General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
by MonteQuest » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 00:58:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ') That is exactly right. Monte, if you look at the graph that you yourself posted, it supports what I am saying. When MPG was actually rising during late 1970s to 1990, Fuel consumption was dropping.
No it doesn't.
Fuel consumption in terms of
gallons per vehicle was dropping but miles driven rose in direct relation ( See the red and blues lines?) to mpg increases due to fuel efficiency gains and gasoline sales rose.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by kublikhan » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 01:06:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ') That is exactly right. Monte, if you look at the graph that you yourself posted, it supports what I am saying. When MPG was actually rising during late 1970s to 1990, Fuel consumption was dropping.
No it doesn't.
Fuel consumption in terms of
gallons per vehicle was dropping but miles driven rose in direct relation ( See the red and blues lines?) to mpg increases due to fuel efficiency gains and gasoline sales rose.
Gallons per vehicle dropped. Period. Even after adding in more miles driven, it still dropped. Thus total per capita gasoline usage dropped. You seem to be saying that even after adding in lower per capita gasoline usage, total gasoline usage of the entire United States still rose. I never said otherwise. I said our per capita gasoline usage dropped. I have been attempting to refute Jevons' paradox here, not argue for infinite population growth.
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by MonteQuest » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 01:26:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ')Gallons per vehicle dropped. Period. Even after adding in more miles driven, it still dropped.
Looks like it leveled out and then rose to me.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hus total per capita gasoline usage dropped. You seem to be saying that even after adding in lower per capita gasoline usage, total gasoline usage of the entire United States still rose. I never said otherwise. I said our per capita gasoline usage dropped. I have been attempting to refute Jevons' paradox here, not argue for infinite population growth.
Then you have failed miserably. The chart says nothing about per capita usage, only consumption per
vehicle. If total useage rose in direct corelation to efficiency gains as the chart shows, then I am afraid you haven't refuted Jevons.
And population growth? Sorry, that's a dog that won't hunt.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by TonyPrep » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 01:52:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')he practical efficiency is ~30%, w/ the peak efficiency at ~60%.
But 100% gets used. That's a bummer, eh?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'H')ow do you propose to free up that extra 40%, 60% or 99% of oil used as ICE fuel, for other uses, and do you think it remotely likely?
Replacement and efficiency increases.
Well, you'd better get moving on it, because regular crude peaked in 2005 (on a yearly basis).$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')his ranges from ~4kWh/mile on gasoline to ~.1 kWh/mile on electricity.
How is all of this being measured? I've read that the efficiency of electric cars is much worse, when measuring from raw resource to end use.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')e haven't even seen peakIt depends what peak we're talking about. I think regular crude (the good stuff for all uses) peaked in 2005. But I could be wrong.
So do you think you'll be able to drum up enough extra energy, from your efficiency and conservation savings, to build out our sustainable energy infrastructure, before it's too late (society collapsing)?
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by kublikhan » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 02:00:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Then you have failed miserably. The chart says nothing about per capita usage, only consumption per vehicle. If total useage rose in direct corelation to efficiency gains as the chart shows, then I am afraid you haven't refuted Jevons.
Are we looking at the same chart? Let me pull the numbers out of it. Maybe looking at the numbers we can finally agree on something.
Year MPG Fuel Consumption per Vehicle
1978 104 95
1985 121 81
1991 142 78
1995 139 81
1999 138 83
The MPG numbers go up from 1978 to 1991 right? The Per vehicle fuel consumption numbers go down from 1978 to 1991 right? The exact opposite result you would expect from Jevons' Paradox right?
The MPG numbers go down from 1991 to 1999 right? The Fuel consumption per vehicle goes up from 1991 to 1999 right? The exact opposite result you would expect from Jevons' Paradox right?
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by yesplease » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 02:46:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'B')ut 100% gets used. That's a bummer, eh?
Bummer? That's thermodynamics y0!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'R')eplacement and efficiency increases.
