[Mircea]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mididoctors', 'H')ow about if consumerism was sublimated into a virtual realm.. identity expressed through consumption and material ownership could be replaced by a low energy virtual consumer society where ones bling is virtual...

ok that is extremely thin

[mididoctors]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mircea', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mididoctors', 'H')ow about if consumerism was sublimated into a virtual realm.. identity expressed through consumption and material ownership could be replaced by a low energy virtual consumer society where ones bling is virtual...

ok that is extremely thin

[Ender]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Are you kidding? $7/gal gasoline would utterly destroy any economy. I'm not singling you out, Jack, just using your quote for a reference point. Get rid of the old gas guzzlers? To whom? The side of the road or the junkyard? Too many people here do not understand the far-reaching repercussions of rising fuel costs.

All fuel related jobs involving "leisure fuel use" will be gone over night, along with all the industries behind them. Does anyone actually think people are going to still buy boats, motorhomes, private airplanes, yachts, jet-skis, snowmobiles, rent cars, leave their lights on, run air conditioners, and go on vacation when gas is $7.00 a gallon?

[Mircea]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mididoctors', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mircea', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mididoctors', 'H')ow about if consumerism was sublimated into a virtual realm.. identity expressed through consumption and material ownership could be replaced by a low energy virtual consumer society where ones bling is virtual...

ok that is extremely thin

[Mircea]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ender', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Are you kidding? $7/gal gasoline would utterly destroy any economy. I'm not singling you out, Jack, just using your quote for a reference point. Get rid of the old gas guzzlers? To whom? The side of the road or the junkyard? Too many people here do not understand the far-reaching repercussions of rising fuel costs.

All fuel related jobs involving "leisure fuel use" will be gone over night, along with all the industries behind them. Does anyone actually think people are going to still buy boats, motorhomes, private airplanes, yachts, jet-skis, snowmobiles, rent cars, leave their lights on, run air conditioners, and go on vacation when gas is $7.00 a gallon?

[Blacksmith]

I have heard the oil peaked in the USA in 1977 and that world oil will peak somewhere between 2010 and 2018. Now as I see it everyone then worries about depleating oil production, the tail of the bell curve. I believe because of recovery technology this tail will at first be quite sharp, then will gradually become skewed declining slowly to zero.
The main restaints are the cost and timing of the recovery. The higher the price of oil the more the incentives to try tertiary and possibly quaternary recovery methods.
Additionally, an oil resevoir has a lot of oil left in it even after various recovery techniques have been implemented, possibly the only exception to this being in situ burning.
However, be warned this type of oil will not be cheap and may reach such a cost as to only be used for essential goods and services.

[Ender]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mircea', '
')It's important to understand that the US has a "car culture" and that everything revolves around "the car."

A post-peak world? No way. The US will bite the dust in the pre-peak world. A lot of economists are saying the US can handle $4/gallon in the short term. I don't see any evidence of that. The US could barely manage at $3.50/gallon and it's $3.29 where I'm at and people are already slashing their wrists.

[What_Went_Wrong]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Bingo! Our entire economy is geared to the cheap price of oil. 40% of our oil goes to gasoline. The big consumer of fuel is the airlines. Anything over $30/barrel and they can not operate at a profit. Passing on the increase to consumers at 10,000 flights/day would cascade through the economy. Look at how much effect 911 had. Like I said before, it is the canary in the mineshaft.

[MC2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mircea', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ender', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Are you kidding? $7/gal gasoline would utterly destroy any economy.

A post-peak world? No way. The US will bite the dust in the pre-peak world. A lot of economists are saying the US can handle $4/gallon in the short term. I don't see any evidence of that. The US could barely manage at $3.50/gallon and it's $3.29 where I'm at and people are already slashing their wrists.

I think it's funny. Maybe it will teach them a lesson in humility, but I doubt it. They'll just find some excuse to invade Venezuela and take their oil.

[Revi]

I think that economic growth is possible with declining energy, but only for those who "get it". As an example, the lobstermen here on the coast of Maine use about $250 worth of diesel per day to get their catch. If they put in solar/electric trap haulers and used a much smaller diesel they could cut their cost in half. They would be catching the same amount for half the cost. They might still be able to compete. This is just an example. The carpenter that uses a small pickup is keeping more of what he earns. Anyone who switches to more efficient ways of doing things will do better. Those who don't will be out of business. That's just the way it goes.

I just read 1000 Barrels per Second. He says the same thing. Now is the time to change things. This isn't going away. Crisis is opportunity.

http://globalpublicmedia.com/peter_tert ... per_second

[I_Like_Plants]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ender', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mircea', '
')It's important to understand that the US has a "car culture" and that everything revolves around "the car."

A post-peak world? No way. The US will bite the dust in the pre-peak world. A lot of economists are saying the US can handle $4/gallon in the short term. I don't see any evidence of that. The US could barely manage at $3.50/gallon and it's $3.29 where I'm at and people are already slashing their wrists.

