Energy Return on Investment

[free spirit]

Shall we do some calculations?

eta - these would be known as well to wheels calculations.

Energy required to provide 1MJ worth of forward thrust to the drive train of a vehicle

Internal Combustion Engine = 1MJ x 5 (engine losses) x 1.02 (Energy lost in producing a 50:1 EROEI oil) = 5.1MJ

Renewable powered EV = 1MJ x 1.25 (battery losses) x 1.1 (motor losses)x 1.142 (energy lost in production of energy source at 8:1 EROEI) = 1.57 MJ


or energy required to produce 1MJ of electricity to the end user

Coal power station = 1MJ x 2.5 (conversion losses) x 1.1 (distribution losses) x 1.02 (energy lost in producing 50:1 coal) = 2.75MJ
SSEG renewable energy located at end user's propery = 1MJ x 1.142 (energy lost in production of energy source at 8:1 EROEI) = 1.142MJ


So in both examples the apparently worse EROEI source of renewable energy actually requires less than half of the input energy needed for the fossil fuel energy to do the same level of work.

So it's not an article of faith at all, it's basic mathematics / engineering.

This point stands, and it really is a key reason why Falcon's analysis is wrong - as I've pointed out many times before, he ignores the efficiency of consumption / conversion to electricity side of the subject, which has far more bearing on the situation than raw EROEI figures alone.

 

[free spirit]

So really, eroei isn't an issue at all. The problems with increasing renewables lie elsewhere.

bingo.

What I would agree with Falcon is happening at the moment is that the actual energy being invested in say solar PV in total per year is greater than the energy being produced by solar PV in that year. This is a function of the phenominal growth rate of the industry combined with the high up front energy costs involved in both building the manufacturing capacity, and the manufacturing of each panel itself.

This however will only be a problem in the initial phases of the growth of the industry, and once the industry matures and the growth rate reduces compared to the installed capacity, then this situation will change and solar PV will rapidly become a significant net energy generator, and will then continue to be a net energy generator into the future.

I suspect we're actually either at, or approaching that point now, as the solar PV industries growth rates have dropped off significantly in the last 18 months due to the massive reductions in Feed In Tariff support in Europe, and the massive growth in manufacturing capacity has slowed to a trickle.

So we now have around 100GWp installed, with a further 30GWp being added per year, vs 2 years ago where there was only around 50GWp installed capacity with 25GWp being installed that year, and next year it will be around 140GWp installed capacity with 35-40GWp being installed, so each year the ratio of installed capacity to new installations should get rapidly better now, and we're somewhere around the net energy contribution point for an energy source with a ~3 year average energy payback.

So that's basically a short term issue in the initial phases of the rapid growth of the industry, and the more the growth rate levels of into single figures, the greater the proportionate net energy contribution solar will make.

That said, we'd still have been better off long term if we'd carried on with the previous growth rate for longer and invested energy in getting us up to a point where we're approaching maybe a 500 GWp before more gradually reducing the growth rate off at around 100GWp per year or so. It's pretty frustrating to see the industry hobbled in the way it's been the last 2 years by idiotic policies in the UK and Europe to slash support in drastic ways that have knocked confidence in the market rather than carefully managing the reductions to maintain the growth in the market.

 

[Falcon]

You were flat wrong to state that these losses aren't included in the EROEI figures. And if you're flat wrong on that, then your rationale for dismissing my previous calculations of the relative well to wheels efficiency is rebutted, and my point stands.

Yesterday consisted of stating one very simple point, many many times over.

In order to produce one single PV panel, very many diverse systems must function. Those systems include the manufacturing process of the panel itself. They include the manufacturing processes of all of the apparatus through which the the panel is manufactured. They include the raw material extraction process for the device, and the manufacturing process of the raw material extraction apparatus. They include all the social institutions that maintain the stability of the conditions under which those processes can function, such as the military processes by which access to resource is maintained. Critical ones, such as marine transport, cannot be converted to run on electricity in any timeframe relevant to this analysis.

We can say two things about the energy pathways. (1) They are currently sustained by energy sources of EROEI many times higher than solar (2) They are not yet fully understood and therefore cannot yet have been fully mapped.

If they have never been mapped, then your naive estimations of solar EROEI are too high. I'm afraid it is simply too naive to present some material on the embodied energy of paint, and a simple calculation of motive power energy exchange loss from which a full account of the manufacturing losses is necessarily absent, and conclude that hydrocarbon is substitutable by renewables in all the systems and subsystems of the global manufacturing process, the defining one of which cannot be powered by renewables derived electricity. Your point was never made, and so does not stand.

You have acknowledged that the manufacturing energy mapping process is fiendishly difficult. You know that, as manufacturing pathway energies are mapped and accounted for, solar EROEI will fall further. You do not yet know, as they are accounted for, whether the EROEI of solar might tend to unity or below while commercially achievable conversion efficiency is approaching its theoretical maximum. Since the quantity of manufacturing energy and resource increases exponentially to infinity as EROEI tends to unity, the uncertainty of your proposition that solar is a substitute is grossly sensitive to further small reductions in EROEI. You have failed to acknowledge that uncertainty.

Setting EROEI uncertainty aside, you have been presented with very specific problems of manufacturing and operationally maintaining your technology as the current motive energy behind the manufacturing system depletes with a 7 year half life uninvested in an environment of capital formation impairment, energy competition from higher utility end uses, and severe emission restriction. You have failed to acknowledge those problems, much less account for them.

Setting engineering aside, you have been presented with the referenced observation that no complex civilisation has been observed to survive a reduction in the EROEI of its primary energy source, with the further observation that ours is the most complex, high EROEI dependent civilisation in recorded human history. Your response has been "liar, liar, pants on fire."

It has been an interesting exchange, but one in which you may not conclude that you have yet made any point. Conversely, I seek to make no other point than the one summarised in this post - your claim that solar is a viable substitute for hydrocarbon is, at best, speculative.

You will now ignore the bulk of this carefully written post, extract the one sentence from which you believe you can construct a straw man, elevate that straw man to evidence of the complete failure of my entire argument, and advance it. A process with which I am weary.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That post is complete crap. Hold your eroei figure for oil to the same level of scrutiny ffs. Does it account for military action? Of course not.

Also I'm not sure you really understand eroei at all. 50:1 is not 'many times' higher than 8:1. You don't appear to get this basic point.

 

[Falcon]

That post is complete crap. etc.

Thanks again. So you believe that the energy losses of the high-tech manufacturing process have been understood, mapped and quantified, that EROEI's are therefore not overstated, that primary resource demand is not highly sensitive to EROEI uncertainty, that continuity of the solar supply chain is assured under conditions of capital formation impairment, hydrocarbon reallocation, emissions constraint, and resource contestation, and the ultimate hubris of our civilisation - "this time it's different"?

That's a lot to claim without a shred of support, for a chap investing so much energy in constructing a straw man argument over a single digit, if I may say.

What aspect of a simple ratio do you feel I have not grasped? In what way is a quantity that is 50 times larger than something not many times larger than another which is 8 times larger than that something? Your post is unintelligible, I'm afraid.

But to develop your point. The point about falling EROEI is that, as it falls, an increasing proportion of the economy has to be devoted to obtaining the same amount of net energy. It acts like a multiplier, or gearing factor, for resource demand. So an energy source with an EROEI of 18 requires three times more resource input than an energy source with an EROEI of 50 to maintain the same power output*.

To put it another way, to migrate our energy system from a power source of EROEI of 50 to one of a power source of 18 will require us to treble the energy infrastructure's own energy and resource demand. If solar turns out to have an EROEI of 5, we would have to increase it by a factor of 12. If it is 2, we'd need 50 times more. If it was 1, an infinite amount of energy infrastructure energy and resource would not suffice. Hence my point - the uncertainty of your statement that solar is viable is grossly sensitive to small variations in EROEI estimate, and EROEI is overestimated.

Last time I looked, our energy infrastructure was having trouble securing its current resource input demand - we are now cannibalising our food supplies to maintain current energy levels, and you are proposing we triple the energy system's resource requirement. Your point that solar is viable (if that is what you are claiming) is unproven.

* using Ein = Enet / (EROEI-1) and Ein an a proxy for resource input.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You've not factored in feedback - the ability to use some of the energy you've generated to power the generation of more energy.

You're just wrong to use eroei figures like that.

Eg

you have a 10:1 source. You input 10 output 100. Of that 100 output you can use 90 but must set aside 10 for your next output of 100. And so on. You're 90 % efficient.

By comparison a 50:1 source is 98% efficient. But that doesn't make it five times better. Because some of the energy you've produced can be used to produce more energy.

