<font color='black' size='2' face='arial'>Yes <font size="2">essenti<font size="2">ally </font></font>I<font size="2"> am <font size="2"><font size="2">talking about EROEI. B<font size="2">ut rather than hiding the the false economy in a <font size="2">financial</font> system wh<font size="2">ere it is easy to obfuscate the reality<font size="2">. I am promoting a system that we<font size="2">ars it heart on its <font size="2">sleeve</font>. <br>
<font size="2">Today we can exploit energy sources with less return than <font size="2">the</font> initial investment and still make a profit! Take a<font size="2">n undefined & inefficient collection method where a<font size="2"> physical</font> energy source is <font size="2">put in a tanker<font size="2"> ready for market. The eroei can be less than <font size="2">parity yet you still have a salable product which someone will buy. That product can change hands many times each adding a markup <font size="2">and </font>taking thei<font size="2">r cut. By the time it gets to the end user the total eroei for <font size="2">the</font> whole system can <font size="2">outweigh</font> <font size="2">the</font> energy contained in the tanker. Yet people are still buying and others getting rich<font size="2">. A nonsense situ<font size="2">ation. Entropy in action.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font> </font><br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font><font color="black" face="arial" size="2">
<div> <font size="2">This is only possible because of <font size="2">the way the economy works today<font size="2"> where the true cost in energy is not reflected in t<font size="2">he <font size="2">perceived</font> value of the product.</font></font> If we had a<font size="2">n energy economy you would never buy that tanker and <font size="2">it would never have been filled in the first place unless it was economic in terms of energy. It would be like buying a loaf of bread for <font size="2">the</font> price of 5 loaves.</font></font></font></font><br>
<font size="2">This isn<font size="2">'t a way to solve the e<font size="2">nergy shortfall, peak oil etc<font size="2">. Its <font size="2">main reason is to make these problems and all other <font size="2">energy wastage</font> visible. Which would drive <font size="2">innovation,</font> efficiency and new energy production methods.</font></font></font></font></font><br>
<font size="2">It cuts through <font size="2">the</font> lies we are telling ourselves and </font>our politici<font size="2">ans tendency</font> to think printing new bank notes will somehow make energy appear from thin air.<br>
</div>
<div> <br>
<font size="2"><font size="2">O<font size="2">ne benefit is that</font></font> we will still be using symbols<font size="2"> and this gives economic hope and flexibility. <font size="2">As it</font> allows for leverage and using <font size="2">untapped </font></font></font>future energy reserves as currency today. Promisorry note based on energy we will <font size="2">be able to harvest in the future.</font> <font size="2">Admittedly<font size="2"></font> still a kind of fiat system, but </font>one where the backing is tangible and undeniable. the energy is out there and <font size="2">we know <font size="2">the</font> sun <font size="2">always</font> shines</font> and <font size="2">have a fair idea of its constant output. It will never fail (in terms of human lifespan) <font size="2">compared</font> to oil which has diminishing returns. As such there is <font size="2">inherent stability and a<font size="2">n infinite non terr<font size="2">a centric view of that stability.</font></font> <font size="2">W</font>e will always be chas<font size="2">ing</font> th<font size="2">e maximum <font size="2">which we know is out there and never achieving it. Rather than trying to get<font size="2"> more <font size="2">from</font> less as we do today.</font></font></font></font><br>
<font size="2">The need for exploiting sources like Nuclear would become apparent also that we</font></font><font size="2"><font size="2"><font color="black" face="arial" size="2"><font size="2"><font size="2"> also</font></font></font> need to exploit the waste. RTEG, TEG, G<font size="2">a</font>mma voltaic<font size="2"> systems will seem obvious choices to collect the low <font size="2">yield but long term energy from spent fuel. Non renewables will be seen as bonus windfalls. Mearly short term boosts t<font size="2">h<font size="2">at give a leg up. They won't be t<font size="2">he constant fixation and goal<font size="2">s as they are today. I won't go into energy storage, but it would also obviously become a major issue. A battery/capacitor would be like a piggy bank. It already is if you are on a solar feed in scheme.<br>
