[AdamB]

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/201 ... iable.html

This article is just an excuse to rejigger an End of Suburbia narrative. The wishful thinking on display here is delusional. This quote is priceless:

By far and large, most families living in Western suburbs still own at least one car. They have to, even though that means an increasingly heavy strain to the family's budget. But, as the current trends continue, there will come a moment in which owning a car will become a burden too heavy to carry for a non negligible fraction of the suburban population. Then what happens? Well, there are several possible ways for people to cope: biking, carpooling, using donkeys, move to the city to live in a shack made of discarded cardboard containers or, simply, go zombie and die.

Classic peak-oil would tell us that skyrocketing gas prices would be what leads us from SUVs to donkey carts, but now Ugo is somehow drawing a line between car-sharing services and....the zombie horde???

Ugo is a diehard doomer, amusing for an academic, and probably why he isn't out in the world working for a living. An academic in a country that convicts geologists for daring to let earthquakes happen.....talk about delusional, and he is part of THAT educational system?

This slippery-slope narrative that suggests that one day we won't even own our refrigerators is outright farcical.

You really take these things seriously? THIS is your best appeal to authority? And make a note of the subject header. Clogged with oil and we're still supposed to extrapolate end of suburbia?

Oh no Don would NEVER take this seriously, he is just investigating information....using THESE types of references. Talk about as intellectually dishonest as it gets...suggesting junk sources and pretending it is the readers fault for..you know...reading them and worse yet...THINKING about them.

Whatever happened to peak oil and good old fashioned price spikes and shortages?

peak oil happened and the world didn't end, so it becomes a rinse and repeat cycle. Or, alternatively, peak oil didn't happen, so of course it will happen tomorrow, and THEN the world will end. Believe first...always believe first....

[AdamB]

@
Accusing Bardi of being in some sort of 'peak oil doomer conspiracy' would not be a very helpful way to think about the issues, in my opinion.
Don Stewart

Even if it is a factual observation?

Question, how wrong does someone have to be before they no longer qualify as a credible source, in your opinion?

[marmico]

Manheim Used Vehicle Value Index



https://publish.manheim.com/en/services ... index.html

[ROCKMAN]

Adam - "Or, alternatively, peak oil didn't happen." Yes, obviously peak global oil didn't happen back when oil ran up to $100+/bbl since the world has been producing much since then. But the POD (Peak Oil Dynamic) has certainly been in full play. Which is also why oil prices fell more then 50% a couple of years ago.

But that's not much of a surprise to the Rockman: he's been directly observing the POD since 1975 when he began his career at Mobil Oil. Fortunately a lot of "civilians" are beginning to appreciate the POD today. Unfortunately many others still think the actually date of global peak oil will automatically represent some dramatic sea change.

[ralfy]

If you consider population, however, and look at production per capita, then the peak happened back in the late 1970s.

[AdamB]

Adam - "Or, alternatively, peak oil didn't happen." Yes, obviously peak global oil didn't happen back when oil ran up to $100+/bbl since the world has been producing much since then.

Not obviously. Some around here have begun dividing oil into subsets, specifically so they can avoid admitting they were wrong. Intellectually dishonest, we all know it, but letting them continue to claim it makes most of my point for me...peakers aren't tied to facts, reality, data, history, none of it. They just BELIEVE, and that is good enough for them.

But the POD (Peak Oil Dynamic) has certainly been in full play. Which is also why oil prices fell more then 50% a couple of years ago.

POD has been in full play since 1859. Sure it worked a couple years ago...same as it did in 1930 when East Texas came online, or during the 1916 gasoline scare.

But that's not much of a surprise to the Rockman: he's been directly observing the POD since 1975 when he began his career at Mobil Oil.

It shouldn't be a surprise at all, for anyone who can read a history book.

Fortunately a lot of "civilians" are beginning to appreciate the POD today. Unfortunately many others still think the actually date of global peak oil will automatically represent some dramatic sea change.

Civilians no more appreciate Econ 101 than peakers do. Why should they? It explains too much of why their ideas just don't work.

[AdamB]

If you consider population, however, and look at production per capita, then the peak happened back in the late 1970s.

Is that what was taught at LATOC doomer schule?

And the phrase is energy intensity. And it is getting better by becoming lower, not worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_intensity

[marmico]

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=27032

To pre-empt the doom porners from reverting to the usual canard, yabbut, yabbut, the US has deindustrialized, I would refer you to the linked paper.

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/aml6/pdfs ... ensity.pdf

manufacturing output grew 121 percent over 25 years [ending in 2007], but manufacturing energy use grew only 22 percent. This difference represents a huge decline in energy intensity.

[marmico]

GDP includes the sale of the $71 million Andy Warhol soup can.

Nope. But if the Commerce Department knew, they would include any known outputs from illicit reefer agricultural operations.

[AdamB]

To pre-empt the doom porners from reverting to the usual canard, yabbut, yabbut, the US has deindustrialized, I would refer you to the linked paper.

manufacturing output grew 121 percent over 25 years [ending in 2007], but manufacturing energy use grew only 22 percent. This difference represents a huge decline in energy intensity.

GDP includes the sale of the $71 million Andy Warhol soup can.

Fortunate then that we can now make and sell more of them using less energy.

What part of "efficiency increase" bothers you?

[AdamB]

It's not the nominal energy, it's the embodied energy that counts.

Really? Name one product you use where you purchase it based on its embodied energy, rather than its cost, taste, flavor, or personal preference.

If one considers the intellectual property inherent in the can than one must account for the aluminum smelting.

Really? So how do you account for aluminum smelting when buying anything aluminum, Budweiser cans while kicking back watching some clean wholesome clear cut logging going on being just one example. Did you choose Budweiser with which to spectate on clear cutting because they use less embodied energy in their aluminum can production rather than Michelob?

[donstewart]

Intellectual Dishonesty

Having been accused of quoting only doomers to illustrate the need for and use of complex models, let me offer up Adrian Bejan’s Constructal Law, which I have referenced many times. See this link:

https://constructal.org/2016/08/21/the- ... -a-review/

Oops! As you see, it is behind a pay wall. You can peek behind the wall for around $30. Much of the writing about Bejan’s theory is either in books you have to buy or in professional journals behind pay walls. On the occasions when I have quoted from the popular applications of the law, such as the functioning of traffic lights, I have been accused of making light of the severe problems of the world.

But I can summarize Bejan in just a few words: If something is flowing, it will evolve in the direction of easier flow.

So one way of looking at our problems is to expect that the fossil fuels we depend on will flow more and more easily. And if it turns out that the Nasty Second Law is not cooperating with that project, then we can expect that the good feeling and comfort that we currently get by burning fossil fuels will be obtained with some easier method through a revolution in psychology or materials or something. Maybe we can just keep producing more GDP with less and less fossil fuels? I consider Bejan to have a complex model.

But then we have to look at some short term considerations:

https://srsroccoreport.com/the-great-u- ... very-ugly/

Steve borrows some numbers from Blooomberg and comes up with some evidence that the whole ‘shale oil’ experience in the US has been a financial debacle. And if we subtract the shale oil from global production of crude oil, then the picture becomes much more sobering. It’s not likely that counting on being able to produce more GDP with less fossil fuels is going to pay those debts. I consider Steve's post to be using a simple model...debts must be paid.

So…how’s that for a nicely balanced post?….Don Stewart

[asg70]

Having been accused of quoting only doomers

You say this....

And then link to yet another doomer:

https://srsroccoreport.com/the-great-u- ... very-ugly/

Here we are right back in right-sidebar doomer-land with Art Berman, Kunstler, and the usual crew of knuckleheads.

The end of the article exposes his bias. He's a precious-metals pimp.

Also it seems that all perma-doomers write like PStarr now, lots of caps, lots of unfunny attempts at satirical put-down humor:

This is by far the biggest BRAIN FART that most smart scientists fail to incorporate into their MODEL. They look at the world as if it is run by ENERGY TOOTH FAIRIES. For whatever reason, they are unable to grasp the entire energy system. They look at it through HORSE BLINDERS.

Yeah, nobody knows the situation better than he does, so........BUY GOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!

Didn't we already deal with this crap back in the Glenn Beck blackboard days?

If BAU keeps going for a few more years will these perma-doomers find a way to make their text that much bigger and and blink to try to desperately get our attention?

[AdamB]

Intellectual Dishonesty

Having been accused of quoting only doomers to illustrate the need for and use of complex models, let me offer up Adrian Bejan’s Constructal Law, which I have referenced many times. See this link:

https://constructal.org/2016/08/21/the- ... -a-review/

Oops! As you see, it is behind a pay wall. You can peek behind the wall for around $30. Much of the writing about Bejan’s theory is either in books you have to buy or in professional journals behind pay walls. On the occasions when I have quoted from the popular applications of the law, such as the functioning of traffic lights, I have been accused of making light of the severe problems of the world.

But I can summarize Bejan in just a few words: If something is flowing, it will evolve in the direction of easier flow.

Those of us who began our lives as engineers don't need to read something behind a pay wall discussing a decent chunk of our professional education, and certainly don't use a simpletons version of it in our daily activities. "Evolve" being the giveaway. "Easier" being the other.

So…how’s that for a nicely balanced post?….Don Stewart

Referencing text we can't see, and having it explained in simpleton's terms which are relative in nature? What does this have to do with having any meaningful information, let alone be "nicely" balanced...whatever that means?

Do you always speak in relative terms, or have you been trained this way in some profession other than one which quantifies things quite effectively without ever using such words?

"My well was easier to drill than yours!". "No, it wasn't, because mine was more nicely balanced!".

Come on Don, you can do better than this. And by that, I mean better than pretending that ecological principles are significant in the topic at hand, which has nothing to do with ecology, but a depletable natural resource that most folks around here, and you use for references, want to cause a rapture type scenario of some sort, and most closely resemble Harold Camping's predictions, and basic reasoning, then anything else you've come up with so far.

[donstewart]

Adam B
I can assure you that Adrian Bejan is quite serious. He has written many thermodynamics textbooks. He is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering. He uses simple principles to explain complex phenomenon such as the branching of rivers or air passages in the lungs and the design of airport terminals.

His claims about 'a new law of thermodynamics' has not met with universal acclaim, however. He has said he gets a better reception in Europe than in the US.

As for SRSRocco, debts is about as serious as one can get in our financialized world.

Don Stewart

[donstewart]

Adam B
Let me pose a simple question: when fossil fuels are burned, what is it, from a human perspective, that is ultimately flowing?

My answer: neurotransmitters and hormones.

For extra credit: If fossil fuels become unavailable, will it be possible to keep the neurotransmitters and hormones flowing? If so, how?

Don Stewart

[AdamB]

Adam B
Let me pose a simple question: when fossil fuels are burned, what is it, from a human perspective, that is ultimately flowing?

You really need to work on your terminology. Combustion is combustion, the combustion of fossil fuels can be described by an equation, usually assuming it is an oxygen rich environment, otherwise, odds are, you don't get combustion. The components necessary for combustion have been defined, the combustion generates outputs of quantifiable size and shape and chemical composition, and don't involve a humans perspective (what humans perspective? A blind one? A deaf one? A dumb one?) or anything to do with "ultimately", all of this being defined by the equation.

Are you seriously suggesting that in your life you've never even taken a chemistry class and seen the way things like common combustion is quantified?

My answer: neurotransmitters and hormones.

Makes as much sense as "ultimately" anything I suppose.

For extra credit: If fossil fuels become unavailable, will it be possible to keep the neurotransmitters and hormones flowing? If so, how?

Don Stewart

How about you run along and go find the equation for some fossil fuel or another being combusted, and come back and explain that to us? Then we might know to what you are referring, other than the usual round of semantic games where you dodge both the questions and answers that matter.

[donstewart]

Adam B
You are way too focused on your slide rule to understand anything that Bejan says.
Don Stewart