[MonteQuest]

Hold on there, MQ, isn't the efficiency sector doing exactly that? It radically reduces the 'energy intensity' of economies (energy used per production of a unit of GDP), while at the same time getting rid of fossil fuels and shifting to alternatives.

Initially, but it has consequences.

Straight from the EIA:

After the Arab Oil Embargo, the implementation of gasoline consumption standards for new passenger cars (the "Corporate Average Fuel Economy" or CAFE standards) was important in moderating gasoline demand growth, even while both the number of cars on the road and the miles they traveled increased. Beginning in the early 1990's, however, the burgeoning popularity of pick-up trucks and sports utility vehicles (SUV's) for passenger travel has sparked new gasoline demand growth. These light trucks and SUV's are not as fuel efficient as standard automobiles and, as they have become more and more popular, have reduced the average fuel economy of cars on the road.

Jevon's Paradox.

[Tyler_JC]

Think about the Wal*Mart effect too.

Wal*Mart reduces the cost of a pair of jeans from $40 to $14.

In order to have the same effect on the economy, I must purchase more blue jeans. I must increase consumption.

Scenario A:
Clothing prices drop but people buy the same amount of clothes.

Result A:
Economic contraction or people spend the money on other things (more consumption).

Scenario B:
Clothing price drop, so we buy more clothes.

Result B:
Economy continues to grow (more consumption).

To quote your article:
"The researchers determined that pursuing a subset of these policies could achieve at least half of the California plan's goals while increasing the gross state product by $5 billion and creating 8,300 new jobs by 2010, and upwards of $60 billion and 20,000 new jobs by 2020: "

Number of jobs in California now? 17.8 million

Let's pretend just 1% of those jobs are dependent on wasting oil.

That's 178,000 jobs!

Even if we lose only 20% of those jobs because of these great new efficiency programs, we are still 15,600 jobs in the red after 15 years.

And I'm being very generous.

I'm assuming that these efficiency programs will only cost that state of California .2% of its jobs. Which is silly, there are that many people working in car dealerships alone.

[grabby]

Let's do it! The Beginning is Near!

Lets use our money to support farmers and develop a local economy, biofuel is not going to help us. we cannot make and build 1 million palm oil plantationsin the next 2 years.

[fluffy]

I just saw an interview on BBC Hardtalk with Amory Lovins, who explained in a half hour slot that USA (and other countries) do not need nuclear power to solve their energy problems.

No, they just need an unlimited supply of natural gas. And money.

He knows from his analysis that renewables plus micro-generation and increased efficiency can do the job.

If you read the New Scientist (or online at energypulse: http://www.energypulse.net/centers/arti ... ?a_id=1216) , you'll find the arguments again..

Basically, he goes on about microgeneration, without emphsizing that it is essentially ALL natural gas fired CHP, with minute wind contributions. Then makes claims about huge efficiency gains. Much of this is either simple wishful thinking or deliberate stastical misrepresentation (i.e 'Microgeneration greater than nuclear... IF large scale CHP is included).

ie make America oil free by 2050 by simply using market forces (the cheaper energy option, nuclear is too expensive).

The US will be oil free (at least for non-boutique applications) by 2050. There is insufficient oil for anything else. With full accounting (emissions, backup, etc), Nuclear is considerably cheaper than any other power source even now.

He advocates carbon fibre or composite materials to make cars, trucks and planes lighter and stronger and hence more efficient (use less fuel). He also talked about alternative fuels: ethanol made from switch grass, and liquid hydrogen to fuel aircraft.

Yes, lets turn the entire surface of the planet into monoculture plantrations for fuel, that'll save the environment. The numbers don't add up, period. The extreme bulk of hydrogen pretty much precludes usage as an aircraft fuel.

Now, if you want to talk about the usage of off-peak nuclear power to be used to turn all carbon based waste into methanol (cf cardboard, wood, plastic), then you have something that might be useful, if not complete as a solution.

If anyone else saw this interview, or if anyone wants to make a comment, please respond.

Lovins has been pushing this since goodness knows when.

[grabby]

Here is something that helps people understand the big picture.
taking a 50 gallon drum of biodiesel and manufactureing enough for Amrica is 5 orders of magnitude. this is not something anyone can understand so drawing a parallel sometimes helps.

Now here are the numbers:

There are 55 oil palm estates in Malaysia, Palm oil being the richest fuel producer per acre i the world of any biocrop, better than ethanol even.

Acres totalling 104,749 hectares and let us take a certain area of high productivity.

14 palm palm oil mills are needed to process the palm oil from these hectares..

This is an example of how we will try to save the world.
with the bulk of the palm oil estates located in PRIME Palm oil growing property where it rains. - Peninsular Malaysia

Now to evaluate:
while three oil palm estates totalling 4,498 hectares (10,000 acres)are in Sabah. Malaysia. Production is 11 tonnes Palm oil per hectare. Which is very good ok? Lets multiply this prime biofuel estate and see how many we will need to save America.

346,346 Barrels per year over 4,498 hectares (10,000 acres )for three plantations and three processing plants.

THIS IS A FACT AND AS GOOD AS IT GETS THERE IS NO ARGUMENT ABOUT THIS.

Multply this by three to get:
1 million barrels per YEAR over 30,000 acres for 30 processing plants, and 30 plantations. This is 2,700 Barrels per day.

Multily these by ten:
for 27,000 barrels per day we need 300,000 Acres and 300 processing plants and 300 plantations.

Multiply these by ten:
for 270,000 barrels per day we need 3,000,000 Acres and 3000 processing plants and 3000 plantaions

Multiply these by ten:
for 2,700,000 Barrels per day we need 30,000,000 Acres and 30,000 processing plants and 30,000 plantations.

Multiply these by ten:
for 27,000,000 Barrels per day (ENOUGH TO SAVE AMRICA!)
We use 21,000,000 (MILLION) barrels per day, we sustain some loss in palm oil to convert so lets call it good.

We need 300,000,000 MILLION Primo rainforest farmable acres in a tropical rain zone (not in the hills either),
and 300,000 Processing plants and 300,000 plantations.

You think we can build 300,000 processing plants in ten years to save America?
I don't.
You think we can kick everyone off their property in the tropics and grab 300,000,000 PRIME FARMABLE ACRES FROM THEM FREE?
I don't


Okl lets save the world now
Multiply by three.:
To save the world we need 100,000,000 barrels per day and 3 BILLION ACRES of PRIME TROPICAL FLAT FARMLAND in a TROPICAL RAINFOREST CLIMATE, and 3 MILLION processing plants and 3 MILLION PLANTATIONS.

This is what it would take to SUSTAIN OUR LIFESTYLE.


Ok it is not doable, with the best biological crop in the world situated in the best Biological climate in the world.
Not a chance. No way no how.

But that isn't the WORST OF IT!
WE CAN'T EVEN PRODUCE ENOUGH BIOFUEL TO MAKE UP OUR YEARLY INCREASE IN FUEL CONSUMPTIONS!

How much BIOPALMDIESEL will we need to overcome our Amricas INCREASED needs from this year to next year?

In other words, we want to HOLD our IMPORTING of fuel to what it is today, and supply any INCREASING needs with Biopamlmdiesel?

we would need to build 30,000 plantations a year just to supply our INCREASED NEEDS over the next two years.

You do not understand the numbers if youn think biofuels will make anny appreciable difference much less help us get off foreign oils.

BIOFUELS CANT EVEN KEEP UP!

Biofuels SOUNDS good but is a waste of time.
It will not stop the crash, it will jsut make a few local people have biodiesel.

I

So it will be clear why you should just stop worrying about any Bio saving factor. It is miniscule and useless. Ethanols numbers are WORSE THAN THIS!
Much much worse.

to supply all the ethanol for the world you would have to have
4 billion bushel baskets of fresh cut lawn clippings a DAY!
that is 200,BILLION POUNDS A DAY.

1,700 Trains of max load.

stack them up they reach 127 million miles
a DAY
they go around the world 24 times if you stack them side by side.

biofuels cannot make any SIGNIFICANT CHANGE


No, we could not all just have our local biofuel plant and survive. we dont have enough energy to make the ethanol and to process the copra.

R.I.P. BIOFUELS.

[lorenzo]

Hold on there, MQ, isn't the efficiency sector doing exactly that? It radically reduces the 'energy intensity' of economies (energy used per production of a unit of GDP), while at the same time getting rid of fossil fuels and shifting to alternatives.

Initially, but it has consequences.

Straight from the EIA:

After the Arab Oil Embargo [...] gasoline

Jevon's Paradox.

You're not addressing the point of the question, namely about substitution and diversification. You keep coming with the obsolete Jevon's Paradox which I just debunked.

[thor]

All efficiencies in a market economy come at the cost of JOBS.

That's bogus. The "efficiency" sector is a booming sector, one of the fastest growing economic sectors out there, creating more jobs than any other sector (relative to size).

The last thing we need is something to stimulate more growth. And your article was not what Tyler was referring to and you know it.

Conservation = reduced economic activity. It matters not if the energy conmsumption is moved to another growth sector.

Energy doesn't care what it gets used for. It is still being used.

Through conservation and effciency we are looking to reduce overall consumption, not do more with less.

MQ,

Wasn't it Roscoe Bartlett who said that addressing a problem may actually make it worse? He said this about the efficiency of various consumer products: "Instead of one, people buy two". The efficiency sector is just another example of additional economic activity requiring energy for its operation.

[lorenzo]

Wasn't it Roscoe Bartlett who said that addressing a problem may actually make it worse? He said this about the efficiency of various consumer products: "Instead of one, people buy two". The efficiency sector is just another example of additional economic activity requiring energy for its operation.

{edited to remove quoted quotes of quotes by MQ. What part of this COC rule don't you folks understand? Only quote the exact paragraph or sentence you are responding to. Nothing more.}

But don't you get it? Requiring energy is not the problem, the problem is which kind of energy you're using. If you stick to the single-fuel universe of petroleum, you will never understand reality.

Growth and increased energy consumption is not a problem in a world of substitution. It only is a problem in the simpleminded, single-fuel world of Peak Oil.

Jevons's paradox is only a paradox if we're *not* running out of oil and if there are no substitutes. The truth is that we *are* running out of oil, and that there *are* substitutes.

Forget Jevons' paradox, it's very dead and buried.

[Graeme]

Well, this thread did get a good response from some of the heavy weights here. Thanks to all of you. As usual, the arguments are polarised between those who are trying to provide possible futures away from oil (eg Lorenzo!), and those who wish to criticize these people. Both are welcome because the former can benefit from the latter. Fluffy provided an alternate link to Lovin's thinking though this may now be out of date.

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/arti ... ?a_id=1216)

What was interesting to me in the comments that followed was this by Hans Nicolaisen:

3.8.06 John, As I said above, I've known Amory well for over thirty years - both as a friend, and sometimes colleage. From the friend part I can say with absolute certainty that Amory doesn't have a devious bone in his body. This isn't to say that he can't be wrong sometimes, and overly optimistic at other times. But devious, never. No one person ever has all the right answers, but many, if not most, of Amory's proposals are worth serious consideration. I think it's as much an institutional hangup as anything that prevents us from seeing some of the light.

I certainly admire Lovins for his intellectual power but perhaps he could address further the criticism in this thread by MQ about excessive consumption. He has co-authored a book on sustainability, which goes some way to answering this criticism. But I thought that in the case of transport, America could urgently implement high-speed rail,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed ... ted_States
or maglev trains
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation_train

Anyone got any thoughts on this?

[MonteQuest]

MQ,

Wasn't it Roscoe Bartlett who said that addressing a problem may actually make it worse? He said this about the efficiency of various consumer products: "Instead of one, people buy two". The efficiency sector is just another example of additional economic activity requiring energy for its operation.

Exactly, which is why I have consistently said that, under our current economic system, conservation and efficiency gains will lead to more consumption and do little to address peak oil.

We have 150 years of empirical data to support it.

What must happen is that the price goes up as consumption goes down. The price goes up as efficiency increases. The goal is to reduce energy use, not make it more affordable.

Runs against the grain, doesn't it?

