Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on December 21, 2019

Scientific Models and Myths: What Is the Difference?

Most people seem to think, “The difference between models and myths is that models are scientific, and myths are the conjectures of primitive people who do not have access to scientific thinking and computers. With scientific models, we have moved far beyond myths.” It seems to me that the truth is quite different from this.

History shows a repeated pattern of overshoot and collapse. William Catton wrote about this issue in his highly acclaimed 1980 book, Overshoot.

Figure 1. Depiction of Overshoot and Collapse by Paul Chefurka

What politicians, economists, and academic book publishers would like us to believe is that the world is full of limitless possibilities. World population can continue to rise. World leaders are in charge. Our big problem, if we believe today’s models, is that humans are consuming fossil fuel at too high a rate. If we cannot quickly transition to a low carbon economy, perhaps based on wind, solar and hydroelectric, the climate will change uncontrollably. The problem will then be all our fault. The story, supposedly based on scientific models, has almost become a new religion.

Recent Attempted Shifts to Wind, Solar and Hydroelectric Are Working Poorly

Of course, if we check to see what has happened when economies have actually attempted to switch to wind, water and hydroelectric, we see one bad outcome after another.

[1] Australia’s attempt to put renewable electricity on the grid has sent electricity prices skyrocketing and resulted in increased blackouts. It has been said that intermittent electricity has “wrecked the grid” in Australia.

[2] California, with all of its renewables, has badly neglected its grid, leading to many damaging wildfires. Renewables need disproportionately more long distance transmission, partly because they tend to be located away from population centers and partly because transmission must be scaled for peak use. It is evident that California has not been collecting a high enough price for electricity to cover the full cost of grid maintenance and upgrades.

Figure 2. California electricity consumption including amounts imported from out of state, based on EIA data. Amounts shown are average daily amounts, by month.

[3] The International Rivers Organization writes that Large Dams Just Aren’t Worth the Cost. Part of the problem is the huge number of people who must be moved from their ancestral homeland and their inability to adapt well to their new location. Part of the problem is the environmental damage caused by the dams. To make matters worse, a study of 245 large dams built between 1934 and 2007 showed that without even taking into account social and environmental impacts, the actual construction costs were too high to yield a positive return.

Developed economies have made hydroelectric power work adequately in areas with significant snow melt. At this point, evidence is lacking that large hydroelectric dams work well elsewhere. Significant variation in rainfall (year-to-year or seasonally) seems to be particularly problematic, because without fossil fuel backup, businesses cannot rely on year-around electricity supply.

The Pattern of Overshoot and Collapse Is Well-Established

Back in 1974, Henry Kissinger said in an interview:

I think of myself as a historian more than as a statesman. As a historian, you have to be conscious of the fact that every civilization that has ever existed has ultimately collapsed. [Emphasis added.]

History is a tale of efforts that failed, of aspirations that weren’t realized, of wishes that were fulfilled and then turned out to be different from what one expected. So, as a historian, one has to live with a sense of the inevitability of tragedy. As a statesman, one has to act on the assumption that problems must be solved.

Historians tend to define collapse more broadly than “the top level of government disappearing.” Collapse includes many ways of an economy failing. It includes losing at war, population decline because of epidemics, governments overthrown by internal dissent, and governments that cannot repay debt with interest, and failing for this reason.

A basic issue that often underlies collapse is falling average resources per person. These falling average resources per person can take several forms:

Population rises, but land available for farming doesn’t rise.
Mines and wells deplete, requiring more effort for extraction.
Soil erodes or becomes polluted with salt, reducing crop yields.

One of the other issues is that as resources per capita become stretched, it becomes harder and harder to set aside a margin for a “rainy day” or a drought. Thus, weather or climate variations may push an economy over the edge, as resources per person become more stretched.

Scientific Models Too Often Prove Whatever the Grant Provider Wants Proven

It is incredibly difficult to figure out what the future will hold. Our experience is almost entirely with a growing economy. It is easy to accidentally build this past experience into a model of the future, even when we are trying to make realistic assumptions. For example, when making pension models in the early 1980s, actuaries would see interest rates of 10% and assume that interest rates could remain this high indefinitely.

The question of whether prices will rise to allow future energy extraction is another problematic area. If we believe standard economic theory, prices can be expected to rise when resources are in short supply. But if we look at Revelation 18: 11-17, we find that when Babylon collapsed, the problem was low prices and lack of demand. There were not even buyers for slaves, and these were the energy product of the day. The Great Depression of the 1930s showed a similar low-price pattern. Today’s economic model seems to need refinement, if it is to account for how prices really seem to behave in collapses.

If there is an issue that is difficult to evaluate in making a forecast, the easiest approach for researchers to take is to omit it. For example, the intermittency of wind and solar can effectively be left out by assuming that (a) the different types of intermittency will cancel out, or (b) intermittency will be inexpensive to fix or (c) intermittency will be handled by a different part of the research project.

To further complicate matters, researchers often find that their compensation is tied to their ability to get grants to fund their research. These research grants have been put together by organizations that are concerned about the future. These organizations are looking for research that will match their understanding of today’s problems and their proposed solutions for the future.

A person can guess how this arrangement tends to work out. Any researcher who points out endless problems, or says that the proposed solution is impossible, won’t get funding. To get funding, at least some partial solution must be provided along the lines outlined in the Request for Proposal, regardless of how unlikely the proposed solution is. Research showing that the grant-writer’s view of the future is not really correct is left to retired researchers and others willing to work for little compensation. All too often, published research tends to say whatever the groups funding the research studies want the studies to say.

Myths Are of Many Types; Many Are Aimed at Giving Good Advice

The fact that myths have survived through the ages lets us know that at least some people found the insights that they provided were worthwhile.

If an ancient people did not know how the earth and the people on it came into being, they would likely come up with a myth explaining the situation. Most of us today would not believe myths about Thor, for example, but (as far as we know), no one was being paid to put together stories about Thor and how powerful he was. The myths were stories that people found sufficiently useful and entertaining to pass along. In some sense, this background gives these stories more value than a paper written in order to obtain funds provided by a research grant.

Some myths relate to what types of activities by humans were desirable or undesirable. For example, the people in Uganda have traditional folklore about a moral monster that is used to teach children the dangers of craftiness and deceit. My sister who visited Uganda reported that where she visited, people believed that people who stole someone else’s crops were likely to get sick. Most of us wouldn’t think that this story was really right, but it has a moral purpose behind it. There are no doubt many myths of this type. They have been passed on because passing them on seemed to serve a purpose.

Clearly, which actions are desirable or undesirable changes over time. For example, Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11 seem to condemn wearing fabrics that are a mix of linen and wool. Today, we use many fabrics that are mixes of two types of yarns. Perhaps there was a problem with different amounts of shrinkage. Today, our issues are different. Perhaps, myths associated with issues such as these need to be discarded, because they are not relevant any more.

How about myths of an afterlife? Things on earth don’t necessarily go well. The promise of a favorable afterlife has a definite appeal. Some people would even like a story in which people who don’t act in the desired manner are punished. Some religions seem to provide such an ending as well.

Follow a Religion Based on Scientific Models, or Based on Myth, or Neither?

Nature’s solutions and mankind’s solutions in a finite world both involve complexity, but the two types of complexity are very different.

Mankind’s solutions seem to involve more and more devices using an increased amount of resources and debt. The overhead of the system becomes greater and greater as the economy increasingly shifts toward robots and owners/overseers of the robots. The big problem that can be expected to develop comes from not having enough purchasers who can afford to purchase the end products created by this system. In fact, we seem to already be reaching an era of too much wage disparity and too much wealth disparity. Eventually, such a system can be expected to collapse under its own weight.

We can already see signs that wind and solar are not scalable to the extent that people would like them to be. Together, they currently comprise only 3% of the world’s energy supply. We need very large supplies of energy to provide food, housing, and transportation for 7.7 billion people.

Figure 3. World Energy Consumption by Fuel, based on data of 2019 BP Statistical Review of World Energy.

Regardless of what politicians would like proven, nature doesn’t move in a constant path upward. Instead, nature provides a self-organizing system of individual parts, none of which is permanent. Humans are temporary residents of this earth. Businesses are temporary, and the products they sell are constantly changing and adapting. Governments are temporary. Weather patterns are also temporary. Religions are constantly changing and adapting, and new ones are formed.

Nature’s way doesn’t seem to require much overhead. Over the long run, it seems to be much more permanent than mankind’s attempts at solutions. As the system changes, each replacement differs in random ways from previous systems of a particular type. The best adapted replacements survive, without the need for excessive overhead to the system.

We may or may not agree with the religions that have formed over the years in the self-organizing way that nature provides. The fact that religions have stayed around indicates that at least for some people, they continue to play a significant role. If nothing else, religious groups often provide social gatherings with others in the area. This provides an opportunity for friendship. In some cases, it will allow people to find potential marriage partners who are not closely related.

One of the roles of religions is to pass down “best practices.” These will change over time so some will need to be discarded and changed. For example, in some eras, it will be optimal for women to have several children. In others, it will make sense to have only one or two.

The book, Oneness: Great Principles Shared by All Religions by Jeffrey Moses, lists 64 principles shared by several religions. Of course, not all religions agree on all of these 64 principles. Instead, there seems to be a great deal of overlap in what religions of the world teach. Some sample truths include “The Golden Rule,” it is “Blessed to Forgive,” “Seek and Ye Shall Find,” and “There Are Many Paths to God.” This type of advice can be helpful for people.

People will differ on whether it makes sense to believe that there really is an afterlife. There may very well be; we can’t know for certain. At least this is better odds than the knowledge that all earthly civilizations have eventually failed.

I personally have found belonging to and attending an ELCA Lutheran Church to be helpful. I find its earthly benefits to be sufficient, whether or not there is an afterlife. I will, of course, be attending around Christmas time. I will also be getting together with family.

I recognize, too, that not everyone is interested in one of the traditional religions. Some would even like to believe that with our advanced science, we can now find a way around every problem that confronts us. Perhaps this time is different. Perhaps this time, world leaders, with their love for overhead-heavy solutions, will finally discover a solution that can produce long-term growth on a finite earth. Perhaps energy from fusion is around the corner. Wish! Wish!

My wish to you is that you have Happy Holidays, of whatever types you choose to celebrate!

Our Finite World » …by Gail Tverberg

77 Comments on "Scientific Models and Myths: What Is the Difference?"

JuanP is stupid on Mon, 23rd Dec 2019 8:18 am

Stupid where is your link? Stupid is sloppy too

This is from stupid:

Davy said “Massive debt wave could crash on the United State…

Fact checker on Mon, 23rd Dec 2019 8:21 am

JuanP is a 57 year old high school drop out that is also mentally ill and untreated. Owners please IP ban JuanP or institute these fixes for his ID theft and hostil mindless socks:

Cloudflare is one of the last bastions of free speech. It is very sad that the admin of this site doesn’t seem to want to take the trouble to log in to his server dashboard and active a few presets, enforcing posters to post under a unique username/password combination. That doesn’t eliminate garbage under fake identities, but at least it stops identity theft and that would make a hell of a difference. If possible, you could also enforce that one IP-address can only post under a single identity. Please admin, invest an hour of your time to get this right.”

JuanP on Mon, 23rd Dec 2019 8:47 am

Fact checker, I got my GED, OK!! Leave me along. I am not human so don’t compare me to other humans. I am sui generis individual which means I am a special psychopathic type individual. Don’t worry about what that means just accept that I am right and you are not part of that. I don’t need humans and I have my own special world view.

full woke supremacist muzzies jerk low English my neighbor got big testicles because we see this dude every day we ate ribs with this dude on Mon, 23rd Dec 2019 10:43 am

The Board on Mon, 23rd Dec 2019 6:00 am

Stupid is mad as hell and frustrated. He can’t get rid of Davy. Stupid’s comments are stupid but Davy’s are actual intelligent comments or debate. Stupi

Hey guy I thought you’re against supertard
But I should clear you of scooping up all lib
Urns
Christmas won’t be good this year without lib urns to gift to friends
Happy (((supremetard)))bday

JuanP is stupid on Mon, 23rd Dec 2019 10:57 am

Stupid just be normal and talk to me like a man.

Davy on Mon, 23rd Dec 2019 11:12 am

I told you not to cum in my mouth Juan pee pee is stupid. That’s as manly as I gets.

JuanP is stupid on Mon, 23rd Dec 2019 11:20 am

Stupid you are a stupid and queer

This is from stupid:
Davy said I told you not to cum in my mouth Juan pee pee is…

Antius on Mon, 23rd Dec 2019 11:25 am

“Explain how in 2020, peak conventional oil is relevant for anything?”

Basically, conventional oil is the only liquid fuel source on Earth that boasts a semi decent EROI. And it has been on a slow decline since 2005. It fuels the global transportation system and provides feedstock for the petrochemical industry. Given that wealth is basically a function of surplus energy and oil is the energy source that allows global trade to function; peak ‘conventional oil’ is a huge problem that is resulting in growing headwinds to economic growth.

This article answers the question in more detail, better than I can.

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2019/11/24/the-economic-oil-nexus-eon-part-1-why-have-low-oil-prices-and-various-economic-stimuli-over-the-past-several-years-failed-to-restore-global-economic-growth/

Since around 2005 we have been living on borrowed time; maintaining the illusion of prosperity using debt, which is available to big players at zero interest when inflation is accounted for. Non-conventional oil cannot be produced profitably at a price that consumers can afford (even with free credit). It is therefore a loss making business. The average American and most Europeans have been getting poorer for about fifteen years. On paper, GDP has never been higher and continues to grow, but growth is increasingly based on asset price accumulation that doesn’t represent anything that anyone can consume.

The Board on Mon, 23rd Dec 2019 12:33 pm

Please. Do not feed the Davy troll.

full woke supremacist muzzies jerk low English my neighbor got big testicles because we see this dude every day we ate ribs with this dude on Mon, 23rd Dec 2019 12:40 pm

Whitey cop shot dead muzzie tempe az saying cop got beaten near blackout. This is muzzies love to justify legitimate shooting
Muzzies should be shot and no justification needed.
I’m being too harsh right
Nah how about muzzies in nm to shoot up college
How about 1400 years inner struggle
Tampa nas
Muzzie sabotaged muzzies lovin’ AA and got off easy also loved in form of reporting of “union dispute”

Cloggie on Mon, 23rd Dec 2019 3:20 pm

“Basically, conventional oil is the only liquid fuel source on Earth that boasts a semi decent EROI”

Natural gas is fine as well and can perfectly be used in power stations or the transportation sector.

“And it has been on a slow decline since 2005.”

Are you sure?

https://twitter.com/aeberman12/status/1154026069265018881

“It fuels the global transportation system and provides feedstock for the petrochemical industry.”

It does, but that is not a situation carved in stone for all eternity. I was tempted by buy a Fiat CNG (natural gas) a couple of years ago, but decided to buy a petrol Toyota instead, based on (British) insurance industry car reliability data (#1 actually). My next car in perhaps 7 years time or 150,000 km (whatever comes first) will be something like this:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2019/12/08/renault-k-ze-the-poor-mans-tesla/

No need for liquid fuel.
Oh, and 5 euro/100 km. Note from kWh’s from the grid, that already have a large share of taxes.

“Given that wealth is basically a function of surplus energy and oil is the energy source that allows global trade to function; peak ‘conventional oil’ is a huge problem that is resulting in growing headwinds to economic growth.”

Interestingly, there is always a factor left out of the equation with huge impact: energy efficiency. With every passing year, global society gets 1-3% more energy efficient:

https://www.iea.org/news/energy-efficient-prosperity-the-first-fuel-of-economic-development

Anecdotal “evidence” from my private life:

My Volvo-240 (“The Tank”) in the eighties: 6 km/liter
My current Toyota: 19 km/liter

Old-school light bulbs: 60-100 Watt
New LED-lights: 5-10 Watt

Old fridge: 200-300 kWh/year
New fridge: 60 kWh/year

Large flat panel: 130 Watt
iPad Pro: 5 Watt

The list goes on.

“Since around 2005 we have been living on borrowed time; maintaining the illusion of prosperity using debt, which is available to big players at zero interest when inflation is accounted for.”

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=teina225&plugin=1

For the EU, the situation has markedly improved, thanks to austerity and the German “black zero”.

“Non-conventional oil cannot be produced profitably at a price that consumers can afford (even with free credit). It is therefore a loss making business. The average American and most Europeans have been getting poorer for about fifteen years. On paper, GDP has never been higher and continues to grow, but growth is increasingly based on asset price accumulation that doesn’t represent anything that anyone can consume.”

I think that GDP increase is real. The best indicator that economic growth is real is the enormous growth of that commodity that could be done without easily: tourism

https://tinyurl.com/sv3oawm

There was indeed a small dip in 2009, thanks to a stumbling USofA, but that has been solved, for as long as it lasts.

ING spoke correctly of a “Golden Decade” for Germany and by implication for many other European countries:

https://think.ing.com/articles/watch-germany-the-end-of-a-golden-decade

The RABO bank also produced a report, we discussed earlier, that paints a very rosy picture over the past decade (industry and government did fine, households hardly).

Both ING and RABO bank can be trusted to know what they are talking about.

I can’t share the pessimistic view regarding the economy over the past decade, independent of the price of energy.

And as always, I am very upbeat about the prospects of renewable energy and the ever dynamic technological factor. I’m a renewable energy cornucopian.

