Economy Returns to growth After Deep Slump

[Pidgey]

An article discussing what I've been telling y'all for quite awhile now:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency

Yes, the world is nearing the peak of production, far nearer than you know. "Peak of Production", by the way, is simply that--it's not an end of production. However, you cannot grow an economy without a growth in net energy. And a non-growing or, worse, declining economy CANNOT sustain massive long term debt. Period. End of story. That said, we must all learn to live within our means.

Oh, yeah... several of you believe that "green energy" will save the day. It'll help... to the extent that it's part of the total energy produced today.

 

[top gun]

An article discussing what I've been telling y'all for quite awhile now:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency

Yes, the world is nearing the peak of production, far nearer than you know. "Peak of Production", by the way, is simply that--it's not an end of production. However, you cannot grow an economy without a growth in net energy. And a non-growing or, worse, declining economy CANNOT sustain massive long term debt. Period. End of story. That said, we must all learn to live within our means.

Oh, yeah... several of you believe that "green energy" will save the day. It'll help... to the extent that it's part of the total energy produced today.

Good post especially the last line.

I believe the goal is, and rightly so, to strrrrrrrrrrretch our currently known energy supplies allowing the people of this planet as much time possible to discover and produce new, even possibly unthought of energy sources. While also trying to control the wide arrange of pollution that billions of people naturally create.

When man first discovered the great many energy uses of say oil they never in their wildest dreams thought about nuclear energy for example. Necessity is the mother of invention. Given the time we will find more breakthrough advances that solve problems. Then there will be new problems.

But the truth is we are never really standing still. We are either advancing or loosing ground stuck in the past.

 

[Pidgey]

I suppose it'd be possible (you just KNOW that somebody somewhere has already done it) to form a mathematical model to determine what the power-down will have to be, given knowns on current alternatives. We have patently NOT done anything even close to what you'd intuitively think we should do as a species on the planet, given the dire nature of the subject. What most of us in my camp would like to see is the transition to walkable and sustainable small towns where there isn't as much need for energy, rather than the inevitable resource grab play (zero sum game) that's already beginning.

We generally obtain energy by way of converting one molecule of a higher "heat of formation" to a molecule of a lower one. By and large, this only works well with hydrocarbons and carbohydrates, so you're stuck there. The other means is by fusing lighter atoms or fissing larger atoms, of course. We've yet to truly reach unity on the former and we don't have as much of the latter as is generally believed (never mind the actual EROEI).

So... it'd be infinitely more prudent to accept the fact of power down and get on with it while we're waiting for somebody to find a more emotionally acceptable solution. In the meantime, y'all need to understand that what's really going on in the economy is way-the-h*ll-and-gone worse than you know and that there's not going to be a way to reinflate the bubble that's been building for the past several decades. ESPECIALLY with the desire for growth in the rest of the world that's budding--there simply isn't the available energy to fund it.

 

[Dr.Who]

Good post especially the last line.

I believe the goal is, and rightly so, to strrrrrrrrrrretch our currently known energy supplies allowing the people of this planet as much time possible to discover and produce new, even possibly unthought of energy sources. While also trying to control the wide arrange of pollution that billions of people naturally create.

When man first discovered the great many energy uses of say oil they never in their wildest dreams thought about nuclear energy for example. Necessity is the mother of invention. Given the time we will find more breakthrough advances that solve problems. Then there will be new problems.

But the truth is we are never really standing still. We are either advancing or loosing ground stuck in the past.

NO natural resource in history has ever declined so rapidly that market forces have not encouraged its replacement satisfactorily.

Gov encouragments of other resources are neither needed nor beneficial except to the few who take advantage of the created arbitrage and increase their wealth.

 

[Pidgey]

NO natural resource in history has ever declined so rapidly that market forces have not encouraged its replacement satisfactorily.

Are you speaking for the world in general or do more local regions count? I ask because localities have been opened for business and then discarded for time out of mind. Our geological surveys this last couple of centuries, though, have been incredibly complete. One of the biggest factors in mining, though, is the "overburden". If you have too much, it's not necessarily economical--depends on the mineral. Things like gold, silver and such ores generally have a higher density and so require rather less actual removal. Coal, of course, is quite another story so overburden REALLY matters. Oil's viscosity is what makes it tougher in secondary and tertiary recovery efforts. "Carbon Sequestration" has been preached as a method of reducing Anthropogenic Global Warming, but... uhh... carbon dioxide when injected into wells also curiously causes swelling and thinning of the remaining sticky drops of oil in the rock which leads to enhanced recovery. Funny, that...

 

[Dr.Who]

Are you speaking for the world in general or do more local regions count? I ask because localities have been opened for business and then discarded for time out of mind. Our geological surveys this last couple of centuries, though, have been incredibly complete. One of the biggest factors in mining, though, is the "overburden". If you have too much, it's not necessarily economical--depends on the mineral. Things like gold, silver and such ores generally have a higher density and so require rather less actual removal. Coal, of course, is quite another story so overburden REALLY matters. Oil's viscosity is what makes it tougher in secondary and tertiary recovery efforts. "Carbon Sequestration" has been preached as a method of reducing Anthropogenic Global Warming, but... uhh... carbon dioxide when injected into wells also curiously causes swelling and thinning of the remaining sticky drops of oil in the rock which leads to enhanced recovery. Funny, that...

The world as a whole has never run out of anything so rapidly that market forces did not find a satisfactory replacement.

Whale oil is the closest thing since the population of whales declined rapidly. and yet it was replaced by market forces.

 

[Pidgey]

Your answer bears a finality that doesn't seem to allow for other possibilities that we don't want to hear. The definition of how rapidly we run out of energy sorta' depends on how much energy we can produce in relationship with how much expansion of distribution is demanded, right? For instance, if all the poor in the world wanted as much energy (read: stuff, cars, air conditioning, etc) as we in the west consume, then... well... we're undercapitalized for... ever.

Review Hubbert Peak theory and Gaussian linearizations, and then do the math--it's way-the-h*ll-and-gone too obvious how this ride is going to end.

 

[Dr.Who]

Your answer bears a finality that doesn't seem to allow for other possibilities that we don't want to hear. The definition of how rapidly we run out of energy sorta' depends on how much energy we can produce in relationship with how much expansion of distribution is demanded, right? For instance, if all the poor in the world wanted as much energy (read: stuff, cars, air conditioning, etc) as we in the west consume, then... well... we're undercapitalized for... ever.

Review Hubbert Peak theory and Gaussian linearizations, and then do the math--it's way-the-h*ll-and-gone too obvious how this ride is going to end.

I suspect all the people of the world already do want as much energy as we consume. (It is our consumption of energy that makes us one of the top producers of stuff to consume and export in the world. It is what makes us have a high standard of living.) But for much of the world they cannot afford it. (I think their governments should stop having so many wars and making their people poor. Wars are a top cause of poverty in the world)

As people in other parts of the world demand more energy it will drive up the costs. Then we will consume less of it while they consume more. And as the price goes up other sources of energy will become more attractive and they will be used with ever increasing frequency, thus replacing the sources of energy we now use. Nothing will drive us toward new sources of energy better or more fairly than market forces.

 

[arisajr]

So basically the only way we are going to even consider finding different sources of energy is when the market cannot support the energy we are using now. Maybe the better scenario would be if governments try to promote alliterative sources of energy sooner rather than later.

 

[top gun]

So basically the only way we are going to even consider finding different sources of energy is when the market cannot support the energy we are using now. Maybe the better scenario would be if governments try to promote alliterative sources of energy sooner rather than later.

Oh now that's just CRAZY TALK!!!

You mean like start conserving now so we have more time to work & develop really clean & beneficial future energy sources and technologies.

Oh I don't know???

But I remember something about fiddling away what you have and failing to look ahead down the road because you want it fat and easy today.

Now what was that story? Oh yeah here it is...

 

[Dr.Who]

So basically the only way we are going to even consider finding different sources of energy is when the market cannot support the energy we are using now.

We are already considering new sources of energy. We don't need markets to be unable to support the energy we use now, only for there to be a motivation for new sources.

Maybe the better scenario would be if governments try to promote alliterative sources of energy sooner rather than later.

So far whenever the gov has promoted alternatives it has always done it in ways that restrict freedom.