I've explained this stuff 1000 times now; it's not hard to understand.
You can do the same things with less energy in most of the things we do today. Machines have different efficiencies, so do methods of transport, growing food, making things and so on and so forth. Therefore you can cut down your overall energy take and replace that with sustainable methods – the energy replaced by renewable.
This talk of the 'laws of thermodynamics' for examples is total crap. Take hydro - you are using POTENTIAL energy, with the power of the sun moving water to higher ground. The oceans are controlled by gravity and the moon. It's absolutely nothing to do with some of these concepts that have been aired.
The sun emits 3.8 x 10^23 Kw/h, more then we’ve ever used many, many times over.
PeakOil is You
The Myth of energy and GDP
by Aaron » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 09:38:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou can do the same things with less energy in most of the things we do today
AAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
See... I told you so... never even looked at the CLEAR EVIDENCE I POSTED ABOVE DID YA?
Hear no evil speak no evil.
Obviously this is just some kind of mental masturbation for you WW.
Don't bother to address the points... you might damage your little brain.
It's like arguing with the wind.
Ignorance truly is bliss.
Enjoy it while you can.
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.
Hazel Henderson
Hazel Henderson
-
Aaron - Resting in Peace
- Posts: 5998
- Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Houston
by Wildwell » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 09:46:27
Keep on driving that SUV, you're obviously convinced you're doing good. Me? I'm going to buy a bike.
I did read the link, but it's just a theory. you can do anything with figures. I still think common sense dictates I'm right - and others. It's illogical that wasting energy is productive.
Love the insults btw. Hurts being wrong eh?
I cannot debate with people that drive cars in one breath and talk about world starvation in another. It's just hypocritical and bizarre. And I think much of this site is just a way of justifying things to oneself.
Keep on driving folks! But remember when the cost of fuel does go up who is to blame for it!
I did read the link, but it's just a theory. you can do anything with figures. I still think common sense dictates I'm right - and others. It's illogical that wasting energy is productive.
Love the insults btw. Hurts being wrong eh?
I cannot debate with people that drive cars in one breath and talk about world starvation in another. It's just hypocritical and bizarre. And I think much of this site is just a way of justifying things to oneself.
Keep on driving folks! But remember when the cost of fuel does go up who is to blame for it!
-
Wildwell - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1962
- Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: UK
by Aaron » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 10:28:50
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'I') cannot debate with people...
Finally a statement I can agree with.
And no insults... that's me pointing out that you appear incapable of learning. Frankly I find your support of obvious nonsense insulting.
And here I was thinking that the breakdown of basic education was an American thing... my bad.
I THINK WE ALL NOTICE THE LACK OF RESPONSE YOU OFFER FOR THE UNBIASED ANALYSIS OF THE BP STATISTICAL REVIEW I POSTED ABOVE WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS HOW ENERGY AFFECTS ECONOMIES.
So enjoy your bike ride... I'm sure it will produce generations of economic prosperity for you.
And don't worry; When you folks get yourselves into trouble over there America will come bail you out (again).
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.
Hazel Henderson
Hazel Henderson
-
Aaron - Resting in Peace
- Posts: 5998
- Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Houston
by Aaron » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 10:34:24
Exactly which part of this do you dispute?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n pre-1750 Europe, in countries where land was relatively constant, growth of GDP has been estimated to be about 0.5% per annum - very similar to the growth in population. From 1760 to 1820 as Britain started to use coal to fuel its early industrial age, GDP growth rose to 1.5% with a population growth of 1% (population growth in the rest of Europe remained about 0.5%). Then from 1820 to 1913 as the industrialised world adopted the steam engine fueled by coal, GDP growth rose to 2.5%, population growth (excluding the USA) was 0.5 to 1.0%, capital growth (where recorded) 1.2 - 2.6%. This illustrates the effect of fossil fuel utilisation.
In the period from 1950 to 1973 when the world turned to extremely cheap petroleum, GDP growth rates doubled to around 5% (nearly 10% in Japan). Then after petroleum prices rose dramatically between 1973 and 1979 and the world returned to coal and nuclear fuels in addition to petroleum, GDP growth rates dropped back to 2 to 2.5% per annum.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n pre-1750 Europe, in countries where land was relatively constant, growth of GDP has been estimated to be about 0.5% per annum - very similar to the growth in population. From 1760 to 1820 as Britain started to use coal to fuel its early industrial age, GDP growth rose to 1.5% with a population growth of 1% (population growth in the rest of Europe remained about 0.5%). Then from 1820 to 1913 as the industrialised world adopted the steam engine fueled by coal, GDP growth rose to 2.5%, population growth (excluding the USA) was 0.5 to 1.0%, capital growth (where recorded) 1.2 - 2.6%. This illustrates the effect of fossil fuel utilisation.
In the period from 1950 to 1973 when the world turned to extremely cheap petroleum, GDP growth rates doubled to around 5% (nearly 10% in Japan). Then after petroleum prices rose dramatically between 1973 and 1979 and the world returned to coal and nuclear fuels in addition to petroleum, GDP growth rates dropped back to 2 to 2.5% per annum.
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.
Hazel Henderson
Hazel Henderson
-
Aaron - Resting in Peace
- Posts: 5998
- Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Houston
by MonteQuest » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 10:36:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mercani', '
')Monte and Aaron, why don't you bring your own data to prove your point ?
')Monte and Aaron, why don't you bring your own data to prove your point ?
Oh, I think I did, but people ignore the facts that don't fit their world paradigm. Wildwell cites Sweden as an example of GDP growth without an increase in energy consumption. I reiterate:
As to Sweden, this pdf file gives a whole lot of explanations for their success, but there was still an increase in energy consumption primarily by the industrial sector. And they too are concerned about being able to supply electricity in the future which is required for economic growth.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n 2000, Sweden consumed 11.0 Mtoe of electricity (128.4 TWh), accounting for 30.9% of the country’s TFC. Since 1990, absolute electricity demand has risen by 6.6% and its share of TFC has fallen from 32.2% to 30.9%. Demand from the industrial sector is highest, accounting for 44.1% of the electricity TFC in 2000, followed by the residential sector,which consumed 32.8% of the power in the same year.
Gas use has increased by 32% from 1990 to 2000. The majority of gas demand in the country comes from industry (64%) and residences (22%).
In April 2002, the association of Scandinavian transmission operators, Nordel, published their Nordic Grid Master Plan. The plan noted that Sweden, Norway and Finland may face a combined shortage of electricity in the years ahead. Specifically, the plan analysed the period 2002–4 and found risks of power shortages in unfavourable conditions, particularly during years of low hydropower production.
In view of the crucial role energy plays in the development of society, in 2001 the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA) initiated a special Energy Foresight project, which will examine the Swedish energy system in both a European and a global perspective.
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/ ... comp02.pdf
Growth of any GDP economy must be accompanied by either an increase in energy consumption or an increase in efficiency, or an outsourcing of the energy consumption to another country. Increases in efficiency are limited due the the law of diminishing returns, not to mention newcomers who have no waste to conserve. Where will the energy for their consumption come from? From everyone else's piece of the pie?
If it is "value added" it is from money generated by an increase in energy consumption somewhere or by debt which is predicated upon future economic growth and the resultant energy consumption. It works no other way.
Now, what happens when you run an economy on price inflation or value added? Look a the following chart. See the red line? That represents "reported" GDP. The blue line represents actual GDP based upon the production of good and services and excludes the GDP growth or "wealth creation" as a result of housing inflation that is driving the current economy. We create illusionary wealth, and then borrow against that illusion to spend more money and increase GDP.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')here would the US GDP be today had the Household Debt, as % of the GDP, remained at the historically high level before the current run up? What if the GDP growth came from growth in the income of households and Household Debt growth that was at 45% of the growth in GDP? The primary reason that I picked the 45% number is that it is the average for 19 years, 1965-1983, and that after 1984 the Personal Bankruptcy Filings exploded. So, we are not talking about a case of no growth in Household Debt; we are simply talking about growth in household spending coming primarily from growth in incomes. Such a GDP would be a Secular GDP with organic growth. As some of you may know, growth in household incomes, in real terms, has been poor over the past 5 years (negative for the last twelve months). How long can debt be a substitute for growth in household spending when income growth is hard to come by?
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/edito ... /0123.html
Aaron posted this link already, but again you knot-heads choose not to read it.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
