[X] My Assistant

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

The population crisis is a much more complex problem than the energy crisis, and its solution are rather social, philosophical, spiritual than technical. So I just have an overview of it.

We have still a food production to feed 13 billion people (FAO) but the increasing population pressure is destroying the last preserved natural space at a great pace. And if all the Chineses, Indians, Africans... were consuming and polluting like the US all the time scales would be divided by ten (for oil exhaustion, greenhouse effect, mining exhaustion...) and hazards multiplied by ten. Some specialists even state that we are already too numerous.

Very fortunately it happens that when a under-developped country is gaining development, the population growth is quenched, for reasons which are yet not completelly understood, but likely linked to availability of birth control, education, a more satisfying life... This indicates the solutions (fighting poverty is the best way to avoid surpopulation). Religious fanaticism and sexist prejudices often make things more difficult, but organized religions often showed helpful and even dynamic in the process of introducing health and birth control. At last wars (especially slow but long lasting civilian wars) hamper any development, whatever conception we have of it.

A last word is that sci-fi writers and prospective reflexion often describe the colonization of other planets as the only solution for surpopulation and pollution of Earth. With my opinion it is a very bad reason (especially if we cannot send actual colonists, but only seed ships). We have to first learn to manage properly our planet, otherwise we shall be unable to manage several.

[RedSky]

There are things in the works, waiting in the wings until the time is "right"... i.e., when gasoline in the U.S. gets to $5-$8/gal, or it become unprofitable. (its $2.60-$3.10 now, depending on where you live).

First, I'm sure that the U.S. farmers will promote gasohol (a mixture of gasoline and alcohol) .... what with corn being grown for the alcohol. Here in the U.S., each gas (petrol) station usually has three grades... regular, mid, and premium. I can see one of those tanks/pumps going to gasohol once the pure gas price gets to a certain level, and people have some mechanic tinker with their engines' carborators to accept gasohol. That started happening in the U.S. in the 1970's during the oil embargo days here, but when that resolved itself then gasohol went away.

I just saw last week on the local news here in FL, a company that ordered and had gotten delivery of a fleet of 15 vans that run on H2 (hydrogen). Yes, its an environmental statement and publicity stunt, as each vehicle cost over $200k. And they need the H2 delivered and stored at the company. But, I'm sure if this oil crisis described in the previous posts develops, this is something that will cause a quantum leap change within a decade.

Gas stations will start having hydrogen strorage tanks. Cars will start being mass produced to use it.... etc. Just remember.. the free market in the U.S. moves to where the money is. If its in gasohol-powered cars, or hydrogen cars... that will happen in less time than you think. Right now, the big thing here is hybrid-gas-electric cars, with 60 miles/gallon.. They are starting to catch on. I'm sure, in 20 or 30 years, when this gasoline crunch really hits hard... these other things (gasohol, then hydrogen) will move in to take up the slack.

[Bob Shaw]

In global terms, we're in a die-off crisis comparable to the greatest impacts or volcanic events of the past (remember, they often took hundreds of thousands of years to work out, though 'phase change' shifts might be far quicker). The species extinctions of which we are aware over the just the past 500 years of reasonably well recorded human history are enormous, and the narrowing of genetic diversity in a whole range of surviving organisms is also huge. The Earth may or may not be a self-regulating organism, but there's no doubt that many buffers have been removed and that things are unlikely to become more stable - anyone noticed the news regarding the polar ice this week?

We absolutely have to diversify the human environment into space, and to bring space-based resources down to Earth in order to ensure our survival as a species - we have outpaced our local planetary resource.

Unmanned scientific exploration is only a prequel to exploitation of resources, allied, one would hope, with sensible local management of Biosphere 1 - the Earth.

[gallen_53]

There are things in the works, waiting in the wings until the time is "right"... i.e., when gasoline in the U.S. gets to $5-$8/gal, or it become unprofitable.  (its $2.60-$3.10 now, depending on where you live).

It's a given that there are plenty of alternative energy sources. The problem is the developed world's economy is predicated upon CHEAP energy sources. For example, a major American city like Los Angeles is economically viable because people can afford to commute over 40 miles a day. Los Angeles achieved most of its growth when gasoline was around 20 cents/gallon. I doubt that Los Angeles as it is presently laid out could retain its economic viability if gasoline went to $8/gal. Now repeat that same story for the San Francsico Bay Area, Seattle, New York, etc. and you can see the United States is in serious trouble. All of our major cities will have to be redefined as energy costs go up. Add to this dilemma that globalization is also based upon cheap energy. For example, if the cost of bunker oil goes up by an order of magnitude, would it be cost effective to ship merchanidise from China to Europe and America? The airline industry in America is currently being ravaged by the high cost of kerosene, e.g. Delta and Northwestern are filing for bankruptcy. The airline industry is very sensitive to fuel cost. As energy costs go up, different industrial sectors will go bankrupt in order of their sensitivity to energy costs. This is a "boiling frog" scenario as our whole economy gets knocked off sector-by-sector by rising energy costs until we're back to a 19th century technology riding on steam trains (which can burn wood) and sail boats.

[Bob Shaw]

It's a given that there are plenty of alternative energy sources.  The problem is the developed world's economy is predicated upon CHEAP energy sources.  For example, a major American city like Los Angeles is economically viable because people can afford to commute over 40 miles a day.  Los Angeles achieved most of its growth when gasoline was around 20 cents/gallon.  I doubt that Los Angeles as it is presently laid out could retain its economic viability if gasoline went to $8/gal.  Now repeat that same story for the San Francsico Bay Area, Seattle, New York,  etc. and you can see the United States is in serious trouble.  All of our major cities will have to be redefined as energy costs go up.  Add to this dilemma that globalization is also based upon cheap energy.  For example, if the cost of bunker oil goes up by an order of magnitude, would it be cost effective to ship merchanidise from China to Europe and America?  The airline industry in America is currently being ravaged by the high cost of kerosene, e.g. Delta and Northwestern are filing for bankruptcy.  The airline industry is very sensitive to fuel cost.  As energy costs go up, different industrial sectors will go bankrupt in order of their sensitivity to energy costs.  This is a "boiling frog" scenario as our whole economy gets knocked off sector-by-sector by rising energy costs until we're back to a 19th century technology riding on steam trains (which can burn wood) and sail boats.

Er... ...could it be that the current paradigm is just wrong, and that we're spending our descendent's inheritance(s) on trucking kipple from A to B?

[abalone]

It's a given that there are plenty of alternative energy sources.  The problem is the developed world's economy is predicated upon CHEAP energy sources. 

I disagree, there are no viable energy sources for transport use in the way we use petroleum today. Hydrogen is a pipe-dream. If only a very small % of it leacks into the atmosphere from large scale use it will destroy the ozone layer faster than CFCs. To replace petroleum with alcohol would require more food than we produce. Get used to public transport or walking 'cause thats what we'll be doing when petroleum starts to run out

http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,59220,00.html

[deglr6328]

....Nuclear fusion is often presented as the absolute solution for free, non-polluting and inexhaustible source of energy. I must somewhat temperate this idyllic vision: machines like Iter are extremely expensive, and they produce much more neutrons than fission plants. So the whole thing will quickly turn into a gigantic heap of radioactive iron scrap, tens of years before tokamaks produce their first commercial kilowatts. And it could be the cheapest way for mass production of military plutonium.
But there are many nuclear fusion reactions which produce only some X-rays (brehmstrallung), with hydrogen, helium3, lithium hydride. There are also very interesting experiments going on with IEC tubes, a fascinating concept which allows to make fusion reactions on a kitchen table, with just a vacuum pump and a high voltage supply gathered from an old TV. (Please do not try!!)(and do not confuse with "cold fusion")

Well I'm a little bit biased (okay a lot biased) since I work here but I would have to say that nuclear fusion really IS the absolute ultimate in future energy sources. As you no doubt know, the fuel is inexhaustable. The problem of neutron activation of the device is really quite surmountable in terms of engineering, (vanadium alloys, shielding, etc) and I don't think it will really be a long term problem. I would caution you perhaps temper your enthusiasm about some of the other nonequilibrium methods of attaining fusion power such as IEC and . These have unfortunately been virtually eliminated as possible sources of power in this Phd thesis. The potential of fusion to solve so many problems is just staggaring. Water shortage? Desalination is easy with large amounts of power. Chemical pollution? High temperature incneration. Radioactive pollution? Use the fusion reaction as an actinide burner. Plastics and rubber manufacturing still needs oil you say? Nope, use simple small molecules (CO2, water) to make methane/methanol and build up from there. In fact, practically everything can be reduced to a few plentiful natural resources (iron ore, etc.), information (science, engineering) and energy. Fusion power coupled with a "hydrogen economy" can provide the vast supplies of energy necessary to do whatever we want!

[abalone]

Well I'm a little bit biased (okay a lot biased) since I work here but I would have to say that nuclear fusion really IS the absolute ultimate in future energy sources. As you no doubt know, the fuel is inexhaustable.

So how many working fusion power stations do we have after 50 years of research and countless hundreds of billons of dollars? I have no confidence that fusion power stations will every be built.

[deglr6328]

So how many working fusion power staions do we have after 50 years of research and countless hundreds of billons of dollars? I have no confidence that fusion power staions will every be built

We have, as the rhetorical question suggests, exactly ZERO fusion power plants working today . However it is illogical to extrapolate from this fact to the conclusion that we will never have them. If one were to go back to the year 1902 and ask how many heavier than air aircraft have successfully lifted a person into the sky you would also get a resounding answer of zero! The progress in thermonuclear fusion in the laboratory throughout the past 50 years is nothing short of fantastic. Fusion temperatures and yields have increased over 15 orders of magnitude by some measures. It will happen sooner or later either as a result of either forced necessity (ie. we run out of oil) or desire (we want more human spaceflight), hopefully sooner.

[abalone]

, exactly ZERO fusion power plants working today . However it is illogical to extrapolate from this fact to the conclusion that we will never have them. [img]

It is also foolish to rely on technology that may produce nothing as the answer to our energy crisis. We should be spending $ on proven systems like solar cell to reduce cost. If every new house built had 1/3 of its roof area covered in solar cell it would be energy self sufficient. True we would still need a grid to move power from areas of excess to areas of deficiency and to provide a base load at night.

Here's another idea. How could the power consumption of most modern countries be cut by 25%?

1. Ban the incandescent light globe (15% saving)
2. Switch off electronic appliances rather than go on standby (10% saving)

[deglr6328]

I'm all for conservation and solar photovoltaic power but I think we should recognize that even best case scenarios put maximum savings for widespread conservation at something like ~30% while the total energy consumption of the US for instance has increased by over 200% in the last 50 years alone. Couple this with the fact that energy consumption and GDP/standard of living correlate so perfectly and we have to face the fact that the future will require immensely vast quantities of energy beyond that (imho) which can be supplied through, for instance, solar power and conservation.

[abalone]

Couple this with the fact that energy consumption and GDP/standard of living correlate so perfectly

Strange correlation when UK and Neatherlands can maintain the same standard of living on 1/3 the per capita energy consumption as Canada and 1/2 of that of the USA

[abalone]

... the future will require immensely vast quantities of energy beyond that (imho) which can be supplied through, for instance, solar power and conservation.

So where do you suugest this is going to come from?

[deglr6328]

right, the graph I pointed to is of energy consumption vs. standard of living, which tends to level off at a certain point. NOT energy vs GDP. Here is an example of that.

So where do you suugest this is going to come from?

I'd have to say that it looks to me like fusion is the only long term source of such huge energies. The fuel in inexhaustable, there is no possibilty of catastrophic failure, it is environmentally friendly, the the temperatures it runs at are extremely high and therefore carnot efficiencies can be very high, the power production is very energy dense and all nations have ready access to the fuel!

[abalone]

right, the graph I pointed to is of energy consumption vs. standard of living, which tends to level off at a certain point. NOT energy vs GDP.  I'd have to say that it looks to me like fusion is the only long term source of such huge energies. The fuel in inexhaustable, there is no possibilty of catastrophic failure, it is environmentally friendly, the the temperatures it runs at are extremely high and therefore carnot efficiencies can be very high, the power production is very energy dense and all nations have ready access to the fuel!

This graph shows the same. European contries and Japan can have same GNP as USA for 1/2 the energy consumption. As for Fusion, you can bet your family jewels on it but I will wait till there are better odds.

With solar power we dont need to increase efficiency only lower cost of production. Cheap solar cell at 8% efficiency are better than expensive ones at 25%
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/10/02/solar.cells.reut/