Global peak energy: Implications for future human population

SunnyJim · Post by **SunnyJim** » 12 Sep 2007, 12:13

A cheery topic. Just want to kick of some discussion about this. It's over at tod as well as EB. Give it a read and maybe we can get some comments going over here too. I can't get on with the TOD format. Conversations all over the place and intertwined etc etc...

http://www.energybulletin.net/34120.html

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 12 Sep 2007, 12:18

What if big carbon emitters could pay couples not to have kids?

The ultimate 'carbon offset scheme' . . . everyone gets a one-child allocation, if you want more you have to buy the 'resource credits'. If you don't have any, you can sell them - and retire early.

Kind of like a free-market version of the Chinese 'scheme'.

SunnyJim · Post by **SunnyJim** » 12 Sep 2007, 12:21

Yeah I like that idea.

Did you see the contraceptive pill is now being pushed as a health boon

Anything to get the birth rate down eh

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6987889.stm

Adam1 · Post by **Adam1** » 12 Sep 2007, 12:47

"Russians given day off work to make babies"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/articl ... 82,00.html

I wouldn't be surprised if we find authoritarian, post-peak regimes encouraging their subjects to procreate patriotically in future decades.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 12 Sep 2007, 13:03

Under the city council's "Give Birth to a Patriot" scheme those who give birth on 12 June (Lenin's birthday) will get a prize.

Hmmm . . . did the sun ever really set on the USSR?

Adam1 · Post by **Adam1** » 12 Sep 2007, 13:25

Andy Hunt wrote:
Under the city council's "Give Birth to a Patriot" scheme those who give birth on 12 June (Lenin's birthday) will get a prize.
Hmmm . . . did the sun ever really set on the USSR?

I'm not sure why but that reminds me of the line in the scene at MOMA from Woody Allen's "Manhattan": "I finally had an orgasm but my analyst told me it was the wrong kind"...

I guess some women will have the right kind of ovulation (correctly timed for a 12 June birth) while others won't!

mkwin · Post by **mkwin** » 13 Sep 2007, 13:32

This study is pretty weak. I like many commentators on TOD, was surprised by the ridiculously low growth assumptions of renewable energy. They are currently growing at 40%+ per year and this guy was using 5%, even post-peak. Also he buys into the peak uranium story, which is non-sense. Uranium is not a constraining factor on vastly increasing and maintaining nuclear power production - especially when you factor possible breeder reactors and thorium. He also does not account for nuclear fusion, which is too conservative IMO. Another point is he assumes innovations like THAI (search on TOD for info) won't make a difference to the decline of oil - again, far to conservative IMO.

The future optimum energy mix is in this order:

1) Conservation and efficiency
2) Renewables
3) Nuclear

The difficulty is getting through the next couple of decades in order to get to this sustainable system.

SunnyJim · Post by **SunnyJim** » 13 Sep 2007, 14:18

To be fair he does hedge his views with the opening statement;

Global peak energy will be delayed only in the event of:
The discovery of one or more major new primary energy sources comparable in quantity, quality, and versatility to fossil fuels;
Significant breakthroughs in the quantity, quality, and/or versatility associated with one or more existing primary energy sources; and/or
Drastic and sustained reductions in the level of human energy consumption.

As for fusion, it's either going to happen or it isn't. He's not factored that in because I guess he doesn't think it will happen. I attended a talk by industry experts who say the ability to really manage fusion reactions is pretty bleak.

What you have to look at is how much funding will be put to these things once everyones primary concern becomes feeding themselves. Where are taxes going to come from to fund such research in a falling economy with political parties chaning hands every four years?

Also, you say renewables are up 40%, do you mean that funding for renewables has risen 40%? Power output of renewables may have risen by alot less!

Keepz · Post by **Keepz** » 13 Sep 2007, 14:19

mkwin wrote: The future optimum energy mix is in this order:

1) Conservation and efficiency
2) Renewables
3) Nuclear

The difficulty is getting through the next couple of decades in order to get to this sustainable system.

