I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 6972 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 2:10 pm Post subject:
Though I should be working…
First, Leanan, I agree that SA must have learned a lesson by constricting supply, but that presupposes they CAN increase production.
Second, I’ve read many times this same conclusion:
“Fuel efficiency standards were also supposed to reduce gasoline consumption. But higher energy efficiency usually leads to more energy use, not less. Cars today get around 50 percent better mileage than they did in 1970; over the same 30 years, the average number of miles driven per person has doubled.”
And this graph (again from WA), showing mileage increased from 12.2mpg in ‘70 to 16.6mpg in ’93, over the same period, vehicle miles per capita, rose from 5,970 to 9,140 per year.
I think Jevon is wrong, at least when it comes to the specific facts. We did cut our energy use in the '80s, and it stayed down until we started repealing the conservation laws. Admittedly, that's not a completely free market, but to say conservation can't help at all is just wrong.
The famous graph that of "Hubbert's Peak" clearly shows a dip after the '70s oil shock - not the smooth Gaussian curve Hubbert predicted. If not for that drop, we'd probably be past peak by now.
Yes, in the long run, we do have to limit growth. But conservation can mean the difference between hitting peak now, or hitting peak ten or 20 years from now.
Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 2:27 pm Post subject: excellent post Leanan
I would argue, using the same linked data, that consumption was curtailed initially from the embargo itself, (can't use what's not there), and the resulting recession prolonged this condition through collapse of the consumer base for oil.
Only when we instituted conservation measures, did our economy recover, and thus cause consumption to increase...
Exactly as Jevon predicted. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 6972 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 2:41 pm Post subject:
Leanan, we agree completely; higher prices did promote conservation.
My point is that it wasn’t altruistic.
From the EIA link:
“The start of the decline in consumption of energy coincided with the onset and aftereffects of a second oil price increase”
The US is certainly the glutton at the table, but there are huge numbers of the world population that want to be gluttons too, I don’t see them deciding to forego their first SUV.
To be dispassionate, if you believe there will be a reduction in the future population of the world to a more sustainable level due to less cheap energy, conserving now and delaying the inevitable will only lead to a larger “reduction” in the future since the population will surely grow without constraints.
At any rate, IMHO, I don’t see any voluntary conservation efforts happening unless forced by increasing prices, this administration certainly won’t impose any of it’s own. _________________ Make a plan and work it:
Well, I see the front page is back up again. But there's a link to a hacker's site prominently displayed. At least I think that's what it is. It's in some foreign language...
Quote:
I would argue, using the same linked data, that consumption was curtailed initially from the embargo itself, (can't use what's not there), and the resulting recession prolonged this condition through collapse of the consumer base for oil.
We weren't in recession throughout the 1980s. Reagan was re-elected because the economy was doing so well.
Quote:
Only when we instituted conservation measures, did our economy recover, and thus cause consumption to increase...
It was the other way around, actually. The conservation measures happened immediately. (For example, the 55 mph speed limit was enacted in 1974.) It was during the '90s boom that we revoked them. Since we "didn't need them any more." (And it had been so long that most people forgot how bad the '70s oil crisis was.)
Quote:
Leanan, we agree completely; higher prices did promote conservation.
My point is that it wasn’t altruistic.
Oh, I agree completely. I'll go further: if we and other countries hadn't passed all those conservation laws, energy use would have bounded back up almost immediately. So it wasn't really a free market situation.
Quote:
The US is certainly the glutton at the table, but there are huge numbers of the world population that want to be gluttons too, I don’t see them deciding to forego their first SUV.
Some won't, but some will. I remember the first time my family bought a car with less than 8 cylinders. It was when my dad got a job in the Philippines. It was illegal to import any car with more than six cylinders. Because of the '70s oil crisis. So we got a pair of Chevy Novas, instead of the huge Chevy station wagons we usually chose.
At the time, the Philippines was a dictatorship. Marcos could say, "Only small cars," and make it stick. So altruism wasn't necessary.
Quote:
To be dispassionate, if you believe there will be a reduction in the future population of the world to a more sustainable level due to less cheap energy, conserving now and delaying the inevitable will only lead to a larger “reduction” in the future since the population will surely grow without constraints.
Probably. But I hold out hope that people will realize the magnitude of the crisis, and do something about it before it's too late. And a few extra years to do something - limit immigration, encourage birth control, build nuclear power plants, whatever - might mean the difference between massive chaos and some semblance of order. China gets a lot of criticism for their "one child only" policy, but they had to do something. Other countries might take similar measures.
Quote:
At any rate, In my honest opinion, I don’t see any voluntary conservation efforts happening unless forced by increasing prices, this administration certainly won’t impose any of it’s own.
Not in this country, probably, but in other countries, they have a chance. Either because they are dictatorships or because their birth rates are plummeting. (In much of Europe, birth rates are so low that only immigration keeps the population from shrinking. In Russia, which gets little immigration, the population is shrinking.) All they have to do is realize that low birth rates aren't the terrible problem they think they are.
As for us...you're right, probably only high prices will prompt us to conserve. But that's okay. Unless there's a sudden, catastrophic collapse (Ghawar floods overnight), we'll have gradually increasing prices, and thus a lot of time and incentive to conserve before it gets critical. Because we're so profligate in our energy use, we can cut back a lot without it hurting much. And once it's clear that there's not enough oil to meet our needs, and never will be, we just might have time to do something to mitigate the crash.
I vote we get rid of dry cleaners. They are incredibly wasteful and polluting, and no one likes to have to use them. Most of the people who do are business folk, who are forced to wear wool suits, even in the summer heat. Because everyone's wearing suits and ties, office buildings are air-conditioned to igloo-like conditions. Get rid of dry-cleaners, let people dress practically, and stop wasting so much money on heating and air conditioning...
[The Dow Jones fell from 962 to 822.] This ended up being the middle of the great bear market that would see the Dow go from its 1/11/73 high of 1051 to 577 by 12/6/74, a whopping 45% decline over nearly two years.
As businesses struggled to stay afloat during the devastated economy of the late 70's, many closed their doors, and by 1980, the combination of conservation, and a smaller market, oil consumption declined domestically. Since that time, our economy has recovered and seen record growth, as seen in the increase in oil consumption.
So the mandatory conservation of the embargo, ultimately helped fuel the economic growth, that has driven oil consumption ever since.
As Pops pointed out, even if we accept that conservation does extend the time line, that just means that absent any energy miracles, the cliff is that much more devastating. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 6972 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 4:06 pm Post subject:
Yes, the key is the speed at which supply falls short, prices (of everything) rise, and the economy falters - then ultimately begins the long contraction without a viable replacement for oil.
I’m fairly pessimistic regarding a voluntary societal reversal. But from a purely selfish standpoint, I can use the time to advantage. _________________ Make a plan and work it:
[The Dow Jones fell from 962 to 822.] This ended up being the middle of the great bear market that would see the Dow go from its 1/11/73 high of 1051 to 577 by 12/6/74, a whopping 45% decline over nearly two years.
I notice he wrote that in mid-2000. Now, I bet few would call that "the great bear market." Not after the one we just got through. (And some think it isn't over yet.)
Quote:
So the mandatory conservation of the embargo, ultimately helped fuel the economic growth, that has driven oil consumption ever since.
Sorry, I just don't see how that follows. Oil consumption didn't recover to 1973 levels for 20 years. It doesn't take that long to recover from a recession. And we haven't had economic growth steadily since 1973. Or since 1980. Quite the opposite. We've had normal business cycles - recession, followed by recovery, followed by boom, then bust/recession again. The only odd time was the 1990s, when Clinton oversaw the longest economic expansion in history. Eight years, no recession. Partly it was the flowering of the dot-com industry. Part of it was the split government: Democratic president, GOP congress - that limited spending and forced the deficit down.
Quote:
As Pops pointed out, even if we accept that conservation does extend the time line, that just means that absent any energy miracles, the cliff is that much more devastating.
Not necessarily. That's certainly a possibility, but I think it's more likely that higher and higher prices will force people to see what's happening and take action. When gas is $10 a gallon, it will cost $100 or more to fill your tank. People will conserve then. And not out of altruism. I think we could cut our energy use in half fairly easily.
Of course it will be a terrible depression. But in a way, that's a good thing. People tend to postpone marriage and children during bad times. And if people really understand what's happening, there might even be the political will to do things like ban immigration or tax children rather than give tax breaks for them.
Quote:
I’m fairly pessimistic regarding a voluntary societal reversal.
Oh, so am I. I won't be quite voluntary, I think. We'll be forced to make some tough choices that would be unthinkable now. For monetary reasons.
If we can last through the baby boomer generation, that will probably help a lot. They are the largest generation, and now the oldest of them are in their 50s. Another thirty years, and most of them will probably be gone.
Your world oil production link shows that production falls drastically in 79/80 to a low around 82... 7 or 8 years later production is right back where it was prior to the drop.
By '74 almost half the Dow is gone, and by '79, market motivated conservation is in full swing. World oil production drops sharply the next few years until the economy, bolstered by less dependency on cheaper oil, begins to heat up to the roaring '90's. By 1990 the world is again pumping at prior levels, and up it goes from there.
So not 20 years, but even if it was 20 years, efficiency gains stimulate markets, which grow and consume more resources, including oil.
If we get a nice gentle slope in oil depletion I agree that market forces will influence the compromise between supply/demand, and most importantly, origin, of energy. But that's the argument right? Even without stimulating the economy, some postulate that oil is set to become so expensive, so fast, that much more than economies may suffer from it. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Your world oil production link shows that production falls drastically in 79/80 to a low around 82... 7 or 8 years later production is right back where it was prior to the drop
I was talking about the U.S., not the world. U.S. energy consumption took 20 years to reach the level it was in 1973. (Actually, longer than 20 years if you consider per capita, not total, consumption.) Because of conservation laws, not because people took the lesson of the embargo to their hearts.
