ahh-- i will correct that then-- thank you-- i had no clue of that.
The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed
- Thread starter Futilitist
- Start date
- Status
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
It still made more sense than anything Futilist has posted yet.
LIM-- i THINK i corrected it.It still made more sense than anything Futilist has posted yet.
No, I am seriously predicting that in 5 years oil will not be $11 and Exxonmobile will not be bankrupt. I further predict that you will have left the forum by then because even you will have to admit that your beliefs are absurd. I am less confident about the latter prediction.
after 76 pages of this, i still do not have a clue as to what this etp model actually predicts. from what i can gather is that it predicts a range--which strangely enough is from 11 dollars to 66 dollars--which will then cause society to collapse-- am i now understanding this?
If you were waving your arms as you said it, then you got it.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
If you were waving your arms as you said it, then you got it.
The trouble is that we are dealing with a millenarian religious belief here. It is immune to reason.
LIM-- ahh, i see.If you were waving your arms as you said it, then you got it.
Bells
Staff member
Mod Note
Please provide evidence that the global economy has been starved of energy since 2012 and explain and provide evidence as to how the ETP model explains it. I notice that several posters have asked you to support this assertion and you have continuously refused to do so. So stop trolling and support your argument.
And thread moved to Pseudoscience..
Futilitist, a word of advice.. If you throw out insults as you have been in this thread, if you go out of your way to flame and troll others, don't complain when they turn around and bite back. This sort of behaviour from you has been going on for a long time in this thread alone.
It isn't acceptable.
Also, it would behoove you to not drag whatever other issues you may have on other websites to this website. Threatening to out or do whatever to other members because they dared to challenge you and ask you to support your argument, is not going to be helpful to you in the long run. Such threats and insinuations are not viewed kindly by staff on this site.
I will be watching this thread and I will be monitoring it much more closely. So, all are put on notice. I understand, for other members, how frustrating this has been and I apologise to you that it has gotten to this point. But I do ask you to not give us reason to moderate you.
Futilitist, the same goes for you. There are more than enough reasons for me to moderate you. Since this has been caused by you trolling and flaming others and they eventually bit back, we'll call this one even (even though it clearly is not even or fair to others participating in this thread in good faith). But if you keep going as you are, you will be moderated. If I have to moderate anyone else in this thread for how they respond to your trolling and flaming, I will also issue you with infractions for flaming and trolling.
So, please, everyone, try and behave. Futilitist, support your arguments.
You are just playing word games, yet again.
The entire global economy is slowing. The Etp model explains why. It is because the global economy has been starved of energy since 2012. Believe it or not.
That was my answer before. It is still my answer. It is the only one you are getting, troll.
---Futilitist
Please provide evidence that the global economy has been starved of energy since 2012 and explain and provide evidence as to how the ETP model explains it. I notice that several posters have asked you to support this assertion and you have continuously refused to do so. So stop trolling and support your argument.
And thread moved to Pseudoscience..
Futilitist, a word of advice.. If you throw out insults as you have been in this thread, if you go out of your way to flame and troll others, don't complain when they turn around and bite back. This sort of behaviour from you has been going on for a long time in this thread alone.
It isn't acceptable.
Also, it would behoove you to not drag whatever other issues you may have on other websites to this website. Threatening to out or do whatever to other members because they dared to challenge you and ask you to support your argument, is not going to be helpful to you in the long run. Such threats and insinuations are not viewed kindly by staff on this site.
I will be watching this thread and I will be monitoring it much more closely. So, all are put on notice. I understand, for other members, how frustrating this has been and I apologise to you that it has gotten to this point. But I do ask you to not give us reason to moderate you.
Futilitist, the same goes for you. There are more than enough reasons for me to moderate you. Since this has been caused by you trolling and flaming others and they eventually bit back, we'll call this one even (even though it clearly is not even or fair to others participating in this thread in good faith). But if you keep going as you are, you will be moderated. If I have to moderate anyone else in this thread for how they respond to your trolling and flaming, I will also issue you with infractions for flaming and trolling.
So, please, everyone, try and behave. Futilitist, support your arguments.
Last edited:
IMHO, which I am pretty sure I am entitled to, you have you have made a grave error in your so called "moderation". But I am not surprised. I was expecting this to happen as soon as Ophiolite showed up. Super obvious set up. Comical. Conspirare.
"Please provide evidence that the global economy has been starved of energy since 2012 and explain and provide evidence as to how the ETP model explains it."
This thread contains 75 pages of my more than patient explanation of how and why the economy has been starved of energy since 2012 and how the Etp model explains it all.
But here is some more support for my argument that the economy is starving for energy:
Murphy, David J. December 2, 2013. The implications of the declining energy return on investment of oil production. Trans. R. Soc. A 2014 372
Abstract. Declining production from conventional oil resources has initiated a global transition to unconventional oil, such as tar sands. Unconventional oil is generally harder to extract than conventional oil and is expected to have a (much) lower energy return on (energy) investment (EROI). Recently, there has been a surge in publications estimating the EROI of a number of different sources of oil, and others relating EROI to long-term economic growth, profitability and oil prices. The following points seem clear from a review of the literature: (i) the EROI of global oil production is roughly 17 and declining, while that for the USA is 11 and declining; (ii) the EROI of ultra-deep-water oil and oil sands is below 10; (iii) the relation between the EROI and the price of oil is inverse and exponential; (iv) as EROI declines below 10, a point is reached when the relation between EROI and price becomes highly nonlinear; and (v) the minimum oil price needed to increase the oil supply in the near term is at levels consistent with levels that have induced past economic recessions. From these points, I conclude that, as the EROI of the average barrel of oil declines, long-term economic growth will become harder to achieve and come at an increasingly higher financial, energetic and environmental cost.
Introduction
Today’s oil industry is going through a fundamental change: conventional oil fields are being rapidly depleted and new production is being derived increasingly from unconventional sources, such as tar or oil sands and shale (or tight) oil. Indeed, much of the so-called ‘peak oil debate’ rests on whether or not these sources can be produced at rates comparable to the conventional mega-oil fields of yesterday.
What is less discussed is that the production of unconventional oil most likely has a (much) lower net energy yield than the production of conventional crude oil. Net energy is commonly defined as the difference between the energy acquired from some source and the energy used to obtain and deliver that energy, measured over a full life cycle.
A related concept is the energy return on investment (EROI), defined as the ratio of the former to the latter (EROI=Eout/Ein). The ‘energy used to obtain energy’ (Ein) may be measured in a number of different ways. For example, it may include both the energy used directly during the operation of the relevant energy system (e.g. the energy used for water injection in oil wells) as well as the energy used indirectly in various stages of its life cycle (e.g. the energy required to manufacture the oil rig). Owing to these differences, it is necessary to ensure that the EROI estimates have been derived using similar boundaries, i.e. using the same level of specificity for Ein. Murphy et al. [1] suggested a framework for categorizing various EROI estimates, and, where applicable, I will follow this framework in this paper.
Estimates of EROI are important because they provide a measure of the relative ‘efficiency’ of different energy sources and of the energy system as a whole [2,3]. Since it is this net energy that is important for long-term economic growth [3–6], measuring and tracking the changes in EROI over time may allow us to assess the future growth potential of the global economy in ways that data on production and/or prices cannot.
Over the past few years, there has been a surge in research estimating the EROI of a number of different sources of oil, including global oil and gas [7], US oil and gas [8,9], Norwegian oil and gas [10], ultra-deep-water oil and gas [11] and oil shale [12]. In addition, there have been several publications relating EROI to long-term economic growth, firm profitability and oil prices [3,13–15]. The main objective of this paper is to use this literature to explain the implications that declining EROI may have for long-term economic growth. Specifically, this paper: (i) provides a brief history of the development of EROI and net energy concepts in the academic literature, (ii) summarizes the most recent estimates of the EROI of oil resources, (iii) assesses the importance of EROI and net energy for economic growth and (iv) discusses the implications of these estimates for the future growth of the global economy.
Energy return on (energy) investment, oil prices, and economic growth
The economic crash of 2008 occurred during the same month that oil prices peaked at an all-time high of 147 dollars per barrel, leading to numerous studies that suggested a causal link between the two [47,48]. In addition, other researchers involved in net energy analysis began examining how EROI relates to both the price of oil and economic growth [3,13,15,49–51].
Murphy & Hall [3] examined the relation between EROI, oil price and economic growth over the past 40 years and found that economic growth occurred during periods that combined low oil prices with an increasing oil supply. They also found that high oil prices led to an increase in energy expenditures as a share of GDP, which has led historically to recessions. Lastly, they found that oil prices and EROI are inversely related (figure 2), which implies that increasing the oil supply by exploiting unconventional and hence lower EROI sources of oil would require high oil prices. This created what Murphy & Hall called the ‘economic growth paradox: increasing the oil supply to support economic growth will require high oil prices that will undermine that economic growth’.
Other researchers have come to similar conclusions to those of Murphy & Hall, most notably economist James Hamilton [47]. Recently, Kopits [50], and later Nelder & Macdonald [49], reiterated the importance of the relation between oil prices and economic growth in what they describe as a ‘narrow ledge’ of oil prices. This is the idea that the range, or ledge, of oil prices that are profitable for oil producers but not so high as to hinder economic growth is narrowing as newer oil resources require high oil prices for development, and as economies begin to contract due largely to the effects of prolonged periods of high oil prices. In other words, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the oil industry to increase supply at low prices, since most of the new oil being brought online has a low EROI. Therefore, if we can only increase oil supply through low EROI resources, then oil prices must apparently rise to meet the cost, thus restraining economic growth.
Skrebowski [51] provides another interpretation of the relation between oil prices and economic growth in what he calls the ‘effective incremental oil supply cost’.2 According to data provided by Skrebowski, developing new unconventional oil production in Canada (i.e. tar sands) requires an oil price between 70 and 90 dollars per barrel. Skrebowski also indicates that new production from ultra-deep-water areas requires prices between 70 and 80 dollars per barrel. In other words, to increase oil production over the next few years from such resources will require oil prices above at least 70 dollars per barrel. These oil prices may seem normal today considering that the market price for reference crude West-Texas Intermediate ranged from 78 to 110 dollars per barrel in 2012 alone, but we should remember that the average oil price during periods of economic growth over the past 40 years was under 40 dollars per barrel, and the average price during economic recessions was under 60 dollars per barrel (dollar values inflation adjusted to 2010) [3]. What these data indicate is that the floor price at which we could increase oil production in the short term would require, at a minimum, prices that are correlated historically with economic recessions.
---Futilitist
"Please provide evidence that the global economy has been starved of energy since 2012 and explain and provide evidence as to how the ETP model explains it."
This thread contains 75 pages of my more than patient explanation of how and why the economy has been starved of energy since 2012 and how the Etp model explains it all.
But here is some more support for my argument that the economy is starving for energy:
Murphy, David J. December 2, 2013. The implications of the declining energy return on investment of oil production. Trans. R. Soc. A 2014 372
Abstract. Declining production from conventional oil resources has initiated a global transition to unconventional oil, such as tar sands. Unconventional oil is generally harder to extract than conventional oil and is expected to have a (much) lower energy return on (energy) investment (EROI). Recently, there has been a surge in publications estimating the EROI of a number of different sources of oil, and others relating EROI to long-term economic growth, profitability and oil prices. The following points seem clear from a review of the literature: (i) the EROI of global oil production is roughly 17 and declining, while that for the USA is 11 and declining; (ii) the EROI of ultra-deep-water oil and oil sands is below 10; (iii) the relation between the EROI and the price of oil is inverse and exponential; (iv) as EROI declines below 10, a point is reached when the relation between EROI and price becomes highly nonlinear; and (v) the minimum oil price needed to increase the oil supply in the near term is at levels consistent with levels that have induced past economic recessions. From these points, I conclude that, as the EROI of the average barrel of oil declines, long-term economic growth will become harder to achieve and come at an increasingly higher financial, energetic and environmental cost.
Introduction
Today’s oil industry is going through a fundamental change: conventional oil fields are being rapidly depleted and new production is being derived increasingly from unconventional sources, such as tar or oil sands and shale (or tight) oil. Indeed, much of the so-called ‘peak oil debate’ rests on whether or not these sources can be produced at rates comparable to the conventional mega-oil fields of yesterday.
What is less discussed is that the production of unconventional oil most likely has a (much) lower net energy yield than the production of conventional crude oil. Net energy is commonly defined as the difference between the energy acquired from some source and the energy used to obtain and deliver that energy, measured over a full life cycle.
A related concept is the energy return on investment (EROI), defined as the ratio of the former to the latter (EROI=Eout/Ein). The ‘energy used to obtain energy’ (Ein) may be measured in a number of different ways. For example, it may include both the energy used directly during the operation of the relevant energy system (e.g. the energy used for water injection in oil wells) as well as the energy used indirectly in various stages of its life cycle (e.g. the energy required to manufacture the oil rig). Owing to these differences, it is necessary to ensure that the EROI estimates have been derived using similar boundaries, i.e. using the same level of specificity for Ein. Murphy et al. [1] suggested a framework for categorizing various EROI estimates, and, where applicable, I will follow this framework in this paper.
