Yup, I totally get EROEI. But, it ignores possible efficiency improvements when it makes it's future projections. What do they say in the finance world? Something like "past performance is not an indicator of future returns."
What if in 5-10 years those engineers ride to work in self-driving robo-cars that are all electric, using cheap and powerful graphene-based super capacitors as batteries. They will have time during the commute to daydream about "wild" ways to make the fraking technology itself more efficient. And the all electric robo-cars are charged up from a cheap, efficient liquid fluoride-thorium reactor generator station. Or maybe the they are just daydreaming about an upcoming vacation to outer space while riding in luxury two-stage zepplins[1]. Oh, and the engineer is healthy and performing at peak mental and physical performance nearly continuously because he/she eats a ketogenic diet[2] centered around high-latitude reindeer herding products[3].
Efficiency actually increases energy use, as per Jevon's paradox, which goes hand in hand with the technological cornucopia argument that the energy issue will be solved by better technology. Unfortunately the EROEI numbers reflect quite the contrary - where once oil bubbled up from the ground under its own pressure netting 200x EROEI, we're now griming are way through oil sands which net 5-6x EROEI, or sinking 2 mile long pipes into the ocean. This is why Kurzweil argument fails - technology has a tendency to expand and soak up as much energy as possible, all the salad shooters in the world aren't going to bring back $2 oil, in any form.
Since about 1982, the annual world oil consumption has held at roughly 32 billion barrels despite efficiency improvements in petrol energy usage.
Our technological efficiency improvements are doing more with the same amount of energy and not more with more energy, as Jevon's paradox predicts.
Think about this simplified example. Our cars get better mpg today. Which means that we have energy left over to use to sink those 2 mile long pipes into the ocean. Because of the efficiency improvements, we have just done more with the same amount of energy.
In fact the hard cap as to amount of energy we can extract has been reached - we would in fact use more if we could, but we can't extract it - we are running in place. This is often confused with efficiency when in fact it is a peak energy issue. Three billion people in the world living on under $3 a day and we there's no demand for more energy?
The example is not compelling; 100 years ago there were no cars - are we using more or less energy now with the advent of 'car technology'? The obvious answer is: way more. We are not just taking the net energy of 1910 and 'redistributing' it. Because this is what technologies do, provide an advantage that nature does not. But technology is not free - to develop it, make it, use it, dispose of it, all requires a lot of energy. An insatiable thirst to develop and use thingamajigs is what is causing the problem, not solving it.
What if in 5-10 years those engineers ride to work in self-driving robo-cars that are all electric, using cheap and powerful graphene-based super capacitors as batteries. They will have time during the commute to daydream about "wild" ways to make the fraking technology itself more efficient. And the all electric robo-cars are charged up from a cheap, efficient liquid fluoride-thorium reactor generator station. Or maybe the they are just daydreaming about an upcoming vacation to outer space while riding in luxury two-stage zepplins[1]. Oh, and the engineer is healthy and performing at peak mental and physical performance nearly continuously because he/she eats a ketogenic diet[2] centered around high-latitude reindeer herding products[3].
There are a lot of ways the world can be better.
[1]http://www.jpaerospace.com/
[2]http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomen_Company