Hijexx wrote:
] Ethanol: Average EROEI ranges from .59 to 1.34
] Oil: Average EROEI ranges from 8.4 to 11.1

Those are compelling numbers. However, recall that the argument I made was that ethanol can help reduce our intake of oil, not eliminate it. Its part of a solution. The fact that we are expending so much energy on it indicates that we are taking the problem seriously. I've seen much more activity in the realm of alternate energy and hybrid vehicles in the past 5 years then in the preceeding 20. Its moving forward.

Not just on that level, but in terms of the way we organize our communities. One of the best ways to tackle oil consumption is to drive less. Pollution and traffic drive that interest as well. In the past 5 years massive development of Atlanta's inner city has occurred. Old unused, broken down buildings have been cleared away and replaced with neo-urbanist centers where people can live, work, and shop without driving a car. These things are taking off at an amazing rate in spite of the fact that Atlanta is the crime capital of the United States. Fortunately, a new police chief is addressing the latter problem, and hopefully over the course of a decade this will be a reasonable place to live, work, and play downtown with little need for cars.

(People don't like their cars as much as everyone thinks they do. I didn't have one when I lived in San Fran. It was a little weird for about 3 months, and then I enjoyed it. I rented when I needed one. Freedom from having a car + insurance payment is well worth the occasional trip to the car rental shop, but it has to be practical to actually live that way. That is the direction that cities ought to be driving, and many are.)

] They could, and I
] think that's what you are alluding to, but I need to see them.

Nothing dramatic on the ethanol front, but studies show that it isn't costing energy to use it.

] What technological advance is going to make deep sea drilling
] economically feasible? What technological advance is going to
] make these new extractions yield positive energy profits that
] do not decrease?

It is inevitable that we will continue to get better at that, but I agree that its only a short term fix.

] Yes. How much of our energy infrastructure has changed since
] the oil shocks of the 70's? Not much. And that was an
] artificial shortage. Think about what happens when the
] shortage is real and doesn't go away, ever. There will be no
] time to be saved by technology at that point. Tell me what
] infrastructure will be put into place at that point.

Basically, what are you proposing instead? I'll go back to my list of questions. Are we working on the problem? Its seems that we are. Should we be doing more? Well, you wouldn't be alone in saying yes:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2155717

Is the sky falling?

] I think it's a big stretch to say this is all about politics
] or agendas.

I didn't say that. However, I did say that the website you link here is all about politics, and I stand by it.

] I don't have the numbers handy, but most of our electric grid
] energy comes from fossil fuels. If the price of gas goes up,
] the 95% of all electric plants built in the last 5 years
] (don't quote me on that, that's just what I can remember off
] the top of my head) that are GAS FIRED will surely pass that
] cost onto their customers. I don't consider that an "option."

These guys are spending millions of dollars building gas fired plants. I'm sure no one understands the availability of gas better then the people who work in the industry. The lifetimes for these facilities must at least stretch into decades. If the availability of gas was likely to compress dramatically in the coming decades these plants would quickly become uneconomical next to competitive offerings using other fuel sources. So why build one? It only makes sense to invest this much money into this kind of infrastructure if you really believe that this is not just the most competitive way to generate electricity today, but you believe that it is likely to be the best way to do it for decades to come. Otherwise its economic suicide.

] Solar and wind account for less than 1 tenth of 1 percent of
] our energy. I remember PG&E hawking it. Yes, it was more
] expensive. Could the whole grid run off it? Hell no.

Was PG&E hawking it? I was thinking of a competitive Energy provider called Green Mountain (www.greenmountain.com). They entered the market when it was deregulated. However, they've been barred from taking on new customers because their power is actually cheaper then the stuff the Governor bought from Nevada during the "crisis" and they were picking up business customers so quickly it threatened to bankrupt the state.

RE: Observations and the State of Affairs - Peak Oil