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 rwwff » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 10:02:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DefiledEngine', 'I')sn't the problem that if you start taking away energy from people, they might take energy from others to satisfy themselves?


Let see, stealing power because you can't pay, causing the lights to go out in the local school or factory.... result:

Do that in China, the PLA will just shoot you.
Do that in India and the village will beat you to death with sticks.
Do that in the US and they'll lock you up.
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby DoctorDoom » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 11:34:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')No, bringing invention to fruition makes a new demand on energy.


New demands will in most cases displace old ones. It doesn't take more energy to produce a hybrid car than to produce a monster SUV. Building EROEI positive infrastructure instead of, say, shopping malls or new skyscrapers eventually starts paying back by reducing the rate of energy decline. You said GDP doesn't care whether an activity is wasteful or not. I say: exactly right. This is the core of my argument that conservation and efficiency improvements don't necessarily mean economic downturn. A downturn somewhere in the economy, sure. But overall? Impossible to say with certainty.

Just as there are signs that we are on what I like to call Hubbert's plateau right now, there are also signs that our behaviour is starting to change. People are talking about energy now. Car makers are advertising fuel economy now. The debate about electric power production, including coal and nuclear, is at least starting.

P.S. to others re. Hollywood's tabletop fusion, believe or not it is possible using 1930s vaccuum-tube technology, just look up the Farnsworth Fusor. EROEI hugely negative, of course!
DoctorDoom
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun 20 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: California
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby MonteQuest » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 12:14:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('matt21811', 'r')wwff,
This thread represents some of the most astute dispasionate annalysis of the economics of peak oil , and the human nature of energy consumption as I have seen. Keep up the good work.

Montes replys to effect of "you just dont get it" instead of an actual counter arguement show how spot on you are. He will normally put up some kind of arguement. I guess economics isnt his strong suite.

Thanks Mate.


Hardly, his analysis fails to consider so many points that it isn't worth my time to even try to explain.

Lately, I have been reminding myself to not "boil the ocean."
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 » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 12:40:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DoctorDoom', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')No, bringing invention to fruition makes a new demand on energy.


It doesn't take more energy to produce a hybrid car than to produce a monster SUV.


According to a recent study it does.

Hybrids burn up more energy in the making
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut while hybrids consume less fuel than SUVs, it takes more energy to produce the parts and components that go into making one, especially the electrical system, than it does to produce the typical full-size sport-utility vehicle.

That's the finding of a new analysis by CNW Marketing Research Inc., which calculated the cost of energy--natural gas and coal, but primarily electricity--that it takes to produce each part and component of a vehicle as well as the energy it takes to assemble the pieces into the final vehicle.


Link

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')uilding EROEI positive infrastructure instead of, say, shopping malls or new skyscrapers eventually starts paying back by reducing the rate of energy decline.


Yes, but in an energy scarce world, where will that energy come from? Will the people that depend upon building malls or skyscrapers be told their occupations are not EROEI positive enough to continue? That we need their "energy expenditure" to do other things?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou said GDP doesn't care whether an activity is wasteful or not. I say: exactly right. This is the core of my argument that conservation and efficiency improvements don't necessarily mean economic downturn. A downturn somewhere in the economy, sure. But overall? Impossible to say with certainty
.

That statement doesn' t make sense. If all activity, wasteful or not, drives GDP, then how does cutting out the wasteful uses not result in loss of economic activity?

Hogwash. You cut sales and you cut jobs. Jobs many people cannot easily replace. Look what happened in the Rust belt for an example when the steel mills closed.

Who absorbs the loss in revenue that pays salaries?

People are not thinking these things through. We have a mindset that thinks only in "well, we just need to do it" without thinking about the fact that you may have the will, but no resources to do it with.

Energy is required for change to happen.
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 matt21811 » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 13:49:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat statement doesn' t make sense. If all activity, wasteful or not, drives GDP, then how does cutting out the wasteful uses not result in loss of economic activity?