Yup. But this seems to assume that all the responsibility for maintaining the balance between supply and demand falls on the demand side, since the output of neither renewables nor nuclear is capable of being adjusted up or down on a minute-by-minute basis; in the case of renewables, it's the contrary - everything else has to adjust to their output, rather than them adjusting to everything else. Hence the value of a focus on smart metering and smart appliances which can flex the amount of electricity they take out of the system in response to changes in the overall balance.

mkwin · Post by **mkwin** » 13 Sep 2007, 17:04

SunnyJim wrote:To be fair he does hedge his views with the opening statement;

Global peak energy will be delayed only in the event of:
The discovery of one or more major new primary energy sources comparable in quantity, quality, and versatility to fossil fuels;
Significant breakthroughs in the quantity, quality, and/or versatility associated with one or more existing primary energy sources; and/or
Drastic and sustained reductions in the level of human energy consumption.
As for fusion, it's either going to happen or it isn't. He's not factored that in because I guess he doesn't think it will happen. I attended a talk by industry experts who say the ability to really manage fusion reactions is pretty bleak.

What you have to look at is how much funding will be put to these things once everyones primary concern becomes feeding themselves. Where are taxes going to come from to fund such research in a falling economy with political parties chaning hands every four years?

Also, you say renewables are up 40%, do you mean that funding for renewables has risen 40%? Power output of renewables may have risen by alot less!

I don't have any figures to hand (check the comments section of the article - several posters publish growth figures) but, for example, the UK now has approx 4% from renewables this is up from next to nothing in only 5 years. It is expected to reach 7% by 2010 with the aim of 20% by 2020.

The biggest mistake is the Nuclear Fission forecast in my opinion. That is what annoyed me the most. Peak uranium is non-sense. The URR has almost doubled since 2003 when exploration began again after a decade of little or none. The UK could replace it's entire electricity grid with nuclear for a couple of hundred billion pounds - then we would be sourcing fuel from Canada and Australia instead of gas from Russia.

mkwin · Post by **mkwin** » 13 Sep 2007, 17:09

Keeper of the Flame wrote:
mkwin wrote: The future optimum energy mix is in this order:

1) Conservation and efficiency
2) Renewables
3) Nuclear

The difficulty is getting through the next couple of decades in order to get to this sustainable system.
Yup. But this seems to assume that all the responsibility for maintaining the balance between supply and demand falls on the demand side, since the output of neither renewables nor nuclear is capable of being adjusted up or down on a minute-by-minute basis; in the case of renewables, it's the contrary - everything else has to adjust to their output, rather than them adjusting to everything else. Hence the value of a focus on smart metering and smart appliances which can flex the amount of electricity they take out of the system in response to changes in the overall balance.

Well battary storage innovations are occuring rapidly. I think the renewable storage problems will be solved relatively soon.

In regards to nuclear, I am not a electrical engineer, but France manages well with almost 80% coming from Fission. How do they deal with the problem you suggest?

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 13 Sep 2007, 17:15

France manages well with almost 80% coming from Fission

That's because it's part of the European supergrid. In essence, approx' 20% of the supergrid is fission-powered.

It's akin to suggesting that Suffolk obtains 100% of its electricity from nuclear power.

I don't share your enthusiasm for fission's ability to offset liquid fuels, and although Fusion is making progress it's a long way off mass-scale realisation and is grossly underfunded. Fast-breeder technology still hasn't got off the ground. We've studied and argued it to death on Powerswitch, and the following posts from this thread should be of interest:

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... c&start=20

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... c&start=23

See here for fusion:
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... php?t=3035

As far as the renewables go, there are possibilities such as cogeneration using biogas and biomass (and can often be on the same site as wind/solar farms) but there will still be a major necessity to use demand-side control to balance electricity grids.