[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReserveGrowthRulz', ' ')Would I wipe out most of Monte's beloved desert beetles and cacti covering most of the state of Arizona with solar panels to feed electrical demand in the United States? Of course I would. And when push comes to shove ( when oil EVER gets around to actually declining ) no one else will mind either.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', ' ')
We should consider whether we are talking about scalability of sustainable energy infrastructure for today's world or for a reduced population, powerdownward world. If we're talking about the latter, then the dedicated land area, amount of materials and amount of energy needed to build and maintain the systems are significantly reduced. So, what are we talking about?

[dohboi]

Quote:

"Fossil fuel growth appears to be HELPING the human species stop having endless babies, and simply allows more humans to life better and longer lives."

Yes, and it also allowed each individual to use up as many resources as an entire village of non-fossil-fueled people did.

Not to belabor the population point here, but a ways back Monte noted that a one-child policy could keep us to 7.5 B in 25 years. What if people couldn't have (or were extremely discouraged from) having their one child till they were at least 35?

This would amount to a near total ban on child birth, with slow increases, but probably never reaching one child per couple, since many wouldn't make it that far, and others would decide not to have kids by then.

Over time it would also mean fewer people on earth than a one-child-as-early-as-you-can-squeeze-it-out policy, since a twelve-year-old mother whose child becomes another twelve-year-old mother...leads to about three times the number of kids as when one is child born but not till the woman is 35.

It seems to me that such a policy could bring down the numbers much faster. I don't know exactly how to crunch the numbers on this, though. Anyone want to give it a try?

Not that I think even this is adequate to the problem (there, I got a thread-relevant point about "scale" in!

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReserveGrowthRulz', ' ')Would I wipe out most of Monte's beloved desert beetles and cacti covering most of the state of Arizona with solar panels to feed electrical demand in the United States? Of course I would. And when push comes to shove ( when oil EVER gets around to actually declining ) no one else will mind either.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dohboi', ' ')It seems to me that such a policy could bring down the numbers much faster.

[FreakOil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', '
')Back on topic, are you really willing to cover an area the size of the American Southwest or France with solar panels or windmills, without knowing the environmental consequences of it? That would require massive amounts of base metals, and our ability to replace damaged components would get more difficult as the years passed. That may be centuries in the future, but somebody would have to deal with it. Or are you considering nuclear power?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReserveGrowthRulz', ' ') I do know that shading all the desert in Arizona for cheap electrical generation for the rest of the country is a reasonable trade for a cleaner energy future.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dohboi', '
')
Not to belabor the population point here, but a ways back Monte noted that a one-child policy could keep us to 7.5 B in 25 years. What if people couldn't have (or were extremely discouraged from) having their one child till they were at least 35?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', ' ')I would not classify myself as an environmental absolutist. However, there are few things I am concerned about regarding scalability of solar and wind, mainly unintended consequences. What happens when we "obstruct" wind energy? What happens when we harness solar energy rather than let it reflect back into space or get absorbed by the earth? The cumulative effects may be few and far off, but it's worth considering.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReserveGrowthRulz', ' ') I do know that shading all the desert in Arizona for cheap electrical generation for the rest of the country is a reasonable trade for a cleaner energy future.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReserveGrowthRulz', ' ')Considering that the world is quite naturally migrating itself towards 0 population growth, I don't see why its necessary to hurry it up in the least?

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'N')o way. Currently, about 40% of all solar energy captured by photosynthesis is used by humans. On its own, solar energy cannot support the present human population without supplementation by non-renewable energy sources, such as fossil fuels.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReserveGrowthRulz', ' ')Trying your old strawman tricks on me again?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')We can easily support our population as of now with sustainable practices.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'N')o we don't. Currently we *use at most 4% of all solar energy captured by photosynthesis, also know as the Earth's NPP.

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'U')sing what source of energy other than solar.

Solar-fossil fuels does not equal solar+fossil fuels.

[LoneSnark]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')hort-term, short-sighted, selfish "fixes."

Will that be man's legacy?

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')e only use a small percentage of the Earth's NPP. We are not in danger because of this percentage. We are in danger because while going on with business as usual we are destroying ten times more than we use, which risks the collapse of our ecosystem as we know it.

[BigTex]

Anyone have an argument for why the global population growth curve will not resemble the peak oil curve going forward?

The problem, as I see it, is not just that modern agricultural practices involve many fossil fuel inputs on the cultivation side, but remember there are huge fossil fuel inputs involved in getting the product from field to market.

Think about where U.S. wheat goes. Think about where Florida fruit goes. Without cheap fossil fuel energy, would it be possible to deliver the same quantity of product to distant markets in the same amount of time?

If the response is "well, we will just start growing food locally." That's fine, but there won't be the economies of scale and increased production from growing on a large scale in an ideal climate for a given fruit or vegetable. It's not unlike comparing a big factory's output to a craftsman's small shop. Lower efficiency means higher prices and less margin for error. Drought in the local area? Sorry, everyone starves.

To take a shot at bringing this topic back to the original scalability discussion, perhaps it is ultimately the industrialization of food production that facilitates population growth, and in the same way that coal and oil fueled the explosion of industrialization, the scarcity of fossil fuels will choke off industrial expansion, and with it the ability to grow vast amounts of food and deliver it to hungry populations thousands and thousands of miles away.

Having a bumper crop in Kansas is not helpful if the cost of getting it to distant markets eats up the entire profit. If the price of the crop increases to take account of the increased transportation cost, will the end users still be able to afford it? Ultimately, it seems like the losers are going to be the hungry mouths in the distant markets. Unfortunately, today we are all the distant market for some part of our diet and other necessities, whether it's grain, meat, fish, fruit or fuel.

The problems with local production are really twofold, I suppose: first, it's less efficient, and thus will be MORE resource intensive; second, if you live in a place where you can't grow enough food and/or don't have sustainable populations of animals/fish for hunting/fishing, you're screwed (this would be most of the American Southwest, I believe). Remember, we don't need enough to feed the sparsely populated native peoples who used to live there--we need enough to feed perhaps 10 to 20 times that number of people who are primarily living in cities.

So anyone have an argument for why the population growth curve will NOT resemble the PO curve?

(By the way, no one is mentioning the absolute certainty that an avian flu or some other equally nasty disease will periodically hit our population, which will "thin the herd" significantly each time).

[Tyler_JC]

So let me get this straight:

1. It took us 150 years to build the first 14 TW of energy infrastructure (along with the rest of our industrial infrastructure).

2. In 50 years we will roughly double our energy demand (assuming life continues as normal).

3. In 50 years it will be impossible for rapidly growing renewable energy infrastructure to overtake demand?

32% of planned capacity increases in 2007 come from renewable sources

The next few years have a lower percentage because companies are waiting on Congress to act on tax/energy policy legislation.

The existing infrastructure isn't going away any time soon so our concern is with meeting new demand. Over time, we can take coal and natural gas plants offline as the gap is filled with less-polluting forms of energy production.

In 2007, 17,552 Megawatts of new capacity were adding to an existing capacity of around 1,075,000 Megawatts. This represents a 1.6% increase in capacity.

I'm going to take that % as a given. Electricity consumption must increase at 1.6% a year from now until 2050 or else the US economy will collapse. (I only have data for the US so I'm only going to outline the US scalability of renewables).

A 1.6% year over year increase compounded over 43 years gives us a rough doubling (1,075,000MW to 2,127,000MW).

Renewable energy capacity in 2006 was 26,470MW.

We added 5,714MW of capacity in 2007. That represents a growth rate of 21.6%.

Now that's an unrealistic rate of growth because by 2050, renewable energy production would exceed demand by 66,000%

So let's say that every 2 years, the rate of growth drops by a full percentage point until it hits say, 4% a year. This would be a realistic result of the law of diminish returns.

Just as oil supply growth slowed down in the 1970s, surely wind/solar/whatever supply growth would slow down over time.

In the first scenario (steady exponential growth) the result is rather absurd. Demand isn't even visible on the chart because after renewable supply exceeds demand in 2026 in sky rockets off the chart:



In the second scenario, a rapidly decelerating growth rate for renewables, we crossover into 100% renewables (excluding nuclear and conventional hydropower, mind you) by about 2047. Looks like we get "saved" just in time. Moreover, we don't have to decrease our future energy demand by a single light bulb.

Efficiency and conservation would make demand growth slow down considerably and the graph would look quite different.



Blue is demand.
Red is supply of renewables.
The scale on the bottom is years since 2007.
The scale on the right is Megawatts of US electricity demand.

Sorry, Microsoft decided to change excel dramatically for its new Vista operating system and I haven't figured out the charts perfectly yet.