Redefining Fiscal Conservatism. The Terra/Energy Based Fiscal Unit. Föres and Lagom White Paper, Boundary Conditions for a Fiscal Conservatism based upon Circular Economics. PART ONE Scope. ( Written in July 2018)

5/17/2020

The Following is a precursor to the Whitepaper on Redefining Fiscal Conservatism. The Terra/Energy Based Fiscal Unit. Föres and Lagom White Paper, Boundary Conditions for a Fiscal Conservatism based upon Circular Economics. (Part One) Scope.

⨊GåFöre(O⨋)The FedratedMutualSociety.⨊Före(s)And⨋Lagom(s) Putting the Complementary into Crypto Currencies!.

The Post is also a file note regarding calibration of the Embodied energy based currency which will be proposed in

⨊Före(s) The store of Value component of the föres, Lagom dynamic currency complex.

The first two articles demonstrate a mistake in Logic engendered by treating energy assets as a Debt Based Financial Asset, Energy is either there or not there once you have nothing there is nothing you can not have less than no energy. Therefore any stock of energy must always be positive although if one adopts the Energy Cost of Energy measure, you may need to use more accessible Energy to extract untapped energy. On the Energy Returned on Energy invested Curve the current state of the art for this concept looks like this. http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/

Energy Cost of Energy is explained here by Dr Tim Morgan.

SEEDS uses an alternative measure, ECoE (the Energy Cost of Energy), which expresses cost as a percentage of the gross energy accessed.Because the world economy is a closed system, ECoE is not directly analogous to ‘cost’ in the usual financial sense. Rather, it is an economic rent, limiting the choice we exercise over any given quantity of energy. If we have 100 units of energy, and the ECoE is 5%, we exercise choice (or ‘discretion’) over 95 units. If ECoE rises to 10%, we now have discretion over only 90 units, even though the gross amount remains 100.This is loosely analogous to personal prosperity. If someone’s income remains the same, but the cost of essentials rises, that person is worse off, even though income itself hasn’t changed.

Understanding ECoEECoE evolves over time. In the early stages of any given resource, ECoE is driven downwards by geographic reach, and by economies of scale. Once maturity is reached, depletion takes over as the driver, pushing ECoE upwards. In the pre-maturity phase, technology accelerates the fall in ECoE driven by reach and scale. Post-maturity, technology acts to mitigate the rise caused by depletion. But – and this is often misunderstood – the capabilities of technology are limited to the envelope of the physical characteristics of the resource.

Stranded Carbon Assets, From, Stranded Carbon Assets Why and How Carbon Risks Should Be Incorporated in Investment Analysis 2014. Generation Foundation.

“(a) Direct Regulation: Regardless of whether carbon pricing manifests as a coordinated global response to the Carbon Budget or is enforced through national, regional, state or local carbon pricing or ‘cap and trade schemes’, the result would be a material shift in the valuation of carbon-intensive assets over a short period of time and hence the stranding of carbon assets. from.”

This paper highlights the risks associated with investing in carbon-intensive assets, and explains why we feel strongly that the integration of carbon-risk assessment in the investment process is of greater relevance today than ever before. As the case for curbing carbon emissions continues to gain support on economic and scientific grounds, the commercial viability of carbon-intensive assets – particularly fossil fuels – will be increasingly threatened, creating stranded carbon assets. For the purposes of this paper, we define a stranded asset as an asset which loses significant economic value well ahead of its anticipated useful life, as a result of changes in legislation, regulation, market forces, disruptive innovation, societal norms, or environmental shocks. (See Appendix A for further details).

https://www.genfound.org/media/1374/pdf-generation-foundation-stranded-carbon-assets-v1.pdf

'Carbon bubble' coming that could wipe trillions from the global economy

Demand for fossil fuels will decline in the near future with major macroeconomic and geopolitical consequences

Date:: June 4, 2018
Source:: Radboud University Nijmegen
Summary:: Unlike current expectations, new research suggests that the prospects of the fossil-fuel industry are not bright, and that its demise may have profound economic and geopolitical consequences. Relying on ground breaking modelling techniques, researchers show that the consumption of fossil fuels will slow down or decline in the near future, as a result of ongoing technological change, potentially exacerbated by new climate policies.

Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil-fuel assets April 2018. Mercure, J., Pollitt, H., Vinuales, J. E., Edwards, N., Holden, P., Chewpreecha, U., Salas, P., et al. Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil-fuel assets. Nature Climate Change

Oil pumps (stock image).

Credit: © Andrey Burmakin / Fotolia

New research shows that the demise of the fossil-fuel industry has profound economic and geopolitical consequences. Relying on ground breaking modelling techniques, researchers from Radboud University, the University of Cambridge (C-EENRG), Cambridge Econometrics, The Open University (UK) and the University of Macau show that the consumption of fossil fuels will slow down or decline in the near future, as a result of ongoing technological change, potentially exacerbated by new climate policies.

This transition will result in clear winners, importers such as China and the EU, and losers, exporters such as Russia, the USA or Canada, which could see their fossil-fuel industries nearly shut down. If these countries keep up their investment and production levels despite declining demand, the global wealth loss could be huge: 1-4 trillion dollars, a loss comparable to that which triggered the financial crisis in 2007. Even the USA could not pull out from the transition, as it would only hurt itself even more. Global climate policy is therefore no longer a 'prisoner's dilemma' game. These findings by researchers from Radboud University, the University of Cambridge (C-EENRG), Cambridge Econometrics, The Open University (UK) and the University of Macau are published in Nature Climate Change.

A dangerous 'carbon bubble'

Several major economies rely heavily on fossil-fuel production and exports. The price of fossil-fuel companies' shares is calculated under the assumption that all fossil-fuel reserves will be consumed. But to do so would be inconsistent with the tight carbon budget set in the 2015 Paris Agreement, which limits the increase in global average temperature to 'well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels'. So far, this prospect has not deterred continuing investment in fossil fuels because many believe that climate policies will not be adopted, or at least not in the near future.

However, and crucially, researchers now show that ongoing technological change, by itself and even without new climate policies, is already reducing global demand growth for fossil fuels, which could peak in the near future. New climate policies would only aggravate the impact. Continuing investment in fossil fuels is therefore creating a dangerous 'carbon bubble' that could burst, with massive economic and geopolitical consequences.

Winners and losers

The scientists modelled the decline of demand for fossil fuels using novel modelling techniques that track the diffusion of low-carbon technologies on the basis of empirical data. Examples are technologies in power generation, cars and households that become more efficient and therefore diminish the use of fossil fuels. They then tracked what this means for national economies, as some economies lose an important industry (mostly due to loss of competitiveness), while other economies get rid of high current fossil-fuel expenditures and imports. "This means that by 2035, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth is affected negatively in producer countries (e.g. USA, Russia), while it is affected positively in importing countries (e.g. EU, China)," Dr Jean-Francois Mercure of Radboud University/C-EENRG explains.

'Free-riding' climate change mitigation: good or bad idea?

With the USA's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the scientists also modelled what would happen if the USA did indeed continue to invest in fossil-fuel assets instead of diversifying and divesting from them. The analysis shows their GDP would be reduced even further. Dr Mercure clarifies this point: "With a declining global fossil-fuel demand, fossil-fuel production in the USA is becoming uncompetitive, and may shut down. If the USA remains in the Paris Agreement, it will promote new low-carbon technologies and reduce its consumption of fossil fuels, creating jobs and mitigating its loss of income, despite losing its fossil-fuel industry. If it pulls out, it will nevertheless lose its fossil-fuel industry, but by not promoting low-carbon technologies, will miss out on job creation opportunities, while increasing its fossil-fuel imports by not reducing its domestic fossil-fuel consumption. The outcome is therefore worse if the USA pulls out."

A new financial crisis?

The study findings support the existence of a carbon bubble which, if not deflated early, could lead to a discounted global wealth loss of between 1 to 4 trillion dollars, a loss comparable to what triggered the 2007 financial crisis. "If countries keep investing in equipment to search for, extract, process and transport fossil fuels, even though their demand declines, they will end up losing money on these investments on top of their losses due to limited exports," Mercure explains. "Countries should instead carefully deflate the carbon bubble through investment in a variety of industries and steady divestment. The way in which this is done will determine the impact of the ongoing low-carbon transition on the financial sector."

Hector Pollitt, study co-author from Cambridge Econometrics and C-EENRG, adds: "This new research clearly shows the mismatch between the reductions in fossil fuel consumption required to meet carbon targets and the behaviour of investors. Governments have an important role to play in emphasising commitments to meet the Paris Agreement to ensure that the significant detrimental economic and geopolitical consequences we have identified are avoided."

Divestment and creative destruction

The process of transition towards a low-carbon economy is now becoming inevitable, as policies supporting this change have been developed and gradually implemented for some time. "New efficiency standards imply that we do more with the same amounts of energy, as older, less efficient technologies are gradually phased out. The transition is therefore irreversible; however its pace can vary according to whether and how new climate policies are implemented."

The scientists conclude that further economic damage from a potential bubble burst could be avoided by decarbonising early. "Divestment is a prudential thing to do. We should be carefully looking at where we are investing our money.(1) For instance, much like companies, pension funds and other institutions currently invest in fossil-fuel assets. Following recommendations from central banks, commercial banks are increasingly looking at the financial risks of stranded fossil-fuel assets, even though their possible impacts have not yet been fully determined. Until now, observers mostly paid attention to the likely effectiveness of climate policies, but not to the ongoing and effectively irreversible technological transition. This level of 'creative destruction' appears inevitable now and must be carefully managed," Mercure concludes.

(1)ED. This is the key misunderstanding, the whole basis of this analysis should look at Net Energy Surplus over cost of energy extraction, then in a real sense the Sentance , "We should be carefully looking at where we are investing our Energy ( qua, Energy )", would have money taking the Debt based monetary unit as a referent renders the statement meaningless a per pro-energy capital allocation decisions.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Radboud University Nijmegen. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference:

J.-F. Mercure, H. Pollitt, J. E. Viñuales, N. R. Edwards, P. B. Holden, U. Chewpreecha, P. Salas, I. Sognnaes, A. Lam, F. Knobloch. Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil fuel assets. Nature Climate Change, 2018; DOI: 10.1038/s41558-018-0182-1

“Here we use an integrated global economy environment simulation model to study the macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil-fuel assets (SFFA). Our analysis suggests that part of the SFFA would occur as a result of an already ongoing technological trajectory, irrespective of whether new climate policies are adopted or not; the loss would be amplified if new climate policies to reach the 2°C target are adopted and/or if low-cost producers (some OPEC countries) maintain their level of production (‘sell-out’) despite declining demand; the magnitude of the loss from SFFA may amount to a discounted global wealth loss of $1-4tn”

This is an interesting viewpoint on the scenario that alternative energy sources replace Fossil fuel resources of energy ahead of the expected economic life of Fossil fuel asset investments.

My own perspective on the analysis is that where Capital Wealth is calculated as to embodied energy rather than FInancial *Capital*, the losses to those holding fossil wealth would be diminished in financial terms only, but not in embodied energy terms necessarily.

Here is a Graph of World energy use in terms of TerraWatt Hours,

My own analysis and synthesis of the World Debt Money economy and the world Energy economy is proceeding well. I must say the Financial economy serves only one purpose and that is a one-time conversion reference point for explanatory purposes. The Financial System based on debt will, in time be recognised as and studied as an artefact of late-stage financialised Capitalism. Energy Cost of Energy, makes much more sense and tracking real energy wealth and prosperity if Tims hypothesis is correct, that Energy is the driver of prosperity, which I think he is, will see an energy-based unit of accounting for currencies adopted as a better standard or referent for Capital allocation decisions.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-fossil-fuel-consumption

Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser (2018) - "Fossil Fuels". Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: 'https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels' [Online Resource]

Fossil Fuels

by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser[cite]

Fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) have, and continue to, play a dominant role in global energy systems. Fossil energy was a fundamental driver of the Industrial Revolution, and the technological, social, economic and development progress which has followed. Energy has played a strongly positive role in global change.

However, fossil fuels also have negative impacts, being the dominant source of local air pollution and emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The world must therefore balance the role of energy in social and economic development with the need to decarbonise, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and transition towards lower-carbon energy sources.

This entry presents the long-run and recent perspectives on coal, oil and gas - global and national production, consumption, reserves, prices and their consequences. I. Empirical View I.1 Fossil fuel production & consumption Global fossil fuel consumption over the long-term Fossil fuel production and consumption began with coal - its first reported uses date as far back as 4000BC in China where carving took place out of black lignite (one of the several forms of coal).1. However, large-scale combustion of coal is typically correlated with the period around the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

The visualisation shows the global consumption of fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas - from 1800 onwards. Overall, we see that global consumption of fossil energy has increased more than 1300-fold. As shown, coal was the first and only fossil source until the 1860s when crude oil consumption began. Natural gas production began a couple of decades later, in the 1880-90s.

The 20th century saw a large diversification of fossil energy consumption, with coal declining from 96 percent of total production in 1900 to less than 30 percent in 2000. Today, crude oil is the largest energy source, accounting for around 39 percent of fossil energy, followed by coal and natural gas at 33 and 28 percent, respectively.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-fossil-fuel-consumption

Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser (2018) - "Energy Production & Changing Energy Sources". Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: 'https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-and-changing-energy-sources' [Online Resource]

Energy Production & Changing Energy Sources

by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser[cite]

I. IntroductionAccess to energy is a key pillar for human wellbeing, economic development and poverty alleviation. Ensuring everyone has sufficient access is an ongoing and pressing challenge for global development.

However, our energy systems also have important environmental impacts. Historical and current energy systems are dominated by fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) which produce carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases- the fundamental driver of global climate change. If we are to meet our global climate targets and avoid dangerous climate change, the world needs a significant and concerted transition in its energy sources.

Balancing the challenge between development and environment therefore provides us with an ultimate goal of ensuring everyone has access to enough sustainable energy to maintain a high standard of living.

In this entry we attempt to cover the fundamental pillars we need to understand global and regional energy systems: their evolution through time in terms of consumption, relative sources, and trade; progress in global energy access and our transition towards low-carbon sources; and crucially the main development, economic and health drivers behind the energy choices we make. It is intended to provide a fundamental background to the macro-trends in our historical and current energy systems, with key learnings on how we can use this understanding to shape pathways towards a sustainable future.asd II. Empirical View

II.1 Global total energy production – long-run view by source

Let's first take a look at how global energy production- both in terms of quantity and source- have changed over the long-term. In the visualisation below, we have plotted global energy consumption from 1800 through to 2015. Note that you can use the absolute/relative toggle on the chart to view these in absolute numbers or as the percentage of the global total.

12345 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-the-population-with-access-to-electricity

II.6 Energy intensity of economies If we want to continue growing economically, increasing prosperity, and working towards poverty elimination (which most countries and individuals do) whilst efficiently managing energy resources (and reducing greenhouse gas emissions), 'energy intensity' becomes an important metric for tracking progress. Energy intensity measures the quantity of energy needed to produce one unit of gross domestic product (GDP) growth. It's typically measured in kilowatt-hours of energy needed to produce one dollar of growth (kWh per dollar). It is essentially a measure of the energy efficiency of economies; we want to achieve economic growth with as low an energy input as possible. In the chart below we show how the energy intensity of economies have changed since 1990 (measured in kWh per 2011 international-$). Here, we see a distinct downward trend- at the global level, as well as across all income-level brackets. Note that you can view trends for individual countries on the interactive chart, and get a global overview using the 'map' tab. In 1990, as a global average, it took 2.1 kWh of energy to produce one international dollar of economic output; in 2014 this had declined to 1.5kWh. This represents a 30 percent reduction. Efficiency gains have been seen across all income-levels. High-income economies typically have the lowest energy-intensity (i.e. they are more energy efficient per unit of economic output), and a large efficiency gap exists between lowest-income nations and the rest of the world. The relative energy intensity of economies is strongly linked to their composition, and more specifically the share of services versus industry and manufacturing output. The links between energy intensity and economy composition are discussed later in this entry.

