[p2p-research] no oil crisis?

[Michel Bauwens]

holy bananas Paul, it's hard to keep up!!

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Paul D. Fernhout <
pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:

> Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
>> I work more closely now wi th some people involved in the state of the
>> world
>> forum, which is a stellar collection of minds if I ever saw one,
>>
>
> Another pass at this. Most people will not want to read this. :-)
>
> It starts to get pretty silly pretty fast. :-)
>
>  I can tell you that literally 'nobody' believes that oil and food markets
>> work the way you suppose they do,
>>
>> there is very very high level debate, as there is indeed panic about both
>> the havoc that the seesaw in oil and food prices is doing to the system as
>> a
>> whole,
>>
>
> Who benefits from this panic?



the panic has real causes; i.e. market manipulation, for whatever reasons,
causes oil and food prices to speak; riots ensue and major instability,
which is not good for capital either; therefore, the non-predatory factions
are justifiably concerned with the future of a relatively stable world order
...



>
>
>  this 'market' is so dysfunction that it literally threatens the survival
>> of
>> the system itself, this is no wild leftist imaginings, but the thoughts of
>> important members of the current establishment ...
>>
>
> Except that the market has produced solar cheaper than coal:
>  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=solar+cheaper+coal



the 'market', or a few struggling enterpreneurs?

I looked further down and can't make out which contributions are new ...

Michel

> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=solar+cheaper+coal>
>
>  the pristine functions of the market you imagine are  nothing else than
>> myth
>> and ideology,
>>
>
> Except that the market has produced solar cheaper than coal: :-)
>  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=solar+cheaper+coal
>
>  to still  belief in the power of existing markets to create 'infinite oil'
>> ... I really don't know what to say ...
>>
>
> Except that the market has produced solar cheaper than coal: :-) :-)
>  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=solar+cheaper+coal
>
>  the truth is that without at least $150b in subsidies, the 'market' would
>> not even in invest in renewables, and that in an age of imminent climate
>> threat ... I still belong to that faction of humanity that sees moving
>> billions as highly problematic and not a sign of abundance ...
>>
>
> Except that the market has produced solar cheaper than coal: :-) :-) :-)
>  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=solar+cheaper+coal
>
>  Running of out oil is not in any way an imminent danger that peak oilers
>> talk about, but rather the immediate effect of the growing disparity
>> between
>> supply and demand for the current economy and the longer term consequences
>> of the failure to have developed alternatives in time,
>>
>
> Except that the market has produced solar cheaper than coal: :-) X 4
>  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=solar+cheaper+coal
>
>  See the 3 pieces below for a serious treatment of these issues.
>>
>
> How can I take your position seriously on this when solar is now, or is
> about to be soon, cheaper than coal?
>
> I'll say it again.
>
> I have pointed out how we are a few years away from "grid parity" with
> photovoltaics.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity
>
> Check out this graph showing grid parity in a few years, from BP, not
> exactly fringe people:
>  "The Path to Grid Parity"
>
> http://www.bp.com/popupimage.do?img_path=liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/frontiers/STAGING/local_assets/images/fr19solar_parity570x417.jpg%20&alt_tag=Graphic%20about%20grid%20parity,%20when%20the%20cost%20of%20solar%20energy%20equals%20that%20of%20grid%20electricity
>
> Consider this article:
>  "Solar quickly approaching grid parity"
>
> http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2009/07/solar-quickly-approaching-grid-parity?cmpid=WNL-Friday-July10-2009
> "Solar module prices are falling so fast that solar may be able to
> cost-effectively compete with fossil fuels within a matter of months. The
> latest bit of news confirming astounding price drops was from China’s LDK
> Solar. LDK is a producer of the main component of solar modules (wafers).
> While their second quarter guidance showed a boost in shipments, it also
> lowered their revenue expectations, translating into a cost per watt of
> ~$1."
>
> Nanosolar already claims their panels are cheaper than burning coal, and
> they are sold out for eighteen months.
>
> Are you saying all these people are either stupid or lying?
>
> OK, so, let's say they are all stupid and lying. What about wind power?
> Surely it must takes about the same amount of engineering to make and mount
> a wind turbine as to make a car?
>
> The USA has on the order of 250 million cars. Why is this not enough
> material to make (shared) wind turbines for everyone with roughly the same
> amount of effort as went into making the cars?
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States
> In fact, the USA has enormous car factories sitting idle right now that
> could be used to make windmills.
>
> Big problems, but it's a big country. Same for countries in Europe.
>
> OK, so wind is never going to take off for some reason.
>
> Let's just burn coal and offer some relocation and remediation assistance
> to the South. We just put a few trillion into a banking bailout. Would ten
> trillion US dollars get the South to take the money and deal with the
> consequences of global climate change? :-)
>
> OK, so they don't want the money. So, nuclear power breeder reactors, with
> one meltdown a month costing fifty thousand lives each time. Problem solved,
> even given all the solar people were lying, the wind energy people were
> windbags, and the South did not want ten trillion Northern dollars. That's
> only about half a million people killed a year from nuclear power, or less
> than the number of deaths now from coal air pollution etc.:
>  "Air pollution responsible for 600 000 premature deaths worldwide"
>  http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/325/7377/1380/c
>
> Should I call GE to tell them to start building reactors again, or will you
> call them yourself? :-)
>
>  You have to respond to these kind of challenges in detail, not by blanket
>> statements about the infinite potential of our planet.
>>
>
> Or solar PV being cheaper than coal. :-)
>
>  It is not because the
>> sun's energy is infinite, that we tomorrow have the ability to exploit it,
>>
>
> No, it's because Nanosolar was bankrolled by Google, and other companies by
> other investors. And many graduate students toiled away in research labs and
> got ripped off.
>
>  it is not because 'free energy; is potentially possible, that we can today
>> deploy it unproblematically,
>>
>
> Except solar is cheaper than coal. :-)
>
>  it is not because '90% percent of our brain is
>> unused' that we suddenly  all become geniuses tomorrow morning. Approaches
>> that continually try to jumpstart the incredibly difficult transitions and
>> incremental improvements that we see occuring in human evolution, sideline
>> us from the real work ahead ..
>>
>
> Except solar is cheaper than coal. :-)
>  http://www.grist.org/article/solar-cheaper-than-coal-and-falling/
>
>  I find Sepp's research quite more challenging that Julian Simon's
>> ideological statements,
>>
>
> Except, how do you explain away solar being cheaper than coal for the
> reasons  Julian Simon said?
>
>  Michel
>>
>>
>>  « Crisis at the Factor E
>> Farm<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/crisis-at-the-factor-e-farm/2009/08/10
>> >
>>
>
> I could have told you that was going to happen. They were too much like me
> twenty years ago. :-) Except, fortunately for me, I had less charisma. :-)
>
>  The U.S. as the New
>> Argentina?<
>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-us-as-the-new-argentina/2009/08/11>»
>>
>
> If we are lucky... But not for energy reasons. For massive unemployment in
> the face of increasing automation and limited demand reasons.
>
> (I should not stay up this late -- I'm getting silly. :-)
>
>  Peak Oil and the Meltdown (1): the role of oil scarcity as
>> trigger<
>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/peak-oil-and-the-meltdown-1-the-role-of-oil-scarcity-as-trigger/2009/08/11
>> >
>> [image: photo of Michel Bauwens] Michel Bauwens
>> 11th August 2009
>>
>>  Richard Heinberg <http://www.richardheinberg.com/> has published a
>> crucially important guest post <http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5638> at
>> the
>> “Peak-Oil thesis” related Oil Drum website.
>>
>> This excerpt explains how the subprime trigger was preceded by an oil
>> price
>> crisis, which should be seen as the real cause of the current meltdown.
>>
> >
>
>> *Richard Heinberg:*
>>
>> *“Continual increases in population and consumption cannot continue
>> forever
>> on a finite planet.
>>
>
> OK.
>
>  This is an axiomatic observation with which everyone
>> familiar with the mathematics of compounded arithmetic growth must agree,
>> even if they hedge their agreement with vague references to
>> “substitutability” and “demographic transitions.” *
>>
>
> Except we may not be close to the limit, the limit may change with culture
> and technology, and we have a space program to leave Earth.
>
> And I outlined a plausible way we could evacuate the entire human race from
> Earth within thirty years with only hundreds of millions of casualties (or
> about another few Spanish flus), not that I would suggest doing it that way.
>
>  *This axiomatic limit to growth
>>
>
> Given all those other assumptions that are questionable, as above
>
>  means that the rapid expansion in both
>> population and per-capita consumption of resources that has occurred over
>> the past century or two must cease at some particular time.
>>
>
> Except people have probably been saying that for a long time. We were going
> to run out of oil in the 1930s too.
>
>  But when is this
>> likely to occur?*
>>
>
> We'll have other problems to worry about.
>
>  *The unfairly maligned Limits to Growth studies,
>>
>
> Maligned because they build the outcome into the assumptions? Assume you
> have non-renewable resources everyone depends on and no substitution and you
> don't have to run simulations. You know populations will crash when you run
> out.
>
>  published first in 1972
>> with periodic updates since, have attempted to answer the question with
>> analysis of resource availability and depletion, and multiple scenarios
>> for
>> future population growth and consumption rates. The most pessimistic
>> scenario in 1972 suggested an end of world economic growth around 2015. *
>>
>
> Except that in the absence of considering technological innovation (like
> solar PV being cheaper than coal), such forecasts are worthless.
>
>  *But there may be a simpler way of forecasting growth’s demise.*
>>
>
> Like just assuming it. :-)
>
>  *Energy is the ultimate enabler of growth (again, this is axiomatic:
>> physics
>> and biology both tell us that without energy nothing happens). Industrial
>> expansion throughout the past two centuries has in every instance been
>> based
>> on increased energy consumption. *
>>
>
> Not every instance. Some is from increased energy efficiency.
>
>  *More specifically, industrialism has been inextricably tied to the
>> availability and consumption of cheap energy from coal and oil (and more
>> recently, natural gas).
>>
>
> Only by a quirk of social dynamics, with fossil fuels companies interwoven
> into political governance.
>
> But, we've already gone from wood to coal to oil to gas and nukes, so why
> not go to solar? Lots of progressions are hidden in that statement.
>
> > However, fossil fuels are by their very nature
>
>> depleting, non-renewable resources.
>>
>
> Even that statement is questionable.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
> "The abiogenic hypothesis argues that petroleum was formed from deep carbon
> deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. The presence of
> methane on Saturn's moon Titan is cited as evidence supporting the formation
> of hydrocarbons without biology. Supporters of the abiogenic hypothesis
> suggest that a great deal more petroleum exists on Earth than commonly
> thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids that
> migrate upward from the mantle."
>
> So, in that sense, the oil reserves under the crust may be renewing.
>
> In any case, if solar PV is cheaper than coal, why are we talking about
> fossil fuels again?
>
> > Therefore (according to the Peak Oil
>
>> thesis), the eventual inability to continue increasing supplies of cheap
>> fossil energy will likely lead to a cessation of economic growth in
>> general,
>> unless alternative energy sources and efficiency of energy use can be
>> deployed rapidly and to a sufficient degree. *
>>
>
> Except that solar is cheaper than coal, in part because a lot of people saw
> that coming. And also fossil fuels have external costs like pollution and
> the destruction of democracy.
>
>  *Of the three conventional fossil fuels, oil is arguably the most
>> economically vital, since it supplies 95 percent of all transport energy.
>> Further, petroleum is the fuel with which we are likely to encounter
>> supply
>> problems soonest, because global petroleum discoveries have been declining
>> for decades, and most oil producing countries are already seeing
>> production
>> declines. *
>>
>
> Except solar is cheaper than coal, so we can all drive electric cars, like
> the ones about to be mass produced in China.
>
>  *So, by this logic, the end of economic growth (as conventionally defined)
>> is inevitable, and Peak Oil is the likely trigger.*
>>
>
> Is that logic? Flawed assumptions? Ignoring obvious alternatives? Ignoring
> the social aspects of a technological infrastructure that caused it to be
> one way when perfectly fine alternatives have existed for a long time and
> were easily within the reach of concerted R&D and were essentially actively
> suppressed to maintain a social status quo?
>
>  *Why would Peak Oil lead not just to problems for the transport industry,
>> but a more general economic and financial crisis?
>>
>
> Well, I'll admit, people, including myself, do stupid things for all sorts
> of stupid reasons, including group think.
>
> > During the past century
>
>> growth has become institutionalized in the very sinews of our economic
>> system.
