[gego]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', ' ')Here is some math for you: If the amount of energy produced that is greater than 1:1 declines by 50% every year, it never reaches 1:1.

[Buff]

Yeah I know about the adjectives and vocabulary - I lurked for a while. You are right - that comment had uncalled for attitude. Sorry.

I was just pointing out with the 50% decline comment that you don't fall below or to 1:1. It seemed some felt it would inevitably get there. I would agree that as we approach 1:1 there are very serious cost problems.

I am not convinced of the timing of Peak Oil.
I am not convinced of the effects as expressed here. (economic crash).
I think the math is being used to exaggerate and spin to support a preconceived conclusion.
I think we are all biased and that we need to be careful not to let our biases prevent us from critical analysis (me included).

The problem I have with Bartlett is he uses assumed constant growth rates to draw conclusions. So my main disagreement would be with the assumptions. You can superimose exponential math on many sets of data and see that the growth rates cannot be sustained. If humanity had a starting point of 2 people and an annual growth rate of 1% we would have crashed long ago. You can easily conclude that the growth rate had been variable.

Paul Ehrlich used exponential math superimposed over the population growth rates in the 60's and wrote a scary book called the Population Bomb. He used growth rates in third world countries and concluded there was impending disaster. Starving people. Economic collapse and chaos. Didn't happen. He was wrong in many of his predictions. I am guessing many here would say he was basically right but his timing was off.

I was among those who based on what I read in The Population Bomb decided to look for land away from the city, learn to grow my own food and make my own stuff. Had guns to keep away the starving city people. Etc. Etc. I was sure the collapse was imminent. This was in 1971. Reading the posts on this forum give me reason to smile as I see myself from 35 years ago. Yes we actually moved to West Virginia (cheap land), built log houses, learned to grow and put up food. Outhouses. Water pulled up from a well. Wood heat. It was a lot of hard work (and a lot of fun). Turned out Ehrlich was wrong and we gradually came back to civilization. Looking back I realize I did not critically analyze his information. One reason was I was biased. I was (and am) an environmentalist - so the message of despair and disaster hit a responsive cord with me. I was sure we were trashing the planet and so it made sense that disaster was nigh. Looking back I feel used.

Here is a link to a 1997 article in Wired Magazine - it is about a statistician named Julian Simon that lists some of Ehrlich's conclusions/predictions and how wrong he turned out to be. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon.html
here are just a couple of excerpts:

"The classical case against population growth was expressed in 1798 by Thomas Malthus, the British economist and country parson who wrote in An Essay on the Principle of Population: "Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will show the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second."

As a point of abstract mathematics, there is no way around the conclusion that a geometric progression, if carried on far enough, will eventually overtake an arithmetic progression, no matter what. If population increases geometrically while "subsistence," or food, increases arithmetically, then sooner or later the population will run out of food. End of story."

"Ehrlich, a Stanford University entomologist who as a youth had seen his best butterfly hunting grounds churned under the real estate developer's plow, wrote the runaway best-seller The Population Bomb. Published in 1968, the book was solidly Malthusian.

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over," it began. "In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate"

"The next year, 1969, Ehrlich published an article called "Eco-Catastrophe!" in Ramparts. "Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born," it said. "By that time [1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions."

Ehrlich was wrong. But he used exponential math to arrive at his conclusions.

I think one of the main points of disagreement is in the assumptive continuation of growth rates. Bartlett and Ehrlich use a constant growth rate and exponential math to draw conclusions. In reality in all of history growth rates are not constant.

Having said that, but to deflect the ad hominems etc I do think we have a worsening energy and environmental crisis. I do think the age of relatively cheap energy is coming to an end. I do think there is enormous potential for conflict between nations over the remaining and yet to be discovered oil, and perhaps gas, coal and even uranium. So please don't wrongly assume I defend the position of "there is no problem".

Lastly I do think the environmental problems we have created and are creating are a greater threat to us than Peak Oil.

Thanks for welcoming me. Thanks for being civil.

[gego]

You were just a little early in your response back in the 1970's. This is a slow moving ship that we are on, and it is easy to lose sight of our path and destination; without tools to measure, all we see is lots of water.

I am getting ready to leave for the holidays, so will get into this next week, but I will say now that there are other methods to confirm that population has grown to an extreme level. Bartlett's approach is just one way of assessing the situation.

Have a nice holiday.

[Buff]

World human population growth rates are falling. One projection has us falling below 0% growth in 2050. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3560433.stm

From "math in daily life" (annenberg foundation" : The rate of Earth's population growth is slowing down. Throughout the 1960s, the world's population was growing at a rate of about 2% per year. By 1990, that rate was down to 1.5%, and by the year 2015, it's expected to drop to 1%. Family planning initiatives, an aging population, and the effects of diseases such as AIDS are some of the factors behind this rate decrease.

Even at these very low rates of population growth, the numbers are staggering. By 2015, despite a low expected 1% growth rate, experts estimate there will be 7 billion people on the planet. By 2050, there may be as many as 10 billion people living on Earth. Can the planet support this population? When will we reach the limit of our resources? http://www.learner.org/exhibits/dailymath/population.html

Data on world population from the US Census bureau.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html

Point being Bartlett's math assumes steady growth rates. These sources pretty much agree that the growth rate is falling towards zero. Could reach it around 2050. Does this mean I think a planet with 50% more people won't create some problems with supplies of energy and other resources - no it does not. But if you watched the Bartlett video it should give you pause before you buy into the most alarmist of the condlusions. [i]

[joewp]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', '
')Point being Bartlett's math assumes steady growth rates. These sources pretty much agree that the growth rate is falling towards zero. Could reach it around 2050. Does this mean I think a planet with 50% more people won't create some problems with supplies of energy and other resources - no it does not. But if you watched the Bartlett video it should give you pause before you buy into the most alarmist of the condlusions. [i]

[Buff]

Thanks but I think I got it ok with the first viewing. It's ok for us to differ in our "take" on the video and the timing and consquences of PO. Did you read the article on Simon/Ehrlich?

I do not agree that Bartlett's math and conclusions are "solid". He states that education is a force for population growth. Of course it is the opposite. The higher the education level, the smaller the family size. One of the main reasons the rate of population growth is falling. For my money bad choice of a factor to use to conclude that we will grow our population until we run out of room. I respectfully disagree. I think the graph of human population growth is clear. Going towards zero growth not because of resource scarcity, but primarily from changes in human behavior.

He has a lot of people feeling like we are at 2 minutes to 12 O'clock in our bottle and we will soon see population crash due to economic collapse. Sorry I don't agree with the timing at all. Again based on what happened to me when I listened to Ehrlich and his predictions. I am guessing you would feel Ehrlich was basically right, just "ahead of his time"? I think he used the math to "prove" his beliefs. That's kind of my point in a nutshell - I think when "falls in love with an idea" they will use math and graphs to support the conclusion that is already made. That is what I see in the video.

I think we are all capable of favoring the statistics that support what we believe, while at the same time discounting statistics that do not support our belief system. This is natural. I am sharing with you all that I was a victim once. I had a strong belief (still do) that we were(are) trashing the planet. So when Ehrlich came along with his predictions I went for it - because of my predisposition. I guess I feel a little wiser for the experience - won't get fooled again, as they say.

There are also good discussions here on PO where some much more knowledgeable than me dispute the conclusions about how much oil there is, when it will peak, and what the consequences will be. Because I was taken in by Ehrlich and his predictions of an imminent crash due to resource scarcity in 1971 I look with a jaundiced eye at this current crop of doom predictors. Is it not possible we will figure out a way to transition from oil to other energy sources in a way that avoids economic collapse? Guess it depends on whose facts and figures you think will most accurately predict the future.

But I will add this. I am not sure. In my mind it is possible we will hit PO soon, and it is possible that the post peak period will live up to the predictions here. I am not sure either way. I will be watching with everyone else for evidence.

To me evidence will need to be more than predictions, biased use of math, and graphs.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', ' ')If you look at the true rate of population growth you will see it that the rate is declining in industrialized countries. Make a graph of this (rate of growth goes from 5% to 4% to 3% to 2% to 1%) and you will see a curve where we reach 0% population growth.

[joewp]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'T')hanks but I think I got it ok with the first viewing. It's ok for us to differ in our "take" on the video and the timing and consquences of PO. Did you read the article on Simon/Ehrlich?

[Buff]

OK you both make some good points. As I said in the earlier post, we are all capable of bringing our biases into our analysis and conclusions. I accept I am guilty of the same.

For me, there is a problem - the declining rate of population growth; and the use of exponential math with its doubling, and the analogy of the bacteria in the bottle. I think the message would be different if Bartlett had included a graph showing population growth declining - which appartently everyone agrees is the case - along with the other stuff. I think Japan is already below zero growth rate and the US and Europe are soon to be there.

I am not saying that growing to 9 billion people on the planet does not create enormous problems. Just that a declining growth rate is a valid part of the conversation.

I will admit to another bias. I have a belief that that a rising cost of enegy and fuels will stimulate the market in alternatives. I think it more likely that we will experience massive changes as we move from relatively cheap energy to more expensive energy. But for me that will not mean an economic crash but shifts in how we do things. I know that view is unpopular and there is an ongoing discussion debating how the future will unfold.

Forgive me if this is old and has already been thoroughly debated here. There was an article in Wired magazine http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.12/gas.html
that argues that the current crop of "petrol pessimism" is unwarranted. They do say that the oil in Saudia Arabia is running out, but that there are a lot of alternatives if the price of a barrel of oil equivalent is $30 to $70. In the view of the article's authors, the low cost of Aramco oil ($3 to produce) is what has kept these alternatives from being actively developed.

Once again I have to add I think there are huge implications that go with the changes, including severe environmental consequences. For me, the damage we are doing to the environment is of greater concern that the shift from relatively inexpensive oil. I add this last so I don't get flamed as being firmly overoptimistic. Thank you all for remaining civil.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'I') think Japan is already below zero growth rate and the US and Europe are soon to be there.

[joewp]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', '
')I am not saying that growing to 9 billion people on the planet does not create enormous problems. Just that a declining growth rate is a valid part of the conversation.

[Buff]

Thanks for your comments. I will try to keep a more open mind but for now I am stuck with my biases. Still not convinced, but willing to learn more.

you said "Well, this paragraph reveals a definite cornucopian bias on your part. All I can say is the pre-fossil fuel era was dependent on the sun for its energy, what makes you think the post fossil fuel era will be different? Someone here once said "If they really were alternatives, we'd be using them already". Most of them have EROEI ratios below or near 1, making them almost worthless. "

The wired article states that coal to liquid has a cost of $35 -40 for a boe (barrel of oil equivalant). Sources: Energy Information Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, US Department of Agriculture, US Department of Energy, National Biodiesel Board, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

I guess I don't understand how that can be if the EROEI is below or near 1. Can someone help me understand that?

Someone please tell me how to do that cool thing where you paste a part of the other person's post.

I guess I also got from the Wired article that there are alternatives, but they have not been developed due to cost. Is that not different from "if there were alternatives we would be using them"? Sounds like the person(s) who said that do not believe there are alternatives? Or perhaps that all alternatives have an EROEI of 1 or less?

I find it plausible that we would not develop the infrastructure for CTL if the selling price for the boe fuel were less than $50 - Oil has been below that until just recently and could fall again. It makes sense to me that the infrastucture investments are enormous and would be too risky if the breakeven price were $40, $50 $70. But if we reach a point (when we reach a point) where oil stays above $50 per barrel, it would also make sense that these alternatives would be developed. There was a good article today on the PO news about a new CTL investment in Montana and another in Wyoming. Why would the investors do that if the EROIE were "below or near 1, making them worthless"?

Would it be true that if there were alternatives available that had a higher EROIE and were available in large amounts, it would change the perspective on the effects of Peak Oil?

You also say "All I can say is the pre-fossil fuel era was dependent on the sun for its energy, what makes you think the post fossil fuel era will be different?"
Of course the energy in the pre-fossil fuel era was dependent on the sun for it's energy. But it seems like you are saying that it is out of the question that we can live on that energy again. I wonder what the total amount of energy arrives here on the planet every day from the sun and how that compares to the amount of energy we are using each day? I bet someone here knows. And is it not true that nuclear energy would also be available for quite a while (I have zero knowledge about uranium supplies)?

One more question - actually a couple of related ones. (ain't a pain?) Is the amount of energy we use per capita going up or down? I am interested in the trend both for the US and industrialized West as well as globally.
My uniformed guess would be that we are using less per capita in the west and more per capita in the developing world. The reason I ask is the math trends shown in the Bartlett video can go both ways, yes? If the per capita energy use is going down, would that not be an important part of the conversation? It surely would be if it were trending up.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'I') guess I don't understand how that can be if the EROEI is below or near 1. Can someone help me understand that?

[joewp]

I would just add to Tony's comments that you talk about coal to liquid conversion. You must admit this would increase our use of coal, correct? So suppose we increased our use of coal at 4% per year. According to Dr. Bartlett's calculations, that would make our coal last between 59-75 years. This assumes, of course, that we could pull coal out of the ground at that increasing rate up to the last minute(something I doubt is possible, I can't even get suck a milkshake at a constant rate till the end and I think coal mining is much harder to do). So all CTL would do is delay the inevitable. All biofuels, ethanol and other biomass use would just reduce the ultimate total food resource (you want to drive or eat?) and all solar, wind and wave power would do is replace a small amount of stationary energy, which is coal's best use, not oil's.

I know it's hard to accept this, we're all very used to this cheap energy lifestyle we enjoy. But the time is coming, sooner or later, when life will resemble 1850 more than 2005, population level included. The sooner we prepare for that time, the less onerous the transition will be. But I don't think anyone is preparing except a small handful of people.

I know Simon's position is much easier to take, but reality isn't always what we want it to be. Oil is the most important thing is our economic system, and it's finite and it's extraction rate will start to decline. That's reality and it sucks.

[Buff]

To me it appears there is a lot of bias here towards negativity. And yes it is based on the data as you see it. What I mean is if I suggest that a declining growth rate in the population is an important part of the conversation, you say something like "yes, but that has its own problems". If I say that it appears there may alternatives that would meet our energy needs much farther into the future than what is implicated in the PO aftermath collapse due to energy running low, you say something like "yes, but that just puts off the inevitable".

Sorry but I am still not convinced that 1) the peak is upon us, or 2) the peak will be followed by an economic collapse putting our lifestyle back to more like 1850 than 1950. If that shows a cornucopian bias I am guilty. But I am still listening!

BTW - we viewed the movie Inconvenient Truth Monday. I felt a great movie with the points well presented. I think the threats posed by global warming are demanding we change now. But like Gore, I think we can do it.
Is it possible that I see the glass as half full while many here see it as half empty? I repeat - we are all biased. We all tend to take information that agrees with our belief system as true, and that which disagrees with our belief system as false.

Sometimes harsh experience is a good teacher. I became an owner of an alternative energy store in 1981. Putting my money where my mouth is so to speak. It was there that I learned that solar energy was relatively expensive compared to the currently available electricty, gas, etc. already available. Lost some money and some time learning that one. Previously thought solar would have a cost advantage - the fuel is free!

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', '[')url=http://peakoil.com/post400040.html#400040]To me it appears there is a lot of bias here towards negativity. And yes it is based on the data as you see it.[/url]

[Buff]

It is not about what I "hope" for. I am just trying to reflect how it appears to me and to continue to learn. I am still working on what I think will happen and when.

I think it is possible to reach sustainability. Also possible we won't. I stand by my statements that the rate of population growth is declining, and that the statistic is relevant to the timing of what will occur. I believe we will see a continued drop in per capita energy use and that that statistic is also relevant to the timing of what will occur.

A population growth rate that is falling makes a curve into the future. It has powerful implications, as does a positive growth rate as demonstrated by Dr. Bartlett. Same goes for a declining per capita energy consumption - the math is powerful when charted over time.

I guess we just disagree on what is happening and what will happen. You are amazed when people don't accept that the peak is here, and the post peak will begin soon. I am amazed that there is not more doubt as to that conclusion.

It is also widely believed that the sun will one day burn out and cease putting out energy. For me, an indisputable fact. Worse effects on our economy than running out of oil, yes? Therefore anyone who doesn't start planning for it must be in denial. Or could it be a matter of how soon it happens? I am being facetious of course. But using absolutes like "we know oil is finite" as if it that fact were the be all and end all of the discussion seems like it avoids conflicting data or possibilities.

Paul Ehrlich "knew" the world faced mass starvation by 1985 at the latest. Turned out the world produced a lot more food than he had figured on in his math. He made a mistake. There were things that came to pass that he did not anticipate.

