$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')Fortune favors the doubters because the ETP model has fixed dates and fixed prices for those dates which are now demonstrably false in matching reality.
PeakOil is You
Economics vs. ETP
Re: Economics vs. ETP
by AdamB » Tue 19 Dec 2017, 22:31:16
Using the word fortune gives it too much credit. It was a given from the start, and I have been saying it for maybe more than a year now, after only a few minutes of investigation.
No need for fortune at all when facts, logic and 120 seconds of critical thinking will tell you everything you need to know about its capabilities.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
-
AdamB - Volunteer
- Posts: 11018
- Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
Re: Economics vs. ETP
by ralfy » Tue 19 Dec 2017, 22:32:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '
')+1
Also, backing up the theory with logic that (for example) not using inflation adjusted dollars over 6 decades "proves" that the cost of obtaining a BTU of energy has risen by roughly the amount those dollars have depreciated due to cumulative inflation.
Of course, for the ETP supporters, ignoring math and pretending that magically, starting in mid-2014, the issue with oil became affordability and THAT's why the price fell is another favorite defense/deflection for the ETP theory. The obvious problem with that theory is that every credible source shows that the global and US economy have continued to grow just fine on average (as long as extremists aren't gaming the numbers). Thus the idea that oil at $40 or $50 is less affordable than it was for the four years preceeding mid 2014, when the price was roughly TWICE that on average, is sheer lunacy.
...
For people willing to trust the ideas and evidence of mainstream economics and real world economic data from credible sources, it looks solidly like the score should be check and mate against ETP to me.
Will a maximum MAP price dramatically crashing over the next several years help the ETPers' case? Only, IMO, if they radically move the goal posts, as some of them show evidence of starting to try to play with recently.
')+1
Also, backing up the theory with logic that (for example) not using inflation adjusted dollars over 6 decades "proves" that the cost of obtaining a BTU of energy has risen by roughly the amount those dollars have depreciated due to cumulative inflation.
Of course, for the ETP supporters, ignoring math and pretending that magically, starting in mid-2014, the issue with oil became affordability and THAT's why the price fell is another favorite defense/deflection for the ETP theory. The obvious problem with that theory is that every credible source shows that the global and US economy have continued to grow just fine on average (as long as extremists aren't gaming the numbers). Thus the idea that oil at $40 or $50 is less affordable than it was for the four years preceeding mid 2014, when the price was roughly TWICE that on average, is sheer lunacy.
...
For people willing to trust the ideas and evidence of mainstream economics and real world economic data from credible sources, it looks solidly like the score should be check and mate against ETP to me.
Will a maximum MAP price dramatically crashing over the next several years help the ETPers' case? Only, IMO, if they radically move the goal posts, as some of them show evidence of starting to try to play with recently.
The fact that economics is measured in terms of dollars makes the thread title questionable. It was never economics vs. ETP. Rather, economics dependent on availability of material resources and energy. That's why we have diminishing returns.
-
ralfy - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 5651
- Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
- Location: The Wasteland
Re: Economics vs. ETP
by ralfy » Tue 19 Dec 2017, 22:36:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')
This is simple the EROEI argument with a bunch of unnecessary ETP bells and whistle stuck on it to make it 'prettier'. EROEI theory may very well prove to be the true effect over time, however marrying EROEI to overnight crash fast doom is where ETP comes from. EROEI means you have to choose to change your method of energy acquisition as one source of net energy goes into decline. I find this to be pretty basic and sound in concept, as Oil runs out of net energy we will be forced to select alternative energy sources to first supplement and then ultimately replace the energy we get from oil. Only a person blind to all the other sources of energy that feed into our civilization however would predict instant doom the day oil EROEI declines beyond (insert arbitrary number here).
Decline in net energy will not be system wide instant doom. While fracking wells may only produce 10:1 EROEI and Tar Sands 7:1 EROEI the vast flow out of OPEC is still coming at 85:1 or better and deep water sources are say 25:1 or better. Thus over the whole spectrum of sources the world net oil energy flow remains a high average and slowly declines as poorer sources are used to supplement better sources over time. When all the easy high EROEI conventional oil is exhausted and the only oil available is the low EROEI fracking/tar sand/extra heavy oil the net EROEI will fall to 10:1 or less. But that will take years, perhaps even decades, after conventional peak is irrefutably in the rear view mirror and we have passed a long distance down the depletion curve. In that window of time there will still be vast sources of Natural Gas, Coal and other energy sources to draw upon and as oil wanes they will move up the scale of desirability to higher levels. There is plenty of energy out there at this point in time and it will take years for the post peak crash to have full effect. We may have passed world peak in 2015, but we might not have as there is still a flush of fracking that has not yet come fully into use. The next few years are crucial.
')
This is simple the EROEI argument with a bunch of unnecessary ETP bells and whistle stuck on it to make it 'prettier'. EROEI theory may very well prove to be the true effect over time, however marrying EROEI to overnight crash fast doom is where ETP comes from. EROEI means you have to choose to change your method of energy acquisition as one source of net energy goes into decline. I find this to be pretty basic and sound in concept, as Oil runs out of net energy we will be forced to select alternative energy sources to first supplement and then ultimately replace the energy we get from oil. Only a person blind to all the other sources of energy that feed into our civilization however would predict instant doom the day oil EROEI declines beyond (insert arbitrary number here).
Decline in net energy will not be system wide instant doom. While fracking wells may only produce 10:1 EROEI and Tar Sands 7:1 EROEI the vast flow out of OPEC is still coming at 85:1 or better and deep water sources are say 25:1 or better. Thus over the whole spectrum of sources the world net oil energy flow remains a high average and slowly declines as poorer sources are used to supplement better sources over time. When all the easy high EROEI conventional oil is exhausted and the only oil available is the low EROEI fracking/tar sand/extra heavy oil the net EROEI will fall to 10:1 or less. But that will take years, perhaps even decades, after conventional peak is irrefutably in the rear view mirror and we have passed a long distance down the depletion curve. In that window of time there will still be vast sources of Natural Gas, Coal and other energy sources to draw upon and as oil wanes they will move up the scale of desirability to higher levels. There is plenty of energy out there at this point in time and it will take years for the post peak crash to have full effect. We may have passed world peak in 2015, but we might not have as there is still a flush of fracking that has not yet come fully into use. The next few years are crucial.
The unnecessary bells and whistles ironically comes from economics. Put simply, we have an economic system measured in terms of money but dependent on energy and material resources. The first keeps growing through financial speculation while the latter becomes less available due to EROEI. The title thread implies that by creating more money we can reverse a downward trend in EROEI. That's not going to happen.
-
ralfy - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 5651
- Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
- Location: The Wasteland
Re: Economics vs. ETP
by AdamB » Tue 19 Dec 2017, 22:47:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')he fundamental different between ETP and Economics (I wrote trying to get the thread back on topic) is Economic rules have been demonstrated to work for thousands of years and ETP has only presented a loose correlation for the last handful of years.
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')he fundamental different between ETP and Economics (I wrote trying to get the thread back on topic) is Economic rules have been demonstrated to work for thousands of years and ETP has only presented a loose correlation for the last handful of years.
It should no surprise that Etp effects are only now apparent, in the last few years.
There are no Etp effects.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')(As to you other point (loose correlation), under the terms of the Etp model, the data has kept within the predicted range.
The etp can't predict. Go here to understand why.
I spotted it within minutes of introduction to the etp. You still can't see it. Try harder.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')In what way as the Etp model been proven demonstrably false?
You know. Data, reality, oil prices, stuff like that.
