OT - Supply side solution for oil energy bound to fail.

I found this on the web a couple years ago and like its simple common
sense. The scary things a

1. There is nowhere near a "100 year" supply of oil identified.
2. The growth rate in consumption is greater than 5%




The Mirage of a Growing Fuel Supply

By Dr. EVAR D. NERING

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — When I discussed the exponential function in the
first-semester calculus classes that I taught, I invariably used
consumption of a nonrenewable natural resource as an example. Since we
are now engaged in a national debate about energy policy, it may be
useful to talk about the mathematics involved in making a rational
decision about resource use.

In my classes, I described the following hypothetical situation. We have
a 100-year supply of a resource, say oil — that is, the oil would last
100 years if it were consumed at its current rate. But the oil is
consumed at a rate that grows by 5 percent each year. How long would it
last under these circumstances? This is an easy calculation; the answer
is about 36 years.

Oh, but let's say we underestimated the supply, and we actually have a
1,000-year supply. At the same annual 5 percent growth rate in use, how
long will this last? The answer is about 79 years.

Then let us say we make a striking discovery of more oil yet — a
bonanza — and we now have a 10,000-year supply. At our same rate of
growing use, how long would it last? Answer: 125 years.

Estimates vary for how long currently known oil reserves will last,
though they are usually considerably less than 100 years. But the point
of this analysis is that it really doesn't matter what the estimates
are. There is no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy
problem can work.

The exponential function describes the behavior of any quantity whose
rate of change is proportional to its size. Compound interest is the
most commonly encountered example — it would produce exponential growth
if the interest were calculated at a continuing rate. I have heard
public statements that use "exponential" as though it describes a large
or sudden increase. But exponential growth does not have to be large,
and it is never sudden.

Rather, it is inexorable.

Calculations also show that if consumption of an energy resource is
allowed to grow at a steady 5 percent annual rate, a full doubling of
the available supply will not be as effective as reducing that growth
rate by half — to 2.5 percent. Doubling the size of the oil reserve will
add at most 14 years to the life expectancy of the resource if we
continue to use it at the currently increasing rate, no matter how large
it is currently. On the other hand, halving the growth of consumption
will almost double the life expectancy of the supply, no matter what it is.

This mathematical reality seems to have escaped the politicians pushing
to solve our energy problem by simply increasing supply. Building more
power plants and drilling for more oil is exactly the wrong thing to do,
because it will encourage more use. If we want to avoid dire
consequences, we need to find the political will to reduce the growth in
energy consumption to zero — or even begin to consume less.

I must emphasize that reducing the growth rate is not what most people
are talking about now when they advocate conservation; the steps they
recommend are just Band-Aids. If we increase the gas mileage of our
automobiles and then drive more miles, for example, that will not reduce
the growth rate.

Reducing the growth of consumption means living closer to where we work
or play. It means telecommuting. It means controlling population growth.
It means shifting to renewable energy sources.

It is not, perhaps, necessary to cut our use of oil, but it is essential
that we cut the rate of increase at which we consume it. To do otherwise
is to leave our descendants in an impoverished world.

Evar D. Nering is professor emeritus of
mathematics at Arizona State University.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
I found this on the web a couple years ago and like its simple common
sense. The scary things a

1. There is nowhere near a "100 year" supply of oil identified.
2. The growth rate in consumption is greater than 5%




The Mirage of a Growing Fuel Supply

By Dr. EVAR D. NERING

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — When I discussed the exponential function in the
first-semester calculus classes that I taught, I invariably used
consumption of a nonrenewable natural resource as an example. Since we are
now engaged in a national debate about energy policy, it may be useful to
talk about the mathematics involved in making a rational decision about
resource use.

In my classes, I described the following hypothetical situation. We have a
100-year supply of a resource, say oil — that is, the oil would last 100
years if it were consumed at its current rate. But the oil is consumed at
a rate that grows by 5 percent each year. How long would it last under
these circumstances? This is an easy calculation; the answer is about 36
years.

Oh, but let's say we underestimated the supply, and we actually have a
1,000-year supply. At the same annual 5 percent growth rate in use, how
long will this last? The answer is about 79 years.

Then let us say we make a striking discovery of more oil yet — a
bonanza — and we now have a 10,000-year supply. At our same rate of
growing use, how long would it last? Answer: 125 years.

Estimates vary for how long currently known oil reserves will last, though
they are usually considerably less than 100 years. But the point of this
analysis is that it really doesn't matter what the estimates are. There is
no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy problem can work.

The exponential function describes the behavior of any quantity whose
rate of change is proportional to its size. Compound interest is the most
commonly encountered example — it would produce exponential growth if the
interest were calculated at a continuing rate. I have heard public
statements that use "exponential" as though it describes a large or sudden
increase. But exponential growth does not have to be large, and it is
never sudden.

Rather, it is inexorable.

Calculations also show that if consumption of an energy resource is
allowed to grow at a steady 5 percent annual rate, a full doubling of the
available supply will not be as effective as reducing that growth rate by
half — to 2.5 percent. Doubling the size of the oil reserve will add at
most 14 years to the life expectancy of the resource if we continue to use
it at the currently increasing rate, no matter how large it is currently.
On the other hand, halving the growth of consumption will almost double
the life expectancy of the supply, no matter what it is.

This mathematical reality seems to have escaped the politicians pushing to
solve our energy problem by simply increasing supply. Building more power
plants and drilling for more oil is exactly the wrong thing to do, because
it will encourage more use. If we want to avoid dire consequences, we need
to find the political will to reduce the growth in energy consumption to
zero — or even begin to consume less.

I must emphasize that reducing the growth rate is not what most people are
talking about now when they advocate conservation; the steps they
recommend are just Band-Aids. If we increase the gas mileage of our
automobiles and then drive more miles, for example, that will not reduce
the growth rate.

Reducing the growth of consumption means living closer to where we work or
play. It means telecommuting. It means controlling population growth. It
means shifting to renewable energy sources.

It is not, perhaps, necessary to cut our use of oil, but it is essential
that we cut the rate of increase at which we consume it. To do otherwise
is to leave our descendants in an impoverished world.

Evar D. Nering is professor emeritus of
mathematics at Arizona State University.


Good article, Alan....I forwarded it to a bunch of people.......My father
told me in 1950 that we had enough oil in the ground that he knew about to
last us another 100 years.......He was about right....We may very well run
out of it around 2050.......

My father told me in 1950 that we had enough oil in the ground that he knew
about to
last us another 100 years.......He was about right....We may very well run
out of it around 2050.......

The American people above all others today, are making the largest
contribution to making your old man's prophecy a reality.
Driving smaller more efficient cars doesn't mean you're less of a man or you
have small penises. Try it and see, while you're at it try walking and
cycling too, help yourselves with the national obesity problem, hell go the
whole hog, fire some Mexicans , clean your own houses and mow your own
lawns, squeeze your own OJ, help keep America- English speaking , whatever
that matters !

"William Graham" wrote in message
...

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
I found this on the web a couple years ago and like its simple common
sense. The scary things a

1. There is nowhere near a "100 year" supply of oil identified.
2. The growth rate in consumption is greater than 5%




The Mirage of a Growing Fuel Supply

By Dr. EVAR D. NERING

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. - When I discussed the exponential function in the
first-semester calculus classes that I taught, I invariably used
consumption of a nonrenewable natural resource as an example. Since we
are
now engaged in a national debate about energy policy, it may be useful
to
talk about the mathematics involved in making a rational decision about
resource use.

In my classes, I described the following hypothetical situation. We have
a
100-year supply of a resource, say oil - that is, the oil would last 100
years if it were consumed at its current rate. But the oil is consumed
at
a rate that grows by 5 percent each year. How long would it last under
these circumstances? This is an easy calculation; the answer is about 36
years.

Oh, but let's say we underestimated the supply, and we actually have a
1,000-year supply. At the same annual 5 percent growth rate in use, how
long will this last? The answer is about 79 years.

Then let us say we make a striking discovery of more oil yet - a
bonanza - and we now have a 10,000-year supply. At our same rate of
growing use, how long would it last? Answer: 125 years.

Estimates vary for how long currently known oil reserves will last,
though
they are usually considerably less than 100 years. But the point of this
analysis is that it really doesn't matter what the estimates are. There
is
no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy problem can work.

The exponential function describes the behavior of any quantity whose
rate of change is proportional to its size. Compound interest is the
most
commonly encountered example - it would produce exponential growth if
the
interest were calculated at a continuing rate. I have heard public
statements that use "exponential" as though it describes a large or
sudden
increase. But exponential growth does not have to be large, and it is
never sudden.

Rather, it is inexorable.

Calculations also show that if consumption of an energy resource is
allowed to grow at a steady 5 percent annual rate, a full doubling of
the
available supply will not be as effective as reducing that growth rate
by
half - to 2.5 percent. Doubling the size of the oil reserve will add at
most 14 years to the life expectancy of the resource if we continue to
use
it at the currently increasing rate, no matter how large it is
currently.
On the other hand, halving the growth of consumption will almost double
the life expectancy of the supply, no matter what it is.

This mathematical reality seems to have escaped the politicians pushing
to
solve our energy problem by simply increasing supply. Building more
power
plants and drilling for more oil is exactly the wrong thing to do,
because
it will encourage more use. If we want to avoid dire consequences, we
need
to find the political will to reduce the growth in energy consumption to
zero - or even begin to consume less.

I must emphasize that reducing the growth rate is not what most people
are
talking about now when they advocate conservation; the steps they
recommend are just Band-Aids. If we increase the gas mileage of our
automobiles and then drive more miles, for example, that will not reduce
the growth rate.

Reducing the growth of consumption means living closer to where we work
or
play. It means telecommuting. It means controlling population growth. It
means shifting to renewable energy sources.

It is not, perhaps, necessary to cut our use of oil, but it is essential
that we cut the rate of increase at which we consume it. To do otherwise
is to leave our descendants in an impoverished world.

Evar D. Nering is professor emeritus of
mathematics at Arizona State University.


Good article, Alan....I forwarded it to a bunch of people.......My father
told me in 1950 that we had enough oil in the ground that he knew about to
last us another 100 years.......He was about right....We may very well run
out of it around 2050.......

"Joseph Kewfi" wrote in message
...
My father told me in 1950 that we had enough oil in the ground that he
knew
about to
last us another 100 years.......He was about right....We may very well
run
out of it around 2050.......

The American people above all others today, are making the largest
contribution to making your old man's prophecy a reality.
Driving smaller more efficient cars doesn't mean you're less of a man or
you
have small penises. Try it and see, while you're at it try walking and
cycling too, help yourselves with the national obesity problem, hell go
the
whole hog, fire some Mexicans , clean your own houses and mow your own
lawns, squeeze your own OJ, help keep America- English speaking , whatever
that matters !

There is a big difference between living on the North American continent,
and living in Europe. If you don't understand the difference, you really
shouldn't comment on our transportation habits. It is not unusual for people
here to commute over two hundred miles a day, or to live places where you
have to drive nearly a hundred miles to get to a decent shopping center. If
you ever visit here, try driving from Carson City, Nevada to Salt lake City
Utah, on Highway 50, and tell me that we should be all riding around on
bicycles or Vespa scooters.......If you do make that drive, incidentally, I
doubt if you will pass by the living spaces of more than 20 people......

There is a big difference between living on the North American continent,
and living in Europe. If you don't understand the difference, you really
shouldn't comment on our transportation habits. It is not unusual for
people
here to commute over two hundred miles a day, or to live places where you
have to drive nearly a hundred miles to get to a decent shopping center.

One word bub, PLANNING. The truth is, the USA is a wasteful nation, your
country's facilities and amenities are all spread out forcing you to drive
long distances like you've pointed out, in inefficient cars that consume far
too much gas per mile, why is this? because it serves the vested interests
of a clique of industrialists in the petro-chemicals and automobile
industries, your president has taken to talking about Ethanol recently as an
alternative fuel, but he doesn't really mean a word of it, as he and his ilk
are the crux of why the USA is a wasteful nation, there's an explanation for
everything in America and it's always the Dollar. You think oil is
expensive? it ain't, it just isn't as cheap as it was, plus if you're
thinking Bush & Co are at all upset about oil prices guess again, it's your
oil companies that are gaining the most from price rises not producer
nations like Saudi etc.. every 50 dollars worth of light sweet crude can be
refined to produce 150 dollars worth of gasoline, you think Bush is gonna
**** with those insane profits while holding stock in Exxon Mobil etc..
think again bub.

"William Graham" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Kewfi" wrote in message
...
My father told me in 1950 that we had enough oil in the ground that he
knew
about to
last us another 100 years.......He was about right....We may very well
run
out of it around 2050.......

The American people above all others today, are making the largest
contribution to making your old man's prophecy a reality.
Driving smaller more efficient cars doesn't mean you're less of a man or
you
have small penises. Try it and see, while you're at it try walking and
cycling too, help yourselves with the national obesity problem, hell go
the
whole hog, fire some Mexicans , clean your own houses and mow your own
lawns, squeeze your own OJ, help keep America- English speaking ,
whatever
that matters !

There is a big difference between living on the North American continent,
and living in Europe. If you don't understand the difference, you really
shouldn't comment on our transportation habits. It is not unusual for
people
here to commute over two hundred miles a day, or to live places where you
have to drive nearly a hundred miles to get to a decent shopping center.
If
you ever visit here, try driving from Carson City, Nevada to Salt lake
City
Utah, on Highway 50, and tell me that we should be all riding around on
bicycles or Vespa scooters.......If you do make that drive, incidentally,
I
doubt if you will pass by the living spaces of more than 20 people......

I found this on the web a couple years ago and like its simple common
sense. The scary things a

1. There is nowhere near a "100 year" supply of oil identified.
2. The growth rate in consumption is greater than 5%

This from the guy who lectures others about OT postings! Whats wrong Al, the
group getting too quiet for ya? bloody troublemaker ;-]

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
I found this on the web a couple years ago and like its simple common
sense. The scary things a

1. There is nowhere near a "100 year" supply of oil identified.
2. The growth rate in consumption is greater than 5%




The Mirage of a Growing Fuel Supply

By Dr. EVAR D. NERING

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — When I discussed the exponential function in the
first-semester calculus classes that I taught, I invariably used
consumption of a nonrenewable natural resource as an example. Since we
are now engaged in a national debate about energy policy, it may be
useful to talk about the mathematics involved in making a rational
decision about resource use.

In my classes, I described the following hypothetical situation. We have
a 100-year supply of a resource, say oil — that is, the oil would last
100 years if it were consumed at its current rate. But the oil is
consumed at a rate that grows by 5 percent each year. How long would it
last under these circumstances? This is an easy calculation; the answer
is about 36 years.

Oh, but let's say we underestimated the supply, and we actually have a
1,000-year supply. At the same annual 5 percent growth rate in use, how
long will this last? The answer is about 79 years.

Then let us say we make a striking discovery of more oil yet — a
bonanza — and we now have a 10,000-year supply. At our same rate of
growing use, how long would it last? Answer: 125 years.

Estimates vary for how long currently known oil reserves will last,
though they are usually considerably less than 100 years. But the point
of this analysis is that it really doesn't matter what the estimates
are. There is no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy
problem can work.

The exponential function describes the behavior of any quantity whose
rate of change is proportional to its size. Compound interest is the
most commonly encountered example — it would produce exponential growth
if the interest were calculated at a continuing rate. I have heard
public statements that use "exponential" as though it describes a large
or sudden increase. But exponential growth does not have to be large,
and it is never sudden.

Rather, it is inexorable.

Calculations also show that if consumption of an energy resource is
allowed to grow at a steady 5 percent annual rate, a full doubling of
the available supply will not be as effective as reducing that growth
rate by half — to 2.5 percent. Doubling the size of the oil reserve will
add at most 14 years to the life expectancy of the resource if we
continue to use it at the currently increasing rate, no matter how large
it is currently. On the other hand, halving the growth of consumption
will almost double the life expectancy of the supply, no matter what it
is.

This mathematical reality seems to have escaped the politicians pushing
to solve our energy problem by simply increasing supply. Building more
power plants and drilling for more oil is exactly the wrong thing to do,
because it will encourage more use. If we want to avoid dire
consequences, we need to find the political will to reduce the growth in
energy consumption to zero — or even begin to consume less.

I must emphasize that reducing the growth rate is not what most people
are talking about now when they advocate conservation; the steps they
recommend are just Band-Aids. If we increase the gas mileage of our
automobiles and then drive more miles, for example, that will not reduce
the growth rate.

Reducing the growth of consumption means living closer to where we work
or play. It means telecommuting. It means controlling population growth.
It means shifting to renewable energy sources.

It is not, perhaps, necessary to cut our use of oil, but it is essential
that we cut the rate of increase at which we consume it. To do otherwise
is to leave our descendants in an impoverished world.

Evar D. Nering is professor emeritus of
mathematics at Arizona State University.

"Joseph Kewfi" wrote in message
...
There is a big difference between living on the North American continent,
and living in Europe. If you don't understand the difference, you really
shouldn't comment on our transportation habits. It is not unusual for
people
here to commute over two hundred miles a day, or to live places where you
have to drive nearly a hundred miles to get to a decent shopping center.

One word bub, PLANNING. The truth is, the USA is a wasteful nation, your
country's facilities and amenities are all spread out forcing you to drive
long distances like you've pointed out, in inefficient cars that consume
far
too much gas per mile, why is this? because it serves the vested interests
of a clique of industrialists in the petro-chemicals and automobile
industries, your president has taken to talking about Ethanol recently as
an
alternative fuel, but he doesn't really mean a word of it, as he and his
ilk
are the crux of why the USA is a wasteful nation, there's an explanation
for
everything in America and it's always the Dollar. You think oil is
expensive? it ain't, it just isn't as cheap as it was, plus if you're
thinking Bush & Co are at all upset about oil prices guess again, it's
your
oil companies that are gaining the most from price rises not producer
nations like Saudi etc.. every 50 dollars worth of light sweet crude can
be
refined to produce 150 dollars worth of gasoline, you think Bush is gonna
**** with those insane profits while holding stock in Exxon Mobil etc..
think again bub.

I hold stock in Exxon Mobil Corporation.....My father worked for them for
nearly 40 years. You too, could hold stock in them.....It's as close as your
telephone.....Easier than ordering some film from a website on the internet.
If they are stealing so much money from the rest of the world, why don't you
ride in their getaway car, and start counting the ill-gotten gains yourself?
I am a capitalist, and proud of it....As soon as an alternative fuel
source is developed that costs one cent per mile less than gasoline, there
will appear an "Alt-on" Corporation that outsells Exxon, and I will sell my
Exxon stock and buy Alton. - That's the way it works, Bub.....

I hold stock in Exxon Mobil Corporation.....My father worked for them for
nearly 40 years. You too, could hold stock in them.....It's as close as
your
telephone.....Easier than ordering some film from a website on the
internet.
If they are stealing so much money from the rest of the world, why don't
you
ride in their getaway car, and start counting the ill-gotten gains
yourself?

I have no interest in becoming part of the problem.

I am a capitalist, and proud of it....As soon as an alternative fuel
source is developed that costs one cent per mile less than gasoline, there
will appear an "Alt-on" Corporation that outsells Exxon, and I will sell
my
Exxon stock and buy Alton. - That's the way it works, Bub.....

A sustainable widely available alternative fuel source has not been and will
not be developed because vested interests prevent its development, this is
not going to change without instigation from government, if the government
is in bed with those same vested interests that prevent positive profitable
change (environmental,social and financial), then that is not capitalism,
it's corruption of capitalist ideals.

"William Graham" wrote in message
. ..

"Joseph Kewfi" wrote in message
...
There is a big difference between living on the North American
continent,
and living in Europe. If you don't understand the difference, you
really
shouldn't comment on our transportation habits. It is not unusual for
people
here to commute over two hundred miles a day, or to live places where
you
have to drive nearly a hundred miles to get to a decent shopping
center.

One word bub, PLANNING. The truth is, the USA is a wasteful nation, your
country's facilities and amenities are all spread out forcing you to
drive
long distances like you've pointed out, in inefficient cars that consume
far
too much gas per mile, why is this? because it serves the vested
interests
of a clique of industrialists in the petro-chemicals and automobile
industries, your president has taken to talking about Ethanol recently
as
an
alternative fuel, but he doesn't really mean a word of it, as he and his
ilk
are the crux of why the USA is a wasteful nation, there's an explanation
for
everything in America and it's always the Dollar. You think oil is
expensive? it ain't, it just isn't as cheap as it was, plus if you're
thinking Bush & Co are at all upset about oil prices guess again, it's
your
oil companies that are gaining the most from price rises not producer
nations like Saudi etc.. every 50 dollars worth of light sweet crude can
be
refined to produce 150 dollars worth of gasoline, you think Bush is
gonna
**** with those insane profits while holding stock in Exxon Mobil etc..
think again bub.

I hold stock in Exxon Mobil Corporation.....My father worked for them for
nearly 40 years. You too, could hold stock in them.....It's as close as
your
telephone.....Easier than ordering some film from a website on the
internet.
If they are stealing so much money from the rest of the world, why don't
you
ride in their getaway car, and start counting the ill-gotten gains
yourself?
I am a capitalist, and proud of it....As soon as an alternative fuel
source is developed that costs one cent per mile less than gasoline, there
will appear an "Alt-on" Corporation that outsells Exxon, and I will sell
my
Exxon stock and buy Alton. - That's the way it works, Bub.....

"Joseph Kewfi" wrote in message
...
I hold stock in Exxon Mobil Corporation.....My father worked for them for
nearly 40 years. You too, could hold stock in them.....It's as close as
your
telephone.....Easier than ordering some film from a website on the
internet.
If they are stealing so much money from the rest of the world, why don't
you
ride in their getaway car, and start counting the ill-gotten gains
yourself?

I have no interest in becoming part of the problem.

I am a capitalist, and proud of it....As soon as an alternative fuel
source is developed that costs one cent per mile less than gasoline,
there
will appear an "Alt-on" Corporation that outsells Exxon, and I will sell
my
Exxon stock and buy Alton. - That's the way it works, Bub.....

A sustainable widely available alternative fuel source has not been and
will
not be developed because vested interests prevent its development, this is
not going to change without instigation from government, if the government
is in bed with those same vested interests that prevent positive
profitable
change (environmental,social and financial), then that is not capitalism,
it's corruption of capitalist ideals.

Nonsense! - This is the old, battery that holds 10 times the
charge/carburetor that gets 100 mpg paranoid anti-capitalist argument that I
have been hearing all of my life. How come when I worked for industry nobody
told me to stop doing research on certain selected items, or to not work on
any good ideas? There are plenty of alternative fuel sources, but they all
suffer from one important problem....None of them are cheaper per mile than
gasoline. Even using old deep fry grease as diesel fuel costs a few cents
more per mile than gasoline, so the only ones using it are those who want to
boycott the oil companies. American oil companies have kept the price of
gasoline to the American public down to like one half what they pay for it
in Europe for over 30 years now, and they do this in spite of the taxes we
pay to both state and federal government for it. It cost about 10 cents a
gallon to make gasoline from 1920 to 1950 in this country.....Every cent
over that was due to government taxes. - I doubt seriously if it costs very
much more than about a dollar a gallon even today, some 50 years later. If
capitalist ideals have been corrupted, it hasn't been the oil companies who
did it......Look to government greed and interference for that.......

Alan Browne wrote:

I found this on the web a couple years ago and like its simple common
sense. The scary things a

1. There is nowhere near a "100 year" supply of oil identified.
2. The growth rate in consumption is greater than 5%

The Mirage of a Growing Fuel Supply

By Dr. EVAR D. NERING

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — When I discussed the exponential function in the
first-semester calculus classes that I taught, I invariably used
consumption of a nonrenewable natural resource as an example. Since we
are now engaged in a national debate about energy policy, it may be
useful to talk about the mathematics involved in making a rational
decision about resource use.

In my classes, I described the following hypothetical situation. We have
a 100-year supply of a resource, say oil — that is, the oil would last
100 years if it were consumed at its current rate. But the oil is
consumed at a rate that grows by 5 percent each year. How long would it
last under these circumstances? This is an easy calculation; the answer
is about 36 years.

Oh, but let's say we underestimated the supply, and we actually have a
1,000-year supply. At the same annual 5 percent growth rate in use, how
long will this last? The answer is about 79 years.

Then let us say we make a striking discovery of more oil yet — a
bonanza — and we now have a 10,000-year supply. At our same rate of
growing use, how long would it last? Answer: 125 years.

Estimates vary for how long currently known oil reserves will last,
though they are usually considerably less than 100 years. But the point
of this analysis is that it really doesn't matter what the estimates
are. There is no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy
problem can work.

The exponential function describes the behavior of any quantity whose
rate of change is proportional to its size. Compound interest is the
most commonly encountered example — it would produce exponential growth
if the interest were calculated at a continuing rate. I have heard
public statements that use "exponential" as though it describes a large
or sudden increase. But exponential growth does not have to be large,
and it is never sudden.

Rather, it is inexorable.

Calculations also show that if consumption of an energy resource is
allowed to grow at a steady 5 percent annual rate, a full doubling of
the available supply will not be as effective as reducing that growth
rate by half — to 2.5 percent. Doubling the size of the oil reserve will
add at most 14 years to the life expectancy of the resource if we
continue to use it at the currently increasing rate, no matter how large
it is currently. On the other hand, halving the growth of consumption
will almost double the life expectancy of the supply, no matter what it is.

This mathematical reality seems to have escaped the politicians pushing
to solve our energy problem by simply increasing supply. Building more
power plants and drilling for more oil is exactly the wrong thing to do,
because it will encourage more use. If we want to avoid dire
consequences, we need to find the political will to reduce the growth in
energy consumption to zero — or even begin to consume less.

I must emphasize that reducing the growth rate is not what most people
are talking about now when they advocate conservation; the steps they
recommend are just Band-Aids. If we increase the gas mileage of our
automobiles and then drive more miles, for example, that will not reduce
the growth rate.

Reducing the growth of consumption means living closer to where we work
or play. It means telecommuting. It means controlling population growth.
It means shifting to renewable energy sources.

It is not, perhaps, necessary to cut our use of oil, but it is essential
that we cut the rate of increase at which we consume it. To do otherwise
is to leave our descendants in an impoverished world.

Evar D. Nering is professor emeritus of
mathematics at Arizona State University.

I have a book written about 30 or 40 years ago about sustainability of
modern living standards, which made me sit up and take notice. His
premise was that although the exponential model was - and is - used for
forecasting the growth of things like oil consumption, electricity
demand, population increase, almost any growth system around, the
exponential model always fell short of the actual growth. Working with
retrospective data, he found that the curve that best fitted the figures
was a cosine curve. The big difference between an exponential curve and
a cosine curve is that an exponential curve continues to climb, getting
ever steeper but never quite vertical - an asymtotic curve, while a
cosine curve starts out similar to an exponential curve, but gets
steeper faster, and the kicker is it is a discontinuous curve. After
reaching a positive peak, it instantaneously falls to an equal negative
peak, climbs rapidly towards the x-axis, slowing down as it approaches,
crosses the x-axis, and starts its climb up to the next discontinuity.
He postulated that the fall corresponds to a cataclysmic happening that
will drive civilization back thousands of years, and he predicted that
this has happened to previous civilizations, and will happen again
sometime in the 21st century. Maybe the oil crisis will be the trigger
for this to happen ...

Colin D.