Well, you'd better get moving on it, because regular crude peaked in 2005 (on a yearly basis).
Regular cude? Peak petroleum is
projected (TOD) for ~2010, with 4.5% decline rates after 2012. So, a plateau for the next half decade perrrrrtty much. In terms of replacement and efficiency increase, I don't need to do anything. By 2012 there will be over a billion EVs in China alone w/ current growth rates, aka a billion vehicles replaced, more if the growth rate increases due to oil prices. Decline in US oil consumption was at 4% yoy last I checked, and we're still about a half decade away from ~4-5% decline rates.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')his ranges from ~4kWh/mile on gasoline to ~.1 kWh/mile on electricity.
How is all of this being measured? I've read that the efficiency of electric cars is much worse, when measuring from raw resource to end use.On one end, we have large SUVs, that at 10mpg use a gallon of gas every 10 miles, or ~37kWh/10mile=3.7kWh/mile. Toss in refining efficiency at ~90% and we get ~4.1kWh/mile, or ~4kwh/mile if we round down. Otoh, a velomobile at about the same speed the average vehicle in the US drives uses ~.015Wh/mile. Assuming the absolute worst efficiency of 15% for everything, which would probably correspond to a really old coal plant w/ really old lead acid batteries, and we're at .1kWh/mile. An Aptera for instance is ~.22kWh/mile, assuming the US grid mix IIRC. There are a couple reasons for the difference, a SUV is wayyyy bigger than a velomobile or Aptera's dealy, and it's also wayyyy less efficient. Both of those together result in a vehicle that needs ~20-40 times more energy to do what most passenger vehicles do most of the time, transport a person and a small amount of cargo.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I')t depends what peak we're talking about. I think regular crude (the good stuff for all uses) peaked in 2005. But I could be wrong.What is this regular crude you're talking about? Here's the latest projection via TOD.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'S')o do you think you'll be able to drum up enough extra energy, from your efficiency and conservation savings, to build out our sustainable energy infrastructure, before it's too late (society collapsing)?Drum up enough energy from my efficiency and conservation savings? I doubt it. Sure, it'll take a tripling of electricity/NG rates, and oil going through the roof before I'm paying as much as I did a few years ago, not counting inflation, but I doubt that's enough to power the entire world.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
-
yesplease
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 3765
- Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
-
by yesplease » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 02:56:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'G')ood lord. This is over your head, no?
If not for efficiency gains, SUV's would not be getting 20 mpg.
If it's over my head you must not even see it.
SUVs have never pulled 20mpg, at best
~17mpg. Along w/ passenger cars and light trucks, the efficiency of the vehicle fleet has stagnated from 1991 on, w/ the only change coming recently likely via much higher oil prices. in short, there have been no significant efficiency increases in any vehicle from ~1991 to ~2007.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
-
yesplease
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 3765
- Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
-
by heroineworshipper » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 03:12:43
The mother of my invention is out subsidizing David Duffield's $800 million mortgage.
People first, then things, then dollars.
There will be enslavement, cannibalism, & zombie invasions.
-
heroineworshipper
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 890
- Joined: Fri 14 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Calif*
-
by kublikhan » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 03:33:44
DP
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by TonyPrep » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 03:35:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'I') said our per capita gasoline usage dropped. I have been attempting to refute Jevons' paradox here, not argue for infinite population growth.
Well, strictly speaking, we've only seen evidence for
per vehicle gasoline usage drop, not a per capita drop. The number of vehicles per household has been increasing for a long time, perhaps reducing the miles per vehicle, but increasing the total consumed.
According to
EIA data, there were 1.61 cars per household in 1988. By 2001, that had risen to 1.77. That's 16,375 miles driven per household, in 1988, rising to 21,415 miles per household in 2001. I don't know what the population of the US was in 1988 and 2001, but I'd be slightly surprised to see a per capita drop, since the miles per household has gone up and, I daresay, the number of people per household has gone down (some support for that can be found in
this graph (PDF).
Any thoughts on that? It seems to put a different complexion on things.
By the way, I came across
an article from February showing an average of 2.28 vehicles per household, this year.
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by TonyPrep » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 04:11:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'R')egular cude?
Yeah, the good stuff. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I')n terms of replacement and efficiency increase, I don't need to do anything. By 2012 there will be over a billion EVs in China alone w/ current growth rates, aka a billion vehicles replaced, more if the growth rate increases due to oil prices.
Wow, what crystal ball did you use? There are 120 million cars now, mostly not EVs. With a 10% growth in total car ownership, there would still only be 175 million by 2012. Good luck with that projection.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'O')n one end, we have large SUVs, that at 10mpg use a gallon of gas every 10 miles, or ~37kWh/10mile=3.7kWh/mile. Toss in refining efficiency at ~90% and we get ~4.1kWh/mile, or ~4kwh/mile if we round down. Otoh, a
velomobile at about the same speed the average vehicle in the US drives uses ~.015Wh/mile. Assuming the absolute worst efficiency of 15% for everything, which would probably correspond to a really old coal plant
So you're trying to argue on the basis of assumptions and comparing an overall mpg figure for one of the worst ICE vehicles to a single run of a light one person vehicle on a racetrack? Not particularly convincing. By the way, your energy consumption figure, for the velomobile is a factor of 1000 out.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')hat is this regular crude you're talking about?
Can't find a figure for regular crude alone but the EIA's IPM has a crude plus lease condensate figure peaking for the daily average, in 2005. 2006 and 2007 were lower, with only 3 months' figures estimated so far for 2008 (which could be a new peak but it's far too early to tell). Total liquids has increased since but I don't think all liquids are equal in terms of how they can be used.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'S')o do you think you'll be able to drum up enough extra energy, from your efficiency and conservation savings, to build out our sustainable energy infrastructure, before it's too late (society collapsing)?Drum up enough energy from my efficiency and conservation savings? I doubt it. Sure, it'll take a tripling of electricity/NG rates, and oil going through the roof before I'm paying as much as I did a few years ago, not counting inflation, but I doubt that's enough to power the entire world. I agree!
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by kublikhan » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 04:31:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')ell, strictly speaking, we've only seen evidence for per vehicle gasoline usage drop, not a per capita drop. The number of vehicles per household has been increasing for a long time, perhaps reducing the miles per vehicle, but increasing the total consumed.
According to EIA data, there were 1.61 cars per household in 1988. By 2001, that had risen to 1.77. That's 16,375 miles driven per household, in 1988, rising to 21,415 miles per household in 2001. I don't know what the population of the US was in 1988 and 2001, but I'd be slightly surprised to see a per capita drop, since the miles per household has gone up and, I daresay, the number of people per household has gone down (some support for that can be found in this graph (PDF). Any thoughts on that? It seems to put a different complexion on things.
A flood of cheap foreign oil enabled rabid consumption, same reason miles per vehicle went up.
BTW, since Monte seems incapable of addressing these points, maybe you can take a stab at them:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he ratio of [Indian] energy consumption to GDP fell by 18 per cent between 1990 and 1999. For China, however, the ratio is reported to have gone down as much as 46 per cent in less than a decade. Falling levels of energy consumption per unit of GDP definitely falls under the category of good news.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') few numbers tell the story. Since the 1970s, per capita U.S. gross domestic product has grown far more quickly than energy use. "We're roughly half of where we were 30 years ago, in terms of BTUs per dollar of GDP," says Bill Prindle, deputy director of the Washington-based American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a non-profit group.
Refrigerators are three times as efficient as comparable 1980 models. Air conditioners are twice as efficient. Compact fluorescent light bulbs save money and electricity, too.
EU's 25 nations managed to generate about $12.1 trillion in GDP in 2004, more than the U.S.'s $11.6 trillion, while using 22 percent less energy. What this means is that there's lots of opportunity for the United States to become more energy efficient without sacrificing economic growth.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n contrast to the United States, where oil consumption initially fell but then ended up rising by a total of 16 percent from 1973 to 2003, in France, despite some increase in recent years, oil use is still 10 percent lower today than it was three decades ago, according to the United States Energy Information Administration. (Germany also matched France’s record.)
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by TonyPrep » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 04:48:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')ell, strictly speaking, we've only seen evidence for per vehicle gasoline usage drop, not a per capita drop. The number of vehicles per household has been increasing for a long time, perhaps reducing the miles per vehicle, but increasing the total consumed.
According to EIA data, there were 1.61 cars per household in 1988. By 2001, that had risen to 1.77. That's 16,375 miles driven per household, in 1988, rising to 21,415 miles per household in 2001. I don't know what the population of the US was in 1988 and 2001, but I'd be slightly surprised to see a per capita drop, since the miles per household has gone up and, I daresay, the number of people per household has gone down (some support for that can be found in this graph (PDF). Any thoughts on that? It seems to put a different complexion on things.
A flood of cheap foreign oil enabled rabid consumption, same reason miles per vehicle went up.
So, despite some improvements in efficiency, household consumption had gone up, total consumption had gone up and, possible, consumption per capita had gone up. Wasn't that Monte's point?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'B')TW, since Monte seems incapable of addressing these points, maybe you can take a stab at them:
It depends what you're after. Where are these quotes from?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he ratio of [Indian] energy consumption to GDP fell by 18 per cent between 1990 and 1999. For China, however, the ratio is reported to have gone down as much as 46 per cent in less than a decade. Falling levels of energy consumption per unit of GDP definitely falls under the category of good news.
Perhaps. Has the total energy consumption gone up? How has the energy intensity changed over the last 8 or 9 years?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') few numbers tell the story. Since the 1970s, per capita U.S. gross domestic product has grown far more quickly than energy use. "We're roughly half of where we were 30 years ago, in terms of BTUs per dollar of GDP," says Bill Prindle, deputy director of the Washington-based American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a non-profit group.
Refrigerators are three times as efficient as comparable 1980 models. Air conditioners are twice as efficient. Compact fluorescent light bulbs save money and electricity, too.
EU's 25 nations managed to generate about $12.1 trillion in GDP in 2004, more than the U.S.'s $11.6 trillion, while using 22 percent less energy. What this means is that there's lots of opportunity for the United States to become more energy efficient without sacrificing economic growth.The US economy can't change overnight. And waste means jobs. So there is an opportunity to grow a bit longer, with less energy, but how will that affect people, and what happens after that? Does Bill Prindle expect the US to deliberately shrink its economy, in the long term? If not, then how is that long term economy going to be powered and resourced?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n contrast to the United States, where oil consumption initially fell but then ended up rising by a total of 16 percent from 1973 to 2003, in France, despite some increase in recent years, oil use is still 10 percent lower today than it was three decades ago, according to the United States Energy Information Administration. (Germany also matched France’s record.)Sounds good. Do you think the whole world would be able to do that, and for how long? Where would the whole world export some of its energy consuming industries to?
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by kublikhan » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 05:21:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'S')o, despite some improvements in efficiency, household consumption had gone up, total consumption had gone up and, possible, consumption per capita had gone up. Wasn't that Monte's point?
Monte's point was that the increase in per vehicle consumption was caused by the efficiency improvements, not despite them. I disagree with this. You point out that the total consumption has increased. I agree with this. The population has increased. I was not arguing about population increases, I was talking about efficiency improvements not causing Jevons' paradox. Also, Monte seems to be downplaying the effect outside forces have on consumption. The 70's oil shocks curtailed consumption while the flood of cheap oil increased consumption. You can't pin those events on efficiency gains and Jevons' Paradox.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'B')TW, since Monte seems incapable of addressing these points, maybe you can take a stab at them:
It depends what you're after. Where are these quotes from?
