The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[origin]

You are working very hard to see things exactly backwards.

The main question seems to be whether:
1) GDP results in energy use.
or
2) Energy use results in GDP.

I think the answer is obvious. You can't do anything without energy. So, energy use results in GDP.

The economy runs on energy. If the available net energy decreases, the economy will shrink. How could it be otherwise?

Since you are a fanatic preaching the end of the world, it is difficult to have a reasonable discussion. But anyway, if energy costs are very high it is true that this will work to lower the GDP. However it is also true that a high GDP will result in a higher consumption of energy. It is not either or.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Correct and when the price of oil increases the oil industry will expand. Pretty simple really.

True....

Energy consumption decreases when the economic output decreases. As the economic output increases the consumption of energy increases.

When the price increases and oil industry grows your prediction will be wrong. When the economic growth increases that prediction will be wrong also.

You keep predicting total collapse, death and horror but it never happens. I hope you do not find that too disappointing.

And the writing says both your predictions and the Etp model are bogus.

Just to be clear: during the recession, prices dropped AND production dropped, due to the weak economy. Today, prices are dropping and revenue is dropping, but for a different reason: production is GROWING too fast. Some industries are measured on revenue alone, but commodities need to be measured on production. Essentially, the recent revenue drop is because the industry was too healthy (growing too fast), not too weak. As such, this revenue drop will not cause production to drop, it will just slow the increase....until the lower cost drives up consumption to pull it back up.

 

[Futilitist]

if energy costs are very high it is true that this will work to lower the GDP.

Yes.

However it is also true that a high GDP will result in a higher consumption of energy.

But you can't have a high GDP without available, affordable energy. See?

It is high energy consumption that leads to high GDP. You can't just have spontaneously high GDP and use that high GDP to buy energy. You need sufficient, affordable energy to generate GDP in the first place.



--Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

But you can't have a high GDP without available, affordable energy.

And as you are quite well aware, by historical standards, energy is pretty available and affordable right now. Indeed, we appear to be at the start of an unprecedented period of good, stable availability and affordability. Again, you're twisting yourself in a knots to avoid dealing with the lack of an identifiable reason why oil production should permanently drop, when demand is high and the oil is readily available.

 

[exchemist]

You are working very hard to see things exactly backwards.

The main question seems to be whether:
1) GDP results in energy use.
or
2) Energy use results in GDP.

I think the answer is obvious. You can't do anything without energy. So, energy use results in GDP.

The economy runs on energy. If the available net energy decreases, the economy will shrink. How could it be otherwise?



---Futilitist

Because, you nitwit, the amount of GDP/kWh energy consumption is not fixed.

As some of us have been discussing, the energy efficiency of the world economy has greatly improved over the years, and this has not reached any kind of limit yet. For example, just glance around at the waste there is in the USA: unnecessarily huge vehicles, use of private instead of public transport, grossly excessive use of air conditioning, excessive city lighting at night…….etc etc. All of this and more could be tackled with barely any material effect on economic output. Same sort of thing applies to other economies around the world too: the USA just happens to be particularly profligate.

 

[Futilitist]

I'm well aware that you inverted your logic when you picked-up the ETP Model...

That is not true. I have always predicted a collapse based on declining net energy. The Etp model just gives a more precise picture of the timing.

Whether the collapse(which you said was in progress in 2013)...

That is not true. I said the collapse officially began when the price of oil plummeted, starting in June 0f 2014.

...causes oil prices to fall or oil prices and production fall due to causeless magic, which leads to economic collapse (which you are claiming now)

I have never claimed that causeless magic leads to collapse. You just keep falsely claiming that that is what I claim. In my last post, I made it very clear that a net energy decline will be the cause of the collapse.

...none of what you are saying is happening (as pertains to your model) is acutally happening. It's all a figment of your imagination/faith.

You claim the world economy is just fine. That is a figment of your imagination/faith.

...You know, right now in another part of the forum, there is a batshitcrazy loony toon flooding a thread with at least 3 totally unrelated conspiracy theories at the same time.

Right. And that has nothing to do with anything we are talking about here. Trying to make fun of me is not a rational argument about anything I am saying.

