Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on March 14, 2016
The implications of peak energy
Our current society is one based on whim. Whatever we want can be had if we have the money. Not only can we have what we want any time we want it, it’s the done thing to throw it away and buy something else when it breaks or the latest upgrade comes out. We are conditioned to believe there are no limits within the current framework, and growth is our reason to be. The ‘how’ we can have all this fantastic stuff is considered someone else’s problem. But with a growing middle class population, for how long will it be possible to utilise finite, non-renewable resources in this linear fashion?
To date, our civilisation has been built on non-renewable natural resources. What has facilitated all this is our sources of energy – the master resource. Oil, coal and gas has accounted for the vast amount of industrial development over the last 160 years.
Currently, we are a petroleum based society, where petroleum products and petrochemicals derived from oil provide goods and services for most of the vital requirements of our industrial civilisation. Everything from food production to plastics manufacture is dependent on oil in some form (there are some synthetic alternatives but they are costly and not as effective as natural crude oil as a raw feed product). World growth in GDP, energy consumption and oil consumption all correlate to demonstrate this basic concept. The world economy is dependant not just on oil but high quality and high net energy oil.
But all is not well with the oil sector. Between 2000 and 2012, $2.6 Trillion USD was invested in oil infrastructure CAPEX, with no gain in oil production (this data includes shale oil production in USA).¹ Global crude and condensate production has plateaued since approximately 2005. The problem with this is world population is 13.8% larger now than in 2005 (7.4 billion people 5/2/2016 vs 6.5 billion in 2005). Increasingly unconventional sources of oil are being used to meet demand, where these sources are expensive to extract and struggle to meet the desired quantities.
Increasingly, conventional sources of crude oil have been difficult to discover and exploit. The picture below shows the pattern of oil discovery, listing all of the major plays that have dominated oil production.
There will come a point where total oil production will peak and decline, the question is just when this will happen. Conventional crude oil production peaked in 2006, something now recognised by the International Energy Agency (Source: IEA World Energy Outlook 2010). Unconventional sources like tight oil (also known as shale oil) in the US have come on line to meet demand requirements, which have for some discredited previous predictions around peak oil.
However, The global combination of conventional crude oil production and unconventional oil production is predicted to peak and decline very soon, according to various studies. A sophisticated analysis on oil production has been conducted by retired actuary Gail Tverberg, where total oil production is predicted to have peaked in the year 2015. Others have suggested that we are in fact past peak, such as the report released by the Energy Watch Group (EWG), which claims that peak oil production (conventional and unconventional) happened around the year 2012.
Gas as a commodity is important to our industrialisation. As industrial sites require large quantities of power, a gas fired power station is often installed. Acquiring data for gas production has been difficult but it is believed that conventional production of natural gas peaked in the year 2011 (data is spotty). To meet industrial demand, unconventional sources of gas like fracking and Coal Seam Gas (CSG) have been developed. Unconventional gas supply was believed to replace conventional sources of gas, and is in the process of doing so.
Coal is another energy resource that our industrial grid depends on to generate its electricity requirements. It is also often the case that the domestic power grid that supplies electricity is dependent on coal. The EWG report has a peak in coal production at approximately the year 2020. Four years away. Even if this estimate is imprecise, as it now takes about five years to build an industrial power station, it would behove us all to consider a replacement energy source.
Each energy source often serves different purposes, so one resource cannot necessarily directly replace another. For the purposes of comparison though, all energy sources discussed have been put onto one graph:
(Another good estimate has been provided by G. Tverberg in “A Forecast of Our Energy Future; Why Common Solutions Don’t Work”)
Peak total energy is projected to be approximately in the year 2017. This means that industrialisation in a global context, based on the current rules of the game, will soon tip into contracting economies – the end of growth based economics. As this challenges would have taken 20 years to meet with an engineered alternative (once a viable one has been presented) (Hirsch 2005), the implications of the above charts are quite serious. Even if the projection was incorrect by 10 years, our industrial society would still be faced with an unprecedented challenge.
To examine the usefulness of a replacement energy source, the Energy Return On Energy Invested ratio (EROEI) is used, which is the ratio of the amount of usable energy acquired from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy expended to obtain that energy resource.
Oil when it was originally discovered was very good and returned about 100 units of energy for every one invested. Now it’s around 12-18:1. Most alternative energy sources are much lower than what oil currently delivers. To put this in perspective, the European medieval society EROEI was Approximately 1.5:1. For our industrial society to function, an EROEI ratio of 10:1 is required.
What this means is we have no replacement energy source that is as calorically dense as oil. It is simply not practical to replace oil as an energy source and maintain current energy demands. Colloquially, oil is butter-fried-steak wrapped in bacon and alternative energy is lettuce. This is why peak oil is so relevant and is the rate determining issue amongst the network of problems facing society at this time. With the possibility of peak energy on the horizon, the solution may lie in a fundamental upgrade to the operating system for our economy.
38 Comments on "The implications of peak energy"
Northwest Resident on Mon, 14th Mar 2016 6:59 pm
Peak Oil is like hand grenades and horse shoes. We’re close enough. As a result, the global economy is slowly but ever more rapidly grinding to a halt. Economic growth — the type not achieved by pumping massive quantities of debt into the system — is over. We are now in the twilight zone, suspended between the Age of Oil and whatever they end up calling what comes next — something like “The Age of Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth?” Nah… Too dramatic.
Don’t believe it? Well, believe this: When the world’s “growth engine” is visibly dying, that means the global economy is dying too.
“China’s industry has been consistently slowing down since early 2012, an unmistakable reference that is a global phenomenon.”
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-china-boom-grinds-ever-slower-januaryfebruary-data-update/
GregT on Mon, 14th Mar 2016 7:27 pm
Thanks for the link NWR, complete with yet one more 5 ton pachyderm relaxing on the sofa in the corner of the room. You know the one, that the western MSM doesn’t want us to see, who consumes as much as 20% of the entire world’s resources, but I digress…..
“It isn’t at all unreasonable or unexpected to find industrial production in China at a historic low during the same months that Chinese exports collapsed. However as much this was all supposed to be about China managing Chinese imbalances, the close relationship between the continuous slowdown in exports (meaning “global demand”) and China’s industrial sector once again confirm that China is only the most visible representation of the structural deficiency in the whole global economy that is increasingly resembling cyclicality (a slowdown that won’t stop slowing down).”
Pennsyguy on Mon, 14th Mar 2016 7:57 pm
“We have no replacement energy source—-“. Very true, and worth repeating over and over. As Ugo Bardi said, the Dark Ages were the solution to Rome’s problems. Whatever economies existing after 2050–if any–will be simple and local. Any energy and wealth used to maintain BAU is wasted, and has been since 2008 if not before.
makati1 on Mon, 14th Mar 2016 7:58 pm
Excellent article. The days of thoughtless waste are about over. If there is no one to buy, there is no reason to make. Capitalism is in intensive care, never to recover.
NWR, perhaps the name will be “Extinction”? We are not only running out of energy. We are running out of necessary resources and a friendly climate. Not to mention all of the pollution we have unleashed that will take millenia to go away.
The “Great Leveling” is gaining speed. Soon even the 5 ton pachyderm will be reduced to a 5 pound possum and join the rest of the world. At least what is left of it.
Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 6:00 am
What Ugo Bardi said was ‘the Middle Ages were the cure for the collapse of the Roman Empire’. As usual the imbeciles that frequent this pathetic blog can’t get it right.
Davy on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 8:35 am
OOPS
“Nigeria’s NNPC ‘failed to pay’ $16bn in oil revenues”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35810599
“Nigeria’s state-owned oil company has failed to pay the government $16bn (£11bn) in a suspected fraud, according to an official audit. The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) provided no explanation for the missing funds, the auditor general told MPs.”
penury on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 9:40 am
The only difference between humans and yeast is that we can leave a written record of our decay, which no one will remain to read.
shortonoil on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 9:59 am
Modern civilization will not fail for a lack of gross energy; it will fail for a lack of net energy. That simple differentiation seems to be ignored by most of the so called pundits. Net energy production (what we refer to as Deliverable Energy to avoid confusion) is falling much faster than gross energy. Deliverable Energy is what powers the non energy goods producing sector of the economy. That is the sector that pays for the production of energy.
