Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Limits to Economic Growth

Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 11:18:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm reading "Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train" by Brian Czech right now, and I would like to hear what the DDO econ community has to say about his main points:

a) "Neoclassical Economics" begins with Keynes, moving away from the classical thinkers (Malthus, Mill, Marx).
b) Neoclassical economics is the "dominant establishment in academic economics," and "virtually the only establishment in applied economics."
c) Neoclassicals are "firmly invested in the perpetuity of economic growth."

I'm only about a third through the book so I'm not sure how he is going to extrapolate on these points just yet (obviously sustainability will be brought in at some point), but I am itching to know if everyone here would agree with these statements at face-value.
no comment
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 12:32:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/29/2010 11:18:38 AM, Caramel wrote:
I'm reading "Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train" by Brian Czech right now, and I would like to hear what the DDO econ community has to say about his main points:

a) "Neoclassical Economics" begins with Keynes, moving away from the classical thinkers (Malthus, Mill, Marx).
Adam Smith, Ricardo are classical. Neoclassical is MFriedman and the Chicago school. Keynes is his own retarded school. It has most of its impact in econometrics (GDP and stuff), but neoclassical economists are more focused on rational expectations, public choice, modeling, etc.

b) Neoclassical economics is the "dominant establishment in academic economics," and "virtually the only establishment in applied economics."
Hmm... In the 90's, neoclassical economics really was dominant. Now we're getting more of a split because Keynesianism has come back to apologize for the stimulus.

c) Neoclassicals are "firmly invested in the perpetuity of economic growth."
Yes. GDP UP UP UP!!! Though there are many examples of positive economic changes that would result in lower GDP (goods lasting longer, so less volume. goods getting cheaper, so less price. goods getting better, so more subjective utility).
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 2:12:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/29/2010 11:21:30 AM, Koopin wrote:
The second part of that books contradicts it's first half. I was disappointing.
At 11/29/2010 11:24:39 AM, Caramel wrote:
In what respect?
In bed.
I miss the old members.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2010 10:51:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/29/2010 11:18:38 AM, Caramel wrote:
a) "Neoclassical Economics" begins with Keynes, moving away from the classical thinkers (Malthus, Mill, Marx).

Neoclassical economics began with Jevons, Walras and Menger. By the time Keynes came around, it was the Neoclassical Synthesis that was maistream economic theory.

b) Neoclassical economics is the "dominant establishment in academic economics," and "virtually the only establishment in applied economics."

This is about right, but with a Keynesian macroeconomy.

c) Neoclassicals are "firmly invested in the perpetuity of economic growth."

I'm not sure about this.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2010 11:04:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/29/2010 12:32:42 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/29/2010 11:18:38 AM, Caramel wrote:
I'm reading "Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train" by Brian Czech right now, and I would like to hear what the DDO econ community has to say about his main points:

a) "Neoclassical Economics" begins with Keynes, moving away from the classical thinkers (Malthus, Mill, Marx).
Adam Smith, Ricardo are classical. Neoclassical is MFriedman and the Chicago school. Keynes is his own retarded school. It has most of its impact in econometrics (GDP and stuff), but neoclassical economists are more focused on rational expectations, public choice, modeling, etc.

b) Neoclassical economics is the "dominant establishment in academic economics," and "virtually the only establishment in applied economics."
Hmm... In the 90's, neoclassical economics really was dominant. Now we're getting more of a split because Keynesianism has come back to apologize for the stimulus.

c) Neoclassicals are "firmly invested in the perpetuity of economic growth."
Yes. GDP UP UP UP!!! Though there are many examples of positive economic changes that would result in lower GDP (goods lasting longer, so less volume. goods getting cheaper, so less price. goods getting better, so more subjective utility).

Sieben, you're unfairly maligning econometrics, which is basically just the idea that you can use calculus to hold certain variables in an equation constant. It has nothing to do with GDP and is not at all inconsistent with the Austrian school's views on the macroeconomy. Econometrics is by definition a micro tool of analysis.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2010 8:09:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/2/2010 11:19:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Pursuit of infinite growth is unsustainable and self-destructive.

Who actually pursues infinite growth? One simply pursues constant growth. Pursuit =/= Achieve. Market share expansion is a great example of non vertical growth after saturation at the vertical level. Infinite growth is a murky direction, but constant growth is a normal strategy. If you continue to expand the share categories and the vertical markets (which often happen together) you will have a pretty much endless opportunity for growth.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2010 9:17:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/2/2010 11:19:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Pursuit of infinite growth is unsustainable and self-destructive.

On Earth maybe.
Noblesse Oblige
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 12:54:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/3/2010 8:09:30 AM, innomen wrote:
At 12/2/2010 11:19:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Pursuit of infinite growth is unsustainable and self-destructive.

Who actually pursues infinite growth? One simply pursues constant growth. Pursuit =/= Achieve. Market share expansion is a great example of non vertical growth after saturation at the vertical level. Infinite growth is a murky direction, but constant growth is a normal strategy. If you continue to expand the share categories and the vertical markets (which often happen together) you will have a pretty much endless opportunity for growth.

Constant growth is bad enough... We are arguably already over-grown. It would take 5 planet Earths to provide the resources for the world's population to enjoy your (as well as my) standard of living. Our system pushes for growth and nothing but - it is perpetual. Perpetual growth is unsustainable and we are frankly headed for disaster. I'm not sure what you mean by "share categories and the vertical markets" but no matter what kind of good or service you have, you are ultimately dependant on finite resources.
no comment
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 1:01:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/3/2010 9:17:47 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/2/2010 11:19:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Pursuit of infinite growth is unsustainable and self-destructive.

On Earth maybe.

One of the most foolish things we can do is just assume that technology is going to propel us into space and that Earth's resources will continue to push us outward. In the 60s, we all thought that we'd already be working on colonizing the inner solar system by now... Truth is, while computer tech and genetic engineering (among several other things) are indeed pushing forward nicely, things like propulsion and energy are going backwards, if anything. I blame capitalism for this - not a breeder of innovation, but a stifler of it. Without capitalism pushing us forward with oil, the youngest of us would have been born into a world nearly void of gasoline autos and coal fired power plants. Look around, man! The greatest thing we did in space was over 40 years ago and it will be another 40 years before we top that at the rate we are going.
no comment
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 6:59:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 12:54:21 AM, Caramel wrote:
At 12/3/2010 8:09:30 AM, innomen wrote:
At 12/2/2010 11:19:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Pursuit of infinite growth is unsustainable and self-destructive.

Who actually pursues infinite growth? One simply pursues constant growth. Pursuit =/= Achieve. Market share expansion is a great example of non vertical growth after saturation at the vertical level. Infinite growth is a murky direction, but constant growth is a normal strategy. If you continue to expand the share categories and the vertical markets (which often happen together) you will have a pretty much endless opportunity for growth.

Constant growth is bad enough... We are arguably already over-grown. It would take 5 planet Earths to provide the resources for the world's population to enjoy your (as well as my) standard of living. Our system pushes for growth and nothing but - it is perpetual. Perpetual growth is unsustainable and we are frankly headed for disaster. I'm not sure what you mean by "share categories and the vertical markets" but no matter what kind of good or service you have, you are ultimately dependant on finite resources.

Really. So you're all for economic stagnation? We got ours, so you people of the third world can forget about it. Any emerging market, we're going to abandon you as a prospect because.....well, you're not worth the plastic it takes to sell you some soda. You understand that with economic growth comes added educational and health care opportunities to those who don't currently have it? If you think that economic growth means the select rich just get more rich, then you don't understand what growth means.

You realize that since about the time of forever we have been in economic growth, more or less with some backward steps along the way? If you look at literacy rates and overall public health, it corresponds nicely with economic growth? Yeah stagnation sounds so much better. Oddly enough economic growth has a negative impact on population, so resources can easily be sustained. Economic growth =/= population growth =/= consumerism.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 11:30:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 1:01:54 AM, Caramel wrote:
At 12/3/2010 9:17:47 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/2/2010 11:19:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Pursuit of infinite growth is unsustainable and self-destructive.

On Earth maybe.

One of the most foolish things we can do is just assume that technology is going to propel us into space and that Earth's resources will continue to push us outward. In the 60s, we all thought that we'd already be working on colonizing the inner solar system by now... Truth is, while computer tech and genetic engineering (among several other things) are indeed pushing forward nicely, things like propulsion and energy are going backwards, if anything. I blame capitalism for this - not a breeder of innovation, but a stifler of it. Without capitalism pushing us forward with oil, the youngest of us would have been born into a world nearly void of gasoline autos and coal fired power plants. Look around, man! The greatest thing we did in space was over 40 years ago and it will be another 40 years before we top that at the rate we are going.

I don't think you understood what I meant. On Earth by itself is unsustainable. However with the abundant amount of resources in the rest of the Solar System and beyond it is not.

And getting into space isn't that hard at all. For whatever reason (not going to speculate), the US has just decided to nerf NASA and no private entity has the ability to match them in that field. An Orbital Elevator could be constructed and put at work for less then 40 billion dollars. The Japanese government have actually started an orbital elevator project though somehow their cost estimates are only at 9 billion dollars. Either way, the total cost of moving from Earth's surface into orbit would be reduced over 1000%.

An Orbital Elevator would also facilitate the produced of infinite free energy through solar collection, massively reducing other costs throughout the nation (and world though said energy would probably be sold creating a new field of competition).
Noblesse Oblige
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 11:36:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 6:59:42 AM, innomen wrote:
At 12/4/2010 12:54:21 AM, Caramel wrote:
At 12/3/2010 8:09:30 AM, innomen wrote:
At 12/2/2010 11:19:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Pursuit of infinite growth is unsustainable and self-destructive.

Who actually pursues infinite growth? One simply pursues constant growth. Pursuit =/= Achieve. Market share expansion is a great example of non vertical growth after saturation at the vertical level. Infinite growth is a murky direction, but constant growth is a normal strategy. If you continue to expand the share categories and the vertical markets (which often happen together) you will have a pretty much endless opportunity for growth.

Constant growth is bad enough... We are arguably already over-grown. It would take 5 planet Earths to provide the resources for the world's population to enjoy your (as well as my) standard of living. Our system pushes for growth and nothing but - it is perpetual. Perpetual growth is unsustainable and we are frankly headed for disaster. I'm not sure what you mean by "share categories and the vertical markets" but no matter what kind of good or service you have, you are ultimately dependant on finite resources.

Really. So you're all for economic stagnation? We got ours, so you people of the third world can forget about it. Any emerging market, we're going to abandon you as a prospect because.....well, you're not worth the plastic it takes to sell you some soda. You understand that with economic growth comes added educational and health care opportunities to those who don't currently have it? If you think that economic growth means the select rich just get more rich, then you don't understand what growth means.

You realize that since about the time of forever we have been in economic growth, more or less with some backward steps along the way? If you look at literacy rates and overall public health, it corresponds nicely with economic growth? Yeah stagnation sounds so much better. Oddly enough economic growth has a negative impact on population, so resources can easily be sustained. Economic growth =/= population growth =/= consumerism.

I believe he was referring to the ability of Earth to support economic growth, which is can't. Earth has only a finite amount of resources, and the vast majority of them are being used by a small percentage of the population. Oil and other fossil fuels are already a joke as it take more energy to retrieve them then the amount of energy we get back. And Energy is the most vital component to economic growth.
Noblesse Oblige
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 11:38:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 11:36:23 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
Oil and other fossil fuels are already a joke as it take more energy to retrieve them then the amount of energy we get back.

Trololololol. Source? Lifting cost in the middle east is less than $5/bbl...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 11:49:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 11:38:28 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:36:23 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
Oil and other fossil fuels are already a joke as it take more energy to retrieve them then the amount of energy we get back.

Trololololol. Source? Lifting cost in the middle east is less than $5/bbl...

Let me correct myself; "it will take more energy to retrieve them then the amount of energy we get back". If you seriously haven't heard of peak oil then there is no hope for you.

Besides, the dollar amount cost has no bearing on energy cost.
Noblesse Oblige
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 11:50:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 11:49:46 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:38:28 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:36:23 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
Oil and other fossil fuels are already a joke as it take more energy to retrieve them then the amount of energy we get back.

Trololololol. Source? Lifting cost in the middle east is less than $5/bbl...

Let me correct myself; "it will take more energy to retrieve them then the amount of energy we get back in a couple years". If you seriously haven't heard of peak oil then there is no hope for you.

Besides, the dollar amount cost has no bearing on energy cost.
Noblesse Oblige
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 11:50:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 11:38:28 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:36:23 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
Oil and other fossil fuels are already a joke as it take more energy to retrieve them then the amount of energy we get back.

Trololololol. Source? Lifting cost in the middle east is less than $5/bbl...

Um, yeah, if that was true, companies wouldn't retrieve the oil, since it wouldn't be profitable. If it takes two barrels of oil to make one barrel of oil....
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 11:54:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 11:49:46 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:38:28 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:36:23 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
Oil and other fossil fuels are already a joke as it take more energy to retrieve them then the amount of energy we get back.

Trololololol.Source? Lifting cost in the middle east is less than $5/bbl...

Let me correct myself; "it will take more energy to retrieve them then the amount of energy we get back".
Oh. It WILL. In the FUTURE. Okay. I'm not used to declaring checkmate victory yahtzees so early in a conversation trololololool.

Besides, the dollar amount cost has no bearing on energy cost.
SOURCE?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 11:59:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 11:54:39 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:49:46 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:38:28 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:36:23 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
Oil and other fossil fuels are already a joke as it take more energy to retrieve them then the amount of energy we get back.

Trololololol.Source? Lifting cost in the middle east is less than $5/bbl...

Let me correct myself; "it will take more energy to retrieve them then the amount of energy we get back".
Oh. It WILL. In the FUTURE. Okay. I'm not used to declaring checkmate victory yahtzees so early in a conversation trololololool.

Besides, the dollar amount cost has no bearing on energy cost.
SOURCE?

If it takes one barrel of oil to retrieve one barrel of oil, how does the cost of the barrel of oil make up for the loss in net production?

This has nothing to do with sources, it's basic math. I know you need to take english classes again, but you're deficient in math too?
Noblesse Oblige
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 12:03:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 11:59:23 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:54:39 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:49:46 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:38:28 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:36:23 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
Oil and other fossil fuels are already a joke as it take more energy to retrieve them then the amount of energy we get back.

Trololololol.Source? Lifting cost in the middle east is less than $5/bbl...

Let me correct myself; "it will take more energy to retrieve them then the amount of energy we get back".
Oh. It WILL. In the FUTURE. Okay. I'm not used to declaring checkmate victory yahtzees so early in a conversation trololololool.

Besides, the dollar amount cost has no bearing on energy cost.
SOURCE?

If it takes one barrel of oil to retrieve one barrel of oil, how does the cost of the barrel of oil make up for the loss in net production?
Because you like, either have to pay for the oil or forgo selling it in order to get another barrel of oil. You're basically saying that people would get paid to waste valued resources. Lern2economics.

This has nothing to do with sources, it's basic math. I know you need to take english classes again,
Actually you're the guy who makes spelling mistakes...

but you're deficient in math too?
What math? 1=1? You blow my mind.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 12:04:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 11:59:23 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
If it takes one barrel of oil to retrieve one barrel of oil, how does the cost of the barrel of oil make up for the loss in net production?

This has nothing to do with sources, it's basic math. I know you need to take english classes again, but you're deficient in math too?

This is how economics solves resource scarcity. If we ever got to the point where oil cost more to extract than it could be sold for, companies would stop producing oil.

If oil costs $80/barrel and it takes 1.5 barrels of oil to produce 1 barrel of oil, then companies have to pay $120 dollars per barrel, with a net profit loss of $40 per barrel extracted. Since no rational person bleeds money, oil production would cease.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 12:13:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 12:04:45 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:59:23 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
If it takes one barrel of oil to retrieve one barrel of oil, how does the cost of the barrel of oil make up for the loss in net production?

This has nothing to do with sources, it's basic math. I know you need to take english classes again, but you're deficient in math too?

This is how economics solves resource scarcity. If we ever got to the point where oil cost more to extract than it could be sold for, companies would stop producing oil.

If oil costs $80/barrel and it takes 1.5 barrels of oil to produce 1 barrel of oil, then companies have to pay $120 dollars per barrel, with a net profit loss of $40 per barrel extracted. Since no rational person bleeds money, oil production would cease.

The dollar amount has less to do with it then the actual energy inefficiency. Though both ways state the same thing. However Sieben's contention (in the limited statement he made) was purely on the dollar amount of a bbl. It doesn't matter if a bbl costs $5 to extract if the extraction is still energy inefficient.
Noblesse Oblige
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 12:16:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 12:13:27 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/4/2010 12:04:45 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:59:23 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
If it takes one barrel of oil to retrieve one barrel of oil, how does the cost of the barrel of oil make up for the loss in net production?

This has nothing to do with sources, it's basic math. I know you need to take english classes again, but you're deficient in math too?

This is how economics solves resource scarcity. If we ever got to the point where oil cost more to extract than it could be sold for, companies would stop producing oil.

If oil costs $80/barrel and it takes 1.5 barrels of oil to produce 1 barrel of oil, then companies have to pay $120 dollars per barrel, with a net profit loss of $40 per barrel extracted. Since no rational person bleeds money, oil production would cease.

The dollar amount has less to do with it then the actual energy inefficiency. Though both ways state the same thing. However Sieben's contention (in the limited statement he made) was purely on the dollar amount of a bbl. It doesn't matter if a bbl costs $5 to extract if the extraction is still energy inefficient.

Right but energy inefficient obviously doesn't mean => it takes more than a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil. If it did, production would cease. Also, if there was a more energy efficient source of energy, it would be cheaper and people would switch over to it. Hydrogen is more fuel inefficient, for example, since it needs to be heavily compressed to fit in a car.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 12:20:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 12:13:27 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/4/2010 12:04:45 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:59:23 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
If it takes one barrel of oil to retrieve one barrel of oil, how does the cost of the barrel of oil make up for the loss in net production?

This has nothing to do with sources, it's basic math. I know you need to take english classes again, but you're deficient in math too?

This is how economics solves resource scarcity. If we ever got to the point where oil cost more to extract than it could be sold for, companies would stop producing oil.

If oil costs $80/barrel and it takes 1.5 barrels of oil to produce 1 barrel of oil, then companies have to pay $120 dollars per barrel, with a net profit loss of $40 per barrel extracted. Since no rational person bleeds money, oil production would cease.

The dollar amount has less to do with it then the actual energy inefficiency. Though both ways state the same thing. However Sieben's contention (in the limited statement he made) was purely on the dollar amount of a bbl. It doesn't matter if a bbl costs $5 to extract if the extraction is still energy inefficient.

What are you defining as energy inefficient?
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 12:29:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 12:16:55 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/4/2010 12:13:27 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/4/2010 12:04:45 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:59:23 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
If it takes one barrel of oil to retrieve one barrel of oil, how does the cost of the barrel of oil make up for the loss in net production?

This has nothing to do with sources, it's basic math. I know you need to take english classes again, but you're deficient in math too?

This is how economics solves resource scarcity. If we ever got to the point where oil cost more to extract than it could be sold for, companies would stop producing oil.

If oil costs $80/barrel and it takes 1.5 barrels of oil to produce 1 barrel of oil, then companies have to pay $120 dollars per barrel, with a net profit loss of $40 per barrel extracted. Since no rational person bleeds money, oil production would cease.

The dollar amount has less to do with it then the actual energy inefficiency. Though both ways state the same thing. However Sieben's contention (in the limited statement he made) was purely on the dollar amount of a bbl. It doesn't matter if a bbl costs $5 to extract if the extraction is still energy inefficient.