Various sources, I quoted them earlier in this thread.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he ratio of [Indian] energy consumption to GDP fell by 18 per cent between 1990 and 1999. For China, however, the ratio is reported to have gone down as much as 46 per cent in less than a decade. Falling levels of energy consumption per unit of GDP definitely falls under the category of good news.
Perhaps. Has the total energy consumption gone up? How has the energy intensity changed over the last 8 or 9 years? Total energy consumption has gone up, energy intensity in the last 8 or 9 years has gone down. As far as your waste means jobs argument, the EU has managed an even larger GDP with 22% less energy than the US.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') few numbers tell the story. Since the 1970s, per capita U.S. gross domestic product has grown far more quickly than energy use. "We're roughly half of where we were 30 years ago, in terms of BTUs per dollar of GDP," says Bill Prindle, deputy director of the Washington-based American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a non-profit group.
Refrigerators are three times as efficient as comparable 1980 models. Air conditioners are twice as efficient. Compact fluorescent light bulbs save money and electricity, too.
EU's 25 nations managed to generate about $12.1 trillion in GDP in 2004, more than the U.S.'s $11.6 trillion, while using 22 percent less energy. What this means is that there's lots of opportunity for the United States to become more energy efficient without sacrificing economic growth.The US economy can't change overnight. And waste means jobs. So there is an opportunity to grow a bit longer, with less energy, but how will that affect people, and what happens after that? Does Bill Prindle expect the US to deliberately shrink its economy, in the long term? If not, then how is that long term economy going to be powered and resourced? Mr. Prindle was talking about increasing energy efficiency and decreasing energy use, without shrinking the economy. It was not about fossil fuel depletion, but energy efficiency and economic growth.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n contrast to the United States, where oil consumption initially fell but then ended up rising by a total of 16 percent from 1973 to 2003, in France, despite some increase in recent years, oil use is still 10 percent lower today than it was three decades ago, according to the United States Energy Information Administration. (Germany also matched France’s record.)Sounds good. Do you think the whole world would be able to do that, and for how long? Where would the whole world export some of its energy consuming industries to? The point was these were examples of shrinking total oil use yet a growing economy.
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by TonyPrep » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 05:34:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'T')he population has increased. I was not arguing about population increases, I was talking about efficiency improvements not causing Jevons' paradox.
Yes, but you also claimed that per capita consumption fell during the period mentioned. The evidence I presented earlier suggests that was not the case. I could be wrong, though; do you have any evidence to support your claim?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'T')otal energy consumption has gone up, energy intensity in the last 8 or 9 years has gone down. As far as your waste means jobs argument, the EU has managed an even larger GDP with 22% less energy than the US.
I'm not sure what the relevance of that last point is. The US is not the EU, and has a different history, society and economy. There is no doubt that there is room for improvement, but so what? How has the energy intensity changed in China and India, over the last decade? I expect economies to become more efficient, however, so what point are you trying to make?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'M')r. Prindle was talking about increasing energy efficiency and decreasing energy use, without shrinking the economy. It was not about fossil fuel depletion, but energy efficiency and economic growth.
From your quote, he hasn't made a very convincing argument. Does he think the global economy can grow indefinitely by continually using less energy and, eventually, a fixed amount of energy?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'D')o you think the whole world would be able to do that, and for how long? Where would the whole world export some of its energy consuming industries to?
The point was these were examples of shrinking total oil use yet a growing economy.Are they complete economies, where all goods and services consumed and used in the economy were produced in that economy? If not, then I'm not sure how useful those examples are.
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by kublikhan » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 05:48:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'Y')es, but you also claimed that per capita consumption fell during the period mentioned. The evidence I presented earlier suggests that was not the case. I could be wrong, though; do you have any evidence to support your claim?
I meant per vehicle consumption. Sorry for the confusion. I was going off of Monte's sources and they talk about per vehicle consumption, not per capita.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'T')otal energy consumption has gone up, energy intensity in the last 8 or 9 years has gone down. As far as your waste means jobs argument, the EU has managed an even larger GDP with 22% less energy than the US.
