Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
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.
Joined: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 2068 Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:19 pm Post subject:
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.
Quote:
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?
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:
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. _________________ "Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz
Joined: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 483 Location: Cheshire, England
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:53 pm Post subject:
spot wrote:
I have no idea ... who Richard C. Duncan is
cash wrote:
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?
jato wrote:
What 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.
Joined: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 2068 Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:57 pm Post subject:
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. _________________ "Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz
Joined: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 483 Location: Cheshire, England
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:05 pm Post subject:
jato wrote:
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.
Joined: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 483 Location: Cheshire, England
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:19 pm Post subject:
MonteQuest wrote:
Explain how you will keep this saved energy sequestered away from consumers so they won't consume it. Remember, this is about achieving a net reduction in energy use. Increasing the efficiency will make more energy available, thus lowering the price. Price goes lower, people consume more. Now, if you instill efficiency and raise the price at the same time causing demand destruction, then you get around Jevon's Paradox.
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.
Explain how you will keep this saved energy sequestered away from consumers so they won't consume it. Remember, this is about achieving a net reduction in energy use. Increasing the efficiency will make more energy available, thus lowering the price. Price goes lower, people consume more. Now, if you instill efficiency and raise the price at the same time causing demand destruction, then you get around Jevon's Paradox.
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."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 483 Location: Cheshire, England
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:34 pm Post subject:
MonteQuest wrote:
spot5050 wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
Explain how you will keep this saved energy sequestered away from consumers so they won't consume it. Remember, this is about achieving a net reduction in energy use. Increasing the efficiency will make more energy available, thus lowering the price. Price goes lower, people consume more. Now, if you instill efficiency and raise the price at the same time causing demand destruction, then you get around Jevon's Paradox.
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.
Explain how you will keep this saved energy sequestered away from consumers so they won't consume it. Remember, this is about achieving a net reduction in energy use. Increasing the efficiency will make more energy available, thus lowering the price. Price goes lower, people consume more. Now, if you instill efficiency and raise the price at the same time causing demand destruction, then you get around Jevon's Paradox.
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."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Jan 04, 2005 Posts: 623 Location: Australia
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:10 pm Post subject:
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.
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.
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."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 483 Location: Cheshire, England
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:06 pm Post subject:
MonetQuest wrote:
This 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?
Joined: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 483 Location: Cheshire, England
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:13 pm Post subject:
MonteQuest wrote:
Antimatter wrote:
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.
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.
This 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. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
