Don’t worry, just a little bump - $70 is just around the corner. Short traders just keep making those margin calls, mortgage the house if you have to. Fortunes await you! PO is for pansies and doomers. At $70 short some more ..... it is going back to $22 .... the world is awash with oil ........ reality has nothing to do with it, its all in those charts!!!!!!!!!!
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:33 am Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
We're on the grid, but we make over half of our hot water with solar, half our heat with wood harvested from our woodlot three miles from our house, small amounts of electricity is defrayed by our pv solar backup light system, my electric bike makes up about a quarter of our transportation and we make all our sugar from maple trees at our sugarbush.
It's all fun, and adds to our sense of independence. We cut our fossil fuel use by half by switching to alternatives. It only makes sense.
Joined: Jun 28, 2005 Posts: 512 Location: The Netherlands
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:41 am Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
MonteQuest wrote:
No one is saying conservation is wrong, but that it has unforseen consequences that must be factored in. Conservation works if everyone does it and the pain (loss of economic activity) is shared. If not, your conservation is someone else's increased consumption or the loss of jobs in porportion to the loss in sales of the commodity conserved.
An example from daily life:
early last year I was planning to travel to Korea again, a country which for several reasons is dear to me. I hadn't yet booked, and then I got aware of the peak oil issue. It set me thinking, of course, and made me feel very reluctant to even go travel, not wanting to invest money in one of the largest oil guzzler industries in the world.
So, I always found excuses, plentifold.
Yet, recently I realized that over time during the past year I had spent loads and loads of euro's, more than I would normally have done, on books and cd's. Now, many of those books came from overseas, and as I'm a jazz lover, most of those cd's originated from the States. They didn't come in by schooner. I'm quite sure they were shipped by plane.
So, at least the amount of money I would normally have spent on traveling to Korea (not even counting the stay) was now spent on more books and cd's than I even would have bought normally (which is still quite a number). Which means that by economizing on this one plane ticket, I had actually avidly funded the air travel industry.
So, there you are. I'll be traveling to Korea this year.
>same size economy without improved effiency.
>So imagine, if you can, Americans still driving around in 8 mpg cars
>like we were in 1974), since improving fuel efficiency is so silly.
>The avg. car in US is now about 21 mpg.
In Europe we are driving more and more small turbodiesels with 60 MPG.
I guess you Americans have not even heard about diesel cars there yet ?
Anyway the quality of the gas and gasoil in Europe is superior to American
one in Southern states and so is pollution per the same gallon burnt.
Regardless Jevon´s paradox local pollution "to the very air you breath in"
can be greatly reduced by investing to high MPG cars
and public transport in order to meet Kioto agreement guidelines.
---> Filter pollution or be a filter !
Number of cars is limited by parking space
and blocked highways if not otherwise.
Efficiency gives you competitiveness and profit to invest for more profit.
That is nice BUT we finns have to constantly improve ourself which
quite difficult at these levels. Little bang for the buck at this level.
Most bang for the Buck ecology and efficiency investments
to infrastructure should be made there where
the most pollution and oil demand comes from.
In that list I see China and USA.
If oil producing countries start to build nuclear energy plants
there you see a long term responsibility to face P.O.
At the end political bullshit must make room to get the job done nicely.
"Development starts from understanding the facts and from
working accordingly".
Anyway the quality of the gas and gasoil in Europe is superior to American one in Southern states and so is pollution per the same gallon burnt.
Regardless Jevon´s paradox local pollution "to the very air you breath in"
can be greatly reduced by investing to high MPG cars
and public transport in order to meet Kioto agreement guidelines.
If we're talking about Jevon's paradox, this doesn't make sense. X number of gallons/liters of fuel is going to be used because it's what people can afford to spend for fuel.
Culture A drives 8mpg cars and burns up 500 megabarrels and drives 200 million miles using 13,300 vehicles to do it.
Culture B drives 50mpg cars and burns up the same amount of fuel to drive 1.25 billion miles, using 83,000 vehicles to do it.
The fuel used by the cars and the pollution is the same. Who used more resources? Culture B! Because they built more cars using metal, plastic, energy, wossname.
Malthus is laughing at us all. Read Ishmael, dude.
