[Graeme]

At last, some good news on energy

Despite the huge (and justified) environmental controversy over extraction of oil from shale, vast new discoveries of fossil fuel reserves are buying time for the development of renewable energy sources that can be financially rewarding. .

The government has signed agreements with the auto industry that will greatly improve fuel efficiency from 2017 to 2025 model year vehicles.

Ford alone expects to be able to produce cars that will save 200 million gallons of gas each year. General Motors hopes to use waste heat from auto engines to increase fuel efficiency and reduce fuel consumption by up to 380 million barrels a year.

The Department of Energy is supporting research that promises to deliver a car battery capable of operating 300 miles before needing recharging at a cost of one-third of what it costs to recharge today.


Yergin advances an encouraging argument that energy efficiency -- more efficient vehicles, buildings, appliances, windows, televisions, factories, offices -- will help save us. "It is hard to conceptualize and hard to mobilize and yet it (energy conservation) can make the biggest contribution of all to the energy balance in the years immediately ahead."

newschief

[Cog]

Jevon's Paradox makes such efficiency gains pointless.

[Graeme]

In economics, the Jevons paradox (sometimes Jevons effect) is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.[1]

Several points have been raised against the argument that energy conservation policies are futile. First, in the context of a mature market such as for oil, the direct rebound effect is usually small, and so increased fuel efficiency usually reduces resource use, all other conditions remaining constant.[6][9][10] (However, fuel use may still increase because of faster economic growth.) Second, even if increased efficiency does not reduce the total amount of fuel used, there remain other benefits associated with improved efficiency. For example, increased fuel efficiency may mitigate the price increases, shortages and disruptions in the global economy associated with peak oil. Third, environmental economists have pointed out that fuel use will unambiguously decrease if increased efficiency is coupled with an intervention (e.g. a green tax, cap and trade, or license fees) that keeps the cost of fuel use the same or higher.[3]

The Jevons effect indicates that increased efficiency, by itself, is unlikely to reduce fuel use, and that sustainable energy policy must rely on other types of government interventions.[11] By mitigating the economic effects of government interventions designed to promote ecologically sustainable activities, efficiency-improving technological progress may make the imposition of these interventions more palatable, and more likely to be implemented.[12] As the Jevons paradox only applies to technological improvements that increase fuel efficiency, the imposition of conservation standards that simultaneously increase costs do not cause a paradoxical increase in fuel use.

wikipedia

[The Practician]

As the Jevons paradox only applies to technological improvements that increase fuel efficiency, the imposition of conservation standards that simultaneously increase costs do not cause a paradoxical increase in fuel use.

wikipedia[/quote]

There's the kicker right there. Jevons paradox does not apply in situations of increased energy costs. I don't need to go to wikipedia to understand that. we are saved.

[Graeme]

Jevon's paradox has been debunked here. See also the first response at the bottom of the article.

This topic has already been discussed on this board too.

[The Practician]

Graeme, I am not interested in the slightest in Jevons "paradox" Its not even a blood paradox if you think about it for five seconds. Oh jeez, if technology is getting more efficient at the same time energy is getting more affordbable or staying as affordable, well yay frickin' double yay' we all is gunna use more energy. It is not a real paradox. It does not apply in a number of situations. it is NOT an observable law of nature, like the laws of thermodynamics. The fact that it has been "debunked" means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!!

[Graeme]

No. That's the whole point. We are not going to use more energy - we will use what is available more efficiently. Let me refer you to the Energy [R]evolution by European Renewable Energy Council (see Figure 1, page 12).

[Keith_McClary]

At last, some good news on energy

Ford alone expects...General Motors hopes...The Department of Energy is supporting research that promises...Yergin advances an encouraging argument

[ralfy]

I'm not sure, but I think Fatih Birol of the IEA argues that we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years to maintain current global economic growth. For China alone to maintain its economic growth, it will need the equivalent of the same, and probably some more for the rest of BRIC and emerging markets. In general, for much of the global population to experience a middle class lifestyle we will need the equivalent of at least one more planet.

In addition, members of the middle class, which make up around 15 pct of the world's population, may need the other 85 pct to spend much more for a middle class lifestyle in order for the latter to gain more profits from increased sales of goods.

Finally, there are more resources to consider, including phosphates and even fresh water.

[Loki]

Jevon's Paradox makes such efficiency gains pointless.

Utter bullshit. Show one peer-reviewed study using empirical data that shows the rebound effect is >100%. Just one.

Energy efficiency does NOT lead to more use overall. There's almost zero support for this assertion in the academic literature, yet I see this nonsense repeated here ad naseum.

As for Yergin, I find him to be about as credible as those who spout off about the Jevons Paradox.

In 2005, Daniel Yergin published an editorial in the Washington Post in which he was already mocking the pessimists, and in which he predicted that by 2010 global oil production capacity could increase by 16 million barrels per day (Mb/d) from from 85 to 101 Mb/d. Since then, global production capacity remained on a plateau of about 86 Mb/d... You ought to go back and re-read yourself, Mr. Yergin.

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2011/09/p ... ergin.html

[Loki]

Your article is behind a paywall and the conclusion is not available. But where does it say that Jevon's Paradox (a subset of the rebound effect) is not valid or possible.

I never said there is no rebound effect, I said the assertion that it is inevitably >100% when it comes to energy efficiency is bullshit. I asked for studies that are (1) peer-reviewed and (2) based on empirical data (not models or hypotheses). Wikipedia is neither.

The empirically based literature shows that the rebound effect is generally in the 10-30% range when it comes to energy efficiency. There's quite a large body of academic lit on the subject, yet the Jevons devotees never bother to read any of it. You can find much of it for free with a simple Google search.

As for Yergin, I suggest you bring up your quibbling with Jean Laherrère, who knows far more about this stuff than either of us. I find peak oil tea leaf reading about production capacity, proven reserves, etc., etc., etc. to be a speculative, masturbatory exercise (w/o the fun of actual masturbation).

[Loki]

So who are these deluded Jevons devotees? Am I one? (I shure hope not.) Can I get deprogrammed? Will it hurt my chances of getting a date? Do I have to dress funny? In shawls?

Nothing of substance to add, huh? Not surprising.

As for Jevons devotees, look up thread. Look at the mammoth Jevons thread previously linked. Go back and read years of Monte's ignorant ramblings on the subject. Jevons is mentioned ALL THE FRICKIN' TIME at PO.com, and always without reference to the extensive academic lit on the subject. Is this really new to you? Ten gazillion posts and you're just now finding out about this?

Without basic knowledge, everything you write is really only to yourself and so can not be shared. Sounds like a circle jerk of one to me

The quote was from Laherrere, not Orlov. I know you like to pull half-baked numbers out of your ass and pretend they reference reality (a la Oil Drum), but I personally find this to be a monumental waste of time, something on the level of Tarot card reading or shaking a Magic 8 ball, particularly when done at the amateur level.

And I find your quip about "basic knowledge" to be especially rich given your obvious ignorance of the Jevons Paradox.