Fine but this has nothing to do with conservation of energy. There is no borrowing of energy allowed by the first law. It is conserved over any time period, no matter how small.
Sure it does. Nothing grows without an input of energy. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Who said it was borrowed?
More like postponed. We call it a bubble.
GDP growth as a result of speculation someday has to bear fruit.
And fruit requires energy to come to fruition.
We have a 40 trillion dollar world GDP with ( depending on who you ask) with 300 to 700 trillion dollars in derivatives.
Without financial speculation, I doubt we have any real GDP growth.
It's all betting on a future come.
Unsustainable. An illusion.
You can't get something for nothing.
MonteQuest, my objection is to the claim that all of this is a law of physics. It is not. Economics is not physics. There are at best loose corollaries between what you're trying to say and any physical law.
"More like postponed. We call it a bubble."
Fine. Postponed. There is nothing in the law of conservation of energy that implies you can extract energy from a system ("growth" as you call it) provided you at some later point put energy into the system. In fact, you cannot do this if there is not enough energy there already. And if there is, you don't have to put any in later.
The EIA is projecting increased consumption out to 2030:
30mbpd worth in the states? Btw, when was that graph made?
TheDude wrote:
They will revise this by and by as consumption decreases, I bet.
They already have, google the EIA passage I quoted and you'll find their 2008 projections.
TheDude wrote:
What if someone listened to what he says and, horrors, started riding a bicycle?
The problem with bicycles is they have the aerodynamic drag of a small car. So... Given the choice between something that has to move tons of air, and something a little... slicker, guess which one is more efficient? Thanks to fossil fuel use in food production, even if every American bicycled every mile they drove, we would still use the same amount of fossil fuels that an efficient European car would to travel the same distance. The difference being the car would do so much at a much greater rate of speed, seat four, etc...
Everyone rails on about how alternatives are so great, but they're only marginally better when compared to other alternatives. The real problem is gross inefficiency, but w/o we couldn't have conspicuous consumption, and it's associated profit margins.
TheDude wrote:
I don't see what's so fantastic about suggesting that production will decline, never to rise again. When did that ever happen before? Bakkens and Brazils and ANWRs will make that a gentler slope down, is all.
Well according to Monte, we're gonna get to 30mbpd in 2025 before that happens.
TheDude wrote:
Increased auto efficiency will only get you so far; VMT and GDP are still joined at the hip. Less money in the system for people to spend on new cars, which will need to be that much more fuel efficient to offset increasing gas prices.
Fortunately people can simply slow down in order to save some cash, and if that's a problem, there are plenty of cars out there that can see triple the fuel mileage of the average American after a bit of work. It's not like most Americans are worried enough to do anything about transportation costs, or other costs for that matter. That being said, GDP is a poor indicator of economic health, at least for those of us who don't make money off of economic activity for it's own sake.
TheDude wrote:
Another thing that will decrease for 2008 is sales of new cars, down a whopping 3 million. With automakers taking it on the chin like that do you think they'll have time to retool to build PHEVs or EVs? Only 325k HEV sales last year in the US - with 135 million commuters.
That's because HEVs still aren't practical unless the driver travels mostly in the city. If someone has a commute with a significant amount of highway, a Toyota Prius will take a long time to Amortize it's additional (~$10,000) cost compared to a manual trans Toyota Corolla. And or that matter, a used compact can do better than the Corolla for a similar difference in price. In any event, as EVs become practical due to consistently high enough gas costs from demand, and not the dollar falling on it's face, automakers will have to invest in retooling, or face some stiff competition. Given that we still have quite a ways to go to even catch up to the efficiency of the average European car here, I'm pretty sure that the high mileage prototypes developed will be produced if gas gets high enough. That being said, it seems that most don't mind hemorrhaging money for transportation, so increasing the flow a bit probably won't illicit much of a response.
TheDude wrote:
Plus the pathetic mandate to increase CAFE standards. Not even a silver BB, more like a silver molecule.
CAFE is just pathetic, but it's been pathetic for the past few decades. Initially, it performed as expected, but within a few years, after prices dropped, the auto industry started flooding the market with guzzlers and as for poor CAFE, they didn't even use lube.
P.S. You may wanna fix yer quotes. _________________
It might not matter to you Monte, but conveying information in a precise and clear way matters in ways you might not ever expect ( beyond all the gaffes you have been cranking out nearly nonstop since you joined this thread). For example, when I see a PP which has a basic typo error like yours in it, the first thing which flashes through my mind tends to be "gee, THAT presenter sure didn't worry about checking his work" nearly instantly followed by the corollary "gee...I wonder what ELSE they messed up".
In the years I have been presenting this PPT, I have never omitted the word "billion". No one else said a thing and I never caught it. The typo error wasn't mine. I just didn't catch it in the cut and paste of the data.
Thanks for catching it.
But to rant on about it like you are is ridiculous.
And childish. _________________ 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.
Fine. Postponed. There is nothing in the law of conservation of energy that implies you can extract energy from a system ("growth" as you call it) provided you at some later point put energy into the system. In fact, you cannot do this if there is not enough energy there already. And if there is, you don't have to put any in later.
Who said anything about extracting energy from a system now nd putting it in later???
My point is you cannot have real growth in good and services without an increase in energy inputs.
Debt is an expectation of this real growth in the future.
Or do you believe we can have GDP growth forever without making anything new or providing any service?
We just sell our houses to each other at a profit? _________________ 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.
What is that belief, that KTH believes the quoted statements, based on?
His discussion of the end of personal transportation, that people would find some other way to get to work.
They will. It's not like we're dealing with an energy problem, just a liquid fuel problem wrt gross inefficiency. People are accustomed to using something fifteen times their size with the aerodynamic drag of a barn to get them to work. As it becomes too expensive for them to tolerate, they will find other, likely more efficient, ways to get to work.
That isn't Cornucopian, it's basic physics. Right now we use ~2kWh to travel a mile via personal transportation. The absolute minimum is something like ~.005kWh to travel a mile via personal transportation, so we use roughly four hundred times more energy than we need. As prices increase, we will start using less. It happened before, and short of another large price drop it'll continue to happen like it has so far. _________________
In economics, the Jevons Paradox is an observation made by William Stanley Jevons, that as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, total consumption of that resource may increase, rather than decrease.
And, as I've pointed out before, and been banned for doing so by you, if we are past peak, by definition we cannot use any more that we did at peak, regardless of efficiency. By definition, efficiency cannot practically increase the use of something in decline.
MonteQuest wrote:
You seem to think I have the 30 mbpd carved in stone.
Like I said before, if you're going to use a figure you might as well attempt to use a realistic one. That being said, no ones holding a gun to your head, you can assume the US will use 100mbpd by 2025 if you like.
MonteQuest wrote:
It just may not be there to import.
And if it's not there in significant amounts what will happen to consumption? It'll drop. I'm not claiming imports, or biofuels, or any other source will do anything, just pointing out that if you're going to use examples, using current ones that are relatively accurate would probably be helpful.
That being said, given your track record, accuracy doesn't seem to be a significant concern of yours, and I don't think anything I say will change that. _________________
The entire +/- concept appears to be causing him trouble recently, doesn't it?
Well, coming from the same person who confused appropriating 40%+ of the Earth's terrestrial NPP, ie using, preventing, and destroying, primarily the last two, with using 40%+ of the Earth's NPP, I'm not surprised.
If we put it the second way, we sure do need to reduce population, because we're using sooooo much. Fortunately, we aren't. We are destroying an awful lot to use a small fraction of that, something like using a percent or two of the Earth's NPP, but we don't have to destroy the other nearly 40% on land as illustrated by many sustainable practices, we simply choose to do so because of greed and/or sloth and/or etc... _________________
Professor Membrane wrote:
Not now son! I'm making...TOAST!
Last edited by yesplease on Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:04 am; edited 1 time in total
Who said anything about extracting energy from a system now nd putting it in later???
My point is you cannot have real growth in good and services without an increase in energy inputs.
Debt is an expectation of this real growth in the future.
Or do you believe we can have GDP growth forever without making anything new or providing any service?
We just sell our houses to each other at a profit?
MonteQuest, you're trying to turn this into a doomer vs. cornucopian argument when all I am saying is that this is not conservation of energy no matter how you try to put it!
Quote:
Who said anything about extracting energy from a system now nd putting it in later???
You did. I said: "There is no borrowing of energy allowed by the first law. It is conserved over any time period, no matter how small."
You said
Quote:
Sure it does. Nothing grows without an input of energy. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Who said it was borrowed?
More like postponed. We call it a bubble.
So you are said growth implies an input of energy, but that this input could be postponed.
Quote:
My point is you cannot have real growth in good and services without an increase in energy inputs.
I guess you are trying to make a distinction between "real" growth and actual growth. Growth of the economy means GDP goes up. That is the correct definition so far as I am aware. I don't know what exactly you mean by "real" growth. As I pointed out, the song download could generate millions of dolalrs of GDP growth. This is a real service. Just because it doesn't involve transporting a physical item or doing physical work doesn't make it any less of a service.
Quote:
Or do you believe we can have GDP growth forever without making anything new or providing any service?
As I understand GDP to be defined, no I don't believe that. Because it will eventually catch up because it is unsustainable unless we find an energy miracle. I understand your point. But it doesn't mean we need to input energy to make it grow right now. It just isn't true.
Quote:
We just sell our houses to each other at a profit?
That would be one way to make it grow without an energy input.
Who cares about YOUR comment? We were having a perfectly nice time talking about the Bakken and suddenly you show up, try and pretend the subject was your comment, which it wasn't, and then start making gaffe's on everything from abbreviations to physics to terminal declines which aren't and growth which hasn't been for years.
Go start your own thread about "Monte's Hallucinations Over Why No Oil Find Will Ever Be Big Enough" and leave ours alone. Or at least try and stay on topic, you ARE aware of what "on topic" means, right?
MonteQuest wrote:
You are attacking me rather than my position or view.
Now you see why I included "Hallucinations" in the title of the thread you should go start.
Your view is that the bakken will slow the rate of growth of crude imports, when the growth of imports has been NEGATIVE going into year 3. You apply thermodynamic rules to an economy and pretend it applies the same as in the physical world, which the physicist noticed it didn't, YOUR VIEW, contradicted by someone else who can't figure out what you actually are trying to say any better than I can. You say economies can't grow without additional oil input....when its been happening for years, your VIEW is that the US is in terminal oil production decline except for the FACT that in 2007 it REVERSED.
None of those have anything to do with YOU, just your POSITION and VIEWS.
Take your pity party somewhere else.
MonteQuest wrote:
Trying to discredit me does not change the facts.
TRYING is the wrong verb, and you aren't the one using facts. _________________ Freddy RULZ!
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:05 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
yesplease wrote:
Well according to Monte, we're gonna get to 30mbpd in 2025 before that happens.
No, I doubt we will ever consume that much. But a normal economy is going to want to. That's what EIA and the IPAA projected in 2005 which is when I put together those numbers.
Like I keep saying, it is a moving target. In the EIA's 2008 Outllook, using spurious assumptions about increased biofuels, domestic production, and CAFE conservation, they are now projecting that in 2030, the US will only consume 22.86 mbpd, up 1.63 mbpd from 2008.
That's a lot of conservation from new CAFE standards. Not long ago, they were projecting 24 mbpd by 2020.
Historically, we have grown oil use 1.5 to 2% a year. And as I am being lambasted about, as recent as 2005, the EIA has projected a 1.7% growth rate.
They go on to say:
Quote:
Based on the projections of weak economic growth and record high crude oil and product prices, consumption of liquid fuels and other petroleum products is projected to decline by 90,000 bbl/d in 2008—a sharp reversal from the 40,000 bbl/d increase projected in the previous Outlook—then increase by 200,000 bbl/d in 2009.
So, let's say that US oil consumption stays flat for the next 20 odd years with this current projection.
You think life as we know it isn't going to change? Read my Slow Decline thread.
Especially while China raises their consumption 63% by 2020 and 100% by 2030 with current projections?
Not to mention India. But I will...at 5.5%/yr. _________________ 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: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:13 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
KillTheHumans wrote:
yesplease wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
My point is you cannot have real growth in good and services without an increase in energy inputs.
Course ya can, via appropriate efficiency increases.
Bet your butt you can.
Two idiots.
Unsustainable. _________________ 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: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:14 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
MonteQuest wrote:
KillTheHumans wrote:
It might not matter to you Monte, but conveying information in a precise and clear way matters in ways you might not ever expect ( beyond all the gaffes you have been cranking out nearly nonstop since you joined this thread). For example, when I see a PP which has a basic typo error like yours in it, the first thing which flashes through my mind tends to be "gee, THAT presenter sure didn't worry about checking his work" nearly instantly followed by the corollary "gee...I wonder what ELSE they messed up".
In the years I have been presenting this PPT, I have never omitted the word "billion". No one else said a thing and I never caught it. The typo error wasn't mine. I just didn't catch it in the cut and paste of the data.
Thanks for catching it.
You're welcome.
MonteQuest wrote:
But to rant on about it like you are is ridiculous.
And childish.
I explained why it matters. And when people catch errors in my presentations THE FIRST TIME THEY SEE IT, I certainly don't consider it childish, I expect it. _________________ Freddy RULZ!
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
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
Bakkens and Brazils and ANWRs will make that a gentler slope down, is all.
Not long ago, they were projecting 24 mbpd by 2020.
