What happens when the wedge lines cross as the oscillations narrow?
PeakOil is You
Wouldn't it be Ironic!
25 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: Wouldn't it be Ironic!
by sjn » Wed 11 Feb 2015, 14:38:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Paulo1', 'J')ust like 'Ghostbusters'!! "Don't cross the streams, whatever you do, don't cross the streams."
What happens when the wedge lines cross as the oscillations narrow?
What happens when the wedge lines cross as the oscillations narrow?
LOL
Increasing Boom/Bust as the floor and ceiling diverge?
Here's a new scribble:
I suggest the centre point of your oscillation should be the green line, perhaps with the blue line providing amplitude. Purely intuitive opinion of course.
-
sjn - Elite
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: UK
Re: Wouldn't it be Ironic!
by sjn » Wed 11 Feb 2015, 14:52:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'P')ops I sorta can see your graph to a certain extent supporting the ETP model. The disconnect of money and reality via the 'corporatist command economy' might be the only thing that allows us to 'cheat' the 'market' and the 2nd law. Can't see it being cheated for long though. You lot are pushing my doom meter up on a daily basis!
Short said
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')y using the inflation adjusted price it is saying that a barrel of oil delivered more energy in 2012 than it did in 1975. That, unfortunately, violates the Second Law, which says that is impossible.
LOL, according to the ETP model, inflation violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is therefore impossible. I'm neither a physicist nor an economist but I kinda think that the problem is not with inflation nor thermodynamics but the particular application wrt the model.
I'm not sure what short is on about there. Perhaps it's badly worded. He lost me too.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Using the nominal price of oil the ETP says ERI was 2:1 in 2012 (correct me if wrong) - no other study is close to that - the lowest number I've seen was 11:1 (Hall et al) at the height of the E&P binge.
I've not looked at the numbers, but could it be the average EROEI on new production rather than the average across the existing base + new production? Don't forget drilling holes in the ground doesn't necessarily return any energy at all.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')So the two main assumptions are at least controversial, which admittedly is a draw for some.
Finally, I came to PO initially with the "environmentalist" attitude that geology & ERI trump everything and economists were full of it. I studied every plot of Campbell and especially Laherrere but all the "Hard Science" geo-whatever guys in general because I thought they knew the score. Turns out that to a man they were wrong in their predictions - although later forecasts by Laherrere show he learned the lesson of low precision. It finally dawned on me that oil extraction is an economic venture, it is about making money not energy. While geology and physics and engineering may set the outer bounds of what is possible, the day-to-day is about economics.
Which isn't to say that I pay attention to economists! They are merely politicians that campaign for contributions with equations rather than platitudes, LOL
Is there a change in oulook there? Biophysical limits always provide the outer bounds of what any species can do, everything else is individual and/or group behaviour with comes in almost unimaginable variety. Humans don't have a special exemption, even if we like to try to explain our "reality" with magical thinking.
