The Oil Dependency Blog

There is a lot of talk about alternative energy these days. According to WorldPublicOpinion.org,
alternatives are on the minds of at least 70% of the people on this planet [1]. World Public Opinion, a global research organization, revealed there is a global census that we are reaching the limits to our oil extraction
(approx 1,000 barrels per second). However, another study conducted
in America last year revealed that 72% of the American public are unaware that
things like conventional plastic are made from petroleum products,
primarily oil [2]. This disconnection from the true gravity of our oil dependence and
the things that oil does for our society can be seen clearly when
observing discussions about alternative technologies. When discussing alternative technologies
Americans tend to defend and support alternatives that in many casesare futile attempts at distinguishing our oil dependence. Most of these newly acclaimed solutions to oil dependence come with a heavy
price tag, not only financially, but environmentally. This is where the phrase Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) plays a pivotal role[3]. Any exploitable energy source requires energy to bring it to the market. This ratio of energy in & energy out is often not discussed amongst the mainstream media, let alone the public. It is very important to understand what it takes to create these alternatives, and what effect this has on us financially and environmentally. Many solutions that are currently accepted as plausible replacements for oil end up amplifying other problems that we are already experiencing. Energy returned on energy invested can also be thought in terms of environmental return on environment
invested. Whereas many alternative technologies have negative environmental returns on environment invested.

For example, Ethanol, a bio-fuel distilled from Corn has been under harsh scrutiny for it’s role in
many devastating domino effects throughout the world. Firstly, this year the US will divert nearly 30% of corn crops to the production of ethanol [4].

Furthermore, due to the high demand for corn, many farmers are opting to grow corn instead of other much needed food crops in an effort to capitalize on the increased margins gained from selling corn to ethanol refineries. This directly affects the price of every commodity on the market, due to scarcity of products previously grown where corn is now grown. In turn this has given many farmers in South America the incentive to grow crops that are now scarce in the global market. According to John Lee of Time Magazine this is accelerating the rate of deforestation to epic numbers, who states,
“This destructive biofuel dynamic is on vivid display in Brazil, where a Rhode Island–size
chunk of the Amazon was deforested in the second half of 2007 and even more was degraded by fire.”[5].
These are the environmental & social drawbacks of ethanol, but there is certainly more to the story. The EROEI of ethanol is revered by many to be negative, meaning it requires more energy input then is given in the final product of ethanol. The energy inputs include: cultivation, irrigation, fertilization & pesticides, harvesting, transportation and distilling/refining, and final distribution. The ratio of energy returned on energy invested of ethanol is currently being argued by many scientist around the globe. However, when weighing in the devastating effects that ethanol is having on hunger and deforestation it is obvious to conclude that ethanol is not the answer to our oil dependency. (ie. The corn it takes to produce enough ethanol to fill an SUV will feed a person for a year [6])

Another example is the environmental/energy investment of a hydrogen powered economy, which can boast very negative environmental returns depending where the energy is derived to produce hydrogen. Hydrogen is generally produced from natural gas, or coal (electricity), which are both near 100% production capacity. This limited capacity makes it difficult to justify a hydrogen economy. The environmental impact of a hydrogen economy would be devastating if we began expandingour electricity production with the use of more coal. However, if we considered the environmental benefit of producing hydrogen from
solar power, the environmental return would be well on the positive side.

All energy sources have this ratio, for example conventional crude oil has a Hour=”13″ Minute=”23″>1:23 energy return ratio, meaning that you invest one unit of energy and receive 23 units [Ibid, 3]. This is by far the most abundant energy dense substance on the planet, and is the main reason why many alternatives simply cannot compete. Moreover, other alternatives like Hybrid vehicles also have a requisite for
petroleum inputs. For example, a hybrid vehicle requires an investment of 60-100 barrels of oil to manufacture [7]. The same need for petroleum input goes for all technologies including wind power, solar, hydrogen etc. Although all of these alternatives will play an important role in the future of America,
it is important to understand that it takes a substantial fossil fuel investment to manufacture any of these products. Moreover, investment costs are rising exponentially, with the price of oil reaching nearly $135 per barrel in May. Many energy investors and experts have predicted $200/barrel for 2009, which will make it even more difficult to fund these much needed alternative energy projects [8].

There are many options available to distinguish our addiction to oil, but many require long term investment. These investment opportunities will most certainly need to be mandated by our government. The Energy returned on energy invested is quite possibly the most important thing to understand about how we use energy. The future of our oil driven civilization depends on developing a clean energy supply that boasts both a positive energy return on energy invested and a positive environmental return on environment invested. Until we calculate the costs and impacts of any proposed alternative, we should remain skeptical of their “claimed benefits”.

Ask questions about suspect alternatives,
it’s easy: Is this safe? What is the EROEI? What is the overall impact
to global environmental systems? What are the investment costs? Who
will benefit, who will not?

What
are the alternatives to the alternatives?

1. www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/peak-oil-47042102
2.www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/70_of_americans.php
3.www.erori.com
4.www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080502.IBFOOD02/TPStory/Business
5.www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975-1,00.html
6. www.thestalwart.com/the_stalwart/2006/09/1_tank_of_ethan.html
7.www.endofsuburbia.com
8.http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-04-28-voa36.cfm

In 5 years energy costs have more then quadrupled, and are set to keep rising for the foreseeable future. Mainstream media, government officials & energy experts from around the world are all pointing to stagnant supply & rampant demand as cause for the surge in prices. Although many people believe speculators have played a large role in inflating the price of oil. However, it has been admitted by many energy insiders that global conventional oil production reached a peak in the last half of 2005 . With voracious oil appetites from emerging industrial nations like India and China, it is obvious that the current oil extraction rates (950 barrels/second), coupled with the current oil depletion rates, that global demand for oil is exceeding available supply. With that being said, how is it that the much of the American public still remains unaware of this national security risk? Do people of America only have two modes, complacency and panic?