Predict the future

[pscot]

Without adequate supplies of food and energy the current global population of 6 billion plus probably isn't sustainable.

[kristopher]

1. Huh?

"Without adequate supplies of food and energy the current global population of 6 billion plus probably isn't sustainable."

By definition, if supply of food and energy are inadequate, then lack of sustainability is already extant.

Renewable energy can meet our energy needs with lots and lots of room to spare.

I have no idea about food production capacity.

[bananas]

8. I'll try to post some information later. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. Renewable energy can't meet our energy needs.

If 'meeting our energy needs' is defined as 'allowing residents of developed countries to enjoy the standard of living they do currently', then renewables can't come close. There are no renewable energy sources which provide a similar energy return on investment to fossil fuels and other non-renewables (like nuclear).

[kristopher]

21. That is false.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[bananas]

22. That's absolutely incorrect

Renewable resources dwarf non-renewables like fossil and nuclear.
We get more energy from the sun in one year than is stored in all the uranium in the ground - and that's with breeder reactors.
Nuclear energy is already more expensive than renewables. Renewables get cheaper as they scale up, nuclear has a negative learning curve, a major scale up would mean going to breeder reactors, which will be even more expensive than the already-too-expensive Generation III reactors (France is considering going back to its old Generation II models, and the CEO of Entergy, one of the largest nuclear power companies in the US, said "the numbers just don't work" for new nuclear plants).
Estimates on the energy return on investment from the nuclear industry should be taken with a huge grain of salt, especially considering how far off their cost estimates have been. As non-renewables like fossil and nuclear fuels get used, they go to increasingly lower fuel/ore grades, the energy return on investment becomes worse and so does the environmental destruction from extracting them.

None of the major environmental organizations endorse nuclear as a solution for global warming, and most of them oppose it, because in addition to all the other problems with nuclear energy, renewables reduce co2 emissions faster and cheaper than new nuclear plants.

Note that 1 YJ = 1000 ZJ:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption

World energy resources and consumption

<snip>

The estimates of remaining non-renewable worldwide energy resources vary, with the remaining fossil fuels totaling an estimated 0.4 YJ (1 YJ = 1024J) and the available nuclear fuel such as uranium exceeding 2.5 YJ. Fossil fuels range from 0.6-3 YJ if estimates of reserves of methane clathrates are accurate and become technically extractable. Mostly thanks to the Sun, the world also has a renewable usable energy flux that exceeds 120 PW (8,000 times 2004 total usage), or 3.8 YJ/yr, dwarfing all non-renewable resources.

<snip>

The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates the remaining uranium resources to be equal to 2500 ZJ.<51> This assumes the use of breeder reactors which are able to create more fissile material than they consume. IPCC estimated currently proved economically recoverable uranium deposits for once-through fuel cycles reactors to be only 2 ZJ. The ultimately recoverable uranium is estimated to be 17 ZJ for once-through reactors and 1000 ZJ with reprocessing and fast breeder reactors.<52>

<snip>

[GliderGuider]

2. 8+ billion sustainable? Of course it is.

You just have to come to terms with the meaning of the word "adequate", the level of immiseration you're willing to tolerate, and the number of other species you wish to retain. The lower you set the bar, the more people you can get over it.

I can easily envision a world with 20 billion people in it. It's not a very pretty vision mind you, but it has 20 billion people in it.

Realistically, though, it's entirely possible that even the UN's medium fertility variant growth rate projection (the straight black trend line on the graph below) resulting in 9 billion people by 2050 is too optimistic/pessimistic (depending on your POV). There has been a remarkable and quite unexpected drop in global fertility rates in the last 20 years. If that continues (as shown in the dotted red trend line) we could see ZPG by 2030, at 7.6 billion.



Sorry to sound so cheerful...

ETA: It's interesting to note that population growth left the exponential regime and entered a linear regime when the Green Revolution petered out around 1980. Things that make you say Hmmmm....

[pscot]

3. Oh brave new world

That has 20 billion people in it. We're going to need an immiseration index to track our progress. :smoke:

[Terry in Austin]

4. Feeding

This touches on the question as it's usually framed:
"How will we get enough food to feed our growing population?"

Puzzling that we hear it so often, because it's just the same as asking
"How will we get enough fuel to feed this growing fire?"*

It reflects basic population dynamics: add energy, numbers increase.

But here, we have a return visit to the more general question:
"How will we feed the need?"

When it's asked in terms of "meeting the needs of our civilization," it usually supposes that the needs are at some non-negotiable level, and the issue is how to get enough "feed" -- energy, food, water, iphones, etc. to accommodate the need.

Fact is, if the feed isn't enough, the need will be adjusted downward, one way or another. Seems that an intelligent species would go ahead and adjust its need to the actual feed available. YMMV.


*(:hi: Hi, GG!)

[GliderGuider]

5. Hi yourself!

Re: "Seems that an intelligent species would go ahead and adjust its need to the actual feed available."

I think that if instead of using the word "intelligent" we were to use the word "rational", then the error hiding in the statement becomes clear.

Instead of being a rational, proactive species we are actually an irrational, reactive species. Our unique capability of "intelligent irrationality" has made it possible for us to convince ourselves that we are the former, and also to convince ourselves that infinite growth on a spherical surface is possible.

:banghead::crazy:

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. Better question: why do we assume the population will keep growing?

A population doesn't really grow beyond its carrying capacity for the simple reason that it can't. If there's only enough food for X people, the population will stabilise at X. (THat it may only do so after famine and food riots and mass deaths is quite another worry, though.)

[pscot]

23. Ecoogist call it overshoot

Generally followed bydieback. Based on the obvious degradation of ojur range, I would argue we've been in a condition of overshoot for quite a while.

[GliderGuider]

25. It can grow beyond the carrying capacity by using stored resources.

Unfortunately, in the process the species degrades the carrying capacity of the environment, so that when equilibrium is reached it's at a lower level than if overshoot hadn't happened.

[Odin2005]

6. I voted for 10 years.

[tinrobot]

7. Yeah, that sounds about right.

[txlibdem]

14. 10 years or less is what I believe, but I'm starting a commune so I chose the ark

Ark. Commune. Same difference.

The root of the problem is that our Earth can no longer absorb/support the rampant abuses from Capitalism:

• the consumer throw-away society is very profitable but unsustainable
  
• duplication of effort is the Capitalistas way (I have 5 cell phone companies to choose from but they all suck)
  
• the most profitable companies are the most polluting (companies that spend the extra money to clean it up are at a disadvantage)
  
• the CEOs and the rich siphon off 100% of the benefits and keep it for themselves, they are leeches and vampires that we can no longer support on our backs
  
• there is no incentive for a Capitalista to do the right thing and every incentive to do the most harmful/destructive things
  
• their culture of entitlement and privilege is corrosive, they go to the best schools and end up in the highest positions, because they have all the money not because of merit or competence
  

They have all the power because we have been lulled into a zombie trance. The Powers That BE (PTB) have used every opportunity to distract us with sports, escapism (movies/video games/etc), drugs, alcohol, addictive internet sites, etc. The PTB have used every opportunity to spread doubt or double-talk about important issues like climate change, peak oil, pollution, corporate control of our elections and lives, their taking resources from public-owned lands for their own profit, etc. The PTB have used every opportunity to divide us, to turn us against each other, to build a culture of back-stabbers where each person thinks only of himself or herself and will do anything to get ahead. The PTB have used every opportunity to spread fear in order to exert control, fear the gays, fear women who want to control their own bodies, fear those of "that" religion, fear the unions, etc. We are at war, we just don't know it. The Corporatistas have been attacking the poor and the middle class for more than 30 years. Divide and Conquer!

For those and so many more reasons I am starting a commune. Its guiding principles are to be 100% independent from the grid and other services we all depend on and go beyond that to become more energy efficient while increasing the output of our solar and wind power devices such that we will begin to sell excess power back to the grid. Building that up over time will eventually enable us to fully support all members of the commune.

With a combination of sharing common resources, using passive solar architecture, collecting and purifying rainwater, using geothermal heating and cooling, using a solar cooling tower in summer, using natural sunlight (aka daylighting) by careful building siting and design to limit energy use, and a number of other techniques our energy use and expenses can be cut to the lowest level possible while not giving up our lifestyle. Sure, we could live like the Amish (not that there's anything wrong with that) but the real trick is to be smarter than the Corporatistas, keep the same level of comfort and security while depriving them of our hard earned money. For example, using geothermal heating and cooling one can reduce energy usage by 85% to 90%.

I could go on and on (but mercifully I won't). The way to win against the Corporatistas is to quit playing their game - especially now that we know the game is rigged against us in every way. If we work together and share resources we can find the exit door out of the Hotel California that the Corporatistas and the rich have locked us into.

[Ready4Change]

9. I'm thinking about 20 years.

Some time ago I did some napkin calculations about remaining oil reserves and oil consumption rates. I came up with oil running out around 2037.

But I recognize it probably won't suddenly run out. It will get progressively hard to obtain, meaning it becomes more expensive. As that happens, we realize just how dependent on oil our food supply is. That's when things get bad.

2037 is 27 years away. I think we are at peak oil right now. I'm giving us 20 years and feeling like that is an optimistic estimate (ie: it could start getting worse sooner.)

[XemaSab]

10. I think we're already looking at the beginning of the end

The fact that New Orleans is a mess, Detroit is a mess, parts of California are a mess, the Colorado River is a mess, the Gulf Coast is a mess, Afghanistan is a mess...

We're already falling over problems we can't solve, and we're fronting like we don't have the power to solve them, but it's really that we don't have the will to solve them.

It's going to be another decade or so before things get really terrible, but we're already on that slide, and climate change is just going to grease the thing.

[Nihil]

11. The sad thing is that it isn't unavoidable or inevitable in any physical way ...

The solution to all of the problems is within our capability
(technical & financial) but the sticking point is the range of
stupid short-sighted, self-destructive & irrational habits that
the vast majority of people exhibit - including EVERY person who
has been in a leadership position for the last few decades.

As a species, we prefer denial & distraction to honesty.

We *could* fix the problems ... but we are not going to because
it might "lose votes", it will "impact our lifestyle", it will cost
"too much" money (as if the alternative has been priced up!) and
it takes too much f*cking effort for people who would rather sit on
their plastic sofa, eating their HFCS/GM-packed food, drinking their
fizzy calories and watching the latest brain-rotting drivel on the
52" plasma-screened idiot box.

[Dogmudgeon]

12. I only half agree ...

People are in the Mother of All Funks.

I don't think people are immorally lazy; it's a deep-rooted sense of weakness and futility. When I see the torpor people are in, it's the scared-rabbit-on-drugs look to me.

People who are frozen in place will "take action" under two conditions, mainly: impending doom, or renewed hope for the future. I no longer see any value in being a "doomer". Doom is the default position, for which no decision is necessary.

We *could* fix the problems ... but we are not going to because it might "lose votes", it will "impact our lifestyle", it will cost "too much" money (as if the alternative has been priced up!) and it takes too much f*cking effort for people who would rather sit on their plastic sofa, eating their HFCS/GM-packed food, drinking their fizzy calories and watching the latest brain-rotting drivel on the 52" plasma-screened idiot box.

But most people don't live that way -- just people in the USA, Europe, Australia, and some scattered areas of affluence elsewhere. Maybe 20% of the population of the world. And not all of them live in liberal democracies, no matter how dysfunctional they may be.

So I'll personally try to make things better. It may be futile after all, but what's the point of believing it to be so?
But most people don't live that way -- just people in the USA, Europe, Australia, and some scattered areas of affluence elsewhere. Maybe 20% of the population of the world. And not all of them live in liberal democracies, no matter how dysfunctional they may be.

So I'll personally try to make things better. It may be futile after all, but what's the point of believing it to be so?

--d!

[Nihil]

13. Fair enough - I agree with you on some points but not others ...

> People are in the Mother of All Funks.
>
> I don't think people are immorally lazy; it's a deep-rooted sense of
> weakness and futility. When I see the torpor people are in, it's the
> scared-rabbit-on-drugs look to me.

