He slips in that he uses outdated charts, but there is little new that he could use!

What he means is that net energy is a direct application of the second law of thermodynamics...i.e. for every energy conversion there is always a heat loss. For us to access stored sunlight below the ground, there are physical principles governing its extraction. (e.g. # of joules required to pull oil up from X# of feet below ground, embodied energy going into the pipes and materials etc.)

The same principles apply to wind and solar. In order to 'harness' that energy and concentrate it into a form usable by current society there are energy costs. It is Jays conclusion that the wide boundary energy surplus from fossil fuels (measured as net energy per unit times number of units) cannot be replaced by alternative sources. The GROSS energy might be, but not the net. I disagree with him partially here - I think it's TECHNICALLY possible to increase our energy surplus by devoting the remainder of our fossil fuels to a massive local, regional and international scaling of all sorts of renewable infrastructure. But in order to do that, we would have to take that energy away from how it is currently being used, hence it becomes a political/human nature problem, and right back in Mr. Hanson's wheelhouse. We CAN do it, but will we?