimates of the economic profitability of anything, and only a few researchers around the world are engaged in energy.
')
If we are talking about “all the world”, then you should study the EROEI of the most developed energy resource. It is best to consider the US oil and gas sector - as early as the mid-20th century, a huge amount of oil and gas was produced there even by modern standards, the peak of traditional oil was passed back in the 70s. It is difficult to imagine something more exhausted and that is why the local oil and gas industry is switching from the extraction of traditional hydrocarbons to shale gas and oil.
Due to the fact that:
1.) EROEI studies of US oil and gas can be counted on the fingers of one hand;
2.) the topic of “shale” is holivarna slightly more than full;
3.) Apokatyptic forecasts are much more optimistic;
It will be useful to plunge into the existing results in order to understand what is generally known for certain about EROEI of US oil and gas. And very little is known, at least much less than what they say about him.
Research recently only two. The first is dated 2005, and the second is 2011 and EROEI in the second is calculated from 1919 to 2007. That is, there is no data newer than 2007, namely, in 2007-2009, the most interesting thing about the EROEI of oil and gas resources was born - the “shale revolution” and that is why there is almost no data about EROEI “shale”. With regret for those who considered the EROEI “shale” equal to five (a very common opinion) we report that this data was taken from the ceiling and the figure is the result of errors and manipulations .
All studies of EROEI petroleum of the USA were carried out by a group of researchers with the guidance or participation of the ideological mastermind, Charles Hall, as the “inventor” of this concept. Of course, I want to be able to compare the results of various studies both in the context of the United States and the entire world, and this requires the same methodology - what should be considered and taken into account? The team chops from the shoulder - enters 15 different EROEI , assigning each their own index. The approach, in our opinion, is logical and you can portray them with such a table:
We are most interested in EROEI (stnd) - “standard”. It takes into account costs up to indirect, and measures the extracted energy directly at the extraction site, that is, without processing, for example, oil into gasoline and without transporting the finished gasoline to gas stations, cutting off the excess - not associated with production. The authors of the methodology accepted it as the most convenient for calculation and comparison, hence the corresponding index. The first line, EROEI (1, deo), was added by us and will be useful in the next article. Therefore, in order to get a meaningful EROEI value and to be able to compare it with something, it is necessary to perform the calculation in accordance with the table above, and it is desirable to calculate exactly EROEI (stnd). The methodology for calculating EROEI (stnd) for US petroleum is in the above-mentioned study from 2011. - we will not reinvent the wheel and use it, substituting new data for 2013. If you remove all irrelevant, the formula looks like this:
(More information about the methodology can be found here )
The result is:
What can be seen:
a) EROEI (stnd) of traditional oil and gas falls from 1997 to 2008, which in principle is natural.
b) With the start of the shale revolution, EROEI (stnd) begins, on the whole, to grow.
From 2008 to 2013, “shale” made a breakthrough in production from the near-zero share to half: “shale” oil (NPK) now accounts for about half of all US production, and shale gas production has recently exceeded half. Therefore, this data is logical to interpret as:
a) EROEI (stnd) even in such a developed country as the USA is not so low and is now around 11. It does not smell like an apocalypse.
b) EROEI (stnd) of “shale”, most likely, is higher than traditional US oil and gas and therefore EROEI (stnd) not only reversed the downward trend, but also began to grow with the onset of the shale revolution.
c) EROEI (stnd) = 10.5 is only the “hospital average” of American oil and gas. Of course, there is a variation of values. Considering the above, EROEI of traditional oil and gas is somewhere around the middle and lower, and the “shale” is about the middle and higher. According to our assumptions, the EROEI (stnd) “shale” is in the range of 8 ... 25
This fits perfectly into what is happening in the US with the oil and gas industry and explains why the industry is massively switching to “shale” hydrocarbons. The fact is that between energy and economic profitability there is, of course, a certain correlation and shale is more profitable in mining, not only energy, but also economically.
Well, for reference it is worth bringing the EROEI of US oil and gas production over the past 100 years to the curious. To do this, combine the above study and our continuation:
To summarize, the discussion of the format of “apocalypse” vs “bright future” in the context of resources is always a matter of “nature” vs “knowledge”. Attempts to imagine that a person is facing a resource crisis on the planet, where resources regarding our needs from a practical point of view are endless, grow out of an erroneous assessment of our knowledge. It always seems to people that we are already very close to the peak of knowledge, and in fact, in fact, we have only just begun to ascend to it. Therefore, it is extremely wrong to present the world as static without extensive progress and intensive breakthroughs, although the latter, of course, cannot be predicted. Which causes errors.
What is EROEI? Imagine a cheetah hunting antelope. Antelope meat contains proteins and fats that give the cheetah energy, so necessary for existence. If the cheetah had thermodynamics, then before each hunt he should have figured out how much energy he would spend on chasing an antelope and how much he would get from her meat. If he hunts for the antelope, and as a result catches only the mouse, which cannot even compensate for the loss of energy in the hunt, it is obvious that it was better not to hunt at all that day.
The ratio of energy extracted by a cheetah to the expended energy will be called the EROEI coefficient. If an antelope cheetah gets 20 joules and spends 1, then the cheetah's EROEI will be equal to 20: 1. It is obvious that EROEI = 1 is a critical value, below which the energy resource, in fact, ceases to be an energy resource, and becomes even a burden.
If the cheetah has antelopes, then we have oil, gas and coal. They satisfy the needs of humankind for energy by 92%, that is, almost entirely. And if more energy is spent on the extraction of these and other energy resources than is contained in them, then humanity will remain without energy for its existence and is doomed to perpetual torment of entropy growth and death, according to the second law of thermodynamics. In general, the allegory of this article goes to a similar scenario for the universe. Therefore, the second apocalyptic scenario implies a decrease in EROEI energy resources to unity and below. To deal with this scenario, you should refer to the real values of EROEI, but here's the bad luck - the calculation of EROEI is rather time-consuming, vague, and most importantly - does not carry commercial value. The result is predictable - there are many estimates of the economic profitability of anything, and only a few researchers around the world are engaged in energy.
')
If we are talking about “all the world”, then you should study the EROEI of the most developed energy resource. It is best to consider the US oil and gas sector - as early as the mid-20th century, a huge amount of oil and gas was produced there even by modern standards, the peak of traditional oil was passed back in the 70s. It is difficult to imagine something more exhausted and that is why the local oil and gas industry is switching from the extraction of traditional hydrocarbons to shale gas and oil.
Past EROEI Research
Due to the fact that:
1.) EROEI studies of US oil and gas can be counted on the fingers of one hand;
2.) the topic of “shale” is holivarna slightly more than full;
3.) Apokatyptic forecasts are much more optimistic;
It will be useful to plunge into the existing results in order to understand what is generally known for certain about EROEI of US oil and gas. And very little is known, at least much less than what they say about him.
Research recently only two. The first is dated 2005, and the second is 2011 and EROEI in the second is calculated from 1919 to 2007. That is, there is no data newer than 2007, namely, in 2007-2009, the most interesting thing about the EROEI of oil and gas resources was born - the “shale revolution” and that is why there is almost no data about EROEI “shale”. With regret for those who considered the EROEI “shale” equal to five (a very common opinion) we report that this data was taken from the ceiling and the figure is the result of errors and manipulations .
Calculation Methodology
All studies of EROEI petroleum of the USA were carried out by a group of researchers with the guidance or participation of the ideological mastermind, Charles Hall, as the “inventor” of this concept. Of course, I want to be able to compare the results of various studies both in the context of the United States and the entire world, and this requires the same methodology - what should be considered and taken into account? The team chops from the shoulder - enters 15 different EROEI , assigning each their own index. The approach, in our opinion, is logical and you can portray them with such a table:
We are most interested in EROEI (stnd) - “standard”. It takes into account costs up to indirect, and measures the extracted energy directly at the extraction site, that is, without processing, for example, oil into gasoline and without transporting the finished gasoline to gas stations, cutting off the excess - not associated with production. The authors of the methodology accepted it as the most convenient for calculation and comparison, hence the corresponding index. The first line, EROEI (1, deo), was added by us and will be useful in the next article. Therefore, in order to get a meaningful EROEI value and to be able to compare it with something, it is necessary to perform the calculation in accordance with the table above, and it is desirable to calculate exactly EROEI (stnd). The methodology for calculating EROEI (stnd) for US petroleum is in the above-mentioned study from 2011. - we will not reinvent the wheel and use it, substituting new data for 2013. If you remove all irrelevant, the formula looks like this:
(More information about the methodology can be found here )
The result is:
What can be seen:
a) EROEI (stnd) of traditional oil and gas falls from 1997 to 2008, which in principle is natural.
b) With the start of the shale revolution, EROEI (stnd) begins, on the whole, to grow.
From 2008 to 2013, “shale” made a breakthrough in production from the near-zero share to half: “shale” oil (NPK) now accounts for about half of all US production, and shale gas production has recently exceeded half. Therefore, this data is logical to interpret as:
a) EROEI (stnd) even in such a developed country as the USA is not so low and is now around 11. It does not smell like an apocalypse.
b) EROEI (stnd) of “shale”, most likely, is higher than traditional US oil and gas and therefore EROEI (stnd) not only reversed the downward trend, but also began to grow with the onset of the shale revolution.
c) EROEI (stnd) = 10.5 is only the “hospital average” of American oil and gas. Of course, there is a variation of values. Considering the above, EROEI of traditional oil and gas is somewhere around the middle and lower, and the “shale” is about the middle and higher. According to our assumptions, the EROEI (stnd) “shale” is in the range of 8 ... 25
This fits perfectly into what is happening in the US with the oil and gas industry and explains why the industry is massively switching to “shale” hydrocarbons. The fact is that between energy and economic profitability there is, of course, a certain correlation and shale is more profitable in mining, not only energy, but also economically.
Well, for reference it is worth bringing the EROEI of US oil and gas production over the past 100 years to the curious. To do this, combine the above study and our continuation:
To summarize, the discussion of the format of “apocalypse” vs “bright future” in the context of resources is always a matter of “nature” vs “knowledge”. Attempts to imagine that a person is facing a resource crisis on the planet, where resources regarding our needs from a practical point of view are endless, grow out of an erroneous assessment of our knowledge. It always seems to people that we are already very close to the peak of knowledge, and in fact, in fact, we have only just begun to ascend to it. Therefore, it is extremely wrong to present the world as static without extensive progress and intensive breakthroughs, although the latter, of course, cannot be predicted. Which causes errors.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/364379/
All Articles