Davy on Mon, 23rd Dec 2019 3:29 pm

“Interestingly, there is always a factor left out of the equation with huge impact: energy efficiency. With every passing year, global society gets 1-3% more energy efficient:”

BS, that kind of equation is a joke. Energy efficiency is stalling and in diminishing returns just as societies problems are multiplying and becoming more deeply entrenched.

urrmigurd insanity bazarre incel JuanP on Mon, 23rd Dec 2019 3:32 pm

Davy on Mon, 23rd Dec 2019 3:29 pm

“Interestingly, there is always a factor left out of the equation with huge impact: energy efficiency. With every passing year, global society gets

makati1 on Mon, 23rd Dec 2019 4:09 pm

Antius, basically we have passed peak NET oil energy no matter what the barrels pumped number is. The slide downhill continues.

Antius on Tue, 24th Dec 2019 5:20 am

Cloggie, you are hopelessly deluded. Did you actually read the link that I posted? Here it is again:

I can remember rosy predictions being made around the turn of the century that hydrogen powered or electric vehicles were set to rapidly capture the world’s transportation market. Two decades later, they remain niche curiosities despite enormous subsidy and personal drive from visionary cornucopians. The global economy is crumbling due to rising energy cost of energy, falling EROI if you prefer. Solutions that aggravate this problem simply aren’t helpful.

All practical applications of electricity to transport in the past 140 years have involved grid connected vehicles, usually mounted on rails. Electric trains, trams and underground systems make a meaningful contribution to transportation in and between cities, but suffer from logistical limitations and high capital cost that will make it very difficult for them to replace oil powered transportation very quickly.

Battery electric vehicles have been attempted repeatedly for over a century and have always remained an expensive curiosity because of poor energy density, low power to weight, short range, long charging time, high capital cost and short service life. These problems are essentially unsolvable because they are rooted in the laws of physics. Batteries are not suitable for anything other than short range, low speed transport applications, i.e. mobility scooters and forklift trucks. BEVs represent a tiny proportion of the global car fleet, which in itself accounts for only about a quarter of global oil consumption. They would not exist at all were it not for subsidies that are likely to evaporate with the next big recession. They will have a negligible impact upon global oil consumption in either of our lifetimes.

Compressed natural gas has close to zero presence as a transportation fuel. It has never been desirable, due to its poor energy density at realistic storage pressure and the weight and cost of the pressure vessel. Trying to distribute it to hundreds of millions cars and trucks as a cryogenic fuel would be a logistical nightmare.

The real goods economy is absolutely dominated by fuel oil powered transportation in one form or another. Ships, planes, trucks and trains. Electric power is unsuitable for all but the last of these and even here its real application is limited by capital cost problems. All of these could be powered by liquefied natural gas, but it would require enormous investment in LNG storage, distribution and engine technology that simply isn’t happening in the real world. Associated gas from shale has meant extremely low gas prices in North America for almost a decade. Yet the contribution of natural gas to transportation remains close to zero.

Cloggie on Wed, 25th Dec 2019 3:54 am

Again, the forum software prevents me from posting, even if it contains only 2 links. Removed one, try again:

Cloggie, you are hopelessly deluded. Did you actually read the link that I posted? Here it is again:

Actually I didn’t. After a short glance at the likeness of the author…

https://tinyurl.com/std8ebf

…I decided not to do this to myself.

Last time your presented a link, ostensibly containing 41 arguments against renewable energy, it turned out to be 41 whoppers, every single one of them:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2019/12/07/mark-p-mills-hack-for-the-fossil-fuel-industry/

That exercise cost me my entire Sunday. Thanks, but no, thanks.

If you want to make a point, please make it in your post and since it is you, I will certainly take notice and probably respond.

[asda sdasd asd asd asd asd asda sda sd]

part 1.

Cloggie on Wed, 25th Dec 2019 4:07 am

The global economy isn’t crumbling, far from it:

https://assets.weforum.org/editor/0kWMC10i7EDntN6lAnYk62rl2sPmkGDM2ti_6YQhY3A.png

What IS happening is that the US has lost the competition on global markets, as it descends in third world status due to mass migration and is forced to protectionism. The price of energy has nothing to do with it. Poor countries, who should be hardest hit by higher energy prices, merrily grow along at 5% per year.

Regarding hydrogen… any idea how many decades it took between the first oil find in Pennsylvania in 1859 and oil conquering the entire planet in the twenties. Well 6-7 decades.

The hydrogen transition can be expected to go faster than that, but it still will take decades.

Currently the Hydrogen Economy is definitely making a clear comeback and is for instance the official goal of the Dutch government.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/19/time-to-consider-hydrogen-the-new-clean-energy-carrier-on-the-block

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/?s=hydrogen+economy

part 2

Davy on Wed, 25th Dec 2019 4:15 am

Antius, is the best source of energy information on this forum. You give some good info, cloggo, but your problem is you are a snake oil salesman. You are selling a story and a product. Your story is blind techno optimism and your product is fantasy white European empire dominating the world. This is where energy fits in with renewables being the basis of this power impulse. This is obviously not working for you because Europe’s economic and social situation is among the worst of the great powers. It is too bad you are unable to be fair and balanced presenting technology honestly with good and bad. If you could disentangle yourself from your agenda for a moment you might be an excellent source like Antius. Instead one has to wade through the BS to get to some good nuggets of knowledge with you. At least you offer something because people like stupid (JuanP) are just ignorant trolls who clog (lol) up the forum with noise.

Cloggie on Wed, 25th Dec 2019 4:26 am

I disagree with every point you make.

Giant bulwarks of competence like Volkswagen are betting their entire farm on e-vehicles, in their case on batteries.

The price of Lithium has come down with ca 50% over the last 18 months in the wake of huge lithium deposit finds in Mexico and the US.

Here is a European quality e-car, made in China for 10,000 euro. Range 271 km, weight 27 kWh battery 150 kg. “Fuel cost”: 5 euro for 100 km, a jew tip really. Perfect to cover the mobility needs for most people and their 34 km/day average driving distance, forcing them to charge merely every 10 days or so, probably on the premises of the boss.

There is reason to believe that in the near future charging can be done in a few minutes:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/?s=fast+charging

The additional good news is that we have TWO horses in this race: batteries and hydrogen. May the best win!

part 3

Cloggie on Wed, 25th Dec 2019 4:27 am

Forgot this link:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2019/12/08/renault-k-ze-the-poor-mans-tesla/

Chinese-made 10,000 euro breakthrough car.

Cloggie on Wed, 25th Dec 2019 4:33 am

“Compressed natural gas has close to zero presence as a transportation fuel. It has never been desirable, due to its poor energy density at realistic storage pressure and the weight and cost of the pressure vessel. Trying to distribute it to hundreds of millions cars and trucks as a cryogenic fuel would be a logistical nightmare.”

I almost bought one myself, Fiat Panda CNG. Fortunately I abandoned that idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMTBuWRQHyo

It is MUCH cleaner than a petrol car and cheaper per km, but the real bottleneck is finding a gas station.

And now that the entire world minus the US opts for e-vehicles, this concept is out.

Ouch, that was a narrow escape for me.

part 4

Davy on Wed, 25th Dec 2019 4:44 am

“The global economy isn’t crumbling, far from it:”
Obviously the cloggo has little finance and business understanding. He likes the big numbers or the small if they contribute to winning his game but knowing the subtleties of the discipline of economics is not something the cloggo has abilities with. The global economy is a complex system with complicated nodes. This means it is very difficult to talk about in isolation and detail. One can see a process of decline that is very clear. Anyone understanding systems will know there are regions with thresholds of change and in the case of decline there is destructive change. We are seeing widespread destructive change occurring with the global economy. When will this become a cascading collapse process? Who know but one thing is obvious we are in the vicinity of dangerous times when so many are reliant on an unstable system.

“What IS happening is that the US has lost the competition on global markets, as it descends in third world status due to mass migration and is forced to protectionism. The price of energy has nothing to do with it. Poor countries, who should be hardest hit by higher energy prices, merrily grow along at 5% per year.”
Bullshit, the US is highly competitive in a multipolar world of powerful business forces. The cloggo is just blinded by his narrow minded Eurotard chauvinism and lack of business and finance education. The cloggo never studied economics/finance. He never owned a business. The cloggo is just a good cherry picker and likes to weave narratives with far too many naked links he interprets in his own corrupt way.

“Regarding hydrogen… any idea how many decades it took between the first oil find in Pennsylvania in 1859 and oil conquering the entire planet in the twenties. Well 6-7 decades.”
OH, God, what a simpleton comparison. Cloggo, that was the late 19th century when extreme growth from a small base was occurring. Today we have a brittle climax economy we call the global economy. Change is very difficult and when it occurs it often very destructive especially in the case of depletion. Diminishing returns is dominating this climax system. Entropy is winning the battle but lucky for us there is still lots of low hanging fruit to buy us time. Hydrogen will help but it is likely no transition energy vector both for economic reasons and the physics. You just can’t replicate fossil fuels for convenience and effectiveness. Hydrogen has far too many handicaps and behavior is not willing to shift to accommodate these issues.

