Llamedos

E. I. E. I. O.   yunno?

Old Mac Donald had a farm, e i e i o?

Oh well, I thought it was a little funny.

==================

Ok.  About EROEI.

I was calling it BS as I cannot seem to find any validity to the claim that a process of less than 1 for EROEI  (where less Oil Energy is produced than the overall Energy put in) will even slow down Oil use a little bit. 

As near as I can tell, A LOT of Cheap Energy (Natural Gas, Coal and Electricity) will be used to produce Much Less Energy in the preferred form of Much More Expensive Oil and on it goes. 

But I have been well cautioned I should not be closed minded on the matter, and that point is well taken.

So tell me different?

Liquid fuel are portable, so even if it takes more energy to make them than is recovered, there may still be a market.  And money is what's going to determine what gets done.

As near as I can tell, A LOT of Cheap Energy (Natural Gas, Coal and Electricity) will be used

How is Electricity on your "cheap list" a list which includes Coal and NG? Those are the purported sources of cheap Electricity?

Not many rivers left to dam. Unless we go Three Gorges on the mighty Missisip. That won't happen because of the shipping volume.

Maybe that wave generation stuff has some potential, though.

I think I'll let Mr. Energy Czar explain.

wooowww. 

Piss test time. 

So ummm, is like Mr. Czar Dude kinda stoned or what?

Ummmm, you know, like some numbers and let me explain and math stuff.

And like cooool graphix.

See?  THIS is Why is Peak Oil does not pass the Ready for Prime Time test.

Really does not help the cause.

I th...i...nk.... I see what you're getting at.

However, doesn't this negative EROEI (converting other fuels to oil at net energy loss) mean that the economy isn't just fucked, or fracked, but mega-felched?

Not to be a number dick or anything, but so we can all stay on the same numbers . . .

Real EROEI cannot go negative -- by the numbers, that is. 

It is a Division Thing -- Not so much a Subtraction thing.

Energy Return (divided by) Energy Invested.

So for a claimed 100:1 -- you would get 100 units out for 1 unit put in.

And the other extreme -- maybe 1 unit out for 100 units put in -- would not be -99, but rather 1:100 or 1/100th.   A rocket fuel process might give numbers like that.  But since the rocket fuel would be very valuable, it would be a viable process.

But Heinberg -- the Post Carbon Institute guy that promotes all this makes THAT same basic math mistake.  I was trying to legitimately use the number concepts and I came to realize he is just making the crap up.

He was the airhead promoting that the numbers could not go below 1:1.

About like the stoned Energy Czar guy.

====

But back to your point about the money.  Maybe think of this like pounds (weight) of material?   Pounds returned for pounds given.  So if we give a ton of sand (2000 pounds or so -- maybe $100) and get back 1 pound of Gold -- about $25,000, we could do that all day, every day.

Pounds Returned / Pounds Invested = 1:2000 -- An apparent loss.

BUT

$ Returned / $ Invested = 25,000/100 = 250:1 -- A massive gain.


Conclusion:  It is MONEY that matters -- not Energy.

EROEI is one of those simple sounding concepts that is tougher to "get" than it appears on the surface. 

I don't really understand it. 

I think, what you just stated, is correct.

But look where that leads - as we remain enamored with oil production/consumption, we will abuse other energies to get at the oil.  Being a net energy sink*, well we hoover up the less peaky energy sources, pushing them that much closer to terminal decline in a futile attempt to prolong happy motoring. 


*  totally making this up but lets say it takes 100k btus worth of electricity (coal mainly) and 100k btus worth of natural gas to produce 100k btus worth of oil from shale or tar sands, well that's a losing proposition no?  But yeah I think you are right, we WILL do that to the detriment of all.

If those 100 units of Electric + 100 units of NG add up to some $100

AND

That 100 units of Oil = $500

That is some pretty good return on the money -- and can be done until the Tar Sands run out.

No, it's not about money, money is a made-up abstract that (as anyone who is paying attention can see) bears less and less of a relationship to real world activities.   

Oil, NG, Coal, Gold - real stuff that Central Banksters cannot print off on a whim is what we are talking about.