General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
by MonteQuest » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 10:29:28
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'A')re we looking at the same chart?
You are just ignoring the blue line. If total useage rose in direct corelation to efficiency gains as the chart shows, then I am afraid you haven't refuted Jevons.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by MonteQuest » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 10:33:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ') in short, there have been no significant efficiency increases in any vehicle from ~1991 to ~2007.
How about from 1975 to 1991? No efficiency gains there? They didn't use the technology acquired on SUV's?
What do you think the SUV's mileage would be without the efficiency gains from the 1970's oil crisis?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by kublikhan » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 12:47:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'I') meant per vehicle consumption. Sorry for the confusion. I was going off of Monte's sources and they talk about per vehicle consumption, not per capita.
OK. But, again, wasn't Monte's point that whilst efficiency may increase, it still resulted in total consumption going up? Per vehicle, it didn't, but I've already pointed out some factors that may play a misleading part in the raw figures.
And I pointed out factors that play a misleading part in your analysis as well. Namely, an oil cartel that has enormous influence over the price of oil, especially during the time period we are talking about.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'T')he same point I have been trying to make for the past several pages. Jevons' paradox has not been shown to cause backfire in mature technologies.
I'm not sure how that quote showed that. It showed decreased energy intensity, that's all.
Oops, I entangled this with a second point I was trying to make to Monte, Namely you can lower your energy intensity without lowering GDP growth.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'T')he point, was you can increase your energy efficiency, without sacrificing economic growth.
Yes, you can do that. But you can't do that forever because efficiencies have a limit. With dwindling energy, you may have to increase efficiencies just to maintain a certain level of GDP, rather than grow. And if you're having to concentrate on efficiencies to keep the economy steady, how do you spare energy for new stuff?
Have I not said more than half a dozen times you can't do that forever? Have we not discussed that point ad nauseum?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'A')n entire country, eh? How would those sample countries fare, if cut off from the world? It's not what I want, it's about reality. If a country, for example, is importing most of its high energy goods and services, then that energy is expended elsewhere, and the energy consumption of those imports have not been taken into account. The world, as a whole, has a complete economy, because all of the goods and service consumed and used in that economy are produced entirely within that economy. The world, as a whole, has used almost continuously increasing amounts of energy (and other resources) to continuously increase its GDP, with only a handful of exceptional years, over the last 50. Monte tried to bring up this argument as well. IE, the US's energy intensity only dropped because we offloaded our manufacturing base to China. Then I showed that China's energy intensity dropped faster than ours.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'A')re we looking at the same chart? You are just ignoring the blue line. If total useage rose in direct corelation to efficiency gains as the chart shows, then I am afraid you haven't refuted Jevons. I ignored nothing. The green line includes the blue line. The green line is total vehicle gasoline consumption. So despite the fact that the blue line went up, total gasoline usage per vehicle still went down(green line, 1970's - 1991).
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by TonyPrep » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 14:51:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') must have tacked on an extra year in there someplace, so how about ~250 million by 2013?
Yeah, this time I got it wrong - and realised the second I'd switch off the computer for the night.
However, expecting such a growth rate to continue up to a quarter of a billion, so quickly, is a bit optimistic, to say the least. And the same questions apply, with regard to the effect, considering 1000 cars are being added every couple of days, plus the G2Ws.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'N')ope, just 15% for power generation/delivery. The chains were similar for both. Starting with some product, the conversion to usable energy, be it through refining or electricity generation, and the storage/use. If you have any LCA's that's cool, but I think the average auto would compete less than favorably w/ the electrics considering the complexity/lifespans.
Ah well, you've convinced me, yesplease. That's a comprehensive analysis. Thanks.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'C')rude is still crude even w/ lease condensates. Anyway, according to the EIA peak won't wait for a year, it'll happen on a month since we measure by those.
If you say so, yesplease. A month peak, though, is hardly significant, if it can't be sustained. You don't think it's a problem if the yearly amount is less, provided there was a monthly peak in there somewhere?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'A')h, if people ain't gonna see any humor when I ain't tired and can't really much much when I am.
Oh, I recognised the attempt at humour, yesplease. However, I can't recognise the grammar. Is that some local language of yours?
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by TonyPrep » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 14:58:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'O')K. But, again, wasn't Monte's point that whilst efficiency may increase, it still resulted in total consumption going up? Per vehicle, it didn't, but I've already pointed out some factors that may play a misleading part in the raw figures.
And I pointed out factors that play a misleading part in your analysis as well. Namely, an oil cartel that has enormous influence over the price of oil, especially during the time period we are talking about.
So you don't acknowledge one misleading factor, but you recognise another? How do you separate those things out, in your mind? Perhaps the best that can be said is that the case has not been proved either way.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'H')ave I not said more than half a dozen times you can't do that forever? Have we not discussed that point ad nauseum?
Then there is little point in suggesting it can, for short periods. But there are precious few examples of even that, for complete economies.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'M')onte tried to bring up this argument as well. IE, the US's energy intensity only dropped because we offloaded our manufacturing base to China. Then I showed that China's energy intensity dropped faster than ours.
But didn't show that less resources were used. This is the point. A global economy can't sustain economic growth on less energy.
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by kublikhan » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 15:35:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'O')K. But, again, wasn't Monte's point that whilst efficiency may increase, it still resulted in total consumption going up? Per vehicle, it didn't, but I've already pointed out some factors that may play a misleading part in the raw figures.
And I pointed out factors that play a misleading part in your analysis as well. Namely, an oil cartel that has enormous influence over the price of oil, especially during the time period we are talking about.
So you don't acknowledge one misleading factor, but you recognise another? How do you separate those things out, in your mind? Perhaps the best that can be said is that the case has not been proved either way.
Misleading factor? I am looking at the data Monte presented to me. The data shows as MPG rises, total gasoline usage per vehicle fell. No Jevons' paradox. You say you don't have the data on per capita gasoline usage. Well when you do, get back to me. You also said you would be surprised if it fell. What time period are you talking about? Are you talking about the oil spikes in the 70's? I would be surprised if per capita gasoline consumption did not fall. Are you talking about the cheap oil of the 90's? I would be surprised if it did not rise. That's how I "separate those things out in my mind." I try to factor in what influences supply side factors are having. Also, it helps to have more than 1 example to look at, Like Europe. Where as efficiency gains stopped in the US, they continued in the EU. So you can compare and contrast what happens with the demand side of things as well, to try and get the most accurate picture possible. I hope that answers your question.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'B')ut didn't show that less resources were used. This is the point. A global economy can't sustain economic growth on less energy....
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'H')ave I not said more than half a dozen times you can't do that forever? Have we not discussed that point ad nauseum?
Then there is little point in suggesting it can, for short periods. But there are precious few examples of even that, for complete economies. Little point in increasing energy efficiency, because it can't go on forever? The quote said the EU uses 22% less energy yet has a larger GDP than the US. There is little point in shaving 22% off of the US energy budget? What kind of nonsense is this?
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by MonteQuest » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 19:40:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ') I ignored nothing. The green line includes the blue line. The green line is total vehicle gasoline consumption. So despite the fact that the blue line went up, total gasoline usage per vehicle still went down(green line, 1970's - 1991).
At first, then green line goes flat, while the blue line soars upward in direct correlation to efficiency gains in mpg.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by MonteQuest » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 19:55:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ')I am looking at the data Monte presented to me. The data shows as MPG rises, total gasoline usage per vehicle fell.
It does not. Look at the chart.
As mpg rose, so did consumption and so did miles driven.
As mpg improved further, MPV declined for a few years along with GPV, due largely to the 1982 recession, don't you think?
Then as MPG improved more, GPV leveled out and MPV rose in direct mirror image of efficiency gains.
When MPG peaked GPV rose as MPV increased.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by MonteQuest » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 20:05:35
We are getting caught up in the minutiae.
The point being made in this thread is that no amount of conservation or efficiency gains is going to provide the energy we need to bring inventions to fruition in a declining energy world.
In the past, we were never really limited by an available source of energy, or the lack of a new, even more powerful and cheaper one just waiting in the wings to be exploited with gusto. We could innovate and invent at almost will. We produced stuff so fast we had to invent advertising to move it.
