The Landing model, data needed (help could also be useful)

by **Taskforce_Unity** » Tue 18 Jan 2005, 13:05:40

Since there is a lot of debate over if other forms of energy can replace fossil fuels and in what rate i intend to make a landing model.

It will enhold these things in various variables (like peak in 2008 and 2015):

- Peak in Oil as the main factor

- The time we can replace oil with gas and coal based on peak of coal.

- Growth rates and staying at current consumption levels of energy substances

- EROEI decrease of fossil fuels

- Efficiency and conservation decrease of energy

- Predicted renewable growth, renewable growth needed to offset decline of fossil fuels (and possibly growth)

- Possibilities of Uranium and as some claim breeder or fusion (if they would work in the timespan according to some experts)

maybe options:

- hydrogen and biofuels

- An unkown energy source (renewable) for the future

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have any other thing to add, wish to help or can supply some data on things that you THINK that can work (with data) please add them to the thread.

If you want to help contact me at

[email protected]

by **Taskforce_Unity** » Tue 18 Jan 2005, 13:14:40

Ow another thing

It will be based on Excel worksheets and maybe some SPSS database. Since that's all i am familiar with (i'm not that good in modelling)

by **pup55** » Tue 18 Jan 2005, 13:57:36

Cool.

Most all the data I use is from the BP Statistical Review, so no problem.

As for your forecasts, peak predictions and/or decline curves, easily generated from other threads in this section so no problem either.

Don't know about uranium.

But the question is, what will be your "response variable", in other words, once you put in the projections on energy usage, forecasts, rate of transfer between energy sources, EROEI, etc, etc, what will be the output?

by **Taskforce_Unity** » Thu 20 Jan 2005, 05:31:57

Response variable will be the time and growth rate needed for alternative energies to be implented. From this you will be able to conclude what kind of landing is possible.

by **julianj** » Thu 20 Jan 2005, 11:33:16

An interesting idea. I look forward to the results.

by **pup55** » Thu 20 Jan 2005, 11:54:35

Okay. Got another question (friendly and supportive).

So your real "dependent variable" is "landing".

You will test various alternate energy growth rates (independent variable), over time (independent variable) given some assumptions about expected oil peak and other energy sources (independent variables) to see the effects on "landing" (dependent variable).

What's your measurement of "landing"?

by **Taskforce_Unity** » Mon 24 Jan 2005, 07:22:02

Tricky question,

It will depend on the amount of conservation and efficiency possible i think.

Didn't figure everything out yet. I usually do that and get more think patterns when i am working on something like it.

I'd say a soft landing is one in which we can keep most of the luxuries we have now by conservation and efficiency, some negative growth and a small contraction of the population. It also depends on the country ofcourse were you live.

by **pup55** » Mon 24 Jan 2005, 17:57:00

Ah, then "landing" might be defined in several ways: population loss, per-capita GDP, maybe even some measurement like life expectancy.

SPSS, in my experience (which was from back in the punch card days) should be good at this. Using the historical data for the independent variables, it will compute for you the equation for each of the above dependent variables. From that, simple to construct a spreadsheet with the forecast oil, coal and gas production, and using the equation that SPSS gives you, project the population, per capita GDP or whatever else you want. You put in different forecasts, and the spreadsheet gives you different estimates of all of the above dependent variables.

The tricky part will be the interperetation, of course.

by **pup55** » Tue 25 Jan 2005, 15:12:13

col
1 year
2 oil production gb
3 global life expectancy yrs
4 population billions
5 global gdp trillion 1995 dollars
6 gas production bcm
7 coal prod tons
8 nuclear trillion watt=hrs
9 hydro milllion ton oil equivalent

