I think there has been some mangling of the concepts of production efficiency & consumption efficiency in this article... in a conceptual sense.

Also, most of the examples presented use basic economic models, the assumptions of which are a bit simplistic. These assumptions lead enivitably to the outcome: i.e that production efficency will always drop prices and increae resource use/increase consumption of substites.

The problem is not efficiency - the problem is the assumptions. (and the simplistic, one dimensional concept of what is 'good' & 'bad' for the environment)

The world ain't that simple.... and there are plenty of ways to argue that efficiency can be positive for the environment.

Curmudgeon -

My concern was whether the discussion is *edifying*, not whether we agree or disagree.

It is not edifying to make claims about other peoples' motives. It is simply a statement of unverifiable prejudice - you can't read their minds, so you can't actually know. So it's a pointless comment. It wasn't the reality that was brutal, it was your delivery, which you seem to take some pride in.

The underlying reason discussions on OLO are often not edifying is that too many people, apparently including you, seem to be oblivious to such distinctions. All you seem to want is a slanging match.

Geoff Davies - no, you've misunderstood what was said.. I was not imputing personal motives to anyone. Greens are pushing inefficient technologies because they are greens, not because they have grand plans to make industry inefficient. However, it would be helpful if they recognised that brutal reality.
Almost all green technology will reduce efficiency and destroy jobs - an obvious point to make on first principles. To claim that this statement, in a post on an article on efficiency, is not "edifying" is to completely miss the point.

Curmudgeon -

Then you need to define what is "inefficient". My view (as distinct from some mythical monolithic body of "the green activists") is that we can use energy much more efficiently than we do now. My view is also that there is a good chance renewable energy sources will then suffice. If that can all be done cost-effectively when costs of alternatives are properly accounted for (also my view), then the problem is taken care of.

If you mean, for example, that the generation of energy is somehow less efficient for wind, solar, etc., relative to the amount of energy potentially available, that is not really relevant. What is relevant is the cost of making energy available. Beyond that I don't know what you might mean. So either your "inefficiency" is irrelevant or I think you are wrong on the numbers.

Also I think your claim that renewable energy will involve fewer jobs is wrong.

When people use phrases like "brutal reality" or "ferocious opposition" or "the facts of the matter are", then I immediately suspect logical weaknesses in their argument. There is no "brutal reality"- in these matters there isn't even a reality, because we are conjecting about possible future events. Even if we were talking about the present, then perceptions vary and realities are personal. Shared perceptions might be called facts.

Meanwhile, in my view, there is a lot of loose talk about job creation, one way or the other. Many analyses have been done on job-multipliers, with the result that, if the inputs are a fairly ordinary mix of materials and labour and the import fraction is not unusual, then one can expect a job multiplier of about 3 times the direct employment. Again, if the situation is not unusual, jobs are created at about 1 per $100-150,000 of investment. Seeing that a wind generator and a carbon-powered generator or a nuclear plant are mainly a mix of steel, cement and labour of various skills, then one can anticipate that the job creation and multipliers will be fairly similar.

I do have a concern about photovoltaics in Australia, as most of the panels are imported and the labour value-added will reduce as we go from roof-top to large scale systems.

Which leaves us with the energy return efficiecy -EROEI. Again, all of these systems are trending to much the same value- about 25 year payback.

These are measurements, numbers and inferences- more refined data may exist- but not brutal realities that can be ferociously opposed.

Perhaps the real point is that greater efficiency by itself will lead to greater consumption but when the price of energy begins reflecting the long term, accumulating external costs that are part of high emissions energy and/or the costs of shifting to low emissions - we will be very glad of having the means to make energy go further. Those external costs - such as the expected impacts of climate change on SE Australian agriculture -cannot be just disbelieved into non-existence although plenty of people including Curmudgeon continue to try.

Cap emissions and we will discover that greater energy efficiency is very worthwhile.