Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I've never managed to successfully engage with people who think that ERO[E]I is the only stat that matters, and that it proves that fossil fuels are the only possible answer, and that peak oil means we're doomed. And the Oil Drum seems to have quite a few of those people.

One thing I would note here, that is given energy intensity per unit GDP has been tending to decrease in the industrial & post-industrial world, one might even  make an argument that a future joule is worth more than a present joule. But I absolutely agree with your final line that "The answer to this question is not philosophical and depends solely on the relative abundance of energy at both epochs."

EROEI makes me yawn. It's just not interesting. Cost of net energy production is interesting; the non-monetised impacts are interesting; the macroeconomic impacts are interesting; even grid balancing is interesting. But EROEI? It's a red herring to distract from the real discussions, just as comparisons of power per unit land area are.

by LondonAnalytics (Andrew Smith) on Wed Mar 28th, 2012 at 07:30:01 AM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Migeru 4


Occasional Series