[shortonoil]

Do you have a peer-reviewed journal article or book on ETP that you can suggest I read?

Our 2013 paper "Depletion, A determination for the world's petroleum reserve" was submitted to the Royal Academy of Sciences for publication in 2017. It was approved by 2 reviewers, and rejected by the third. The third reviewers' objections were primary due to formatting (the RAC has very strict guidelines). Before we could resubmit some members of our group had health issues. One of those was me, and we never resubmitted.

If you are interested send me a PM here with an email address, and I will forward you a copy. The paper is 67 pages in PDF format.

BW

[Daniel Doom]

AdamB is one of many people who do not understand the EROEI (aka EROI). Even Jay Hansen did not get it right. You can't just apply it to one particular industry or energy resource, because one energy resource can "subsidize" another when different energy resources command different prices (for example, because of differences in the qualities of the energy resources). Also, EROEI is prior to the hillsgroup thermodynamic hypothesis and does not in any way depend on that hypothesis for its validity. A refutation of the hillsgroup theory in no way constitutes a refutation of EROEI/EROI. Where EROEI becomes critical is when considering the net energy not of a particular energy resource but of the entire energy system in the aggregate.

[aspera]

The Energy-emissions Trap
by Martin R. Sers & Peter A. Victor
Ecological Economics (2018) 151: 10-21
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.004
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1blrA8 ... huEOsdlqHp

Abstract (from article)
The requirement to reduce emissions to avoid potentially dangerous climate change implies a dilemma for societies heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Reducing emissions will necessitate the transition from relatively high EROI dispatchable fossil fuels to a combination of relatively low EROI intermittent renewables and geographically limited non-intermittent renewables. As renewable capacity requires energy to construct there is an initial fossil fuel cost to creating new renewable capacity. An insufficiently rapid transition to renewables will imply a scenario in which it is impossible to avoid either transgressing emissions ceilings or facing energy shortages; we term this the energy-emissions trap. In this paper, we construct a mathematical model, termed EETRAP, that builds the EROI metric and the energy characteristics of renewable generation into a macroeconomic framework. EETRAP is used for simulation analysis to test how differing assumptions about the EROI of intermittent renewables will affect the time-path of renewable investment necessary to escape the energy emissions trap. For all runs of the model, the renewable investment rate by 2050 is significantly larger than the current energy investment rate. For declining intermittent renewable EROI, the renewable investment rate crowds out other forms of investment leading to a declining economic growth rate.

Discussion excerpt (from article)
Therefore, we note that even under relatively ideal conditions facilitating a successful energy transition in the context of declining intermittent renewable EROI may necessitate a large-scale redirection of society's resources to the energy sector. The results of this modelling experiment indicate that it is still possible to transition to renewables, even in the case of declining EROI, though maintaining steady economic growth in such a scenario may not be feasible. However, as economic growth drives increases in emissions, such continued growth may be neither feasible nor desirable if societies takes seriously the goal of escaping the energy-emissions trap.

[shortonoil]

A refutation of the hillsgroup theory in no way constitutes a refutation of EROEI/EROI.

No one has refuted the Etp Model. The Etp function is a Second Law Statement. It would be like refuting the Law of Gravity. Those are comments made by intellectual midgets who wear very constricting underwear. They are distracted from a constant ache right between their eyes. Before the invention of the internet they were known as the town idiots. Now they are known as just idiots, who can't figure out how to get home without their cell phone. There has always been a few of them around.

[REAL Green]

I have been an academic of energy and the behavior behind it for years now. I actually live it and talk about my life in REAL Green blog. I too believe energy is very important but it is not everything. Life is also a system and systems are like a neural network with the network itself having high value. My point would be if human civilization EROI can be reduced the adaption is only around the edges. This is the reality of the carbon trap we are in. High complexity means high carbon needs. There are no alternatives except for the inclusion of spiritual wealth which is less carbon bound. That is a whole other discussion. That said I do believe much could be done to increase material resilience and sustainability. In fact, it is extremely important changes are made to reflect the decline in both resources and the system itself with this decline condition reflecting planetary succession.

My research has been pointing to a two-tier system with national parks of resilience pocketing the countryside. The reason we need two tiers is complexity requires far too much energy to maintain itself. Humans will need to allow growth in a complex system. This growth can be accommodated relatively if a degrowth is allowed in an undulating plateau of growth and degrowth. A steady state is not possible and besides this is a dead system in regards to human needs. So even what I am proposing is only an extension of human complexity which ultimately is doomed on a planet like ours in my opinion. Spiritual wealth is less limited on the other hand so it is this transition to high spirituality and lower carbon needs that offer light at the end of the tunnel of darkness of decline.

The tiering would be protecting places so low carbon capture in permaculture could be practiced. Localism would be the only lifestyle. These places would serve as buffers to more energetic areas that must be 24/7 to ensure complexity. These low carbon capture reserves would buffer the energetic areas with resilient food and energy production. This valuable resource would be protected by the more competitive energetic areas. These protected low carbon capture areas would also have a variety of renewables depending on the resource sweet spots to power their area and for export. Water, soil, and biodiversity hots spots would likewise be protected by this tiering. The key is these areas would live in intermittency, seasonality with lower complexity. This means if the more energetic areas were experiencing peaks in energy or resources these low carbon capture reserves would be drawn upon to buffer the energetic areas.

This is already practiced with land use with ecosystem protection like preserving wetlands, grasslands, and forest. There are already voluntary transition areas of people who embrace permaculture and less complexity but this is not institutionalized which means they are severely limited in affect. This idea of natural resource protection would be extended to human reserves. This would have to be voluntary but with control like is common in militaries where an enlistment for say 10 years is required with deferments for those the energetic areas need becuase of their high value. There could be a draft too for young people to get necessary permaculture training. This would be a quasi-economic system with elements of capitalism and socialism. Private property is important but the commons would have much more importance than they have today.

By going seasonal and intermittent in low carbon capture these areas could lower their EROI dramatically. They could then export their surplus to the energetic areas. They would have to be protected for those times when localized failure visits them. Basics of health, education, and security would need to be maintained by the energetic areas. This would then allow humans to specialize at different levels in dignity. Low carbon capture does not need the academic specialization that many modern fields need but it does take a good balance of many skills. It also needs those who are not capable of high education or skill specialization to do many of the tasks low carbon capture requires. This system allows dignity for all levels of human skill.

This is of course does not sync with the status quo of hyper capitalism and socialism. Today’s world is carbon trapped and path dependent in a state of overshoot. The planet is in a succession of decline to higher complexity to lower with ALL systems. Climate is in abrupt change. This means a reality of decline and failure is ahead. Until society acknowledges and accepts this decline little will be done proactively plus the degree of change needed will be resisted. People will just vote down by action and politics those forces of change that are too painful. The planet and a failing human system will form the pace of decline instead in a haphazard way because of this human denial of decline. The disconnect humans have to this change will be unfortunate because valuable change could be proactively embraced resulting in far less pain.

Where REAL Green comes in to this equation is personal and local change of awakened individuals that create micro climes of constructive change. The human disconnect of traditional growth is accepted as a systematic trap but adapted and harnessed to local change by a properly scaled individual or small group. This is about small community. The top is lost but the bottom can find distributed success of sorts by proper scaling. No local will transcended the irrational human path we are in but less chaos of change can be attained in many cases. Some places are lost but others do have promise for enlightened change in decline.

The planet shows us in the destructive change of succession productive niches are opened up. Overall destructive change does not mean localized constructive change with robust resilience and sustainability is not possible. A green prepper will embrace low carbon capture but also continue to live the status quo for survival which means inevitable specialization with a status quo stamp of approval. This individual will use the energetic to leave it. In my opinion this is the best that can be obtained until an existential crisis focuses collective behavior but, in my opinion, this will be too late.

[TomWayburn]

Hello, I am Tom Wayburn. Some of you may remember me from Running on Empty 2, Energy Resources, Energy Round Table, or even Jay Hanson's America 2.0. I have just joined (or possibly rejoined) this forum after writing, arguing, and complaining elsewhere.

Lately, I have been uploading papers to academia.edu for better or worse and to ResearchGate where a lively discussion is going on regarding the meaning of and the possibility of sustainability. Also, equally confident scholars on both sides discuss anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with absolutely no one changing sides - ever.