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:59 am Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
Jevon's paradox will apply before we hit PO. Only after hitting PO, Jevon's paradox does not apply. The reason is that supplies are diminishing, so conservation does not free supplies for others to use up.
Jevon's paradox simply states that if you don't use it, someone else will. If you want to really conserve, you have to buy the resource and put it away in storage.
So for example, if you used to drive a 20mpg car and now switch to 60mpg, you will need to continue to buy same amount of gas as a 20mpg car and put it in storage. You can only use the gas after the gas station runs out of gas to sell. Otherwise, you are just freeing gas for others to use away. You won't reduce world's oil consumption.
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:53 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
nth wrote:
Jevon's paradox will apply before we hit PO. Only after hitting PO, Jevon's paradox does not apply. The reason is that supplies are diminishing, so conservation does not free supplies for others to use up.
If conservation and increased efficiency does not free up resources that were being otherwise used, then what do they do? If there is more supply as a result of conservation efforts, the price will reflect that. A lower price results in more consumption.
Quote:
Jevon's paradox simply states that if you don't use it, someone else will.
No, Jevon's Paradox says that increases in efficiency will result in a lower price relative to what it would have been, which increases it's consumption. _________________ 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.
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
Quote:
No, Jevon's Paradox says that increases in efficiency will result in a lower price relative to what it would have been, which increases it's consumption.
Apparently, one of the most illusive concepts in PO. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Joined: Aug 18, 2004 Posts: 694 Location: SF Bay Area, Calif
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
Good explanation of the Rebound Effect (Jevons Paradox), explaining the difference between efficiency and conservation, and what needs to be in place for efficiency to be effective.
The article appears in the scientific journal Energy (Jan 2006) (proceedings of The Second Biennial International Workshop "Advances in Energy Studies" - 2000), placed online as a sample issue courtesy of Elsevier.
Joined: Dec 16, 2004 Posts: 705 Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:49 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
MonteQuest wrote:
No, Jevon's Paradox says that increases in efficiency will result in a lower price relative to what it would have been, which increases it's consumption.
--Or--
Jevon's Paradox says that gains in eifficiency make the availibility of energy consuming systems more widespread.
For example, a gain in the efficiency of a fleet of new cars to an average of 50 MPG would mean that there would simply be more vehicles on the roads of the world than would be otherwise. China could buy-up a huge fleet because efficiency gains made the energy costs affordable to the individual. Cars are an energy wasting cancer on the planet. Having more efficient vehicles would make the cancer spread more quickly during a period of high prices (efficient energy wasters take over allowing the auto system to endure and grow). A net lowering of price may not occur if such a gain in efficiency could happen quickly (which it cannot). But a net increase of motor fuel demand would be likely increase (paradoxically).
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:50 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
bart wrote:
Good explanation of the Rebound Effect
Love this quote:
Wolfgang Sachs wrote:
An increase in resource efficiency alone leads to nothing, unless it goes hand in hand with an intelligent restraint of growth.
Conservation and a powerdown. _________________ 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.
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:19 am Post subject: Alternative Energy Junkyard
dub_scratch wrote:
I'd like to add my own observation of Jeavon's Paradox at work:
In terms of specific applications of energy use, any efficiency in running such equipment causes more energy consumption in that specific sector. For example, advances in refrigeration efficiency lead to more liberal use of refrigeration. When this kind of equipment takes less energy to run, more people buy bigger refrigerators and air conditioners and use them more often.
This is why one of the worst thing that can happen in the face of oil depletion is for auto makers to be able to build and sell super-efficient vehicles. If oil prices go up and car efficiency remains constant, then many Chinese would likely slow down their conversion from bicycles to autos and may opt for less car dependent lifestyles. But if Toyota or others build some form of hypercar and sell it to the chines, then more of those 1.2 billion people will buy them, use them and eat up all of the energy savings done here in the US when we convert our fleet to the hypercar.
In short, Jeavons paradox is a historic trend that tells us that conservation through technology is no answer for the depletion of oil. The only way it can work is if the energy is saved on one end is used to build energy harvesting equipment such as wind turbines, nuke plants, solar cells and permaculture developments (given that EROEI is positive).
Question - Can total EROEI ever be positive with a wind turbine? I am talking about specifically calculating the energy it takes to mine, fabricate, transport and service the capital intensive generators, wires, etc...
