Probably the most important graph in the world

fiannafailure

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
2,066
Up to a point I have to agree with fiannafailure here - we're currently almost unbelievably wasteful of energy. Our energy efficiency on a global level is probably less than 40-50% (more if you include some 'unnecessary use'), and that's without deciding the whole question of whether the car is a necessary thing at all.
And tackling this waste is now a growing centre of economic activity, thousands of local authorities throughout the world are now converting their streetlights and traffic lights to LED versions, Tesco Ireland have signed a €1 million contract with a Waterford firm to convert the display lighting on their fridges to LED, most new display fridges are now shipped with LED lighting and the fridges themselves are more energy efficient.

Office and commercial buildings are being designed with energy efficiency a prime requirement, interestingly, my own non scientific survey has shown a weird correlation between developers in Ireland who have designed and built energy efficient developments, not being involved in NAMA , perhaps common sense plays a larger role in all of their decisions. Experience certainly proves these properties easier to find tenants for.

As regards the car, I think it will be a while before its use is less necessary, perhaps the next generation will design a more efficient society. S of I have started to visit schools to talk about energy and its role in our lives and the engagement from the students in this area gives me a lot of hope for the future.
 


fiannafailure

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
2,066
Have we begun to see the effects of our own local version of the peak oil phenomenon, gas disconnections up 15%

| The Post

And thats before the carbon tax is imposed
 

fiannafailure

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
2,066
For people who don't believe that peak oil is near, it might be instructive to see what is happening in oil central at the moment, the gulf states.
A third important obstacle is awareness, as it is clear that the majority of consumers do not care where the energy they use comes from. Much remains to be done to change the behaviour of consumers and instill in them environmental consciousness, which will ultimately benefit them, their countries and the whole world.

gulfnews : We must transition to renewable energy
 

Húrin

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
414
For people who don't believe that peak oil is near, it might be instructive to see what is happening in oil central at the moment, the gulf states.
I think that there is increasing indication that oil production hit a plateau in July 2008 and AFAIK production has not increased since. Peak oil has probably happened already. And yet why are most Irish people unfamiliar with that term? Do you think the media and politicians have deliberately kept it under wraps?
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
If Im correct the OP regards the above graph as the most important in the world.

Dont you think we have had enough of misleading hockey stick shaped graphs?

Michael Manns hockey stick on which idiot Al Gore based his claims has been shown to be downright fraudelent.

The OP refers to a Standard of living graph line related to oil & energy demand graph lines.

What utter bunkum and rubbish.

"Standards of living" and "the developing world" are concepts as broad as the pacific ocean.

Only kindergarten scientists could ever take any such graphs seriously.

No doubt of course graphs such as these are foremost in the tiny brains of Hurin and Akrasia and their ilk.
 

Húrin

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
414
The OP refers to a Standard of living graph line related to oil & energy demand graph lines.

What utter bunkum and rubbish.

"Standards of living" and "the developing world" are concepts as broad as the pacific ocean.
I suggest you read over the last few pages of the thread. I also questioned how he could quantify something as vague as "standard of living demand" and over several posts and it turns out that he means something like just plain energy demand.
 

fiannafailure

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
2,066
QUOTE=The Field Marshal;2417703]
If Im correct the OP regards the above graph as the
most important in the world.
If you enjoy a modern western standard of living, yes it is.

Dont you think we have had enough of misleading hockey stick shaped graphs?


I suppose it might look like a hockey stick, if that implement has a particular appeal to you.

Misleading how, it simply shows energy expended and the correlation between energy expended and the things that make our lives easy, such as electric lights, computers, nice food, cars, carpets, central heating, books, CD's, piped water, toilets, clothes, did I mention food, modern medicine, TV, shops, furniture, glass windows, did I mention piped water, bedrooms, kitchens, Superquinn sausages, credit cards, pens and paper, trains, roads, MRI scanners, watches.microwave ovens..................................................

Michael Manns hockey stick on which idiot Al Gore based his claims has been shown to be downright fraudelent.

The OP refers to a Standard of living graph line related to oil & energy demand graph lines.
What constitues energy demand, what do we use energy for ?

What utter bunkum and rubbish.

"Standards of living" and "the developing world" are concepts as broad as the pacific ocean.
Please explain to me why broad concepts can be described as rubbish, the Pacific is indeed broad, yet it is still there.

Standard of living describes how comfortable your life is, life in the stone age was not very comfortable, life in the middle ages was more comfortable, our lives are a lot more comfortable.