I come to this forum with a way to compute the well-known energy returned over energy invested (ERoEI) datum such that if it is no less than 1.0 we have a sustainable alternative energy technology; but, if it is less than 1.0, we do not have truly renewable energy. To do this, I have to include some items in the energy-invested term that are normally omitted, namely, the energy equivalents corresponding to the living expenses of every person whose life depends either directly or indirectly upon his or her dedication to keeping the alternative energy flowing. Energy isn't just one thing out of many. Energy is <i>everything</i>. I hope I am forgiven this figure of speech, because no matter how important we think energy is, it is probably more important than that.

Let us indulge ourselves in a little thought experiment: Suppose a very special community occupies a portion of the Earth's surface where repositories of every element needed for the manufacture, installation, operation, maintenance, and moth-balling of an alternative energy installation. In addition, it has whatever additional repositories are needed to feed, clothe, shelter, keep healthy, preserve from drudgery, entertain, and elevate spiritually the community and to protect the environment These are finite repositories although most of them are extremely large. Out of each repository a reasonably sized storehouse is kept at steady state, making up for such deficiencies of recycling as are bound to occur by drawing from the surrounding repository sufficiently slowly that the repositories will not reach the analogy to Peak Oil for some agreed upon length of time in excess of 1000 years certainly and maybe much longer under NO GROWTH.

The people of the community possess all of the expertise necessary to keep the energy flowing and to manage precisely whatever else is needed to support the people who manage the energy technology, although they needn't be specialists.
The sun shines on the community and the junk heat radiates to deep space. Other than this nothing crosses the boundary of the community (thought of now as a region) except possibly energy that is exported free of charge to the neighboring regions. If ERoEI is greater than 1.0, there is some net energy available for export. (The reason it is free of charge in this thought experiment is that I don't want to be concerned with anything coming back.)

The entire community produces energy and nothing but energy; therefore, everything consumed and everything produced (except the net energy) within the community is overhead for producing energy and belongs in the energy-invested term. In this figment of our imaginations, we have no control over what the members of the community produce and consume.

Now, here comes the punch line: If we should run into an engineering study in which an ERoEI is computed by a methodology that can be applied to our thought experiment, we may take the results of the study seriously. If the methodology is lacking in any important respect, it cannot be used to determine whether or not the energy technology under investigation is truly renewable. This is especially important here in Texas these days, as we are getting bombarded with robo-calls that promise to reduce our electric bills to almost nothing with PV solar. Even if they are not scammers and are merely taking advantage of subsidies, they might end up burning more oil than the oil-based technology they are replacing.

I'll give an example of an omission of a component of sustainability that can be missing with only slight concern. Suppose the analyst does not include the energy costs of restoring the plant site to its pristine natural beauty in case the plant is shut down or moved for one reason or another. The operators of the plant can apologize for this in a number of ways. In any case, we might open up a category of near-sustainability. Of course, we wouldn't put up with the mess frackers leave behind for two minutes let alone two years.

https://www.dematerialism.net/
https://eroei.blogspot.com/

[AdamB]

Now, here comes the punch line: If we should run into an engineering study in which an ERoEI is computed by a methodology that can be applied to our thought experiment, we may take the results of the study seriously.

While I agree with your implication that no one can take EROEI studies as they relate to oil and gas development seriously, your description of what makes one worthwhile is unclear.

I didn't see an explanation within your concept that handles the economic value difference between energy forms, the largest bug-a-boo of trying to convert an energy only metric into something worth...well...anything.

[TomWayburn]

Adam B..

I can see that you are very busy by reading this forum; however, you may be willing to read what I have written and posted elsewhere. Not that I am completely satisfied by anything I have online; but, peer-review is not the answer. In particular, after peer-review process ends, I can no longer edit papers to adjust my thinking, correct mistakes, and penetrate deeper, and, on occasion, put my foot in my mouth. The place to begin is https://www.dematerialism.net/ with even less organized pages at https://eroei.blogspot.com/ The answer to your objection comes under emergy, transformity, and the matching problem. Also, see https://www.eroei.net/ERoEIchecklist.pdf.

Tom

[AdamB]

Adam B..