Embodied energy cost of opportunity cost. Which would be a true metric of decision making where resource constraints involve mutually exclusive investment decisions.

Debt in Energy terms would be borrowing future Energy and using it up so that it is not available in the future In a very great sense this Energy Future Budget is Unknown. We have Proven Reserves and so forth and existing known Generating and refining and conversion capacities but until a sensible measure of debt based upon known future energy resources and their rate of use are coupled with ideas of a Unit of Debt, in the sense of Using future supplies or reserves Now instead of at some point in the future the Notions of Debt in financial terms are meaningless. We do Know that all Debts and Credits do not sum to Zero in the existing system and this is due to the Principal Debt being issued without the Interest Element , it is from this simple fact that Money Scarcity exists as an idea and gives a notion then of a Time value of money expressed as a rate of Interest. GLOBAL PRIMARY ENERGY USE ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE https://longhairedmusings.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/fe7f8-screenshot2bfrom2b2018-05-242b13-07-09.png" 15% of the energy use embodied in trade turns out to be induced by final consumption, and 85% is attributed to intermediate production https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320445428_Global_primary_energy_use_associated_with_production_consumption_and_international_trade Steve you say EROI is only relevant to extractive industries I think this paper shows that is not correct. I think you are correct that International Trade is relevant, the relevance economically is relevant at the EROI embodied energy level though. Money in International Trade is a Convenient Posit ( Quine)(*1) What is important regarding that is that the receipt of currency can be exchanged for something tangible, the money receive is not an end in itself. Looked at in EROEI and embodied energy terms it actually makes your point crystal clear. That said its pretty clear to those who are objectively considering the point. (*1)P.41 para 2. http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2018/03/energy-returned-on-energy-invested.html https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/93-the-prosperity-equation/ MMT’s ignorance of economic thought May 24 at 11:10am Bill Mitchell has a new post “A surplus of trade discussions” responding to some of the criticisms of the MMT position on trade deficits (though he didn’t link to any of them, including my post “Some Preliminary Questions for MMT“). He opens with the proposition that “exports are a cost and imports are a benefit”, and reaches the following conclusion:

When it comes to trade, MMT focuses, initially on the real layer of the analysis.Thus it is undeniable (and I am surprised to read all those who are torturing themselves trying to deny it) – exports are a cost and imports are a benefit. Giving some real thing away is a cost. Getting some real thing is a benefit.That doesn’t equate, as I have been reading the last few weeks, in a conclusion that MMT’s preference is for a nation to have a current account deficit.

It just states the obvious fact that exports, by definition, involve sacrificing real resources and depriving a nation of their use.

Imports on the other hand clearly involve receiving final goods and services where the real resource sacrifice has been made by the exporting nation.

In a world where we produce to consume – not for its own sake – then receiving goods and services is better (real terms) than sending them elsewhere. Steve Keen Responds. Since I was one of the ones denying Mitchell’s opening gambit—though there must have been other people “torturing themselves”, since all I noted in my post was that I disputed it as a premise—I had better reply now on this issue.I do not deny the proposition that “Giving some real thing away is a cost. Getting some real thing is a benefit”: that’s obvious in a materialist world. What I do deny is that this proposition has any relevance to either macroeconomics or trade theory. And I am not the first one to deny this: that honour goes to Karl Marx.This raises one of my major issues with MMT: advocates know their own economic logic very well, but they seem to have little knowledge of compatible precursors to their views (or even compatible contemporaries, like complexity theory). Consequently, whether they realise it or not, they often end up making arguments that would be right at home in a conventional Neoclassical textbook. These arguments are just as wrong in MMT hands as they are in Neoclassical ones.This “exports=cost, imports=benefit” MMT analysis of international trade is a classic case in point. There are at least three ways in which this MMT perspective is a backward step in relation to preceding enlightened work in economics:

Standard Neoclassical work on the irrelevance of opportunity cost below full employment
Marx’s arguments on the irrelevance of the seller’s utility in trade
The extensive Post Keynesian research on declining marginal costs of production and economies of scale.

INAPPLICABILITY OF OPPORTUNITY COST EXCEPT AT FULL EMPLOYMENT

End of Ownership, Circular Economy Proof of Brain and Primary, Intermediary and Consumption Energy Tokens. A Framework Evolves.

Here is the Final Draft Spreadsheet available to download. ( Work In Progress)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jlcoMGZWSXVwGuStQgHfhZ1CDy84zyWX/view?usp=sharing

Go to Sheet 3 .

Here is my Working Draft spreadsheet for the synthesis of the Energy Production of the world in kilowatt-hours and the Debt Based world Financial economy based upon local dollar parity currency exchange rate basis from the CIA World Fact Book. Selection_791

Go to Sheet 1. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jlcoMGZWSXVwGuStQgHfhZ1CDy84zyWX/view?usp=sharing

Do Americans Know How Weird and Extreme Their Collapse is Getting?

Even the Dark Ages Would Laugh at Where We’re Going

Is it not really just another species of American Exceptionalism, is it perhaps White American Supremacy. With respect to Exceptionalism rather than the theme of this article, it is ubiquitous in societies going back through history. We find it in Plato's Noble Lie, We find it in The God Pharaohs in Egypt, Chosenness is perhaps the oldest form of Idolatry.

We find it in Calvinism in the Unconditional election and we find it in Judaism. Far from being sui generis to this time and place in history, it is ubiquitous.

All that said it is, of course, evident that the USA has had a tremendous decline in its Civil Society and Presidents Trumps approach seems to be to double down on American Exceptionalism and America First, as one Green Party Wag said about Brexit, It is an imaginary solution to Real problems the same could be said about American Exceptionalism, White Amerian Supremacy and to Netanyahu Zionism.

The foundations of the cause of the current discontents lie in two things, Misallocation of Financial Capital due to late-stage financial Capitalism.

The Misallocation of Capital is also compounded by the Logical mistake of Mistaking Money for wealth. Prosperity is founded upon Human Creativity and Conversion of Energy neither of which are present in the calibration of the Debt Based financial unit of account.

Here we see the real exceptionalism at play in modern America, The Washington consensus and the Globalised Neo-Liberal project. The Rise has been the Rise of the Barbarians at the gate of The masters of the Universe coupled with their Goons, the Military Industrial Complex.

So in Brexit, In MAGA and in White supremacy we have imaginary solutions to real problems.

The Answer to the problem is to put the Conservatism back into Fiscal Conservatism re-defined into an Energy-Based Currency Unit, Bingo!

Energy Returned on Energy Invested, Surplus Energy Economics DataBase ( SEEDS) Embodied Energy Circular Economy. #GrubStreetJournal #GrubStreetScience #GrubStreetEnergy #TheExergist #TheExergyst Exorcising the stupid from the discourse on Political Economy, Energy and Climate Change Fanaticism.

#TheExergist

Exergy

In thermodynamics, the exergy of a system is the maximum useful work possible during a process that brings the system into equilibrium with a heat reservoir, reaching maximum entropy.^[1] When the surroundings are the reservoir, exergy is the potential of a system to cause a change as it achieves equilibrium with its environment. Exergy is the energy that is available to be used. After the system and surroundings reach equilibrium, the exergy is zero. Determining exergy was also the first goal of thermodynamics. The term "exergy" was coined in 1956 by Zoran Rant (1904–1972) by using the Greek ex and ergon meaning "from work"^[1]^[3], but the concept was developed by J. Willard Gibbs in 1873.^[4] Energy is neither created nor destroyed during a process. Energy changes from one form to another (see First Law of Thermodynamics). In contrast, exergy is always destroyed when a process is irreversible, for example loss of heat to the environment (see Second Law of Thermodynamics). This destruction is proportional to the entropy increase of the system together with its surroundings (see Entropy production). The destroyed exergy has been called anergy.^[2] For an isothermal process, exergy and energy are interchangeable terms, and there is no anergy.

Fig. 8. Imbalance in the intermediate trade and ﬁnal

trade (The size of the sphere represents the corre-

sponding economy's gross trade volume of embodied

energy.).

Global primary energy use associated with production, consumption and international trade (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320445428_Global_primary_energy_use_associated_with_production_consumption_and_international_trade [accessed Mar 10 2018]. @article{article, author = {Wu, Xiaofang and Chen, G.Q.}, year = {2017}, month = {12}, pages = {85-94}, title = {Global primary energy use associated with production, consumption and international trade}, volume = {111}, journal = {Energy Policy}, doi = {10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.024} I have spent a Week Assembling Data available through public API's so that I can build a model of World Economy based upon Energy Generation and Energy Consumption. Most of all of that has already been done what has not been done is creating a Money that embodies embodied energy as its objective valuation basis, The Value basis of money is subjective and as a subjective phenomenon is also a variable. A Bugbear expressed and repeated in the pages of this Blog more than once. http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/08/renewableseroi-why-money-doesnt-cut-it.html

Introduction to Technocracy – 1933 https://archive.org/details/introductiontotec00tech discussions — of ‘value,’ of fluctuating prices, of the gold standard, of changing interest rates, of items of pecuniary wealth which are at the same time items of debt — are merely discussions looking toward a readjustment of the factors which prevent them The problem of analysing political choices against the metric of a Monetary measure is the Money as a Thing is most certainly a Variable and as any good technologist, scientist or metrologist will tell you a unit of measurement has to be clearly defined and fixed. The dollar. He notes that it is a variable. Why anyone should attempt, on this earth, to use a variable as a measuring rod is so utterly absurd that he dismisses any serious consideration of its use in his study of what should be done. He also considers ‘price’ and ‘value’ and the fine- spun theories of philosophers and economists who have attempted to surround these terms with the semblance of meaning. These terms, like the monetary unit, may have had meaning to men in the past but they mean nothing whatsoever to the modern technologist. The standard of measurement is not relevant to the things measured; and the measuring rod and the things, measured as if they were stable, are all variables.

This comparison of different energy solution uses ERIO

https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf Abstract The Energy Returned on Invested, EROI, has been evaluated for typical power plants representing wind energy, photovoltaics, solar thermal, hydro, natural gas, biogas, coal and nuclear power. The strict exergy concept with no ”primary energy weighting”, updated material databases, and updated technical procedures make it possible to directly compare the overall efficiency of those power plants on a uniform mathematical and physical basis. Pump storage systems, needed for solar and wind energy, have been included in the EROI so that the efficiency can be compared with an ”unbuffered” scenario. The results show that nuclear, hydro, coal, and natural gas power systems (in this order) are one order of magnitude more effective than photovoltaics and wind power.

http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/09/money-does-not-initiate-economic.html Click the Link Below and please read this book, written by a Physicist, Engineer and sadly now departed all round good egg Prof. Sir David MacKay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay

Sustainable Energy - without the hot air by David MacKay

So I can get back to my own number crunching I have made my blogging task easier by leaving what I find pertinent links to the question at the Surplus Energy Economics Blog of Dr Tim Morgan, ( Sorry Tim) Here are the two Blogs and Attachments concerned:

https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2018/03/06/121-interpreting-the-post-growth-economy/

rogerglewis on March 6, 2018 at 5:27 pm said:

That is a very useful summary and introduction to Surplus Energy Economics Tim. There is an online book here, http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html

By the late Prof David MacKay

He talks about the book here at Harvard, [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFosQtEqzSE?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent]

The Book is an easy read and the examples are very intuitive as they break back to the idea of how many 40 watt light bulbs different energy solutions break down as in per capita energy resources.

http://www.withouthotair.com/cL/page_370.shtml

There are some very good Sites which have well-embedded energy databases particularly in the Construction industry which uses 48% of global energy annually building and running domestic and commercial property.

http://symposium.arch.tamu.edu/2017/ Project Summary: Buildings consume approximately 48% of global energy each year in their construction and operation alone adding proportionally to global carbon emission.

The problems in Political Economy as it stands presently and the question of future Political Economy based upon future Energy realities are I think helpfully separated which is something Prof. David MacKay is very successful with, in his presentation of the question.

The Problems are only weakly related with respect to future solutions and breaking the process into 3 parts is useful rather than lumping them all together. It is clear that the existing Form of Market economy and political economy is not able to solve the problem at stage 3 ( I.E Post 2050 post-Oil Economy)

Stage 1 requires a reform of the existing paradigm which involves facing up to the broken debt-based money system. Pension provision, the sovereign debt crisis and Public debt crisis are all addressable and will see improvements even within the deteriorating Cost of energy inputs as a share of output. We could call this stage lets fix what we know is not working.

Stage 2 covers the Post Financialised ( Big Bang Experiment) period to the oil running out in 2050. This requires a much more long-term investment horizon and complicating the energy mix by overstating the ”Climate Change question** seems to be counterproductive, again I like the way Prof David Mackay dealt with the question including stating the necessities of **Clean Coal and Nuclear”. In this stage, we will be implementing ideas previously barred due to the denial inherent in clinging to a failing system.

Stage 3 Post 2050, This part is much easier than Stage 2 and stage 1, in my opinion, the myth-busting and levelling out inherent in solving the political problems at stage 1 and the challenge to vested interests in stage 2 are by far and away the largest obstacles to getting down to Brass tacks in my opinion.

Reply ↓
- rogerglewison March 8, 2018 at 2:19 pm said:
  
  http://symposium.arch.tamu.edu/2017/presentations/input-output-based-hybrid-ioh-model-computing-init/ first link should be this one.
  
  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfEoEzk25uY?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent]
rogerglewis on March 7, 2018 at 6:03 am said:

http://euanmearns.com/global-co2-emissions-forecast-to-2100/Linked back here to these Articles over on Euan Means Bloghttp://euanmearns.com/global-energy-forecast-to-2100/#comment-37970

Reply ↓
Niels Colding on March 7, 2018 at 8:01 am said:

Dear Dr. Tim

There is no doubt that you also see renewables as highly dependent on fossil fuels. However, I see your graph “ECoE by fuel group, 1980-2030F” as a stand-alone proof that renewables will compete with fossils in the near time span. Normally you give a full explanation of how you reach your figures. But not this time. Do you base your assumptions on figures from ‘renewables interest groups’? Are subventions ex- or included? Costs in connection with the integration and accumulation of intermittent energy? Unfortunately there are lots of negatives which you do not mention. I very much hope that you will take all minusses into account by your next article about the usefulness of wind, waves and sun.

Reply ↓
- rogerglewison March 7, 2018 at 2:04 pm said:
  
  The challenges are huge but so are the potentials.
  
  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcWMn-dMYQg?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent]
  
  http://www.sundropfarms.com/
  
  http://www.saharaforestproject.com/
  
  On Evaporated Water technologies I used to work in this very good project Waterstillar. https://www.waterstillar.com/ , It is an invention of a Friend and Neighbour of mine.
- drtimmorganon March 7, 2018 at 2:39 pm said:
  
  With ECoE by fuel group, you need to remember that the energy used in contructing renewables equipment comes overwhelmingly from fossil fuels. Therefore, even as technology and economies of scale are lowering the ECoEs of renewables, the ECoE of their input costs will be rising. I am very far from convinced that we could – for example – extract or process copper or steel without using fossil fuel energy.
  
  I look at every information source that I can, trying to avoid anything that looks like lobbying. Taking PV just as an example, there are some arguments that it will never cover its energy costs, and others saying it’ll almost “too cheap to meter”.
  
  As you may know, I’m convinced that big commercial and official organisations are going to need to build something like SEEDS as conventional models become ever less useful. I’m not going to hand them the information to do that. So that’s why I publish ECoEs by fuel groups, but not by fuel types – it gives readers what they need, but doesn’t enable someone to build something like SEEDS.
Steve Gwynne on March 7, 2018 at 12:18 pm said:

https://www.cusp.ac.uk/event/cfp_heterodox-sust_economies/ Would be great to see a paper on SEE.

Also ‘discretionary’ resources after essentials’ should read disposable resources after essentials in my opinion. A great report overall and easy to read. Excellent.

Reply ↓
- drtimmorganon March 7, 2018 at 2:41 pm said:
  
  Thanks Steve. Actually, I think this IS a paper on SEE, isn’t it?
  