Right but energy inefficient obviously doesn't mean => it takes more than a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil. If it did, production would cease. Also, if there was a more energy efficient source of energy, it would be cheaper and people would switch over to it. Hydrogen is more fuel inefficient, for example, since it needs to be heavily compressed to fit in a car.

But that is what it means however different factors also become involved. 1995 was thought to be the time when we would reach peak oil. However reduction in consumption and increased fuel efficiency prevented this from happening. Pure electricity is the most energy efficient fuel. The most abundant source for this is solar energy. However two factors cause a problem with this. 1.) a horrible and increasingly collapsing energy grid prevents stable and efficient energy transfer and 2.) most solar energy is lost in the atmosphere before it reaches a solar station. An Orbital Elevator solves #2 and a new modern energy grid solves #1.
Noblesse Oblige
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 12:31:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 12:20:05 PM, djsherin wrote:
At 12/4/2010 12:13:27 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/4/2010 12:04:45 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:59:23 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
If it takes one barrel of oil to retrieve one barrel of oil, how does the cost of the barrel of oil make up for the loss in net production?

This has nothing to do with sources, it's basic math. I know you need to take english classes again, but you're deficient in math too?

This is how economics solves resource scarcity. If we ever got to the point where oil cost more to extract than it could be sold for, companies would stop producing oil.

If oil costs $80/barrel and it takes 1.5 barrels of oil to produce 1 barrel of oil, then companies have to pay $120 dollars per barrel, with a net profit loss of $40 per barrel extracted. Since no rational person bleeds money, oil production would cease.

The dollar amount has less to do with it then the actual energy inefficiency. Though both ways state the same thing. However Sieben's contention (in the limited statement he made) was purely on the dollar amount of a bbl. It doesn't matter if a bbl costs $5 to extract if the extraction is still energy inefficient.

What are you defining as energy inefficient?

Using as much or more energy to produce an equal or less amount of energy.
Noblesse Oblige
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 12:35:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 12:29:48 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/4/2010 12:16:55 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/4/2010 12:13:27 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/4/2010 12:04:45 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/4/2010 11:59:23 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
If it takes one barrel of oil to retrieve one barrel of oil, how does the cost of the barrel of oil make up for the loss in net production?

This has nothing to do with sources, it's basic math. I know you need to take english classes again, but you're deficient in math too?

This is how economics solves resource scarcity. If we ever got to the point where oil cost more to extract than it could be sold for, companies would stop producing oil.

If oil costs $80/barrel and it takes 1.5 barrels of oil to produce 1 barrel of oil, then companies have to pay $120 dollars per barrel, with a net profit loss of $40 per barrel extracted. Since no rational person bleeds money, oil production would cease.

The dollar amount has less to do with it then the actual energy inefficiency. Though both ways state the same thing. However Sieben's contention (in the limited statement he made) was purely on the dollar amount of a bbl. It doesn't matter if a bbl costs $5 to extract if the extraction is still energy inefficient.

Right but energy inefficient obviously doesn't mean => it takes more than a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil. If it did, production would cease. Also, if there was a more energy efficient source of energy, it would be cheaper and people would switch over to it. Hydrogen is more fuel inefficient, for example, since it needs to be heavily compressed to fit in a car.

But that is what it means however different factors also become involved. 1995 was thought to be the time when we would reach peak oil. However reduction in consumption and increased fuel efficiency prevented this from happening. Pure electricity is the most energy efficient fuel. The most abundant source for this is solar energy. However two factors cause a problem with this. 1.) a horrible and increasingly collapsing energy grid prevents stable and efficient energy transfer and 2.) most solar energy is lost in the atmosphere before it reaches a solar station. An Orbital Elevator solves #2 and a new modern energy grid solves #1.

you're forgetting the energy it takes to extract the silicon for the photovoltaic cells, the energy to make the cells, and the MASSIVE energy it takes to put something in space. Solar power satellites cost around $100 billion apiece in order to provide 1/100th of the power of one nuclear power plant.

And you basically agree with me on oil that the market corrects all these problems. The new projected peaks are around 2030 based on current technology (according tot he Energy Information Agency) and essentially "never" if we can cost-effectively extract from shale and tar sands.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)