The energy freed up from wasteful activity is used to create even more economic output by using it more efficiently. There are also jobs that are effective energy positive and contribute to economic output. I imagine there will be a huge flow to jobs like that.

Are still talking about peak oil here?
User avatar
matt21811
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat 21 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby rwwff » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 16:01:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Yes, but in an energy scarce world, where will that energy come from? Will the people that depend upon building malls or skyscrapers be told their occupations are not EROEI positive enough to continue? That we need their "energy expenditure" to do other things?


This is a good example.... No one is going to tell these people nit. The orders for new construction for certain structures will simply stop. Orders for other types of construction will be made. Schmoe Contractors Inc., couldn't care less whether he's laying concrete for a WalMart parking lot, a city street, or the foundation for high speed rail lines. He has the specs, he calls various sub contractors, places orders, etc. Sarah Construction Worker will find that while last year she was pouring concrete at a new retail center, this year, she's pouring concrete for a new rail station.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Hogwash. You cut sales and you cut jobs. Jobs many people cannot easily replace. Look what happened in the Rust belt for an example when the steel mills closed.


You don't cut sales, the forces of price cause people to purchase different things.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Who absorbs the loss in revenue that pays salaries?

The idiots who insist on trying to keep selling stuff that no one wants anymore.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')nergy is required for change to happen.

And we are going to have an aweful lot of it, for quite some time. It just needs a price correction to get it doing intelligent things instead of stupid things.
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby MonteQuest » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 16:38:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('matt21811', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat statement doesn' t make sense. If all activity, wasteful or not, drives GDP, then how does cutting out the wasteful uses not result in loss of economic activity?


The energy freed up from wasteful activity is used to create even more economic output by using it more efficiently. There are also jobs that are effective energy positive and contribute to economic output. I imagine there will be a huge flow to jobs like that.

Are still talking about peak oil here?


See? You don't think these things through either.

In a capitalistic system of supply demand, there is no such thing as wasteful activity. All activity, whether wasteful of not, provides jobs and drives GDP growth. Just because you switch the use of energy from one sector to another does nothing to address net energy.

Energy does not care what it gets used for.

We are not looking to increase economic activity, we want to reduce it to be able to free up energy for the Mother of Invention to bring mitigation to fruition.

Who is going to feed, clothe and house and retrain these "wasteful occupation" people?

Where will the energy come from to do so?

From your share of the pie?

I don't think so.

Remember you cut their consumption to free up energy for mitigation. You won' thave eneough to re-employ them and bring innovations to fruition.

Bottom line, we are talking a massive soci-economical upheaval with mucho social unrest. You talk like it can be done smoothly.

Have you ever considered how many jobs are wasteful and unnecessary? What will these people do when you take their lively hood away?
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 » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 16:50:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Hogwash. You cut sales and you cut jobs. Jobs many people cannot easily replace. Look what happened in the Rust belt for an example when the steel mills closed.


You don't cut sales, the forces of price cause people to purchase different things.


Are you daff? Do you even read or think about what I write? Conservation and increases in efficiency cuts sales. It reduces economic activity. It is a self-induced recession. Recessions result in job and business loss.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Who absorbs the loss in revenue that pays salaries?

The idiots who insist on trying to keep selling stuff that no one wants anymore.


Ok, then who absorbs their loss of purchasing power and ability to pay salaries? You think they don' t spend money or something? You talk like these losses go down some black hole with no effect.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')nergy is required for change to happen.
And we are going to have an aweful lot of it, for quite some time. It just needs a price correction to get it doing intelligent things instead of stupid things.

Energy doesn't care what it gets used for. It has nothing to do with it's availability.
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 rwwff » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 17:29:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Are you daff?


I'm not quite sure I understand what this adds to the discussion, so perhaps I am daft.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Do you even read or think about what I write? Conservation and increases in efficiency cuts sales. It reduces economic activity. It is a self-induced recession. Recessions result in job and business loss.


I disagree with what you wrote. Big difference. Conservation and increases in efficiency do not cut sales, they change the types of items that are sold. It does not reduce economic activity, it changes it. Instead of buying and powering 60 watt incandescent light bulds, one might buy 12 watt flourescents, and with the eventual savings, you might set your thermostat a tiny bit cooler in the summer, or have a pizza delivered for Sunday Football. The bulb people lost some sales revenue, the pizza shack gained some sales revenue. No biggy. I doubt the pizza shack owner would complain.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Ok, then who absorbs their loss of purchasing power and ability to pay salaries? You think they don' t spend money or something? You talk like these losses go down some black hole with no effect.


Two situations apply here, one the worker is an incompetent idiot and can't manage to find something to do that isn't a waste of energy. He gets to sit on the street corner with the rest of the bums. He was dead weight to the economy and just didn't know it.

The other is the worker with a wide base set of skills; if his current job ceases to be an efficient use of energy, he loses it, and goes and finds or creates a job that is an efficient use of energy.

The first guys purchasing power was negligible; as he didn't truly add to the productivity of the core economy, anything he did with that salary was just a pass through, of no more impact than taking him out of the picture, putting his salary in a plastic bucket for a day, then taking it back.

The second guy doesn't lose in purchasing power, though the work he does may change, he adds productivity to the economy, and the moving of money through his hands actually contributes to the total real economy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')nergy is required for change to happen.

And we are going to have an aweful lot of it, for quite some time. It just needs a price correction to get it doing intelligent things instead of stupid things.
Energy doesn't care what it gets used for. It has nothing to do with it's availability.

No it doesn't care, but the people writing the checks do. When the price is sufficiently high, Joe Janitor will not use his SUV to drive 20 miles to a school across town. He'll either bike, suffer on the bus, or move, as he sees fit. Instead of driving a golf cart around the campus, he might have to push a buggy. I'm sure this will cause no end of eternal agony for him, having to ride a bus and push a cart by hand, but I think he will remain productive and the economy as a whole will not suffer to greatly as a result.

Of course the point of all this is to demonstrate why energy that is used to expand the available pool of energy takes priority over all other energy uses, and that energy will come out of the hides of less productive workers and indigents who will be priced out of the market. The simple reality is that if the energy company spots an opportunity to take 1 mw-day of energy+$$ and get back 10 mw-day of energy+$$, there is nothing that these lower echelon folks can do to prevent themselves from being completely priced out of the market.

That is where the energy and money for new developments will come from.

Edit: more of rwwff's typical stupid spelling mistakes....
Last edited by rwwff on Fri 09 Jun 2006, 19:36:53, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby matt21811 » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 19:23:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')See? You don't think these things through either.

In a capitalistic system of supply demand, there is no such thing as wasteful activity. All activity, whether wasteful of not, provides jobs and drives GDP growth. Just because you switch the use of energy from one sector to another does nothing to address net energy.


The capitalist system finds the most efficient use for limited resources. If your use doesnt warant the cash to buy the resource then you dont get to use it. Big deal.

In my state there is a water shortage. Water goes to the farmer that is the highest bidder. If the water supply drops then some farmers switch to crops that don't require irrigation or maybe they stop growing crops and set up a rural retreat or whatever. "But switching setting up a retreat does nothing to address the net water situation". What a stupid statement, the farmers still made money.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e are not looking to increase economic activity, we want to reduce it to be able to free up energy for the Mother of Invention to bring mitigation to fruition.


It does not follow that all economic activity requires energy or that we cant have economic growth or consumption with reduced energy.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')here will the energy come from to do so?

From your share of the pie?

I don't think so.


Some peole think the economy is like a pie, for you to get a bigger slice, someone else must get a smaller one. Other people simply go out and make pies. I'm thinking your in the former catagory.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ottom line, we are talking a massive soci-economical upheaval with mucho social unrest. You talk like it can be done smoothly.

Have you ever considered how many jobs are wasteful and unnecessary? What will these people do when you take their lively hood away?


I have heard this arguement over and over.
I just dont know what all those buggy whip manufacturers, telephone switch operators and farriers are going to do. Are you going to feed and cloth them?

Oh wait, I just dont get it. Right?
User avatar
matt21811
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat 21 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby MonteQuest » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 21:47:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('matt21811', ' ')It does not follow that all economic activity requires energy or that we cant have economic growth or consumption with reduced energy.



Good lord! I rest my case.
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 » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 21:58:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', ' ') Conservation and increases in efficiency do not cut sales, they change the types of items that are sold. It does not reduce economic activity, it changes it. Instead of buying and powering 60 watt incandescent light bulds, one might buy 12 watt flourescents, and with the eventual savings, you might set your thermostat a tiny bit cooler in the summer, or have a pizza delivered for Sunday Football.


My god man, think this through. If you don't have the energy to buy one thing what makes you think you can just buy another?

And where then is the net energy gain? Shifting the consumption to another sector does nothing to address net energy.

This isn't about product versus product or use versus use, this is about the energy required for any purpose. Changing the items sold does not address net energy.

Energy is not conserved if you spend it or use it for something else.

I don't think you even comprehend what I wrote in my initial post.

It just went right over your head.
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 » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 22:07:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('matt21811', ' ')Some peole think the economy is like a pie, for you to get a bigger slice, someone else must get a smaller one. Other people simply go out and make pies. I'm thinking your in the former catagory.


If the pie is cut for six and there are seven, then yes, someone else
must get a smaller piece if the seventh gets any, not a bigger slice.

And where, pray tell do you get the energy to make pies?


In the future, energy will be like a pie that gets smaller every year.

Each year, in order to get a piece of pie, it will have to be smaller.

It is from this shrinking pie that the energy for mitigation will have to come from.

How will we divide a shrinking pie?
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 rwwff » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 22:16:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')It just went right over your head.


I understood it just fine, I simply disagree, both with the analysis, and with the premises embodied within the scenario.

Thats alright though. I think I've adequately presented my position, and am not offended if you disagree with the conclusions I have reached. If I'm wrong, we'll find out soon enough. If I'm right, I expect to see within a few years an uptick in unemployment, commingled with a continuation of the process of building more coal fired generators in the face of rising petroleum prices. A recession at that time would be well timed and beneficial in the long run. Generating capacity will then increase, while demand lays flat, allowing a buffer to spread between capacity and supply, which in turn should allow electricty prices to slip, or at least go stagnant.

That is the bingo scenario, if a big enough spread develops between liquid fuel and electricty, then there will be a small chance for actual innovation to make some inroads.
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby MonteQuest » Sat 10 Jun 2006, 03:21:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', ' ')I understood it just fine, I simply disagree, both with the analysis, and with the premises embodied within the scenario.


The analysis? The premises?

Here 's another approach from another thread. He gets the point of this thread, you sir, do not.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('XOVERX', 'T')he problem is that all these potential replacement energies will take a whopping amount of energy to perfect. And what is the energy source that has to hold out until they are perfected? Well . . . it's oil.

There is a real and present danger that at current consumption, increasing daily, there will be insufficient oil to hold out until the alternative sources are developed.

If there is not enough oil left to develop these alternative energy sources at current consumption, then at some point (1) the oil must somehow be hoarded to devote to research of these alternative energies, or (2) we forget about research, drive our jalopies, and keep on keeping on.

Alternative #1 may or may not work, but you and I may not live through the die-off that will be required if oil is unavailable to the masses (I like to eat). Alternative #2 is simply, "hello neo-neolithic", or, more likely, "bye-bye homo sapiens sapiens."

So, to answer your question more succinctly: There may not be enough oil left at current consumption levels, growing daily, to develop the alternatives to oil.

And this may be the great failure of corporate capitalism, otherwise incredibly productive, unforeseen by Bernard Mandeville and Adam Smith. Selfishness is a great motivator -- if resources are inexhaustible.
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 rwwff » Sat 10 Jun 2006, 12:00:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', ' ')I understood it just fine, I simply disagree, both with the analysis, and with the premises embodied within the scenario.


The analysis? The premises?

Here 's another approach from another thread. He gets the point of this thread, you sir, do not.


