Energy, population, and economic growth
Comments
-
I've said before that Goldwater in 64 was the first deficit hawkdflea said:The Eeyore position is always popular with a certain segment of the population.
Whether it's the economy, peak oil, global warming and climate change, or Seattle dying, doom and gloom sells. I've heard it my whole life. I bet Race has, too - and that fucker actually rode dinosaurs.
Still here. Still first world. Still haven't missed a meal.
I'm starting to think Eeyore just likes to be a miserable fuck.
Ever since the party out of power plays the part
That I recall that is -
US energy use per capita is down over 10% from its peak in the early 1970s, but population has also increased by over 50% since then. Between 1970 and 2019, total U.S. energy consumption (the number that matters to the argument) increased from 67.88 quadrillion Btu to 100.05 quadrillion Btu, a very similar increase. Besides, the world consists of more than the U.S., so U.S. energy use per capita ignores the increased exporting of the production of the goods that we consume. China's electrical consumption, for instance, has nearly septupled in just 18 years, between 2000 and 2018, in spite of sub-1% population growth over that time. That's like taking your dog to your neighbor's yard to shit and then using your spotless yard as an argument for opening a sustainable petting zoo.HoustonHusky said:You are off in the weeds now. This idiot’s claim is the future correlation between energy usage and economic growth which is FS. Case in point...in the US energy usage per capita is down over 10% from it’s peak in the early 1970s. I don’t think anyone would claim economic growth even accounting for population changes shrunk 10% between the early 1970s and today.
His fundamental assumption is wrong...which makes the rest of his discussion kinda useless.
Meanwhile, Global energy consumption looks like this:
So huge disagreement on the wrongness of his fundamental theory. I see a global energy use graph that's skyrocketing, perfectly explaining the current growth economy. -
Keep moving the goalposts. Energy usage per capita increases drastically when moving from 3rd world to 1st world status. Energy usage (and material usage...plastics/etc) growth drops off dramatically and even decreases once at first world status. Great graph though showing how the rest of the world is developing.
Dude is wrong...doesn’t seem to understand a lot of things. Not sure why you are defending him so much. -
It's not about him. I just happen to think he's not wrong. And I'm not moving the goalpost. The articles I posted were about global energy consumption and economic growth. You tried reducing that to incomplete statistics for U.S.-only energy consumption.HoustonHusky said:Keep moving the goalposts. Energy usage per capita increases drastically when moving from 3rd world to 1st world status. Energy usage (and material usage...plastics/etc) growth drops off dramatically and even decreases once at first world status. Great graph though showing how the rest of the world is developing.
Dude is wrong...doesn’t seem to understand a lot of things. Not sure why you are defending him so much.
Let me get this straight: You buy an iPhone. X number of Btu of energy are used to produce said iPhone. In mainland China. And yet more Btu to ship said iPhone over the ocean. Pretty sweet deal: A company in Cupertino profits, the economy grows, all without using a single Btu of energy in the good ol' USofA! Like magic! That energy use in China is just them developing, the USA's economy can grow forever without any concern over the energy units consumed overseas.
Since the planet's temperature is a problem for everyone, regardless of 1st or 3rd world status, the graph I posted is awfully important. It cannot continue forever or we bake. That's not debatable. Who gives a fuck who's using energy, only the total is important. That curve will eventually be forced to contract, limits to efficiency will be reached--globally, not shitting on the neighbor's lawn--and then the theory above is this renders a growth economy impossible.
It's just a fun debate, nothing to get upset over. -
About 70% of our (US) energy usage is for transportation and residential/commercial. Heating and cooling mainly. 3rd world countries developing by buying cars, flying, and adding heaters/air conditioning along with moving to office and retail locations requires lots of energy. Hence your graph.
Once in that situation (first world status), energy usage flattens and even shrinks per capita as the US and other data shows...efficiency is a wonderful thing. Yet magically those economies still grow per capita...the energy-economic link doesn’t hold. Amazing feat that.
Not sure why this is difficult to understand...call me crazy that some low level prof from UCSD may not have all the worlds answers and some mental masturbation exercise he did about projecting life hundreds of years out may be a off because of some pretty wrong/dumb assumptions he made. And have at it if you want to mentally masturbate with him...doesn’t magically fix the large holes in his assumptions.
I prefer to hit up my Scotch stash and find some dumb movie to watch...
And don’t get me started on the “planet’s temperature”... -
Alright. I’ve got to read these again.
-
To be clear, I posted some articles that helped put into words something that already was causing some cognitive dissonance for me. You've called the guy (who I don't know, have never met, and neither have you) dumb, wrong, first-year, low-level etc., which is basically doing the same to me at this point, but whatever.HoustonHusky said:About 70% of our (US) energy usage is for transportation and residential/commercial. Heating and cooling mainly. 3rd world countries developing by buying cars, flying, and adding heaters/air conditioning along with moving to office and retail locations requires lots of energy. Hence your graph.
Once in that situation (first world status), energy usage flattens and even shrinks per capita as the US and other data shows...efficiency is a wonderful thing. Yet magically those economies still grow per capita...the energy-economic link doesn’t hold. Amazing feat that.
Not sure why this is difficult to understand...call me crazy that some low level prof from UCSD may not have all the worlds answers and some mental masturbation exercise he did about projecting life hundreds of years out may be a off because of some pretty wrong/dumb assumptions he made. And have at it if you want to mentally masturbate with him...doesn’t magically fix the large holes in his assumptions.
I prefer to hit up my Scotch stash and find some dumb movie to watch...
And don’t get me started on the “planet’s temperature”...
Question: What are your credentials? Are you a doctorate in physics? What major university department do you supervise? Is your Ameritrade account bigger than Pumpeii's? Does this make you a doctorate in physics? You seem awfully confident.
Long story short, I hoped to spark a fun conversation with this thread, but you've seemed to take it personally. I've read every one of your posts pretty carefully, and in every single point you've made, you've either agreed with the premise without realizing it or projected your own argumentative faults onto the articles/me without realizing it (e.g. "you're moving the goalposts").
Either way, if the planet's temperature isn't a concern to you, I'd rather debate a brick wall. At least they often serve a useful purpose. -
Please don't hesitate to post or share articles. It's interesting. I've been tied up today so have not re-read the articles. They are dense (for me at least) and I need to focus to put it all together.1to392831weretaken said:
To be clear, I posted some articles that helped put into words something that already was causing some cognitive dissonance for me. You've called the guy (who I don't know, have never met, and neither have you) dumb, wrong, first-year, low-level etc., which is basically doing the same to me at this point, but whatever.HoustonHusky said:About 70% of our (US) energy usage is for transportation and residential/commercial. Heating and cooling mainly. 3rd world countries developing by buying cars, flying, and adding heaters/air conditioning along with moving to office and retail locations requires lots of energy. Hence your graph.
Once in that situation (first world status), energy usage flattens and even shrinks per capita as the US and other data shows...efficiency is a wonderful thing. Yet magically those economies still grow per capita...the energy-economic link doesn’t hold. Amazing feat that.
Not sure why this is difficult to understand...call me crazy that some low level prof from UCSD may not have all the worlds answers and some mental masturbation exercise he did about projecting life hundreds of years out may be a off because of some pretty wrong/dumb assumptions he made. And have at it if you want to mentally masturbate with him...doesn’t magically fix the large holes in his assumptions.
I prefer to hit up my Scotch stash and find some dumb movie to watch...
And don’t get me started on the “planet’s temperature”...
Question: What are your credentials? Are you a doctorate in physics? What major university department do you supervise? Is your Ameritrade account bigger than Pumpeii's? Does this make you a doctorate in physics? You seem awfully confident.
Long story short, I hoped to spark a fun conversation with this thread, but you've seemed to take it personally. I've read every one of your posts pretty carefully, and in every single point you've made, you've either agreed with the premise without realizing it or projected your own argumentative faults onto the articles/me without realizing it (e.g. "you're moving the goalposts").
Either way, if the planet's temperature isn't a concern to you, I'd rather debate a brick wall. At least they often serve a useful purpose. -
You could do worse than starting with the video above. There's a lot of overlap and some cool thought experiments, two of which I timestamped in the post. I think the lecturer (now dead) does a pretty decent job, considering the dry material and the length of the lecture. I hadn't watched it since I found it probably a decade ago, and I just gave it another watch. Still holds up.creepycoug said:
Please don't hesitate to post or share articles. It's interesting. I've been tied up today so have not re-read the articles. They are dense (for me at least) and I need to focus to put it all together.1to392831weretaken said:
To be clear, I posted some articles that helped put into words something that already was causing some cognitive dissonance for me. You've called the guy (who I don't know, have never met, and neither have you) dumb, wrong, first-year, low-level etc., which is basically doing the same to me at this point, but whatever.HoustonHusky said:About 70% of our (US) energy usage is for transportation and residential/commercial. Heating and cooling mainly. 3rd world countries developing by buying cars, flying, and adding heaters/air conditioning along with moving to office and retail locations requires lots of energy. Hence your graph.
Once in that situation (first world status), energy usage flattens and even shrinks per capita as the US and other data shows...efficiency is a wonderful thing. Yet magically those economies still grow per capita...the energy-economic link doesn’t hold. Amazing feat that.
Not sure why this is difficult to understand...call me crazy that some low level prof from UCSD may not have all the worlds answers and some mental masturbation exercise he did about projecting life hundreds of years out may be a off because of some pretty wrong/dumb assumptions he made. And have at it if you want to mentally masturbate with him...doesn’t magically fix the large holes in his assumptions.
I prefer to hit up my Scotch stash and find some dumb movie to watch...
And don’t get me started on the “planet’s temperature”...
Question: What are your credentials? Are you a doctorate in physics? What major university department do you supervise? Is your Ameritrade account bigger than Pumpeii's? Does this make you a doctorate in physics? You seem awfully confident.
Long story short, I hoped to spark a fun conversation with this thread, but you've seemed to take it personally. I've read every one of your posts pretty carefully, and in every single point you've made, you've either agreed with the premise without realizing it or projected your own argumentative faults onto the articles/me without realizing it (e.g. "you're moving the goalposts").
Either way, if the planet's temperature isn't a concern to you, I'd rather debate a brick wall. At least they often serve a useful purpose. -
Look...the guy is a physicist and glancing through his calculations I don't see anything wrong with those.1to392831weretaken said:
To be clear, I posted some articles that helped put into words something that already was causing some cognitive dissonance for me. You've called the guy (who I don't know, have never met, and neither have you) dumb, wrong, first-year, low-level etc., which is basically doing the same to me at this point, but whatever.HoustonHusky said:About 70% of our (US) energy usage is for transportation and residential/commercial. Heating and cooling mainly. 3rd world countries developing by buying cars, flying, and adding heaters/air conditioning along with moving to office and retail locations requires lots of energy. Hence your graph.
Once in that situation (first world status), energy usage flattens and even shrinks per capita as the US and other data shows...efficiency is a wonderful thing. Yet magically those economies still grow per capita...the energy-economic link doesn’t hold. Amazing feat that.
Not sure why this is difficult to understand...call me crazy that some low level prof from UCSD may not have all the worlds answers and some mental masturbation exercise he did about projecting life hundreds of years out may be a off because of some pretty wrong/dumb assumptions he made. And have at it if you want to mentally masturbate with him...doesn’t magically fix the large holes in his assumptions.
I prefer to hit up my Scotch stash and find some dumb movie to watch...
And don’t get me started on the “planet’s temperature”...
Question: What are your credentials? Are you a doctorate in physics? What major university department do you supervise? Is your Ameritrade account bigger than Pumpeii's? Does this make you a doctorate in physics? You seem awfully confident.
Long story short, I hoped to spark a fun conversation with this thread, but you've seemed to take it personally. I've read every one of your posts pretty carefully, and in every single point you've made, you've either agreed with the premise without realizing it or projected your own argumentative faults onto the articles/me without realizing it (e.g. "you're moving the goalposts").
Either way, if the planet's temperature isn't a concern to you, I'd rather debate a brick wall. At least they often serve a useful purpose.
My problem with all of these types of analysis is that they don't frame themselves as 'hey look...here is an interesting look at the physical limitation of solar energy we can get'. Instead they delve into fear porn in areas way outside of their expertise, and instead of digging into those they just make broad assumptions that aren't valid in order to validate a point of view.
Case in point...the first chart from the guy:
Looks dramatic, but if you look at it with any detail thought you'd realize all this is another graph for historical population that falls apart after 1900s. Plot this data:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory2os2xmaster/chapter/united-states-population-chart/
Between 1600s and late 1800s its not like people were growing their energy usage by leaps and bounds...they burned stuff to stay warm and rode horses. Population grew exponentially so the overall "energy production rate" grew exponentially. You take that population curve which is what that chart is based on and project it out it assumes the US population in 2200 is over 500,000,000,000. I've never, ever, in a million years seen any population forecast that comes close to that...if you have I'd love to see it.
The graph falls apart at the tail end when you look at oil being discovered (late 1800s) and population growth slowing down followed by energy use per capita shrinking since the 1970s...you don't notice on the exponential chart but all the driving forces behind energy usage and growth changed dramatically. Add to that energy is no different than any other market...when its cheap it gets used with little efficiency and when it gets expensive it get rationed.
Ignoring all this pretty basic understanding of the overall energy system over time is what bugs me...apologize if you are offended.