[sparky]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Blacksmith', ' ')" Now as I see it everyone then worries about ...the tail of the bell curve. I believe because of recovery technology this tail will at first be quite sharp, then will gradually become skewed declining slowly to zero.
The main restraints are the cost and timing of the recovery. The higher the price of oil the more the incentives to try tertiary and possibly quaternary recovery methods.
Additionally, an oil reservoir has a lot of oil left in it ......However, be warned this type of oil will not be cheap

[Roccland]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')t -3% a year , all bets are off

[Denny]

[quote="I_Like_Plants]
Several months ago, I tried playing "my" (rented) violin for tips on University Avenue in Palo Alto. I made something like $1.50 lol. Mainly because I was not very good, I didn't have much volume, and I should have been standing up, jigging around a bit, and playing something simple'n'bouncy like some fiddle tune stuff. But the looks I got from people were like I'd expect to get if I were the anthrax virus.

One thing you'll see over and over again if you're a street musician is, the little kids love it! They'll rivet their attention on you, and dance if t there's any rhythm at all, and it's just heavenly. Their parents always hate this, and will drag them away, since as Good Americans(tm) they have to learn to be pleasure-avoidant. [/quote]

We have been well trained to accept our entertainment only from approved sources. Informal stuff like you are talking about here is somehow anarchic. And the new generation is even more rigid about this. Funny to think that only a few generations ago, for most people who did not live in the cities where they could attend professional musicians, all music they heard was done by relative amateurs. Yet, more people sang back then, or played an instrument, and likely they enjoyed themselves more than we do today.

[sparky]

.

Well yes , do we live a better life with a large power usage , probably not
that's why I'm not too much screaming for fusion research ,
if we had more energy we would probably just get to be bigger arseholes .
It is dubious if the oll' planet can take much more of us anyway
and we might get a bit of soul in the process

Still , it's easy to be cool with air conditioning on ,
I've done some bits of back breaking labor and being decadent beat it anyday

[Alcassin]

Further economic growth is impossible with declining energy.

I try to keep the energy as an equivalent of labour. To make a product you need material and labour/energy, service needs a product and energy. So production and service needs input of energy.

GDP = C + I + G + En

C - Consumption
En - export netto (it is consumption abroad)
I - investment
G - government spending (consumption from taxes + debt and investment from taxes + debt)

So
GDP = Consumption + Investment

Unlimited exponential growth therefore needs an increase of consumption and investment to create more consumption and to invest more to create more consumption. THIS IS GROWTH.

Unlimited growth then needs all-time energy (labour or fossil) inputs, and materials to meet all-time growing investment and consumption. Conserving is only decreasing the energy input with all-time growing economy it will reach the level from which it was conserved.

Productivity = Efficiency = Energy input per unit produced.

The more we are efficient per unit the more we have the money to invest, so we are going to increase production therefore there is no conservation effort without shrinking economy. When growth drops from 5% to 1% the economy still grows = created more goods & services.

In capitalism you MUST reinvest money to the economy because if not - your competitor will do it and he will be able to increase producitvity, and get more products with the same energy input. That's why he can lower prices. And if so - he will get more share of market, and then he has the ability to reinvest his money. That's why capitalism is cornucopian from its roots. YOU CANNOT GROW FOREVER.

In declining economy only the most ruthless and greedy will prevail. And that will turn the economy back to slavery - while more energy from labour will be needed. Sorry to interrupt you "capitalism is cool and natural" guys, but if capitalism was so natural it should have been in ancient Egypt.

[MrBill]

So if my Casio watch costs $50 and my Rolex $5000 are you suggesting that my Rolex has 100 times as much 'energy' in it because you seem to imply a 1:1 ratio between energy use and GDP growth?

And yet you go on to say that productivity gains (i.e. using less land, labor, capital and energy per unit of output) are possible?

Further you have not stipulated whether you mean nominal GDP, in say dollar terms, or percentage gains?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n the News: Global energy supplies tighten
A report released Monday by the International Energy Agency forecasts a continued squeeze of the global oil and gas markets in the coming years, due to tighter supplies coupled with increased demand. Against this backdrop, a new Quarterly chart pack shows that growth in demand can be cut in half or more over the next 15 years—without reducing the benefits end users enjoy.

[Alcassin]

Mr Bill:

I defend my stance Sum up energy to create 50$ casio and 5000$ Rolex. I only meant that Casio and Rolex when produced must have energy inputs - GDP is a sum, period.
Add to this effect of scale, total production, energy efficiency, raw materials used and Rolex may cost 100 times more than 1 Casio.

GDP in nominal terms can always grow as there are more money on market. Simply - inflation will mean more growth in nominal terms. In Dollar terms, Yen terms GDP can grow but nominal GDP is worthless. ECONOMY GROWTH IS PRODUCING MORE AND MORE GOODS AND SERVICES NOT PRINTING MORE AND MORE MONEY.

