Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sdduuuude
Participant[quote=Arraya]BOO!, it’s here.[/quote]
Whew. You scared me there for a minute. I ran out to see if I could still get gas for $3 a gallon and I can. Guess it isn’t here yet. Production may be near peak, but like I said earlier, price dynamics, replacements, and demand-side changes could have a major impact on availability.
In my last post, I mention Jay Forrester. He has been looking at this problem since 1969. Not really going to sneak up on him. World governments know it is going to happen and have for years. I’m loath to put my faith in them over entrepreneurs.
That big oil has “been the biggest impediment to replacing it’s number one product” is a clear sign that we aren’t “there” yet. When they realize their number one product is in jeopardy, they’ll do something about it, or a competitor will. (I just hope the ones who miss the opporunity go bankrupt and aren’t bailed out !).
[quote=Arraya]Looking at the predicament through an economic-monetary lens limits your scope of thought[/quote]
You said that to the wrong person. I speak both thermodynamics and economics – with a BS in Elec. Eng and MS in Engineering Economic Systems, not many people in the world are better suited to understand the relationship between science, technology, economics and business.
It is virutally impossible for me to separate technological solutions and economic solutions. They are one and the same. ‘Cept it is economics that drives solutions into existence, and those economics are not yet upon us. Peak Oil may or may not be here, but the economic drivers are not. We’ll still be having this same discussion in 2020 and possibly 2030.
I think replacements and demand reduction will carry us longer than most expect, though if you notice my comments about Forrester’s models, you’ll see I think there has to be a dark age where population is reduced. I’m 42. I don’t think I’ll see it.
The thing is, no matter how economists view the world, people make economics happen no matter what. People collectively make millions of decisions made every day. Even now, thousands of crackpots are trying to invent solutions to the problem. I have faith in them.
[quote=Arraya]No amount of alternatives[/quote]
Certainly we are dealing with a finite amount of oil, so some amount of alternatives would suffice. But, the energy density of oil is impossible to match.Participant[quote=Arraya]BOO!, it’s here.[/quote]
Whew. You scared me there for a minute. I ran out to see if I could still get gas for $3 a gallon and I can. Guess it isn’t here yet. Production may be near peak, but like I said earlier, price dynamics, replacements, and demand-side changes could have a major impact on availability.
In my last post, I mention Jay Forrester. He has been looking at this problem since 1969. Not really going to sneak up on him. World governments know it is going to happen and have for years. I’m loath to put my faith in them over entrepreneurs.
That big oil has “been the biggest impediment to replacing it’s number one product” is a clear sign that we aren’t “there” yet. When they realize their number one product is in jeopardy, they’ll do something about it, or a competitor will. (I just hope the ones who miss the opporunity go bankrupt and aren’t bailed out !).
[quote=Arraya]Looking at the predicament through an economic-monetary lens limits your scope of thought[/quote]
You said that to the wrong person. I speak both thermodynamics and economics – with a BS in Elec. Eng and MS in Engineering Economic Systems, not many people in the world are better suited to understand the relationship between science, technology, economics and business.
It is virutally impossible for me to separate technological solutions and economic solutions. They are one and the same. ‘Cept it is economics that drives solutions into existence, and those economics are not yet upon us. Peak Oil may or may not be here, but the economic drivers are not. We’ll still be having this same discussion in 2020 and possibly 2030.
I think replacements and demand reduction will carry us longer than most expect, though if you notice my comments about Forrester’s models, you’ll see I think there has to be a dark age where population is reduced. I’m 42. I don’t think I’ll see it.
The thing is, no matter how economists view the world, people make economics happen no matter what. People collectively make millions of decisions made every day. Even now, thousands of crackpots are trying to invent solutions to the problem. I have faith in them.
[quote=Arraya]No amount of alternatives[/quote]
Certainly we are dealing with a finite amount of oil, so some amount of alternatives would suffice. But, the energy density of oil is impossible to match.Participant[quote=Arraya]BOO!, it’s here.[/quote]
Whew. You scared me there for a minute. I ran out to see if I could still get gas for $3 a gallon and I can. Guess it isn’t here yet. Production may be near peak, but like I said earlier, price dynamics, replacements, and demand-side changes could have a major impact on availability.
In my last post, I mention Jay Forrester. He has been looking at this problem since 1969. Not really going to sneak up on him. World governments know it is going to happen and have for years. I’m loath to put my faith in them over entrepreneurs.
That big oil has “been the biggest impediment to replacing it’s number one product” is a clear sign that we aren’t “there” yet. When they realize their number one product is in jeopardy, they’ll do something about it, or a competitor will. (I just hope the ones who miss the opporunity go bankrupt and aren’t bailed out !).
[quote=Arraya]Looking at the predicament through an economic-monetary lens limits your scope of thought[/quote]
You said that to the wrong person. I speak both thermodynamics and economics – with a BS in Elec. Eng and MS in Engineering Economic Systems, not many people in the world are better suited to understand the relationship between science, technology, economics and business.
It is virutally impossible for me to separate technological solutions and economic solutions. They are one and the same. ‘Cept it is economics that drives solutions into existence, and those economics are not yet upon us. Peak Oil may or may not be here, but the economic drivers are not. We’ll still be having this same discussion in 2020 and possibly 2030.
I think replacements and demand reduction will carry us longer than most expect, though if you notice my comments about Forrester’s models, you’ll see I think there has to be a dark age where population is reduced. I’m 42. I don’t think I’ll see it.
The thing is, no matter how economists view the world, people make economics happen no matter what. People collectively make millions of decisions made every day. Even now, thousands of crackpots are trying to invent solutions to the problem. I have faith in them.
[quote=Arraya]No amount of alternatives[/quote]
Certainly we are dealing with a finite amount of oil, so some amount of alternatives would suffice. But, the energy density of oil is impossible to match.ParticipantNow that I just said we will avoid major lifestyle changes, I remembered the work of Jay Forrester.
As he pointed out in the early ’70s, the earth has a limit of how many people it can support. If I recall correctly, his world models typically produced a disturbing result – the population grows to N people, then scales back to N-M people before finding a steady-state sustainable population.
N and M vary in magnitude based on the modelled effects of technology, disease, and economics, but the shape of the curve always showed an overshoot in this century, then a population reduction to a sustainable level.
It’s a disturbing finding as it suggests the dark ages may be upon us before the end of the century.
Possible that this population reduction could occur after oil runs out and all replacement solutions are in place, but the replacement solutions don’t quite suffice.
Very interesting stuff.
search tips:
Jay Forrester
World Model
World Dynamics
Urban Dynamics
WORLD1 WORLD3ParticipantNow that I just said we will avoid major lifestyle changes, I remembered the work of Jay Forrester.
As he pointed out in the early ’70s, the earth has a limit of how many people it can support. If I recall correctly, his world models typically produced a disturbing result – the population grows to N people, then scales back to N-M people before finding a steady-state sustainable population.
N and M vary in magnitude based on the modelled effects of technology, disease, and economics, but the shape of the curve always showed an overshoot in this century, then a population reduction to a sustainable level.
It’s a disturbing finding as it suggests the dark ages may be upon us before the end of the century.
Possible that this population reduction could occur after oil runs out and all replacement solutions are in place, but the replacement solutions don’t quite suffice.
Very interesting stuff.
search tips:
Jay Forrester
World Model
World Dynamics
Urban Dynamics
WORLD1 WORLD3ParticipantNow that I just said we will avoid major lifestyle changes, I remembered the work of Jay Forrester.
As he pointed out in the early ’70s, the earth has a limit of how many people it can support. If I recall correctly, his world models typically produced a disturbing result – the population grows to N people, then scales back to N-M people before finding a steady-state sustainable population.
N and M vary in magnitude based on the modelled effects of technology, disease, and economics, but the shape of the curve always showed an overshoot in this century, then a population reduction to a sustainable level.
It’s a disturbing finding as it suggests the dark ages may be upon us before the end of the century.
