Pops wrote:Resurrecting this dude after 10 years lost in the wilderness. I'm seeing the signs everywhere.
The energy trap in a nutshell happens at the point oil production begins decline, prompting a massive effort to transition to renewables. The "trap" is that transitioning itself is a hugely energy-intensive endeavor that will create massive short-term fossil energy demand even as it tries to eliminate it long term. So not only will fossil energy be in shorter supply because of decline, but transitioning will reduce available supply even more——the price of fossils will rise even higher than it would have and spineless (bought) politicians will take the opportunity to demagogue the crisis and fight transition tooth and nail in the name of "cheap gasoline."
AdamB wrote:Tom's angle in the article quoted is one of EROEI primarily..
Pops wrote:AdamB wrote:Tom's angle in the article quoted is one of EROEI primarily..
The idea isn't hard, to transition costs energy thus making energy more expensive during a transition.
Typical result is popular resistance to transition
Pops wrote:EROEI is fodder for endless boundary debates and zero public interest, I don't pay much attention.
Doly wrote:When I did my tweak on the LTG model, I included EROEI because it turned out to be the best explanation for why we have changed from one energy source to another in the past.
Pops wrote:The energy trap in a nutshell happens at the point oil production begins decline, prompting a massive effort to transition to renewables. The "trap" is that transitioning itself is a hugely energy-intensive endeavor that will create massive short-term fossil energy demand even as it tries to eliminate it long term. So not only will fossil energy be in shorter supply because of decline, but transitioning will reduce available supply even more——the price of fossils will rise even higher than it would have and spineless (bought) politicians will take the opportunity to demagogue the crisis and fight transition tooth and nail in the name of "cheap gasoline."
Pops wrote:I don't know what is going on in Germany, they're shutting nukes down out of fear?
AdamB wrote:Pops wrote:I don't know what is going on in Germany, they're shutting nukes down out of fear?
It was a choice, and is still a popular one apparently.
When energy poverty is a choice, and planned poorly, and the folks who thought it was a good idea are faced with the consequences of that choice, it strikes me as a preview for the First World, as they try (or at least claim to try) to solve the same puzzle. Without all losing their jobs, the single most important thing to politicians.
EnergyUnlimited wrote:They will proceed base on this choice, face consequences and attempt o reverse it at some point but system inertia will finish the job anyway because industrial capacity required for backtracking is no longer going to be there and impossible to rebuild due to resource depletion and fierce competition for whatever is left.
AdamB wrote:As a practical concept the entire idea in a closed system makes perfect sense. In a closed system, use of a thing arrives, sometime, at an end. With mankind's robotic miners already sampling the resources available outside that closed system, there can be no reasonable assumption that the current closed system is all that is available, depletion wise.
Return to Conservation & Efficiency
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 93 guests