GDP in real terms and in PPP cannot grow forever with decreasing energy input - to do this ultimately you have to invent perpetuum mobile. It doesn't mean much if it is Rolex, Casio, no logo t-shirt or ermenegildo zegna. Every company on Earth must earn profits, so they have to sell more, with growing cost of energy - they will have to make cuts. Every corporation must care about shareholders and pay them, so investment in conservation (and thus cutting) will be always too late. They plan few years ahead, not decades.

With globalised production, the energy input in transport is growing. You can't replace global fleet over night. You can't replace air fleet and all automobiles to cut energy consumption. There is no massive replacement, better "new stuff" must be first invented and produced on massive scale. When the transport efficiency isn't higher than depletion rate = TSHTF. I don't believe in every year 4% growing efficiency in fuel consumption of transport - because every year you will have to replace more and more ships, trucks, airplanes so on. And when there will be less and less oil these conserving means of transport will have to be replaced by something else in the same rate. And when this happens - we will see Peak NG.

MrBill - when oil-producing countries will rise their prices - it will be death to their economy. And for global demand it will be drop in a bucket. After few years with decling supply of oil we will be at the same point. And remaining energy technologies will not help your truck from your ultra-non-existing-sustainable factory, which is not subsidized (when existing-non-sustainable-mass-corporations are), to get resources there and move from there to expand.

Yes there is still correlation between energy usage and growth of economy. When the GDP drops - the markets panic and they are making things a lot worser, because the economy falls below the rate of energy usage, and when they recover they will be at the same point after some time - shock after shock. Capitalism is cornucopian, from bigger efficiency (together with Jevons Paradox) you use more and more stuff. And stuff is never made out of thin air, never falls during rain and is not made by invisible hands.

Still with depletion rate there ultimately will be less and less plastic. I really don't know how are we going to replace this.

[sparky]

.

I'm not much of an expert but I look upon wealth as power usage ,
in australia we are using about 7 Kw per day per capita ,
the world average is 2 Kw per day per capita .
at 0.5 Kw that is the basic survival line

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... us_GDP.png



.

[MrBill]

Thanks for the clarification. So it really has zero to do with capitalism, as it is ultimately consumption that causes scarcity, and not unlimited growth to feed the beast.

You are right, each corporation, needs to generate a profit to pay its shareholders and attract capital to stay in business. But profits are not the same as growth.

There are two ways to grow your bottomline. One is by increasing sales, and the other is by cutting costs.

P = R - C

So efficiency gains do matter despite what Jevon's Paradox might suggest otherwise. If you produce the same volume of goods & services as your competitor at a lower cost by making better use out of your own land, labor, capital, energy and intangible assets then you will earn more profits, and as you said, then be able to invest more in even more productivity enhancements. This is either forces your competitor to also increase their own efficiency or retreat from head to head competition.

For a real-life example, Japan, Germany, China and the USA are all large manufacturers and exporters. But Japan uses less energy than any of the others, while China uses the most per unit of output. It does not matter whether crude is $30, 45, 60 or $75 per barrel. That is still a cost advantage to Japan.

We can assume this because in terms of land, labor, capital and intangible assets they all compete against one another successfully otherwise they would not be the world's top four manufacturers and exporters. Japan using less energy does not give China a competitive advantage, although their efficient use of energy may mean that crude prices are $75 instead of $90, but we will never know.

It is hard to put numbers on invisible demand and the consequences of what if? But if we reduced Japan's energy efficiency to that of China we would immediately see that they would need much more energy to produce the same amount of GDP. However, that would reduce demand somewhere else, so again it is hard to measure in'it?

The fact is that a Casio and a Rolex are near perfect substitutes for one another as far as watches go, but the Rolex contributes more to GDP than the Casio. There may be $40 worth of materials in a $50 Casio and therefore a 20% profit to be shared between maker, wholesaler and retailer. On the other hand there may be $4000 worth of materials and extra workmanship in a $5000 Rolex. That is still a 20% mark-up or profit, but $1000 is a bigger contribution to GDP than $10.

When global demand outstrips world supply for petroleum then we can look forward to higher real prices for everything made from or using petroleum in production or distribution. And by higher real prices I mean specifically relative to wages. Workers add to demand, but excess labor is deflationary. By definition this means real standards of living will fall. More hours of labor to buy the same standard of living and/or eventually falling living standards despite increasing amounts of labor.

But this is not because of capitalism as you highlighted in bold letters to draw out attention to it. This again is due to consumption. Unfettered communism would have brought us to this very end sooner or later, and likely sooner, as there was no market price mechanism to bring supply and demand into line thereby ensuring that petroleum was wasted in production.

Did you read the McKinsey links? Do you disagree that energy subsidies increase demand for petroleum? I happen to think that subsidies always lead to higher demand than otherwise would have been because they distort the market. Higher prices are supposed to curb demand and make alternatives more attractive, like public transport versus private autos.

Sorry I probably missed addressing some of your points, but that is all I can write at this time. Thanks.