So, we have Gail (Tverberg) who believes that renewable energy technology is NOT sustainable and George (Oprisko) who is quite sure that it is even without further technological breakthroughs. But, no one knows for certain because the most respected analysts upon whom the world relies do not carry out their computations sufficiently far to determine sustainability. This is the situation I tried to correct quickly with instant internet publication while avoiding the corporate-controlled, peer-reviewed publishing system employed by academia and government and corporate labs that would have rejected such conclusions as did not favor the corporate agenda. Now, most of us on the Peak Oil discussion forums claim that we are against this agenda, but most of us don’t embrace my work, which, by the way, can be validated by every reader by his or her own efforts and reasoning abilities – assuming they exist. Each can be his own “peer reviewer”. Why not do the right thing?

Demand that the concepts inherent in ERoEI* be employed in the analysis of every alternative (renewable) energy technology in the earliest stages of its implementation. If you have the ability and the tools, do the analysis yourself. Otherwise, demand that others do it. Reject incomplete work. It can prevent the economic changes we need and mask such subsidies of renewable energy as probably do arise. If fossil fuel absolutely must be consumed to bootstrap drastically front loaded solar technology, for example, be sure that the deficit will be repaid and never recur. This would truly amount to the use of fossil fuel to end the use of fossil fuel rather than as an ongoing subsidy if and only if ERoEI* is greater than 1.0. Begin by reading http://eroei.blogspot.com/ and http://dematerialism.net/eroeistar.htm after which I don’t care if you assume that the ideas were yours all along.,

14 Comments on "Yet another appeal for the adoption of ERoEI*"

shortonoil on Tue, 11th Jun 2013 12:34 pm 



“If you have the ability and the tools, do the analysis yourself.”

We do, and we have. Our 60 page study “Depletion: a determination of world petroleum reserve” will be published this fall. Our determination is close to Charles Halls in that we have determined that it takes a minimum ERoEI of 6.9:1 from petroleum to maintain our present oil based civilization. But to expect an individual to accomplish this is probably not realistic. We have had several good engineers working on this analysis for almost three years; and ERoEI is only part of the story!

The Hill’s Group

dave thompson on Tue, 11th Jun 2013 12:51 pm 



ERoEI is really all that matters.

BillT on Tue, 11th Jun 2013 3:10 pm 



Yep dave, it is all that matters and some techies do not want to even do the math because they know that renewables do not produce enough NET energy to reproduce themselves. In fact, the various oil ‘alternates’ barely do and maybe a real research would prove that even they are losers.

GregT on Tue, 11th Jun 2013 3:19 pm 



As long as we rely on finite resources to ‘fuel’ our societies, we are not living sustainably.

shortonoil on Tue, 11th Jun 2013 3:25 pm 



“ERoEI is really all that matters.”

“There is another”.

The other is a little discussed, and seldom calculated fundamental property of matter. It is called entropy. ERoEI is just one of the results of its determination.

Arthur on Tue, 11th Jun 2013 6:02 pm 



The size of the reserves is obviously at least as important. Better 100B barrel of oil at eroi 10 than 10B barrel oil at eroi 100.

J-Gav on Tue, 11th Jun 2013 6:09 pm 



Shorton – True that the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy law)looks like a real bastard! And it is in some ways. However, if we didn’t have it, there wouldn’t be those energy gradients for us to suck our lifeblood from (see Tom Murphy’s recent article on his Do the Math blog).

GregT on Tue, 11th Jun 2013 6:15 pm 



There is a point of EROEI where the world’s economies can no longer continue to grow and will begin to go into decline. That point has already been passed.

All of the austerity and money printing is only creating the facade that BAU can continue, and will only make the decline that much worse further down the road.

Arthur on Tue, 11th Jun 2013 6:45 pm 



I would say it is not so much EROI that is the problem here, but rather declining conventional production capacity in combination with high demand, leading to high prices. Most oil is still conventional, with still sufficient, albeit declining, EROI.

IanC on Tue, 11th Jun 2013 6:54 pm 



EROEI is the principle concept that needs to expressed as we educate our decision makers… once we pry them off the lobbyist’s teat.

Others on Wed, 12th Jun 2013 12:47 am 



EROEI is an important factor, the cost of fuel is also another important factor.

Even if it take 1:1 for petroleum, companies will simply use cheaper Coal to extract Oil and sell it at a better price since 1 unit of coal is much cheaper than 1 unit of Oil.

Already the Oil refineries use lot of power & heat to refine heavy oil to transport fuels and in this process they also use lot of natgas.

As long as Oil has monopoly on World Transport, this will continue.

Its high time, we switch it over to other sources like Natgas, Biofuels, Electricity, etc.

BillT on Wed, 12th Jun 2013 5:00 am 



Others, if we were even able to switch, how long do you think those supplies would last? 5 years? 10? I bet not more than that…then what?

Arthur on Wed, 12th Jun 2013 11:09 am 



As Bill suggests, it is not about Big Oil, their days are numbered anyway, for geological reasons. The issue is ‘World Transport’ itself; there is not going to be much ‘World Transport’ in the midterm anyway. We must switch to an enough=enough mode. We have no choice.

Others on Thu, 13th Jun 2013 3:58 am 



As per the bp stats, Oil production increased 2%. They are going to drill where ever shale rocks are.

In the oceans, in polar regions, every where. I think Oil consumption will keep on increasing unless we switch to alternative sources.