What is the importance of the Energy Substitution Model? It seems that it broadly failed to achieve its intents: to predict future market dynamics.

That was your conclusion. If there was something else you were trying to tell us, I didn't get it.

What exactly are you trying to tell us about this model? Is it right or wrong? Did it fail or not?

Was it the reserves that failed or the timely introduction of other energy sources?

I say the model is incorrect (I thought you did too), so it is pointless to discuss why reality failed to follow the model.

You and other readers (Bob, Boris) do not seem to understand what the model is or what it predicted in the 1970s.

Why do you conclude that?
I think you have not fully understood what I wrote...

First of all, the analysis of the market, done in this way isolates you from overall consumption growth or population growth. You are looking solely at how each energy source takes its place against the others.

The tracing of the chart curves are isolated from a direct relation with those effects.
The energy use (from each source/technology) surely is NOT isolated from the intensity of the global consumption and from the overall availability of each source...
It seems extremely naive even to consider that hypothesis...

Ming you simply dismiss the model, without understanding why it failed; that is in itself a failure.

Again: I believe I understand why that model failed, and that it is you that do not understand what I wrote...

Why was the following sentence wrong in 1977?

The extrapolation of these trends indicates that the same thing is likely to happen in the future, e.g., that oil reserves will never be exhausted because of timely introduction of other energy sources.

You don’t know why?
Just read the much earlier work from Hubbert on fossil fuels depletion.

Was it the reserves that failed or the timely introduction of other energy sources?.

The reserves did not fail. (How could they?)
It just happens that they are far from infinite…

As to technology, you must realize that oil (and fossil fuels in general) are EXTREMELY convenient energy sources (even nowadays by far the most effective way of powering transports, of producing grid electricity, etc.).

In fact, in the 70s there were no available technologies able to compete with fossil fuels except in niche settings and in a limited proportion of global energy consumption.
Also, back then there were no realistic prospects for the timely development of those technologies...
(Alice should have checked the availability of even prettier flowers just around the corner before assuming she could/should toss away the flowers she had picked before…)

Even nowadays we still don’t have any available (or prospective!) technology able to compete globaly with fossil fuels except if they are depleted and allow us no choice...

Do you understand that this point is precisely the reason why the PO is a problem for us?

You and other readers (Bob, Boris) do not seem to understand what the model is or what it predicted in the 1970s.

Can you enlighten me. I do seem to miss the point..

if the point is that new "pile ons" of energy come in waves which are no longer occurring because there is nothing left to burn with as good (excuse the term) eroei.. then yes I get it.

some part of the problem is the use of the term substitution.

the market is a expanding ball of consumptive activity not a fixed amount of activity

increased market share does not equate to other energy sources being "substituted" or if it it does a better term is "displaced" into other applications where they continue to grow in use

I think I'm missing something..

a comparison of one energy source over another for dominance IMO creates the standard misunderstanding common throughout society that one energy source has been replaced by another.

Mike Lynch held this view on the now overly long thread at PO.com. I would characterise it as missing the point.

however I do sense there is some nuance I am missing here

Boris
London