Of course there are issues to do with the kind of energy you're producing and its usefulness, but this is a separate consideration. Raw eroei ratios are silent about that.

All other things being equal, a switch from a 50:1 source to a 10:1 source will result in a reduction of useful economic output of 8 percent. Significant, but not the catastrophic systems failure you are warning against. And an overall 10 percent energy efficiency saving will cancel this loss out. Given that energy contraction has always led to efficiency savings being found, and that there is currently huge scope for efficiency savings, this is not a doom and gloom scenario.

 

[Falcon]

You're just wrong to use eroei figures like that.

Eg

you have a 10:1 source. You input 10 output 100. Of that 100 output you can use 90 but must set aside 10 for your next output of 100. And so on. You're 90 % efficient.

In the context of your claim that I do not understand EROEI - EROEI and efficiency are entirely different thermodynamic concepts.

Yes, there is a multiplier. In substituting, say, 50 EROEI infrastructure for, say, 18 EROEI infrastructure, you treble your infrastructure resource demand for the same power output. That increased resource demand, which was formerly secured through 50 EROEI infrastructure, must now be secured through 18 EROEI energy infrastructure - trebling *its* resource demand. And so on. It works the opposite way to that which you suppose, and aggressively.

I elected not to go there, given the confusion over simple ratios.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well that's the key to sustainability, isn't it. What resources are being demanded? Are they sustainable resources? Again, eroei ratios on their own don't tell you that.

 

[Falcon]

Well that's the key to sustainability, isn't it. What resources are being demanded? Are they sustainable resources? Again, eroei ratios on their own don't tell you that.

I'm keen to try and find some basis for agreement and put an end to this tiresome argument. That is a true statement, but the fact that, sustainable or not, you must find three times as many, or reduce demand by two thirds to maintain the same resource demand, is highly problematic is it not?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I still don't accept your point, though.

Assume a world in which all machinery is now run on electricity, and you have the capacity to produce 100 units of electricity a month. Given an eroei of 10:1, you must keep 10 units back for the next month's electricity production. Given an eroei of 50:1, you must keep 2 units back for the next month.

That's the difference between producing 90 units of useful energy and 98 units of useful energy per month. Yes, you are dedicating five times as many resources towards producing the energy, but that doesn't mean the system is five times worse. It's a little less than 10 percent worse.

This is very much to do with efficiency. It is a question of how much of the energy you make must be reinvested in producing the next lot of energy, and how much of it can be used for other things.

 

[Falcon]

Yes, you are dedicating five times as many resources towards producing the energy, but that doesn't mean the system is five times worse. It's a little less than 10 percent worse.

You are 10 percent worse in efficiency. You are 500 percent worse in resource usage. Since resource usage is the thing you are worried about in a resource constrained world, that seems to be the material point. Specifically, if resource constraint means you have trouble sourcing even 100%, then your output must fall 80% to remain within it. Not 10%.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That depends. Eroei in itself says nothing about the resources used other than the energy needed. It may be that one energy source has a lower eroei because it's deeper in the ground, meaning that machinery takes more energy to get to it. But if that energy used to get to it is generated using the energy source itself, then you're simply being a bit less efficient than you would be if the source were closer to the surface. My point about efficiency stands.

 

[Falcon]

That depends. Eroei in itself says nothing about the resources used other than the energy needed. It may be that one energy source has a lower eroei because it's deeper in the ground, meaning that machinery takes more energy to get to it. But if that energy used to get to it is generated using the energy source itself, then you're not depleting the world's resources - you're simply being a bit less efficient than you would be if the source were closer to the surface.

That is true. I am using "energy" as a proxy for "resource", which is valid for a constant efficiency of resource extraction. Your statement implies that resource extraction efficiency would have to increase by 80%. Resource extraction efficiency is falling, which is what you expect - the capitalist process exploits the resource in descending order of extraction efficiency.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well that goes back to what fs has been saying. There are many different factors to consider, of which eroei is but one and not necessarily the most important.

 

[Falcon]

Well that goes back to what fs has been saying. There are many different factors to consider, of which eroei is but one and not necessarily the most important.

It would be helpful if fs could identify a factor to consider which doesn't compound his misery. So far we've established that his EROEI estimates are necessarily inflated, that EROEI reduction aggressively expands the resource base requirement which, under resource constraint, reduces power output unless extraction efficiency can be increased, which is falling.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Resource extraction efficiency is falling, which is what you expect - the capitalist process exploits the resource in descending order of extraction efficiency.

