3 ms·
>EROI values for our most important fuels, liquid and gaseous petroleum, tend to be relatively high. World oil and gas has a mean EROI of about 20:1 (n of 36 fr
by thfuran 4y ago
>EROI values for our most important fuels, liquid and gaseous petroleum, tend to be relatively high. World oil and gas has a mean EROI of about 20:1 (n of 36 from 4 publications) (Fig. 2) (see Lambert et al., 2012 and Dale, 2010 for references). The EROI for the production of oil and gas globally by publicly traded companies has declined from 30:1 in 1995 to about 18:1 in 2006 (Gagnon et al., 2009). The EROI for discovering oil and gas in the US has decreased from more than 1000:1 in 1919 to 5:1 in the 2010s, and for production from about 25:1 in the 1970s to approximately 10:1 in 2007 (Guilford et al., 2011). Alternatives to traditional fossil fuels such as tar sands and oil shale (Lambert et al., 2012) deliver a lower EROI, having a mean EROI of 4:1 (n of 4 from 4 publications) and 7:1 (n of 15 from 15 publication)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513003856#bib11 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...
- semi-extrinsic 4y agoSo the major difference between your numbers and the ones I cited, is that EROI is just "energy in versus energy out" and it does not change favorably if you do carbon capture or use renewables or whatnot. Whereas if you compare CO2 emissions, you can do these things and in theory get down to zero emissions from production and refining of gasoline.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nteon 4y agoyou are right -- EROI and emissions are different. If you add in things like carbon capture, emissions go down but energy-in goes up. Would it make sense to extract and refine gasoline with net-0 emissions if it took more energy than you get out in gasoline? _maybe_, but I don't think its a clear yes!