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.
Thomas says:
September 1, 2010 at 3:29 pm
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.
Uh, let me see, 6.8 billion minus 100 million equals 6.7 billion, not 5.9 billion. But that’s completely missing the point, because the ideas is to actually prevent excessive deaths. You can decrease population by two ways – increase death rate or reduce birth rate. Nobody is talking about the former, the former is the way nature will do it if we don’t and it is what we should be trying to avoid; the only way to do that is to drastically decrease birth rates.
I believe our future energy problems will be solved, and probably by Engineers. They will build the systems needed. I’ve already read about very small reactors (neighborhood size) being in the certification process.
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/11/09/mini-nuclear-power-plants-for-your-neighborhood-in-five-years/
Fusion is also a great possibility, and I hope we reclaim the high ground (the moon), where deuterium is laying around in the dust.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19296/
I really don’t wish to disagree with any of the cosmopolitans, but America needs to get it’s own act together, prior to “Helping” the poor down-trodden masses.
I think the economy could get a great boost, racing the Chinese to the moon.
Tim Williams says:
September 1, 2010 at 1:31 pm
“If anyone believes that global warming is at least a risk, then at the very least, let the fossil fuel industry pay for the right to pollute from it’s own purse.”
Tim, I have a few problems with that argument. First, just for clarity, I don’t believe there is a risk. And, more to the point, I don’t favor subsidies. But even if I did(on both counts), I’d have to ask why just target the fossil fuel industry? Aren’t they simply providing a demand? Let’s target the electricity industry, too. Aren’t the investor own utilities(distribution and transmission) as guilty as the generation companies? The automobile industry, too? What about the gas stations? And aren’t we really kidding ourselves to believe the solar and wind industry don’t emit CO2? You should check the emissions required to build a large wind generation plant. The fact is, there isn’t a single person on earth that isn’t responsible for CO2 emission. The proportional subsidy to to alternate energy is hands down much greater than the “fossil fuel” industry. Another issue, whether you worry about CO2 emissions or not, today, CO2 emissions is analogous prosperity and prosperity is analogous to a higher standard of living. In the future it may not be so, and probably won’t be, but for today, CO2 emissions are why we live longer, healthier, and more comfortable lives. The article stated, “Here in the U.S., our energy consumption per person has been declining for a while, now.” This is true. Currently, we are reaping the benefits of our lower energy consumption in terms of slowing of our productivity and thus our recession. Many of us didn’t see it right away because the GDP includes services(something with no intrinsic or tangible value) into its equation. In the end, though, I agree. Let’s do away with subsidies. I believe any company(fossil fuels included) should rise and fall on their own merits and get off my teat. I simply wasn’t built for the function.
GM says:
Obviously GM is clueless about the free market. Doesn’t his rant sound just like the ravings of the eco-wacko who was shot and killed today? GM continues:
“Of course renewables can’t do the job, they are too diffuse. Combined with fossil fuels non-renewability, this means is that we are in even greater need of reduction of population and consumption.” Reduction of population, eh?
GM also parrots the Luddite misconception that peak oil is once again upon us. Throughout the history of petroleum the Luddites have predicted the same thing — and they have always been 100% wrong, just as GM is:
Predicted peak oil:
– 1885, U.S. Geological Survey: “Little or no chance for oil in California.”
- 1891 U.S. Geological Survey: “Little or no chance for oil in Kansas and Texas”
- 1914, U.S. Bureau of Mines: Total future production limit of 5.7 billion barrels of oil, at most a 10-year supply remaining.
- 1939, Department of the Interior: Oil reserves in the United States to be exhausted in 13 years.
– 1951, Department of the Interior, Oil and Gas Division: Oil reserves in the United States to be exhausted in 13 years.