Quote:
By '74 almost half the Dow is gone, and by '79, market motivated conservation is in full swing. World oil production drops sharply the next few years until the economy, bolstered by less dependency on cheaper oil, begins to heat up to the roaring '90's. By 1990 the world is again pumping at prior levels, and up it goes from there.
It's not that simple. We got another nasty oil shock in the 1979, precipitated by political turmoil in Iran. (Probably cost Jimmy Carter re-election.) That's what caused the drop in consumption then. We had economic booms and busts in the '80s; it's not like the economy was in a slump that whole time. The '80s had a couple of rough patches (one of which cost the first Bush his job), but it also had periods of great prosperity. It was the age of yuppie decadence.
Joined: May 23, 2004 Posts: 201 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia
Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 11:12 pm Post subject:
I drive a Civic. I hate driving. If gas were 25c I would not drive any more than I presently do.
However, if gas were that cheap then air travel would be much less expensive and I would be more likely to jet down to the Bahamas or Bermuda for the weekend. In fact, I would guarantee it.
Joined: May 17, 2004 Posts: 1969 Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington
Posted: Fri May 28, 2004 5:51 am Post subject:
Pops wrote:
Here is another page with a nice table showing world per capita gasoline consumption through ‘01. After rising steeply to a peak in ’78 of around 185 liters per person worldwide, usage dropped to around 160 l/p in the mid ‘80s and has risen pretty steadily to about 175 l/p through ‘01.
Wow, that is not much use at all. 175 L/person/year would only equate to about 46.25 Gal/Person/year. That would be only 3.8541666666666666666666666666667 gal/person/month. I couldn't even get to town and back one with that little amount of gas consumption in one day.
Pops wrote:
US consumption (which obviously weights heavily on the overall) followed the same trend, topping at around 1,800 l/p and touching 1,500 in ’85 and again in ’91.
No matter how we’we improved mileage, the US was using almost 1,600 l/p in ’01 - about the same as in ‘72.
Of course there are lots more people using that amount today.
Good country-by-country info there if one has the time to look.
That is almost what I consume for my vehicle per year. <--/start round/--> 1800 L/person/year would be about 450 gal/person/year. This would be equal to 37.5 Gal/person/month. I have to fill up my tank about twice per month, and I have a 25 gallon tank. So basically, one barrel of gasoline is consumed by my car every month. This would be 50 Gal/month for me, or 600 gallons per year to drive my car. This would equate to me consuming approximately 2400 L/year, which is 133.33% greater than the national average of 1,800L/person/year in 1985, and 150% greater than the national average in 2001. <--/end rounding/-->
Something tells me I need to move to town, and get a car with decent gas mileage. I live exactly 15.6 miles away from where I work, and that means that I drive exactly 156 miles per week just going to work. Considering I get 17.2 MPG, this would equal 9.0697674418604651162790697674419 gallons of gasoline consumed each week by my car just to get to work and back home again. With the known fact that there are 52 weeks in a year, this would mean that I consume 471.62790697674418604651162790698 gallons per year in my car, or exactly 124.59091160880942624168700163795 liters per year. This is actually just 0.077869319755505891401054376023716% of the national average in 2001, and I only consume 0.77869319755505891401054376023716% of the global average per year. So I guess I am doing my part in the fuel conservation effort, considering I am even below the national average.
Holy crap! I just figured out that the average American consumes 6056.65888 gallons of gasoline per year. This would would be 1284.2028197238658777120315581856% greater than the amount of gas I use per year, and 1000% greater than the average consumption worldwide. Where the hell is everyone driving to consume that much fuel? I couldn't use that much gas even if I tried to do so! I do not suffer from any lack of an "American Lifestyle", yet the average buffoon uses up as much fuel in one year as I would in almost 13 years? Sorry for my language, but THAT IS UTTERLY ASININE!!!. If it would not be for these buffoons using up all the oil, I bet the peak would have been pushed off into the late 22nd century. Why do people waste so much of a precious resource? This beats the hell out of me. Anyone have any clue why this is?
I mean, at the rate of 504.72157333333333333333333333333 gallons/person/month, or 16.281341075268817204301075268817 gallons/person/day, where the hell are they driving to? I could go for over half a month on that much fuel! As a matter of fact, this would propel my car 280.03906649462365591397849462366 miles, or enough to drive most of the way to Seattle EVERY DAY That is just ridiculous. I am all for enjoying the modern conveniences of life just as much as the next guy, but wasting like this is just nothing but pure irresponsibility. The rest of the population needs to get a grip, and realize just how much they are using with relation to the rest of the world, and that such wasteful behavior is not necessary to enjoy a modern, comfortable, and easy life.
After doing the math to prove exactly how wasteful the average American citizen is, it both disgusts and sickens me. It is just sad that people think they need this much fuel to enjoy a comfortable modern life. Granted, I do not live a rich life, but I am nowhere near dire straights either. I am happy where I am, and that is what matters. It does not matter how much money you have if you are not happy. Likewise, it does not matter how much you worry about the energy problem, if you are not willing to change your ways. A very old saying comes to mind right about now:
"If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." _________________ Here Lies the United States Of America.
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
