3 ms·

Your didn't show anything of the sort. Your understanding of the underlying science is weak. Oil is a fundamental part of our food making process. Something th

Your didn't show anything of the sort. Your understanding of the underlying science is weak. Oil is a fundamental part of our food making process. Something that's 1x EROEI positive is not remotely analogous to oil at 100x. Oil is used throughout the entire process from pesticides to mechanical farming instruments to shipping. Any small change in pice, availability or EROEI of alternatives affect all elements of the chain. We currently add about 10 calories of oil per calorie of food produced. This is unsustainable. Oil production is at or near peak flow rates. This is widely understood by folks in the industry, of which I was once one. Oil's relationship to food and population is complex and multifaceted but it is absolutely tied to it at this point. This is a problem both in terms of oil as a feedstock and as an energy source. You cannot separate these out. I really am interested what this mythical new energy source is you have in mind. I suspect you understand properly neither the science behind nuclear nor solar which also have significant full life cycle EROEI issues and are dependent on other resource inputs. Further NPK inputs to agriculture are also incredibly energy intensive - go checkout some pictures of phosphorous mining to get an idea. The original point I was making was that the Green revolution and other solutions of the past bought us temporary respite. Exponential curves don't continue forever in the real world.

ars 14y ago
> This is a problem both in terms of oil as a feedstock and as an energy source. You cannot separate these out. Of course you can. They are completely independent of each other. > I really am interested what this mythical new energy source is you have in mind. I suspect you understand properly neither the science behind nuclear nor solar which also have significant full life cycle EROEI issues and are dependent on other resource inputs. Nuclear. I'm not a big fan of solar - the EROEI is too low, and it requires too many resources to make enough of it, and too much land area. I am well aware of how much energy it takes to grow food, and make fertilizer. But energy is fungible - it makes no different how you get it, as long as you get it. You keep saying that oil is 100x, but that is no longer true. Oil is now 35 or lower. New nuclear reactors beat oil now. Older ones don't but are quite close. You seem obsessed with the need for oil, that oil is somehow special. But oil is just another source of energy. It can be easily eliminated (assuming another source of energy is available).

ars 14y ago

> This is a problem both in terms of oil as a feedstock and as an energy source. You cannot separate these out. Of course you can. They are completely independent of each other. > I really am interested what this mythical new energy source is you have in mind. I suspect you understand properly neither the science behind nuclear nor solar which also have significant full life cycle EROEI issues and are dependent on other resource inputs. Nuclear. I'm not a big fan of solar - the EROEI is too low, and it requires too many resources to make enough of it, and too much land area. I am well aware of how much energy it takes to grow food, and make fertilizer. But energy is fungible - it makes no different how you get it, as long as you get it. You keep saying that oil is 100x, but that is no longer true. Oil is now 35 or lower. New nuclear reactors beat oil now. Older ones don't but are quite close. You seem obsessed with the need for oil, that oil is somehow special. But oil is just another source of energy. It can be easily eliminated (assuming another source of energy is available).