Re:The $47T Death Sentence for Oil and Gas
by tetraca on Thursday September 26, 2019 @01:22PM
(#21083153)
The more we have to invest into standing up an energy source, the more cogs you have to put into simply maintaining the energy infrastructure, and the less that we have available at any given time to upkeep the rest of our logistical chains.
Consider arguably the worst scenario: a civilization that has to derive all its energy needs from ethanol (which IIRC, has a 2:1 ratio). At least half of it is going to have to be dedicated to farming grain for energy and processing it into ethanol for the rest of that civilization to function. And of that non-farming half, how much of that will end up being support industry for the ethanol creating half? The amount of high technology industry that could ultimately be supported by that civilization would be dramatically lower because a much higher proportion needs to be dedicated to lower necessities.
Re:The $47T Death Sentence for Oil and Gas
by cjslep on Friday September 27, 2019 @04:09AM
(#21089576)
Yes, this is exactly why I don't like EROEI: it hides this fact, and is explicitly a measure favorable to high operational / low capital energy cost sources.
Consider arguably the worst scenario: a civilization that has to derive all its energy needs from ethanol (which IIRC, has a 2:1 ratio). At least half of it is going to have to be dedicated to farming grain for energy and processing it into ethanol for the rest of that civilization to function. And of that non-farming half, how much of that will end up being support industry for the ethanol creating half? The amount of high technology industry that could ultimately be supported by that civilization would be dramatically lower because a much higher proportion needs to be dedicated to lower necessities.