>>
>
> Yes, this is a flaw of modern day economics, including a debt-based money
> supply implemented using a fiat currency.
>
> > Every city and business wants to grow. This is understandable merely
>
>> in terms of human nature: nearly everyone wants a competitive advantage
>> over
>> someone else, and growth provides the opportunity to achieve it.
>>
>
> Human nature is a slippery subject. Especially in regards to competition:
>  http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm
> "Actually fitness in the biological sense refers only to the capacity to
> produce surviving offspring who in turn live to reproduce. When 'survival of
> the fittest' is understood in this light, it becomes clear that the tendency
> to cooperate contributes far more to fitness than any competitive
> inclination. Raising offspring for early animal-humanity was a difficult
> undertaking, and only those who could work effectively with others were
> likely to succeed. On the other hand, endangering one's own life as well as
> the lives of one's offspring through direct physical competition was a risky
> strategy at best, and those who were genetically predisposed in that
> direction are thought to have died off millions of years ago. Thus, if we
> have inherited any predisposition for intra-species behavior, it is toward
> cooperation. Indeed cooperation is the pervasive, if unnoticed, background
> of human affairs against which we see competition in such stark relief."
>
> > But there
>
>> is also a financial survival motive at work: without growth, businesses
>> and
>> governments are unable to service their debt. And debt has become endemic
>> to
>> the industrial system.
>>
>
> Only because we have a messed up financial system, and so we are attacking
> an entire religion (Islam) in part because they are suggesting maybe we
> should try something different.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking
>
> > During the past couple of decades, the financial
>
>> services industry has grown faster than any other sector of the American
>> economy,
>>
>
> True, especially because agriculture and now manufacturing are so highly
> mechanized that hardly anyone needs to "work" anymore.
>
>  even outpacing the rise in health care expenditures,
>>
>
> Often related to materialistic lifestyle choices, or trying to deal with
> the stress of a broken ideoligally driven economy
>
>  accounting for
>> a third of all growth in the U.S. economy.
>>
>
> What economy? The virtual economy of play money? Or the real economy of
> stuff? Or the peer economy of a free commons like Wikipedia?
>
> Oh, you mean the play money economy. OK. So, meaningless for the sake of
> analyzing a physical problem.
>
> > From 1990 to the present, the
>
>> ratio of debt-to-GDP expanded from 165 percent to over 350 percent. In
>> essence, the present welfare of the economy rests on debt, and the
>> collateral for that debt consists of a wager that next year’s levels of
>> production and consumption will be higher than this year’s.*
>>
>
> Well, sounds pretty correct.
>
>  *Given that growth cannot continue on a finite planet,
>>
>
> Bzzt. Confusion of physical and play money economies. Actually, there is no
> reason, with lots of computer memory, that play money economies can't head
> towards infinity.
>
>  this wager, and its
>> embodiment in the institutions of finance, can be said to constitute
>> history’s greatest Ponzi scheme.
>>
>
> Sure. It's only really dangerous thought when the play money and physical
> economies interact though.
>
>  We have justified present borrowing with
>> the irrational belief that perpetual growth is possible, necessary, and
>> inevitable. In effect we have borrowed from future generations so that we
>> could gamble away their capital today.*
>>
>
> Borrowed what from future generations? Play money? What if they don't want
> to play? Money is a sign of poverty (Iain Banks). What if future generations
> are not poor?
>
>  *Until recently, the Peak Oil argument has been framed as a forecast: the
>> inevitable decline in world petroleum production, whenever it occurs, will
>> kill growth.
>>
>
> Who said that? I didn't say that. :-) I said "solar PV is cheaper than coal
> right now, or is about to be". So, if you mean physical growth, there is no
> connection. If you mean play money growth, well, do I really care what you
> do with monopoly money? Maybe I do, but it has nothing to do with real
> physical energy policy.
>
> > But here is where forecast becomes diagnosis: during the period
>
>> from 2005 to 2008, energy stopped growing and oil prices rose to record
>> levels.
>>
>
> Excuse me? "Energy" stopped growing? Solar PV kept growing. Wind energy
> kept growing. Energy efficiency kept growing (so, more from less).
>
> Oh, you mean oil use stopped growing. Well, great. I haven't liked the smog
> or other pollution in the oceans. It's about time, isn't it. What a lovely
> day.
>
> > By July of 2008, the price of a barrel of oil was nudging close to
>
>> $150—half again higher than any previous petroleum price in
>> inflation-adjusted terms—and the global economy was beginning to topple.
>>
>
> If I had my way, I'd slap another US$200 a barrel tax on it and
> redistribute the money as a basic income.
>
>  The
>> auto and airline industries shuddered;
>>
>
> Good riddance. Where is the rail system in the USA anyway? What's with all
> those SUVs rolling over or not having whiplash protection? Volvo can do it,
> why not everyone else?
>
> Those airlines. Why are people flying so much with all these computers?
> What's so messed up about our society that families can't live closer
> together?
>
>  ordinary consumers had trouble for
>> buying gasoline for their commute to work while still paying their
>> mortgages.
>>
>
> Why can't more people work at home? In fact, why do they have to "work" at
> all?
>  http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html
>
> And why don't they have a basic income that can easily afford basic energy
> use for transportation?
>
> And why are they paying interest on mortgages when the banks just magicked
> the money into existence anyway?
>  http://www.moneyasdebt.net/
>
> > Consumer spending began to decline.
>
> Finally. So much trash being advertised on TV these days.
>  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=voluntary+simplicity
>
> > By September the economic
>
>> crisis was also a financial crisis, as banks trembled and imploded. *
>>
>
> Good. Let 'em fail. Rather than backstop them with fourteen trillion
> dollars (or whatever it is by now) give that money as a basic income to the
> people.
>
>  *Given how much is at stake, it is important to evaluate the two diagnoses
>> on the basis of facts, not preconceptions.*
>>
>
> Durn right. So, show me some facts.
>
> Fact one: Solar PV is cheaper than coals.
>
> Fact two: Fact one is all we need to know.
>
> That about wraps it up, doesn't it? :-)
>
>  *It is unnecessary to examine evidence supporting or refuting the
>> Conventional Diagnosis, because its validity is not in doubt—as a partial
>> explanation for what is occurring. The question is whether it is a
>> sufficient explanation, and hence an adequate basis for designing a
>> successful response.*
>>
>
> Except didn't I just doubt it's relevance or accuracy or interpretation?
