Energy Return on Energy Invested – Prof. Charles Hall’s Comments

In my most recent post, Why the Standard Model of Future Energy Supply Doesn’t Work, I made some comments about the calculation of Energy Returned on Energy Invested. Professor Charles Hall sent me the following response to what I said, which he wanted to have published. I have a few follow-up comments, but I will save them for the comments section.

Section of Why the Standard Model of Future Energy Supply Doesn’t Work Upon Which Comments Are Being Made

The Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) Model of Prof. Charles Hall depended on the thinking of the day: it was the energy consumption that was easy to count that mattered. If a person could discover which energy products had the smallest amount of easily counted energy products as inputs, this would provide an estimate of the efficiency of an energy type, in some sense. Perhaps a transition could be made to more efficient types of energy, so that fossil fuels, which seemed to be in short supply, could be conserved.

The catch is that it is total energy consumption, that matters, not easily counted energy consumption. In a networked economy, there is a huge amount of energy consumption that cannot easily be counted: the energy consumption to build and operate schools, roads, health care systems, and governments; the energy consumption required to maintain a system that repays debt with interest; the energy consumption that allows governments to collect significant taxes on exported oil and other goods. The standard EROEI method assumes the energy cost of each of these is zero. Typically, wages of workers are not considered either.

There is also a problem in counting different types of energy inputs and outputs. Our economic system assigns different dollar values to different qualities of energy; the EROEI method basically assigns only ones and zeros. In the EROEI method, certain categories that are hard to count are zeroed out completely. The ones that can be counted are counted as equal, regardless of quality. For example, intermittent electricity is treated as equivalent to high quality, dispatchable electricity.

The EROEI model looked like it would be helpful at the time it was created. Clearly, if one oil well uses considerably more energy inputs than a nearby oil well, it would be a higher-cost well. So, the model seemed to distinguish energy types that were higher cost, because of resource usage, especially for very similar energy types.

Another benefit of the EROEI method was that if the problem were running out of fossil fuels, the model would allow the system to optimize the use of the limited fossil fuels that seemed to be available, based on the energy types with highest EROEIs. This would seem to make best use of the fossil fuel supply available.

Charlie Hall responds:

I have always been, remain and will probably always continue to be a huge fan of Gail Tverberg, her analyses and her blogs. I am also committed to try and make sure science, such as I understand it, remains committed to truth, such as that is possible, which includes an accurate representation of the scientific work of others. In that spirit I wish to correct a short piece (referenced above) that is attempting to represent my own work on Energy Return on Investment (EROI or EROEI) but does not do so in a way that is fully consistent with the published work of myself and my colleagues.

I define EROI as a simple ratio, not a model, but have no particular concern about Gail’s use of the word model other than that it may imply something more complicated than it is. EROI is an observational tool for analysis, not a model with an objective in mind. My perspective is summarized in my 2017 book “Energy Return on Investment: A unifying principle for Biology, Economics, and Sustainability” although my approach is consistent throughout my published work with occasional small additions as our understanding expands, changes in available data occur or new questions arise. For example my methods going as far back as Cleveland et al. 1984 and Hall, Cleveland and Kaufmann (1986) are available for anyone to see and virtually the same as those in Murphy et al. 2011 and Hall 2017. The field is rich and very active today, with an entire well-funded and attended four day meeting at the French Institute of Physics at Les Houches dedicated to EROI last year, a two day session on petroleum (including many papers on EROI) at the American Chemical Society in New Orleans a month ago, and many very interesting publications by, for example, Carey King, Marco Raugui, Adam Brandt, Mohammed Masnadi, Victor Court and Florian Fizaine among many others.

As others increasingly used EROI there became increasingly different approaches used, so, in order to generate a consistent nomenclature and basis for comparison (EROIstandard) while allowing flexibility and creativity in use we published a protocol for performing EROI analysis (Murphy et al. 2011; Carey King has also addressed making the nomenclature and methods more explicit). Sometimes EROI studies are not easily comparable due to limitations in data or philosophy (see point 3). This is not something that escapes EROI researchers and is widely discussed in the literature. Sometimes we have examined the reasons for different EROI’s in the literature (e.g. Hall, Dale and Pimentel). Another issue is that it is common for blogs and reporters to read more into the results of scientific publications on EROI than the authors sought to assess, and such false conclusions can move very quickly on the Internet.

