No growth below Energy Intensity Ratio (EIR) of 6, boom above 8

[mooncliff]

When King plots EIR for various fuels every year since World War II, the graphs indicate two large declines, one before the recessions of the mid-1970s and early 1980s and the other during the 2000s, leading up to the current economic recession. There have been other recessions in the U.S. since World War II, but the longest and deepest were preceded by sustained declines in EIR for all fossil fuels.

... if EIR falls below a certain threshold, the economy stops growing. For example, in 1972, EIR for gasoline was 5.9 and in 2008 it was 5.5.
During times of robust economic growth, such as the 1990s, EIR for gasoline was well over 8.
Compare that to some estimates of EROI and EIR for corn ethanol of around 1, and it's clear why corn ethanol has been widely criticized as a low quality energy source.

EIR is proportional to EROI, meaning they rise and fall together, but the basic data behind the EIR calculations come out annually as opposed to every five years for EROI.

That graph does not look good at all... This is why I think even if we eventually wind down the financial messes, if the oil really does decline at 4 to 7% per year, there will be, at best, no growth. We can outrun problems, but 7% per year is asking a lot... although I saw recently that US auto fleet efficiency rose by 7% in one year...
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-...t-current.html

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2387...over-the-cliff

[c1ue]

Re: No growth below Energy Intensity Ratio (EIR) of 6, boom above 8

Interesting, but isn't this just a different way of saying a high oil cost results in economic growth stalling?

Peak Cheap Oil?

[Starving Steve]

Re: No growth below Energy Intensity Ratio (EIR) of 6, boom above 8

There is expensive oil to be taken from the tar-sands of north-eastern Alberta. There is expensive oil to be taken from drilling offshore. There is a large pool of cheap and light oil to be taken offshore in shallow water off of Los Angeles.

There is also hydro-electric power to be taken ( if we would build the hydro-electric dams ) on the Eel River in northern California. Similarly, the Fraser River in BC could be dammed.

There is cheap natural-gas to be taken and marketed, everywhere in North America. Nat-gas is the ideal home-heating fuel, also a good electric power-plant fuel, and nat-gas could be a motor vehicle fuel, not just for buses, but for all motor-vehicles.

There is also atomic power. A-power plants could be built everywhere. Atomic power is the best fuel of all.

The problem to-day is that government to-day is in-bed with eco-frauds from the Sierra Club and from Greenpeace. The problem to-day is that government has made it too difficult to do anything but to return to live in caves.

Dr. Chu from the Sierra Club was picked by the Obama Administration to run the Energy Department in Washington.... Why was Dr. Chu picked? And why hasn't Dr. Chu produced an energy plan for America and for the entire continent of North America?

What is going on? Why are there no solutions? There are plenty of buzz-words like smart-grids and super-conductors and infrastructure, but where is the plan?

Yes, poverty and starvation are sustainable (another buzz-word), but do we really want to live in caves with a sustainable life-style?