[bratticus]

First a look at energy per capita since it's important to define terms.

I don't have an exact definition of energy per capita. If you do please chime in with it. I could make one up but I'm not going to. I want one with a source other than me.

In lieu of a definition I'll provide an example instead:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]The Long Road Down: Decline and the Deindustrial Future

... skip ...

The logic of the Hubbert Curve provides the framework for Richard Duncan's Olduvai Theory , an uncompromising look at a deindustrial future. Duncan starts with White's Law, a widely accepted rule that culture evolves as the amount of energy per capita goes up. Globally, energy per capita stood at very modest levels until 1800, when fossil fuels sent it skyrocketing to its all-time peak in 1979. At that point, Duncan shows, two centuries of explosive progress began to unravel.

After 1979, global energy per capita declined as rising population outstripped modest increases in energy production. As energy production itself drops after the Hubbert Curve peaks, the decline accelerates. Follow the curve, and by 2030 global energy per capita is where it was in 1930, around a third of its 1979 value. Duncan argues that the industrial age is a pulse waveform, a single, bell-shaped, non-repeating curve centered on 1979. Since no renewable energy resource can provide more than a small fraction of the immense amounts of fossil fuel energy we've squandered in the recent past, he predicts that the millennia of low tech cultures before the industrial pulse, when nobody knew about the fantastic treasure of free energy locked up in fossil fuels, will be balanced by millennia of low tech cultures after the industrial pulse, when the treasure will be gone forever.

... snip ...

[bratticus]

And now the news

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Big Homes, 1-Person Households are Main Causes of Consumer Energy Waste, Study Finds

... Single-person households, which have grown at triple the rate of overall population growth since 1960, use 18.4% more energy per capita than two-person households do, SMR found. They use 52.8% more energy per capita than three-person households.

[mos6507]

These kinds of stories have been showing up for years in fringe/progressive websites. Wake me when it hits the NY Times.

[bratticus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'T')hese kinds of stories have been showing up for years in fringe/progressive websites. Wake me when it hits the NY Times.

[bratticus]

It says something about a politician when they are clever enough to use the phrase "energy per capita", no?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Gibbons dedicates solar plant near Boulder City

By Cassie Tomlin
Las Vegas Sun
January 22, 2009

... skip ...

During the ceremony, [Gov. Jim Gibbons] said Nevada leads the nation in producing the most solar energy per capita, and he wants to make renewable energy one of the state’s base industries.

... snip ...

[ROCKMAN]

Interesting thread brat. It could be nice, as you infer, if someone could throw in some workable definitions and, more importantly, meaningful stats. I’m not sure what the change in global consumption means in a practical way. Most of the population increase has been in the third world which uses little FF. Including their numbers in the calculation seems to skew the answer into the realm of meaningless. Many of the biggest FF users are the industrialized nations which tend to have the lowest birth rates. Taking the scale smaller, to just the US, could be more meaningful. But there are quirks there also. Northern and heavily populated states (i.e. NY) use a large amount of FF but should have a low per capita due to pop. density. Nevada, OTOH, has a small pop but high FF usage due to the military industrial complex concentration there. In general consider the difference in profile between heavily ag states vs. manufacturing states.

There seems to be an underlying sense that the lower the per capita usage the more “righteous”. I’m not sure that can be argued when the details are considered. Nebraska, with the heavy use of FF, fertilizers, etc used in ag combined with a relatively small pop might have a high p/c usage. Yet they feed the US and much of the world. Thus are they good stewards of our FF resources or bad? Or does even asking that question make sense?

[bratticus]

ROCKMAN, your post definitely merits some good answers.

As for the value of energy-per-capita in a world were many people have only seen electricity in the form of lightning and therefor should be skewing the answer into the realm of meaningless, is it not the fact that there is a finite amount of energy to go around the reason they don't also use it? Calculating equanimity into a ratio of BTUs/people isn't really within the scope of energy-per-capita is it?

There are probably more valuable ways to study fossil fuel usage on a local level than energy-per-capita but is there a better way to see effects that are on a planetary scale?

As for meaningful statistics it would be very nice to see energy-per-capita charts like the ones I'm posting below brought up-to-date.

