Obama Announces Re-election Bid

classicman · 04-05-2011, 03:43 PM

yeh but...

"I plot three values of EIRe for comparison in figure 4:

* EIRe, petro: petroleum only—these are values calculated from (4) as displayed in figure 1.
* EIRe, NG: natural gas only—these are values calculated from (5) as displayed in figure 1.
* EIRe, P&G: petroleum and natural gas—to more effectively compare EIRe of O&G to the EROIO&G calculated by Cleveland (2005), I create a combined EIRe for petroleum ( ~ oil) and natural gas. These data are calculated by dividing the sum of the numerators of (4) and (5) by the sum of the denominators of (4) and (5).

While the two EIRp, O&G measures vary substantially before 1980, they mostly converge by the mid-1980s driven by increased incorporation of NG into the economy as a substitute for oil (e.g. for electricity) and deregulation of NG prices. From 1954 to 1972, the EIRp, oil measured approximately midway between the two EROIO&G measures as the two EROIO&G values appear to represent approximate upper and lower limits for EIRp, oil during the dates for which both measures are calculated. During this time the Texas Railroad Commission (TRC) was setting oil production limits and prorationing oil production in Texas. Thus, it is possible that the value of EIRp, oil between the EROI indicators is evidence that the TRC was effective at setting the oil price to balance supply and demand in a forward-looking manner—as long as US production could easily outpace demand before US peak oil production in 1970.

After 1985 there is little difference between the EIRp, O&G values in figure 3. Additionally, beginning in 1998, all EIRp measures for oil and NG dropped quickly through 2008, and only the values of the early 1980s are lower. The EIRp, gasoline is expectedly lower than the EIRp measures for oil and NG as delivered gasoline is the end of the supply chain before consumption in consumer vehicles. The EIRp, gasoline peaked at 10.8 in 1998 and had a low of 3.6 in 1980. In 2008 EIRp, gasoline = 5.5, a value surpassed for all other years since 1985. For statistically comparing EROIO&G to the two EIRp, O&G calculations, there are only six overlapping years (N = 6) of calculations (1972, 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1997) due to data limitation from the US government (Cleveland 2005). However, calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient shows that there is high correlation between EROIO&G including direct and indirect energy inputs with the EIRp, O&G weighted by the percentage of GDP spent on petroleum and NG (r = 0.93), the EIRp, O&G weighted by the energy consumed of petroleum and NG (r = 0.93), and EIRp, oil (r = 0.84). The first two correlations at r = 0.93 are statistically significant at the p = 0.005 level (i.e. less than 0.5% chance that the values are not correlated), and r = 0.84 is significant at the p = 0.025 level. Because both EIR and EROI are wholly or partly derived from economic rather than pure energy data, the correlation test indicates only that EROI and EIR capture the same changes in energy and economic phenomena rather than one value or the other is more correct."

04-05-2011, 03:43 PM	#1
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	yeh but... "I plot three values of EIRe for comparison in figure 4: * EIRe, petro: petroleum only—these are values calculated from (4) as displayed in figure 1. * EIRe, NG: natural gas only—these are values calculated from (5) as displayed in figure 1. * EIRe, P&G: petroleum and natural gas—to more effectively compare EIRe of O&G to the EROIO&G calculated by Cleveland (2005), I create a combined EIRe for petroleum ( ~ oil) and natural gas. These data are calculated by dividing the sum of the numerators of (4) and (5) by the sum of the denominators of (4) and (5). While the two EIRp, O&G measures vary substantially before 1980, they mostly converge by the mid-1980s driven by increased incorporation of NG into the economy as a substitute for oil (e.g. for electricity) and deregulation of NG prices. From 1954 to 1972, the EIRp, oil measured approximately midway between the two EROIO&G measures as the two EROIO&G values appear to represent approximate upper and lower limits for EIRp, oil during the dates for which both measures are calculated. During this time the Texas Railroad Commission (TRC) was setting oil production limits and prorationing oil production in Texas. Thus, it is possible that the value of EIRp, oil between the EROI indicators is evidence that the TRC was effective at setting the oil price to balance supply and demand in a forward-looking manner—as long as US production could easily outpace demand before US peak oil production in 1970. After 1985 there is little difference between the EIRp, O&G values in figure 3. Additionally, beginning in 1998, all EIRp measures for oil and NG dropped quickly through 2008, and only the values of the early 1980s are lower. The EIRp, gasoline is expectedly lower than the EIRp measures for oil and NG as delivered gasoline is the end of the supply chain before consumption in consumer vehicles. The EIRp, gasoline peaked at 10.8 in 1998 and had a low of 3.6 in 1980. In 2008 EIRp, gasoline = 5.5, a value surpassed for all other years since 1985. For statistically comparing EROIO&G to the two EIRp, O&G calculations, there are only six overlapping years (N = 6) of calculations (1972, 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1997) due to data limitation from the US government (Cleveland 2005). However, calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient shows that there is high correlation between EROIO&G including direct and indirect energy inputs with the EIRp, O&G weighted by the percentage of GDP spent on petroleum and NG (r = 0.93), the EIRp, O&G weighted by the energy consumed of petroleum and NG (r = 0.93), and EIRp, oil (r = 0.84). The first two correlations at r = 0.93 are statistically significant at the p = 0.005 level (i.e. less than 0.5% chance that the values are not correlated), and r = 0.84 is significant at the p = 0.025 level. Because both EIR and EROI are wholly or partly derived from economic rather than pure energy data, the correlation test indicates only that EROI and EIR capture the same changes in energy and economic phenomena rather than one value or the other is more correct." <Head spinning> __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)