Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
Lately, North Korea has been very much in the news. Its population—or should I say, “captive population”—greets the passing of the baton from one ruler to another in the same spirit as “Kim is dead, long live Kim!” probably because they are unaware of the following satellite photos. Many readers here have probably encountered them previously.
East Asia at night. Top photo from 1994-95 which outlines North Korea is from MSNBC at http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/19/9564314-satellites-document-north-koreas-dark-ages?pc=25&sp=25. Bottom photo is from 2009. Source: http://agora. ex.nii.ac.jp/~kitamoto/research/rs/stable-lights.html.en.
Not only do the photographs illustrate the lack of economic development in North Korea, they show that it has one of the lightest carbon footprints in the world. And the various indicators of human well-being reflect that dark reality, as shown in the following table.
It wasn’t always thus. In the early 1950s, to the extent data are available, the two countries were about equal in terms of economic development and human well-being. In fact, in 1960, according to the World Bank data, North Korea’s life expectancy was marginally higher than in the South (55.2 yrs vs. 53.0 yrs). Of course, the North’s data may have been fluffed up a little bit by its government before being adopted by the World Bank, but I don’t know for sure.
But over time, South Korea’s freer economic system pulled it ahead. Then, the loss of external support because of the collapse of the Soviet Union turned North Korea into a basket case in the 1990s (see the following figure). Finally, the South also became more democratic and its economic and social systems became more transparent. The consequences are evident in the above photographs and the following figure.
Per capita GDP and per capita CO2 emissions, 1950-2008. Sources: Maddison (2008) and World Bank (2011).
The photographs and the figure are, among other things, also a stark warning of the dangers of excessive zeal in limiting a country’s carbon footprint.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Geoff Sherrington says:
December 22, 2011 at 2:16 am
“… decades ago, possibly pre-1960s, geophysicists analysed seismic properties from large explosions, natural and otherwise. Nuclear had a distinctive fingerprint. It’s unlikely that the fertilizer in the bat cave would trick the system…”
Yeah, I’m aware of that. But a large underground blast and an underground nuclear blast produce near identical compressive waveforms. These are very distinct from strike/slip and have no double couple. (compressive axis and extensional axis) Likewise, the waveform does not look like a piston movement (upper material dropping and lower material flowing up to the more vacant area, such as would be seen in a ring faulted caldera)
The only way to get a read on what is what, is on the differences in the shape of the pulse. This requires some pretty significant resolution and a really good model of what the crust is like in that area. (wave speeds).
And where were the “tests?” In a poorly explored (seismically) mountainous region where you have more reflectors and material interfaces than you can shake a stick at.
This obfuscates any seismic signal in the area. I’m gonna stick with my gut feel on this one.
Note… yeah, same person. I am GeoLurking.
@ur momisugly Mark and 2 Cats – That is probably the worst pun I’ve read on the ‘Net today. Well done!
Dave Springer says:
December 22, 2011 at 12:05 pm
“Nukes aren’t terribly cost efficient, about twice as much as combined cycle natural ggas, so if electricity was the problem we could solve that and keep a respectable ROI. The problem is infrastructure. We don’t have distribution infrastructure for anywhere near enough additional electricity to put a dent in liquid fuel use. In some cases such as commercial trucking and air transporation electricity is about as useful as tits on a tomcat as there is no known means of acheiving the portable energy density those applications must have.”
CNG solves the fuel problem just nicely.
Malki nailed it a few years ago…
http://wondermark.com/404/
Butt CNN gushes over North Korea
http://www.breitbart.tv/cnn-gushes-over-north-korea/
and Jimmy Carter offers condolences over Kim’s death
http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/carter-offers-condolences-to-n-korea-1.1203207
The perfect place for that brainwashed English politician Mr Huhne to go on holiday. He can then see at first hand what the UK will look like after he has built all those windmills, all £150,000,000,000 of them.
It takes enormous amounts of cheap electricity to make those lights. In 2008, B. Obama told the San Francisco Examiner: “Under my administration, energy costs will necessarily skyrocket”. Since getting elected, he has worked on this diligently. Among the first actions of his appointment to head the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was to shut down the only US power plant waste repository being developed (Yucca Mountain). Makes nuke power more expensive and less desirable in this country.
Dave Springer
Re: “Solar thermal is a small boondoggle trying to become a major disaster. . . .even if you’re using the heat to assist in fractionation or some other means of producing liquid fuels from biomass.”
The problem with biomass is very low efficiency of ~2-3% giving $50/ton biomass etc.
I said solar THERMAL, not biofuels (though solar thermal can help biofuels).
Discouraged pessimists do provide the valuable service of reality checks in evaluating the commercial configurations. While you are welcome to your opinion, that need not constrain finding commercial solutions. Some clues:
Solar thermal is being developed to directly make hydrogen. See Alan Weimer
High Temperature Solar in Low Carbon Hydrogen Combine that with CO2 and you have methanol – and thence gasoline.
Despite conventional wisdom, solar thermal is ameanable to major cost reductions. e.g., DOE’s sunshot is seeking to reduce the cost of heliostats from $220/m2 to $75/m2. While focused on power, the same technology can be applied to fuel development.
I expect producing fuel below $50/bbl equivalent is eventually doable.
It requires alot of “dreaming in detail” – otherwise known as innovative engineering, but where there is a will, there is a way.
Dan in California
Re: “Under my administration, energy costs will necessarily skyrocket”.
Our Dear Comrade (“O”) is actively working to enforce his dictat to conform our standard of living to that achieved in North Korea. See:
EPA Tries To Pull a Fast One
Those wanting a rational energy policy, please contact your legislators with this article!
David Springer
re solar “requires great cost and ongoing maintenance in any concentration schemes to turn it from low quality heat to high quality heat.”
To quantify the solar costs see NREL’s Solar Advisor Module (SAM) (That can also give clues as to how to reduce the costs.)
Dave Springer
re coal
See Peak Oil: A physical and economic challenge to economic growth
Slide 16 shows So. Korea is importing 98.8% of its coal.
Slide 7 shows the oil depletion vs growth gap.
A similar unintended social experiment was done with Germany at the end of WWII. When split into East and West with one under Communism and one under (moderately free market) capitalism it took a wall to keep people inside the eastern half while the western half prospered. While Eastern Germany didn’t have the extreme poverty of North Korea its economy, the best of the Eastern Bloc, was a pale shadow of the West.
David L. Hagen on December 22, 2011 at 8:44 am
Thanks much for the Fuel and Famine reference. I’ll have to read that. Also, thanks to FrankSW for reminding about the Nothing to Envy book.
TXRed … You’re welcome!
Indur
If you have a look at the GDP/CO₂ curves, it turns out that even before the 1997/98 Asian financial crisis, although North Korea had plenty of energy, its use was terribly inefficient. And after the crisis, unlike other countries, it could never recover.
Therefore what we see here is not a sui generis low carbon economy, but a busted one.
Solar power bankruptcy:
http://translate.google.com.pe/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww3.lastampa.it%2Feconomia%2Fsezioni%2Farticolo%2Flstp%2F435450%2F
enneagram
One reason for US/EU solar bankruptcies is China’s aggressive push into solar.
China offered $47 billion in loans (compared to $500 million for Solyandra):
Chinese Renewable Companies Slow to Tap $47 Billion Credit
China Leads Global Investments in Renewable Energy
However, aggressive expansion led to oversupply causing severe problems in China as well.
<a href=>LDK Solar, Mathematically Bankrupt Without China (LDK, YGE, STP, TSL, JASO)
Keith W., Mark S., DirkH, Geoff S., crosspatch, . . .
Plutonium is
not Polonium
Dr. Jerry Pournelle often says, accurately, that cheap, plentiful energy is the key to freedom and prosperity.
We have the good fortune to be governed (in fact, ruled) by an administration whose express agenda is to restrict the supply of energy and increase its cost. And an educated elite that cheers every action that they take to advance it.
For both, North Korea is a ‘beacon, shining in the wilderness’. Metaphorically, of course.
David L. Hagen says:
December 22, 2011 at 2:55 pm
“I expect producing fuel below $50/bbl equivalent is eventually doable.
It requires alot of “dreaming in detail” – otherwise known as innovative engineering, but where there is a will, there is a way.”
I wouldn’t disagree that you might get there eventually with solar thermal. The problem with that is, David, that direct production of hydrocarbon fuel by synthetic organisms will reach $5/bbl before solar thermal can get to $50/bbl.
You are certainly entitled to a different opinion but it would be poorly informed opinion. I don’t think you realize how close the synthetic biology solution is to reality nor how far from reality lies anything that can compete with it. Mark my words.
@DavidLHagen
I’m not sure if you fully appreciate the inertia behind biofuel. Tens of billions of dollars annually are already moving through the end-to-end supply chain for ethanol in the United States alone. Ten billion gallons/year of ethanol is blended into the gasoline sold in the U.S. There are almost 50 different models of vehicles of all kinds from cars to suvs to trucks with E85 engines either standard or optional.
The only thing that’s going to change is the source and cost of the ethanol and the amount being consumed. The source will shift to production on land that is not arable using water that is not potable. This will be accomplished with genetically modified organisms. The cost will plummet because there will be very little of value on the input side of the supply chain including labor. The infrastructure is already in place. As the price for ethanol falls and price of fossil oil rises E85 engines will be offered on more and more vehicles until it’s standard for all new engines. They aren’t a costly option to begin with. The same story goes for diesel. Fuel oil can be directly produced by GM organisms at pennies per gallon and can be blended into fossil derived diesel just as ethanol is blended into gasoline.
The writing is on the wall. A granite wall.
@DavidLHagen
You write like someone with a vested interest in certain solar technologies.
Just for the record I have no vested interest in any of this outside of a desire to see my electricity and fuel bills go down instead of up. How that happens matters not a bit to me and I don’t really give a damn whether it’s carbon neutral, carbon free, or carbon city. I’m convinced that in the not too distant future atmospheric CO2 will be seen as a valuable commodity and we’ll be wanting more of it than we can remove without dire consequences to primary producers in the food chain. Atmospheric CO2 will be our carbon source for production of all manner of durable goods as well as for our carbon-neutral fuels. There will be a real need for laws to limit how much can be removed for the manufacture of durable goods. How ironic given the prevailing and mistaken mindset today of needing laws to limit how much can be added.
someone can write with a vested interest in certain solar technologies but i am not.