Possible that this population reduction could occur after oil runs out and all replacement solutions are in place, but the replacement solutions don’t quite suffice.
Very interesting stuff.
search tips:
Jay Forrester
World Model
World Dynamics
Urban Dynamics
WORLD1 WORLD3ParticipantNow that I just said we will avoid major lifestyle changes, I remembered the work of Jay Forrester.
As he pointed out in the early ’70s, the earth has a limit of how many people it can support. If I recall correctly, his world models typically produced a disturbing result – the population grows to N people, then scales back to N-M people before finding a steady-state sustainable population.
N and M vary in magnitude based on the modelled effects of technology, disease, and economics, but the shape of the curve always showed an overshoot in this century, then a population reduction to a sustainable level.
It’s a disturbing finding as it suggests the dark ages may be upon us before the end of the century.
Possible that this population reduction could occur after oil runs out and all replacement solutions are in place, but the replacement solutions don’t quite suffice.
Very interesting stuff.
search tips:
Jay Forrester
World Model
World Dynamics
Urban Dynamics
WORLD1 WORLD3ParticipantNow that I just said we will avoid major lifestyle changes, I remembered the work of Jay Forrester.
As he pointed out in the early ’70s, the earth has a limit of how many people it can support. If I recall correctly, his world models typically produced a disturbing result – the population grows to N people, then scales back to N-M people before finding a steady-state sustainable population.
N and M vary in magnitude based on the modelled effects of technology, disease, and economics, but the shape of the curve always showed an overshoot in this century, then a population reduction to a sustainable level.
It’s a disturbing finding as it suggests the dark ages may be upon us before the end of the century.
Possible that this population reduction could occur after oil runs out and all replacement solutions are in place, but the replacement solutions don’t quite suffice.
Very interesting stuff.
search tips:
Jay Forrester
World Model
World Dynamics
Urban Dynamics
WORLD1 WORLD3Participant[quote=Ricechex]energy/oil is running out. If it was so abundant, then why would we be discussing it so much?[/quote]
The reason we are talking about it is – if nobody does anything, it’ll be a problem.
To me, it is kind of like the Y2K problem. Had nobody done anything, it would have been a disaster. However, pretty much everybody took time to upgrade their systems to use a 4-digit year and the effect of the issue was limited.
Certainly, we will run out of oil, but I don’t see it as a problem that will sneak up on us and cause global anihilation. We will have adequate time to let ecomomics and technology do what is necessary.
Since there is profit to be had for those who can find solutions, I have faith that solutions will emerge.
Certainly guys like the CEO mentioned above aren’t going to sit and watch their revenue stream disappear. They will continue to stay in the energy/natural resource business by providing solutions.
Lots of investors and entrepreneurs will kiss alot of frogs before finding a prince, but I susprect princes will emerge to avoid major lifestyle changes.
Participant[quote=Ricechex]energy/oil is running out. If it was so abundant, then why would we be discussing it so much?[/quote]
The reason we are talking about it is – if nobody does anything, it’ll be a problem.
To me, it is kind of like the Y2K problem. Had nobody done anything, it would have been a disaster. However, pretty much everybody took time to upgrade their systems to use a 4-digit year and the effect of the issue was limited.
Certainly, we will run out of oil, but I don’t see it as a problem that will sneak up on us and cause global anihilation. We will have adequate time to let ecomomics and technology do what is necessary.
Since there is profit to be had for those who can find solutions, I have faith that solutions will emerge.
Certainly guys like the CEO mentioned above aren’t going to sit and watch their revenue stream disappear. They will continue to stay in the energy/natural resource business by providing solutions.
Lots of investors and entrepreneurs will kiss alot of frogs before finding a prince, but I susprect princes will emerge to avoid major lifestyle changes.
Participant[quote=Ricechex]energy/oil is running out. If it was so abundant, then why would we be discussing it so much?[/quote]
The reason we are talking about it is – if nobody does anything, it’ll be a problem.
To me, it is kind of like the Y2K problem. Had nobody done anything, it would have been a disaster. However, pretty much everybody took time to upgrade their systems to use a 4-digit year and the effect of the issue was limited.
Certainly, we will run out of oil, but I don’t see it as a problem that will sneak up on us and cause global anihilation. We will have adequate time to let ecomomics and technology do what is necessary.
Since there is profit to be had for those who can find solutions, I have faith that solutions will emerge.
Certainly guys like the CEO mentioned above aren’t going to sit and watch their revenue stream disappear. They will continue to stay in the energy/natural resource business by providing solutions.
Lots of investors and entrepreneurs will kiss alot of frogs before finding a prince, but I susprect princes will emerge to avoid major lifestyle changes.
Participant[quote=Ricechex]energy/oil is running out. If it was so abundant, then why would we be discussing it so much?[/quote]
The reason we are talking about it is – if nobody does anything, it’ll be a problem.
To me, it is kind of like the Y2K problem. Had nobody done anything, it would have been a disaster. However, pretty much everybody took time to upgrade their systems to use a 4-digit year and the effect of the issue was limited.
Certainly, we will run out of oil, but I don’t see it as a problem that will sneak up on us and cause global anihilation. We will have adequate time to let ecomomics and technology do what is necessary.
Since there is profit to be had for those who can find solutions, I have faith that solutions will emerge.
Certainly guys like the CEO mentioned above aren’t going to sit and watch their revenue stream disappear. They will continue to stay in the energy/natural resource business by providing solutions.
Lots of investors and entrepreneurs will kiss alot of frogs before finding a prince, but I susprect princes will emerge to avoid major lifestyle changes.
Participant[quote=Ricechex]energy/oil is running out. If it was so abundant, then why would we be discussing it so much?[/quote]
The reason we are talking about it is – if nobody does anything, it’ll be a problem.
To me, it is kind of like the Y2K problem. Had nobody done anything, it would have been a disaster. However, pretty much everybody took time to upgrade their systems to use a 4-digit year and the effect of the issue was limited.
Certainly, we will run out of oil, but I don’t see it as a problem that will sneak up on us and cause global anihilation. We will have adequate time to let ecomomics and technology do what is necessary.
Since there is profit to be had for those who can find solutions, I have faith that solutions will emerge.
Certainly guys like the CEO mentioned above aren’t going to sit and watch their revenue stream disappear. They will continue to stay in the energy/natural resource business by providing solutions.
Lots of investors and entrepreneurs will kiss alot of frogs before finding a prince, but I susprect princes will emerge to avoid major lifestyle changes.
ParticipantI’m fascinated with natural resource economics, though certainly no expert. I took a natural resorce economics class from a terriffic teacher in grad school. So much to learn in this area.
Anyway, gregor wrote a pretty cool article a while back pointing out that if we don’t use the last of our cheap oil to build the next generation of stuff to produce power using more expensive ways , we’ll be screwed and we’ll have to revert to coal-based technology for a long time. I thought it was an interesting way to look at the problem.
Just picking a nit here … I’m not sure I like this definition, from the original post: “oil ‘crunch’ (when demand exceeds production)”
Demand is a function of price, so if demand exceeds production, the price will change, then demand will change, then demand no longer exceeds production. Does that mean the oil crunch is over? No.
Most mainstream articles avoid talking about dynamic price changes and the effect on peak oil, but you can’t really model peak oil without it.
I think “oil crunch” (i.e. “peak oil”) is where physical limitations forcibly reduce how much oil can be extracted per day. As Rich said – it is a flow issue. There are also some dynamic cost issues associated with the concept of peak oil as well. That is – as davelj said – if the price of oil increases enough to justify new extraction methods then peak oil could be delayed because production capacity would be increased. Also, any “crunch” would be mitigated as demand would come down.
I think Americans are so wasteful and spoiled on cheap oil that when crunch time comes, we’ll find it quite easy to live using less oil. That combined with the price-related dynamics of the market suggest to me that any real major oil crunch is 20 years or more down the road.
Peak oil may come sooner than that, but the nasty effects of it will come much later, if ever.
-
AuthorPosts
