Poll: Predict Worldwide Energy Use in the 21st Century

[Myriad]

I wish to attempt a rational skeptical discussion of economic, social, political, environmental, and technological issues relating to so-called "peak oil" and "peak everything" claims. This will require multiple threads, but I want to begin with some of the basics.

At this point, I don't even know what the current consensus is (or whether or not there is one) about the world's energy future. There are two positions that appear to me to be extreme.

One is that there is nothing at all to worry about despite clear evidence of steeply increasing economic and environmental costs of fossil energy extraction to meet increasing demand. That seems extreme to me because under the circumstances, a widespread and chronic energy shortage certainly seems plausible, and any such shortage seems reasonably likely to have adverse economic consequences.

The other, (the "doomer" side) is, well, that we're doomed. (Doomed to what? Typically, a global version of the Easter Island economic, environmental, and population collapse; wars, famine, and eventual regression of technological capability to the nineteenth century or earlier.) That seems extreme to me because instead of step by step cause and effect, such scenarios that I've seen have been based on shaky historical analogies, and intuitive leaps such as the frequent implicit claim that because modern society is very complex (no argument there), that also must mean it's very fragile. Really? Cellular biochemistry is extremely complex, yet that very complexity makes it extremely robust and adaptable.

The no-worry side appears to be most usually expressed by default, not by people explicitly saying there's no worry (though there are exceptions to this) but rather by groups (investors, political parties) acting as if there's no worry. The no-worry view is apparently that energy will remain abundant and cheap enough (even if the price rises) to keep economic growth an achievable goal.

The correct answer is not always in the middle between two extremes, so I can't conclude that either extreme is wrong. What I want to look at first is whether there's any hidden consensus among rational thinkers between those two extremes, because it seems only the doomers and the no-worriers are saying much at all, and they're both (understandably, but frustratingly) focusing on debunking the most extreme claims of the opposite side as the basis for concluding that their own extreme (imho) view is correct.

There are numerous dimensions for future energy scenarios, far too many to consider in a single poll. So, what I'm focusing on first is the most basic measurement I can think of: the total worldwide energy usage. All the other dimensions (political, economic, and technological) project onto that one in a complex way, so I'm fully aware that any particular choice in the poll can still represent a wide variety of actual scenarios. For example, I don't ask whether a hypothetical drop in the figure would be the cause, or the effect, of any associated economic disruption. I'll follow up with more polls as needed to explore more of the possibilities.

Some definitions and clarifications for the poll choices:

"Energy use" does not include implicit use of solar power by plants in agriculture.

"Stabilize" refers to reaching either an approximately constant level, or making reasonable oscillations (tied to economic cycles, perhaps) around an approximately constant long-term mean level.

"Never" is short for "not during the remainder of the 21st century." Longer-term predictions than that are out of scope for the time being.

Any of the options for "it will drop..." (C through H) include the possibility of an increase above present day levels before the drop. The two "drop and then stabilize" options (D and E) include the possibility that the drop could be deeper than the eventual stabilized level, followed by a recovery to that level.

I've tried to make the choices mutually exclusive, and to cover a wide range of possibilities, but the choices can't cover all possibilities. (For instance, a steep drop followed by a slow steady rise reaching above 25% of present day levels, but not regaining present levels, by the end of the century wouldn't quite fit any of the choices). So if you have a scenario that's not represented, please just describe it in the thread.

----------

Besides the poll itself, what I want to discuss in this thread is what your prediction is, and what observations and ideas you've based it on.

What I don't want to discuss in this thread (and will ignore) since I've seen plenty of it in discussions related to "peak oil" in other places:

- Amateur psychological explanations for why someone who fails to immediately agree with you is mentally incapable of evaluating the facts objectively or forming a valid opinion. (Warning phrases: "in denial," "indoctrinated," "self-hating," "tree huggers.")

- Historical karmic revenge fantasies masquerading as serious scenarios. (Warning phrases: "imperialists," "bankers," "chickens come home to roost," "give the land back to.")

- Eye rolling at me because I'm being so ridiculous as to even seriously consider the position opposite to yours.

 

[ehcks]

I can't see energy usage going down. Even as our electronics and engines and such get more efficient, we keep getting more.

"Energy use" does not include implicit use of solar power by plants in agriculture.

Why not? It doesn't take much to say that all energy we use comes directly or indirectly from the sun or other stars, and most of that goes partly through plants.

 

[h.g.Whiz]

How about man power?

 

[Myriad]

Why not? It doesn't take much to say that all energy we use comes directly or indirectly from the sun or other stars, and most of that goes partly through plants.

Because it's not usually included in statistics on past energy use, so omitting it removes a complication to comparing future predictions with past trends.

Why it's usually not included, I don't know exactly. Maybe because it's generated (converted from sunlight) and consumed at the same point (that is, in the plant), so it sums to zero. If plants are grown as biomass fuel, we only count the fuel burned when accounting for total energy used, but that seems sufficient. We also don't count the tidal energy from the moon's orbit when it only goes to shoving ocean water around either, or all the solar energy that heats up the atmosphere.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[psionl0]

This is like trying to pick a stock to invest in for the remainder of the century.

There are at least two unknowns that would have a radical effect on energy use this century:

Firstly, if nuclear fusion becomes a practical reality then the question of energy consumption becomes moot.

Secondly, there is no way of telling what effect political/economic factors will have on the ways that energy gets used. What if we see a large scale shift to agrarian based economies and "back to basics" style living? What if a "matrix" style world evolves and most people opt out of the "real" world?

 

[Myriad]

How about man power?

How about it? If every human on earth rode a stationary bicycle 24 hours a day, that would represent about 1.5 terawatts compared with about 15 terawatts currently used worldwide. A more realistic figure for actual man power would have to be at least an order of magnitude lower (allowing for sleep, infants, elderly people, breaks, and most activities being less strenuous than that) which would make it 1% of the current total.

Be that as it may, if you wish to include, for instance, the energy "generated" by people by walking from place to place or working into the figure for "total energy available for use," you must also include the energy consumed by people when walking from place to place or working -- that is, the same amount as "generated" -- into the figure for total energy used. As with the sunlight used by plants, most estimates probably just leave it out instead.

Unless you have plans in mind for powering street lights with armies of slaves on treadmills, or something like that, leaving man power out of the equation probably makes sense. But, do as you like for your own predictions.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Myriad]

This is like trying to pick a stock to invest in for the remainder of the century.

Or perhaps more like, looking at a stock you've already invested in, and figuring how it's likely to perform down the road. But, point taken. If it were easy everybody would be doing it.

(Although, everybody is doing it, for sufficiently small values of everybody. The problem is I don't know who, if anyone, is doing it carefully.)

There are at least two unknowns that would have a radical effect on energy use this century:

Firstly, if nuclear fusion becomes a practical reality then the question of energy consumption becomes moot.

Secondly, there is no way of telling what effect political/economic factors will have on the ways that energy gets used. What if we see a large scale shift to agrarian based economies and "back to basics" style living? What if a "matrix" style world evolves and most people opt out of the "real" world?

If fusion power becomes a practical reality then the question of energy consumption does not become moot, at least not for some decades thereafter, because someone still has to build the fusion power plants, which then becomes part of both sides of the balance sheet (with a lot of energy needed up front to build a plant before it starts delivering energy). So a scenario where fusion power plant designs are perfected in, say, 2040 would still fall, most likely, into one of the poll choices given.

That's assuming the working designs are along the lines that have been researched over the past 50 years, tokamaks or laser-driven inertial confinement. If someone suddenly invents a mass producible "Mr. Fusion," that might be a different story, but I'd consider that in the improbable miracle category akin to the sudden unexpected invention of a Star Trek matter replicator.

People in the matrix still need food and various related needs. More realistically, increased use of "conventional" (the non naked-in-a-glass-tube-of-red-goo variety) virtual reality could certainly affect the demand for passenger transportation and perhaps living space. (Why does that last item make me think of Japan?) Permanent mind uploading (leave your body and physical brain behind), I put in the same improbable miracle category as Mr. Fusion.

If you disagree, answer the poll accordingly and we'll sort out later the distinctions between things like "energy use radically decreased because of massive collapse back to a medieval economy" and "energy use radically decreased because we're all hanging out in Tron world." That's exactly the kind of thing I meant when I said that a given poll choice could imply multiple radically different actual scenarios.

The possibility of a large scale shift to agrarian economies and a simpler (or at least, less consuming) life style is really an echo of the question itself. Much of the world is still busy trying to shift away from that, so it seems that relatively few people want such a shift back to basics just now, but it's pretty standard belief on the "doomer" side that such a shift will become necessary whether anyone wants it or not. There's not nearly enough sustainably arable land for everyone to make such a shift, though. So most scenarios that force that to happen are Pol-Pot-ugly.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Roger Ramjets]

As an amateur whose knowledge of the issue is limited to what I can find online, I don't feel qualified to make any predictions. So I will defer to the experts. Their predictions may not be be totally accurate, but it would be arrogant and foolish of me to think that I could do better.

World Energy Council scenarios

"In the two Ecologically Driven scenarios, world economic growth is 2.2 per cent per annum... Both scenarios feature a strong development of renewables, alongside a continued use of oil, coal and natural gas. In one scenario nuclear energy is phased out by 2100, whereas in the other some nuclear power is retained. Overall primary energy consumption increases to 880 EJ by 2100, just over twice the 2000 level."

 

[psionl0]

If you disagree, answer the poll accordingly . . . . .

I'm not disagreeing, just saying that predicting future energy use is a lot like picking lotto numbers.

The 20th century saw massive changes and nobody from (say) 1900 could have even guessed what the world would be like in 2000. I have heard it said that the 21st century will see 100 times as many changes as compared with the previous century.

It is quite likely that we will see developments that make "the matrix" appear as primitive as a horse and buggy.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I opted for E, partly from logic, partly I admit, from wishful thinking.

The general trend for developed areas is that energy consumption is an issue, if only due to cost. We talk a lot about getting out of the present recession by restarting growth, but there is no need, or room, for volume growth: You can only use one car at a time, you can only watch one TV, etc.

You may have a TV in every room, but each costs less energy to run and manufacture than they did 20-30 years ago.

So growth must end up being growth in sophistication, which is what we are already watching: Your phone is not just for talking to people, it is your GPS, your camera, your notebook, calendar, calculator, even your computer. - But it probably consumes less energy than an old-fashioned wired-up phone, and certainly less than all those functions would as separate units.

Finally, of course, a number of different energy sources are going to come into play, almost all combined with energy-saving measures: Most of the energy saving from an electric car comes from the fact that it has half the horsepower of a fuel-driven car. Your solar cell driven street light is also using an LED....

Hans

 

[Aepervius]

I voted F because I am a pessimist and i don't think the tar sand and fracking method will increase production enough.

 

[Myriad]

Thanks, psionI0. I understand where you're coming from, which is the main purpose of the poll (that is, to understand people's current points of view rather than to try to choose which prediction is correct). If your viewpoint doesn't map to any particular poll choice, I can live with that.

MRC_Hans and Aepervius, thank you also.

I've edited option A. Due to an editing error pre-posting, option A was the only one that had a kind of built-in explanation of how that scenario would come about. That explanation pretty much went without saying anyhow, but its presence may have made that option seem to be more authoritative than the others. I apologize for the error and for the need to edit in mid-poll.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[daenku32]

I picked A since I assumed it referred to total energy use.

Asia and S.America are going to double their energy use from current levels, so it's going to be a steady climb. But I do think that's only going to be possible with dramatic increase in non-fossil fuel use.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Firstly, if nuclear fusion becomes a practical reality then the question of energy consumption becomes moot.

Nuclear Fission is already capable of doing everything that fusion has been hyped for. All we need is to break past the primitive fears and superstitions over it.

 

[ehcks]

Nuclear Fission is already capable of doing everything that fusion has been hyped for. All we need is to break past the primitive fears and superstitions over it.

We'll run out of uranium, plutonium, and thorium way before we run out of hydrogen.

 

[daenku32]

We'll run out of uranium, plutonium, and thorium way before we run out of hydrogen.

And like with fossil fuels you don't actually have to entirely run out of them, just reach a peak production rate. Plenty of D & T in the oceans however.

With any type of nuclear energy the main problem is finding enough qualified people to run/maintain/build the darn plants.

 

[stilicho]

I wish to attempt a rational skeptical discussion of economic, social, political, environmental, and technological issues relating to so-called "peak oil" and "peak everything" claims. This will require multiple threads, but I want to begin with some of the basics.

....

I didn't read your rules before voting but energy use (nuclear, solar, extracted fuels, etc) is a function of human population perhaps with an industrialisation multiplier. Human population could be trending towards stability or even a maturing decline so it would be expected that energy use will follow. At the same time, some cultures are only now industrialising and increasing in population.

You'd need to model this whole thing to arrive at any kind of conclusion.

 

[aliensdidit]

Unless we tap into free energy (which I suspect the goverments of the world have but don't want us to know about it) then we are doomed.

 

[JJM 777]

Pollmaker´s fallacy:
- give one poll option for growth
- give seven poll options for decrease

See the one option for growth getting hugely more popular than any single one of the seven options for decrease.

 

[psionl0]

See the one option for growth getting hugely more popular than any single one of the seven options for decrease.

The "dunno" option is also more popular than any of the options for decrease.