3 ms·

I think you're answering different quesitons. Solving for "which method is most efficient" is different than solving for "which method provides the best long-te

by rqebmm 10y ago

I think you're answering different quesitons. Solving for "which method is most efficient" is different than solving for "which method provides the best long-term source of energy. Obviously solving for the former is simplifying issues like diminishing returns, external costs, available energy reserves, means of extraction, and methods of accounting for ERoI, but he does raise a point which is "as long as we're in the black, doesn't J/$ matter more than of J/J?" When solving for "which method is most efficient" then you could argue yes. When solving for "which method provides the best long-term spirce of energy" it becomes a different question.

pjc50 10y ago
> "as long as we're in the black, doesn't J/$ matter more than of J/J?" The EROEI argument includes the observation that "in the black" for an industrial society is well above 1:1 and believed to be somewhere above 5:1. Going below that on average is expected to result in collapse. In the short term, fossil fuels provide a high EROEI - but only until depletion (locally or globally). The overall fossil EROEI falls over time. This implies that it's necessary to install non-depleting or less-depleting sources before we reach critical depletion. But we're not clear on when that is; peak oil may only appear in the rear view mirror. Essentially EROEI is an ecologist's view on the subject. "$" is not a resource that exists in nature and they would prefer a view from sufficiently high that it drops out of the analysis. ( http://www.theoildrum.com/ http://www.theoildrum.com/ was a fantastic resource on this subject, and still is although no longer updated. For example, http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6871 http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6871 : input of fossil calories allows one person to provide the food-caloric needs of 100 people. How can this continue past peak/unburnable oil?)

by rqebmm 10y ago

pjc50 10y ago

> "as long as we're in the black, doesn't J/$ matter more than of J/J?" The EROEI argument includes the observation that "in the black" for an industrial society is well above 1:1 and believed to be somewhere above 5:1. Going below that on average is expected to result in collapse. In the short term, fossil fuels provide a high EROEI - but only until depletion (locally or globally). The overall fossil EROEI falls over time. This implies that it's necessary to install non-depleting or less-depleting sources before we reach critical depletion. But we're not clear on when that is; peak oil may only appear in the rear view mirror. Essentially EROEI is an ecologist's view on the subject. "$" is not a resource that exists in nature and they would prefer a view from sufficiently high that it drops out of the analysis. ( http://www.theoildrum.com/ http://www.theoildrum.com/ was a fantastic resource on this subject, and still is although no longer updated. For example, http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6871 http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6871 : input of fossil calories allows one person to provide the food-caloric needs of 100 people. How can this continue past peak/unburnable oil?)