Someone doesn't understand EROEI

[fifthcolumn]

clv - I've asked this before - but are you actually biff?

And that *you* are "generally happy with the idea that [you believe] *any* climate change will be generally negative" is just an opinion based on assumptions.

I'm *questioning* those assumptions.

[adam2]

Yes, any significant climate change is virtually certain to be very detrimental to our civilisation, for the simple reason that civilisation has adjusted to the climate of the recent past.

A warmer or wetter climate might well be advantagous to some species, and even to some humans such as those living in high, cold, arid places.

I cant see a warmer climate being advantagous to the many large cities situated in areas already a bit vulnerable to flooding.

[clv101]

And that *you* are "generally happy with the idea that [you believe] *any* climate change will be generally negative" is just an opinion based on assumptions.

I'm *questioning* those assumptions.

Sure it's just my opinion, it's also an opinion with caveats. I'm not claiming anything's black and white. I'd like to think the assumptions I'm making are as well informed as possible though. More opinions here.

[fifthcolumn]

Yeah I just read that piece and I don't agree. But I'm not going to attempt to change your mind. Instead when I can be bothered posting I'll add in my 2p for others to make up their own minds.

[biffvernon]

"you always avoid directly addressing things when you are asked direct questions"

No I don't

such as "do you support the massive involuntary reduction of the human population in order to return large chunks of farmland to natural state?"

No. How can you possibly ask such a question? I have never, ever, supported the "involuntary reduction of the human population" (aka killing) of even a single person.

As has been often stated on PS, EROEI only gets important when the factor approaches 1. At numbers a little greater than 1 it is usually economically worthwhile and it can be worthwhile even below 1 if a less useful form of energy is being converted into a more useful form.

"what are the *actual* impacts going to be of global warming?" The death of a large proportion, possibly all, of life on Earth.

"Two thousand years ago in Roman times with a temperature warmer than today things" How much warmer was the average global temperature 2000 years ago? (That's a direct question so a direct answer is appropriate.)

"So I have to say Biff that it smacks of an agenda here" Yes I have an agenda. Saving the planet.

[fifthcolumn]

Good Biff. Thank you for answering such a pointed question. We are on the same side then even if we disagree on the methods to get there.

I'm glad.

[fifthcolumn]

Yes, any significant climate change is virtually certain to be very detrimental to our civilisation, for the simple reason that civilisation has adjusted to the climate of the recent past.

That's a *very* big assumption given that there is a very large range of functioning cities from Riyadh (with temperatures reaching highs of 45C in the summer) to Edmonton (with termperatures reaching lows of -40C in winter).

The common denominator is that long distance trade brings in food and water.

And that's the assumption you have to attack: will climate change eliminate long distance trade.

There are some who would like to see long distance trade eliminated. If they get their way then yes sure some cities (if not all) will become unsustainable.

But..

If no barriers are placed in the way of trade then I'm fairly certain (in exactly the same way that you tendency-to-doom-types believe based upon your own assumptions) that not only will there not be a die-off but that civilisation will continue to prosper.

[fifthcolumn]

EROEI only gets important when the factor approaches 1. At numbers a little greater than 1 it is usually economically worthwhile and it can be worthwhile even below 1 if a less useful form of energy is being converted into a more useful form.

Here's why that argument is untenable:

If EREOI close to one were problematic you'd expect it to get more and more expensive as we get closer to one.

In fact by the reckoning of those tending-towards-the-side-of-doom, here in Alberta our oil is low EROEI.

And yet?

It's not expensive compared to making it higher EROEI.

If we fed in, say, wind or solar or nuclear or hydro it'd cost *more* than it does now.

So I have to say that the EROEI argument is in no way causated with prices and/or doom caused by high prices and thus is a useless argument.

Unless you're going to suggest that dieoff.org is right and there is no other source of energy input than oil.

[clv101]

Yes, any significant climate change is virtually certain to be very detrimental to our civilisation, for the simple reason that civilisation has adjusted to the climate of the recent past.

That's a *very* big assumption given that there is a very large range of functioning cities from Riyadh (with temperatures reaching highs of 45C in the summer) to Edmonton (with termperatures reaching lows of -40C in winter).

This doesn't address adam2's point. Just because Riyadh can cope with 45C and Edmonton -40C doesn't mean (say) London could cope with 40C or -35C as well. It's all about change from what we're optimised to, which in general, with notable exceptions, is likely to have a negative impact.

[fifthcolumn]

This doesn't address adam2's point. Just because Riyadh can cope with 45C and Edmonton -40C doesn't mean (say) London could cope with 40C or -35C as well. It's all about change from what we're optimised to, which in general, with notable exceptions, is likely to have a negative impact.

Seriously? *That's* your answer?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I won't bother responding. Just let others read this and make up their own mind.

[clv101]

It's not so much an answer, it's a conversation...

[clv101]

It's not so much an answer as a conversation...

[biffvernon]

Good Biff. Thank you for answering such a pointed question. We are on the same side then even if we disagree on the methods to get there.

I'm glad.

Welcome back to PowerSwitch.

[biffvernon]

This doesn't address adam2's point. Just because Riyadh can cope with 45C and Edmonton -40C doesn't mean (say) London could cope with 40C or -35C as well. It's all about change from what we're optimised to, which in general, with notable exceptions, is likely to have a negative impact.

Seriously? *That's* your answer?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I won't bother responding. Just let others read this and make up their own mind.

My mind tells me it was a good point. I live at about sea level and if the sea were to rise soon I might get wet. It's change that we humans find tricky. My expectation is that sea level will rise slowly enough to not be a bother for me. Future generations will not be able to live where I live now.

(Same goes for the populations of many of the worlds largest cities and best agricultural land.)

[kenneal - lagger]

EROEI might not be of much concern in the parochial and short sighted view of the oil industry but it is of concern to those economists who know the value of oil to the way our economies work.

For a start the low EROEI fuels that are now being exploited are only viable because of the high oil price. The high oil price reflects the increased complexity of their winning, the often remote situation of the resource and the increased amount of fuel necessary for that winning. The increased complexity, the remoteness and the increased capital necessary mean that the fuel is not extracted at the same rate that old oil was or, if it is to be, a much greater investment has to be made.

This added investment in new oil and the extra energy required mean that less of both are available to the rest of the economy. Together with the higher price, they slow the mainstream economy. The reduced investment available also has an effect on the rate of investment in new fuel resources. As EROEI gets lower this slowing of the mainstream economy increases.

Also with global warming, the more an economy has to invest in maintaining a comfortable, workable environment the less is available for other aspects of life. As the climate warms and sea level rises the world's economies will have to divert more resources to flood protection schemes for the "valuable" real estate that is our major cities. As warming increases further that investment will be lost as it becomes increasingly clear that our current cities built at sea level can't be protected any more and must be abandoned. This loss of real estate value will cripple the banking industry as we now know it. The investment in replacing those cities would be crippling for an economy especially at a time when the banks were in crisis. At least, I suppose, the new cities could be built for the prevailing weather conditions and transport requirements of the time.

The loss of much of the world's best agricultural land to rising sea levels would cause a rise in world food prices. This again would damage the economy as people would have less free spending money. Then there would be the problem of displaced people. This might even affect the isolationist USA. The current trickle of people across the Mexican border and of boat people could become a flood as poor people looked to "the richest country in the world" for salvation.

The more that people have to spend on eating, heating and/or cooling their homes and on their homes themselves the less there is to spend on the other less important things of life. Those less important things of life are what give most people their employment. The less employment the more the economy stagnates and so we go on in a downward spiral. It's called recession and we aren't out of the current one yet.