Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
The choices we make about energy, the environment and climate will be limited by The Three Chinas.
The Real China
1. One of the Chinas is very real and familiar. It has a population of 1.4 billion.
2. China is developing quickly, trying to do in 50 years what America did in 100. As a result, they have doubled their energy use since 2000, becoming the largest energy user in the world.
3. China’s energy use may well double again by 2020. (The figures in the report did not match reality, but their estimate of 7.5% annual growth looks fairly okay).
4. Coal currently provides 70% of China’s energy. That may drop to 65% by 2020. It may not.
5. If China doubles its energy use (to 200 quads) and 65% of it comes from coal, that will be 130 quadrillion BTUs generated from burning coal, in China, in 2020.
6. China’s coal plants are much dirtier than those used in the developed world.
The Second China
This very real China will be replicated by the natural growth of the human population to 8.5 billion by 2035, and 9.1 billion at its peak later this century. That’s more than the entire population of China. As many of them will actually be born in China, and many more will form part of our third ‘imaginary’ China, it is appropriate to limit the Second China to the size of the real one.
7. Most of these new humans will be born into developing countries.
8. But these developing countries are, in fact, developing now. Their energy use is increasing dramatically–if not as dramatically as China’s. The Second China will spring forth from countries whose energy use is growing by 3.3% per year.
9. And although their use of coal is not as intense as China’s, their reliance on fossil fuels is fairly close (Fig. 2)
The Third China
While China is developing quickly, so is the rest of the developing world. As countries develop, the people living in them get richer. They buy cars, appliances, computers, and begin to use more energy. Again, to avoid double counting (China will be one of the countries talked about, and many of the new middle class will consist of people not yet born), it is correct to think of this as about the size of the current China.
10. Two billion people may join the middle class by 2030.
11. By 2050, countries which are now developing quickly will be called ‘middle-income’ and may account for 60% of GDP.
12. Goldman Sachs believes that China’s per capita income will be $50,000 in 2050 (p.5), and that their per capita GDP will be $70,000. But they also project that Turkey and Mexico will have higher incomes per capita, and that Brazil will almost match China.
13. Mexico currently consumes 69 million BTUs per person per year (Table 1.8). Their average income is $14,000. If their incomes triple, so will their energy usage. The same is true for Indonesia, Turkey, the Philippines, China, India and more.
Discussion
I have written here frequently that I believe current estimates of future energy consumption are flawed. I hope the information provided above shows why. As I have written before, extending current consumption and development trends over a short period of time shows a doubling and perhaps a tripling of energy use over the medium term. That could see global demand for energy reaching 2,000 quads per year by 2035.
I do not know what the sensitivity of the atmosphere is to a doubling of concentrations of CO2 is, and despite pronouncements from partisans on either side of that argument, I don’t think anybody else knows, either.
I do not know what cycles of earth, moon, sun and stars will combine to push or pull global temperatures one way or another, and despite pronouncements from partisans on either side, I don’t think anybody else knows, either.
Recent human history makes it fairly easy to contemplate economic growth and energy usage for the very near future. It is an order of magnitude easier than trying to analyse the factors that influence the climate.
We do not have to guess about the effects of massive coal consumption by developing countries–we have our own history to guide us, from London in 1952 to Manchester a century before, from burning rivers in Ohio to dead lakes nearby.
Commenters to my recent pieces asked why I characterise our situation as an energy crisis. I have tried to provide an answer here. I’m happy to discuss this with any and all. Because I think this is a conversation we can have without referring to magical numbers and thinking, pixie dust or moonbeams.
I personally think that this level of intense development will indeed have an effect on our climate, due not only to CO2, but also deforestation, aquifer depletion and other factors described ably by Roger Pielke Sr. But I don’t know how much and I don’t know what percentages to assign to each.
So let’s talk about energy and why what is described above signals a crisis–or not.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have been travelling to China/Hong Kong for more than 24 years and the changes have been simply astounding. This development keeps the masses under control, but the coming energy price spike to come as growing Asian/Bric demand depletes the small cushion we currently enjoy will imperil stability in many , if not all parts of the world. I’m off to HK for two years in Dec, good luck to me I say! I will be watching developments with great interest.
One fact that you have not taken into account is China’s whole-hearted embrace of nuclear power. Daya Bay, see here for details ( http://www.nuctrans.org/Nuc_Trans/locations/daya-bay/daya-bay.html ) was just the first of many more such plants planned and even now under construction.
China knows that the most viable option is nuclear power if it wants to provide for future growth. And that is just the route it has taken.
China will soon become the world’s leader in nuclear power generation. The coal that they have will be saved for other uses.
Technical developments are just as hard to predict as anything else, nobody predicted The Internet, universal ownership of mobile phones, Television etc.
But from what I see I can easily envisage human tools that use only a small fraction of the Energy that powers our current devices.
Also if everything we built, our cities, houses, roads, captured energy from the sun then there is no energy problem, we just need the technology to do it and I can already see that this is going to be possible.
Ok, somebody has to speak the magic word. Malthus. There, i did. (covers)
An excellent piece, Thomas. Perhaps this might help to put it into perspective:
As you have pointed out above, the action is all in the developing world.
Sorry , Thomas , but I can see no connection to coal use and burning rivers . Dead lakes maybe , but even that’s a stretch . Until the 70’s , bodies of water were convenient dumping grounds for all sorts of pollutants including sewerage . At that time , Ohio was one of the most heavily industrialized states in the Union and very few people cared about effluents . Modern coal fired facilities emit few pollutants despite the hysteria to the contrary coming from green groups .
So the answer for both sides is do not buy a thing from China, India, Mexico and save the planet, they cannot expand at that rate without our custom (and it would reduce unemployment in the west)
All the projections seem based on the assumption that there will not be a population-reducing war. IMO a very optimistic assumption.
The last 65 years of growth have been a direct result of the Pax Americana, and the Pax Americana has been a result of wealth derived from cheap energy and debt-based growth.
The future will be very interesting indeed.
To provide balance the post should have mentioned that global technological developments will make burning coal for energy a thing of the past.
Would it be fair to say that commentators have been making predictions of an energy crisis for 40years or more? These people no doubt based their predictions on sound numbers. What makes the present day doom mongers any better at predicting the future? It strikes me that what is always left out of these calculations is the resiliance and ingenuity of H. sapiens.
On Willis’ graph in the first post does anybody have any comments on how productivity has shifted globally? Anybody have good links for a summary of globalisation of production, heavy industry etc. I’d like to be able to back up the follow statement. Most of the carbon increase in the developing world is still to produce products for consumption in the industrialized West.
Finally I’ve always thought spreading greater wealth as a good thing. Since when did this become seen primarily as a problem? I’d prefer to support greater wealth in resourse poor regions and then deal with any unwelcome side affects afterwards rather than buy into the idea that the planet can’t afford to see these people access what we already have.
The website http://www.world-nuclear.org shows China with 2800 nuclear plants by the year 2100.
China has built a new city whose entire productive labor force will be engaged in building modular nuclear plants.
The times, they are a changing.
First the link between energy and environment is the canard that the environmental left wants us to believe.
The true link is between energy and wealth. China gets it, India gets it. The US and Europe are following the false gods of the green movement and don’t get it.
If, and when hydrocarbon fuels become scarcer and less economical in supplying the energy needed to maintain the level of comfort and wealth to which we aspire, humanity will find a cost effective replacement. We will have little choice but to do so, but this time is a long time forward – as in hundreds of years (peak oil is a scam).
There is currently no shortage of hydrocarbon fuels. There exist many imposed bottlenecks in the supply chain, but these are self imposed – by those who seek to control the distribution of wealth.
Hi Thomas,
I would agree that if our current sources of energy remain as they are, that in short order we will have what you call an energy crisis; would entail unavoidable impact on our environment, whether it be climate change, increased pollution levels or having natural habitats decimated. However I’m not one of those that trust the answers will be found in simply depending on existing technologies as through conservation, increased efficiencies and converting to other known energy sources.
What I feel as being required is a total breakthrough in terms of science in fostering new technologies, such as in nuclear fusion, electrical storage, bio technology, long distance power transmission efficiency and sensible global plans for the reduction of urban sprawl. So the way to deal with the future is in first being confident that we have the ability to look forward to one, as to support a dramatic increase in relevant scientific research and technology, as to have us able to successfully meet these challenges. However the bottom line being the developed nations can’t just sit back and point their fingers at the rest of the world, yet rather understand they must lead the way in having it all to be realized.
Regards,
Phil
(bitter, sarcastic, and jaundiced view…)
One thing is omitted – the new middle class will use the most of the energy to watch sitcoms on 3D TVs in cozy environment with fridges for Cocas, air conds, and cars to buy cigarettes in nearby 100m newsstand (all generate heat to fulfill their aims).
The world forgot what is its ultimate target so there will be not cosmic transport ships to colonize new worlds.
The only solution left is Agent Orange sprayed over population centers what some dream of every night.
Or… new inventions will be pull out from gov vaults which give us new cheap energy available for all and for free. But who believes in this scenario seriously? Me not.
Regards
Going green is not going to provide the energy the future needs. Nuclear power is the only really reliable, plentiful source currently available. The safety concerns are primarily related to who has the material as most problems with earlier reactors were design flaws. The US Navy operates vast numbers of mobile reactors that are on and under the ocean that are mostly run by 19-22 year olds. They have done that for decades without safety issues.
The current generation of reactors is impressive and developing them will only make them more so. It should even be possible for many countries to develop large energy industries and export their energy to countries that don’t want reactors. France (yes France) is already doing that. They will make a fortune in the future with that model. We should be all over it and ship energy to Canada and Mexico.
John Kehr
Thomas,
As my mother used to say: “Why worry? It might never happen.”
My bet is that we are going to face all sorts of challenges in the 21st century, but that the worst will turn out to be things we haven’t even dreamt of yet.
And don’t forget the obverse: the best will also be things we haven’t yet dreamt of.
I’m not a bible basher, but as I grow older, I appreciate this more and more: “Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day [is] the evil thereof.”
Thomas, you are a gifted writer to be sure but please don’t give energy consumption in quadrillions of BTUs. It is a bit annoying I believe for most of your readers and for the rest it is relatively meaningless, like saying a whole bunch. Probably tons of coal equivalent would be suitable if your intent is to tell us how mind boggling the numbers are. You have avoided measuring sealevel rise in olympic-sized swimming pools, calving glaciers is cubic Oxburghs and sea ice loss in numbers of Manngavins and the like, I’ll give you that. In all such cases there is a bit of intellectual dishonesty. We are talking about inappropriate differences in magnitude – measuring the sea in swimming pools, etc. A pound of coal is 8,000 to 13,000 BTUs. There 7000 grains in a pound so one grain is 1-2 BTUs. This practice is equivalent to measuring the rice crop in numbers of grains!!!
Hi Anthony,
This comment has nothing to do with the above article, but I do not know how else to communicate with you.
This year, my daughter is in Earth Science (8th grade). About a month ago, she came home and told me that the teacher showed a video on man-made global warming by Bill Nye, The Science Guy. Bill is considered to be the science guru to kids.
Last Thursday, we had parent/teacher conferences. I talked to the teacher about man-made global warming. She said that she was not suppose to interject politics or her bias in the debate. I asked her if she was going to show Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth?” She shook her head “no” and said, we wouldn’t do that.
I then said that that was exactly what they did when they showed the video of Bill Nye, The Science Guy.
I finally got around to checking some facts and this is what I found.
Bill Nye is part of Repower America (Alliance for Climate Protection). Here is a short video.
The founder and chairman of the Alliance is Al Gore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Climate_Protection
Bill Nye is acting as a surrogate for Al Gore in the public schools.
This might be an interesting article for you to blog on.
Keep Smiling ?
Jeff Wiita
Mr. Fuller,
I do not believe there is any need for a population or energy crisis. I do see that some would like to inflate problems in these areas for the same agendas that were behind the failed AGW crisis. We will only have a crisis if we manufacture one by intentionally ignoring effective responses to population and energy issues that are within our present economic and technological capabilities.
For population it is very obvious that the solution is wealth. Higher living standards lead to lower birth rates. This effect is seen globally. Many developed nations are now having trouble sustaining their populations without immigration. The solution to improved living standards is cheap energy. The developing world need all the cheap energy it can get ASAP.
For energy the solution is truth. The planet has plenty of hydrocarbon fuel reserves, and seems to be abioticaly producing more all the time. We also have plenty of nuclear fuel in the form of thorium. The only way we are going to have an energy crisis is if we manufacture reasons to restrict the use of these fuel sources.
The question is not “are we going to have an energy crisis?” but rather “do we want to manufacture an energy crisis?”. I do not believe we are going to have an energy crisis even though many people are working to manufacture one. My reasoning is that those who would seek to create an energy crisis are the same fellow travellers involved the AGW scam. As the global warming scam disappears, so will their reputations and influence.
Yes we will be burning coal simply because it’s cheap and we have plenty of it but we also have the relative new option of shale gas for power generation.
The available amounts are mind boggling.
The only energy crises I see is man made.
By the way China nuclear plants…
See the pictures: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/06/worlds-first-commercial-high.html
And search the Next Big Future blog for “China” and “nuclear plants”. Very revealing.
For example:
1. China has 21.9 Gigawatts of Nuclear Power Under Construction and More Nuclear Plant Uprates
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/01/china-has-219-gigawatts-of-nuclear.html
2. Japan Steel Work Increases Forecast of China Nuclear Plant Construction
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/japan-steel-work-increases-forecast-of.html
The country may build about 22 reactors in the five years ending 2010 and 132 units thereafter (…)
World Nuclear news has coverage of the Japan Steel boosted estimate and it relates to the prior target of 40 GW by 2020 by China which is now likely to be up to 86 GW or more.
Regards
And one more quote from the Nex Big Future blog:
Carnival of Nuclear Energy 2 – china build, thorium and more
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/05/carnival-of-nuclear-energy-2-china.html
Just a few years ago, the goal in China was to increase nuclear plant capacity from about 9 GWe to 40 GWe by 2020. The current plan will achieve that goal within the next five years and could hit a number closer to 80-120 GWe by 2020. The reactor construction and manufacturing enterprise will not suddenly stop at that level. As the construction continues, China could be operating 300-400 GWe of nuclear plant capacity by 2030. If history is any guide, that capacity should be operating at a capacity factor of 75-90%, displacing a tremendous quantity of fossil fuel consumption.
Regards
Our technological advancements will completely change the game. Nanotechnologies will see a massive surge by the end of this decade making solar power one of the cheaper (and later the cheapest) sources of energy. Also the projected rise of the per capita GDP pretty much tells the rest of the story.
Time to remind everybody:
CO2 follows temperature, not the other way. Open a coke and you´ll see it: The more you have it in your warm hand the more gas will go out when you open it.
CO2 is the transparent gas we all exhale (SOOT is black=Carbon dust) and plants breath with delight, to give us back what they exhale instead= Oxygen we breath in.
CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038% of it.
There is no such a thing as “greenhouse effect”, “greenhouse gases are gases IN a greenhouse”, where heated gases are trapped and relatively isolated not to lose its heat so rapidly. If greenhouse effect were to be true, as Svante Arrhenius figured it out: CO2 “like the window panes in a greenhouse”, but…the trouble is that those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, there would be 9996.2 HOLES.
See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28018819/Greenhouse-Niels-Bohr
CO2 is a gas essential to life. All carbohydrates are made of it. The sugar you eat, the bread you have eaten in your breakfast this morning, even the jeans you wear (these are made from 100% cotton, a polymer of glucose, made of CO2…you didn´t know it, did you?)
You and I, we are made of CARBON and WATER.
CO2 is heavier than Air, so it can not go up, up and away to cover the earth.
The atmosphere, the air can not hold heat, its volumetric heat capacity, per cubic cemtimeter is 0.00192 joules, while water is 4.186, i.e., 3227 times.
This is the reason why people used hot water bottles to warm their feet and not hot air bottles.
Global Warmers models (a la Hansen) expected a kind of heated CO2 piggy bank to form in the tropical atmosphere, it never happened simply because it can not.
If global warmers were to succeed in achieving their SUPPOSED goal of lowering CO2 level to nothing, life would disappear from the face of the earth.
So, if no CO2 NO YOU!
I would guess that you are correct in the growth of energy use. But I disagree with the concern you have.
For example, people say we are short of water. What BS, 70% of the planet is covered with water. It may not be in the condition or location you want, but those are just engineering problems.
We can produce all the energy we need without killing ourselves with pollution. we just have to get rid of this mindset that only sees problems and start building the solutions.
As a friend of mine says, “You have opposable thumbs, deal with it”