I'm not sure what the relevance of that last point is. The US is not the EU, and has a different history, society and economy. There is no doubt that there is room for improvement, but so what? How has the energy intensity changed in China and India, over the last decade? I expect economies to become more efficient, however, so what point are you trying to make?
The same point I have been trying to make for the past several pages. Jevons' paradox has not been shown to cause backfire in mature technologies.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'M')r. Prindle was talking about increasing energy efficiency and decreasing energy use, without shrinking the economy. It was not about fossil fuel depletion, but energy efficiency and economic growth.
From your quote, he hasn't made a very convincing argument. Does he think the global economy can grow indefinitely by continually using less energy and, eventually, a fixed amount of energy? Ok I guess you missed it the first time. Let me repeat, he was not talking about fossil fuel depletion, fixed amounts of energy, overshoot, infinite growth, zombies, or any of the other topics frequented on this board. Clear? The point, was you can increase your energy efficiency, without sacrificing economic growth.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'D')o you think the whole world would be able to do that, and for how long? Where would the whole world export some of its energy consuming industries to? The point was these were examples of shrinking total oil use yet a growing economy.Are they complete economies, where all goods and services consumed and used in the economy were produced in that economy? If not, then I'm not sure how useful those examples are. There are economies of an entire country. I'm note sure how much more complete you want. Increased efficiency, yet lower total usage. No Jevons' Paradox here.
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by yesplease » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 06:22:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'R')egular cude?
Yeah, the good stuff.
Nope sorry, wrong site. You'll need to g00gl3 for "peak good stuff" if you're interested in that. This site is about peak petroleum/oil.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')ow, what crystal ball did you use? There are 120 million cars now, mostly not EVs. With a 10% growth in total car ownership, there would still only be 175 million by 2012. Good luck with that projection.
No crystal ball, just
current EV growth rates in China. Although I did muss up the calcs. Given current growth rates there should be at ~250 million EVs in five years, unless of course higher oil prices encourage greater growth, and in that case there will be more vehicles. Do you think higher oil prices have increased or decreased EV production in China?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'S')o you're trying to argue on the basis of assumptions and comparing an overall mpg figure for one of the worst ICE vehicles to a single run of a light one person vehicle on a racetrack? Not particularly convincing. By the way, your energy consumption figure, for the velomobile is a factor of 1000 out.
There are no assumptions. An excursion gets ~10mpg.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wikipedia', 'I')ntroduced in 1999 as a 2000 model year, the Excursion was immediately criticized for being too large to fit in most home garages and its poor fuel economy (around 12-14 mpg highway and 10-11 mpg combined highway and city) And all the other stuff was linked. Good catch on the units btw, I goofed and they should all be in kWh/mile. Also regarding the velomobile, I also assumed a horrendously poor electricity generation efficiency of 15%, less than half of what the US average for fossil fuel electricity generation is alone, and even worse compared to the entire mix.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he US today converts fossil fuel into electricity at 33% efficiency, throwing away two-thirds of every unit of fuel we burn in cooling towers and smoke stacks.This covers any difference between track and traffic in spades. Compared to the US vehicle fleet at 17mpg they are still an order of magnitude+ more efficient. We could power a fleet of Aptera like vehicles by switching to CFLs and turning appliances of when we are not using them. All while savings hundreds of billions, possibly trillions, in externalized costs associated with autos today. Oh, the sacrifices we must make to break our oil addiction. You may or may not like arithmetic or physics but that doesn't make them any less real and/or accurate. Here's more on velos from autospeed.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ompared with a conventional bicycle that on flat ground at 36 km/h requires a rider power of 345 watts to overcome wind resistance, a fully faired recumbent velomobile requires just 30 or 40 watts!