[The_Toecutter]

Yet it is still not possible for consumption to keep increasing, as Jevon's paradox would suggest. Once we reach that geological limit, that is it. No matter what demand for oil is, consumption cannot exceed the maximum rate of extraction. Increasing efficiency, worst case, would let us do more with that limited supply of oil than we otherwise would, but it is impossible to consume more than can be extracted and it is impossible to extract over geological limitations. Jevon's paradox states that consumption increases as efficiency increases, but consumption itself has a limitation.

We will reach a point where efficiency increases cannot increase consumption of a given resource, due to it being impossible to consume more of that resource.

[MonteQuest]

Yet it is still not possible for consumption to keep increasing, as Jevon's paradox would suggest.

Jevon's Paradox doesn't suggest anything of the sort, nor have I.

Remember my last line?

Right back up to the geological limit.

Conservation and effciency gains are not a solution in a free market world, only in a restricted per capita or rationed one.

[The_Toecutter]

Jevon's Paradox doesn't suggest anything of the sort, nor have I.

Jevons Paradox states that conservation of fuel leads to increased consumption of fuel. Right there in Chapter 7 of "The Coal Question".

But clearly, this cannot be applied indefinately.

For Jevon's claim to even be applciable, the increase in efficiency may need to bring in new users of the product, provided the current users have no need or purpose of increasing their consumption.

Conservation and effciency gains are not a solution in a free market world, only in a restricted per capita or rationed one.

Why not?

If the market were truly free, efficiency increases would be widely adopted due to individuals having choices that cost less to use than what is currently available. Would our economic policy not be forced onto other nations by gunpoint through imperialism, the demand in other countrys for our lifestyle just wouldn't be there. Would oil not be so subsidized with our tax dollars and through external costs that we pay, there would be strong economic incentive not to use it.

Our current level of consumption is an unsustainable, artifical construct, perpetuated by people with money who use it to make more money. They extract that wealth from us, whether by our own free will, or manipulating the political system to press a certain agenda.

We don't live in a free market society. A true free market wouldn't answer to shareholders exclusively, but also to the consumers, employees, and communities effected by business decisions. We live in a society edging on corporatism, which is anything but a free market.

[yesplease]

How is Jevon's Paradox applicable? According to Wikipedia it's only valid when supply and efficiency are relatively stable.

Also, this principle is often referenced in conjunction with Peak oil, to show why conservation of oil will not slow the arrival or the effects of peak oil. However, a key part of Jevons Paradox assumes a relatively steady supply of a given resource.

If 1000mpg equivalent personal transportation is phased in, Jevon's Paradox wouldn't hold because it would be impossible for people to consume as much as they do currently. We can't drive forty hours a day.

If supply suddenly drops faster than we can increase efficiency, Jevon's Paradox isn't applicable because efficiency can't be increased fast enough to drop the price and spur an increase in consumption.

It's only applicable when efficiency and consumption are directly related and relatively stable. This is not the case for personal transportation or the oil supply.

[MonteQuest]

Jevon's Paradox doesn't suggest anything of the sort, nor have I.

Jevons Paradox states that conservation of fuel leads to increased consumption of fuel. Right there in Chapter 7 of "The Coal Question".

But clearly, this cannot be applied indefinately.

Duh ! What part of this don't you yet grasp?

Right back up to the geological limit.

Conservation and effciency gains are not a solution in a free market world, only in a restricted per capita or rationed one.

Why not?

Why not? Because putting something on sale increases it's consumption. Supply versus demand. If you are going to use conservation and efficiency gains to mitigate oil depletion, you are going to have to curb the resultant increase of use by either raising the price, rationing, or restricted per capita use.

[The_Toecutter]

Duh ! What part of this don't you yet grasp?

The paradox doesn't state its own shortcomings, just its general declarations.

What was earlier mentioned isn't part of the paradox itself, but a given maxim based on the fact that you can't consume more than you produce. Jevon's paradox does not clarify on this. Many here often preach "Jevon's Paradox" as a reason why conservation at the very least will not help us avoid a dieoff, or why it is better to rapidly consume the world's diminishing resources instead of try to conserve them. But this is fallacy: if you have a diminishing resource and make each unit of it yield more output, there will invariably be more output to go around for society in general.

How this output is distributed, OTOH, is a different argument. But the elite of society appear to want it all to themselves. This would make any subsequent dieoff from a resource shortage an artificial construct, when technically there would be enough to go around.

Why not? Because putting something on sale increases it's consumption. Supply versus demand. If you are going to use conservation and efficiency gains to mitigate oil depletion, you are going to have to curb the resultant increase of use by either raising the price, rationing, or restricted per capita use.

If the external damages associated with oil production would have to be paid for by the producers, that increase of cost would be there. That would actually make the market freer. Joe Taxpayer would no longer be subsidizing their artificially low prices through his tax dollars to fund oil wars or provide subsidies, nor would the industry be allowed to dump their toxins in the air he breathes, water he drinks, and food he eats without at least compensating him for the resultant personal and property damage.

Consumers, seeing the real price, would have no choice but to make a rational lifestyle decision.

We don't live in a free market. It is rigged to favor the whims of the investor class, while denying anyone else a say in the market. If consumers demand something and it can be produced, then that is what the market should bare. But that has clearly not happened with many technological advancements(eg. electric vehicles), and the current market is certainly interfered with by the government or even built up by the government.

There is a very distinct difference between capitalism and corporatism.

Would certain choices be available, consumers would voluntarily reduce their energy consumption by the very nature of these choices. They'd either wind up with extra money to spend, or not have to work as hard to retain a given living standard.

[MonteQuest]

If supply suddenly drops faster than we can increase efficiency, Jevon's Paradox isn't applicable because efficiency can't be increased fast enough to drop the price and spur an increase in consumption.

