<The Big Picture - What Have You Changed Your Mind About? The Oil Drum DrumBeat: May 25, 2009>

111 comments on Implications of the Ayres Warr Model of Economic Production: An Introduction

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Gail the Actuary on May 24, 2009 - 12:20am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Thanks for your work both on the original paper, and on this introduction.

You offer a number of interesting points. You say, "Energy efficiency does not limit production of fossil fuels; it raises prices stimulating production." Do you see climate issues as the major limiting concern for raising efficiency, and since increased efficiency is likely to lead to greater total production? If there were no climate issues, would you see increased efficiency as a reasonable approach to take?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
schinzy on May 24, 2009 - 3:23am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Francois Cellier wrote an interesting post some years ago about computer simulations he had done involving peak oil and climate change. He stated that 8 of 10 scenarios resulted in disaster, that is a world population going from around 7 billion in 2040 to around 1 billion in 2070. He noted that the earlier peak oil hit, the higher the probability of avoiding disaster. Therefore I see peak oil and peak coal as a chance to avoid disaster in spite of ourselves.

We have two dilemmas, one is reducing emissions from fossil fuels, the other is adjusting to a world with less energy available. Efficiency is essential in solving the second problem, it doesn't help with the first. If I were king of the world, I would limit fossil fuel use to preparing for a world without fossil fuels. Increasing efficiency would be the primary tool. This would decrease economic output, and might not be a popular policy, but in the long run it is the policy I think would cause the least suffering.

My first thought when I saw this equation was that post peak oil decline would occur faster than expected because economic production would fall depressing prices which would slow E & P spending on oil. If this is true, it could well be that climate change is not our most pressing problem, but rather economic contraction and lower energy supplies.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on May 24, 2009 - 11:37am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If this is true, it could well be that climate change is not our most pressing problem

Based on what? Please be specific and extensive, because you could not possibly be more wrong and I would like to respond in detail.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
schinzy on May 24, 2009 - 2:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I haven't done the computations. Monbiot in this post
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/05/06/how-much-should-we-leave-in-t... lays out how much CO_2 we can produce. He uses reserve numbers from the World Energy Council and computes that we can burn about 61% of remaining supplies of oil, coal, and gas without catastrophic results. This means that if reserves are over estimated by 100%, we don't have to worry about climate change. Again, I haven't done the calculations, but I wouldn't be surprised if this were not the case.

Whoops, I had to reedit this. I had written 2 other paragraphs, but I was not only off subject, I was contradicting myself. I will just say that there is a very subtle difference between decreasing c(t) and increasing e(t). What I do not have is a good tactic to decrease global warming. Essentially if I don't burn oil which is produced, someone else will, so in order to decrease global emissions I must decrease production.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on May 25, 2009 - 9:02am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I am ignoring unconventional sources of fossil fuel, such as tar sands, oil shales, bitumens and methane hydrates, as well as liquid natural gas resources....

Total conventional fossil fuel reserves therefore contain 818 billion tonnes of carbon.

Even ignoring all unconventional sources and all other greenhouse gases and taking the most optimistic of the figures in the two Nature papers, we can afford to burn only 61% of known fossil fuel reserves between now and eternity.

Nevermind. I thought you had something worth responding to.

I'll let the fact that was a thought experiment and, as italicized, not one grounded in reality, speak for itself except to mention there was also ZERO mention of all other positive feebacks, e.g., permafrost, Arctic Amplification. Note the bolded phrase. See, what's likely actually running through your head is, "We can burn 61%" and the EVER part sort of gets set aside by the subconscious.

Monbiot, for all his usual radicalism, is being irresponsible here. I suppose he's trying to make a point that we really CAN'T burn all that carbon, and, look! we haven't even included feedbacks and stuff!, but that's a dangerous, and potentially fatal, game to play. People hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest, at least according to Simon and Garfunkel. Giving them any help in this regard is not smart, imo.

The recent paper from MIT is the one you should be paying attention to, not an op-ed.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

I am utterly non-plussed at the willingness of some PO advocates to look for an excuse for AGW to not be a serious problem. It makes no sense.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BrianT on May 25, 2009 - 9:42am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The MIT article you linked makes no mention of the possible dramatic overestimation of global FF reserves. A more convincing analysis of GW would address this likelihood.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on May 25, 2009 - 11:34am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Whether they are aware some think they may be overstated or not, I don't know. I do know it could not possibly be less relevant.

The study also shows that, if all conservatively estimated available fossil fuels were to be burnt, two to three times more CO2 than allowed for the 2°C target would be emitted. This only takes into account the fuels which are already known and which are economically viable to extract. The fossil fuels will therefore not run out before the maximum CO2 emission calculated by scientists is reached.

The above quote means that even if we only have between 1/2 and 1/3 of the FFs generally thought to exist, we still can't burn them all.

There are so many holes in this line of thinking about FFs and climate it's tiresome to have to repeat them to so many posters.

By the way, calling it a likelihood there are far fewer FFs than generally stated because a couple studies posited the thought is a stretch, and certainly not a scientific statement. Given there is far less certainty surrounding coal reserves than oil reserves, and there are large arguments about oil reserves, I'd think you'd be more careful about declaring their "likely" amounts.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
lengould on May 25, 2009 - 3:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Thought lately about coal?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
schinzy on May 25, 2009 - 9:49am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The difference is caused by several factors rather than any single big change. Among these are improved economic modeling and newer economic data showing less chance of low emissions than had been projected in the earlier scenarios.

I wonder what they used here. My optimism came because of my impression that the economy was going to do a lot worse than they are predicting.

You are right about keeping an eye on the issue however.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Studebaker on May 24, 2009 - 11:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Increasing efficiency would be the primary tool. This would decrease economic output, and might not be a popular policy, but in the long run it is the policy I think would cause the least suffering.

I partly disagree. In a situation of decreasing energy availability, efficiency that results in energy use below the depletion curve will permit economic growth. Energy Efficiency that matches depletion will show a zero effect, and energy efficiency that exceeds the depletion curve will result in economic contraction.

This comes from my analysis and inversion of Jeavons Paradox.

Jeavons is predicated on a stable and low price of energy and stable and/or increasing amounts of energy availability. If energy becomes increasingly expensive and reduces in quantity, then the only way production can maintain a specific value is with efficiency, and the only way it can increase is through an efficiency that is greater than the depletion rate.

So, if we are experiencing (for example) 3% energy depletion, we need to have 4% increase in efficiency per joule to experience 1% economic growth.

Therefore, I agree efficiency is the best thing we can immediately do.

However, we eventually hit what I call "granularities" in energy requirement which are not negotiable (such as a 1500 - 2500 calorie per capita diet) and when the efficiencies start bumping up against that, then we're on a different (and rather miserable) energetic plane.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

111 comments on Implications of the Ayres Warr Model of Economic Production: An Introduction

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version