[p2p-research] Scientific American: Does Economics Violate the Laws of Physics?

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Tere Vadén wrote:
> Here's a great table on EROEI:
> 
> http://www.theoildrum.com/files/EROImajorfuelsv4.png

That chart is misleading because it likely does not include the energy costs 
of remediating the pollution caused by using fossil fuels. So, the energy 
cost of dealing with global climate change? The energy cost or remediating 
for oil spills? The energy cost of maintaining the Persian Gulf deployment 
force to guard oil wells and pipelines? The energy costs of running medical 
centers to deal with cancer, respiratory problems, and widespread low level 
mercury poisoning from burning coal?

And what about the energy costs of cleaning up after nuclear war if it all 
falls apart? That's more of a risk that an direct cost, but it is another 
example of how that chart misleads.

And then there are the various social costs. If half the economy is, say, 
devoted to dealing with the social and medical problems caused by using oil, 
is it that great if the EROEI on oil is 30 and wind is 18? It would take a 
lot less human effort to devote, say, another one million people to building 
and managing windmills, and let 50 million people stop having to clean up 
after fossil fuel disasters. Those figures are not intended to be accurate, 
they are just to show the complexity of trying to understand what that chart 
means.

Renewables can go forever. Oil and gas and nuclear involves mining finite 
resources (even if nuclear breeder reactors might go for a long time). So, 
it is a little misleading to say that there is *any* EROEI for fossil fuel 
or nuclear. It is kind of like saying there is a money return on money spent 
on robbing a bank -- it is true, but it misses the point that robbing a bank 
does not create money.

Fusion power, like powers the sun, and solar panels and wind collect, if we 
get it on Earth, and it could fuse seawater, has so much fuel easily 
accessible though as to be effectively infinite. And we may get that 
eventually. Not to say any of these may pan out, but there is ongoing work:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/positive-mainstream-reviews-of-dense.html
"The DOE and international groups have invested hundreds of millions of 
dollars and decades on the tokamak approach. If all works well for the ITER, 
a fusion power plant will come online in 2050. However, a device derived 
from the Hirsch-Farnsworth fusor may enable operation of a fusion power 
plant to begin by 2015—or earlier. ... Dr Robert W. Bussard published 
results in 2006 claiming that he had achieved 100,000 times better 
performance than had ever previously been achieved from an IECF device. "

There is also promising ideas in "cold fusion" which remains a field that 
has been under-researched.

But, we know wind and solar work, with minimal side effects in terms of 
physical pollution (some, but manageable) and with big improvements in 
democracy by their decentralized nature.

That's another thing missing on that chart. What are the costs to democracy? 
What are the costs to the economy of centralization of wealth?

My wife's parents had their pure water destroyed by neighboring coal mining, 
where people would come from far around to taste it. What is the EROIE on 
coal given their pure water is gone for good? It might take more energy than 
came from the coal to put back the land the way it was.

> The crux of peak oil, as I see it, is that when we compare the EROI of 
> fossils (oil, coal) to the EROI of solar and nuclear, we see that in 
> order to gain the same amount of energy profit that we get from fossils 
> (EROI upwards of 20, even historically close to 100), 

As above, likely a fiction... And even if true, it ignores the war risks...

> we will have to 
> devote a huge amount of labour to solar/nuclear (EROI much less than 10, 
> mostly less than 5). (I know, the EROI calculations are very shaky and 
> the EROI of solar can improve.) 

For active solar right now, the energy payback is around two years. So, over 
a lifetime of thirty or more years (panels may work for much longer at lower 
efficiency), thats at least a 15 times EROI, maybe more. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics#Energy_payback_time_and_energy_returned_on_energy_invested
"Life-cycle analyses show that the energy intensity of typical solar 
photovoltaic technologies is rapidly evolving. In 2000 the energy payback 
time was estimated as 8 to 11 years[71], but more recent studies suggest 
that technological progress has reduced this to 1.5 to 3.5 years for 
crystalline silicon PV systems [69]. Thin film technologies now have energy 
pay-back times in the range of 1-1.5 years (S.Europe).[69] With lifetimes of 
such systems of at least 30 years[citation needed], the EROEI is in the 
range of 10 to 30. They thus generate enough energy over their lifetimes to 
reproduce themselves many times (6-31 reproductions, the EROEI is a bit 
lower) depending on what type of material, balance of system (or BOS), and 
the geographic location of the system.[72]"