No more.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by TonyPrep » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 20:51:54
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'T')he data shows as MPG rises, total gasoline usage per vehicle fell. No Jevons' paradox.
The former doesn't imply the latter. I've already pointed out a possible factor that confuses the issue - the number of vehicles per household increased and the number of people per household fell. Consequently, a drop in the fuel consumption per vehicle doesn't give the whole story and can't be used as proof that Jevons Paradox is false.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'Y')ou also said you would be surprised if it fell. What time period are you talking about?
Well, I was talking about the period 1988-2003, which is the period I found some data for.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'A')re you talking about the oil spikes in the 70's? I would be surprised if per capita gasoline consumption did not fall.
Me too, though I don't have the data. But that was a forced and immediate change; efficiency improvements would only have cut in later.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'B')ut didn't show that less resources were used. This is the point. A global economy can't sustain economic growth on less energy....
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'H')ave I not said more than half a dozen times you can't do that forever? Have we not discussed that point ad nauseum?
Then there is little point in suggesting it can, for short periods. But there are precious few examples of even that, for complete economies. Little point in increasing energy efficiency, because it can't go on forever? The quote said the EU uses 22% less energy yet has a larger GDP than the US. There is little point in shaving 22% off of the US energy budget? What kind of nonsense is this?No, there is little point in claiming that economies can grow on less energy, if that is a short lived phenomenon (and there is scant evidence for it, anyway, for self-sufficient economies, as I've said).
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by kublikhan » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 23:46:07
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ') I ignored nothing. The green line includes the blue line. The green line is total vehicle gasoline consumption. So despite the fact that the blue line went up, total gasoline usage per vehicle still went down(green line, 1970's - 1991).
At first, then green line goes flat, while the blue line soars upward in direct correlation to efficiency gains in mpg...
As mpg improved further, MPV declined for a few years along with GPV, due largely to the 1982 recession, don't you think?
After the 1982 recession, I see the blue line marching continuously upward. Regardless of what MPG does. I would draw from that that it was not MPG that was pushing up MPV, don't you think?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'W')e are getting caught up in the minutiae.
The point being made in this thread is that no amount of conservation or efficiency gains is going to provide the energy we need to bring inventions to fruition in a declining energy world.
The rate of inventions may decline, but I don't think it is going to stall completely. Even during the dark ages new inventions were being made.
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by kublikhan » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 23:46:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'T')he data shows as MPG rises, total gasoline usage per vehicle fell. No Jevons' paradox.
The former doesn't imply the latter. I've already pointed out a possible factor that confuses the issue - the number of vehicles per household increased and the number of people per household fell. Consequently, a drop in the fuel consumption per vehicle doesn't give the whole story and can't be used as proof that Jevons Paradox is false.
It is pointless to guess. Get the data that supports your argument and present it. Then we can see what effect number of vehicles have on the numbers.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'Y')ou also said you would be surprised if it fell. What time period are you talking about?
Well, I was talking about the period 1988-2003, which is the period I found some data for.
Most of that period is the period of NO MPG increases. Thus if you don't have efficiency gains, you can't have Jevons' Paradox either. Therefore if you are talking about the US, it is irrelevant if per capita gasoline consumption rose or not because MPG was basically flat for that period. If you wanted to talk about the EU though, that would be another story.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'L')ittle point in increasing energy efficiency, because it can't go on forever? The quote said the EU uses 22% less energy yet has a larger GDP than the US. There is little point in shaving 22% off of the US energy budget? What kind of nonsense is this?No, there is little point in claiming that economies can grow on less energy, if that is a short lived phenomenon (and there is scant evidence for it, anyway, for self-sufficient economies, as I've said). I don't agree. If you can shave 22% off of your energy use and still grow GDP, I think that is a worthwhile goal even if it is a one time thing(And using the US and EU as an example, two of the biggest economies out there, is sufficient evidence for me.)
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by MonteQuest » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 00:40:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ') The rate of inventions may decline, but I don't think it is going to stall completely. Even during the dark ages new inventions were being made.
The rate of inventions is immaterial. Where is the energy going to come from to bring them to fruition? There is no new supply, only a declining one.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by kublikhan » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 00:59:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ') The rate of inventions may decline, but I don't think it is going to stall completely. Even during the dark ages new inventions were being made.
The rate of inventions is immaterial. Where is the energy going to come from to bring them to fruition? There is no new supply, only a declining one.
The same places we are currently getting our energy. The energy pie may shrink, and R&D's share of that smaller pie may give them a yet smaller piece, but I still think some energy will be devoted to R&D.
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by MonteQuest » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 01:25:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ')The same places we are currently getting our energy. The energy pie may shrink, and R&D's share of that smaller pie may give them a yet smaller piece, but I still think some energy will be devoted to R&D.
R&D? I am talking about massive solar and wind farms, nuclear plants, coal plants, transmission lines, railroads, hydrogen infrastructure, etc.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by kublikhan » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 03:28:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ')The same places we are currently getting our energy. The energy pie may shrink, and R&D's share of that smaller pie may give them a yet smaller piece, but I still think some energy will be devoted to R&D.
R&D? I am talking about massive solar and wind farms, nuclear plants, coal plants, transmission lines, railroads, hydrogen infrastructure, etc.
Oh. So you are not really talking about technological advancement, but asking if renewable energy can replace oil? Hirsch said such a plan would need to be initiated at least 10-20 years pre-peak to avoid significant disruption to the economy. Failing that, it seems significant demand destruction will be inevitable. Will some of the above get built? No doubt. Will it be enough to continue business as usual? I think it will fall significantly short of that mark.
How much alternative energy generation do you think will happen during the years of oil's decline? I don't think it will be zero, nor enough to replace oil decline, but somewhere in between.
Humans used about 500 EJ of energy in 2005(~15,000 GW of average power). Of that, oil was about 180 EJ(~5,400 GW). I am not sure what the decline rate of oil will be after factoring in new production. But lets use a 3% decline value. That means in one year, we just lost 162 GW of energy. How much of that can be replaced by renewables?
World Energy Consumption
If you added up all of the alternative energy generation that happens in a single year, we added about 40 GW of new power generation capacity in 2007(includes hydro, excludes nuclear, biofuels, passive solar heating, etc.) That is in a relatively energy rich world. How much will be added in an energy scarce world? I am not sure. The incentives will certainly be much higher to add more renewable capacity. But there will be increased cost and competition for the energy/resources. If we kept things simple and assume it will remain at the 2007 level, it would be 40 GW of renewable capacity added. That would mean renewables would replace about one quarter of oil's shortfall that year. Assuming efficiency gains/conservation could replace another quarter, that still leaves a short fall of about 80 GW(1.5% of current oil use) a year that would have to be met through demand destruction. Perhaps some being met by other sources not included in the above like nuclear, biofuels, passive solar heating, etc.
Renewables Global Status Report
Just to put that in perspective, Over 2/3rds of oil use is for transportation. Americans used about 5 billion barrels of oil last year for transportation. Thats about 30 EJ(900 GW average power). If American miles driven were cut back by 10%, that would be 90 GW in savings right there. Or to put it another way, it would save 1.7% of current oil use(1.37 million barrels a day). Since 72% of American household miles driven is recreational or family related, I think that is doable.
Trips By Purpose
As Cube might say, there is a lot of "fat" in the American lifestyle that can be trimmed. Once all of the fat is trimmed though, things could start getting ugly.
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by TonyPrep » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 04:27:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'T')he data shows as MPG rises, total gasoline usage per vehicle fell. No Jevons' paradox.
The former doesn't imply the latter. I've already pointed out a possible factor that confuses the issue - the number of vehicles per household increased and the number of people per household fell. Consequently, a drop in the fuel consumption per vehicle doesn't give the whole story and can't be used as proof that Jevons Paradox is false.
It is pointless to guess.
Then why did you? Why present as proof, something that is nothing of the sort?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'G')et the data that supports your argument and present it. Then we can see what effect number of vehicles have on the numbers.