Actual reserves, 2010:
– 1.3 Trillion barrels of ‘proven’ oil reserves exist worldwide (EIA)
– 1.8 to 6 Trillion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Oil-Shale Reserves (DOE)
- 986 Billion barrels of oil are estimated using Coal-to-liquids (CTL) conversion of U.S. Coal Reserves (DOE)
- 173 to 315 Billion (1.7-2.5 Trillion potential) barrels of oil are estimated in the Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada (Alberta Department of Energy)
- 100 Billion barrels of heavy oil are estimated in the U.S. (DOE)
- 90 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the Arctic (USGS)
– 89 Billion barrels of immobile oil are estimated recoverable using CO2 injection in the U.S. (DOE)
– 86 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (MMS)
– 60 to 80 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in U.S. Tar Sands (DOE)
- 32 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in ANWR, NPRA and the Central North Slope in Alaska (USGS)
- 31.4 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the East Greenland Rift Basins Province (USGS)
- 7.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the West Greenland–East Canada Province (USGS)
- 4.3 Billion (167 Billion potential) barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana (USGS)
- 3.65 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Devonian-Mississippian Bakken Formation (USGS)
- 1.6 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Eastern Great Basin Province (USGS)
- 1.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Permian Basin Province (USGS)
- 1.1 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Powder River Basin Province (USGS)
- 990 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Portion of the Michigan Basin (USGS)
- 393 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. San Joaquin Basin Province of California (USGS)
- 214 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Illinois Basin (USGS)
- 172 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Yukon Flats of East-Central Alaska (USGS)
- 131 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Southwestern Wyoming Province (USGS)
- 109 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Montana Thrust Belt Province (USGS)
- 104 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Denver Basin Province (USGS)
- 98.5 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province (USGS)
- 94 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Hanna, Laramie, Shirley Basins Province (USGS)
For Comparison:
- 260 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in Saudi Arabia (EIA)
- 80 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in Venezuela (EIA)
That does not include natural gas, which is more abundant in the U.S. than oil. The only impediment to satisfying U.S. energy needs with fossil fuels under the jurisdiction of the U.S. is the U.S. government.
For example, the desolate, unpopulated ANWR holds over 10 billion barrels of easily recoverable oil under only 3.13 square miles of unproductive wasteland. Only the government stands in the way of weaning ourselves off of 10 billion barrels of imported oil — while constantly telling everyone that we must wean ourselves off of foreign oil.
Finally looked up EROEI. Wondered why it means so much to one individual.
Not sure what I learned, but a vigorous discussion is on-going.
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/2/114144/2387
GM says:
September 1, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Man, I sure am glad to see you posting here. When I was reading that nut job’s manifesto I saw where he referenced Malthus. I thought, “GM!!!!! NO!!!! DON’T!!!!!” Whew, glad to see you’re still with us, my friend.
@ur momisugly Smokey:
How many times do I have to point to people in this thread that there is a very significant difference between oil in place and recoverable reserves? Yes, the same kind of interent mythology gets thrown at me time and time again.
This is what US oil production has looked historically:
http://www.mbendi.com/pics/graphs/USA-Lower48.gif
Exactly as predicted BTW. As I also pointed out already, the petroleum geologists tend to be the ones concerned about Peak Oil, the economists tend to be the ones thinking that when price goes up, oil will magically start flowing from shales as it did in Saud Arabia in the 1950s. It doesn’t work that way
This is all a rather fascinating academic discussion that doesn’t even delve into the point that would be relevant. What makes people believe the processes that made the oil have quit working? We call them fossil fuels, but that’s only because of the carbon content. Oil isn’t a patch in the earth where all the dinosaurs went to die. And trees weren’t confined to the areas where oil is found today. Its ridiculous to believe so. There was, and surely still is a process that occurs to make the oil. Same for coal. We just don’t know what it is, yet.
GM says: September 1, 2010 at 3:23 pm
It matters very little what your credentials are, what matters is what your posts reveal about your actual competence.
Oh indeed, you are quite right there. So, then in looking over all of your posts and seeing how you consistently presume no one else here has any experience/viewpoint worthy of consideration, [snip]
We know very well how oil, gas and coal were formed. The vast majority of it was formed during severe oceanic anoxic events in the Mesozoic period and during the Paleogene. Ironically, the continuing and unprecedentedly fast ocean acidification we are causing will most likely result in another such episode soon, if there is any plankton left to rot of course…
GM says:
September 1, 2010 at 5:13 pm
This is what US oil production has looked historically:
http://www.mbendi.com/pics/graphs/USA-Lower48.gif
Yeh, GM, no other reason for lower production other than we’re running out. GM, you’re smarter than that.
I live in SE Kansas, a place not known for oil, yet we have a bit under us. I can point to wells that only pump when the price of crude hits $90/barrel. Others, I can point to have been shut down for environmental reasons. Others have been capped for reasons unknown, but what is known is that they were pumping just fine until they turned them off. Further, seeing we haven’t opened a new refinery in about 40 years, there is only so much oil we’re going to be able to pump and process here.
My point is, U.S. oil production is altered by many different concerns other than availability. But, you knew that already.
I have yet to see anyone bring up a point that hasn’t been thoroughly debunked countless times. There is a causal relationship between this unfortunate fact and the way the people responsible for it are seen by me
GM seems to deliberately misunderstand. The problem is too much government, not the amount of oil, which as shown above would be more than sufficient to end all foreign oil imports, if the oil was simply allowed to be extracted. Only the government stands in the way of complete energy independence.
As oil is consumed, the free market, without regulation of any kind, through competition brings about the desired result, as more cost-effective alternatives replace oil: transistors took over the market for tubes [valves]; kerosene replaced whale oil, etc.
The free market is not a thing, it is a process that provides immense prosperity. Now a ravenous government is strangling the market. For example, the EPA is insatiable in its quest to regulate everything it can. Almost every other bureaucracy is attempting to expand, and the pay of the average public employee [federal, state, local, [including tax supported community colleges, colleges and universities] is half again as high for comparable civilian work, and benefits are more than double those in the private sector.
The way GM denigrates the free market, I’d bet there’s more than a little public tax money in his paycheck, maybe 100%. ☹
GM says: September 1, 2010 at 3:55 pm
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.
—————————————————————————————
GM Who exactly are we? Is it you, yourself and your shadow? the government of the country in which you reside? The people of the world? Who exactly will be the ones who bring our numbers and consumption levels to what you define as ‘safely within the carrying capacity of the planet’.
I see in another post here at WUWT about a man named James Lee who says on his website ‘FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)’ we see what can happen to people like you —-
He was shot today for wanting to blow people up.
GM baby take a long look at what you are saying.
Doug
“We” refers to the whole species.
There are mad people on any side of an issue. This is irrelevant with respect to who’s right and who’s not. You don’t see me using Glenn Beck as an example for why right-wing ideology is bullshit, right?
The fact is there is an overwhelming disproportion here, with the people who are concerned about humanity’s ecological overshoot coming from scientific and technical backgrounds, and those people certainly aren’t crazy, while the people who aren’t think everything will be OK, just because it has been OK before, coming from economical and business backgrounds, often with very strong prior ideological commitment to the belief in the omnipotence of free markets and human ingenuity. Who do you trust?
Yes we have all heard the late Mathew Simmon’s propaganda before but it does not hold up to reality,
Crop Circles in the Desert: The Strange Controversy Over Saudi Oil Production (PDF) (Michael C. Lynch, President of Strategic Energy and Economic Research)
“The actual evidence presented by the Simmons work suggests that (a) the Saudis are at the beginning of their resource curve, (b) they are developing their fields in a very careful manner, and (c) they have faced and overcome numerous technical challenges. Nowhere is there anything to support his conclusions that their production is going to peak, and historical evidence refutes this hypothesis quite clearly.“
If this was the case, the price of oil would have been steadily rising from the very moment the first well was drilled in 1859. That’s not the case, so apparently the market doesn’t get resources right. So much for that fallacy
Actually I’m at a private institution 🙂
And yet another lunatic.
Once again, their is absolutely no way that Saudi Arabia will not peak. That’s the intellectual equivalent to claiming that the Earth is flat. Simmons book is very well researched and presents a compelling case. Not that it really matters, whether Saudi Arabia has already peaked, peaks today or peaks in 10 years, or 20 years, it will never produce 20 million barrels a day, it will in fact never produce even 15, and even 20 million barrels a day from Saudi Arabia isn’t going to provide for the projected economic growth over the next decades given what the decline rates everywhere else are.
You have absolutely no idea about the numbers involved
GM says: September 1, 2010 at 6:17 pm
‘There are mad people on any side of an issue. This is irrelevant with respect to who’s right and who’s not. ‘
————————————————————————————-
You views seem to exhibit characteristics akin to the aforementioned Mr. Lee especially when you distil it down to ‘who’s right and who’s not’.
—————————————————————————–
‘The fact is there is an overwhelming disproportion here, with the people who are concerned about humanity’s ecological overshoot coming from scientific and technical backgrounds, and those people certainly aren’t crazy, while the people who aren’t think everything will be OK, just because it has been OK before, coming from economical and business backgrounds, often with very strong prior ideological commitment to the belief in the omnipotence of free markets and human ingenuity’
——————————————————————————–
I don’t think so. You are simply talking drivel.
You seem to forget that you are advocating that ‘we’ whittle down the world’s population to about 100,000,000 people. You don’t define the ‘we’ (the 100 m) who will deal to the 8.7 b or so of ‘them’, or for that matter how ‘we’ will achieve this. This convinces me that you are (shall we say) rather suspect in terms of possessing rational thinking.
——————————————————————————
‘ Who do you trust?’
———————————————————-
I think that I have conveyed my thoughts about that but in short, not you GM
Doug
From time immemorial human ingenuity has made life better.
From fire to farming.
From human labor to mules to trucks.
From the simple electronics of Edison to the Tube( Valve) to the transistor to the chip.
From candles to whale oil to gas to electric lightbulbs, people have not failed to adopt better cleaner technology when it becomes available.
No one needed to legislate the adoption of Automobiles or telephones or electric lights.
When WHEN, the better thing comes form the lab of some formerly unknown genius , or from a well known corporation people will adopt it.
The EROEI will be worthwhile .
But NOT if we force ourselves to adopt weak tech that will not power our world.
That path short circuits the system , stifles innovation and leads to poverty.
Your path leads to the very thing you claim to fear. Civilizational collapse.
Are you warning against it, or selling it ?
The latter seems more probable from the tone of your posts.
After I quoted GM exactly he states:
You are very seriously misrepresenting what I said, which doesn’t speak well of your intellectual honesty, but anyway, I will restate it:
Not sure how an exact quote “misrepresents” what you said. Then GM spouts:
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
I see, according to the limited mind of GM the world is completely black and white, yes and no, 1) and 2). That kind of thinking fits perfectly with his lack of comprehension of the real world. Come on GM, you’ve obviously done some reading. Now it’s time to put down the books and think for yourself.
We don’t have to do either one. Technology development is a natural part of our current world. Our current investment is fine, no need to panic. We will continue to progress and you will eventually feel foolish (although I doubt you will ever admit it to yourself).
Actually all of our energy needs could be met by building a Dyson Shell around the sun. The 400 septillion watts that the sun puts out should be enough to supply everyone’s energy needs for the foreseeable future.
GM says (September 1, 2010 at 2:01 pm): “Eastern [sic] Islanders were smart enough to find a way to erect those huge statues … But it didn’t help them to prevent their ecological overshoot”
The Easter Islanders were victims of European invaders, not “ecological overshoot”.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/EE%2016-34_Peiser.pdf
GM says (September 1, 2010 at 5:30 pm): “Ironically, the continuing and unprecedentedly fast ocean acidification we are causing will most likely result in another such episode soon, if there is any plankton left to rot of course…”
http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/357/357094/folders/273650/2183619BS-meter2.gif
@ur momisugly GM
“We know very well how oil, gas and coal were formed. The vast majority of it was formed during severe oceanic anoxic events in the Mesozoic period and during the Paleogene. Ironically, the continuing and unprecedentedly fast ocean acidification we are causing will most likely result in another such episode soon, if there is any plankton left to rot of course…”
lol, right. Ocean acidification. You stick a litmus paper in the ocean lately? GM, its still blue. Further, that’s a theory that I find rather implausible. Our oil patches today is where the plankton went to die without getting ate first? K. Perhaps plankton was dispersed differently than today. It used to be widely accepted that the sun rotated the earth. It is easy to see why. The sun comes up in the east every day and goes down in the west every day. But some clever fellow said, “You know, there’s something off about this.”…..
Newton was proven correct when he stated, “Bodies in motion tend to stay in motion……” That principle in physics has served mankind quite well. There is no reason to discard it because it doesn’t fit one’s world view.
GM,
I agree resources are finite, econ 101. Now what to do about it. Do you suggest bureaucrats decide winners and losers before shortages actually occur. For example, do you suggest that governments should somehow artificially limit oil consumption since you believe peak oil is nigh? If you do that is a different debate and one that you can’t win I think.
I would leave such “decisions” to market forces.