The developing world is a term used to describe parts of the world that have a more basic standard of living, very basic housing, very few comforts, limited range of food, very limited healthcare.
Only kindergarten scientists could ever take any such graphs seriously.
Never heard of a kindergarden scientist, what do they study.?

What the graph shows is that we have a looming problem, we depend utterly on a plentiful supply of usable energy to sustain our western lifestyles and the developing world wants what we have and so will increasingly compete with the west to secure their share of a finite energy source.

What are we going to do about that problem
 

fiannafailure

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
2,066
I think that there is increasing indication that oil production hit a plateau in July 2008 and AFAIK production has not increased since. Peak oil has probably happened already. And yet why are most Irish people unfamiliar with that term? Do you think the media and politicians have deliberately kept it under wraps?
No the media and politicians do not yet understand what the term peak oil means and most certainly not its effects. And as realisation dawns it will be a natural reaction to stick heads in the sand until some solutions are put forward, real achievable solutions, these will involve some modification of the way we live, but nothing really drastic is necessary or achievable.

I suggest you read over the last few pages of the thread. I also questioned how he could quantify something as vague as "standard of living demand" and over several posts and it turns out that he means something like just plain energy demand.
Let me attempt an explanation.

Lets take a snapshot of human civilisation many thousands of years ago, lets say at that point in time when the human population numbered a thousand, physically and mentally they are almost identical to you and I. The total energy available to them was limited to that which they could harvest from the sun, either radiant heat or energy derived from their food. That would be about 2000 kcal each per day, now the best that even Einstein or James Watt could make of that would be gather enough food for some of tomorrow, shelter in a cave or maybe make some very rudimentary tools like a flint knife to make some basic clothes and help with the food gathering, not much really and thats the way things stayed until Humans learned to domesticate fire, at that stage more energy was available and cooked food releases more energy than uncooked food, it enabled small steps to be taken in releasing more of the earth's resources, metals were now available, hunting became easier, and the first attempts at agriculture were made, the first consumer goods began to appear, agriculture meant that villages appeared .....................

Today in the western world we have an average of 140,000 kcal available per capita everyday and that enables us to have cars and planes and hospitals and housing estates and TV and computers and ..................... None of this would be possible without that 140,000 kcals of energy per day although if we adjusted our technologies we could do the same things with about 80,000 kcals or maybe a little less. The developing worlds citizens have an average of 55,000 kcals per capita available to them every day.

Our medium term, the next 40 years, goal should be to meet in the middle. Renewable energy can meet that budget of 80,000 kcals per capita per day.
 

Tombo

1
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
5,302
Today in the western world we have an average of 140,000 kcal available per capita everyday and that enables us to have cars and planes and hospitals and housing estates and TV and computers and ..................... None of this would be possible without that 140,000 kcals of energy per day although if we adjusted our technologies we could do the same things with about 80,000 kcals or maybe a little less. The developing worlds citizens have an average of 55,000 kcals per capita available to them every day.

Our medium term, the next 40 years, goal should be to meet in the middle. Renewable energy can meet that budget of 80,000 kcals per capita per day.
OK, that's the engineering. But again, a big F on the economics.

The resources required (labour, capital, raw materials and energy etc.) required to support the 80,000kCal of "renewable energy" is a lot more than that required to to support production of 140,000kCal of energy using unconstrained technology (i.e. whatever producers and consumers find most efficient and cost effective for them).

We would be significantly worse off under current technology.

In one hundred years, who knows. It is likely to be a different story (but that is just guess work). But now, the forced application of specific technologies for whatever reason ("peak oil", cliamte change etc.) will leave us worse off.
 

fiannafailure

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
2,066
OK, that's the engineering. But again, a big F on the economics.

The resources required (labour, capital, raw materials and energy etc.) required to support the 80,000kCal of "renewable energy" is a lot more than that required to to support production of 140,000kCal of energy using unconstrained technology (i.e. whatever producers and consumers find most efficient and cost effective for them).

We would be significantly worse off under current technology.

In one hundred years, who knows. It is likely to be a different story (but that is just guess work). But now, the forced application of specific technologies for whatever reason ("peak oil", cliamte change etc.) will leave us worse off.
Tombo
I am afraid that I can only give you a C for your analysis.

Frstly, I am not sure that I would support any enforced application of any technology, surely that is a recipe for disaster, people in the west do not like any infringement of their liberties.

I also challenge your perception of the real cost of renewables, particularly onshore wind, although I will agree that some technologies have not matured yet, however I would suggest a far shorter timescale.

But that is not really the point, you seem to be of the belief that peak oil is a long time away, I don't, the International Energy Agency doesn't and neither do the oil companies or producer countries.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,883
But that is not really the point, you seem to be of the belief that peak oil is a long time away, I don't, the International Energy Agency doesn't and neither do the oil companies or producer countries.
The use of the term "Peak Oil" diverts us into arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It doesn't matter whether we reached Peak Oil this year or 20 years ago, the real question is how much longer can we afford to use it as our main energy source. Personally, my guess is that the next recession will be in about 10 years and will be caused by the cost of oil and gas and unlike the present where govts. can print money, they won't be able to conjure up oil and gas.
 

Húrin

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
414
No the media and politicians do not yet understand what the term peak oil means and most certainly not its effects.
I doubt that very much. Compared to many problems discussed in the media, such as financial crisis and climate change, peak oil is a relatively simple one to understand.

Let me attempt an explanation.
I wasn't asking for one. I don't care very much what labels you put on your graph, it's basically true and gets the point across.

Lets take a snapshot of human civilisation many thousands of years ago, lets say at that point in time when the human population numbered a thousand, physically and mentally they are almost identical to you and I. The total energy available to them was limited to that which they could harvest from the sun, either radiant heat or energy derived from their food. That would be about 2000 kcal each per day, now the best that even Einstein or James Watt could make of that would be gather enough food for some of tomorrow, shelter in a cave or maybe make some very rudimentary tools like a flint knife to make some basic clothes and help with the food gathering, not much really and thats the way things stayed until Humans learned to domesticate fire, at that stage more energy was available and cooked food releases more energy than uncooked food, it enabled small steps to be taken in releasing more of the earth's resources, metals were now available, hunting became easier, and the first attempts at agriculture were made, the first consumer goods began to appear, agriculture meant that villages appeared .....................

Today in the western world we have an average of 140,000 kcal available per capita everyday and that enables us to have cars and planes and hospitals and housing estates and TV and computers and ..................... None of this would be possible without that 140,000 kcals of energy per day although if we adjusted our technologies we could do the same things with about 80,000 kcals or maybe a little less. The developing worlds citizens have an average of 55,000 kcals per capita available to them every day.

Our medium term, the next 40 years, goal should be to meet in the middle. Renewable energy can meet that budget of 80,000 kcals per capita per day.
"...and this is why standard of living demand is a quantifiable variable?"

I know that our wealth comes from energy. You are telling me what I already know.
 

Tombo

1
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
5,302
I'll take that as you conceding defeat, pity
"Peak Oil" is a hypothesis based on a simple projection of oil output and an assumption for demand. It rests on nothing more than an axiom of "they aren't making any more of it".

It is so devoid of any compelling argument that I don;tknow where to start.

You haven't proven it. You show a simple chart and provide nothing else. I suggest to you that you are "conceding defeat".
 

fiannafailure

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
2,066
"Peak Oil" is a hypothesis based on a simple projection of oil output and an assumption for demand. It rests on nothing more than an axiom of "they aren't making any more of it".

It is so devoid of any compelling argument that I don;tknow where to start.

You haven't proven it. You show a simple chart and provide nothing else. I suggest to you that you are "conceding defeat".
The chart merely refers to a peak oil event, peak oil is an incidental to the real problem, we do not have enough viable sources of energy to enable both expansion of the first worlds standard of living and accomadate the developing worlds appetite for same, perhaps a better term is peak energy to describe the problem.

I mentioned in a previous post that our medium term goal should be to reduce our energy use through efficiency gains and thereby allow the developing world to catch up, our longer term goal will be achieve practical fusion emergy, at that stage, economics as a subject will have to be revised.
 

Tombo

1
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
5,302
The chart merely refers to a peak oil event, peak oil is an incidental to the real problem, we do not have enough viable sources of energy to enable both expansion of the first worlds standard of living and accomadate the developing worlds appetite for same, perhaps a better term is peak energy to describe the problem.
This statement is proven by what? I have seen exactly the same thing stated many times, going back centuries.

Even as recently as the 1970s there were serious claims like this one "we would run out of resources by 2000".

All those were poorly supported (if at all) by any proof and it was no surprise they failed.

The latest Peak Oil theory is failing as we speak. We are supposed to have reached peak of oil output nearly half a decade ago. We should really be noticing the affects now. We are not.


I mentioned in a previous post that our medium term goal should be to reduce our energy use through efficiency gains and thereby allow the developing world to catch up, our longer term goal will be achieve practical fusion emergy, at that stage, economics as a subject will have to be revised.
This statement is of your own opinions based on the unproven statement above.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top