[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I')f you don't understand me, I'm not sure how to put this, but I suppose I've got to start somewhere. You've posted the hypothesis. Now, what is the conclusion of the paper?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')So you are stating that the conclusion and hypothesis of the paper are the same, correct?

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', 'I')t's also a temporary fix. Check this out:

[MonteQuest]

Let's try to discuss scalability, ok?

More from Smalley on scale:

Reversing Current Energy Trends
By 2050, if we have solved the problem,
the world’s energy breakdown will
probably look like a reverse of what it is
today. Oil, hydroelectric, coal, and gas (in
that order) would supply the least
amount of energy, with fusion/fission
and biomass processes being somewhat
larger players, and solar/wind/geothermal
resources providing the majority of
the world’s energy. This new breakdown
represents a revolution in the largest
enterprise of humankind, an energy
industry that currently runs about $3 trillion
per year.

Getting there will be incredibly difficult.
If we knew today how to transform the
makeup of our energy mix by exploiting
fission/fusion, solar, or wind, it would
take an inordinate amount of time. If I
could go out tomorrow and turn on the
switch of a new power plant that would
produce a thousand megawatts of power
from some new, clean, carbon-free energy
source, I would have to turn on a new
plant every day for 27 years before I generated
even 10 terawatts of new power.

Ten terawatts plus 14 terawatts does not
add up to even half of the 60 terawatts we
will eventually need. Of course, we do not
currently have the technology to build a
fleet of nuclear fission breeder reactors—
let alone a solar or geothermal plant—that
could produce that amount of energy
cheaply. I believe that if we do not find a
way to build such power plants over the
next decade, or at most two, this 21st century
is going to be very unpleasant.

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')So you are stating that the conclusion and hypothesis of the paper are the same, correct?

[FreakOil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', 'I')t's also a temporary fix. Check this out:

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', 'M')y main argument against nuclear energy is Peak Uranium. Nuclear waste is more of a side-issue, if you will.

[Tyler_JC]

Much of the debate gets trapped up in impossible charts like the above one.

We cannot consume what isn't there.

Demand cannot exceed supply in the long run.

Rapidly escalating prices reduce current demand and future demand projections.

It is impossible to chart out future demand without making dangerous assumptions.

Between 1970 and 1973, the average annual increase in demand was roughly 7%.

This wasn't unusual. In fact, it was the standard trend for the previous 2 decades.

Every decade global oil demand was doubling.

But then in 1973, OPEC created an artificial scarcity and an end to that particular growth rate. Later in 1979 oil prices skyrocketed again and the economy contracted.

Between 1978 and 1988, oil demand was flat. An entire decade of no growth in demand (in fact, oil demand was below the 1978 level for most of that period).

The belief that we can somehow know what energy demand will look like in the future was the source of many of the flaws in Limits to Growth.

The basic argument in Limits to Growth was that if we don't change our consumption patterns, we will quickly deplete our resources and die off.

Looking back, we changed our consumption patterns dramatically and will do so again in the future.

Business as usual is a complete non sequitur because we never have "business as usual". Reality is far more dynamic than the models predict.

[Tanada]

Tyler you make an excellent point! If we had kept growing without restrain in the 1970's we would have been hitting our current level of consumption by 1982 at the latest. Undoubtedly this would have accellerated the date of world PO considerably, perhaps as early as 1990?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', ' ')Why the hell do we need 60 terrawatts?

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')yler you make an excellent point! If we had kept growing without restrain in the 1970's we would have been hitting our current level of consumption by 1982 at the latest. Undoubtedly this would have accellerated the date of world PO considerably, perhaps as early as 1990?

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'M')onte brings up the point that if China/India attempt to reach Western levels of economic developement...we will need 60TW of energy.

Considering how unlikely it is that current growth patterns will continue for the next half century, real demand will be a number far short of that figure.

[FreakOil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')reakOil wrote:
Why the hell do we need 60 terrawatts?


By mid-century, if Chindia continues to aspire to American lving standrds, we will need 60 terrawatts. Read the paper he wrote.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')yler you make an excellent point! If we had kept growing without restrain in the 1970's we would have been hitting our current level of consumption by 1982 at the latest. Undoubtedly this would have accellerated the date of world PO considerably, perhaps as early as 1990?

[LoneSnark]

I never understood why some people have an extreme fetish for oil as if it was the only source of energy on this planet. I guess they believe on the first day God drilled an oil well, thus allowing human beings to exist in the first place.

They believe human civilization cannot be any other way than it is, as if our environment has no impact upon the day-to-day operations of a modern civilization. I guess they believe that just because they cannot change civilization that it must be unchangeable. Unbelievable.

[Tyler_JC]

Why should we hit 0 energy?

Renewable source of energy exist and are increasingly attracting large amounts of investment.

Already, nearly a third of new electrical generating capacity came from renewable sources last year.

If we use our fossil fuels more efficiently and increase our supply of non-fossil fuels, we can continue Project Civilization without too dramatic of a cut in living standards.

Moreover, many of the conservation techniques (building local retail networks rather than international retail megastores) improve quality of life.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'W')hy should we hit 0 energy?
...

[LoneSnark]

Or, you know, all the technology we already have filling up our libraries. We do not need to invent anything else to survive without oil. What other people are saying is that with new technology we can maintain the same standard of living while removing oil.

I am saying we can survive without oil, it will simply be at a much lower standard of living.

[dohboi]

I am frankly shocked to find myself agreeing with your last statement, lonesnark!

But I would be interested to know who you mean by "we" and how low you mean by "lower."

[Tyler_JC]

The world will not need 60TW of energy in 2050.


In 2004, we used 15TW of energy.

In order to hit 60TW, we would need to quadruple energy use in 46 years. The basic compound interest model tells us that we would need to increase global energy use by 3%/year.

The yearly increase in energy use was 2% a year between 1980 and 2004. This was in an era of rapidly declining energy prices, strong economic growth, and strong population growth.

Between 2004 and 2050, none of that will be true.

Energy prices will be high will likely stay high throughout that entire period. Economic growth will not be as strong as it was in the previous 2 decades. Population growth between 2004 and 2050 will be at a slower rate than it was between 1980 and 2004.

These three factors should decrease that 2% figure, not increase it.

Even pretending that the next 40+ years will be the same as the 1980-2004 period, global energy demand in 2050 will only be 37TW, not 60TW (15TW growing at a compounded 2%/year for 46 years).

We've just saved 23TW of energy without having to turn off a single light bulb.

Assuming that economic conditions will likely favor energy efficiency rather than waste over the next 40+ years, surely we can assume that energy use growth will be reduced by at least half a percentage point compared to the 1980-2004 period.

Now global energy demand in 2050 is roughly 30TW. We've just cut that 2050 target in half without turning off a single air conditioning unit.

How about we start off with a more realistic end point for 2050?

Otherwise, the debate about scalability is a waste of time.