marek wrote:It's a result of a change in energy quality. The UK has substituted a higher-quality resource (natural gas) for a lower-quality resource (coal). Most of this uncoupling can be explained by this. Technological change did not allow us to become much more efficient, only to be able to use a resource which gives higher economic output per BTU. Plus, Western economies have become more of "service" economies, so industrial energy use is counted in the countries from which manufactured goods are imported.
Wildwell wrote:
But I still think people like Matt Simmon’s claims that 'Your economy cannot grow without more energy' is a flawed argument, at least judging by that graph.
MonteQuest wrote:Wildwell wrote:
But I still think people like Matt Simmon’s claims that 'Your economy cannot grow without more energy' is a flawed argument, at least judging by that graph.
Simmon's statement is factual, in that in order for an economy to grow you must increase energy consumption or make better use of it to produce the same production.
As they note, this was due to efficiency and changing energy sources. All the low-hanging fruit has probably been picked in regard to this fix. In the end, technological fixes still run into the wall of diminishing returns and are only a temporary fix to an unsustainable situation.
Wildwell wrote:Simmons states the economy cannot grow unless you grow more energy quite clearly on a number of occasions - clearly this is not true, at least for the UK.
I would prefer hard facts rather than rhetoric. Are people being frightened into going to war to defend their way of life? I’ll let them decide and look at the credentials of the people making some of the arguments.
MonteQuest wrote:Wildwell wrote:Simmons states the economy cannot grow unless you grow more energy quite clearly on a number of occasions - clearly this is not true, at least for the UK.
I just explained that. Did you not read it? Even with your chart taken at face value, the net energy consumption increased 11%.I would prefer hard facts rather than rhetoric. Are people being frightened into going to war to defend their way of life? I’ll let them decide and look at the credentials of the people making some of the arguments.
Ok, start up a business, but don't expend any energy in the process.
Energy is required to produce any work. If you grow GDP without increasing energy consumption or making what you use more efficient, then this grow is based upon producing nothing, but rather an increase in value or wealth based upon an increase in debt load.
The notion that there is a free lunch and we can get something for nothing goes against the basic laws of thermodynamics and common sense.
Wildwell wrote:
It depends what work you're doing. If you burn it away by taking joy rides in cars are leave lights on for the hell of it, it doesn't benefit anyone.... You CAN get something for nothing - if I'm walking instead of driving then the only energy input is to me, which is food, which can be renewable and will be renewable as far as planet earth is concerned until the sun falls out the sky.
Starvid wrote:And by the way, it is possible to avoid Jevons paradox. Since the 70's Swedish GDP has grown 50 %. Energy consumption has grown... 0 %.
MonteQuest wrote:Wildwell wrote:
It depends what work you're doing. If you burn it away by taking joy rides in cars are leave lights on for the hell of it, it doesn't benefit anyone.... You CAN get something for nothing - if I'm walking instead of driving then the only energy input is to me, which is food, which can be renewable and will be renewable as far as planet earth is concerned until the sun falls out the sky.
It makes no difference whether it is wasted or not, if it gets used it benefits those who sold it, i.e., the gas companies and electricity companies. Millions of people have their entire livelyhood based upon this wanton consumption. You are not looking at the Big Picture.
Wildwell, the bottom line is that even if you eliminate all that waste and inefficiency, all you gain is a temporary fix. It treats the symptoms, not the disease, which is a society based upon a phantom carrying capacity utilizing fossil fuels, one that cannot be replaced with renewables. We will be going from a stock to a flow of energy that we cannot control.
And no, no matter how you phrase it, you cannot get something for nothing, 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Montequest wrote:It makes no difference whether it is wasted or not, if it gets used it benefits those who sold it, i.e., the gas companies and electricity companies. Millions of people have their entire livelyhood based upon this wanton consumption. You are not looking at the Big Picture.
DamianB wrote:If we assume that economic growth does require energy input then surely our long-term growth rate is going to revert to the rate at which we can capture the planet's flow of energy from renewable sources. This will obviously be much lower than the past but it will still be growth.
Also our current economic system places high value on things that require a lot of energy like cars and green beans flown in from Kenya. In a post-peak world the value placed on items we exchange will be different and people who grow things by capturing the sun's energy will be able to buy things from people who use a PV powered lathe or row a boat out into the ocean and catch fish. This may not be a very appealing life for the poor saps who like playing video games and watching TV buts that's tough!
Wildwell wrote: You call it a temporary fix as far as the UK and Sweden (and others) are concerned, but you have no evidence for that other than by the ideas of a slightly mad economist who lived a very long time ago. I don’t wish to be rude, but you know, he might just have been wrong.
I am not saying Peak oil is not a problem, it clearly is. But I've yet to see any real evidence of phantom carrying capacity, which would assume that we would never figure out a way to create other agricultural products among other things.
Don't keep telling me I'm wrong, prove it with facts, figures and scientific input. And even then I doubt you would be able to because the opinions of the so-called experts differ so much.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests