On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote: > All the algae farms have gone bankrupt, but we better figure out > something fast because the world's demand for energy is exponentially > rising while the world's supply is exponentially falling.
This isn't actually true. World energy demands are growing linearly and in many places (such as the United States), energy demand is getting close to flat. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html Oregon forecasts to meet something like 80% of the demand created by increased population in the next 30 years through conservation measures. Increased efficiency and increased conservation can be responsible for offsetting the bulk of anticipated population and business growth in industrial countries for the foreseeable future. Of course if we get serious about wanting to get rid of greenhouse gas producing energy that constitutes a significant portion of our existing energy infrastructure, we'd have to replace it with something. There are certainly a lot of challenges ahead. But exponentially increasing energy demand is not one of them. As for developing countries, there is certainly a much larger appetite for energy consumption there. China seems to be jumping into the fray and committing itself to not becoming overly dependent on fossil fuels during its continued growth. I'm not really familiar with what is going on in India in that respect. > And the bad news is the planet's economic growth hinges on one single > factor: a growing supply of energy. You should not take continued growth as an imperative. There are plenty of economic models that produce a very happy populace without a rapid increase in GDP. Take a look at Japan's "Lost Decade". GDP growth was pretty much non-existent, yet personal income, buying power and quality of life metrics increased. All during a period where, in the US, GDP continued to increase but per-capita real income decreased. > So one of two things is going to happen: > > (1.) Humans devolve into a cold dark world. It was not a cold, dark world prior to fossil fuels you know. There are big challenges ahead, to be sure. Threats of devolution and a cold dark world do nothing to forward the discussion however. > (2.) A new form of energy is invented / discovered and it creates an > economic boom. > > The problem with # 2 is that inventing / discovering new energy > *takes* energy and if that energy is getting more and more scarce then > you're in trouble. > > Which is why nuclear is so attractive. Nuclear power is attractive in a number of ways. I was just discussing Thorium reactor design with coworkers on Friday as we perused a nuclear physics book. There are a number of other options as well, however, and the advances in things like non-polluting dye-based solar cells really do point to a capacity to replace fossil fuels with a varied approach to energy production, if we have the political will to do so. There is no need for a doom and gloom scenario. We have options, we are generating new options all the time. Gains in efficiency and conservation can keep energy consumption stable and allow us time to replace outmoded systems without substantial disruption. We just need to have the will to plug away and continue to make progress. Judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:310429 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
