hello…in a forbes.com article titled 'thermodynamics and money" peter huber states " Invest ten units of 10-cent energy to capture one unit of $10 energy and you lose energy but gain dollars, and Wall Street will fund you from here to Alberta.____"
my main question here is this a valid or even a desired outcome?
a previous blog post on mises.org stated that there is more than enough wind blowing every second somewhere over the us to be captured by wind turbines in various places and then converted to energy and (with intelligent grid managment) directed where needed (where the wind isnt blowing and electricity is demanded). i still havent determined if thats true or not.
if so,
is there a difference in say throwing 100 billion at a vast fuel processing pyramid (raw-refined-ordered) and getting 101 billion between spending 100 billion and just maintaing a non-processed fuel supply - the wind?
i believe energy prices have dropped over the years relative to wages (perhaps not so much recently…i am not exactly sure)…so is gaining ever-decreasing valued dollars good or bad here? this is unclear to me.
additionally, the article mentions this
“…an analysis that’s dubbed “energy return on energy invested” (Eroei). According to this theory it can never make sense to burn two units of energy in order to extract one unit of energy.”
is the Eroei mentioned here fake…a deliberate lie of a concept, in other words.
clarification appreciated.
The context is unclear. But I can tell you right now that drilling in Alberta is subsidized.
I was under the impression that the government of Alberta collected royalties from the oil. Am I mistaken?
nearly everything is (probobly wrongly) subsidized by a govt/monarch/tyrant…that isnt what i asked.
please dont bring up any subsidy issues.
- a previous blog post on mises.org stated that there is more than enough wind blowing every second somewhere over the us to be captured by wind turbines in various places and then converted to energy and (with intelligent grid managment) directed where needed (where the wind isnt blowing and electricity is demanded). i still havent determined if thats true or not.
if so,
is there a difference in say throwing 100 billion at a vast fuel processing pyramid (raw-refined-ordered) and getting 101 billion between spending 100 billion and just maintaing a non-processed fuel supply - the wind?
-
i believe energy prices have dropped over the years relative to wages (perhaps not so much recently…i am not exactly sure)…so is gaining ever-decreasing valued dollars good or bad here? this is unclear to me.
-
additionally, the article mentions this
“…an analysis that’s dubbed “energy return on energy invested” (Eroei). According to this theory it can never make sense to burn two units of energy in order to extract one unit of energy.”
is the Eroei mentioned here fake…a deliberate lie of a concept, in other words.
This is the only part that I understand in your post. It is false for the reason that there are different forms of energy useable for different purposes. E.g., if you have coal and no oil, but you can only directly use oil, you have to convert whatever the ratio. It would not make sense if you were using the oil to get less coal.
are your questions from the POV of an entrepreneur or an economist?
[:)]
uh…im neither. i bought a bokk by the author of the linked article several months ago and am just trying to get an understanding of some of the wind energy discussions here on the mises boards, energy and inflation and finance. its a bit more than i can understand.
well, you ask a technical question about production. but the answer everyone needs is economic. entrepreneurs will be guided by profit motive (and be made cautious by the spectre of possible losses) to discover the economic feasibility.
can we build the worlds biggest truck factory?. is a technical question. will it make profits? is entrepreneurial. if it turns out to do so then it was ‘economic’; if not; it wasn’t