I did and we can. The EIA figures show that household miles went up from 16,000 to 21,000, between 1988 and 2001 (figures calculated from the link that both you and I provided). One of those links you recently posted, shows (via dividing total VMT by population) that the per capita mileage in 1983 was 5,200, rising to 8000 by 2001. So, if those figures are correct, total per capita mileage rose by 54% during those 18 years. Is that good enough for you?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'M')ost of that period is the period of NO MPG increases. Thus if you don't have efficiency gains, you can't have Jevons' Paradox either. Therefore if you are talking about the US, it is irrelevant if per capita gasoline consumption rose or not because MPG was basically flat for that period.The European Tribune link you provided suggested that efficiency gains, in the US, went primarily into providing more power, rather than more mileage. Which is certainly in accord with Jevons Paradox. That link also provided a larger date range, giving a 54% rise in miles per capita, between 1983 and 2001.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'L')ittle point in increasing energy efficiency, because it can't go on forever? The quote said the EU uses 22% less energy yet has a larger GDP than the US. There is little point in shaving 22% off of the US energy budget? What kind of nonsense is this?No, there is little point in claiming that economies can grow on less energy, if that is a short lived phenomenon (and there is scant evidence for it, anyway, for self-sufficient economies, as I've said). I don't agree. If you can shave 22% off of your energy use and still grow GDP, I think that is a worthwhile goal even if it is a one time thing (And using the US and EU as an example, two of the biggest economies out there, is sufficient evidence for me.)Size of economy was not the point I was making, as you probably well know. The 22% figure was given as the lower amount of energy use in the EU, compared to the US. It was not about shaving off an existing energy use to provide X% growth. I also didn't say it wouldn't be worthwhile; I said there was scant evidence that a complete economy could grow for more than a few years, whilst using less and less energy. Do you know of any such evidence? I've seen a graph that showed a slight dip in global energy use during the first of the oil shocks, whilst still maintaining, or slightly growing the global economy for a couple of years. No declining energy consumption since then, though.
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by yesplease » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 05:20:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') must have tacked on an extra year in there someplace, so how about ~250 million by 2013?
Yeah, this time I got it wrong - and realised the second I'd switch off the computer for the night.
No biggie, we all make mistakes. My spelling's been awful ever since I started using firefox3 w/o the us-en dictionary.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'H')owever, expecting such a growth rate to continue up to a quarter of a billion, so quickly, is a bit optimistic, to say the least. And the same questions apply, with regard to the effect, considering 1000 cars are being added every couple of days, plus the G2Ws.
Not when oil is at $100+/bbl, or maybe even $200-300+/bbl by 2013 IMO. Granted, if oil prices crash, I don't expect to see the same growth rate. But as things stand it seems like it's simply a
matter of cost, and as oil stays high or goes higher I don't expect that to change.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') spent the last few days of my trip in Taiwan. I immediately noticed that, where people on the mainland rode electric vehicles, people in Taiwan rode small two-stroke scooters. When I asked why this was so, people confirmed my suspicions that Chinese people do not, in general buy e-bikes and e-scooters due to any sense of environmental altruism. No… they buy electric because a gas scooter costs five times as much as an e-bike does. It is as I (and others) have been saying for many years now, electric vehicles cost much less than ICE-powered vehicles once they are mass-produced.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I')f you say so, yesplease. A month peak, though, is hardly significant, if it can't be sustained. You don't think it's a problem if the yearly amount is less, provided there was a monthly peak in there somewhere?Since peak is be definition the highest point/largest amount, not really. I mean, I suppose if we're talking about peak over a year, or peak over a decade, we could use the largest average, but peak in and of itself is just the top AFAIK.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'O')h, I recognised the attempt at humour, yesplease. However, I can't recognise the grammar. Is that some local language of yours?Only in terms of time. If I stay up after a certain point I can't even spell straight. 
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
-
yesplease
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 3765
- Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
-
by yesplease » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 05:30:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ') in short, there have been no significant efficiency increases in any vehicle from ~1991 to ~2007.
How about from 1975 to 1991? No efficiency gains there? They didn't use the technology acquired on SUV's?
We're talking about ~1991-2007, in case you didn't notice.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'W')hat do you think the SUV's mileage would be without the efficiency gains from the 1970's oil crisis?
What do you think auto mileage would be w/o the efficiency losses from the oil-glut after WWII? Change the subject why don't ya!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
-
yesplease
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 3765
- Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
-
Return to Peak Oil Discussion
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
