@larry79115 @kevpluck Was listening to Bloomberg about an hour ago, the big oil industry analysts keep discussing this issue - they need more wells to get the same amount of oil because they've tapped the best wells first. So as a result, efficiency is going down.
EROEI is falling, costs rising.
@allen_brutus@daniel_271828 That's EROEI tho, right?
Different question to the ultimate (economical) wind power potential. How high that is obvs depends strongly on transmission cost, and on things like floating offshore wind becoming viable
If you're constrained to shallow waters you're losing a lot
@Ink_Orrecto@RicardoBSalinas That Question is in The Process of being Answered
The following 2 Graphics are Absolute & Unequivocal
The Choice between Life of The Children or Life of The Dogs is Coming En Masse
Math & Physics WILL FORCE The Choice
EROEI in Secular Decline:
@akarlin @EvilVizier EROEI woes, climate change, price signal meddling, dysgenics, demographic slump, ethnic nepotism, state dysfunction d/t bad memes, pandemics, drugs abuse, war. Industrial societies are as resilient as their market equilibrium and a lot of marginal things aren’t looking too hot.
@cat240359 Economic growth inevitably involves burning more fossil fuels and more ecocide. That’s not “climate action”. Our civilisation only grew to this size on the back of fossil fuels. Lower EROEI RE cannot continue the same growth or sustain the economy at present size. Obvious.
Burning wood is "green" according to greentard logic, scoring ESG points for a laughable EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) number of 4.
For all the ills of the Industrial Revolution, at least they preserved the trees by digging up coal at an EROEI of 30.
@James_BG Economic growth inevitably involves burning more fossil fuels and more ecocide. That’s not “climate action”. Our civilisation only grew to this size on the back of fossil fuels. Lower EROEI RE cannot continue the same growth or sustain the economy at present size. Obvious.
Economic growth inevitably involves burning more fossil fuels and more ecocide. That’s not “climate action”. Our civilisation only grew to this size on the back of fossil fuels. Lower EROEI RE cannot continue the same growth or sustain the economy at present size. Obvious.
Facts > Ideology.
The human race has progressed by moving from less to more productive* energy sources, yet renewables (solar, wind) are significantly less productive, all measured by Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI).
@RS4472 If fossil fuels weren’t absolutely fantastic, we would have no problem ditching them! Although of course they are becoming less fantastic as EROEI falls.
Three overlooked facts about oil are that it is
1: a battery
2: easily convertible into a dozen fuel types and thousands of materials
3: energy dense ~5:1 density of wood
All of this can be achieved with electricity, but it changes the eroei equation
Eroei of oil is about 20:1 where solar and wind is 4:1
this 4:1 needs to be recalculated if there are these extra dimensions that are needed (storage, fuel type, etc)
If were talking about a system with no oil, there is a system reconfiguration process needed that requires energy (mining, rebuilding all the cars, machines, industry, new power grid, etc.)
Its a very difficult predicament were in, and we likely need to find some new SOURCE of energy, like new nuclear tech unlocked from AI
@sluggishcheetah@EliotJacobson Collapse is stepwise. Socioeconomic simplification has begun but is not finished. A pillar will break such as a sudden catastrophic drop in eroei of oil but I believe were a ways off from that
@Bill_Fowler_@DiMartinoBooth Falling EROEI. This is how you unwind a modern economy with shrinking resources: keep 'em guessing. Lord help us if the entire population endures Kubler-Ross' 5 stages ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
Massaged gov't numbers help