Essentially we need something to evaluate scarce resources that are currently measured in infinite resources (dollars). This concept has a rich history...

Unfortunately, concepts like the X theory of value - for example Henry George's land theory of value - also have a rich history of deep problems, inasmuch as individual commodities of whatever sort, even patently finite ones like land or oil, pose individual and idiosyncratic problems. Among other things, these X theories neglect substitution. The unavailability of perfect substitution is not the same as the unavailability of any substitution, a point I think some hard-core doomers tend to miss.

“A dollar may be worth – in buying power – so much today and more or less tomorrow, but a unit of heat is the same in 1900, 1929,1933 or 2000”.

And yet, for the purpose at hand, so what? We call the variation in buying power inflation or deflation, and as long as the variation is not so severe as to convert the dollar into pure noise, we can readily apply a 'deflator'. And for evaluating whether ethanol really produces a return, inflation hardly matters unless it reaches Zimbabwe levels, as many of the key issues seem to play out within a single harvest season.

For example, if a biofuel has a 3:1 EROI then water, land, labor, soil, etc are all assumed to be equivalent ratios in the input.

I can't parse this, can you elaborate just a little? For example, even the Dutch have pretty much stopped making more land, so the notion that anyone with a functioning brain cell would be assuming that there is a 3:1 return of land on land is patently incomprehensible. I suppose they might be assuming 3:1 on something to do with land, but what could that something possibly be?

At some point in the not too distant future, we may run into a shortage of a central good that has no ready substitute. Using net energy analysis, or something similar, will give us a better head start to this event, and more holistic plan alternatives. EROI has many problems. Conventional economics has more.

We'll probably need a whole toolbox, not just a wrench or a voltmeter. However, I'm not fully in sync with the hatred of economics often expressed around here. Like all viewpoints it has intrinsic limits, but at least it examines the world more broadly than through the lens of a single commodity. And even economics can tell us, for example, that if substitutes for oil - a central good for aviation at the moment - become highly problematical, business people will simply need to pick up the phone more often, and physically travel less often. Well, duh.

I can't parse this, can you elaborate just a little? For example, even the Dutch have pretty much stopped making more land, so the notion that anyone with a functioning brain cell would be assuming that there is a 3:1 return of land on land is patently incomprehensible. I suppose they might be assuming 3:1 on something to do with land, but what could that something possibly be?

I mean that when a net energy analysis is undertaken, they dont adjust for other inputs. So the movement from a 3:1 to a 5:1 EROI assumes a concomittant increase in non-energy inputs, like land, labor etc from 3:1 to 5:1 as well. A 3:1, 5:1 20:1 EROI all say nothing about labor, time, land, etc. WHich is why even the low EROI numbers on ethanol are too favorable - there is a huge land input needed for biofuels that is not needed for most conventional fossil fuels, or wind.

I'm not fully in sync with the hatred of economics often expressed around here

.
I donthate economics as its part of my doctorate studies. Conventional economics has been a great allocation mechanism on an 'empty' planet. But by definition, the pursuit of 'utility' through growth,and concomittant allocation mechanisms will not work on a planet full of people and high quality resources already spent - some tweaks are needed as a minimum, and a total overhaul might actually be in order.

I mean that when a net energy analysis is undertaken, they don't adjust for other inputs. So if a 5:1 EROI, assumes away other non-energy inputs, like land, labor etc. A 3:1, 5:1 20:1 EROI all say nothing about labor, time, land, etc.

Ah. In other words, for the purposes at hand, we can only regard an energy analysis (EROEI, net, or other), as useful if it takes scalability into account. And this remains so if I use price as a proxy for energy, which is an additional viewpoint that may shed light on the matter. Or, to put it another way, if someone manages to put together a magical 'zero point energy' device that extracts one nanowatt-hour per year from the volume of the Earth, we can, for our purposes, disregard it absolutely and utterly. Yup, I'm OK with that.

So we add scalability analysis as a criterion or requirement to examine when refereeing energy-source analysis.

Precisely

...some tweaks are needed as a minimum...

Perhaps a start would be to examine the possibility that resource constraints (i.e. a non-'empty' planet) introduce significant correlations between some variables currently treated as uncorrelated in statistical and/or econometric models... ?

YES !!!!!!!

And correlations lead to positive feedback loops.
Thats the problem once you start looking at a finite system driven by a decreasing critical resource you get correlation and thence positive feedback.

Think of the microphone feedback case right before they go into exponential feedback their is a correlation event where the inputs and outputs become shared then boom you go positive feedback. So increasing amounts of correlation implies positive feedback. So if your concerned about correlation your really talking about positive feedback loops forming.

This is why strained complex systems tend to crash too many routes exist for positive feedback as the system becomes highly correlated.

Perhaps a start would be to examine the possibility that resource constraints (i.e. a non-'empty' planet) introduce significant correlations between some variables currently treated as uncorrelated in statistical and/or econometric models... ?

Yes. I totally agree with this but I don't know how to do it. I think the classic example are economists who think the long term price for oil will tend to around $40 per barrel because that was the cost of CTL produced Oil when Oil cost $20 per barrel.

As memmel says above, there are almost certainly feedback effects that cause the general price of all inputs to rise so that $40 CTL Oil in a world where Oil from from the ground costs $20 is unrealistic where Oil from the ground costs $100.

The escalating costs of the Oil Sands projects are another.

Another is here in Australia where we are benefiting from a mining boom which is inducing massive investment in projects all over the place. However the costs of the these projects keep rising because they're driven by the rising costs of the commodities that is inducing the investment in the first place... etc.

How does one go about scaling input costs to projects that will increase supply to meet the demand for the commodities?

I dunno. Seems like a good Ph.D. project to me.

The Henry George link is broken. I was surprised to learn that georgism (which is apparently not so much the idea that land is the fundamental unit of value, as the idea that land ownership, and possibly only land ownership, should be taxed) is apparently quite appreciated by theorists. A bunch of liberal and quite respected economists even sent a public letter to Gorbachev arguing that he should keep land government-owned, in order to implement this idea!

I can't see that land or energy have even poor substitutes. Whatever you want to do, you need a place to do it, right? And a substitute for energy does not make physical sense.