Rant: 'The sample of 1' problem

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 08 Jun 2009, 20:47

Vortex wrote:Conversion (even with major wastage) between different forms of energy will be carried out when and where required.

That's even done today; point is, thinking holistically, if the EROEI of the whole system is poor, then the system will be a fragile one.

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 08 Jun 2009, 20:49

Bandidoz wrote:
Vortex wrote:Conversion (even with major wastage) between different forms of energy will be carried out when and where required.
That's even done today; point is, thinking holistically, if the EROEI of the whole system is poor, then the system will be a fragile one.

Stinky, messy and hot - yes.

But why fragile?

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 08 Jun 2009, 20:52

Because EROEI is effectively a measure of slackness; access to high EROEI energy means you can get away with being inefficient as there is plenty that's spare. Low EROEI will introduce critical paths.

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 08 Jun 2009, 20:58

Bandidoz wrote:Because EROEI is effectively a measure of slackness; access to high EROEI energy means you can get away with being inefficient as there is plenty that's spare. Low EROEI will introduce critical paths.

Hmm ... I have visions of huge inefficent machines like something out of Hades munching away of the last dregs of coal to produce avaiation fuel for the rich.

Clunky, yes ... fragile ... dunno.

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 08 Jun 2009, 21:04

Bandidoz wrote:Because EROEI is effectively a measure of slackness; access to high EROEI energy means you can get away with being inefficient as there is plenty that's spare. Low EROEI will introduce critical paths.

I agree with Vortex on this. The "declining EROEI" combined with "all we have is oil" argument has been refuted.

So oil is getting harder and harder to get at.

So what?

Sunshine and Wind are getting easier and easier to get at.

There would only be a problem if there were receding horizons. There aren't.

Wind alone is enough to power civilisation as was shown in the middle ages.

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 08 Jun 2009, 21:42

Jesus I get more sense out of my 6 year old niece

. LMAO at both of you

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 08 Jun 2009, 21:46

Bandidoz wrote:Jesus I get more sense out of my 6 year old niece . LMAO at both of you

Right back at you.
Good luck with your knapping practise.

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 08 Jun 2009, 21:49

If I ever meet you 5th, I'd like to play a game.

You give me some cash.
I give you some cash.
You give me a bit more cash.
I give you a bit more cash (but slightly less than you gave me...)
Repeat until I'm a tenner on top......

Oh and regarding the original topic. I once bought a (George Carlin) book based on a single recommendation. I won't be making that mistake again

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 08 Jun 2009, 22:13

Bandidoz wrote:If I ever meet you 5th, I'd like to play a game.
Repeat until I'm a tenner on top......

Dodgy character!

My brother and I used to run a shop while at yooni. Some geezer came in and tried a variant of that. I forget the exact details but it was something like he pays for something worth a quid with a tenner. Asks for change.
Waits for me to start serving another customer then changes his mind about how he wants the change. ives me money back. Changes his mind etc. I think he won his money back out of it.

Any event, clown comes in a few weeks later and tries the same trick but for an item worth two quid instead. I cut him off when he tried the same trick. "Sorry mate, too busy, go and get change somewhere else".

But if you're alluding to the whole "exponential growth" thing, I think you'll find reading on kuznets curves will show that we're not nercessarily embarked on exponential growth and thus the whole argument is moot.

Likewise your favourite theory of olduvai has significant gaps in it that make it not a theory but a religion.

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 08 Jun 2009, 22:33

Bandidoz wrote:Jesus I get more sense out of my 6 year old niece . LMAO at both of you

Hey, I just so LOVE that!

Please refer to the first post in this thread.

With just one single zero-content post Bandidoz neutralises two other posters.

Don't you just love the Web?

Everyone can play irrespective of age, ability or skill!

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 08 Jun 2009, 23:07

Well sometimes people get more satisfaction writing posts containing 0% information, 100% attitude. Especially in the context of arguments where they are banging their heads against the wall.

Discussion goes like this:
1) Unsubstantiated statement is made that "EROEI is bollocks".
2) I say that's wrong in the context of a complete system.
3) We agree that parts of a system can be inefficient.
4) I point out that if the system as a whole is inefficient, it will become increasingly fragile as less spare (energy/parts) is available to "prop it up".
5) Vortex says "but parts of a system can be inefficient" (rich people in planes)
6) 5th says something akin to "there'll be fewer apples, but there'll be more pears, so we'll be alright" with no mention of proportionality
7) I declare that I get more sense out of a 6 year old.

Seems pretty reasonable to me........

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 08 Jun 2009, 23:24

Bandidoz wrote: Discussion goes like this:
1) Unsubstantiated statement is made that "EROEI is bollocks".

It's not unsubstantiated. Just unsubstantiated in this discussion.

6) 5th says something akin to "there'll be fewer apples, but there'll be more pears, so we'll be alright" with no mention of proportionality

Go back and read again and you'll see that I did talk about "proportionality".

In any event, someone who has "olduvai theory" in their signature line has already made up their mind and it's clear that no facts will enter therein since olduvai theory is bollocks, tosh and a poor religion all in one.

How's that?

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 09 Jun 2009, 05:17

Bandidoz wrote:
Vortex wrote:Conversion (even with major wastage) between different forms of energy will be carried out when and where required.
That's even done today; ..........

Electricity generation in conventional thermal plants is a case in point. EROEI of about .35.

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 09 Jun 2009, 09:19

You're confusing EROEI with efficiency - power plants may well be 35% efficient, but may have an EROEI of 20 (provides 20 times more energy over its lifetime than was consumed building/maintaining/decommissioning it).

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 09 Jun 2009, 10:52

Bandidoz wrote:You're confusing EROEI with efficiency - power plants may well be 35% efficient, but may have an EROEI of 20 (provides 20 times more energy over its lifetime than was consumed building/maintaining/decommissioning it).

Surely the EROEI of the power plant has to include the efficiency doesn't it ?

If you invest energy in the form of coal to return energy in the form of electricity that has to count, no ?