Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Tanada wrote:The main thing holding this back from happening is the abundance of cheap accessible fossil fuels, why bother producing $3.00/gallon synthetic diesel fuel when you can pull it out of the ground and refine it for $0.60/gallon and make a hefty profit even after high excise taxes?

HOW ARE YOU BE FACTUAL AND USE DATA AND STUFF!!!!

I often ask Doly about her experience with resource cost curves, as they are the real mechanism behind figuring out the size and shape of ultimately recoverable oil and gas (and coal) and she doesn't respond.

You have succinctly explained why, backstopping non-renewable energy resources to which those curves apply, there is this....THING. It is a very BIG thing. And Hubbert had it pegged in the same instant he pointed out the basis for the religion that sprang up around that 1956 work. He didn't include the cost of it as you just did, but he didn't need to, his paper was on resources and their size and shape, he was a real scientist, not some pesky economist.

The peak oil religion missed the entire point. Myopic doesn't come close to describing their short sightedness when it comes to energy resources available to humans.

I often ask Doly about her experience with resource cost curves, as they are the real mechanism behind figuring out the size and shape of ultimately recoverable oil and gas (and coal) and she doesn't respond.

I have said a number of times that putting cost into the issue is how you manage to hide the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Put the Second Law of Thermodynamics back into economics, and then cost will be a useful measure of what can be done in the real world.

You have succinctly explained why, backstopping non-renewable energy resources to which those curves apply, there is this....THING. It is a very BIG thing.

Yes, it's a very BIG THING and the fist person as far as I know that pointed the issue was Frederick Soddy, who was both a chemist and a student of economics. He couldn't forget that entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics always work. He then tried to deduce how economics should be done, but he was mostly ignored.

The peak oil religion missed the entire point.

The entire point is that money only exists in people's minds. So when it comes down to it, it becomes a contest between the complex parts of people's minds that calculate money issues, and the simpler parts of people's minds that notice things like going cold or hungry.

People's ideas about money are certain to change a lot in the near future.

Doly wrote:

I often ask Doly about her experience with resource cost curves, as they are the real mechanism behind figuring out the size and shape of ultimately recoverable oil and gas (and coal) and she doesn't respond.

I have said a number of times that putting cost into the issue is how you manage to hide the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Good thing that the 2nd Law is a given within economics then and doesn't need to be explicitly accounted for. Charlie has demonstrated that net energy without understanding the geosciences (let alone economics) is an absolute loser in trying to figure out how human behavior (as described by the social science of economics) works.

Doly wrote: Put the Second Law of Thermodynamics back into economics, and then cost will be a useful measure of what can be done in the real world.

Put the 2nd Law into predicting things in oil and gas depletion and resource extraction and you have Charlie claiming that US oil drilling stops by the turn of the century. Resource cost curves incorporate the 2nd Law because under no circumstances can they avoid it.

Doly wrote:

You have succinctly explained why, backstopping non-renewable energy resources to which those curves apply, there is this....THING. It is a very BIG thing.

Yes, it's a very BIG THING and the fist person as far as I know that pointed the issue was Frederick Soddy, who was both a chemist and a student of economics. He couldn't forget that entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics always work. He then tried to deduce how economics should be done, but he was mostly ignored.

So Frederick was a nuke fan? Like Hubbert? Because that is the THING backstopping non-renewables. Did he tackle the fissionable resource availability side as Hubbert did, or argue that the 2nd Law is somehow being violated when using nuke generated power somehow?

Doly wrote:

The peak oil religion missed the entire point.

The entire point is that money only exists in people's minds. So when it comes down to it, it becomes a contest between the complex parts of people's minds that calculate money issues, and the simpler parts of people's minds that notice things like going cold or hungry.

The entire point is that economics encompasses far more than just money, but also BEHAVIOR. Money is not required when trading my donkey for your 2 sheep and that is still economics without money anywhere in sight. The value of a thing is the result of a relationship, and can change for all sorts of reasons. But one thing that is pretty certain is that until a certain minimum threshold of value in some form or another is met, an oily or gassy thing will stay in the ground.

Doly wrote:People's ideas about money are certain to change a lot in the near future.

They changed yesterday. And a year before that. And when the first of 6 claimed peak oils of this century was declared. And sure, tomorrow as well. Were you on this website when the McDoomsters were soiling themselves over $40/bbl oil? OH NOEZ!! THE END IS NIGH!!!!! they screamed off their keyboards.

Charlie has demonstrated that net energy without understanding the geosciences (let alone economics) is an absolute loser in trying to figure out how human behavior (as described by the social science of economics) works.

I never thought Charlie was trying to figure out human behavior. And in any case, I don't think economics explains human behavior very well at all.

Put the 2nd Law into predicting things in oil and gas depletion and resource extraction and you have Charlie claiming that US oil drilling stops by the turn of the century.

Assuming no new discoveries, which was incorrect.

Resource cost curves incorporate the 2nd Law because under no circumstances can they avoid it

How do they incorporate the 2nd Law?

So Frederick was a nuke fan?

Yes, he was.

Because that is the THING backstopping non-renewables.

It seems so, yes. And now that you put it that way, it makes a lot of sense. What you're saying is that people are stuck when it comes to nukes and can't get past it.

Did he tackle the fissionable resource availability side as Hubbert did, or argue that the 2nd Law is somehow being violated when using nuke generated power somehow?

His time was before there was a clear idea of how much fissionable resource availability there is. He didn't claim that nuclear power violates the 2nd Law.

The value of a thing is the result of a relationship, and can change for all sorts of reasons.

Only if you count as relationships also relationships with inanimate things. Food is valuable whenever you are hungry, but you can get food from foraging and without having any involvement with other people at all. And I've never seen any economics textbook discussing things like foraging.

Were you on this website when the McDoomsters were soiling themselves over $40/bbl oil?

Yes, actually, I was. That's when I started learning about peak oil. I don't think the ideas were invalid just because peak oil is happening towards the later, rather than the sooner, end of the predictions.

Doly wrote:And in any case, I don't think economics explains human behavior very well at all.

Well, I'll let you fight that one out with economists, I have my own suspicions as well, but they have some of the basics down pretty well enough. From my perspective, their fault resides in not quantifying the uncertainty of what they claim to "know".

Doly wrote:

Put the 2nd Law into predicting things in oil and gas depletion and resource extraction and you have Charlie claiming that US oil drilling stops by the turn of the century.

Assuming no new discoveries, which was incorrect.

Not incorrect. Uninformed. Ignorant. A GIVEN when you can't be bothered to do the research.

Doly wrote:

Resource cost curves incorporate the 2nd Law because under no circumstances can they avoid it

How do they incorporate the 2nd Law?

Because under no circumstances can they avoid it. You aren't suggesting that ANY physical process or economic calculation does so without taking it into account are you?

Doly wrote:

So Frederick was a nuke fan?

Yes, he was.

Because that is the THING backstopping non-renewables.

It seems so, yes. And now that you put it that way, it makes a lot of sense. What you're saying is that people are stuck when it comes to nukes and can't get past it.

If by "stuck" you mean the fear that has been sold to folks that has stopped a nuke future from unfolding sooner rather than later, then yes.

Doly wrote:

Did he tackle the fissionable resource availability side as Hubbert did, or argue that the 2nd Law is somehow being violated when using nuke generated power somehow?

His time was before there was a clear idea of how much fissionable resource availability there is. He didn't claim that nuclear power violates the 2nd Law.

That's good, because no one can claim that. Economists, EROEI modelers, geologists, whomever.

Doly wrote:

The value of a thing is the result of a relationship, and can change for all sorts of reasons.

Only if you count as relationships also relationships with inanimate things. Food is valuable whenever you are hungry, but you can get food from foraging and without having any involvement with other people at all. And I've never seen any economics textbook discussing things like foraging.

Economic theory isn't thrilled with bartering and whatnot. Everything you learn about macro-economists seems like it is contradicted by micro-economics. Demand versus supply side focus is another head scratcher. But the behavior parts of economics can also work when it comes to foraging, although there isn't much complexity involved when the demand for a thing can be satisfied by walking outside and grabbing it off a tree.

Doly wrote:

Were you on this website when the McDoomsters were soiling themselves over $40/bbl oil?

Yes, actually, I was. That's when I started learning about peak oil. I don't think the ideas were invalid just because peak oil is happening towards the later, rather than the sooner, end of the predictions.

Depends on which ideas you are talking about. Compared to a multi-disciplinary integrated stochastic system they are as useful as using a spoon to build a skyscraper.

Some ideas are axiomatic. Hubbert covered that in his 1956 work, and when people talk about depletion they act as though that is the end all and be all. I could barely lead Dennis to understanding why the peak oilers have screwed the pooch, let alone correct it in his curve building system, and once there, he didn't have a clue as to how to solve that problem, when it was written up as science almost a decade ago now.

There is only one later prediction of peak oil left that hasn't been discredited by reality. The EIA one for about 2037. Otherwise all the contemporaenous ones I know of by the passing of the first 4 claimed peaks oils of this century are toast.

From my perspective, their fault resides in not quantifying the uncertainty of what they claim to "know".

I agree with you on that.

Not incorrect. Uninformed. Ignorant. A GIVEN when you can't be bothered to do the research.

Charles Hall was aware that there were more discoveries that he hadn't included in his calculations, and did mention that on his paper. He chose to put it in as an additional note, rather than redo the whole graph.

You aren't suggesting that ANY physical process or economic calculation does so without taking it into account are you?

No, I'm just saying that I'm not clear at all about what "doing so" is. I imagine economic calculations "do so" for some people, though I don't think they do it for me (but I suppose I could be looking at this the wrong way, or at least, the wrong way from the perspective of most people, or at least people trained in modern Western economics). I have no clear idea at all about what economic calculations may be doing for most people. I studied maths, therefore I can be pretty good at missing stuff about numbers.

But the behavior parts of economics can also work when it comes to foraging, although there isn't much complexity involved when the demand for a thing can be satisfied by walking outside and grabbing it off a tree.

The issue isn't complexity, the issue is that the value of an apple is vastly different depending on how hungry you are. If you are really hungry, one apple is just not enough. The amount of apples is also relevant, but only up to a point. If there are more apples than you can eat before they go off, the amount of extra apples is irrelevant.

If you start trading apples with other people, since they're all human, they'll all find apples of similar nutritional value, and though they may have personal preferences in terms of food, if they're hungry enough, they'll only care about the nutritional value. Since everybody can agree on the similar value of apples and that it's highly desirable for everybody to have as many apples as they're likely to need, they'll work so as to make sure that they plant sufficient orchards for their need. So when they trade apples, the price of apples should remain comfortably low, barring bad crops of apples, because apples are valuable to all.

On the other hand, some things are valuable only to some people, or even merely as status symbols. If these things are difficult to produce, their prices will be high. Luxury items will be the most expensive precisely because very few people actually require that precise status symbol, and those people in all likelihood could do with another different one, or could be substituted by people who are less fussy about their status symbols.

Depends on which ideas you are talking about. Compared to a multi-disciplinary integrated stochastic system they are as useful as using a spoon to build a skyscraper.

Peak oil seemed pretty close to a multi-disciplinary integrated stochastic system to me.

There is only one later prediction of peak oil left that hasn't been discredited by reality. The EIA one for about 2037. Otherwise all the contemporaenous ones I know of by the passing of the first 4 claimed peaks oils of this century are toast.

The "Global Oil Depletion Report" by UKERC argued for peak oil before 2020, and since the recent peak was in 2018, it looks so far like it could be correct.

Doly wrote:

Not incorrect. Uninformed. Ignorant. A GIVEN when you can't be bothered to do the research.

Charles Hall was aware that there were more discoveries that he hadn't included in his calculations, and did mention that on his paper. He chose to put it in as an additional note, rather than redo the whole graph.

Charles Hall missed known, published and utilized science dating back a quarter century before he wrote his paper. What do you call it when a researcher doesn't...you know....do research? Blazing competence?

Doly wrote:

You aren't suggesting that ANY physical process or economic calculation does so without taking it into account are you?

No, I'm just saying that I'm not clear at all about what "doing so" is.

Name a single physical process that doesn't include within it the 2nd Law operating exactly as described. So...you are the one who has claimed that some system or concept doesn't....I am maintaing that it is incorporated in everything.

Doly wrote: I have no clear idea at all about what economic calculations may be doing for most people. I studied maths, therefore I can be pretty good at missing stuff about numbers.

I am unclear on the value of some econmic calculations myself. Fortunately, some are quite reasonable when describing certain behaviors.

Doly wrote:The issue isn't complexity, the issue is that the value of an apple is vastly different depending on how hungry you are. If you are really hungry, one apple is just not enough. The amount of apples is also relevant, but only up to a point. If there are more apples than you can eat before they go off, the amount of extra apples is irrelevant.

If you start trading apples with other people, since they're all human, they'll all find apples of similar nutritional value, and though they may have personal preferences in terms of food, if they're hungry enough, they'll only care about the nutritional value. Since everybody can agree on the similar value of apples and that it's highly desirable for everybody to have as many apples as they're likely to need, they'll work so as to make sure that they plant sufficient orchards for their need. So when they trade apples, the price of apples should remain comfortably low, barring bad crops of apples, because apples are valuable to all.

On the other hand, some things are valuable only to some people, or even merely as status symbols. If these things are difficult to produce, their prices will be high. Luxury items will be the most expensive precisely because very few people actually require that precise status symbol, and those people in all likelihood could do with another different one, or could be substituted by people who are less fussy about their status symbols.

Yeah, I'm completely lost on this example. How much of your economic understanding is more formal rather than self taught? Are you attempting to describe a principle again that you can reference and I can look up?

Doly wrote:

Depends on which ideas you are talking about. Compared to a multi-disciplinary integrated stochastic system they are as useful as using a spoon to build a skyscraper.

Peak oil seemed pretty close to a multi-disciplinary integrated stochastic system to me.

Indeed. Unfortunate that others couldn't be bothered to do it right and just slapped random curves on aggregate production rates and called it a day. Or the end of days.

The "Global Oil Depletion Report" by UKERC argued for peak oil before 2020, and since the recent peak was in 2018, it looks so far like it could be correct.

If memory serves, that is the reference you provided previously that was quite excellent? If so I'll check it out to find out the exact wording, and if you are correct it can be #2 from the old days, not yet discredited.