EROEI Short #1: Boundaries & Calculations
Posted by jeffvail on August 23, 2007 - 10:30am
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: eroei, eroi, net energy, original [list all tags]
This is the first in a series of short articles that strive to continue the ongoing discussion here on the concept of Energy Return on Energy Invested.
Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI)* is a problematic concept. As Cutler J. Cleveland has noted, “It is impossible to precisely identify and quantify all those factors [that contribute to the energy input to energy production], or to unequivocally categorize them as either physical or economic factors.” [1] Despite this difficulty in calculation, the importance of the figure is clear: it is axiomatic that if EROEI is less than 1—that is, if it takes more energy input than the produced energy output—then substantial reliance on that form of energy is not a valid foundation for modern civilization.
* I have chosen the term “Energy Return on Energy Invested” over its analogs “Energy Return on Investment” (EROI) and “Net Energy” (which is equal to EROEI – 1). The terms are interchangeable (with the noted adjustment for “Net Energy”). My rationale is that EROEI explicitly spells out what it stands for better than the other two terms—EROI risks confusion with financial return on investment, and Net Energy is similarly not self-explanatory. That said, the intent of this disclaimer is this: the terms are essentially interchangeable, so use whichever you prefer, I don’t claim that one (let a lone the one that I have chosen) is the only correct term . . . let’s avoid arguing over terminology and discuss the concept.
The principle difficulty in calculating EROEI is the desire to define a boundary of energy inputs that will be included in calculations. At one extreme, only the direct energy inputs to energy production may be considered—e.g., the energy required to lift oil from its reservoir to the surface. This approach has the clear advantage that the considered energy inputs are finite and readily quantifiable. The downside is an EROEI figure that fails to accurately represent the actual energy surplus or deficit of process. On the other extreme, the string of energy inputs can be regressed infinitely: e.g., the energy to grind the rice to feed the farmer to raise the chickens to feed the merchant captain who piloted the ship that transported the molybdenum used in the manufacture of the oil rig is a necessary prerequisite to producing the resulting oil! While this infinite regression approach (of which the above example is only a simple example) theoretically captures the true energy inputs for accurate EROEI calculation, it is also clearly impossible to quantify.
Howard Odum attempted to address this problem with his attempt to calculate “Emergy” (embodied energy), originally intended to address ecosystems, but also applicable to human society and economies. [2] While attempts to implement the emergy methodology to produce an empirical figure have met with some success in balancing the need to incorporate energy inputs with the need to limit those inputs within quantifiable boundaries, confusion continues in the specific methodology of emergy. [3] While at one point there was an effort to create an ISO standardized methodology for emergy accounting by the London Group on Environmental Accounting, this effort seems to have failed. [4] Despite the assertion that emergy provides a global, standardized means to account for energy inputs, and therefore to calculate an accurate value for EROEI, no such standard has emerged. [5] Ultimately, this failure of a methodology to practically AND accurately account for energy inputs is testament to the fundamental tension between the demands of infinite regression of energy inputs and the need to limit accounted energy inputs to within a practicable boundary.
A standardized, yet accurate and implementable method of calculating and comparing the EROEI of energy sources is critical to our energy future—understanding Peak Oil, evaluating alternatives to oil, and proposing viable policy measures all depend on at least some resolution of this issue. Where (if anywhere) can we draw the line, beyond which energy inputs don’t need to be counted? Can we effectively use proxies to model the totality of energy inputs without actually counting all of them individually? The next two installments in this series of short articles on EROEI will address those issues.
[1] http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_(EROI
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergy
[3] Id.
[4] http://www.energybulletin.net/6224.html; search of the LGEA website and the broader internet failed to unearth an ISO standard for emergy accounting.
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergy#Emergy_accounting_and_emergy_.22anal... (“However because emergy involves the combination of heterogeneous energy forms, D.M.Scienceman now only refers to Emergy Synthesis, preferring to see the notion of "emergy analysis" as an oxymoron”)
I guess this puts engineering right up there with economics as an essentially dismal science!
"Truth" is a receding horizon, and in my "real world" there is a lot of play in the gear train -- power applied at one end has somewhat unpredictable results at the other.
