Peak Oil and ERoEI: Still Nonsense (really?)

Peak Oil and ERoEI: Still Nonsense (really?)

(from forbes.com source Tim Worstall)

“technology is advancing at such a rate that we’re discovering entire new planets to explore for the stuff … We’re just fine with using fuel to get fuel to places … We use vastly more energy to create that loaf of bread than we get out of having produced it … Leave aside the oil use, the fertilizer, the transport, all of that. … it doesn’t pass the ERoEI calculation … ERoEI just isn’t a binding constraint on our system, not at any human scale. … Sure, the entire world cannot use more energy than there is available to the entire world, that’s true. And it is pretty silly to use more of one form of energy to produce less of that same form of energy. But outside those two special cases, ERoEI just doesn’t mean very much. … So no, I’m sorry, ERoEI does not in fact mean that peak oil is inevitable or even a problem even if it is. For the math and the physics of the idea only apply in certain very specific circumstances, not as a general rule across life or the planet.”

“Entire new planets,” like going to mars costs peanuts, it could be an interesting project for an economist, a study of the EROEI of martian methane.

“We’re just fine with using fuel to get fuel to places” and that is part of the insanity which will only make traditional fuels harder to get, we should use either “abundant” fuels, such as thorium nuclear, and/or “renewable fuel,” like wind, currents, solar energy, chemical energy, inertial forces, to go ‘places,’ to start with.

“We use vastly more energy to create that loaf of bread than we get out of having produced it” and that is what caused the Arabs ‘green revolutions,’ as the excessive consumption (read crazy human procreation) makes for oil scarcity, so does for fertilizers, and so does for food, causing “famine,” and right after “revolutions” and “wars.”

“Leave aside the oil use, the fertilizer, the transport, all of that.” yup, economists “leave aside,” too bad that if you “leave aside,” oil use in agriculture, (AKA green revolution, the art of converting nine calorics of oil in one caloric of food,) the planet earth, (depending upon the biologists you ask to,) can only support life ranging from hundred millions to one and a half billion, we are 7 billion, and by the time the planet “will” collapse, we (you,) will be 12 billions. Counting the EROEI of rain and sunlight may do you little good at this point, but nevertheless it is very high.

“it doesn’t pass the ERoEI calculation” it actually does, you are investing zero in wind and getting free pollination, investing zero in water and getting free rain, investing zero in sunlight, and getting free light and heat, and there is a reason for that, rain, wind and sunlight are “renewable,” the “decreasing EROEI problem is with “non renewable” and there is a “big” difference between the two, the decreasing EROEI with renewable is insignificant because we are not even close into modifying the behavior of the closed system earth in their use.

“ERoEI just isn’t a binding constraint on our system, not at any human scale.” really ? then won’t you and all the economists find and dig the 80 trillions worth of gold (for which you folks are selling IOUs) “in the real world.” If EROEI is not a constraint, then go dig it on some other planet.

“Sure, the entire world cannot use more energy than there is available to the entire world, that’s true. And it is pretty silly to use more of one form of energy to produce less of that same form of energy. But outside those two special cases, ERoEI just doesn’t mean very much.” really, is called a ‘sink,’ go tell GW, and his bio-fuel from food friends.

“So no, I’m sorry, ERoEI does not in fact mean that peak oil is inevitable or even a problem even if it is. For the math and the physics of the idea only apply in certain very specific circumstances, not as a general rule across life or the planet.” it “does” mean that peak oil is inevitable, because EROEI is “the general rule” of depletable resources in conformity with thermodynamics, “but” it “does not” mean that there is no method to overcome it, what makes it a problem impossible to overcome, are “population growth,” and “monetary efficiency,” since the first produces over-depletion of scarce resources, and the second falsifies the accounting, “monetary efficiency is totally inefficient, energy wise, jevons paradox,” one rare circumstance where economics got it right.

At the end, economics is a religion. All the hope is in the “invisible hand,” like in the other religion, all the hope is in the “extraterrestrial saving us,” allelujah.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s