That differentiation is demonstrated by what has happened to petroleum between the years of 2010 and 2015. Gross Energy from petroleum production rose by an average of 1.16% per year over that period. Deliverable Energy fell by an average of 2.3% per year. The consumer side of the economy is being starved for energy (to produce gross energy) and it is starting to show in a declining world economy.
World trade has slowed to a crawl, monetary systems are under continual stress as Central Banks try every route for reprieve from ZIRP, to QE ad infinitum, to NIRP to stimulate a declining economy. Production is declining, and accumulated world debt continues to spiral into the stratosphere.
When Deliverable Energy declines to a specific threshold level maintenance of existing infrastructure no longer becomes possible. That threshold level comes many years before actual gross energy production begins to decline. The number of tons of coal mined, or barrels of oil pumped is not the deciding factor on the health of the global economy. It is the amount of energy that is provided to the rest of the economy from those sources. The malaise that the world is now experiencing is resulting not from the inability to produce energy, but from the inability to deliver what it produces.
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
Cloud9 on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 10:04 am
At what point in time do the supply chains break?
GregT on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 10:31 am
“At what point in time do the supply chains break?”
That would be location specific. The chains will begin to break on the periphery first ( as they are already doing ) and continue to crumble more and more inwards. Collapse is a process, and it is already well underway. It will become clearer to you when they break in your locale, but just as many around the world are presently doing, you will probably blame it on your government, rather than physical limits to growth.
Cloud9 on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 11:11 am
I understand full well that the collapse is not a one size fits all collapse. The Amish will barely notice when the grid goes down. They will get the memo when the golden horde shows up at their farm. The system seems to freak in the anticipation of a looming event. The price spike we saw in oil was the result of anticipation of peak oil. The current glut is the consequence of hot money rushing into shale and tar sands and demand destruction. If world supply peaked in 2012 then when does the institutional money panic with the realization that we have reached the end of growth? We are four years into peak supply. We are now witnessing peak exploitation. When do the insiders panic?
onlooker on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 11:16 am
So short then I would expect that your view and the correct view is that civilization will reach a point that Oil will no longer be economically viable as a primary energy source even though reserves will still exist. Theoretically, then that remaining oil will never be extracted?
twocats on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 11:37 am
Cloud9,
You questions reveal (and express the frustration of) the limits of peak-oil analysis alone as a model for global collapse/decay.
As just one tiny example, many didn’t expect the economic order to survive the onset of peak oil circa 2005 to 2012.
(I haven’t been seeing a lot of articles about supply chains breaking down anywhere, so I’m not sure what GregT is referring to there – please source, thanks.)
It’s been pretty well laid out how the system has managed to adjust and get to this point (no time to go over those details, I’m assuming you know them already).
The big question is can the system pull a repeat of the process that occurred from post Great Recession (2008-09) to the current “downturn” (2014 to present)? Can the system even survive this downturn? Are we talking a purely physical breakdown of society (net energy) or an artificial one (economic system, payments of debt)?
shortonoil on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 12:05 pm
“Are we talking a purely physical breakdown of society (net energy) or an artificial one (economic system, payments of debt)?”
The two are just opposite sides of the same coin. Without deliverable energy there is no monetary/ financial system, and without a monetary system the deliverable energy doesn’t get produced. The only difference is that if the monetary system collapses a new one can be created. When the energy is gone, it’s gone.!
Nature appears to have given humans an infinite imagination, She didn’t give them infinite resources with which to back it up.
Revi on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 12:23 pm
We are watching once viable industries like paper making and logging go down rapidly here in Maine. I wonder what will be the next thing to fall? We just lost a paper mill in the neighboring town and 214 good paying jobs are gone with it. The collapse is happening all around us.
sunweb on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 12:36 pm
shortonoil – can I quote this with totally attribution to you?
Modern civilization will not fail for a lack of gross energy; it will fail for a lack of net energy. That simple differentiation seems to be ignored by most of the so called pundits. Net energy production (what we refer to as Deliverable Energy to avoid confusion) is falling much faster than gross energy. Deliverable Energy is what powers the non energy goods producing sector of the economy. That is the sector that pays for the production of energy.