Jeff,
Here are some thoughts and energy quality and EROEI:
The economic quality of energy production is always measured relative to the costs of some production resource that has to be expended in order to process energy into a usable form. With respect to a particular production resource (e.g. labor hours, cultivated land, irrigation water, etc) that unit of energy is best which requires the least resource expenditure to produce. The resource cost of producing one net unit of energy I call the resource intensity of net energy production.
Suppose that the gross energy output of an energy producing process is G. Since energy is used during the during the energy producing process, we must subtract this energy from the gross output energy in order to calculate net energy. Let us suppose that the energy consumed is f×G. If f<1 then the energy balance is positive. That is more energy is produced than is consumed. Finally let the amount of some non-energy resource expended to produce this output be given by R. Then the resource cost of producing one net unit of energy is given by:
Cn = R/(G-f×G)
This expression is the ratio of resource cost to energy profit. This resource cost or resource intensity of net energy production can be rewritten as follows:
Cn = (R/G)/(1-f) = Cg/µ
Cg (= R/G) is the resource cost of producing one gross unit of energy output. The quantity µ (=1-f), which I call the energy utilization rate, is the fraction of the gross output energy G which can be used for the production of goods and services other than energy. That is if we wish to run our energy producing process on an ongoing basis, a fraction f of our energy output must directed back into the energy producing process, thus leaving only a fraction 1-f available for the production of other economic goods and services. If multiple resources are involved in the energy production process then values of Cn can be calculated for each resource.
Both Cg and µ may play a role in determining the resource cost of net energy production. For example if we attempt to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuels from oil shale as conventional oil supplies decline, the energy utilization rate µ will drop because mining oil shale and thermally processing it to crack it into liquid hydrocarbons uses much more energy per unit of output than does pumping and refining conventional crude oil. In addition the resource costs (Cg) in terms of labor, fresh water, etc. of producing one unit of finished fuel will also increase. Note also that if the energy utilization rate approaches zero (energy output = energy input) then the resource cost of producing one net unit of energy will approach infinity.
The reciprocal of the resource intensity of net energy production, µ/Cg is also a useful parameter although I prefer to write it in a different form:
µ/Cg = µ/(R/G) = µ×(G/R) = µ×Pg
Pg is the unit productivity of the given resource with respect to gross energy production. That is, it is the amount gross output energy which results from the expenditure of one unit of resource. Naturally Pg has to be multiplied by the energy utilization rate µ in order to get the net energy production per unit of resource.
This quantity (µ/Cg or µ×Pg) is the ratio of energy profit to resource cost. In the terminology of economics this number is the efficiency of the resource in question with respect to the production of net energy. Both the energy utilization rate µ and the resource unit productivity Pg are likely to decrease as lower quality energy resources a exploited. If the energy utilization approaches zero the resource efficiency or productivity also approaches zero.
EROEI is defined as the ratio of energy output to energy input. At first glance this quantity appears to be the same kind of energy productivity that I have just described. It apparently describes the efficiency with which energy is turned into more energy. This conclusion is incorrect for two reasons. The numerator of EROEI is not the energy profit and the denominator is not the energy cost. These assertions can best be demonstrated by a concrete example.
Suppose a farmer produces biodiesel from some oil bearing crop. For simplicity we will assume that he manufactures the biodiesel on his own premises and sells it as a final product. We will further assume that the farm is run entirely off the energy of this biodiesel fuel. That is at the end of the production season the farmer holds back as much biodiesel as will be needed to run the farm during the coming year and the rest is sold to customers. We will assume that half the output has to be held back to run the farm in the coming year.
If we apply EROEI analysis to this production scheme we claim that the farmer’s total yearly output of biodiesel is his energy profit and the biodiesel used to run the farm is his energy cost which gives an EROEI of 2. While the farmer’s EROEI as defined is undoubtedly 2, the conclusions about profit and cost are clearly incorrect. The farmer’s profit is that part of his output which he sells to external customers, which is to say one half of his total output. His energy cost is zero. He does not purchase any energy. Of course the energy he uses to run the farm does detract from his total profits. Suppose he tries to improve his profit by maintaining his total yield but reducing his energy use. If he succeeds in cutting his energy use in half while maintaining his gross output then his EROEI will increase from 2 to 4, but his profit will only increase by from half of his total output to three quarters of his total output. In fact it is clear that his profit changes in proportion to the energy utilization rate µ which has increased from 0.5 to 0.75.
