It's always necessary to analyse the correct system

This is one of those claims that we object to:

At the heart of the malaise is the declining “energy return on investment” (EROI) of fossil fuels. This refers to the amount of energy delivered in relation to the amount expended to obtain it. When we first drilled for oil, we pursued sweet crude near the surface; at this stage, we got 100 barrels back for every barrel expended in the extraction process. Today, EROI is falling as we expend ever-greater energy in fracturing rocks and refining complex materials such as tar sands. Now, we only get five barrels back for every barrel expended, restricting the amount of net energy available to society — and placing fundamental constraints on every other aspect of life.

Therefore we must pull in our horns and accept a straitened future standard of living because it’s just obvious, innit?

The thing is it’s not - not in any useful sense - a useful analysis nor a limitation upon that future.

One attack is that looking purely at energy is the wrong part of the system to be analysing. We’re interested in what we get out of the energy, not the amount of it. Given that energy consumption to GDP - GDP being that measure of value add - has been falling this past few hundred years then we’re gaining more value from each unit of energy. We’re suffering - suffering - increased returns on energy that is.

The other is to confine ourselves to that energy on energy thing as the engineers would have us do. The correct response is to point out that we do this all the time. The Royal Navy is really very, very, interested in that last litre of jet fuel used in each flight off its decks. On the grounds that it’s the last litre used which performs that all important task about flying, making the number of landings equal the number of takeoffs. The Royal Navy also uses tonnes of fuel to make that last litre available at the time and place that it is used.

Insolation means that we face no overall shortage of energy. Any shortage is simply of having it switchonable right here, right now, when and where we want it and where it will add value.

Which is the same point as the first of course - it’s the value we gain from the use of the energy that matters. We’re perfectly happy to use energy to make sure we’ve energy when and where we can use it that it adds value.

Of course, this is also the mistake that so many make about renewables, windmills and solar and so on. It’s not the total amount of energy we can have that matters. It’s whether we can have it when it actually adds value that does - like, a cold winter’s night when the wind ain’t blowing.

It’s value that matters in economics, not anything else.