[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dsula', 'Y')es, doodle some curves showing the future till 2050, or 2100. Something more accurate than we currently have. Try to minimize the error (reality-model)^2

[agramante]

In the Saudi America thread:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')gramante wrote:
And I think he answered you, in a way. Hubbert's original paper allows that production can have multiple peaks.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('agramante', 'I')n the Saudi America thread:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')gramante wrote:
And I think he answered you, in a way. Hubbert's original paper allows that production can have multiple peaks.

[agramante]

I get the sense you know some math--you're no doubt familiar with discrete difference equations, global, and local maxima? Several peaks are possible within one series. But even if Hubbert were modeling production using difference equations and MATLAB, there's no a priori reason to assume multiple peaks in a model, since those peaks would be due to complicating factors individual to each field or region. So a Gaussian is a good first-order estimate.

Energy's not as cheap as it used to be. The EROEI has come down significantly, irrespective of economic value, but in the last eight years we've seen pretty steady global oil production, generally low inflation, and oil prices more than double. But depending on your frame of reference, it's still relatively cheap. An interesting commentary from the 2010 Army War College thesis of LTC Christopher Fleming:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')side from the hydrocarbon base molecule used to manufacture products, most people simply do not realize the tremendous amount of energy stored in a barrel of oil or a gallon of gasoline. There are 42 gallons in a barrel of oil which contain about 1667 kilowatt-hours of energy. A gallon of gasoline energy content is about 33 kilowatt-hours. In perspective, 33 kilowatt-hours is the equivalent of a healthy male pedaling a stationary bike for 330 hours--if he can maintain 100 watts per hour. If he pedals 40 hours per week, he will generate the same amount of energy as in one gallon of gasoline in about eight weeks. Pedaling 40 hours per week for just over eight years equates to 1667 kilowatt-hours of energy in a barrel of oil. 9 Now, if we attach a financial cost per hour to the pedaling, we begin to understand what is meant by “cheap” abundant fossil fuels. At the current $7.25 per hour minimum wage, the cost of pedaling 330 hours (energy in one gallon of gasoline) is $2,392.50; and pedaling 16,667 hours (energy in one barrel of oil) cost $120, 835.00. Today's price for a gallon of gasoline is about $2.50, and around $73.00 for a barrel of oil. We have exploited this cheap abundant source of energy for over 150 years.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')I am just stunned by the idea. Multiple peaks have the potential to negate the entire peak oil concept. Are you saying that the interpretation of Hubbert's work has been wrong all along because not only can we have one peak, but others? How is anyone ever supposed to know when the important peak happens? That's the beauty of peak after all, you get hit with a peak, then a decline, and thereafter you might be toast. So I can live with a little ad-libbing when it comes to needing to make up plateaus for a little face-saving, but multiple peaks? So we had one in 2005...now we just wait around for the next one?

[Vineyard]

Hi there, I'm also coming from TOD.

This NBF article actually reminds me of some bullcrap written by Bjorn Lomborg recently.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commen ... rn-lomborg

The same guy, who bashed the german "Energiewende" a while ago and said they should also switch to Shale Gas because of lower CO2 emissions.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Vineyard', 'H')i there, I'm also coming from TOD.

This NBF article actually reminds me of some bullcrap written by Bjorn Lomborg recently.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commen ... rn-lomborg

The same guy, who bashed the german "Energiewende" a while ago and said they should also switch to Shale Gas because of lower CO2 emissions.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', ' ')People turn to cleaner ways to make power, the world changes.

So he wants shale gas? Better than coal, go for it.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', ' ')People turn to cleaner ways to make power, the world changes.

So he wants shale gas? Better than coal, go for it.

[Null Hypothesis]

I just came over from TOD.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')According to one of their tables, there was only like 29 years of gold around....and maybe 50 years of oil. Well, so we must be out of gold and oil is toast in 7 years? Certainly those who like the idea of a big model predicting the same Malthusian doom as Malthus did will like the idea, but all it takes is one look at an EIA or IEA projection of oil production (let alone gold!) to see that running out, it ain't here yet, and we might not even be able to see it from here yet.

[Pops]

That's good, NH,

I've also thought of how inertia in the economy - and as you point out; free credit, can bring forward what might otherwise be considered future production. distorting the ol' bell curve into the "shark fin" or cresting wave plot. The worst effect is instead of a gentle top to the curve, with the fastest rate of decline in the middle of the descent, the fastest rate happens right at the beginning.

I've thought about it, I didn't say I liked the thought. lol,
welcome btw.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Null Hypothesis', 'I') just came over from TOD.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')According to one of their tables, there was only like 29 years of gold around....and maybe 50 years of oil. Well, so we must be out of gold and oil is toast in 7 years? Certainly those who like the idea of a big model predicting the same Malthusian doom as Malthus did will like the idea, but all it takes is one look at an EIA or IEA projection of oil production (let alone gold!) to see that running out, it ain't here yet, and we might not even be able to see it from here yet.

[Lore]

The total worth of gold in the world is about $9 trillion dollars. The U.S has $478 billion dollars of that gold, which is not enough to support a $15 trillion dollar economy. In fact there is not enough gold in the world to cover the Federal US deficit, let alone anyone else. So, essentially from a practical standpoint, physical gold as a financial asset has run out.

[ralfy]

To add to what Lore wrote, we only have the the equivalent of less than two troy oz. of gold per capita for the global population. At the same time, the global economy requires increasing credit, which gold supply cannot match. More details here:

http://theautomaticearth.com/Finance/oi ... redit.html

[Peak_Yeast]

Hehe ... Fighting John_A is like fighting windmills...quite pointless.

1. LTG stated that above ground factors - like catastrophes, political decisions and so forth would change the results. - If you take away the embargoes, the bickering, the wars and the depressions then suddenly the standard scenario looks quite precise.

2. We will never run out of raw materials - what will happen is that the ore grades goes worse as energy costs go up. Eventually its no fun at all extracting the ore.

3. The unconventional energy "revolution" hasnt changes anything yet enough to warrant that its worth anything in the long perspective. That we have "survived" a couple of years doesnt mean we will be able to do it the next 20 years.

4. I know that from a western, and especially the obese american view - food is not an issue. However, it is to the 1+ billion who is starving. And they get more very fast. So where is that green revolution that were going to eradicate starvation and end poverty? .. Its in lala-land...

5. How did human ingenuity and inventiveness prevent mass-extinction in the natural world? We have been working on that for several decades and it is accelerating. How much biomass do you think humans can collect before there is a ecological crash?

6. The contaminants in food follows the LTG scenarios. We now have not 1 or 2 pesticides - They find many many types of pollutants in most foods nowadays. Is that a measure of quality or a problem? To me its a problem that will not be solved with the farming methods of today. Which means we are poisoning ourselves increasingly without any means to stop it.

7. The inventiveness of humans has actually decreased in the past 50-100 years. We are now not really making new fundamental progress, but just refining existing ones. The educational system has really been efficient at teaching people not to think outside the box. Which Noam Chomsky also has a word or two about if you care to listen. As the constraints of the world constricts change without big trouble becomes much less likely. Just look at the investments in renewable energy and NIF. Now they reduce the investments because the money is needed elsewhere. Exactly the idiotic behavior one could predict a brain-dead zombie, that did not want to prepare when everything was prosperous, would do...

So what you are saying: That even though all historical evidence shows us that the human behavior as a collective organism is about as intelligent as a bacteria we will suddenly shape up and solve multiple gigantic problems in a time of trouble (which we didnt solve when we had a time of plenty) without making life very unpleasant for most people on earth? And all the wars, the unpleasantness, death, famine, pollution, species extinction, poverty isnt real because it hasnt hit YOU smack in the face?

Ok... I understand - please go on living in lala-land.

[Beery1]

with Peak_Yeast

[kiwichick]

from the 30 year update page 253

"the longer the world economy takes to reduce it's ecological footprint and move toward sustainability, the lower the population and material standard that will ultimately be supportable.

At some point , delay means collapse."

[evilgenius]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('agramante', 'K')eith-

"The Limits to Growth" said nothing of the sort, that we would run out of resources by the early 21st century. That's one of the oldest fallacies about this book pushed by its opponents. When someone uses it, it's a dead giveaway that they either haven't read the book or have misunderstood it, willfully or otherwise. Forbes, unsurprisingly, has run a series of articles trumpeting their failure to understand it at all.

The many graphs showing resource depletion are NOT predictions--that point is repeatedly stressed within the book--but rather, extrapolations based on 1970 reserves and consumption rates. The writers explicitly allow that improvements in extraction technology and discovery of new resources are likely. In fact, a number of scenarios in the book involve doubling the known resource base.

The closest thing to a prediction concerning resource availability is the following statement on page 66: "Given present resource consumption rates and the projected increase in these rates, the great majority of the currently important nonrenewable resources will be extremely costly 100 years from now." Not exactly the chicken little scenario the book's detractors try to paint.

The main argument of The Limits to Growth is not to show that we were sure to run out of stuff in 30 to 40 years. It was to model system dynamics, where resources in general are finite. Several of their model runs include doubling, or more, the available resources. One run (described on page 136) even discounts the notion of finite raw materials at all! And still their model showed peak-and-decline global economic dynamics--the only difference was, how many decades into the 21st century this would occur.

Unlimited Run.jpg

It's a fascinating book, absolutely worth a read or three.

[shortonoil]

In 1970 the average ton of gold ore produced 1300 grams of gold, in 2012 it produced 3.00. In 1970 it took 14,000 BTU to extract, process, and distribute a gallon of crude oil, in 2012 it took 70,000. "Running out" is a misnomer. Most of these resources display some form of exponential distribution during their decline. The point where they have declined to a level where they are no longer usable is "totally depleted". The world is not running out of anything; it is becoming totally depleted in many.