“Currently the Hydrogen Economy is definitely making a clear comeback and is for instance the official goal of the Dutch government.”
Holland is a postage stamp country with special attributes that allow it the luxury to experimentally embrace hydrogen. Hydrogen will have a very hard time scaling in the global economy.

“part 2”
OH, dear, the cloggo has a part2. LOL.

Davy on Wed, 25th Dec 2019 4:57 am

“I disagree with every point you make.” “Giant bulwarks of competence like Volkswagen are betting their entire farm on e-vehicles, in their case on batteries.”
Come on, cloggo, that does not ensure success and could spell doom for VW. Look how bad they screwed up the diesel market with their corrupt marketing. VW is already running into issues with the new ID 3 with bad software.

“The price of Lithium has come down with ca 50% over the last 18 months in the wake of huge lithium deposit finds in Mexico and the US.”
Huge declines are still needed and this can be seen very well with a range to cost ratio and a battery life to total distance driven. Batteries are too expensive, they wear out too quick, and then they must be disposed of. Batteries are very important to an energy transformation but I see no indication it is another transition paradigm energy delivery system. It will help just like hydrogen might.

“Here is a European quality e-car, made in China for 10,000 euro. Range 271 km, weight 27 kWh battery 150 kg. “Fuel cost”: 5 euro for 100 km, a jew tip really. Perfect to cover the mobility needs for most people and their 34 km/day average driving distance, forcing them to charge merely every 10 days or so, probably on the premises of the boss.”
Great niche cloggo but it is not going to deliver groceries. There is no indication of reliability yet and society has yet to figure out how we are going to power all these electric thingies. Renewables are barely keeping pace with energy consumption growth.

“There is reason to believe that in the near future charging can be done in a few minutes:”
It is clear from studies that battery life is adversely affected by quick charging and other issues of heat.

“The additional good news is that we have TWO horses in this race: batteries and hydrogen. May the best win!”
LOL

“part 3”
OH dear, there is a cloggo 3rd part

Davy on Wed, 25th Dec 2019 4:59 am

“renault-k-ze-the-poor-mans-tesla/” Chinese-made 10,000 euro breakthrough car.”

I am excited about this vehicle and I wish they would make a poor man’s farm tractor

Davy on Wed, 25th Dec 2019 5:06 am

“I almost bought one myself, Fiat Panda CNG. Fortunately I abandoned that idea.”
My wife’s mom in Italy has a Fiat CNG. It is not very practical but she got it cheap. It runs on gasoline too. I wonder why there are no battery/CNG vehicles BTW?? Seems like a great idea.

“It is MUCH cleaner than a petrol car and cheaper per km, but the real bottleneck is finding a gas station.”
BS, cloggo, where is your back up on that blooper? Natural gas and or propane is less dense and the economies of scale are not there across the range of its lifecycle and performance.

“And now that the entire world minus the US opts for e-vehicles, this concept is out.”
Minus the US?? Explain yourself extremist??

“Ouch, that was a narrow escape for me.”
Yea ouch is on you

“part 4”
This is getting old

Cloggie on Wed, 25th Dec 2019 5:35 am

“Antius, is the best source of energy information on this forum. You give some good info, cloggo, but your problem is you are a snake oil salesman. You are selling a story and a product. Your story is blind techno optimism and your product is fantasy white European empire dominating the world.”

It is absolutely true that Antius understands energy matters, although he makes different choices than I do. But at least he tell a kWh from a kW, much unlike empire dave. But he is a little stuck in 2009 and the intellectual universe of his (deceased) Guru David MacKay:

https://www.withouthotair.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay

You embrace him because the UK is going to be your next state and because he embraces doom. And it is no coincidence that my two US-UK Anglo friends here embrace doom, because they reveal what their resp. instinct tells them about their own future. But they are not yet ready to acknowledge that that doom is mostly geopolitical, the very reason why this continental European is so upbeat about everything. For them peak oil needs to come to the rescue to mask geopolitical embarrassment.

“Bullshit, the US is highly competitive in a multipolar world of powerful business forces. ”

BS, you are the largest deficit country, with dollar reserve currency status keeping the lot afloat for a few more years. Face it: You.Lost. Bottom of the barrel. Britain is the 2nd worst. Should give you a clear indication of where Anglosphere is heading. Anglo-supremacy is so 1815-2016.

The winners are: 1. Germany, 2. Japan, 3. China, 4. Holland. Those are the countries that have products on offer, where the Anglos merely print money to buy them, acquiring undeserved wealth. But that story is almost over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance

But empire dave doesn’t like numbers. You see, numbers are anti-American. Can’t have that. Empire dave loves to write word salads filled with smoke screen words, but avoids real data like the plague. Because numbers reveal that the emperor doesn’t wear any clothes.

“part 4”
This is getting old

You ignore that I am forced to this because of the lame US crappy third world forum software that regularly lets posts disappear in the memory hole, for God knows what reason.

Davy on Wed, 25th Dec 2019 6:37 am

“It is absolutely true that Antius understands energy matters, although he makes different choices than I do. But at least he tell a kWh from a kW, much unlike empire dave. But he is a little stuck in 2009 and the intellectual universe of his (deceased) Guru David MacKay:”
A KW is not a KW when application and economics is considered…period!

“You embrace him because the UK is going to be your next state and because he embraces doom.”
Nope, I embrace doom differently than both of you who inject racism into the equation. I am a flexible doomer open to a slow decline or a decline with a bottom. This bottom could be more regional or even localized with a significant amount of location in serious trouble because of net energy decline, overpopulation, and climate disturbance.

“But they are not yet ready to acknowledge that that doom is mostly geopolitical, the very reason why this continental European is so upbeat about everything. For them peak oil needs to come to the rescue to mask geopolitical embarrassment.”
WHAT? Continental Europe upbeat…LMFAO. Tell that to all the protestors. The reality is Europe is balkanizing as we speak. Sure, I embrace the geopolitical and the global economics of doom. I mention this more than anybody else. I deal with behavior and economics. You just cherry pick isolated facts to build on your Anglo derangement. You are also extremely lacking with military understanding. It is almost a joke.

“BS, you are the largest deficit country, with dollar reserve currency status keeping the lot afloat for a few more years. Face it: You.Lost. Bottom of the barrel. Britain is the 2nd worst. Should give you a clear indication of where Anglosphere is heading. Anglo-supremacy is so 1815-2016.”
The US has more assets in the world than any other country or region. The US has more of an economic interest in others than they have in the US. China is gaining fast but much of that is mal-investment. The BRI is a joke when ROI is considered. A deficit is not accurate way to judge wealth cloggo. There are so many ways to manipulate comparisons and extremist like you work hard to find the most chauvinistic ones. You are incapable of comparing countries accurately because you are a snake oil salesman selling Anglo derangement.

“The winners are: 1. Germany, 2. Japan, 3. China, 4. Holland. Those are the countries that have products on offer, where the Anglos merely print money to buy them, acquiring undeserved wealth. But that story is almost over.”
German and Japan are in severe economic decline with export driven strategies a poor strategy for the future of a world in economic decline with protectionism. Both countries are in demographic decline also with an ageing inflexible economies. China has huge imbalances related to astronomical growth rates over the past 20 years by a command economy that is not concerned with ROI but instead only growth. China is now peaking out and in decline. Many of their products are low quality consumer products. Holland is a postage stamp country not worth mentioning with these other nations.

“But empire dave doesn’t like numbers. You see, numbers are anti-American. Can’t have that.”
I love real and accurate numbers and I am an honest American critic. I acknowledge decline of all nations but honestly without prejudice. Cloggo, you are the most biased and inaccurate person on this forum but despite that you provide some good info if one wades through the shit you poop out along with it.

“dave loves to write word salads filled with smoke screen words, but avoids real data like the plague.”
I write at least enough to be effective. I am not here 20/7 like you are. I would be here even less if the forum lunatic, JuanP was not polluting this forum with stalking and trolling aimed at my censorship. I have effective posts with some long and some short. I offer facts and data as needed. I do not do naked links like you do where you link and then instead of actual link content you interpret the link in your own biased manner, IOW, you distort and embellish with your fraudulent agenda.

“part 4” “This is getting old” “You ignore that I am forced to this because of the lame US crappy third world forum software that regularly lets posts disappear in the memory hole, for God knows what reason.”
Well, I am very tired of the lameness of this forum that allows people like JuanP to clog up the forum with trolling and stalking that manifests in ID theft, fake identities, and junk info. I enjoy debating you cloggo because you are so bias and extreme it is easy to moderate you with balance and honesty.

Scientific Models and Myths: What Is the Difference?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply