Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Myth of energy and GDP

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Unread postby Wildwell » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 09:26:08

I've explained this stuff 1000 times now; it's not hard to understand.

You can do the same things with less energy in most of the things we do today. Machines have different efficiencies, so do methods of transport, growing food, making things and so on and so forth. Therefore you can cut down your overall energy take and replace that with sustainable methods – the energy replaced by renewable.

This talk of the 'laws of thermodynamics' for examples is total crap. Take hydro - you are using POTENTIAL energy, with the power of the sun moving water to higher ground. The oceans are controlled by gravity and the moon. It's absolutely nothing to do with some of these concepts that have been aired.


The sun emits 3.8 x 10^23 Kw/h, more then we’ve ever used many, many times over.
User avatar
Wildwell
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby Aaron » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 09:38:14

You can do the same things with less energy in most of the things we do today



AAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See... I told you so... never even looked at the CLEAR EVIDENCE I POSTED ABOVE DID YA?

Hear no evil speak no evil.

Obviously this is just some kind of mental masturbation for you WW.

Don't bother to address the points... you might damage your little brain.

It's like arguing with the wind.

Ignorance truly is bliss.

Enjoy it while you can.
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston

Unread postby Wildwell » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 09:46:27

Keep on driving that SUV, you're obviously convinced you're doing good. Me? I'm going to buy a bike.

I did read the link, but it's just a theory. you can do anything with figures. I still think common sense dictates I'm right - and others. It's illogical that wasting energy is productive.

Love the insults btw. Hurts being wrong eh?

I cannot debate with people that drive cars in one breath and talk about world starvation in another. It's just hypocritical and bizarre. And I think much of this site is just a way of justifying things to oneself.

Keep on driving folks! But remember when the cost of fuel does go up who is to blame for it!
User avatar
Wildwell
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby Aaron » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 10:28:50

Wildwell wrote:I cannot debate with people...



Finally a statement I can agree with.

And no insults... that's me pointing out that you appear incapable of learning. Frankly I find your support of obvious nonsense insulting.

And here I was thinking that the breakdown of basic education was an American thing... my bad.

I THINK WE ALL NOTICE THE LACK OF RESPONSE YOU OFFER FOR THE UNBIASED ANALYSIS OF THE BP STATISTICAL REVIEW I POSTED ABOVE WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS HOW ENERGY AFFECTS ECONOMIES.

So enjoy your bike ride... I'm sure it will produce generations of economic prosperity for you.

And don't worry; When you folks get yourselves into trouble over there America will come bail you out (again).

8)
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston

Unread postby Aaron » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 10:34:24

Exactly which part of this do you dispute?

In pre-1750 Europe, in countries where land was relatively constant, growth of GDP has been estimated to be about 0.5% per annum - very similar to the growth in population. From 1760 to 1820 as Britain started to use coal to fuel its early industrial age, GDP growth rose to 1.5% with a population growth of 1% (population growth in the rest of Europe remained about 0.5%). Then from 1820 to 1913 as the industrialised world adopted the steam engine fueled by coal, GDP growth rose to 2.5%, population growth (excluding the USA) was 0.5 to 1.0%, capital growth (where recorded) 1.2 - 2.6%. This illustrates the effect of fossil fuel utilisation.

In the period from 1950 to 1973 when the world turned to extremely cheap petroleum, GDP growth rates doubled to around 5% (nearly 10% in Japan). Then after petroleum prices rose dramatically between 1973 and 1979 and the world returned to coal and nuclear fuels in addition to petroleum, GDP growth rates dropped back to 2 to 2.5% per annum.
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 10:36:55

Mercani wrote:Monte and Aaron, why don't you bring your own data to prove your point ?



Oh, I think I did, but people ignore the facts that don't fit their world paradigm. Wildwell cites Sweden as an example of GDP growth without an increase in energy consumption. I reiterate:

As to Sweden, this pdf file gives a whole lot of explanations for their success, but there was still an increase in energy consumption primarily by the industrial sector. And they too are concerned about being able to supply electricity in the future which is required for economic growth.

In 2000, Sweden consumed 11.0 Mtoe of electricity (128.4 TWh), accounting for 30.9% of the country’s TFC. Since 1990, absolute electricity demand has risen by 6.6% and its share of TFC has fallen from 32.2% to 30.9%. Demand from the industrial sector is highest, accounting for 44.1% of the electricity TFC in 2000, followed by the residential sector,which consumed 32.8% of the power in the same year.

Gas use has increased by 32% from 1990 to 2000. The majority of gas demand in the country comes from industry (64%) and residences (22%).

In April 2002, the association of Scandinavian transmission operators, Nordel, published their Nordic Grid Master Plan. The plan noted that Sweden, Norway and Finland may face a combined shortage of electricity in the years ahead. Specifically, the plan analysed the period 2002–4 and found risks of power shortages in unfavourable conditions, particularly during years of low hydropower production.

In view of the crucial role energy plays in the development of society, in 2001 the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA) initiated a special Energy Foresight project, which will examine the Swedish energy system in both a European and a global perspective.


http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/ ... comp02.pdf

Growth of any GDP economy must be accompanied by either an increase in energy consumption or an increase in efficiency, or an outsourcing of the energy consumption to another country. Increases in efficiency are limited due the the law of diminishing returns, not to mention newcomers who have no waste to conserve. Where will the energy for their consumption come from? From everyone else's piece of the pie?

If it is "value added" it is from money generated by an increase in energy consumption somewhere or by debt which is predicated upon future economic growth and the resultant energy consumption. It works no other way.

Now, what happens when you run an economy on price inflation or value added? Look a the following chart. See the red line? That represents "reported" GDP. The blue line represents actual GDP based upon the production of good and services and excludes the GDP growth or "wealth creation" as a result of housing inflation that is driving the current economy. We create illusionary wealth, and then borrow against that illusion to spend more money and increase GDP.

Where would the US GDP be today had the Household Debt, as % of the GDP, remained at the historically high level before the current run up? What if the GDP growth came from growth in the income of households and Household Debt growth that was at 45% of the growth in GDP? The primary reason that I picked the 45% number is that it is the average for 19 years, 1965-1983, and that after 1984 the Personal Bankruptcy Filings exploded. So, we are not talking about a case of no growth in Household Debt; we are simply talking about growth in household spending coming primarily from growth in incomes. Such a GDP would be a Secular GDP with organic growth. As some of you may know, growth in household incomes, in real terms, has been poor over the past 5 years (negative for the last twelve months). How long can debt be a substitute for growth in household spending when income growth is hard to come by?


http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/edito ... /0123.html

Aaron posted this link already, but again you knot-heads choose not to read it.

Image
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 10:50:35

MonteQuest wrote:
As to Sweden, this pdf file gives a whole lot of explanations for their success, but there was still an increase in energy consumption primarily by the industrial sector.



Wildwell - you said Sweden decreased it's energy consumption! How do you explain this evidence for an increase in energy consumption? I was ready to believe what you were saying - did you deliberately misrepresent the facts? Which is it, a decrease, or an increase? It can't be both!
Ludi
 

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 11:21:36

Ludi wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
As to Sweden, this pdf file gives a whole lot of explanations for their success, but there was still an increase in energy consumption primarily by the industrial sector.



Wildwell - you said Sweden decreased it's energy consumption! How do you explain this evidence for an increase in energy consumption? I was ready to believe what you were saying - did you deliberately misrepresent the facts? Which is it, a decrease, or an increase? It can't be both!


Yes, it can. See this graph. According to IEA.org, Sweden's GDP growth from 1980 to 2001 was 2.7%. while total energy use rose at .36% (mainly due to their aggressive conservation and efficiency programs during those years and making do with less) primary electricity use rose at 1.9% just like I said. There are no free lunches out there.

Link
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Unread postby Wildwell » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 11:42:20

Aaron wrote:Exactly which part of this do you dispute?

In pre-1750 Europe, in countries where land was relatively constant, growth of GDP has been estimated to be about 0.5% per annum - very similar to the growth in population. From 1760 to 1820 as Britain started to use coal to fuel its early industrial age, GDP growth rose to 1.5% with a population growth of 1% (population growth in the rest of Europe remained about 0.5%). Then from 1820 to 1913 as the industrialised world adopted the steam engine fueled by coal, GDP growth rose to 2.5%, population growth (excluding the USA) was 0.5 to 1.0%, capital growth (where recorded) 1.2 - 2.6%. This illustrates the effect of fossil fuel utilisation.

In the period from 1950 to 1973 when the world turned to extremely cheap petroleum, GDP growth rates doubled to around 5% (nearly 10% in Japan). Then after petroleum prices rose dramatically between 1973 and 1979 and the world returned to coal and nuclear fuels in addition to petroleum, GDP growth rates dropped back to 2 to 2.5% per annum.


It's to do with knowledge and patterns of consumption. Did you study economics at college Aaron out of interest?
User avatar
Wildwell
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby Wildwell » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 11:43:13

Ludi wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
As to Sweden, this pdf file gives a whole lot of explanations for their success, but there was still an increase in energy consumption primarily by the industrial sector.



Wildwell - you said Sweden decreased it's energy consumption! How do you explain this evidence for an increase in energy consumption? I was ready to believe what you were saying - did you deliberately misrepresent the facts? Which is it, a decrease, or an increase? It can't be both!


No I didn't. I said you can increase GDP without increasing energy for given tasks.
User avatar
Wildwell
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby Wildwell » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 11:45:24

Aaron wrote:
And don't worry; When you folks get yourselves into trouble over there America will come bail you out (again).

8)


You are obviously blissfully unaware where your post world war II wealth came from and the history. Please stop watching those some of those dreadful films you make over there.
User avatar
Wildwell
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby nocar » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 12:11:29

What is the big deal about GNP? It measures recorded economic activity, doesn´t it? Not welfare or happiness or anything like that.

