You can do the same things with less energy in most of the things we do today
Wildwell wrote:I cannot debate with people...
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.
Mercani wrote:Monte and Aaron, why don't you bring your own data to prove your point ?
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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!
Aaron wrote:
And don't worry; When you folks get yourselves into trouble over there America will come bail you out (again).
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?
It's to do with knowledge and patterns of consumption?!?
Wildwell wrote:Aaron wrote:
And don't worry; When you folks get yourselves into trouble over there America will come bail you out (again).
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.
Aaron wrote:What in the hell are you talking about?
And yes I took economics in college... sorry you missed out on that yourself.
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).
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?
then you'll finally understand what I'm on...
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests