[spot5050]

Here's a question which has never been answered to my personal satisfaction;

Humans are pretty groovy things yes? We have brains. We are clever.

In our current world of ever increasing supplies of energy, we find ways of doing things faster better cheaper, so post-PO we will still be able to find ways of doing things better faster cheaper etc.

Lets say energy depletes at 1.5% pa post-peak but we get 2% pa more efficient due to being cleverer better faster; then PO will turn out to be a brake on economic growth not the end of it, or even a reversal of it.

Dealing with PO will be like swimming upstream but wont be the end of the world.

I spose the question is - 'how clever are we'? or 'are we clever enough'?

[NeoPeasant]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', 'H')ere's a question which has never been answered to my personal satisfaction;

Humans are pretty groovy things yes? We have brains. We are clever.

In our current world of ever increasing supplies of energy, we find ways of doing things faster better cheaper, so post-PO we will still be able to find ways of doing things better faster cheaper etc.

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', 'I') spose the question is - 'how clever are we'? or 'are we clever enough'?

[Grimnir]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', 'I') would postulate that we are in fact the dumbest of all species. All others have the intelligence not to outgrow their habitat.

[Antimatter]

It's a matter of diminishing returns. We could muddle on for maybe 10 years or more post peak through conservation and greater efficiency but eventually things will start to fall apart.

[Doly]

To make things clear with a simple example: you can isolate a house very cleverly to use your heat source as efficiently as possible, but you won't be able to heat it with the flame of a match.

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Grimnir', 'N')o they don't. All others will outgrow their resource base if allowed.

[Cash]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', '
')In our current world of ever increasing supplies of energy, we find ways of doing things faster better cheaper, so post-PO we will still be able to find ways of doing things better faster cheaper etc.

Lets say energy depletes at 1.5% pa post-peak but we get 2% pa more efficient due to being cleverer better faster; then PO will turn out to be a brake on economic growth not the end of it, or even a reversal of it.

[spot5050]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NeoPeasant', 'T')ake away our energy, which is fundamentally defined as "the ability to do work", and all of a sudden we are going to appear a lot less clever and resourceful.

[Cash]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', '
')
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cash', 'w')e can expect oil supplies to drop by at least 3 percent a year and possibly more.

[spot5050]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NeoPeasant', 'M')uch of the progress of the last 150 years..."

[Cash]

But we do know what the range of figures for depletion is, based on past experience. Depletion rates post-peak will run from a conservative 3 percent per year to a much more aggressive 10 percent, depending on how badly the major fields have been treated to maximize their production.

Those are known figures that offer an opportunity for planning and preparation.

Oddly enough, we also have figures for conservation, based on the American experience in the mid-1970s energy crisis. The only time US oil imports dropped significantly came around 1975 after all the energy conservation measures mandated by Congress and the collective pocketbook kicked in. I'm pulling this out of memory that's many years old (altho I assume the precise figures would be easy enough to research), but I believe total US oil consumption dropped about 3 percent for a couple of years before starting its inexorable rise again.

The problem with conservation is diminishing returns. Rather like the Hubbert Peak, all the easy and most rewarding energy savings work is done first -- 55 mph national speed limit, insulation installation programs, tax breaks for energy efficient housing and solar panels, etc -- but once that's done and savings have peaked, further savings decline because there's an obvious limit to the amount of energy you can save. I.E., at some point, adding another six inches of fiberglass insulation in the attic doesn't offer a return worthy of the investment.

So even if we manage 3.5 percent conservation against 3 percent depletion for one year, we will eventually reach the point where all the low-hanging conservation fruit has been picked and conservation rates will decline even as oil depletion continues and even accelerates.

Cash

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', 'H')ere's a question which has never been answered to my personal satisfaction;

Humans are pretty groovy things yes? We have brains. We are clever.

In our current world of ever increasing supplies of energy, we find ways of doing things faster better cheaper, so post-PO we will still be able to find ways of doing things better faster cheaper etc.

Lets say energy depletes at 1.5% pa post-peak but we get 2% pa more efficient due to being cleverer better faster; then PO will turn out to be a brake on economic growth not the end of it, or even a reversal of it.

Dealing with PO will be like swimming upstream but wont be the end of the world.

I spose the question is - 'how clever are we'? or 'are we clever enough'?

[ohanian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', 'H')ere's a question which has never been answered to my personal satisfaction;

Humans are pretty groovy things yes? We have brains. We are clever.

In our current world of ever increasing supplies of energy, we find ways of doing things faster better cheaper, so post-PO we will still be able to find ways of doing things better faster cheaper etc.

Lets say energy depletes at 1.5% pa post-peak but we get 2% pa more efficient due to being cleverer better faster; then PO will turn out to be a brake on economic growth not the end of it, or even a reversal of it.

[spot5050]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cash', 'S')o even if we manage 3.5 percent conservation against 3 percent depletion for one year...

[Cash]

Read what I wrote, Spot. That should answer your question, to the extent that anything can be known of the future. We can judge and estimate only based on past experience and reasonable expectations.

BTW, I did some quick research and discovered that US oil consumption did indeed drop by around 3 percent a year over several years in the 1970s, for a total reduction by the end of that trend of about 13 percent! Impressive! Then Ronald Reagan was elected and ended many of the energy efficiency tax break programs and research, the Saudis and other OPEC members turned on the taps and brought down prices, and consumption went up again.

Cash

[spot5050]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cash', 'D')epletion rates post-peak will run from a conservative 3 percent per year to a much more aggressive 10 percent, depending on how badly the major fields have been treated to maximize their production.

[JoeW]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'T')o make things clear with a simple example: you can isolate a house very cleverly to use your heat source as efficiently as possible, but you won't be able to heat it with the flame of a match.

[Cash]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cash', 'D')epletion rates post-peak will run from a conservative 3 percent per year to a much more aggressive 10 percent, depending on how badly the major fields have been treated to maximize their production.

[spot5050]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cash', 'T')he first one a quick Google turned up ("depletion rates" + petroleum) was from Richard Duncan:

http://www.oilcrisis.com/duncan/mexoil.htm

"Depletion rates for most countries outside the Middle East lie between 3% and 8%, with a few above 10%. The profile is primarily driven by the early large fields which are already in terminal decline and are not being replaced. (PE, 1995a)"