Absolutely. it can only work so long as the overall EROEI for our society is favourable.clv101 wrote:Indeed, akin to manufacturing Duracell batteries. A useful and profitable process - but lets not be kidding ourselves we can run the world on Duracells.JavaScriptDonkey wrote:However, if the energy input is cheap and abundant gas yet the energy out is expensive and rare oil then it changes the equation.
Someone doesn't understand EROEI
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
JavaScriptDonkey
- Posts: 1683
- Joined: 02 Jun 2011, 00:12
- Location: SE England
-
emordnilap
- Posts: 14814
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
And something that brings EROEI nearer zero:
Article here.
…burned largely to 'protect' dwindling resources. Errrmmm….As of 2009, the Department of Defense emptied 360,000 barrels of oil a day. And that number skyrockets during a war.
Article here.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
-
woodburner
- Posts: 4124
- Joined: 06 Apr 2009, 22:45
The principle is sound though. If defence policy is predicated on safeguarding oil supplies, it makes sense to include the energy used in such defence as part of the "energy invested" in the EROEI calculation.
Indigenous supplies have less need for such defence, and therefore have an inherently higher EROEI!
ETA; this over-simplification of course ignores the positive impact on GDP of additional sales of McDonalds burgers as a side-effect of the westernisation of the "protected" oil-producing nations.
Indigenous supplies have less need for such defence, and therefore have an inherently higher EROEI!
ETA; this over-simplification of course ignores the positive impact on GDP of additional sales of McDonalds burgers as a side-effect of the westernisation of the "protected" oil-producing nations.
Engage in geo-engineering. Plant a tree today.