I'll reply to the comments in an aggregated form again:
I would venture that your equation for how fast the supply of a resource is coming on line is flawed, and this flaw is correlated with and only specific to a small subset of the actual resource base available for development in the future. It is similar to the "field growth" problem in that if you make the assumption that only what you see is available for development, you massively UNDERestimate how much resource will be converted into reserves and available for use in the future. Laherrere's estimates are very much a reserve estimate rather than a resource estimate, and would lead any model directly into this particular trap. The original modelers in Limits to Growth stumbled into this issue as well, if I recall correctly.
Actually, that isn't an issue in my model or in the Limits to Growth model. One thing that is easy to test is what happens assuming that there are more fossil fuels available. I said before that I tested for this and you get something similar happening, only a bit later. In the original Limits to Growth model the same kind of test was done by duplicating the amount of nonrenewable resources, and exactly the same thing happens.
In this case, it would then be reasonable to make the EROEI decline rate a range in a Monte Carlo simulation and quantify "sharply" from whatever else you are normally using.
Yes, that's something I could look into, somebody else has also suggested it. No need for Monte Carlo on this one, though. Just testing on different slopes.
Interesting. Can you tell from running these scenario's what level of EROEI is necessary to completely NEGATE the use of non renewables?
Simple. If the EROEI of renewables is higher than nonrenewables, they will get used.
With different and more reasonable non renewable resource estimates in the model, would you be willing to bet that "final decline being more moderate" could easily turn into "no decline for the foreseeable future"?
Actually, I'd be happy to bet the opposite. Increasing the estimate of nonrenewable energy sources is not actually improving things in the long term, it tends to make things worse because it increases climate change and makes the transition to renewables harder.
Imagine a "Sim City" scenario, make some assumptions about per capita GDP, put a randomizer into the model which triggers a random event of random size, base its frequency on that per capita GDP, allow it to remain stable MOST of the time, but allow in the occasional meltdown through war, and some of those would be in resource rich areas and would suddenly drive the economics in such a way as to boost the need for non renewable development in a short time frame.
That kind of scenario operates for short time frames, my model operates at much larger time frames. It isn't meant to find out every fluctuation of GDP, it gives you a rough idea of what GDP might do over the long term. If you have any idea to estimate how often meltdowns of political stability happen given a certain set of circumstances, over a long period of time, that would be useful. Otherwise, it isn't something I could include in the model.
Also, once you open up the non renewable resource base a little bit, you'll allow more CO2 output which might provide another 2 or 3C temperature increase, +6C has got to cause less heating needs somewhere.
According to the book "Six degrees", if we reach that point, the lowering of our heating needs won't be the most pressing of our concerns.
Assuming we had tremendous FF based EROEIs and are transitioning to much lower renewable EROEIs would probably induce a relatively inaccurate model compared to using oil at an EROEI of ~5:1 or lower, and then transitioning to renewables with EROEIs in the ~10-30:1 range.
All the studies I've seen comparing EROEIs of different sources agree that fossil fuels generally have higher EROEI than renewables, or at least used to have. Certainly we wouldn't have started producing electricity from coal, rather than wind, if coal wasn't easier. My model assumes that the transition to renewables happens when the EROEI of renewables is comparable to the EROEI of fossil fuels.
After reading the Dollys entire article I wasn't clear on how well value, as in her GDP measures and calculations, mixes with an EROEI basis for transitioning around energy supplies which of course impact GDP.
GDP isn't used at all to estimate the transition between energy supplies. It's all based on EROEI, and the assumption is that energy sources with high EROEI will also be the most profitable. You can challenge this assumption, but it seems to fit well with available data.
While its a situation modelers are undoubtedly are forced into working in collaborative efforts, its pretty scary to invest bunches of time and effort, and then when someone asks you the question..."and so what happens then?" and you are forced to punt..."well, someone else built that part, its the XYZ model" and unless the asker knows what the XYZ model is, and does, its just turned into some magical black box answer which you can't even be certain is just randomly multiplying numbers together and pretending its meaningful.
I didn't say I didn't know what that part is. I said it was part of the original World3 model, meaning that if you want to take issue with that part, it's not something I did myself. Actually, in this particular case you couldn't possibly have much of a problem with that part, because it's about an optional technology for higher efficiency in electricity that isn't used for the "business as usual" scenario.
I accept that there are parts of the World3 model I don't understand in detail, and in fact, after exchanging emails with Dennis Meadows and Jorgen Randers, I'm pretty sure that there isn't anybody around today that understands the whole model in detail, if there ever was such a person. Which isn't to say that the model isn't usable. I'm familiar enough with it that I could easily figure out what any part of it does, if I had reason to. It's just that I have chosen to concentrate on the energy and economic issues and not study too deeply other parts of it.
One of the reasons I used World3 was because it's well known, so I hope that there will be many more people that are familiar with at least parts of the model and can detect any major flaws.