Probably the most important graph in the world

[fiannafailure]

OK, that's the engineering. But again, a big F on the economics.

The resources required (labour, capital, raw materials and energy etc.) required to support the 80,000kCal of "renewable energy" is a lot more than that required to to support production of 140,000kCal of energy using unconstrained technology (i.e. whatever producers and consumers find most efficient and cost effective for them).

We would be significantly worse off under current technology.

In one hundred years, who knows. It is likely to be a different story (but that is just guess work). But now, the forced application of specific technologies for whatever reason ("peak oil", cliamte change etc.) will leave us worse off.

Tombo
I am afraid that I can only give you a C for your analysis.

Frstly, I am not sure that I would support any enforced application of any technology, surely that is a recipe for disaster, people in the west do not like any infringement of their liberties.

I also challenge your perception of the real cost of renewables, particularly onshore wind, although I will agree that some technologies have not matured yet, however I would suggest a far shorter timescale.

But that is not really the point, you seem to be of the belief that peak oil is a long time away, I don't, the International Energy Agency doesn't and neither do the oil companies or producer countries.

[wombat]

But that is not really the point, you seem to be of the belief that peak oil is a long time away, I don't, the International Energy Agency doesn't and neither do the oil companies or producer countries.

The use of the term "Peak Oil" diverts us into arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It doesn't matter whether we reached Peak Oil this year or 20 years ago, the real question is how much longer can we afford to use it as our main energy source. Personally, my guess is that the next recession will be in about 10 years and will be caused by the cost of oil and gas and unlike the present where govts. can print money, they won't be able to conjure up oil and gas.

[Húrin]

No the media and politicians do not yet understand what the term peak oil means and most certainly not its effects.

I doubt that very much. Compared to many problems discussed in the media, such as financial crisis and climate change, peak oil is a relatively simple one to understand.

Let me attempt an explanation.

I wasn't asking for one. I don't care very much what labels you put on your graph, it's basically true and gets the point across.

Lets take a snapshot of human civilisation many thousands of years ago, lets say at that point in time when the human population numbered a thousand, physically and mentally they are almost identical to you and I. The total energy available to them was limited to that which they could harvest from the sun, either radiant heat or energy derived from their food. That would be about 2000 kcal each per day, now the best that even Einstein or James Watt could make of that would be gather enough food for some of tomorrow, shelter in a cave or maybe make some very rudimentary tools like a flint knife to make some basic clothes and help with the food gathering, not much really and thats the way things stayed until Humans learned to domesticate fire, at that stage more energy was available and cooked food releases more energy than uncooked food, it enabled small steps to be taken in releasing more of the earth's resources, metals were now available, hunting became easier, and the first attempts at agriculture were made, the first consumer goods began to appear, agriculture meant that villages appeared .....................

Today in the western world we have an average of 140,000 kcal available per capita everyday and that enables us to have cars and planes and hospitals and housing estates and TV and computers and ..................... None of this would be possible without that 140,000 kcals of energy per day although if we adjusted our technologies we could do the same things with about 80,000 kcals or maybe a little less. The developing worlds citizens have an average of 55,000 kcals per capita available to them every day.

Our medium term, the next 40 years, goal should be to meet in the middle. Renewable energy can meet that budget of 80,000 kcals per capita per day.

"...and this is why standard of living demand is a quantifiable variable?"

I know that our wealth comes from energy. You are telling me what I already know.

[Tombo]

peak oil is a relatively simple one to understand.

It should be. Invented by simpletons for simpletons.

100% fit for purpose.

[fiannafailure]

It should be. Invented by simpletons for simpletons.

100% fit for purpose.

Tombo, surely you can do better than that

[Tombo]

Tombo, surely you can do better than that

Some stuff is just too stupid to waste time on.

[fiannafailure]

Some stuff is just too stupid to waste time on.

I'll take that as you conceding defeat, pity

[Tombo]

I'll take that as you conceding defeat, pity

"Peak Oil" is a hypothesis based on a simple projection of oil output and an assumption for demand. It rests on nothing more than an axiom of "they aren't making any more of it".

It is so devoid of any compelling argument that I don;tknow where to start.

You haven't proven it. You show a simple chart and provide nothing else. I suggest to you that you are "conceding defeat".

[fiannafailure]

"Peak Oil" is a hypothesis based on a simple projection of oil output and an assumption for demand. It rests on nothing more than an axiom of "they aren't making any more of it".

It is so devoid of any compelling argument that I don;tknow where to start.

You haven't proven it. You show a simple chart and provide nothing else. I suggest to you that you are "conceding defeat".

The chart merely refers to a peak oil event, peak oil is an incidental to the real problem, we do not have enough viable sources of energy to enable both expansion of the first worlds standard of living and accomadate the developing worlds appetite for same, perhaps a better term is peak energy to describe the problem.

I mentioned in a previous post that our medium term goal should be to reduce our energy use through efficiency gains and thereby allow the developing world to catch up, our longer term goal will be achieve practical fusion emergy, at that stage, economics as a subject will have to be revised.

[Tombo]

The chart merely refers to a peak oil event, peak oil is an incidental to the real problem, we do not have enough viable sources of energy to enable both expansion of the first worlds standard of living and accomadate the developing worlds appetite for same, perhaps a better term is peak energy to describe the problem.

This statement is proven by what? I have seen exactly the same thing stated many times, going back centuries.

Even as recently as the 1970s there were serious claims like this one "we would run out of resources by 2000".

All those were poorly supported (if at all) by any proof and it was no surprise they failed.

The latest Peak Oil theory is failing as we speak. We are supposed to have reached peak of oil output nearly half a decade ago. We should really be noticing the affects now. We are not.

I mentioned in a previous post that our medium term goal should be to reduce our energy use through efficiency gains and thereby allow the developing world to catch up, our longer term goal will be achieve practical fusion emergy, at that stage, economics as a subject will have to be revised.

This statement is of your own opinions based on the unproven statement above.