Systemic Collapse: The Basics

[free spirit]

fair point. It's nearly twice as expensive for domestic electricity in Germany vs UK, but only 16% more expensive for industrial electricity.

It still has among the highest electricity prices for industry in Europe though, so the point / question still stands.

http://www.energy.eu/


The answer btw is fairly obviously that energy prices are just one of many factors, important yes, but not the only or even the main factor involved in determining whether an economy will grow or contract.

 

[SpineyNorman]

16% is still a lot - if world oil prices rose by that much people would be shitting bricks.

I think FS has a really good point here - the tendency to reduce everything to oil and oil prices is as daft as the kind of Friedmanite economism that assumes inexhaustible resources.

 

[elbows]

UK oil production fell 25% in 2011. It will fall >25% in 2012.

I dont know if anyone remembers or cares about my numerous tedious posts a year ago where I complained very strongly about the assumption in this post. But since the data for 2012 has now been available for a month, I shall briefly return to the subject.

2012 was another horrible year for UK oil production. It fell 14.3% compared to a year earlier. From what I can tell by searching now, the oil decline in 2011 was actually 17.4%. So you were wrong both on the point I droned on about, the idea that the decline will be greater in percentage terms year on year, and with the actual figures you used to make the misleading point.

 

[Falcon]

2012 was another horrible year for UK oil production. It fell 14.3% compared to a year earlier. From what I can tell by searching now, the oil decline in 2011 was actually 17.4%. So you were wrong both on the point I droned on about, the idea that the decline will be greater in percentage terms year on year, and with the actual figures you used to make the misleading point.

Assuming your figures are correct. 17.4% decline rate is a half time of (70/17.4=) 4 years. According to your own figures, UK oil production will half in 4 years, half again (i.e. have fallen 75%) in 8 years, and half again (i.e. have fallen 87.5%) in 12 years.

Or if you prefer, 14.3% decline is a half rate of 4.9 years, meaning production will fall 87.5% in 14 years.

Under compounding arithmetic, the time to exhaustion is independent of the quantity of oil you assume exists, and insensitive to gross error in the depletion rate.

My point is that UK oil production is falling catastrophically. An 87.5% fall in 12 years is catastrophic. On what point do you believe you have been mislead, or do you simply not understand compounding arithmetic?

I haven't bothered to work out net (you report gross) - I can't remember if it was you or free spirit or both who couldn't tell the difference.

 

[free spirit]

Assuming your figures are correct. 17.4% decline rate is a half time of (70/17.4=) 4 years. According to your own figures, UK oil production will half in 4 years, half again (i.e. have fallen 75%) in 8 years, and half again (i.e. have fallen 87.5%) in 12 years.

My point is that UK oil production is falling catastrophically. An 87.5% fall in 12 years is catastrophic. On what point do you believe you have been mislead, or do you simply not understand compounding arithmetic?

AFAIK neither elbows nor me have disputed the general point that UK oil production has been and will continue to fall rapidly.

If I understand him right, his point relates to the certainty with which you give specific predictions, such as your 'It will fall by >25% in 2012'

I haven't bothered to work out net (you report gross) - I can't remember if it was you or free spirit or both who couldn't tell the difference.

if I remember it right, we were discussing net energy, but I believe after much huffing and puffing it turned out that nobody is actually releasing the data on net energy, which makes reporting the figures a wee bit difficult.

As I said on that thread though, you're always free to produce those figures if you have them, if not then it's a bit much to complain when someone uses the only metric that's actually available to them instead of using the perfect metric for which the figures aren't actually available.

 

[Falcon]

If I understand him right, his point relates to the certainty with which you give specific predictions, such as your 'It will fall by >25% in 2012'

No. The pair of you attempt misdirection by invoking the pattern of coercing statements of general principle into statements of absolute fact, showing (trivially) that it is not a statement of absolute fact, then arguing that the statement of principle is wrong.

I am not certain whether the decline rate is 25% - a half rate of 2.8 years - or 14.3% - a half rate of 4.9 years, because I do not need to be.

I am certain that either decline rate is catastrophic - my point.

I'm bored of your sophistry and complacent disinterest in novel information.

 

[yield]

I'm bored of your sophistry and complacent disinterest in novel information.

Then don't post. I've think they've been been pretty fair.

 

[Falcon]

Then don't post. I've think they've been been pretty fair.

… right up to the point where they fail to demonstrate any material difference.

 

[free spirit]

No. The pair of you attempt misdirection by invoking the pattern of coercing statements of general principle into statements of absolute fact, showing (trivially) that it is not a statement of absolute fact, then arguing that the statement of principle is wrong.

I am not certain whether the decline rate is 25% - a half rate of 2.8 years - or 14.3% - a half rate of 4.9 years, because I do not need to be.

I am certain that either decline rate is catastrophic - my point.

I'm bored of your sophistry and complacent disinterest in novel information.

here are some words you might choose to use in future posts to avoid giving a false impression of the certainty of your views

probably
very likely
likely
quite likely
in the region of
around
between
+/- 10%

This is how to avoid giving a false impression of the certainty of your statements, and to more correctly express the actual level of uncertainty that must really exist in all such predictions.

This may seem like sophistry to you, but it's this sort of shit that gave the climate change sceptics open goals to shoot at when people who should have known better made firm predictions about stuff like the future lack of snow in winter in the UK, rather that trying to reflect the actual uncertainty levels of the predictions within their statements.

It comes back to bite you and can end up discrediting not just you, but all those associated with that view point, which is why I particularly feel the need to challenge you on it and ask you to please stop making such predictions as firm statements of what's going to happen, and start reflecting the uncertainties better in your statements.

Ideally also not always picking the worst possible case scenario figures would give you a far better chance of being in the right ball park overall, as the compound of always picking the worst figures will very likely end up being many multiples out from the reality of the situation, for reasons I'm sure you should understand.

 

[elbows]

Well I have to say your response has lived up to my expectations Falcon. I've probably called you a slippery debater and a disgrace to science before, and I shall do so again. You demonstrate so well that you are prepared to use very specific numbers and concepts in a very loose manner, hyperbole that is incompatible with the scientific or mathematical principals that you pretend to be using properly. And then you have the cheek to sneer at others and claim they dont understand the concepts in question.

I am not a complete maths, stats and science wizard with unshakeably broad and deep understanding of every single concept ever discussed here. But I know enough to spot a fraud when I see one, and I gave you plenty of opportunities to correct your misleading statement soon after you made it. You were not interested, so I had to wait till the data came out so I could make my point in a straightforward manner and then see you wriggle in your classic style. I wont bother again, since I am not best equipped for these battles and you are a disingenuous waste of time.

 

[Greebo]

<snip>I'm bored of your sophistry and complacent disinterest in novel information.

*Throws blue pencil at Falcon's head*

For crying out loud - it's "tired of" or "bored with". "Bored of" is far too clunky. Furthermore, "disinterest in" refers to a lack of bias towards the matter, it's neither a synonym for "indifference to" nor one for "a lack of interest in". I implore you to learn to write. Or at least to proofread your own posts.

 

[elbows]

As for me & free spirit, its not surprising you struggle to tell us apart, since neither of us share your exact expectations for the future, and both of us engage with these sorts of threads often enough to spot a variety of your gross (or net!) mistakes, distortions etc.

However it would be a great mistake to suggest that me and free spirit share the same expectations for the future. I'm sure I must have stated on several occasions in the past that my own expectations are to be found somewhere in between the pictures painted by you and free spirit. I believe a variety of systems are ill equipped to survive dramatic changes to the energy picture, and stand every chance of being tested to destruction under those circumstances. But I do not share your stance because I intensely dislike the lengths you have to go to to try to paint your picture in such certain terms, in particular when it comes to exact timescale and lack of wiggle room.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

here are some words you might choose to use in future posts to avoid giving a false impression of the certainty of your views

probably
very likely
likely
quite likely
in the region of
around
between
+/- 10%

This is how to avoid giving a false impression of the certainty of your statements, and to more correctly express the actual level of uncertainty that must really exist in all such predictions.

This may seem like sophistry to you, but it's this sort of shit that gave the climate change sceptics open goals to shoot at when people who should have known better made firm predictions about stuff like the future lack of snow in winter in the UK, rather that trying to reflect the actual uncertainty levels of the predictions within their statements.

It comes back to bite you and can end up discrediting not just you, but all those associated with that view point, which is why I particularly feel the need to challenge you on it and ask you to please stop making such predictions as firm statements of what's going to happen, and start reflecting the uncertainties better in your statements.

Ideally also not always picking the worst possible case scenario figures would give you a far better chance of being in the right ball park overall, as the compound of always picking the worst figures will very likely end up being many multiples out from the reality of the situation, for reasons I'm sure you should understand.

Yep. Very much this. It's long been falcon's mo to compound series of worst case scenarios, some of which are mutually exclusive. It's bad thinking.

 

[free spirit]

I'm sure I must have stated on several occasions in the past that my own expectations are to be found somewhere in between the pictures painted by you and free spirit.

ah now tbf, my actual expectations of what's likely to happen may well be significantly different to the posts I make on here where I'm mostly pointing out what's actually possible if we put our collective minds to it to oppose the idea that we're inevitably doomed.

I don't see a vast amount of evidence that we're really putting our collective minds to it in the way we need to, more like paying lip service to the appearance of doing something about it, while actually just carrying on pretty much business as usual.

eta - not that I in anyway think it likely we'll end up in Falcon's doom and gloom scenario mind.