True generally. And a good fit in the case of fossil fuels. But when you're talking about moving over to renewables, the considerations change. You're not extracting the source of the energy. You're building the machinery to capture the source of the energy. Wind's a good example here - you're basically just building the turbine. If you want to make electricity from oil or gas or coal, you still need to build a turbine, but you also have to extract the energy source. With wind, the energy source is already there.

Of course, you can run out of good places to put the wind turbines, and the best places to put them are likely to be used first, so such energy sources may have quite strict limits on their potential total capacity, but that's why nobody is arguing that any one renewable source can be the solution on its own. Each renewable source makes the contribution that it can make, and is worth doing for that contribution. And, crucially, the same idea of increased extraction costs doesn't apply. When all the best places to put wind turbines have been taken up, that means that increasing capacity further becomes less efficient, but the capacity you've already built continues to be just as efficient. This is very different from a non-renewable resource like oil.

That's where the real disagreement is here, I think. It is very much worth building all kinds of renewable energy generation infrastructure so long as the eroei is reasonable. And the sustainability of the capacity you build is very different from the sustainability of fossil fuels. I don't accept that you've disproved the idea that solar is 8:1 eroei, btw. Your objections don't seem at all valid to me, and you seem to be comparing it to a figure of 50:1 for oil that you accept without applying the same questions to it.

 

[coley]

The solar breeding programme seems to answer all the problems outlined on this thread but there seems to be no information on it after 2010, anybody heard anything more recent?

 

[Falcon]

Wind's a good example here - you're basically just building the turbine. If you want to make electricity from oil or gas or coal, you still need to build a turbine, but you also have to extract the energy source. With wind, the energy source is already there.

Hmmm. "Just building a turbine" means you are building all of the supply chains necessary for building that turbine - the metals, rare earth elements, composite fibres, electronics, insulators, structural materials, many of which are made from hydrocarbon. It means you are building the electrical distribution network to get the power from where the wind blows to where it is consumed. It means you are uprating the electrical distribution network as you displace hydrocarbon with electricity. It means you are building the substitute consuming devices. It means you are building the storage capacity - the batteries - to smooth out flow. It means you are building almost as much standby thermal generation capacity, since wind and solar suffer from regular, prolonged, synchronised failure at high demand periods (a.k.a "winter high pressure weather systems") - but now it is working intermittently, and therefore even less efficiently.

The energy source is there. The apparatus required to capture, upgrade, transport, store, consume and provide standby capacity in a form and of a continuity that a complex society can process is not. All of that is on top of what we already have to run, since we are "changing the engines out in flight", so to speak.

I don't accept that you've disproved the idea that solar is 8:1 eroei, btw. Your objections don't seem at all valid to me, and you seem to be comparing it to a figure of 50:1 for oil that you accept without applying the same questions to it.

I thought it was 15. My only point is, whatever number you think it is, it is less than that. I apply exactly the same questions to hydrocarbon, and ask FS to account for how his manufacturing and operating supply chain can withstand the ongoing drop in oil EROEI. It would help if you would state what you believe is invalid about my objections.

 

[free spirit]

You are 10 percent worse in efficiency. You are 500 percent worse in resource usage. Since resource usage is the thing you are worried about in a resource constrained world, that seems to be the material point. Specifically, if resource constraint means you have trouble sourcing even 100%, then your output must fall 80% to remain within it. Not 10%.

but that only adds 10% to total global energy requirements - a figure that would be easily offset through efficiency savings elsewhere in the energy consumption chain.

Or as I've demonstrated fairly clearly, the efficiencies within the electricity generation system would already far outweigh any nominal 10% increase in the energy requirements of the initial energy source.

This can clearly be seen from this graph comparing primary energy consumption with final energy consumption.

Renewable electricity generation goes directly to the final energy consumption figures, it's not subject to the conversion losses associated with thermal generation of electricity that make up the bulk of the difference between the 2 figures.

Anyone able to read a graph should be able to see that adding 10% to the final consumption figures would still leave those figures significantly lower than the current primary energy figures for both the World and Europe.

SO a renewables based economy even at an EROEI figure of 8:1 would require significantly less primary energy to operate at current levels than the current fossil fuel based system.

