Re: Re: energy crises
Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop" technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
RE: Re: energy crises
Jim Devine wrote: >what's wrong with the > Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy > crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, because they are not alternatives) Mark
RE: Re: energy crises
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/27/00 04:30PM >>> Jim Devine wrote: >what's wrong with the > Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy > crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, because they are not alternatives) ))) CB: Solar ?
Re: Re: energy crises
I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is undeniable that better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of non-renewable resources faster than they are depleted through the outragious rate of consumption in rich countries. For example, according to a textbook by Agnew and Knox, in 1975 worldwide proven reserves of crude oil were 650 billion barrels. By 1985 they had risen to 765 billion barrels, and by 1995 they rose to 1 trillion barrels. Of course, the geographical distribution of oil reserves is important: reserves in Europe and N. America were lower in 1995 than in 1975. And, as has been mentioned, there are lots of 'externalities' involved, including the nasty sunburn I got last week, apparently partly because there are now more UV rays caused by ozone-depletion. I think Hegel and Marx's distinction between barrier and limit can be useful when thinking about nature and capitalism - very crudely, nature is a barrier; workers and allies are a (potential) limit. Bill
Re: RE: energy crises
Just to be clear, I was not referring to the accumulated natural production over millions of years (see below), but to the 'proven reserves' that are a function of current technology and priceand world politics. If Mark rejects the 'official' estimates of (rising) oil reserves I quoted, how do we guess if there is 10 years or 1,000 years worth left? How much is in the Alberta tar sands? I wrote that technology and prices can (not _will_) increase reserves faster than consumption; I suppose I should have added under certain conditions, and for a time, but I didn't realize this was necessary. The point is that capitalism has access to more oil now than when OPEC shook things up in the 1970s, and real oil prices can still rise a lot before they reach heights that capitalism was able to stumble over without falling flat on its back. Sorry, it is not abundantly clear to me why dwindling oil is a sound political focus for anti-capitalists. Bill: > > I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is > > undeniable that > > better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of > > non-renewable resources faster than they are depleted through the > > outragious rate of consumption in rich countries. Mark: >This, too, is completely wrong and shows the futility of trying to debate >these issues in fora where the most absurd statements which have absolutely >no basis in fact or theory are uttered ad nauseam without respect for the >evidence, which is contrary, abundant and clear. and, that >What we are talking about here is the rate at which fossil fuels accumulate >under the earth and ocean-shelves. It is very slow indeed, and therefore of >no practical importance. For humankind, once the fossil carbon in the mantle >NOW is bnurnt, that's IT. It took 500m years to accumulate and we've used it >in 250 years.
Re: Re: Re: energy crises
At 11:42 AM 6/27/00 -0700, you wrote: >Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop" >technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time. yeah, he assumed that nuclear power was a good thing. This suggests that he should have taken externalities into account. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: Re: energy crises
Mark Jones wrote: >Jim Devine wrote: >>what's wrong with the >> Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy >> crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time > >It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the >alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, >because they are not alternatives) Can we do a Julian Simon-style bet? What's your timeframe, and what exactly are you expecting? Of course, if you win, none of use will be around to collect. Doug
RE: RE: Re: energy crises
Jim Devine wrote: >what's wrong with the > Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy > crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, because they are not alternatives) Mark We're supposed to get excited about a catastrophe that occurs one million years hence? mbs
Re: RE: Re: energy crises
>Jim Devine wrote: > >what's wrong with the > > Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy > > crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time > >It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the >alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, >because they are not alternatives) why should I believe you? why not solar? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: Re: energy crises
I haven't jumped into pen-le in a while, but this question spurs me to point out that the problem with the Nordhaus theory is that, right or wrong, it is irrelevant to the fundamental energy problem facing us today, which is global warming, not high fuel prices. And if there are no alternatives to fossil fuels then we (the human race, or at least civilization as we know it) are truly fucked. You all might want to take a look at the latest reports on climate change. Without a 70% (yes that's 70%) reduction in carbon dioxide emissions over the next twenty (yes 20) years, we are on course to raise the planet's temperature from 3 - 7 F degrees and the temperature of the US from 5-10 F degrees, over the course of the next century. The consequences of this are unimaginable. Trebling or quadrupling fuel prices, in this context, would be a good thing. Ellen Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Jim Devine wrote: >>what's wrong with the >> Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy >> crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time > >It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are >the >alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, >because they are not alternatives) > >))) > >CB: Solar ? >
Re: Re: Re: energy crises
What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ -- "the market will solve the problem"? Gene Coyle Michael Perelman wrote: > Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop" > technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time. > > -- > > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Chico, CA 95929 > 530-898-5321 > fax 530-898-5901
RE: Re: Re: energy crises