I now address some of Gail Tverberg’s specific points (in bold):

1) “The catch is that it is total energy consumption that matters, not easily counted energy consumption”. To understand this one must begin with the definition of EROI, for example on page 66 of the above book:

As we define again and again we have used the direct (e.g. natural gas to pressurize an oil field) plus indirect (energy to make the capital equipment: see Fig. 6 legend of Cleveland et al.) energies that are used to exploit fuels from Nature. We have consistently defined EROI to mean energy at the wellhead, mine mouth, bussbar or farm gate unless explicitly stated otherwise. We consider the energy used subsequently to deliver or use that energy as efficiency (as in food chain efficiency) of the use system. These data are not easy to gain, requiring many months of research in many libraries and government archives (See Appendix 1 of Guilford et al.) and are becoming more difficult as much of our National data gathering erodes. Such difficulties and their consequences are usually referred to in peer-reviewed EROI research papers by the authors themselves.

2) “The standard EROEI method assumes the energy cost of each of these is zero.” This is most explicitly not true. As appropriate (and as we have become better at the analysis) we have included energy costs of taxes (e.g. Prieto and Hall), Roads (Hall, Balogh and Murphy; Prieto and Hall), labor (e.g. Hall et al 1986; Prieto and Hall) and so on. We have tended to avoid the contentious issue of whether or not to include labor as “input” or “consumption” but occasionally undertook it as sensitivity analysis.

Gail is correct in saying that there are many more costs associated with energy, and that these costs are extremely important to society. But we normally consider these as costs associated with use of energy, but not its extraction from Nature which is the point and definition of EROI analysis. We have considered these before as EROIpou, that is at the point of use, or more recently (and better in my opinion now) as the EROI (at the mine mouth) required to support various levels of societal well-being (e.g. education, health care, arts etc.; Lambert et al.). At the logical extreme we may wish to include all of civilization’s activities as supportive of the energy extractive process so that EROI would be (by definition) 1:1, but that does not seem useful to me. We need to know how much energy it takes to get each actual or potential energy resource. For example, with an EROI of close to 1:1 corn-based ethanol is not a net energy source to a modern complex society. The lower EROI of renewables after accounting for intermittency (see below) will make the transition to renewables, if that is possible, very difficult.

3) “The ones that can be counted are counted as equal, regardless of quality”. This is absolutely not true. We have considered quality exhaustively, and have even presented our results with and without quality corrections from our earliest publications (Cleveland et al., Hall et al.) through our most recent publications (Hall 2017 p. 133 etc.). Murphy et al. includes a sophisticated procedure called the Divisia index to correct qualities of input and output energy which we sometimes use in our results. The question of intermittency with wind and photovoltaic energy is a difficult issue repeatedly considered in EROI analysis although not fully resolved by the greater scientific community, but also clarified with the recent publications of Palmer (and Tverberg) for certain systems. Depending upon the penetration of renewables, including intermittency in the analysis greatly reduces the EROI of these technologies. Whether one corrects for the quality of energy output for these sources is best handled with sensitivity analysis.

EROI is not some flawed tool of the past, but a consistent yet evolving and improving tool becoming more and more important everyday as the depletion of our primary fuels continues and as replacement with renewables is increasingly considered. While EROI analysis is hardly precision science, mostly due to data limitations, nevertheless as I reviewed my older publications for this response I was impressed by the general consistency of our results (corrected for e.g. depletion over time) from 1979 and especially 1984 to present. A large problem is the erosion of the Federal support for, and hence quality of, the data of e.g. the U.S. Bureau of Census and the increasing use of EROI (and scientific analysis more generally) for advocacy rather than objective analysis and hypothesis testing. Essentially all credible analyses show a declining EROI of our principle fuels and a much lower EROI for those fuels we might have to replace them. The economic consequences are likely to be enormous. It continues to astonish me that there is essentially no Federal or other support for good, objective analysis of EROI and its implications. EROI is not only as important as when it was created it is critical now as we choose, or more likely will be forced into, making an energy transition. With appropriate support we have the conceptual and procedural tools to undertake needed analyses which can be an important tool in understanding and (with other tools) guiding our transition to renewable energy resources, if indeed that is possible.