  I use the term “discretionary” meaning “resources over which we exercise choice”. What we spend on essentials isn’t discretionary – what we spend on meals out or CDs is.
- Steve Gwynneon March 7, 2018 at 3:15 pm said:
  
  Of course it is. I was humbly suggesting that your paper would go well with this conference.
  
  I see what you mean now regarding discretionary. I didn’t realise it was an economic term. My apologies. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/discretionaryincome.asp
- drtimmorganon March 7, 2018 at 4:00 pm said:
  
  Apologies, I failed to make the connection between the link and the comment.
  
  The link invites submissions for attendance at a workshop, whilst isn’t really my scene nowadays.
Bernard hartley on March 7, 2018 at 12:23 pm said:

Dear Tim

As always, many thanks for your work. I’m intrigued by your Prosperity Calculations to 2030. The HSBC Report on Global Oil Supply to 2040 infers an annual decline of 5% to 7% in oil production from 2016 onwards (doesn’t seem to have started yet though) :

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wSgViWVAfzUEgzMlBfR3UxNDg/view

The latest graphs from Jean Lahererre indicate a similar scenario for future oil production:

https://aspofrance.org/2018/02/09/some-updated-graphs-of-world-oil-production

Under these circumstances could Germany, a country so reliant on export volumes and in particular the car industry, really experience nothing worse than stagnation up to 2030 ? How will Spain achieve a growth in prosperity of 3.2% in this time period ? Intuitively, I would expect depression and worse in ALL the world’s economies if these predictions are even remotely accurate. I note that you predict that for most of them, by the way.

many thanks and regards Bernard Hartley

Reply ↓
- drtimmorganon March 7, 2018 at 2:45 pm said:
  
  In the absence of replacement developments, oil production in non-OPEC countries declines at rates of between 6% and 8% annually. (Shales alone decline much more rapidly, sometimes by as much as 65% in the first year after start-up).
  
  Countering this requires new field starts. For this, you have to have both capital and viable projects. Availability of capital has slumped since the oil price nose-dived, and discovery rates are at all-time lows.
  
  I didn’t think the HSBC report told us much that we didn’t aslready know, but such views from such a source are significant – a bit like Tullett publishing “Perfect Storm” when I was head of research there.
Dave M on March 7, 2018 at 12:59 pm said:

Another good piece Dr. Morgan!

Leaves me with the uncomfortable feeling that nothing can be done as I look for ways to make investments to provision for my own retirement. I am a hard working ‘have’ who would like to remain a ‘have’. SO much of what you write makes me think I should be in cash except for the fact that cash is a store of value that isn’t stable either.

If a person had say $20k to invest what would he do? Solar seems to be the most likely answer, with the rising cost of energy being a given, so would the output of solar rise as well?

Call me perplexed.

Reply ↓
- drtimmorganon March 7, 2018 at 2:52 pm said:
  
  Investment advice is an area I don’t go into. But I reckon we can think through the areas that aren’t going to do well, even if it’s harder to identify those who will do better. In the situation described in my report, success is very much a relative concept.
  
  It’s interesting to note sectors that are already struggling, including retailing, restaurants, car sales and contractors like Carillion. It’s a strange kind of ‘recovery’ when these businesses are struggling….
  
  Businesses supplying essentials should fare better than those selling discretionaries, though we need to beware of anything (such as some utilities) which is emphatically in the political arena.
  
  It’s interesting that smartphone sales have peaked. I anticipate problems in the travel, advertising and car hire sectors.
rogerglewis on March 7, 2018 at 3:24 pm said:

”Therefore, even as technology and economies of scale are lowering the ECoEs of renewables, the ECoE of their input costs will be rising. I am very far from convinced that we could – for example – extract or process copper or steel without using fossil fuel energy.”

Fossil Fuels clearly need to be used wisely certainly whilst the transformation process is attempted. Solar Breeders and another energy plant will surely produce the industrial quantities of Electricity required, why would that be impossible? to imagine the future, distributed networks and symbiotic systems have to be embraced. Top Down centralised command and control systems simply do not lend themselves to whole system thinking.

The Old stories no longer work especially the Binary stories of left and right Elites and plebs found in Political economy.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBe8MTcCqKs?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent]

Reply ↓
- drtimmorganon March 7, 2018 at 4:04 pm said:
  
  Thanks. Quite some time ago we had an article here about why both right and left have become outdated terms. Both are corporatist, either private or state, and both require loyalties (to the corporation, government department, etc) which can conflict with broader loyalties (to other people, to the truth, and so on).
  
  I’m not at all sure about fast breeders. It seems to be in the category of ‘ideas that have been around for a long time but are still not proven’.
- rogerglewison March 7, 2018 at 6:39 pm said:
  
  03.09.2017
  
  MENA solar farms to power Europe underway – Ambitious Tunisian solar project may one day provide electricity to European home
  
  The Tunisia based company TuNur launched a request to export 4.5 GW of solar energy to Europe. It firstly will link Tunisa and Malta by 2020 and further links to the middle of Italy and southern France are planned. It is a project both sides can profit from – Europe by getting clean energy and Tunisia by getting the economy, jobs and investments, stimulated. Finally there has come a chance to realise the project Desertec tried to launch a decade ago.
  
  https://newint.org/features/2015/03/01/desertec-long
  
  https://www.thenational.ae/business/energy/mena-solar-farms-to-power-europe-underway-1.625370
  
  I Guess Rome was not built in a day , The Technology is way ahead of the FInancial and political infrastructure. The competitive side of Markets and tendency to monopoly of Financialisation really does make for very slow progress.
  
  My Experience with waterstillar showed that even though a clear workable model to solve one of the great problems of the world Clean Pottable water even struggled in a No Brainer Market. Why? becuase it is up against one of the biggest captured markets in the world Bottled Water.
  
  Distributed networked energy Grids are not easily monopolised and controlled they are anti-ethical to the COntrol models of late-stage financialised capitalism.
  
  The Physics is quite straightforward, the political Economy not so simple.
houtskool on March 7, 2018 at 6:45 pm said:

With prosperity in decline in the west, covered up by monetary adventurism, China must feel the impact in due time. Everything is interconnected as we know. By the way, China too is on the highway to hell;

I cannot see why China’s prosperity could rise further with the west in decline?

Reply ↓
Bernard Hartley on March 7, 2018 at 9:33 pm said:

Dear Tim, Thank you for your reply (regarding current Peak Oil reports). I did indeed read your ‘Perfect Storm’ report back in 2013 . Like houtskool in his comment above, I find it difficult to imagine that certain countries will avoid the permanent recessions experienced by the majority of nations. Specifically your projections for Spain (+3.2%) and Germany (+0.1%) are difficult to understand as these countries will be embedded in a recession bound Europe (UK -10%, France -6.9% etc.). Could you explain this briefly ?

thanks and regards Bernard

Reply ↓
- rogerglewison March 8, 2018 at 8:05 am said:
  
  Two helpful annual reports from Lazards on Levelised cost of electricity. Very informative.
  
  https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf
  
  https://www.lazard.com/media/2391/lazards-levelized-cost-of-storage-analysis-10.pdf
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
  
  Also this is a very interesting Wikipedia article on OTEC ( Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion
  
  Just by way of explanation by Profession I am a Chartered Surveyor and Valuer. I began my Career at Shell UK Limited where I was involved in the Tax Assesment of the St Fergus Gas Terminal in Peterhead, To Tax large oil industry plant and machinery open market valuations of Property Value based taxes like Property Rates do not exist and to calculate a property value for taxation purposes a Valuation Technique called the contractors principle of Valuation is employed. The Contractors Principle of Valuation is a residual method of valuation which adds up all the input costs and then applies a discount rate to generate an annual economic rent ( Net Present Value ) which can then be used to calculate the rating assessment. At shell I did hundreds of these types of Valuations and the Largest such valuation was for the St Fergus Gas Terminal. Concepts such as Embodied energy also feed nicely back into measures of Levelized costs of electricity. Pulling these concepts of energy value as opposed to financial value into the equations should hopefully result in seeing what the problem we are trying to solve is? DO we want to save Society or the financial system as it currently operates? Discount rates based upon the cost of Capital are pretty subjective as you will know Tim but it seems to me that EROIE measures Levelised costs of Electricity production and so forth and a residual valuation approach can yield a good method by which to assess the Economic potential for future prosperity based upon access to energy.
  
  Energy and Capital are very different things.
  
  The best description of this dichotomy I have encountered is this from Carol Quigley in Tragedy and Hope,
  
  ”Thus, clearly, money and goods are not the same thing but are, on the contrary, exactly opposite things. Most confusion in economic thinking arises from a failure to recognize this fact. Goods are wealth which you have, while money is a claim on wealth which you do not have. Thus goods are an asset; money is a debt. If goods are wealth; money is not wealth, or negative wealth, or even anti-wealth. They always behave in opposite ways, just as they usually move in opposite directions. If the value of one goes up, the value of the other goes down, and in the same proportion.” Quigley Tragedy and hope.
  
  Energy and Money are different.
rogerglewis on March 8, 2018 at 8:23 am said:

https://www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-110.pdf

Latest report.

Reply ↓
rogerglewis on March 8, 2018 at 10:09 am said:

Hi Tim,

In the seeds final sheet 3.01 there is a section Energy economic rent row 94.

What is this a measure of or made up of?

Reply ↓
- drtimmorganon March 8, 2018 at 10:14 am said:
  
  Are you using the most recent download from the “resources” page here?
  
  If so, I’ll soon be loading a new version.
- rogerglewison March 8, 2018 at 10:32 am said:
  
  Hi Tim yes the most recent one is what I am using
- drtimmorganon March 8, 2018 at 10:42 am said:
  
  I’m working on a version of prosperity data for selected countries (and world overall) which will be more up-to-date. I expect to publish it here quite soon.
- rogerglewison March 8, 2018 at 12:20 pm said:
  
  This is a fun tool and database which I plan to make some use of.
  
  https://openei.org/apps/TCDB/
- rogerglewison March 8, 2018 at 1:28 pm said:
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Array
  
  http://www.londonarray.com/project/renewable-energy-record-achieved-at-london-array/
  
  this to me is pretty impressive that phase 2 was cancelled points to pretty short term political expediency and a failure to understand the question at hand.
  
  http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/257481/why-power-density-matters
  
  Having dived in deeper than ever to this question Frankly I am more optimistic than ever. the main obstacle to delivering energy as required for society is the tendency to reward gaming the system to create super profits for a small number of people at the expense of the general population. Sadly people buy the cons and fairy tales and mythologies. I have very little doubt that much political effort is used to protect the centralised command and control model of late financialised Capitalism, that said creating artificial deadlines is always a sure fire way that nefarious motives are being pursued.
- rogerglewison March 8, 2018 at 10:45 am said:
  
  Hi Tim, I look forward to seeing that in due course, what is your definition or what are the components of Energy Economic rent? I do not have any formulas just the individual data entries so I could not reverse engineer to a definition.
- rogerglewison March 8, 2018 at 12:55 pm said:
  
  https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi/international.html
  
  Jedi Energy project economic models, May the force be with you.
  
  These are very interesting as is this Site generally https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/economic-financial-tools.html
rogerglewis on March 8, 2018 at 1:39 pm said:

https://www.energy.siemens.com/mx/pool/hq/energy-topics/publications/living-energy/pdf/issue-09/Wind-Trade-London-Array-offshore-Living-Energy-9.pdf This really is a huge achievement why it is not trumpeted more or jumped on by Politicians I really do not know. I was heavily involved with the early days of Canary Wharf and with the London Docklands Development Corporation there were no shortage of Political johnny come lately’s who claimed the credit after the event , I guess in due course this Huge achievement will see all the wrong people claiming credit for something they really had not realised was a great achievement at the time. This project is visionary and for people like me who oppose capitalism quite frankly, it is a strong argument against our case that Capitalism does not deliver, in this case, it has.

Reply ↓
rogerglewis on March 8, 2018 at 1:57 pm said:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rd55DuJPx4?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent]

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCx92ADB138?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent]

Reply ↓
rogerglewis on March 8, 2018 at 2:57 pm said:

”For Bombay to get all of its energy needs from solar in my hypothetical future it would need to harness almost 100% of the solar radiation that strikes it, a remote prospect. This extremely high population density is routinely ignored by western environmentalists calling for distributed energy to be the solution to India’s energy problems. It quite clearly is not.”

http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/257481/why-power-density-matters

This article challenges one of my own Cherished stories regarding distributed networks, I accept they are not a panacea and take on board this argument that clearly defeats any sensible defence I can make against its logic.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gzyd3u1Jh0?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent]

Reply ↓
- rogerglewison March 8, 2018 at 3:02 pm said:
  
  One addendum to this, Most major Global Cities are Coastal I believe and solution from OTEC
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion
rogerglewis on March 8, 2018 at 3:30 pm said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcdXLbzGVpo I am a big fan of the Eco Tricity Bonds ( not investment advice and I am not schilling for Ecotricity.

Reply ↓
- rogerglewison March 8, 2018 at 4:05 pm said:
  
  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiqW_YlX9uA?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent]
Caelan on March 9, 2018 at 1:05 am said:

Hi guys, what do you make of this comment by a Nick G. at Peak Oil Barrel regarding Tim’s PDF?

“The info about renewables and EVs is unrealistic. One example: it argues that the grid can’t supply enough electricity for EVs, starting from the premise that power demand is growing at 2.5% per year – that’s no longer true. US power demand has been flat for a decade. And, EVs would only require an expansion of roughly 20% over 20 years – obviously not a big deal, especially when EVs are synergistic with renewables. EVs can charge when renewable output is high and other demand is low. That minimizes CO2 and cost for the driver, and raises prices for renewable power sellers. It’s a win-win.”

Reply ↓
- rogerglewison March 9, 2018 at 5:49 am said:
  
  He is correct. Tims SEEDS is a very important insight into energy based economics it is not in my opinion fully reflective of advances in technology or indeed technology generally.
  
  Read David MacKays Book its free on line and does what it says on the tin, although simplified and de jargonised it adds up and debunks.
  
  http://www.withouthotair.com/c3/page_29.shtml
  
  3 Cars For our first chapter on consumption, let’s study that icon of modern civi- lization: the car with a lone person in it.
  
  How much power does a regular car-user consume? Once we know the conversion rates, it’s simple arithmetic:
  
  For the distance travelled per day, let’s use 50 km (30 miles).
  
  For the distance per unit of fuel, also known as the economy of the car, let’s use 33 miles per UK gallon (taken from an advertisement for a family car):
  
  33 miles per imperial gallon ≈ 12 km per litre. Rather than willfully perpetuate an inaccurate estimate, let’s switch to the actual value, for petrol, of 10 kWh per litre.
  
  Congratulations! We’ve made our first estimate of consumption. I’ve dis- played this estimate in the left-hand stack in figure 3.3. The red box’s height represents 40 kWh per day per person.
- drtimmorganon March 9, 2018 at 7:39 am said:
  
  In general, I don’t comment on comments made elsewhere. First, I haven’t the time. Second, everyone is entitled to an opinion.
  
  But I note that data for the US is cited, the point being that electricity demand in the US is flat. Given population growth, it’s arguable that consumption per person is dropping.
  
  But didn’t I hear there was a world beyond the US?
  
  The US numbers, of course, are consistent with my report, which concludes that prosperity in the US is declining. Logically enough, if you’re getting poorer, you’re likely to use less electricity.
  
  My growth projections, however, were based on world trends. These are consistent with trend growth of 2.5%.
  
  We’re also using more of our energy as electricity, and less in other forms. This puts upwards pressure on generation even where total use of energy is flat.
- rogerglewison March 9, 2018 at 11:39 am said:
  
  One last Link Tim , I think you might find it very useful https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320445428_Global_primary_energy_use_associated_with_production_consumption_and_international_trade
  
  http://www.worldmrio.com/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321586512_Global_energy_flows_embodied_in_international_trade_A_combination_of_environmentally_extended_input-output_analysis_and_complex_network_analysis The work of Xiaofang Wu 21.81Zhongnan University of Economics and Law
  
  Seems to take the energy analysis of economies to a degree that will enable sensible decisions to be made economically based upon economic realities. The analysis could only be dreamed about in the Early 80’s when this paper with Energy expåpressed as BTU’s was the norm. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6029194_Embodied_Energy_and_Economic_Valuation
rogerglewis on March 9, 2018 at 8:14 am said:

Demand management using electric vehicles To recap our requirements: we’d like to be able to store or do without about 1200 GWh, which is 20 kWh per person; and to cope with swings in supply of up to 33 GW – that’s 0.5 kW per person. These numbers are delightfully similar in size to the energy and power requirements of electric cars. The electric cars we saw in Chapter 20 had energy stores of between 9 kWh and 53 kWh. A national fleet of 30 million electric cars would store an energy similar to 20 kWh per person! Typical battery chargers draw a power of 2 or 3 kW. So simultaneously switching on 30 million battery chargers would create a change in demand of about 60 GW! The average power required to power all the nation’s transport, if it were all electric, is roughly 40 or 50 GW. There’s therefore a close match between the adoption of electric cars proposed in Chapter 20 and the creation of roughly 33 GW

http://www.withouthotair.com/c26/page_194.shtml

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9siGatwzI4w?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent]

Reply ↓
- drtimmorganon March 9, 2018 at 8:40 am said:
  
  Roger
  
  Can I ask, politely, why you post so many links here? Speaking personally, I don’t have the time to follow them up, though of course others may. I’m pretty busy and have to plan prettycarefully.
  
  For instance, right now I’m looking into what SEEDS might tell us about shock exposure risk. We have good data on financial exposure, such as debt and financial assets. What SEEDS can do is compare these exposures with prosperity, instead of reported GDP. We can look at energy supply patterns, dependency on incremental borrowing, and other metrics. If we back-test this far enough we can strengthen the ability to use it predictively.
  
  My view now is that some kind of shock is becoming more likely. You’ll have seen in the report that an increasing proportion of “growth” is either cosmetic, and/or is the result of spending borrowed money. Mainstream news sources will show you how many sectors are already in trouble, and the next ones to struggle are fairly predictable.
- rogerglewison March 9, 2018 at 10:14 am said:
  
  No Problem at all Tim, Regarding Shocks and predictions based on past financial data, good luck with that.
- drtimmorganon March 9, 2018 at 3:10 pm said:
  
  I’m quite optimistic, because of what SEEDS brings to the table.
  
  For example, if debt increases, but a lot of it is pushed through consumption, GDP looks better as well, moderating any apparent rise in debt/GDP ratios. Set prosperity against that debt increase and things begin to show up. We’ll see if it works out like that – pretty big project…..
- drkevinoneillon March 9, 2018 at 7:26 pm said:
  
  Tim, before I left the national security research/policy area there were a number of “resilience” research programmes considering non-linear abrupt events referred to as “systemic shocks”, looking at how and why they occur, why they aren’t anticipated, and how a system deals with them. Dstl’s Policy and Capability Studies, and Human Systems Departments were heavily involved programmes. Maybe some FOI requests with these terms might yield something useful? I can’t think of any sensitivity issues that would restrict access.
rogerglewis on March 9, 2018 at 8:45 am said:

A fun tool to mix and match energy source decisions and consumption decisions. http://old-interface.2050.org.uk/pathways/3111444444444442111441111333111111111111111111122111/primary_energy_chart

The new tool focuses on Emissions, quite frankly looking at emissions misses the real point regarding prosperity and I suspect its the old story that belief systems are easier to bull shit about.

http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/#/guide

Reply ↓
- rogerglewison March 9, 2018 at 8:49 am said:
  
  http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/#/calculator this really is a lot of fun
ravinathan on March 9, 2018 at 5:06 pm said:

Tim, outstanding as always. As some of your readers mentioned, the forecast of continued economic growth for China and India while Western economies experience a decline appears cognitively dissonant. The Seeds model may be underestimating some covariances likely due to the linearisation of feedback loops. In nonlinear dynamical terms models fail to predict phase changes that are common in complex systems. I realize that we may be asking the impossible of the SEEDS model yet something to ponder.

Reply ↓
- drtimmorganon March 9, 2018 at 5:22 pm said:
  
  You are right, of course. For instance, can China keep on growing if its markets in the US and Europe are in decline? I mention this in the report, albeit obliquely, as “collateral damage”.
  
  I try to take this issue into account, which is why my projections for China and India (in particular) are pretty conservative. BTW, of the two, I’m more optimistic about India.
  
  This said, SEEDS is way off the consensus in arguing that global prosperity has flattened out, that emerging economies are going to slow, and that prosperity is declining in most western countries. For instance, SEEDS puts the UK -10% poorer in 2030 than now, and estimates the peak of prosperity there was 2003. If it turns out that the drop is -15% rather than -10%, SEEDS will still be a lot more correct than the consensus, which believes in continued growth!
  
  Incidentally, we’re seeing increasing signs that prosperity IS deteriorating. When you tot up the negatives – not just failures, cut-backs and earnings declines, but the sheer extent of cash-burn as well – it’s mystifying that the consensus still buys the ‘growth’ story. The next sectors to slump are becoming more apparent as things unfold.
  
  The next piece here is likely to be shock risk. It’s a big project. Like this one, I might make it a PDF.
- houtskoolon March 9, 2018 at 9:36 pm said:
  
  Current seeds numbers should tell us enough about where we are heading.
  
  We have numbers and we have words. Mixing up those doesn’t add anything to the conclusion.
  
  Its like putting a ‘price’ on gold. In my opinion, dear doc, you can skip efforts putting numbers on words and let the blog figure it out.
- rogerglewison March 10, 2018 at 5:33 am said:
  
  The analysis regarding EROEI and its effect on prosperity potential is one thing, Continuing Economic models are failing for other reasons in addition to available cheaply priced Energy. ( Crony Capitalism is the buzz term I believe) Placing all of ones’ analytical ammo into the seeds weapon would be a strategic mistake. Another mistake is accepting the starting assumptions and definitions moulded in the Growth Paradigm and applying them to a post-growth paradigm.
  
  Finally, Seeds is not looking at the embodied energy question which gets very interesting when one considers re-cycling and circular economy, this question gets into use models over ownership models, this speaks to efficiency of energy use and not to some ideological measure of fairness or equality, or indeed some subjective voodoo related to the time value of money.
  
  Google Procrustes.
houtskool on March 9, 2018 at 9:42 pm said:

Sorry for dupe. Was a problem with posting.

https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2018/02/23/120-the-need-for-new-ideas/

rogerglewison March 4, 2018 at 8:26 am said:

I enjoy reading and have learned a ton of technical information from the Stop These Things web site. https://stopthesethings.com/2018/03/04/green-energy-fail-how-ideology-destroyed-australias-once-cheap-reliable-power-supply/

For SEEDS and an EROEI perspective on our Industrial and Domestic energy budgets transparency is essential.

The jist of the attached article is that corrupt rent-seekers in the Green Lobby ( Al Gore Anyone) are instituting an ideologically driven energy solution onto the poorest in society completely ignoring the sensible transition that is possible for the payback of large subsidies from Big Central Government.

The Problem that Gore and his like say they are urgently solving is Climate Change, as a climate realist i do not burden my investigations into energy budget solutions with Climate Alarmist dogma that many do make it very easy for StopTheseThings to call out the renewables lobby who have been economic with the actualite much of the time and who are fanatically closed minded to mixed solutions at the expense of upfront pain.( bourne as a sort of penance for past sins).

The Energy Cliff does not make an appearance in the linked article and SEEDS would add rather a lot to StopTheseThings advocacy, Australian energy abundance surely leads to the idea that they have far more than they can use themselves and can use surpluses to exchange for what they do not have enough of?

At this point things like Leitaers TERRA currency proposals come to mind but most of all this quote from Benjamin Franklin which fits the polarised and binary state of the renewables versus legacy fuels debate.