<br>
<font size="2">In a sense it creates an infinite economy. The universe becomes c<font size="2">ash <font size="2">that</font> we <font size="2">haven't</font> collected yet. That cash is <font size="2">infinite</font>, <font size="2">indestructible and indivisible.</font> Compare that to an<font size="2"> <font size="2">exponentially</font> gro<font size="2">wing</font> popul<font size="2">ation of bald monkeys confined to a single rock. Who base their concept of value on frau<font size="2">dulent</font> promises printed on dead trees. Seems a bit silly really.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font> </font><br>
<font size="2"><font size="2"><font size="2"> </font></font></font><br>
<font size="2">Maybe its my own perception? T<font size="2">o</font> me there is only two things of real value in the universe. Energy and information. Everything el<font size="2">se is a means to those ends.</font></font><br>
<br>
</font><font size="2"></font></div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:10pt;color:black">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: BillK <pharos@gmail.com><br>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><br>
Sent: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:17<br>
Subject: Re: [ExI] repercieve the economy [was: Engineering]<br>
<br>
<div id="AOLMsgPart_0_0df576b6-38e3-44a0-bb2f-9df3f978ea7e" style="margin: 0px;font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif;font-size: 12px;color: #000;background-color: #fff;">
<pre style="font-size: 9pt;"><tt>On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:21 PM, ablainey wrote:
> I have been thinking about this for years now and it is becoming every more
> realistic when looking at our current economic system. Rather than try to
> find ways to raise money for future energy solutions. I think we need to
> re-evaluate the way we perceive the problem and change our economy
> accordingly.
> We are arguing in terms of MWh gained per $ spent. When we should be arguing
> in terms of energy outlay per energy return. MWh out vs MWh in.
> If the economy were shifted to an energy backed standard instead of a
> tangible commodity like Gold. It would be easier to see what pays for itself
> and yields a profit.
> A solar satellite would then have a substantial energy cost value instead of
> a $ value. It may cost 200MWh to produce and launch the thing and have an
> estimated return of 30000MWh during its expected lifetime. (random figures)
>
<snip>
>
> I just think that in a world where energy is the number one commodity, we
> need to start using it as our global unit of currency. Doing so is the only
> way to increase our efficiency as a species and will drive us to the stars
> as it will be the only realistic method of long term economic growth.
>
I think what you are talking about is EROEI (energy return on energy invested).
Unfortunately this leads to the 'Energy Trap' that we are currently
experiencing.
Quote:
In its early days, oil frequently yielded an EROEI in excess of 100:1,
meaning that 1% or less of the energy contained in a barrel of oil had
to be expended to deliver that barrel of oil. Not a bad bargain. Oil
production today more typically has an EROEI around 20:1, while tar
sands and oil shale tend to be about 5:1 and 3:1, respectively.
-------
An EROEI reduction on this scale leads to economic recession.
And it is called a trap because our civilisation has to spend more
resources to get energy than we get back in return.
We need a new source of 'free' energy very soon before we no longer
have the resources available to develop new energy sources.
Quote:
Politically, the Energy Trap is a killer. In my lifetime, I have not
witnessed in our political system the adult behavior that would be
needed to buckle down for a long-term goal involving short-term
sacrifice. Or at least any brief bouts of such maturity have not been
politically rewarded. I’m not blaming the politicians. We all scream
for ice cream. Politicians simply cater to our demands. We tend to
vote for the candidate who promises a bigger, better tomorrow—even if
such a path is untenable.
----------
See:
<<a href="http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/" target="_blank">http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/</a>>
<<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI</a>>
BillK
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a>
</tt></pre>
</div>
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_0_0df576b6-38e3-44a0-bb2f-9df3f978ea7e -->
</div>
</font></font>