You're leaving out the part that scarcer oil reserves incentivizes research and production because the price of oil increases. You'd be right if the price per barrel remained the same forever. That's not the way this works.Incompete analysis.
Oil is energy dense. That is relavant but only half the equation.
The other half is how much energy it takes to get that barrel of oil.
If you use the better part of 9/10ths of a barrel of oil to get it out of the ground, then you have not netted a very large chunk of energy, relative to your investment.
Studies of peak oil, and admissions by the oil giants themselves in their annual reports accede that the "easy" oil is gone.
What is left is increasingly hard to get to.
It is a bit like confusing revenue and net profit. A company might have a hundred billion dollars in revenue, but if it is running a massive loss, it will go out of business.
Same with energy. If you are only considering total energy of a given amount of any source, you are missing the very relevant aspect of efficiency, which is directly associated with monetary cost.
Even then you still need to compare relative efficiencies.
Up until now oil has been, relative to the alternatives, more efficient, by a large factor.
That is changing, and the reduction in Energy Returned On Energy Invested ratio for oil/coal/gas will accelerate.
That is a physical and mathmatical certainty.
(edit)
The last year that humanity in general discovered more oil than it consumed/produced was 1984.
I never claimed that the market will not respond to the price of oil.
Best/reasonable estimates are that improvements in technology will increase what is economically recoverable. The Hubbert curve will not, therefore, be symmetrical, but have a much longer, flatter tail.
BUT
Technology or no, getting heavy crude out of the ground, and the extra refining required to convert that heavy crude to usable forms are energy intensive processes.
Energy = money
You can't cheat physics.
You expend more energy, sure. You were speaking to efficiencies though. Do you not think that profits from a barrel 10 years down the line will or won't economically justify the extra effort, if any, used in extracting oil?
You are right to point out though, this is a very dynamic process.
If the price of oil does go up, so will production and research into finding/exploiting new sources of oil.
At the same time, however, this will make oil, relative to other energy sources less cost compe ive in the short run.
More money will flow into alternatives, such as natural gas, coal, renewables etc.
gas and coal will suffer the same depletion factors over the longer term though.
Long term, wind won't change too much due to technology, but efficiencies of scale in manufacturing/installing turbines and supporting infrastructure mean that the costs will come down. Same thing goes for solar, with its many different competing technologies.
Renewables will not be facing depletion factors and will, over time become more cost and energy efficient in terms of invested energy.
Fossil fuels will be facing depletion factors that will decrease any gains in our ability to economically produce/use it.
The problem is, that once you commit to building say, a coal power plant, or a fleet of gasoline cars, you can't easily convert that coal power plant/fleet if prices rise. You are stuck with your existing infrastructure.
I may not be able to predict exact prices in 20 years, but I would be willing to bet my retirement savings that renewables will become more cost compe ive, relative to oil, than they are now.
This will happen purely through market action, without any real intervention by governments.
BUT
What happens if a country decides to get ahead of this inexorable trend while energy is fairly cheap? Will it be more, or less compe ive than one who has locked themselves into sources of energy that experience sustained price hikes?
The market will "price" the cost of energy used to get the barrel out of oil, and companies will be able to see what fields can be economically and profitably extracted.
The answer is yes, yes they will.
That is, however, the wrong question to ask, as I just pointed out.
It isn't absolute costs, but relative costs that are important to considering an overall country/civilization's energy mix in production/usage.
There may be a lot of profit in producing $200/barrel oil, but if the same amount of energy can be had from an amount of solar panels for $150, then a decision on getting the most energy per $ gets a lot easier. That is simplifying things with unrealistic/unsupported figures, by the way. Reality is always murkier, but the underlying principle of relative costs determining ultimate product/source mixes is a very sound, and proven economic concept.
No. Less supply means increased price. Especially in the short run where the economic and technological infrastructure of society doesn't support renewable usage. Oil will be cost-compe ive in the short run.
Incorrect/incomplete. I can think of instances where drops in supply can be accompanied by decreases in price.
Better:
Less supply means increased price, demand held constant.
Anyhoo,
I did not say oil would become less costly per unit of energy than renewables, but rather that the gap between the two costs would narrow.Especially in the short run where the economic and technological infrastructure of society doesn't support renewable usage. Oil will be cost-compe ive in the short run.
As that gap narrows, the opportunity costs for switching narrow.
Oil, and gas/coal for that matter, in the ground will be a significant source of energy for our civilization for the remainder of my lifetime, and likely that of my children.
The % of all energy used/produced that oil represents, will, however, shrink. Again, that is a mathmatical certainty.
(edit)
For the lawyer, a fun latin phrase economists are fond of:
ceteris paribus
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-21-2011 at 08:37 AM.
You already have a thread for that topic. It bears little relevance to this one.
Now run along.
(edit)
Unless you want to answer my question:
Mr. Pachauri is an expert in economics.
Did the report include a section on potential economic impacts of climate change?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-21-2011 at 10:10 AM.
This by the way is most definitely an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, as the author, a semi-conductor engineer with no published papers or formal education on climate science, is not an "expert".
That is your 15th? 16th? logical fallacy. I have lost count of how many instances of bad reasoning you have exhibited.
I have asked you before, but at what point will you realize that your thinking on this subject is so seriously, obviously, provably flawed?
What does that say about your beliefs on this subject?
What would a reasonable conclusion be to you about your critical thinking abilities, based on this?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-21-2011 at 10:19 AM.
Speaking of unanswered questions...
Is it possible to measure deep ocean temperatures in a systematic way to test the thesis that the researcher presented?
Still waiting on this one. A simple yes or no will suffice.
