Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Energy and the Mother of Invention

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby TonyPrep » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 05:32:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'H')owever, expecting such a growth rate to continue up to a quarter of a billion, so quickly, is a bit optimistic, to say the least. And the same questions apply, with regard to the effect, considering 1000 cars are being added every couple of days, plus the G2Ws.
Not when oil is at $100+/bbl, or maybe even $200-300+/bbl by 2013 IMO.
China subsidises its fuel. It infuriates those countries that don't.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'A') month peak, though, is hardly significant, if it can't be sustained. You don't think it's a problem if the yearly amount is less, provided there was a monthly peak in there somewhere?
Since peak is be definition the highest point/largest amount, not really.
You don't think a year on year decline is a problem? A particular monthly peak is symbolic, of course, but if an economy needs x and only gets x-y (where both x and y are positive), then it doesn't really matter much that the year with x-y includes the peak month.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby yesplease » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 05:37:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'C')hina subsidises its fuel. It infuriates those countries that don't.
It may, but it's still not enough to make g2w as cheap as e2w. That, and it can only subsidize it's fuel consumption insofar as it has wealth from other nations buying it's stuff. It's biggest importer, the US, looks to be entering a recession, so I wouldn't bank on it being able to continue fuel subsidies for much longer if it's biggest sources of revenue dry up.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'Y')ou don't think a year on year decline is a problem? A particular monthly peak is symbolic, of course, but if an economy needs x and only gets x-y (where both x and y are positive), then it doesn't really matter much that the year with x-y includes the peak month.
A yoy decline can be a problem, just like a qoq, dod, or mom. The difference between what an economy needs and what it gets depends on wayyy more than just oil's decline over some time period, so I think as usual we would need way more info to even take a stab at what's a problem, including of course quantifying the problem.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby kublikhan » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 05:37:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he EIA figures show that household miles went up from 16,000 to 21,000, between 1988 and 2001 (figures calculated from the link that both you and I provided). One of those links you recently posted, shows (via dividing total VMT by population) that the per capita mileage in 1983 was 5,200, rising to 8000 by 2001. So, if those figures are correct, total per capita mileage rose by 54% during those 18 years. Is that good enough for you?
As I mentioned in my post to Monte, miles driven increased with or without MPG increases. Which to me would seem to indicate that something else was the driving force behind the increase in miles driven.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he European Tribune link you provided suggested that efficiency gains, in the US, went primarily into providing more power, rather than more mileage. Which is certainly in accord with Jevons Paradox. That link also provided a larger date range, giving a 54% rise in miles per capita, between 1983 and 2001.
There were no efficiency gains in the US from about 1991 on. But there was in the EU. If you want to gauge if Jevons' Paradox is happening or not, you should compare and contrast what happened in the 2. That way you can filter out other factors like supply side variables.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'S')ize of economy was not the point I was making, as you probably well know. The 22% figure was given as the lower amount of energy use in the EU, compared to the US. It was not about shaving off an existing energy use to provide X% growth. I also didn't say it wouldn't be worthwhile; I said there was scant evidence that a complete economy could grow for more than a few years, whilst using less and less energy. Do you know of any such evidence? I've seen a graph that showed a slight dip in global energy use during the first of the oil shocks, whilst still maintaining, or slightly growing the global economy for a couple of years. No declining energy consumption since then, though.
It appears that we are talking about 2 different things. You are trying to show growth cannot happen perpetually with perpetually falling energy. I don't dispute that. But I was trying to show that there has been examples of falling energy intensity yet rising GDP growth. I was trying to counter the argument that went something like this: "Cutting out waste(lowering energy intensity) eliminates jobs(shrinks GDP)"
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby TonyPrep » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 05:42:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 's')o I think as usual we would need way more info
Well, I think an economy that would normally need x oil in a year but can only get its hands on x-y, would have a problem. The economy would shrink and jobs would be lost. You can wait for more information, if you like, though I don't know what that would be.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby TonyPrep » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 05:56:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'A')s I mentioned in my post to Monte, miles driven increased with or without MPG increases. Which to me would seem to indicate that something else was the driving force behind the increase in miles driven.