Having said this I would like to point out where Gail does have a very good point. The amount of energy necessary to maintain the infrastructure within which our energy extraction industries can function (e.g. roads, schools, health care, perhaps civilization itself) is enormous and is not counted in my most of my studies as part of the investments to get the energy. OK good point. How to do this i.e. how to prorate this relative to e.g. all of the health care investments for all of the population? One might add up all of the labor in the appropriate energy industries, compare this to the total population and multiply the ratio by the total energy used in health care. Or one might assume that all of the energy required to support labor, including the energy associated with the depreciation of the worker (i.e. the energy used to support the family of the worker) is well represented by the worker’s salary. So if a worker makes $70,000 in a year one could multiply that by the mean energy intensity of the U.S. economy (about 6 MJ per dollar) to generate the energy used to support labor for year (420 GigaJoules, equal to about 70 barrels of oil). Again doing this for all energy workers would be a huge sum. When as part of sensitivity analysis we added in an estimate of the energy to support workers’ salaries for building solar facilities in Spain it doubled the energy cost of building and maintaining the PV structures and halved its EROI. The main point that I think Gail is making is that as our high quality fossil fuels are depleted and we contemplate shifting to renewable energies we will have a lower and lower net energy delivered to run the non-energy portion of society with very large consequences. I completely agree with this.

References (in chronological order – there are many more that could be added)

Hall, C.A.S., M. Lavine and J. Sloane. 1979. Efficiency of energy delivery systems: Part I. An economic and energy analysis. Environ. Mgment. 3 (6): 493-504.
Hall, C.A.S., C. Cleveland and M. Berger. 1981. Energy return on investment for United States Petroleum, Coal and Uranium, p. 715-724. in W. Mitsch (ed.), Energy and Ecological Modeling. Symp. Proc., Elsevier Publishing Co.

Cleveland, C.J., R. Costanza, C.A.S. Hall and R. Kaufmann. 1984. Energy and the United States economy: a biophysical perspective. Science 225: 890-897.

Murphy, David J., Hall, Charles A. S. 2010. Year in review—EROI or energy return on (energy) invested. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Special Issue Ecological Economics Reviews: 1185, 102-118.

Murphy, D.J, Hall, C.A.S. 2011. Energy return on investment, peak oil, and the end of economic growth. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Special Issue on Ecological economics. 1219: 52–72.

Hall, C.A.S., and Hanson, D. (Eds.) 2011. Sustainability: Special Issue on EROI

Murphy, D., Hall, C.A.S., Cleveland, C., P. O’Conner. 2011. Order from chaos: A Preliminary Protocol for Determining EROI for Fuels. Sustainability: Special Issue on EROI. 2011. Pages 1888-1907.

Guilford, M., C.A.S., Hall, P. O’Conner, and C.J., Cleveland. 2011. A new long term assessment of EROI for U.S. oil and gas: Sustainability: Special Issue on EROI. Pages 1866-1887.

Hall, C. A. S., Dale, B. and D. Pimentel. 2011. Seeking to understand the reasons for the different EROIs of biofuels. Sustainability 2011: 2433-2442.

Prieto, P., C.A.S. Hall. 2012 Spain’s Photovoltaic Revolution: The energy return on investment. Springer, N.Y.

Hall, Charles A.S., Jessica G. Lambert, Stephen B. Balogh. 2014. EROI of different fuels and the implications for society Energy Policy Energy Policy. 64,: 141–152.

Lambert, Jessica, Charles A.S. Hall, Stephen Balogh, Ajay Gupta, and Michelle Arnold. 2014. Energy, EROI and quality of life. Energy Policy Volume 64: 153-167

Hall, C.A.S. 2017. Energy Return on Investment: A unifying principle for Biology, Economics and sustainability. SpringerNature N.Y.