>
>  *What’s the evidence favoring the Alternative? A good place to begin is
>> with
>> a recent paper by economist James Hamilton of the University of
>> California,
>> San Diego, titled “Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007-08,”
>> which discusses oil prices and economic impacts with clarity, logic, and
>> numbers, explaining how and why the economic crash is related to the oil
>> price shock of 2008. *
>>
>
> Sure, sure, economist, numbers, must be right, yawn.
>
> Except when one is not. :-)
>
>  *Hamilton starts by citing previous studies showing a tight correlation
>> between oil price spikes and recessions. On the basis of this correlation,
>> every attentive economist should have forecast a steep recession for
>> 2008.“Indeed,” writes Hamilton, “the relation could account for the
>> entire
>> downturn of 2007-08…. If one could have known in advance what happened to
>> oil prices during 2007-08, and if one had used the historically estimated
>> relation [between price rise and economic impact]… one would have been
>> able
>> to predict the level of real GDP for both of 2008:Q3 and 2008:Q4 quite
>> accurately.”*
>>
>
> Except solar PV is cheaper than coal. Was that in his report and
> predictions? No, well then why bother citing it?
>
>  *Again, this is not to ignore the role of the financial and real estate
>> sectors in the ongoing global economic meltdown. But in the Alternative
>> Diagnosis the collapse of the housing and derivatives markets is seen as
>> amplifying a signal ultimately emanating from a failure to increase the
>> rate
>> of supply of depleting resources.
>>
>
> Does it matter if a resource is depleting if we don't need it anymore?
> Given solar PV is cheaper that coal?
>
>  Hamilton again: “At a minimum it is clear
>> that something other than housing deteriorated to turn slow growth into a
>> recession. That something, in my mind, includes the collapse in automobile
>> purchases, slowdown in overall consumption spending, and deteriorating
>> consumer sentiment, in which the oil shock was indisputably a contributing
>> factor.”*
>>
>
> And maybe people are fed up? Maybe real wages have not grown in thirty
> years? Maybe a huge rich-poor disparity has made the market disfunctional
> and only 94% marginal tax rates can set it right again? Maybe Capitalism has
> hit the fan?
>  http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/
>
>  *Moreover, Hamilton notes that there was “an interaction effect between
>> the
>> oil shock and the problems in housing.” That is, in many metropolitan
>> areas,
>> house prices in 2007 were still rising in the zip codes closest to urban
>> centers but already falling fast in zip codes where commutes were long.*
>>
>
> I'm sure there are other possible interpretations if I tried to think of
> one...
>
>  *Why Did the Oil Price Spike?*
>>
>
> Because there are trillions of dollars sloshing around looking for
> speculative homes? Because a Lyme-addled president who was no great thinker
> to begin with launched a stupid war (or really, two) which is destroying the
> USA economy as well as creating huge amounts of international tension?
> Because much of this was predicted in 2003 by the alternative press?
>
>  *Those who espouse the Conventional Diagnosis for our ongoing economic
>> collapse might agree that there was some element of causal correlation
>> between the oil price spike and the recession, but they would deny that
>> the
>> price spike itself had anything to do with resource limits, because (they
>> say) it was caused mostly by speculation in the oil futures market, and
>> had
>> little to do with fundamentals of supply and demand.*
>>
>
> "Confessions of a Recovering Economist"
> http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue21/Stanford21.htm
> "Step 2: Accept that all our efforts to explain the world have failed.  The
> 'market' is the holiest symbol in all of economics. It's magically automatic
> and efficient. And supply always equals demand. The whole profession of
> mainstream, 'neoclassical' economics is dedicated to the study of markets
> and how they can be perfected. The problem, however, is that in real life
> these idealized 'markets' don't explain much at all. Powerful non-market
> forces determine most of what happens in the economy - things like
> tradition, demographics, class, gender and race, geography, and
> institutions. Indeed, what we call the 'market' is itself a complex,
> historically constructed social institution - not some autonomous, inanimate
> forum. Power and position are at least as important to economics, as supply
> and demand."
>
> Maybe speculators were trying to get all they could out of fossil fuels
> while they could, given solar PV is getting cheaper that coal and oil?
>
>  *In this, the Conventional Diagnosis once again has some basis in reality.
>> Speculation in oil futures during the period in question almost certainly
>> helped drive oil prices higher than was justified by fundamentals. But why
>> were investors buying oil futures? Was the mania for oil contracts just
>> another bubble, like the dot.com stock frenzy of the late ’90s or the
>> real
>> estate boom of 2003 to 2006?*
>>
>
> Or maybe investors on that scale were crazy financially obese people with
> an addictive (to wealth) personality disorder?
>
>  *During the period from 2005 to mid-2008, demand for oil was growing,
>> especially in China (which went from being self-sufficient in oil in 1995
>> to
>> being the world’s second-foremost importer, after the U.S., by 2006).
>>
>
> Well, China is going green now, so that will change.
>
>  But
>> the global supply of oil was essentially stagnant: monthly production
>> figures for crude oil bounced around within a fairly narrow band between
>> 72
>> and 75 million barrels per day. As prices rose, production figures barely
>> budged in response. There was every indication that all oil producers were
>> pumping flat-out: even the Saudis appeared to be rushing to capitalize on
>> the price bonanza.*
>>
>
> Sure, why not get a last big boost given solar PV is now cheaper that coal
> and oil (or about to be)?
>
>  *Thus a good argument can be made that speculation in oil futures was
>> merely
>> magnifying price moves that were inevitable on the basis of the
>> fundamentals
>> of supply and demand. James Hamilton (in his publication previously cited)
>> puts it this way: “With hindsight, it is hard to deny that the price rose
>> too high in July 2008, and that this miscalculation was influenced in part
>> by the flow of investment dollars into commodity futures contracts. It is
>> worth emphasizing, however, that the two key ingredients needed to make
>> such
>> a story coherent—a low price elasticity of demand, and the failure of
>> physical production to increase—are the same key elements of a
>> fundamentals-based explanation of the same phenomenon. I therefore
>> conclude
>> that these two factors, rather than speculation per se, should be
>> construed
>> as the primary cause of the oil shock of 2007-08.”*
>>
>
> Ancient history. We're in a new world where solar PV is cheaper than coal
> and oil.
>
>   « Trade exchange and credit clearing is not
>> barter<
>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/trade-exchange-and-credit-clearing-is-not-barter/2009/08/11
>> >
>> Book of the Week (2): Towards collaborative
>> democracy<
>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/book-of-the-week-2-towards-collaborative-democracy/2009/08/12
>> >»
>>
>> Peak Oil and the Meltdown (2): the volatility
>> trap<
>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/peak-oil-and-the-meltdown-2-the-volatility-trap/2009/08/12
>> >
>> [image: photo of Michel Bauwens] Michel Bauwens
>> 12th August 2009
>>
>>  We continue our processing of the essay by Richard Feinberg, which
>> relates
>> oil scarcity to the current crisis and sets clear limits on a eventual
>> recovery.
>>
>
> Except who cares, given solar pv is cheaper now?
>
>  In this excerpt <http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5638> he explains that
>> the
>> volatility in oil prices, which confuses people, is part and parcel of the
>> Peak Oil thesis.
>>
>
> I'm not really interested in Peak Horseshoe theory, either. Even though
> some people still keep horses and might need horseshoes still.
>
>  *Richard Feinberg: Why Did Oil Prices Fall? And Why Didn’t Lower Oil
>> Prices
>> Lead to a Quick Recovery?*
>>
>
> Because economists are out of touch with reality and live in a mathematical
> world that has no relation to real technology or real people or real
> infrastructure?
>
>  *“The Peak Oil thesis predicts that, as world oil production reaches its
>> maximum level and begins to decline, the price of oil will rise
>> dramatically. But it also forecasts a dramatic increase in the volatility
>> of
>> prices.*
>>
>
> Except the price of oil will fall when no one wants it because PV is
> cheaper than coal, and it puts out less smog too, and doesn't mess up the
> democratic politics of various countries.
>
>  *The argument goes as follows. As oil becomes scarce, its price will rise
>> until it begins to undermine economic activity in general.
>>
>
> Except who needs oil anymore?
>  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=renewable+plastics
>
> > Economic
>
>> contraction will then result in substantially reduced demand for oil,
>>
>
> Good. The darn stuff is dirty and smelly and hurts fish and other wildlife.
>
>  which
>> will in turn cause its price to fall temporarily. Then one of two things
>> will happen: either (a) the economy will begin to recover, stoking renewed
>> oil demand, leading again to high prices which will again undermine
>> economic
>> activity; or (b), if the economy does not quickly recover, petroleum
>> production will gradually fall due to depletion until spare production
>> capacity (created by lower demand) is wiped out, leading again to higher
>> prices and even more economic contraction. In both cases, oil prices
>> remain
>> volatile and the economy contracts. *
>>
>
> Except what if the physical economy starts moving to cheaper alternatives?
>
>  *This scenario corresponds very closely with the reality that is
>> unfolding,
>> though it remains to be seen whether situation (a) or (b) will ensue.*
>>
>> *Over the past three years, oil prices rose and fell more dramatically
>> than
>> would have been the case if it had not been for widespread speculation in
>> oil futures. Nevertheless, the general direction of prices—way up, then
>> way
>> down, then part-way back up—is entirely consistent with the Peak Oil
>> thesis
>> and the Alternative Diagnosis.*
>>
>
> What happens when all that speculative money finally flows into renewable
> alternatives in an even bigger way than it has already?
>
>  *Why has the economy not quickly recovered, given that oil prices are now
>> only half what they were in July 2008? Again, Peak Oil is not the only
>> cause
>> of the current economic crisis. Enormous bubbles in the real estate and
>> finance sectors constituted accidents waiting to happen, and the implosion
>> of those bubbles has created a serious credit crisis (as well as solvency
>> and looming currency crises) that will likely take several years to
>> resolve
>> even if energy supplies don’t pose a problem.*
>>
>
> Lots of social dynamics going on. Lots of psychology.
>
>  *But now the potential for renewed high oil prices acts as a ceiling for
>> economic recovery. Whenever the economy does appear to show renewed signs
>> of
>> life (as has happened in May-July this year, with stock values rebounding
>> and the general pace of economic contraction slowing somewhat), oil prices
>> will take off again as oil speculators anticipate a recovery of demand.
>> Indeed, oil prices have rebounded from $30 in January to nearly $70
>> currently, provoking widespread concern that high energy prices could nip
>> recovery in the bud. *
>>
>
> Except the economy will be more and more decoupling from fossil fuels now
> that PV is cheaper than coal. In fact, the only thing that will slow this is
> a continued fall in oil and coal prices because no one wants them anymore.
> But, because they still pollute and have other external costs, I suggest we
> still tax 'em heavily anyway.
>
>  *A barrel of oil from newly developed sources costs in the neighborhood of
>> $60 to produce, now that all of the cheaper prospects have been exploited:
>> finding new oilfields today usually means drilling under miles of ocean
>> water, or in politically unstable nations where equipment and personnel
>> are
>> at high risk. So as soon as consumers demand more oil, the price will have
>> to stay noticeably above that figure in order to provide the incentive for
>> producers to drill.*
>>
>
> I guess I don't understand why anyone would bother to do that if solar PV
> is cheaper than coal?
>
>  *Volatile oil prices hurt on the upside, but they also hurt on the
>> downside.
>> The oil price collapse of August-December 2008, plus the worsening credit
>> crisis, caused a dramatic contraction in oil industry investment, leading
>> to
>> the cancellation of about $150 billion worth of new oil production
>> projects—whose potential productive capacity will be required to offset
>> declines in existing oilfields if world oil production is to remain
>> stable.
>> This means that even if demand remains low, production capacity will
>> almost
>> certainly decline to meet those demand levels, causing oil prices to rise
>> again in real terms at some point, perhaps two or three years from now.
>> Volatile petroleum prices also hurt the development of alternative energy,
>> as was shown during the past few months when falling oil prices led to
>> financial troubles for ethanol manufacturers. *
>>
>
> And some difficulties for a more expensive subset of solar manufacturers
> too, it's true.
>
>  *One way or another, growth will be highly problematic if not
>> unachievable.”
>>
>
> Except, regarding physical growth, that solar PV is cheaper than coal. :-)
> Regarding play money growth, well, if you include virtual currencies in
> virtual worlds, the sky is the limit. :-)
>
>  **
>>  « Will the Web bankrupt
>> government?<
>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/will-the-web-bankrupt-government/2009/08/12
>> >
>> Inaugural Conference of the Internet and P2P Research
>> Group<
>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/inaugural-conference-of-the-internet-and-p2p-research-group/2009/08/13
>> >»
>>
>
> It might change the nature of government eventually. You can't bankrupt
> someone who can legally print money. You can't bankrupt a government that
> own one third or more of the land to use or rent. You can't bankrupt a
> government with guns and prisons to collect taxes or to enforce demands on
> labor time.
>
>  Peak Oil and the Meltdown (3): the alt.energy
>> transition<
>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/peak-oil-and-the-meltdown-3-the-altenergy-transition/2009/08/13
>> >
>> [image: photo of Michel Bauwens] Michel Bauwens
>> 13th August 2009
>>
>>  My conclusion from a careful survey of energy alternatives, then, is that
>> there is little likelihood that either conventional fossil fuels or
>> alternative energy sources can be counted on to provide the amount and
>> quality of energy that will be needed to sustain economic growth—or even
>> current levels of economic activity—during the remainder of this century.
>>
>
> Except that solar PV is cheaper than coal (or about to be).
>
> And if you don't like solar PV, how about solar thermal?
>  "Solar energy cheaper than coal"
>  http://current.com/items/90698626_solar-energy-cheaper-than-coal.htm
>
>  Richard Heinberg <http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5638> continues his
>> treatment of the role of Peak Oil in the current meltdown.
>>
>
> Does he make any money out of that somehow? How can one follow the money of
> his fearmongering?
>
>  This excerpt features a key argument, which I have seen in most people
>> that
>> have studied the issue carefully: there is no smooth transition to a
>> alternative future based on renewable energies!
>>
>
> Except you just go to Home Depot and buy solar panels and put them up with
> a grid intertie plug you stick in a wall socket?
>  http://worldwatts.com/gadgets/Guerilla%20solar/
> "The ability to do guerilla solar installations is made much easier by the
> availability of small intertie capable inverters, such as the Trace Micro
> Sine. You connect the solar panels to the inverter, and then make a plug for
> the inverter (instead of a socket) so that it can plug directly into a wall
> socket in the house. The inverter won't operate unless it sees a sine wave
> from the power company, so having a bare three prong plug hanging out won't
> electrocute you (besides, it's normally plugged in). This feature also
> protects linemen from being zapped by your solar panel when they are
> repairing the lines. "
>
>  *Richard Heinberg:*
>>
>> *“At this point in the discussion many readers will be wondering why
>> alternative energy sources and efficiency measures cannot be deployed to
>> solve the Peak Oil crisis.
>>
>
> Because you would lose advertising revenue?
>
> > After all, as petroleum becomes more expensive,
>
>> ethanol, biodiesel, and electric cars all start to look more attractive
>> both
>> to producers and consumers. Won’t the magic of the market intervene to
>> render oil shortages irrelevant to future growth?*
>>
>
> Absolutely, eventually. Especially because solar PV is cheaper than coal
> (or soon to be).
>
>  *It is impossible in the context of this discussion to provide a detailed
>> explanation of why the market probably cannot solve the Peak Oil problem.
>>
>
> Because there is no explanation.
>
>  Such an explanation requires a discussion of energy evaluation criteria,
>> and
>> an analysis of many individual energy alternatives on the basis of those
>> criteria. I have offered brief overviews of this subject previously and a
>> much longer one is in press. *
>>
>
> In other words, it doesn't exist because, now that solar PV is cheaper than
> coal, we are just waiting on the production plants for thin film PV to
> expand?
>
>  *My summary conclusions in this regard are as follows.*
>>
>> *About 85 percent of our current energy is derived from three primary
>> sources—oil, natural gas, and coal—that are non-renewable, whose price is
>> likely to trend sharply higher over the next years and decades leading to
>> severe shortages, and whose environmental impacts are unacceptable.
>>
>
> Except they will crash in price, given there will be little demand for them
> since solar is cheaper that coal (or will be soon).
>
>  While
>> these sources historically have had very high economic value, we cannot
>> rely
>> on them in the future;
>>
>
> Why not? There will be plenty left for special needs (even some plastics),
> because no one would want to burn them. Still, you're right, people will
> prefer biodegradable plastics that are healthier to manufacture, use, and
> recycle. OK. So people won't want them in the future much. OK.
>
>  indeed, the longer the transition to alternative
>> energy sources is delayed, the more difficult that transition will be
>> unless
>> some practical mix of alternative energy systems can be identified that
>> will
>> have superior economic and environmental characteristics.*
>>
>
> Well, seems like it is happening right now. It would even happen faster
> except many people are waiting to see what even more amazing solar panels
> come out next year.
>
>  *But identifying such a mix is harder than one might initially think. Each
>> energy source has highly specific characteristics. In fact, it has been
>> the
>> characteristics of our present energy sources (principally oil, coal, and
>> natural gas) that have enabled the building of an urbanized society with
>> high mobility, large population, and high economic growth rates.
>>
>
> But are they really happy? Are they great places to raise children compared
> to the villages of old?
>
> Anyway, see:
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_city
>
> For example:
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curitiba
> Although they are having some problems from neighboring dysfunctional
> cities that have not upgraded their governance structures or economies to
> more populist models.
>
> > Surveying
>
>> the available alternative energy sources for criteria such as energy
>> density, environmental impacts, reliance on depleting raw materials,
>> intermittency versus constancy of supply, and the percentage of energy
>> returned on the energy invested in energy production, none currently
>> appears
>> capable of perpetuating this kind of society.*
>>
>
> Convenient, isn't it?
>
> It's not like solar PV was cheaper than coal, is it?
>
> It's not like we could pump water uphill or compress air or heat rocks to
> temporarily store energy, is it?
>
>  *Moreover, national energy systems are expensive and slow to develop.
>>
>
> Except when everyone can got to Home Depot and get them installed for
> cheap.
>
> > Energy
>
>> efficiency likewise requires investment,
>>
>
> Sure, and if "national security" meant anything real, that would all be
> paid for out of the "defense" budget.
>
>  and further incremental investments
>> in efficiency tend to yield diminishing returns over time, since it is
>> impossible to perform work with zero energy input.
>>
>
> The Earth keeps going round the Sun with no energy input to its orbit. :-)
> I know, that's not accomplishing anything useful like changing our view of
> the solar system. :-)
>
> Sure, OK, yes, thermodynamics. And if we barely need much energy do do a
> lot of stuff, then what?
>
> The state-of-the-art in home heating in cold climates is no furnace.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_solar
>
> It sure would make a lot of sense to divert most of the US defense budget
> for a while to intrinsically defending the country by removing a need for
> foreign oil by upgrading northern US homes to all be passive solar.
>
> > Where is there the will
>
>> or ability to muster sufficient investment capital for deployment of
>> alternative energy sources and efficiency measures on the scale needed?*
>>
>
> The US defense department?
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense
> """
> Employees       700,000 civilian  2,300,000 military (2004)
> Annual budget   $786 billion [1](2009 est.)
> """
>
>  *While there are many successful alternative energy production
>> installations
>> around the world (ranging from small home-scale photovoltaic systems to
>> large “farms” of three-megawatt wind turbines),
>>
>
> OK. I'll grudgingly concede that point. :-)
>
>  there are very few modern
>> industrial nations that now get the bulk of their energy from sources
>> other
>> than oil, coal, and natural gas.
>>
>
> They will soon. That they have not done so sooner is because of corruption,
> legal and illegal political bribery, and a bunch of other things.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power
> "Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security is a 1982 book by
> Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, prepared originally as a Pentagon
> study, and re-released in 2001 following the September 11 attacks. The book
> argues that domestic energy infrastructure is very vulnerable to disruption,
> by accident or malice, often even more so than imported oil. According to
> the authors, a resilient energy system is feasible, costs less, works
> better, is favoured in the market, but is rejected by U.S. policy.[1] In the
> preface to the 2001 edition, Lovins explains that these themes are still
> very current. [2]"
>
> > One example is Sweden, which obtains most
>
>> of its energy from nuclear and hydropower.
>>
>
> OK. Swedes are cool. We drive one of their cars. :-)
>
> We only have one car to save money and energy.
>
>  Another is Iceland, which
>> benefits from unusually large domestic geothermal resources not found in
>> most other countries.
>>
>
> Geothermal is almost everywhere, especially if you just focus on the heat
> pump aspect of it.
>
> > Even for these two nations, the situation is complex:
>
>> the construction of the infrastructure for their power plants mostly
>> relied
>> on fossil fuels for the mining of the ores and raw materials, for
>> materials
>> processing, for transportation, for the manufacturing of components, for
>> the
>> mining of uranium, for construction energy, and so on. Thus a meaningful
>> energy transition away from fossil fuels is still a matter of theory and
>> wishful thinking, not reality.*
>>
>
> Except solar PV is cheaper than coal. And it will be a *lot* cheaper real
> soon now. Despite the fossil fuel industry and nuclear industry having
> fought it all the way.
>
> Or, as is said here (fluffy):
>  "Solar kicks coal's ass #2, Funny"
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PPxYCDKVec&feature=related
>
>  *My conclusion from a careful survey of energy alternatives, then, is that
>> there is little likelihood that either conventional fossil fuels or
>> alternative energy sources can be counted on to provide the amount and
>> quality of energy that will be needed to sustain economic growth—or even
>> current levels of economic activity—during the remainder of this century.
>> *
>>
>
> Except solar PV is cheaper than coal. Right now everywhere according to
> some. And in some situations already like Hawaii according to all.
>
>  *But the problem extends beyond oil and other fossil fuels: the world’s
>> fresh water resources are strained to the point that billions of people
>> may
>> soon find themselves with only precarious access to water for drinking and
>> irrigation.
>>
>
> Except when you have a lot of power from solar PV being cheaper than coal,
> you can distill seawater, recycle graywater, or chill water out of the air.
>
>  Biodiversity is declining rapidly.
>>
>
> True, and very sad. Part of the reason is a reliance on coal and oil.
>
> Although digital biodiversity is rising. And we may be able to make
> synthetic creatures more and more.
>
>  We are losing 24 billion tons
>> of topsoil each year to erosion.
>>
>
> Grind up rocks with power from solar PV or those windmills. Problem solved.
>  http://www.remineralize.org/
>
>  And many economically significant
>> minerals—from antimony to zinc—are depleting quickly,
>>
>
> You say minerals but list elements. The elements are still there. Recycle
> them from the landfills.
>
>  requiring the mining
>> of ever lower-grade ores in ever more remote locations.
>>
>
> Or mine the landfills, probably using robots to be a bit more energy
> efficient. Problem solved.
>
>  Thus the Peak Oil
>> crisis is really just the leading edge of a broader Peak Everything
>> dilemma.
>>
>
> Except, it is all baloney. And if our population decides to grow again (it
> is peaking), then we can go into space.
>
> The real problem may be a peak population crisis. With kids staring at the
> computer so much, where is the next generation going to come from? Doesn't
> look good to me.
>
> Industrialized society, including compulsory prison-schooling, is so
> anti-family that industrialized populations are shrinking. We desperately
> need a plan to deal with the Peak Human Population crisis.
>
> Something like giving US$20K to each family per child per year:
>  "Towards a Post-Scarcity New York State of Mind (through homeschooling)"
>
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/towards-a-post-scarcity-new-york-state-of-mind.html
>
>  *In essence, humanity faces an entirely predictable peril: our population
>> has been growing dramatically for the past 200 years
>>
>
> Except it has stopped in the industrialized world. Industrialization the
> way we have been doing it is, unfortunately, deadly to our species.
>
>  (expanding from under
>> one billion to nearly seven billion),
>>
>
> Hooray! How about fourteen billion?
>
> We've got room for quadrillions of people in the solar system. Would
> coupons for romantic resorts in the Poconos help?
>
>  while our per-capita consumption of
>> resources has also grown.
>>
>
> Terrific. Just be sure to recycle it all, have zero-emissions
> cradle-to-cradle, and use renewable energy like solar PV (cheaper than coal)
> and we are good to go. And recycling 3D printers would be nice.
>
> > For any species, this is virtually the definition
>
>> of biological success.
>>
>
> Yeah!
>
>  And yet all of this has taken place in the context of
>> a finite planet
>>
>
> but huge solar system and perhaps infinite universe or infinite metaverse
>
>  with fixed stores of non-renewable resources (fossil fuels
>> and minerals),
>>
>
> Any idea how large this planet is and how small people are?
>
> But, sure, I've outline a plan to evacuate the Earth in thirty years, if
> you really want to insist on that "finite earth" point having any relevance.
>
>  a limited ability to regenerate renewable resources (forests,
>> fish, fresh water, and topsoil),
>>
>
> Grind rock for soil. A lot of people like to work outdoors planting trees
> and stocking fish. In fact, the problem is just that these people who want
> to be outdoors are forced to work stupid pointless guard-duty jobs they hate
> life process health insurance claims instead of just giving everyone
> free-to-the-user health care (which will be cheaper once we stop polluting
> the air with coal).
>
> > and a limited ability to absorb industrial
>
>> wastes (including carbon dioxide).
>>
>
> Sure. Except we can use our solar PV (cheaper than coal) to recycle the
> stuff. And this guy at TED said how to do it with fungus too:
>  "Paul Stamets on 6 ways mushrooms can save the world"
>
> http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/paul_stamets_on_6_ways_mushrooms_can_save_the_world.html
>
>  If we step back and look at the
>> industrial period from a broad historical perspective that is informed by
>> an
>> appreciation of ecological limits,
>>
>
> OK. I'm with you. The universe can (conservatively) hold about a million
> billion billion quadrillion people:
>  "[p2p-research] Earth's carrying capacity and Catton"
>
> http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-August/004123.html
>
> And we have almost seven billion. I can see there will be a limit to growth
> someday. Unless we figure out a way to connect to other empty universes and
> such.
>
> Now, if we build space habitats, each with an ecology, then we could have
> quadrillions of Earths worth of ecologies in the universe.
>
> Ok, so informed by that perspective, I'm right with you...
>
>  it is hard to avoid the conclusion that
>> we are today living at the end of a relatively brief pulse—a 200-year
>> rapid
>> expansionary phase enabled by a temporary energy subsidy (in the form of
>> cheap fossil fuels) that will inevitably be followed by an even more rapid
>> and dramatic contraction as those fuels deplete.*
>>
>
> Um. Hmmm. What happened to a million billion billion quadrillion people
> living in a quadrillion Earths worth of space habitats?
>
> Solar PV is cheaper than coal, remember?
>
>  *The winding down of this historic growth-contraction pulse doesn’t
>> necessarily mean the end of the world,
>>
>
> Which world? The one you imagine where solar PV is not cheaper than coal?
>
> The same world that is debunked here too:
>  http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/
>
>  but it does mean the end of a certain
>> kind of economy.
>>
>
> Good riddance.
>
>  One way or another, humanity must return to a more normal
>> pattern of existence characterized by reliance on immediate solar income
>> (via crops, wind, or the direct conversion of sunlight to electricity)
>> rather than stored ancient sunlight.*
>>
>
> Now you are talking. Hooray. We agree on something. Until we tap zero-point
> energy, we should work towards supporting a million billion billion
> quadrillion people with solar power! Yeah!! Here comes the sun!
>  "The Beatles - Here comes the sun"
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZtQh5EIgWQ
>
>  *This is not to say that the remainder of the 21st century must consist of
>> a
>> collapse of industrialism, a die-off of most of the human population, and
>> a
>> return by the survivors to a way of life essentially identical to that of
>> 16th century peasants or indigenous hunter-gatherers.
>>
>
> What is it you don't like about hunter-gatherers? Sounds like they had more
> fun than we do. :-)
>  "The Original Affluent Society" by Marshall Sahlins
>  http://www.primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm
> "A good case can be made that hunters and gatherers work less than we do;
> and, rather than a continuous travail, the food quest is intermittent,
> leisure abundant, and there is a greater amount of sleep in the daytime per
> capita per year than in any other condition of society."
>
>  It is possible instead
>> to imagine acceptable and even inviting ways in which humanity could adapt
>> to ecological limits while further developing cultural richness,
>> scientific
>> understanding, and quality of life (more of this below).*
>>
>
> Sure. Let's see, the limit is a million billion billion quadrillion people
> in the universe. I guess I better get to work on zero-point energy and
> inter-multiverse transportation before we reach that limit.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
> I'll put that on my to do list. Don't think I'll have time to get to it
> though, too many other fun things to do first. I'll leave it for someone
> else to lend a hand. :-)
>  "Nowhere Man"
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvLj72apGLI
>
>  *But however it is negotiated, the transition will spell an end to
>> economic
>> growth in the conventional sense. And that transition appears to have
>> begun.”*
>>
>
> Sure, economic growth as it has been done has been stupid. I'm all for
> doing it differently. :-) Local production using 3D printers and other means
> (including to print solar panels). Peer production using a gift economy and
> a free commons. States that regulate and heavily tax the remnants of the
> market. A well educated populace who engage in learning-on-demand. Those
> kind of things.
>
> Anyway, I don't know what the point of this was. Other than to show how a
> few bad assumptions can ripple throughout mounds of analysis. So, are the
> bad assumptions mine or others?
>  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=grid+parity
>
> One random example:
>  "Grid Parity" by John Quiggin
>  http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/05/03/grid-parity/
> """
> ... But looking at the issue again today, I’m finding lots of claims that
> this “grid parity” will be achieved in the next few years, and even one
> company, First Solar, that claims to be already at grid parity with a 12 MW
> plant in Nevada completed last year . Obviously, Nevada is a particularly
> favorable location, and there is plenty of room for judgement in cost
> estimates. Still, looking at a lot of different reports, it seems clear
> that, with a carbon price of say $50/tonne (about 5 cents/kwh for black coal
> and 7 cents/kwh for brown coal), solar will be cost-competitive with coal
> for most places in Australia without any need for fundamental technical
> improvements.
>  The big question is whether the industry can ramp up from its current
> small scale (about 5 GW capacity produced last year) to meet global demands
> for growth and replace a significant part of the existing 4TW of mainly
> fossil-based capacity, with even more needed if we are to have big growth in
> electric vehicles. ...
>  However, in the long run, and with no absolute resource constraints, costs
> should fall further as all elements of the manufacturing chain scale up. And
> over 20 years or so, with continued growth of 20-30 per cent a year, the
> necessary scale would be achieved If so (and assuming contributions from
> other renewable sources) the transition to a post-carbon economy could be
> faster and cheaper than most existing estimates suggest.
> """
>
> OK, so if this is true, why were we not planning our economy around this
> idea twenty years ago? That should be a shocking indictment of the entire
> profession of economics. But, that's not news here, is it? :-)
>
>
> --Paul Fernhout
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>



-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090817/8070a520/attachment-0001.html>