Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak oil=Swimming up stream, not the end of the world.

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Unread postby jato » Mon 11 Apr 2005, 23:00:22

Energy= the capacity for doing work.

Efficient= productive without waste.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')fficiency could make better use of the energy we have, but it will not offset the decline at all.


Why?

Efficiency is not a form of energy. It does not replace energy. One could theoretically have a totally efficient machine, but it still won't run without energy. Our economy demands energy, it needs energy to survive. The system does not care about being efficient.

Peak Oil and oil decline are a function of geology. Oil use has nothing to do with efficiency. The world could theoretically use 84 million barrels of oil per day in totally efficient manner!

Don’t get me wrong, the world will become more efficient with oil use. As demand destruction sets in, people will have to make due with less. It will still not modify the depletion curve because…Post peak the oil companies will continue to pump oil as fast as they can and someone will buy/burn/use it.

Do you think the bolded part is true or false?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hey are two separate issues.


Why?


See above.
jato
 

Unread postby spot5050 » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 08:37:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jato', 'I')t will still not modify the depletion curve because…Post peak the oil companies will continue to pump oil as fast as they can and someone will buy/burn/use it.

Ah ha, I see where you're coming from now, I think.

I agree efficiency improvements do not change the depletion curve. The rate of deplection will not be affected. But that's not my point.

What I'm trying to get across is that even if oil declines at 2% pa, we wont necessarily get poorer by 2% pa. Some of the decline will be offset by efficiency improvements. It seems common sense to me.

Do you understand the point I'm making?
spot5050
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Cheshire, England
Top

Unread postby Doly » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 09:11:48

The problem is, there are practical limits to how much more efficient one can get.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Unread postby Cash » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 13:11:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', '')$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)"

The internet is a wonderful thing, but it does have its downfalls; one of them being that anybody can write any rubbish they like which is then quoted by others to support their own particular view of the world.

As I have no idea what the "Institute on Energy and Man" is, who Richard C. Duncan Ph.D. is, or why his graphics are under construction, I offer these alternatives to the figures you quote;

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Colin Campbell, as presented to a UK House of Commons All-Party Committee in 1999', '
')annual depletion 2.2%

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ASPO, 2004 estimate', '
')annual depletion 2.4%


"I have no idea ... who Richard C. Duncan is." Are you serious? Do you presume to post here without knowing who Duncan is? For the love of God, man, (or woman, as the case may be), educate yourself. Duncan and Campbell are only the two best-known names in the Peak Oil canon.

I'm sorry, Spot, but you just blew your credibility right out the window.

Oh, by the way:
Colin Campbell, 1999, UK House of Commons All-Party Committee

http://www.oilcrisis.com/campbell/commons.htm

"9) The plateau has to come to an end by around 2008 when Swing Share will have passed 50% and the Swing countries in the Middle East will be approaching their depletion midpoint too. Production will then start its inevitable long term decline at about 3% a year. Increasing shortages will develop, and agriculture and transport will be seriously affected. The global market will come to an end because of high transport costs."

Cash

Edited to add: The numbers Duncan cites are historical fact, not his estimates or opinions. You might not recognize the speaker, Spot, but you can't ignore what he says.
Last edited by Cash on Tue 12 Apr 2005, 14:05:21, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cash
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby johnmarkos » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 13:38:58

Richard Duncan is the person who predicts "permanent blackouts" in 2008 or 2012 or 2030 or 2025, depending on how you interpret his writings.

I think "permanent blackouts are unlikely in the next few decades but then again, I don't have a PhD. I have a Bachelor's degreee . . . in Liberal Arts!

Anyway, Dr. Duncan's predictions are among the most pessimistic.
User avatar
johnmarkos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Francisco, California

Unread postby Cash » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 14:01:57

Hardly more pessimistic than many of the scenarios discussed and defended here, and his extrapolations, while perhaps extreme in your view, are based on sound information. It's interesting that Duncan has grown increasingly more pessimistic in recent years in his discussions of post-Peak Oil developments.

Certainly the depletion numbers he cites in my original post are beyond question, since they're based on historical fact rather than his or anyone else's predictions. Duncan and Walter Youngquist, with Colin Campbell and Jean LaHerrere (sp?), have done some of the leading work in oil depletion analysis.