Palmer, G. 2017, A Framework for Incorporating EROI into Electrical Storage, BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality, vol. 2, no. 2

About Gail Tverberg

My name is Gail Tverberg. I am an actuary interested in finite world issues - oil depletion, natural gas depletion, water shortages, and climate change. Oil limits look very different from what most expect, with high prices leading to recession, and low prices leading to financial problems for oil producers and for oil exporting countries. We are really dealing with a physics problem that affects many parts of the economy at once, including wages and the financial system. I try to look at the overall problem.
This entry was posted in Guest post and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

381 Responses to Energy Return on Energy Invested – Prof. Charles Hall’s Comments

  1. adonis says:

    The reason i believe that Global Warming is just code for Peak Oil = ‘The good news is that it is still possible to
    meet the Paris temperature goals if emissions
    begin to fall by 2020 (see ‘Carbon crunch’).
    Greenhouse-gas emissions are already
    decoupling from production and consumption.
    For the past three years, worldwide
    CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have stayed
    flat, while the global economy and the gross
    domestic product (GDP) of major developed
    and developing nations have grown by at least
    3.1% per year(see
    This is only the fourth occasion in the past
    40 years on which emission levels have stagnated
    or fallen. The previous three instances
    — in the early 1980s, 1992 and 2009 — were
    associated with global economic predicaments,
    but the current one is not’

  2. Ed says:

    Will Putin respond? Time to fish or cut bait.

  3. Fast Eddy says:

    The U.S., U.K. and France launched targeted missile strikes on Syria in retaliation for an apparent chemical attack by the regime of Bashar al-Assad on a rebel town.

    Few will question this assertion … even fewer will register the lack of logic in using CW when the US just said they were pulling out of Syria… and for those that do question any of this — big f789ing deal…. what can they do? What will they do? Riot in America the UK and France?

    Nah… they’ll take to their favourite blog and vent… they’ll post on social media…

    And that will be the end of it.

    Democracy … how quaint. How ridiculous.

  4. Lastcall says:

    What better way to hide yours lies and crimes than with bombs and blood. meet the new boss…

  5. Fast Eddy says:

    The worst apprehensions have come true. Our warnings have been left unheard.

    A pre-designed scenario is being implemented. Again, we are being threatened. We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences.

    All responsibility for them rests with Washington, London and Paris.

    Insulting the President of Russia is unacceptable and inadmissible.

    The U.S. – the possessor of the biggest arsenal of chemical weapons – has no moral right to blame other countries.

    Come on Vlad… lob a nuke into Israel… target the Knesset… how cool would that be

    • thestarl says:

      Well what choice does he have? He would no that if he doesn’t respond it only gets worse with no chance of rationality from the Elders.To me Fast he has a simple choice to make submit or fight.
      What will he do?

    • The ClubMed area has been Anglo-American/French possession for centuries, it was obvious that warm water port (and client state such as Syria) there won’t be allowed or tolerated for Russia.

      It was long painstaking campaign to turn around that “civil war” in Syria, so now El ders at least kicked some ankles/big eye on Putin’s face.

      The Russian military enclave has not been targeted nor theirs up to date AA activated, and generation or more old AA equipment from USSR in hands of Syrian side downed some limited %portion of the incoming missiles.

      Russia is still buried in underdog position, priority is on finishing projects first, like the natgas pipeline to China and or another gas link to Germany, ..

      => Summary, yet another confirmation don’t expect to happen anything major prior mid 2020s – early 2030s, everything is under control..

      => You might want to buy some Rubles on continued Monday’s slump.. lolz…

      • jupiviv says:

        I’ve got a different perspective. There are no Elllddurrs/elites capable of *remotely successfully* orchestrating/planning geopolitics on the scale and intensity you describe.

        Rather, war rhetoric and posturing by any side is seized upon by all sides as an opportunity to rally support for various policies/narratives. And then, someday, somehow, things get real and everyone is left wondering how everyone else could have allowed it to happen.

      • xabier says:

        Spot on, worldof.

        Denying Russia power in that region has been a basic principle of western European ( and US) foreign policy for about 150 years – never expressly and publicly stated, but real none the less, like the late-20th century policy stuffing of Europe with dirt-cheap Asian and African ‘labour’ (in fact,as we know, low-level consumers) to keep the debt machine running.

        The attempt to seize the important Crimean base from Russia has, and lure him into a European land war, for the time being, failed, and was very adroitly managed by Putin. But no doubt the assault will be renewed.

        We shall see what they come up with next in the campaign to destroy Russia as a regional power and put a western-orientated clique in power there.

        Iran is still also on the list, and then the pivot to contain growing Chinese naval power in Asia, and commercial/military expansion in Africa, etc.

        Neutralising Russia, and the same for Iran, is the precursor to dealing with China and retaining US dominance over the shipping lanes of the world – as they were once controlled by the omni-present Royal Navy.

        Putin as ‘the new Hitler’ or ‘new Stalin’ , bent on imperial expansion, is just a silly propaganda meme conjured up to disguise this logical strategy, in geo-strategic. As is concern for ‘the children of Siria’…….

        • xabier says:

          ‘in geo-strategic terms’.

        • Lastcall says:

          Echo’s of the end days of the Roman Empire; internal feuding, too many enemies on too many fronts, and the big one, a disenfranchised domestic population. I think they believe they don’t need people to fight their wars, just technology.

          • adonis says:

            weve all been worried about a financial system collapse when the real danger is a nuclear exchange between two superpowers russia and usa imagine 1500 nuclear warheads being launched simultaneously from both countries to each other there wont be much of a world left then this is the real danger now we are so close to MAD {mutually assured destruction}

            • None of us will need to worry about starving to death, if this happens.

            • Davidin100millionbilliontrillionzillionyears says:

              “weve all been worried about a financial system collapse when the real danger is a nuclear exchange…”


              I don’t see a distinction between eternal death after a system collapse or after a nuclear exchange…

              am I missing something?

        • Duncan Idaho says:

          “The attempt to seize the important Crimean base from Russia has, and lure him into a European land war, for the time being, failed, and was very adroitly managed by Putin. But no doubt the assault will be renewed.”

          Well, it has been a Russian possession about the same time the US has existed.
          It was given to the Ukraine in a overture that never imagined the collapse of the Soviet Empire. 90% of the Ukraine are Russian, and Russian speaking. I have sympathy for the 10% of the population that have other opinions. But a warm water Russian Port——

          • Duncan Idaho says:

            “90% of the Ukraine are Russian, and Russian speaking.”
            90% of Crimea is Russian and Russian Speaking.

            • Davidin100millionbilliontrillionzillionyears says:


              in addition to language and culture, most of the Crimean population certainly prefers being part of FF rich Russia and not part of quasi-collapsing Ukraine…

              but why has Ukraine been pushed towards collapse?

              oh, just another consequence of actions from the west?

        • Artleads says:

          America is like a lumbering elephant that might chose to lie down and crush people where they’re sleeping. That’s dangerous. The UK and France are actually smarter, and very devious. A scarier kind of dangerous. From an African perspective, the US taking on China (which is doing an efficient new take on neocolonialism) doesn’t seem so bad to me. I’d be slightly less uneasy about America than China or the former colonial powers (who kept all the records and know all the secrets…). But the melting pot would have to be prepared much better than it is now not to mindlessly crush and root out every living thing.

  6. Fast Eddy says:

    Salisbury attack: Russia claims Skripals were poisoned using toxin possessed by UK and US

    Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov says Swiss lab found substance that was not novichok nerve agent

    Russia’s foreign minister has claimed Sergei and Yulia Skripal were not poisoned by nerve agent novichok, but a separate chemical possessed by the UK and US.

    Sergei Lavrov said Moscow had received information from a laboratory in Spiez, Switzerland suggesting the Russian double agent and his daughter were exposed to a non-lethal substance known as BZ.

    He claimed the laboratory had passed Russia confidential information after analysing samples of the agent used in the attack on the Skripals in Salisbury last month.

    Mr Lavrov said the toxin was not produced in Russia, but was in service in Britain, the United States and other Nato nations, Russian state media reported.

    “Based on the results of the examination, traces of the toxic chemical BZ and its precursors, related to chemical weapons of the second category in accordance with the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, were found in the samples,” Mr Lavrov said, according to state-owned Sputnik News.

    “BZ is a nerve agent temporarily disabling a person. The effect is achieved within 30-50 minutes and lasts up to four days.”

    • xabier says:

      By chance I’ve been reading a memoir by a British Guards officer, and he describes his basic training at the Sandhurst academy: they were informed that a true battlefield nerve agent is designed to incapacitate in 2 seconds, kill within 10.

      ‘Nerve agent’; is of course a very broad term, as is ‘chemical weapons’, now used by the awful Teresa May.

      I was exposed to chlorine as a school child, when some municipal cretin overdid the dose at the swimming baths – barely able to open our eyes, we snaked back to school holding on to one another, as per WW1.

      In a way, it’s pleasing to see how quickly this whole thing has disintegrated under wider scrutiny.

      • Sungr says:

        Just noting…. the Russkies know how to do a proper assassination.

