>This article reinforces the true meaning of peak oil, which is not >a formula for the disappearance of oil but instead a recognition >that the costs of extracting it grow greater both economically and >as a risk to the overall environment.
Although "peak oil" is not modeled by economists, it's a game changer for global economics. NET ENERGY One seldom thinks about the energy that is utilized in systems that supply energy - such as oil-fired power plants. But energy is also utilized when exploring for fuel, building the machinery to mine the fuel, mining the fuel, building and operating the power plants, building power lines to transmit the energy, decommissioning the plants, and so on. The difference between the total energy input (i.e., the energy value of the sought after energy) minus all of the energy utilized to run an energy supply system equals the "net energy" (in other words, the net amount of energy actually available to society to do useful work). Globally, net energy cost has probably been rising since the 70's but prior to peak oil, producers could compensate for the increasing cost by simply pumping more oil. However, after peak oil, producers are geologically constrained and can no longer compensate by pumping more oil. It is now impossible to increase the energy supply as we have in the past, which means that globally, energy available for economic development will decline for decades. Decades of declining global available energy means that countries can only "grow" their economies by increasing their "fraction" of the global available energy - and by decreasing someone else's fraction. Historically, this has led to wars over resources (it's a genetic bias). Here it is in slides: http://jayhanson.us/l3.html Jay _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