Maybe, but it doesn't disprove Jevons Paradox, whatever that driving force might have been.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'T')here were no efficiency gains in the US from about 1991 on.
As I said, the article you linked to said most of the efficiency gains went into more power. Seems reasonable. Do you have any data to disprove that argument? Did US cars get bigger or more powerful since 1991?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'Y')ou are trying to show growth cannot happen perpetually with perpetually falling energy. I don't dispute that.
That's good.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'B')ut I was trying to show that there has been examples of falling energy intensity yet rising GDP growth.
And I don't dispute that, in economies that have shifted energy use to other economies.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'I') was trying to counter the argument that went something like this: "Cutting out waste(lowering energy intensity) eliminates jobs(shrinks GDP)"Energy intensity is about how much energy is needed for a unit if GDP, so cutting out waste has nothing, directly, to do with lowering energy intensity. For the latter to happen, GDP would have to be maintained during the waste cutting. Some jobs are related to waste, so some jobs would be cut by eliminating waste. The question then is whether the rest of the economy can take up the slack and re-employ those unemployed. I don't think your example shows that. It merely shows that economy A attained a higher level of GDP than economy B, whilst using less 22% less energy. It doesn't show that economy B, which might be a very different economy, with many factors different from economy A, could reduce energy consumption by 22% and still reach the same level of GDP as economy A.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby kublikhan » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 06:32:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'M')aybe, but it doesn't disprove Jevons Paradox, whatever that driving force might have been.
Country A flat lines MPG, gasoline consumption increases. Country B increases MPG, gasoline consumption decreases. What conclusion would you draw? BTW, did you get a chance to read any of that 100+ page study on Jevons' paradox I linked to? It really drives home the point that Rebound effects generally do not cause backfire(Jevons' paradox) in mature technologies.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'A')s I said, the article you linked to said most of the efficiency gains went into more power. Seems reasonable. Do you have any data to disprove that argument? Did US cars get bigger or more powerful since 1991?
I do not consider a gas guzzling muscle car or an SUV an efficient vehicle. I look at MPG to judge efficiency.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'B')ut I was trying to show that there has been examples of falling energy intensity yet rising GDP growth.
And I don't dispute that, in economies that have shifted energy use to other economies.
I already answered this argument twice now. The "Other economy's" energy intensity fell even faster than ours did.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'I') was trying to counter the argument that went something like this: "Cutting out waste(lowering energy intensity) eliminates jobs(shrinks GDP)"Energy intensity is about how much energy is needed for a unit if GDP, so cutting out waste has nothing, directly, to do with lowering energy intensity. For the latter to happen, GDP would have to be maintained during the waste cutting. Some jobs are related to waste, so some jobs would be cut by eliminating waste. The question then is whether the rest of the economy can take up the slack and re-employ those unemployed. I don't think your example shows that. It merely shows that economy A attained a higher level of GDP than economy B, whilst using less 22% less energy. It doesn't show that economy B, which might be a very different economy, with many factors different from economy A, could reduce energy consumption by 22% and still reach the same level of GDP as economy A. I could delve into all of the myriad of details on why Europe is more energy efficient than the US, and about how those efficiency gains are not somehow unique to Europe but could be applied here as well, but I don't think I really need to do that. You know that American cars have lower fuel economy the European cars, as well as other efficiency gains that could be applied on this side of the pond. Are you suggesting that Mr. Prindle was in fact wrong when he said America could achieve the same level of Energy use as Europe without sacrificing GDP growth?
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby yesplease » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 06:34:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')ell, I think an economy that would normally need x oil in a year but can only get its hands on x-y, would have a problem. The economy would shrink and jobs would be lost. You can wait for more information, if you like, though I don't know what that would be.
Like I said before, that depends on the definition. For instance, the US economy apparently needed more oil from 1975-2004, but the Japanese economy didn't. The Japanese economy otoh, grew more than the US economy, overall, going from a ratio of ~3.3:1 (US/JP) in 1975 to ~2.6:1 in 2004. During the same time period, the US population grew by a factor of ~1.36, while the Japanese population grew by a factor of ~1.14, so the increase in per capita GDP was way larger in Japan. The difference? IMO, energy policy. Why? Likely the externalities associated w/ conspicuous fossil fuel use. For instance externalized costs from automobile use also accounts for ~2-15% of US GDP. Japan, otoh, while still having problems from autos, has likely seen far fewer problems than the US due to emphasizing efficiency and keeping oil consumption flat.

