bart wrote:Good explanation of the Rebound Effect
Love this quote:
Wolfgang Sachs wrote: An increase in resource efficiency alone leads to nothing, unless it goes hand in hand with an intelligent restraint of growth.
Conservation and a powerdown.
bart wrote:Good explanation of the Rebound Effect
Wolfgang Sachs wrote: An increase in resource efficiency alone leads to nothing, unless it goes hand in hand with an intelligent restraint of growth.
dub_scratch wrote:I'd like to add my own observation of Jeavon's Paradox at work:
In terms of specific applications of energy use, any efficiency in running such equipment causes more energy consumption in that specific sector. For example, advances in refrigeration efficiency lead to more liberal use of refrigeration. When this kind of equipment takes less energy to run, more people buy bigger refrigerators and air conditioners and use them more often.
This is why one of the worst thing that can happen in the face of oil depletion is for auto makers to be able to build and sell super-efficient vehicles. If oil prices go up and car efficiency remains constant, then many Chinese would likely slow down their conversion from bicycles to autos and may opt for less car dependent lifestyles. But if Toyota or others build some form of hypercar and sell it to the chines, then more of those 1.2 billion people will buy them, use them and eat up all of the energy savings done here in the US when we convert our fleet to the hypercar.
In short, Jeavons paradox is a historic trend that tells us that conservation through technology is no answer for the depletion of oil. The only way it can work is if the energy is saved on one end is used to build energy harvesting equipment such as wind turbines, nuke plants, solar cells and permaculture developments (given that EROEI is positive).
MonteQuest wrote:nth wrote:Jevon's paradox will apply before we hit PO. Only after hitting PO, Jevon's paradox does not apply. The reason is that supplies are diminishing, so conservation does not free supplies for others to use up.
If conservation and increased efficiency does not free up resources that were being otherwise used, then what do they do?
If there is more supply as a result of conservation efforts, the price will reflect that. A lower price results in more consumption.
Jevon's paradox simply states that if you don't use it, someone else will.
MonteQuest wrote:No, Jevon's Paradox says that increases in efficiency will result in a lower price relative to what it would have been, which increases it's consumption.
dub_scratch wrote:Jevon's Paradox says that gains in eifficiency make the availibility of energy consuming systems more widespread.
nth wrote:After PO, production will drop, so you are reducing consumption, which does not free up supplies. If you manage to save 20 gallons, but production drops by 20 gallons, you don't get any extra supplies to lower prices.
MonteQuest wrote:
What then is the 20 gallons you freed up if not extra supply? Would the price be higher if not for the 20 gallons saved?
Of course it would.
Jevon's Paradox says that increases in efficiency will result in a lower price relative to what it would have been, which increases it's consumption.
Relative to what it would have been otherwise.
Like Aaron remarked, this simple fact just seems to go over many people's heads.
nth wrote: So, I don't get how you can say increases it's consumption.
nth wrote:Well, after PO, reducing availability of energy will force us to consume less aka conserve.
Now, the question becomes can we be efficient enough to keep the economy moving.
MonteQuest wrote:
What happens when you put something on sale?
dub_scratch wrote:The point that Jevon's paradox tells us is that our purpose toward energy efficiency should not be conservation-- making depleting energy last longer.
It would be far better if the US car fleet does not improve in MPG and having that fleet die with the American motoring way of life. We need some forms of inefficiency to force more worthwhile systemic energy efficiency.
nth wrote:MonteQuest wrote:
What happens when you put something on sale?
Are we having miscommunication or am I not understanding it?
nth wrote: Jevon's paradox is about coal- British coal specifically.
nth wrote: Let me repeat my scenario.
You produced 100 gallons. Now, produce 80 gallons.
The user improves their efficiency to be able to complete same amount of work with 80 gallons through efficiency.
How do you increase consumption?
Revi wrote: There isn't any increase in the amount of oil or gas we are using. Maybe our efficiency frees up some oil or gas for somebody else to use in a wasteful way, but I doubt it.
Aaron wrote:Not to be flippant with you, but I hope everyone here recognizes that it's the relative price changes which are the whole point of Jevon's argument.
That's why this idea of "price stabilization" is without merit.
All Jevon says is that "to the extent you make any useful commodity more affordable, you encourage it's consumption by that same margin."
Another way to put this is by looking at the difference between what any given commodity costs today, and what it would have cost absent the additional supplies which conservation & efficiency have provided.
Lower relative cost = greater relative consumption.
And unless you plan on invading China, India, South America & Africa and force them to comply with your conservation plans, the net effect will be generating energy subsidies for these emerging energy consumers in the form of lower energy commodity prices.
This is why all efforts at conservation & efficiency are actually counterproductive, and lead us even further into the quagmire of Hubbert's Peak.
It is indeed this sobering analysis, coupled with the notion that so many believe otherwise, which makes me the doomer I am today.
I have said so many times here, but it bears repeating...
Be aware of peak oil.
Be afraid of how your neighbors will react to it.
Pops wrote:nth
Back on page 10, Aaron wrote
"Geez folks...
We are simply saying that C & E won't act to delay PO.
Not unless we can FORCE all consumers to comply.
Fine - If we can't produce more oil then Jevon is irrelevant."
Now considering that A's real last name is Jevon...
Jevons Paradox is irrelevant.
It does not apply to shrinking resources.
If you have 100 gallons of oil today and every day after that you will get 10% less gallons of oil, it will force you to conserve.
Now, the question is with diminishing oil, will you be able to maintain or increase your productivity?
If supplies remain the same, then Jevons Paradox applies as it states that one person saving it will lead to another using it.
This last statement will not be the case when PO hits.
Another words, conserving now is useless as far as preventing PO. Conserve only after PO to maintain or increase economic growth.
MonteQuest wrote:nth wrote: Jevon's paradox is about coal- British coal specifically.
No, it is about any commodity people desire.
MonteQuest wrote:
Because you lower the price through efficiency relative to what it might have been.
I think that reality will continue to elude you as Aaron noted.
Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests