set up a large-range supply and demand relationship model between cars/iphones/nice houses and the price of oil, and you will see that if you chose the number of iphones/whatever as six billion, the price of oil will raise so high that it will be impractical to extract it all, if that much oil even exists.
The trend for the price of a barrel of crude oil, by year, is 0.965250965x - 1870
The trend for millions of registered cars by year is 27.3x - 53859.4
One car for every 4 people means ~2 billion cars
2 billion cars in millions of cars is 2000
By intercepting the trend for cars by year, we find that we should have 2000 million cars in 2047.
So, if the population keeps constant (big if here), we will have one car for every family in 35 years.
Now intercept the price of oil trend at year 2047. Oil will cost 105.8$ per barrel adjusted for inflation.
That means we would be drilling for oil from reserves that are harder to get at then the current ones. Most of the "bad" reserves that are around now, which people are considering drilling into, are like 1.5 to 2 times as expensive to get at, or 2 to 4 times if you take the ecological devastation into account. And most alternative fuels are 5 to 10 times more expensive (inefficient) than current oil drilling.
Now, of course, I think most of us on TL don't come from one car families of 4. We probably have our own car and no family, or we have a family with several cars. 1 car per person. Let's do it. Or we could call it one flying car per family. Whatever.
8 billion cars assumes no population growth, and it is -> 8000 million cars.
We will have 8000 million cars in year 2268 at the rate things are going.
In year 2268 oil will cost 319 dollars per barrel.
That means we will have to drill for oil in even worse spots, causing even more ecological damage and requiring 3 times more work to be done. If we use alternative fuels we will have to work 15 to 30 times as hard. If alternative fuels increase in efficiency by a factor of 5, we will still have to work 3-5 times harder to sustain this. I don't know about you but I don't think any mechanization can increase our productivity by 3-5 times what it already is. Plus, where are you getting the energy to do that if you are already spending it on making everybody wealthy?
So even though this is a rough estimate, I hope it demonstrates the principles of the limits to how wealthy humans can be, as imposed by our natural resources.
CAVEATS:
yeah i know that for this to be a legit analysis, it would need more metrics, it would need more data, and it would need the data to span the same time scale, but I just wanted to make a point, which is that as the amount of wealth increases, the difficulty getting more also increases. What the weed-smoking ron paul officianados who created this video don't understand is that the resources of the earth are limited and we are already pushing them farther than we should with how much wealth we have now.
We dont need gas fo fuel our cars and with an access system for cars you would greatly decrease the amount of cars needed. also trends show that the more comftorable we get the less children we produce in sweden they make 2 children per woman while in nigeria they have 6.
I think we will see our population reach 10 billion where it starts stagnating and i also belive we can have 0.5-1 billion cars to support this population efficiently.
On May 14 2012 03:44 DeliCiousVP wrote: The ironic part is that nothing we accept as right in the movement is based on nothing but solid facts and solid logic You need to check your numbers.
I look at that and I am like "wat"
On May 14 2012 03:44 DeliCiousVP wrote: I also suggest you bring up the resources you say are being overestimated because so far you are just talking air. just one example is nesscery and you dont even have to show sources but iam curiour where you are getting this from.
oil is limited, alternative energy sources are inneficient.
do you know what EROI means? if not go read limits to growth (or just google it) and then come back
What I mean is that we are running out of resources which have high EROI
EDIT: I'm not arguing against the transformation of our economy away from money as much as possible. but I want to emphasize that it will probaly never happen, especially not overnight, and that there can't be a utopia.
bring on the vacuum tunnel trains by all means. I just think that they aren't going to come through some online petition, they are going to come when things like the wikimedia foundation, mozilla, the linux community, free content creators and aggregators etc, find a way to move off the internet into the real world.
To some extent its already happening... Kickstarter is one example, albeit slightly lame. But I think there is real change happening in the online realm that has potential to upturn our current economic system in some of the ways that the people who made the video are talking about.
oil is limited, alternative energy sources are inneficient.
alternative energy is to efficient thus it cannot be absorbed into the monetary system.. i suggest reading this if you wanna understand this direction further otherwise you will trip over yourself on every turn.
What I mean is that we are running out of resources which have high ERO
No one is deniying that and it is just another reason why this direction needs to implemented asap so we can get rid of the cyclical consumption that creates such disgusting excessive waste.
The things i have seen would make a hundred grown men cry.
If there is an efficient way to make self sustaining farms, why are they not around? I mean in the fields I don't see any robots. If there would be a technology like this I would invest so I can have some steady income for the rest of my life. There are a lot of jobs that robots can't do, or its very inefficient thats why we use human labour. If it would be better to use robots we would use them to earn more profit. This is capitalism. Last time I checked there were a lot of employed ppl around.
Same with electric cars/ free energy. If there is a technology that makes electric cars better, why don't electric car companies use them? I have a solar panel. It was very expensive and it generates very little electricity. We don't have the technology perfected, where did you hear we do?
Who would supervise the robots? What would happen if I say, fuck you hippie I don't want any of your communist BS and go on a killing spree? Robocops? What if I am a hacker too?
can you please cite one journal article detailing an alternative fuel source which has a good energy return on investment?
that is, the amount of energy that it produces is high compared to the amount required to make it?
or another way of putting it: that could be produced cheaply and could make enough power that when you sold the power you would make your money back plus more?
I know your arguement is that no one invests in these things so they never reach optimum monetary efficiency so they never see the light of day. But I seriously doubt that every single person who has a lot of money is in on this conspiracy to keep us on oil for as long as possible. People get rich by a mixture of being selfish (competition, this is generally good and this is what we want for alternative fuel developement) and by working together with others (cartel behaviour, which is what you are claiming prevents the rise of alternative fuels.) OPEC is a well established oil cartel. so it is in thier interest for alternative fuels to never see the light of day. but there are plenty of investors out there who don't care whether opec lives or dies, and who have enough money to make a factory that makes wind turbines, bio-solar cells, concentrated light steam turbines, hyper-temperature CO2 reactors, tidal generators, flying windmills, etc etc etc etc.
But they don't do it. Why don't they do it?
Have you ever read a journal article on a proposed alternative fuel method?? they are all really awkward and in early stages of development, and generally have huge caveats!
If there is an efficient way to make self sustaining farms, why are they not around? I mean in the fields I don't see any robots. If there would be a technology like this I would invest so I can have some steady income for the rest of my life. There are a lot of jobs that robots can't do, or its very inefficient thats why we use human labour. If it would be better to use robots we would use them to earn more profit. This is capitalism. Last time I checked there were a lot of employed ppl around.
Same with electric cars/ free energy. If there is a technology that makes electric cars better, why don't electric car companies use them? I have a solar panel. It was very expensive and it generates very little electricity. We don't have the technology perfected, where did you hear we do?
Who would supervise the robots? What would happen if I say, fuck you hippie I don't want any of your communist BS and go on a killing spree? Robocops? What if I am a hacker too?
i suggest watching Zeitgeist addendum. You can google it or watch it on youtube/Netflix it will answer all of this. But the short answer is lack of profitability.
There are a lot of jobs that robots can't do, or its very inefficient thats why we use human labour. If it would be better to use robots we would use them to earn more profit
Whenever they get the chance companies automates to increase profits. and up production if nesscesry. You cant make a comment like like why do we use human labour then ? that suggest that we replaced machines for jobs when its the otherway around.
that is, the amount of energy that it produces is high compared to the amount required to make it?
or another way of putting it: that could be produced cheaply and could make enough power that when you sold the power you would make your money back plus more?
It is hard to meassure efficiency in a monetary system. But any solar panel can create as much power as a nuclear power plant given time without any resources going into it(Except constructing it) which is a trivial resource cost compared to its efficiency and this goes solar.wind,tide steam powered geothermal it takes a minute of having an open mind to realise energy is abundant by our current requirments.
This is fun. Vp how much of this thread has been you vs the world? how much more will it take before you give up?
What you mean give up ? im here to answer questions to people that are curious. You think i factor in how many people agree or disagree? No i only listen to the merit of what they speak of.
If I research some new tech to replace every car there is in the world that would make me the richest person in this century.
My point was that we use robots only to very primitive stuff and we have to supervise them. If we would have the technology to make robot doctors we would because it would make a nice profit. We don't.
On May 14 2012 07:28 Ottoxlol wrote: Lack of profitabilty?
If I research some new tech to replace every car there is in the world that would make me the richest person in this century.
My point was that we use robots only to very primitive stuff and we have to supervise them. If we would have the technology to make robot doctors we would because it would make a nice profit. We don't.
What if the car industry own the patents you need to create the car thus blocking you from creating the car. You dont think you can just go out and invent something and ignore patents do you? you will get sued right away robbed of everything you have. And how far do you think their willing to go to make sure they survive?
This is one thing that he's a bit right about. The idea of an electric car was killed somehow, and no one really knows how, but alot of signs lead to the conclusion that big car companies deliberately stopped its progress.
Delicious: You are flat out wrong about the solar panels. Again, please back up the things you are saying with technical articles. If you read anything about solar panels, you will see that they all have a lifetime rating. Often they last about 10 or 20 years, IIRC. The resource cost of replacing the panels is what makes thier EROI shitty. The lifetime is one of the things that scientists are trying to find ways to improve. You should read some papers on stuff like this. Trust me, they are written by normal human scientists like you and I who aren't part of any masonic conspiracy. They mostly care about being honest and meticulously detailing what they discovered.
So whats if I am a car company and I would loose my 2 % market share but gain 100%? What is that force besides the great jewish conspiracy that keeping us in the dark ages?
The idea of an electric car was killed somehow, and no one really knows how, but alot of signs lead to the conclusion that big car companies deliberately stopped its progress.
The electric car was killed because nobody except maybe ten thousand of the kind of people lampooned in Smug Alert! actually have an interest in buying them. Tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars have been spent on direct (buy this wave of the future earth-friendly car!) and indirect advertising (we're killing the earth! The truth is inconvenient! Global warmens!) for electric / hybrid / flex-fuel vehicles and consumer demand was still basically non-existent.
You can't create a new product intended to be bought by the masses (like say the greatest consumer product ever after soap, the car) when nobody but .001% of the population has the interest or the money to buy them.
On May 14 2012 07:43 -fj. wrote: This is one thing that he's a bit right about. The idea of an electric car was killed somehow, and no one really knows how, but alot of signs lead to the conclusion that big car companies deliberately stopped its progress.
Delicious: You are flat out wrong about the solar panels. Again, please back up the things you are saying with technical articles. If you read anything about solar panels, you will see that they all have a lifetime rating. Often they last about 10 or 20 years, IIRC. The resource cost of replacing the panels is what makes thier EROI shitty. The lifetime is one of the things that scientists are trying to find ways to improve. You should read some papers on stuff like this. Trust me, they are written by normal human scientists like you and I who aren't part of any masonic conspiracy. They mostly care about being honest and meticulously detailing what they discovered.
I never said a solar panel lasts forever and i also acknowledged that the technology is improved with time you also flatly ignored the other energy options i mentioned. it is possible to power the whole world using nothing but solar power but that is not what i suggest. And solar panels are very effective and even tho they break down they can also be recycled so its a small matter.
You realize that it takes oil to make plastic. Which is part of a solar panel. Oil is important, we are better off learning how to make oil then trying to change energy sources.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WY3z5.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/708uh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AUYbx.jpg)