I can see that you are very busy by reading this forum; however, you may be willing to read what I have written and posted elsewhere.

So...in all of this possible reading, did you arrive at any answer that handles the persistent problem accompanying eroei studies as I've mentioned?

Not that I am completely satisfied by anything I have online; but, peer-review is not the answer.

Oh, the normal scientific process and publication system has worked pretty well for a century or three now, and while peer review itself isn't the answer, it is part of the process.

And I'll be the first to admit that you can figure out why just examining the other eroei claims made by folks on this website. Throw out of peer review for being...you know...insufficient on their face. We figured it out around here in a manner of seconds.

In particular, after peer-review process ends, I can no longer edit papers to adjust my thinking, correct mistakes, and penetrate deeper, and, on occasion, put my foot in my mouth.

No different than the rest of us. Guess what we do? We reference the original work, and explain all those adjustments, corrections and deeper thinking, etc etc.

You do understand that peer review is supposed to spot all those adjustments to thinking, corrections, and improvements BEFORE you publish, that you might fix them first?

The place to begin is https://www.dematerialism.net/ with even less organized pages at https://eroei.blogspot.com/ The answer to your objection comes under emergy, transformity, and the matching problem. Also, see https://www.eroei.net/ERoEIchecklist.pdf.

Tom

Can you provide an appropriate footnote please, rather than pointing at a collection of...stuff...?

[sparky]

.
" namely, the energy equivalents corresponding to the living expenses of every person whose life depends either directly or indirectly upon his or her dedication to keeping the alternative energy flowing. Energy isn't just one thing out of many. Energy is everything."

I've been struggling with this problem for a long while ,
there is a chain of cost all the way from the cleaner in the oil company building to the fuel for the emergency generator on a rig
the least bad way to handle the issue is quite simple ....cost
money is like electricity , it has little use except as an enabler , a ration coupon if you prefer
it MUST be distributed in such a way as to provide a positive return

this costing problem is common in the Gold mining industry , some companies quote the bare "digging" cost of the ore
other quote the preparing of the surface roads , setting up of base camps , local taxes .......etc

money is in existence because it is the simplest way of assessing one's value in an activity

[TomWayburn]

Sparky, Adam B.,

Without trying to establish cause and effect, it seems that in this Peak-Oil world human beings are accorded value depending upon how much money they have. People will commit all sorts of atrocities to be held in greater esteem. Reviewers of scientific papers praise bad work if done by a crony and disparage good work for no particular reason at all. Many reviewers are in fact far too busy to waste time reading a paper written by someone they admire and trust or at least has never done them any harm. As the relationship between PIs and graduate students grows more venal, peer review becomes less reliable.

In the case of goods and services, a man with a wife and children will do anything for money.

This pretty much sums up the moral abyss in which we live.

Now, how shall we establish value - especially the value of human effort or labor whichever you wish to call it? We have the concept of emergy (standing for embodied energy) to give values to electricity and fuels. Most manufactured objects can be evaluated in terms of the emergy it took to make them; but, we may not like to see human effort, fresh water, and land evaluated in terms of anything else, which suggests that it is time for a vector-valued currency: (land, fresh water, embodied human effort in units of time, emergy). I think this is a good way to do some of the things that are now done by a badly flawed market system that should collapse soon. I had better mention transformity. It takes 2.98 kWhrs of fuel oil to make 1 kWhr of 60 Hz AC electricity, to which we assign an emergy value of 1 emergy unit. Then, the transformity of fuel oil equals 1.0 divided by 2.98.

Clearly it is easier to get to EI* by subtracting from ER than by adding up the individual items in an energy worker's energy budget and computing the indirect energy-invested components by putting the workers in income cohorts, converting money to energy, and estimating the fraction of each workers earnings that should be charged to the alternative energy. This is not much better than Charlie Hall's practice of guessing the EROI above which such and such is possible. Therefore, direct experiments based upon (but not identical to) the gedanken experiments are preferable as I have described in https://eroei.blogspot.com/ and https://sustainabilitymath.blogspot.com/ but on what date I can't say without going to a lot of trouble.

[AdamB]

Reviewers of scientific papers praise bad work if done by a crony and disparage good work for no particular reason at all.

Never in 20+ years of technical review of science papers have I ever done such a thing, or seen anyone else do such a thing, including to my papers.

Do you have any evidence of this, or are you just claiming it because..it feels right?

Many reviewers are in fact far too busy to waste time reading a paper written by someone they admire and trust or at least has never done them any harm. As the relationship between PIs and graduate students grows more venal, peer review becomes less reliable.

Not being in academia, I can't volunteer my experience with folks in that world, only how peer review works in the world of the science rags, government agencies looking for outside experts, etc etc.

Now, how shall we establish value - especially the value of human effort or labor whichever you wish to call it? We have the concept of emergy (standing for embodied energy) to give values to electricity and fuels. Most manufactured objects can be evaluated in terms of the emergy it took to make them; but, we may not like to see human effort, fresh water, and land evaluated in terms of anything else, which suggests that it is time for a vector-valued currency: (land, fresh water, embodied human effort in units of time, emergy). I think this is a good way to do some of the things that are now done by a badly flawed market system that should collapse soon. I had better mention transformity. It takes 2.98 kWhrs of fuel oil to make 1 kWhr of 60 Hz AC electricity, to which we assign an emergy value of 1 emergy unit. Then, the transformity of fuel oil equals 1.0 divided by 2.98.

Clearly it is easier to get to EI* by subtracting from ER than by adding up the individual items in an energy worker's energy budget and computing the indirect energy-invested components by putting the workers in income cohorts, converting money to energy, and estimating the fraction of each workers earnings that should be charged to the alternative energy. This is not much better than Charlie Hall's practice of guessing the EROI above which such and such is possible. Therefore, direct experiments based upon (but not identical to) the gedanken experiments are preferable as I have described in https://eroei.blogspot.com/ and https://sustainabilitymath.blogspot.com/ but on what date I can't say without going to a lot of trouble.

All well and good in terms of just...saying....stuff. I perused the links you provided (the last one didn't work) and did not see anything science like, or an answer to the question I asked. No real data, no equations describing data or explanations for how any of the philosophizing related to the empirical nature of the equation which exists only in units of energy.

Do you have a published document somewhere to reference, or only links to what you have already provided?

[TomWayburn]

If it's posted to the internet, it's as published as published can be. It's proof of origination.

I'd like to know where this website puts Previews and incomplete posts that have been swept away and put somewhere it is hoped.

This editor is driving me nuts; so, I won't say why I think you should read https://www.eroei.net/ERoEI_for_AB.html since I need to finish and post quickly.

The rest of my argument is swept away to somewhere on this website, I hope. Do you know where?

Tom

[AdamB]

If it's posted to the internet, it's as published as published can be. It's proof of origination.

Sure...anyone posting anything on the internet is "published". Look at what shorty put out, right here on this website before he became so embarrassed that he attempted to scrub it from the internet, took down the website, all the classic "run from your own mistake" signs.

But you mentioned, and I followed up on, the idea of peer review. This was the question you avoided discussing.

Never in 20+ years of technical review of science papers have I ever done such a thing, or seen anyone else do such a thing, including to my papers.

Do you have any evidence of this, or are you just claiming it because..it feels right?

This editor is driving me nuts; so, I won't say why I think you should read https://www.eroei.net/ERoEI_for_AB.html since I need to finish and post quickly.
Tom

Well, that was interesting philosophizing. The first sentence understates the entire concept of energy. 1st sentence of 2nd paragraph...you CAN'T define EROEI=>1 without ignoring the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Such is the way of thermodynamics. You then go through this entire word experiment that appears to attempt what others have attempted....using words to configure EROEI to be something it can't be. The "Missing Components of EROEI" is interesting....as soon as you find them all and count them, you'll discover you can't escape the 2nd Law. If you could though, you'd be famous!

And I couldn't even find the word "thermodynamics" in the document. Any reason you would leave out the most basic concepts of it when discussing whatever it is this idea is supposed to mean?

[TomWayburn]

I was teacher of thermodynamics and I have noticed that the intrusion of thermodynamics into an argument that can be reasonably stated without it is a losing proposition. I am a proponent of Lost Work theory which in my day was taught at Michigan and MIT. I went to Michigan, at one time the greatest university in the world. These days, no university in the US teaches De-growth as far as I know. They teach what we should call flat-Earth science.