Basically Falcon you're entirely wrong on this point because you focus narrowly only on EROEI figures for primary energy, and ignore how that energy is actually used and particularly the huge losses involved in the process of converting fossil fuels to electricity.

 

[free spirit]

The solar breeding programme seems to answer all the problems outlined on this thread but there seems to be no information on it after 2010, anybody heard anything more recent?

it's largely irrelevant, as it doesn't really matter where the solar energy is deployed within the system, the overall result is the same - though IME most solar plants have a fair amount of solar installed on site, as they essentially use up excess capacity that way to a degree.

Effectively though, what we're currently engaged in is a generation long effort to turn most of the planet into one big everlasting renewables breeder programme, which really is what counts.

 

[Falcon]

but that only adds 10% to total global energy requirements - a figure that would be easily offset through efficiency savings elsewhere in the energy consumption chain.

I don't believe you have read anything I have written about how reducing EROEI by one half increases resource requirement by a factor of three, or indeed any of the critical points I have put to you to account for. I see no point in continuing the debate with you.

 

[Dr Jon]

Renewables – Good for some things; not so good for others

Energy return on energy invested (EROEI) calculations of intermittent renewables do not look at the whole system cost, including impacts on other players, so overstate economic benefits and understate energy costs.

 

[Falcon]

Renewables – Good for some things; not so good for others

Germany is now the leader in the use of renewable energy. Recent reports say that there are 800,000 German households that cannot pay their electricity bills, because of the high cost renewables add. There are also reports that German natural gas producers want to close back-up plants for wind/solar, unless they too receive subsidies.

Techno-fans rarely note that renewables don't replace thermal generation in complex societies, because complex societies cannot tolerate the regular power outages that come with renewable energy sources synchronous failures, and have to build them, pay for them, and keep them in standby mode in addition to the renewable capacity.

 

[coley]

Just to make sure, if it takes one barrel of oil to produce a hundred barrels of oil that an eroei of 100 -1?
But now in some case it takes I to produce three ( courtesy of wiki) how is that profitable unless you have huge increases in the price of oil? Does that not mean the present oil eroei is artificially maintained? And that the proposed carbon taxes will eliminate oil and coals eroei? Making them both energy sinks?

 

[Falcon]

Just to make sure, if it takes one barrel of oil to produce a hundred barrels of oil that an eroei of 100 -1?
But now in some case it takes I to produce three ( courtesy of wiki) how is that profitable unless you have huge increases in the price of oil? Does that not mean the present oil eroei is artificially maintained? And that the proposed carbon taxes will eliminate oil and coals eroei? Making them both energy sinks?

It's a good question.

"Energy profit" and "financial profit" are only indirectly related. The mistake which conventional analysis makes is to regard the economy as a financial structure which is sustained by financial surplus (i.e. "profit"), as measured by "money", arising from commercial transactions.

In fact, it is an energy structure which is sustained by energy surplus, as measured in Joules, arising from energy conversions. Analogy is dangerous, but EROEI can be thought of as like the pressure behind a hose with a kink in it - below a certain pressure i.e. EROEI, enough water just can't flow through the system and your flowers wilt. (Free Spirit is going to have a field day with the straw man misdirection possibilities with that one )

The confusing thing is that, under certain very restricted conditions, such as that of constant exponential expansion of the energy supply, money transactions can be used as a proxy for those energy conversions. Over time, the energy conversions get forgotten about. In fact, in its most deranged form, the idea arises that exchanging proxy tokens can *create* those energy conversions, and we start to talk about e.g. solar becoming "economic" and "sustainable".

So, as it happens, falling EROEI does erode financial profit because it drives *up* the total quantity of resource and energy required to secure a unit of energy, and that requires more money. The Saudi's recently announced that they now need an oil price >$125 per barrel to sustain their economy, which is sad because that is higher than the $90 at which the economy ceases to function financially.

But the real loss in profit is the energy profit, the driving force behind the energy conversions out of which the things we recognise as "the economy" are created.

 

[free spirit]

but that only adds 10% to total global energy requirements - a figure that would be easily offset through efficiency savings elsewhere in the energy consumption chain.

Or as I've demonstrated fairly clearly, the efficiencies within the electricity generation system would already far outweigh any nominal 10% increase in the energy requirements of the initial energy source.

This can clearly be seen from this graph comparing primary energy consumption with final energy consumption.