Carbon fuels are currently cheaper than solar and wind energy with the exception of certain places due to special cir stances. Thats why I made it a point to focus on the increasing efficiency of solar/wind (especially solar) and the increasing cost of fossil fuels.
The efficiency of solar energy is increasing exponentially. Within 10 years it will NOT be more expensive than oil.
Why does energy density matter so much? What percentage of the earth is no longer available to development for energy purposes? An incredibly small percentage. Considering the variety of available space in land already used for human purposes for Solar density is not a big issue at all and yet people still seem to bring it up all the time.
We don't need to turn all of Southern California into a solar farm. We have enough available real estate on our roofs. Decentralized solar is going to undergo an incredible revolution in the next 20 years.
"density" is one of those spurious, "sciency" sounding memes that has been read about by enough people with low scientific literacy to be repeated in debates like this.
There is an originating article, I think Darrin posted it at some point, that talks about it.
People predisposed to the pseudoscience of AGW skepticism read that article without really understanding it then, regurgitate it in places like this, or pass it on in ever vaguer, more distant forms in forums to others, in a version of the telephone game.
I think so as well.
While I would not go so far as to say the cost per joule will fall below that of oil for solar, the decreases in costs per unit of energy from PV in particular do indicate a very good probability that those costs will continue falling, as the technology develops.
Other forms of solar, like the thermal solar that provides 24/7 power with much more predictable/smooth outputs for utility scale plants, show a lot of potential as well. That technology is moving out of test phases into production, so I would be willing to bet that costs for it will go down as the technology matures as well.
The fascinating aspect of this is a development from third world to first world where things start off decentralized. That will be interesting to see how it plays out.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...nential-growth
Even Aggie bubbas dispute Jimmy Ricky's climate change fantasies:
Aggie scientists take issue with Perry's global warming skepticism
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/new...al-2180835.php
A&M has the best atmospheric sciences program in TX and one of the best in the nation. Smart people work at that school.
Only the best and brightest super sciency scientists work for the IPCC.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/...senior-author/
An Even Younger Senior Author
October 22, 2010
Yesterday I wrote about Richard Klein, a Dutch geography professor currently working in Sweden, who began writing reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the tender age of 25.
That was nine full years prior to earning his PhD, and part of a larger pattern. Sari Kovats also became an IPCC author 15 years prior to completing her doctorate, Lisa Alexander became an IPCC author a decade prior to getting hers, and Laurens Bouwer hadn’t even finished his Masters when he first served as a lead author. The IPCC has a history, therefore, of pretending that grad students are the equivalent of the world’s top scientists.
Klein’s personal website claims that he:
…remains the youngest ever coordinating lead author in the history of the IPCC, a mark he set when first appointed coordinating lead author in 1997. [bold added]
This claim is repeated on page five of his CV. However, Klein appears to be mistaken. Another Dutchman – economist Richard Tol – got there first.
Nothing about the IPCC is straightforward, and this matter is no exception. In addition to the large assessment reports published in 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007, several smaller IPCC reports on specialized topics have also been produced.
Klein’s claim to being the youngest coordinating lead author (the most senior of the IPCC’s three classes of author) relates to one of these special reports. It was led Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer and was published in 2000. Klein served as the sole coordinating lead author for Chapter 15 – a task he began at age 28.
Tol, however, was one of two senior people responsible for Chapter 5 in an IPCC special report led The Regional Impacts of Climate Change. An online version of that report is dated 1997 – three years prior to the report in which Klein participated. It was published on paper in 1998.
Given that Tol and Klein were born a few months apart in 1969, and the report in which Tol was involved came first, it would seem that it is Tol who holds the dubious distinction of being the youngest ever person to oversee an IPCC chapter.
Tol earned his PhD in 1997 – around the time his report was released. In that respect, his case is less egregious than the others cited above. But this still means the IPCC assigned him the most senior of author roles when he was a 20-something grad student.
If climate change is the biggest challenge facing humanity, why have kids filled key IPCC positions for the past 15 years?
That doesn't answer my question. Let's see if the third time is the charm.
Mr. Pachauri is an expert in economics.
Did the report include a section on potential economic impacts of climate change?
Also, another neglected question or two:
This by the way is most definitely an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, as the author, a semi-conductor engineer with no published papers or formal education on climate science, is not an "expert".
That is your 15th? 16th? logical fallacy. I have lost count of how many instances of bad reasoning you have exhibited.
I have asked you before, but at what point will you realize that your thinking on this subject is so seriously, obviously, provably flawed?
What does that say about your beliefs on this subject?
Thank-You for making our point Random.
These were the IPCC experts!
Perhaps you would like to answer Darrin's question for him?
Dr. Pachauri is an expert in economics.
Did the report include a section on potential economic impacts of climate change?
Thank you for helping make mine.
Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PseudosciencePseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.
UPDATE:
This exchange is, in my opinion, probably *the* most clear example of the kinds of arguments made against the actual science that supports the theory that mankind is affecting our overall climate. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=877
From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.
2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the le of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").
3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.
4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.
5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]
While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.
Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.
I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.
What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.
Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.
----------------------------------------------------------------
#Questions asked without direct intellectually honest answers:
Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.
Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.
DarrinS:
twelve logical fallacies (stopped counting)
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion
Cherry-picking data
Wild Cobra:
Five logical fallacies
Four unproven assertions
Putting forth a scientific sounding but untestable hypothesis
Three instances of confirmation bias
First direct comparison of climate scientists to Nazis in the thread
Tyson Chandler:
One logical fallacy
The fact that you keep a tally on other poster's "logical fallacies" is ing ridiculous.
RG definitely has dedication. No one can take that from him.
One could say it might be misplaced, however.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