Code: Select all: 1900 0.20 35.98 1.55 1901 0.24 36.13 1.57 1902 0.27 36.28 1.59 1903 0.31 36.43 1.61 1904 0.35 36.59 1.63 1905 0.38 36.74 1.65 1906 0.42 36.89 1.67 1907 0.45 37.04 1.69 1908 0.49 37.20 1.71 1909 0.53 37.35 1.73 1910 0.56 37.50 1.75 1911 0.60 37.80 1.76 1912 0.64 38.10 1.77 1913 0.67 38.39 1.78 1914 0.71 38.69 1.79 1915 0.75 38.99 1.81 1916 0.78 39.29 1.82 1917 0.82 39.58 1.83 1918 0.85 39.88 1.84 1919 0.89 40.18 1.85 1920 0.93 40.48 1.86 1921 0.96 40.77 1.88 1922 1.00 41.07 1.90 1923 1.00 41.37 1.92 1924 1.29 41.67 1.94 1925 1.57 41.96 1.97 1926 1.86 42.26 1.99 1927 2.14 42.56 2.01 1928 2.43 42.86 2.03 1929 2.71 43.00 2.05 1930 3.00 43.48 2.07 1931 3.20 43.96 2.07 1932 3.40 44.44 2.08 1933 3.60 44.92 2.08 1934 3.80 45.40 2.08 1935 4.00 45.89 2.09 1936 4.20 46.37 2.09 1937 4.40 46.85 2.09 1938 4.60 47.33 2.09 1939 4.80 47.81 2.10 1940 5.00 48.29 2.10 1941 5.20 48.77 2.14 1942 5.40 49.25 2.18 1943 5.60 49.73 2.22 1944 5.80 50.21 2.26 1945 6.00 50.70 2.30 1946 6.20 51.18 2.34 1947 6.40 51.66 2.38 1948 6.60 52.14 2.42 1949 6.80 52.62 2.46 1950 7.00 53.10 2.50 1951 7.30 53.46 2.59 1952 7.60 53.82 2.64 1953 7.90 54.18 2.68 1954 8.20 54.55 2.73 1955 8.50 54.91 2.78 1956 8.80 55.27 2.83 1957 9.10 55.63 2.89 1958 9.40 55.99 2.95 1959 9.70 56.35 3.00 1960 10.00 56.72 3.04 1961 10.32 57.08 3.08 1962 10.64 57.44 3.14 1963 10.96 57.80 3.21 1964 11.29 58.16 3.28 1965 11.61 58.52 3.35 -- -- -- 26 210 1966 12.62 58.88 3.42 -- -- -- 35 225 1967 13.55 59.25 3.49 -- -- -- 43 230 1968 14.76 59.61 3.56 -- -- -- 52 242 1969 15.93 59.97 3.63 -- -- -- 63 257 1970 17.54 59.85 3.71 -- 1021 -- 78 269 1971 18.56 60.17 3.78 -- 1086 -- 110 280 1972 19.59 60.49 3.86 -- 1135 -- 151 294 1973 21.34 60.81 3.94 -- 1186 -- 203 297 1974 21.40 61.13 4.01 -- 1209 -- 263 324 1975 20.38 61.45 4.09 -- 1209 -- 364 328 1976 22.05 61.77 4.16 --- 1258 -- 433 330 1977 22.89 62.09 4.23 -- 1307 -- 535 337 1978 23.12 62.41 4.30 -- 1351 -- 619 363 1979 24.11 62.73 4.38 -- 1444 -- 640 380 1980 22.98 63.05 4.45 18699 1457 -- 711 387 1981 21.73 63.37 4.53 19009 1484 3831 836 395 1982 20.91 63.68 4.61 19100 1487 3980 917 411 1983 20.66 64.00 4.69 19613 1492 3987 1029 430 1984 21.05 64.32 4.77 20510 1625 4192 1245 444 1985 20.98 64.64 4.85 21254 1676 4421 1482 453 1986 22.07 64.96 4.93 21935 1723 4529 1596 459 1987 22.18 65.28 5.02 22701 1808 4629 1736 467 1988 23.04 65.60 5.11 23735 1891 4735 1893 479 1989 23.36 65.92 5.19 24639 1953 4818 1947 478 1990 23.88 66.24 5.28 25393 2000 4718 2003 495 1991 23.80 66.56 5.37 26004 2032 4538 2098 507 1992 23.99 67.00 5.45 27237 2045 4498 2115 507 1993 24.09 67.09 5.53 27707 2080 4383 2187 535 1994 24.47 67.18 5.61 28562 2101 4460 2227 540 1995 24.82 67.26 5.69 29354 2142 4526 2325 569 1996 25.48 67.35 5.77 30307 2235 4649 2408 578 1997 26.29 67.44 5.85 31337 2239 4654 2392 586 1998 26.79 67.53 5.93 32004 2289 4538 2433 594 1999 26.30 67.61 6.00 32969 2351 4309 2524 603 2000 27.25 67.70 6.08 34268 2433 4306 2583 614 2001 27.19 67.79 6.15 34706 2490 4529 2655 589 2002 27.03 67.88 6.23 35286 2532 4848 2699 593 2003 28.02 67.96 6.30 -- 2619 5119 2646 595 2004 -- 68.05 -- -- -- -- -- --

by **pup55** » Tue 25 Jan 2005, 15:16:12

forecasts based on the verhulst model
year
oil 2008 peak gb
oil 2015 peak gb
nat gas mcm
coal tons

