Peak Oil News

 

  Login or Register
 
Menu
 News
 Search
 Topics
 Stories Archive
 Submit News
 Discussions
 Code of Conduct
 Forums
 Forums Search
 Last 24 Hours
 PO 24hrs
 Peak Blog
 Resources
 About Us
 Downloads
 Web Links
 PeakWiki
 PeakPortal
 Focus Search
 Peak TV
 Peak Oil Boston
 Houston Peak Oil
 Members
 Your Account
 Members List
 Ignore List
 JOIN!
 Private Messages
 
google
 
PeakSpeak
NICKNAME

Download TeamSpeak
What is PeakSpeak?
Peak Oil on IRC
 
Photo Album
Submit Photo
Peakoil.com is You!


member photos
 
Light Sweet Crude Oil
 
Member Quotes
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.

shortonoil

Suggest Quote

 
ICM
Cisco & Net App Training
 
Peak Oil News: Forums

Peakoil.com :: View topic - Powering Down to Core Consumption
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Powering Down to Core Consumption
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 24, 25, 26 ... 32, 33, 34  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Printer-friendly version    Peakoil.com Forum Index -> Peak Oil Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MonteQuest
Elite
Elite


Joined: Sep 06, 2004
Posts: 13460
Location: Sedona, Arizona

PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

yesplease wrote:
Nope, I mean that we don't always need an increase in energy consumption to see an increase in GDP. In other words, we don't always need energy growth for GDP growth.


Isn't what you wrote:

Quote:
We do need energy for economic activity, but we don't need more energy for more GDP provided we have enough for economic activity [aka stuff}.



GDP is a measure of the total production of goods and services, thus economic acitivity.

How can you need energy for the growth of economic activity and not need it for growth of GDP when GDP is a measure of the growth of economic activity?

Utter nonsense!
_________________
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MonteQuest
Elite
Elite


Joined: Sep 06, 2004
Posts: 13460
Location: Sedona, Arizona

PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

yesplease wrote:
Fortunately they weren't used to the point where they increased consumption past what it would've been w/o the efficiency improvements.


You are kidding? Some people now own two or more computers. Each member of the family has one. Houses were built bigger. More people added A/C.
_________________
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
yesplease
Fission
Fission


Joined: Oct 03, 2006
Posts: 2568

PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

MonteQuest wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Nope, I mean that we don't always need an increase in energy consumption to see an increase in GDP. In other words, we don't always need energy growth for GDP growth.


Isn't what you wrote:

Quote:
We do need energy for economic activity, but we don't need more energy for more GDP provided we have enough for economic activity [aka stuff}.



GDP is a measure of the total production of goods and services, thus economic acitivity.

How can you need energy for the growth of economic activity and not need it for growth of GDP when GDP is a measure of the growth of economic activity?
Read it again. I never said we needed energy for the growth of economic activity. I said we need energy for economic activity. In other words, if the sun goes out, and we don't have any energy, we are screwed. We need some amount of energy for economic activity. That being said, we don't always need energy growth for GDP growth. We may need energy grow for GDP growth in some cases, and in others we may not. So, as long as we have enough energy to maintain economic activity, it's possible that it (GDP) could increase w/o energy consumption increasing. Clearly if we don't have enough energy for economic activity in the first place it can't increase.
MonteQuest wrote:
Utter nonsense!
Troll, save it for the Hall of Flames. Smile
_________________
Professor Membrane wrote:
Not now son! I'm making...TOAST!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yesplease
Fission
Fission


Joined: Oct 03, 2006
Posts: 2568

PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

MonteQuest wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Fortunately they weren't used to the point where they increased consumption past what it would've been w/o the efficiency improvements.


You are kidding? Some people now own two or more computers. Each member of the family has one. Houses were built bigger. More people added A/C.
I'm not kidding. The rebound effect has been less than 100% in all recent studies done in the US AFAIK.
Quote:
Table 1. Measured Rebound Effects on Various Devices.
DEVICE SIZE OF REBOUND NUMBER OF STUDIES
Space Heating 10-30% 26
Space Cooling 0-50% 9
Water Heating 10-40% 5
Residential Lighting 5-12% 4
Home Appliances 0% 2
Automobiles 10-30% 23


What you seem to be referring to is conspicuous consumption. Which in and of itself is not due to the rebound effect, but instead due to encouraging sales of various products. Naturally conspicuous consumption is bad for the economy, seeing as how much debt the US is in, but it would be worse if we didn't implement increases in efficiency, as illustrated by different studies of the rebound effect in different areas.
_________________
Professor Membrane wrote:
Not now son! I'm making...TOAST!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyPrep
Fission
Fission


Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Posts: 2053
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

kublikhan wrote:
In the last 50 years, the amount of energy needed to make a unit of GDP fell by more than half
Wouldn't that imply that a unit decline in energy could now cause an even bigger drop in GDP. Why wouldn't it work both ways, efficiencies excluded?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyPrep
Fission
Fission


Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Posts: 2053
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

yesplease wrote:
Well, lets put it this way. Saying GDP growth can't be sustained during a decline in energy consumption w/o specifying a period is just as useful as saying it can be sustained during a decline in energy consumption w/o specifying a period.
I disagree. If people can get it through their thick heads that, at some point in the future, economic growth will have to stop (and I don't think you disagree with that, though I could be wrong), and that it's impossible to figure out exactly when that will be, then that realisation might prompt some planning for, and even purposeful movement towards, that future. On the other hand, saying we can maintain growth for some limited time, again an unknown time, would probably lead most people to postpone any action or planning for sustainability, and thus act as though growth was possible for ever.

I would consider planning for zero growth to be a better course of action than continually postponing it just because it might not be a problem for a while. You, on the other hand, might argue for the latter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
highlander
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude


Joined: Oct 03, 2004
Posts: 566
Location: Washington State

PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

lets power this thread down to core consumption

troll you said
troll no I said

I tried to think about waste and what waste we as a society we could cut.

government

but, if we eliminated government (and large corporate) waste, we cut jobs that support private sector jobs, which will go away.

That is the downside of a service based economy. We have outsourced almost all "true wealth" generating activities (manufacturing, mining, logging) and we trade our agri-wealth for energy

If we raise taxes, as was suggested, we inflate government, making more waste. It is the nature of the beast

I guess we wait for the dieoff to get to the powerdown.
_________________
This is where everybody puts profound words written by another...or not so profound words written by themselves
Highlander 2007
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MonteQuest
Elite
Elite


Joined: Sep 06, 2004
Posts: 13460
Location: Sedona, Arizona

PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

yesplease wrote:
Read it again. I never said we needed energy for the growth of economic activity. I said we need energy for economic activity.


LOL! That's even more nonsensical.

We need energy for economic acivity, but we don't need it for the growth of economic activity.

So, if the economy isn't growing we need energy, but if it is growing we don't?

Are you nuts?
_________________
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kublikhan
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude


Joined: Nov 06, 2007
Posts: 759
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

MonteQuest wrote:
You forgot about Jevons' Paradox.
I forgot nothing. I thought we agreed to disagree about Jevons' Paradox? Let me know if you want to continue our debate....

TonyPrep wrote:
kublikhan wrote:
In the last 50 years, the amount of energy needed to make a unit of GDP fell by more than half
Wouldn't that imply that a unit decline in energy could now cause an even bigger drop in GDP. Why wouldn't it work both ways, efficiencies excluded?
No. If the consumption of oil per unit of GDP is higher in economy 1 than economy 2, than economy 1 is going to suffer more if oil doubles in price. This is because a larger section of their budget just doubled in price. Even thought economy 2 had its energy price double as well, it can absorb it better because it was a smaller share of the pie.
Also, energy intensity is continuing to decline in the present and will continue to decline in the future. Even if efficiency gains stopped tomorrow, energy intensity would continue to drop as older, less efficient devices are replaced with today's current batch of devices. Also, despite the US's gains, it is still on the energy hog side of efficiency. If you compare it to other nations, it still has a long way to go just to match where they are now, let alone gains they may make in the future.
_________________
The oil barrel is half-full.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zeke
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude


Joined: Dec 07, 2007
Posts: 185

PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

kublikhan wrote:
Also, energy intensity is continuing to decline in the present and will continue to decline in the future. Even if efficiency gains stopped tomorrow, energy intensity would continue to drop as older, less efficient devices are replaced with today's current batch of devices. Also, despite the US's gains, it is still on the energy hog side of efficiency. If you compare it to other nations, it still has a long way to go just to match where they are now, let alone gains they may make in the future.


What, exactly, do you mean by "energy intensity?"

Do you mean usage? If so, I think that the evidence is in: we are using more and more with each passing year.

Maybe you mean that energy usage would decrease in a perfect world, or in a laboratory, or on some planet not plagued by runaway consumption.

zeke
_________________
Discuss sustainability at www.ThinkPlan.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yesplease
Fission
Fission


Joined: Oct 03, 2006
Posts: 2568

PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

MonteQuest wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Read it again. I never said we needed energy for the growth of economic activity. I said we need energy for economic activity.


LOL! That's even more nonsensical.
Troll, the Hall of Flames awaits! Laughing

MonteQuest wrote:
We need energy for economic acivity, but we don't need it for the growth of economic activity.
I'm not sure what acivity is, but in any event, nice strawman troll! That isn't what I said. I said that we need energy for economic activity, but we don't always need more energy for more economic activity. We can and have seen an increase in economic activity w/o an increase in energy.
_________________
Professor Membrane wrote:
Not now son! I'm making...TOAST!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MonteQuest
Elite
Elite


Joined: Sep 06, 2004
Posts: 13460
Location: Sedona, Arizona

PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

You know, I think it's time use the ignore feature. No one wants to post admid your crap.
_________________
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TonyPrep
Fission
Fission


Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Posts: 2053
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

kublikhan wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
kublikhan wrote:
In the last 50 years, the amount of energy needed to make a unit of GDP fell by more than half
Wouldn't that imply that a unit decline in energy could now cause an even bigger drop in GDP. Why wouldn't it work both ways, efficiencies excluded?
No. If the consumption of oil per unit of GDP is higher in economy 1 than economy 2, than economy 1 is going to suffer more if oil doubles in price. This is because a larger section of their budget just doubled in price. Even thought economy 2 had its energy price double as well, it can absorb it better because it was a smaller share of the pie.
Also, energy intensity is continuing to decline in the present and will continue to decline in the future. Even if efficiency gains stopped tomorrow, energy intensity would continue to drop as older, less efficient devices are replaced with today's current batch of devices. Also, despite the US's gains, it is still on the energy hog side of efficiency. If you compare it to other nations, it still has a long way to go just to match where they are now, let alone gains they may make in the future.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about the effects of oil price hikes, and neither were you. You were suggesting that because energy intensity is lower now, GDP would decline more slowly than energy, once energy declines. But if 1 unit of energy produced 10 units of GDP (low intensity), why wouldn't a decline of 1 unit of energy result in a decline of 10 units of GDP (excluding efficiencies)?

To put it another way. Suppose economy A (perhaps our economy 30 years ago) uses 100 units of energy for 100% of its GDP and economy B (perhaps our current economy) uses 50 units of energy for 100% of its GDP. What happens to each economy's GDP if 10 units of energy are no longer available?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kublikhan
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude


Joined: Nov 06, 2007
Posts: 759
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

TonyPrep wrote:
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about the effects of oil price hikes, and neither were you. You were suggesting that because energy intensity is lower now, GDP would decline more slowly than energy, once energy declines. But if 1 unit of energy produced 10 units of GDP (low intensity), why wouldn't a decline of 1 unit of energy result in a decline of 10 units of GDP (excluding efficiencies)?
To put it another way. Suppose economy A (perhaps our economy 30 years ago) uses 100 units of energy for 100% of its GDP and economy B (perhaps our current economy) uses 50 units of energy for 100% of its GDP. What happens to each economy's GDP if 10 units of energy are no longer available?
But oil price hikes is how we will see the shortage manifest itself. Example:
Cost of Oil is .25 units of GDP
Scenario 1:
50 units of oil for 100 units of GDP
oil bill = 12.5 units of GDP(1/8 of the economy goes to paying for oil import bill)
Scenario 2:
100 units of oil for 400 units of GDP
oil bill = 25 units of GDP(1/16 of the economy goes to paying for oil import bill)

Oil Price now doubles:
Cost of oil is .5 units of GDP
Scenario 1:
50 units of oil for 100 units of GDP
oil bill = 25 units of GDP(1/4 of the economy goes towards paying oil import bill)
Scenario 2:
100 units of oil for 400 units of GDP
oil bill = 50 units of GDP(1/8 of economy goes towards paying for oil import bill)

Even though Scenario 2 has a higher total oil bill, the proportion of that bill is a much smaller chunk of the entire economy, and thus an easier burden to bare. Easier, than scenario 1, but it is still a huge jump compared to what it was paying before the price of oil doubled. That is why I said the energy use will likely not stay at 100 units, but will instead drop. Not because the oil was unavailable to buy, but because they could not afford to buy it. So in the scenarios above, the proportional shortfall of oil would be higher in scenario 1 because scenario 2 can out bid scenario 1 for the oil, all other factors being equal.

zeke wrote:
kublikhan wrote:
Also, energy intensity is continuing to decline in the present and will continue to decline in the future. Even if efficiency gains stopped tomorrow, energy intensity would continue to drop as older, less efficient devices are replaced with today's current batch of devices. Also, despite the US's gains, it is still on the energy hog side of efficiency. If you compare it to other nations, it still has a long way to go just to match where they are now, let alone gains they may make in the future.

