here's just one reason why TEQs are such a brilliant idea

[emordnilap]

EROEI <1

The results demonstrate that on an energy and carbon dioxide emissions basis, bitumen or bitumen-based energy recovery processes need to step well beyond the capabilities of current steam-based bitumen recovery process

The Onion and The Daily Mash are out of a job.

[woodburner]

And the words of a pratt in the comments

Even if the process is energy-negative, it works as arbitrage; natural gas is currently very cheap in North America, but bitumen sells for nearly as much as crude oil. It doesn't matter what the energy ratio is so long as it's cash-flow positive.

[clv101]

That's quite right. Most of the things we do aren't energy positive, but are cash-flow positive.

If a process isn't energy positive we shouldn't kid ourselves that it's a source of energy - but it certainly doesn't follow that it's not worth doing. Manufacturing Duracell batteries isn't remotely an energy positive activity but it's still cash positive and worth doing.

[emordnilap]

Manufacturing Duracell batteries isn't remotely an energy positive activity but it's still cash positive and worth doing.

Worth doing profit-wise, yes.

[emordnilap]

And the words of a pratt in the comments

Even if the process is energy-negative, it works as arbitrage; natural gas is currently very cheap in North America, but bitumen sells for nearly as much as crude oil. It doesn't matter what the energy ratio is so long as it's cash-flow positive.

Everything's going according to plan. You and I don't matter.

[woodburner]

That's quite right. Most of the things we do aren't energy positive, but are cash-flow positive.

Very useful for economic growth, the key to eventual destruction.

[emordnilap]

Another excellent mind opener.

Source

Even Vladimir Lenin was surprised when the Russian Revolution began in 1917.

Is this just an interesting historical tidbit or a profound example of how fast seemingly stable political, social and economic systems can collapse?

The subject of how long lasting our current system really is comes up frequently in discussions about global warming and what we can do about it.

Usually the conversation goes something like this:

“Scientists tell us we’re getting close to the point of no return. We don’t have much time left to drastically cut our carbon emissions.”

“Yes, but corporation keep investing billions in the tarsands, in coal, in building ever more private automobiles. The oil sector, that’s where the money and jobs are.”

“Even the people who understand global warming is a problem need jobs.”

“Governments pay lip service to combating global warming, but in reality they follow the money too. Big corporations buy them off. They run everything.”

“The problem is capitalism. Capitalists require ever-expanding profits and will do anything to keep them flowing. That’s just the way the system is.”

“So what can we do about it?”

“Get rid of capitalism.”

“How likely is that?”

“I guess it depends on how many people come to the same conclusion and are willing to do what it takes to change the system.”

“In other words, it’s hopeless.”

“Why do you say that?”

“Look around, people don’t care. They’re too busy shopping or worrying about their own private problems. People are too scared to join a union, let alone overthrow capitalism.”

“Things can change, very quickly.”

And that’s where the story about how the Russian Revolution surprised everyone comes up.