... and then, once we answer that question we might wonder about peak iron and the cost of recycling vs mining. Maybe it will be cheaper to recylce a wind turbine at some point?
... and then about whatever we use on the other end of the electrical outlet... that might figure in somehow.
I realize that alternative energy will be an important feature of the crash for mitigating an otherwise malthusian cliff drop. I just also want to give some air time to the capital equipment costs that ALWAYS seem to suck up so much of the same oil and gas that we are supposed to be conserving in the use of that supposedly "alternative" energy.
I don't think we can build windfarms with windfarms, or nuke reactors with nuke reactors or hydro dams with hydro dams or solar powered cells with solar powered cells or ethanol with ethanol... all that stuff consumes oil and gas along it's entire lifetime from earth to earth.
Dust to dust, ashes to ashes, alternative energy will rise up and then sink back from where it came, approximately trailing Peak Oil by the lifetime of the ever-depreciating capital equipment used.
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:46 am Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
MonteQuest wrote:
nth wrote:
Jevon's paradox will apply before we hit PO. Only after hitting PO, Jevon's paradox does not apply. The reason is that supplies are diminishing, so conservation does not free supplies for others to use up.
If conservation and increased efficiency does not free up resources that were being otherwise used, then what do they do?
After PO, production will drop, so you are reducing consumption, which does not free up supplies. If you manage to save 20 gallons, but production drops by 20 gallons, you don't get any extra supplies to lower prices. Which leads to your second portion:
Quote:
If there is more supply as a result of conservation efforts, the price will reflect that. A lower price results in more consumption.
Prices will not be lower when production drops. Forcing you to consume only what is available.
Quote:
Jevon's paradox simply states that if you don't use it, someone else will.
MonteQuest wrote:
No, Jevon's Paradox says that increases in efficiency will result in a lower price relative to what it would have been, which increases it's consumption.
Huh?
If we are not saying the same thing, then I do not understand you.
Jevon's paradox simplified means conservation does not reduce consumption, period.
I have stated plainly that I am generalizing.
If this is wrong, then point out what is wrong. I don't find your statement correcting me, but simply restating it.
If you are talking about the original conjecture of this theory which was described in an infinite resource environment, then the only difference is increasing consumption when efficiency increases. If this is your point, then that is unrelated to my statement as you are talking about pre PO.
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:53 am Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
dub_scratch wrote:
Jevon's Paradox says that gains in eifficiency make the availibility of energy consuming systems more widespread.
Well, after PO, reducing availability of energy will force us to consume less aka conserve. Now, the question becomes can we be efficient enough to keep the economy moving. This is not even talking about growth. If we have a drop of total energy consumption, it is mighty hard to grow the economy. Just having a functional economy should be the goal.
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:41 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
nth wrote:
After PO, production will drop, so you are reducing consumption, which does not free up supplies. If you manage to save 20 gallons, but production drops by 20 gallons, you don't get any extra supplies to lower prices.
What then is the 20 gallons you freed up if not extra supply? Would the price be higher if not for the 20 gallons saved?
Of course it would.
Jevon's Paradox says that increases in efficiency will result in a lower price relative to what it would have been, which increases it's consumption.
Relative to what it would have been otherwise.
Like Aaron remarked, this simple fact just seems to go over many people's heads. _________________ 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.
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:10 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
MonteQuest wrote:
What then is the 20 gallons you freed up if not extra supply? Would the price be higher if not for the 20 gallons saved?
Of course it would.
I get your point.
Actually, no, technically, the price will not be higher, but that is not related to what we are talking about. Consumption, demand, and price are dictated in a more complex relationship than simple supply and demand graphs. When production drops from 100 to 80 does not mean I pay less if I only need 80 versus 100.
Quote:
Jevon's Paradox says that increases in efficiency will result in a lower price relative to what it would have been, which increases it's consumption.
Relative to what it would have been otherwise.
Like Aaron remarked, this simple fact just seems to go over many people's heads.
So, I don't get how you can say increases it's consumption. Relative to what?
I understood the pricing part, but not the increasing consumption part. The way I understood it is that without resource limitation, you get increase consumption based on consumption at the higher price. If you are resource limited, then this does not hold.
Now, you are saying this will hold disregarding available supplies.
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
