Have we any examples from the past of people making 100 year predictions re
energy? Are any near the mark? Were they mostly too optimistic or
pessimistic?
Cheers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Pawlett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Marxism <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 6:44 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:14869] : Yet another take on Hubbert's peak
>
> > Today, in terms of both entropy and accumulation, the indicators are all
> set
> > the opposite way. The great hoped-for innovations like fusion energy,
the
> > Internet etc, haven't panned out. Meanwhile, accessible, low-entropy
> > reserves of fossil energy have started to run out and extraction of the
> > remaining reserve is becoming more costly in both energy and value
terms.
> >
>
> Ok. I think I've nailed the problem: the energy base of capitalism is
only
> sustainable as long as technological change and efficiency improvements
> offset the increasing marginal costs associated with exploiting the
> declining quality of the resource base, so much so that the marginal costs
> of expanding energy supply may exceed the marginal benefits (once
> environmental factors are factored in.) So, I think, it makes more sense
> to speak of the end of cheap energy and a transition to costlier energy.
As
> the costs of exploiting the declining resource bases increase, so does the
> share of energy as a percent of total economic product. And an energy
system
> that claims a constantly rising share of economic product is not
sustainable
> (in the long run). The problem then becomes one of both "paying too
much"
> and 'having too little" (a positive feedback mechanism there). Cost
> increases mean the economic benefits of
> expanding energy supply will flow in an extremely unequal manner.
> Alternatives to fossil are worse. Even though the raw energy is free
> (e.g. the sun) the technology and labor required to make electricity is
> high,
> from 1.5 to 5 times as high as fossil according to the most optimistic
> views.
>
> At best, costlier energy means that less developed countries will not be
> able
> to industrialize the way the North has: through cheap energy. The only way
> will be for the North to decrease consumption. Because of acute capital
> shortage, countries of the South will follow the cheapest energy supply
for
> their industrialization efforts and the subsequent bid to raise their
> standards of living to Northern levels. This means burning coal and
> biomass (there are new coal-fired boilers coming online almost daily in
> places like Indonesia.) This will (and is) wreaking havoc on the global
> ecology and environment.
>
> According to one energy 'expert' the following is the most optimistic
> scenario:
>
> >From John P. Holdren "The Transition to Costlier Energy". Intro. to
*Energy
> Efficiency and Human Acitivity* Lee Schipper and Stephen Myers Cambridge U
> Press.1992.
>
> Here's Holdren's kick at the can (which I think is hopelessly utopian
> barring significant drastic political change):
>
> "The scenerio is constructed, for simplicity, using just two
subpopulations,
> consisting in 1990 of 1,2 billion "rich" and 4.1 billion "poor". (The
> dividing line is an average GNP per person of 4000 US dollars per yer.) I
> assume that energy per person among the population of the rich countries
can
> be reduced by 2% per year between 1990 and 2025, with gains in economic
> well-being to dcome from increases in energy efficiency exceeding 2% per
> year...For the poor countries, I assume that the rate of energy use per
> person increases at 2% per year, which, together with efficiency
> improvements, would yield a much higher rate of increase in economic
> well-being. The result is a halving of energy use per person in the rich
> countries between 1990 and 2025 and a doubling in energy use per person in
> the poor countries. After another 25 years, during which rich country
energy
> use per person falls at around 1% per year and poor country energy use per
> person grows at just over 1% per year, the rich-poor distinction has
> disappeared. Because of the momentum built into the age structure of the
> world population, the population does not actually stabilize, at around 10
> billion people, until after the year 2100. I assume that energy per person
> holds constant at 3 kilowatts per person after 2050, with gains in
economic
> well being coming from innovations that further increase energy
efficiency."
> p45.
>
> Population energy/person totalenergy
> (billions) (kilowatt/person) (terawatts)
>
> 1990 Rich 1.2 7.5 9
> Poor 4.1 1 4.1
>
> 2025 Rich 1.4 3.8 5.3
> Poor 6.8 2 13.6
>
> 2050 9.1 3 18.9
>
> 2100 10.0 3 30
> or
> 12.5 3
37.5
> or
> 10 5 50
> or
> 12.5 5
62.5
>
>
> to be continued..
>
> Sam Pawlett
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
