World Energy and Population

[GliderGuider]

I've just completed a fairly rigorous paper on the relationship between global energy use and world population. For those who are interested in how the rest of the century will unfold from these perspectives, it's worth a look. It's on my web site, but I don't have a link to it from the main page yet. It's still out for review, so y'all are getting a sneak preview.

World Energy and Population (PDF warning)

To whet your appetite:

Abstract

Throughout history, the expansion of human population has been supported by a steady growth in our use of high-quality exosomatic energy. The operation of our present industrial civilization is wholly dependent on access to a very large amount of energy of various types. If the availability of this energy were to decline significantly it could have serious repercussions for civilization and the human population it supports.

This paper constructs production models for the various energy sources we use and projects their likely supply evolution out to the year 2100. The full energy picture that emerges is then translated into a population model based on an estimate of changing average per-capita energy consumption over the century. Finally, the impact of ecological damage is added to the model to arrive at a final population estimate.

This model, known as the “World Energy and Population” model, or WEAP, suggests that the world’s population will decline significantly over the course of the century.

Followed by lots of fascinating insights on energy and ecology, leading to:

Conclusion

All the research and thought I have put into this paper has convinced me that the human race is now out of time. We are staring at hard limits on our activities and numbers, imposed by energy constraints and ecological damage. There is no time left to mitigate the situation, and no way to bargain or engineer our way out of it. It is what it is, and neither Mother Nature nor the Laws of Physics are open to negotiation.

We have come to this point so suddenly that most of us have not yet realized it. While it may take another twenty years for the full effects to sink in, the first impacts from oil depletion will be felt within five. Given the size of our civilization and the extent to which we rely on energy in all its myriad forms, five years is far too short a time to accomplish any of the unraveling or re-engineering it would take to back away from the precipice. At this point we are committed to going over the edge.

However, this does not mean that we should adopt a fatalistic stance and assume there is nothing to be done. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. The need for action is more urgent now than ever. Humanity is not going to go extinct. There are going to be massive and ever-growing numbers of people in dire need for the foreseeable future. We need to start now to put systems, structures and attitudes in place that will help them cope with the difficulties, find happiness where it exists and thrive as best they can. We need to develop new ways of seeing the world, new ways of seeing each other, new values and ethics. We need to do this with the aim of minimizing the misery and ensuring that as many healthy, happy people as possible emerge from this long trauma with the skills and knowledge needed to build the next cycle of civilization.

Enjoy!

Paul Chefurka

[Rydz777]

1. Your abstract and conclusion led me to bookmark the PDF file

for later. You are probably quite right in your analysis, but I am not optimistic about our ability to manage the consequences. It's increasingly clear that we are on the verge of a very uncomfortable 21st century - and we in the US, where our prosperity has been based on cheap energy, are in for major changes in what we fondly call our "life style."

[NeoGreen]

2. I did a quick scan of the report...

and (maybe I missed it) but what is the past and projected net energy consumption per capita (I didn't see that graph)? What are the individual changes that are going to have to be made to meet the presumed decline in net energy availability?


Otherwise, under a quick (5-minute review) it looks well done.

Thanks for sharing.

[GliderGuider]

3. Per capita energy consumption is a bit tricky

It varies all over the map, from 0.15 toe/person/year in Bangladesh to 10 toe/person/year in Canada: a variation of almost two orders of magnitude. The global average is a useful thumbnail to get a high-level assessment of about how many people a given amount of energy can support, but graphing changes in per capita consumption isn't that useful. As I say in the paper, I project a uniform decline in p/c consumption from 1.7 toe/person/year today down to 1 toe/person/year in 2100. The misery is really going to be in the growing disparity between national averages: The OECD might stay quite high (over 4.0 for instance) while the countries at the bottom of the scale all join Bangladesh.

One other thing to realize about per capita energy consumption is that the higher it stays the fewer people can be supported on a given amount of energy. If the global average were to stay at 1.7 as it is today, then by 2100 the population would have to drop to 1 billion even before ecological damage is factored in.

The paper doesn't address prescriptions for change, and makes a point of saying so. There is in fact only one thing we can do: use less energy by any and all means possible. If we don't do it voluntarily, conservation will be forced on us by circumstances. I think that the changes will generally be involuntary.

[NeoGreen]

11. I was (am) interested in the dynamics in the

disparity of net change.

Presuming, for conceptual argument, everyone arrives at a net sustainable usage rate per year, say 0.5 toe/person/yr

then residents of North America will have to deal with a much greater shift in their net energy consumption culture then those in Africa.

Another concept, what percentage on incoming solar radiation does 10 toe/person/year equal?
With oceans and/or without.

If we limit our net per capita to 50% of total solar, we can model how many people can be sustained at any toe. Then it is linear from there, at 2.5 we can sustain twice as many as at 5 etc.

Either way I'm of the opinion that environmental degradation and willful distruction will reduce the global carrying capacity to below 500,000 and that now is the time to build "lifeboats" for your grandchildren and beyond.

And I consider this to be an optimistic point of view.
I have no "tools" to account for disease.

edited for typo

[GliderGuider]

12. You could be right about that 500 million.

I think that's what you meant anyway - 500,000 would be pretty gloomy even for me :-)

When you talk about incoming solar radiation, you really need to specify what conversion efficiency you're talking about. Whether it's a world covered by silicon solar panels at 15% or a world covered by plants at 5% makes a big difference. I've read that humans are already using 40% or more of the world's net biological productivity for our own purposes...

Yep, it's time to give that old fellow Noah a shout. We need us a passel of arks, and right smartly, too. "Lord, what's a cubit?"

[NeoGreen]

13. Oops

500,000,000 is correct.

500,000 would likely be too dispersed to be biologically sustainable.

I assume 100% interception of the 50%, regardless of our conversion efficiency.
But again, only for conceptual argument, I do not know (I seriously doubt) if the biosphere could be sustained with only 50% of total solar after human interception.

[razzleberry]

4. Hydro power will not go up

all the good sites are taken

[GliderGuider]

5. Most of the GOOD sites may be taken, but not ALL sites are taken

My impression is that as we start to get desperate for clean energy we will start to exploit less optimal sites. It's similar to any other kind of energy - as the high-return sources dry up, we move on to lower-quality sources.

In my heart of hearts I think this model is too optimistic, but it's one I can justify and it's certainly gloomy enough to get the point across as is.

I'm really interested in hearing what the nuclear and solar/wind folks have to say about my projections. I don't think either camp is going to be happy, which could be taken as a sign that the model is realistic.

[razzleberry]

6. how many Mega-projects are left?

sorry, getting 100KW from a glorified
beaver dam is not going to help much

[GliderGuider]

7. Nobody's talking about beaver dams.

In 2003, the Canadian Hydropower Association published a list of current and planned large developments totaling 8.5 GW, or about 12% of installed Canadian capacity. At that time there were about 225 small hydro installations in operations, averaging 5 MW each. Granted, this is in Canada, where conditions are quite good for hydro, but I can see the same potential existing in northern Russia, Scandinavia and parts of South America at the very least.

Keep in mind that my projection is for an expansion in global production taking place at a relatively slow pace over the next 40 years. Seen from that perspective, a doubling of hydro power by 2050 doesn't seem terribly unrealistic. If it does turn out to be overly optimistic (for example if hydro just keeps its current capacity to 2100) the end result is really no different. The model already has hydro production falling back to today's levels by the end of the century. They only thing that would change is that the downslope of the aggregate energy curve would be a tiny bit steeper before 2050 and a tiny bit flatter afterwards.

[razzleberry]

9. think vertical

the 'big vertical drop' sites, are occupied

................

low vertical drop, floods too much land.
people do not just give river-bottom land away.
very valueable

[GliderGuider]

10. You may be right. But as I said above, it's just not going to make that much difference.

We should be able to keep our current hydro capacity going out to 2100. We'll still end up with a billion people.

[GliderGuider]

8. And thank you, by the way

It's not often I get accused of excessive optimism!

[GliderGuider]

14. The HTML version is up on my web site now.

World Energy and Population: Trends to 2100

For anyone who may be interested, I've also posted the Excel spreadsheet that built the model, here (XLS)

[4dsc]

15. But denial is easier to cope with

Let's face, most DU'er are in denial just like the rest of society.. I have to congratulate Paul on this fine piece of work too..Peak oil will bite us hard as its already too late to mitigate to another yet unknown fuel source..