Bill Burgess wrote: > Sent: 28 June 2000 00:58 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:20785] Re: Re: energy crises > > > I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is > undeniable that > better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of > non-renewable resources faster than they are depleted through the > outragious rate of consumption in rich countries. This, too, is completely wrong and shows the futility of trying to debate these issues in fora where the most absurd statements which have absolutely no basis in fact or theory are uttered ad nauseam without respect for the evidence, which is contrary, abundant and clear. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
Re: Re: Re: energy crises
But I do keep receiving messages! This time when I finaly got connected I've got more than 100 of them. What is wrong? Boris -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 27 ÉÀÎÑ 2000 Ç. 22:47 Subject: [PEN-L:20749] Re: Re: energy crises >Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop" >technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time. > >-- > >Michael Perelman >Economics Department >California State University >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Chico, CA 95929 >530-898-5321 >fax 530-898-5901
RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises
>It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the >alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, >because they are not alternatives) Can we do a Julian Simon-style bet? What's your timeframe, and what exactly are you expecting? Of course, if you win, none of use will be around to collect. Doug No problem. Start a fund with one penny. In only 10,000 years, at five percent interest, it will compound to $7.8161E+209. Longer is more than my spreadsheet can handle. mbs
Re: Re: Re: Re: energy crises
At 02:40 PM 6/27/00 -0700, you wrote: >What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ -- >"the market will solve the problem"? it fits with freshman NC, though I think Nordhaus was being Schumpeterian -- and was open to the idea of the gov't helping the market. But then again, it's been 25 years since I read the paper. Even if it is straight out of the text, we can't reject his argument out of hand. We have to point to the theory's flaws, as several have. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: RE: RE: Re: energy crises
Max, I'm not sure it *would* take to shake your sang-froid, the point I was
making was the opposite, ie, despite fatuous assertions to the contrary,
which shows that if you sractch some pen-lers, you find a Samuelson or an
Adelman ('resources are infinite.. the planet has no need of them... oil is
a renewable resource' etc and other certifiable nonsense), the fact is that
energy is not infinite, there is no substitute for petroleum, capitalism
depends on petroleum, and when it's gone, it's gone. It's be gone very soon
indeed and some people (jncluding me) think that actually the Hubbert Peak
has already arrived, and oil production worldwide will now decline sharply.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
> Sent: 27 June 2000 21:57
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:20768] RE: RE: Re: energy crises
>
>
> Jim Devine wrote:
> >what's wrong with the
> > Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
> > crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
>
> It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking.
> What are the
> alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
> because they are not alternatives) Mark
>
>
>
> We're supposed to get excited about a catastrophe that
> occurs one million years hence?
>
> mbs
>
>
RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises
Jim, much as I like you (I do, as a tireless intellectual, of a certain sort) I don't really give a damn whether you believe me (now) or not. You soon will do, in any case. But don't take my word, check it out yourself. PV is not a substitute for oil. There is no substitute for oil. Anyone who says there is is simply deluded. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Devine > Sent: 27 June 2000 21:53 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:20767] Re: RE: Re: energy crises > > > > >Jim Devine wrote: > > >what's wrong with the > > > Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy > > > crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time > > > >It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. > What are the > >alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, > >because they are not alternatives) > > why should I believe you? why not solar? > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > >
RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises
At last, some wisdom. Yes, we are fucked. And yes, without linking the future of fossil to to the future of greenhouse, it's impossible to make sense of anything. We "socialists" better get our skates on. Altho actually it's most likely already too late, so continue with your reveries and general delirium. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ellen Frank > Sent: 27 June 2000 21:57 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:20770] Re: RE: Re: energy crises > > > I haven't jumped into pen-le in a while, but this question spurs > me to point out that the problem with the Nordhaus theory is > that, right or wrong, it is irrelevant to the fundamental energy > problem facing us today, which is global warming, not > high fuel prices. And if there are no alternatives to fossil > fuels then we (the human race, or at least civilization as > we know it) are truly fucked. You all might want to take > a look at the latest reports on climate change. Without a > 70% (yes that's 70%) reduction in carbon dioxide > emissions over the next twenty (yes 20) years, we are > on course to raise the planet's temperature from 3 - 7 F degrees > and the temperature of the US from 5-10 F degrees, over the > course of the next century. The consequences of this are > unimaginable. Trebling or quadrupling fuel prices, in this > context, would be a good thing. > > Ellen Frank > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >Jim Devine wrote: > >>what's wrong with the > >> Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy > >> crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time > > > >It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are > >the > >alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, > >because they are not alternatives) > > > >))) > > > >CB: Solar ? > > > >
Re: RE: Re: Re: energy crises
>Bill Burgess wrote: > >> Sent: 28 June 2000 00:58 >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [PEN-L:20785] Re: Re: energy crises >> >> >> I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is >> undeniable that >> better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of >> non-renewable resources faster than they are depleted through the >> outragious rate of consumption in rich countries. > >This, too, is completely wrong and shows the futility of trying to debate >these issues in fora where the most absurd statements which have absolutely >no basis in fact or theory are uttered ad nauseam without respect for the >evidence, which is contrary, abundant and clear. > >Mark Jones Ummm... Paul Ehrlich *did* lose his bet with Julian Simon. Market prices of non-renewable resources *have* fallen over the past quarter century. Seek truth from facts... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: energy crises
Nordhaus knows more math than the freshman. Eugene Coyle wrote: > What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ -- > "the market will solve the problem"? > > Gene Coyle > > Michael Perelman wrote: > > > Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop" > > technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time. > > > > -- > > > > Michael Perelman > > Economics Department > > California State University > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Chico, CA 95929 > > 530-898-5321 > > fax 530-898-5901 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: Re: energy crises
You have Yeltsin here? Cool. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList - Original Message - From: "GBK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 1:45 PM Subject: [PEN-L:20935] Re: Re: Re: energy crises But I do keep receiving messages! This time when I finaly got connected I've got more than 100 of them. What is wrong? Boris -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 27 ÉÀÎÑ 2000 Ç. 22:47 Subject: [PEN-L:20749] Re: Re: energy crises >Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop" >technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time. > >-- > >Michael Perelman >Economics Department >California State University >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Chico, CA 95929 >530-898-5321 >fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: Re: energy crises
I think that those messages came before the changes were made. I hope that we are ok now. GBK wrote: > But I do keep receiving messages! > This time when I finaly got connected I've got more than 100 of them. What > is wrong? > > Boris > > -Original Message- > From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 27 ÉÀÎÑ 2000 Ç. 22:47 > Subject: [PEN-L:20749] Re: Re: energy crises > > >Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop" > >technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time. > > > >-- > > > >Michael Perelman > >Economics Department > >California State University > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Chico, CA 95929 > >530-898-5321 > >fax 530-898-5901 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises
What we are talking about here is the rate at which fossil fuels accumulate under the earth and ocean-shelves. It is very slow indeed, and therefore of no practical importance. For humankind, once the fossil carbon in the mantle NOW is bnurnt, that's IT. It took 500m years to accumulate and we've used it in 250 years. Human civilisation depends completely on it. There are no alternatives which will allow you to enjoy the same material standards, or your children (certainly). They will live in an energy-poor slow-cooker of a planet. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky > Sent: 27 June 2000 22:05 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:20771] RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises > > > > >It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are > the > >alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, > >because they are not alternatives) > > Can we do a Julian Simon-style bet? What's your timeframe, and what > exactly are you expecting? Of course, if you win, none of use will be > around to collect. > > Doug > > > No problem. Start a fund with one penny. > In only 10,000 years, at five percent interest, > it will compound to $7.8161E+209. Longer is > more than my spreadsheet can handle. > > mbs > >
Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: energy crises
> Max, I'm not sure it *would* take to shake your sang-froid, the point I was > making was the opposite, ie, despite fatuous assertions to the contrary, You're doing a good job. This is all a scenario for political disaster, I might note. By the time the shit hits the fan, it's too late to do anything about it. Until it does, nobody except some e-mail listers is moved to even talk about it. Higher prices can stretch out the period over which a resource is exhausted, and spur technology, but I take your point that there are natural and technical limits to the rate at which one can escape scarcities. So escape is not guaranteed. I just don't believe it. When fossil fuels become sufficiently expensive, massive efforts will go into developing alternatives. There will be a lot of money to be made, coordination problems aside. To me that's more likely than green consciousness leading to revolution. And you should have tasted the chicken I barbecued this past week-end . . . mbs
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: energy crises
Brad deLong wrote: > Ummm Brad, you may end being known as the man who put the 'um' in 'dumb'. Do you suppose Simon's bet with Ehrlich is safe ground for you to stand on? You too, simply have no idea what the issue is. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
Re: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: energy crises
Max Sawicky wrote: > I just don't believe it. When fossil fuels become > sufficiently expensive, massive efforts will go into > developing alternatives. There will be a lot of money > to be made, coordination problems aside. To me > that's more likely than green consciousness leading > to revolution No, there will be no such massive efforts as you suppose because the material basis for making such efforts will have disappeared. No, there will be no money to be made, but there will be signs of severe social and historical stresses in all countries including the overpopulated, third-worldised US whose Ogallala aquifer will just be running out when the population hits its first half billion. Your hopes are false. The time to do something is obviously now, not later. You should make this the central issue of your work and life because the fact of this crisis simplify falsifies and empties of worth the kinds of worthy but now pointless social policy things you do do. It's hard to accept, I know, and much easier to make a flip joke about barbecues, turn your back on the problem and get on with your life while you can; but this option is already not as easy as it was, because there is so much more evidence now than there was even two years ago, when I last rattled the pen-L bars, and Doug produced a tame petroleum economist to prove me wrong (where he, Doug? Changed specialty?). And in 2 years time when the evidence is incontrovertible enough to be finally getting thru even to economists, self-appointed wonks and marginal pundits, a moment will come when you will all be talking about nothing else, but in reality nothing will change because you will still be being led by the ideological nose thru the wastelands of broadsheet and NGO 'policy analysis' and CNN gibberish about 'the energy crisis'. The results will be to amplify dsaster, and to set a minus sign against your life's work. You want that Max? The US state and polity cannot be saved, it will be destroyed, and the question is only what comes after. Hiding from the clear evidence of energy crisis and whistling in the dark that you 'just don't believe it' does not show manly scepticism, only undimmed ability to avoid the real nitty-gritty. Mark
