A big problem for the next 100 years - energy demands

Beth spoke of the latest theory-du-jour in Population Modelling for
Earth -
that we will in fact stabilize at some population level. 11-20 Billion.
20 Billion would be about 4x as many people as we have now. If the increase
was
across the board, that'd put Canada with 120 Million - we could easily
do that. That'd put the USA with around 1.1 Billion or so. That's kinda
getting tight. China and India wouldn't bear thinking about. That pressure of
population DENSITY could easily drive exoduses from those parts of the world
- where to? To another Terran country? If possible. If not, offworld in
search of lebensraum and resources.

Beth talks about resource depletion being something we have to manage. I just
watched a Nova program on PBS about this energy future of ours. Not good at
all. Efficiency has gone up a lot lately (heading towards some long term
maximums) but consumption has also gone up! This is because the economies of
the West have been booming and because the third world is
starting to come on-line.

Some interesting points:

The current consumption of earth is 10 TerraWatts roughly. They expect, over
the next 100 years, even with efficiency increases, this will grow to 40
TerraWatts. In the program, they examined various means of generating power,
the pros and cons and outputs. Here are (as I recall them) some comments:

Hydro: Good source of power, but limited by available locations. Causes
ecological damage (destroys rivers, destroys marshlands, disturbs tidal
patterns).

Solar: Good source of limited power. Huge solar farm (one of the larger ones)
puts out (at peak) 30 MW of power. Nearby coal fired plant puts out 800 MW.
Best case is sun about 240 days a year, and even a slight clouding really
drops off power output. Takes up a lot of real estate. Much power used to
produce solar panels and many resources and lifespan is finite (and right now,
fairly short). It is questionable whether you'll ever even recoup
the investment in energy terms - the construction of the materials is so
consumptive. Limited geographic application.

Wind: Good source of limited power. Consumptive (on a smaller scale than
solar) to produce the equipment. In order to generate any large volume of
power, you need a FREAKIN lot of windmills. This posses environmental threats
to bird and other avian populations. Plus it has limited geographic
application.

Coal: Not good ecology wise, but good source of power. Consumable resource.
Pollutes like the dickens. Similar to other fossil fuels. Greenhouse issues.

Natural gas: Less polluting that coal, but with an even more finite supply.
Pollutes. Greenhouse issues.

Other fossil fuels such as gasoline: Limited resource, combustion byproducts
are green house gasses.

Nuclear: Using non-breeder reactors, there would only be enough fuel to
drive the massive energy demand of the future world for a few decades.
Somewhat risky depending on reactor design. Byproducts which must be disposed
of. Public fears this technology. Using breeder reactors, fuel supply might
last a few hundred years.

Biomass: To supply 10 TW, it has been calculated would require 10% of the
worlds surface - all of the land under cultivation now. To supply 40 TW,
40%
- that's just about every potentially usable surface area covered with
biomass used for power production. Makes for one hell of a bland diet for the
people.

Increased Efficiency: There is an upper boundary on industrial energy
efficiency.

Simply put, what they pointed out is that there is no panacea, no bromide, no
miracle cure. No one power generating technology will solve our problems and
none comes without a downside. We must obviously become more energy efficient,
we must cut greenhouse emissions to prevent global warming, and we must be
careful about ruling out any technology (ie nuclear) as a possible part of a
combined energy supply strategy.

The impact of this on our discussion of 2183 is probably that Earth will have
depleted many energy resources and will probably have suffered further global
warming. It might not be hell, but it will be nicer weather in Canada (not
counting the greater incidence of storms and other atmospheric disturbances of
large scale!). So a drive to colonize may partly be stemmed by peoples desire
to go to somewhere where there is more plentiful energy, a cleaner
environment, and a fresh start (a chance to "do it right the this time"). This
is a pull, but the gov't would also be pushing people to do
this. And there would be a reason for trade - to help support the
homeworld's needs for more energy. The homeworld would offer cheap labour and
plentiful technological base in return for resources to help keep the
machinery of society running - energy resources.

So, I don't think there is any doubt that if nearby (in terms of travel time)
planets with liveable conditions and resource bounties exist, people will be
moved there or will move there themselves if it is at all affordable.

This is all assuming we don't have a breakthrough in the Fusion department,
doesn't DSII have fusion powered vehicles?

> From: "Thomas.Barclay" <Thomas.Barclay@cbu.xwavesolutions.com>

> This is a pull, but the gov't would also be pushing people to do

Thomas,

I agreed with everything you said, but I'd like to clarify something:

In regards to the use of the terms "Push" and "Pull" as I proposed them, you
have the order turned around. The desire of the colonists to escape the
environmental ravages of Earth would be the "Push," a push away from Earth and
to the new planet. The desire of the home government to attain a new source of
energy resources would be the "Pull," a Pull to a place that has those things.

However, despite my little nitpicking, You are correct in the idea that there
will be both an attraction for the people to go there, and an attraction for
Earth to send them. Furthermore, I would, and have, argued, it requires BOTH
elements to provide sufficient impetus for early space colonization.

What about solar power satellites? The huge kind, photoelectric
arrays several miles wide, producing 1-10 gigawatts,
requires titanic up-front investments that no corporation on
Earth would touch with a ten foot pole?

G'day Tom,

> 20 Billion would be about 4x as many people as we have now. If the

Though on the right conceptual track, as usual its not that simple. China for
one will see a large population decrease within the next few decades as the
effects of their birth control policy really kicks home (I can't remember the
exact figures but its something like 60% of their population will be greater
than 60 within the next decade or so). Though you're right with India, they
may well be in trouble due to their population. Further

much of the first world is already in a reproductive negative state so an
across the board increase won't capture who will be the most likely to be
feeling the local pressures of increased population size. However it does
serve rather well for highlighting issues such as the energy issues you
outlined.

Take home message: based on 'across the board' ideas you can get an idea of
some of the big 'physical' issues that an increased population may present, a
more textured distribution of the extra population will bring to light

the more hidden/subtle issues of societal strain, cultural change,
disease etc. In the end both of these may (I'd guess) constitute incentives to
ship out <now I've just got to figure out if they're a push or a pull right
Brian? ;)>

Cheers

Beth

<now I've just got to figure out if they're a push or a pull right

G'day Brian,

> Beth, in your case, call it whichever you like. I've learned never to

argue with a woman.

Sensible man;)

Beth