sustainability - SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry

421 Pages·2012·10.83 MB·English

sustainability
Special Issue
New Studies in EROI
(Energy Return on Investment)
2011
Charles A.S. Hall and Doug Hansen (Eds.)
MDPI
OPEN ACCESS
ExternalEditors EditorialOffice
Editor-in-Chief MDPIAG
Prof. Dr. MarcA.Rosen Kandererstrasse25
FacultyofEngineeringandAppliedScience Basel,Switzerland
UniversityofOntarioInstituteofTechnology Phone: [phone]
2000SimcoeStreetNorth Website: http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/
Oshawa,Ontario,L1H7K4,Canada E-Mail: [email protected]
Phone: [phone],ext5726
Fax: [phone] Publisher
Website: http://www.engineering.uoit.ca/ Dr. Shu-KunLin
people/rosen
E-Mail: [email protected] ProductionEditor
Dr. BriettaPike
GuestEditor
Prof. Dr. CharlesA.S.Hall ManagingEditor
FacultyofEnvironmental&ForestBiology Dr. JoseA.F.Monteiro
CollegeofEnvironmentalScience&Forestry
StateUniversityofNewYork
354IllickHall
1ForestryDrive
Syracuse,NewYork13210,USA
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Website:http://www.esf.edu/EFB/hall/
E-Mail: [email protected]
AssociateEditor
Mr. DougHansen
HansenFinancialManagement
12717MontereyCypressWay
SanDiego,CA92130,USA
E-Mail: [email protected]
Coverpicture:
Ekofisk oil field in the Norwegian sector of
theNorthSea.
Author: unknown
Availableonlineat:
no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Ekofisk complex.jpg
ISBN:3-906980-31-6
Table of Contents
Part I: Conceptual Issues
Editorial
IntroductiontoSpecialIssueonNewStudiesinEROI(EnergyReturnonInvest-
ment)
CharlesA.S.Hall,
Sustainability2011,3,1773-1777;doi:10.3390/su3101773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Article
OrderfromChaos: APreliminaryProtocolforDeterminingtheEROIofFuels
DavidJ.Murphy,CharlesA.S.Hall,MichaelDaleandCutlerCleveland,
Sustainability2011,3,1888-1907;doi:10.3390/su3101888 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Review
AReviewofthePastandCurrentStateofEROIData
AjayK.GuptaandCharlesA.S.Hall,
Sustainability2011,3,1796-1809;doi:10.3390/su3101796 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Article
ADynamicFunctionforEnergyReturnonInvestment
MichaelDale,SusanKrumdieckandPatBodger,
Sustainability2011,3,1972-1985;doi:10.3390/su3101972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Article
System Energy Assessment (SEA), Defining a Standard Measure of EROI for
EnergyBusinessesasWholeSystems
PhilipF.Henshaw,CareyKingandJayZarnikau,
Sustainability2011,3,1908-1943;doi:10.3390/su3101908 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Article
RelatingFinancialandEnergyReturnonInvestment
CareyW.KingandCharlesA.S.Hall,
Sustainability2011,3,1810-1832;doi:10.3390/su3101810 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Part II: EROI for Conventional Fossil Fuels
Article
A New Long Term Assessment of Energy Return on Investment (EROI) for U.S.
OilandGasDiscoveryandProduction
MeganC.Guilford,CharlesA.S.Hall,PeterO’ConnorandCutlerJ.Cleveland,
Sustainability2011,3,1866-1887;doi:10.3390/su3101866 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Article
EnergyReturnonInvestmentforNorwegianOilandGasfrom1991to2008
LeenaGrandell,CharlesA.S.HallandMikaelHo¨o¨k,
Sustainability2011,3,2050-2070;doi:10.3390/su3112050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Article
Oil Depletion and the Energy Efficiency of Oil Production: The Case of Califor-
nia
AdamR.Brandt,
