|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
qtq wrote: gwhite wrote in : qtq wrote: gwhite wrote in : The empirical evidence shows that world energy consumption will grow, and always has as productivity grows. The macroeconomic argument helps shed light on why this is so, and helps us get real. Why not just think about it for awhile? The obvious explanation for why world energy consumption grows as productivity grows is that the extra energy is fueling the productivity. Yes, exactly. And it will continue. The only way government intervention can really "do something" is to take a bite out of productivity (or contract the money supply), which more or less will mean recession/depression. This is not politically possible. As a note, it is also outside my "all other things equal" simplification. That doesn't follow. Labor productivity has been increasing through the application of technology and energy - by having a machine harvest the grain, I have exploited the IP in the harvester as well as the energy in its petroleum to make one person (the driver) more productive than the army of people who previously harvested the grain. Energy productivity can increase through the application of technology in the same way - by having a more efficient engine, the same harvester (well, a very similar harvester which has a more efficient engine) can, for the same labour and energy input, harvest more grain. Government intervention can do several (among many) things: 1. It can drive the cost of energy up to the point where only highly productive uses of energy are feasible. This is equivalent to setting the minimum wage at a point where only semi-skilled or skilled workers need enter the workforce. It can fail in the same way as labour market regulation - in a globalised economy, industry can move to a place where the energy (labour) cost is not artificially raised. It can succeed because the higher cost of energy drives the development of more productive uses for that energy. 2. It can directly invest in research and development of productivity improvement for energy, just as it directly invests in productivity improvement for labour. Your answers are partially correct. 1. We've gone from investing one calorie of energy invested to get ten calories back, to using fossil fuels to investing ten calories of energy to get one calorie back. Technology has increased the scale at which we can do things, but only by consuming orders of magnitude more energy than we used to require. And in doing so, we've degraded the quality of soil and water, making a return to a one to ten relationship likely impossible on a large scale. 2. Efficiency isn't the measure of our ability to use 100% energy of the energy available to convert to 100% work, but instead is how close we come to a theoretical limit in how much work we get from the energy. So big changes in efficiency can mean very small changes in actual energy consumption. 3. A fixed quantity of energy provides us with a relatively fixed quantity of work. A barrel of oil for instance provides a fixed BTU quantity, which provides a relatively fixed quantity of work. So the rising price of a barrel of oil represents that fact that purchasing the same fixed quantity of work is becoming ever more expensive. A drop in oil production and consumption will mean that there is a declining quantity of work available to a rising population. Making cars more fuel efficient is one argument proposed to solve our energy problem. But the quantity of fuel saved will only delay the peak in world oil production by months or a few years. As has been pointed out, cars are much more efficient than they were in the 1970s. But thanks to Jevon's Paradox, we just became more dependent on them and drove consumption up along the predicted path anyway. Jack Dingler |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
gwhite wrote:
... Actually, the private firms that own the plants (and their customers) can pay the costs themselves. The spent fuel rods are a problem because radioactivity is so hazardous. The government *wants* the waste because it is, for one thing, a national security issue. I have no problem of the users paying the cost of the federal storage. Yes, nukes should compete based on actual costs. Nuke costs may be higher, or may appear to be so, depending upon how costs are accounted for.... Mr. White, As a libertarian, do you agree that Price-Anderson should be revoked and nuclear power generators should cover their full liability by purchasing insurance on the open market? -- Tom Sherman |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
serial number = age for Fuji? | Mike Kruger | General | 1 | May 9th 04 04:03 AM |
FAQ | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 27 | September 5th 03 10:58 PM |
Trek Bike Frame number, etc | help | Mountain Biking | 4 | August 17th 03 04:15 PM |