Suppose, on the other hand, the farm tries to improve his profit not by cutting his energy use, but by planting some new variety of crop which gives him increased twice the gross yield per hectare. Again his EROEI has increased from 2 to 4 and energy utilization rate has increased from 0.5 to 0.75. Energy utilization rate and EROEI have fixed relationship:
µ=(EROEI-1)/EROEI
In this case in addition to an increase in the energy utilization rate µ the resource unit productivity Pg has also increased; It has doubled from its previous value. If we use the size of the farmer’s original gross output as our measuring stick then his new profit is given 0.75×2 = 1.5. His energy profit has tripled. Again the productivity arithmetic I have outline above correctly describes the change in energy profit per hectare while EROEI does not.
I have artificially constructed this example so that it is clear that the energy costs are zero. However, the same conclusions apply even when external fuel purchases are made. Suppose that I purchase some fuel and use it to run an energy production process. If this process has a positive energy balance I will get back all of the energy I purchased plus some extra. For simplicity I will assume that all forms of energy are economically equivalent. Without this assumption simple energy balance calculations do not work, and one must inject energy quality factors into the analysis. If I make this simplifying assumption then I can take the energy which I have reproduced and sell it for the exact same price for which I purchased my original fuel. Therefore I have no energy cost. I only have an energy profit for the extra energy which I have produced.
Using energy to produce widgets and using energy to produce more energy are fundamentally different processes. If I spend energy to produce a widget, at the end of the process my energy is gone for good and in its place I have a widget. If I spend energy to produce more energy, then at the end of the process, all of the energy that I spent is returned to me plus some extra. The energy cost of producing energy is a meaningless concept.
EROEI defined as the ratio of energy output to energy input is not meaningless, but it does not have the significance of an economic efficiency. I am personally convinced that EROEI does not contain any information that is not contained the energy utilization rate µ in a more natural form.
Here's the seat of the pants/shoot from the hip calibration factor for EROEI:
When people do an activity ostensibly to produce energy and after a while, they either quit or go bankrupt, the EROEI is less than 1.
But that calculation is not prospective! It doesn't advance the science, although it might be valuable data and of historical interest.
You are wrong, the ROI is less than 1, there is no information about EROEI.
Remember that the biggest costs nowaday tend to be labor, capital and energy, on that order. If the net energy isn't enough for paying the labor and capital, the company goes bankrupt. And no, energy isn't the main factor determining those labor and capital costs, far from it.
Of course, the reciprocal is normaly true (out of irrational behaviour of the market and government subsides). If the EROEI is less than 1, the company will go banckrupt.
It could well be larger than one and even larger that that of the source against which it is competing. The failure may merely reflect the advantage that past subsidies have given the competing source. In energy, all sectors get some subsidy so following the money does not always lead to physics but rather to an address on K Street.
Roger,
It seems to me that you are trying to side-step the nitty-gritty issues. Clearly, energy went into the construction of the farmer's tractor and implements. It is also likely that fertilizers and peticides were used. The crops may have also been irrigated requiring an energy source, pumps and pipes. If biodiesel is being made, there are the tanks, heaters and chemicals. Then there is the issue of transporting the finished product to market.
All of these added inputs need energy for their construction and delivery to the farmer so where do you draw the line? Do you go back as far as the energy to make the equipment for the iron ore mine or what? This is the question.
I would argue that the list of energy inputs should go to the limit in order to have a complete picture. I realize that this sort of data gathering is almost impossible. But, most of it would only have to be done once. Further, I would discount those inputs of, say, less that 0.1% of the overall energy required in claculating the EROEI.
