Guest post by Thomas Fuller
I have been broadly correct about two important things in my career as an analyst. (I wasn’t the only one and I wasn’t the first–just far enough ahead of the curve to make a difference.)
The two things were the demographic decline of much of Europe and the rapid adoption of the internet following the release of the world wide web. I was not studying or researching either topic at the time–the two phenomena leapt out of other research I was conducting and were obviously more important than what I was doing at the time, so I dropped what I was doing and started looking at them exclusively.
So now it’s time to try for the trifecta. (No, I really don’t care about that at all–but this is the third Capital Letter Issue that has jumped out at me, so what the hey…)
Inadequate projections of latent demand for energy are leading to poor decisions now and are muddying the debate about both climate change and energy policy for the rest of the century.
The U.S. Department of Energy and the United Nations both project global consumption of energy at 680 and 703 quads respectively by the period 2030-2035 (a ‘quad’ is one quadrillion btus, roughly the energy you could liberate from 36 million tons of coal).
However, consumption trends, if extended, are far higher–they could reach 2,100 quads by 2030, if adequate energy was available consistently and at decent prices. This is because of the confluence of several important demographic trends.
The overall population is rising–it will be about 8.1 billion in 2030, the equivalent of adding another China to the planet. The comparison is fairly apt, as most of these new humans will be born into societies that look like China does now, or like China did 15 or 20 years ago.
These new humans will be stepping onto the energy ladder and consuming vastly higher quantities of energy than did their parents–if it’s available. They will be moving from farms with no electricity into slums with a minimum of electricity–but shortly thereafter, development and globalization will start them on the road to refrigeration, television, washer/dryers, computers, motor scooters, cars, ad infinitum.
These new humans will be joined by yet another virtual China–existing people who benefit from the same processes of development and globalization and jump on the energy ladder with both feet and both hands.
Obviously, many of both type will actually be in China. But even more will be in places like Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, large swathes of Africa and the rest of the developing world.
They will want what they perceive as a modern lifestyle–in America that amounts to 327 billion btus per person per year in energy consumption. In Denmark, it’s a much more modest 161 billion btus. But in either case, latent demand for energy will far exceed the 700 quads currently projected by the DOE and the UN.
Assume 7 billion people will be on the energy ladder (changing from wood and animal dung on their way to coal, petroleum, natural gas, nuclear and hopefully arriving some day soon at the promised land of renewable energy). This means there are 1 billion people we have failed. (And I don’t want to ignore them–I just want to present believable numbers for this exercise.)
If those 7 billion consume energy as Americans do it comes to 2,289 quads. (The total will obviously be less, as they won’t all be near the top of the ladder by 2030). If they adopt a Danish model and develop towards that (efficient use of combined heat and power, high taxes on gas, generally high prices for energy, conscious drive to conserve), global energy demand will be 1,127 quads.
Although I would wish that people new to the modern world would automatically choose the far better Danish model, I predict that they will opt for the easier, softer American model and their energy needs will skyrocket.
However, in either case, we will need far more energy than is currently predicted. If they do not get it, they will not fully participate in what the modern world has to offer–education, good healthcare, clean air and water. Nor will they participate in the modern economy, further enriching the rich world with purchases of video games and expensive perfumes. We all will lose, although the losses of the poor will be heartbreaking.
It may well be that the DOE and the UN have correctly identified what governments are willing to build and provide in the way of new energy–but if they are correct, we are condemning billions of people to needlessly live a wretched existence that they would avoid if they could. Because using energy is not just a sign of success at development, or a reward for doing it right or a ‘welcome to the club’–it is often the key mechanism that enables development.
The poor–the two new Chinas–will fight and scheme to get the energy they need. They will burn coal, oil, whatever is available to escape the life sentence of the poor–lives that are nasty, brutish and short.
This conversation is not really about global warming at all. But it is certainly relevant to discussions of our planet’s future climate. China has doubled its energy consumption since 2000. There are two new ‘Chinas’ eager to do exactly the same, mimicking our behaviour of the last two centuries and following the original China’s current example.
The sources and quantities of energy we make available to the world will determine what our planet will look like in the medium term.
There’s no getting around that.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Energy is a business. If such businesses were allowed to sell their products for a profit without governmental controls on quantities, there would be a lot more of it.
Nice analysis.
Unfortunately, it seems that the “fighting and scheming” is what those running the AGW scam want.
No doubt the fighting and scheming will become global and reduce the population.
