The second major implication is that "... we may already have entered this zone of highly nonlinear change, where further modest declines in EROI_FIN ratios lead to increasingly rapid reductions in the net energy available to society."
If governments continue to subsidize the fossil fuel industry, it would seem that (though wildly irresponsible and immoral) we would still have enough energy available to society through fossil fuels. Where am I wrong? Can you please help me to understand this?
-
-
It’s to do with how much energy you have to use to get more energy. Not money.
-
Ok, There's still something I'm not getting. What about... "the profound impact of rapid technological advances in drilling. Fracking unlocked vast sums of oil and natural gas that had been trapped underground. Drilling costs declined dramatically."https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/12/investing/us-oil-production-russia-saudi-arabia/index.html …
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
We would (and we do) still have enough energy available to society, but this is less energy than if we had invested the original energy in other sources. The key issue is that the rltnshp (energy cliff) is highly non-linear, so constraints could become more obvious in the future.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
you.