[gego]

Nice to see MonteQuest bring his considerable acumen to this discussion, as he, even before this thread, has been through the EROEI issue, as well as making clear from his deep understanding, the ramifications for population.

One thing that I did mention in one of my above posts is that I view conservation as an effect (on humans) of the combined force of declining EROEI and post peak depletion, and not a solution to correct this problem, and I would like to explain this.

This buzz word, demand destruction, is throw around as if it will save us. I think demand destruction, conservation, deprivation and ultimately death are the progressive results of the force of declining EROEI and post peak depletion.

You may be able to afford things, but choose not to acquire and use them, in the interest of saving energy; this is conservation.

You may not be able to afford things at higher energy costs; this is demand destruction. You may or may not suffer severely. When the suffering from your inability to acquire the things you need reaches a certain level of threat to your life, this is deprivation. When deprivation becomes severe enough you die.

Of course there is a feedback mechanism between consumers of oil and suppliers, and this a secondary effect of demand destruction, conservation, deprivation and death. But is it useful to think of this feedback mechanism as as solution? If that is the case, then we could have a mass extermination of 5.5 billion people tomorrow and the problem would be temporarily, but significantly solved for the remaining 1 billion.. Rather I think it is better to consider these feedback adjustments of production as minor adjustments to the gas pedal as we speed toward the cliff.

I think that this view yields a clearer picture of where we are. Perhaps this is just the way my mind works, but I like to isolate things in an effort to understand them, and then combine them as individual facets, sort of link adding one color or shape at a time to a picture.

[TigPil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'W')hat about the energy required for growth? To service the debt, creare new jobs, etc?

[TonyPrep]

TigPil, I think you assume, in this scenario, that every action that's taken works as you expect it to. You also expect developed nations to continue economic growth, at the expense of developing or undeveloped nations. You further assume that the economic activity that results from individual transportation is minimal, and that prioritisation of energy is done in a timely fashion without major protests from those who lose out.

Do you really think that nothing in your scenario can go wrong and that all assumptions you make are valid?

Tony

[Gazzatrone]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', 'T')his thread is getting far away from the original point.

Posters seem to have solved the gross production problem with dreams of government intervention, conservation (which is really part of the effect, not a solution) and low EROEI substitutes.

I don't think the point of the thread is well understood.

From Carlos Mencia, Dee-Dee-Dee.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', ' ')Lets say oil supplies to North America drop at a rate of 5% per year and alternate energy production (nuclear, coal, renewables) only replaces 1% because we have failed to make timely investments in infrastructure (as is the case right now). This means that we have a net 4% drop in oil derived energy per year.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Adjustments take "energy" to achieve.

[JustinFrankl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', ' ')Lets say oil supplies to North America drop at a rate of 5% per year and alternate energy production (nuclear, coal, renewables) only replaces 1% because we have failed to make timely investments in infrastructure (as is the case right now). This means that we have a net 4% drop in oil derived energy per year.

[Gazzatrone]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'I') don't think creating new jobs is going to be a problem, once we start doing manually some things that were done by machines.

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gazzatrone', '.')..but are you saying that Mankind doesn't have the technological abilities to escape our predictament, the only way to survive is to go backwards?

[SchroedingersCat]

Perhaps we need a new way to look at things. EROEI is certainly a big concern. So is peak oil. So is net exports. So is the loss of our energy slaves. We need something like a Energy Returned on Resources Invested (ERORI). A human being can do the same amount of work in a year as 28 gallons of gasoline. That's about 37 gallons of ethanol.

Let's see -- current minimum wage in the US is $5.15/hour. At 2080 work hours per year that's $10,712. So, gasoline should be $382.57 per gallon.

I guess we could extend this to see how much food a person could grow vs how much fuel could be extracted from that food for non-human use. If I can produce enough food for my family on 1 acre, what is the equivalent needed for my family's energy needs outside of food?

The future will be about choices. We will individually and societally need to make decisions about how to use resources. If we leave these decisions up to the governments, they will undoubtedly use the resources to support themselves at the expense of the citizens.

[TigPil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')igPil, I think you assume, in this scenario, that every action that's taken works as you expect it to. You also expect developed nations to continue economic growth, at the expense of developing or undeveloped nations. You further assume that the economic activity that results from individual transportation is minimal, and that prioritisation of energy is done in a timely fashion without major protests from those who lose out.
Do you really think that nothing in your scenario can go wrong and that all assumptions you make are valid?

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', 'L')ook at what happend in the Great Depression to growth and you may have a model for peak oil (could be better or worse):

Annual Real GDP Contractions

1930 -- -8.6%
1931 -- -6.4%
1932 -- -13.0%
1933 -- -1.4%

Annual Unemployment Rates

1929 -- 3.2%
1930 -- 8.7%
1931 -- 15.9%
1932 -- 23.6%
1933 -- 24.9%

[Revi]

Interesting how the unemployment numbers didn't change much even after the economy got a bit better after 1933. Those people weren't reabsorbed into the workforce until WW2. That's scary. Once the economy stumbles it gets bad quickly. The depression wasn't caused by a lack of oil, so things may be a bit different with our next oil induced recession. Still it gives us some insight into what happens when the economy goes sour.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gazzatrone', 'D')idn't we invent machines to do the work that we no longer needed to because we had developed our technological savvy to the point where we no longer needed to employ manual Labour?

[TigPil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', 'I')nteresting how the unemployment numbers didn't change much even after the economy got a bit better after 1933. Those people weren't reabsorbed into the workforce until WW2. That's scary. Once the economy stumbles it gets bad quickly. The depression wasn't caused by a lack of oil, so things may be a bit different with our next oil induced recession. Still it gives us some insight into what happens when the economy goes sour.

[TigPil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'O')K, so you are saying that the developed nations will likely be very adversely affected. This is not the impression you gave in earlier posts...And this factor could be stronger in developed nations (who've had it good for so long) than in developing nations.

[Revi]

Seeing those numbers, you really understand what they meant by the depth of the depression. High unemployment kept on until the end of the decade. Those government programs helped a lot of people. I wonder if our economy could do that today? We don't know how good we have it now. I was thinking that today. When it starts to get bad it will be worse than the Great Depression. It already is hard for a lot of people around here.

I was thinking that this brief time when gas is cheap and heating oil cheaper it might make sense to stock up a bit. Do things now, because this might be the last hurrah. Take that trip. As Dave Mallett sings. "Tomorrow we could be walking".

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', 'L')et me put it this way, would you rather:

A) be unemployed, be forced to use a bicycle ...
OR
B) have no electricity to run your irrigation pump ...

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', ' ')Let me put it this way, would you rather:

A) be unemployed, be forced to use a bicycle for your short range transportation needs and public transportation in other situations, be forced to eat less meat, no longer be able to buy cheap clothing, electronics and other manufactured goods, no longer use air conditioning, possibly have to work in the agricultural sector, etc...

[NEOPO]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', ' ')Let me put it this way, would you rather:

A) be unemployed, be forced to use a bicycle for your short range transportation needs and public transportation in other situations, be forced to eat less meat, no longer be able to buy cheap clothing, electronics and other manufactured goods, no longer use air conditioning, possibly have to work in the agricultural sector, etc...