Aiden, to even get the barest toe-hold, The EROEI of RE has to first get above 7 while that for nuclear has to stand still at 75 as a point of comparison. How can you simply assert that automation and land availability will dissolve this gap. How much "can do" must we accept on faith?

Where you say, "That there exists some threshold above 1 that is a minimum requirement for a given mode of organization of society is also physical is incorrect.", what is your argument? The third world is aspiring to emulate the first world, and in its progress overwhelming any efficiencies the first world might achieve. Look at all the coal-fired power being built in China alone. The EROEI of renewables can't and wont cut it in the face of such hunger for energy.

Boundless faith is a poor substitute for rationality in trying to mitigate climate change.

Aidan doesn't understand what he's talking about. He has provided no authoritative support for his beliefs, just bold assertions. He's not capable of presenting his arguments in a coherent manner on the sites where the people who have done the work would certainly debate his beliefs if he could present them cogently. So he keeps bleating away repeating his beliefs here. If he'd had anything rational to offer he'd have been given a fair hearing on BNC. Many people tried to debate with him, but he wasn't capable of presenting a case. They dismissed him and ignored him. He has made it quite clear he's an ideologue, zealot, and denier of relevant facts. It's impossible to have a rational discussion with such people.

I'd like to clarify a point about "[ERoEI of ] nuclear has to stand still at 75"

ERoEI of 75 applies to the current breed of PWR reactors - i.e light water, thermal reactors. When it becomes cheaper to used fast reactors than once through, thermal reactors which we use now, the reactors will utilise most of the remaining 99% of the energy in the fuel that is not used in the light water reactors. That can be expected to increase the EROEI by perhaps a factor of around 100 (I haven't checked, so that may not be correct). That would make the EROEI of nuclear 7500. That's an example of what the future holds.

An interesting post "a life time of energy in the palm of your hand" http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/22/ifr-fad-4/ explains that a golf ball sized sphere of uranium contains all the energy needed to provide all the energy consumed by a human in their whole life - that's all the energy embodied in everything they use and consume through their life.

It'll be fun to watch Aidan and Craig try to dismiss that wee factoid : )

Peter Lang and Luciferase,

Hypothetically if EROEI itself was the limiting factor
and a minimum of 7 was needed to support a society
why could the society not be supported by twice as much infrastructure with an EROEI of 4?
The net energy would be the same.

Are you starting to understand yet?
The idea that EROEI is the limiting factor is utterly absurd!

Solar PV has for a long time had a lower EROEI than solar thermal, but solar thermal works out more expensive because it has higher operating costs.
Nuclear has much higher operating costs. That doesn't make it a bad option, but they're a much more significant consideration than its EROEI.

And Peter, the energy density of uranium is not something I've ever disputed, but your trying to make it the issue does seem to resemble the fourth sign of intellectual dishonesty.

Aiden, that's like assuming two people of IQ 80 can solve a problem requiring IQ 160. More brains do not increase brain-power.

More RE of insufficient EROEI does not meet society's needs.

Another analogy, a rocket engine of insufficient thrust will not lift the rocket even if it burns all day long.

EROEI, like thrust, matters immensely.

Luciferase, your second analogy is wrong. It's not like burning the rocket engine for longer, it's like achieving sufficient thrust by adding a second engine.

Your first analogy invalid except insofar as it highlights how real requirements can differ from perceived requirements. Solutions to problems tend to require ideas, not IQ, to solve them. Higher IQ can certainly help people reach a solution, but it's the solution, not the IQ, that is required.

EROEI is one of the factors that help energy infrastructure meet society's needs, but it is not itself one of society's needs.