[ExI] eroei forward for kennedy, p.e.

Jeff Davis jrd1415 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 23 20:15:20 UTC 2012

"...clearly we are not suffering from an energy crisis, and are
not approaching one."

Thanks, Rafal.

All the hand-waving, smoke and mirrors, phony "science", and predictions of
doom are little more than political scare-mongering intended to manipulate
a catastrophically misinformed public into voting political hack "n" into a
high-end govt welfare "job".

We have untouched Iraqi and Iranian $2/bbl oil (and gas).  We have Orinoco
and Atrhabasca tar sands. The former untouched, the latter in a
sufficiently advanced stage of development to justify the expense of a
thousand-mile pipeline (whether it gets built now or later) from Alberta to
Texas refineries.  We have the shale oil/gas play, unlocking worldwide
several multiples of Saudi-level petroleum resources.  And then we have
nuclear.  Forth generation nuclear fission: conventional enriched U235,
"breedable-to-plutonium" U238,  and thorium.  Plus the someday (someday
soon?) possibility of near-endless -- from seawater -- energy from fusion.
Then there's wind power, hydroelectric power, hydrothermal power, wave
power, tide power, OTEC, PV and thermal solar.  And then for the dirt poor
there is abundant and dirt cheap, nasty, dirty coal.

The growth in energy demand worldwide, brought on by the rise of huge
countries like China and India, is rapid, but not so rapid that it outpaces
the ability of market forces to respond appropriately.  Same with the
climate change boogieman.

It's all a load of politicized baloney being exploited by the
aforementioned scaremongers (and others) for the benefit of their own
bottom line.

Don't buy the hoohah.

Best, Jeff Davis

 "During times of universal deceit, telling the
  truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                  George Orwell

On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 2:15 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Robert G. Kennedy III wrote:
> > Professor Kreith wrote that the minimum acceptable figure of merit for
> > a technical civilization was about 3. You can show why this is so with
> > feedback diagrams. (You can't spend every erg society has looking for
> > more energy, you have to eat, go to the doctor, raise kids, etc.) So
> > Mr BillK is spot on.
> ### Wait, you compare gross revenues at today's oil prices to outlays
> on exploration - why should this comparison matter?
> What matters is the total energy supply and its cost as a fraction of
> gross national (or world) economic product (the second number is much
> more important than the first). As long as the total supply is
> sufficient to keep the cost at a small-enough fraction of gross
> national product, energy supply is not a significant factor limiting
> our ability to act (raise kids, fly to the stars, etc.). Since now
> energy production is still about 10% of world economic product (give
> or take
> http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/02/16/a-primer-on-energy-and-the-economy-energys-large-share-of-the-economy-requires-caution-in-determining-policies-that-affect-it/
> ),
> and no reputable estimates predict any significant increases in this
> fraction, clearly we are not suffering from an energy crisis, and are
> not approaching one. So why should we care if EROI in the oil industry
> is "only" 3?
> After all, the financial return on most activities that constitute our
> economy is on the order of 1 - 10% (not the much larger return implied
> by your calculation for oil production), and yet we don't see this as
> a problem. Why should energy production be singled out to be treated
> differently than other branches of the economy?
> Rafal
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20121223/5e7d985f/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list