I reckon I'm pretty realisitic about things though, for example, I'm not the one who seems to think there's a possibility that we'll stop before 450ppm, or a 2 degree rise - I've been around long enough to understand that we missed those particular boats a decade or so ago. On that score Falcon's still oddly optimistic in thinking there's any potential that we'll end up coming to our senses so rapidly that we might actually end up leaving 80% of fossil fuel reserves in the ground, which essentially is the basis of his idea that we've not got the energy left to make the transition to a renewables based economy. I'm realistic enough to understand that we'll actually just carry on burning those fossil fuels until something else comes along to replace them - we'll never unilaterally just stop burning them without an alternative being in place.

IMO the only way of ensuring that a significant portion of those fossil fuels is left in the ground is to expend part of their energy on creating an alternative low carbon energy infrastructure, as we're better off having a realistic plan to replace most fossil fuels even if that means ending up burning 30% of what's in the ground rather than 20%, rather than campaigning fruitlessly to try to force some form of massive energy austerity programme to withdraw from fossil fuel use to ensure we leave 80% in the ground without that investment in the alternatives... that ain't ever going to fly as an idea.

 

[elbows]

Well you probably know my stance on that by now, I find it rather tempting to see things like the 2050 climate change targets as being at least partially influenced by expectations of how much fossil fuel we'll actually have available to consume by then, as opposed to what we will do voluntarily for reasons of climate change alone.

 

[Dr Jon]

Thinking of collapse, I recently spotted this piece:

The irreconcilable acceptance of near-term extinction

A bit long, but says it all I reckon.

 

[Crispy]

we have ushered in intractable near term extinction (NTE) of most of life within the next several decades.

Excuse me while I snort with derision.
*SNORT*

 

[butchersapron]

we have ushered in intractable near term extinction (NTE) of most of life within the next several decades.

What, again?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

He doesn't even say he's going to demonstrate this. He writes the essay from the assumption that it has already been demonstrated.

Worthless.

 

[frogwoman]

 

[elbows]

What, again?

The clock seems to have been at one minute to midnight for rather a long time eh.

Fat lot of good the boy who cried wolf fable has done.

 

[Dr Jon]

Also see:
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reach Highest Point In Three Million Years

 

[elbows]

IMO the only way of ensuring that a significant portion of those fossil fuels is left in the ground is to expend part of their energy on creating an alternative low carbon energy infrastructure, as we're better off having a realistic plan to replace most fossil fuels even if that means ending up burning 30% of what's in the ground rather than 20%, rather than campaigning fruitlessly to try to force some form of massive energy austerity programme to withdraw from fossil fuel use to ensure we leave 80% in the ground without that investment in the alternatives... that ain't ever going to fly as an idea.

By the way when I was looking at the report that had the North Sea oil production data in it, I believe it also said that UK coal use for electricity production rose by 31% in 2012! This was apparently due to gas prices making it so much more expensive than coal. Market farces again!

 

[free spirit]

By the way when I was looking at the report that had the North Sea oil production data in it, I believe it also said that UK coal use for electricity production rose by 31% in 2012! This was apparently due to gas prices making it so much more expensive than coal. Market farces again!

only partly true.

Mainly it was down to osbourne imposing a carbon tax from this month on power producers, which then meant that most of the coal power stations that were due to shut in 2016 and operating on limited hours til then, decided to use up as many of their hours as possible before the tax hit, and several have used up all their hours and shut significantly earlier than expected.

Obviously this only worked because it was cheaper than gas, but that's a large part of why there was such a big increase.

At least that's what my mate's been saying who works in the control room of one of the plants that took that decision, and I believe has now shut that half of the plant.

 

[elbows]

Ta for the info. That makes sense, and seeing as the report I was reading was from a government department its no surprise that they omitted that explanation.

 

[Dr Jon]

Excuse me while I snort with derision.
*SNORT*

Check:
This Means Extinction

 

[Dr Jon]

 

[Santino]

Yeah, I'll get right on watching this hour-long video that you haven't commented on.

 

[rover07]

Ignore that dull doomsday shit.

Here's Amory Levins of the Rocky Mountain Institute explaining how with present technology we can create a more efficient energy system without relying on fossil fuels.

 

[rover07]

2 years ago the Rocky Mountain Institute helped redesign the Empire State Building, cutting it's energy usage by 38%.

www.rmi.org

Amazing stuff.

http://www.esbnyc.com/documents/press_releases/2012_05_31_esb_year_one_press_release.pdf

NEW YORK – (May 31, 2012) – One year after an innovative building retrofit project, the Empire State Building is ahead of plan and has exceeded its year one energy-efficiency guarantee by five percent, saving $2.4 million and establishing a commercial real estate model for reducing costs, maximizing return on investment, increasing real estate value, and protecting the environment.

“First and foremost, making the Empire State Building energy efficient was a sound business decision that saved us millions of dollars in the first year,” said Anthony Malkin of the Empire State Building Company. “We have a proven model that shows building owners and operators how to cut costs and improve the value of their buildings by integrating energy efficiency into building upgrades.”