Passive solar was listed as n/a. For about 10% more in housing construction 
prices (less and less over time), so ten to twenty thousand US dollars, you 
can have a house that doesn't need a furnace.
"No furnace required: Energy-efficient 'passive houses' gaining steam"
http://www.physorg.com/news154199408.html
" Judd Blunk's house is like a womb. Although the temperature outside is in 
the 20s, his triple-pane windows overlooking the Fox River feel warm from 
inside. Because there is no furnace, the rooms are quiet. The only sound in 
the kitchen is the hum of a refrigerator, which along with other appliances, 
helps supply heat to the airtight 2,300-square-foot Batavia, Ill., home. 
Blunk is part of a small movement of engineers and homeowners who are taking 
President Barack Obama's vision of building energy-efficient homes to 
another level. They are inspired by "passive houses" in Germany that are so 
well-insulated and energy-efficient they eliminate the need for a 
conventional heating system."

Air-to-air heat exchangers are needed for healthy indoor air, given 
manufactured goods outgas.

This all has been know for decades, and is part of the information in 
studies like "Brittle Power" by the Lovins team. The fact that US building 
codes did not require this is a national security travesty, as well as a 
financial travesty, and to me, suggests that most US homes are effectively 
obsolete and worthless. If it costs, say, US$3600 a year to heat or cool an 
inefficient home, at US$300 a month, that's what it would cost to build a 
new house costing US$100000 paid back at 0% interest over thirty years. From 
a national security perspective, it would probably make sense to literally 
bulldoze almost every US American house and rebuild it energy efficiently, 
with loans provided by the US government. And taxes would go down, with all 
the savings on extrinsic military defense.

> I personally believe that the EROI of 
> nuclear is below 1, i.e., it is a way of using, not producing, energy; 
> if we have to store the waste safely for millenia, the EROI goes through 
> the floor. (Plus the massive amount of concrete and steel needed to 
> build a reactor housing pretty much destroys the supposed positive 
> effect on climate change). 

Agreed. Although, it is true that the same underlying trends that are 
improving solar are improving nuclear options. This company:
   http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
it taking Freeman Dyson's (probably, mostly) inherently safe "TRIGA" design
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIGA
and making it current for modern technology. Atomic batteries are another 
area under development:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery

> One estimate is that we would need 2500 
> nuclear power plants running without  interruption for a year to replace 
> oil, alone, for a year. Given that it took over 15 years to complete the 
> last reactor that came online, in 2007, the task seems practically 
> impossible.

Well, not really. I don't like nuclear power because as it has been done 
historically it centralizes political power and has a track record of lies 
and deceptions. But, there are billions of people to solve problems. There 
are ten millions people (at least) out of work in the USA. So, it could be done.

But I'd rather see this approach:
   "Lester Brown's Plan B"
   http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb3/pb3_table_of_contents
or this one:
   "A Grand Solar Plan"
   http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

But, even without much special effort, the world's renewables are growing 
exponentially. As I've posted on before, like here:
"[p2p-research] Ralph Nader, exponential growth, trimtabs, S-curves"
http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-September/004852.html
if you plot the exponential curves, if growth continues, in twenty to thirty 
years the world will be (mostly) all renewables.

What bothers me is, like with influenza vaccine,
   http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1
are (not saying you) all the righteous sounding language and charts to 
justify not doing much about the status quo.

But with all that said, I agree with Freeman Dyson, that there are actually 
far more important things to worry about than global warming in the short term:
   http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
"The humanist ethic begins with the belief that humans are an essential part 
of nature. Through human minds the biosphere has acquired the capacity to 
steer its own evolution, and now we are in charge. Humans have the right and 
the duty to reconstruct nature so that humans and biosphere can both survive 
and prosper. For humanists, the highest value is harmonious coexistence 
between humans and nature. The greatest evils are poverty, underdevelopment, 
unemployment, disease and hunger, all the conditions that deprive people of 
opportunities and limit their freedoms. The humanist ethic accepts an 
increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a small price to pay, if 
world-wide industrial development can alleviate the miseries of the poorer 
half of humanity. The humanist ethic accepts our responsibility to guide the 
evolution of the planet."

Still, with that said, I think renewables are a better way to develop, and 
have been for decades. If only the USA had re-elected Jimmy Carter. :-)

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/