Clearly, it isn't just about oil decline, it also depends on many other factors as to whether or not it'll be a problem.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby TonyPrep » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 06:48:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'B')TW, did you get a chance to read any of that 100+ page study on Jevons' paradox I linked to? It really drives home the point that Rebound effects generally do not cause backfire(Jevons' paradox) in mature technologies.
I glanced at it and generally agree with you, though I'm more pessimistic on that, than you. If money is saved by efficiencies, it will get spent on something else, or on mare of the same. That seems self evident, to me. For a constrained resource, Jevons Paradox won't be able to take hold, though the effect could be transferred to other resources, if money is saved.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'I') do not consider a gas guzzling muscle car or an SUV an efficient vehicle. I look at MPG to judge efficiency.
Our personal preferences aren't that important, ultimately. If car A is twice the size of car B, but has the same MPG, it is twice as efficient. If car A has the same overall MPG as car B, but accelerates much more quickly or can pull a bigger load, it is more efficient.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'I') could delve into all of the myriad of details on why Europe is more energy efficient than the US, and about how those efficiency gains are not somehow unique to Europe but could be applied here as well, but I don't think I really need to do that. You know that American cars have lower fuel economy the European cars, as well as other efficiency gains that could be applied on this side of the pond. Are you suggesting that Mr. Prindle was in fact wrong when he said America could achieve the same level of Energy use as Europe without sacrificing GDP growth?
I don't know but I definitely don't think it's a given. The US is a much younger nation with a much lower population density, plus many other factors. To expect exactly the same effects seems far too simplistic.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby TonyPrep » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 06:50:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'C')learly, it isn't just about oil decline, it also depends on many other factors as to whether or not it'll be a problem.
There are many factors involved in how much of a problem and how that problem will be coped with, but it will be a problem.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby kublikhan » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 07:17:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I')f money is saved by efficiencies, it will get spent on something else, or on mare of the same. That seems self evident, to me. For a constrained resource, Jevons Paradox won't be able to take hold, though the effect could be transferred to other resources, if money is saved.
Seems you are talking about indirect rebound effects, which were mentioned in the report. If you save money on a primary fuel source, like gasoline or heating oil, you spend the saved money on something else in the economy. Thus at first glance it may appear that all you did was shift your consumption, not reduce your energy footprint. But it is highly likely that whatever you spend your money on will have a lower energy intensity than that primary fuel source. So in the end, you did save energy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'O')ur personal preferences aren't that important, ultimately. If car A is twice the size of car B, but has the same MPG, it is twice as efficient. If car A has the same overall MPG as car B, but accelerates much more quickly or can pull a bigger load, it is more efficient.
In order for Jevons' paradox to even be considered, you would have to first argue that the more efficient use of the resource had resulted in lower prices. But unfortunately you cannot make that argument for oil because during the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the price of oil was manipulated by an oil cartel. A country could have the most efficient vehicle fleet in the world or the least efficient and it would not matter as long as the cartel was manipulating the oil supply and thus the price.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') don't know but I definitely don't think it's a given. The US is a much younger nation with a much lower population density, plus many other factors. To expect exactly the same effects seems far too simplistic.
I agree that it is an overly simplified comparison. Weather differences along could significantly alter the equation. However I still believe the US could achieve significant energy savings without plunging us into a recession.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby TonyPrep » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 14:34:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'H')owever I still believe the US could achieve significant energy savings without plunging us into a recession.
Well, you're entitled to that belief but I very much doubt it's true. The point is largely moot, however, given that the US is already in a recession, in all but name.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby MonteQuest » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 14:44:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ')How much alternative energy generation do you think will happen during the years of oil's decline? I don't think it will be zero, nor enough to replace oil decline, but somewhere in between.