FMI, go to:

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/duncan/

http://www.mnforsustain.org/author_duncan_richard.htm

Cash
User avatar
Cash
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby jato » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 18:19:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') agree efficiency improvements do not change the depletion curve. The rate of deplection will not be affected. But that's not my point.


Sorry, I thought it was.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat I'm trying to get across is that even if oil declines at 2% pa, we wont necessarily get poorer by 2% pa. Some of the decline will be offset by efficiency improvements. It seems common sense to me.

Do you understand the point I'm making?


Yes.

For a thought experiment, What is a REALISTIC efficiency number? Remember, we are not talking about rationing or demand destruction even though those things are likely to happen.

A good example may be: Most of the new vehicles sold after Peak Oil (in the USA) will be more fuel efficient than the SUVs and trucks that are selling right now.

I took the example from the 1970s and 1980s, same thing…cars bought in the USA became smaller and more fuel efficient during that time. It did not happen overnight. Even though there was a recession in progress, the USA was still growing…more "energy hungry" mouths to feed:

Image


Even though in the 1970 & 80s there was a dip in oil use, there was still plenty of oil supply to grow the economy. Auto factories cranked out more fuel efficient cars as best as they could. We were still on the easy, cheap side of the Peak Oil curve. After the 1970s and 1980s, as we became more efficient, we began to use more and more oil.

This time, we will not be able to use more and more oil since production will be in decline. At some point after peak, the economy is going to tank big time! We will be lucky if the average Joe will be able to afford to buy and operate a new hybrid car! We will be lucky if the bank will even loan Joe the money to buy the car!

Efficiency will be a drop in the bucket IMHO and will not help the problem of Peak Oil. It is only a band-aid on the cancer … a small and temporary mitigation to Peak Oil.
jato
 
Top

Unread postby spot5050 » Wed 13 Apr 2005, 19:53:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot', 'I') have no idea ... who Richard C. Duncan is

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cash', 'I')'m sorry, Spot, but you just blew your credibility right out the window.

This forum is called "The basics". What has credibility got to do with anything?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jato', 'W')hat is a REALISTIC efficiency number?

...

Efficiency will be a drop in the bucket IMHO and will not help the problem of Peak Oil. It is only a band-aid on the cancer - a small and temporary mitigation to Peak Oil.

I understand the beginning and end of your post, but the proof in the middle wouldn't stand up in court.

I'm getting bored with this now.
spot5050
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Cheshire, England
Top

Unread postby spot5050 » Wed 13 Apr 2005, 20:10:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'T')he problem is, there are practical limits to how much more efficient one can get.

What are they? How much more efficent could you be next month if you tried?

All you need in order to be more efficient is an incentive, like for example a very high oil price.
spot5050
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Cheshire, England
Top

Unread postby jato » Wed 13 Apr 2005, 20:57:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') understand the beginning and end of your post, but the proof in the middle wouldn't stand up in court.


It is difficult for me to articulate my thoughts sometimes. We are discussing abstract ideas in a future that hasn't happened yet.
jato
 
Top

Unread postby spot5050 » Fri 15 Apr 2005, 20:05:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jato', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') understand the beginning and end of your post, but the proof in the middle wouldn't stand up in court.


It is difficult for me to articulate my thoughts sometimes. We are discussing abstract ideas in a future that hasn't happened yet.


Yes I agee jato. It's all theory.

My friend, I'm not here to have arguments for the sake of it, I just get frustrated sometimes because everyone is unquestioning. It's a doomers paradise. Where has logic gone.
spot5050
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Cheshire, England
Top

Unread postby spot5050 » Fri 15 Apr 2005, 20:19:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'E')xplain 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.

I dont understand. There's no energy to be 'saved up' for later.

If we get richer by 3% pa now - and of that, 1% is due to cleverness and 2% is due to oil, then post-peak we will get poorer by 1%pa.
spot5050
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Cheshire, England
Top

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 15 Apr 2005, 21:01:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'E')xplain 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.

I dont understand. There's no energy to be 'saved up' for later.

If we get richer by 3% pa now - and of that, 1% is due to cleverness and 2% is due to oil, then post-peak we will get poorer by 1%pa.


Increasing efficiency through "cleverness" "saves" energy. This saved energy must be kept away from the consuming public in order to have a net reduction in energy consumption. 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."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Unread postby spot5050 » Fri 15 Apr 2005, 21:34:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'E')xplain 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.

I dont understand. There's no energy to be 'saved up' for later.

If we get richer by 3% pa now - and of that, 1% is due to cleverness and 2% is due to oil, then post-peak we will get poorer by 1%pa.


Increasing efficiency through "cleverness" "saves" energy. This saved energy must be kept away from the consuming public in order to have a net reduction in energy consumption. Jevon's Paradox.

"cleverness" "saves"

No way. Cleverness doesn't 'save'. Cleverness reduces demand by a small margin. But it doesn't 'save' energy in the way you mean.

The controlling framework is the Fee Market, not some Orwellian overlord.
spot5050
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Cheshire, England
Top

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 15 Apr 2005, 21:41:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'E')xplain 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.

I dont understand. There's no energy to be 'saved up' for later.

If we get richer by 3% pa now - and of that, 1% is due to cleverness and 2% is due to oil, then post-peak we will get poorer by 1%pa.


Increasing efficiency through "cleverness" "saves" energy. This saved energy must be kept away from the consuming public in order to have a net reduction in energy consumption. Jevon's Paradox.

"cleverness" "saves"

No way. Cleverness doesn't 'save'. Cleverness reduces demand by a small margin. But it doesn't 'save' energy in the way you mean.

The controlling framework is the Fee Market, not some Orwellian overlord.


Ok, I was using your words. I restate:

Increasing efficiency "saves" energy by reducing the amount of energy you need to do the same amount of work. This saved energy must be kept away from the consuming public in order to have a net reduction in energy consumption. 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."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Unread postby Antimatter » Fri 15 Apr 2005, 22:10:53

How is Jevon's Paradox relevent when oil prices will almost certainly increase rapidly post peak oil? Greater effeciency will not increase the use of oil, because the supply simply won't be there.
User avatar
Antimatter
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue 04 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Australia

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 15 Apr 2005, 23:41:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Antimatter', 'H')ow is Jevon's Paradox relevent when oil prices will almost certainly increase rapidly post peak oil? Greater effeciency will not increase the use of oil, because the supply simply won't be there.


Efficiency creates the new supply. Less demand=lowerprices. Lower prices leads to an increase in demand. It has always been so.

People are not reading Jevon's Paradox or they just can't comprehend it. If you only read far enough to disagree, and not far enough to understand, then you end up asking these kinds of questions.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Unread postby spot5050 » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 21:06:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonetQuest', 'T')his saved energy must be kept away from the consuming public in order to have a net reduction in energy consumption.

Again that sounds like there's some masterplan. There isn't. It's a free market economy. If you personally use less energy next month by being more efficient, you wont have to send the saved energy to some organisation somewhere to keep in trust for the good of humandkind; you will simply use less energy. When we are on the downslope and there's less energy available each year, by being more efficient you will be mitigating a proportion of the problem. Yes?
spot5050
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Cheshire, England
Top

Unread postby spot5050 » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 21:13:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Antimatter', 'H')ow is Jevon's Paradox relevent when oil prices will almost certainly increase rapidly post peak oil? Greater effeciency will not increase the use of oil, because the supply simply won't be there.


Efficiency creates the new supply. Less demand=lowerprices. Lower prices leads to an increase in demand. It has always been so.

People are not reading Jevon's Paradox or they just can't comprehend it. If you only read far enough to disagree, and not far enough to understand, then you end up asking these kinds of questions.

I think Antimatter has the same problem with Jevons' Paradox that I do, ie. Jevons does not apply to a world of decreasing supply. Monte you are ignoring 'price' in your equation.
spot5050
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Cheshire, England
Top

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 21:41:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonetQuest', 'T')his saved energy must be kept away from the consuming public in order to have a net reduction in energy consumption.

Again that sounds like there's some masterplan. There isn't. It's a free market economy. If you personally use less energy next month by being more efficient, you wont have to send the saved energy to some organisation somewhere to keep in trust for the good of humandkind; you will simply use less energy. When we are on the downslope and there's less energy available each year, by being more efficient you will be mitigating a proportion of the problem. Yes?


Who said anything about some master plan? I surely didn't. If you save that energy by being more efficient, then the money you save will either be spent on something else, or if saved, made available to someone else to borrow to consume that energy. Everyone has to participate or you have to keep that saved energy from being consumed.

If your conservation makes energy cheaper, more will be consumed. No net reduction.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Sat 16 Apr 2005, 21:48:32, edited 1 time in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron