Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
This is a great time to talk about energy use worldwide. Not because it’s topical, or politically important, or anything like that. It’s a great time because the math is easier now than ever before, and easier than it ever will be again.
It’s similar to a time a few years ago when there were almost exactly 100 million households in the United States. It made a lot of calculations really easy to do. And this year, the United States Department of Energy calculates that the world used 500 quads of energy. Ah, the symmetry.
Even more conveniently, the United States and China will each use roughly 100 quads. Comparisons, contrasts–you don’t even need a calculator! A quad is a quadrillion British Thermal Units, and is roughly equivalent to the energy liberated from 36 million tons of coal. It’s a lot of energy, and 500 of those quads is really a mind stretcher. (For those of you who are counting, about 52 of those quads came from renewable energy. Of those 52 quads, about 50 came from hydroelectric power… urkk…)
In 2035, the DOE figures the world will consume about 683 quads, give or take. The UN, more ambitiously, thinks it’ll come in at about 703 quads. Either way, they anticipate a 40% growth in energy requirements. Is it okay if I say I think they’re both wrong?
Here’s why: The UN (and pretty much everybody else) believes that the world’s population will be at or around 8 billion in 2035. The UN (and pretty much everybody else) believes that world GDP will grow by about 3% per year between now and then–which is pretty much what it has been doing for quite a while. But most of that growth is projected to occur in the developing world. And most of that growth will be very energy intensive.
Here in the U.S., our energy consumption per person has been declining for a while, now. We’re down from 337 million btu’s per person to 323 mbtu’s per capita. But it’s going in the other direction in the developing world. They need the energy to actually, well, develop. And then they want the energy to enjoy the fruits of their development. Makes sense–that’s exactly what we did here.
Price Waterhouse Coopers has projected GDP growth to 2050 for major economies. For the U.S., they predict per capita growth in GDP from $40,339 in 2005 to $88,443 in 2050. Most of the very well developed countries show the same level of growth–a bit better than doubling.
The Department of Energy has energy use per person for many of the same countries. So let’s look at China. Before I start, remember that China has doubled its energy use since 2000. And they’re not done yet.
Their 2005 GDP per capita was $1,664 and their energy usage per capita was 58.8 mbtu’s. Their 2050 GDP per capita is projected to be $23,534, similar to Spain’s present GDP per person. Spain’s energy use is 164 mbtu’s. So who wants to predict China’s energy use per person in 2050? In 2035?
We’re always picking on China, and we don’t need to. The scary part is we can do the exact same thing for Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey and India. The developing world is developing. They are going to be energy-sucking monsters for the next 80 years–just like we were.
My calculations show that, if we succeed in persuading the developing world to use energy efficient technologies wherever possible, switching from coal to natural gas, adopting wind and solar, buying best of breed turbines, etc., the world’s energy consumption in 2035 will be about 1,100 quads. However, if they proceed as they are (mostly) doing now, throwing up dirty coal to avoid blackouts and brownouts, cobbling together solutions however they can, world energy use in 2035 might well approach 2,000 quads–or even surpass it.
Imagine a world of 8.1 billion people, 7 billion of whom are using energy at the same rate as we do here in America–323 million btu’s per head. (3.23 x 7, for Joe Romm). That’s over 2,100 quads. It is at this point that some ugly questions appear. If we burn coal to obtain this energy, that’s 2,100 x 36 million tons of coal. If we withhold energy from these people, we condemn them to lives of starvation and poverty. If we subsidize clean energy solutions for them, we are spending our hard earned tax money on the poorest of the poor, many of whom live in countries that are not friendly to us. Oh, wait… we’re already doing that, aren’t we?
I favor the third solution. Using your and my tax dollars to help the poor afford electricity that comes from natural gas, nuclear and other cleaner solutions, so they can afford to buy our video games and see our movies (and, well, pay for them…). I do not expect my idea of the best solution to be very popular. Not with climate alarmists, who already don’t like natural gas or nuclear, and want to limit energy consumption by everybody except for themselves. Probably not with many readers here, who have seen taxpayer money go up in smoke on so many poorly-designed projects. But I think it’s our duty to ourselves, as well as the poorest of the poor.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gail Combs says:
September 1, 2010 at 2:09 pm
“The maintenance level for the population is a birth rate of 2.1%
The USA has a birth rate of 1.3% click”
You are confusing birth rate with fertility rate.
A birth rate(births per 1,000 population) of 1.3% with a life expectancy of 76 years = 100% replacement rate.
The fertility rate of 2.1 children per female of child bearings years is considered also considered ‘replacement’.
Well, if you don’t know the basic difference between oil in place and reserves and if you have never heard of EROEI, then I can’t help you. But if that’s the case, which apparently it is, you shouldn’t be opening your mouth because it makes you look extremely silly.
What we should be aiming at is maximizing the long-term survival chances of the species. This, BTW, very much includes things like space travel, but for those things to happen, a lot of time is needed for the necessary technologies to be developed, if it is at all physically possible (it may very well not be). But it is never going to happen if civilization collapse this century, because we are maybe hundreds or thousands of years away from such technologies (again, if they exist).
So what are short-term (and by short-term, I mean this century) target should be is a number of people that’s safely within the carrying capacity of the planet (and that will allow the planet to recover from the last 300 years of human terror) and who all live a comfortable lifestyle, have high level of education, and are involved in collectively useful activities. Chad-level of consumption is most definitely not what the target is, in fact it is what we’re trying to avoid. But the long-term carrying capacity of the planet at a comfortable level of lifestyle, and close to 100% recycling, is probably below the 100 million, possibly much lower than 100 million. There are huge uncertainties to any such number, but given what’s at stake, if there is uncertainty, this means that the target should be safely within the lowest estimate
http://books.google.com/books?id=QRyQiINGW6oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=limits+to+growth+the+30-year+update&source=bl&ots=GncNbKaaiY&sig=dR2eIbJZO_fWnicW0QtSjZKUeGo&hl=en&ei=Fst-TMGFJZDksQO5tr31Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
GM
September 1, 2010 at 11:46 am
As a long time retired EPA environmental research scientist, I worked closely with economists. Economics is the quantification of human behavior in costs and benefits. I dare say that I believe most economists have a better handle on the “climate science” than you. Study objectively Carlin’s web page http://www.carlineconomics.com.
GM says: September 1, 2010 at 2:19 pm
1) you agree with it, in which case you wouldn’t have posted what you posted
2) therefore you don’t agree with it, in which the one who doesn’t belong to absolutely any kind of discussion is you
Actually, I was waiting for an apology for calling someone who is an aerospace engineer an idiot for suggesting that mankind can go to Mars. I figure since you’re just trolling, I’ll be waiting a long time.
“Once again, what would it take for people to figure out that if it will take many times the energy contained in a hydrocarbon to bring it from Titan to the Earth, it makes absolutely no sense to do that?”
Well, my liddle luddite, it is part of an overall process. The more things you do
in space the easier and cheaper it is to do.
Plus
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/deepspace_propulsion_000816.html
An inflatable bag of frozen hydrocarbons accompanied by its small propulison/pump craft ( unmanned) is perfect for this new low power engine.
You just have to know what you are talking about ( And if I know it, ‘s fair common knowledge) and maybe cut back on the jerkiness.
GM says: September 1, 2010 at 2:51 pm
But the long-term carrying capacity of the planet at a comfortable level of lifestyle, and close to 100% recycling, is probably below the 100 million, possibly much lower than 100 million. There are huge uncertainties to any such number, but given what’s at stake, if there is uncertainty, this means that the target should be safely within the lowest estimate
GM. Now I know you are out of your tree.
Doug
GM says:
September 1, 2010 at 9:35 am
” So if oil has practically reached its all time production peak”
Those who proclaim a resource will ‘run out’ have very little historical standing.
For example, diamonds are mined more then 2 miles deep.
All the ‘peak’ predictions are based on an extraction cost. If one is prepared to pay an unlimited price for extraction then for all intents and purposes the resource is unlimited.
The reality is that humanity has always used up the ‘cheap stuff’ first and then found an alternative. I.E. Cutting down trees for firewood is pretty cheap if the trees happen to be in your backyard. But as soon as you need to truck the wood across town, tree’s are a pretty expensive way to stay warm.
“So what are short-term (and by short-term, I mean this century) target should be is a number of people that’s safely within the carrying capacity of the planet (and that will allow the planet to recover from the last 300 years of human terror)”
Admit it , you just don’t like people.
Somebody sold you this bill of goods , and now you are peddling it but I think
most of us here, ( count me in with Jeremy, Tenue, etc) know better than to give credence to this gloom and doom when it is obvious that it goes nowhere.
GM says (September 1, 2010 at 11:19 am): “If you had actually read what those projections are instead of believing what the propaganda machine has been feeding you, you would not be laughing”
I’ve read the projections (has GM?) and I’ve seen how far off they are, and that’s why I’m still laughing. BTW, I’ve noticed in GM’s abundant (inexhaustible?) contributions to this thread a total absence of hard numbers. This is wise, because as the Club of Rome discovered, specific predictions of doom are proved wrong all too soon.
Jimash says:
September 1, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Do some calculations. Compare the amount of energy required just to overcome gravity with the amount of energy that could possibly be delivered from distant space. Our solar energy technology may not be cheap, but there are no delivery costs.
It matters very little what your credentials are, what matters is what your posts reveal about your actual competence.
Fred,
As I have said it is part of a process.
Once there is a presence in space of an industrial nature, there would naturaly be a fleet of space vehicles that would only need to escape the gravity of the Earth once, and could go and come back many times delivering their cargoes in orbit. With Ion engines
and nuclear electric propulsion.
Getting it to ground requires a fixed installation.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast07sep_1/
http://spaceelevatorconference.org/default.aspx
Put that puppy up , get the ions propelling, and we are in business.
GM – I believe that Vince asked for proof , not the author’s press release . As far as I could tell , it was nothing but opinion . Do you have any real links , or did you just read some book ?
GM says:
September 1, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Your arrogance is hard to stand. Since you seem to believe, that this plante can only sustain 100 mil inhabitants:
“But the long-term carrying capacity of the planet at a comfortable level of lifestyle, and close to 100% recycling, is probably below the 100 million, possibly much lower than 100 million. ”
So you want death for roghly 5.9 billion people. Go ahead, be the first, let your word be followed by action – as has been recommended to you before: Say farewell to the planet and stop using up valuable resources.
Kitefreak says:
September 1, 2010 at 11:41 am
“GDP will grow by about 3% per year between now and then–which is pretty much what it has been doing for quite a while”.
“Is that normal then? Is that OK? I just confirmed using a spreadsheet that that is actually an exponential rate of growth, which is, by further thinking, unsustainable.
I think a little economic truth is required.
Remember that all those resouces have to come out of the earth at some point. It’s not a bottomless pit.
Anyway, why do we all fall to our knees at the altar of GDP?”
=========================================================
Yes, that’s about right, on average of course. The reason why we fall to our knees at the altar of GDP is a follows——— It is simply a reflection of what we do to earn our keep. If GDP is negative, then that nation(GDP is usually referenced by nation) isn’t producing enough to sustain itself. That is a very base explanation, but I’ve gotta run, though I’ll pop back on in a bit if you need further explanation. But just remember, GDP is as necessary to sustainability as energy sources.
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/
See that ? it is an inflatable space vehicle.
This is coming. Most of the technologies necessary for doing what I have alluded to, exist already. (inflatables, Ion, robotics )
The Space Elevator is the biggy .
There’s no doubt GM is a narcissistic troll. I’ve seen them many times. They make one unsubstantiated claim after another. He will get nowhere here because the folks here know how to think. Here’s a particular gem:
So the only rational thing to do is to operate under the assumption that no technofix will be available
There is only one way to describe that level of thinking … foolish. The perfect precautionary thinker. The reason intelligent people don’t think like that is they have seen and been successful by taking the exact opposite approach. Entrepreneurs are not ALL successful, but we can actually look at the statistics and determine what success rate we should see in the future. This is exactly what GM says is impossible and should be ignored.
Of course, GM’s mind is made up and no facts will stop him from tilting at his own personal windmills.
GM says:
September 1, 2010 at 11:32 am
I am sorry to say but my alma matter has produced a good number of idiots over the years in addition to the really large number of really smart and educated people.
psssst….it’s alma mater, but I suppose that wouldn’t matter if you happened to be from the former group.
You are very seriously misrepresenting what I said, which doesn’t speak well of your intellectual honesty, but anyway, I will restate it:
We should do 2 things that we aren’t doing right now:
1. Invest all available resources into technology development
2. Operate under the assumption that those efforts will most likely be futile and bring our numbers and consumption levels safely within the carrying capacity of the planet
Energy consumption in the United States fell nearly 5% last year, marking the largest annual drop on record, according to an analysis of federal data by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/26/news/economy/energy_use/
“1. Invest all available resources into technology development
2. Operate under the assumption that those efforts will most likely be futile and bring our numbers and consumption levels safely within the carrying capacity of the planet”
And then what, Genius ?
You are one of those “people are killing the Earth” nuts.
It IS nuts. You DO need help. Take a tip. Everything you know is wrong.
A person who doesn’t understand the concept of EROEI is definitely more competent than me, yeah…
Oh you are competent. Just wrong.
You are wrong about EROIE.
You are wromng about technology.
Wrong about the envirnment.
And criminally wrong about populatiuon.
Anyone who thinks that 100 million people or less is a necessary adjustment to the Human condition
has a wire loose.
Doo YOUR math. 100 million or less world wide WOULD be like living on a desert Isalnd with no hope of rescue, which appears to be your fear AND your ambiton. Reconcile that , genius.