That differentiation is demonstrated by what has happened to petroleum between the years of 2010 and 2015. Gross Energy from petroleum production rose by an average of 1.16% per year over that period. Deliverable Energy fell by an average of 2.3% per year. The consumer side of the economy is being starved for energy (to produce gross energy) and it is starting to show in a declining world economy.
World trade has slowed to a crawl, monetary systems are under continual stress as Central Banks try every route for reprieve from ZIRP, to QE ad infinitum, to NIRP to stimulate a declining economy. Production is declining, and accumulated world debt continues to spiral into the stratosphere.
When Deliverable Energy declines to a specific threshold level maintenance of existing infrastructure no longer becomes possible. That threshold level comes many years before actual gross energy production begins to decline. The number of tons of coal mined, or barrels of oil pumped is not the deciding factor on the health of the global economy. It is the amount of energy that is provided to the rest of the economy from those sources. The malaise that the world is now experiencing is resulting not from the inability to produce energy, but from the inability to deliver what it produces.
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
IFuckYouOver on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 12:37 pm
M King Hubert proposed a long time ago a trade system based on credit on energy instead of currency.
Initial credit of energy will be created based on the net energy available and distributed to every citizen with a time limit.
Every goods will have a energy value attached to it.
The good of this system was to manage energy properly and move society toward and more simple life.
This system will never see happen because the rich won’t benefit from it and because almost all net energy is depleted and extracted.
peakyeast on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 12:50 pm
@twocats:
If I look upon Denmark for the past 40 years.
Our system is NOT the same – not at all. So perhaps one could say that the system did not survive – it morphed slowly and incompletely into another system.
Perhaps its the same worldwide: The system will adapt slowly into a completely new system.
What we have now is a global commitment to our new system: Complete surveillance and control and food being handed out by government. Money free society is being introduced. Forced labour is a reality – if you dont have the inclination to live in a ruined and empty forest. Ruined by the slaver society btw..
IMHO: We are well on our way to a full blown global KZ camp. A tried a true method btw..
I would not be surprised if the americans actually bought and paid for the building and work plans from Nazi Germany. After all you did pardon proven insane murderers in order to get the “indispensable” plans for biological warfare, the torture and killings of tens of thousands of completely innocent peasants. Re: Unit 731
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
nstead of being tried for war crimes, the researchers involved in Unit 731 were given immunity by the U.S. in exchange for their data on human experimentation.[10] Some were arrested by Soviet forces and tried at the Khabarovsk War Crime Trials in 1949. Americans did not try the researchers so that the information and experience gained in bio-weapons could be co-opted into the U.S. biological warfare program.[11] On 6 May 1947, Douglas MacArthur, as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, wrote to Washington that “additional data, possibly some statements from Ishii probably can be obtained by informing Japanese involved that information will be retained in intelligence channels and will not be employed as ‘War Crimes’ evidence.”[10] Victim accounts were then largely ignored or dismissed in the West as Communist propaganda.[12]
Fucking disgusting leadership and government you have and has had over there…
Not that Denmarks or other nations are any better.
Apneaman on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 12:57 pm
Apparently, in some places, there is still plenty of energy to waste.
How Miami Beach Is Keeping the Florida Dream Alive—And Dry
Beset by rising seas and indifferent legislators, the city is spending big to keep its economy above water.
“over the past year the city has elevated eight roads, raised six sea walls and installed 10 massive pumps to push flood waters back into Biscayne Bay. That $100 million investment is the first installment on a $400 million gamble that will, over the next few years, elevate another two miles of street and install 70 more pumps.”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/what-works-miami-beach-sea-level-rise-213731
twocats on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 1:16 pm
@short – the two are connected, but they are not the same coin. If you believe they are one and the same, then I would say you have a huge hole in your conception of reality. But we can agree to disagree on that point, no worries.
@peakyeast – the transition from 2008 to now has been extremely significant, though I think you overstate the situation. We could argue the semantics of “forced labor” for the average person in the OECD. But I think calling labor conditions in Europe and US “slavery” or “forced” (outside prisons in US) when compared to the probable 10’s of millions of people in the world living under a very real slavery is an insult to those people.
Numbers are very hard to determine but the number is probably somewhere between 20 – 50 million people. This is a tiny tiny fraction of the global population. Trust me, right now, life is good.
rockman on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 1:18 pm
Looker – “…that civilization will reach a point that Oil will no longer be economically viable as a primary energy source even though reserves will still exist. Theoretically, then that remaining oil will never be extracted?” We’ve been at that stage since the petroleum age began. There are millions of folks in the world today for whom oil isn’t “economically viable as a primary energy source.” Even decades ago when we had many billions of bbls of oil reserves more than we have todays. Just as there were millions in that same condition when oil dropped to $17/bbl in 1986. Of course that number swelled when it hit $145/bbl in 2008.
IMHO it’s the same “war” that began when Col. Drake drilled that first well in PA long ago. The only difference is the body count…and who the bodies belong to. Oil was plentiful when it’s selling for $145/bbl…if you’re part of the group that could afford it. Or expensive and unobtainable when it’s $17/bbl if you didn’t have the money to buy it.
Just a question of whom who is.
twocats on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 1:20 pm
@peaky – here is one example of slavery methodology.
http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forced-labour/news/WCMS_182109/lang–en/index.htm
onlooker on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 1:23 pm
thanks for that great answer Rock. I guess I am looking at it from the perspective of the US and its economy.
ellsworth on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 1:26 pm
@twocats Can I ask why you think the economy and energy are not that closely integrated?
How do you have large scale energy extraction without an economy to organize and distribute it, and how do you maintain an industrial economy, without large scale energy production?
twocats on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 1:52 pm
hey ellsworth, yep, for sure they are definitely closely integrated.
but for an example of what I’m referring to, I can really find examples almost anywhere I look. Oh hey, let’s take Rockman’s post. See where he’s talking about price and affordability? Those are artificial aspects of the economy, not pure energy terms.
Did peak oil “absolutely require by the laws of physics” that central banks create one of the most expansive monetary policy conditions in modern history? Of course not.
Did it have a huge influence on those decisions? what about the housing bubble? What about the tech bubble? To what degree, and to what degree is that influence becoming stronger and stronger? When will all semblance of artifice have to give way to pure energy calculations?
peakyeast on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 2:10 pm
@twocats: Being Forced has no connection with the size of the “wage”. And I very well know the majority of people get less than in for example Europe.
And its the way we are going: Less wage, No real social security, lack of jobs. Forced into meaningless labour if one goes on social welfare.
The intent was not to compare and say that European slaves are better off – or that others are worse off. I just said my opinion on which way we are going.
GregT on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 2:24 pm
“(I haven’t been seeing a lot of articles about supply chains breaking down anywhere, so I’m not sure what GregT is referring to there – please source, thanks.)”
Geez twocats, what planet do you live on anyhow? You’re beginning to sound as ignorant of reality as your good buddy Boat. Here would be one recent example from last month:
Facing Severe Food Shortages, Venezuela Pushes Urban Gardens
“There is nothing — just like there’s no food, there are no seeds, no herbicides … and no medicines to vaccinate farm animals,” says Perez.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/02/16/466942128/facing-severe-food-shortages-venezuela-pushes-urban-gardens
If you’d been paying attention, the disruptions to global supply chains have been breaking down for decades. The last decade has been particularly bad, and within 20 years the UN is predicting severe food and water stress throughout much of the world. Just because it hasn’t affected you yet, does not mean that it isn’t already affecting billions of people.
GregT on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 2:38 pm
“Those are artificial aspects of the economy, not pure energy terms.”
The economy does not run on artificial aspects twocats. It runs on energy. No energy=no economy. It doesn’t get any more pure than that.
Practicalmaina on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 2:38 pm
Apneaman, someone needs to tell then the coke party is over, time to move on up and out of the sunshine state.
GREGT maybe this unraveling will straighten out our understanding of our overly complicated world. When the complicated ass system starts going wrong, put a seed in dirt and add water, no wonder people were happier back in the day.
shortonoil on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 2:48 pm
“shortonoil – can I quote this with totally attribution to you?”