It's only applicable when efficiency and consumption are directly related and relatively stable. This is not the case for personal transportation or the oil supply.

I rest my case. Either Jevon's Paradox applies or it doesn't. As you just clearly pointed out, either way, conservation and effciency gains are not a solution.

This point has been made explicitly ad naseum.

[yesplease]

As you just clearly pointed out, either way, conservation and effciency gains are not a solution.

What do you mean? Solution to what?

[MonteQuest]

Why not? Because putting something on sale increases it's consumption.

American car buyers get a case of amnesia
When gas prices take a breather, consumers' common sense takes a hike.
Link

[MonteQuest]

As you just clearly pointed out, either way, conservation and effciency gains are not a solution.

What do you mean? Solution to what?

Duh? To oil depletion.

[JRP3]

Why not? Because putting something on sale increases it's consumption.

American car buyers get a case of amnesia
When gas prices take a breather, consumers' common sense takes a hike.
Link

Damn that's depressing. You make a strong case.

[zoidberg]

We will create small market bio-fuels that won't replace oil, but will lower our dependence on Middle East oil...Dems and Republicans can all agree that is a good thing!

Energy illiteracy is going to be our undoing.

Middle east oil dependency?

Let's do the math, shall we?

In the 2006 State of the Union, Bush stated he would like to see a 75% reduction in our dependency upon Middle East oil by 2025.

We import 17% of imported oil (13.2 mbpd) from the middle east.

By 2025 we will import 21 mbpd and use 30 mbpd.

17% of 21 mbpd = 3.57 mbpd

75% of 3.57 = 2.68 mbpd or .9% of use.

Less than 1% of our oil use?

Ever heard of spin?

In 2025 it can be reasonably assumed that much more than 17% of America's imports will be from the middle East, as the region with the largest reserves will be peaking last. So in 2025 the ME will have a higher percentage of world oil production, and the vast majority of world exports, to everyone.

I'd throw some numbers at you, but I'm sure you've already seen them right? Also 2.68 of 30 is 9%, not .9%.


How often are the cornucopians made fun of for making linear assumptions?

[vision-master]

H
E
M
P
Think about it!

[topic moved to open discussion forum - markl]

[billg]

H
E
M
P
.
.
.
.
.
Think about it!

Seems to me it would be good to provide a little substance when you start a thread, rather than just say a couple words and expect everybody to jump into the discussion. I'm quite sure many threads here at PO.com have already dealt with the hemp issue in depth.

[vision-master]

H
E
M
P
.
.
.
.
.
Think about it!

Seems to me it would be good to provide a little substance when you start a thread, rather than just say a couple words and expect everybody to jump into the discussion. I'm quite sure many threads here at PO.com have already dealt with the hemp issue in depth.

Do your own research Mr. Dupont.........

[ralfy]

Has anyone found any analysis about the use of hemp to replace oil, i.e., similar to discussions about coal and other resources at Oil Drum?

I think there are different types of hemp, and several of them are not part of illegal drugs. For example, this has been used in the Philippines for more than a century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abac%C3%A1

for rope, paper, clothing, and even fishing nets. I read recently that it can also be used as a biofuel and can be used to make plastics.

[SeaGypsy]

http://www.hempcar.org/ford.shtml

Henry Ford was an early hemp fuel and plastics innovator.

Fuel of the Future

When Henry Ford told a New York Times reporter that ethyl alcohol was "the fuel of the future" in 1925, he was expressing an opinion that was widely shared in the automotive industry. "The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumach out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust -- almost anything," he said. "There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented. There's enough alcohol in one year's yield of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for a hundred years."

Ford recognized the utility of the hemp plant. He constructed a car of resin stiffened hemp fiber, and even ran the car on ethanol made from hemp. Ford knew that hemp could produce vast economic resources if widely cultivated.

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspira ... dhemp.html

When Henry Ford recently unveiled his plastic car, result of 12 years of research, he gave the world a glimpse of the automobile of tomorrow, its tough panels molded under hydraulic pressure of 1,500 pounds per square inch from a recipe that calls for 70 percent ofcellulose fibers from wheat straw, hemp and sisal plus 30 percent resin binder. The only steel in the car is its tubular welded frame. The plastic car weighs a ton, 1,000 pounds lighter than a comparable steel car. Manufacturers are already taking a low-priced plastic car to test the public's taste by 1943.

There is a ton of proof that hemp should be a key worldwide crop; for it's enormous variety of utility.

The non drug hemp story is a bit convoluted. Strictly speaking hemp is many varities of the same 2 genus cannabis indica and cannabis sativa. Indica contains much higher amounts of psychoative THC and other cannabinols. Sativa can be bred and has been, to reduce it's THC element to very low values; such that it is not worthwhile to steal for black market sale. However it is still cannabis and hash oil can still be extracted from it. There is no such thing as 100% THC free cannabis; therefore hemp. I believe it is a mistake for the industrial hemp lobby to pretend they have gotten completely non drug cannabis strains. Honesty is the best policy.

[ralfy]

I am looking for EROEI studies concerning hemp, which was also requested here:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6397 (search for "hemp" in that page)

maybe something like the IEA report on ethanol for Brazil:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/10/10/171011/86 (links to the report, with several comments in the entry about hemp)

There are some listed here but for specific states:

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3396

One comment writer states here, though, that the EROEI is at best 2.5:1:

http://www.postcarbon.org/article/10415 ... on-and-the

There are some more comments here, but the writer is also looking for BTU figures:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/6/26/191251/537

Various writers argue that we may need something like 20:1, with 4 or 5:1 as a best-case scenario for various biofuels, at worse 1.3:1, and likely around 2:1.

Finally, I was prompted to look into this matter further given this recent news report:

http://www.physorg.com/news205599757.html