In 1729 Benjamin Franklin wrote a pamphlet ´´A modest Enquiry into the nature and the necessity of a paper Currency.”

a modest enquiry, ”There is no Science, the Study of which is more useful and commendable than the Knowledge of the true Interest of one’s Country; and perhaps there is no Kind of Learning more abstruse and intricate, more difficult to acquire in any Degree of Perfection than This, and therefore none more generally neglected. Hence it is, that we every Day find Men in Conversation contending warmly on some Point in Politicks, which, altho’ it may nearly concern them both, neither of them understand any more than they do each other. Thus much by way of Apology for this present Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency. And if any Thing I shall say, may be a Means of fixing a Subject that is now the chief Concern of my Countrymen, in a clearer Light, I shall have the Satisfaction of thinking my Time and Pains well employed. To proceed, then, There is a certain proportionate Quantity of Money requisite to carry on the Trade of a Country freely and currently; More than which would be of no Advantage in Trade, and Less, if much less, exceedingly detrimental to it. This leads us to the following general Considerations.” http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-01-02-0041

http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/11/the-giant-sucking-sound-sharp-intake-of.html

http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/11/on-climate-heresies-witchhunts-and.html
rogerglewison March 4, 2018 at 8:52 am said:

http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/11/our-only-debt-is-to-nature-and-what-is.html

The Makers community is something to behold not all of it is driven by survivalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maker_culture

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trb3UAXWNn8?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent]
rogerglewison March 4, 2018 at 11:23 am said:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRWxl5-EQX8?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent]

From Storm clouds gathering. I do not buy into catastrophe porn and the Private Frasier ***We are all doomed ** mindset.

The best attitude I have come up with is a sort of Stoic form of Ghandis dictum, *Be the change you wish to see in the world”

Saskia Sassen says as much in this paper which resonated with me when I read a few years back. http://www.columbia.edu/~sjs2/PDFs/savage.pdf

It was introduced to me in a discussion about Coercive aggregation which reminded me of Marx’s Primitive Accumulation.

http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2013/06/democracy-and-state.html

There are a number of dialogues on my Blog with Green Party CLimate Catastrophe and Population catastrophe pornographers.

http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/01/watching-watchers-deniers-denying.html

Population gets a few mentions above, a key question is ”Who’s Reality * are we setting for the benchmark metric?

The Oligarchy is a bad idea, they are big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves time for some more bottom-up joined up distributed network thinking,

http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/01/the-iron-law-of-oligarchy.html

8e972-screenshot2bfrom2b2018-03-102b08-12-05

Opening FIG.(8)Diagram.

N2 - Presented in this study is a comprehensive analysis for energy use of different economic entities in global supply chains, including the exploiter, producer, consumer, intermediate trader and final trader. The systems input-output analysis method is adopted to trace the direct and indirect energy use associated with both intermediate production and final consumption activities in the economic system. In the world economy, 15% of the energy use embodied in trade turns out to be induced by final consumption, and 85% is attributed to intermediate production. Different trading patterns for different economies are identified with the separation between energy trade for intermediate production and that for final consumption. For Japan with a production-oriented trading pattern, intermediate trade should be a top priority in local trade structure adjustment, while final trade needs more attention for the government in the United States as the country is in a consumption-oriented trade pattern. This analysis aims to provide an in-depth insight into energy sustainability, as well as a sound scientific reference for policy making at the regional, national and global scale.

JF - Energy Policy

T1 - Global primary energy use associated with production, consumption and international trade

VL - 111

DO - 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.024

ER -

@article{article, author = {Wu, Xiaofang and Chen, G.Q.}, year = {2017}, month = {12}, pages = {85-94}, title = {Global primary energy use associated with production, consumption and international trade}, volume = {111}, journal = {Energy Policy}, doi = {10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.024} On Notions of Debt, GDP and monetary measures of the Dismal science one asks the question what is the blogger problem, The end of Cheaply available Oil or the End of the Debt Based Petro Dollar?The Story of the petro dollar figures in my on Line PDF for understanding Climate Science. Which draws on the drilling into debt report linked above.

http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/11/climate-change-agw-and-all-points-from.html

http://priceofoil.org/2005/07/01/drilling-into-debt-an-investigation-into-the-relationship-between-debt-and-oil/

Thats been my week pretty much.

0 Comments

No "Yes Men " at #RealRLD #LoftMiles #AuthenticPlaceMaking #PlacemakingBasics

#LoftMiles #RealRLD #AuthenticPlaceMaking #PlaceMakingBasics

Place Making Mind Map.

PlaceMakings Coming Home #PlaceMakingBasics #AuthenticPlaceMaking #RealRLD to come back to Orchard Place, Trinity Buoy Wharf.

PlaceMaking Authentically, Seeking The Key to Harmony. Notebook.

Four Causes.

classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.2.ii.html

Placemaking Freemarkets and Why are we here? Are we Placemakers or Rent Seekers?

May 22nd, 2020 SOME PLACEMAKING NOSTALGIA WORKING BACK TO LATE 50’S VINTAGE DE-J LEVY, CHARLES CLORE, UP TO PAUL REICHMAN. ALL GIANTS #PLACEMAKINGBASICS #WEDODEALS #REALRLD

Built Environment Networking, Thursday, 9th July 2020 1400hrs – 1500hrs WEBINAR: Major Regeneration Projects

Place Making Basics, Lessons from Brick Lane. #AuthenticBasics a value proposition! If Property Developers made Beigels.

Redefining Fiscal Conservatism. The Terra/Energy Based Fiscal Unit. Föres and Lagom White Paper, Boundary Conditions for a Fiscal Conservatism based upon Circular Economics. PART ONE Scope. ( Written in July 2018)

⨊GåFöre(O⨋)The FedratedMutualSociety.⨊Före(s)And⨋Lagom(s) Putting the Complementary into Crypto Currencies!.

⨊Före(s) The store of Value component of the föres, Lagom dynamic currency complex.

'Carbon bubble' coming that could wipe trillions from the global economy

Demand for fossil fuels will decline in the near future with major macroeconomic and geopolitical consequences

Fossil Fuels

Energy Production & Changing Energy Sources

II.1 Global total energy production – long-run view by source

Embodied energy cost of opportunity cost. Which would be a true metric of decision making where resource constraints involve mutually exclusive investment decisions.

INAPPLICABILITY OF OPPORTUNITY COST EXCEPT AT FULL EMPLOYMENT

End of Ownership, Circular Economy Proof of Brain and Primary, Intermediary and Consumption Energy Tokens. A Framework Evolves.

Do Americans Know How Weird and Extreme Their Collapse is Getting?

Even the Dark Ages Would Laugh at Where We’re Going

Energy Returned on Energy Invested, Surplus Energy Economics DataBase ( SEEDS) Embodied Energy Circular Economy. #GrubStreetJournal #GrubStreetScience #GrubStreetEnergy #TheExergist #TheExergyst Exorcising the stupid from the discourse on Political Economy, Energy and Climate Change Fanaticism.

#TheExergist

Exergy

Roger G Lewis

Archives

Four Causes.

​classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.2.ii.html

​

⨊Före(s) The store of Value component of the föres, Lagom dynamic currency complex.

Demand for fossil fuels will decline in the near future with major macroeconomic and geopolitical consequences

II.1 Global total energy production – long-run view by source

INAPPLICABILITY OF OPPORTUNITY COST EXCEPT AT FULL EMPLOYMENT

POST NAVIGATION

​Energy Returned on Energy Invested, Surplus Energy Economics DataBase ( SEEDS) Embodied Energy Circular Economy. #GrubStreetJournal #GrubStreetScience #GrubStreetEnergy #TheExergist #TheExergyst Exorcising the stupid from the discourse on Political Economy, Energy and Climate Change Fanaticism.

#TheExergist

Roger G Lewis

Archives

classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.2.ii.html

Energy Returned on Energy Invested, Surplus Energy Economics DataBase ( SEEDS) Embodied Energy Circular Economy. #GrubStreetJournal #GrubStreetScience #GrubStreetEnergy #TheExergist #TheExergyst Exorcising the stupid from the discourse on Political Economy, Energy and Climate Change Fanaticism.