Different people, different viewpoints. I see it as not so much "sensing weakness
and futility" (i.e., recognising the danger but being too scared to move) and
more "choosing to ignore reality and live in denial". Now whether the latter is
from their docility (being led by the loudest/traditional voices), their greed
(short-term profit at all costs, both financial and from personal effort) or their
stupidity (being incapable of truly thinking & reasoning it out for themselves)
is a slightly different question but I honestly think the "fear" side is far
less of a driver than the "wilful denial".


> But most people don't live that way -- just people in the USA, Europe,
> Australia, and some scattered areas of affluence elsewhere. Maybe 20% of the
> population of the world. And not all of them live in liberal democracies,
> no matter how dysfunctional they may be.

Agreed and it was that 20% that I was railing at. Even though the other 80%
live differently, they are incredibly controlled/influenced/directed by the
former group so it is that 20% that *have* to be moved in the right way to
have any real chance of realising the potential for success. The biggest
problem for the 80% is overpopulation (unsustainable growth for the resources)
but the 20% are *driving* that unsustainable growth both by action and inaction.


> So I'll personally try to make things better. It may be futile after all,
> but what's the point of believing it to be so?

I'm doing the same. Now and then I just get overwhelmed with frustration
and vent like I did in my previous post but, at the end of the day, I still
believe that even if it isn't possible to win, it is still better to lose
from not succeeding than from not trying.

:pals:

[NickB79]

15. We refuse to confront the problems right in front of us

Just yesterday in a thread about food stamps, I was admonished for asking if someone should really have 5 children like the person interviewed in the news story, given the state of the environment. I quickly found out that I was sanctimonious because my wife and I chose to have only one child and that I needed to get off my high horse, because what choices that family makes is none of my business. Oh, and it's OK to have 5 kids if you can afford them. This from the same DU that will recognize the environmental destruction of gas-guzzling SUV's or excessively large homes, though, even when their owners can also afford them :wtf:

[pscot]

18. At the beginning of the Clinton presidency

we maybe could have pulled back. But now it feels to me like the cascade has begun. Eventually the system will reach a new equilibrium but we've got some hard traveling ahead. We should have listened to Spade Cooley.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pcy-PesWWhE&feature=fvst

[Kolesar]

16. $350/bbl oil -> Third world water works shut down -> Widespread dysentery and death...eom

[GliderGuider]

17. My current vision

Prediction is a mug's game, as I know very well, but it's so much fun!

I see things happening this way:

Repeated global economic shocks happen every two to three years, each worsening in severity and followed by progressively more anemic "recoveries."

There is a dramatic impoverishment of the global middle class and expansion of the poorest segment of the global population as each economic shock moves people down the scale.

Food and energy prices rise in a stepwise fashion in conjunction with the economic shocks.

There is growing political instability, with a rise in authoritarian governments that is welcomed and even insisted upon by the citizens.

There is an accelerated rise in religious fanaticism from every point of the compass.

"The environment" disappears off the national radar screens in about 5 years after the complete failure of two more international conferences.

The global population peaks at 7.5 billion and begins to decline in 15 years as people everywhere stop having kids and lifespans begin to decline.

CO2 levels keep rising due to the increasing use of coal for electrical generation.

The oceans continue to degrade through acidification, warming and continued overfishing.

Droughts and shifts in rainfall patterns including floods and monsoon failures impact food production in more and more nations.

Electrical grids begin to show signs of fragility and large regional power failures spread to more nations.

There is a massive growth in the back-to-the-land and urban agriculture movements. Urban professionals try to survive by growing potatoes and chickens in their back yards.

Growth industries will include garden raiding, pot growing, and designing and selling amenities for people living in their cars.

Through it all people will find ways to stay moderately happy as family and friendship ties become more and more important.

Have a nice day!

:party: :toast: :evilgrin:

[stuntcat]

24. 10 years. but..

the disasters are already happening. Things will pile on slowly & spaced out just enough that comfortable 1st-wordlers will keep their hopes up :)