Will humanity die out by “thermal death”?

    Scenarios “we all-in-one” have always been and will be popular. At a minimum, this is a convenient way to attract attention and make the reader gasp and gasp. The topic of energy resources was no exception and there are two main apocalypses here - one of them is the peak of oil production. The concept of peak oil is widespread at 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 then, so the proponents of the theory had to reduce their theory of “peak oil production in general” to particulars: “peak of easily accessible oil production” or “peak of traditional oil production”. The reason for mentioning “easy accessibility” lies in the second “apocalypse” - in reducing the energy efficiency ratio (EROEI), by analogy with economic profitability (ROI). We’ll talk about him.

    What is EROEI? Imagine a cheetah hunting for antelopes. Antelope meat contains proteins and fats that give the cheetah the energy it needs to exist. If the cheetah possessed thermodynamics, then before each hunt he should have calculated how much energy he would spend chasing the antelope and how much he would get from her meat. If he hunts for an antelope, and as a result he catches only a mouse that cannot even compensate for the loss of energy for hunting, then it is obvious that it was better not to hunt at all that day.

    The ratio of the energy produced by the cheetah to the spent will be called the EROEI coefficient. If a cheetah from antelope meat receives 20 joules, and spends 1, then the cheetah's EROEI hunt will be 20: 1. Obviously, EROEI = 1 is a critical value, below which the energy resource, in fact, ceases to be an energy resource, and even becomes a burden.

    If the cheetah has antelopes, then we have oil, gas and coal. They satisfy the needs of mankind in 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 be left without energy for its existence and doomed to eternal torment of the growth of entropy and death, according to the second law of thermodynamics. In general, the allegory of this article goes back to a similar scenario.for the universe. Therefore, the second apocalyptic scenario implies a reduction in EROEI of energy resources to one or less. To understand this scenario, you should turn to the real values ​​of EROEI, but the problem is that calculating EROEI is rather time-consuming, vague, and most importantly, it 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 involved in energy.

    Since we are talking about “we’ll see it all,” we should study the EROEI of the most developed energy resource. It is best to consider the US oil and gas sector - already in the middle of the 20th century a huge amount of oil and gas was extracted 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 moving from the production of traditional hydrocarbons to “shale” gas and oil.

    Past Research EROEI


    Due to the fact that:
    1.) EROEI studies of US oil and gas can be counted on the fingers of one hand;
    2.) the theme of “shales” is a little more than complete;
    3.) apocatypical forecasts are much more optimistic;
    it will be useful to plunge into existing results in order to understand what is generally reliably known about EROEI US oil and gas. And very little is known, at least much less than what they say about him.

    Recently, there are only two studies. The first is dated 2005, and the second2011 and EROEI in the second it 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 issue of oil and gas resources was the “shale revolution” and that is why almost no data are available about the EROEI “shale”. With regret for those who considered the EROEI “shale” to be five (a very common opinion), we inform that these data are taken from the ceiling and the figure is the result of errors and manipulations .

    Calculation methodology


    All EROEI studies of US petroleum gas were carried out by a team of researchers with the guidance or participation of an ideological mastermind - Charles Hall as the “inventor” of this concept. Of course, I want to be able to compare the results of different studies both in the context of the United States and the whole world, and this requires the same methodology - what and how to consider and take into account? The team cuts from the shoulder - introduces 15 different EROEI , assigning each its own index. The approach, in our opinion, is logical and can be represented by such a table:

    image

    We are most interested in EROEI (stnd) - “standard”. It takes into account costs up to indirect costs, and measures the energy produced right at the place of production, that is, without processing, for example, oil into gasoline and without transporting finished gas to gas stations, cutting off excess - not related to production. The authors of the methodology took 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 value of EROEI and to be able to compare it with something, you need to perform the calculation in accordance with the table above, and it is desirable to calculate exactly EROEI (stnd). The calculation methodology for EROEI (stnd) for US oil and gas is in the 2011 study mentioned above. - we will not reinvent the wheel and use it by substituting new data for 2013.

    image
    (You can read more about the methodology here. )

    The result is as follows:

    image
    What can be seen:
    a) EROEI (stnd) of traditional oil and gas falls from 1997 to 2008, which is in principle natural.
    b) With the start of the shale revolution, EROEI (stnd) begins to grow in general.

    From 2008 to 2013, “shale” made a breakthrough in production from a near-zero share to half: “shale” oil (oil) is now about half of all US production, and shale gas production recently exceeded half. Therefore, it is logical to interpret this data as:

    a) EROEI (stnd) even in such a developed country as the USA is not so low and is now about 11. It does not smell of any apocalypse.
    b) EROEI (stnd) of “shale” is most likely higher than traditional US oil and gas, and therefore EROEI (stnd) not only reversed the trend of decline, but also began to grow with the onset of the shale revolution.
    c) EROEI (stnd) = 10.5 is just the “hospital average” of US oil and gas. Of course, there is a range of values. Given the above, EROEI of traditional oil and gas is somewhere near the middle and lower, and the “shale” is near the middle and higher. According to our assumptions, the EROEI (stnd) of “shale” is in the range of 8 ... 25.

    This fits perfectly with what is happening in the USA with the oil and gas sector and explains why the industry is massively switching to “shale” hydrocarbons. The fact is that between the energy and economic profitability, of course, there is a certain correlation and the “shales” are more profitable in production not only energetically, but also economically.

    Well, for reference, it is worth bringing EROEI US oil and gas production over the past 100 years for the curious. To do this, we combine the aforementioned study and our continuation: To summarize

    image

    , the discussion of the “apocalypse” vs “bright future” format in the context of resources is always a question of “nature” vs “knowledge”. Attempts to imagine that a person faces a resource crisis on a planet where resources regarding our needs are infinite from a practical point of view arise from an erroneous assessment of our knowledge. It always seems to people that we are already very close to the peak of knowledge, but in fact we have only just begun to ascend to it. Therefore, it is extremely incorrect to imagine the world as static without extensive progress and intensive breakthroughs, although the latter, of course, cannot be predicted. Which gives rise to errors.

    Also popular now: