The Dynamics of Depletion


Home Forums The Automatic Earth Forum The Dynamics of Depletion

  • This topic has 12 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by tom_s.
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
  • #34741

    Paul Klee Ghost of a Genius 1922   The Automatic Earth has written many articles on the topic of EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) through
    [See the full post at: The Dynamics of Depletion]


    Great article and reminds me that I have worried that at some point in the not too distant future even more trees will come down and pelletised as part of the ‘renewable’ base load mix. The sun won’t shine at night but you can take down Tasmania’s forests and chuck em in the coal plant if city folk get bummed out by intermittent internet.
    Lord give me the sense of mind to be in the world but not of it.

    V. Arnold

    Lord give me the sense of mind to be in the world but not of it.

    Amen to that…

    Ken Barrows

    In the end, if the trend means it takes more joules to extract the next barrel of oil or next million BTU of NG, your consumer society is f***ed.

    Dr. Diablo

    Presently they have been making debt-promises they cannot keep in order to falsely pump and sell oil at an energy loss. The financialization hides this until a) people cash out of oil investments and discover it’s a fraud or b) the oil stops flowing regardless and both real resources and financial resources fail to arrive when called on. I think they know this but have a larger campaign in mind.


    We didn’t have an industrial society in 1600, but we had the rich and we had the poor. Therefore, oil, coal, solar panels, wind turbines, and all that jazz are not necessary for the existence of the rich and the poor. It’s the middle class that is doomed. And by the way, if your car is 10 years old you are not poor. It’s when you had a bad year and one of your children starved to death, and you let him, to save your other children – that’s when you are poor.
    So, Dr. Diablo, of course there is a larger campaign. The riches are positioning themselves to survive the collapse and remain rich. While we are discussing alternative energy and poor Greeks and Syrians, somebody is drawing borders in the post-apocalyptic world.

    John Day

    We are engaged here in the discourse of the rich. We are fortunate already.
    We have the luxury of education and of insight. Who is better positioned than we are to personally experiment with energy-economizing.
    Those of us who are older can just rely upon memory for half of it.
    There are energy waste-sinks all around us. I used to have a back yard, but it is now a vegetable garden This is steps from my kitchen, and I sit facing it as I type. It is therapeutic. I ride a bike to work. My perception of life process is in transformation. It seems to take awhile.

    Diogenes Shrugged

    I often see quotes from Einstein and Orwell at the websites I frequent. They’re adroit statements of the obvious, but it takes a great intellect to synthesize and distill mountains of information so perceptively. In my humble opinion, quotes from Nicole reflect comparable genius. Though my bulletin board is already plastered with Stoneleigh quotes, I will be finding a special position for this one:

    “The touted alternatives are not energy sources for our current society, because low EROEI energy sources cannot sustain a society complex enough to produce them.” Sweet.

    Now, a comment or two on the long article.

    Quote: “The two hub interdependencies could break down together.” -Davies

    TAE has always predicted financial collapse first, and energy collapse later on, but none of us expected the can-kicking to postpone the financial collapse this long. Are we now waiting for the energy collapse to finally trigger the financial collapse? Is TAE prepared to modify its predicted order of collapse yet?

    With respect to the “Limits to Growth” study of 1972, here is a quote from “Ann Bressington Exposes Agendy 21, Club of Rome,” 2 Feb 2013:

    “The Club of Rome has been described as a crisis think tank which specializes in crisis creation. The main purpose of this think tank was to formulate a crisis that would unite the world, and condition us to the idea of global solutions to local problems. In a document called ‘The First Global Revolution,’ … it’s stated, ‘In searching for new enemies to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like, would fit the bill. All these dangers, of course, will be caused by human intervention that will require a global response.’ That’s the origin of global warming, ladies and gentlemen.”

    Again, “That’s the origin of global warming, ladies and gentlemen.”

    In the following video, when Bill Gates includes “doing a great job” with health care as a means of REDUCING the world’s population, is he specifically referring to Obamacare? It’s certainly worthy of contemplation, as Obama was certainly a globalist.

    From where I sit, it appears that Nicole has endeavored for many years to prepare people for self-sufficiency in tomorrow’s world. But Agenda 21 is preparing people for a feudal world where Elites dictate living conditions to the survivors of their population reduction programs. Nicole’s approach respects our ability to cooperate with each other as individuals. We keep our humanity. Agenda 21, on the other hand, sacrifices individuality to the global hive. There are even reports that what remains of the 99% will be genetically modified or bred to render us drones: obedient workers incapable of protest.

    So, here’s my question. On which side of the fence do you global warming fans find yourselves?

    Are carbon credits so dear, or Elite rule so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me Nicole’s way or give me death! (Not trying to be cute — I’m actually dead serious about that.)


    What our humanity means is that we will do what we need to when we have to. Probably most of the AE people are physically incapable of becoming small farmers but have been frugal and prudent enough (aka no debt) and cautious enough to coast into the end. Make a good day, friends. Be sure to stock up on your favorite beer and popcorn. Grand Supercycle Wave IV is set to begin in a matter of months and it should be a high-yield time to subscribe to the Elliott Wave Theorist.

    Dr. Diablo

    Did you catch this? It was all laid out quite elegantly in “Yes, Prime Minister”

    Global Warming – Yes Prime Minister

    Is Global Warming real? Who cares! It solves my political problems by raising taxes, paying cronies, and shedding heat.

    E. Swanson

    The articles above remind me of our many similar discussions on The Oil Drum. It took quite a bit of effort to break thru the “EROI” dollar mindset to get to actual physics and geology. Mo matter how much money one has, it’s impossible to put more oil back into the ground and the ERoEI problem will become evident as Peak Oil production. Politicians, economists, bankers and CEO’s may say what they will, but they can’t legislate the laws of Nature.

    Which gives the link from Diogenes Shrugged added import, as her complaints about Agenda 21 are just another disinformation effort. Lord Monckton knows little about the science of Global Warming, even as he pontificates endlessly on the subject. Monckton’s latest distortion involves the claim that a simple model shows there’s no possible problem from warming, but his model is pure junk science.


    Are you underestimating the amount of net energy yield from renewables? Are you overestimating the costs? Take solar for example. If technology advances enough to increase the ability to both capture and store energy, the yield would improve dramatically. Maybe not enough to save the world in the long run. You don’t need to be a spreadsheet expert to see that.

    I believe there at too many people in the world and that we could be in big trouble on an energy level in the next 50 years. Not sure about 2030. Of course, pollution and wars would take care of many people along the way.


    This declining-EROI argument from Charles Hall is just totally wrong. It rests upon mathematical mistakes. That is why the predictions keep failing so badly.

    -Tom S

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.