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'C')an't find a figure for regular crude alone but the EIA's IPM has a crude plus lease condensate figure peaking for the daily average, in 2005. 2006 and 2007 were lower, with only 3 months' figures estimated so far for 2008 (which could be a new peak but it's far too early to tell). Total liquids has increased since but I don't think all liquids are equal in terms of how they can be used.The EIA says peak in Petroleum was Feb 08. Lease Condensate production is on the same page and over the past year plus it hasn't increased enough to account for the increase in Feb 08 compared to the other months if I'm reading it correctly.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'S')o do you think you'll be able to drum up enough extra energy, from your efficiency and conservation savings, to build out our sustainable energy infrastructure, before it's too late (society collapsing)?Drum up enough energy from my efficiency and conservation savings? I doubt it. Sure, it'll take a tripling of electricity/NG rates, and oil going through the roof before I'm paying as much as I did a few years ago, not counting inflation, but I doubt that's enough to power the entire world. I agree!And why wouldn't you? But what does my personal energy efficiency and conservation savings have to do w/ behavior on a world wide scale? Surely you didn't think the energy I alone didn't use is enough to power the rest of the world 
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
-
yesplease
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 3765
- Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
-
by TonyPrep » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 06:23:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'I') meant per vehicle consumption. Sorry for the confusion. I was going off of Monte's sources and they talk about per vehicle consumption, not per capita.
OK. But, again, wasn't Monte's point that whilst efficiency may increase, it still resulted in total consumption going up? Per vehicle, it didn't, but I've already pointed out some factors that may play a misleading part in the raw figures.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'T')he same point I have been trying to make for the past several pages. Jevons' paradox has not been shown to cause backfire in mature technologies.
I'm not sure how that quote showed that. It showed decreased energy intensity, that's all.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'T')he point, was you can increase your energy efficiency, without sacrificing economic growth.
Yes, you can do that. But you can't do that forever because efficiencies have a limit. With dwindling energy, you may have to increase efficiencies just to maintain a certain level of GDP, rather than grow. And if you're having to concentrate on efficiencies to keep the economy steady, how do you spare energy for new stuff?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'A')re they complete economies, where all goods and services consumed and used in the economy were produced in that economy? If not, then I'm not sure how useful those examples are.
There are economies of an entire country. I'm note sure how much more complete you want. Increased efficiency, yet lower total usage. No Jevons' Paradox here.An entire country, eh? How would those sample countries fare, if cut off from the world? It's not what I want, it's about reality. If a country, for example, is importing most of its high energy goods and services, then that energy is expended elsewhere, and the energy consumption of those imports have not been taken into account. The world, as a whole, has a complete economy, because all of the goods and service consumed and used in that economy are produced entirely within that economy. The world, as a whole, has used almost continuously increasing amounts of energy (and other resources) to continuously increase its GDP, with only a handful of exceptional years, over the last 50.
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by TonyPrep » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 06:59:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'N')o crystal ball, just
current EV growth rates in China. Although I did muss up the calcs.
Yeah, I noticed. And you're still doing it. According to the chart, electric two wheel vehicles in use (assuming all the ones sold are still in use), increased by about 16%-17% in 2006. At that rate, there would be 68 million of them in 2012. There would also be a lot of gasoline powered two wheel vehicles and regular passenger vehicles, much more than now. So I don't know what help you think all that will be.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')here are no assumptions.
Well, you used the word. Are you treating those assumptions as facts now?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') also assumed a horrendously poor electricity generation efficiency of 15%, less than
half of what the US average for fossil fuel electricity generation is alone, and even worse compared to the entire mix.