A rather long development of the combined First and Second Laws begins at https://www.dematerialism.net/ops.htm#_Toc173388815 I am sorry this cannot be stated in a footnote.

How to solve the matching problem and how to deal with discrepancies can be found at https://www.dematerialism.net/ops.htm#_Toc173388356

I told you that my knowledge of bad faith in peer review is anecdotal and not suitable for the Grand Jury. But, we should reject peer review for another reason. I'll call it the Pergamon Maxwell demon. Pergamon charges thousands and pays authors nothing. The journals are corporate controlled. The peer-review process belongs to the Dark Side. On the other hand, if the only sacrifice I have to make to save the world is submit to peer review, I'll do it. My experience of peer review, though, is that I am additionally burdened by having to correct the mistakes of the reviewers. I first made the ERoEI* observation in 2006 or earlier and no one seems to understand it yet. You did not understand it. I realize that you are an ERoEI hater. You would be correct to object to ERoEI until you encountered ERoEI*. That's right, not only have I got it right, but no one else has got it right. I have been trying to convince Charlie Hall for years. He could have adopted my idea and I would have given up all authorship. Just like Sherlock Holmes and Inspector Lestrade. And in his Ted talk (I watched last night), he as much as said "Energy is everything".

I have answered all of your questions. By the way, the most important statement I made regarding the AAED is this: Net energy is the sole product of the AAED; therefore, everything produced and consumed in the AAED by productive people and their dependents except net energy itself belongs in EI*. What part of this is not obviously true? Now, it should be easy to conceive of this methodology applied to the real world and to recognize it if another researcher employs it.

Let each energy technology be represented by emergy balances; solve the matching problem; whatever is left unmatched must be converted from one energy product to another; the conversion processes employs transformities to determine how much Energy A is needed to form 1 unit of Energy B. If you don't know this stuff, see https://www.eroei.net/onemergy.pdf

[REAL Green]

Tom, I enjoy EROI research but EROI is not reality it is theoretical so what you are talking about is very much abstract and academic. It is like the problem of trying to measure turbulence, a complex system is not easy to quantify or characterize beyond a point. You would do yourself more justice for all your effort by being more concrete with less structured theory. This means your discussions are less sure with absolutes but more meaningful with real world applications. In the real world of energy and the economy there is human behavior. You don't seem to relate to this much. A KW is not a KW becuase of the physics of application of energy in the human behavior we call the economy. Science and math have limits. I feel there should be more respect for EROI in regards to future policy in a systematic way but in a real world way within the system we have, EROI does not apply well. You are not going to produce significant wealth thinking in EROI terms. Pure EROI becomes dogma like religion which is the problem with many academics today. Specialization gets lost in a narrow view of a complex system.

[AdamB]

I was teacher of thermodynamics and I have noticed that the intrusion of thermodynamics into an argument that can be reasonably stated without it is a losing proposition. I am a proponent of Lost Work theory which in my day was taught at Michigan and MIT. I went to Michigan, at one time the greatest university in the world. These days, no university in the US teaches De-growth as far as I know. They teach what we should call flat-Earth science.

Well, I'll grant you that college isn't what it once was, any more than high schools or even human discourse in the social media world.

But as a teacher of thermodynamics, chucking it out because most folks are too dumb to get it DOESN'T mean you can substitute words for the equations without the relative nature of definitions and explanations kicking your concept right smack in the teeth.

My experience of peer review, though, is that I am additionally burdened by having to correct the mistakes of the reviewers.

Again...I'll grant you that one, but we are then forced to confront another. Mistakes on the part of the author, which is the entire point of the exercise. And as any reviewer, or author knows, disagreeing with what a reviewer says doesn't make it a mistake. It can also mean you've just bumped into an honest and different perspective that you haven't accounted for.

I first made the ERoEI* observation in 2006 or earlier and no one seems to understand it yet. You did not understand it.

I haven't invested the time trying to figure out all the WORDS you use. You make grandiose statements that simply aren't true, in terms of scope for example of what energy underpins. Energy underpins everything, not just the little piece you wish to focus on. Any metric that accounts for all energy inputs into a system/process/economy CAN'T have an EROEI=>1 because the 2nd Law doesn't allow you.