Renewable electricity generation goes directly to the final energy consumption figures, it's not subject to the conversion losses associated with thermal generation of electricity that make up the bulk of the difference between the 2 figures.

Anyone able to read a graph should be able to see that adding 10% to the final consumption figures would still leave those figures significantly lower than the current primary energy figures for both the World and Europe.

SO a renewables based economy even at an EROEI figure of 8:1 would require significantly less primary energy to operate at current levels than the current fossil fuel based system.

Basically Falcon you're entirely wrong on this point because you focus narrowly only on EROEI figures for primary energy, and ignore how that energy is actually used and particularly the huge losses involved in the process of converting fossil fuels to electricity.

Or looking at it another way, if we're talking about final energy demand only and ignoring the primary energy side of things, then for coal generated electricity we have

an initial EROEI figure of 50:1 at the pit head = 2% energy consumed
Transport coal to power station = ~1% energy consumed
Thermal losses for 33% efficient power plant = 3 x multiplier = total 9% (3% x 3)

+ power station's operating consumption, and the embeded energy costs of building and decommissioning the plant = ~1%
x 1.1 for losses in transformers and distribution

Total = ~11% energy costs of energy generated for coal fired electricity generation.

So roughly on a par with direct renewable electricity generation (solar, wind etc) with an EROEI figure of around 8 or 9:1

 

[free spirit]

I don't believe you have read anything I have written about how reducing EROEI by one half increases resource requirement by a factor of three, or indeed any of the critical points I have put to you to account for. I see no point in continuing the debate with you.

classic Falcon. When your argument is being shown to be wrong, take your ball home and refuse to continue the debate.

In case you missed it, I'm disputing that there is any significant negative difference in the real EROEI figures between coal fired power station generated electricity, which have supplied the bulk of our electricity for the last century, and solar/ wind generated electricity - actually I expect the true figure will probably be significantly better for most solar / wind, certainly so for tidal, tidal stream, hydro etc.

The EROEI figures you repeatedly quote of 50:1 relate to the top of the pit thermal figures for coal, not coal generated electricity, which is what's being replaced here by solar, wind etc.

I suspect the reason you've not properly considered this point, is that your initial reading on the subject would have probably been based on biofuels, where this doesn't really apply, as roughly the same conversion losses apply to biofuels in the generation of electricity, or fueling cars, as they do to coal / petrol.

 

[free spirit]

I'm keen to try and find some basis for agreement and put an end to this tiresome argument. That is a true statement, but the fact that, sustainable or not, you must find three times as many, or reduce demand by two thirds to maintain the same resource demand, is highly problematic is it not?

Have a read of this statement again Falcon.

Even if we were to take your statements at face value, this post would be entirely wrong.

3 x the energy consumed within the generation process would only require a 2/3 reduction in consumption to balance it if you were starting at a point where 20% of energy was already being consumed in the generation process.

If we're starting from a 50:1 EROEI system and moving to an 18:1 system (as the example you previously gave), then this would mean we were moving from 2% energy consumed in generation to ~6% consumed in generation, requiring only a 4% reduction in consumption elsewhere on the demand side to balance it out.

So no it wouldn't be highly problematic at all - for example, Europe is targeting a 20% reduction in energy consumption by 2020.

 

[Falcon]

3 x the energy consumed within the generation process would only require a 2/3 reduction in consumption to balance it if you were starting at a point where 20% of energy was already being consumed in the generation process.

80% of the planet consumes less than 20% of the energy he does. "Not problematic"? Imperialist hubris at its most revolting.

 

[Falcon]

If we're starting from a 50:1 EROEI system and moving to an 18:1 system (as the example you previously gave), then this would mean we were moving from 2% energy consumed in generation to ~6% consumed in generation, requiring only a 4% reduction in consumption elsewhere on the demand side to balance it out.

I'm sorry - I had to read this twice, I couldn't believe it. Free Spirit is arguing that a 200% increase in the current energy and resource demand of the entire global economy, in an environment of escalating resource and waste sink constraint, can be met by a 4% reduction in consumption, in a world in which 80% of the global population consumes less than 20% of the other 20%.

Just getting the other 80% of the world's 7 billion people to half of our consumption (i.e. electrification for the rural poor and access to basic sanitation and medical facilities) doubles global energy demand in the next 30 years, and that energy is supplied by energy sources of higher resource demand.

Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.