It has been interesting but perhaps it is time to move on. The discussion is starting to sound tedious and repetitive. Thanks for the information I have learned.

[joewp]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'I')
It has been interesting but perhaps it is time to move on. The discussion is starting to sound tedious and repetitive. Thanks for the information I have learned.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'I') stand by my statements that the rate of population growth is declining

[Buff]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3560433.stm#graphic

It seems you are unimpressed with my points. That's ok as I remain unconvinced of your conclusions as I understand them.

I have read on this thread that once we reach the peak, all the oil will be gone in 10 years. Really.

Is this a valid description of our differences? - I think that it is important to consider these things:

1. The timing of when we reach the need to replace oil with other energy sources or face the harshest consequence. In other words does it matter if that time is in the next 10 years, or could it be 30, 50, or more years in the future. So if the discussion is framed as "the oil is finite and will run out, so timing does not matter" then yes end of discussion. For me the timing issue does matter because if we are to transition, then the timing is huge in terms of suffering or lack thereof. So does timing matter?

2. Whether the population rate of growth is declining or not. I posted a link that shows the rate of growth declining. We can disagree about the causes of the declining growth rate. We can disagree about whether it is decling or not. We can disagree as to if a declining rate of growth in population causes other problems. But as we discuss the consequences of population growth, would it not be important if the rate of growth is indeed declining? If it turned out to be true that the rate of population growth was declining for reasons such as "better educated" and "more affluent" would it matter?

3. A declining per capita consumption of energy. It seems to me that we have experienced a time where we had a rapidly rising rate of per capita energy consumption as we became an industrialized modern economy. But as energy costs have risen, and the problems of wasteful use of energy have manifested themselves, and it had become apparent that our current dependence on oil cannot continue indefinitely, that there has been many changes that have led to a declining per capita energy use. Building insulation, appliance and vehicle efficiency, recycling and other conservation measures all contribute. And it is obvious we can do much much more. I believe that in developing countries, per capita energy consumption rises. My effort at making a point was if there was a trend showing the per capita consumption going down, would that matter - using math like Bartlett's showing a stabilization (sustainability) in the future. So here is the question - as we employ mathematical models to project the future should we consider declining per capita consumption of energy?

4. Alternatives to oil. I posted about both an article that explored a a variety of alternatives, including coal to gas. The responses were that the alternatives to oil "all have EROEI's of 1 or less than 1" and "according to Bartlett with a 4% increase in coal consumption if we were to depend on coal it would be gone it "59 to 75" years. Nuclear energy may replace some oil but "a long time is not forever". My point is this. I still think there are many, many alternatives to oil that have not been develped because the oil was much lower in cost. I admit to not having done the research to know the EROEI of each of the alternatives is. But when I posted about the large investment in CTL in Montana I did not recieve a satisfactory reason why that was not an example of an alternative the could provide a substantial amount of energy replacing oil. Just that "coal is finite" , therefore "problem not solved". I agree. So here is the hypothetical - If there were alternatives to oil that were available is sufficient quantities to sustain our energy needs for a couple of hundred years with a BOE (barrel of oil equivalent) cost in today's dollars of $50, $60, or $80 per barrel, would that matter?

It the timing of the "end of oil" does not matter, if the rate of growth of the world's population does not matter, if the per capita consumption of energy does not matter, and if all alternatives are already irrelevant because: they suffer from EROEI of 1 or less; are themselves finite; are not available in suffiecent quantities to do much good at forestalling disaster; if they were truly of any value we would already be using them - then I guess maybe we just agree to disagree.

To me all of the above are relevant. Not because they are certain, but because they are uncertain.

I remind you I am not saying that we are not at the end of cheap energy. I do believe we are.
I am not saying fossil fuels are not finite. I am saying the timing is in dispute.

I believe we must focus on employing every means at our disposal to adjust to the situation. We should stop subsidizing energy to keep the cost down, instead we should use tax policy to make it more expensive. This will drive conservation and development of alternatives. We should force ourselves to use energy in a more environmentally responsible way - for instance employ the technology to burn coal without the devastating emmissions of acid and greenhouse gases.

I believe we can do it. I don't believe it is a given that we will or won't. No doubt if we as a world population deny that major changes in the way we acquire and use energy are not required, them the future is indeed pessimistic.