I understand that you believe there will not be enough oil to develop the next phase of energy consumption for human civilization. On my side of the argument, I see it more as a probable outcome, not a certainty, and using a rough odds making call, I'd say there is a 1 in 20 chance of successfully making the next transition. I'd also point out, I don't really so much consider it a replacement for oil, but rather an alteration in the core economy to higher intensity uses of fixed in place processes; and an increased tolerance for transportational sluggishness, mitigaged by extremely high bandwidth communications.

The flip side problem, is that I feel there is a 95% chance that exactly what you are suggesting will be the end result; we won't quite make it, or we'll find the science answer but be to far down the slope to pull off the engineering solution. [that last would really suck]

The problem that is bothering you about what I am writing is my opinion that in spite of this incredible risk, it seems clear that humanity (both as represented in its individual leaders, and its actions as a combined social organism) has already decided to go for the 1 in 20 gamble; the wager being the lives of just about every living thing on the planet larger than 20 pounds. Think of it as the ultimate blackjack wager, the dealer's holding at A,9(20); we've got 3,A,K,6(20) and we've asked for another card. Next card an Ace, we survive and continue to grow, next card anything else, just about everyone and everything is going to be dead within a few centuries. We become the end of the Cenozoic.

Another thing that is probably bothering you is that, when all is said and done, I think the gamble is worth the risk. The payout is just to massive to pass on.
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby MonteQuest » Sat 10 Jun 2006, 14:40:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', ' ')I understand that you believe there will not be enough oil to develop the next phase of energy consumption for human civilization.


Once we peak, we cannot meet demand. Demand will have to be cut to match supply. This will come about either through price, mandated conservation, or rationing. Reduced consumption means reduced economic activity and the loss of jobs.

Where will the energy come from, to not only make up for the decline in oil production, but to provide for economic growth, and at the same time provide for a massive crash mitigation program to fuel the Mother of Invention?

It has to come from a ever increasing diminishing supply, not future energy growth. The alternatives to replace them take energy to create and distribute and to build an infrastructure to support it.

Where will the energy come from to re-mploy those displaced? It has to come from the diminishing supply, not future energy production growth.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he problem that is bothering you about what I am writing is my opinion that in spite of this incredible risk, it seems clear that humanity (both as represented in its individual leaders, and its actions as a combined social organism) has already decided to go for the 1 in 20 gamble; the wager being the lives of just about every living thing on the planet larger than 20 pounds.


No, I have written extensively on that point alone. We are going to build coal plants and CTL and GTL plants to try and keep the "happy motoring" going.

The problem I have with what you are writing is that you seem to think you can create energy where there is none.

Everything we do post-peak will have to come from a diminishing supply of energy. It matters not who eats it, or what the price is, there won't be enough pie to go around.

Remember, 98% of the population works to get their food, they don't grow it. 1 in 6 jobs are tied to the auto industry.

Connect the dots.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nother thing that is probably bothering you is that, when all is said and done, I think the gamble is worth the risk.


You cannot gamble if you don't have any chips.

We are out of "markers."
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 rwwff » Sat 10 Jun 2006, 15:47:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', ' ')I understand that you believe there will not be enough oil to develop the next phase of energy consumption for human civilization.


Once we peak, we cannot meet demand. Demand will have to be cut to match supply. This will come about either through price, mandated conservation, or rationing. Reduced consumption means reduced economic activity and the loss of jobs.


Reduced consumption means a changed set of economic realities, neither increase, nor decrease are mandated by that change. Decrease though, is not necessarily a bad thing.

Take out price pressure, and demand would be much higher, right now. And its been that way for decades. There is nothing evil about the price restricting demand. Without price pressure, for transport, I would likely be using about 2000 gallons of fuel per year, as opposed to the 1000 gallons of fuel per year that I do use. When the price goes higher, I might even choose to reduce that. The economy is not worse off as a result of those choices. The $250 a month that I might spend on fuel, I spend on something else, LED bike headlights, a large electric chainsaw, or a new stock tank.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Where will the energy come from, to not only make up for the decline in oil production, but to provide for economic growth, and at the same time provide for a massive crash mitigation program to fuel the Mother of Invention?


Those who can not adapt to adding the same degree of productivity to the economy using less fuel get to starve; when they get hungry enough, they'll think of something or commit suicide by cop.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')It has to come from a ever increasing diminishing supply, not future energy growth. The alternatives to replace them take energy to create and distribute and to build an infrastructure to support it.


They aren't going to be replaced, they simpy stop when they are no longer economical. I think everyone understands that. The tasks that truly add productivity to the economy, will get done in different ways; those task that are just place holder pass-throughs enabled by rediculously cheap fuel will thankfully become extinct.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Where will the energy come from to re-mploy those displaced? It has to come from the diminishing supply, not future energy production growth.

If they can't come up with a way to contribute to the economy using less fuel, then they don't get to eat. The world does not owe anyone a living.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The problem I have with what you are writing is that you seem to think you can create energy where there is none.

But see, here's the rub. There is energy. Quite a bit of it. We just throw away rediculous quanties of it right now because it is so cheap. Lots of people are getting a free ride because they are simply place holders burning fuel and eating the result. They don't contribute squat. Expensive fuel will fix *that* problem. And that is the path to how, with great luck, humanity might transition away from liquid fuels.

I've already described how power companies will bid these people into the dirt if high EROEI opportunities present themselves. That is where the fuel comes from. In the worst, and extreme case, In China, the army will use slave labor at the point of a gun to build appropriate infrastructure if such an opportunity presents itself after oil is no longer available. As long as there exists even just a little coal, or uranium in the ground, China could certainly make the transition happen. They've done it often enough before, no reason to suspect they won't do it again.

And so, that is the gamble we are all taking. If we lose, there will be some 9 billion people on the planet with agriculture available to support maybe a few hundred million. ie, the die-off threads.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Everything we do post-peak will have to come from a diminishing supply of energy. It matters not who eats it, or what the price is, there won't be enough pie to go around.

For as long as the pie has cost nothing, there hasn't been enough to go around. Now that the price is rising, some people are deciding they don't need so much pie after all. As the price approaches certain levels, some people will step away from the dessert bar and go do something that doesn't require eating pie. Washing the floor might be a good start.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Remember, 98% of the population works to get their food, they don't grow it. 1 in 6 jobs are tied to the auto industry.

I don't grow my own food, doesn't mean I couldn't if I wanted to. Growing food, in subsistance fashion without large petroleum inputs, is a full time job. If I chose to, with current assets, I could spend my life burying about 50 people in more rice, corn, peas, and potatoes than they could ever eat, all without using any fuel. [It is definately easier with fuel, don't get me wrong!] However, as long as I can work in the air conditioning, I think I'll stay with that. I do not think this is as rare a situation as many people make it out to be.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nother thing that is probably bothering you is that, when all is said and done, I think the gamble is worth the risk.

You cannot gamble if you don't have any chips.
We are out of "markers."

We'll see how it plays out. As I said, the odds of success are a bit slim, and the wager is huge in terms of lives and species. As to out of markers, you're right. They're already all on the table. In tv speak, we're "all in". No point in getting cold feet now.
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: Energy and the Mother of Invention

Postby MonteQuest » Sat 10 Jun 2006, 17:12:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', ' ')The $250 a month that I might spend on fuel, I spend on something else, LED bike headlights, a large electric chainsaw, or a new stock tank.


But taht is the point you are missing. You can' t spend it on something because their isn't the energy to allow to do so. you can' tjust shift the consumption. The energy to consume was taken away from you. You must get it from the remaining diminished supply. This isn't about switching consumption choices, this is anbout no longer being able to consume, or if you do, it must come from someone's share, not new energy supply.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Where will the energy come from, to not only make up for the decline in oil production, but to provide for economic growth, and at the same time provide for a massive crash mitigation program to fuel the Mother of Invention?


Those who can not adapt to adding the same degree of productivity to the economy using less fuel get to starve; when they get hungry enough, they'll think of something or commit suicide by cop.


Chaos doesn't answer the question, or does it?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Where will the energy come from to re-mploy those displaced? It has to come from the diminishing supply, not future energy production growth.


If they can't come up with a way to contribute to the economy using less fuel, then they don't get to eat. The world does not owe anyone a living.

Ah, now we get back to my point: where will they get the energy to "come up with something" necessity is the Mother of Invention, but energy is the Father of Invention. The only place left to get the energy to "come up with something" is from your and my share, unless we are among those unemployed by mitigstion measures to conserve.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The problem I have with what you are writing is that you seem to think you can create energy where there is none.

But see, here's the rub. There is energy. Quite a bit of it. We just throw away rediculous quanties of it right now because it is so cheap. Lots of people are getting a free ride because they are simply place holders burning fuel and eating the result. They don't contribute squat. Expensive fuel will fix *that* problem. And that is the path to how, with great luck, humanity might transition away from liquid fuels.

GHood lord, how many times do I have to say it: energy and GDP growth do not care what the energy gets used for. Every drop of thrown away energy drives GDP growth. It isn't about contributing. Energy cares not whether it's use contributes to anything.

It matters not what 100 kw of energy gets used for. It gets used.

If 50% goes to waste and 50 % goes to "useful stuff" and you make 100% useful, you still use 100 kw. The problem is after the conversion to 100% useful, you now get, let's say, 75% of the required energy to be useful post-peak.

Now out of this 75%, where do you get the energy to grow, re-employ those people who lost their jobs when sales dropp0ed 25%, not to mention the new demand to bring innovations to fruition?

It all must come from this 75%, which will decline every year.

Who will absorb this loss? Where will the energy come from if you have no energy to spare?

Like I have said, we need to be prepared to live in third world conditionjs by design or by default.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')For as long as the pie has cost nothing, there hasn't been enough to go around. Now that the price is rising, some people are deciding they don't need so much pie after all. As the price approaches certain levels, some people will step away from the dessert bar and go do something that doesn't require eating pie. Washing the floor might be a good start.

Something that doesn't require energy? There is no physical activity that doesn't require energy.

And where will the energy come from to feed them?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don't grow my own food, doesn't mean I couldn't if I wanted to.

Easier said than done. Let's start with the completely obvious. We are no longer living in the 19th century. Seventy percent of Americans no longer live on farms as they once did. It now is more like 2 %. Very few have transportation pastured behind the house. Nor do many have a chicken coop or a vegetable garden.

Few, very few of us are, or even could be, self-sufficient in the 21st century. Oil has created a very specialized society in which the essentials of life —food, clothing, shelter— come to us through a complex social and economic chain involving thousands of people each performing specialized tasks, rather than from the fruits of our own labor. Everyone has become dependent upon the market place rather than his or her own skills for the necessities of life.
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 rwwff » Sat 10 Jun 2006, 19:59:09

I see that we are simply saying the same thing back and forth, though I think you are missing the point that I think your idea of how things ultimately will fall out is 95% likely to be the way it ends up. Mostly because, as I mentioned, I doubt fusion works on any scale smaller than a star, and I think true geothermal may be beyond the reach of engineering on any scale shorter than a thousand years.

On the other hand, I can't completely discount the possibility that fusion might work. I also can not ignore the fact that the leadership and actions of about 3 billion people have decided to "go for broke", they will either achieve fusion, or take the current biosphere down into a putrid, sooty, carbon swollen hell. There isn't any middle ground, the decision has been made. Right or wrong, its done.

So far, your arguments have demonstrated why you believe that to have been the wrong decision. However, nothing in your arguments have demonstrated anything to rebut the proposition that the decision has already been made to go "all in".

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'g')row your own food

Easier said than done.


As to farming, its not easy, but its not rocket science either. Biggest constraint on people right now is time, and time is something everyone after a crash will have plenty of. NO EXCUSE NOT TO PRACTICE WHAT YOUR GRANDFATHER TAUGHT YOU!!
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests



cron