[Oldmanmatt]

Both population and consumption will plateau and then fall.

The $50,000 question being, will this happen nicely as a result of higher standards of living and declines in mortality etc, or in the hideous boom-and-bust overpopulation scenarios we witness in animal populations? We're rapidly running out of less developed countries for the developing countries to exploit whilst they get over the hump...

I would guess a little of both (or possibly a lot of both).
I don't in fact see a blissful trouble free future, but I strongly suspect our ingenuity has a long way to run.

I have a good friend who is an Epidemiologist in Lyon, he is convinced a Lethal (80% or so) Pandemic is a matter of when not if and predicts less than a decade...
Basically, I see our problems as something other than resource based.

Bonjoy, PM Systema-Ian, he really knows his onions from his fossil fuels and is a real go to guy for sustainability questions. He's been studying the energy question for years not a few weeks...
I'm more the nuts and bolts end.
Really, we do make electric motors that use 50% less power than a standard induction motor at a given output.
Half!

We use them in industrial applications at the moment, imagine when their use becomes more wide spread, more domestic.
How many electric motors do you have in your house?
We use bearings with a 10 year life (and that's just between inspections, we don't actually expect to replace them, ever), the energy saved in that change alone is massive (and so hard to quantify).
Essentially, they are maintenance free, for as long as the casing resists corrosion; again a massive energy saving in it's self.

Edit,
That 80% means eighty percent of those who contract it will die, not 80% of the population will die. Although, we could be unlucky I suppose...

[Bonjoy]

Yes I read the article.
It doesn't answer anything.
It is desperately weighted and glosses over many critical points and blandly assigns arbitrary values based on little more than opinion (hence the low score for nuclear).
Some categories are marked down as "eye sore" in the alternate matrix and no account is taken of such matters in the fossil fuel matrix.
Need I go on?
You continue to miss the main point.
Both population and consumption will plateau and then fall.
Technology will continue to advance (again the matrix marks down many possibilities for being unproven).
This article speaks only of what we might do today, it has nothing to say on where we may be in ten years time.
Or fifty.
Why would we cut off one stream instantly anyway?
Surely these things will develop in tandem, in parallel?
We can and will reduce pressure on the existing sources?
Are you really expecting the world to end in the next ten years?
I'm travelling, but I might be able to dig up some of the data on the new battery tech when I'm in Italy next week.
And tidal.
Don't forget tidal.
That was written off completely in that Matrix.
We've hardly even started there!
Talk about a vast untapped source of power...
Conventional aircraft, always going to be difficult.
But then, not all combustable fluids are fossil fuels.
I believe the septics have already conducted research on Slush Hydrogen propulsion.
Nah,
Call me the over optimistic Engineer, if you will, but I really don't see us running out of power...

The article is a piece drawing together a series of in-depth articles on the same site. If you click the links on the headers for each energy type it goes to the relevant piece. Click on the tidal one and it explains why tidal is useful but will never be a game changer.
I'm far from suggesting the world is doomed, that is not my point. My point is that there is a body of opinion that the current economic woes of the world are in large part due to the rapid decline of cheaply available energy and that this problem is only going to get worse for the foreseeable future. I was challenging your techno-utopianist statement:

People continue to demand more and by and large they get it.
The markets evolve, there will be regulation, imposed by popular demand, which will address the extremes of the markets.
Things will settle down, until the next big swing and the next new idea...
And the cycle will repeat, different in detail but similar in process.
I expect the cycle to accelerate, swinging around a steadily rising mean.
It's what has happened to date, isn't it?

Your last sentence assumes the conditions are in place for the same process to repeat in future, I'm suggesting that the energy question means the future is unlikely to look like such a straightforward extrapolation of the (abundant energy) past.

[Yossarian]

My point is that there is a body of opinion that the current economic woes of the world are in large part due to the rapid decline of cheaply available energy and that this problem is only going to get worse for the foreseeable future.

That's an interesting point. I'm not sure if I see the connection quite so strongly myself.  China is the obvious example of a country growing strongly whilst still paying a (largely) similar price for energy as the rest of us.  In fact, (after the USA) China is the country with an economy most dependent on huge energy consumption, yet it's still growing.  (Yes, they are developing lots of domestic shale gas fields, but I am confident that the majority of their fuel is still imported.)

To put it another way, do you think that a 75% drop in the price of oil would revitalise the British economy? 70 years ago maybe, but I don't think so today...

[Oldmanmatt]

And I reiterate, consumption will decrease in real terms.
I'd also question the idea that what we have now is either cheap or abundant...
It is cheaper, thanks to previous investment.
And I just don't subscribe to the assumptions of the article.

[Johnny Brown]

To put it another way, do you think that a 75% drop in the price of oil would revitalise the British economy? 70 years ago maybe, but I don't think so today...

Well, it would go a lot further than dropping the VAT rate to 15% did... seriously though, yes, I think it would have a huge effect as long as the savings were reflected in consumer prices - ie wind back the inflation of the last few years.

And I reiterate, consumption will decrease in real terms.

Why, because we want to save the planet? Or the bird-flu apocalypse?

Are there any examples where this is happening on a significant scale now?

[Yossarian]

Well, it would go a lot further than dropping the VAT rate to 15% did... seriously though, yes, I think it would have a huge effect as long as the savings were reflected in consumer prices - ie wind back the inflation of the last few years.

I agree re VAT - that was totally non-sensical. People notice every increase, but it takes a big decrease to make a difference.

What I meant re the price of oil though was that I think it plays a far far smaller role in determining how we as a nation produce than it did in the past.  With service / financial / knowledge / tech components of the economy so significant, I personally reckon the high energy price argument is a weak excuse for British stagnation. 

[Oldmanmatt]

To put it another way, do you think that a 75% drop in the price of oil would revitalise the British economy? 70 years ago maybe, but I don't think so today...

Well, it would go a lot further than dropping the VAT rate to 15% did... seriously though, yes, I think it would have a huge effect as long as the savings were reflected in consumer prices - ie wind back the inflation of the last few years.

And I reiterate, consumption will decrease in real terms.

Why, because we want to save the planet? Or the bird-flu apocalypse?

Are there any examples where this is happening on a significant scale now?

Quote from the Wikipedia article (refer to article for the references).

"During the 20th century, the world saw the greatest increase in its population in human history. This was due to a number of factors, including the lessening of the mortality rate in many countries by improved sanitation and medical advances, and a massive increase in agricultural productivity attributed to the Green Revolution.[75][76][77]
In 2000, the United Nations estimated that the world's population was growing at an annual rate of 1.14% (equivalent to around 75 million people),[78] down from a peak of 88 million per year in 1989. By 2000, there were approximately ten times as many people on Earth as there had been in 1700. According to data from the CIA's 2005–2006 World Factbooks, the world human population increased by an average of 203,800 people every day in the mid-2000s.[79] The CIA Factbook increased this to 211,090 people every day in 2007, and again to 220,980 people every day in 2009.


Globally, the population growth rate has been steadily declining from its peak of 2.19% in 1963, but growth remains high in Latin America, the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa.[80]
In some countries, there is negative population growth (i.e. net decrease in population over time), especially in Central and Eastern Europe – this is mainly due to low fertility rates. During the 2010s, Japan and some countries in Western Europe are also expected to encounter negative population growth, due to sub-replacement fertility rates.
In 2006, the United Nations stated that the rate of population growth is diminishing due to the ongoing global demographic transition. If this trend continues, the rate of growth may diminish to zero by 2050, concurrent with a world population plateau of 9.2 billion.[81] However, this is only one of many estimates published by the UN. In 2009, UN population projections for 2050 ranged from about 8 billion to 10.5 billion.[82]"

I just grabbed that as a quick response, I need to refer to some (printed) books at home to recall the exact studies I'm thinking of. I'm fairly sure that most forecasts predict a plateau and reduction, the great debate being where it will plateau and when.
"developed" countries nearly all show negative growth and declining birth rates and as other countries catch up their growth rates slow/retreat.

[Johnny Brown]

consumption will decrease in real terms.

So we currently have 7 billion people on earth. And a extra 1.5 million every week, in 2050 that is likely to be 10 billion. All these people will want an improvement in their quality of life over their lifespan.

Lets be wildly optimistic, and assuming over the next 100 years technology can deliver maybe 6 billion people the transition to a higher standard of living without requiring any extra resources. The result is still an enormous net increase in consumption, isn't it? Or am I confused about what 'in real terms' means?

Even if technology does then begin to reduce consumption per capita, I suspect it will be at a far lower rate than the population has grown... ie without a sudden population crash we are looking at hundreds of years of increased consumption, no?

I studied Geology, I have no concern over the long term health of the planet which will bounce back better than Partridge, but not on a human timescale. And we haven't even considered the consequences of a radically changing climate during this period of peaking population...

Perhaps the problem with dealing with these huge figures is its easier to deal in rates and percentages, and lose the bigger picture of 220,000 extra mouths on earth every day. Lets pray your mate is right about the pandemic eh?

[Oldmanmatt]

The growth rate is slowing, if technology moves fast enough and base living standards rise fast enough, that rate may slow even faster.
The predictions are necessarily pessimistic or worst (or at least almost worst) case.
Most current estimates assume small variation only and declining birth rates based only on declining fertility.
They don't, by and large, acknowledge socio-economic factors for declining birth rates.

I'm guessing (although, if we could conclude it, the discussion is starting to look like a valid meta analysis!), clearly I'm not able to substantiate my intuition beyond I think but I think the human race will survive quite nicely. I expect bumps and suffering along the way but I find hope in the global exchange of information and ideas and I wonder where that might lead.
Our discussion here is a great example of that, it may not seem so but my opinion is being modified by each post.
Oddly, I started out reading Geology before switching to engineering (for about three months... I do have an A level in Geology though).

[slackline]

Interesting article on 'nanosecond trading'

Seems things could be pretty unstable!

Sounds a bit like Game Theory in places.

[Oldmanmatt]

Further reading, courtesy of systema_ian.
Not back till 27th so can't get that book...

https://connect.innovateuk.org/web/sustainabilityktn/reports

[Johnny Brown]

On a less optimistic note:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/20/climate-change-overconsumption?CMP=twt_fd

[Offwidth]

Interesting article on 'nanosecond trading'

Seems things could be pretty unstable!

Sounds a bit like Game Theory in places.

If the stockmarket systems were in an aeroplane they would be illegal as they have many areas where the control response is not clearly stable. World stocks not that important though eh??

On the bigger picture I'm a pessi-optimist. I see all this oil/energy resource arguments as bull as talking to petrochem geologists there are proven oil stocks for hundreds of years (and alternatives) that are viable at barely above current prices and looking back at the past looking forward at the future there are technologies that will improve and some we havent discovered yet.

The negative issues for me are that the world environment is getting trashed and power and wealth is concentrating fast in a global elite who are like huge out of control leaches and (with notable exceptions like Gates etc) dont seem to care much about people who are not them. Plus I'm worried about many other things like water and modern weaponry (nuclear, bio, chemical) and overreliance on vulnerable IT systems and religion; all as potentially unstable geopolitical isssues. Then there are black swans. Live life as well as you can while the fun lasts.

[Bonjoy]

I see all this oil/energy resource arguments as bull as talking to petrochem geologists there are proven oil stocks for hundreds of years (and alternatives) that are viable at barely above current prices and looking back at the past looking forward at the future there are technologies that will improve and some we havent discovered yet.

I don't know who your experts are but they are talking utter gibberish.

[Offwidth]

I doubt they are speaking gibbersih but we may be partly talking at cross-purposes. My sources are various university lecturers and geologists working for oil companies. Most of the untapped stocks are in oil shales but there is a lot left yet in standard reserves. When you are a good bit over $100 a barrel these oil shales are certainly economic. The problem is they are dirty and make a mess of pristine environments (north canada, siberia etc). You can also grow oil (oil palms and algea) at large volume at similar prices. Oil palms are currently one of the biggest reasons for deforestation.

My impression from these experts is there really is no imminent shortage of oil (other than cheap oil) and the counter-view is propaganda. Its just often more damaging to the environment to get it and to use it

[Stubbs]

According to the source of all disinformation the biggest shale reserves are in the US under Colorado, Wyoming and Utah, the processing sounds like a whole lot of fun! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale  It would be interesting to know what reserves are viable without causing massive environmental damage and using huge quantities of water. 

It's all very well for petrochem geologists to talk about these as viable reserves, as the technology is there and the price is almost there, but I doubt they are considering the human and economic factors.  Look at the coverage a few small scale fracking tests have got in this country.

[fried]

My sources are various university lecturers and geologists working for oil companies.

Working for the oil industry, you say? 

[Johnny Brown]

Anyhow, the problem is not so much how much oil we've got left, its what will happen to the climate if we carry on burning it...

[Bonjoy]

I doubt they are speaking gibbersih but we may be partly talking at cross-purposes. My sources are various university lecturers and geologists working for oil companies.

With due respect don’t you think someone working for oil companies might be prone to bias/repeating the company line. They may well be totally independent or they may not.

Most of the untapped stocks are in oil shales but there is a lot left yet in standard reserves.

Depends what you call a lot. It begs the question - prices are at unprecedented highs and have been on an upward trajectory for a good number of years. Why then has total production not increased since plateauing in 2005? Does this not suggest inelasticity of supply?

When you are a good bit over $100 a barrel these oil shales are certainly economic.

It may be economical for oil companies to extract at high costs but is it possible for economies to grow (in the way needed to pay off debt + interest) with the added drag of ever spiralling costs? If Tesco sells fuel at £10 a litre, it may be technically possible for me to extract some at the forecourt to fill my car, but I’m not going to have much left to buy food (which will also be ten times more expensive because it has to be moved about in vehicles). The knock on effects reach to all corners of the economy. Or does it crash the economy in something like what we are starting to see today?
Another issue (and by no means the only) with remaining oil stocks is flow rates.

The problem is they are dirty and make a mess of pristine environments (north canada, siberia etc). You can also grow oil (oil palms and algea) at large volume at similar prices. Oil palms are currently one of the biggest reasons for deforestation.

Non-crude liquid fuel replacements is a big subject which I don’t have time or energy to rehash, better you have a critical look at articles on the subject such as this http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/02/fossil-fuels-im-not-dead-yet/ . In short they are far from an easy get-out for multiple reasons.

My impression from these experts is there really is no imminent shortage of oil (other than cheap oil) and the counter-view is propaganda.

The opinion of your experts sounds remarkably like the usual propaganda peddled by the oil industry to me.
If you don’t like the look of my expert, try the US government commissioned Hirsch report: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/02/fossil-fuels-im-not-dead-yet/

Or the leaked Germany army report, summary here (link to full report in article): http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6912
Or the recent article in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481433a.html (behind paywall unfortunately but the gist is easy enough to find by googling)

[Offwidth]

"With due respect don’t you think someone working for oil companies might be prone to bias/repeating the company line."

Of the main two people I know one was retired and the other had changed jobs out of the industry, I trust them (even being a leftie trade unionist)... the others I know less well (some through those two) say the same thing. I'm aware they may have developed a 'globalised petrochemical view' but not to extent of making up oil shale stock that doesn't exist. They were also very concerned about the ecological issues involved and the oil companies' lack of proper governance in this area and the political will required to enable full production.

"Depends what you call a lot."

At least 100+ years at current supply levels but all at over $100 a barrel.

"It begs the question - prices are at unprecedented highs and have been on an upward trajectory for a good number of years."

Not true, they yo-yo when adjusted for inflation. Also in the current world economy there is a lack of 'safe things' to invest in and oil price has been boosted  by this.

"Why then has total production not increased since plateauing in 2005?"

Opec and others adjust supply to meet demand and price issues. Easy access oil is dropping. The world economic crash has flattened out the rising demand curve.

"It may be economical for oil companies to extract at high costs but is it possible for economies to grow .... the knock on effects reach to all corners of the economy. Or does it crash the economy in something like what we are starting to see today? "

My point is prices wont need to go up much further and there is plenty of supply (unless there are wars etc) if we accept the 'bad shit' that comes along with the price . As it is most of the price by far at the pumps in the UK for petrol and diesel is government tax. I think things like rehypothecation of debt; lack of regulation on certain key but risky world markets; widespread abandoning of Keynsian ecomomic solutions for recessions  are all far bigger global ecomomic worries than the oil price (which is obviously a concern).

"Another issue (and by no means the only) with remaining oil stocks is flow rates. "

Never talked about this so I cant comment.

"Non-crude liquid fuel replacements ...are far from an easy get-out for multiple reasons."

Agreed, but they still produce oil in huge quantities and Indonesia and others are wrecking the rain forests to produce more (Malaysia, which I know well, has used most of its forests outside national parks for this already and palm oil is its main agri- export).

Thanks for the links btw will have a look.

[Offwidth]

Flicked through this now. Very impressed with it.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/02/fossil-fuels-im-not-dead-yet/

I'd missed the rate point before but its otherwise pretty much what I was told with some very good added stuff in the comments below. It estimates 50 years to 'half use' (where the real problems kick in) at 3% growth for US consumption providing rate issues or politics don't bite. I was told in school in the mid 70s that most oil would be gone by now and only 10 years ago that the 50 years in this article was nearer 25 (from a 10 years earlier start). Furture oil will be less cheap, dirtier (in real and political terms) and we need to start producing more from oil sands (or the alternatives) soon.

[slackline]

The formula that killed Wall Street

Wall Street in the mid-1980s turned to the quants – brainy financial engineers – to invent new ways to boost profits. They and their managers, though laziness and greed, built a huge financial bubble on foundations that they did not understand. It was a recipe for disaster. The journalist Felix Salmon won the American Statistical Association's Excellence in Statistical Reporting Award for 2010, We reprint his article, first published as the cover story of Wired magazine, because it brilliantly conveys complex statistical concepts to non-specialists.

[Paulos]

Good post, I agree totally.  GDP growth fetishism among politicians is so obviously stupid and shortsighted - the idea of more and more money, less and less finite resources - like a ponzi scheme where the future generations lose out when the system collapses and/or natural resource base is too depleted

[Paulos]

The original! too many others to read through

[tomtom]

Good post, I agree totally. GDP growth fetishism among politicians is so obviously etc

I am confused. Which post are you totally-agreeing with?

Nothing. I am confused.