<Who is borrowing what from whom? The Oil Drum A little more on CERA>

170 comments on 4%, 11%, Who the Hell Cares?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

MichaelRobinson on September 6, 2005 - 11:08am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Here is a graph I made of the relationship between crude oil costs as %GDP and crude oil consumption per unit ($1000 Y2000 constant dollars) GDP.

This illustrates the lag between the supply shocks of the 70's and early 80's, and the the resulting increased economic efficiencies.

From 1978 to 1985, the U.S. economy averaged a reduction of crude consumption per unit GDP of about 5% year-over-year.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MichaelRobinson on September 6, 2005 - 11:31am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Sorry, Scoop ate my link.  This is the URL for the graph:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29681333@N00/33914633/
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on September 6, 2005 - 12:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Nice graph and it certainly seems like a valid way to look at the issue. Presumably you would argue that since we managed 5% annual improvement in oil/GDP in the past, we ought to be able to do it again and therefore the contraction threshold must be at least 5%. In general, I'm quite willing to accept that my very crude calculation gets it wrong by a percentage point or two. I also point out the low-hanging fruit issue though - the very easiest things have already been done.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Eroie Van Tanstaafl on September 6, 2005 - 1:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
the very easiest things have already been done

ahhh... but have they?  What percent of homeowners use compact fluorescents that can afford to do so?  What's the fuel efficiency of new cars purchased today?  How many homeowners haven't replaced windows or upgraded insulation in the last few years?  How many businesses haven't looked into conservation to control electricity costs?

In truth, there are still lots of low-hanging fruit to grasp.  All we need is incentives - and rising costs (or profits) are the best incentives.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MikeCapone on September 6, 2005 - 1:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Exactly! The easiest way to get more usable energy is to use what we already produce efficiently!
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on September 6, 2005 - 1:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yeah, but switching to compact fluorescents is not nearly as dramatic as insulating uninsulated houses, which mostly got done twenty years ago. Fuel economy today is 22mpg CAFE for light trucks, and 27mpg for cars, with road averages a bit lower. In the early 70s, everyone in the US was driving around with V8 cast iron block engines that got around 10mpg. I'm not saying there isn't tons more to do, obviously my whole scenario assumes that there is, just that a lot got done already. There's a nice graph here - see the first figure.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MikeCapone on September 6, 2005 - 3:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yeah, but there are a lot more houses and cars around now than there were in the 70s...
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
enviro attny on September 6, 2005 - 4:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Looking at oil usage in isolation is a mistake, as is looking at oil or energy usage as a function of GDP.

The fact of the matter, we use essentially the same amount of total energy per capita as we always have.  It is down less than 5% from levels of the early 70s.  We reduced our oil usage in the late 70's because we switched from oil fired boilers to gas/coal.  Our total energy usage did not change.

As far as energy usage per GDP, that is simply because much of the goods production has been sent offshore.  The value of the product is still applied to the GDP, but the energy cost is now hidden.

We are no more energy efficient than we ever were, and I don't believe that we can reduce energy usage by any amount without significantly and adversely effecting our economy.  Thinking that we can reduce oil usage 5%/year without causing a serious recession is foolish.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tedman on September 6, 2005 - 7:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Do I hear an Amen!

Michael Robbinson's graph is misleading, because it leaves the impression that we are using fewer actual molecules of crude than we were 30 years ago.  We all know that this is demonstrably false.  We use more crude than ever before.

Moreover, while we rely on crude less as a % of total energy consumed, we rely on natural gas much more (with its own peak and depletion curves).

So as far as I can see, sustained economic growth means sustained growth in energy consumption.  That is unless someone can tell me how to repeal the second law of thermodynamics as it applies to complex and growing societies.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

170 comments on 4%, 11%, Who the Hell Cares?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version