What, exactly, do you mean by "energy intensity?"
Do you mean usage? If so, I think that the evidence is in: we are using more and more with each passing year.
Maybe you mean that energy usage would decrease in a perfect world, or in a laboratory, or on some planet not plagued by runaway consumption.
zeke
I am not talking about a laboratory, Mars, or any fantasy scenarios. I am talking about what really happened in the history of the United States of America. No, I did not mean energy use. Here is a definition of energy intensity:
Quote:
Energy Intensity is measured by the quantity of energy required per unit output or activity, so that using less energy to produce a product reduces the intensity.
Efficiency Vs Intensity
_________________
The oil barrel is half-full.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ReverseEngineer
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude


Joined: Jul 16, 2008
Posts: 1731

PostPosted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:52 am    Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

So what was the "energy intensity" of pre-Big Oil Civilizations like the Babylonians, Mesopotamians and Egyptians? Or the other agricultural civilizations established in othe River Valleys in China and in India (still BTW the largest Populations Centers)?

Clearly Big Oil multiplied out our ability to produce, the energy involved in food production and transportation got hidden for a century because oil came fast and cheap during this period. So now its not coming so fast or so cheap, so the overall economy has to contract around that fact of life. What is an unanswered question here is just how fast the contraction happens, and in what form it happens?

Current financial markets are in turmoil, clearly the economy is shrinking around a lot of irredeemable debt, but how far does it have to shrink before the bust cycle turns to a mini-boom cycle? Not as big as the boom before the last bust, you are shrinking ever downward here but does it necessarily have to occur in one Big Bang?

Look at the trip UP the Peak Oil Curve. It was littered with Boom and Bust cycles. It took about 100 years to make the trip UP the Mountain, how fast will we make the trip DOWN the Mountain? Possible we got to the Top of the Mountain and there is a Cliff on the other side we can just fall of and go straight DOWN, very fast. However, based on the actions of the market, this does not seem likely right now. As production falls off, as unemployment increases, as people abandon negative equity mortgages in energy inefficient suburban homes, we end up using less oil, and so the production capacity we actually have is enough to support what we are doing, briefly anyhow. Look at it this way, 2 related families own two houses and 2 SUVS. One gets unemployed, and so they go move in with the Relatives, and carpool in the one SUV. Certainly going to be an adjustment in family living arrangements, but economically speaking you just cut in half the total costs in energy for the two families. Most of our suburban houses are way overbuilt for one family, heck 20 Chinese will move into one of these houses and find it spacious Smile

This kind of adjustment is already taking place, at least in my community I see 1/4 of the properties for sale and more carpooling taking place, but not a real increase yet in Homelessness or people unable to get to work, if they still have a job in the shrinking economy anyhow. This lessens the demand on oil, and so inventories increase, which drives the price back down. Over time people adjust to a more crowded living environment and use up less energy per capita. You have at least the potential there for another mini-boom cyclet in the trip down the Peak Oil curve.

This type of cyclical economics tends to indicate that the trip back down off Peak Oil will take somewhere near the 100 years it took to climb the curve to begin with. Gradually decreasing the standard of living until the oil is truly gone for good, but maybe that 100 years gives time to readjust in energy intensity and utilize the knowledge gained in the trip up the curve to make life slightly better than it was in say 1750, before Oil came to rule the world and the Industrial Economy took over?

Clearly the world cannot support 6 Billion people in the absence of Oil. Without the Fertilizers and the portable fuel to run the tractors, just no way you could maintain the food production at the level it is right now. However, we probably could support somewhat more than the 1 Billion or so who lived on the Planet BEFORE Big Oil, utilizing the fruits of scientific research through that period. Genetic Engineering, Wind Farms, that sort of thing can be developed over a 100 year trip back down the mountain. So, say in 100 years you knock off 2/3 the population, that could occur mostly through a fairly natural die off by ageing up. Doesn't HAVE to be a catastrophic falloff in 10 years, though that certainly is a possibility.

Main problem for any individual here is how to negotiate the slide down the hill. No given profession is safe, and frankly not even Subsistence Farmers out in the Boonies are safe. Never know when the Local Police Chief might make his Cops a local Militia, Tax your Farm and if you don't cough up food for them to eat you get gunned down. Unless you happen to have an extraordinary amount of money that is NOT in danger of becoming Valueless in your Pension Fund or Stock Holdings, your ability to negotiate the trip down involves being mobile enough to move away from depressed areas and to take jobs that exist in any economy, even a shrinking one.

Some people ALWAYS survive disasters, its a combination of Luck and Planning. When Plagues and Famine hit the Egyptians, they didn't ALL die off. We all most probably will not die off this time either, unless too many Nukes get tossed around. Just a substantial number will die off, but it could take some time for this to occur. Meanwhile, you just have to position yourself as well as you can to absorb the blows as the economy contracts, which it must. Oil IS running out, and you just can't produce as much as we did without it.

ReverseEngineer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Printer-friendly version    Peakoil.com Forum Index -> Peak Oil Discussion All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 24, 25, 26 ... 32, 33, 34  Next
Page 25 of 34

 
Jump to:  
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

Atom News FeedRSS 1.0 News FeedRSS 2.0 News FeedRSS Forums Feed