>> Isn't that true of almost all non-burning-crude-oil-or-coal energy
>> sources?
>>
>> You gotta use energy to "make" energy that's useable in some other
>> form in some other place, I think there's not much getting around
>> that.
>
> You've got to use energy to make anything at all. The question is: in
> getting an energy *output* do you use *more* energy input than you get
> in output?
Yes, and I'm saying: almost all energy transformation is net negative. There are a few examples where you essentially get something for (nearly) nothing -- a few hydro projects, but note that the TVA still sells bonds; and oil and coal where the energy density is high enough that it's not too expensive to get it out -- but almost anything else is going to be net-negative.
Net-energy cost is not something to fear; as time goes on, this will become the norm.
Just because fracking is net-negative doesn't make it a standout. Hell, ethanol is net-positive, should we support that?
Fracking should be opposed because it's an environmental nightmare, not because it's net-energy negative.
/jordan