[Bremen]

Hello all. I have been watching this forum for two years. This is my first post.

I found the following article very interesting. Allow several hours to read the entire article. I have copied excerpts.



http://www.energybulletin.net/3845.html

Hubbert on the Nature of Growth
by M. King Hubbert

Testimony to Hearing on the National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1974, hearings before the Subcommittee on the Environment of the committee on Interior and Insular Affairs House of Representatives. June 6, 1974.

Excerpt:

"Figure 17 Is a graph plotted on a semilogarithmic scale of the production of energy from coal, oil, gas, and water power and a small amount of nuclear power from 1850 to 1969. From 1850 to 1907 the production of energy increased exponentially at a rate of 6.91 percent per year, with a doubling period of 10.0 years. Then during the three-year period from 1907 to 1910, the growth rate dropped abruptly to a mean rate of 1.77 percent per year and the doubling period increased to 39 years.

Figure 17 is a corresponding plot of U.S. pig-iron production. The pig-iron curve resembles that of energy so closely 'that the two curves can hardly be told from one another. Pig-iron production also grew exponentially at a rate close to 7 percent per year until about 1910, when it too broke abruptly to a lower rate of less than 2 percent per year. This abrupt break at about 1910 represents a major event in the industrial history of the United States, yet we have barely been aware that it happened."


After the presentation, Dr. Hubbert then takes questions. Excerpt:


"Mr. RONCALIO. I have deeply enjoyed this. I don't think I have grasped it all.

Will you state again, what happened in 1910?

Dr. HUBBERT. The growth of total energy, industrial energy of the United States, from coal, oil, gas, waterpower, plotted on semilogarithmic paper will plot a straight line if you have uniform exponential growth. That straight line continued until the period of about a 3-year interval, 1907 to 1910, and then it broke away to a lower line of less than 2 percent a year. The growth rate up until that time was about 7 percent, a year.

I have another curve showing the same thing in pig iron. Pig iron is the foundation of heavy industry in the United States other than energy. The same growth rate approximately occurred to 1910, and the same break occurred to less than 2 percent."


So, what happened in 1910? Mr. Roncalio asked Dr. Hubbert directly. Hubbert responded that the industrial growth rate of the United States changed from about 7% per year to about 2% per year, as shown on Hubbert's charts. Perhaps Mr. Roncalio wanted to know WHY the growth rate changed. Was there some event that occured or technology that came into being that caused the rate of growth to decline?

[gego]

A recession began in 1910 and lasted until 1914. In 1913 both the Federal Reserve Act created the central bank and also in 1913 the income tax began.

If I had to guess the recession first slowed down things. Then both the income tax and interest on newly created credit money started draining wealth out of the economy and concentrating it in the hands of politicians and bankers. Just my guess, as I know of no other major events at that time that would have caused such a dramatic drag on economic growth.

[NEOPO]

Welcome Bremen - nice first post.
What a gem from the energy bulletin.

ahhh!!! I am left wondering what happened in 1910!!!!
Its subliminal!! becks beer is not the best in all the world!! its.......its..............people!!!!

Here's a nice bite for everyone:
"Finally, the maintenance of a constant price level in a nongrowing industrial system implies either an interest rate of zero or continuous inflation. "

Hmm one is bad for the fed and the other is bad for us....I got a bad feelin like abbott and costello use to say.


Thats pretty good no?

After reading the whole thing I feel as if I would have asked alot more questions and then requested for Dr Hubbert to return ASAP for a larger crowd.

Man o man ...and look at us now will ya....99% without a clue and .99% clueless as to why we need clues in the first place and I am not even certain if I am in the .01% !!!!

I wonder why Hubbert did not reveal the magic number?
It would be like Bob Ross giving you a "happy" little paint kit
Then you could go on and do "happy" little number crunching on your own....

FYI - The magic number to calculate exponential growth "doubling" periods by using the percentage of growth is 70.
So a 2% annual growth = 35 year doubling cycle.
and no it does not work the same backwards

Yep - thought provoking and someone please find more of these ancient works for us to read.

All in all what Hubberts seems to be saying is that its nature taking its course and there isnt much we can do about it but face facts and prepare for inevitability.

<monty python music>......and now more attempted comedy so my mind will consume the medicine it has been given this night.

peak oil is a phallic religion and I can prove it!!!


<runs around naked chimplike grunting,screaming and pointing at the above graph>
<proceeds to use own feces to scribe above graph on plato's cave wall>;-)

[pup55]

model t production

Maybe this has something to do with it.

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', '[')url=http://www.mtfca.com/encyclo/fdprod.htm]model t production[/url]

Maybe this has something to do with it.

[NEOPO]

Ok I took a good look at that page.

My initial impression based on ford production data and the correlation between pig iron use and industrial growth that Hubbert pointed out must have come into play.

Meaning automobile use did not contribute to growth like the many other uses for Iron would have.
Since then we have seen a relative 2% growth but before that we experienced 7-8% growth rates.
So cars ultimately allow for an approx. 2% economic (paper) growth rate yet it removed a higher percentage of potential industrial growth.

Does anyone have a more definitive understanding of exactly what occurred and why?

The hero of my hero is my hero.

[pup55]

Dalmus and Gutowski (MIT)

Too bad Hubbert's graphs aren't a little better. The ones in this paper are much better, plus they run to 2000. If you look at the pig iron graph, I think the argument can be made that the growth rate since 1950 has actually been higher than 2%, more like 3.5% for a doubling every 20 years or so.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut it is physically and biologically impossible for any material or energy component to follow the exponential growth phase of Curve I for more than a few tens of doublings, and most of those possible doublings have occurred already.

[NEOPO]

Ok so, IMO what Hubbert was trying to point out was:
The same thing is going to happen to oil/petroleum which appears to be the latest greatest energy source/inflating factor/boost...... so if your energy is going to decline or even simply level off so will anything that you have built upon its rise.

Whoa is us.

Hubbert may have only been trying to show how everything seems to peak yet I do not think he meant only finite resources.
I think he meant everything that depends upon them which is......us.