...You, on the other hand, are dreaming this up from scratch.

Hardly. I did not originate peak oil theory. I did not write "Limits to growth". I am not Jay Hanson or David Price or Richard Duncan. I did not create the Etp model.

If you can't do any better than mischaracterizing everything I say and making fun of me, then you are clearly losing the argument.

Indeed, we appear to be at the start of an unprecedented period of good, stable availability and affordability. Again, you're twisting yourself in a knots to avoid dealing with the lack of an identifiable reason why oil production should permanently drop, when demand is high and the oil is readily available.

Demand is not high. The oil available has a very low and rapidly falling EROEI. We are not at the start of unprecedented good times. You are dreaming! Maybe you should get a job on CNBC!


---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

Because, you nitwit...

If you can't make your argument without calling me names, you obviously have a weak argument.



---Futilitist

 

[exchemist]

If you can't make your argument without calling me names, you obviously have a weak argument.



---Futilitist

I am happy to rely on other readers' judgment about the relative merits of your arguments and mine.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

If you can't make your argument without calling me names, you obviously have a weak argument.



---Futilitist

We could always compare and contrast my argument with yours.

Or is mine too self evident?

 

[Futilitist]

I am happy to rely on other readers' judgment about the relative merits of your arguments and mine.

Me too.



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

Me too.

How's that working out for you?

 

[Futilitist]

The thread has 4,151 views so far. They have gotten to see your best arguments against the Etp model. So, all in all, it's working out fine.



---Futilitist

 

[billvon]

Neither of those predictions is matching reality: oil production is continuing to rise and the world economy is humming along just fine, China notwithstanding. Your magical, invisible, causeless collapse remains invisible.

Well, he's claimed that the collapse has already happened, you just didn't notice. From that angle doomsday predictions are pretty easy.

 

[Futilitist]

Well, he's claimed that the collapse has already happened, you just didn't notice.

No, I did not. Please go away.


Hey Russ_Watters.

Here is the actual relationship between world oil production and world GPD:

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_012.htm

That is a very close relationship, isn't it? That is because the relationship is based on the physics of energy.

Are you still claiming that GDP is unrelated to energy?



---Futilitist

 

[billvon]

I agree, but that does nothing to prevent the eventual depletion of natural resources, it would at best buy a little time.

Once those "natural resources" become sunlight and wind, I am perfectly OK with "depleting" them.

Ok, that accounts for the top 10% of the entire population. What about the other 90%. Are they going to run out and buy an 100,000 dollar EV?

No. You asked how we keep rich people from buying Hummers. The answer is that rich people will buy other super expensive cars like the Tesla.

What will everyone else do? As gas prices rise they will first switch to very efficient gasoline cars. You can get a Prius with 150,000 miles on it for $2000 on Ebay Motors for example. As they rise further they will switch to non-gasoline cars. You can get a used Leaf on Ebay Motors for $6000, and that will come down with time.

Yes, I am sure everyone is in agreement about the inevitability of a paradigm shift from non-renewable resources, to sustainable eco-friendly energy. The big question is how fast this will happen, because IF it is not a smooth transition (which will take decades), the consequences are unimaginable, except that it will be very, very bad.

That's the good thing about the recent increase in shale oil pumping. Shale oil, being a more expensive form of oil, will provide a buffer between cheap oil and the more expensive renewable options.

Trump (looking ahead) already calls for just taking middle East oil, which is tantamount to a declaration of war.

Listening to Trump on energy planning is like listening to Sarah Palin on foreign relations.

Bottom line: this is not a local but a global problem, and that presents the need for a global solution. What are the chances of that happening soon and how long will that take?

It's starting to happen now. It will take decades to complete. Fortunately we have decades worth of shale oil.

 

[Futilitist]

Hey billvon.

How's that oil price forecast graph that you promised you would make coming along?

I can't wait to see it.



---Futilitist

 

[exchemist]

Hey billvon.

How's that oil price forecast graph that you promised you would make coming along?

I can't wait to see it.



---Futilitist

He made no such promise, as you well know. It was you, with your typical absurdity, who demanded it from him. Most readers will understand the difference.

The oil price depends on many factors, economic and geopolitical. Shell used many years ago to do scenario planning in which they attempted to set likely upper and lower bounds to the price, forward from the current date. These bounds expanded like a wide funnel, so that after a few years it could be anything. They stopped doing it years ago in consequence. What he outlined, as I understand it, was a qualitative impression of the way things would eventually go, and the factors involved. This is about as much as any sensible person would do, on the subject of the oil price.

 

[exchemist]

---Futilitist[/QUOTE]

Because, you nitwit, the amount of GDP/kWh energy consumption is not fixed.

As some of us have been discussing, the energy efficiency of the world economy has greatly improved over the years, and this has not reached any kind of limit yet. For example, just glance around at the waste there is in the USA: unnecessarily huge vehicles, use of private instead of public transport, grossly excessive use of air conditioning, excessive city lighting at night…….etc etc. All of this and more could be tackled with barely any material effect on economic output. Same sort of thing applies to other economies around the world too: the USA just happens to be particularly profligate.

So readers, here we have a third fatal flaw in this silly "model".

We have:

- the misguided attempt to apply an entropy calculation to a thermodynamic "system" that is not finite,
- the failure to allow for the added value of oil beyond its mere calorie content, and now,
- the failure to recognise that the GDP/kWh is not fixed, because the world is continually getting more efficient in its use of energy.

Keep 'em coming……….

 

[Futilitist]

He made no such promise, as you well know. You, with typical absurdity, demanded it. Most readers will be able to understand the difference.

Yeah. I know he didn't promise anything. He is just afraid to post a prediction that I can make fun of.

The reason I posted that was just to see if I could get his attention. I figured he would get mad that I said he promised. When he complained, I was going to say sorry, but as long as we are talking, perhaps we could carry on the Etp discussion in a more serious and civil manner.

But then you answered instead. Funny thing is, that just keeps happening. Every time I ask a hard question to someone, and there is some continuity to the discussion, some one else jumps in and changes the subject. It's been going on for quite a while now. It's like tag team. It's almost like it is planned that way. Conspirare. Oh well.

Thanks for summarizing your arguments:

1) the misguided attempt to apply an entropy calculation to a thermodynamic "system" that is not finite.

I don't think you understand how the Etp model is designed. It uses three nested control volumes.

"Crude oil is used primarily as an energy source; its other uses have only minor commercial value. To be an energy source it must therefore be capable of delivering sufficient energy to support its own production process (extraction, processing and distribution); otherwise it would become an energy sink, as opposed to a source. The Total Production Energy ($$E_{TP}$$) must therefore be equal to, or less than EG, its specific exergy. To determine values for $$E_{TP}$$ the total crude oil production system is analyzed by defining it as three nested Control Volumes within the environment. The three Control Volumes (where a control volume differs from a closed system because it allows energy and mass to pass through it's boundaries) are the reservoir, the well head, and the Petroleum Production System (PPS). The PPS is where the energy that comes from the well head is converted into the work required to extract the oil. The PPS is an area which is distributed within, and throughout the environment. It is where the goods and services needed for the production process originate. This boundary make-up allows other energy, and mass transfers to be considered as exchanges, such as natural gas used in refining, electricity used in well pumping, or water used for reservoir injection."
~BW Hill

2) the failure to allow for the added value of oil beyond its mere calorie content.

It doesn't seem to be necessary, since the Etp model forecasts the yearly average price of oil with an accuracy of 96.5%.

3) the failure to recognise that the GDP/kWh is not fixed, because the world is continually getting more efficient in its use of energy.

Like I said, the Etp model forecasts the yearly average price of oil with an accuracy of 96.5%.


Number 1 above is the important argument. I think the nested control volumes answers your criticism sufficiently.

Numbers 2 and 3, if they were really important and could be factored in, would amount to a refinement of a working model that is already performing nearly perfectly. Thus, even if numbers 2 and 3 were true, it would not invalidate the Etp model.

What else you got?



---Futilitist

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Hey billvon.

How's that oil price forecast graph that you promised you would make coming along?

I can't wait to see it.

You should publish your pictures.