Ludi wrote: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%.
growth creates energy
Of course energy can be free.
It’s all perceived worth.
the money system is based on confidence, nothing to do with energy
You CAN get something for nothing
too much energy is less productivity and less growth
the Relationship of energy and economic growth is non-linear
it might be possible to send machines into other areas of the universe for resources
it is clear that economies can grow using the same or less energy
How many times have I said you can get growth and use less energy
Wildwell wrote:Yep, that's all I've been raging all along - they are linked…but.. efficiency can improve...which bit didn't you understand in the last 12 pages? Never mentioned doing anything with NO energy, I just talked about using less for particular tasks.
Wildwell wrote:As it’s already been proved, the question of energy and economic growth is not directly related.
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.
MonteQuest wrote: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.
Huh? Perhaps you can increase some aspects of GDP without increasing energy use to some extent, but not overall GDP. If that was what you were trying to assert, I doubt anyone would have disagreed. Backpedal time, eh?
MonteQuest wrote: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.
Huh? Perhaps you can increase some aspects of GDP without increasing energy use to some extent, but not overall GDP. If that was what you were trying to assert, I doubt anyone would have disagreed. Backpedal time, eh?
JoeW wrote:GDP is over-rated. Let me show you why. A doctor pays an accountant $100 to do his taxes. The accountant pays $100 for a massage. The masseuse pays a salon $100 to paint her fingernails and do her hair.
$300 was just added to GDP, but was anything really produced? How much energy was used? Not a whole helluva lot.
Aaron wrote:I agree that technology made the energy more useful, and less expensive.
.
Wildwell wrote: I have challenged them in order to create clarity and discussion.
Ludi wrote:Wildwell wrote: I have challenged them in order to create clarity and discussion.
You've failed miserably. You said GDP can increase without an increase in energy use, and then later said that's not what you were saying. Far from being clear, you have been deliberately misleading, in my opinion.
At least admit you were unclear in presenting your ideas, or admit you were misrepresenting the facts.
Ludi wrote:Wildwell, you said it had been done, not that it might be done. Good lord! The example you gave of Sweden - completely misleading! But you are apparently too full of yourself to do the decent thing and admit you're unclear and misleading.
You won't even accept a little constructive criticism here.
johnmarkos wrote:I do see some evidence that energy use and economic growth (or at least growth in standard of living) can be decoupled. JohnDenver provides an example of how he can produce more while consuming no more. He was already surfing the Internet before he took the classes so the computer doesn't count as increased energy.
We waste a lot. We have a lot of room for efficiency gains: the same benefit, less energy.
johnmarkos wrote:
For Wildwell, the fact that GDP grew faster than energy use indicates that it is possible to decouple economic growth from energy use.
MonteQuest wrote:The number one consumer of energy is the military.
Can we improve efficiency by roughly 8% every year (5% for decline and 3% for growth) every year during the transition to renewables? Get real!
Once efficiency gains are maxed out, you are back to to square one.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests