What's the net now, then?
I guess it's a little unfortunate that the environmental atrocities perpetrated under capitalist market economies are exceeded only by those perpetrated under its mainstream rivals (Aral Sea, anyone?). In which case, singling out Capitalism for opprobrium seems rather partisan.
Less than before [1]. In contradiction of the poster's statement.
No. Provided, in estimating the the EROEI, they placed the boundary of the system used to estimate it OUTSIDE the process used to manufacture the ball bearing in the truck used to mine the gypsum used in the cement for the wall of the facility for making the industrial oxygen for the smelter providing the steel for the etc. etc. etc.
To you. You've never quite grasped that the adequacy of a given EROEI is a function of the number of people who are dependent on the margin.
Nah, this is just empty bluster. Going from eroi of 1000:1 down to one of 10:1 reduces the available energy by just under 10 per cent. Sure this will cause higher prices, but there is no reason why it should cause system collapse - those higher prices will partly be offset by the increased incentive to be more efficient and to find alternative energy sources, and there is massive room for greater efficiency in the way we use our fuel and for greater use of other sources.
How does that work then?
How does that work then?
Sounds like some bollocks an economist would come out with.
Ah.
If we are reliant on the left gaining power to save us from climate change and peak oil, then its time to stock up on ammo and tinned food.
You have not shown us the massive fields on the Canadian Arctic that are going to stave off depletion.
No. The price of oil can only go up by 99 per cent in such circumstances if the economy does not fall on its arse.
This never happened, the highest EROI most people quote is 100:1 from the likes of Spindletop and Gahwar.
Aye so if you double production but decrease net EROI by about 10 fold you get a fifth of the energy.
They were just illustrative figures. I chose a deliberately high first figure.
Really? You cut the net energy per volume by a factor of ten and you think this is all just gravy? The size of the pores of rock you are trying to suck the oil out of matter, they matter because the smaller they are the harder you have to suck. The amount of gas you have in the well matters, because the more of a gas cap you have the more drive for the oil you have in the well and the less viscous the liquid is likely to be. The shallower the well the less hight you have to life the liquid. If you are burning half your liquid at the top to run the pumps to pull it out, even if your production figures are going well, half of it is not getting to market to sell and return profit or power cars.
But you describe an eroi of 2:1, not 10:1. I would agree that 2:1 is far more of an issue.
Who did? And as EROI declines it means that, like the Red Queen, we have to run faster in terms of volume to stand still. We are still living of off the backs of the great, huge fields of an earlier era. Saudi with its famous Arab D geology. Burgan in Kuwait and ageing fields near Kirkuik and Iran. But as we have to use more energy to get oil by drilling 5km into rock and lifting it or cracking a few hundred meters of tight shale to let some liquid flow, then the energy production sector will consume more of our total energy and the CO2 per joule will rise.
Indeed. And if oil were our only option, we'd be in trouble. But it's not.
I might come down from my beam of incandescent wonderfullness but only when you stop having tantrums.
still intent on telling the entire world they've got the method of calculating EROEI figures wrong I see, but also still entirely incapable of producing any actual numbers using your method... which to me makes your method the method that is fatally flawed, given how useless a method is if it's actually impossible to use to calculate any actual figures.
What starting point do you have to use for that 10 fold reduction to get those figures to be correct? ah... 25:1 down to 2.5:1... yeah ok I'd agree that an average EROEI figure of 2.5:1 is unlikely to be sustainable, though it could probably be justified for certain specialist uses that couldn't be powered any other way - eg planes that need that level of energy density or something.
nice weather past couple of weeks.
This might help:
In "How Civilizations Fall: A Theory of Catabolic Collapse", Greer, convincingly to my mind, advances a simple four variable model of the self-reinforcing relationships between resource, capital, waste and production, which allows the circumstances under which that occurs to be explored. The concepts of maintenance crisis, depletion crisis, catabolic collapse and (the best we can hope for) catabolic cycle are novel, and powerful generators of new political and economic models.