Sustainability2011,3,1833-1854;doi:10.3390/su3101833 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Article
Analysis of the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) of the Huge Daqing Oil
FieldinChina
YanHu,LianyongFeng,CharlesC.S.HallandDongTian,
Sustainability2011,3,2323-2338;doi:10.3390/su3122323 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Article
TheEROIofConventionalCanadianNaturalGasProduction
JonFreise,
Sustainability2011,3,2080-2104;doi:10.3390/su3112080 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Article
EnergyReturnonEnergyInvestedforTightGasWellsintheAppalachianBasin,
UnitedStatesofAmerica
BryanSell,DavidMurphyandCharlesA.S.Hall,
Sustainability2011,3,1986-2008;doi:10.3390/su3101986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Article
Ultra-Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas: Energy Return on Financial In-
vestmentandaPreliminaryAssessmentofEnergyReturnonEnergyInvestment
MatthewMoerschbaecherandJohnW.DayJr.,
Sustainability2011,3,2009-2026;doi:10.3390/su3102009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Part III: EROI for Other Fuels
Review
Seeking to Understand the Reasons for Different Energy Return on Investment
(EROI)EstimatesforBiofuels
CharlesA.S.Hall,BruceE.DaleandDavidPimentel,
Sustainability2011,3,2413-2432;doi:10.3390/su3122413 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Article
EnergyReturnonInvestment(EROI)ofOilShale
CutlerJ.ClevelandandPeterA.O’Connor,
Sustainability2011,3,2307-2322;doi:10.3390/su3112307 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Article
An Edible Energy Return on Investment (EEROI) Analysis of Wheat and Rice
inPakistan
AliS.PrachaandTimothyA.Volk,
Sustainability2011,3,2358-2391;doi:10.3390/su3122358 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
Article
EnergyReturnonEnergyInvested(EROI)fortheElectricalHeatingofMethane
HydrateReservoirs
RobertoCesareCallarotti,
Sustainability2011,3,2105-2114;doi:10.3390/su3112105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
Part IV: Looking Forward
Article
Predicting the Psychological Response of the American People to Oil Depletion
andDecliningEnergyReturnonInvestment(EROI)
JessicaG.LambertandGailP.Lambert,
Sustainability2011,3,2129-2156;doi:10.3390/su3112129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
Article
Implications of Energy Return on Energy Invested on Future Total Energy De-
mand
ShinuoDengandGeorgeR.Tynan,
Sustainability2011,3,2433-2442;doi:10.3390/su3122433 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
Article
DerivinganImprovedDynamicEROItoProvideBetterInformationforEnergy
Planners
IoannisN.KessidesandDavidC.Wade,
Sustainability2011,3,2339-2357;doi:10.3390/su3122339 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382
Article
Looking for a Silver Lining: The Possible Positives of Declining Energy Return
onInvestment(EROI)
JackP.Manno,
Sustainability2011,3,2071-2079;doi:10.3390/su3112071 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
Editorial
Synthesis to Special Issue on New Studies in EROI (Energy Return on Invest-
ment)
CharlesA.S.Hall,
Sustainability2011,3,2496-2499;doi:10.3390/su3122496 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410
Part I: Conceptual Issues
ReprintedfromSustainability. Citeas: Hall,C.A.IntroductiontoSpecialIssueonNewStudiesinEROI
(EnergyReturnonInvestment)Sustainability2011,3,1773-1777;doi:10.3390/su3101773.
G
Sustainability 2011, 3, 1773-1777; doi:10.3390/su3101773
OPEN ACCESS