Estimates of EROI are important because they provide a measure of the relative ‘efficiency’ of different energy sources and of the energy system as a whole [2,3]. Since it is this net energy that is important for long-term economic growth [3–6], measuring and tracking the changes in EROI over time may allow us to assess the future growth potential of the global economy in ways that data on production and/or prices cannot.
Over the past few years, there has been a surge in research estimating the EROI of a number of different sources of oil, including global oil and gas [7], US oil and gas [8,9], Norwegian oil and gas [10], ultra-deep-water oil and gas [11] and oil shale [12]. In addition, there have been several publications relating EROI to long-term economic growth, firm profitability and oil prices [3,13–15]. The main objective of this paper is to use this literature to explain the implications that declining EROI may have for long-term economic growth. Specifically, this paper: (i) provides a brief history of the development of EROI and net energy concepts in the academic literature, (ii) summarizes the most recent estimates of the EROI of oil resources, (iii) assesses the importance of EROI and net energy for economic growth and (iv) discusses the implications of these estimates for the future growth of the global economy.
Energy return on (energy) investment, oil prices, and economic growth
The economic crash of 2008 occurred during the same month that oil prices peaked at an all-time high of 147 dollars per barrel, leading to numerous studies that suggested a causal link between the two [47,48]. In addition, other researchers involved in net energy analysis began examining how EROI relates to both the price of oil and economic growth [3,13,15,49–51].
Murphy & Hall [3] examined the relation between EROI, oil price and economic growth over the past 40 years and found that economic growth occurred during periods that combined low oil prices with an increasing oil supply. They also found that high oil prices led to an increase in energy expenditures as a share of GDP, which has led historically to recessions. Lastly, they found that oil prices and EROI are inversely related (figure 2), which implies that increasing the oil supply by exploiting unconventional and hence lower EROI sources of oil would require high oil prices. This created what Murphy & Hall called the ‘economic growth paradox: increasing the oil supply to support economic growth will require high oil prices that will undermine that economic growth’.
Other researchers have come to similar conclusions to those of Murphy & Hall, most notably economist James Hamilton [47]. Recently, Kopits [50], and later Nelder & Macdonald [49], reiterated the importance of the relation between oil prices and economic growth in what they describe as a ‘narrow ledge’ of oil prices. This is the idea that the range, or ledge, of oil prices that are profitable for oil producers but not so high as to hinder economic growth is narrowing as newer oil resources require high oil prices for development, and as economies begin to contract due largely to the effects of prolonged periods of high oil prices. In other words, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the oil industry to increase supply at low prices, since most of the new oil being brought online has a low EROI. Therefore, if we can only increase oil supply through low EROI resources, then oil prices must apparently rise to meet the cost, thus restraining economic growth.
Skrebowski [51] provides another interpretation of the relation between oil prices and economic growth in what he calls the ‘effective incremental oil supply cost’.2 According to data provided by Skrebowski, developing new unconventional oil production in Canada (i.e. tar sands) requires an oil price between 70 and 90 dollars per barrel. Skrebowski also indicates that new production from ultra-deep-water areas requires prices between 70 and 80 dollars per barrel. In other words, to increase oil production over the next few years from such resources will require oil prices above at least 70 dollars per barrel. These oil prices may seem normal today considering that the market price for reference crude West-Texas Intermediate ranged from 78 to 110 dollars per barrel in 2012 alone, but we should remember that the average oil price during periods of economic growth over the past 40 years was under 40 dollars per barrel, and the average price during economic recessions was under 60 dollars per barrel (dollar values inflation adjusted to 2010) [3]. What these data indicate is that the floor price at which we could increase oil production in the short term would require, at a minimum, prices that are correlated historically with economic recessions.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
Understanding the relationship between energy return on (energy) investment and net energy
The mathematical relation between EROI, net energy and gross energy can be used to explain why, at around an EROI of 10, the relation between EROI and most other variables, such as price, economic growth and profitability, becomes nonlinear. The following equation describes the relation between EROI, gross and net energy [3]:
3.2Using this equation, we can estimate the net energy provided to society from a particular energy source or (rearranging) the amount of gross energy required to provide a certain amount of net energy [52]. We can also interpret equation (3.2) as follows: an EROI of 5 will deliver to society 80% of the gross energy extracted as net energy, while an EROI of 2 will deliver only 50%. This exponential relation between gross and net energy means that there is little difference in the net energy provided to society by an energy source with an EROI above 10, whether it is 11 or 100, but a very large difference in the net energy provided to society by an energy source with an EROI of 10 and one with an EROI of 5. This exponential relation between gross and net energy flows has been called the ‘net energy cliff’ [53] and it is the main reason why there is a critical point in the relation between EROI and price at an EROI of about 10 (figure 4).
Figure 4.
The ‘net energy cliff’ graph, showing the relation between net energy and EROI. As EROI declines, the net energy as a percentage of total energy extracted declines exponentially. Note that the x-axis is in reverse order. (Adapted from Mearns [53].)
Calculating the minimum energy return on (energy) investment at the point of energy acquisition for a sustainable society
According to equation (3.2), as EROI declines, the net energy provided to society declines as well, and, at some point, the amount of net energy will be insufficient to meet existing demand. The point at which the EROI provides just enough net energy to society to sustain current activity represents the minimum EROI for a sustainable society. But estimating empirically the actual minimum EROI for society is challenging. Hall et al. [24] estimated that the minimum EROI required to sustain the vehicle transportation system of the USA was 3. Since their calculation included only the energy costs of maintaining the transportation system, it is reasonable to expect that the minimum EROI for society as a whole could be much higher. Exploring the minimum EROI for a sustainable society is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, I will examine how, in theory, the minimum EROI could be calculated by using some simple models. I will first do this by examining how the idea of net energy grew from analyzing the energy budgets of organisms.
The energy that an organism acquires from its food is its gross energy intake. Let us assume, for simplicity’s sake, that an organism consumed 10 units of gross energy, but to access this food it expended 5 units of energy. Given these parameters, the EROI is 2 (=10/5) and the net energy is 5. It is important to note that the expended energy created an energy deficit (5 units) that must be repaid from the gross energy intake (10 units) before any growth, for example, in the form of building fat reserves or reproduction, can take place.
An economy also must have an influx of net energy to grow. Let us assume that Economy A produces 10 000 units of energy at an EROI of 10, which means that the energy cost of acquisition is 1000 units and the net energy is 9000. Much like organisms, economies also have energy requirements that must be met before any investments in growth can be made. Indeed, researchers are now measuring the ‘metabolism of society’ by mapping energy consumption and flow patterns over time [54].4 For example, economies must invest energy simply to maintain transportation and building infrastructure, to provide food and security, as well as to provide energy for direct consumption in transportation vehicles, households and business, etc. The energy flow to society must first pay all of these metabolic energy costs before enabling growth, such as constructing new buildings, roads, etc.
As society transitions to lower EROI energy sources, a portion of net energy that was historically used for consumption and/or growth will be transferred to the energy extraction sector. This transfer decreases the growth and consumption potential of the economy. For example, let us assume that, as energy extraction becomes more difficult in Economy A, it requires an additional 1000 units of energy (2000 total) to maintain its current production of gross energy, decreasing the EROI from 10 to 5 and the net energy from 9000 to 8000. If the metabolism of the economy remains at 5000 units of energy, Economy A now has only 3000 units of energy to invest in growth and/or consumption (figure 5b).
If the EROI for society were to decline to 2, the amount of energy that could previously be invested in growth and consumption would be transferred completely to the energy extraction sector. Thus, given the assumed metabolic needs of Economy A in this example, an EROI of 2 would be the minimum EROI needed to provide enough energy to pay for the current infrastructure requirements of Economy A, or, to put it another way, an EROI of 2 would be the minimum EROI for a sustainable Economy A. If the EROI were to decline below 2, for example in some biofuel systems [31], then the net energy provided to society would not be enough to maintain the infrastructure of Economy A, resulting in physical degradation and economic contraction.
---Futilitist
The mathematical relation between EROI, net energy and gross energy can be used to explain why, at around an EROI of 10, the relation between EROI and most other variables, such as price, economic growth and profitability, becomes nonlinear. The following equation describes the relation between EROI, gross and net energy [3]:
Figure 4.
The ‘net energy cliff’ graph, showing the relation between net energy and EROI. As EROI declines, the net energy as a percentage of total energy extracted declines exponentially. Note that the x-axis is in reverse order. (Adapted from Mearns [53].)
Calculating the minimum energy return on (energy) investment at the point of energy acquisition for a sustainable society
According to equation (3.2), as EROI declines, the net energy provided to society declines as well, and, at some point, the amount of net energy will be insufficient to meet existing demand. The point at which the EROI provides just enough net energy to society to sustain current activity represents the minimum EROI for a sustainable society. But estimating empirically the actual minimum EROI for society is challenging. Hall et al. [24] estimated that the minimum EROI required to sustain the vehicle transportation system of the USA was 3. Since their calculation included only the energy costs of maintaining the transportation system, it is reasonable to expect that the minimum EROI for society as a whole could be much higher. Exploring the minimum EROI for a sustainable society is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, I will examine how, in theory, the minimum EROI could be calculated by using some simple models. I will first do this by examining how the idea of net energy grew from analyzing the energy budgets of organisms.
The energy that an organism acquires from its food is its gross energy intake. Let us assume, for simplicity’s sake, that an organism consumed 10 units of gross energy, but to access this food it expended 5 units of energy. Given these parameters, the EROI is 2 (=10/5) and the net energy is 5. It is important to note that the expended energy created an energy deficit (5 units) that must be repaid from the gross energy intake (10 units) before any growth, for example, in the form of building fat reserves or reproduction, can take place.
An economy also must have an influx of net energy to grow. Let us assume that Economy A produces 10 000 units of energy at an EROI of 10, which means that the energy cost of acquisition is 1000 units and the net energy is 9000. Much like organisms, economies also have energy requirements that must be met before any investments in growth can be made. Indeed, researchers are now measuring the ‘metabolism of society’ by mapping energy consumption and flow patterns over time [54].4 For example, economies must invest energy simply to maintain transportation and building infrastructure, to provide food and security, as well as to provide energy for direct consumption in transportation vehicles, households and business, etc. The energy flow to society must first pay all of these metabolic energy costs before enabling growth, such as constructing new buildings, roads, etc.
As society transitions to lower EROI energy sources, a portion of net energy that was historically used for consumption and/or growth will be transferred to the energy extraction sector. This transfer decreases the growth and consumption potential of the economy. For example, let us assume that, as energy extraction becomes more difficult in Economy A, it requires an additional 1000 units of energy (2000 total) to maintain its current production of gross energy, decreasing the EROI from 10 to 5 and the net energy from 9000 to 8000. If the metabolism of the economy remains at 5000 units of energy, Economy A now has only 3000 units of energy to invest in growth and/or consumption (figure 5b).
If the EROI for society were to decline to 2, the amount of energy that could previously be invested in growth and consumption would be transferred completely to the energy extraction sector. Thus, given the assumed metabolic needs of Economy A in this example, an EROI of 2 would be the minimum EROI needed to provide enough energy to pay for the current infrastructure requirements of Economy A, or, to put it another way, an EROI of 2 would be the minimum EROI for a sustainable Economy A. If the EROI were to decline below 2, for example in some biofuel systems [31], then the net energy provided to society would not be enough to maintain the infrastructure of Economy A, resulting in physical degradation and economic contraction.
---Futilitist
Interesting paper, but it seems to refute your ideas, not support them.
This paper indicates that increased cost of production will drive up the cost of oil, which of course makes sense. The ept 'model' says increased cost of production will drive down oil prices which makes no sense.
This paper also does not imply that civilization is on the verge of collapse or that the oil industry will collapse in 5 years.
This paper indicates that increased cost of production will drive up the cost of oil, which of course makes sense. The ept 'model' says increased cost of production will drive down oil prices which makes no sense.
This paper also does not imply that civilization is on the verge of collapse or that the oil industry will collapse in 5 years.
You are misinterpreting both the paper and my ideas, as well as the Etp model.
It doesn't have to. It just adds support to the idea that the economy is currently starving for energy because of declining EROEI.
---Futilitist
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Futilitist, even if I were to accept that the 75 pages of this thread and the associated links demonstrate that the economy must be starving for energy, none of that would show that it actually is.
If the economy is starved of energy, this means that there is a shortage of energy. It means that there is not enough energy to go around. I am asking you to provide examples of where this is the case. If what you say is true such examples should be abundant. Continually referencing a theoretical argument that suggests that there should be a shortage is not the same as demonstrating that there is a shortage.
So I ask again, where is the evidence of a shortage of energy that would support your contention that the economy is starved of energy. To help you out here, again, are some examples of what I (and I think others) are looking for:
Which manufacturing industries have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which mining or forestry industries have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which fishing or agricultural activities have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which service industries have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which transport activities have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which construction projects have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which country's economies have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which cities' economies have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
The company I work for has dozens of plants on five continents. None of them are starved of energy.
I have no trouble purchasing gasoline for my car. It is not starved of energy.
My house enjoys provision of mains electricity and, apart from an occasional power loss caused by storm damage, is never starved of energy.
Perhaps I am in an uniquely lucky position. Perhaps, by chance, I have avoided those energy shortages. If so, where are these shortages and shortfalls and starvations you assert are happening?
If the economy is starved of energy, this means that there is a shortage of energy. It means that there is not enough energy to go around. I am asking you to provide examples of where this is the case. If what you say is true such examples should be abundant. Continually referencing a theoretical argument that suggests that there should be a shortage is not the same as demonstrating that there is a shortage.
So I ask again, where is the evidence of a shortage of energy that would support your contention that the economy is starved of energy. To help you out here, again, are some examples of what I (and I think others) are looking for:
Which manufacturing industries have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which mining or forestry industries have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which fishing or agricultural activities have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which service industries have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which transport activities have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which construction projects have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which country's economies have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which cities' economies have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
The company I work for has dozens of plants on five continents. None of them are starved of energy.
I have no trouble purchasing gasoline for my car. It is not starved of energy.
My house enjoys provision of mains electricity and, apart from an occasional power loss caused by storm damage, is never starved of energy.
Perhaps I am in an uniquely lucky position. Perhaps, by chance, I have avoided those energy shortages. If so, where are these shortages and shortfalls and starvations you assert are happening?
No. Your question is a silly word game. Starved of energy does not necessarily mean there is an obvious shortage. The economy is starved of energy because the EROEI of oil is declining rapidly due to the rapidly rising entropy production in the petroleum processing system. This is a drag on the global economy. This is common sense. Read the thread.
I believe I have more than sufficiently answered what I consider to be your intentionally vexatious question. If you don't think so, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am under no obligation to answer you further on this point. Contrary to your assertions, the rules of this forum don't require me to answer you at all.
Pretty much all of them.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
There is no word game here - certainly not one played by me.
Starvation has certain obvious diagnostic features. This is true whether we are talking about literal starvation of a living entity, or metaphorical starvation of an entity such as a business, industry or country. No amount of denial on your part will change that very simple fact.
I would not have a problem with you stating that the eTP hypothesis indicates that the economy will become starved of energy. I would doubt it, but I would not be asking you to provide the evidence I currently require. However, you are stating categorically that the economy is already starved of energy. If words are to have any meaning then that meaning has to be current generally accepted meaning. As such, to be starved of energy does have a very clear diagnostic feature: there is a shortage of energy.
If there is no shortage of available food people do not generally starve. If there is no shortage of energy economies do not become starved of energy. To be starved of energy there has to be a shortfall of energy compared with demand. Where is the evidence for this shortfall? Your thesis lies in tatters over this very simple point and your refusal (or inability) to provide that evidence.
So, let's have no more nonsense about word games. Provide the evidence, or retract your claim.
Perhaps you could notice that I already have. You are just repeating Ophiolite's silly question.
That is what you keep saying, but it is not true. And I already explained why.
If the total EROEI of oil for civilization (including all the energy used in the production, refining, and distribution of oil) is not above 2:1, the economy cannot grow. The Etp model states that the 2:1 point was crossed in 2012. That means that since 2012, the economy has been starved of energy. Do you understand?
Perhaps if you were to read up a bit on the physics of the Etp model, you would realize why your question is silly. Or perhaps not, considering your self confessed lack of understanding of physics.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Then you need to stop using the wholly inaccurate and totally misleading phrase "starved of energy", since very clearly the economy is not starved of energy. Do you understand?Perhaps you could notice that I already have. You are just repeating Ophiolite's silly question.
That is what you keep saying, but it is not true. And I already explained why.
If the total EROEI of oil for civilization (including all the energy used in the production, refining, and distribution of oil) is not above 2:1, the economy cannot grow. The Etp model states that the 2:1 point was crossed in 2012. That means that since 2012, the economy has been starved of energy. Do you understand?
Perhaps if you were to read up a bit on the physics of the Etp model, you would realize why your question is silly. Or perhaps not, considering your self confessed lack of understanding of physics.
---Futilitist
- Status