3 ms·

Light sweet crude definitely peaked. Petroleum reserves are basically tsr sands and fracking which is low EROEI, even with the industry externalizing costs lik

Light sweet crude definitely peaked. Petroleum reserves are basically tsr sands and fracking which is low EROEI, even with the industry externalizing costs like methane leakage, vast freshwater consumption / pollution. For example it used to be you burned a barrel of oil to get 20 or 30 out back in the easily accessible light sweet crude days. Shit like the tar sands is more like 2:1 EROEI.

epistasis 4y ago
EROEI: the metric deployed against solar and wind in the past, that was quickly erased from public discourse once it became apparent that modern fossil fuels did worse on it. All those people complaining about EROEI no longer seem to have the slightest concern, despite it being a significant hurdle for future fossil fuel use.
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  I haven't tracked any of the peak oil stats and petroleum stuff since it became apparent that BEVs / Solar / Wind are the strategic winners. And the EROEIs get even worse if any sane carbon taxation / sequestration costs are applied, if any widespread damage from fracking is charged (as in set-your-tapwater-on-fire stories), or the horrific environmental destruction of tar sands (which use ungodly amounts of freshwater to try to get the oil out of the mined sands). I guess that claimed EROEI on fracking is 5-10x. No idea what it is like in practice, I assume there should be a distribution that could be analyzed. Tar sands peak at 5x, and I bet that is only in the best case. Why tar sands is still a thing, does any Canadian know? Is this because oil/gas has penetrated the Canadian government lobby and made it too big to fail?
  - cykros 4y ago
    >Is this because oil/gas has penetrated the Canadian government lobby and made it too big to fail? You're almost certainly onto something here. Much like why water cooled nuclear reactors are still a thing, despite molten salt reactors having been around for about 60 years (as in, before any of those water cooled reactors melted down with a catastrophic hydrogen explosion, caused by you know, all that water). We don't have an energy shortage. We have political obstructionism.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  The EROEIs give for solar and wind appear to be mostly propaganda. Factoring in infrastructure costs like transmission lines and storage makes it apparent that solar/wind are enormously expensive: "True cost of using wind and solar to meet demand was $272 and $472 per MWh" https://web.archive.org/web/20220916003958/https://files.americanexperiment.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/The-High-Cost-of-100-Percent-Carbon-Free-Electricity-by-2040-in-Minnesota.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20220916003958/https://files.ame...

epistasis 4y ago

EROEI: the metric deployed against solar and wind in the past, that was quickly erased from public discourse once it became apparent that modern fossil fuels did worse on it. All those people complaining about EROEI no longer seem to have the slightest concern, despite it being a significant hurdle for future fossil fuel use.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago
I haven't tracked any of the peak oil stats and petroleum stuff since it became apparent that BEVs / Solar / Wind are the strategic winners. And the EROEIs get even worse if any sane carbon taxation / sequestration costs are applied, if any widespread damage from fracking is charged (as in set-your-tapwater-on-fire stories), or the horrific environmental destruction of tar sands (which use ungodly amounts of freshwater to try to get the oil out of the mined sands). I guess that claimed EROEI on fracking is 5-10x. No idea what it is like in practice, I assume there should be a distribution that could be analyzed. Tar sands peak at 5x, and I bet that is only in the best case. Why tar sands is still a thing, does any Canadian know? Is this because oil/gas has penetrated the Canadian government lobby and made it too big to fail?
- cykros 4y ago
  >Is this because oil/gas has penetrated the Canadian government lobby and made it too big to fail? You're almost certainly onto something here. Much like why water cooled nuclear reactors are still a thing, despite molten salt reactors having been around for about 60 years (as in, before any of those water cooled reactors melted down with a catastrophic hydrogen explosion, caused by you know, all that water). We don't have an energy shortage. We have political obstructionism.
ETH_start 4y ago
The EROEIs give for solar and wind appear to be mostly propaganda. Factoring in infrastructure costs like transmission lines and storage makes it apparent that solar/wind are enormously expensive: "True cost of using wind and solar to meet demand was $272 and $472 per MWh" https://web.archive.org/web/20220916003958/https://files.americanexperiment.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/The-High-Cost-of-100-Percent-Carbon-Free-Electricity-by-2040-in-Minnesota.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20220916003958/https://files.ame...