Conservation and capitalism do not mix.

[MonteQuest]

Jevons's paradox is only a paradox if we're *not* running out of oil and if there are no substitutes. The truth is that we *are* running out of oil, and that there *are* substitutes.

All Jevon's Paradox says is that making the price cheaper--through efficiency gains-- relative to what it would have been, increases the use of that commodity.

If efficiency and conservation makes more of a commodity available, in a free market the price will go down, whether or not the commodity is in decline or not or whether there are substitutes. When prices go down, relative to what they might have been, use increases.

[RdSnt]

I just saw an interview on BBC Hardtalk with Amory Lovins, who explained in a half hour slot that USA (and other countries) do not need nuclear power to solve their energy problems. He knows from his analysis that renewables plus micro-generation and increased efficiency can do the job, ie make America oil free by 2050 by simply using market forces (the cheaper energy option, nuclear is too expensive). He advocates carbon fibre or composite materials to make cars, trucks and planes lighter and stronger and hence more efficient (use less fuel). He also talked about alternative fuels: ethanol made from switch grass, and liquid hydrogen to fuel aircraft.

If anyone else saw this interview, or if anyone wants to make a comment, please respond.

What a crock of shit.
Just for instance, carbon fibre requires an autoclave. They don't run on matches.

[RdSnt]

Lets use our money to support farmers and develop a local economy, biofuel is not going to help us. we cannot make and build 1 million palm oil plantationsin the next 2 years.

Exactly. Employ local people in local agriculture using local nutrients (including humanure and recycled compost). This is the ONLY sustainable future there can be.

I know Amory Lovins work and it is about localization. Distributed solar energy systems with local energy production and storage (in hydrogen fuel cells). Distributed organic food production with local fertilizer productioin using compost and human nutrients.

I eat my neighors eggs and they are richer in color, flavor, GLAs, and omega-3s then the watery stuff in the supermarket and the fancy healthfood store. And chickens can live anywhere! I eat my neighbor sheep and these are not infected with e-coli and antibiotics.

The problem is most europs, anglos, and merkins can't even fathom this lifestyle. Agriculture scares them. Life and death scare them. Hard work scares them. They are spoiled clueless loosers who can't imagine a world without their perogatives to loot and lie back. Tought shit is all I can say. Start using your imaginations for once.

We can have our ipods, much more leisure, healthy outdoor work, and the satisfaction of actual production. if we give up our materialistic car and junk culture. Light up and lighten your load

All well and good for the 1billion people the planet can sustain with this scenario. You of course, are planning on being one of the lucky ones right?
I'm not being snippy, it's just that these utopian declarations have consequences that are seldom brought into the conversation. Certainly I understand, the death of 6 billion people puts such a negative slant to the discussion.

[BastardSquad]

He advocates carbon fibre or composite materials to make cars, trucks and planes lighter and stronger and hence more efficient (use less fuel).

Do you have any idea how much ENERGY it takes to make carbon fiber composites?

A friggin lot!!!

Which is why they're so expensive !

(sorry for the profanity,when I see a statement this stupid I just can't help myself)

{sorry won't keep it from getting edited out by MQ }

[rwwff]

He advocates carbon fibre or composite materials to make cars,....

Do you have any idea how much ENERGY it takes to make carbon fiber composites?

If you use only electrical power in the process, it could be quite sustainable for at least a couple centuries. We'll be living in a CO2 induced sauna, but we'll have cool toys.

[Graeme]

The interview is now available for viewing at the site provided by Lorenzo:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/programmes/hardtalk/

[Graeme]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/h ... 989662.stm

[Revi]

He advocates carbon fibre or composite materials to make cars, trucks and planes lighter and stronger and hence more efficient (use less fuel).

Do you have any idea how much ENERGY it takes to make carbon fiber composites?

A friggin lot!!!

Which is why they're so expensive !

(sorry for the profanity,when I see a statement this stupid I just can't help myself)

{sorry won't keep it from getting edited out by MQ }

The energy used would be to make something that lasts far longer than the cars we use and throw away now. We may live in a world without disposable vehicles. We may have to keep these things running for quite a while in order to justify the cost of production.