MD wrote:John_A wrote:See previous comment on why EROEI isn't relevant. At least not until someone turn off the local nuclear furnace anyway.
Irrelevant when discussing long term stored energy.
Okay...EROEI is generally irrelevant..and irrelevant when discussing long term stored energy as well. Better?
MD wrote:Explain how solar energy can replace stored hydrocarbon energy at efficiencies required to sustain current economic systems, given current technology.
No such constraints are applicable. The very beauty of technological advance is that it negates all of these artificial mechanisms, in this case designed to reinforce the same short sighted ideas that never say the rotary table coming. Or directional drilling. Or offshore drilling. Or seismic applications to geological structures not evidenced on the surface.
The local solar furnace supplies far more energy to the earth's surface than people use. This is changing. It will continue to change.
Fortunately, we gave used perhaps 1/6 of what is available to manufacture liquid fuels from current economic systems, with current technology, so we have plenty of time for exponential growth to do to solar powered that it did...a long time ago...to crude oil.
This is good!
MD wrote:None exist.
Once upon a time computers didn't exist. Yet here we are......
A fascinating way to try and stop what economists actually build right into their models....here is a good example, and it even relates to oil and gas production. Why is it such applications, known and used by the economists and modelers at the EIA, are excluded in your construct?
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/emdworkshop/pdf/technology.pdf
Effects on overall performance, effect on production profiles, effects on economics or resource....all of these changes with respect to time are known, and quantified.
Why in the world would ANYONE who knows these things exclude them? One idea...they can only win the debate against a strawman...because as we have already seen, reality has discredited more than a few of the ideas involved in declaring peak oil. Multiple times, in many cases.
MD wrote:EROEI remains the most crucial economic relationship as we move forward, and your nearly hysterical and repeated attempts to dismiss it prove without a doubt that you are either paid to squelch any efforts in that direction or you are a total imbecile.
I see no reason to believe the latter over the former.
EROEI is ridiculous in the context of human metrics, and there is a thread discussing why. That Charlie Hall has already been discredited on his version of the idea more than a decade ago....yet recycled it without a critical eye cast upon it during the 2005 peak oil fear meme....is far more telling than any assumptions on who is paid to do what. For the record, Charlie IS paid to pull this rinse and repeat stunt...unlike those of us who just think about it, examine his track record, and can think for ourselves.