As long as you reference the Hills Group, please be my guest. Most of the points mentioned here come from discussions within our “herd”. Few of them are the creation of any one person.
Thanks
Practicalmaina on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 2:48 pm
GREGT I didn’t read the no seeds aspect, that is scary, if maine had a democratic governor right now I bet he would be sending seeds. Venezuela used to supply a lot of subsidized oil to Maine for our heating programs for the poor.
GregT on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 2:55 pm
Sad, isn’t it Practical, Venezuela wasn’t exactly a third world nation either. Looks like Brazil is teetering on the brink now.
Spent my morning building a soil screening system. Next step? Soil building. I have two large compost heaps ready to be added into the mix. Tomatoes have been started indoors, so far.
I can hardly wait for the historically unseasonal deluges to stop. Lots of seeds to plant. Lots of gardening to be done. 🙂
ellsworth on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 3:14 pm
@twocats I think I see what you mean but I think that energy flows are fundamental, and the recent managerial aspects of the economy are symptoms of trying to maintain complexity with diminishing energy returns.
twocats on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 3:39 pm
@ellsworth. absolutely agreed. just imagine a situation where everyone had a card that allowed them to buy whatever they wanted at any time. we would quickly soak up all excess energy and hit peak oil directly.
i would argue that the system has bumped up against peak oil at least once (2007), but that these managerial aspects can take over and force consumption far below available energy.
For instance, GregT mentions venezuela, which ironically support my argument, not his. I really don’t imagine that venezuela is having problems because of OIL supply lines, but because of other (read: artificial) trading and economic issues.
Ask short, he worked in venezuela, and he has explained the corrupt conditions there. I believe that example to be mostly economic, due ironically, to low oil prices and other cultural/trade issues.
GregT on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 6:23 pm
“Which ironically support my argument, not his”
And what argument would that be twocats? That supply chains are beginning to break?
“the two are connected, but they are not the same coin. If you believe they are one and the same, then I would say you have a huge hole in your conception of reality. But we can agree to disagree on that point, no worries.”
They are not the same coin twocats, they are opposite sides of the same coin. Not something to agree, or to disagree on, but a fact. If you are unable to understand this, then sadly, it would be you that has a “huge hole in your conception of reality”.
Reality is bound to the laws of physics, not to the modern school of eCONomic dogma, which unsurprisingly, completely ignores the laws of physics.
makati1 on Tue, 15th Mar 2016 7:29 pm
GregT, maybe twocats should ask the Venezuelans how it is to live without toilet paper now that their ‘supply chain’ for the product has broken? Only one among many for the informed.
yoananda on Thu, 17th Mar 2016 4:36 am
I think EROEI is totally misleading tool.
If with 1 barrel I get 3 barrels of oil. I have an EROEI of 3.
But with my 3 barrels, I can use 1 barrel to get 3 more.
So with 1 initial barrel I get 3+3-1=5 barrels. So my EROEI is 5. And so on.
EROEI should be timeframed.
It’s an all different story if I get 3 barrels out of 1 in 1 day or in 1 month or in 1 year.
And not only that.
With 1 barrel, and a 70’s car, I can travel, lets say, 100 miles.
But what if win 1 barrel and a 2010’s car I can travel 200 miles…
It’s like I get 2 barrels.
So oil volume is not enough to get the story.
Last argument againt’s EOREI.
If with 1 oil barrel I can get 3 barrels of oil PLUS 1t of coal, then the total EROEI will be more important.
EROEI could be an interresting tool, but it has to be completed, in my opinion, and also, compared to (like Gail says) human work.
How an EROEI of 3 with 100hour of human work compare to an EROEI of 3 with 10hour of human work ?
Does anybody have worked on theses questions ?
(I will if nobody did, when I get the time to do it)
marmico on Thu, 17th Mar 2016 5:48 am
like Gail says
Tverberg is a doom porn nutter.
A 20 EROI means 95% net energy. A 10 EROI means 90% net energy. A 6% increase in energy efficiency completely offsets a 20–>10 decline in EROI.