Okay the whole peak net energy thing is a meme that’s not supported by the latest studies. In fact the useful net energy of oil has increased over time its higher now then it was in the 1970s 1.96 in 1971 vs 2.04 in 2020. Think am sort of fossil fuel shill? This study was done by degrowth researchers.
here’s the deal I’ve spent a lot of time talking to Flat Earthers,Creationists and various woo peddlers. And the honest truth is that collapse communities operate the exact same way those communties do and hold to the same epistemological errors. Take the inclusion of Hamilton a man without a relevant degree in the subject with no published papers to his name. In fact the math behind is model is nowhere to be found! Simply put you’re blindly following one mans bare assertion.
1. We’re talking two different metrics/equations. EROEI is a ratio, involving division. Net energy involves just subtraction. (I’m sure YOU realize that, but I’m explaining for anyone else who reads this.) So it might be possible, mathematically, that we’re both correct. Your metric is increasing while the mine is decreasing.
2. There’s nevertheless presumably a point when fossil fuel extraction becomes so arduous that no improvement in the efficiency of extraction tech (reflected in EROEI improvements) can compensate for it, and the energy available for various post-extraction uses declines. We’ll just have to check back in 2035 and see how industry is doing, and which of us gets a “told you so” moment.
3. Regardless of which of us is right, civilization faces a dead-end. If you’re right, and energy is abundant, it continues to turbocharge civilization’s destruction of the planet (because that’s what civilization uses energy to do - support its own survival, longevity, propagation, convenience, pleasure - extracting, crowding-out… to the detriment of other species and everywhere that remains “undeveloped”, unexploited). Or energy ISN’T abundant and industrial civilization can’t persist. What’s bad for civ >> is bad for civ. What’s good for civ >> is bad for the planet >> is bad for civ.
The energy returned on invested is the net energy its what we function. The point is this oil operates at levels far below what most collapniks would call the net energy cliff for decades and as remained pretty stable if not experiencing modest growth over decades while being dwarfed by renewable’s. Let’s just say that’s pretty damaging to the standard narrative but we can sweep that under the rug.
Also renewables have a lower mining footprint and most ecological damage can be prevented by better labor and environmental policies something absent in third world countries. After all environmentalism is a luxury available only to higher income nations you better pray you’re wrong because a decline in nets energy would be devastating. What do you think would happen if billions of hungry and cold humans scramble to get whatever they can?
ha! thank you :) the "Post-" part comes with Section 7. After we've understood civilization's extractive function and accepted its inevitable demise, we can at least enjoy the relief from cognitive dissonance, and maybe also engage in activities that make sense in light of all this
Thanks for the explanation. You write very well about this. I know Michael Dowd also called his genre "Post Doom," but he was into religious naturalism, and I am not religious at all.
Mark me down as a non-prepper also. There's nothing about collapse that sounds appealing to me, especially the part about stepping over bodies of loved ones amidst all the rotting carcasses. The dead will lose all sense of responsibility for life during descent.
Okay the whole peak net energy thing is a meme that’s not supported by the latest studies. In fact the useful net energy of oil has increased over time its higher now then it was in the 1970s 1.96 in 1971 vs 2.04 in 2020. Think am sort of fossil fuel shill? This study was done by degrowth researchers.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-024-01518-6
here’s the deal I’ve spent a lot of time talking to Flat Earthers,Creationists and various woo peddlers. And the honest truth is that collapse communities operate the exact same way those communties do and hold to the same epistemological errors. Take the inclusion of Hamilton a man without a relevant degree in the subject with no published papers to his name. In fact the math behind is model is nowhere to be found! Simply put you’re blindly following one mans bare assertion.
1. We’re talking two different metrics/equations. EROEI is a ratio, involving division. Net energy involves just subtraction. (I’m sure YOU realize that, but I’m explaining for anyone else who reads this.) So it might be possible, mathematically, that we’re both correct. Your metric is increasing while the mine is decreasing.
2. There’s nevertheless presumably a point when fossil fuel extraction becomes so arduous that no improvement in the efficiency of extraction tech (reflected in EROEI improvements) can compensate for it, and the energy available for various post-extraction uses declines. We’ll just have to check back in 2035 and see how industry is doing, and which of us gets a “told you so” moment.
3. Regardless of which of us is right, civilization faces a dead-end. If you’re right, and energy is abundant, it continues to turbocharge civilization’s destruction of the planet (because that’s what civilization uses energy to do - support its own survival, longevity, propagation, convenience, pleasure - extracting, crowding-out… to the detriment of other species and everywhere that remains “undeveloped”, unexploited). Or energy ISN’T abundant and industrial civilization can’t persist. What’s bad for civ >> is bad for civ. What’s good for civ >> is bad for the planet >> is bad for civ.
The energy returned on invested is the net energy its what we function. The point is this oil operates at levels far below what most collapniks would call the net energy cliff for decades and as remained pretty stable if not experiencing modest growth over decades while being dwarfed by renewable’s. Let’s just say that’s pretty damaging to the standard narrative but we can sweep that under the rug.
Also renewables have a lower mining footprint and most ecological damage can be prevented by better labor and environmental policies something absent in third world countries. After all environmentalism is a luxury available only to higher income nations you better pray you’re wrong because a decline in nets energy would be devastating. What do you think would happen if billions of hungry and cold humans scramble to get whatever they can?
Great and instructive round- up, though I don't know what is "post-doom" about the content. Seems awfully like straight-up.doom.
ha! thank you :) the "Post-" part comes with Section 7. After we've understood civilization's extractive function and accepted its inevitable demise, we can at least enjoy the relief from cognitive dissonance, and maybe also engage in activities that make sense in light of all this
Thanks for the explanation. You write very well about this. I know Michael Dowd also called his genre "Post Doom," but he was into religious naturalism, and I am not religious at all.
Mark me down as a non-prepper also. There's nothing about collapse that sounds appealing to me, especially the part about stepping over bodies of loved ones amidst all the rotting carcasses. The dead will lose all sense of responsibility for life during descent.