We may have all the alternative energy we are ever going to get fairly soon. We may be spending our remaining energy on war.

And not just international war. How many people are going to accept diverting energy to projects that will not see any net production for, in some cases, many years?

Be nice to know the rate of oil decline and/or export decline.

Tell you anything about why we are in Iraq?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby MonteQuest » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 14:50:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ')If American miles driven were cut back by 10%, that would be 90 GW in savings right there. Or to put it another way, it would save 1.7% of current oil use(1.37 million barrels a day). Since 72% of American household miles driven is recreational or family related, I think that is doable.


10% savings would be eclipsed by population growth alone in a few years or sucked up by China and India.

Classic example of a Solution in Isolation.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby MonteQuest » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 14:54:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'W')hat do you think the SUV's mileage would be without the efficiency gains from the 1970's oil crisis?
What do you think auto mileage would be w/o the efficiency losses from the oil-glut after WWII? Change the subject why don't ya! :P


That is the subject. I didn't change it.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby MonteQuest » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 15:00:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ') As I mentioned in my post to Monte, miles driven increased with or without MPG increases. Which to me would seem to indicate that something else was the driving force behind the increase in miles driven.


Only at the tail end of the graph data. The correlation to MPV versus MPG is a mirror image.

Cheap oil was the driving force at the tail end. I never assumed otherwise. But to say that MPV went up only because of cheaper oil defies logic and the facts.

Putting something on sale encourages consumption of it.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby MonteQuest » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 15:14:27

There really is only one final word; there is no such thing as a free lunch. You can't get something for nothing.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby kublikhan » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 15:37:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')ell you anything about why we are in Iraq?
To steal their oil, I think everyone knows that. Resource wars here we come!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'O')nly at the tail end of the graph data. The correlation to MPV versus MPG is a mirror image.
Cheap oil was the driving force at the tail end. I never assumed otherwise. But to say that MPV went up only because of cheaper oil defies logic and the facts. Putting something on sale encourages consumption of it.
But if a cartel manipulates the price of that something, that would make efficiency gains a moot point in the price of that resource. IE, it was the cartel who put the product on sale, not the MPG increase.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')here really is only one final word; there is no such thing as a free lunch. You can't get something for nothing.
If you use something more efficiently than before, you can turn what used to be waste into useful work.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby kublikhan » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 19:40:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'H')owever I still believe the US could achieve significant energy savings without plunging us into a recession.
Well, you're entitled to that belief but I very much doubt it's true.
If France and Germany could do it, why would you doubt the US could do it?

France Crude Oil Consumption(millions of barrels a day):
1980: 2.3
2005: 2.0

France GDP(in 2005 dollars):
1980: 689 billion
2005: 2,127 billion

Germany Crude Oil Consumption(millions of barrels a day):
1991: 2.8
2005: 2.6

Germany GDP(in 2005 dollars):
1991: 1,809 billion
2005: 2,795 billion
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby MonteQuest » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 22:46:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ') But if a cartel manipulates the price of that something, that would make efficiency gains a moot point in the price of that resource. IE, it was the cartel who put the product on sale, not the MPG increase.


Cartel? Oil is a traded commodity. The market sets the price.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby kublikhan » Fri 11 Jul 2008, 00:11:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ') But if a cartel manipulates the price of that something, that would make efficiency gains a moot point in the price of that resource. IE, it was the cartel who put the product on sale, not the MPG increase.
Cartel? Oil is a traded commodity. The market sets the price.
Whatever you want to call it. Massive supply side disruptions caused the 70's oil shocks, not Jevons' Paradox. Then with the high price of oil those disruptions caused, it spurred conservation and later, overproduction. Thus there was then a glut of oil and prices plummeted. You would be better off trying to explain the blue and green lines on that graph by looking at the price of oil during that time rather than looking at MPG, it fits better. And it's not just the tail end of the graph that had cheap oil either:

"After 1980, reduced demand and overproduction produced a glut on the world market, causing a six-year-long decline in oil prices culminating with a 46 percent price drop in 1986."
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests



cron