Code: Select all: 2004 28.09 29.35 2757 5,014 2005 28.20 29.73 2815 5,036 2006 28.27 30.07 2871 5,057 2007 28.32 30.39 2926 5,077 2008 28.35 30.67 2979 5,095 2009 28.34 30.92 3030 5,113 2010 28.31 31.14 3079 5,130 2011 28.26 31.32 3126 5,146 2012 28.19 31.47 3170 5,161 2013 28.09 31.59 3211 5,174 2014 27.97 31.68 3249 5,187 2015 27.83 31.73 3284 5,198 2016 27.67 31.75 3316 5,208 2017 27.50 31.74 3344 5,218 2018 27.30 31.70 3368 5,226 2019 27.09 31.62 3389 5,232 2020 26.87 31.52 3405 5,238 2021 26.63 31.39 3417 5,243 2022 26.38 31.23 3425 5,246 2023 26.12 31.04 3428 5,249 2024 25.84 30.83 3427 5,250 2025 25.56 30.59 3422 5,250 2026 25.27 30.33 3412 5,249 2027 24.97 30.05 3397 5,246 2028 24.66 29.75 3378 5,243 2029 24.35 29.43 3354 5,238 2030 24.03 29.09 3326 5,232 2031 23.71 28.74 3294 5,226 2032 23.39 28.37 3257 5,218 2033 23.06 27.98 3216 5,208 2034 22.72 27.59 3171 5,198 2035 22.39 27.18 3122 5,187 2036 22.06 26.77 3070 5,174 2037 21.72 26.35 3014 5,161 2038 21.38 25.92 2955 5,146 2039 21.05 25.48 2893 5,130 2040 20.71 25.04 2829 5,113 2041 20.38 24.59 2762 5,095 2042 20.04 24.14 2692 5,077 2043 19.71 23.69 2621 5,057 2044 19.38 23.24 2548 5,036 2045 19.05 22.79 2474 5,014 2046 18.73 22.34 2398 4,991 2047 18.41 21.89 2322 4,968 2048 18.09 21.44 2245 4,943 2049 17.77 20.99 2168 4,917 2050 17.46 20.55 2090 4,891 2051 17.14 20.10 2013 4,864 2052 16.84 19.67 1936 4,835 2053 16.54 19.23 1860 4,807 2054 16.24 18.81 1784 4,777 2055 15.94 18.38 1710 4,746 2056 15.65 17.96 1636 4,715 2057 15.36 17.55 1564 4,683 2058 15.08 17.14 1493 4,650 2059 14.80 16.74 1424 4,617 2060 14.52 16.35 1357 4,583 2061 14.25 15.96 1291 4,549 2062 13.99 15.58 1227 4,513 2063 13.72 15.20 1166 4,478 2064 13.46 14.83 1106 4,441 2065 13.21 14.47 1048 4,404 2066 12.96 14.12 992 4,367 2067 12.71 13.77 938 4,329 2068 12.47 13.43 887 4,291 2069 12.23 13.09 837 4,252 2070 12.00 12.76 790 4,213 2071 11.77 12.44 744 4,173 2072 11.54 12.13 701 4,134 2073 11.32 11.82 660 4,093 2074 11.10 11.52 620 4,053 2075 10.89 11.22 583 4,012 2076 10.68 10.94 547 3,971 2077 10.47 10.66 513 3,930 2078 10.27 10.38 481 3,888 2079 10.07 10.11 451 3,847 2080 9.87 9.85 422 3,805 2081 9.68 9.60 395 3,763 2082 9.49 9.35 370 3,721 2083 9.31 9.10 345 3,679 2084 9.12 8.86 323 3,636 2085 8.95 8.63 301 3,594 2086 8.77 8.40 281 3,551 2087 8.60 8.18 262 3,509 2088 8.43 7.97 244 3,467 2089 8.27 7.76 228 3,424 2090 8.10 7.55 212 3,382 2091 7.95 7.35 197 3,339 2092 7.79 7.16 184 3,297 2093 7.64 6.97 171 3,255 2094 7.49 6.78 159 3,213 2095 7.34 6.60 148 3,171 2096 7.20 6.43 137 3,129 2097 7.05 6.26 128 3,087 2098 6.91 6.09 118 3,046 2099 6.78 5.93 110 3,005

by **Taskforce_Unity** » Wed 26 Jan 2005, 04:37:29

Nice, were are you're figures from for gas and coal reserves?

The hubbert coal peak was scheduled around 2032 your peak is around 2025. And weren't gas reserves credited to be somewhere around 6000 Mcm? According to IEA ofcourse so i have no clue if this is credible or not. Are these Laherrere gas figures?

I'll start working on my stuff on friday, got some spare time for it this weekend.

by **pup55** » Tue 01 Feb 2005, 12:13:11

The gas reserves per the model above are currently 178.15 tcm. This value makes the curve fit best. The peak date and URR for gas of 262 tcm are from Campbell. The BP energy review estimates current reserves of 175.15 tcm, so I am not ready to say this is too far off.

For coal, the value in the model for current reserves above is 613488 mt, which also makes the model fit best. The BP energy review value is 984,453 mt.

The curve below is adjusted to give a current reserve value of 1,115,000 mt which is closer and does a little better with the current productioin which is 5100 mt/yr, and gives the same peak. I don't know too much about coal. Unlike for oil, the curve is so flat it is hard to model.

If you have a better source of data no problem to make a new curve.

Code: Select all: Year 2004 5,177.41 2005 5,183.66 2006 5,189.64 2007 5,195.35 2008 5,200.77 2009 5,205.92 2010 5,210.79 2011 5,215.38 2012 5,219.68 2013 5,223.70 2014 5,227.44 2015 5,230.90 2016 5,234.07 2017 5,236.95 2018 5,239.55 2019 5,241.86 2020 5,243.88 2021 5,245.61 2022 5,247.06 2023 5,248.22 2024 5,249.08 2025 5,249.66 2026 5,249.95 2027 5,249.95 2028 5,249.66 2029 5,249.08 2030 5,248.22 2031 5,247.06 2032 5,245.61 2033 5,243.88 2034 5,241.86 2035 5,239.55 2036 5,236.95 2037 5,234.07 2038 5,230.90 2039 5,227.44 2040 5,223.70 2041 5,219.68 2042 5,215.38 2043 5,210.79 2044 5,205.92 2045 5,200.77 2046 5,195.35 2047 5,189.64 2048 5,183.66 2049 5,177.41 2050 5,170.88 2051 5,164.08 2052 5,157.01 2053 5,149.67 2054 5,142.06 2055 5,134.19 2056 5,126.05 2057 5,117.65 2058 5,108.99 2059 5,100.06 2060 5,090.89 2061 5,081.45 2062 5,071.77 2063 5,061.83 2064 5,051.65 2065 5,041.21 2066 5,030.54 2067 5,019.62 2068 5,008.45 2069 4,997.06 2070 4,985.42 2071 4,973.56 2072 4,961.46 2073 4,949.13 2074 4,936.58 2075 4,923.80 2076 4,910.81 2077 4,897.59 2078 4,884.16 2079 4,870.52 2080 4,856.66 2081 4,842.60 2082 4,828.34 2083 4,813.87 2084 4,799.20 2085 4,784.34 2086 4,769.28 2087 4,754.03 2088 4,738.59 2089 4,722.97 2090 4,707.17 2091 4,691.19 2092 4,675.03 2093 4,658.70 2094 4,642.20 2095 4,625.53 2096 4,608.70 2097 4,591.71 2098 4,574.56 2099 4,557.25

by **khebab** » Tue 01 Feb 2005, 14:23:23

I don't know if it is useful for you but the last OCDE report have put their economical forecast model in annexe. They made some oil price predictions based on different scenarios.

OCDE report

by **Taskforce_Unity** » Fri 04 Feb 2005, 02:01:30

Wow great OCDE report! Thx, this will help

I', now studying the hubbert formula's when i have some spare time. They are at Die-Off.org at the Laherrere article.

by **Taskforce_Unity** » Tue 08 Feb 2005, 12:29:44

Well i have a lack of time at the moment. Il put the basis online at the end of february.

by **Wildwell** » Tue 08 Feb 2005, 13:13:53

Taskforce_Unity wrote:Well i have a lack of time at the moment. Il put the basis online at the end of february.

Well done for doing this.

One thing that needs to be considered is what is needed and what isn't. For example, people might like to have foreign holidays, but are they needed?

Next, replacement technology: It might be possible to replace some of the distribution chains and import/export lines. Technologies like the internet can reduce the need to travel and so on.

My personal belief is a lot of the waste that goes on won't be about to be tolerated, it is only tolerated now because itâ€™s affordable.

The biggest issues are around:

Agriculture
Transport
Water supply
Urban planning

For example I don't honestly expect to see a soft landing with respect to some of the private transport requirements we have now or over farming/faming subsidies and so on.

by **Taskforce_Unity** » Wed 09 Feb 2005, 11:18:36

Hmmz switched my plans, it will take a while longer but will be a lot better. I'm cooperating with my dad. We're going to make a decline model based on various inputs. Thus not the hubbert curve formule or gauss derived but one with a bumpy slope involving economy, ecology, energy and other things.

The Landing model, data needed (help could also be useful)

The Landing model, data needed (help could also be useful)

Good Idea

data dump part 1

data dump part 2

Who is online