Win-Win, if you’re one of the anti-human AGW brigade.
If it makes any difference, I expect that battery technology will have matured and electric cars will dominate over gas. With 15 minute charging, it’s almost there already. Big trucks are another matter though. Maybe compressed natural gas , tar sands, or coal to oil for them.
Anthony – Why the very limited growth in natural gas to 2030 and decline from then on? Don’t think this is realistic. New unconventional gas resources (shale gas, tight gas, CSG) would have the capacity to fill practically all the renewables wedge through to at least 2060. Suspect that Lynn Orr’s analysis may be heavily reliant on pre-2000 resource estimates which do not take this into account.
This one is a very good addendum to your post. – how China sees the developed countries carbon politics.
Pretty reasonable chart. Did you know, Portugal gets 45% of its Electricity from Renewables?
If you break it down into small areas you will see that the task isn’t nearly as daunting as it seems when you’re dealing in thousands of “quads.”
Your paper highlights probably the most important issue all of humanity faces – we have roughly 4billion too many humans already. How does anyone in that palace of corruption that is the UN think we are ever going to be able to support 8 billion – six billion more than the planet can support?
Interesting take. If energy is as strongly linked with the betterment of livelihood as you suggest, then we need massive amounts of additional energy. Even if your Danish model is adopted, the least of all evils is probably to acquire as much as possible of this additional capacity from nuclear energy. Biofuels take up too much good land, and there are presently limitations to some of the other alternative options. As for oil and gas, conventional supplies are the least destructive, but they may be approaching their peak. If you put humans on a geological timescale, the rate at which we are using those resources is frightening… technology to the rescue fast, please. Most of us won’t stop reproducing (what’s more fulfilling than children) and most of us won’t change our behaviours until we’re in deep trouble, because what is best for the individual is energy consumption, even if what is best for humanity is conservation. Tragedy of the commons guaranteed!
I find your rationale completely wrong. It is the very fixation on scarcity upon which AGW and collectivist ideology rests.
These new citizens will not “opt for the easier, softer American model” because they won’t be able to afford it. They will need an infrastructure and industry comparable to ours before they will even have access to the same level of consumption, and it is ENERGY which will provide them that, along the way, delivering increased consumerism.
Crushing them or us with giant taxes won’t create more energy or prosperity, just a lower standard of living. This notion that choking ourselves and our consumption will somehow lead to the promised land is ridiculous.
Demand will drive the delivery of energy. All efforts should focus on enabling rather than impeding the provision of needed commodities. Left alone, price will regulate consumption. Innovation will capitalize on the higher prices, and deliver increased availability.
I take no issue with conservation when driven by a free market. I don’t even mind the rigorous CAFE standards. But don’t try to sell me on paranoia. America has the world’s largest reserves of coal, and more than a Trillion barrels of oil in shale. Exxon has discovered more reserves than they have consumed every year for the last 16 years. Known natural gas reserves have also recently rocketed. We’ve just reviewed here the vast reserves of Nuclear fuels.
Man cannot shrink away from challenges and snivel in the corner. He must use his ingenuity to find or make the resources to deliver prosperity. Fear of scarcity is certainty of failure.
The only report of which I am aware that looks at this half-way logically is:-
http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Generating_the_future_report.pdf
Note that this is the projection of the generation needs for a developed economy (the UK) up to 2050. And their base case assumption is the rather fanciful one of energy consumption being capped at current levels.
Just check out what new energy infrastructure they say is needed if we are to strive to 80% CO2 reduction by 2050!
I should point out that these aren’t a bunch of nasty deniers funded by BigOil. They are a bunch of highly qualified energy engineers who are also AGW alarmists (and who are heavily in the pay of Nuclear, BigWind and the rest.
But the sums are probably appropriate and they have the probably got the ‘right answers’ (even though that is the right answers to the wrong questions).
This is presented as the “solution” to the UK’s energy problems (although it brushes away the fact that BigWind just doesn’t work). Just imagine what are the implications of similar policies in Africa!
Tom Fuller’s article is spot on. Or as Dr. Roy Spencer points out, the war against global warming is actually a war on the poor.
Anthony,
Back in 2008 when we procured with you the publication of a similar, but more detailed article you didn’t even answer back. I welcome your progress and hope you can keep on the right tack.
Excellent write up and worrying in many ways. I back humankind to adapt though. You can see some point in what the AGW industry is driving at in that we really do need to use energy much more efficiently and I’m sure there are few even on this side of the debate who would disagree. I just don’t agree with the way that they are doing it.
interesting take ..but I think flawed …you assume a standstill of technology and innovation, this I feel unlikely …in the west energy use peaked in around 2007 and is now dropping ..this is not because of recession but due to the increasingly efficient use of energy, this trend will continue, the new chinas of whom you speak won’t just emulate the old outmoded western model they will more than likely leapfrog into the newer more efficient paradigm. As their wealth grows their population will stabilise and eventually begin to fall as this happens their energy use will slow too .
your graph is IMHO simplistic it assumes peak fossil fuel which is by no means certain and in light of new shale gas finds quite unlikely
“we are condemning billions of people to needlessly live a wretched existence that they would avoid if they could”
No, we are not.
Please read my finger: ‘da poor’ do not have a blank check on my existence or determine my choices of what to do with my resources.
However, those who attempt to use an argument based on ‘the white man’s burden’ or ‘my brother’s keeper’ to influence my sentiments are sorely deserving of a proper non-PC explanation of stfu.
I suspect there are too many variables to make the ‘the 2nd/3rd world will all be consuming energy at 1st world rates in 25 years time’ statement very accurate at all. Most of all we do not know what technologies lie around the corner – if solar panel prices continue to fall at current rates solar electricity will be competitive with fossil fuels within 10-15 years. If battery technology improves also, it is entirely feasible that by 2035 the entire West could have houses with 75% of their electrical needs supplied by solar means. Equally we don’t know how much nuclear energy will be used in 2035, as it is a political decision, not a purely rational/technology one. Fusion technology may have also come to fruition.
The Victorian Londoners thought that London would soon be 6 feet deep in horse manure, due to the rapid growth in horse usage. Fortunately for them Mr Benz had other ideas. We similarly are using past trends to predict the future. Which is fine, until the trends change.
Please forgo the pathetic urge to wring drama from your back of the envelope calculations.
Scaremongering is as fashionable and group emoting is socially fulfilling for some, but tent-show is tent-show. And this is low rent tent-show.
When come back, bring pie.
Martin Brumby says:
August 13, 2010 at 12:53 am
“Tom Fuller’s article is spot on.”
Yes, rather
“Or as Dr. Roy Spencer points out, the war against global warming is actually a war on the poor.”
No, the “war” is a gradual transition to a low-carbon global economy, which is
necessary in any long-term scenario. Starting in a decisive manner right now
will also lessen very likely climate induced socioeconomic damages.
I think the analysis is correct, but any prediction of timing a supply crunch will be extremely difficult as accurate numbers are impossible to get. I wonder about the numbers from The U.S. Department of Energy and the United Nations, experience shows their numbers usually present a fluffy picture regarding energy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7500669/Oil-reserves-exaggerated-by-one-third.html
The graph presented above for example has crude peaking around 2020, with a long tail off. This is grossly underestimated IMO, and takes no account of “net peak oil” see http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/5500
I suspect the wind/solar/renewable/nuclear projections probably don’t take account of the embedded energy required to manufacture/bring them on line in the first place, or the lower EROEI from harder to extract resources, which will bring the nice long sloping curve down – to a more abrupt cliff edge, certainly much steeper than the graph suggests.
Is there a link to the original research presented in the graph?
Regardless, I’m not convinced this has any major implications for our climate directly, tho increased poverty will no doubt assist further environmental degradation and pollution as it seems to now, as will resource extraction at the limits of technology.
The Gray Monk:
At August 13, 2010 at 12:45 am you assert:
“Your paper highlights probably the most important issue all of humanity faces – we have roughly 4billion too many humans already.”
Has it occurred to you that you have the ability to reduce the overpopulation that you assert by removing yourself from existence?
Of course, that would only reduce the population by one, but it would be a demonstration that you mean what you say. And if all those who share your view were to do the same then the world would certainly be a better place.
Importantly, imposing your desire on yourself instead of calling for it to be imposed on others would certainly be an improvement to your present attitude.
Richard
Richard
The projection is overly simplistic – the extra billion people by 2030 will be too poor to buy much energy, whatever its source – and renewables are far too expensive for them. China’s growth is about 30% China Inc. – a branch of the US, EU and other sources of corporate finance making western goods cheaper so that western growth can putter along – but the whole global economy is unstable, and one factor is the oil-price to which all other energy sources are related one way or another.
Certainly demand in China, Brazil, Indonesia, India and Russia will increase – they can afford it, and they will consume their natural environment in the process – but the poor will be left out, just as they have been for the last 30 years – with 2 billion still without adequate clean water and sanitation. I would argue their best future is to turn away from the western mode of consumption and strengthen their indigenous ways, securing a stable ecology and community and protecting themselves from ‘development’ – length of life and dollar spending power is no indication of the quality of that life, and my travel in the ‘Third World’ quickly showed me just how vital and happy people could be in very limited material circumstances (and thats not to deny a great number are desperate and destitute – often because of the social disruption of war, corrupt government and displacement due to the global demand for commodities).
It is not only “quite likely” that finite fossil fuel resources will peak, it’s a dead-dog certainty.
Wind Does Work, especially when it’s combined with Solar, Biogas, or, best of all, both. Wind is, now, considered cheaper than Nuclear, and, unlike nuclear, its cost-curve is heading down, not up.
The cost of producing Solar panels is down in the $1.00/watt, range. The only reason solar is still relatively expensive is a shortage of certiified installers. As the number of these ramp up we will be seeing “installed” solar in the vicinity of $2.00/watt.
Finland gets 30% of their electricity from paper, and pulp mills. We could, easily, get 200 Gigawatts from “waste heat recovery” from Steel Mills, etc.
We will have 10 to 20 million gal/yr “cellulosic” ethanol plants in every county. These biorefineries will operate off Municipal Solid Waste (Fiberight has the cost of this down to $1.65/gal,) switchgrass (Genera, Poet projecting $2.00 or less/gal,) and forestry/ag waste. A Serious Co-Product of these biorefineries will be lignin, converted to biogas, to power 57% efficient Turbines which can be ramped up, and down quickly to follow wind, and solar.
This is all extremely simple stuff. And, actually, not very expensive.
Not demand, but supply, availlability and pricing will define the future energy-consumption of mankind in the future.
The Third World can demand energy as much as it may – buf when there simply is none they can lay their hands on, or if the purchasing prices for said energy far exceed the Third World’s availlable income, there’s no ways in heaven they will ever rise their energy consumption to western-lifestyle levels – let alone, to US-lifestyle-levels.
So keeping the Third World poor is paramount to ascertain the First, Western World the future availlability of sufficient and affordable energy.
And that’s what western politicians were and still are all about, when dealing with the Third World.
It only remains to be seen, how emerging countries and people like those of China and India will react to that in the future.
I predict future energy wars looming in a not-too-distant future – the first of which are actually fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, already.
I encourage everyone to have a look at this thesis by Willem Nel http://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za%3A8080%2Fdspace%2Fbitstream%2F10210%2F3094%2F1%2FNel%2520.pdf&ei=9AplTKHEE5WSjAfIv8DRCw&usg=AFQjCNFqiu5ZI6S4uXhOKVAidAoEAjhGBQ (Univ of Johannesburg) on ‘peak energy’. It is not perfect but it is pretty comprehensive and detailed. I agree that the unsuspected reserves of natural gas may change the picture. The idea that we can double the CO2 in the atmosphere at all, let alone in 100 years, is undermined by this detailed analysis of what energy reserves we have and where it comes from. Catastrophic predictions seem always to be based on the combustion of infinite carbon resources. They are simply not there.
The population of the planet is forecast to drop back to its present level by 2100 in the same reports that say it will rise to a peak by 2050. Let’s not repeat the 2050 figure in order to provide the most alarmist picture of future global needs. That is cherry picking. As populations develop their birth rate drops. In a more equitable world it will drop faster. That doesn’t mean we need carbon taxes, but it does mean reducing and eventually eliminating the naked exploitation of some regions by others that creates so much alarming poverty.
Martin Brumby:
Considering present UK Energy Policy, at August 13, 2010 at 12:53 am you say:
“The only report of which I am aware that looks at this half-way logically is:-
http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Generating_the_future_report.pdf
Note that this is the projection of the generation needs for a developed economy (the UK) up to 2050. And their base case assumption is the rather fanciful one of energy consumption being capped at current levels.
Just check out what new energy infrastructure they say is needed if we are to strive to 80% CO2 reduction by 2050!”
I think you may want to read my item at
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
especially its Section 1 (p 3) and Section 14 (pp 13-19).
I hope this is of use and/or interest to you.
Richard
It makes nop sense to have coal energy production remain constant; it is the most abundent and cheapest source of energy.