[outcast]

Global energy per capita as a tool for evaluation whether or not industrial civilization will collapse fails because it does not take into account that the vast majority of population growth during that time has happened in non-industrial civilizations, which makes the Olduvai theory kind of flawed.

[ROCKMAN]

brat,

I get you about the global view. But I do tend to think p/c usage is also heavily dependent upon the ability to purchase FF. But that's also related to a degree with availability. It's not difficult to imagine the US morphing into an increasing bipolar p/c profile: low usage by the poor with static or even increasing usage by the affluent. But those distinction don't change the global stat. More pop and less FF will drive the globaql p/c usage down. The dark side of such a slide is the increased potential for resource wars.

But I was more musing about judgement regarding the good shepards of FF vs. those bad shepards. Each of us gets to identify each based on our own moral compases.

[bratticus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('outcast', 'G')lobal energy per capita as a tool for evaluation whether or not industrial civilization will collapse fails because it does not take into account that the vast majority of population growth during that time has happened in non-industrial civilizations, which makes the Olduvai theory kind of flawed.

[bratticus]

per capita energy use declines

[outcast]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hose non-industrial civilizations would be industrial if there was a higher energy-per-capita ratio.

The lower the energy-per-capita ratio the more we have to ration energy and therefor cut off vast populations.

The energy have-nots most certainly do count.

[Mesuge]

Oh yes, the leaders in former colonies have opted not to industrialize, yep that's a good one! The sheer logic of it, aren't you an american?

More realistic scenario is that after millenia/centuries of slave trade, raw materials being sucked up to the centers of advanced civilizations, and latest game of IMF/WB they have been left with a dirty muddy pot of nothing in terms of human potential or resources to realistically catch up with the rest of the advanced world.

Mind you, this is just a realistic observation not "bleeding heart" type of rant.

For instance, imagine even worsened humanitarian situation of the majority of the peoples of this planet the have nots, among other things it has the propensity to amplify any possible outbreak of superfast spreading diseases, which might crash the 1st world in no time as well..

That's the beauty of ecosystems like this planet, in the final analysis you can't escape the results of your/our own caca which has been building up around the world since the industrial/green revolution or even before. The payback time is comming and it won't be pretty.

[ROCKMAN]

True brat. That's what I was getting at with the "good shepard of FF" comment. Outcast mentions Nigeria but there's an even better example of misconceptions. Just to the south of Nigeria is Equatorial Guinea, an island country of only 500,000, which is one of the largest oil producers in Africa and almost certainly has one of the lowest p/c usages of FF in the world. But it's not so much a lack of industrialization as it is the rule of a brutal dictator starving his citizens despite having one of the highest p/c incomes in the world. I worked there in 2007 and it was a horrible and frustrating sight. My client was burning 25 million cubic ft of NG every day which was produced with the 300,000 barrels of daily oil that was shipped off to Europe. My client had offered to lay a pipeline to the island for free but the ruler didn't want to spend the money for a distribution system.

That's what I was getting on about: the use of such stats as p/c usage by some as some judgmental qualifier of FF consumption. In the eyes of Europe EG is a wonderful example of p/c usage: the produce much and use almost nothing. But it's obviously not a good and moral set up.

[outcast]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')h yes, the leaders in former colonies have opted not to industrialize, yep that's a good one! The sheer logic of it, aren't you an american?

[davep]

Just to balance things out a bit, Tunisia has oil reserves, but has decided to keep them for the local populace.

[culicomorpha]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('outcast', 'G')lobal energy per capita as a tool for evaluation whether or not industrial civilization will collapse fails because it does not take into account that the vast majority of population growth during that time has happened in non-industrial civilizations, which makes the Olduvai theory kind of flawed.

[outcast]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') imagine that Duncan would probably agree that energy per capita is problematic in that energy usage is not uniformly distributed among the world population. But I don’t think this fact invalidates his basic argument.

[VMarcHart]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'M')ost of the population increase has been in the third world which uses little FF.

[culicomorpha]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('outcast', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') imagine that Duncan would probably agree that energy per capita is problematic in that energy usage is not uniformly distributed among the world population. But I don’t think this fact invalidates his basic argument.