        I noted that all kinds of responders, etc were also being sickened just by being in the attack area. It would be extremely sloppy work for a Russian assassination team to hit the targets and proceed to leave lethal contamination all over the public park- but did not even kill the targets. This really looks like a dramatized event staged by western stooges who want to represent the Russkies as some kind of primal evil force- sort of like the WWs propaganda worked.

        Past foreign assassinations by Russians via poisons- it is usually not even understood what hit the guy until long after the victim is dead or nearly so.

        • doomphd says:

          the Po-210 hit was pretty effective. but, the assassins left a trail that was even traced to their plane seats, once they figured out the poison.

        • xabier says:

          It was, I feel, mostly about further building Putin’s profile as Global Evil Genius, and it also had the domestic objective of further embarrassing Jeremy Corbyn.

          The Establishment clearly does not want a Labour (old-style) victory next time around.

          Two birds with one stone,as it were…..

      • doomphd says:

        make it multiple choice FE, it’ll be easier to guess at than short answer.

  7. Fast Eddy says:

    Lavrov: Swiss lab says ‘BZ toxin’ used in Salisbury, not produced in Russia, was in US & UK service

    The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said. The toxin was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states.

    Sergei Skripal, a former Russian double agent, and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with an incapacitating toxin known as 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate or BZ, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, citing the results of the examination conducted by a Swiss chemical lab that worked with the samples that London handed over to the Organisation for the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

    The Swiss center sent the results to the OPCW. However, the UN chemical watchdog limited itself only to confirming the formula of the substance used to poison the Skripals in its final report without mentioning anything about the other facts presented in the Swiss document, the Russian foreign minister added. He went on to say that Moscow would ask the OPCW about its decision to not include any other information provided by the Swiss in its report.

    Lavrov said that the Swiss center that assessed the samples is actually the Spiez Laboratory. This facility is a Swiss state research center controlled by the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection and, ultimately, by the country’s defense minister. The lab is also an internationally recognized center of excellence in the field of the nuclear, biological, and chemical protection and is one of the five centers permanently authorized by the OPCW.

    The Russian foreign minister said that London refused to answer dozens of “very specific” questions asked by Moscow about the Salisbury case, as well as to provide any substantial evidence that could shed light on the incident. Instead, the UK accused Russia of failing to answer its own questions, he said, adding that, in fact, London did not ask any questions but wanted Moscow to admit that it was responsible for the delivery of the chemical agent to the UK.

    The scandal erupted in early March, when former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found in critical condition in the town of Salisbury. Top UK officials almost immediately pinned the blame on Russia.

    Moscow believes that the entire Skripal case lacks transparency and that the UK is in fact not interested in an independent inquiry. “We get the impression that the British government is deliberately pursuing the policy of destroying all possible evidence, classifying all remaining materials and making a transparent investigation impossible,” the Russian ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko, said during a press conference on Friday.

  8. Lastcall says:

    Whats with the obsession with the USA military and the phrase ‘Mission Accomplished’; too much mission impossible as kids?
    That photo of G Bush and Mission Accomplished must rate as a great Onion piece.
    In my very distant and humble opinion its the Russians that have accomplished, not the tripartite patsy missile strike; there was minimal disruption and the warnings fro Russia were heeded. Am I misreading it?

  9. jupiviv says:

    Interesting thought – as more energy goes into the running of a civilisation, more energy is also required to disperse that energy throughout that civilisation. The energy required to disperse energy increases as more energy is generated, and eventually it approaches the energy required to generate energy and no more energy can be generated = equilibrium state.

    The only way to put this off (it cannot be avoided) is the drastic reduction of energy dispersal, and yet all techno-optimists – from neoliberals to wannabe AI barons – propose solutions where precisely the opposite is done. Machine utopias where robots do all the work for a small high-tech civilisation, or Star Trek fantasies where the mass-energy conversion going into a cup of Earl Grey makes the Tsar bomb look like a party popper. The reason for that is simple – these people are themselves a part of the turgid energy dispersal system.

  10. Yoshua says:

    Putin forced Trump to bomb Assad.

    The U.S launched missile strikes against Syria.
    Russia intercepted the missiles.
    Pentagon has been humiliated.

    America is now officially a banana republic.
    This will have “serious consequences”.

    The markets will crash come Monday.

Comments are closed.