You taught thermodynamics....explain how it can? You've gone to great lengths using words and a definition of something else. You are allowed to make up definitions. I'm looking for just a core understanding for those of us with far less thermodynamics training then you have.

I realize that you are an ERoEI hater.

I have no value for it. That doesn't mean I hate it. What I find irritating are folks pretending it can be =>1 under ANY circumstances other than NOT counting all the energy invested. Feel free to prove me wrong, Professor of Thermodynamics.

You would be correct to object to ERoEI until you encountered ERoEI*. That's right, not only have I got it right, but no one else has got it right. I have been trying to convince Charlie Hall for years. He could have adopted my idea and I would have given up all authorship. Just like Sherlock Holmes and Inspector Lestrade. And in his Ted talk (I watched last night), he as much as said "Energy is everything".

While convincing a fisheries ecologist who used net energy to predict the end of oil drilling in the US by the turn of the LAST century might be of value to you, others aren't so impressed by grandiose statements that a college freshman in physics should already know. Surprise to a fisheries ecologist I understand.

Good luck with selling your idea Tom.

[TomWayburn]

I wrote: Energy isn't just one thing out of many. Energy is everything. I hope I am forgiven this figure of speech, because no matter how important we think energy is, it is probably more important than that.

You answered: You make grandiose statements that simply aren't true, in terms of scope for example of what energy underpins. Energy underpins everything, not just the little piece you wish to focus on. Any metric that accounts for all energy inputs into a system/process/economy CAN'T have an EROEI=>1 because the 2nd Law doesn't allow you.

That sounds like a deliberately argumentative statement. You could have said, "Oh, he means it figuratively. What is he getting at? In classical (toxic) economics, the whole economy is the dog and energy is the tail; but, energy is the dog."

[Outcast_Searcher]

I wrote: Energy isn't just one thing out of many. Energy is everything. I hope I am forgiven this figure of speech, because no matter how important we think energy is, it is probably more important than that.

Energy is everything, but EROEI calculations are not. With the world going green re a huge proportion of energy usage for things like transport in the coming decades, bleating endlessly about the depth of wells becomes less of an issue.

Besides, as actual experts in energy like rockdoc have repeatedly pointed out over time, economics is what matters to energy companies, not EROEI calculations.

With better wind and solar designs being able to last several decades in the right settings, with recycling being a thing, etc, it's not like wind and solar done right, can't be highly viable, energy wise, over time. Even if they can't replace nearly 100% of our energy needs in the intermediate term.

(None of us can begin to predict what happens technologically long term, though many will claim they can, since they have belief X, which they consider inviolate).

Just for one example, it might be expensive, but we COULD manufacture a huge amount of hydrogen through electrolysis, utilizing green electricity, and use that hydrogen for energy to power things that are too energy intensive for, say, solar. And with enough electricity and chemistry, there are active technologies being worked on already to remove lots of CO2 from the atmosphere.

If mother nature kills off 95% of the population or so re AGW, and the other 5% or so WAKES UP and pursues sustainable policies for a radically reduced population, such a system MIGHT actually work for quite a while.

Again: EROEI calculations don't have to be any part of that -- economics and physics re GHG production vs. planetary carrying capacity, will handle the issues just fine.

[AdamB]

You answered: "Any metric that accounts for all energy inputs into a system/process/economy CAN'T have an EROEI=>1 because the 2nd Law doesn't allow you."
That sounds like a deliberately argumentative statement. You could have said, "Oh, he means it figuratively. What is he getting at? In classical (toxic) economics, the whole economy is the dog and energy is the tail; but, energy is the dog."

So a statement based in the laws of thermodynamics, as to what you can and cannot do with an energy metric of this type, is argumentative?

Can we agree that my take on the eroei metric is correct, in that if a full accounting of the energy in, and energy out, is done, the ratio cannot be equal to or greater than 1?

I have no objection to moving on to a conversation on emergy or whatever your new definition is, as soon as we establish that we both understand that a full accounting of energy in this ratio (energy returned/energy invested) can't be equal to or greater than 1.