Re: OT - Supply side solution for oil energy bound to fail.


"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:YUO4g.17187$hp.467165@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I found this on the web a couple years ago and like its simple common
sense. The scary things are:

1. There is nowhere near a "100 year" supply of oil identified.
2. The growth rate in consumption is greater than 5%




The Mirage of a Growing Fuel Supply

By Dr. EVAR D. NERING

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. ? When I discussed the exponential function in the
first-semester calculus classes that I taught, I invariably used
consumption of a nonrenewable natural resource as an example. Since we are
now engaged in a national debate about energy policy, it may be useful to
talk about the mathematics involved in making a rational decision about
resource use.

In my classes, I described the following hypothetical situation. We have a
100-year supply of a resource, say oil ? that is, the oil would last 100
years if it were consumed at its current rate. But the oil is consumed at
a rate that grows by 5 percent each year. How long would it last under
these circumstances? This is an easy calculation; the answer is about 36
years.

Oh, but let's say we underestimated the supply, and we actually have a
1,000-year supply. At the same annual 5 percent growth rate in use, how
long will this last? The answer is about 79 years.

Then let us say we make a striking discovery of more oil yet ? a
bonanza ? and we now have a 10,000-year supply. At our same rate of
growing use, how long would it last? Answer: 125 years.

Estimates vary for how long currently known oil reserves will last, though
they are usually considerably less than 100 years. But the point of this
analysis is that it really doesn't matter what the estimates are. There is
no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy problem can work.

The exponential function describes the behavior of any quantity whose
rate of change is proportional to its size. Compound interest is the most
commonly encountered example ? it would produce exponential growth if the
interest were calculated at a continuing rate. I have heard public
statements that use "exponential" as though it describes a large or sudden
increase. But exponential growth does not have to be large, and it is
never sudden.

Rather, it is inexorable.

Calculations also show that if consumption of an energy resource is
allowed to grow at a steady 5 percent annual rate, a full doubling of the
available supply will not be as effective as reducing that growth rate by
half ? to 2.5 percent. Doubling the size of the oil reserve will add at
most 14 years to the life expectancy of the resource if we continue to use
it at the currently increasing rate, no matter how large it is currently.
On the other hand, halving the growth of consumption will almost double
the life expectancy of the supply, no matter what it is.

This mathematical reality seems to have escaped the politicians pushing to
solve our energy problem by simply increasing supply. Building more power
plants and drilling for more oil is exactly the wrong thing to do, because
it will encourage more use. If we want to avoid dire consequences, we need
to find the political will to reduce the growth in energy consumption to
zero ? or even begin to consume less.

I must emphasize that reducing the growth rate is not what most people are
talking about now when they advocate conservation; the steps they
recommend are just Band-Aids. If we increase the gas mileage of our
automobiles and then drive more miles, for example, that will not reduce
the growth rate.

Reducing the growth of consumption means living closer to where we work or
play. It means telecommuting. It means controlling population growth. It
means shifting to renewable energy sources.

It is not, perhaps, necessary to cut our use of oil, but it is essential
that we cut the rate of increase at which we consume it. To do otherwise
is to leave our descendants in an impoverished world.

Evar D. Nering is professor emeritus of
mathematics at Arizona State University.


Good article, Alan....I forwarded it to a bunch of people.......My father
told me in 1950 that we had enough oil in the ground that he knew about to
last us another 100 years.......He was about right....We may very well run
out of it around 2050.......


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT - Supply side solution for oil energy bound to fail.
    ... There is nowhere near a "100 year" supply of oil identified. ... The growth rate in consumption is greater than 5% ... There is no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • OT - Supply side increase in oil - not likely
    ... There is nowhere near a "100 year" supply of oil identified. ... The growth rate in consumption is greater than 5% ... At the same annual 5 percent growth rate in use, ... There is no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy problem can work. ...
    (sci.geo.satellite-nav)
  • OT - Supply side solution for oil energy bound to fail.
    ... There is nowhere near a "100 year" supply of oil identified. ... The growth rate in consumption is greater than 5% ... At the same annual 5 percent growth rate in use, ... There is no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy problem can work. ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: OT - Supply side solution for oil energy bound to fail.
    ... There is nowhere near a "100 year" supply of oil identified. ... The growth rate in consumption is greater than 5% ... consumption of a nonrenewable natural resource as an example. ... There is no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: The writing is on the wall
    ... reputable industry source agrees with you, so don't talk bullshit, Trav. ... Take a look at their demand growth versus realistic production decline ... another drop (and Russia is the leader in deep oil discovery). ... decline rate against a 9% consumption increase rate. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)