sustainability
ISSN 2071-1050
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Editorial
Introduction to Special Issue on New Studies in EROI (Energy
Return on Investment)
Charles A.S. Hall
Departments of Environmental and Forest Biology and Environmental Studies, and Graduate Program
in Environmental Science, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New
York Syracuse, New York, NY 13210, USA; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: [phone];
Fax: [phone]
Received: 10 August 2011 / Accepted: 17 August 2011 / Published: 7 October 2011

Abstract: Energy Return on Investment (EROI) refers to how much energy is returned
from one unit of energy invested in an energy-producing activity. It is a critical parameter
for understanding and ranking different fuels. There were a number of studies on EROI
three decades ago but relatively little work since. Now there is a whole new interest in
EROI as fuels get increasingly expensive and as we attempt to weigh alternative energies
against traditional ones. This special volume brings together a whole series of high quality
new studies on EROI, as well as many papers that struggle with the meaning of changing
EROI and its impact on our economy. One overall conclusion is that the quality of fuels is
at least as important in our assessment as is the quantity. I argue that many of the
contemporary changes in our economy are related directly to changing EROI as our
premium fuels are increasingly depleted.
Keywords: energy; EROI; economic; fuels; quality of fuels

The concept of Energy Return on Investment (EROI) is a concept originally derived in ecology but
increasingly applied to oil and other industrial energies. It had precedents in the idea of “net energy
analysis” used by Leslie White, Kenneth Boulding and especially Howard Odum [1,2]. Similar but less
explicit and focused ideas can be found in the newer field of “life cycle analysis” that is better
developed in Europe than in the US. The word investment usually means energy investment but
sometimes may also include financial, environmental and/or other kinds of investments. Some people
like the term EROEI as a more explicit term, but we find it less useful and harder to pronounce. The
term EROI has been around since at least 1970, but it gained relatively little traction until the last five
3
Sustainability 2011, 3 G 1774

or ten years. Now there is an explosion of interest as peak oil and the general economic effects of
increasingly constrained energy supplies are becoming obvious to investigators from many fields. This
special issue examines various aspects of EROI with many exciting new studies from all around the
world. It is very special as there had been almost no new studies since the original studies of the 1970s
and 1980s and as the critical importance of the concept becomes ever more apparent as our highest
quality fuels are increasingly depleted.
There have been questions about the degree to which we should use EROI vs. more familiar ways
(e.g., price, financial return on financial investment in the oil business) to examine energy and other
resource choices. In addition there have been criticisms that EROI has some severe flaws: that
different studies give different answers to what appears to be the same question, that the boundaries of
the analysis are controversial, that market pricing is always superior to scientific studies, and that
EROI too often is dependent upon monetary data for its results. Explicit arguments for the virtues of
EROI are found in the Murphy et al. protocol paper in this issue [3]. Many other papers in this volume
take on these issues directly, often through sensitivity analysis, and we believe that the papers
collectively make the case that EROI is an incredibly robust, useful and interesting tool. While we
embrace “methodological pluralism”, that is different approaches to analysis, we favor EROI as the
most basic and useful kind of analysis for examining and perhaps determining our energy future
because, as developed by King and Hall in this issue, it ultimately determines the other ratios [4].
All of the papers in this special issue have been peer reviewed, usually very thoroughly, by
appropriate professionals. Several papers did not make it through the review process. Several of the
papers that did were nevertheless controversial, to say the least, and as editor of the whole issue I was
faced with several situations where I had both strongly positive and strongly negative reviews. In that
situation I sought additional reviewers, and generally received again mixed reviews. Where there were
a balanced number of positive and negative reviews I chose to publish the papers as I thought they
tended to be papers that I felt raised new and or important issues that later research is likely to sort out.
The issue is divided into four basic sections: Conceptual issues, EROI for Conventional fossil fuels,
EROI for other fuels, and looking forward.
In my opinion this is a remarkably important group of papers. While EROI has yet to gain global
popularity most of the contributors to this special issue would probably agree that few issues are likely
to be more important for the future of civilization, whatever that might be. For many of us the financial
crises that we have been experiencing since 2008 is a direct effect of the cessation of the growth of oil
(and even of all liquid fuels if done on an energy, not volume, basis) and of the general decline in
EROI. While this is not to discount the role of greed, corruption and mismanagement in all things
financial, nor the enormous shift in wealth to the upper few percent over the past several decades, at
the root of it all lies the decline in cheap, high EROI fuel that had once allowed the economy to do
more work. This has been especially important as the economy has been shifting to higher labor
productivity, meaning that each worker generates more value added per hour working. While
increasing labor productivity is normally perceived as a good thing higher productivity is usually
obtained by subsidizing each hour worked with increasing fossil fuel—in effect making each worker
more productive but each unit of energy less productive than otherwise because there is less labor
behind it! One result is that when Federal money is used to try to create jobs the money goes
increasingly to energy, even energy from overseas, rather than salaries.
4
Sustainability 2011, 3 G 1775

The net effect of decreasing net energy supplies coupled with increasing labor productivity is that
10 to 20 percent of Americans have no job at all, a poorly paying job in the service sector, or work part
time. Incomes for the middle class have been stagnant at best for decades while the size of the middle
class shrinks. Many, perhaps most, new college graduates have had to greatly reduce their aspirations.
The stock market and real estate have become far less reliable ways to amass wealth. Some 46 of our
50 states and many of our municipalities face crippling budget deficits, and many colleges, pension
plans, charities and other institutions are operating with diminished funds or going bankrupt. It is
increasingly difficult to pay for the repair of storms and other environmental disasters. Even the United
States Government has seen its credit rating diminished. “Tea Partiers” seek to cut debt and the role of
government even while pole after pole shows the public does not want its health care or most other
benefits cut. Keynsian deficit spending that worked in the past and might work again has few
advocates today because of crippling debt, nor is there the likelihood of future growth to repay any
such deficit spending because, unlike in 1946, the possibilities biophysical constraints make the
potential for sustained economic expansion seem very thin indeed. As individuals and as a nation we
have been living beyond our energy means for decades. We collectively do not know how to change
that situation because tax increases have become so unpopular even while such previously unheard of
programs as Medicare have become sacred. In earlier times the growth of the economic pie defused
arguments about how to cut it, but now the growth of the pie, constrained by the end of cheap energy
and the demise of energy growth, seems much less likely.
If the pie is no longer getting larger, indeed if because of energy constraints it can no longer get
larger, how will we slice it? This may force some ugly debates back into the public vision. Indeed if
EROI continues to decline then that will cut increasingly into discretionary spending (the engine for
economic growth) and we will need to ask some very hard questions about how we should spend our
money. One way to think about this is “Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs” [5]. This theory,
proposed by Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper “A Theory of Human Motivation”, proposes that
humans will attempt to meet their needs in more or less the following order: First they will meet their
physiological needs, which are the literal requirements for human survival, including breathing,
nutrition, water, sleep, homeostasis, excretion and reproductive activity. Second, once physiological
needs are satisfied an individual will attempt to meet safety needs in an attempt to attain a predictable,
orderly world in which perceived unfairness and inconsistency are under control, the familiar frequent
and the unfamiliar rare. Third, once the above needs are met humans seek love and belonging, i.e.,
emotionally based relationships in general, such as friendship, intimacy and family. Fourth, again once
the above have been met humans seek esteem, to be respected and to have self-esteem and self-respect
and also the esteem of others. Finally, according to Maslow, people seek self-actualization, the need to
understand what a person’s full potential is and to realize that potential, to become everything that one
is capable of becoming—for example an ideal parent, athlete, painter, or inventor.
Such a hierarchy applies to our energy use. Think of a society dependent upon one resource: its
domestic oil. If the EROI for this oil was 1.1:1 then one could pump the oil out of the ground and look
at it. If it were 1.2:1 you could also refine it and look at it, 1.3:1 also distribute it to where you want to
use it but all you could do is look at it. Hall et al. 2008 examined the EROI required to actually run a
truck and found that if the energy included was enough to build and maintain the truck and the
roads and bridges required to use it (i.e., depreciation), one would need at least a 3:1 EROI at the
5
Sustainability 2011, 3 G 1776

wellhead [6]. Now if you wanted to put something in the truck, say some grain, and deliver it that
would require an EROI of, say, 5:1 to grow the grain. If you wanted to include depreciation on the oil
field worker, the refinery worker, the truck driver and the farmer you would need an EROI of say 7 or
8:1 to support the families. If the children were to be educated you would need perhaps 9 or 10:1, have
health care 12:1, have arts in their life maybe 14:1 and so on. Obviously to have a modern civilization
one needs not simply surplus energy but lots of it, and that requires either a high EROI or a massive
source of moderate EROI fuels. As we watch the magnificent Syracuse Symphony and our equally
magnificent State University systems go broke we believe we are watching the beginning of the
decline of civilization driven by a declining EROI. If things get a lot tougher, as many think, the low
EROI energy that is available will go to growing food and supporting families. It is clear that we must
understand energy and its changes if we are to understand changes in our economy.
Maslow’s theory has been criticized from a number of angles including the supposed lack of
evidence that humans in fact follow that hierarchy, or indeed any such hierarchy, and from the
perspective that his “pyramids of needs” may be more representative of people from an individualist
vs. socialist society. Nevertheless his theory is broadly accepted in psychology and even marketing.
Our own research on the implications of declining net energy, while not consciously based on
Maslow’s theories, is consistent with them. We have the sense that discretionary spending will be
increasingly abandoned as humans attempt to meet their basic needs for food, shelter and clothing [7].
Presumably as the amount of net energy declines due to peak oil and declining EROI, humans will
increasingly give up categories higher on the pyramids and concentrate increasingly on the more basic
requirements including food, shelter and clothing. What this may mean in modern society is that
performance art, then expensive vacations, then education, then health care would be abandoned by the
middle class as the economy is increasingly restricted. Whether this can be reversed by diverting
where and by whom we chose to spend such surplus money or energy as we have will be an
increasingly dominant challenge to society.
Acknowledgments
I thank all authors and reviewers for this special issue, and Ajay Gupta and Alexandre Poisson for
editorial help on this chapter.
Conflict of Interest
There are no conflicts of interest associated with this paper.
References and Notes
1. Odum, H.T. Environment, Power and Society. Wiley Interscience: New York, NY, USA ,1973.
2. Odum, H.T. Energy, ecology and economics. AMBIO 1973, 2, 220-227.
3. Murphy, D.; Hall C.A.S., Dale M.; Cleveland, C. Order from chaos: A preliminary protocol for
determining EROI for fuels. Sustainability, in press.
4. King, C.; Hall, C.A.S. Relating financial and energy return on investment. Sustainability,
in press.
5. Maslow, A. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 1943, 50, 370-396.