Re: OT - Supply side solution for oil energy bound to fail.
- From: Colin D <ColinD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 21:22:38 +1200
Alan Browne wrote:
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.
I have a book written about 30 or 40 years ago about sustainability of
modern living standards, which made me sit up and take notice. His
premise was that although the exponential model was - and is - used for
forecasting the growth of things like oil consumption, electricity
demand, population increase, almost any growth system around, the
exponential model always fell short of the actual growth. Working with
retrospective data, he found that the curve that best fitted the figures
was a cosine curve. The big difference between an exponential curve and
a cosine curve is that an exponential curve continues to climb, getting
ever steeper but never quite vertical - an asymtotic curve, while a
cosine curve starts out similar to an exponential curve, but gets
steeper faster, and the kicker is it is a discontinuous curve. After
reaching a positive peak, it instantaneously falls to an equal negative
peak, climbs rapidly towards the x-axis, slowing down as it approaches,
crosses the x-axis, and starts its climb up to the next discontinuity.
He postulated that the fall corresponds to a cataclysmic happening that
will drive civilization back thousands of years, and he predicted that
this has happened to previous civilizations, and will happen again
sometime in the 21st century. Maybe the oil crisis will be the trigger
for this to happen ...
Colin D.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT - Supply side solution for oil energy bound to fail.
- From: Alan Browne
- Re: OT - Supply side solution for oil energy bound to fail.
- References:
- OT - Supply side solution for oil energy bound to fail.
- From: Alan Browne
- OT - Supply side solution for oil energy bound to fail.
- Prev by Date: Re: Mystery of this tecnique
- Next by Date: Re: Two kinds of photographers: those who make pictures, and those who talk about it.
- Previous by thread: Re: OT - Supply side solution for oil energy bound to fail.
- Next by thread: Re: OT - Supply side solution for oil energy bound to fail.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
