by spot5050 » Mon 11 Apr 2005, 20:05:15
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'J')evon's Paradox takes out the efficiency answer and the increase in energy consumption required for any economic growth makes for swimming upstream against a tidal wave.
No it doesn't.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jevons', 'I')t is wholly a confusion of ideas, to suppose that the economic use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth. As a rule, the new modes of economy will lead to an increase of consumption according to a principle recognized in many parallel instances?.
Jevons' paradox does not contradict what I'm saying. I can't understand why you think it does any more than I can understand why you think I was saying that we can continue at this rate of growth.
by MonteQuest » Mon 11 Apr 2005, 20:17:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'J')evon's Paradox takes out the efficiency answer and the increase in energy consumption required for any economic growth makes for swimming upstream against a tidal wave.
No it doesn't.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jevons', 'I')t is wholly a confusion of ideas, to suppose that the economic use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth. As a rule, the new modes of economy will lead to an increase of consumption according to a principle recognized in many parallel instances?.
Jevons' paradox does not contradict what I'm saying. I can't understand why you think it does any more than I can understand why you think I was saying that we can continue at this rate of growth.
You are saying if we achieve a 2% efficiency increase that that will allow for growth in a 1.5% decline. Jevon's Paradox says that that increase in efficiency will create an
increase in consumption negating that effort.
I never said you said we could continue at this rate of growth. I merely pointed out some missing elements in your argument, i.e., the new energy, above and beyond increases in efficiency, that are required for growth. Anything less than a 3% increase in energy consumption is a recession. .5% is depression. Hardly a brake.
Remember, our economy is based upon infinite growth. When it slows, we have a recession, when it nearly stops, we have a depression. when it stops all together, we collaspe.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
by spot5050 » Mon 11 Apr 2005, 21:02:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'Y')ou are saying if we achieve a 2% efficiency increase that that will allow for growth in a 1.5% decline.
Not quite. I'm saying there are two factors: a decline in energy output of say 2%, and an increase in energy efficiency, call it x%.
What is x?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'J')evon's Paradox says that that increase in efficiency will create an
increase in consumption negating that effort.
Yes Jevons is correct when supply is ever increasing.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'A')nything less than a 3% increase in energy consumption is a recession. .5% is depression. Hardly a brake.
I disagree.
Jevons' paradox does not prove that we need 3% increase in energy pa. Jevons lived in a time when coal output increased every year. Post-peak is different. Jevons paradox was radical at the time because it said that increased efficiency does not lead to decreased consumption in a world where a resource is getting cheaper. We live in that world but very soon we will not.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'R')emember, our economy is based upon infinite growth. When it slows, we have a recession, when it nearly stops, we have a depression. when it stops all together, we collaspe.
by MonteQuest » Mon 11 Apr 2005, 21:43:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', ' ')
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'J')evon's Paradox says that that increase in efficiency will create an increase in consumption negating that effort.
Yes Jevons is correct when supply is ever increasing.
Efficiency
increases supply and it gets consumed. Back to square one. That's why it is called a paradox. How are you going to keep that saved energy from being consumed by a energy hungry world?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')evons' paradox does not prove that we need 3% increase in energy pa.
Never said it did. Historically, in a growing economy, a 3% increase in electrical energy consumption is required to sustain the economy. Without that growth, the debt cannot be serviced, jobs cannot be created, 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."
by MonteQuest » Mon 11 Apr 2005, 22:06:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', ' ')
People on this board waffle on and on about how staggeringly inefficient we are when it comes to energy use and how much more efficient we could be if we tried, but somehow erase that fact from their brains when talking about possible efficiency benefits ie. in terms of offsetting the post-peak decline in energy production.
It's ridiculous that I can't get such a simple point across. What am I doing wrong?!
Explain how you will keep this saved energy sequestered away from consumers so they won't consume it. Remember, this is about achieving a
net reduction in energy use. Increasing the efficiency will make more energy available, thus lowering the price. Price goes lower, people consume more. Now, if you instill efficiency and
raise the price at the same time causing demand destruction, then you get around Jevon's Paradox.
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
-
