Power Consumption on Earth: We Need It Cleaner, But Do We Need More Of It?
A reader comments: A by-product of permanently reversing greenhouse gas emissions through technological means must be a massive increase in energy availability for all people. These two imperatives are connected and indivisible. I don’t see many comments about these important imperatives. Do you concede they are important or not, Craig?
I would put it this way: Yes, there is an imperative to clean up our energy mix; I wouldn’t have written four books on the subject if I didn’t agree with that. In terms of providing more power to all people, I’m not so sure. I would say that Americans, for example, consume more resources (energy and otherwise) per capita than they should, but that we need to encourage the developing world to increase its resource consumption.
One of my colleagues, Dr. Nate Hagens argues that energy consumption per capita in the OECD countries actually must fall, given that our civilization is at the end of both cheap credit and cheap energy. While I’m not entirely convinced of this, I have to admit that he defends his position in a well-reasoned and compelling way.
I agree that the developing world should be able to consume more energy per capita and hopefully it will be from renewable sources.
Ideally the developed countries should be able to maintain their level of consumption but continue modest enhancements to the current standard of living by increasing energy efficiency.
In both scenarios of development the complicating factor is population growth. The goals are obtainable if ZPG is possible. The birth rate in developing countries has to decrease if energy consumption is ever going to plateau.
Larry,
Consider Rotuma, a Fijian island that is about a two hour flight from the biggest island, i.e., Viti Levu. It has about five villages and a total population of about 2,500. When I was there in 2002, each village had a Diesel generator that was automatically started at sundown and shut off at about 11:00 PM. There were few refrigerators on the island; the ones which existed were operated on butane which had to be shipped in. The population does not increase, the reason being that births are offset by people migrating to other areas of Fiji where they have comforts, conveniences, and amenities which are not available on Rotuma. Rotuma has its own website which you can easily find.
Many of the world’s people live under similar circumstances or far worse. How are those people supposed to improve their standard of living without increasing power consumption?
Even prosperous countries will have to increase power consumption to deal with the already inevitable effects of global warming. Without more air conditioning, people will die of heat stroke. Aquifers all over the world are being drawn down at alarming rates and will cease to provide potable water. To provide sufficient water for agriculture and hygiene, a huge increase in sea water desalination will be required, and that requires huge amounts of power. Moving the desalinated water to where it is needed will also require power.
Of course we cannot know exactly how much more power will be required to lift poor nations out of poverty and to cope with the problems of global warming, but estimates I have seen indicate that we will need around three or four times as much power. Moreover, practically all of that power must come from non-CO2 emitting sources.
Obviously, as you state, population growth is a complicating factor. It has been shown that increasing prosperity and education result in a reduction of population growth which is why a number of countries already have a negative population growth. Even the U.S. would have a negative population growth if it were not for immigration. Thus, unless we are willing somehow to lower fertility rates by draconian fiats, it would seem that the way to reduce population growth would be to lift people out of poverty which obviously requires more power even if there are marked increases in the efficiency with which that power is used.
@Craig
The new age “Energy Rich Society” underpinned by energy intensive new age technologies and industries verses – the “Energy Starved Society” underpinned by what we currently know and have?
…………………………………………
The global renewable energy technologies deployment roll-out underway seems to have through a combination of factors become inextricably linked to the greenhouse gas emissions debate. This unfortunately seems to have stalled the critical greenhouse issues debate and will need to be untangled as a matter of urgency so permanent greenhouse gas solutions science can be resolutely focused on without any diversionary or distorting arguments being permitted as the debate matures – which it must ultimately do.
And Dr Hagen is wrong asserting OECD energy per capita should fall, it should do the opposite in an “energy rich society”, rise. Dr Hagen is basing his argument it seems on hitherto “obsolescent generation technologies” hanging around into the future indefinitely, this will not happen.
Also it would be very helpful for us all if Dr Hagen redirected his focus for a moment from the rear view mirror, and stepping back from the gloom and doom scenarios, focussed on the extraordinary and once in a lifetime opportunities that current “negative” global circumstances provide for us to collectively seize the moment resolutely and bring forth a new global technological based epoch.
An epoch that will be one underpinned by key enabling power generation technologies that fully satisfy the future global energy imperative of “affordable, abundant, safe, clean, power, available everywhere, for the use of all people and businesses, forever”.
This platform will allow forward momentum for new age energy intensive technologies and industries to be conceived and flourish; new age businesses to be created, communities will function with new age human transport and robotic infrastructure development technologies in play, and perhaps the jewel in the crown, energy intensive artificial agricultural and food production industries to come on line.
Prosperity, modernity and forward momentum is and will continue to be mirrored closely by the amount of energy used per person, community, region, state or nation. Energy intensive new age technologies and industries will be global “levelers” particularly those technologies promising low cost artificial food production.
Strong leadership is required and aggressive planning for the transition to an “energy rich society” the corollary of course being no further need for fossil fuel usage; the permanent reversal and elimination (quite quickly) of greenhouse gas emissions; and the rapid abandonment of a whole host of those “no longer required” technologies that cause pollution and ill health.
It is all there for the taking, but it does require visionary leadership from those best positioned to mobilise the world’s best and brightest researchers, scientists, physicists, engineers, political and corporate leaders to seize the moment to get there before 2050.
And that project needs to start next week.
Lawrence Coomber
@Frank.
I have been to Rotuma Frank and fell in love with that place and the people. I have visited many of the small Pacific Islands and even started doing Aus-Aid volunteer engineering projects in the Pacific Islands during the 80’s.
In those days we focused on Water Technology projects though which of course still is the big issue for islands with many relying on artesian water sources heavily.
I was fortunate enough to be able to pull together over 1000 technical books from various sources in Australia and donated them to the Honiara high school in the Solomon Islands in the mid 80’s, and I recall one particular discussion with a group of young male students after the presentation to the library of these books.
One boy who had a Diesel Engine Maintenance Manual in his hand with a huge smile on his face said:- “this book will become my plane ticket to the world”.
So I think I understand the Rotuma young minds about advancing themselves and yes it seems to be closely connected with the availability of resources and power in particular.
I’ve had a bit to do with desalination technology over the years and dabbled in a solar water purifier innovation project many years ago for the Vietnam Government that we didn’t progress to commercialising, but it taught me about the reliance of all useful technologies on energy in some form, but mainly electrical. This is an important point for Water starved island nations to be mindful of and the concept of an “energy rich society”.
All things become possible.
Lawrence Coomber
@ Lawrence,
I think that on Rotuma and similar places where connecting to a grid would be impossible, renewable power sources are currently the most reasonable way to improve availability of power. Of course they would not be totally reliable since renewables are intermittent sources of power, but with battery storage, a PV system would usually provide them with enough power for a few LED lights and enable them to recharge cell phones and notebook computers. It would, with additional local storage, enable clinics to refrigerate vaccines and medications.
The small Diesel systems used on Rotuma and similar places are not very economical since the Diesel fuel has to be shipped in and those small Diesel systems have maintenance costs which are very significant. Because the percentage of the world’s people depending on such systems is small, the CO2 emissions are not a problem, but economics is. The noise is highly annoying, but that is a problem which could be solved fairly easily.
For most large prosperous nations, unless they are fortunate to have abundant hydro power, I see no substitute for nuclear power. At some time in the future, perhaps there will be very small sealed nuclear systems which would enable Rotuma and similar places to have abundant power, but not yet.
I was impressed with how well informed the Rotumans were about the rest of the world, especially considering their isolation. The biggest complaint they had was that they had nothing to read. I had some old copies of the Readers’ Digest with me, which they really liked. So, when I returned to the U.S., I ordered two subscriptions for them and actually received a thank you letter.
What made it possible for me to visit Rotuma was that two years prior I had met a young iTaukei man whose sister was married to a Seventh Day Adventist minister on Rotuma. He suggested that on my next trip to Fiji we could visit Rotuma. I correctly figured that probably I’d never again have a chance to visit Rotuma, so we did. Practically all of them spoke very good English. They were also very interested in the rest of the world. It was an interesting experience which I was fortunate to have.
Incidentally, I lived in Fiji from 1994 to 2004. And, unlike many foreigners, I did not isolate myself from the locals.
Craig,
Since civilization began, ascetics and or minimalism have existed. Naturally, in any free society citizens should be able to follow the lifestyle of their own choosing.
However, sooner of later adherents of lifestyles based on denial, moral perception, ideology etc, begin to use the political process as evangelists.
The problem begins when such evangelists insist on everyone else adhering to their beliefs. The process becomes more intense when evangelists hi-jack other social issues to cloak their beliefs in the respectability of more acceptable concepts.
Most minimalist ideologies are desperate attempts to solve complex problems with simplistic solutions. Minimalism is largely a reaction to fear. Minimalists fear others may be doing things or enjoying a lifestyle that is beyond their capacity understand, appreciate or achieve.
Minimalists are frightened by the complexity of modern life, since it makes them feel small, impotent and unimportant. These feelings can be relieved by adopting a simplistic ideology/philosophy/political doctrine. The idea that only the select “enlightened” are morally pure and righteous, creates a sense of importance and security.
Sadly, it’s a delusion and one which has prom time to time inflicted terrible consequences on humanity.
Humans are a very imaginative, creative, ambitious, risk taking acquisitive species. Humans seek infinite variety. Our desire for consumption allows us to prosper and create whole new industries from our technical achievements.
The entire human economy is based on increasing consumption, booms and busts, fads and fashions.
Human creativity can’t be restricted. (well, not for long). Since we learned to harness fire, we became the masters of our own destiny. For good or bad, it’s who we are as a species.
Minimalists like Dr. Nate Hagens have always argued against the human spirit. Invariably, support for their assumptions are derived from defining the question so as to frame an answer consistent with their beliefs. There is no evidence that Energy consumption per capita in the OECD countries need fall, ( in fact all the evidence indicates energy consumption will increase.
The idea “civilization is at the end of both cheap credit and cheap energy”, is absurd and unsupportable.
It’s time these social evangelists, with their nineteenth and early twentieth century ideologies, stopped wasting their time and joined the advancement of a myriad of new technologies rapidly rendering such pessimistic fears obsolete.
Here are links to some of Dr. Nate Hagens ideas and positions:
http://www.themonkeytrap.us/about-nate-hagens
http://www.postcarbon.org/our-people/nate-hagens/
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/14317-nate-hagens-things-are-not-going-to-be-as-easy-over-the-next-forty-years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hNi-7EjsH4
https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/2013/05/09/nate-hagens-what-if-the-future-is-real/
The comments following some if the above articles are well worth reading.
Obviously I do not agree with all of Dr. Hagens’ positions, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. So, it should not be surprising that Dr. Hagens is right on a few things. In any case, I strongly believe in studying BOTH sides of issues.