I used to run a synthetic rubber plant that, itself, has a bazillion energy inputs and that's just part of the overall energy picture. But it is possible to determine how much energy it took to make the synthetic rubber polymer and process it so I'd leave it go at that.
The other problem I see is the sort of conflating economics and energy. But I don't want to get into that.
Todd
Todd,
I was not trying to present a realistic calculation of energy balance. I was trying to conceptually illustrate the proper method of accounting for energy balance in determining the economic quality of energy. In a real world energy calculation of course embedded energy must be accounted for. Indirectly it counts as a fuel purchase such as I discussed above.
Your claim that I conflating energy and economics puzzles me. The underlying ideas expressed in my post are quite simple, though possibly I did not express them as clearly as I could. Energy provides services. Suppose you buy a tankful of gas and use it to travel 300 miles. The economic quality of that tankful depends on the amount of economic effort that was required to extract the oil, refine it, and transport it to the gas station. If for example it took 10 labor hours to produce a tankful of gas from conventional oil compared to 30 labor hours to produce a tankful of gas from oil shale, then clearly the gas produced from conventional oil is superior. This is common sense, not left field philosophical theorizing. The ideas expressed in my post are not any more complicated than this. Energy balance calculations just account for the excess resource costs due to the consumption energy during the production of fuel.
Roger,
Thx for responding. Ok, quoting you, "The economic quality of that tankful depends on the amount of economic effort that was required to extract the oil,...". Emphasis added. Economics has nothing to do with EROEI.
And, "If for example it took 10 labor hours to produce a tankful of gas from conventional oil compared to 30 labor hours to produce a tankful of gas from oil shale, then clearly the gas produced from conventional oil is superior." It may be superior (and, no, differential labor hours is not common sense) but that isn't what EROEI is about. It is how much energy is required to produce so many joules compared to how many joules you had to expend to get them. And, BTW, I've done energy balances for chemical plants so I am not unaware of how to do them.
Let's look at on-shore and ultra-deep water drilling. It may take more "labor hours" drilling on-shore but the infrastructure for deep water drilling is massive, e.g., it requires horrendous amounts of energy before drilling even begins! Yet, on a bpd basis, the off-shore field could look excellent on the basis of "labor hours" alone.
I am totally lost by your last statement, "Energy balance calculations just account for the excess resource costs due to the consumption energy during the production of fuel." Excuse me? So, drilling, et.al., don't count when it comes to EROEI, just the energy used by a refinery? Now, I may have misinterpreted this so maybe you want to clearify it.
Todd
As an aside, the Yahoo Energy Resources forum has beaten EROEI into the ground for several years but has yet to find common ground.
First of all, how do you calculate total energy use in complex manufacturing processes? If it's possible to do so, why can't that sort of energy accounting be used as a model for larger systems of production? Unless of course someone wants to include the total background energy radiating throughout the entire universe in the calculations. I don't mean to be facetious but if the usefulness of the ratio EROEI is inversely proportional to the number of inputs one defines into the ratio then it would make sense to keep the number of inputs as limited as possible which raises another question. For what is the ratio useful? Shouldn't the questions be defined more precisely first, for example, what is EROEI in converting shale to oil versus extracting oil from tar sands in terms of natural gas consumed for a given quantity of oil produced? I'm not trying to trivialize an issue being debated by far more capable minds than my own, but it seems analogous to debating the question,"How useful is a spoon?"
Define "useful."
Arlo,
I'm getting frustrated at this point so I'm going to shut up for a while after this post.
The question is, How to define Energy Returned on Energy Invested? That is, how many joules do you get after the conversion or process compared to how many joules it took to run the process including other inputs. It has nothing to do with whether the joules are useful. It has nothing to do with economics.
It is simply joules out versus joules in. Let it go at that without trying to add other considerations or dimensions that aren't germane.
Todd
BTW, a spoon isn't useful because you can "slurp." Nor is a fork since you can use your fingers or a stick. The only thing a knife might be "useful" for is to cut up game. Otherwise, you can knaw.
Todd
I apologize if I came off as a smart-ass. I honestly didn't mean to. The question concerning calculation of energy consumed at the rubber plant you supervised was sincere. If it can be done there, why not on a broader scale? I was looking for insight, not challenging you.
As to the point you raised concerning "usefullness," I wasn't refering to usefullness in any economic sense. So I understand your irritation. I simply meant that if we're going to define EROEI, shouldn't parameters be set based on the nature of the question we're trying to answer. What do we mean when we ask the question,"Is the production of ethanol from sugar more energy efficient than from corn?" Are we asking about the energy used from the point that the sugar or corn begins to be processed or are we asking a broader question about the total energy efficiency of the systems providing trasportation, labor, distribution, etc. My point was that it would seem to make sense to start with the more restricted question and build outward. In other words, the EROEI for the process of converting ethanol from each feedstock is x from sugar and y from corn. Now, add into the ratio energy consumed for production of tractors used on ethanol farms in Brazil and corn farms in the U.S. and the EROEI becomes t from sugar and u from corn. In its narrow sense EROEI would be the most accurate and as the ratio is made more complex by adding layers of inputs it would lose precision but give us information about not just the processing of the fuel but possible comparative advantages in the sense of energy efficiency from one production center to another.
It just seems the debate, which from some of the comments I've read has tried the patience of alot of thinking people, revolves around trying to define the concept without having precisely defined the question.
I agree that your proposed metric is valuable in some analysis... my concern is with the nature of the assumptions that tend to be made when considering energy issues. The boundary drawing issue discussed above is the crux of many assumption-problems.
A little parable:
An engineer, a physicist, and an economist are stuck on a desert island with only a can of beans to sustain them. The engineer considers finding a rock to break open the can. The physicist suggests placing it in the sun so that it heats up and bursts. The economist says "first, assume we have a can opener..."
That said, economists often get a bad reputation in this regard, as they tend to be less careful to hide their most fundamental assumptions...
Jeff,
I agree that the assumption that all forms of energy are economically equivalent is clearly false, although this issue is different that the boundary problem you discuss above. Real world calculations of energy quality would have to account for variations in the economic usefulness of differnt forms of energy as well as for energy embedded in production resources.
To tell you the truth, I am not overly enamored of net energy analysis. Consider the tremendous amount of acrimonious debate that has taken place over the energy balance of corn ethanol. All one has to do is look at the gross output per hectare and it is clear that this fuel source is an economic loser. In addition row cropping of corn leads to a topsoil loss rate greater than the replacement rate, so that this form of farming is inherently unsustainable. Independent of how much net energy is provided this form of agriculture should be brought to an end.
I developed these metrics not so much for practical calculations, but rather to provide my self with a conceptual tool for thinking about energy quality. I am doubtful that net energy calculation will play much role in determining the amount of fuel that will be extracted from the Canadian tar sands after they run out of stranded natural gas or of determining how much fuel will be extracted from American oil shale deposits. Practical engineering and cost calculations (and possible political consideration related to CO2 emissions) will rule the day.
the problem with EROEI as a metric is the EROEI is always less than 1.
boundary conditions are the problem
Boris
London
One of the issues I see with EROEI is the belief by some people that we have an essentially unlimited amount of coal (or natural gas). If they have this belief, then what they are looking for is an "oil-leverage" ratio to see how petroleum- intensive the process is. Thus, one sees analyses like the Berkley corn ethanol study. The summary report of the Berkeley study is here.
Don Brown reported that PNM has people working on the getting answers to
Future shorages of diesel and gasoline may do bad things to coal mining.
I recently read on Internet that the US consumes 1.1 BILLION tons of coal per year mostly for electricity.
How would you pronounce EROEI?
ur-oh-ee-eye?
ee-row-eye?
ur-oy?
It is one of those acronyms that is a tongue twister if used in conversation. 'Net energy' or 'energy profit' are easy to pronounce and easy to understand by those outside the energy community. So easy even a troglydite can understand it.
His Boy E-Roy
For the farmer in the aformentioned example:
Old MacDonald had a farm, E-R-O-E-I.....
At some point in the infinite regression, there's the equivalent of the concept of "sunk costs". Eg, when deciding to drill for oil, the ship that hauls molybdenum already exists, so the energy cost for constructing it is sunk. If it doesn't haul molybdenum, it'll be used to haul something else. At worst, the decision to drill for oil affects shipping only at the margin: it causes an increase in total shipping capacity needed, so causes some small fraction of a ship to be built.
Many of these "distant" effects will be similar regardless of the energy resource chosen. Drilling for oil required that molybdenum be transported; putting up a wind turbine required that composite resins and polymers for the blades be transported; the differences are small, and if they are the ones controlling the decision, then the alternatives must by definition be close to each other in EROEI.
there's also a time and other useages variable that must be considered. If Old MacDonald is farming his corn with a brand new tractor that he bought for the corn to ethanol crop, then clearly his EROEI is going to be a lot less than if he converted a corn crop which he'd been raising on the same farm for animal feed with a tractor he bought and paid for 20 years before.
The same must be considered in offshore vs. onshore economics. An awful lot of offshore equipment is a one time use equipment, while much onshore equipment can be used until its worn out on several different wells. Your calculations always assume that the equipment is brand new one time use equipment and unsalvageable, and thats a huge distortion. If I have an onshore drilling rig thats used to drill 250 wells during its usefull life, then clearly the cost of the moly in the steel is negligable compared to building a platform to drill 50 directional oil wells in the water off Nigeria and can't be moved. Bob Ebersole
This touches an important point: even if we did an "infinite" backwards search for all the things that contributed, would we therefore get an infinite energy cost? I think not. While the corn from the farmer may be needed, that corn energy is used to so much else, and anyway it's cost is distributed over so many barrels of oil that we can safely ignore it.
Finding the cutoff point is important from a practical perspective, but if well chosen it shouldn't change the results very much.
Along the lines of the economist assuming we have a can opener: Are we blindly assuming that most energy use is creating something that benefits us (or our children) in the future? In other words, what is the CROEI? (Creativity Returned On Energy Invested).
I submit that before we spend a lot of time assuming that the economy is going to continue to rule our use of energy, or that demand will continue to drive resource use (vs. rationing or collapse), that someone should be looking at the absolute minimum needs in general, and then build back up from there with sustainable sources of energy (or unsustainable ones used to achieve sustainability) invested into sustainable ergonomics of living arrangements (stop measuring quality of life by the amount of money spent).
In calculations over longer time periods, the resources to make the factory or the tractor become insignificant if they are built to last (unlike most manufacturing industries, with planned retooling and obsolete 'styles') and we can focus on the basics of EROEI of equipment operating use, but we need to start with basic REAL needs, not the current demand level, which is generally based upon fiat wants and creative marketing to lizard brains.
Most of our transportation economy is spent to move cars around, not people. Most of our entertainment is spent preventing people from learning to entertain themselves. Most of our houses are designed to look at and store stuff, not to live in them efficiently.
There's a lot of opportunity for change, and Cornucopian or Doomer (depends how I feel on a particular day), we might as well consider the basic needs first, rather than repainting the scratch on the Titanic, head for the lifeboat named Earth and Reality. Just because there is a huge demand, doesn't mean we need to feed it. Most people (and animals) are healthier on a low calorie diet; I'm sure the same applies to economies and energy. You enjoy ice cream a lot more if you aren't eating it every day.
Auntie, I'm having a bad day today (111* F in MS )so please excuse me if I sound a bit irritable. All this talk about EROEIOU, whatever, is totally irrelevant to anybody who is not part of the "Energy Illuminati". To use the common term, Joe/Jane Sixpacks' most pressing energy concern is whether he/she can recharge their Cellphone/Ipod/Crackberry everyday. You want to see a rebellion, just mess with that.
I don't think you sound irritable at all.
Joe/Jane Sixpack will just have to suck it up, I guess.
The farmers went through hard times in the '20's when everyone was spending their money on bogus stocks instead of food. During the Depression, other than the dust bowl areas, food prices were up, small farmers were actually doing quite well, buying tractors and machinery, raising lots of kids to get killed off in the Corporate Merger called WWII. Joe and Jane might just be a lot better off if they turn off those cellphones and AM radios of theirs and get out in the garden.
The relevance of EROEI comes into play just as it did back then. Farmers had to decide if keeping a horse fed was worth the hassle and acreage compared to using a tractor (and kerosene was almost free). Now that the price of fuel is getting higher, how do we put the horses (or people) back on land when there are so many more people to feed, made possible by cheap oil?
I'm old enough to remember my parents "ice" box (no fancy electric "refrigerator" then, and TV had yet to be invented ). Got my butt tanned one summer for swiping a handful of ice off the truck! So I agree with your estimation of the Sixpack's :) . As for your final question, I think we already know the answer to that. Some people won't eat. Possibly a lot of people. Parts of Africa and other places come to mind.
Subsistance/rainfall farming makes you old fast.
Best wishes to you and yours, from someplace in rural MS.
auntiegrav, It was a sad day here when the largest ranch in the area took their draft horses down to the river and shot them. I wonder if the next paradigm shift will be as brutal.
Don't mean to butt in, but did they at least use the carcasses? Hides, meat and so on? If not, then yes, it was not only sad, but wasteful. And in my experience paradigm shifts (real ones, not what consultants call paradigms ) are always brutal for someone.
Nature was happy. We still had many California Condors (Gymnogyps californianus) premier carrion eaters but not the local Grizzly Bear (Ursus tularensis Merriam) which had already been hunted to extinction.
You mean like people in Nigeria getting shot for stealing gasoline?
Airplanes crashing into buildings (whoever may have been involved)?
Dogs and cats poisoned by "economically feasible additives"?
Flouride in our water because it 'proves' that it is a safe product of critical nuclear industry suppliers?
'democratic' governments selling weapons of mass destruction to despots?
Automobile companies selling cars that burst into flames because it's cheaper than fixing them?
40,000 deaths a year on highways?
Farmers pumping hormones and antibiotics into cows (and thus, children and the environment)?
People abandoned in flooded cities?
Property confiscated and people imprisoned for selling a joint while the government imports cocaine by the ton?
Americans are 'saddened' by people getting killed in Darfur, but OUTRAGED by their pet food being contaminated by companies they themselves enabled through "always low prices".
Military deployments planned based upon protecting oil fields that were previously redlined; instead of protecting people and their needs (in a country that never attacked ours..well, except for that one missile incident)?
Homeless people pushed out of taxicabs into the streets after emergency room treatment?
Kids killing kids because they don't find any connection to other human beings who care how they feel?
Economic hit men setting up millions of people to starve and die when their despotic leaders' debts can't be paid?
People killing each other over chrome plated wheels or a pair of tennis shoes?
Police beating someone's head to mush?
Mentally handicapped kids being recruited into the military?
People will spend 25 bucks for a bale of hay to feed their trophy horse, but complain when the price of milk goes up by a dollar to feed their kids.
Man, I don't know if I can take the brutality of NOT having a paradigm shift much longer. If I have to shoot a few horses, let me know. They stink anyway (but I hear they make a halfway decent steak).
"If you can't beat 'em; GET THE HELL OUTTA THERE, YOU IDIOT!" -leadership
Sorry, it's a gloomy kind of day: been raining for 2 weeks here.
The thing that scares me is that, in spite of all you say being true, it may still be better than any known alternative. Life expectancy and general well-being seems to be better for the largest number of people in industrial societies and the terrors that you describe seem to be inherent to those societies.
Catch 22
Industrial society spans the globe. There would have been no "middle class" in the First World without cheap imports made by cheap labor. Saying industrial societies are better than their contemporary alternatives is comparing a rat's snout to a rat's ass: you can't have one without the other.
This is the sort of calculation that the market does automatically for real products, in large part, namely that the profit/loss statement embodies all the costs of the product, including the energy costs.
The difficulty arises when you want to introduce a new product, whose presence is large enough to perturb the market significantly, and ask hypothetically if sales in the long run will be profitable. If your new source of energy is competitive with current sources in, for example, making electricity at so many cents per kilowatt hour, then you are in good shape. Otherwise life is more complicated.
Can I quote you on that ?
:)