I think the more interesting question is: Can we have better lives, i.e. more interesting and enjoyable, while using less energy?

As I personally do not get any kicks out of cars, but from gardening and bicycling, for me the answer so far is Yes. But many people have other tastes, and I must admit I like to take an occasional vacation in a distant country, using a oil fuelled aircraft.

Nocar
nocar
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri 05 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Unread postby Aaron » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 12:25:12

Wildwell wrote:
Aaron wrote:Exactly which part of this do you dispute?

In pre-1750 Europe, in countries where land was relatively constant, growth of GDP has been estimated to be about 0.5% per annum - very similar to the growth in population. From 1760 to 1820 as Britain started to use coal to fuel its early industrial age, GDP growth rose to 1.5% with a population growth of 1% (population growth in the rest of Europe remained about 0.5%). Then from 1820 to 1913 as the industrialised world adopted the steam engine fueled by coal, GDP growth rose to 2.5%, population growth (excluding the USA) was 0.5 to 1.0%, capital growth (where recorded) 1.2 - 2.6%. This illustrates the effect of fossil fuel utilisation.

In the period from 1950 to 1973 when the world turned to extremely cheap petroleum, GDP growth rates doubled to around 5% (nearly 10% in Japan). Then after petroleum prices rose dramatically between 1973 and 1979 and the world returned to coal and nuclear fuels in addition to petroleum, GDP growth rates dropped back to 2 to 2.5% per annum.


It's to do with knowledge and patterns of consumption. Did you study economics at college Aaron out of interest?


Are you writing this from an institution or something?

If so, my apologies for mocking you, and my condolences to your family.

It's to do with knowledge and patterns of consumption?!?


Are you daft?

What in the hell are you talking about?

And yes I took economics in college... sorry you missed out on that yourself.

I suppose the GDP/Energy analysis above was a coincidence?

Time to lay off the Guinness man...
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston

Unread postby Aaron » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 12:31:12

Wildwell wrote:
Aaron wrote:
And don't worry; When you folks get yourselves into trouble over there America will come bail you out (again).

8)


You are obviously blissfully unaware where your post world war II wealth came from and the history. Please stop watching those some of those dreadful films you make over there.


I'm aware that America saved England in WWII.

And you would be speaking German today without the sacrifices made by a generation of American heroes.

That the history you spoke of?
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston

Unread postby Wildwell » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 12:33:37

Aaron wrote:What in the hell are you talking about?

And yes I took economics in college... sorry you missed out on that yourself.


Yep, I'm aware you don't know what I'm talking about, I suppose you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. Keep the Co2 levels up I would, do the world economy no end of good that.

Yes I did study economics. I think you didn't because you dismiss basic principles.

Anyway, I'm going on a new war against terror, I won't both buying certain products, hopefully it will catch on, that will reduce consumption a bit over there so you can get hybrid cars, then you'll finally understand what I'm on about...

Keep the insults up Aaron.
User avatar
Wildwell
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby Wildwell » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 12:35:07

Aaron wrote:
Wildwell wrote:
Aaron wrote:
And don't worry; When you folks get yourselves into trouble over there America will come bail you out (again).

8)


You are obviously blissfully unaware where your post world war II wealth came from and the history. Please stop watching those some of those dreadful films you make over there.


I'm aware that America saved England in WWII.

And you would be speaking German today without the sacrifices made by a generation of American heroes.

That the history you spoke of?


England lol

Never mind Aaron.
User avatar
Wildwell
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 12:43:32

MonteQuest wrote: According to IEA.org, Sweden's GDP growth from 1980 to 2001 was 2.7%. while total energy use rose at .36%


I think I'm having a semantic problem. To me that looks like an increase of .36%.
Ludi
 

Unread postby Aaron » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 12:44:00

then you'll finally understand what I'm on...


It's pretty obvious you're on something that's for sure.

I don't think they make anything for stubborn ignorance though.

You're probably stuck with it for life.

If you actually paid attention in school during economics class you should demand your money back.
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 19 Apr 2005, 12:50:41

Wildwell wrote:
Ludi wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
As to Sweden, this pdf file gives a whole lot of explanations for their success, but there was still an increase in energy consumption primarily by the industrial sector.



Wildwell - you said Sweden decreased it's energy consumption! How do you explain this evidence for an increase in energy consumption? I was ready to believe what you were saying - did you deliberately misrepresent the facts? Which is it, a decrease, or an increase? It can't be both!


No I didn't. I said you can increase GDP without increasing energy for given tasks.



Oh for pete's sake Wildwell. You are being deliberate misleading or obtuse.


Ludi wrote:Is there an example of a nation which increased its GDP while decreasing its energy use? Did the UK increase its GDP and decrease its energy use when it went to "knowledge work"?

I'd just like an example of where and when this happened, if it's already been posted, I'm sorry, I must have missed it...



Wildwell wrote:Many, many places. A few are listed in this thread. UK, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Sweden without looking more up.

Ludi
 


PreviousNext

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 60 guests