I thought you assumed 15% at every point. 15% efficiency in extracting the coal, 15% efficiency in grading and transporting it, 15% efficiency in generation, 15% efficiency in transmission, 15% efficiency in battery storage and then you get to the motor. Is that total chain efficiency as good as you claim it is, compared to a similar calculation for an comparable ICE vehicle (not a velomobile on a track versus an Excursion's overall consumption)?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'Y')ou may or may not like arithmetic or physics
Oh, at least as much as you.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'C')an't find a figure for regular crude alone but the EIA's IPM has a crude plus lease condensate figure peaking for the daily average, in 2005. 2006 and 2007 were lower, with only 3 months' figures estimated so far for 2008 (which could be a new peak but it's far too early to tell). Total liquids has increased since but I don't think all liquids are equal in terms of how they can be used.The EIA says peak in Petroleum was Feb 08. Lease Condensate production is on the same page and over the past year plus it hasn't increased enough to account for the increase in Feb 08 compared to the other months if I'm reading it correctly.I couldn't see the separe lease condensate figure. Regular crude peak on a yearly basis in 2005 (so far), which is what I said.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'B')ut what does my personal energy efficiency and conservation savings have to do w/ behavior on a world wide scale? Surely you didn't think the energy I alone didn't use is enough to power the rest of the world Ho, ho ho. My sides are splitting.
Well, I asked what you'd do. And you couldn't power the world with what you'd do, so I guess that answers the question.
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by yesplease » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 07:52:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'N')o crystal ball, just
current EV growth rates in China. Although I did muss up the calcs.
Yeah, I noticed. And you're still doing it. According to the chart, electric two wheel vehicles in use (assuming all the ones sold are still in use), increased by about 16%-17% in 2006. At that rate, there would be 68 million of them in 2012. There would also be a lot of gasoline powered two wheel vehicles and regular passenger vehicles, much more than now. So I don't know what help you think all that will be.
In mid 2005 there were ~9 million made, and in mid 2006, the last data point, there were ~14 million made. That's way more than a 16-17% growth rate. Summing it up roughly results in the initial 33 million as of mid 2006, with 5 million extra a year made for the next five and a half years, so tack on 19m, 24m, 29m, 34m, 39m, 44/2m for a total of 200 million. I must have tacked on an extra year in there someplace, so how about ~250 million by 2013?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')here are no assumptions.
Well, you used the word. Are you treating those assumptions as facts now?
Oh, fail! I should've said there will be, since I was using the figure for US electricity generation efficiency. 
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') thought you assumed 15% at every point. 15% efficiency in extracting the coal, 15% efficiency in grading and transporting it, 15% efficiency in generation, 15% efficiency in transmission, 15% efficiency in battery storage and then you get to the motor. Is that total chain efficiency as good as you claim it is, compared to a similar calculation for an comparable ICE vehicle (not a velomobile on a track versus an Excursion's overall consumption)?Nope, just 15% for power generation/delivery. The chains were similar for both. Starting with some product, the conversion to usable energy, be it through refining or electricity generation, and the storage/use. If you have any LCA's that's cool, but I think the average auto would compete less than favorably w/ the electrics considering the complexity/lifespans.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') couldn't see the separe lease condensate figure. Regular crude peak on a yearly basis in 2005 (so far), which is what I said.I thought it was world NG liquids production but it looks like those could include butane and propane so scratch that. What I did find says lease condensates are just mixed in w/ the crude, regardless, so I don't think it's something different from what's been refined for the past couple decades.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EIA', 'S')mall amounts of hydrocarbons that exist in gaseous phase in natural underground reservoirs but are liquid at atmospheric pressure after being recovered from oil well (casinghead) gas in lease separators and are subsequently commingled with the crude stream without being separately measured. Lease condensate recovered as a liquid from natural gas wells in lease or field separation facilities and later mixed into the crude stream is also included;Crude is still crude even w/ lease condensates. Anyway, according to the EIA peak won't wait for a year, it'll happen on a month since we measure by those.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')ell, I asked what you'd do. And you couldn't power the world with what you'd do, so I guess that answers the question.Could any single human power several billion other humans?
Ah, if people ain't gonna see any humor when I ain't tired and can't really much much when I am.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
-
yesplease
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 3765
- Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
-
Return to Peak Oil Discussion
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests
